Another school shooting - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

User avatar
By Drlee
#15048784
Well we had another couple of children killed in a school shooting. I waited a couple of days before posting this to see if anyone else did. Unless I missed a post this is the first one.

And there you have it. Dead kids and not a word and not a chance of action on the elephant in the corner. :roll:
#15048789
Americans are too jaded to give a damn about school shootings. They are unwilling to do anything about the problem.

They'd rather have dead children than have some shithead with an AR 15 have his rights infringed, because of some delusion that the government might need to be forcefully replaced(at some imagined future time), and that his little pop gun will be successful vs Apache gunships and M1 Abrams tanks.

I am sure that the pro-lifers can't give two shits about this, either.

At least some Americans, like you @Drlee, don't remain silent about this.
#15048799
Drlee wrote:Well we had another couple of children killed in a school shooting. I waited a couple of days before posting this to see if anyone else did. Unless I missed a post this is the first one.

And there you have it. Dead kids and not a word and not a chance of action on the elephant in the corner. :roll:


That's because the gun nuts and the gun industry have an intertwined interest in making that so. I believe in the 2nd Amendment, but let's look at what it really says in the first place... Again;

''A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.''

Note how the Well-Regulated Militia'', the ''People's Army'', is directly connected to the right of the people to bear arms?

Gun possession by an individual should be directly related to one's relation to personal service provided for the security of the nation. By all means ensure that as many of the the people are in armed military service, and that the Military power of the country basically lies in their hands and control at all times, but make it well regulated so that disturbed individuals and criminals cannot run amok to kill defenseless people.
#15048802
Godstud wrote:They'd rather have dead children than have some shithead with an AR 15 have his rights infringed

It was a .45 cal pistol Godstud. There will be no debate on this shooting, because the media is politically driven and they are trying to rescue the impeachment proceedings. So this would split coverage. So it's a non-story.
#15048803
Godstud wrote:Americans are too jaded to give a damn about school shootings. They are unwilling to do anything about the problem.

They'd rather have dead children than have some shithead with an AR 15 have his rights infringed, because of some delusion that the government might need to be forcefully replaced(at some imagined future time), and that his little pop gun will be successful vs Apache gunships and M1 Abrams tanks.

I am sure that the pro-lifers can't give two shits about this, either.

At least some Americans, like you @Drlee, don't remain silent about this.

Do you want pistols banned too? As blackjack21 pointed out, the 16 year old kid did not use an AR-15. The kid was not legally old enough to buy it, so his possession of the handgun was already against the law.
#15048808
:roll: That's not an argument, @Hindsite. It's bullshit, and you know it. I have to expect such thoughtlessness when it comes to gun controls, from the ignorant right.

Who said anything about banning handguns? Only morons keep saying that everyone wants to ban all the guns. :knife:

@blackjack21 It's only a non-story to people who don't care that children got killed in a school shooting. Keep up the good work at being that right-winger that doesn't care. :up: It has become very common.
#15048810
I guess it was a typical murder-suicide. Police didn't identify the gunman other than describing him as Asian. But some sources suggested that his mother is of Japanese descent who had a troubled relationship with his deceased (Caucasian?) father, who is described as a gun enthusiast. No cause of the death of his father is known but it may be a gun-related death stemming from domestic violence.

The boy lived with his mother in a modest home on a leafy street in Santa Clarita, a Los Angeles suburb of about 210,000 people known for good schools, safe streets and relatively affordable housing.

His father died two years ago. Two years before that, the father had been arrested amid a domestic dispute with the boy's mother.

"A quiet, to-himself kid," said Ryan McCracken, a 20-year-old next-door neighbor. When McCracken was younger, he said they played together, sometimes in boy's backyard treehouse. "You wouldn't expect anything like that from him."

Police said they had yet to determine a motive and any relationship between the gunman and the victims. Authorities said they have no indication the boy was acting on behalf of any group or ideology.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california ... t-we-know/
#15048835
Godstud wrote:Who said anything about banning handguns?

