Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Getting rid of the guns does reduce mass shootings--but

Fuck your but.

There’s no ‘but’; Reducing mass shootings is a good and noble goal, worthy of pursuit.

But nothing.

As I slipped into the NRA quote in another thread ‘They think banning these weapons would lead to utopia,’ but all it would do is lead to fewer dead children.

And what is the cost? Lost gun sales. This is the is it. Children dead for money.

My bold.

As ghastly as it is to admit, that is the reality.

 

[Thomas II]

 

[AthenaAwakened]

This is where it starts.

 

[Rhea]

Of course it is the voter's fault. Good excuse for the pollies.

More to the point - it’s the strategy for the Conservatives.
The strategy is to carve off voters by convincing them “both sides are jus as bad” and making them lose confidence in the system. The consevatives stress as often as they can, “see your side isn’t doing anything either, thay aren’t worth your time…. AND WE BENEFIT FROM YOUR APATHY and that is why we do everything we can possibly do to make sure you hear the message “The Dems are at fault” as often as we can make you hear it, so you won’t remember that if you stop supporting the dems, it’s the GOP who sets the agenda.” And that agenda is worse than you ever thought.

Your whinging, Tiger, is right in their playbook.

In Amercia we need the conservatives out of power to make these changes. I care a lot about this, especially about the child victims that the conservatives sacrifice. And every time I hear someone helping their cause with the whole, “if Dems can’t do everything (all at once and by 5pm today), then let the conservatives just have it” drivel, I will fight back that this is a lie. The Dems are NOT doing nothing and your Claim helps the child killers. Shame on you.

 

[Patooka]

Why the assumption that somehow I watch Sky? (Just laziness on your part.)

I did mention Channel Nine as well so if you want to talk about laziness...
But basically, what I was trying to say (and clearly failed miserably) was to point out if you are only getting news about American shootings from Australian news sources, you're not getting even remotely the whole argument. Your "both sides" rhetoric is clearly proof of that. One "side" wants more guns in schools, more people to own guns and less restrictions. The other "side" wants background checks, the banning of selling firearms to people who have convictions for domestic violence and the ability to track firearms sales as though they were a vehicle purchase. That you casually condemn both groups as the same shows how ignorant you are of the situation.

The Senate/House could pass legislation that whenever a mass killing occur their pay drops by N%. The public will support that measure. Might the the only way to get the pollies to pay attention - hit them in their hip pocket.

Jesus Christ, I'll try again one last time. Stop blaming all senators.

What are HR 8 and HR 1446? Gun control bills still await Senate votes after Texas shooting

Following the mass shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas on Tuesday, the future of increased gun control legislation is still uncertain.

www.usatoday.com

Most Americans want stricter gun laws. Senate Republicans don’t seem to care

<p>Gun-control opponents like to say that guns don’t kill people, people kill people.</p>

www.hawaiitribune-herald.com

What are the gun laws in Texas? Recent changes have made it even easier to carry a handgun in public

Texas has some of the loosest gun laws in the United States. Governor Greg Abbott last year signed into law several pieces of legislation to further ease restrictions, including making it easier to carry a handgun in public.

www.abc.net.au

It appears everybody except you are willing to point out the two biggest problems for Americans to have safe, sensible and responsible legislation is Republicans and their NRA enablers. Fuck your "both sides" in all of its holes. What I find so amazing is your willingness to admit you "Having not much knowledge of how US system of governance works ", but then your complete unwillingness to accept the myriad of obstacles in the US government to make their country safer. And then follow this up with even further unwillingness to accurately point out who is to blame. It's quite...something.

 

[Swammerdami]

A question without notice.
Having not much knowledge of how US system of governance works - If a president/party has control of both of your houses why then was nothing substantive seemingly done i.e. if Obama/Democrats (as an example) had a time when they were in control why were changes not implemented? It the opportunity was there and it was ignored then negligence is a factor.

Good question. It is not enough to have the White House and the popular assembly (House of Reps). Change also requires the Senate and, in many cases, the Supreme Court.

You probably want a short simple answer. Will you accept a long bitter diatribe instead?

