Incomprehensible mass shooting happens again

[sportage]

Did you hear when this A-hole actually suggested that the problem with mass school shooting were THE DOORS ???
We have too many doors going into the school(s). We only need one door, and that would solve the problem.

First it was... not enough guns.
Then it was... a good guy with a gun vs the bad guy with a gun.
After that it was... arming teachers with guns.
And NOW.... it's the doors. Too many doors.

What we really need are fewer children with bullets in the head, and more of these republicans morons in place of the children. Now THAT would truly help solve the problem.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Seems one thing that can be done is for the parents of the victims to file a class action suit against the state and personally against Gov. Abbot for not providing adequate security at the state's schools.

As an aside, sad to say it crossed my mind that a wholly different scenario would have occurred as far as how Abbot and his cronies tightly controlled the narrative coming out of this tragedy if a mass murder of pre-teen kids occurred at an exclusive religiously affiliated private school located in a posh neighborhood.

Security is reactionary, meaning that in most cases they will only be useful in reacting to a shooter who has already opened fire, unless you wall in the schools and put in check points where students are searched. (metal detectors can be bypassed if you have specific plastic guns). The exception is if a clue is presented by a shooter before hand such as seeing a gun, or some other clue security catches. Reactionary measures is not the solution, we need Pro active solution, not reactive solutions. Meaning we need to take measures that prevent shootings from being able to take place in the first place, or make it extremely difficult rather than taking measures designed to react to the shooting.

Security is no different than an alarm on a car or a house. It does nothing to prevent a thief from breaking into your house/car. It only reacts after the break in has started. Yes it is a deterrent if the thief knows about the alarm, but that really only keeps honest people honest and does nothing to do deter those that are determined to break into your house.

 

[zinfamous]

Seems one thing that can be done is for the parents of the victims to file a class action suit against the state and personally against Gov. Abbot for not providing adequate security at the state's schools.

As an aside, sad to say it crossed my mind that a wholly different scenario would have occurred as far as how Abbot and his cronies tightly controlled the narrative coming out of this tragedy if a mass murder of pre-teen kids occurred at an exclusive religiously affiliated private school located in a posh neighborhood.

sue him and the state and it's entire, protracted history for their systematic removal of state mental health treatment, which they suddenly demand everyone (else) "figure out why we aren't doing anything about it?" and then proceed to do nothing about it.

sue them for their documented history of defunding healthcare, as GOP, complaining about it publiclly, blaming all gun violence on that (so like...they admitted already to removing funding, complaining about the problems resulting in lost funding, literally connecting the dots to the specific policy and failure, then asking why it happened...and doing nothing about it. Like, you can't admit more about how you failed humanity than the last 10 years of republicans casting out about "mental health" as the real problem behind gun violence and drugs...after spending the last 40 years fellating Ronald Regan, who absolutely gutted our mental health system, to about 30% of it's capacity from 79-83, and it has never recovered...and that's also lost interest for nearly 50 years of human knowledge and treatment. Just, fucking obliterated, and of course the homelessness problem escalated, poverty, addiction, you know, ...the savings with which created "the war on drugs" to ostensibly launder civilian wealth via fines and court fees into brand new Reagan departments of "Christian Drug Fighting" elite humans....you know, still party of the greatest expansion of government size and power, every: Regan. lol. those dipshits still like to pretend that isn't true.

It is, you fucking assclowns.

and they all, to this day, vote for themselves to be raped by drugs, guns, the Bible, and their own fucking illiteracy.

