Donald Trump Jr likes Florida Shooting Conspiracy Tweets.

[Thekri]

That was a pretty strong hit. I had to grapple with that.

As well you should. It is always worth looking to see if your positions are consistent and intellectually honest. Sometimes you find out you are not. I suspect someday you will feel that same way about defending the Trump administration in the first place. I get what drew people to it, but eventually a decent person will need to step back and evaluate what they can really accept.

[Dacien]

As well you should. It is always worth looking to see if your positions are consistent and intellectually honest.

This is all I ever do. I know that will elicit a chortle from many, but it's all I ever strive to do.

[Machismo]

This is all I ever do. I know that will elicit a chortle from many, but's it's all I ever strive to do.

You are a religious conservative who backed Trump. Consistency and intellectual honesty aren't in play. Ignoring the logical inconsistencies and hypocrisy do not make them magically invisible for everyone else.

[Dacien]

You are a religious conservative who backed Trump. Consistency and intellectual honesty aren't in play. Ignoring the logical inconsistencies and hypocrisy do not make them magically invisible for everyone else.

It was so important for the direction of the country that it wasn't Hillary, Machismo.

[Trifle]

Please don't get me wrong. I just feel like we should be enforcing our borders like everyone else in the world does to keep out people who commit a bunch of crimes and then go on to shoot a young woman on a pier, before we finally say, "Hey, maybe we should take this guy seriously."

That's stupid though, America does enforce it's borders but you have huge borders and it's impossible to have a 100% success rate. It's not like other countries don't also have illegal immigrants. A crazy wall isn't going to help all that much either, people will just switch to going by boat (which is currently how most drugs get in, anyway).

They also did take the guy seriously, they deported him every time they found him. Unless you wanted him stuck in jail instead, at which point the American tax payer would be spending large sums of money on an illegal immigrant... which I'm pretty sure is the opposite of the usual Republican talking points.

[Machismo]

It was so important for the direction of the country that it wasn't Hillary, Machismo.

So, you were willing to sacrifice your principles, your very morals and be a hypocrite in order to make that happen? That's strange, I didn't vote for Hillary, yet I kept my morals intact. Religious conservatives who voted for Trump sacrificed their souls for a political victory. I'm pretty sure the Bible says something about that, but you would probably know better than I would.

I don't support people who are accused of rape and sexual assault by multiple women. I don't support people who brag about being peeping Toms. I don't support people who made a living by screwing over others in business. I do not people who sexualize their own daughters. I don't support racists or misogynists.

You cannot say that, can you?

For the record, you live in Southern California, which means you did vote For Hillary, whether you like it, or not.

[Dacien]

For the record, you live in Southern California, which means you did vote For Hillary, whether you like it, or not.

I could pull that card, I could have long ago, that my vote didn't matter anyway, but that's obviously a cheap way out.

[Lenonis]

You are a religious conservative who backed Trump.

Wait....what? Dacien is one of those?

Man...how anyone who claims to have any sort of religious or moral belief system can be so open about supporting Trump is mind boggling.

But back OT: The entire Trump family is rotten to the core. Except maybe Tiffany. She seems to have enough functioning brain cells to stay out of it all. At this point it wouldn't surprise me if Don Jr. was an anti-vaxxer flat earther who believed the moon landing was faked.

[Machismo]

I could pull that card, I could have long ago, that my vote didn't matter anyway, but that's obviously a cheap way out.

It's not a cheap way out, it's an argument against the EC and the "I voted for the lesser of two evils" defense. In reality, you didn't vote for the lesser of two evils, you voted for Hillary. Hell, because of the state I live in, I voted for her. I sure as heck don't remember putting her on my ballot, but that's where my vote went.

Living in such a place does allow you to "throw your vote away." Since your vote was assured to be Hillary, you could have voted your conscience. You could have voted for literally anyone. I think you understand that, and I think you really did vote your conscience, and it's why you chose Trump. So, you really did support all those terrible things about him, no matter how much you want to deny it.

- - - Updated - - -

Wait....what? Dacien is one of those?

Man...how anyone who claims to have any sort of religious or moral belief system can be so open about supporting Trump is mind boggling.

But back OT: The entire Trump family is rotten to the core. Except maybe Tiffany. She seems to have enough functioning brain cells to stay out of it all. At this point it wouldn't surprise me if Don Jr. was an anti-vaxxer flat earther who believed the moon landing was faked.

