260 Mass Shootings 160 Days, When Will it be Too Much?

Monkey

Super Anarchist
11,059
2,691
Mmm, maybe not. At least 3 of the "reasonable" gun owners here have talk about how they would accept this-or-that; even made some concrete proposals.... but NONE will ever actually AGREE to anything that anybody else says, not even another gunnutz... and FOR GODDAM SURE not one of us faggot libby-rull gun-grabbers.

I actually reposted a couple of "reasonable" proposals, taking their own prior statements word-for-word, and my my my you should have seen the bad names they called me. It's all a charade on their part, and I wouldn't say that if I hadn't proven it several times here.

So no, I don't think there is ever going to be any "reasonable gun owners" on board with any regulation that actually is put up for legislation.

And this does not make me happy. It makes me sad and rather downhearted, because it really seems like it should be easy to get 99.9% of USAnians to agree to stop selling guns to fucking crazy people.
Jeff has repeatedly said he’s in favor of more extensive background checks and red flag laws. Yes, he stands up for the second amendment. If you’d stop treating him as the enemy, you might actually get your point across. You’re too stubborn to understand that that the only way we’ll ever fix this shit is to get the responsible gun guys on our side.
 
"Armed protesters gather at the Michigan Capitol Building in Lansing, Mich., April 30, 2020."

1657072802025.png

1657072831070.png


Here's your team of responsible gun owners, just exercising their 2nd amendment rights to carry...

What a fucking joke.

The time to change is long past.

As you can see from the constant ongoing killing of innocent American people, with firearms.
 

giegs

Anarchist
912
452
Arid

We need more of this. Throw in some snobby french philosophy for good measure.
There is no way for an onlooker to know beyond a shadow of a doubt if the author was genuine in their beliefs, fully lucid at the time of writing or at the time of the attack, or if the manifesto was even complete. Only the attacker can ever know these things. However, too often as researchers, journalists, law enforcement, citizens, and activists, we find ourselves asking "What can the manifesto tell us about the author and the attack?" rather than the much more important question "Why is this the piece of media that the attacker wanted me to see?"

Reframing investigations and media coverage to interrogate that question opens the door to much more responsible and insightful analysis.
Terrorists also live in a world where news media exists. They see what the reporting looks like and how it changes the conversation every time there is a terrorist attack. They know their words will be picked apart and analyzed for clues, that their digital history will be dissected, their rooms searched, and that any media they created will be shared. They know this because the same process takes place every time, with every actor. When they create videos, manifestos, and leave behind their digital footprint, they do it with this information in mind. Yes, they are still designed to be radicalizing calls to arms, but also to serve as a handbook on how to portray them in the news. The things they leave behind are evidence of the story they wanted us to tell, and rather than telling it, we should deeply consider what type of action or conversation that story contributes to.

The Christchurch shooter famously filled his manifesto with memes, jokes, and inflammatory and contradictory statements. At one point, he joked he was radicalized by Spyro, a children’s video game, and that he was a fan of Candace Owens, an American conservative commentator.
He also frequently stated that he hoped his shooting would exacerbate tensions between the right and left on gun control issues in the United States, ideally to the point of civil war.

The trap he laid snagged several high profile commentators, politicians, and journalists, who were quick to point out that people who called for more gun control were playing into the shooter's hands, or that people who threatened to push back against gun control were contributing to his hopes for violence. Plenty of people at the time were quick to point out that the manifesto was bait, but it is glaringly obvious in hindsight what the shooter had done. The gun control debate would have happened whether or not the shooter stated it was his intention. Sure, he wanted Americans to argue over guns, but he also wanted Americans to argue over the fact that he said he wanted them to argue over guns. He created an additional layer of social tension through uncritical – but nonetheless highly predictable – reporting on his manifesto. He got to influence the narrative without a single interview.

Several shooters, most recently the one in Buffalo, have taken note of what the manifesto from the Christchurch shooter accomplished. The Buffalo shooter went a step further and published his Discord diary, which he'd also heavily edited. In addition to his livestream of the shooting, there were more than 850 pages of written material. As always, people rushed to gather what they could about him and his motivations from the materials he released. Despite the fact that he was familiar with and claimed to be inspired by the Christchurch shooter, there was still a failure by public figures and reporters to consider the materials in their full context. These materials are not just for other potential terrorists or white supremacists. They're also for the reporter, analyst, or law enforcement officer reading it.
 

