Lurker > TommyG663513

HagenEx posted...

I would pay insane amounts of money (which I don't have but still) to see these two scissor.

I mean, I highly doubt you are the only one......

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

You are not worth putting on ignore.

But you do need to be called out when you spew nonsense.

Social media is a big part of today's political climate. This has been the case for at least a decade. You know this, but you being you, you'll never miss an opportunity to be a needless contrarian in whatever topic you're in while not ever addressing the points relevant to the discussion.

I read your first sentence and that is it. You clearly just want to harass me. If you want me to engage with your posts then a very modest amount of civility would go a long way.

Sackgurl posted...

that, and the goal is to reduce innocent gun deaths

we don't talk about criminal activity-related violence and the associated firearms death rate for a reason.

if a bunch of gun nuts respond to a ban by becoming insurgents and are neutralized by the US armed forces, their deaths are not murders

i'd estimate my acceptable number at five hundred thousand dead gun nuts being my upper bound for it not hurting us more than it helps us

being clear, only if they are shooting first

if they choose civil disobedience, that's fine. they can then have the full experience of civil disobedience that all prior civil rights protesters experienced: being arrested and sitting in a jail cell, while the thing they were resisting (their firearms being collected by the authorities) still happens

Yeah I mean, I take a pretty strong stance against any sort of state sponsored violence. Your threshold of feeling that half a million people dying due to not giving up their guns and being willing to exchange gunfire over it is way above my own threshold. Like Idk how good Is feel about even a thousand people dying.

I'd much rather incentive people to give up their guns. Like just straight cash or something for giving up your guns. Though I'm sure there is no shortage of negative implications this could mean on other issues. Reducing gun ownership to those unwilling to give up their guns at any cost doesn't necessarily sound like the most favorable outcome. Then again, neither does 1000-500,000 people dead after choosing to exchange gunfire with federal authorities. And neither does the current situation of fairly frequent mass shootings with completely innocent victims.

Like it seems that no matter what, there will always be victims in this and it's all a matter of picking your position and/or reducing negative outcomes. There doesn't seem to be any sort of true winning in handling this.

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

There was nothing to understand about your post lmao. You're just a hypocrite.

You went off on people for not thinking critically and being too emotionally charged. You never actually explained why holding the parents responsible in a case like this is a bad idea, you just dismissed everyone as being emotional.

This right here is your problem. This is why everyone on this message board treats you the way that they do. You never know when to shut up and not filth up whatever topic you're in with whatever nonsense comes to your head. You always take the absolute dumbest, most tone-deaf takes during any discussion. You're the first one to cry about nobody arguing in good-faith, but then you'll shoot down anything the other person is saying without having anything useful to contribute to the discussion. The only difference between you and the other shitty posters on here is that you try to present yourself as a calm, reasonable person when in reality, all you succeed in doing is making yourself look like an ass who has never interacted with a single human being before.

Like dude, 19 children were murdered in a horrific mass shooting that wouldn't have happened to near this extent in any other country on the planet. But sure, why not take this opportunity to troll the people wanting something to be done about this? That's definitely something a well-adjusted individual such as yourself would do in response to a tragedy.

I read your first sentence and I'm not gonna read your wall of text that followed. Not dealing with your constant wave of immature insults and keep reading your posts.

If you want me to read your posts. Stop constantly going out of your way to insult me and acting like you have some moral high ground.

Sackgurl posted...

so let's have a serious, emotion-free discussion. i am happy to check my emotions at wherever you people store those when you are trying to be productive.

it's clear to me that american men are not capable of handling the responsibility of owning firearms more technologically advanced than what the founding fathers had

the solution to these problems is going to have to be a blanket ban on semiautomatic weapons across the board, with a short duration buyback and severe enforcement thereafter. if this results in violence, it's worth it.

to preserve the parts of gun culture that have cultural or economic value, allowing firearms rentals at shooting ranges certainly should include semiautomatic weapons (presently, it also includes automatic weapons, which is both fine and cool).

we probably should have a licensing system for bolt-action and other single-shot firearms, but I have no issue with retaining them in our society. but semiautomatic and automatic arms are primarily useful for killing humans.

our gun culture and masculinity weren't always so intertwined; last 40 years or so it seems that the declining power of labor has led to a total loss in the ability of our least intelligent and capable men to contribute anything of value to society. this has driven an increased obsession with subcultures, particularly firearms but also a number of other areas (drug abuse, alcohol abuse, video games, etc).

it's probably impossible to fix the lost power of labor. these men will be dickless in their eyes (and the eyes of society), so at this point we as members of a society need to ensure they cannot arm themselves to the point that during their expected early deaths, they take innocent lives with them.

