Sorry gun advocates, you'll just have to suck it up

[Hotdog]

send me more angry PMs pls. In the mood for another laugh.

Post some more selfies please. I'm in the mood for a good laugh too.

 

[Stoked]

They also don't have lax gun laws.

You keep trying to look at it in a vacuum. But like everything else it doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Any part of a successful gun banning would have to have secure borders to stop the flow of future weapons.

Are we suddenly talking about two miracles?

 

[moevillini]

...Not to split hairs here, but would this be considered a mass shooting?

I don't think it should. The two were his intended targets.

I still think it's very different than the incidents listed in that chart, for instance. I'm not sure where the line is drawn, but I think for something to be considered a "mass shooting" there has to be more than 2 victims (OK, well I guess this has 3 including the woman being interviewed who was not mortally wounded)

I also think it's different because he picked specific targets and knew his victims, they were his co-workers. They were not just random people who happened to be in a certain place that he was targeting.


just heard something on the radio (missed the full story) that this killer, Vester Flanagan (?), sent a "manifesto" to ABC News that cites the recent Charleston, SC shooting as a tipping point, and also mentions he admires the Columbine and Va Tech shooters

https://abcnews.go.com/beta/US/shooting-alleged-gunman-details-grievances-suicide-notes/story?id=33336339

 

[Siro]

There are already buy back programs all over the country. Many police departments have them.

Also the gov, could ban the sale of firearms (they wont because but I digress) but that won't solve the problem. There will be, as I have mentioned before, a dramatic increase in gun trafficking over the southern border and a dramatic increase in home made firearms (already exists).

Will the number of over all weapons go down? I think so. But I don't think by a big enough number to truly make a difference.

I don't know about that. But I'm sure efforts directed at battling poverty, improving education and providing better employment opportunities for underprivileged communities, reforming the prison system to provide rehabilitation instead of retribution, ending the war on drugs, and so on and so forth, would work a million times better than a shallow bandaid solution like banning guns. But it's just hard.

 

[Harambe]

franklin is a 100 times more sincere in his debates, and actually provides insight.

You on the other hand only provide garbage to burn.

He hasn't brought a legitimate argument to the table about ANYTHING in at least 3 months.

 

[Siro]

I still think it's very different than the incidents listed in that chart, for instance. I'm not sure where the line is drawn, but I think for something to be considered a "mass shooting" there has to be more than 2 victims (OK, well I guess this has 3 including the woman being interviewed who was not mortally wounded)

I also think it's different because he picked specific targets and knew his victims, they were his co-workers. They were not just random people who happened to be in a certain place that he was targeting.


just heard something on the radio (missed the full story) that this killer, Vester Flanagan (?), sent a "manifesto" to ABC News that cites the recent Charleston, SC shooting as a tipping point, and also mentions he admires the Columbine and Va Tech shooters

https://abcnews.go.com/beta/US/shooting-alleged-gunman-details-grievances-suicide-notes/story?id=33336339

So we both agree it's not a mass shooting.

 

[RJF]

Why was this thread started?

Because homeytennis is a douchenozzle?


Mental health, lack of professional/educational opportunity, single parent households, gangs, drug addiction(and the associated risks to support the habit), glamorization of violence, mental health, hate groups, that's just off the top of my head.

 

[Stoked]

I don't know about that. But I'm sure efforts directed at battling poverty, improving education and providing better employment opportunities for underprivileged communities, reforming the prison system to provide rehabilitation instead of retribution, ending the war on drugs, and so on and so forth, would work a million times better than a shallow bandaid solution like banning guns. But it's just hard.

I absolutely agree. That is what I have been arguing.

A ban on guns wont fix anything.

Securing the border, improved mental health resources, banning guns, improving education and opportunity in the inner cities, prison reform...now that will address the problem. I originally posted a bunch of contributing causes.

Just choosing just any one of them as the cure to gun violence strikes me as irrational and foolishly doomed to failure.

 

[Hotdog]

He hasn't brought a legitimate argument to the table about ANYTHING in at least 3 months.

I know!

Dalamon sucks!

 

[Deleted member 848]

Because homeytennis is a douchenozzle?


Mental health, lack of professional/educational opportunity, single parent households, gangs, drug addiction(and the associated risks to support the habit), glamorization of violence, mental health, hate groups, that's just off the top of my head.

Glamorization of violence is simply a facile argument. Otherwise this trend would be the opposite.

 

[moevillini]

So we both agree it's not a mass shooting.

Oy! Misread (or misinterpreted) your post. Sorry Siro

 

[Deleted member 848]

Glamorization of violence is simply a facile argument. Otherwise this trend would be the opposite.

Also, glamour of violence is equally impacting Canada and the US. Why the difference?