Current Events > CNN interviews father of Amerie Garza, a girl who was lost in the Texas shooting

(+) Yeah! (+)

Fuck, what a shitty way to find out.

TommyG663513 posted...

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.

Holy shit dude, the guy who said that literally admitted to venting. He wasn't being serious. Obviously there's going to be hot and shitty takes because we're humans after something like this. You know what I do? Ignore them and actually talk to people who won't argue in bad faith. You can't dictate how people are going to react, that's unrealistic.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Good point

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?

TommyG663513 posted...

Do you ever engage in anything besides ad hominem?

This is literally you

TommyG663513 posted...

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.

Shut the actual fuck up

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.

TommyG663513 posted...

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.

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.

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

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/2/0/AARIckAADRTo.jpg

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

Crimsoness posted...

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

You just gave me his tag

*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*

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.

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.

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.

i plan on saying it a lot if we ever managed to ban guns and a bunch of dudes got themselves killed trying to violently resist confiscation

TommyG663513 posted...

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.

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

TommyG663513 posted...

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'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

TommyG663513 posted...

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

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.

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...

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.

TommyG663513 posted...

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

Yeah actually it is. You flat out said "take a few weeks off" and come back to it with a new perspective. Yeah no, don't need to. Republicans are shrugging and dismissively wanking over dead children. It's already crystal fucking clear what a normal person should think about this.

But nice job deflecting. It's what you chuds are best at.

Sackgurl posted...

i plan on saying it a lot if we ever managed to ban guns and a bunch of dudes got themselves killed trying to violently resist confiscation

We need a straight repeal of the second amendment at this point. Gun bans will never work because they will be challenged and removed.

TommyG663513 posted...

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.

if people refuse to give up their guns and get shot for it they arent victims, theyre criminals

He's in purgatory

About time

Republicans?? Any response?? Didnt think so

I missed the boat, didn't get to respond to Tommy or ask why he avoided my question...