Ah this is what I'm talking about. Definitely don't entirely agree, but nothing ludicrous.

My main point of contention is about the semi automatic ban and your notion that if there is a violent response then it will still be worth it. The whole idea here is to reduce gun deaths. Idk what level of violence there could be in response and I can acknowledge a reduction long term may not be a reduction right now.

Not exactly against that policy, but I feel we need to be pretty open to what level of violence could the response be and what level of violence could we accept as backlash to this potential ban.

I agree very much with you on the cultural issues you've mentioned and general masculinity crisis and people struggling to find a way to fit into this world both personally and economically.

I can go into more detail on any points if you wish or respond to whatever you post.

GallisOTK posted...

*a mass shooting happens*

"Don't be so hasty and emotional! Wait a couple weeks to calm down before we talk about it. Now's not the time."

*another mass shooting happens less than two weeks later*

"Don't be so hasty and emotional! Wait a couple weeks to calm down before we talk about it. Now's not the time."

*repeat ad infinitum*

That is nowhere near at all what I said. It's amazing what lengths people will go to.

Some people can talk about it right now, but others may not. Some people make good arguments and others make overly emotional ones that have little logical basis. Just how it is.

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

https://www.thebalancecareers.com/what-can-employers-say-about-former-employees-2059608

There are no federal laws restricting what information an employer canor cannotdisclose about former employees. And while most states have laws about what employers can legally disclose, and to whom, many do allow employers to share details about job performance, responsibilities, and professional conduct.

Please stop talking out of your ass.

Just because something is not reported to the police doesn't mean it's not a big deal. Most high school fights would legally be considered assault if not for the fact that they involve minors. This is probably one of your most smooth-brained takes yet, and that's really saying something.

But keep in mind that we're still not talking about a fight. We are talking about an extensive history of fighting other students, which suggests behavioral issues.

Ah yes, so draconian to take extensive steps to make sure someone is mentally fit and stable before handing them a lethal weapon.

It's like your brain repels any sort of critical thinking.

Yeah I guess there is no federal restriction. Thank you for the correction.

I know the laws of my own state, Minnesota had never allowed employers more than getting basic info.

Of course, we are a very blue state and very pro worker generally speaking. Preventing previous employers from bad mouthing Younis a pro labor political stance.

I still stand by that is the way it should be. No previous employer should be able to disclose anything beyond worker here from X date to Y date.

And yeah I dont think we should create a record system that takes into account non criminal behavior in high school to prevent weapons purchases. I call BS that this will only be used to limit weapons purchases and won't remain separate from whatever the criminal justice system does. So yeah I'd label it a bit draconian.

Something different I'd perhaps be in favor of.....

A general mental health evaluation with some sort of stipulation that results from this test are only valid for a couple years give or take. This would both prevent a bad test from ever allowing someone to own a gun and also require current owners to get retested for new purchases assuming long gaps between purchases.

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

You haven't said a single good-faith thing in this entire discussion, which is why everyone is calling you out on the dumb shit you're spewing from your keyboard.

Dude, bad faith is spewing insults which is like 90% of what you post in response to me.

David1988 posted...

Relax, its most likely just a work for their audience, theyre probably friendly behind closed door, our political theater is more like WWE than WWE is

Yeah this. Though from what I've heard, the days of congresspeople going out for a drink afterwards are kind of over. They all just participate in this game to increase their power and wealth. It amazes me that people still cheer on AOC in these stupid tweet battles when they're pretty useless in the grand scheme of things.

There's just so much about AOC worth praising or criticizing, but people mostly zero in on the tweets as the whole system is designed to put your attention on. It is absolutely maddening and really shows how nothing ever gets accomplished in this country.

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

Good lord, please shut the fuck up

@RchHomieQuanChi

Why do you do this? How much effort does it take for you to actually just ignore my post and not respond or perhaps actually putting me on ignore?

Or you could counter my point? It just seems like all you want to do is be an aggressive little bully and shout at people. That is most of what you do in response to me.

DipDipDiver posted...