In principle, 50 votes is enough to win a Senate vote but the "filibuster" rule means that 60 votes are needed. Weirdly, 50 votes are enough to change the filibuster rules, but those Senators "like their ancient honorable traditions" and for decades those rules have never been changed without bipartisan support. In olden times filibusters were relatively rare and sometimes required that a Senator remain standing and talking for hours with no bathroom breaks allowed. Nowadays, essentially EVERY bill of any importance is automatically "filibustered": Nobody needs to stand and orate for hours, a simple fart by Mitch 'Moscow Mitch' McConnell suffices.

Therefore saying the Dems control the Senate when they have only 50 votes is simply wrong. It WOULD be enough if they voted to amend their "ancient honorable rules" but they don't. This is one reason statehood for DC and Puerto Rico is urgent: as of now 51 Senators can stop a rule change; with 52 states it would take 53.

So: To be "in control" the Ds need 60 votes. Or support from some of the Rs. This is hard to get.

In olden times some Republican Senators were honest good-spirited people who might vote their conscience. A Republican who thought gun control was a good idea might vote for it. Not any more! EVERY Republican Senator almost ALWAYS votes exactly as instructed by Charles Koch or the NRA or whoever is running their party. Think about that: On many substantial issues (healthcare reform, guns, women's rights, spending) Senate votes are EXACTLY on party lines. Would that be likely if all Senators actually voted their conscience?

Check the table near the middle of this Wikipedia page,  Party divisions of United States Congresses. The last time the Ds had 60 Senators was the 95th Congress under Jimmy Carter 43 years ago. The 111th Senate (first two years of Obama) is shown as 56-58 with an asterisk. If you study the asterisk you'll see that they would have had 60 votes beginning April 28 if you count Arlen Specter, Al Franken and two independents. But you can't count Al Franken: The Rs pretended there was some controversy about his close election and he was not seated until July 7. By that time Edward Kennedy was gravely ill; the Rs did NOT extend the courtesy of "matching missings" and Kennedy had to be literally wheeled in from his death-bed to the Senate Chamber to cast a 60th vote. IIRC that happened at least once, Kennedy casting a key 60th vote for Obamacare. Kennedy soon died, but the Ds did have 60 votes for 4 months later. And that was the end of that.

But they didn't even have 60 real votes during the brief period that Al Franken was allowed to vote and Ted Kennedy could be wheeled in from his death bed. The DINO Joe Lieberman didn't represent actual PEOPLE: It was always clear that he was "the Senator for the Insurance Companies." A real health-plan would require reducing insurance industry profits, and that NEVER had more than 59 votes.

Some of the Repugnant Senators were smart enough to understand that Obamacare could be improved with their help. But EVERY SINGLE Repugnant toed the line and voted as Charles Koch instructed them.

And even with 60 votes, the Rs can delay and delay in various ways. During the brief period under Obama that the Ds had 59 votes or so, they dedicated much time and political capital just to Obamacare. There simply was not enough time to do more.

Today, the Ds have nowhere near 60 votes. They only have 48 unless you count Manchin and Sinema.

And even if they had 60 votes — or changed the rules — the Supreme Court might overturn any legislation. This wasn't a problem in olden days, when at least 5 (usually 8 or 9) of the Justices were righteous and good-spirited people who wanted to follow the law or achieve what was best for America or its people. Today only 3 or 4 of the Justices fit that mold. Even to get to 4 you have to include John Roberts, who started his career as a political hack in the mold of Karl Rove.

Sorry. When the liars tell you the Ds have or had control, it's just another lie.

 

[Hermit]

If only the  gun laws in Australia were changed to guarantee gun ownership as a sacred, untouchable right, Tigers would be in a position to see how much his Aussies hate each other and come to finally understand it. Repealing the 1996  National Firearms Agreement would give us some idea of whether the implementation of that law really did work the way people seem to think it did.

It did not.

