I don't, I judge people by who they are, not skin color. But that isn't to say that certain brands of racism and bigotry tend to affect different groups. If the racism is anti-white, it was likely from a leftist source. If the racism was anti-minority, it can vary.
I do love how the bullying of a black 9 year old girl is somehow the result of anti-white bullying. By Alabama leftists, of course.
Slow doesn't live in a bubble. He lives in a bunker.
You absolutely do; to you, dead children are tolerable so long as you get to keep playing with your toys. And sorry, it's not a talking point. I just look at the rest of the world and notice that countries with more sensible gun laws and less gun fetishism don't have this problem.
Eh, I don't agree with him on many things, but I agree with him in regards to that part. That is in no way 'saying mass killing children is fine' and for you to say that is as extreme a single minded naive thing to say as the opposite that you are trying to vilify. Just like 'putting up a wall' isn't going to stop illegals from entering the country, no gun laws are going to stop the problems in this country because it is a cultural thing, not a gun thing.
Eh, I don't agree with him on many things, but I agree with him in regards to that part. That is in no way 'saying mass killing children is fine' and for you to say that is as extreme a single minded naive thing to say as the opposite that you are trying to vilify. Just like 'putting up a wall' isn't going to stop illegals from entering the country, no gun laws are going to stop the problems in this country because it is a cultural thing, not a gun thing.
if the situation been reversed, a white kid killing themselves after being bullied by white kids for having black friends the OP would never have posted it, his motives are transparent.
This is certainly tragic. My own experience with school districts definitely influences my opinion of the situation. I wouldn't trust the schools own investigation...at all.
Oh, and OP gave away any semblance of sincerity with the BLM reference. Pretty sad and pathetic.
Leftist-born racism created this bullying that lead to this girl's suicide. Had it been rightist Nazi bullying we would all agree that is worthy of discussion while on the topic of the girl's suicide, no? Of course we would. But this time because it is leftist racism you guys want to brush it under the rug, like it doesn't count in the big picture. Because in your world view racism only comes from the right. Too bad for you and most of AT P&N that reality doesn't care about your bubble.
i may be wrong but to me it was implied they were in the post article.I read the wapo and fox links. Did I miss a description of the accused bullies? Was she bullied by other black kids?
I read the wapo and fox links. Did I miss a description of the accused bullies? Was she bullied by other black kids?
i may be wrong but to me it was implied they were in the post article.
“She was being bullied [by] the entire school year, with words such as ‘kill yourself,’" the 9-year-old’s aunt, Eddwina Harris, told the Tuscaloosa News. She was also told, “you think you’re white because you ride with that white boy,” Harris said, and called “ugly” and other unprintable epithets.
Conservatives violently oppose both of those solutions, which is sort of my point.
Seems like he was specifically saying that an unwillingness to adopt common sense laws amounted to toleration, not your desire to address underlying issues.
The restrictions you mentioned above are common sense ones, for example.
As for your other questions the great news for you is that there is a large body of empirical research dedicated to doing exactly this, using cross-border state by state results to make these measurements!!!! I’ve even linked a bunch before.
Regardless, I appreciate your response. While I personally would take things much further solutions like yours would be an excellent start.
I'm looking for a link I had earlier that wasn't posted (there are many on this story, and I wasn't allowed to post here when I first saw the story, it is weeks old now). It said it was mostly black kids bullying her, but in the links I'm seeing now as I'm looking for that other link, it looks like it could have been from both black and white kids. A sad situation, really.
Conservatives violently oppose good solutions. Lefty response: Whelp, I guess we can't do this one because conservatives don't like it.
Conservatives violently oppose shitty bans that won't even produce measurable results (but screws righties!!!): Lefty response: let's shit it down their throats anyway raaah!!!
^^ This makes me wonder if the left is more concerned with fixing the issue or with fucking conservatives. This is sort of my point. Let's go for the BEST solution first. We can still vindictively fuck the conservatives but let's focus on saving lives and making the world better first, k?