 

[Moonbeam]

I want gun reform. I just don't know what the answer is, because you're not gonna get a constitutional amendment easily. Those that want change have to push for it. Don't call on those with no vested interest to take action because they won't.Not the worst plan, but you've got a looong while before a liberal majority is available. Many, many more school shootings ahead. So good luck with that too.Cuz those are the easy ones. It's really hard to do 'semi-automatic weapons that are really good at killing people and also useful outside of killing people but people seem to use them a lot so we don't want them around... pending what people start using to shoot schools with, in which case we'll add those too'.I completely agree. There's a wide-ranging sickness that's existed in humanity for a very, very long time. I suspect in our species' youth, it was very useful to keep a small tribe in line, but in the last 200-500 years, it became a severe hindrance. Until we overcome that, it doesn't matter what we ban, or how we ban it, people will find a way to be absolutely miserable to each other. The US needs a cultural revolution, not a gun ban (though they may come together).

bravo! and such and huzz-ah!(I just hate that you typed the non-word "irregardless" though, because the actual word is regardless....that really chafes my hide, but otherwise! damn fine work, man. seriously!)

Keep up. A word becomes a word when people use it. Irregardless is now disgustingly a word:

Definition of irregardless


nonstandard


: regardless I told them that irregardless of what you read in books, they's some members of the theatrical profession that occasionally visits the place where they sleep.— Ring Lardner


Frequently Asked Questions About irregardless
Is irregardless a word?
Yes. It may not be a word that you like, or a word that you would use in a term paper, but irregardless certainly is a word. It has been in use for well over 200 years, employed by a large number of people across a wide geographic range and with a consistent meaning. That is why we, and well-nigh every other dictionary of modern English, define this word. Remember that a definition is not an endorsement of a word’s use.
Does irregardless mean the same thing as regardless?
Yes. We define irregardless as "regardless." Many people find irregardless to be a nonsensical word, as the ir- prefix usually functions to indicate negation; however, in this case it appears to function as an intensifier. Similar ir- words, while rare, do exist in English, including irremediless ("remediless"), irresistless ("resistless") and irrelentlessly ("relentlessly).
Is irregardless slang?
We label irregardless as “nonstandard” rather than “slang.” When a word is nonstandard it means it is “not conforming in pronunciation, grammatical construction, idiom, or word choice to the usage generally characteristic of educated native speakers of a language.” Irregardless is a long way from winning general acceptance as a standard English word. For that reason, it is best to use regardless instead.

First Known Use of irregardless
1795, in the meaning defined above

History and Etymology for irregardless
probably blend of irrespective and regardless

 

[Amol S.]

I read this comment on Fox News once where some of their cheerleaders wanted to bring back fire arms on planes, claiming the reason being the second amendment and self protection.

 

[sportage]

PS.
Not that it's worth mentioning, but the Q's are at it again.
Straight from the mouth of my Q-niece, claiming this assault was again faked and staged, just as the Q's claim Sandy Hook was faked and staged.

The reasoning????
NO AMBULANCES WERE ON SCENE.
Where were the ambulances?
How could kids be shot if there were no ambulances called to respond?

Yes folks, THIS is the Q's response once again. Within their smutty perverted little Q-world, nothing is true. Nothing, except Donald Trump.
Everything else is faked and staged by the goberment.
In this latest case, staged because gun laws were being voted on in congress AND it is an election year.
Q's actually believe that the government, OUR GOVERNMENT, would kill children because of an election.
(no reply necessary)

 

[Bitek]

Is it still 2008? Have you learned nothing over the last 14 years? Republicans are punished by their voters if they compromise with Democrats. Seriously, wtf man?

Then don't pretend to live in the land of the possible. The lack of compromise isn't exclusive to one side of this issue, but the necessity to do so isn't equal.

All these ideas of banning this gun, mandating permits for that... Not going to happen.

Gun ownership is of clearly enshrined as a god given right by the constitution. As powerful as the right to free speech. These rights are not granted by the govt, the govt is forbidden to infringe upon them.

D politicians don't like it? Too bad. They don't have the power to interpret it differently until they can pass an amendment.

They don't have the votes in Congress, they don't have the votes in the States, they certainly don't control the judiciary.

In fact, the courts are increasingly skeptical of restrictions blue states have passed.

