3 children dead in private Christian elementary school shooting in TN

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Official Depart of Justice research:

There are an estimated 1.5 million defensive gun uses in America every year:

https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

The most likely person to be shot with a gun is it's owner. Suicide. That's a fact. You aren't likely to kill a mass shooter with your gun. You're likely to kill yourself or you family member will kill themselves.

26,000 suicides by gun per year. At least some of those wouldn't happen if someone had to use a more timely and less instant death method.

Mental illness -- huge factor

Republicans: "It's not guns, it's mental illness!"

The rest of us: "THEN LET'S DO SOMETHING ABOUT MENTAL ILLNESS"

Republicans: *crickets*


Please just STOP with this line until you're ACTUALLY WILLING TO DO SOMETHING. Otherwise you just repeatedly keep looking like complete clowns spouting disingenuous garbage.

Doing something about mental illness would require more resources than either party is willing to allocate. There's a massive lack of qualified mental health professionals and decent care is unaffordable. If you are poor, you may get lucky and have a doctor medicate you but you are almost certainly not getting real therapy

Don’t both sides this. Don’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone educate me on why AR-15s are legal for anyone other than the police/military? Are they used for hunting? They seem very impractical for personal protection.

They are basically penis prosthetics.

Replying to this without reading the rest of the thread so apologies if already covered.

In recent years, especially since the election of Obama, the gun industry has been on steroids marketing these guns - and every mass shooting that stirs the conversation about control ends up selling tens of thousands more of them as people rush to get one before they are banned again.

The Sandy Hook families successfully sued Remington for the marketing strategy of the Bushmaster assault rifle (similar type weapon) used to slaughter their kids and educators. The Bushmaster actually had one marketing campaign that focused on possessing the weapon as taking back the purchaser’s ‘man card’ - so absolutely this weapon is tied to toxic masculinity and oppressive patriarchy.

Assault weapons and the M-16/AR-15 specifically were intended to be deployed in war zone of Vietnam to turn the tide by more efficiently slaughtering the enemy. We could have a long discussion about the karma that might be implicated by Americans suffering this sickening scourge of assault weapons on our streets and so many mass shootings perpetrated with them when the weapons were first deployed in our horribly misguided misadventures in Southeast Asia.

Certainly assault rifles have no place in civilian hands. Besides the faster capacity firing which can be illegally modified to more fully automatic for very little coin, the weapons also fire at a much higher velocity making the wounds largely unsurvivable especially by the small bodies of children - there is a chilling report on this aspect in WashPo yesterday.

We must ban these weapons again, and figure out how to get the hundreds of thousands already in civilian hands turned in to gun buy back programs. Surely we have as much capacity for common sense as the Aussies?

The sad thing is the “men” who feel proud to own these things have no idea how pathetic they actually look using a gun as a stand in for their masculinity. I mean a toddler could mail and kill a room full of people with an AR-15. It’s laughable that any grown person would thing being able to use one of these rifles makes them tough. We need to somehow rebrand the narrative around gun ownership the way we did with cigarettes. It used to be cool and sexy to smoke, but now it’s mostly associated with poverty and low education levels.

[Anonymous]

*maim and kill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

She tweeted this after the shooting in TN where 6 innocent people lost their lives. Totally reprehensible.

Agree that threatening to use guns to ensure rights is always gross and people on the left should not be copying the right wing gun nuts. Disgusting all around.

I don’t think your response is going the direction the PP had hoped. Most liberals actually agree we shouldn’t be threatening gun violence!

Absolutely right. Overwhelming majority of liberals believe in civil society and agree we should not be threatening gun violence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone educate me on why AR-15s are legal for anyone other than the police/military? Are they used for hunting? They seem very impractical for personal protection.

They are basically penis prosthetics.

Replying to this without reading the rest of the thread so apologies if already covered.

In recent years, especially since the election of Obama, the gun industry has been on steroids marketing these guns - and every mass shooting that stirs the conversation about control ends up selling tens of thousands more of them as people rush to get one before they are banned again.

The Sandy Hook families successfully sued Remington for the marketing strategy of the Bushmaster assault rifle (similar type weapon) used to slaughter their kids and educators. The Bushmaster actually had one marketing campaign that focused on possessing the weapon as taking back the purchaser’s ‘man card’ - so absolutely this weapon is tied to toxic masculinity and oppressive patriarchy.

Assault weapons and the M-16/AR-15 specifically were intended to be deployed in war zone of Vietnam to turn the tide by more efficiently slaughtering the enemy. We could have a long discussion about the karma that might be implicated by Americans suffering this sickening scourge of assault weapons on our streets and so many mass shootings perpetrated with them when the weapons were first deployed in our horribly misguided misadventures in Southeast Asia.

