Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Xoon

United States Gun Control Megathread

Recommended Posts

Just now, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

No, I actually did need it in there because that's who controls the state level board of education in nearly every single state. 

 

I know this because of the educators in my family, the counselors, and the tutoring and work I've done for schools.

 

No but, Oed *yanks head away from the housefire across the street that was started by the autistic neighbor kid* don't you see your dog has shit in my yard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Belesarius said:

So other than banning stuff, what is the solution?

 

Dealing with the actual issues that cause such outbursts. Making "school" someplace kids want to be, and if they don't fit, offering them alternatives that encourage their growth, instead of trying to force them into a mold.

As it is, the U.S. public school system exists to perpetuate it's own existence.

Not to educate it's children. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Meplat said:

Dealing with the actual issues that cause such outbursts. Making "school" someplace kids want to be, and if they don't fit, offering them alternatives that encourage their growth, instead of trying to force them into a mold.

As it is, the U.S. public school system exists to perpetuate it's own existence.

Not to educate it's children. 

Good luck with that motherfucker.  Snowball, meet Satan.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right wing bureaucrats just try and milk the system for money for them and their pals, they are not the ones spreading essentially communist tainted bullshit in the guise of Gender identity that is cracking the foundations of western society. Nor do they have the desire to flood our nation with refugees from North Africa and Syria who like to drive trucks of piece into crowds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Belesarius said:

Good luck with that motherfucker.  Snowball, meet Satan.

 

No kidding.  Remember when I mentioned "Home Schooling"? 

I've had to do more than a bit of deprogramming when I (infrequently) meet my nieces and nephews.  

I had a really good "class" on why "Dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki save Japan".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Belesarius said:

When Bele and Meplat agree on something, y'all better have SOME plan of action for the apocalypse.

 

Edited my reply, but not enough to invalidate yours. 

 

Besides, kids are not a part of my future. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Belesarius said:

No worries. I can mostly check my autism for a bit if needed. Colli can smack me upside the head if necessary

.

 

I'm not autistic, I'm just paying attention. 

 

(Future bumper sticker material).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for armed security, I briefly went to a high school back in 1991 (Evergreen High School in White Center) that had armed cops/security (uniformed and plain clothes). The school sucked, there were so many students that none of the teachers knew who you were, and in my case, whatever random sorting machine assigned the class schedule seemed intent on making sure that I saw none of my friends or even loose acquaintances in any of my classes. Six classes a day and a lunch period where I didn't know anyone. Or the ones whom I did know, were already being recruited by gangs and I knew good and well to steer clear of that shit. It was a god damn prison.

 

Thank God my folks moved out of that shithole and moved to a rural school district with less than 500 students. Funny story, when my mom went to the school office to get my transcripts and what not, the whole school was put on lockdown and she was not allowed to leave for a couple hours because the local gangs (back when the Crips and Bloods moved up from California to Seattle and Tacoma) had a habit of sending dealers and (sometimes armed) into EHS to pose as students to do their gangbanging shit. 

 

By the time you get to the point of debating whether one needs armed security, dozens upon dozens of other things have gone "pear shaped" - to quote meplat - as a society. And those things can't be fixed by just putting up razor wire and hiring a guy with a pistol to eat doughnuts on the taxpayer dime. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Donward said:

As for armed security, I briefly went to a high school back in 1991 (Evergreen High School in White Center) that had armed cops/security (uniformed and plain clothes). The school sucked, there were so many students that none of the teachers knew who you were, and in my case, whatever random sorting machine assigned the class schedule seemed intent on making sure that I saw none of my friends or even loose acquaintances in any of my classes. Six classes a day and a lunch period where I didn't know anyone. Or the ones whom I did know, were already being recruited by gangs and I knew good and well to steer clear of that shit. It was a god damn prison.

 

Thank God my folks moved out of that shithole and moved to a rural school district with less than 500 students. Funny story, when my mom went to the school office to get my transcripts and what not, the whole school was put on lockdown and she was not allowed to leave for a couple hours because the local gangs (back when the Crips and Bloods moved up from California to Seattle and Tacoma) had a habit of sending dealers and (sometimes armed) into EHS to pose as students to do their gangbanging shit. 

 

By the time you get to the point of debating whether one needs armed security, dozens upon dozens of other things have gone "pear shaped" - to quote meplat - as a society. And those things can't be fixed by just putting up razor wire and hiring a guy with a pistol to eat doughnuts on the taxpayer dime. 

Winner winner chicken dinner.

But here's the thing.  Y'all need to have the political will to stop, shut up and pony up the money to fix shit, or break it all down and start again.  And, unfortunately, I don't see that from either party.