I was speaking in a general sense, not about this specific incident. From what I've read the SRO and two other officers did engage

Unfortunately though, they weren't successful at preventing what did happen. Idk if an argument could be made that they reduced the scope of the tragedy or did anything positive at all beyond a brief delay. It seems unclear what actually happened when they engaged the shooter and how and why the shooter got away.

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

This is literally you

Shut the actual fuck up

So you didn't understand my post at all and instead devolved into an outburst of STFU?

I backed up my statement with examples and how using RICO as a justification for charging the parents of this shooter is ridiculous.

@RchHomieQuanChi

Do you feel charging the parents under RICO will do anything to change about what happened or prevent future tragedies? Does it even make sense to use RICO?

If you can't respond to any of this, which you haven't, then you don't get to call yourself good faith

mybbqrules posted...

I dont need to take time to think about how to feel about yet another school shooting that one political party is (still) choosing to vigorously ignore.

Anyone else with a basic grasp of reality shouldn't either.

Yeah that isn't a response at all to what I said

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

Jesus Christ, Tommy. Your response to someone simply saying the parents should be held responsible for this situation was to accuse them of being "overly emotional and not thinking rationally", mind you, in response to 19 children being killed.

You consistently say the most tone-deaf, condescending shit while also being almost completely wrong about everything.

@RchHomieQuanChi

Um punishing the parents after the fact is an overly emotional stance and not at all rational. It does nothing to solve the previous tragedy or prevent future ones. Someone even suggesting using RICO to accomplish this. That is unreasonable.

It's amazing that you can talk about how horrible of a person I must be and then say awful and horrible things about me when my stance is......

If you're too emotional about a recent tragedy then perhaps step aside from the convo of solutions if you are moreso in the emotional soothing stage of dealing with a bad event. It's totally ok to not be in the problem solving stage. In fact, it'd be wise to sometimes out that aside. Sometimes we can solve a problem and other times we need time to not solve it right now, but perhaps later.

The fact that you call this mindset tone-deaf is pretty baffling.

thronedfire2 posted...

um, yes. Everyone here has seen enough of your posts by now to know. Hell, do you even post in any topics besides the controversial ones you start shit in?

I post all the time on all sorts of boards and I don't post in every controversial topic.

Do you ever engage in anything besides ad hominem?

I mean, I think it is reasonable to expect them to engage, but....

I know I definitely wouldn't engage. I've never touched a gun in my life and never will. I don't feel entirely comfortable with the expectation that someone else risk their life where I may be unwilling.

I can agree with the concept that they should, but I have trouble granting myself the authority to be upset when someone fails to when in position. People are human and may not be up to the task. No one really truly knows how they'd react until faced with the scenario.

thronedfire2 posted...

you do this in every controversial topic. You come in and be confrontational just to get a rise out of people without ever actually adding anything to the discussion at hand.

Um no. Lacking basic reading comprehension and getting outraged isn't a reasonable response. I'm not here to upset anyone. Clearly people are already very upset when they get here and they look at someone whose opinion only like 95% aligns with theirs and wants to attack them.

UnfairRepresent posted...

They were your responses.... you started out insulting random people instead of addressing what they say then got mad when someone did it to you.

I don't get why suggesting ideas for how to prevent mass shootings in response to mass shootings is crazy or irrational. The rest of the world doesn't seem to struggle with it.

I don't get why furiously being upset and angered by people who suggest methods to prevent mass shootings is rational.

In fact the most irrational responses so far have been from the right wing suggesting turrets, more armed guards, arming/training students, looser gun laws, home/private schooling and enforced religion.

All of which you're silent on but the dude saying "We should look into how he got his guns." is ridiclously emotional and irrational on because they need to calm down?

You're not only coming across as hypocritical but also a like a gun nut on the wild defensive trying to deflect as hard as possible.

I think you need to take your own advice and calm down a little. Entering a discussion by wildly insulting people and then complaining that they discuss an issue is crazy.

"I don't get why furiously being upset and angered by people who suggest methods to prevent mass shootings is rational"

That right there is what you said towards the top of this quoted post. You restate the idea multiple times.

That is not at all my position. You are fighting a strawman. I'm against people who are crazy about it and suggest things like RICO to go after the parents. People unwilling to acknowledge anything beyond gun control like basic school security measures like limited entrances with many emergency exits everywhere.

I'm not upset or angry. I'm making an observation and then I get like five different people trying to jump down my throat saying stuff like "I should be banned" for saying this or that I must be a sociopath. Basically, just lazy and hominem arguments that add nothing to the debate. Then someone tries to tell me that I'm upset. Just lol

I am all for discussion and exploration on the prevention of future tragedies such as this. We also need to point out arguments that simply aren't helpful and describe why so in order to improve the discussion and narrow it's focus on things that have a realistic chance of being implemented.

