ANOTHER SCHOOL/PUBLIC SHOOTING

[sally]

How long has this country been going to hell in a hand basket now? I'm reminded of the theme song from All In The Family.

[rothschild]

You can poke an eye out with a spork. There'll be mass eye-pokings. So we'll have to ban sharp implements. All of them. But then we'll be safe.

Har, har.  

One weapon at a time.  Remember . . . words are dangerous weapons, too.

Like Joe said:  The 2^nd Amendment isn't absolute.

Time to put-up or shut-up, Uncle Joe.

Problem-->reaction-->solution.

A time-tested methodology that involves a catalyzing event, or series of events.

Nothing in this system we inhabit is absolute. It's a dynamic system, absolutes are static. When you hear someone saying such and such isn't absolute, it means they want more power. The only way government can have more power is for the governed to give up their own, which they'll never get back.

A benevolent government would never seek to disempower the citizenry for it's own protection, not least because that's completely illogical. Disempowerment increases vulnerability and dependency.

So be careful what you wish for.

[BlueTiki]

I'm not wishing for anything.  I provided a solution.

It might not be a solution you embrace or even like . . . but it is a viable solution, nonetheless.

Please, RC, do tell of a time in our (US) history when we haven't been giving up personal liberty, rights or freedoms.  This is nothing new.

Also, you might want to modify your flow-chart to begin:  (Create) Problem . . . and finish with . . . Achieve Desired Output.  The middle segment is "generate  supporting propaganda".

A lot of whiney liberal cunts complain and complain about "assault style rifles" and pretend they care about victims and have solutions . . . while denying they want to "come for all of your guns".  They lie.  None of their solutions will work like the complete confiscation of ALL firearms.  And if they don't know this, they need to shut the fuck up.

Complete removal of all US firearms is the only viable solution  . . . with the absolute highest degree of success . . . to prevent US mass shootings.  

We are laser focused and concerned with mass shootings . . . not so much the everyday nigga killing nigga, in Chi town shootings.  

By all means . . . propose another solution that is equally effective as confiscating ALL of American's firearms (not just "assault style rifles"), to prevent mass shootings and all other firearm related deaths. 

Please . . . no more rhetoric . . .  just a viable solution.

( FYI - You do realize that more people are killed by a hammer, in the US (each year), than are killed by "assault style rifles" . . . right?)

[rothschild]

If by "all" you mean all, the viability becomes zero because government disarmament isn't on the table. Beyond that, disarmament won't solve the problem of increasing insanity unless you show that guns are what's driving the degeneration of mental health. Gun violence is to a great extent psychotic behavior, and removing guns won't remove the psychosis, so at best your suggestion is mitigation, rather than a solution.

Looking at the scope of total disarmament -- assuming that it is viable -- do you really think the benefits would warrant such a massive outlay, or could that money be better utilized in some other way, such as improving the quality of leadership our nation suffers under?

[Duchess]

I don't see anyone at all interested in taking all the guns, not one single person, but I sure do see that argued after nearly every massacre. I don't know if it's because it's one of the only arguments left or if people truly believe that or maybe it's to get those who are so easily excitable all jacked up again. I don't know why people do that shit any more than I know why some people take out their bullshit on others. Why don't they ever just put a gun to their own heads or their own families.

[Duchess]

I know home schooling isn't an option for many parents, but if one has to send their kid to school with a bullet resistant backpack maybe keeping them home would be the better way to go. This is insanity.

[BlueTiki]

Interesting.

My response to both RC and Duchess was posted and then . . . Poof . . . now it's gone!

Posted  . . . and now gone. 

Hmmm.  Wonder why?

[Duchess]

You're not the first person to say that. I didn't see your post and I'm not one to delete a Member's content.

[rothschild]

Interesting.

My response to both RC and Duchess was posted and then . . . Poof . . . now it's gone!

Posted  . . . and now gone. 

Hmmm.  Wonder why?

I've had this happen on other platforms in the past. About the only thing you can do is copy the text before you post, just in case. A pain in the arse but it works.

[BigMark]

Especially when its a manifesto.

[rothschild]

Especially when its a manifesto.

Have you ever posted a full paragraph?

[BigMark]

No.

[rothschild]

Brevity is good.

[BlueTiki]

If by "all" you mean all . . .

assuming that it is viable -- 

"YES" . . . I meant all. I repeated it several times.

"Assuming that it is viable . . . "  Why assume, RC?  By all means, if you have evidence to the contrary that banning and firearm confiscation is ineffective in the countries employing this strategy . . . POST IT.

So . . . after reading your "Adventure in Mental Masturbation" response, what you are really saying is:  "Yeah . . . I've got nothing to offer that would be as effective as firearm banning and confiscation to prevent mass shootings."

[BlueTiki]

I know home schooling isn't an option for many parents . . . 

COVID-19 mandates and lock-downs dismissed and obliterated the "home schooling is NOT an option", argument.

If you choose to send them to school and they are murdered . . . it's on you . . . the parent.

Fuck it if home schooling is inconvenient for the breeders and keepers of these warm, fleshy targets.  

Parents are responsible for their kids and their safety.  They need figure it out.  No my kid . . . not my problem.

