Jump to content

General "mass killings" thread


Raven
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, John Denver Fan said:

I think that is a bad idea, making guns required for teachers could lead to another mass shooting like we seen in Florida, it isn't only those teens that are capable to carry out a mass shooting, it could be a teacher that could start it if they have the chance, the only people who are supposed to have a gun in schools is people who are with law enforcement or a security officer. 

I, personally, wouldn't even feel comfortable teaching at a school with an armed guard. That's just one extra place some lunatic can grab a weapon and start shooting. In my country (Ireland), the rank and file police aren't even armed. I wonder if that's mind blowing to any Americans. There is an armed response unit, but they're barely ever called and have killed less than a dozen people in the country's history. And it's not like our origins are all that different to America. We also won our freedom (from the British Empire) using guns and violence. Yet, now, we're one of the safest countries in the world. Escalating the situation doesn't solve it. To quote Batman Begins (of all things) "We start carrying semi-automatics, they buy automatics. We start wearing Kevlar, they start carrying armour piercing rounds." Course that film series ended up with them passing a law to make the police even more deadly and it ended up ushering in peace for a decade, so I'm not sure they really understood what they were saying with that quote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 465
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

I, personally, wouldn't even feel comfortable teaching at a school with an armed guard. That's just one extra place some lunatic can grab a weapon and start shooting. In my country (Ireland), the rank and file police aren't even armed. I wonder if that's mind blowing to any Americans. There is an armed response unit, but they're barely ever called and have killed less than a dozen people in the country's history. And it's not like our origins are all that different to America. We also won our freedom (from the British Empire) using guns and violence. Yet, now, we're one of the safest countries in the world. Escalating the situation doesn't solve it. To quote Batman Begins (of all things) "We start carrying semi-automatics, they buy automatics. We start wearing Kevlar, they start carrying armour piercing rounds." Course that film series ended up with them passing a law to make the police even more deadly and it ended up ushering in peace for a decade, so I'm not sure they really understood what they were saying with that quote.

You quoted an USA film, of course they don't understand situation in other gun free country. They took their own experience to make that movie.

USA without guns is not USA anymore, it will not be as great as of now without those block buster Hollywood movies.

You need guns to make great movies.

Great movie is the best way to PR the country.

Edited by hanhnn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, hanhnn said:

You quoted an USA film, of course they don't understand situation in other gun free country. They took their own experience to make that movie.

USA without guns is not USA anymore, it will not be as great as of now without those block buster Hollywood movies.

You need guns to make great movies.

Great movie is the best way to PR the country.

What are you even trying to say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hanhnn said:

You quoted an USA film, of course they don't understand situation in other gun free country. They took their own experience to make that movie.

USA without guns is not USA anymore, it will not be as great as of now without those block buster Hollywood movies.

You need guns to make great movies.

Great movie is the best way to PR the country.

Yeah, I'm also a bit confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a high school student, I personally want gun regulations. At the very least, ban the sale of guns that pretty much are overkill (assault rifles and such. There's no reason to have such a high caliber weapon for hunting OR self defense. Hunting rifles and handguns exist), have to have a gun owner's license that needs to be renewed like how a driver's licence needs to be renewed, and require sellers of guns both private and public have a licence to sell. Now that I think about it, that last thing maybe a bit too optimistic.

Also if schools start to have greater security, like guards and that stuff, then I'm asking my parents to homeschool me. School is aleady hell with waking up early and all of the work and stress, I don't need it to look like a hellish place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IfIHadToPickADude said:

As a high school student, I personally want gun regulations. At the very least, ban the sale of guns that pretty much are overkill (assault rifles and such. There's no reason to have such a high caliber weapon for hunting OR self defense. Hunting rifles and handguns exist), have to have a gun owner's license that needs to be renewed like how a driver's licence needs to be renewed, and require sellers of guns both private and public have a licence to sell. Now that I think about it, that last thing maybe a bit too optimistic.

Also if schools start to have greater security, like guards and that stuff, then I'm asking my parents to homeschool me. School is aleady hell with waking up early and all of the work and stress, I don't need it to look like a hellish place.

I would disagree but it wouldn't be a good idea to do it, but with an exception of people who have mental disorders and people with a violent past, otherwise it would be fine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jotari said:

Course that film series ended up with them passing a law to make the police even more deadly and it ended up ushering in peace for a decade, so I'm not sure they really understood what they were saying with that quote.

No, I think they did. Remember that the Dent Act just pushed a bunch of simmering problems under the rug that Bane exploited; it wasn't a permanent solution and was depicted as just helping the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor.