Certainly assault rifles have no place in civilian hands. Besides the faster capacity firing which can be illegally modified to more fully automatic for very little coin, the weapons also fire at a much higher velocity making the wounds largely unsurvivable especially by the small bodies of children - there is a chilling report on this aspect in WashPo yesterday.

We must ban these weapons again, and figure out how to get the hundreds of thousands already in civilian hands turned in to gun buy back programs. Surely we have as much capacity for common sense as the Aussies?

The sad thing is the “men” who feel proud to own these things have no idea how pathetic they actually look using a gun as a stand in for their masculinity. I mean a toddler could mail and kill a room full of people with an AR-15. It’s laughable that any grown person would thing being able to use one of these rifles makes them tough. We need to somehow rebrand the narrative around gun ownership the way we did with cigarettes. It used to be cool and sexy to smoke, but now it’s mostly associated with poverty and low education levels.

It is always a man.

Even this time too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://nypost.com/2023/03/27/mother-of-nashville-school-shooter-audrey-hale-shared-several-gun-control-posts-on-social-media/amp/

Oh wow, my heart goes out to the shooter’s family as well. It doesn’t sound like one of those scenarios in which some gun nuts encouraged their ill kid to get into guns. I can’t imagine the pain of knowing your child did something this horrific while also going through the grieving process for that child. I hope that mother has a good support network because she is going to have a lot of conflicting emotions as she deals with her grief.

Just curious how your opinion of shooter’s family might have changed now that we know they were forcing him to live as a female in their home and refusing to accept his trans identity in any way.

Honestly it does change my thought of them. It doesn’t change the culpability I feel the shooter has. But I’m now less sympathetic to the family. Especially knowing they knew the shooter had mental health issues and a gun at one point. I guess they thought he got rid of it, but clearly they weren’t checking closely enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Looks homicidal.

Audrey posted homicidal images on her web page before the murders.

"Looks homicidal" as if you think that's actually Katie Hobbs' press secretary? It's a still from a movie, you idiot. But that said, it's no more deranged than any of the AR-15-toting Christmas cards that an endless array of demented Republican politicians have, now is it.

It is sociopathic, disgusting not to mention tone deaf to tweet that one day after a mass shooting. She had to lock her twitter account because of the backlash. The message she is sending is it is ok to threaten violence if you feel someone is transphobic or not supportive of the trans community. Same message as the people wearing the "trans rights or else" t shirt with AR-15's on it. There are people on social media defending the shooter saying she is a victim as well.

Yes, I think most of us here agree it's tone deaf and disgusting to threaten gun violence.

But it's perfectly fine to shrug and glibly say "thoughts and prayers, nothing can or should be done" the day after a mass shooting?

But it's perfectly fine to post deranged family photos of yourself, your spouse and your children grinning and holding weapons of war right after a mass shooting?

Right, right. Get back to me when people like Thomas Massie have you same Republicans shouting him down and telling him he's disgusting and tone deaf and having to lock his twitter account.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sane people don't go around mass murdering people. Clearly this woman was mentally ill (even her parents had concerns about her well-being). The problem is mental illness, not guns.

+1000

But what would this mentally ill person have done without legally purchased guns? Not shoot 6 people dead.

There are other ways to harm than just guns. Such as bombs, using cars as a weapon, poisonous gas, etc.

If someone wants to kill, they’re going to do it. Taking one tool away to kill won’t solve that.

Then why don’t we see this happening with the same frequency in other countries?

Because other countries don’t push violence on tv 24/7 like America does.

And they have much more strict gun regulation they usually pass after the first mass shooting. Unlike the US were guns more before people.

Yup. In the US, mass shootings BOOST gun sales.

That’s just how dysfunctional our country is.

As it should be. I want to protect myself from a crazy shooter.

Okay. But you can’t, not in reality. “Good” guys are never the iconic cowboys they think they’ll be. They’re too afraid to remember how to shoot at all or they shoot innocents or just crap themselves like everyone else. And honestly what kind of mental problem is it if someone keeps buying guns with each mass shooting? At the end of the year, if you bought one gun for every mass shooting in 2021, you’d have 690 guns and then an additional 647 for 2022 and then 131 for this year so far. What kind of idiot needs 1468 guns to feel better about themselves? A gulllible, egotistical and not very intelligent kind of idiot.

Hop on youtube and you will find plenty of evidence to the contrary. There are channels dedicated to that sort of thing.

What evidence to the contrary? An alternate universe where there are "good" guys who stop these mass shootings?

Spend more time on youtube and you will find shooters and criminals taken out by concealed carriers.

A lot of them are centered on appropriate use of force.

Spend more time in the emergency room and you’ll see even more victims of gun violence that wasn’t prevented by a good guy with a gun.

