Three 3rd graders, three adults killed by shooter at Nashville elementary school

[TitanTiger 20,563]

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I don’t agree.  I don’t understand the term *too lethal*.  

Sure you do.  Otherwise you'd support zero restrictions on any kind of arms for private citizens.  Or at least no more restrictions than it takes to get a handgun or an AR.

 

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Every gun is lethal, the severity of the gun is irrelevant.  It’s like having a Honda with a 150 hp 4 cylinder and then buying a muscle car with a 620 HP engine.  You better find out how to handle the increase in HP before you put your foot down on the pedal the first time.  It a person’s responsibility to educate himself.

By lethal I'm referring to its ability to efficiently kill a lot of people in a short period of time.  Don't be obtuse.

[I_M4_AU 8,119]

7 minutes ago, arein0 said:

So what I'm hearing you say in this thread is that you see that there is a problem and can't see a way to solve the issue. Since you can't think of a solution, you don't want to try any kind of solution. Even if it's as simple as putting up more barriers to purchasing guns (we already have barriers) or putting restrictions on the type of gun (we already have restrictions on the type of gun). I believe there is no such thing as an impossible problem. It's only impossible if you lose hope and quit.

I believe I said a more family oriented society would go a long way to solve the problem.  It may not be as virtuous as you would like to hear, but that is my thoughts.

Neither you nor I are going to solve this problem as we are not in a position to enact change.   When congress starts to debate the issue is when we can better voice our concerns.  Titan has come up with a lot of regulations he would like to see and it may or may not be feasible.  There is a Constitution that has to be considered no matter how left wing you are, or how much you want to control your fellow man’s rights.  Especially the law abiding ones.

[I_M4_AU 8,119]

18 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Sure you do

Maybe I should have asked who gets to determine what is *too lethal* and under what matrix.  If it’s the RPM as seen in several posts, no deal.  Those numbers are not real life numbers unless you have a magazine that can hold 1000 rounds or so.

So, it will be left to some politician to succumb to pressure and not real life numbers.

18 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

By lethal I'm referring to its ability to efficiently kill a lot of people in a short period of time. 

America banned the fully automatic weapon based on this type of criteria and now that, in some settings, a semiautomatic rifle can approach these numbers a new ban is proposed.  I’m beginning to see the light.

NO.

Edited March 30, 2023 by I_M4_AU

[TitanTiger 20,563]

7 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I believe I said a more family oriented society would go a long way to solve the problem.  It may not be as virtuous as you would like to hear, but that is my thoughts.

Neither you nor I are going to solve this problem as we are not in a position to enact change.   When congress starts to debate the issue is when we can better voice our concerns.  Titan has come up with a lot of regulations he would like to see and it may or may not be feasible.  There is a Constitution that has to be considered no matter how left wing you are, or how much you want to control your fellow man’s rights.  Especially the law abiding ones.

But nothing I've proposed at least is disregarding the Constitution.  We are already living under an understanding that the Constitution grants us the ability to regulate and restrict certain kinds of arms.  It's a tacit admission that some weapons are simply too powerful, too lethal (as I defined it earlier) to allow to easily get into the wrong hands.  You and I might have a ton of fun blowing random s*** up with C4 out in the desert where no one can get hurt.  And we're law abiding citizens who would never use such a thing to harm anyone else.  But it's just too dangerous to allow people to get their hands on that stuff.  For all the good clean fun normals would have, you'd have a lot of folks with evil intent doing awful things with it. 

And there are other types of arms we could obtain but the regulations and qualifications to get them are much tighter.

Why is it so difficult for you to consider the same thing may be true for certain kinds of firearms?

[TitanTiger 20,563]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Maybe I should have asked who gets to determine what is *too lethal* and under what matrix.  If it’s the RPM as seen in several posts, no deal.  Those numbers are not real life numbers unless you have a magazine that can hold 1000 rounds or so.

Hire a panel of gun experts who can demonstrate real life rates of fire.  We can also refer to the documentation that's out there on these guns from the manufacturers.  Again, this isn't some Gnostic "secret knowledge" puny human minds can't reasonably ascertain.

 

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

So, it will be left to some politician to succumb to pressure and not real life numbers.