Y'all need someone with the vision to turn around and say "These are our problems, and this is my solution to fucking fix it."  And part of that involves shutting up the anti-science religious shitlords, some of that is putting the boots to teachers, some of it involves actually (effectively) investing in mental health care, rather than cutting funding of programs to the bone,  and some of it just involves actually just getting around to effectively enforcing the laws y'all already have on the books. But whatever... Canada has it's own issues, some of which mirror y'alls so I can't throw too many stones.

 

39 times the cops got called out to this guys house.

The FBI was warned about him, from the looks of it.

He's a broken, fucked up dude with access to firearms.  I'd like to think the Canadian system would have caught him, in all probability.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Belesarius said:

I'd like to think the Canadian system would have caught him, in all probability.

 

Canada would have given him $10 million dollars after the shooting, as reparations for how horrible his life must have been. Not really jumping up to emulate that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Canada would have given him $10 million dollars after the shooting, as reparations for how horrible his life must have been. Not really jumping up to emulate that.

No,, Canada would have prevented him from owning a freaking gun in the first place. Because there is no fundamental right to own a firearm and if you get downchecked by the RCMP for any reason, then they come and take your guns away.

Now you may not like that system, but that's how it works, in theory anyway.  A gun license here can be taken away if you look at the RCMP sideways.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Belesarius said:

No,, Canada would have prevented him from owning a freaking gun in the first place. Because there is no fundamental right to own a firearm and if you get downchecked by the RCMP for any reason, then they come and take your guns away.

Now you may not like that system, but that's how it works, in theory anyway.  A gun license here can be taken away if you look at the RCMP sideways.

 

 

You mean like how they did with this guy?

 

The $10 million thing is no joke, btw.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That nuts will be nuts I won't disagree with that.

But it's obvious that they will do less damage with a knife or a vehicle than with a firearm.

 

I know that a full war weapons ban is practically impossible because the US will be the US, but a first step would probably to severely reduce the amount of license delivered and to make it harder to obtain one in the first place.

 

Like, for example, bringing proof that you belong to a shooting club and bring a medical proof that you are sane both body and mind before you are authorized to get a license.

 

Over the years, the number of weapons in circulation should decrease naturally.

 

It doesn't infringe on the "right" for a person to own a weapon, but it make it harder for deranged people or criminals to get one in the first place (sure they can always bypass that but it will cost them more than just buying one in a store).

 

Then on the argument that having a weapon is a constitutional right, I call it not respecting the spirit of the law.

AFAIK the second amendment authorize the People to own weapons in order to be able to create militia aimed at defending the Nation against another state (in that period of time the UK) or against their own government if things go south.

 

It has nothing to do with self-defense, at it's root the 2nd amendment carry the idea of an army of citizens like in all democracy over the world.

Nowadays the context has changed, defending the Nation is the job of the professional army (but still composed of citizens) not the one of various militia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

The Omar Khadr thing specifically.

1.) He was a Canadian citizen.

2.) We have a Consititution, kinda like you do

3.) The Canadian government handed him over to y'all

4.) He was tortured and mistreated pretty badly by all accounts while at Gitmo

5.) Under UN conventions at the time he falls under the Child Soldier provisions.

 

So the Government fucked up by handing him over to you guys under our laws and they were gonna get nailed ever worse if it went through the courts. So they settled. That's how Rule of law works.  I understand that isn't popular with the US.  Doesn't change the legal realities.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

You'll note the weapon used was stolen, not a legally purchased firearm.

 

Directly from the link you just freaking posted Nate... C'mon.

 

Phu Lam (age 53) had a criminal record dating back to 1987, which included drug and violence-related offenses.[4] At the time of the shooting, he was in bankruptcy proceedings and owed a large amount of money on at least a dozen credit cards due to a gambling problem.[6] Lam was arrested twice in Edmonton, for sexual and domestic assault. The gun used in the shooting was stolen in 2006 from Surrey, British Columbia.[3] In November 2012, a complaint was filed against Lam after he threatened to kill his ex-wife Thuy Tien Truong and five other relatives.[6]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

I wish you would shut up about this nothingburger issue sometimes...

Yeah it's funny he harps on the anti science stuff when the left has gone way further down that path on science with their pushing  of the bs no gender differences stuff.  

The left needs to clean their own house before harping about anti science Christians, as if that's even a thing now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Belesarius said:

Winner winner chicken dinner.

But here's the thing.  Y'all need to have the political will to stop, shut up and pony up the money to fix shit, or break it all down and start again.  And, unfortunately, I don't see that from either party.

 

 

 

Haven't even had my morning coffee yet and am working on a blurry, foggy, hazy memory but I do believe the United States spends more money per capita on childhood education than any country on the planet. So I don't see how ponying up more money to throw at the problem is the answer. So breaking it all down and starting again is the way to start.