If you look at the chart you'll notice a decline in the pre-buyback years between 1988 and 1996. The buyback project was done and dusted by September 1997. With one exception murder rates between 1997 and 2003 stood at the same or higher rates than when the buyback program concluded. The gun buyback scheme clearly did sweet fuck-all to Australia's murder rates. Repealing the 1996 National Firearms Agreement would be similarly uneventful.

There are a number of reasons for this. Here are the three most important ones:

1) The chief reason for taking semi-automatic rifles and pump action shotguns out of circulation was to reduce the incidence of mass killings. This was successful. Mass killings by any means have halved and by means of firearms almost totally eliminated. But like in the US, mass killings make up only a very small percentage of the total murder rate.

2) In the US 80% of all murders are perpetrated with the use of firearms, and most of those firearms are handguns. Since around 1945 it has almost become impossible to legally own handguns in Australia. Casual concealed carry as well as open carry is out of the question. That is why the most frequently used weapons to commit murder with have been knives even before the buyback scheme.

3) The rise and fall of murder rates cannot be neatly correlated with the availability of firearms. This is particularly obvious with the rates in the US as displayed in the above graph. The availability of firearms is clearly just one of many factors determining them.

 

[Derec]

Fuck your but.

 

[Tigers!]

A question without notice.
Having not much knowledge of how US system of governance works - If a president/party has control of both of your houses why then was nothing substantive seemingly done i.e. if Obama/Democrats (as an example) had a time when they were in control why were changes not implemented? It the opportunity was there and it was ignored then negligence is a factor.

Good question. It is not enough to have the White House and the popular assembly (House of Reps). Change also requires the Senate and, in many cases, the Supreme Court.

You probably want a short simple answer. Will you accept a long bitter diatribe instead?

A simple answer is always best but in its absence a long bitter diatribe will suffice.

In principle, 50 votes is enough to win a Senate vote but the "filibuster" rule means that 60 votes are needed. Weirdly, 50 votes are enough to change the filibuster rules, but those Senators "like their ancient honorable traditions" and for decades those rules have never been changed without bipartisan support. In olden times filibusters were relatively rare and sometimes required that a Senator remain standing and talking for hours with no bathroom breaks allowed. Nowadays, essentially EVERY bill of any importance is automatically "filibustered": Nobody needs to stand and orate for hours, a simple fart by Mitch 'Moscow Mitch' McConnell suffices.

Therefore saying the Dems control the Senate when they have only 50 votes is simply wrong. It WOULD be enough if they voted to amend their "ancient honorable rules" but they don't. This is one reason statehood for DC and Puerto Rico is urgent: as of now 51 Senators can stop a rule change; with 52 states it would take 53.

So: To be "in control" the Ds need 60 votes. Or support from some of the Rs. This is hard to get.

In olden times some Republican Senators were honest good-spirited people who might vote their conscience. A Republican who thought gun control was a good idea might vote for it. Not any more! EVERY Republican Senator almost ALWAYS votes exactly as instructed by Charles Koch or the NRA or whoever is running their party. Think about that: On many substantial issues (healthcare reform, guns, women's rights, spending) Senate votes are EXACTLY on party lines. Would that be likely if all Senators actually voted their conscience?

Check the table near the middle of this Wikipedia page,  Party divisions of United States Congresses. The last time the Ds had 60 Senators was the 95th Congress under Jimmy Carter 43 years ago. The 111th Senate (first two years of Obama) is shown as 56-58 with an asterisk. If you study the asterisk you'll see that they would have had 60 votes beginning April 28 if you count Arlen Specter, Al Franken and two independents. But you can't count Al Franken: The Rs pretended there was some controversy about his close election and he was not seated until July 7. By that time Edward Kennedy was gravely ill; the Rs did NOT extend the courtesy of "matching missings" and Kennedy had to be literally wheeled in from his death-bed to the Senate Chamber to cast a 60th vote. IIRC that happened at least once, Kennedy casting a key 60th vote for Obamacare. Kennedy soon died, but the Ds did have 60 votes for 4 months later. And that was the end of that.

