Santa Fe High School shooting

[PGHammer]

1 minute ago, techbeck said:

Just goes to show people can and will use other devices to do mass damage.  Glad they found them before anything else could happen.

techbeck - I was looking at it simply from a straightforward counter-terror standpoint (military installations, etc.)  So have most of the pundits (not just those that FNC went to - look at CNN and MSNBC).  While the idea of schools as terror targets is an ugly one, it makes way too much sense (which both the Israelis and even the PA get).  The same applied to airports (which is, in fact, why former SEAL Cathal Flynn was originally selected as FAA Administrator for Security - his last post in the Navy was director of NIS - which included security of Navy facilities - ashore and afloat).

[Mockingbird]

19 minutes ago, ncoday said:

All you have to do is look at countries like Venezuela where people protesting the Socialist government are being killed:

https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/07/venezuela-bans-protests-as-death-toll-rises/535200/

 

So what you are saying is that you need semi-automatic weapons with extended magazines so you can participate in an uprising to overthrow the U.S. government.

 

What a great argument. /s

[PGHammer]

1 minute ago, Mockingbird said:

So what you are saying is that you need semi-automatic weapons with extended magazines so you can participate in an uprising to overthrow the U.S. government.

 

What a great argument. /s

Would you rather have the current Venezuelan government?  (The Venezuelans would gladly hand it over to you, I would wager.)

[shockz]

5 minutes ago, PGHammer said:

Would you rather have the current Venezuelan government?  (The Venezuelans would gladly hand it over to you, I would wager.)

You could have all the automatic weapons in the world, it wouldn't matter, if the US government wanted to end you, they'd end you. What a silly argument. 

[shockz]

30 minutes ago, ncoday said:

No, I would disagree. It is restricted, but not as heavily regulated as guns. I mean ban cigarettes, make them illegal.

I am sure you think I am crazy for my statement. However, can someone be banned from smoking because they were declared mentally incompetent?

Do you have to go through a background check for cigarettes?

 

Are ex-cons banned from smoking?

 

Can you have your right to smoke taken from you because you said you really want to go beat up your ex-wife?

 

The list goes on, I don't feel sorry for smokers, you ain't seen ridiculous regulation yet.

 

Last I checked cigarettes couldn't take out 8 people at a school. You're comparing apples to oranges. 

[ncoday]

9 minutes ago, shockz said:

You could have all the automatic weapons in the world, it wouldn't matter, if the US government wanted to end you, they'd end you. What a silly argument. 

Umm, not likely. Think about it, The US has a standing military of say maybe 2 million and that is assuming the entire military would agree to take part in squashing an uprising.

 

There are over 30+ Million lawful gun owners. They would certainly inflict damages, but they would not win. The US military, as are many, setup to handle traditional confrontations, such as WWII. They have problems with unconventional conflicts, such as Iraq. where you have civilians mixed in with the enemy

5 minutes ago, shockz said:

Last I checked cigarettes couldn't take out 8 people at a school. You're comparing apples to oranges. 

Actually, no. Your argument is to restrict/control guns because of deaths. Kids are killed by their parents smoking.

[shockz]

1 minute ago, ncoday said:

Umm, not likely. Think about it, The US has a standing military of say maybe 2 million and that is assuming the entire military would agree to take part in squashing an uprising.

 

There are over 30+ Million lawful gun owners. They would certainly inflict damages, but they would not win.

uh huh, and how many of those 30 million gun owners have access to tanks, missiles, tactical drones, etc etc etc.. 

[xrobwx71]

1 hour ago, Mockingbird said:

 

1 hour ago, Mockingbird said:

Texas attorney general says "thoughts and prayers of all Texans" are with Santa Fe

 

That's all Republicans ever say: "thoughts and prayers", "thoughts and prayers", "thoughts and prayers"

You should re-read

Well, lets take a look at some history. Tells a story huh? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power_in_the_United_States_over_time   

 

Dominant Party

Over the past 100 years the Democratic party has held power nearly twice as long as the Republicans in both the Senate and the House. And the Democratic party has had control of the White House and the two Houses of Congress for 35 years, compared to 16 years for the Republican party over the last 100 years

 

Party Control of Congress[edit]

Note: The following statistics consider 2001 as a year in which the Democrats controlled the Senate, although they did not control it for the entire year.

Senate Control by Party Past 100 Years[edit]

The following statistics reflect the years each political party has controlled a majority in the Senate over the past 100 years (1916–2015).

