• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Shooting reported at California H.S.[W92]

Details are starting to emerge. The boy used a shotgun and was there with the intent to harm ONE person. NONE of the proposed gun or ammo regulation would have done squat to prevent this.
 
There is pretty good evidence of what happens when there ISN'T opposition to bad people with evil intent. That you find the factual reality preferable to the possibility of an armed trained responsible citizen in the second row stopping him after the first few rounds is...well...I simply have no response to that. No armed citizens responded...hurrah???


yes I live in a world where I dont have to re-live my army days before I go to the Cinema.
 
What's funny about the gun debate in this country as it relates to me is that the only thing that ever makes me reconsider my position on guns is the words of many of our country's 'gun enthusiasts'. It's not the guns themselves; it's not even crime. It's the gun nuts. A lot of the things they say in public and things I consistently read on this forum are so over the top, reckless and hyperbolic that it makes me question whether or not I should be in favor of more gun control than I am. There are definitely a lot of people who cross the line from "protection" to the kind of irrationality that I don't think is safe for society.

I moved away from the US last month but from my time there and posting on here I have noticed that for the pro-gun crowd it has become more of a obession that an actual need. It seemed to me that many gun owners did so to make a political statement rather than to actually defend themselves.
 
yes I live in a world where I dont have to re-live my army days before I go to the Cinema.

Well now, in actuality you live in a world where you some day, some moment, may have to re-live your Army days. The only question remains, will you be able to effectively, not having kept in practice all these years?
 
I moved away from the US last month but from my time there and posting on here I have noticed that for the pro-gun crowd it has become more of a obession that an actual need. It seemed to me that many gun owners did so to make a political statement rather than to actually defend themselves.

That last is dead on. However, much less a political statement as a preservation of a constitutional right they see slipping away.

For instance, I haven't owned a firearm since 72, but when they started with this Brady Bill nonsense I joined the NRA and have been a member ever since.
 
“Necessary” when, in your opinion?

Once the gun was invented, like the nuke the genie was out of the bottle. And there is no way of getting it back in. Disarming everyone leaves only the authorities and criminals with lethal weapons. That's not fair to law abiding citizens.
 
That last is dead on. However, much less a political statement as a preservation of a constitutional right they see slipping away.
But what is really slipping away is the past. It is a different world we live in, and what the 2nd Amendment meant before, and what firearms meant before, is not a reality in large chunks of the this country. It is a dark and twisted mirroring of a past bygone they imagine, a perversion of the firearm as a tool.

I grew up with firearms as a tool, and the vocal sections of the gun lobby makes absolutely no sense to me. In a metaphor, it as if they are arguing that alcohol fueled funny cars should be street legal. *shrug* EDIT: Oh, and that the solution to any problems that come up is that more people need to drive them. :shock:
 
Last edited:
Once the gun was invented, like the nuke the genie was out of the bottle. And there is no way of getting it back in. Disarming everyone leaves only the authorities and criminals with lethal weapons. That's not fair to law abiding citizens.
Would not “a lot safer” be somewhere in the region of fair?

Further, there is a LOT of territory between where the US is (even in the relatively tightest of states) and full “disarming everyone”. When the slightest hint of any change, or even research and dissemination of helpful information, is treated as an attack we are in an entirely dysfunction place.
 
But what is really slipping away is the past. It is a different world we live in, and what the 2nd Amendment meant before, and what firearms meant before, is not a reality in large chunks of the this country. It is a dark and twisted mirroring of a past bygone they imagine, a perversion of the firearm as a tool.

I grew up with firearms as a tool, and the vocal sections of the gun lobby makes absolutely no sense to me. In a metaphor, it as if they are arguing that alcohol fueled funny cars should be street legal. *shrug* EDIT: Oh, and that the solution to any problems that come up is that more people need to drive them. :shock:

Which calls to mind the famous quote - "Those who can not remember the past are condemned to repeat it" (George Santayana)
 
I don't remember toddlers using tragedies to further their political agenda either:lol:

What does any of this have to do with figuring out why our strict gun control laws failed to prevent this shooting?
A better question would be why didn't our strict forum rules prevent this spamming.
 
Would not “a lot safer” be somewhere in the region of fair?

Further, there is a LOT of territory between where the US is (even in the relatively tightest of states) and full “disarming everyone”. When the slightest hint of any change, or even research and dissemination of helpful information, is treated as an attack we are in an entirely dysfunction place.

I agree the reactions are strong but it's because the stated fixes are not always realistic. Seems nobody can find rational ways of discussing these events.
 
I agree the reactions are strong but it's because the stated fixes are not always realistic. Seems nobody can find rational ways of discussing these events.
When the simple “fix” of gathering and publishing objective data related to firearms triggers outrage, a flurry of lobbing, and prolonged and marked political exertion to financially shoot the messenger and keep them shut up? That is pathological. Blaming the unrealistic nature of some suggestions for “strong reactions” to all is a poor excuse, and suggests an entirely different underlying main root cause for the “strong reactions”.
 
When the simple “fix” of gathering and publishing objective data related to firearms triggers outrage, a flurry of lobbing, and prolonged and marked political exertion to financially shoot the messenger and keep them shut up? That is pathological. Blaming the unrealistic nature of some suggestions for “strong reactions” to all is a poor excuse, and suggests an entirely different underlying main root cause for the “strong reactions”.

That fix is neither realistic nor a fix, it's utter nonsense.
 
That fix is neither realistic nor a fix, it's utter nonsense.
Why?

Why is it a problem? EDIT: Its existence as an action, that is.

And how exactly is the gathering and dissemination of objective information “utter nonsense”? What kind of Dark Age do you wish to live in?
 
Last edited:
Why?

Why is it a problem?

And how exactly is the gathering and dissemination of objective information “utter nonsense”? What kind of Dark Age do you wish to live in?

Gathering and publishing objective data related to firearms is going to prevent firearm related fatalities? How does that make any sense?
 
Gathering and publishing objective data related to firearms is going to prevent firearm related fatalities? How does that make any sense?
It combats the ignorance of “firearms make you safe”. Which is one of the important myths underlying the glorification in the “gun culture” in this society.

Yes, it is deep irony that La Pierre bemoans the culture of violence while perpetuating it.
 
It is revealed by some who knew the shooter that he was bullied by the two students he targeted. It wasn't a designed mass shooting but other students could have been shot too. At least one female had ear damage and another from falling over a table.

We have seen this before where a student feels so bullied he either kills himself or comes after the tormenter with a firearm. A shame he couldn't find another avenue to help him.

Now one student is in critical condition and the shooter's life is pretty much toast.
 
Listen, dumbfuck thundercunt, nobody said that gun control laws would prevent all gun related murders. It's just like DUI laws don't stop all people from drinking and driving. It's just like shoplifting laws don't prevent everyone from shoplifting.

I swear you are so stupid you should be required to carry a potted plant around just to replace the oxygen you waste.

Sorry Redress, I hope this doesn't reflect badly on the liberals who are respectfully discussing this issue. I hope the victim is okay.

What the **** is wrong with you, bitch? People have feelings, you know.

How would you like it if I called you a drooling troll, you drooling troll, now STFU!
 
Back
Top Bottom