But they didn't even have 60 real votes during the brief period that Al Franken was allowed to vote and Ted Kennedy could be wheeled in from his death bed. The DINO Joe Lieberman didn't represent actual PEOPLE: It was always clear that he was "the Senator for the Insurance Companies." A real health-plan would require reducing insurance industry profits, and that NEVER had more than 59 votes.

Some of the Repugnant Senators were smart enough to understand that Obamacare could be improved with their help. But EVERY SINGLE Repugnant toed the line and voted as Charles Koch instructed them.

And even with 60 votes, the Rs can delay and delay in various ways. During the brief period under Obama that the Ds had 59 votes or so, they dedicated much time and political capital just to Obamacare. There simply was not enough time to do more.

Today, the Ds have nowhere near 60 votes. They only have 48 unless you count Manchin and Sinema.

And even if they had 60 votes — or changed the rules — the Supreme Court might overturn any legislation. This wasn't a problem in olden days, when at least 5 (usually 8 or 9) of the Justices were righteous and good-spirited people who wanted to follow the law or achieve what was best for America or its people. Today only 3 or 4 of the Justices fit that mold. Even to get to 4 you have to include John Roberts, who started his career as a political hack in the mold of Karl Rove.

Sorry. When the liars tell you the Ds have or had control, it's just another lie.

Thank you for that diatribe. Very informative, I was aware of some of it but obviously not all.
But still some of your people are going to die needlessly. I cannot understand the indifference so many display.

 

[Tigers!]

Of course it is the voter's fault. Good excuse for the pollies.

More to the point - it’s the strategy for the Conservatives.

Not all conservatives. It was a conservative government in Australia that did the gun buy-back that got so many guns out of circulation. Your "conservative" governments are nothing of they sort. They seem to range from muddling to absolutely idiotic.

The strategy is to carve off voters by convincing them “both sides are jus as bad” and making them lose confidence in the system. The consevatives stress as often as they can, “see your side isn’t doing anything either, thay aren’t worth your time…. AND WE BENEFIT FROM YOUR APATHY and that is why we do everything we can possibly do to make sure you hear the message “The Dems are at fault” as often as we can make you hear it, so you won’t remember that if you stop supporting the dems, it’s the GOP who sets the agenda.” And that agenda is worse than you ever thought.

Your whinging, Tiger, is right in their playbook.

What you call whinging is actually concern for your people.
I would like very much for your Yanks to succeed in getting guns out of the hands of those unfit to hold them. I think it was Einstein who noted that Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Its beyond time for you Yanks to try something else.

In Amercia we need the conservatives out of power to make these changes. I care a lot about this, especially about the child victims that the conservatives sacrifice. And every time I hear someone helping their cause with the whole, “if Dems can’t do everything (all at once and by 5pm today), then let the conservatives just have it” drivel, I will fight back that this is a lie. The Dems are NOT doing nothing and your Claim helps the child killers. Shame on you.

I have a niece who moved over to the US in mid 2021. She has 3 children in primary school and the last starts next year. She is close to scenes of some school shootings. Her eldest son did a shooting drill last week. He was excited about it but obviously did not grasp what it means. He asked "why do we do these drills in US but not in Australia"? My niece still does not have an answer. I am very worried about their safety. Yes I know statistically that the vast majority of children in the US will not face a shooting but in Australia is so close to 100% that we ignore the rounding error. I have told her to come back when her husband's contract finishing in 2024.

*I am aware that Einstein probably did not say that for the pendants

 

[marc]

Wondering if the next school shooting will be in Missouri. A far-right group in that state has set up a heat map of 'woke hot spots'.

As of Monday, the 12 map locations all concerned educational institutions, and linked to articles, videos and tweets trashing things like critical race theory and diversity training. The information named at least 12 specific schools or school districts — particularly chilling in light of America’s mounting toll of school mass shootings.

The Liberty Alliance is “committed to fighting back against the woke agenda permeating all across Missouri,” reads a statement on the conservative group’s website next to a state map peppered with spots.