PartyYears in Control

Democrats:66 yrs [4]

Republicans:34

 

House Control by Party Past 100 Years[edit]

The following statistics reflect the years each political party has controlled a majority in the House of Representatives over the past 100 years (1916–2015).

PartyYears in Control

Democrats:65 yrs

Republicans:35 yrs

 

Senate and House Control by Party Past 100 Years[edit]

The following statistics reflect the years each political party has control a majority in both the Senate and House of Representatives concurrently over the past 100 years (1916–2015).

PartyYears in Control

Democrats:57 yrs

Republicans:27 yrs

Neither Party:16 yrs

 

Full Congress and White House Control by Party Past 100 Years[edit]

The following statistics reflect the years each political party has controlled a majority across both the Senate and House of Representatives and White House concurrently over the past 100 years (1916–2015).

PartyYears in Control

Democrats:35 yrs

Republicans:16 yrs

Neither Party:0 yrs

 

Party Control of White House[edit]

PartyYears in Control

Democrats:52 yrs

Republicans:48 yrs

[shockz]

16 minutes ago, ncoday said:

Actually, no. Your argument is to restrict/control guns because of deaths. Kids are killed by their parents smoking.

No, it's not. And I'm actually for banning cigarettes. But that's not at all the same thing. No matter how you try and spin it. People smoking cigarettes are asked to leave public places or face fines, not to mention a person who is inhaling secondhand smoke is aware and free to leave said public place on their own free will. People getting shot don't typically have that option.  

Edited May 18, 2018 by shockz

[trag3dy]

1 hour ago, Mockingbird said:

Texas attorney general says "thoughts and prayers of all Texans" are with Santa Fe

 

That's all Republicans ever say: "thoughts and prayers", "thoughts and prayers", "thoughts and prayers"

You should re-read

It's not all they say, you just choose to ignore the rest of the message.

[trag3dy]

1 hour ago, Mockingbird said:

It can't, but it can can certainly limit the damages.

 

For example, if Nikolas Cruz only had a revolver, fewer people would have died.

Are you sure about that? There are revolvers out there that pack more heat than the ever scary AR-15. They can be worse in so many different ways.

[PGHammer]

32 minutes ago, shockz said:

You could have all the automatic weapons in the world, it wouldn't matter, if the US government wanted to end you, they'd end you. What a silly argument. 

shockz - You are assuming that the entire government would act with unanimity.  There is absolutely ZERO evidence of the United States government acting with unanimity - even during wartime; if anything, as time moves forward, more - not less - evidence of fracturization comes out.  (Why else is it that there have been exactly ZERO cases of a President being successfully impeached?)

[DConnell Member]

1 hour ago, ncoday said:

Kinda funny you would say that, considering over 600,000 children were murdered by abortion in 2014!

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm

 

No-one seems to have a problem with those lives lost.

Many do, but that's an entirely different debate.

 

It is odd, though, that the liberals only seem to care about kids dying when guns are the cause. ?

[DConnell Member]

1 hour ago, Mockingbird said:

You mean "fetus" and "removed".

No, he ,meant exactly what he stated.

[Circaflex]

1 hour ago, JHBrown said:

I'm no Psychologist/Psychiatrist, but I have common sense, and I believe one issue is family. The American family value has deteriorated exponentially. Kids raising themselves, parents scared to "parent." Growing up, my brothers, and I were scared of the consequences from making dumb ass decisions. Today, kids are coddled. They need their personal space. You can't even raise your voice, as someone may deem that as child abuse. Getting back to actual parenting, and stop putting the blame on all these so called mental disorders, we can then get a clearer picture on the issue.

100% agree with what you have said. Growing up I was the same way, afraid of the consequences for misbehaving and not only from my parents but just adults in general. There was a level of respect that I needed to show, to even strangers, because they were adults and we should respect that. These days, not so much and it boils down to parenting. Like you said, parents are afraid to parent because someone will record them and say child abuse. I see it all the time at one of my jobs that I have with a Children's Hospital. Kids will lash out and be downright turds, only to have a phone or tablet shoved in their face to keep them quiet. Kids are growing up desensitized and dont seem to have a heart or conscious.

[Mockingbird]

1 hour ago, PGHammer said:

Would you rather have the current Venezuelan government?  (The Venezuelans would gladly hand it over to you, I would wager.)

You can have the semi-automatic weapons you want: it won't matter.

 

A tank would roll right over you.

[PGHammer]

2 minutes ago, Mockingbird said:

You can have the semi-automatic weapons you want: it won't matter.

 

A tank would roll right over you.