Tappor posted...

Telling people to "calm down" and be logical about a mass shooting of schoolchildren is pretty sociopathic behavior

This is calm down in terms of having a discussion about "what to do." Everytime there is a mass shooting there are tons of terrible takes of people wanting to go overboard in any sort of response in either direction.

I pointed out a specific case of someone calling for RICO to come into play to implicate the parents of this child. That is just absurd.

There was another topic full of meltdowns over people thinking it is unreasonable for schools to have a designated entranced with an appropriate amount of emergency exits.

If you want to talk actual policy. Then talk actual policy. If your take isn't realistic then it should be referred to as so.

If you want a topic where everyone just posts whatever they want with no discussion about their feelings on a particular matter unchallenged then sure. I will leave you to that topic. It you feel this whole board should be like that then idk if that is in the rules or something, but we can all have our ideas of how this place should work. How it actually works is a different matter.

BearlyWilling posted...

God I am so tired of Twitter not letting me read comments without having an account

You're better off without a Twitter account and So is every other human on this planet. Twitter needs to disappear and seeing politicians fight on it like this is just sad.

UnfairRepresent posted...

How dare they?

Erm...

Yeah. Those are bad responses. What is your point? That people are acting totally and completely irrational in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy?

The super "fun" (sad) thing about these last handful of years is that we've all gotten the opportunity to witness countless tragedy type stories and kind of get a feel for how the process plays out.

There's still some unknowns and more information will be coming out in the days that follow. There's always way too early highly speculative takes which would be fine if we openly acknowledged that it is speculation and not fact.

MrMallard posted...

For buying their child weapons they used to commit mass-murder?

Fuck you.

Did they know that was the purpose?

If so, RICO could be fair.

If not, RICO is laughable.

MrMallard posted...

Sure, because what about these shootings make sense?

When people heard about Sandy Hook, their first response wasn't "well we should think about the societal and constitutional impact of this shooting, as bad as it is we should consider every possible angle relating to personal freedom to make sure no-one's right to purchase a firearm is impeded". It was "holy fucking shit, kindergarteners were murdered while learning how to read".

You know what kind of shithead shifted the conversation to the second amendment and the freedom of any mouth-breather to own a weapon of mass-murder?

It was Alex Jones. His fanatical insistence that Sandy Hook was a false flag operation emboldened some of the shittiest people alive. A parent of a Sandy Hook victim dedicated his life to trying to educate truthers about what actually happened, and he ended up giving up.

Why?

Because one of the most fanatical truthers asked him to exhume the corpse of his child to prove they were shot to death.

Maybe that initial shocked reaction to Sandy Hook would have been a better reaction than "the only way to stop one bad guy with a gun is one good guy with a gun". Look at the "good guys" who refused to enter the building at the cost of their own lives while 21 other defenseless people lost theirs. They were hired to defend that school, and they failed.

Talk about these bad faith takes about how X or Y would have prevented this shooting, but there are legitimate grievances and ideas about how to prevent more preventable murder that America hasn't taken, because a handful of weapon lobbyists and right-wing fuckheads would rather any dumb fuck with a pulse be able to spend their money on a weapon than they would rather the civilian population of America - schoolchildren or working adult - be save from being shot to death.

You, your partner, your family and your children are more at risk of being shot to death than at any point in history because the people who control the laws about your safety believe more in selling weapons and ammo than your right to live in a safe and free environment.

@MrMallard

At nowhere in your insanely long tangent did you come close to addressing anything I actually said.

I didn't say any and all discussion is bad. Nowhere close to that. Discussion is great and extremely important. The problem is people like you who are simply too emotional to have one. It is fine. No judgment. Just step back and take some time. Not everyone needs to be ready for a discussion immediately, soon, or ever. Do what you gotta do.

Dat_Cracka_Jax posted...

He's being a real shit heel that's for sure

Anyway, I saw this last night and it's just so horrible to watch, especially as a father. His last statement "how can you look at this girl and want to shoot her".

A shit heel for saying

"Some people should try to calm down before engaging in a discussion."

Just lol. What?

Crimsoness posted...

This Tommy person is pretty dedicated to being the most abysmal person on CE

Oh no, an ad hominem argument. So logical and not at all emotional.

