GOP rep. receives threatening email after shooting

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

Yes, but that is not the way to discuss it. He's practically alluding that the shooting was a good thing. Just because something furthers your political goals, doesn't make it worth it.

I did not get the impression that he thought it was a good thing at all, you're projecting. 

[FATCAT 60,983]

27 minutes ago, stvn said:

 you're projecting. 

I'm not.

[CyberTootie 4]

A bunch of people saying "that's too bad" becomes a little redundant after a while. You can't have a discussion about a shooting without it eventually moving onto gun control.

[PaperIz 7,354]

That's scary. We all need to come together right now. And we need better gun laws! These psychos target everyone and now our elected officials. We need change.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, FATCAT said:

I'm not.

"Maybe they will pay attention now" is a very, very simple statement. You are ascribing meaning to it which was never overtly stated. The suggestion that anyone in this thread is happy that it happened is offensive. Violence is never a good thing, but when it happens, it IS a good thing for people to take notice and do something about it. Hoping people pay attention is not wrong. Republicans have often shown that they don't care about issues until they are personally affected by them, and as unfortunate as that might be, it's sometimes true. I don't think pointing that out and hoping they'll finally do something about gun violence in the wake of being specifically targeted is a bad thing at all. And it certainly doesn't mean anyone is happy that people were shot.

[Goosey 3,017]

6 hours ago, littlepotter said:

Either people push this issue now, and get rid of it once and for all

Really?

 

Not realistic, anyways. This is from yesterday:

 

HEARING PROTECTION ACT LANGUAGE INCORPORATED INTO COMPREHENSIVE SPORTSMENS PACKAGE

"WASHINGTON, D.C. – The House Committee on Natural Resources has scheduled a hearing for the morning of June 14, in which the Federal Lands Subcommittee will hear a discussion draft of the Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement (SHARE) Act. The SHARE Act, which is being championed in a bipartisan manner ..."

Sec. 1702: Removing suppressors from the National Firearms Act, subjecting them to the same instant NICS background check as long guns, and issuing a refundable tax credit to anyone who has purchased a suppressor since the HPA’s original date of introduction

Sec. 1703: Ensuring that suppressors will remain legal in all 42 states where they are currently legal, after suppressors are removed from the National Firearms Act

Sec. 1705: Granting the ATF 365 days to destroy all suppressor related records from the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR)

Source

 

5 hours ago, Whispering said:

While I understand with the general sentiment, the last part really isn't true. The majority of voters have supported common sense gun laws on and off for decades now. The GOP won't move on it because of the big money from the NRA. 

Not true. GOP politicians won't move on it because they'd get kicked out of office by the people who voted them in.

From The New Yorker:

 

TAKING ON THE NRA

"In many accounts, the power of the N.R.A. comes down to money. The organization has an annual operating budget of some quarter of a billion dollars, and between 2000 and 2010 it spent fifteen times as much on campaign contributions as gun-control advocates did. But money is less crucial than you’d think. The N.R.A.’s annual lobbying budget is around three million dollars, which is about a fifteenth of what, say, the National Association of Realtors spends. The N.R.A.’s biggest asset isn’t cash but the devotion of its members. 

Adam Winkler, a law professor at U.C.L.A. and the author of the 2011 book “Gunfight,” told me, “N.R.A. members are politically engaged and politically active. They call and write elected officials, they show up to vote, and they vote based on the gun issue.”

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/taking-on-the-n-r-a

[Whispering 18,865]

Lawd have mercy, the gun mess again. 

[Goosey 3,017]

[ALGAYDO 35,521]

I hate that ANYONE had to experience first-hand the tolls of having such lax gun laws, I really, REALLY do, because I ****ing hate gun violence in general.

but I'm honestly not gonna lie, I feel less terrible about it being towards GOP congress members because of the fact that it's basically their fault. 

Idk, I wanna be a good person about this whole situation and all, but I'm low key not feeling as bad about it...

i hate this but ehh ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

[MJHolland 12,725]

6 hours ago, Redstreak said:

"Hey, maybe this will be what spurs the nation to look at lax guns that allow shootings like this to happen so we can avoid this for other potential victims"

 

I really don't know how you can have a more mature/compassionate response then that.

Ah yes... because stricter gun laws mean less gun violence. 

thats why Chicago has almost no gun violence. 

 

 

 

Oh wait 

[PartySick 174,812]

2 hours ago, MJHolland said:

Ah yes... because stricter gun laws mean less gun violence. 

thats why Chicago has almost no gun violence. 

 

 

 

Oh wait 

The surrounding areas are more lax on guns though  it's not like weapons disintegrate automatically when entering a no-weapons zone

Not that I think more gun laws necessarily means less gun crime, I'm just saying it's probably not the most fair thing to say since other countries have far less issue with gun crimes and it's due to their stricter gun laws 

Personally, I think the solution is education and information. It's far too easy for any Tom, ****, or Harry to get their hands on a gun. Longer waiting times, thorough background checks done by law enforcement or a special government agency, and hell, why not throw in a required gun course in high school? I know it sounds crazy at first but knowledge is never a bad thing. Sex ed help cut the rate of teenage pregnancies and STD infections drastically, I'd imagine firearm education could do something similar when it comes to curbing gun crime. I know a Colorado(?) elementary school did something like that with a bit of success. The kids learned to not fear, hate, or worship guns. They're just tools that are capable of doing some awful things in the wrong hands.

