Yes and no. Those police who visited the shooter last year had no tools at their disposal so they walked away thinking "that one's trouble." As I've said before though, it's not up to me to find a solution that works but I'm happy to start with the most glaring one and go from there. It's up to the people who won't consider restrictions on guns to come up with a workable and effective alternative. More and more bulletproof glass is one suggestion. And then the same pro-gun families lament the fact that kids spend their days indoors, not enjoying the freedom and fresh air that they grew up with.
Yep. This is on the gun lobby/2A absolutists, who have consistently said that guns and ammo are not ever part of the negotiation. We heard about mental health, we heard about SROs in schools, we heard about 'culture', But it simply wasn't possible to have guns even be part of the conversation. Okay, here we are years later. Same shit, different day. Sandy Hook got Tim Walz and a few others to introspect and come to their senses. But the rest have remained steadfast. Now they bristle at the suggestion that one of theirs said something to the effect of 'it's a fact of life'. Well it's a fact of life. Life in America today includes gun violence. Many other countries have figured this out, but America is a gun. Most people (a solid majority) have said that some gun regulation is needed, the lobby/power/influence says 'no'. Yet there is no other solution offered. Just live with it until it impacts enough of them directly.
I haven't ever had a serious discussion with Beaker on this forum although I've tried. I think most of us have posted "gotcha" quotes or clips that sum up our attitude towards JD Vance and others but most of us go beyond that when motivated and enter into serious discussion.
I don't recall Beaker ever doing that. I just see a of BS, insults and attempts to dismiss arguments against his/her apparent positions with critiques of the opponents' logic or debate tactics.
AFAICT Beaker is a paid troll and I've said so. I'm fed up with people supporting the Trumpster fire.
So who should we choose to represent the relatively large segment of the population who do not agree with or support the democratic party or Progressive agenda. Republicans must own the candidacy, but who must own the CONSTITUTION?
In this country people can support whomever they want, at least until we are outsmarted and overwhelmed by the darkness in our own prideful hearts and the technology to back it up.
Anyone would do well in these times to suspect their own motives first in any given standard of perceived righteousness.
You and I quibbled some years ago here on the reason for the rise of a guy like Trump to such prominence. Perhaps you don't remember, but I do. Trump is not a mystery. He is a grand opportunist. The king of clamor. I indicated a certainty that in effect Trump was and is a barometer. Given his term and Biden's subsequent term and now the potential revision and continued tribal derision over his staying power, I still think you are missing the greater detail. They say that the devil is often in the details. It begins with investment. Trump loves being hated and reviled. It makes him stronger. I suggested ignoring him. It's the thing he hates most, not being the center of attention. But, you know, I'm a nobody. What do I know?
Need I say that none of this is an attack on you or your character or even what you believe to be right.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Sep 7, 2024 - 11:53am
oldviolin wrote:
I followed all the way. The unfortunate ad hominems seem to me to be the most distracting part of the discussion if that's what it is. Presenting videos and graphs and memes and ideological strongholds in addition to the guise of intellectual dishonesty seems to be the norm. I don't see Beaker doing anything different from his perspective that others don't do from there's. Maybe I missed something important in the skew?
A pox on everyoneâs houses?
Although the initial topic was narrow, I think it evolved and included some worthy discussion.
I followed all the way. The unfortunate ad hominems seem to me to be the most distracting part of the discussion if that's what it is. Presenting videos and graphs and memes and ideological strongholds in addition to the guise of intellectual dishonesty seems to be the norm. I don't see Beaker doing anything different from his perspective that others don't do from there's. Maybe I missed something important in the skew?
I haven't ever had a serious discussion with Beaker on this forum although I've tried. I think most of us have posted "gotcha" quotes or clips that sum up our attitude towards JD Vance and others but most of us go beyond that when motivated and enter into serious discussion.
I don't recall Beaker ever doing that. I just see a of BS, insults and attempts to dismiss arguments against his/her apparent positions with critiques of the opponents' logic or debate tactics.
AFAICT Beaker is a paid troll and I've said so. I'm fed up with people supporting the Trumpster fire.
NPR April 18, 2023 - "Fox News and its parent company Fox Corp. have struck a deal averting a trial in the blockbuster defamation suit filed by the election tech company Dominion Voting Systems over spurious claims of fraud in the 2020 presidential race."
"Dominion CEO John Poulos told reporters, "Fox has admitted to telling lies about Dominion that caused enormous damage to my company, our employees and the customers that we serve."
Beaker, need I scroll back to 2023 to find you shaking your fist at Fox News for blatant false reporting, about an election? I'm not going to, but, if you did jump up on your soapbox about that instance of fake reporting, please repost it here.
@Beaker: Given the amount of trolling and crap you've posted here, you shouldn't expect much polite discourse from others. But people here are trying to have a serious discussion about school shootings. You're just carrying water AGAIN for a failed politician who's trying to shrug off another school shooting.
I followed all the way. The unfortunate ad hominems seem to me to be the most distracting part of the discussion if that's what it is. Presenting videos and graphs and memes and ideological strongholds in addition to the guise of intellectual dishonesty seems to be the norm. I don't see Beaker doing anything different from his perspective that others don't do from there's. Maybe I missed something important in the skew?
@Beaker: Given the amount of trolling and crap you've posted here, you shouldn't expect much polite discourse from others. But people here are trying to have a serious discussion about school shootings. You're just carrying water AGAIN for a failed politician who's trying to shrug off another school shooting.
A final word on this incident ... IMO, you can ban all the AKwhatevers you want, remove them from households. Remove any other guns you think are problematic too. The problem isn't the guns. The problem is the culture. And I'm not referring to "gun culture". The culture of emulation ... the social cultures present that affect and influence especially the younger generations. Witness the innumerable idiotic TikTok crazes, for example. The culture (history!) tells the societal misfits that they must fit in or go out in a blaze of glory. The culture inflames and exacerbates mental illnesses. Research any mass shooter and you will find a conflicted and tortured soul feeling they have nothing to live for. Go ahead, ban your AKwhatevers. You haven't solved the problem. Now your victims of societal pressures and their own mental illnesses will merely seek out the next weapon handy or available to them. And then we'll be talking about banning metal cutlery from our homes.
When metal cutlery becomes a factor in mass murder, then yeah, we'll be talking about it. Until then, we'll focus on the consistent part of these things - the very effective killing tools that are being used.
Okay, so let's take your very generous reading. What are they soft targets for? And now that we have hardened these 'soft targets' and the problem persists, I'll repeat the question: targets for what?
Here's the cheat sheet: Bullets, fired by Guns in the hands of said Psychos. You have refused to address any of these, so you are complicit in the ongoing violence.
Let me say it slowly for you, so there's absolutely no misunderstanding:
"I don't like that this is a fact of life COMMA but if you are a psycho, and you want to make headlines, you realize that our schools are soft targets."
FULL STOP.
VANCE: PSYCHOS KNOW SCHOOLS ARE SOFT TARGETS
ALSO VANCE: WE HAVE TO IMPROVE SECURITY IN OUR SCHOOLS
ALSO ME: FUCK YOU AP, for distorting the words of a candidate
Okay, so let's take your very generous reading. What are they soft targets for? And now that we have hardened these 'soft targets' and the problem persists, I'll repeat the question: targets for what?
Here's the cheat sheet: Bullets, fired by Guns in the hands of said Psychos. You have refused to address any of these, so you are complicit in the ongoing violence.
See you next Wednesday. 