9th circuit just struck down CA age restrictions on ar15s. They've lost on key gun control measures in DC, and in NY.
If and when any cases get to SCOTUS, you can bet they will lose there too, and this court balance will exist for decades potentially.

Ds have no choice but find compromises if they want to do anything other than grandstand and give speeches.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

How about less guns and more doors?

 

[ivwshane]

Then don't pretend to live in the land of the possible. The lack of compromise isn't exclusive to one side of this issue, but the necessity to do so isn't equal.

All these ideas of banning this gun, mandating permits for that... Not going to happen.

Gun ownership is of clearly enshrined as a god given right by the constitution. As powerful as the right to free speech. These rights are not granted by the govt, the govt is forbidden to infringe upon them.

D politicians don't like it? Too bad. They don't have the power to interpret it differently until they can pass an amendment.

They don't have the votes in Congress, they don't have the votes in the States, they certainly don't control the judiciary.

In fact, the courts are increasingly skeptical of restrictions blue states have passed.

9th circuit just struck down CA age restrictions on ar15s. They've lost on key gun control measures in DC, and in NY.
If and when any cases get to SCOTUS, you can bet they will lose there too, and this court balance will exist for decades potentially.

Ds have no choice but find compromises if they want to do anything other than grandstand and give speeches.

Lol no, democrats can do exactly what conservatives did and stack/expand the courts with judges who interpret the 2nd to mean what it has always meant prior to 2008, that the 2nd is a states right issue.

 

[Bitek]

While I know they don't want a solution, I at least know the underlying psychology of why not.

• What stops a person with a gun?
• 99% of the time, it'll be another person with a gun.

It is this basic premise. Fear. Fear of other people with guns, fear of not having your own. Thus they cling to that fear and the "solution" of the 2A. Irregardless of how illogical it is to feel safer if everyone was armed VS very few people. America has aptly demonstrated time and again that being armed results in a death toll. Blinded by fear, Republicans simply refuse to see reason from madness. As is typical in being human.

They don't want the kids to die. It is just impossible for them to arrive at a proper conclusion to the problem at hand.

The person who stops the criminal is the people with guns. It's true in this case too.

They are typically known as police, an agent of the govt.

Where you are off is that they don't trust that the person will be there when they need them, and they would rather rely on themselves.

The grand bargain Democrats are always offering is that govt will be there to protect the law abiding citizen, so they don't need their own arms.

But as we just saw in Buffalo, the govt failed as they often do.

They took gun rights away from citizens (eg SAFE act) and supposedly the criminals... But in practice, the criminal was not detected and not flagged, and was easily able to obtain weapons beyond what a citizen and security guard was allowed.

They were out planned, out gunned and sitting ducks until the govt agents with guns finally showed up.

What are you offering for them to take that bargain everywhere else?

 

[Fenixgoon]

The person who stops the criminal is the people with guns. It's true in this case too.

They are typically known as police, an agent of the govt.

Where you are off is that they don't trust that the person will be there when they need them, and they would rather rely on themselves.

The grand bargain Democrats are always offering is that govt will be there to protect the law abiding citizen, so they don't need their own arms.

But as we just saw in Buffalo, the govt failed as they often do.

They took gun rights away from citizens (eg SAFE act) and supposedly the criminals... But in practice, the criminal was not detected and not flagged, and was easily able to obtain weapons beyond what a citizen and security guard was allowed.

They were out planned, out gunned and sitting ducks until the govt agents with guns finally showed up.

What are you offering for them to take that bargain everywhere else?

get rid of semi-automatic firearms and end our fetish with all things tacticool. hell, get rid of the 2A. there is no need for a militia of any kind to ensure the security of the free state.

 

[Bitek]

Lol no, democrats can do exactly what conservatives did and stack/expand the courts with judges who interpret the 2nd to mean what it has always meant prior to 2008, that the 2nd is a states right issue.