So yeah, more intense regulations rather than harsher restrictions is the way to go imo. Too often this discussion becomes "you're either with guns or you're against them!!1!!1" when there's solutions that'll appease any reasonable person* on both sides of the aisle 

Spoiler

*meaning liberals who want every gun to be destroyed will be just as unhappy as conservatives that want everyone to be able to own guns with no records or government interference attached. They're unreasonable requests and either unrealistic or unsafe...or both  So they can sit in their wrongness and be wrong while the rest of us agree to disagree on certain things, come to a compromise, and get on with our lives. Hopefully with fewer bullets in the air and fewer shootings on the news 

3 hours ago, Whispering said:

Lawd have mercy, the gun mess again. 

Well if there was a place to talk about it, it's here

[Guest]

4 hours ago, MJHolland said:

Ah yes... because stricter gun laws mean less gun violence. 

thats why Chicago has almost no gun violence. 

 

 

 

Oh wait 

Wow, way to oversimplify. The areas directly around Chicago don't have the same laws, and there are already a ton of guns in rotation in Chicago. There are multiple factors at play here. One of the factors is poverty, culture, and predisposition to gang violence because of proximity to it and because of poverty and broken homes and lack of sufficient education. That is the real epidemic in Chicago, and it leads to gun culture.

Now, even if gun control laws have some positive effect in reducing gun violence in Chicago, the other factors are still there.

If you want to see the best example of what happens when you really don't have access to guns, look at Austrailia. Years and years ago they had a terrible mass shooting and they swiftly and decisively took action in controlling guns. They have not had a mass shooting SINCE THEN. This is a good example because the policy was enacted across the WHOLE country and it's not exactly easy to go to a different continent, buy a gun, and bring it back.

So in short, and again, please stop oversimplifying. It's quite unbecoming.

[August Blue 8,566]

1 hour ago, PartySick said:

The surrounding areas are more lax on guns though  it's not like weapons disintegrate automatically when entering a no-weapons zone

Not that I think more gun laws necessarily means less gun crime, I'm just saying it's probably not the most fair thing to say since other countries have far less issue with gun crimes and it's due to their stricter gun laws 

Personally, I think the solution is education and information. It's far too easy for any Tom, ****, or Harry to get their hands on a gun. Longer waiting times, thorough background checks done by law enforcement or a special government agency, and hell, why not throw in a required gun course in high school? I know it sounds crazy at first but knowledge is never a bad thing. Sex ed help cut the rate of teenage pregnancies and STD infections drastically, I'd imagine firearm education could do something similar when it comes to curbing gun crime. I know a Colorado(?) elementary school did something like that with a bit of success. The kids learned to not fear, hate, or worship guns. They're just tools that are capable of doing some awful things in the wrong hands.

So yeah, more intense regulations rather than harsher restrictions is the way to go imo. Too often this discussion becomes "you're either with guns or you're against them!!1!!1" when there's solutions that'll appease any reasonable person* on both sides of the aisle 

  Reveal hidden contents

*meaning liberals who want every gun to be destroyed will be just as unhappy as conservatives that want everyone to be able to own guns with no records or government interference attached. They're unreasonable requests and either unrealistic or unsafe...or both  So they can sit in their wrongness and be wrong while the rest of us agree to disagree on certain things, come to a compromise, and get on with our lives. Hopefully with fewer bullets in the air and fewer shootings on the news 

Well if there was a place to talk about it, it's here

Though I found the idea of required gun course in high school interesting, after much thought I can say that it wouldn't be as fruitful as you might think.

Sex ed treats about sex, which is natural. Guns simply aren't. If you want to throw a course about guns, might aswell implement a course for cooking since obesity kills thousands (and I'm sure there are more) of americans each year.

The problem is in America's culture and history, guns have been taken for granted. And it's too late for that. Though I don't think they'll ever get rid of them, the number of guns will slowly drop drown but not to a reasonable number unfortunately.

I also wanted to add that the ones who are planning on a mass-shooting already are getting trained through the education program, so that's one more downside. 

I'm sorry for not providing any resolutions on this topic, I'm not well informed about it for now but I still like to express my opinions and debate on such topic.

Damn, I'm happy to live in France (I swear the first one who's gonna talk about the terrorist attack I'm going to shade him into another universe )

[PartySick 174,812]

21 minutes ago, August Blue said:

Though I found the idea of required gun course in high school interesting, after much thought I can say that it wouldn't be as fruitful as you might think.

Sex ed treats about sex, which is natural. Guns simply aren't. If you want to throw a course about guns, might aswell implement a course for cooking since obesity kills thousands (and I'm sure there are more) of americans each year.

The problem is in America's culture and history, guns have been taken for granted. And it's too late for that. Though I don't think they'll ever get rid of them, the number of guns will slowly drop drown but not to a reasonable number unfortunately.

I also wanted to add that the ones who are planning on a mass-shooting already are getting trained through the education program, so that's one more downside. 

I'm sorry for not providing any resolutions on this topic, I'm not well informed about it for now but I still like to express my opinions and debate on such topic.

Damn, I'm happy to live in France (I swear the first one who's gonna talk about the terrorist attack I'm going to shade him into another universe )

I mean...you're not really wrong

I just thought the education route was at least more realistic than the total ban idea

[DeleteMyAccount 11,881]

But will Republicans consider this a terrorist attack? Because it simply is. Of course that would go against their rhetoric though...