Sometimes morons assume an AR-15 was used in a shooting and lament AR-15s when a .45 cal pistol was used. Violating someone's right to own an AR-15 would not have stopped this shooting. Neither would gun control. The shooter was illegally in possession of a firearm. People who intend to kill generally do not heed gun control regulations.

Godstud wrote:@blackjack21 It's only a non-story to people who don't care that children got killed in a school shooting.

The mainstream media doesn't care about children getting killed in schools. They care about advancing their political agenda first, and making money second. Their political hit job right now is against the president of the United States and they're freaking out a bit because the ratings aren't there. People are tired of the phony manufactured scandals. If the media turns away from that, it becomes more obvious that impeachment will have failed because the Democrats fucked it up. Fragmenting the audience between impeachment--which is already flagging--and a gun control debate is a bad move for them.

Hence, you can see that nobody really cares about these stories.

ThirdTerm wrote:Police didn't identify the gunman other than describing him as Asian.

Asian shooters don't fit the political narrative the left is pushing. So it's a non-story.
#15048845
This almost never happens in civilised countries.

We really should join the civilised world...and not just because we're driving the kids that survive crazy.
#15048853
Mass shootings have a lot of shock value, which is why they happen. However, as they happen more and more, their shock value with drop. Hence why people are becoming numb to them.

Objectively speaking, there are things that kill more Americans yearly and that are more easily preventable than mass shootings (preventable medical accidental deaths for example). Further, violent crime and murders peaked in the 70s, and have also dropped a lot in the last 10 years, despite the mass shootings. In other words, although mass shootings have gone up, overall violent crimes and murders have done down.

That's not to say I think nothing should be done, but we need the prospective. Mass shootings aren't as big of a problem as many other things.
Last edited by Rancid on 16 Nov 2019 16:27, edited 1 time in total.
#15048861
Rancid wrote:
That's not to say I think nothing should be done, but we need perspective. Mass shootings aren't as big of a problem as many other things.



I edited your comment hopefully to improve clarity. Let me know if I got it wrong.

I disagree strongly. That's a big FU to our kids. The psychological damage is far worse than a simple accounting of numbers would suggest.

It's funny, Republicans used to talk endlessly about law and order.

Now they are the party of death and chaos.
Last edited by late on 16 Nov 2019 16:01, edited 1 time in total.
#15048863
Rancid wrote:Mass shootings have a lot of shock value, which is why they happen. However, as they happen more and more, their shock value with drop. Hence why people are becoming numb to them.

Objectively speaking, there are things that kill more Americans yearly and that are more easily preventable than mass shootings (preventable medical accidental deaths for example). Further, violent crime and murders peaked in the 70s, and have also dropped a lot in the last 10 years, despite the mass shootings. In other words, although mass shootings have gone up, overall violent crimes and murders have done down.

That's not to say I think nothing should be done, but we need the prospective. Mass shootings aren't as big a of a problem as many other things.

Yeah, no doubt. I was young when Columbine happened, but that one shook me. I think that several others shook me. But I remember the last time I was really shook was the Virginia Tech shooting. I was in college at the time, and found it horrifying. After that, I think I've been numb. There were some terrible ones. I suppose Newtown shook me a little. The Umpqua Community College shooting shook me, being that I'm from Oregon and not too far from where it happened. For the most part, I'm not that shook by the shootings anymore.
#15048867
Godstud wrote:Americans are too jaded to give a damn about school shootings. They are unwilling to do anything about the problem.

They'd rather have dead children than have some shithead with an AR 15 have his rights infringed, because of some delusion that the government might need to be forcefully replaced(at some imagined future time), and that his little pop gun will be successful vs Apache gunships and M1 Abrams tanks.

I am sure that the pro-lifers can't give two shits about this, either.

At least some Americans, like you @Drlee, don't remain silent about this.


Of course, it's stupid to bring up AR-15's in this conversation, considering the shooter used a pistol. An assault weapons ban would've had exactly zero impact on this. Then again, we know that you and your ilk only want to ban guns that look scary.

As to why there's been no mention of the shooting here, I can tell you why: Because only two people died.