Bus Driver

Bacon Quality Control Specialist
Looks like thi
Jeff has repeatedly said he’s in favor of more extensive background checks and red flag laws. Yes, he stands up for the second amendment. If you’d stop treating him as the enemy, you might actually get your point across. You’re too stubborn to understand that that the only way we’ll ever fix this shit is to get the responsible gun guys on our side.
Not sure there is as much daylight as you'd like us to believe between the ammosexuals and the "responsible gun guys", on anything resembling limits or regulations around guns.

Too often we hear of the "slippery slope", followed by nothing of merit.
 

MauiPunter

Will sail for food
"Armed protesters gather at the Michigan Capitol Building in Lansing, Mich., April 30, 2020."

View attachment 527107
View attachment 527108

Here's your team of responsible gun owners, just exercising their 2nd amendment rights to carry...

What a fucking joke.

The time to change is long past.

As you can see from the constant ongoing killing of innocent American people, with firearms.
This looks like pure mental illness....
 

Olsonist

Disgusting Liberal Elitist
29,997
4,548
New Oak City
Jeff has repeatedly said he’s in favor of more extensive background checks and red flag laws. Yes, he stands up for the second amendment. If you’d stop treating him as the enemy, you might actually get your point across. You’re too stubborn to understand that that the only way we’ll ever fix this shit is to get the responsible gun guys on our side.
Jeff has also repeatedly said that he's pro-choice but that Roe v Wade was poorly decided. Et cetera.
 

Steam Flyer

Sophisticated Yet Humble
45,362
10,182
Eastern NC
Jeff has repeatedly said he’s in favor of more extensive background checks and red flag laws. Yes, he stands up for the second amendment. If you’d stop treating him as the enemy, you might actually get your point across. You’re too stubborn to understand that that the only way we’ll ever fix this shit is to get the responsible gun guys on our side.

Not sure what you're seeing, but it's not even close to the whole picture here. I've had many friendly exchanges with Jeff and don't consider him an "enemy" although I do consider him a raving gun-nut... obsessed and unable to make contact with reality, on this topic. But then, he considers me a heretic because I used to hunt and shoot etc etc and have not let it take over my thinking.

Jeff has indeed said he's in favor of a number of reforms. And maybe, just maybe, if some of those things came up on a referendum, he'd vote for them. But let somebody he considers a gun-grabber suggest THE EXACT SAME THING HE PROPOSED and it's horrible terrible very bad no good unAmerican trampling his sacred rights etc etc.

It's been demonstrated enough times that it's not funny any more. Nor is Jeff the only one.
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,841
2,003
Punta Gorda FL
Jeff has repeatedly said he’s in favor of more extensive background checks and red flag laws.
Not to mention safe storage laws, which we have and I support here in FL.

I don't support amending our safe storage law in the way grabbers proposed. As written, if a criminal defeats my safe storage and steals a gun that was secured according to State law standards, I'm not liable for whatever he might do. Grabbers wanted to remove that provision so that I would be liable if a properly secured gun were stolen.

The purpose there seems to me to be the same as the point of this post:
It also absolves individuals of the LIABILITY FOR USE by others. So if your roommate steals your keys and bypasses your 'secure gun storage' and uses your gun to holdup a liquor store, you're totally good. But if your roommate steals your keys and runs over a little old lady with your car, well that's what you have liability insurance for.
Namely, to hold gun (and car) owners responsible for the actions of criminals who steal our shit.

People tell me I'm wrong and call me lots of names for saying this is BS. They just never explain WHY gun and car owners should be responsible for the actions of criminals who steal our shit.

Until one of them actually explains how they are thinking, I'm going to continue to think they're all gungrabby fanatics and not susceptible to reason.
 
Not to mention safe storage laws, which we have and I support here in FL.

I don't support amending our safe storage law in the way grabbers proposed. As written, if a criminal defeats my safe storage and steals a gun that was secured according to State law standards, I'm not liable for whatever he might do. Grabbers wanted to remove that provision so that I would be liable if a properly secured gun were stolen.

The purpose there seems to me to be the same as the point of this post:

Namely, to hold gun (and car) owners responsible for the actions of criminals who steal our shit.

People tell me I'm wrong and call me lots of names for saying this is BS. They just never explain WHY gun and car owners should be responsible for the actions of criminals who steal our shit.

Until one of them actually explains how they are thinking, I'm going to continue to think they're all gungrabby fanatics and not susceptible to reason.
Well,

Your just another unreasonable gun nut.


"2-year-old boy orphaned when both of his parents were killed in Highland Park parade shooting"​

 
  • Like
Reactions: Mid

Latest posts




Top