Shooter incident at elementary school in Uvalde, Texas - 19 children and 2 adults dead (4 Viewers)

[DaveXA]

To a certain extent I’m guilty of this, it started with the bush administration and the lies that came out about weapons of mass destruction. It open my eyes to the way that political party was lying to the public all for the love of money, how the vice president was involved with Blackwater and how that company was profiting off of the war, and the fact that after so many years these facts have seem to be swept under the rug mainly by their leadership.
The truth remains that the opposite is expected from the other party, that they put the population before the wallet, they are the ones fighting for equal rights for everyone ,for equal pay for everyone, working to give the country universal health care, the same kind that they themselves enjoy while in office but for some reason it’s good enough for them but perish the thought if we were to obtain it. trying to implement a strategy to fight global warming .to a certain extent a large number of the population still believes that it’s fake due to the opposing party creating a false narrative because it would hurt their bottom line which of course is money/greed. This falls along the same lines as this current debate about gun control, putting money over lives. So getting back to the point of only voting for the person with the right letter in front of your name. and I don’t see this changing in the near future, not until(A) legislation is put in place to a remove corporations from having a voice and (B) having term limits for Senators, I find them to be more of a wall than to help the country need so desperately at this time.

Nice post. And, I'd say part of the problem is all of the money flowing from lobbyists. Some of these votes are influenced by lobbying and in some cases those votes end up being contrary to public sentiment among their constitituents. It's part of a larger pattern to use legislation as a means of gaining and retaining power rather than voting the way their constituents want.

That said, public sentiment isn't always right as well. So navigating political topics and writing bills is really complicated. As is debating the finer points of public policy.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Sorry, but this is all nonsense. One party is decidedly not calling for the abolition of all guns and characterizing them as doing so is simply attacking a strawman. This is an example of the knee jerk centrism being referenced earlier.

No, he’s right actually
We were very close to a workable compromise until I used the phrase ‘knee jerk centrist’
Will I ever learn?
(That’s rhetorical, of course I won’t)

 

[SWJJ]

This is a reasoned position and makes more sense than banning assault rifles, especially since pistols are responsible for considerably more carnage and deaths.

 

[faceman]

The rural vs urban point is a good one. It's often overlooked in these sort of debates.

It's the beauty of our constitution. I've mentioned it earlier,but CA. is a great example. Acreage wise they are rural.
They provide a lot of farm land. There are just not enough of them to overcome the big city vote.

 

[brandon8283]

6 D's voted against expanded background checks in 2013, including then Senate Majority Leader Reid. Those votes would have given it the 60 it needed. Reid retired after that term and the other five (which were from red states) all got voted out anyway, so any attempt to appease the conservative electorate was in vain.

You literally just proved my point, which was that the only reason D's didn't do it when they had the chance was because of the backlash from Republicans. The Ds who were in red states couldn't do it because they would definitely get tossed by their Republican electorate.

The fact that they got tossed anyway does not negate the fact that the reason Democrats from Montana, Alaska, two from North Dakota, Arkansas, and Nevada voted Nay is solely because they feared voting Yea would guarantee that any crossover Republican votes they had gotten in their red states would immediately switch back.

I would also argue, however, that they shouldn't be gutless and should have voted for it anyway, even if it means political suicide, because this issue is worth more than their political jobs.

Also, it's important to note that the other half of my point is also still accurate, which is that exactly 4 Republicans (one from Maine, one from Illinois, one from Arizona, and one from Pennsylvania) voted for the expansion of background checks, versus 41 that voted against. There is overwhelming opposition from Republicans on this issue. It is simply not a both sides problem.

 

[kizzy821]

Suicide Prevention Could Prevent Mass Shootings

The following is an updated version of this article, published in 2019. Imagine a doctor who wanted to treat a broken leg with chemotherapy. Or treat cancer wit…

fivethirtyeight.com

Interesting perspective.

Makes the point that mass shooters are generally suicidal by default. Armed guards who are outgunned will not deter anything, since the shooters have accepted that they will get shot by cops anyway. And suicide is one of the main reasons to have red-flag laws in general, so you can have a legal mechanism to disarm family members who are a threat to themselves if not others.

