WWTBAM Bored

What's unfortunate is the lack of followup of all the warnings.

Beebs52 wrote:What's unfortunate is the lack of followup of all the warnings.

This tragedy had multiple causes. One of those causes was the legal availability of extremely deadly assault weapons. I'm okay with addressing all of the causes, including any screw-ups on the part of law enforcement. I'm not okay with addressing that cause to the exclusion of all other causes, but that seems to be what the Republicans are trying to do, and it's certainly what the NRA is trying to do.

Good on the kids who survived this attack (some of them putting it on social media in real time) for holding the politicians' feet to the fire. They're proving to be a formidable political force. I hope they keep it up. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:What's unfortunate is the lack of followup of all the warnings.

This tragedy had multiple causes. One of those causes was the legal availability of extremely deadly assault weapons. I'm okay with addressing all of the causes, including any screw-ups on the part of law enforcement. I'm not okay with addressing that cause to the exclusion of all other causes, but that seems to be what the Republicans are trying to do, and it's certainly what the NRA is trying to do.

Good on the kids who survived this attack (some of them putting it on social media in real time) for holding the politicians' feet to the fire. They're proving to be a formidable political force. I hope they keep it up. --Bob

You may be just a tad doltish at times. Did you know all Democrats want to kill babies?

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:What's unfortunate is the lack of followup of all the warnings.

This tragedy had multiple causes. One of those causes was the legal availability of extremely deadly assault weapons. I'm okay with addressing all of the causes, including any screw-ups on the part of law enforcement. I'm not okay with addressing that cause to the exclusion of all other causes, but that seems to be what the Republicans are trying to do, and it's certainly what the NRA is trying to do.

Good on the kids who survived this attack (some of them putting it on social media in real time) for holding the politicians' feet to the fire. They're proving to be a formidable political force. I hope they keep it up. --Bob

You may be just a tad doltish at times. Did you know all Democrats want to kill babies?

Just so you know, because you're literal when you choose to be, ignoring propensities for broad brushes on your part, and ignoring absurdity on others'parts, my comment was a slap. Not my actual belief.

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote: So it isn't the fact that the students were killed, or why, or how they were killed, but what they were killed with that has your pantries in a wad? Interesting. If Cruz had used a handgun, you'd blame someone else? Who and why?

If Cruz hadn't had access to assault weapons, the bullet hits would not have been as deadly and fewer people would have died. --Bob

Really? Tell that to the families of the 33 VA Tech victims.

BackInTex wrote: Really? Tell that to the families of the 33 VA Tech victims.

And that's part of the fallacy the NRA uses to try to defeat any gun control legislation whatsoever. The theory is that unless some measure stops everything, then we shouldn't adopt it. If we used that logic in other areas of criminal law, we wouldn't have a single law to punish, deter, or prevent criminal behavior.

If we show that a particular law might have prevented Parkland, then it wouldn't have prevented other killings. Or we can't prove it would have prevented Parkland. Or having armed teachers (a measure no teacher or police group seems to favor) would have done a better job.

The NRA is not interested in protecting lives or in gun safety. They want one thing only: to sell more guns. They might as well rename themselves what they are: the Gun Manufacturers Association Marketing Council.

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote: Really? Tell that to the families of the 33 VA Tech victims.

And that's part of the fallacy the NRA uses to try to defeat any gun control legislation whatsoever. The theory is that unless some measure stops everything, then we shouldn't adopt it. If we used that logic in other areas of criminal law, we wouldn't have a single law to punish, deter, or prevent criminal behavior.

If we show that a particular law might have prevented Parkland, then it wouldn't have prevented other killings. Or we can't prove it would have prevented Parkland. Or having armed teachers (a measure no teacher or police group seems to favor) would have done a better job.

The NRA is not interested in protecting lives or in gun safety. They want one thing only: to sell more guns. They might as well rename themselves what they are: the Gun Manufacturers Association Marketing Council.

This is where we disagree. The NRA is not interested in selling guns. They are interested in protecting our Constitutional rights. The one they focus on is the 2nd Amendment. Other organizations that defend other rights don't give a flip about consequences either, just protecting the right. Which is as it should be. Being free is not free.

BackInTex wrote: This is where we disagree. The NRA is not interested in selling guns. They are interested in protecting our Constitutional rights.