I like Tiffany, she seems to want to avoid this shit at all costs. Honestly, I feel bad when kids get dragged into politics, but most of Trump's children are grown=ass adults, and willingly jumped into it all. Tiffany doesn't say anything, good for her.

As for the hypocrisy of religious conservatives, that's just a sad reality in this country. I have zero respect for them, as they sacrificed everything they supposedly believed over the past decade.

[Belize]

This is all I ever do. I know that will elicit a chortle from many, but it's all I ever strive to do.

You're doing as well as a paraplegic training to run faster than Usain Bolt.

Keep it up.

[wheresmywoft]

Not saying you can't hit him, just saying keep it above the belt. Dacien deals in hypocrisy every day, it is how he rationalizes the terrible deal with the devil he made, but there are limits, and dead children is past most peoples limits. Everyone in this thread agrees it is bad and we need to fix it, but since nobody can agree to how, we never do anything. If people stop digging in along party lines everytime, we can get at least something done. What Ransath was suggesting earlier isn't enough, but it is something. Gun Control isn't the only answer, but it is part of the problem, mental health care isn't the only answer, but it can also be addressed. However if we bunker down and accuse the other side of supporting dead kids, then we are going to be stuck in this loop forever, and it will keep happening over and over.

I'd expect that if that was truly the limit. We'd be seeing changes in their choices. But alas, no change.

[Endus]

However if we bunker down and accuse the other side of supporting dead kids, then we are going to be stuck in this loop forever, and it will keep happening over and over.

I don't agree that there's clean and easy "sides" in the first place. But if one faction is saying "we're already doing everything we can in terms of gun control", then they are implicitly arguing that they prefer more dead kids to taking further steps. There is an issue; kids are being killed in spree shootings at schools, over and above the strong outlier in terms of gun homicide rates as compared to other developed nations. We all agree this is an issue. So you either support doing something about it, in terms of enacting new policy to address it, or you do not support doing something about it, in which case "dead kids" is a price you are implicitly willing to pay, rather than the costs of taking action.

None of this is happening in a vacuum. The USA is not the only country there is. There are plenty of other developed nations, and basically none of them have this issue. So the issue is the differences between the two countries. And the stand-out factors are the USA's comparative lack of gun control and high levels of gun ownership. Either you accept that something has to be changed, or you want things to stay as they are, and "dead kids" is a price you're willing to pay to keep things that way. Do the anti-gun-control types find that objectionable? I'm sure they do. But it is not unfair. It's an accurate portrayal of what their stance implicitly states. Stamping your feet and saying "hey, we weren't explicit about it!" isn't a defense.

And it's not that they WANT dead kids. But they prefer more school shootings to taking effective steps to prevent them via gun control.

If you're saying "it's a mental health issue, not a gun control issue", then you're wrong, because part of handling mental health issues is keeping guns out of the hands of potentially dangerous individuals. Mental health is a factor, but addressing it necessarily involves gun control.

If you're saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people", you're a useless pedantic. And gun control is about controlling how people can access and acquire guns, so it isn't even a relevant bit of pedantry.

This stuff shouldn't be that difficult to understand.

[Mayhem]

Also, heavily engaged in fantasy scenarios, apparently.

Imagining marksmen like trained teachers killing armed children - the optimists approach to life.

[Edge-]

Imagining marksmen like trained teachers killing armed children - the optimists approach to life.

Truly conducive to children feeling safe and secure in schools so that they can focus on learning. Knowing that the nice guy who you see walking around with a weapon will not hesitate to put a bullet in between your eyes if they feel that you are a threat to the school for any reason.

: |

[infinitemeridian]

I don't agree that there's clean and easy "sides" in the first place. But if one faction is saying "we're already doing everything we can in terms of gun control", then they are implicitly arguing that they prefer more dead kids to taking further steps. There is an issue; kids are being killed in spree shootings at schools, over and above the strong outlier in terms of gun homicide rates as compared to other developed nations. We all agree this is an issue. So you either support doing something about it, in terms of enacting new policy to address it, or you do not support doing something about it, in which case "dead kids" is a price you are implicitly willing to pay, rather than the costs of taking action.

None of this is happening in a vacuum. The USA is not the only country there is. There are plenty of other developed nations, and basically none of them have this issue. So the issue is the differences between the two countries. And the stand-out factors are the USA's comparative lack of gun control and high levels of gun ownership. Either you accept that something has to be changed, or you want things to stay as they are, and "dead kids" is a price you're willing to pay to keep things that way. Do the anti-gun-control types find that objectionable? I'm sure they do. But it is not unfair. It's an accurate portrayal of what their stance implicitly states. Stamping your feet and saying "hey, we weren't explicit about it!" isn't a defense.