No one thinks their own family member would ever commit a mass shooting, and as such these red flag laws could be miscontrued as overreach. But there are many out there who can relate to having a family member that is a threat to themselves. Get the guns out of their hands while they can get the help they need.

This article is so insulting to responsible suicide committers everywhere...

It suggests suicides and mass shootings are different sides of the same coin. What coin is that - death?

Does the same logic apply to coupon clipping and shoplifting?

Are fat people who overeat more prone to abusing others? They abuse themselves, so....

What micro-percentage of the suicidal population is thinking about a mass shooting beforehand.

How do we know the shooters didn't decide on the mass shootings FIRST and suicide second as the quickest way to escape (it's disingenuous to classify that as suicidal).

What if 88% of mass shooters believe in god...Should we make anything of that?

They're saying, in part, because mass shootings and suicides are both premeditated and done alone - there's a connection.

I'll finish the article later, I swear. But they opened with a line that contradicted the rest of their hypothesis. Hopefully it ends making more sense to me.

"Just because cancer and broken legs are both things that happen to the body doesn’t mean they call for the same treatment."

Ok. And just because suicide and mass shootings both end in death...

 

[kizzy821]

To a certain extent I’m guilty of this, it started with the bush administration and the lies that came out about weapons of mass destruction. It open my eyes to the way that political party was lying to the public all for the love of money, how the vice president was involved with Blackwater and how that company was profiting off of the war, and the fact that after so many years these facts have seem to be swept under the rug mainly by their leadership.
The truth remains that the opposite is expected from the other party, that they put the population before the wallet, they are the ones fighting for equal rights for everyone ,for equal pay for everyone, working to give the country universal health care, the same kind that they themselves enjoy while in office but for some reason it’s good enough for them but perish the thought if we were to obtain it. trying to implement a strategy to fight global warming .to a certain extent a large number of the population still believes that it’s fake due to the opposing party creating a false narrative because it would hurt their bottom line which of course is money/greed. This falls along the same lines as this current debate about gun control, putting money over lives. So getting back to the point of only voting for the person with the right letter in front of your name. and I don’t see this changing in the near future, not until(A) legislation is put in place to a remove corporations from having a voice and (B) having term limits for Senators, I find them to be more of a wall than to help the country need so desperately at this time.

I've thought about this a lot - A LOT. But since I haven't really talked to many people about it, I can only use my POV (that's rarely a good thing).

But who do you vote for when each side has multiple issues and POVs that you support?

I've always voted with the ones who I perceive as having the best interests of the majority in mind. Believe or not, I've rarely - if ever, voted based on my interests.

I'm literally a single person. And my thoughts and interests are so different from the status quo - finding a candidate to represent ME is futile.

But with that said, how do people decide which issue(s) should impact their vote?

I think people end up voting with the party that best represents their overall mindset. And they rarely revisit their choices, because who we are as people rarely change.

It's unfortunate that the system is designed this way. The 'human' system and the political system.

 

[gummbo70114]

I've thought about this a lot - A LOT. But since I haven't really talked to many people about it, I can only use my POV (that's rarely a good thing).

But who do you vote for when each side has multiple issues and POVs that you support?

I've always voted with the ones who I perceive as having the best interests of the majority in mind. Believe or not, I've rarely - if ever, voted based on my interests.

I'm literally a single person. And my thoughts and interests are so different from the status quo - finding a candidate to represent ME is futile.

But with that said, how do people decide which issue(s) should impact their vote?

I think people end up voting with the party that best represents their overall mindset. And they rarely revisit their choices, because who we are as people rarely change.

It's unfortunate that the system is designed this way. The 'human' system and the political system.

So how do I begin, very rarely have I put myself first in the importance of my choices for candidates. First I think of my wife, then I think of my daughters and my immediate family. I guess from there I moved to my neighborhood and my city and state. I look at my living conditions, The condition of my city as a whole i.e. safety and transportation and how well public services are implementing the best course of action for our homeless population, and of course the only important question is how well are you now compared to let’s say two years ago or even four years ago when X administration was put into place. And for my own personal experience financially I have always done better under a Democratic administration. This is probably due to the fact that I don’t invest directly into the stock market so whether or not it goes up and down does not affect me. And of course throughout the course of the administration tidbits of information will come out through media regarding X lying about this or Y causing that, or Z how well it keeps our countries out of wars or conflict or how well the administration deals with perceived threats. There are so many variables on the international stage that it’s very difficult to gauge the outcome of Any moves done by our government. Hopefully this helps you get an idea on my train of thought when choosing candidates.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Gun violence in the United States is beyond catastrophic. According to the Pew Research Center, “45,222 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S.” in 2020 — and the violence is not abating.