America banned the fully automatic weapon based on this type of criteria and now that, in some settings, a semiautomatic rifle can approach these numbers a new ban is proposed.  I’m beginning to see the light.

NO.

Actually, yes.  It's a perfect example of sanity - and a regulation based on what the weapon actually does, not some lame ass criteria about how it looks or meaningless marketing buzzwords like "military style" or "assault."

[Son of A Tiger 585]

38 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I suppose then if they come out with an affordable fully operational and armed Apache attack helicopter for the masses, we shouldn't have any restrictions on it beyond obtaining a pilot's license.

Wait, cars kill more people and kids than guns so Iet's ban cars before helicopters😁

[Son of A Tiger 585]

[I_M4_AU 8,119]

18 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Actually, yes.  It's a perfect example of sanity - and a regulation based on what the weapon actually does, not some lame ass criteria about how it looks or meaningless marketing buzzwords like "military style" or "assault."

Ok, then restrict the fire rates to an acceptable level, whatever that may be.  Or is that not your intent?  If that’s not workable, then it would appear you just want to ban fireams.

[TitanTiger 20,563]

24 minutes ago, Son of A Tiger said:

Wait, cars kill more people and kids than guns so Iet's ban cars before helicopters😁

Well, as stated before, driving is a privilege (that we already highly regulate - both from a "who is allowed to drive" and a "what are street legal cars permitted to be able to do" standpoint).  

We're talking about the idea that the right to bear arms - apparently of any kind - "shall not be infringed."  If that's the case, bring on the Apaches.

[TitanTiger 20,563]

21 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Ok, then restrict the fire rates to an acceptable level, whatever that may be.  Or is that not your intent?  If that’s not workable, then it would appear you just want to ban fireams.

I mean, yeah...that's the whole idea here.  Certain weapons allow bad people to kill a lot of people far too quickly and easily.

And where did you get the idea that I simply want to ban firearms?  I've never suggested such a thing.  I'm in favor of heavily regulating or perhaps banning SOME types.  I personally own a nice little Sig P365 with a concealed carry holster and three 13-round magazines.  I'll probably add a pump action shotgun to the mix in the not too distant future.

[Mims44 1,911]

6 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I mean, yeah...that's the whole idea here.  Certain weapons allow [...] kill a lot of people [...] easily.

[...] I simply want to ban firearms  [...]  I'm in favor of heavily regulating or perhaps banning [...] a nice little Sig P365 with a concealed carry holster and three 13-round magazines.  I'll probably add a pump action shotgun to the [...]future.

Copied you Titan cause you are Admin/Demigod.

Any chance we can just have a stickied school shooting thread instead of making a new one every time it happens?

I feel like it'd save space.

 

 

 

And why has no one posted a walmart bought ar15 firing 1200+ rounds per minute yet? I'm seriously wanting to see what the 'modification' is

I really expect the modification at one point is just getting your hands on a Vector and replacing the AR   

[I_M4_AU 8,119]

10 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I mean, yeah...that's the whole idea here.  Certain weapons allow bad people to kill a lot of people far too quickly and easily.

And where did you get the idea that I simply want to ban firearms?  I've never suggested such a thing.  I'm in favor of heavily regulating or perhaps banning SOME types.  I personally own a nice little Sig P365 with a concealed carry holster and three 13-round magazines.  I'll probably add a pump action shotgun to the mix in the not too distant future.

If we restricted the fire rates of the AR-15 to the *new* standard, there would be no need to ban that gun.  If people (not necessarily you) still want to ban the gun, then they just want to ban guns.  Didn’t mean to infer just you.

There is nothing more sinister than the sound of a shotgun being pumped. 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

22 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

We have a mental health crisis. Until the country decides to seriously deal with unstable people we're going to continue to see more people commit horrific crimes and violence. Banning guns isn't going to fix our mental health crisis.

I believe a good start would be to create more psychiatric hospitals and insane asylums. We had far fewer mass shootings 50+ years ago because we had facilities to place people in.

To further expand on my point about the mental health crisis in this country, we need to be honest about the data with gun deaths and gun violence and not present selective conclusions.