And it's not that they WANT dead kids. But they prefer more school shootings to taking effective steps to prevent them via gun control.

If you're saying "it's a mental health issue, not a gun control issue", then you're wrong, because part of handling mental health issues is keeping guns out of the hands of potentially dangerous individuals. Mental health is a factor, but addressing it necessarily involves gun control.

If you're saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people", you're a useless pedantic. And gun control is about controlling how people can access and acquire guns, so it isn't even a relevant bit of pedantry.

This stuff shouldn't be that difficult to understand.

I mean, we already DO attempt to keep guns out of the hands of potentially dangerous individuals, so not sure I get this argument. Background checks are a thing.

[Dontrike]

I mean, we already DO attempt to keep guns out of the hands of potentially dangerous individuals, so not sure I get this argument. Background checks are a thing.

Unless you're at a gun show/expo where you don't need to run a background check on buyers, nor required to record the sale or ask for identification.

This is one loop hole that could easily be closed and the only people that would have a problem with it are the hardcore gun lovers.

[Elegiac]

I mean, we already DO attempt to keep guns out of the hands of potentially dangerous individuals, so not sure I get this argument. Background checks are a thing.

For 70% of gun sales, sure.

[wunksta]

Unless you're at a gun show/expo where you don't need to run a background check on buyers, nor required to record the sale or ask for identification.

This is one loop hole that could easily be closed and the only people that would have a problem with it are the hardcore gun lovers.

Not only that but consistent reporting and updating of records. The Texas church shooter was prohibited from purchasing weapons but the USAF failed to record the information in the FBI database.

[Endus]

I mean, we already DO attempt to keep guns out of the hands of potentially dangerous individuals, so not sure I get this argument. Background checks are a thing.

Only in some sales, as noted, and they're solely a prescriptive restriction; if you have already done bad stuff, and you have gotten caught doing that bad stuff, then and only then would you be on the list and denied over the background check. In many cases, even if you're seeing a psychiatrist who knows you've got anger management issues, that would not show up on a background check, unless you've already acted out on them and gotten caught; if you're just at risk of doing so, you're free to buy a weapon.

As a comparison, in Canada, to get a gun permit, you need to show:
A> Two references (someone who's known you for 3 years/not your spouse)
B> No depression, suicidal thoughts, drug/alcohol abuse problems, emotional or behavioural problems in the last 5 years (diagnosed OR undiagnosed)
C> Not been reported to police for domestic violence in the last 5 years,
D> Not been divorced/separated/significant break-up or lost your job/gone bankrupt in the last 2 years

The references are required, the others aren't GUARANTEED to deny your application, but they'll each require further details and investigation before they'll grant it. For the last, for instance, if you got divorced, they'll contact your ex and they have to sign off on the application that they're aware.

The point is that you're applying for a privilege, and you need to demonstrate you're not a risk factor in that application. If red flags get tripped, no gun permit for you. As a result, we have way less gun crime.


It's pretty ridiculous to claim that the USA makes much effort to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals, when said individuals keep buying guns legally.

[Antiganon]

its not a difficult problem to solve.

1) Enforce existing law more strictly across the board. This is obvious, and nobody on either side would reasonably oppose it.
2) Pass Fix NICS, so that the various reporting organizations MUST properly report violations that would prevent you from buying a gun to the single centralized database that background checks are done against. This is obvious and has broad bipartisan support from pretty much the entire country EXCEPT the NRA.
3) Pass a law requiring universal background checks, including for gun shows and private sales. Better yet, outlaw private sales entirely, while still requiring background checks at gun shows. This has 94% support among the electorate.
4) Reinstate Obama's regulation regarding SSDI beneficiaries with a 3rd party designated to manage their benefits. Rather than have them go directly into NICS, have them appear before a judge and court-appointed psychiatrist, who then adjudicate them as mentally competent (or not). This is regulation rather than law, and needs no public support whatsoever, provided it is done within the law. Obama's initial attempt was unconstitutional overreach, because it denied due process. This modified approach accomplishes the same goal, while ensuring due process.

Once that is done, we can talk about other options and whether or not they are necessary, like banning certain classes of gun. I would be in favor of limiting magazine size, but if you ban the AR-15 people will just use one of hundreds of other semiautomatic rifles that work the same.