Dealing with the underlying issue is common sense. Putting stupid bandaids on broken arms is NOT common sense. Attaching the phrase "common sense" to your bad solution doesn't impart actual "common sense"™ to your solution. Bad solutions are bad no matter which branding you use.
They are common sense because they will work, not because someone condescendingly and insecurely labels them as "common sense". Banning assault rifles doesn't statistically accomplish anything other than fucking conservatives and forcing them to make an unfair choice.
Well maybe you and I should talk.
It would be an excellent start because it would likely eliminate more gun deaths with exactly zero cost to innocent gun owners than any other solution I've seen proposed. I just think we should deal with the low hanging fruit first. I don't understand the rush to collect the statistically irrelevant high-hanging difficult to reach fruit outside of an attempt to make as many conservatives miserable as possible.
The crap fruit at the top of the tree can be dealt with and bickered over after we get the good stuff.
Banning assault rifles doesn't statistically accomplish anything other than fucking conservatives and forcing them to make an unfair choice.
I'm sure the ammosexuals made the same argument when the FFA was passed in 1934. I mean, who didn't want a Thompson or a BAR?
I read the wapo and fox links. Did I miss a description of the accused bullies? Was she bullied by other black kids?
I'm looking for a link I had earlier that wasn't posted (there are many on this story, and I wasn't allowed to post here when I first saw the story, it is weeks old now). It said it was mostly black kids bullying her, but in the links I'm seeing now as I'm looking for that other link, it looks like it could have been from both black and white kids. A sad situation, really.
I'm sure the ammosexuals made the same argument when the FFA was passed in 1934. I mean, who didn't want a Thompson or a BAR?
You are equating two very unequal situations.
*edit - Let me explain a bit.
Depending on the year, over recent years gun homicides are somewhere in the 11000-13000 range per year. Out of that number, ALL rifle (including "assault" weapons like the PTSD-creating AR15) deaths are <500. I believe the actual number is closer to 400, but I'm too lazy to look it up right now. If we are going to make a tangible difference in gun homicides, the answer does not lie in any action we take on long guns (assault rifles or otherwise). On the other hand there are quite literally millions of lawful owners of semi-auto guns that could be considered "assault rifles" depending on which liberal you ask.
How are you going to take away 60,000,000 assault rifles without killing people to get them, risking the lives of cops who are tasked with taking them, and turning people violent by putting them in jail for being caught with them? How many murders will these newly violent people commit when they get out of violence training camp (prison)? And what is the exact benefit you expect? There is a maximum fairy-land upper limit of 150 lives saved per year (the annual TOTAL amount of people murdered by assault rifles). Assuming you can literally get ALL the assault rifles and also assuming alternative weapons will never be used instead of assault rifles. Both assumptions are unrealistic and illogical, and shouldn't form the basis of any legal policy. Beware the unintended consequences lest they be worse than the problem you are attempting to solve.
However, we could take a more realistic approach of dealing with the underlying issues (war on drugs and mental health), using logic and reason, while abstaining from using emotional and condescending words like "ammosexuals" in attempt to move hearts and minds.
I have no desire to screw any conservatives and if they were unhappy that wouldn’t make me feel better.
Liberals, generally speaking, don’t look at issues in the same way as conservatives do so making conservatives angry doesn’t do much. That’s why the professional political troll business is overwhelmingly on the right and why ‘owning the libs’ is a thing and ‘owning the cons’ is not. All I care about is solving the problem.
Dealing with the underlying issue sounds great but it is often largely impossible. While ending the war on drugs would most certainly reduce gun violence large quantities of gun homicides and suicides are just from people having an argument or someone having a depressive episode. (This is why owning a gun actually makes you less safe)
The only way to fix that is to get rid of the guns.
Oh to be clear I don’t care about banning assault rifles. I would go for vastly stricter rules on possession and carrying of handguns, which are the real problem.
Generally speaking research shows that greater access and prevalence of guns leads to higher rates of homicide and suicide. When states have tightened restrictions gun deaths have gone down and when states have loosened them gun deaths have gone up.