The take that, "we should prosecute the parents with RICO charges" is in fact an absurd take. There are takes like that all over this board. People with takes like that should simply take some time to calm down and then return to the discussion when they can think a bit more clearly.

And your response "wow, what a thing that only an abysmal person would say"

So maybe you're one of those people who should take a minute

DeadBankerDream posted...

This one person is having an emotional shitposting session over the murder of 19 children, I better have an even bigger shitposting session based on cold detachment from humanity.

Oh no, someone said we should calm down a tad before having overly emotional opinions.

Better accuse them of having a shit post for pointing out the obvious fact that people get overly emotional following these stories and post bad takes that simply don't make sense.

So like a pineapple or tropical type flavor or what?

ANort175 posted...

Yeah it's amazing how every time a bunch of kids get shot up at a school, people get really pissed off about it and want something to change so kids don't keep getting murdered at schools. Why can't people just chill out? /s

No you are fighting a strawman.

Absolutely nothing wrong with engaging in a discussion about an important political issue.

The problem is when people get overly emotional and just want to scream at each other meanwhile offering terrible solutions like prosecuting the parents of the shooter. There are awful takes like this littered throughout every topic on this subject.

People do need to calm down a little bit when having a discussion otherwise it isn't really a discussion, but a collection of people having meltdowns.

Tsuyoi3 posted...

Do you know the situation?
As far as I've read, he lived with his grandparents, one of which he shot and stole her car.

Doesn't exactly sound like the one's raising him were on his side here.

Oh, you're just venting.

Just one guy here.

Either way, saw this live on CNN, cried.
And she tried to call authorities too.

Just one guy ITT, but look at the front page. This placed is filled with topics on the shooting and people giving their way too emotional hot takes that have no basis in reality.

It is amazing how this happens every single time. The same bad opinions get spouted constantly.

Oh wow, congress is slinging mud at each other on Twitter. Surely this means that us, the constituents, are well represented and that this isn't an entirely inappropriate way for Congress to communicate.

Strip clubs are indeed a luxury. Luxuries are usually the first to go in an economic downturn.

It's amazing how whenever these stories happen the vast majority seem to lose their ability to think critically and become overly emotional shit posters.

There are just endless bad takes of "this definitely would have prevented this." Or "we should do this in response to this." And none of it ever really makes sense.

Some people need to take a week or two to calm down then come back to this story if something new hasn't taken it's place in the news cycle. I mean, something new usually does take it's place and then people forget about all of their talking points until the next mass shooting happens.

Humble_Novice posted...

I will never forgive the politicians who fought tooth and nail in obstructing the policies needed to prevent incidents like this from ever happening.

What were the specific policies that would have absolutely 100% have prevented this from happening that you know for a fact would work?

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

Tommy, you do realize we're simply talking about not allowing them to buy a gun (for now), not sending them off to Alcatraz, right?

You realize that is a dumb strawman argument right? Don't pretend to discuss in good faith when you make a statement like that. That is just absurd.

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

Uhh no. It's a lot different. Lol what the fuck

This isn't true. Your employer is still allowed to disclose that you were fired and why you were fired so long as the information disclosed is purely factual. Like yeah, many will avoid saying too much to avoid a potential defamation lawsuit, but this isn't some hard-written law lmao

"Average high school fights" are noteworthy if a student is constantly getting into them and when we're trying to assess behavioral issues that might make them a threat if given a weapon.

Holy fuck it's like talking to a brick wall with you

Holy fuck you keep making bad arguments.

Past employers can't say anything bad about you. They can only disclose the dates you worked there. There is nothing left to discuss.

High school fights are not at all a big deal. Again, if the school got the police involved and actual charges were brought about then I'd feel differently. Otherwise, it was just a petty high school fight.

Sometimes, there aren't an infinite ways that a tragedy can be prevented.

Some.of you guys want to live in some weird draconian state where we track all sorts of info about people and think this is only about preventing firearm purchases. If you think this won't extend to the criminal justice system and have other negative consequences then you're not thinking this through at all.

Again, you are a brick wall and high school fights are a petty thing and not at all a big deal.

Punished_Blinx posted...

It's recent history and was clearly evident that he was troubled. Which is why this has immediately come out.

The warning signs were there but it didn't matter.

Every single time people bring up a potential solution Republicans will block it.

How is that irrelevant? Those methods and measures require Republicans to agree with them.