With the right's history of phony controversies, and fake 'librul attacks on family values', I wouldn't be surprised if at least half of their woke stories are outright lies.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A question without notice.
Having not much knowledge of how US system of governance works - If a president/party has control of both of your houses why then was nothing substantive seemingly done i.e. if Obama/Democrats (as an example) had a time when they were in control why were changes not implemented? It the opportunity was there and it was ignored then negligence is a factor.

Good question. It is not enough to have the White House and the popular assembly (House of Reps). Change also requires the Senate and, in many cases, the Supreme Court.

You probably want a short simple answer. Will you accept a long bitter diatribe instead?

A simple answer is always best but in its absence a long bitter diatribe will suffice.

In principle, 50 votes is enough to win a Senate vote but the "filibuster" rule means that 60 votes are needed. Weirdly, 50 votes are enough to change the filibuster rules, but those Senators "like their ancient honorable traditions" and for decades those rules have never been changed without bipartisan support. In olden times filibusters were relatively rare and sometimes required that a Senator remain standing and talking for hours with no bathroom breaks allowed. Nowadays, essentially EVERY bill of any importance is automatically "filibustered": Nobody needs to stand and orate for hours, a simple fart by Mitch 'Moscow Mitch' McConnell suffices.

Therefore saying the Dems control the Senate when they have only 50 votes is simply wrong. It WOULD be enough if they voted to amend their "ancient honorable rules" but they don't. This is one reason statehood for DC and Puerto Rico is urgent: as of now 51 Senators can stop a rule change; with 52 states it would take 53.

So: To be "in control" the Ds need 60 votes. Or support from some of the Rs. This is hard to get.

In olden times some Republican Senators were honest good-spirited people who might vote their conscience. A Republican who thought gun control was a good idea might vote for it. Not any more! EVERY Republican Senator almost ALWAYS votes exactly as instructed by Charles Koch or the NRA or whoever is running their party. Think about that: On many substantial issues (healthcare reform, guns, women's rights, spending) Senate votes are EXACTLY on party lines. Would that be likely if all Senators actually voted their conscience?

Check the table near the middle of this Wikipedia page,  Party divisions of United States Congresses. The last time the Ds had 60 Senators was the 95th Congress under Jimmy Carter 43 years ago. The 111th Senate (first two years of Obama) is shown as 56-58 with an asterisk. If you study the asterisk you'll see that they would have had 60 votes beginning April 28 if you count Arlen Specter, Al Franken and two independents. But you can't count Al Franken: The Rs pretended there was some controversy about his close election and he was not seated until July 7. By that time Edward Kennedy was gravely ill; the Rs did NOT extend the courtesy of "matching missings" and Kennedy had to be literally wheeled in from his death-bed to the Senate Chamber to cast a 60th vote. IIRC that happened at least once, Kennedy casting a key 60th vote for Obamacare. Kennedy soon died, but the Ds did have 60 votes for 4 months later. And that was the end of that.

But they didn't even have 60 real votes during the brief period that Al Franken was allowed to vote and Ted Kennedy could be wheeled in from his death bed. The DINO Joe Lieberman didn't represent actual PEOPLE: It was always clear that he was "the Senator for the Insurance Companies." A real health-plan would require reducing insurance industry profits, and that NEVER had more than 59 votes.

Some of the Repugnant Senators were smart enough to understand that Obamacare could be improved with their help. But EVERY SINGLE Repugnant toed the line and voted as Charles Koch instructed them.

And even with 60 votes, the Rs can delay and delay in various ways. During the brief period under Obama that the Ds had 59 votes or so, they dedicated much time and political capital just to Obamacare. There simply was not enough time to do more.

Today, the Ds have nowhere near 60 votes. They only have 48 unless you count Manchin and Sinema.

And even if they had 60 votes — or changed the rules — the Supreme Court might overturn any legislation. This wasn't a problem in olden days, when at least 5 (usually 8 or 9) of the Justices were righteous and good-spirited people who wanted to follow the law or achieve what was best for America or its people. Today only 3 or 4 of the Justices fit that mold. Even to get to 4 you have to include John Roberts, who started his career as a political hack in the mold of Karl Rove.

Sorry. When the liars tell you the Ds have or had control, it's just another lie.