In March of 2001 my daughter was a freshman at Santana High School in Santee, California when Andy Williams pulled a stolen .22 out of his backpack and started shooting. He shot 15 people in total, but only two of them, Bryan Zuckor and Randy Gordon, died. Randy Gordon was a senior. Bryan Zuckor was one of my daughter's friends and had been to my home many times.

If you were to look through any thread about school shootings, it's unlikely that you'll see the shooting at Santana High mentioned. Even when the media covers mass shootings abd they refer to past school shootings, it's never mentioned.

It's a sad reality, but blood sells, and the more the better...
User avatar
By Rancid
#15048869
late wrote:
I edited your comment hopefully to improve clarity. Let me know if I got it wrong.

I disagree strongly. That's a big FU to our kids. The psychological damage is far worse than a simple accounting of numbers would suggest.

It's funny, Republicans used to talk endlessly about law and order.

Now they are the party of death and chaos.


Yes, you're edit is what I meant to say. I'll edit my original post.

Again, we should do something about this, it is bad, don't get me wrong.

That said, I don't see it as a big FU to the kids. Not all mass shootings are in schools either. This affects everyone, not just kids. I think it's exaggerated to claim this as some massive thing that will destabilize the core of America. This is what people claimed after 9/11 with terrorism in general. Did that happen? No. People generally don't let fear of things like the happening stop them from doing stuff. I don't think this is as damaging to the American psyche as people claim.

At the same time, I understand that emotion works very well, so approaching this by the numbers and trying to be objective, can make you seem cold and heartless. I don't think this works either. :lol:
#15048874
Well it had to go there.

First of all there is no right to own an AR-15. The SCOTUS has allowed states to deal with this.

The fact that this child used a .45 is irrelevant.

Would I ban pistols? No. But I would carefully license individuals to own them and that would include safe storage, keeping them away from children.

But assault weapons. If you ask any real soldier or marine (the ones who actually use these things save a few special operators) we will tell you just how dangerous they are. And we will tell you just how absurd they are as a means to self defense. And we will tell you about how, if you should decide that the "lib'rals got the gov'ment" and you are going to use them on our troops how quickly we will make your efforts fail miserably.
I am a gun owner. I have handguns and long guns. I do not have what is usually called an "assault rifle" because I am not an idiot. I do not keep the clip in the pistol in my desk because it would be dangerous on the rare instances when a child or untrained adult might get into my office. But how can you protect your home with the clip in a different place? It would take me seconds to load the pistol if I wanted to do it.

But, you see, I have a very robust security system in my home. The first thing I would do is trigger the alarm which calls the police. It would be absurd to imagine someone sticking around with the police on the way and a zillion decibel siren going off. That is far better protection than me with a pistol. And for the record I am an experienced combat arms soldier, qualified expert with the very gun I keep out of the safe, who practices fairly frequently. And in all likelihood the overwhelming majority of dickheads with guns are not.
#15048894
Drlee wrote:Well it had to go there.

First of all there is no right to own an AR-15. The SCOTUS has allowed states to deal with this.

The fact that this child used a .45 is irrelevant.


Then mentioning AR-15's when one is used in a mass shooting is equally irrelevant...

Would I ban pistols? No. But I would carefully license individuals to own them and that would include safe storage, keeping them away from children.


How are you going to accomplish that?

Are you going to allow government representatives into your home to inspect for suitability? Are you going to allow them in to make sure you're keeping guns away from children or have a gun safe?

But assault weapons. If you ask any real soldier or marine (the ones who actually use these things save a few special operators) we will tell you just how dangerous they are. And we will tell you just how absurd they are as a means to self defense. And we will tell you about how, if you should decide that the "lib'rals got the gov'ment" and you are going to use them on our troops how quickly we will make your efforts fail miserably.


A 30.06 would be a shitty choice for self defense, but no one is trying ban those...

I am a gun owner. I have handguns and long guns. I do not have what is usually called an "assault rifle" because I am not an idiot.


That's a pretty stupid statement.

Do you favor banning the Mini-14? See, because you would be the first. Not a single anti-American gun hater brings up the Mini-14 in the "assault weapon" debate but, operationally, it's the exact same weapon as an AR-15...

