Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[laughing dog]

So “sensible” has a different meaning for you.

I would be concerned if we did.

I wouldn’t, but I don’t expect pigs to fly.

FYI, the car analogy is inappropriate because one of the major functions is not killing people.

I do not see why it's inappropriate, as they can both be dangerous.

Anything can be dangerous. Should we regulate pencils or scissors or croutons?

And this approach would make gun ownership much safer than it is today.

Not having semi automatic or automatic weapons makes it even safer.

 

[Elixir]

Not having semi automatic or automatic weapons makes it even safer.

B-b-but people who make helpful suggestions by pointing out that other things besides guns are also dangerous, are expressing urgent valid concerns and should not be brushed aside in order to deny their 2A rights! /sarcasm

Of course outlawing motor vehicles could save thousands of lives. It would slso cause millions of deaths from starvation and disease. But maybe that’s just what we need, eh?

 

[Tigers!]

we have instituted plans to have people spell government correctly

Let them send the fury of hell to stop me! They can lock me up, have me drawn and quartered, and they’ll still be GOOBERS!!

For you I'll send my mum. She will have you spelling correctly in no time at all.

 

[bilby]

we have instituted plans to have people spell government correctly

Let them send the fury of hell to stop me! They can lock me up, have me drawn and quartered, and they’ll still be GOOBERS!!

For you I'll send my mum. She will have you spelling correctly in no time at all.

It's a futile battle. I have a BRAND NEW dictionary here, and there's only ONE word in it that is spelled CORRECTLY.

 

[WAB]

we have instituted plans to have people spell government correctly

Let them send the fury of hell to stop me! They can lock me up, have me drawn and quartered, and they’ll still be GOOBERS!!

For you I'll send my mum. She will have you spelling correctly in no time at all.

I dunno. Every time I spell correctly it takes at least a few seconds.

 

[Elixir]

Y’all’s act needs work.

 

[WAB]

Y’all’s act needs work.

Bilby made me do it!

But yeah this is why I don't get paid for comedy.

 

[Elixir]

Y’all’s act needs work.

Bilby made me do it!

But yeah this is why I don't get paid for comedy.

Well, that made me chuckle, if it’s any consolation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Certainly recently. I wonder why that is? And I wonder why main stream media tend to downplay it.

I think it probably has to do with hormone therapy. In some cases, it leads to imbalances. Couple that with other mental health issues, and you can get an explosive combination.

There are always signs. You have got to laugh at CNN, "an 18 year-old Tumbler Ridge woman"

The usual convention when talking about trans people.

Oh bullshit. Prove your nonsense assertions. You can't because it's bullshit. It would be MORE likely that a FTM person would be violent due to the addition of testosterone.

Sorry, but in this sort of case I think there's an actual basis for it.

The thing is the shooters and the like are almost always people who didn't fit in. Note this is a small community, thus likely rather conservative. What was it like for this person growing up there? I wouldn't be one bit surprised if they were thrown out of the house. We focus on the ones that are driven to suicide that way--but a small percent of suicides will try to take with them those they perceive as having caused the problem that drove them to suicide.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Uh-oh

The suspect in a Pawtucket shooting that left two people dead and three others injured Monday had a history of family disputes, some involving conflict over his gender identity, according to court records. Robert Dorgan, 56, is accused of opening fire at a Pawtucket ice rink, killing at least two family members and injuring three others in what authorities described as a family dispute. Dorgan then shot and killed himself, according to police.
At a late-night news conference, Pawtucket Police Chief Tina Goncalves said Dorgan also went by the name “Roberta,” and court documents show his gender identity played a role in multiple family disputes over recent years. In early 2020, Dorgan went to the North Providence Police Department and reported he had recently undergone gender-reassignment surgery and that his father-in-law wanted him out of their North Providence home because of it.

News

What to make of this.

What to make of it is when you abuse people sometimes they don't just submit to your abuse.

Note how close to the mark I was in my previous response. Trans didn't cause this, your trans witch hunt did.

 

[Elixir]

The thing is the shooters and the like are almost always people who didn't fit in.

Are you sure which way that causal arrow points?
Everyone doesn’t fit in somewhere. Shooters all have guns, and very little else in common.
A person committing homicide can be in any number of mental states from severe depression to high euphoria. Anger and/or glee - humans are weird. The motivational set of Charlie Kirk’s killer was probably very differently motivated from the Rittenhaus punk or the Hinckley guy who shot Reagan or the Las Vegas dude.
I think that’s what makes protection so difficult.
This last guy supposedly had a manifesto of some sort so there will be much typifying by pundits.

 

[Tigers!]

Y’all’s act needs work.

Bilby made me do it!

But yeah this is why I don't get paid for comedy.

Stick to your strengths mate.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What to make of your apparent obsession with transgenders or how it appears, though isn't certain, that this person may have been troubled? There certainly isn't enough data to draw conclusions about his overall mental status and whether something had changed that was impacting him.

Something that has concerned me as of late: it feels like conservatives are trying to leverage both "grievance shootings" and "trans grievance" to generate a phenomena of mass shootings by trans people so they can vilify trans people.

In fact, it really makes me wonder how much of the current MRA push and how many of THOSE grievances were "stoked", and whether the resulting gender grievances weren't specifically to fuel male interest in suppressing female power

Lots of trans people decide to kill themselves. Some scummy piece of shit in the GOP has got to have asked the question "how do we make people who kill themselves because their life sucks into an Enemy so as to stoke political conflicts?" And the answer they came up with was "get them to kill someone else at the same time".