I have never heard about an employer being unable to use a reference before to see if they'd be a good employee. That seems a bit backwards.

Sure but I don't think that limitation should cover a student who hasn't done anything else outside of school.

You have lots of incredibly false ideas about things.

Republicans aren't the sole cause of this. If Democrats were a halfway decent option then people would not vote Republican and what Republicans do in in Congress would be irrelevant if less of them were in office.

WTF about employee references. They've always only been able to get very limited info from previous employers.

You just sound like you have no idea what you're talking about.

Punished_Blinx posted...

Where is this the case?

It should be as noteworthy as the school staff wants it to be.

What does where it is matter? That seems like a pretty irrelevant question.

There should be actual standards for some sort of limitation like that and not just whatever school staff seems it to be. It seems pretty inappropriate for school officials ton determine what students can buy guns when they're old enough.

Punished_Blinx posted...

He isn't past the age of 18.

He was 18.

All of these are blocked by Republican politicians and the voters who support them.

People should try to get them voted out.

Yeah him being 18 doesn't change anything. What is your point? He is no longer a juvenile at that point, but using something that happened at high school is at best a grey area if he was 18 at the time of the fights.

And yeah cool I get you want to point at Republican failings. People here sound like broken records with their endless whining about Republicans. It was pretty irrelevant for you to bring Republicans up. You should've said whether you agreed with those methods or not and on what merits. That was what the discussion was about. Not you wanting to make some negative comment about Republicans.

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

Nobody in this topic said that

A repeated history of fights in which you were the aggressor, yes.

Jobs will literally call up past employers to determine if they should hire, but for some reason, doing a similar process when it comes to access to a lethal weapon capable of killing 20 people is "too much"

Uh yes previous posters have said this.

"A repeated history of fights with you as the aggressor" is barely a different from saying someone got into a fight or two in high school. That simply isn't that severe of a thing.

Also, your calling up a previous employer thing is a really bad analogy. There are major limits on what a previous employer can even say. They can only say that you worked there from X date to Y date. That actually supports my side.of the argument that fights are a petty thing to disqualify someone over. It'd be different if it was a case where law enforcement got involved and it was labeled as assault or some sort of criminal offense. An average high school fight though? That shouldn't be noteworthy.

Punished_Blinx posted...

It doesn't need a federal file. He's fresh out of high school. It would be the most relevant place to check for behavioral patterns.

Yeah I'm not really down with that level of background check. People's records from juvenile that aren't even criminal aren't supposed to follow people past the age of 18.

Again, nothing criminal on his record.

This back and forth started when you accused me of being against qualified and safe people only owning firearms. You're just kind of extreme in your position and seem fairly unaware of it to the point that you're gonna make a huge misinterpretation of someone else's views.

I'd much rather that we as a society learn how to better adapt a support system. We don't need to focus on punitive measures to seek these ticking time bombs out, but perhaps rehabilitative. Sure you can in theory take away his access to a gun and I'm not against that in theory depending upon the implementation. Why limit it to only that though? You should ALSO try to build a society that makes people less likely to lash out. Less likely to have violent tendencies. A society that can identify these types of people and better divert them away from going down a dark path.

Why even stop there though? There's all sorts of various safety measures to explore in schools to help out with this.

I'm sure there are other things that can be done as well.

I don't see why we need to zero in on gun control as the measure when it should be among a multitude of measures.

Punished_Blinx posted...

It says he constantly fought and threatened students. You think kids like that should be allowed to get a gun?

No I don't, but I also don't think keeping a federal file on people and their behaviors in school and putting them on a watch list is all that cool either. It sounds incredibly draconian and I have principles about government not being able to surveil civilians at that type of level. Quite frankly, I feel it is foolish to pretend that may not effect people down the line in other avenues. Such as the criminal justice system. Perhaps, that could be for better or worse, but I'm not for that level of surveillance.

Criminal history? Absolutely

Severe mental health? Probably yeah

General behavioral issues in high school? That sounds like a bit much

Heartomaton posted...

Do you know how we make as sure as possible that someone is qualified to be in possession of instruments intended for killing and will be safe with them?

Intense background checks and retrieving detailed information.

Do you know at all what I said? It is pretty evident that you don't one bit and are fighting some bizarre battle.

Go read my post again, if what I said makes you think I'm against gun control then that is entirely on you.

You can point out a complication with implementing certain levels of gun control without being against the law itself. Mindless push for extreme laws simply isn't going to work.