Right. They control all three branches and couldn't even get a climate bill passed under Obama or Biden.

They still got outplayed in redistricting this cycle after 10 years notice from the last time.

What mythical party is coming to do this? Lol no.

 

[Paratus]

View attachment 62121

Did you hear when this A-hole actually suggested that the problem with mass school shooting was THE DOORS ???
We have too many doors going into the school(s). We only need one door, and that would solve the problem.

First it was... not enough guns.
Then it was... a good guy with a gun vs the bad guy with a gun.
After that it was... arming teachers with guns.
And NOW.... it's the doors. Too many doors.

What we really need are fewer children with bullets in the head, and more of these republicans morons in place of the children. Now THAT would truly help solve the problem.

ONE DOOR?!
As a safety engineer these days let me say:

If you don’t know why let me explain very succinctly via a hypothetical news headline:

Today 90% of the student body at the high school died trying to escape a fire through the ONLY EXIT.

 

[Bitek]

get rid of semi-automatic firearms and end our fetish with all things tacticool. hell, get rid of the 2A. there is no need for a militia of any kind to ensure the security of the free state.

Why not go all the way and just ban evil?

Then no criminals, thugs, rapists, kidnappers, thieves, dictators, warlords would ever exist. Don't need arms in Utopia.

 

[eelw]

Why not go all the way and just ban evil?

Then no criminals, thugs, rapists, kidnappers, thieves, dictators, warlords would ever exist. Don't need arms in Utopia.

Bans bears

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

^^^ Ukraine awaits BoomBoom. Go today.

 

[HomerJS]

- You know what? I support that. At this point, I support us doing LITERALLY ANYTHING to try and solve this problem.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the answer all along was a good guy with a gun and introducing more guns into a school won't result in an increase in accidental shootings of students and staff or any of the other bad stuff we logically think would occur.

Maybe it will do what we all thought it will do, and THEN we can FUCKING FINALLY move on to additional liabilities, restrictions, certifications of gun ownership.

President Biden needs to go in front of congress, look squarely at the Republican side of the aisle, and say "Republicans, put your name on a legislative solution to school shootings and I will sign it". And then actually do that.

ANYTHING.

Take the Aurora theater shooting. Let say 1/3 are packing. Lanza starts shooting and 30 more people start shooting back. When police show up how do they ID the good guys with guns? Think less people would have died in that scenario?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Amol S.]

GOP is releasing it world wide to your nearest Game Stop. Can't wait. \sarcasm

 

[Lanyap]

Dang, Texas (2021)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1433219898541584393

Governor DeathSentence will make sure this happens in Florida. Can you imagine going about your daily routine and you piss somebody off unintentionally and they walk up to you gun drawn and shoot you then plead “stand your ground”.

 

[Bitek]

One of the major attractions of the AR 15 is that it freaks out anti-gun nuts because of those same aesthetic characteristics you mentioned, coupled with the fact that if the wildly ignorant but sincere people worried about gun violence do manage to deflect from dealing with the issue of violence itself, which they surely will, it will be ARs that get banned. Every time ARs become a target their sales go through the roof. One of the biggest stimulants to gun sales is liberal hysteria and the fear based lunacy of their thinking.

Can you imagine a young person who grows up with a sense of self satisfaction because he knows his community appreciates and needs the function his existence provides killing as many other children as he can? I am pretty sure we will discover that our 18 year old killer somehow got a very clear message he was a piece of shit. I bet he just said to himself, OK thanks, this is what you are right looks like. You can't have a competitive system and expect those who suffer as losers to have compassion for other individuals. If you look closely at the world you will see vacuums sucking on vacuums. But who will look?

You don't start your day with shooting your mother or grandmother in the face then plot to kill young kids without some mentality of trying to be the worst person you think you can be, or what you believe others (possibly that parent you shot) believe of you.

 

[ivwshane]

Right. They control all three branches and couldn't even get a climate bill passed under Obama or Biden.