I see no reason to think malice here as it will happen anyway. Some suicides take those they believed caused the problem with them. And mass shootings are pretty much spectacular suicides.

 

[Jarhyn]

What to make of your apparent obsession with transgenders or how it appears, though isn't certain, that this person may have been troubled? There certainly isn't enough data to draw conclusions about his overall mental status and whether something had changed that was impacting him.

Something that has concerned me as of late: it feels like conservatives are trying to leverage both "grievance shootings" and "trans grievance" to generate a phenomena of mass shootings by trans people so they can vilify trans people.

In fact, it really makes me wonder how much of the current MRA push and how many of THOSE grievances were "stoked", and whether the resulting gender grievances weren't specifically to fuel male interest in suppressing female power

Lots of trans people decide to kill themselves. Some scummy piece of shit in the GOP has got to have asked the question "how do we make people who kill themselves because their life sucks into an Enemy so as to stoke political conflicts?" And the answer they came up with was "get them to kill someone else at the same time".

I see no reason to think malice here as it will happen anyway. Some suicides take those they believed caused the problem with them. And mass shootings are pretty much spectacular suicides.

I see reason to think malice here because stoking unrest originating from politically convenient enemies is a tale as old as time.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If this is about crafting a punchy one-liner, by all means. Just spare me the notification. But since you have me here, I’d genuinely like to see the data supporting the claim that more guns lead to fewer shooting deaths. You mind?

When did I claim that more guns lead to fewer shooting deaths?
I have been absolutely consistent for years that you yanks need to reduce massively access to guns.

The data on this is strange.

Guns are negatively correlated with homicides, they are positively correlated with suicide. Beware the false picture painted by counting all gun deaths as it is lumping two opposing trends.

And states with high gun homicide almost never have high gun suicide and vice versa. I am not aware of any proposed explanation for this pattern, but it very strongly suggests opposing patterns.

And the practical reality is that we can't disarm without major impositions on freedom. The number of guns out there is vast, efforts to remove them would end up disarming the law abiding but not the criminals. And that would be worse than doing nothing. "Success" would probably stop the mass shootings--but almost certainly more lives are saved in defensive situations than are lost in mass shootings.

I would like to see things like a DV conviction be prohibiting for guns, but we tried that locally and it ended up swamping the system, the result was charges being pled down to avoid hitting that trigger (I don't know the details but a court decision made it require an actual conviction to strip gun rights) rather than actually disarming the DV people.

And red flag laws have been tried--and found wanting. The police generally do not go after the ones that really should be disarmed as such confrontations have a tendency to be violent. But the police do go after the innocents swept up in it and all to often it translates to the state simply taking the guns. Charging storage fees that likely end up being more than the gun is worth, storing in improper conditions so what's returned is worthless etc.

And there is an eternal demand to do "something". No, one should never do "something"--becuase that something is almost guaranteed to be bad. A good answer can stand on it's own feet, thus only bad answers are presented as "something".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Fuck, it is harder to log into my utility account to pay my electric bill than to get a gun.

You think that's hard, try getting a discount insurance agency to pay for regular therapy.

Funny you say that... but ignore the discount part. On plan was copay, now new plan is out-of-pocket till deductible and then 20%.

No way around it. I pay premiums and deductibles ad nauseum. I “invested” in what was a deal where you pay those amounts and then the sky (or 2 million or something) is the limit. But the premiums and deductibles go up, and now that my wife is a big consumer (now in extended care/assisted living), all kinds of walls go up.
It seems designed to ensure that patients with big needs don’t live long.

It's the same no matter what the system. Killing off the biggest consumers raises average satisfaction. Doesn't matter if it's individual subscribers or voters in the election.

 

[bilby]

The number of guns out there is vast, efforts to remove them would end up disarming the law abiding but not the criminals. And that would be worse than doing nothing.

The same problem arose in Britain after both World Wars; Huge numbers of guns were in circulation, many of them with no record at all of who might own them or where they came from.

This turned out not to be a problem, for the reasons I gave earlier - the value of gun control does not lie in preventing access to guns by criminals, but in preventing the desire for guns amongst criminals.

Disarming the law abiding is a GOOD THING. It removes the camouflage from the criminal guns, allowing the public and the police to see and act against them.

A gun does you no good as a defense against a criminal with a gun. A criminal is by definition going to pull his gun first, at which point the law abiding citizen's gun is a liability, and makes it more likely that he will be shot, not less.

But not having a gun makes identifying the criminal easy - You can see two people, the criminal is the one with the gun.

 

[bilby]

almost certainly more lives are saved in defensive situations than are lost in mass shootings

[citation needed]

 

[bilby]

And there is an eternal demand to do "something". No, one should never do "something"--becuase that something is almost guaranteed to be bad. A good answer can stand on it's own feet, thus only bad answers are presented as "something".

Do what other countries have done, and have demonstrated to work.

Those answers can and do stand on their own feet.

Americans are not as special as they like to imagine, and their failiure to learn from other countries is absurd and stupid. Other countries are not afraid to steal your good ideas; Why the fuck don't you reciprocate on such areas of clear weakness as gun control, healthcare, and criminal justice?

Do you enjoy having your children shot, your parents bankrupted by ill-health, and your population incarcerated in vast numbers?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My firmer brother in law tossed it into a nearby lake. At least I hope he did.

Some magnet fisherman will be thrilled.

Guns rust.