Gun violence in the U.S. is always a focal point in the wake of a mass shooting but when you dive into the statistics its not an entirely accurate picture. While mass shootings get all the headlines and attention they still don't make up a majority of the gun deaths statistics.

Suicides account for more than half of all gun deaths in the United States.

Quote

In order to end gun violence we must address gun suicide, which accounts for 61 percent of all gun deaths in America.

https://www.bradyunited.org/fact-sheets/gun-suicide-across-the-states

Brady United advocates for gun control, it's not a right wing group. The statistics they use come straight from the CDC. While Brady United advocates for fewer guns, the data shows that mental health is an overriding factor in gun deaths regardless of whether your position on guns.

Getting a handle on the mental health crisis would not only help lower the number of suicides but would also help prevent more gun violence like mass shootings.

[Mims44 1,911]

2 hours ago, Son of A Tiger said:

Wait, cars kill more people and kids than guns so Iet's ban cars before helicopters😁

And automobiles are a priveledge right?

Not a right guaranteed to citizens.  So should be easy?

 

 

 

 

 

Or maybe no one here cares about the insane amount of lives lost due to automobiles every year? 

[AU9377 5,238]

6 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Solve?  In todays world with all the emphasis on the individual being superior to the whole, it would be impossible.  It would take a long time, but a more family oriented approach to life would be preferable then what we are seeing now.

 

I think we can all agree to this.  The problem is understanding how you reconcile this statement with making weapons designed to kill human beings as easy to obtain as possible? How is the whole of society made better with that approach?

[AU9377 5,238]

4 hours ago, Son of A Tiger said:

Wait, cars kill more people and kids than guns so Iet's ban cars before helicopters😁

Nobody has suggested banning guns.  However, just like we regulate the type cars that can be on the road and require all sorts of safety mechanisms, doing that with this type of gun should be a no brainer.

[AU9377 5,238]

5 hours ago, autigeremt said:

When it was written, muskets were AR-15s. 

Really? That is a fairy tale.  I suppose a horse was an F-150 as well and dynamite was a nuclear bomb.

[icanthearyou 4,465]

Too bad we cannot employ democracy to solve this issue.  Public opinion is pretty clear.

[AU9377 5,238]

6 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Did you not see where in 8 short years the left has basically changed the way parents have control over their own children and the Board of Education teaching gender identity.  It what the left does, chip away at freedom.

Ask the Aussy’s how free they felt when their country required a vaccine and isolation from society if they refused. 

Our President tried the same thing and the SCOTUS shot him down.  Thank God for our Constitution.

I haven't seen that because that hasn't happened. The obsession with transexuals is bizarre at this point.  I know that is all you hear every night on Fox, but come on people.  I actually have no problem with restricting any sort of medical procedure until someone is 18.  However, what alarms me is the obsession the far right has with this.

Schools are not teaching children to be trans.  That is not happening.  I know.  Topics like that are the last thing any teacher wants to deal with.  However, if on parents day at school a child comes with two dads or two moms, that is acceptable. It is acceptable because they have the right to marry and live together and raise children. 

When my nephew asked me why another kid has two dads, it wasn't difficult to tell him that most kids have a mom and a dad, some have a mom, dad and step dad and that the important thing was that we respect other people.  I also told him that it wasn't polite to ask his friend questions about that because his friend was born into his family just like every other kid. The conversation changed at that point.

As for the vaccines, thank God that a vaccine was available.  I have had the vaccine and all relevant boosters.  Guess what?  I am ALIVE and like any medical doctor would tell you, side effects from vaccines don't happen months or years later.  I know several people that died of Covid.  As with everything, you guys wanted that to be political 24/7 and as with every other issue, none of what you predicted actually happened.

[Leftfield 2,758]

8 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I’m glad it is.  I know, like most reasonable people, if you give up a right it is very seldom you get that right back.  They should be cherished.  Why is it that people, like yourself, want to restrict and govern other people's lives?  If I’m not mistaken you were a proponent of mandatory vaccination.  You don’t care for other people’s rights, just judge the world from your view.

Of course, since you have no legitimate argument, you make up things like I don't care about other people's rights. I could throw it right back and say that because you support these guns, you don't care about the lives of grade school kids, but I won't because I know it's not true.