Thank you for that diatribe. Very informative, I was aware of some of it but obviously not all.
But still some of your people are going to die needlessly. I cannot understand the indifference so many display.

America prides individual liberty over communal safety, by a lot.

It is why we don’t have UHC, why hundreds of thousands of more people died needlessly in the US from covid, and why we can deal with gun access laws

 

[Politesse]

View attachment 38803

The only way to stop a bad driver is a good driver in a Hummer.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Of course it is the voter's fault. Good excuse for the pollies.

More to the point - it’s the strategy for the Conservatives.

Not all conservatives. It was a conservative government in Australia that did the gun buy-back that got so many guns out of circulation. Your "conservative" governments are nothing of they sort. They seem to range from muddling to absolutely idiotic.

The strategy is to carve off voters by convincing them “both sides are jus as bad” and making them lose confidence in the system. The consevatives stress as often as they can, “see your side isn’t doing anything either, thay aren’t worth your time…. AND WE BENEFIT FROM YOUR APATHY and that is why we do everything we can possibly do to make sure you hear the message “The Dems are at fault” as often as we can make you hear it, so you won’t remember that if you stop supporting the dems, it’s the GOP who sets the agenda.” And that agenda is worse than you ever thought.

Your whinging, Tiger, is right in their playbook.

What you call whinging is actually concern for your people.
I would like very much for your Yanks to succeed in getting guns out of the hands of those unfit to hold them. I think it was Einstein who noted that Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Its beyond time for you Yanks to try something else.

The problem is you have no idea what the problem is in the US, the politics, the NRA's lies for decades, how powerless Congress can actually be. After all, the GOP wanted to kill ACA, and held majorities in the House and Senate, but haven't been able to. Then add the "precedence is for suckers" SCOTUS, and states can't even address the situation, which of course, with guns going over state lines, it isn't like they can do much to begin with.

And in the end, the problem? It is money and social approval. The NRA wasn't always like what they are. In the 1970s they were hijacked and turned into a partisan lobbying group for the gun industry. And despite providing very little in the way of money, the NRA controls the right-wing like puppets with their approval candidate regarding gun rights. And when I say gun rights, I mean near unregulated rights streaming along with a deluge of paranoia about how Hillary Clinton wants to take your guns.

The message was enduring, steadfast, and it is now etched in stone. All so that gun companies can make lots more money because people hoard up on guns and ammo when a Democrat becomes President.

 

[lpetrich]

The role of domestic violence in fatal mass shootings in the United States, 2014–2019 | SpringerLink

Results

We found that 59.1% of mass shootings between 2014 and 2019 were DV-related and in 68.2% of mass shootings, the perpetrator either killed at least one partner or family member or had a history of DV. We found significant differences in the average number of injuries and fatalities between DV and history of DV shootings and a higher average case fatality rate associated with DV-related mass shootings (83.7%) than non-DV-related (63.1%) or history of DV mass shootings (53.8%). Fifty-five perpetrators died during the shootings; 39 (70.9%) died by firearm suicide, 15 (27.3%) were killed by police, and 1 (1.8%) died from an intentional overdose.

Conclusions

Most mass shootings are related to DV. DV-related shootings had higher CFR than those unrelated to DV. Given these findings, restricting access to guns by perpetrators of DV may affect the occurrence of mass shootings and associated casualties.

DV = domestic violence

Seems like a well-enforced red-flag law would do a *lot* of good.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Make the seller of a gun complicit with crimes committed within a month of purchase.

Time to start treating them like the arms dealers they actually are.

 

[lpetrich]

Ryan Busse on Twitter: "I am a former firearms exec who owns and has sold a lot of guns. ..." / Twitter

I am a former firearms exec who owns and has sold a lot of guns. Never AR15s and never with incendiary marketing. I believe In responsibility and decency and for more than 15 years I fought against the industry from the inside because I feared where it was going.

And its gone way too far. The industry has forgotten responsibility. The @NRA set this course and now it’s poisoned our entire country. We have intractable chaos. Kids are collateral damage in a sick culture war. Everything we care about is impacted.