I do not keep the clip in the pistol in my desk because it would be dangerous on the rare instances when a child or untrained adult might get into my office. But how can you protect your home with the clip in a different place? It would take me seconds to load the pistol if I wanted to do it.


First, I keep a loaded firearm in my desk. I suppose a child or untrained adult could get into my office, which is why I keep my desk locked. If my fingertips don't hit the scanner, the desk won't open.

Second, for someone who claims to be both a soldier and not an idiot, it's funny that you keep using the word "clip". Any professional military man knows that it's called a "magazine". Thugs and rookies and children call them "clips"...

But, you see, I have a very robust security system in my home. The first thing I would do is trigger the alarm which calls the police. It would be absurd to imagine someone sticking around with the police on the way and a zillion decibel siren going off. That is far better protection than me with a pistol.


Some criminals factor police response time into their plans.

I live in a pretty rural area, and it would take the police a little bit of time to get here. Sure, my alarm system's siren will make your ears bleed, but that doesn't get the police here any sooner.

I also have Bizzie, who's an absolute sweetheart until someone comes in uninvited...

Image
#15048897
How are you going to accomplish that?

Are you going to allow government representatives into your home to inspect for suitability? Are you going to allow them in to make sure you're keeping guns away from children or have a gun safe?


No. :roll:

You charge them with failing to secure a weapon if a child gets hold of one. It will take a while before some of these dullards get it but they will when they see a few of their friends in the slammer.

Do you favor banning the Mini-14? See, because you would be the first. Not a single anti-American gun hater brings up the Mini-14 in the "assault weapon" debate but, operationally, it's the exact same weapon as an AR-15...


Yes I do. And I would not be the first.

Second, for someone who claims to be both a soldier and not an idiot, it's funny that you keep using the word "clip". Any professional military man knows that it's called a "magazine". Thugs and rookies and children call them "clips"...


A lecture about terminology from a swabbie? :lol:

Obviously you did not serve in the Vietnam era nor anywhere near the action. You have probably never seen a basic combat load so I will not lecture you about stripper clips or tell you that we used the terms interchangeably. You see sport I am not trying to "act" like anything. Your opinion of my service means nothing and your lack of knowledge consistent with someone who never trained for ground combat. Much less led an armed patrol.

Some criminals factor police response time into their plans.


:roll:

Then they just might get shot for their miscalculation.

Fucking chickenhawks.
#15048909
Drlee wrote:No. :roll:

You charge them with failing to secure a weapon if a child gets hold of one. It will take a while before some of these dullards get it but they will when they see a few of their friends in the slammer.


I see.

So your proposal would actually do nothing to make things safer, considering that you would only address it by charging someone with a crime after a shooting occurs.

Brilliant...

Yes I do. And I would not be the first.


I have seen none...

A lecture about terminology from a swabbie?


At least the swabbie gets it right, and doesn't come across as some neophyte trying to sound cool...

Obviously you did not serve in the Vietnam era nor anywhere near the action.


Having been born in '62, no, I didn't serve in Vietnam.

As for being "near the action", I'm a decorated combat Vet, whether you like it or not. I served during Desert Storm and I'm damn proud of my service...

You have probably never seen a basic combat load so I will not lecture you about stripper clips or tell you that we used the terms interchangeably.


Well, if you're doing that, then you're using them incorrectly.

Fore what weapon did you use a stripper clip?

You see sport I am not trying to "act" like anything. Your opinion of my service means nothing and your lack of knowledge consistent with someone who never trained for ground combat. Much less led an armed patrol.


Hey, I had a different gig.

But you're now suggesting that only someone who's been trained for ground combat or led an armed patrol (which I don't believe you did) can speak intelligently about weapons and terminology.

That's stupid.

Then they just might get shot for their miscalculation.

Fucking chickenhawks.


Not by you...
User avatar
By Drlee
#15048912
Said enough about you. No need to stoke your bluff and bluster.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 11

No he wasn't. Hitler didn't even attend a meeting[…]

The Irishman...

DeNiro got snubbed because he's a dick and the H[…]

I have a suggestion to anyone reading that who is[…]

And that only makes sense if they had a common […]