(BTW - I wasn't suggesting you deleted my post.)

[rothschild]

If by "all" you mean all . . .

assuming that it is viable -- 

"YES" . . . I meant all. I repeated it several times.

"Assuming that it is viable . . . "  Why assume, RC?  By all means, if you have evidence to the contrary that banning and firearm confiscation is ineffective in the countries employing this strategy . . . POST IT.

So . . . after reading your "Adventure in Mental Masturbation" response, what you are really saying is:  "Yeah . . . I've got nothing to offer that would be as effective as firearm banning and confiscation to prevent mass shootings."

Claiming something is viable without presenting anything that supports the claim can aptly be described as mental masturbation. Demonstrate that a government that has overwhelming military superiority will voluntarily disarm itself, or can be disarmed by it's civilian population.

Furthermore, you've presented nothing that suggests gun violence is more than a symptom. Until you do, your "solution" is nothing more than mitigation; which, interestingly, would necessitate the very thing you claim it would solve, because complete disarmament could only be accomplished with military force that would involve gun violence.

I sincerely hope that you're trying to be absurd here, because if you aren't, you may soon end up in the mud with Piglet.

[BlueTiki]

Claiming something is viable without presenting anything that supports the claim can aptly be described as mental masturbation. Demonstrate that a government that has overwhelming military superiority will voluntarily disarm itself, or can be disarmed by it's civilian population.

Furthermore, you've presented nothing that suggests gun violence is more than a symptom. Until you do, your "solution" is nothing more than mitigation; which, interestingly, would necessitate the very thing you claim it would solve, because complete disarmament could only be accomplished with military force that would involve gun violence.

I sincerely hope that you're trying to be absurd here, because if you aren't, you may soon end up in the mud with Piglet. 

What I have presented is that if there are no civilian guns . . . there can be no mass shooting deaths of and by civilians.

I do not care what motivates the civilian's finger on the trigger.  If there is no civilian gun trigger to be pulled . . . no one will die from being shot by a civilian.

You really can't be this stupid not to grasp this very simple concept of "no civilian guns . . . no gun deaths by civilians ".

Is that "dumb-downed" enough for your comprehension?  Or are you that stupid?

I guess you'll just keep jerking-off  . . . as you were the one who raised the viability issue . . . and somehow cannot either confirm or deny its effectiveness. 

[rothschild]

Claiming something is viable without presenting anything that supports the claim can aptly be described as mental masturbation. Demonstrate that a government that has overwhelming military superiority will voluntarily disarm itself, or can be disarmed by it's civilian population.

Furthermore, you've presented nothing that suggests gun violence is more than a symptom. Until you do, your "solution" is nothing more than mitigation; which, interestingly, would necessitate the very thing you claim it would solve, because complete disarmament could only be accomplished with military force that would involve gun violence.

I sincerely hope that you're trying to be absurd here, because if you aren't, you may soon end up in the mud with Piglet. 

What I have presented is that if there are no civilian guns . . . there can be no mass shooting deaths of and by civilians.

I do not care what motivates the civilian's finger on the trigger.  If there is no civilian gun trigger to be pulled . . . no one will die from being shot by a civilian.

You really can't be this stupid not to grasp this very simple concept of "no civilian guns . . . no gun deaths by civilians ".

Is that "dumb-downed" enough for your comprehension?

Is it dumbed down enough for you, Tiki?

How about you do a feasibility study in your spare time and get back to us if you manage to come up with some solid evidence that the benefits of such a project would warrant the huge outlay of public funds, and that we wouldn't be trading one problem for a new set of problems.

Address details such as how much manpower would be required, and how it would be rolled out, paying particular attention to the political realities that presently exist, such as anti-racism, because if you prioritize on the basis of localities that have the highest number of mass shootings, the outrage will be deafening.

These are a few of the "little" things that need to be addressed in determining *actual* viability, as opposed to imaginary viability.

[BlueTiki]

What the fuck is the matter with you, RC? 

By all means . . . please demonstrate how you can shoot someone if you don’t have access to a gun.  THAT . . . THAT . . .  is my only point! 

Nothing else, you whinging douche-bag!  

You want to jibber-jabber about costs, feasibility, politics . . . blah, blah, blah . . . but none of those issues counter the simple fact . . . if you don’t have a gun, you can’t shoot someone.

Cost, politics, race, sunspots, menstrual cycles, election cycles, gerrymandering, Tucker Carlson, population density, fried chicken, militaries, climate change, low-fat diets . . . doesn't  change the fact . . . you can’t shoot someone if you don’t have a gun.

Again, RC . . . please contradict that FACT . . . and not with your conspiracy theory, paranoid drivel, swimming around in your head.

If I state:  “If there is no bacon . . . you cannot make a BLT”  . . . will you continue to be an asshole and challenge that, too?

With or without a feasibility study (and all the rest of your bullshit avoidance rhetoric): Bottom Line: No bacon; No BLT.

Go suck a liberal's dick.

[rothschild]

That has all the viability -- and significance -- of saying if tangible resources on this planet were infinite, there would be no scarcity.

You're amazing, Tiki.