Recent high-profile massacres in Buffalo and Uvalde, Tex., have focused national and international attention on the issue once more, but Congress is unwilling to root out the problem.


In Canada, it’s a different story.


After the Uvalde and Buffalo shootings — but not because of them — Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government announced firearm-control legislation.

Bill C-21 includes a suite of measures to regulate and limit guns in the country. Central to that plan is a freeze on buying, selling or transferring handguns.

But that’s not all. On top of the current assault rifle ban and prohibition on owning “assault-style weapons,” the proposed changes would limit magazine capacity, remove gun licenses from domestic abusers, ban the sale of certain toy guns that look like the real thing, and create red- and yellow-flag laws to remove firearms from those who might be a risk to themselves or others.

The legislation also would boost penalties for gun crimes and increase police officers’ ability to deal with weapons-trafficking and gun violence.

Gun crime in Canada is up, and so is gun ownership. As Statistics Canada reports, “After a gradual decrease between 2009 and 2013, the rate of firearm-related homicides has increased since 2013, with a single decline in 2018.”

The group also notes that firearm-related violent crime accounts “for just 2.8% of all victims of violent crime reported by police in 2020”; 277 victims of homicide were killed with firearms or firearm-like weapons that year. Far more gun deaths in the country come from suicide……

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/09/canada-gun-control-firearm-legislation-trudeau-liberals/

 

[Optimus Prime]

Think about all the teachers you’ve had in your schooling life, how many of them would you have felt comfortable having a gun?
======================

So Republican lawmakers in Ohio want to protect children from gun violence — with more guns.


Last week, in response to the school shooting in Uvalde, Tex., and other high-profile episodes of mass murder, the Ohio legislature passed a bill allowing local boards of education to permit teachers to carry a firearm in the classroom, making it one of nearly 20 states to do so.


Republican Gov. Mike DeWine has indicated that he is eager to sign the bill into law. “I thank the General Assembly for passing this bill to protect Ohio children and teachers,” he said in a statement.

But proposals like this are nothing to celebrate. They are an act of cowardice.
It seems barely worth rehashing the reasons that arming teachers is not the way to end mass shootings.


The idea, ostensibly, is that a teacher with a gun could leap into action and disable or even kill a potential attacker. But research shows that in a shootout, even highly trained police officers are accurate less than half the time.

There’s no reason to expect that a teacher with far less experience with guns could do better.


Studies have also found no evidence that arming teachers would meaningfully protect against school shootings, and that armed adults frequently mishandle their own weapons on school grounds.


Plus, polling consistently finds that most teachers don’t want to be armed; they want to teach. Classrooms are supposed to be spaces of learning and growth, not places for “hardening.”…….

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/09/ohio-bill-guns-for-teachers-republican-cowardice/

 

[Optimus Prime]

NSFW

 

[kizzy821]

Think about all the teachers you’ve had in your schooling life, how many of them would you have felt comfortable having a gun?
======================

Certainly not my 4th grade teacher. He would've smacked me with it. He's the second closest I came to terrorizing another person. I was so mean to that man. His breath smelled of sardines (always) and the size of his belly made me upset. So he received my wrath.

Seriously though, giving people in general, access to guns is disastrous. We can't safely operate motor vehicles and ladders.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Think about all the teachers you’ve had in your schooling life, how many of them would you have felt comfortable having a gun?
======================

So Republican lawmakers in Ohio want to protect children from gun violence — with more guns.


Last week, in response to the school shooting in Uvalde, Tex., and other high-profile episodes of mass murder, the Ohio legislature passed a bill allowing local boards of education to permit teachers to carry a firearm in the classroom, making it one of nearly 20 states to do so.


Republican Gov. Mike DeWine has indicated that he is eager to sign the bill into law. “I thank the General Assembly for passing this bill to protect Ohio children and teachers,” he said in a statement.