I had to get out and fight from the outside. I wrote GUNFIGHT so that people can know the truth of how we got here. With knowledge maybe we can make things better. I call on all responsible gun owners to join #GunOwnersForSafety so that we can take our country back.

Inside the US gun industry – podcast | News | The Guardian

“I want to say that I was shocked and stunned … but I really feel none of that,” said Ryan Busse, who was a senior executive in a US gun company for two decades. “These are the natural outcomes of this system in America that we’ve had established here.”

Busse left the industry in 2020 after becoming disillusioned with its direction. His book, Gunfight: My Battle Against the Industry that Radicalised America, documents his time in the industry. He tells Nosheen Iqbal how the gun industry became less regulated, and the weapons more lethal.

 

[Swammerdami]

The strategy is to carve off voters by convincing them “both sides are jus as bad” and making them lose confidence in the system. The consevatives stress as often as they can, “see your side isn’t doing anything either, thay aren’t worth your time…. AND WE BENEFIT FROM YOUR APATHY and that is why we do everything we can possibly do to make sure you hear the message “The Dems are at fault” as often as we can make you hear it, so you won’t remember that if you stop supporting the dems, it’s the GOP who sets the agenda.” And that agenda is worse than you ever thought.

Your whinging, Tiger, is right in their playbook.

Absolutely. "Both sides are at fault" or "A pox on both their houses" are the memes only of the totally uninformed or the liars themselves.

Even if you think the Dems deserve only 3.8 on a scale of 1 to 10, the Reps rank somewhere around MINUS 99.

But, as other posters have mentioned, mental illness is another reason that America is dysfunctional compared with other developed countries. By many measures, including suicides and drug-related deaths, the U.S. does worse than other Western democracies. This is due partly to healthcare: in Europe free counseling or treatments are readily available. This is not the case in the U.S. and even some "good" insurance plans may not pay for mental health treatment.

Note that while we are above average we are far below Korea--where guns aren't the factor.

I wrote "the U.S. does worse than other Western democracies." The major cultural differences between the West and the East is a topic for another thread. Moreover, where did I imply that America's poor mental health was due to guns?

And "above average" misrepresents the gap in mental illness between U.S. and other high-income Western democracies. We are WAY above average in mental illness and IIRC worst in multiple categories.

Heston was interviewed in Michael Moore's famous documentary. Asked why he wanted to own a gun, Heston replied "because I can." Asked why Canada had less of a murder problem, Heston referred to U.S.'s "ethnic diversity." Sensing this was a wrong answer, Heston terminated the interview soon after.

I watched a little bit of his "documentary"--very obviously mean to push his viewpoint without much regard for the truth. It didn't take me long to realize there could be nothing of value and turn it off. (And consider the other one I know of the problems--Sicko. He was comparing the US system to what was available to medical tourists in a country that ignores patents. That care was not available to locals. And note the usual risks of medical tourism--while the basic care very well might be at near western levels the backstopping most certainly isn't. They will be nowhere near as able to deal with serious problems that develop as an equivalent US facility.)

What does that have to do with anything? The documentary (or "documentary" if you insist) has Heston on video speaking as I stated. What does Michael Moore have to do with it? Or are you claiming he somehow photoshopped or dubbed over Heston's voice?

 

[TomC]

Make the seller of a gun complicit with crimes committed within a month of purchase.

Time to start treating them like the arms dealers they actually are.

Texas's SB8 has a great solution.

If every member of every family of every victim could sue every member of the supply chain that delivered those weapons to the murderer for $10K, and nobody could file a countersuit, there'd be changes.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Make the seller of a gun complicit with crimes committed within a month of purchase.

Time to start treating them like the arms dealers they actually are.

Texas's SB8 has a great solution.

If every member of every family of every victim could sue every member of the supply chain that delivered those weapons to the murderer for $10K, and nobody could file a countersuit, there'd be changes.
Tom

So a guy kills his wife, wife's family sues for $10,000?

No thanks. Guy buys gun, kills wife, guy goes to prison. Guy who sold him the gun goes to prison. We can let the free market take care of the rest.