Anyway, I might as well say it: putting armed police in schools is an even worse idea in inner city neighborhoods, because of existing tensions between blacks and police. It's just asking for even more police shootings, especially if they're paranoid from possible gang violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God, I hated how strict my high school was back in the late '00s, and we didn't even have an armed security guard(There was an on-duty police officer who would stay in the cafeteria during lunch periods).

I can't imagine how I'd feel if I thought that there was a chance a hall monitor or a teacher might have pulled a gun on me. I certainly would have skipped school more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19.2.2018 at 8:14 PM, Shoblongoo said:

Everything after these eight words is, sadly, superfluous. 

Unfortunately, that's probably true. Florida is even thinking about lowering the age requirement for buying semi-automatics, because why not? It's not like anything bad will ever come out of it.

What I really dislike about the aftermath of this whole affair though is how conservatives responded to the admirable political activism a lot of students have displayed. It was immediately met with something along the lines of:

  • Oh my, you're opinion isn't valid because you're still totally confused and shocked by your trauma.
  • How dare you politicize the death of innocent students to further your own evil agenda!
  • You're all actors paid by CNN anyways, so why should I care?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Sias said:

Unfortunately, that's probably true. Florida is even thinking about lowering the age requirement for buying semi-automatics, because why not? It's not like anything bad will ever come out of it.

...oh Florida voted down a proposal to so much as open debate on a law restricting access to Assault Rifles, introduced 6 days after the shooting.

The same day--with student protestors calling on them to move gun policy present and jeering-- they opened the floor to a resolution on the "public health risk" of pornography.  (the Republican sponsor of the bill refused to answer, when asked, if he also believed easy access to assault rifles was an actionable "public health risk") 

They were originally going to call it a vote on the public health crisis of pornography. But they changed their language from crisis to risk after the shooting.

...because in a rare moment of self-awareness, it occurred to them mayyyyyyyybe that just might be a tad bit in poor taste. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2018/02/21/florida-house-declares-pornography-a-public-health-risk-guns-not-so-much/?utm_term=.1086be8991ff
 

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, hanhnn said:

You quoted an USA film, of course they don't understand situation in other gun free country. They took their own experience to make that movie.

USA without guns is not USA anymore, it will not be as great as of now without those block buster Hollywood movies.

You need guns to make great movies.

Great movie is the best way to PR the country.

I'm gonna make the same response as everyone else and just ask "what"?

20 hours ago, John Denver Fan said:

but with an exception of people who have mental disorders

This is a general, open question, but what do people apply the term "mental disorder" to when regarding guns and regulations? Like, there are so many things that could fall under that, not to mention that going around using that term might attribute to the stigma it already has.

1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

...oh Florida voted down a proposal to so much as open debate on a law restricting access to Assault Rifles, introduced 6 days after the shooting.

That annoyed me so much. I mean, it was a simple proposal just to debate, it wasn't meant to instantaneously create gun regulation laws or anything, so I find it very perplexing that they voted it down. (It probably doesn't help their image doing that, not to mention the whole SUPER IMPORTANT "pornography risk" you mentioned)

Also, any thoughts on the Texas school district who's superintendent threatened to suspend any student for three days who chooses to participate in organized walkouts or protests? The dude said that the district “will not allow a student demonstration during school hours for any type of protest or awareness!!” I mean yikes. I love telling people not to protest or to spread awareness... I understand their concern but I'm pretty sure everybody has a right to do such things especially students when it comes to, you know, school shootings and the abundance of them we have here in the US. I just wanted to bring this up cuz I thought it was odd and no one mentioned it yet. (I think)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

...oh Florida voted down a proposal to so much as open debate on a law restricting access to Assault Rifles, introduced 6 days after the shooting.

The same day--with student protestors calling on them to move gun policy present and jeering-- they opened the floor to a resolution on the "public health risk" of pornography.  (the Republican sponsor of the bill refused to answer, when asked, if he also believed easy access to assault rifles was an actionable "public health risk") 

They were originally going to call it a vote on the public health crisis of pornography. But they changed their language from crisis to risk after the shooting.

...because in a rare moment of self-awareness, it occurred to them mayyyyyyyybe that just might be a tad bit in poor taste. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2018/02/21/florida-house-declares-pornography-a-public-health-risk-guns-not-so-much/?utm_term=.1086be8991ff
 

I'm so proud that my dear Republican friends decided to go for the real issue here! After all, what worth does you life even have if you destroyed the immortal sanctity of your soul though the most dirty and vile evils of pornography?

20 hours ago, John Denver Fan said:

I would disagree but it wouldn't be a good idea to do it, but with an exception of people who have mental disorders and people with a violent past, otherwise it would be fine. 