At one time, maybe. Now, however, the NRA can't survive without money from the gun manufacturers, so that's where their bread is buttered.

http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-indu ... nra-2013-1

"Today's NRA is a virtual subsidiary of the gun industry," said Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center. "While the NRA portrays itself as protecting the 'freedom' of individual gun owners, it's actually working to protect the freedom of the gun industry to manufacture and sell virtually any weapon or accessory."

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote: This is where we disagree. The NRA is not interested in selling guns. They are interested in protecting our Constitutional rights.

At one time, maybe. Now, however, the NRA can't survive without money from the gun manufacturers, so that's where their bread is buttered.

http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-indu ... nra-2013-1

"Today's NRA is a virtual subsidiary of the gun industry," said Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center. "While the NRA portrays itself as protecting the 'freedom' of individual gun owners, it's actually working to protect the freedom of the gun industry to manufacture and sell virtually any weapon or accessory."

You're quoting an opinion, and one that's about as opinion as opinions can get.

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote: Really? Tell that to the families of the 33 VA Tech victims.

And that's part of the fallacy the NRA uses to try to defeat any gun control legislation whatsoever. The theory is that unless some measure stops everything, then we shouldn't adopt it. If we used that logic in other areas of criminal law, we wouldn't have a single law to punish, deter, or prevent criminal behavior.

If we show that a particular law might have prevented Parkland, then it wouldn't have prevented other killings. Or we can't prove it would have prevented Parkland. Or having armed teachers (a measure no teacher or police group seems to favor) would have done a better job.

The NRA is not interested in protecting lives or in gun safety. They want one thing only: to sell more guns. They might as well rename themselves what they are: the Gun Manufacturers Association Marketing Council.

This is where we disagree. The NRA is not interested in selling guns. They are interested in protecting our Constitutional rights. The one they focus on is the 2nd Amendment. Other organizations that defend other rights don't give a flip about consequences either, just protecting the right. Which is as it should be. Being free is not free.

The NRA isn't interested in selling guns? Really? In 1999, the NRA believed in 100% gun-free schools. Now, not so much. --Bob

BackInTex wrote:
You're quoting an opinion, and one that's about as opinion as opinions can get.

The rest of the article contained a lot of facts.

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
You're quoting an opinion, and one that's about as opinion as opinions can get.

The rest of the article contained a lot of facts.

LOL, but the part you chose to quote, meaning you thought that was the most important point, was pure 100% virgin opinion.

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
You're quoting an opinion, and one that's about as opinion as opinions can get.

The rest of the article contained a lot of facts.

LOL, but the part you chose to quote, meaning you thought that was the most important point, was pure 100% virgin opinion.

You're facting again.

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote: Really? Tell that to the families of the 33 VA Tech victims.

And that's part of the fallacy the NRA uses to try to defeat any gun control legislation whatsoever. The theory is that unless some measure stops everything, then we shouldn't adopt it. If we used that logic in other areas of criminal law, we wouldn't have a single law to punish, deter, or prevent criminal behavior.

If we show that a particular law might have prevented Parkland, then it wouldn't have prevented other killings. Or we can't prove it would have prevented Parkland. Or having armed teachers (a measure no teacher or police group seems to favor) would have done a better job.

The NRA is not interested in protecting lives or in gun safety. They want one thing only: to sell more guns. They might as well rename themselves what they are: the Gun Manufacturers Association Marketing Council.

Ummm, except for the third of the states considering it or already doing it?

Estonut wrote:Umm, except for the third of the states considering it or already doing it?

And which educational and/or police organizations have come out in favor of turning schools into Dodge City?

And, here in Georgia, we have another shooting incident, this time involving a teacher (details are very sketchy at this time, so I'll withhold further comment until we see how this all shakes out).

Dalton is just south of Chattanooga at the very northwest tip of Georgia.

https://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law/bre ... bTp9ygdWJ/

silverscreenselect wrote:And, here in Georgia, we have another shooting incident, this time involving a teacher (details are very sketchy at this time, so I'll withhold further comment until we see how this all shakes out).

Dalton is just south of Chattanooga at the very northwest tip of Georgia.

https://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law/bre ... bTp9ygdWJ/

Here's some more details

https://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law/bre ... bTp9ygdWJ/

If only we had a second armed teacher in that classroom to keep an eye on the first armed teacher.