 

Unfortunately, with a nation of 310 million people spread across a country, with 50 semi-independent states, and the problems associated with ethnic, cultural, economic, religious, and societal "diversity", breaking everything down and starting again and ending the cultural inertia will basically require either a civil war or an external struggle akin to World War 2. This isn't Canada we're talking about with 90 percent of your population clustered around an area the size of New York state.

 

As tragic as they are, school shootings are about number 10 or 15 on the list of things wrong with America's education system and are symptom, not the cause, of those problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

That nuts will be nuts I won't disagree with that.

But it's obvious that they will do less damage with a knife or a vehicle than with a firearm.

 

I know that a full war weapons ban is practically impossible because the US will be the US, but a first step would probably to severely reduce the amount of license delivered and to make it harder to obtain one in the first place.

 

Like, for example, bringing proof that you belong to a shooting club and bring a medical proof that you are sane both body and mind before you are authorized to get a license.

 

Over the years, the number of weapons in circulation should decrease naturally.

 

It doesn't infringe on the "right" for a person to own a weapon, but it make it harder for deranged people or criminals to get one in the first place (sure they can always bypass that but it will cost them more than just buying one in a store).

 

Then on the argument that having a weapon is a constitutional right, I call it not respecting the spirit of the law.

AFAIK the second amendment authorize the People to own weapons in order to be able to create militia aimed at defending the Nation against another state (in that period of time the UK) or against their own government if things go south.

 

It has nothing to do with self-defense, at it's root the 2nd amendment carry the idea of an army of citizens like in all democracy over the world.

Nowadays the context has changed, defending the Nation is the job of the professional army (but still composed of citizens) not the one of various militia.

 

Your ,weapons of war, statement shows you,re light on knowledge on US gun law and probably shouldn't comment much on it until you know more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Belesarius said:

The Omar Khadr thing specifically.

1.) He was a Canadian citizen.

2.) We have a Consititution, kinda like you do

3.) The Canadian government handed him over to y'all

4.) He was tortured and mistreated pretty badly by all accounts while at Gitmo

5.) Under UN conventions at the time he falls under the Child Soldier provisions.

 

So the Government fucked up by handing him over to you guys under our laws and they were gonna get nailed ever worse if it went through the courts. So they settled. That's how Rule of law works.  I understand that isn't popular with the US.  Doesn't change the legal realities.

 

 

 

Throwing an awful lot of shade on a situation you haven't the first clue about.

 

Americans ain't all that receptive to Canadians who pretend their shit don't stink.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Belesarius said:

You'll note the weapon used was stolen, not a legally purchased firearm.

 

Directly from the link you just freaking posted Nate... C'mon.

 

Phu Lam (age 53) had a criminal record dating back to 1987, which included drug and violence-related offenses.[4] At the time of the shooting, he was in bankruptcy proceedings and owed a large amount of money on at least a dozen credit cards due to a gambling problem.[6] Lam was arrested twice in Edmonton, for sexual and domestic assault. The gun used in the shooting was stolen in 2006 from Surrey, British Columbia.[3] In November 2012, a complaint was filed against Lam after he threatened to kill his ex-wife Thuy Tien Truong and five other relatives.[6]

 

 

RCMP didn't exactly stop him from getting a gun. Nor did they do anything about him.

 

Wasn't this latest scumbag a prohibited possessor, too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sturgeon said:

 

RCMP didn't exactly stop him from getting a gun. Nor did they do anything about him.

 

Wasn't this latest scumbag a prohibited possessor, too?

Everything that I've seen so far is that he bought the rifle legally. He was expelled from School for fighting, but no criminal charges against him AFAIK.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

That nuts will be nuts I won't disagree with that.

But it's obvious that they will do less damage with a knife or a vehicle than with a firearm.

 

I know that a full war weapons ban is practically impossible because the US will be the US, but a first step would probably to severely reduce the amount of license delivered and to make it harder to obtain one in the first place.

 

Like, for example, bringing proof that you belong to a shooting club and bring a medical proof that you are sane both body and mind before you are authorized to get a license.

 

Over the years, the number of weapons in circulation should decrease naturally.

 

It doesn't infringe on the "right" for a person to own a weapon, but it make it harder for deranged people or criminals to get one in the first place (sure they can always bypass that but it will cost them more than just buying one in a store).

 

Then on the argument that having a weapon is a constitutional right, I call it not respecting the spirit of the law.

AFAIK the second amendment authorize the People to own weapons in order to be able to create militia aimed at defending the Nation against another state (in that period of time the UK) or against their own government if things go south.

 

It has nothing to do with self-defense, at it's root the 2nd amendment carry the idea of an army of citizens like in all democracy over the world.

Nowadays the context has changed, defending the Nation is the job of the professional army (but still composed of citizens) not the one of various militia.

 

This is not even remotely close to how gun law in the US works. Will explain when I get home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×