They still got outplayed in redistricting this cycle after 10 years notice from the last time.

What mythical party is coming to do this? Lol no.

Lol it’s about as plausible as working with republicans to get anything passed. How dumb and ignorant do you have to be of the last 10+ years?

 

[NWRMidnight]

The person who stops the criminal is the people with guns. It's true in this case too.

They are typically known as police, an agent of the govt.

Where you are off is that they don't trust that the person will be there when they need them, and they would rather rely on themselves.

The grand bargain Democrats are always offering is that govt will be there to protect the law abiding citizen, so they don't need their own arms.

But as we just saw in Buffalo, the govt failed as they often do.

They took gun rights away from citizens (eg SAFE act) and supposedly the criminals... But in practice, the criminal was not detected and not flagged, and was easily able to obtain weapons beyond what a citizen and security guard was allowed.

They were out planned, out gunned and sitting ducks until the govt agents with guns finally showed up.

What are you offering for them to take that bargain everywhere else?

You are stuck in the reactionary way of thinking.. The government being there, citizens being armed won't prevent anything, as it is all reactionary, meaning they will be reacting after the fact. The only way this will stop is if we start being proactive, not reactive. Democrats are trying to be proactive, but people don't understand it as they are stuck in one way thinking, just as you are.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Why not go all the way and just ban evil?

Then no criminals, thugs, rapists, kidnappers, thieves, dictators, warlords would ever exist. Don't need arms in Utopia.

In risk mitigation, you can change the frequency with which something happens or the severity of the consequence when it happens.

Right now we're doing neither. And we know exactly what we need to do to limit the severity of someone going off kilter in a very significant way - remove guns from the equation.

 

[Bitek]

Yes and no. The NY SAFE law banned the AR-15 due to certain features (I remember one part having to do with the stock), so gun manufacturers then created a SAFE-compliant AR-15. It looked goofy as hell compared to a "standard" AR-15, but it satisfied the legal requirements as to still be able to be sold in NY State. No idea what the current state of affairs is though.

That's basically it. Fixed stock isn't really a performance feature, but the important feature of a SAFE rifle is a fixed 10rd magazine that can only be reloaded if you disassemble the rifle.

Of course the shooter easily defeated this with a drill and 5 mins of his time.

Trouble with gun laws is that Criminals don't follow the law.

 

[zinfamous]

Keep up. A word becomes a word when people use it. Irregardless is now disgustingly a word:
Definition of irregardless


nonstandard


: regardless I told them that irregardless of what you read in books, they's some members of the theatrical profession that occasionally visits the place where they sleep.— Ring Lardner


Frequently Asked Questions About irregardless
Is irregardless a word?
Yes. It may not be a word that you like, or a word that you would use in a term paper, but irregardless certainly is a word. It has been in use for well over 200 years, employed by a large number of people across a wide geographic range and with a consistent meaning. That is why we, and well-nigh every other dictionary of modern English, define this word. Remember that a definition is not an endorsement of a word’s use.
Does irregardless mean the same thing as regardless?
Yes. We define irregardless as "regardless." Many people find irregardless to be a nonsensical word, as the ir- prefix usually functions to indicate negation; however, in this case it appears to function as an intensifier. Similar ir- words, while rare, do exist in English, including irremediless ("remediless"), irresistless ("resistless") and irrelentlessly ("relentlessly).
Is irregardless slang?
We label irregardless as “nonstandard” rather than “slang.” When a word is nonstandard it means it is “not conforming in pronunciation, grammatical construction, idiom, or word choice to the usage generally characteristic of educated native speakers of a language.” Irregardless is a long way from winning general acceptance as a standard English word. For that reason, it is best to use regardless instead.

First Known Use of irregardless
1795, in the meaning defined above

History and Etymology for irregardless
probably blend of irrespective and regardless

fuck

you are literally, the worst.

the worst