Americans will never accept Japanese or Australian type laws. Increasing background checks is reasonable. Going to Japan or Australia levels simply is not in this country. Well, certain states could probably do it.

Gun control measures can certainly reduce this awful incidents, but it is important to be realistic. Any measured reduction is important to take note of.

Some of the suggestions people have made ITT are really bizarre as well. Like thinking a fight at school should disqualify him from owning a gun. Unless the police had to get involved, that seems a bit extreme.

TommyG663513 posted...

There are so many bad takes out there on gun control.

It could have helped, but it may not have. There are negative implications to background checks being too intensive and detailed information being kept about individuals. Don't give me the "if you've got nothing to hide, nothing to fear" BS. People who are over the top gun control don't seem to realize how authoritarian they come across.

@Heartomaton

Uh what? Again. How did you get from my above post that I don't want gun owners to be qualified and safe? That is in no way a reasonable interpretation of my words. I find it utterly bizarre that you would make such an extreme interpretation of my words.

Some people ITT sound really extreme and think this is all gun control. Guess what? Gun control measures aren't easy to implement in a lot of places and they don't necessarily work in any given case. I'd certainly argue it'd help and is worth doing, but people really overrate the effectiveness of it. Many of these proposed measures are just so damn unrealistic. Our gun culture is insane and none of these crazy people are gonna give them up. For better or worse, guns are simply here to stay in our culture. All we can do is try to manage it. I feel that is achievable through various gun control measures mixed with a multitude of other efforts.

We shouldn't just be worrying about gun control. There are other factors in play that deserve consideration and I've listed many of them in a previous post in this topic.

El Mexicano Texano posted...

It was a giant tree but you played it on all 4 seasons(spring/summer/autumn/winter) you entered the world according to the season you wanted to. You had to do somethings during spring that would affect the other seasons vice versa such as planting a tree and helping a squirrel get food if i remember correctly.

Oh damn that actually sounds real interesting. I just always got so hung up on that rusty bucket.

Is there anything in Banjo Tooie that you feel is real special? I could never get into that one for some reason.

Punished_Blinx posted...

Not really sure how anyone could be more effective against the current version of the Republican Party when they're not willing to compromise on anything. Democrats already in their current form are a compromise.

Uh yeah, I'm not gonna get into this with you in this topic. Feel free to DM if you want to continue there. In short, no I don't generally agree with the leadership and the direction of the Democratic party although it still remains my strongest ally in terms of what political goals I want to see the country achieve.

Take it to DMs with me if you feel like responding to that.

Shishiwakamaru posted...

There's one more level and then the end of the game but that's the longest level in the game.

Is the final level really fun? Like what is the theme of it?

Punished_Blinx posted...

So you support and vote for Democrats?

I've never once voted Republican in my life and I don't support the NRA. I've also never once touched a gun in my life and I never will. I personally, hate guns.

Supporting Democrats though? That's a bit more complicated and to be blunt, it's more of a "screw it, just vote blue." Though if I had it my way I'd get rid of damn near everyone representing the party today in favor of people who represent their constituents better and who can actually be effective against the current version of the Republican party.

Punished_Blinx posted...

What's your potential solution to try and stop these from happening?

@Punished_Blinx

A very wide variety of things.

I'm generally in favor of gun control and strict penalties for violating them.

Various school security measures

Actual mental health treatment

Very general opportunity advancement for everyone such as career opportunities, income equality. Basically a very vague "improve opportunities for life advancement" for everyone because it seems like a lot of these shooters are loners with little hope.

And then probably some other methods I can't quite think of off the top of my head.

Basically, I'm in favor of gun control, but I feel way too many people overstate what benefits gun control can achieve.

The reality is that guns are everywhere and it is extremely difficult to remove them from society. I'm sure gun sales are spiking right now as they always do after a mass shooting. The gun supply is always increasing and it's basically a losing battle. Still, you can implement gun control measures to improve the situation however you can.

Heartomaton posted...

Alright, starting off on the right track...

...are you saying people who really want to have things designed to kill people shouldn't be upfront about all their intentions with them?

@Heartomaton

Um what? How did you come up with that second sentence?

There are so many bad takes out there on gun control.

It could have helped, but it may not have. There are negative implications to background checks being too intensive and detailed information being kept about individuals. Don't give me the "if you've got nothing to hide, nothing to fear" BS. People who are over the top gun control don't seem to realize how authoritarian they come across.