To add onto what @SuperIb said: I would be careful with immediately attributing mental disorders to all these people who committed mass shootings.
Sure enough, I've heard the argument that anyone who fails so spectacularly on a moral level that he decides to run amok should be classified as mentally ill, but... Let's not forget that people suffering from mental disorders are still far more likely to be victims of a crime than to be its perpetrators, and that there is a huge stigma associated with mental illness already, which is why we should generally avoid to worsen this.

Really, I think the problem isn't necessarily someone suddenly turning crazy, but that there exist people who decide in a totally calm and rational manner that either other humans in general or [insert minority here] aren't worthy to live anymore and therefore deserve to die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On that related note, I don't like the idea that governments bodies are talking about the corrupting effects of porn, even outside the scope of this shooting. It might seem like a silly thing, but only a few decades ago such things were considered series business. You could get massive jail time for publishing something describing a trip to a brothel. More jail time than actually visiting an illegal brothel. To our modern sensibilities, the level in which people went to censor essentially harmless material is insane. And a lot of the indecency laws that gave them the power to do it are still in effect. Society just slowly changed its definition  of indecency. I won't like to see a return to the old days like that, because it genuinely curbed the publishing of a lot of legitimate art.

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Jotari said:

On that related note, I don't like the idea that governments bodies are talking about the corrupting effects of porn, even outside the scope of this shooting. It might seem like a silly thing, but only a few decades ago such things were considered series business. You could get massive jail time for publishing something describing a trip to a brothel. More jail time than actually visiting an illegal brothel. To our modern sensibilities, the level in which people went to censor essentially harmless material is insane. And a lot of the indecency laws that gave them the power to do it are still in effect. Society just slowly changed its definition  of indecency. I won't like to see a return to the old days like that, because it genuinely curbed the publishing of a lot of legitimate art.

I think it's supposed to be more of a distraction from the issue of gun control than anything. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned about it by any means, but that's what I think about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, IfIHadToPickADude said:

It doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned about it by any means, but that's what I think about it.

I'm surprised people are even concerned about pornography in the first place right now lmao

I mean, it just seems like the least of our issues. Maybe that's just me though. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Edited by SuperIb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, IfIHadToPickADude said:

I think it's supposed to be more of a distraction from the issue of gun control than anything. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned about it by any means, but that's what I think about it.

I don't know, the timing could certainly point to it being a distraction, but... Remember that this issue gets brought up every few months again by the religious right, so there's definitely some intent to get those laws finally passed behind it.

And in all honesty, with how hard some states have already successfully pushed for abstinence-only education, I can definitely see it coming up again and again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The police officer who was on school grounds but never entered the building during the shooting raises a bunch of questions for me. 

How far does "protect and serve" go? I'm not sure I want to immediately label the guy a coward, since I feel like it's a pretty human reaction to hear gunfire and lock-up or not want to got anywhere near it... But he's a police officer. You(In theory, God knows that this isn't the case in practice) don't become a police officer and expect risks on the level of a guy working a desk job, and I feel that in this position, "protect and serve" more or less means that you need to hold the lives of civilians above your own, ESPECIALLY if they're minors. 

On top of this, if a trained police officer is too scared to confront an armed criminal in a school, what the fuck do Republicans expect arming teachers is gonna do? This all but confirms that this is only going to put more guns in the school, and that it's probably not going to turn out like they expect. It will give kids access to more guns, while armed teachers during a shooting are mostly just going to be as helpless as they were before. If anything, it will make teachers bigger targets. Which goes back to the whole "This is only going to push more people away from teaching" thing. And who the fuck knows when a teacher is going to be pushed over the line and pull the gun on students in the middle of a normal school day. 

Edited by Slumber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...its not even like schools are the only places where these attacks take place. Whats the next move?

Metal detectors and armed retailers in every shopping mall?
Metal detectors and armed confectioneries in every movie theater?
Metal detectors and armed bartenders in every nightclub?

And Trump is worried about the Africans and Haitians fucking this place up???

Show me a country where you can't go on a date, drink and dance, or send your kids to school without passing through a paramilitary checkpoint. I'll show you a third world shithole. 




 

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Slumber said:

The police officer who was on school grounds but never entered the building during the shooting raises a bunch of questions for me. 

How far does "protect and serve" go? I'm not sure I want to immediately label the guy a coward, since I feel like it's a pretty human reaction to hear gunfire and lock-up or not want to got anywhere near it... But he's a police officer. You(In theory, God knows that this isn't the case in practice) don't become a police officer and expect risks on the level of a guy working a desk job, and I feel that in this position, "protect and serve" more or less means that you need to hold the lives of civilians above your own, ESPECIALLY if they're minors. 