What you don’t say: Most of those are drug/gang related

So they aren’t human?

Yes. But their activity is causing the issue

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Official Depart of Justice research:

There are an estimated 1.5 million defensive gun uses in America every year:

https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

The most likely person to be shot with a gun is it's owner. Suicide. That's a fact. You aren't likely to kill a mass shooter with your gun. You're likely to kill yourself or you family member will kill themselves.

26,000 suicides by gun per year. At least some of those wouldn't happen if someone had to use a more timely and less instant death method.

Mental illness -- huge factor

Republicans: "It's not guns, it's mental illness!"

The rest of us: "THEN LET'S DO SOMETHING ABOUT MENTAL ILLNESS"

Republicans: *crickets*


Please just STOP with this line until you're ACTUALLY WILLING TO DO SOMETHING. Otherwise you just repeatedly keep looking like complete clowns spouting disingenuous garbage.

Doing something about mental illness would require more resources than either party is willing to allocate. There's a massive lack of qualified mental health professionals and decent care is unaffordable. If you are poor, you may get lucky and have a doctor medicate you but you are almost certainly not getting real therapy

CALL THE BLUFF.

If you honestly think it's "BoTH SiDEs" and are convinced no Democrat would go along with it, have Republicans sponsor a bill to expand mental health care. Dems will sign on in droves.

"But why Republicans" you ask? It's because Dems have already tried many times, only to have had it killed by Republicans.

It's not "BoTH SiDEs"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I think everyone should be required to see a therapist to sign off on a gun purchase. At their expense.

I think someone even wanting to own a gun is reason enough for them to see a therapist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I think everyone should be required to see a therapist to sign off on a gun purchase. At their expense.

I am here for this because I know that 99.9% of therapists will refuse to sign off on a gun purchase

Even if they sign off, a lot of depressed or murderous people just aren’t going to the trouble of going to a therapist. Depressed people are too depressed to do the work of scheduling and going to a session just to get a gun. People with murderous intent will be afraid they’ll be caught. Some will slip through but it would reduce people worth mental illness getting guns by a lot. Plus therapists see a lot of people with depression and anger and can often see the signs even when the person is trying to hide it.

Of course this would make gun ownership more difficult so the “we have a mental illness problem, not a gun problem” crowd wouldn’t want it. They don’t actually care about guns in the hands of mentally ill people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m disappointed at the press photographers so greedily trying to get their money shot after a tragedy like this. The pic of the crying kid on the school bus which is plastered on the CNN website makes me so angry. What about that poor child’s privacy? That child just experienced a traumatic event. The press are just as disgusting as the politicians who do nothing. I’m sick of people turning tragedy into profit.

FULLY agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m disappointed at the press photographers so greedily trying to get their money shot after a tragedy like this. The pic of the crying kid on the school bus which is plastered on the CNN website makes me so angry. What about that poor child’s privacy? That child just experienced a traumatic event. The press are just as disgusting as the politicians who do nothing. I’m sick of people turning tragedy into profit.

FULLY agree.

You're more upset about this than you are at people having access to the deadly assault rifles that enabled them to slaughter the girls' classmates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Daily Mail says this was a targeted attack. The parents, who claimed their child was “emotionally unstable”, rejected their child because they were gay. They were also leaders in the church that ran this school.

I don’t think the shooter was mentally ill at all, just fed up. At any rate, I’m not taking the word of the bigoted parents as truth. People can do irrational things for rational reasons. I think that is an uncomfortable truth we need to grapple with. This one doesn’t fit the usual mentally ill/hate crime narrative.

Where are you hearing this?
You think you know more about the mental health of this girl than the parents?

Very little is known about the shooter's gender identity (beyond changing pronouns to be/him, and identifying as male),such as how far down that path the individual had progressed, what, if any, type of care had been provided, or even how long the shooter had identified as trans. I feel everyone should slow down a bit and try not to get ahead of the facts.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Daily Mail says this was a targeted attack. The parents, who claimed their child was “emotionally unstable”, rejected their child because they were gay. They were also leaders in the church that ran this school.

I don’t think the shooter was mentally ill at all, just fed up. At any rate, I’m not taking the word of the bigoted parents as truth. People can do irrational things for rational reasons. I think that is an uncomfortable truth we need to grapple with. This one doesn’t fit the usual mentally ill/hate crime narrative.

Where are you hearing this?
You think you know more about the mental health of this girl than the parents?

Very little is known about the shooter's gender identity (beyond changing pronouns to be/him, and identifying as male),such as how far down that path the individual had progressed, what, if any, type of care had been provided, or even how long the shooter had identified as trans. I feel everyone should slow down a bit and try not to get ahead of the facts.

It's great that you are quoting me, but how about some attribution?