14 Children and Teacher Killed in Texas Elementary School Shooting

[Jibartik]

Originally Posted by Gustoo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Jib - as much as I think the internet should be closed down immediately and its history erased from the history of humanity, if we didn't act like scum to eachother, the internet would be the equivalent of the technology that allows starfleet to travel the universe.

Instead it is seen as just another tool by psychopaths to extract money and value and life from other humans.

200 years of computer diseases say no to terrorism .21

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Gustoo]

A government doesn't benefit from nuclear bombing their own land, or by regular bombing it. The fact that the government has more power than ever is no argument in favor of giving them still more power over us, the ruled. Just because a population can be exterminated by poison gas or nuclear bomb does not have a meaningful negative impact on the usefulness of weapons against tyranny. Ask any tyrant in history. Ask Putin presently.

Loramin I don't see anyone making the argument that stripping the legal ownership of guns away from Americans would have no reduction in school shootings. It would.

The argument anti gun people make is that we will be more safe without guns. There is no evidence to support this argument.

The argument that possibly you are the only one in the world is trying to make is "if there were no guns, no one would die from guns" that is not an argument that needs making because it is a logical fact.

If I had no legs I could never kick someone
If I had no arms I could never punch someone
If I had no car I could never injure someone with a car I was driving
If I had no hammer I could never hurt someone with a hammer
If I had no knife I could never hurt someone iwth a knife.

If America had no legs it could never kick anyone
If America had no arms it oculd never punch anyone
If America had no cars there would be no car injuries
If America had no hammers there would be no hammer injuries
If America had no knives there would be no knife injuries.
If there were no elephants, there would be no more unethical treatment of elephants.

These are all self evident logical facts. You do not need to make statements like this anymore Loramin.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Rethalis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

United States has a deadbeat dad and fatherless children problem not a gun problem.

So other countries don't have deadbeat dads and fatherless children? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] Because, again, this is a uniquely American problem.

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Look at the fact that in ukraine right now citizens owning guns just saved their ass from a russian invasion because they were armed and they dont have school shootings there.

No, it did not. Military aid from the US government (that same military that could crush any sort of civic resistance like a bug, regardless of mansy guns they own, if it ever decided to) is what saved them.

Originally Posted by Gustoo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A government doesn't benefit from nuclear bombing their own land, or by regular bombing it. The fact that the government has more power than ever is no argument in favor of giving them still more power over us, the ruled. Just because a population can be exterminated by poison gas or nuclear bomb does not have a meaningful negative impact on the usefulness of weapons against tyranny. Ask any tyrant in history. Ask Putin presently.

Loramin I don't see anyone making the argument that stripping the legal ownership of guns away from Americans would have no reduction in school shootings. It would.

The argument anti gun people make is that we will be more safe without guns. There is no evidence to support this argument.

The argument that possibly you are the only one in the world is trying to make is "if there were no guns, no one would die from guns" that is not an argument that needs making because it is a logical fact.

If I had no legs I could never kick someone
If I had no arms I could never punch someone
If I had no car I could never injure someone with a car I was driving
If I had no hammer I could never hurt someone with a hammer
If I had no knife I could never hurt someone iwth a knife.

If America had no legs it could never kick anyone
If America had no arms it oculd never punch anyone
If America had no cars there would be no car injuries
If America had no hammers there would be no hammer injuries
If America had no knives there would be no knife injuries.
If there were no elephants, there would be no more unethical treatment of elephants.

These are all self evident logical facts. You do not need to make statements like this anymore Loramin.

At the end of the day what you're ultimately saying is "kids (and other innocent people) should die so that I can have my fantasy (and again, it is a fantasy) of some day using guns to stand up to a corrupt US government." Because again, unlike cars and hammers, we don't need guns.

[Rethalis]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So other countries don't have deadbeat dads and fatherless children? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] Because, again, this is a uniquely American problem.

I didn't say that at all. Majority of violent crimes are commited by people who grew up without a father in the home. If you want to hide the root issue behind guns fine, but its not going to magically make society any better as a result.

I don't believe for a second that banning guns will reduce *overall* violent crime.

[Skarne]

Originally Posted by Rethalis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I didn't say that at all. Majority of violent crimes are commited by people who grew up without a father in the home. If you want to hide the root issue behind guns fine, but its not going to magically make society any better as a result.

I don't believe for a second that banning guns will reduce *overall* violent crime.

I don’t think banning guns is the answer either. This is a systemic problem which calls for more than one change. I think things like increased background checks, increased age limit to buy a (25 id say), maybe a mental health screening every few years, buyback programs, storage requirements…idk I have no clue how to fix this but I really think something has got to be done. Don’t you think enough is enough? I don’t like innocent people dying needlessly in mass shootings…especially children my son’s age.

[Mblake1981]

Originally Posted by Skarne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don’t think banning guns is the answer either. This is a systemic problem which calls for more than one change. I think things like increased background checks, increased age limit to buy a (25 id say), maybe a mental health screening every few years, buyback programs, storage requirements…idk I have no clue how to fix this but I really think something has got to be done. Don’t you think enough is enough? I don’t like innocent people dying needlessly in mass shootings…especially children my son’s age.

Sounds like a dead beat father problem.

[Elizondo]

Originally Posted by Skarne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don’t think banning guns is the answer either. This is a systemic problem which calls for more than one change. I think things like increased background checks, increased age limit to buy a (25 id say), maybe a mental health screening every few years, buyback programs, storage requirements…idk I have no clue how to fix this but I really think something has got to be done. Don’t you think enough is enough? I don’t like innocent people dying needlessly in mass shootings…especially children my son’s age.

If 18 year olds can be sent to war they can buy guns

[Jibartik]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No, it did not. Military aid from the US government (that same military that could crush any sort of civic resistance like a bug, regardless of mansy guns they own, if it ever decided to) is what saved them.
.

This is so infuriating

this friggen war was BECAUSE THEY WANTED WESTERN support

it couldnt be more wrong and you are so confident about how disrespectful you are to the real heros that get out there and saved ukraine and died doing it and you want to take credit for it.

[Horza]

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is so infuriating

this friggen war was BECAUSE THEY WANTED WESTERN support

it couldnt be more wrong and you are so confident about how disrespectful you are to the real heros that get out there and saved ukraine and died doing it and you want to take credit for it.

Putin simp says what now?

The war was because they want to preserve the old Soviet sphere of influence despite Ukraine kicking out the strongman he had installed.

[Jibartik]

Originally Posted by Horza [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Putin simp says what now?

The war was because they want to preserve the old Soviet sphere of influence despite Ukraine kicking out the strongman he had installed.

thats literally what I just said you fricken bot