My point was not that I want the right taken away, just that our government has the mechanism to do so. Rightly so, as the people who formed our government were intelligent enough to realize they couldn't solve all of even their own problems, much less those that would arise after they were dead. 

You freely admitted that if our government had been established further along the line in gun development that they would have treated the gun issue much differently. You also admitted in a response to Titan that the wording of the 2nd Amendment isn't even an issue to you - you just don't want any other types of guns to be banned. You've completely shown your cards on this subject and are now doing the debating equivalent of plugging your ears and saying "LALALALALALA."

 

9 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

  Since most *gun violence* is perpetrated by the hand gun, will that be next?  This his how you libs work.

And paranoid people work by exclaiming that banning all guns is next, because that's "obviously" the natural progression of things. The whole "slippery slope" and all. Those on the extremes usually only see the black and white of a situation, rather than the nuance of the middle ground.

The irony is that my thoughts on this subject used to be very similar to yours. Took me a long time to realize that in my head, in terms of what the government might do, I was letting the possible become probable. Once your mind starts doing that, it starts looking for it in other things. I'm guessing this is where some people spiral out of control and become conspiracy theorists.

 

9 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

By the way how is you neighbor that has declared they were non binary (or whatever)?

Was born a girl, but began identifying as a boy. 12 years old.

In all seriousness, thank you for asking. Unfortunately we haven't heard much for a while. The family moved to another neighborhood, and my daughter switched schools this year so she doesn't have any direct contact. She does talk to some of her friends at her former school and has confirmed that he still goes there, but not much else.

[icanthearyou 4,465]

14 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

 I don’t understand the term *too lethal*.

This is either an admission of ignorance or, pure indifference.

[jj3jordan 2,094]

10 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I haven't seen that because that hasn't happened. The obsession with transexuals is bizarre at this point.  I know that is all you hear every night on Fox, but come on people.  I actually have no problem with restricting any sort of medical procedure until someone is 18.  However, what alarms me is the obsession the far right has with this.

Schools are not teaching children to be trans.  That is not happening.  I know.  Topics like that are the last thing any teacher wants to deal with.  However, if on parents day at school a child comes with two dads or two moms, that is acceptable. It is acceptable because they have the right to marry and live together and raise children. 

When my nephew asked me why another kid has two dads, it wasn't difficult to tell him that most kids have a mom and a dad, some have a mom, dad and step dad and that the important thing was that we respect other people.  I also told him that it wasn't polite to ask his friend questions about that because his friend was born into his family just like every other kid. The conversation changed at that point.

As for the vaccines, thank God that a vaccine was available.  I have had the vaccine and all relevant boosters.  Guess what?  I am ALIVE and like any medical doctor would tell you, side effects from vaccines don't happen months or years later.  I know several people that died of Covid.  As with everything, you guys wanted that to be political 24/7 and as with every other issue, none of what you predicted actually happened.

So you didn’t answer your nephews question at all. He still doesn’t know why his classmate has two dads. He doesn’t know that it is impossible to have two dads. He already knows that most kids have a mom and a dad. That isn’t difficult to tell him.  Mom dad and stepdad is also easy once he can understand divorce. Kids are curious. Politeness won’t stop the question. No kids is “born” into a two dad family. They were born from their mother. They could possibly still be with their original father if the mother is eliminated and their father switches teams. Those iterations are always going to raise questions that can’t be avoided like you did to your nephew. 
 

Your vaccine does not prevent acquisition or transmission of Covid. Not a vaccine.  Your side made it political by ignoring data and testimony from medical doctors all over the world. Side effects can happen any time. Glad you are alive but guess what, you would still be alive if you had not taken the vaccine or any boosters. Another hint: a real vaccine doesn’t require boosters regularly annually biannually monthly whatever. Read up on what is being found in the blood vessels of dead people around the world who took the vaccine.  I believe we are hurting ourselves by taking the vaccine when the disease itself carries a very low death rate.

Edited March 31, 2023 by jj3jordan

[I_M4_AU 8,119]

10 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Schools are not teaching children to be trans. 