I give you Tiananmen Square during the administration of Bush the Elder (Google for video of it from news reports).  One guy stared down a PLA tank - and they have a LOT more unanimity than the United States Army.  The only way the PLA out it down was by importing troops - and that STILL caused a major crapstorm in the COPO - would our government - under ANY President - risk that?

[Mockingbird]

35 minutes ago, trag3dy said:

Are you sure about that? There are revolvers out there that pack more heat than the ever scary AR-15. They can be worse in so many different ways.

It doesn't matter how much "heat" it packs because you would be out of bullets in no time.

[Mockingbird]

1 minute ago, PGHammer said:

I give you Tiananmen Square during the administration of Bush the Elder (Google for video of it from news reports).  One guy stared down a

That's a red herring.

 

The people in the tank didn't want to run over the protestor.

 

There wasn't anything technical that stopped them from doing so.

[ncoday]

10 minutes ago, Mockingbird said:

It doesn't matter how much "heat" it packs because you would be out of bullets in no time.

Ever heard of those "evil" high capacity speedloaders? LOL

https://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=speedloaders+for+revolvers&tag=googhydr-20&index=aps&hvadid=174249829362&hvpos=1t1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=11333210102087379681&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=e&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9011759&hvtargid=kwd-11706756556&ref=pd_sl_2nn37tfdsk_e

 

That is what the police carried for many years

 

EDITED: Actually kinda surprised Amazon allows them for sale!!!

 

With practice, you can reload a revolver quite quickly: 

 

What I am trying to say is stop focusing on the gun, focus on the person and WHY they did it. 

6 minutes ago, Mockingbird said:

That's a red herring.

 

The people in the tank didn't want to run over the protestor.

 

There wasn't anything technical that stopped them from doing so.

EXACTLY! The entire military wouldn't likely be ready to kill civilians who are fighting for basic rights.

[PGHammer]

2 minutes ago, Mockingbird said:

That's a red herring.

 

The people in the tank didn't want to run over the protestor.

 

There wasn't anything technical that stopped them from doing so.

I didn't say otherwise, did I?  (Nor did any of the reports from the Square.)  Militaries are more than machines - they are composed of human beings; screwing with the human element of a military is the most effective way to neutralize it - see all historical reports of successful revolutions.

[Mockingbird]

2 minutes ago, ncoday said:

Ever heard of those "evil" high capacity speedloaders? LOL

https://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=speedloaders+for+revolvers&tag=googhydr-20&index=aps&hvadid=174249829362&hvpos=1t1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=11333210102087379681&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=e&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9011759&hvtargid=kwd-11706756556&ref=pd_sl_2nn37tfdsk_e

 

That is what the police carried for many years

 

EDITED: Actually kinda surprised Amazon allows them for sale!!!

You would have to reload every 5-6 shots.

 

That would quite a delay that would allow many people to escape or overpower the perpetuator.

 

2 minutes ago, ncoday said:

EXACTLY! The entire military wouldn't likely be ready to kill civilians who are fighting for basic rights.

You literally just defeated your own argument

[trag3dy]

42 minutes ago, DConnell said:

Many do, but that's an entirely different debate.

 

It is odd, though, that the liberals only seem to care about kids killed by guns.

When you dehumanize (this is a reference to people getting upset at Trump for calling MS-13 gang members animals if anyone wants to know) then by just calling them fetuses..

26 minutes ago, Mockingbird said:

It doesn't matter how much "heat" it packs because you would be out of bullets in no time.

Sure. If you don't know anything about guns, like you apparently. But you want to have a serious discussion about them just so you can look like you're doing something.

[techbeck]

There is a gun discussion thread people.  So talk about gun laws there please. 

 

The problem needs to be understood before it can be solved.  Again, something is going on with young males that is triggering them to go out and commit crimes.  Been done with all sorts of weapons and the mental health issues needs to be addressed but no on wants to take the time, effort, and money to address them.  Start by looking at broken homes and kids up bringing.

[PGHammer]

7 minutes ago, Mockingbird said:

You would have to reload every 5-6 shots.

 

That would quite a delay that would allow many people to escape or overpower the perpetuator.

 

You literally just defeated your own argument

See Vietnam.  Afghanistan (muj vs. Red Army).  Desert Storm.  According to all the pundits, the side that won should not have.

 

Why did the *superior* side lose in all three cases?  (We're talking military vs. weaker military or military vs. insurgency.)

 

I put Desert Storm in there because of the reality on the ground - how large was the Iraqi army compared to the Coalition?