On top of this, if a trained police officer is too scared to confront an armed criminal in a school, what the fuck do Republicans expect arming teachers is gonna do? This all but confirms that this is only going to put more guns in the school, and that it's probably not going to turn out like they expect. It will give kids access to more guns, while armed teachers during a shooting are mostly just going to be as helpless as they were before. If anything, it will make teachers bigger targets. Which goes back to the whole "This is only going to push more people away from teaching" thing. And who the fuck knows when a teacher is going to be pushed over the line and pull the gun on students in the middle of a normal school day. 

How far does protect and serve go? Not very far at all as the record shows. Legally, police aren't obliged to do jack shit.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Local police have decided a 'solution' at least: more AR-15s at schools

https://www.axios.com/deputies-carry-rifles-florida-dbf592c9-df26-43a8-be6c-0031bb9e7347.html

Simply put, from my own perspective: America is insane and so are the people in it.

 

Edit: by the way, it seems like a parody and a 15 year flashback when Trump says that violent video games could be a reason for youth violence like this

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/02/22/trump-blames-video-games-movies-violence.cnn

Edited by Tryhard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

Local police have decided a 'solution' at least: more AR-15s at schools

https://www.axios.com/deputies-carry-rifles-florida-dbf592c9-df26-43a8-be6c-0031bb9e7347.html

Simply put, from my own perspective: America is insane and so are the people in it.

It's just so completely illogical. Someone was in the scene with a fire arm and didn't use it to stop the shooting. The solution, start carrying around bigger fire arms! If the guard wasn't going to stop the shooting with a handgun, how does giving him a rifle improve things? It's not like he got into a fire fight with the kid and only failed because he was outgunned.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A friend of mine posted this on facebook:
 
Yesterday at 5:50pm · 
"If you rather the government create more gun laws than allow teachers to carry you're saying you rather trust the government to protect your children than teachers to protect your children. And if you actually trust the government to protect your children, well then, you probably shouldnt be having children in the first place."

...I don't think he understand that teachers are public employees.

i.e. "government"

 
Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Tryhard said:

Edit: by the way, it seems like a parody and a 15 year flashback when Trump says that violent video games could be a reason for youth violence like this

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/02/22/trump-blames-video-games-movies-violence.cnn

How precious coming from the guy who rode into the White House on a wave of hate and anger. But yeah, sure, games are the problem, not a culture that teaches people that the rest of the world has wronged them and is an enemy that needs to be eliminated before they destroy everything that is good and holy.

On the bright side, minor as it may be, this means that one of Trump's supporting groups, the 4chan/Gamegate guys, are now finally at least a little bit affected by his actions. It's also a nice reminder that their "gamers have always been at war with the SJWs" narrative is a pile of nonsense because censorship in games has always come from the same guys who claim that the presence of gay characters is harmful to children, not the people who would like to see a few more of them.

Edited by BrightBow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BrightBow said:

How precious coming from the guy who rode into the White House on a wave of hate and anger. But yeah, sure, games are the problem, not a culture that teaches people that the rest of the world has wronged them and is an enemy that needs to be eliminated before they destroy everything that is good and holy.

On the bright side, minor as it may be, this means that one of Trump's supporting groups, the 4chan/Gamegate guys, are now finally at least a little bit affected by his actions. It's also a nice reminder that their "gamers have always been at war with the SJWs" narrative is a pile of nonsense because censorship in games has always come from the same guys who claim that the presence of gay characters is harmful to children, not the people who would like to see a few more of them.

I won't say much other than I was willing to argue on the side of Gamergate, until I grew tired of how both sides would trot out the same flawed shit and it became pointless and I became annoyed by many of the things done, and I know your statement wasn't really indicative of everyone I'm sure, I think Trump is a dumbass, obviously. But I imagine that anyone that still likes him would ignore this part, even though the majority of them would scoff at the same arguments if they were around when Jack Thompson was making them.

That, and even though I don't talk about "the SJWs", I don't think even younger right-wing people are really the same ones that have a problem with homosexuality - most of the time, anyway. I could probably say a lot more disagreeable things about what they believe, but I don't think on average that's one of them. Older conservative politicians in the 90's and early 2000's talking about how rock music and violent video games are corrupting the youth, absolutely. It's just amazing to me because it's like 2004 again - he can't seriously think this point sticks anymore?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:
A friend of mine posted this on facebook:
 
Yesterday at 5:50pm · 
"If you rather the government create more gun laws than allow teachers to carry you're saying you rather trust the government to protect your children than teachers to protect your children. And if you actually trust the government to protect your children, well then, you probably shouldnt be having children in the first place."

...I don't think he understand that teachers are public employees.

i.e. "government"

 

Frankly in general I trust the government way more than the individual. The idea that the government has some kind of agenda to hurt the people is foolishness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...