They are teaching gender identity and have protocols to keep the child’s gender identity a secret from their parents.  Social media does the rest.  If you can’t see this, especially after this incident, you might want to educate yourself.  Why would adult trans people object to the regulations restricting *gender affirming care* for minors?

10 hours ago, AU9377 said:

As for the vaccines, thank God that a vaccine was available.  I have had the vaccine and all relevant boosters.  Guess what?  I am ALIVE and like any medical doctor would tell you, side effects from vaccines don't happen months or years later.  I know several people that died of Covid.  As with everything, you guys wanted that to be political 24/7 and as with every other issue, none of what you predicted actually happened.

I had the two original shots and felt it was right for me.  No boosters and I'm still alive too.  Your point?  Mine is I voluntarily got the vaccine because of my age.  Biden tried to mandate EVERYONE to get the vaccine or, basically, lose their job.  Many military people did lose their jobs.  That didn't even make sense when he tried it.  The reason you believe it was political is you trust everything this administration says with no exception.  Biden has demonstrated he is not trustworthy.

[TitanTiger 20,563]

14 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Your vaccine does not prevent acquisition or transmission of Covid. Not a vaccine.  Your side made it political by ignoring data and testimony from medical doctors all over the world. Side effects can happen any time. Glad you are alive but guess what, you would still be alive if you had not taken the vaccine or any boosters. Another hint: a real vaccine doesn’t require boosters regularly annually biannually monthly whatever. Read up on what is being found in the blood vessels of dead people around the world who took the vaccine.  I believe we are hurting ourselves by taking the vaccine when the disease itself carries a very low death rate.

This is unscientific bull**** and it has no place here.  That's not how vaccines work, not how viruses operate, not how any virologist other or learned professional in this field or that of infectious diseases understands these matters either. 

Some vaccines have a near 100% rate of prevention.  Others for various reasons - rate of mutation by the virus for instance - will have less than 100% effectiveness for all people, but still be highly effective at preventing disease, and if not, will still be highly effective at lessening the severity and duration of symptoms and complications.  That is what a vaccine does and the COVID vaccines saved millions upon millions of lives here and worldwide.

This isn't going to become a debate.  I will simply refer you to this post I made a while back:

https://www.aufamily.com/topic/180216-there-are-tons-of-places-online-to-post-covid-quackery-and-bull/

Post this nonsense again and you'll be out of the politics forum.

 

[AU9377 5,238]

50 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

So you didn’t answer your nephews question at all. He still doesn’t know why his classmate has two dads. He doesn’t know that it is impossible to have two dads. He already knows that most kids have a mom and a dad. That isn’t difficult to tell him.  Mom dad and stepdad is also easy once he can understand divorce. Kids are curious. Politeness won’t stop the question. No kids is “born” into a two dad family. They were born from their mother. They could possibly still be with their original father if the mother is eliminated and their father switches teams. Those iterations are always going to raise questions that can’t be avoided like you did to your nephew. 
 

Your vaccine does not prevent acquisition or transmission of Covid. Not a vaccine.  Your side made it political by ignoring data and testimony from medical doctors all over the world. Side effects can happen any time. Glad you are alive but guess what, you would still be alive if you had not taken the vaccine or any boosters. Another hint: a real vaccine doesn’t require boosters regularly annually biannually monthly whatever. Read up on what is being found in the blood vessels of dead people around the world who took the vaccine.  I believe we are hurting ourselves by taking the vaccine when the disease itself carries a very low death rate.

According to you, you cannot be a dad unless you are a biological father.  That is news to me.  There is a time and place to go into more detail.  That time and place is not at 6 years old.  That said, not addressing it at all is equally wrong.  One thing that should not happen is kids bullying the other child for being different.  That is unacceptable.

According to your definition of a vaccine, we have no vaccines.  Call it the needle prick that saves lives for all I care.  The fact is that it does and has saved lives. Many vaccines require boosters. You simply want to find fault and at the first sign that something isn't absolutely perfect (which never exists in nature) you declare it invalid in some way.  I personally know 4 people that died of Covid.  One of them was 32 years old.

I won't be looking up nonsense about the blood vessels of the dead in some far corner of the world.  I choose to believe people that I know that have gone to medical school over faceless people that post on the internet.