But proposals like this are nothing to celebrate. They are an act of cowardice.
It seems barely worth rehashing the reasons that arming teachers is not the way to end mass shootings.


The idea, ostensibly, is that a teacher with a gun could leap into action and disable or even kill a potential attacker. But research shows that in a shootout, even highly trained police officers are accurate less than half the time.

There’s no reason to expect that a teacher with far less experience with guns could do better.


Studies have also found no evidence that arming teachers would meaningfully protect against school shootings, and that armed adults frequently mishandle their own weapons on school grounds.


Plus, polling consistently finds that most teachers don’t want to be armed; they want to teach. Classrooms are supposed to be spaces of learning and growth, not places for “hardening.”…….

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/09/ohio-bill-guns-for-teachers-republican-cowardice/

LEOs are required hours upon hours upon hours of gun training on an annual basis. Teachers under this bill... nope.

 

[jrdbrn]

Think about all the teachers you’ve had in your schooling life, how many of them would you have felt comfortable having a gun?
======================

So Republican lawmakers in Ohio want to protect children from gun violence — with more guns.


Last week, in response to the school shooting in Uvalde, Tex., and other high-profile episodes of mass murder, the Ohio legislature passed a bill allowing local boards of education to permit teachers to carry a firearm in the classroom, making it one of nearly 20 states to do so.


Republican Gov. Mike DeWine has indicated that he is eager to sign the bill into law. “I thank the General Assembly for passing this bill to protect Ohio children and teachers,” he said in a statement.

But proposals like this are nothing to celebrate. They are an act of cowardice.
It seems barely worth rehashing the reasons that arming teachers is not the way to end mass shootings.


The idea, ostensibly, is that a teacher with a gun could leap into action and disable or even kill a potential attacker. But research shows that in a shootout, even highly trained police officers are accurate less than half the time.

There’s no reason to expect that a teacher with far less experience with guns could do better.


Studies have also found no evidence that arming teachers would meaningfully protect against school shootings, and that armed adults frequently mishandle their own weapons on school grounds.


Plus, polling consistently finds that most teachers don’t want to be armed; they want to teach. Classrooms are supposed to be spaces of learning and growth, not places for “hardening.”…….

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/09/ohio-bill-guns-for-teachers-republican-cowardice/

My wife is a teacher and she wouldn't carry a gun.

 

[Sailorsaint]

Think about all the teachers you’ve had in your schooling life, how many of them would you have felt comfortable having a gun?
======================

So Republican lawmakers in Ohio want to protect children from gun violence — with more guns.


Last week, in response to the school shooting in Uvalde, Tex., and other high-profile episodes of mass murder, the Ohio legislature passed a bill allowing local boards of education to permit teachers to carry a firearm in the classroom, making it one of nearly 20 states to do so.


Republican Gov. Mike DeWine has indicated that he is eager to sign the bill into law. “I thank the General Assembly for passing this bill to protect Ohio children and teachers,” he said in a statement.

But proposals like this are nothing to celebrate. They are an act of cowardice.
It seems barely worth rehashing the reasons that arming teachers is not the way to end mass shootings.


The idea, ostensibly, is that a teacher with a gun could leap into action and disable or even kill a potential attacker. But research shows that in a shootout, even highly trained police officers are accurate less than half the time.

There’s no reason to expect that a teacher with far less experience with guns could do better.


Studies have also found no evidence that arming teachers would meaningfully protect against school shootings, and that armed adults frequently mishandle their own weapons on school grounds.


Plus, polling consistently finds that most teachers don’t want to be armed; they want to teach. Classrooms are supposed to be spaces of learning and growth, not places for “hardening.”…….

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/09/ohio-bill-guns-for-teachers-republican-cowardice/

Not that I'm saying this is a good idea, but regardless if it is or not, it's definitely not the answer. But, teachers could spend a portion of the summer vacation getting paid to undergo training every year. And every teacher doesn't need to carry a weapon, not every person has the temperment needed to wield a weapon and use it if necessary. I wouldn't be against a few teachers per 100 students being allowed to carry in school. But, they would need to pass some pretty stringent background and psychological checks, much more than a cop goes thru when he applies at the local SO for a job.