Texas School Massacre MAGA

eh's picture

Texas School Shooting MAGA Man

Right after the school shooting in Santa Fe, Texas today where the casualties so far are 10 dead and 10 wounded, a man with a pistol, a U.S. flag, a Trump hat, and declaring "Make America great again" showed up to add his voice to the tragedy. Have to give him credit for pre-empting the gun control people who will come out.

 

Just give thoughts and prayers, put flags at half staff, bury the dead, and wait for the next mass shooting. Nothing is going to change unless 20-30 Senators or Congressmen are mowed down, so just move on. Next.

3.733335
Average: 3.7 (15 votes)

Comments

Grothesk's picture

The Republican response:  thotts and payers.

+1
+5
-1
Vote comment up/down
Swuave's picture

The teenage democrat response "Republican reponse, thoughts and prayers.".

+1
-5
-1
Vote comment up/down
puttefnask's picture

I like your argument, that nothing is going to happen, unless MORE PEOPLE ARE SHOT.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
eh's picture

Oh hello no. The right people would need to be gunned down. Thousands of people can be shot down-schoolkids, shoppers, churchgoers, etc-and absolutely nothing will change. Let a few dozen lawmakers and/or their families get gunned down and there might be some action taken. They are under more protection than most, so a quantity of them being mowed down that would cause enough consternation for action will never be reached. Quite simply, nothing will change. Hope to not be where a mass shooter is.

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
puttefnask's picture

The problem in your logic is that you present an outcome that has never happened before. There's no historic pretext where banning guns alltogether stops people from killing eachother.

 

Saying nothing will happen until the right people or even important people are gunned down does not automatically mean that the laws they would enact by consequence will actually prevent future shootings or reduce gun related crime.

 

If people can't get guns legally to protect themselves, they will get them illegally. Just like people got alcohol in the 1920's during the Prohibition, and from that situation competing crime syndicates arose that boosted crime and corruption internationally, that sought to profit from developing new ways to give people what they want. And the strategies those syndicates developed in order to ensure success is something that continues to this day.

 

Are guns a human need? No.

Neither is alcohol.

And people were willing to go to extreme lengths(understatement) just to provide it.

How willing would people be to provide guns, in America?

How willing are people to provide guns in America, already?

 

The one thing nobody wants to be in a "gunless" America is the person without a gun.

Because all the criminals would have the guns.

 

If the best idea you have is to attack a gun club where most members are legally carrying and using guns respectfully, you will get nowhere.

 

They're not the problem. They have lobbyists, who speak on their behalf, and are in the pockets of sooo many congressmen and politicians. Yes. They do. I know.

 

They're still not the problem. You have been presented with that conclusion.

 

Do they contribute to the problem? Of course, but they are also in a position where they can help. Teaching people to respect gun safety laws and learn about guns has probably lowered the gun related deaths significantly. But we don't think about those things.

 

There are more factors. Many.

 

And you've been in a standstill for years now. Pretty much no fucking progress.

And you just blame the same thing when some school or suburb gets shot up, every time.

 

Do I have all the answers? No.

But you will never get there, if you react the same way every time this happens.

If you actually believe that in order to stop random violence, we must use even more specific violence, you will never achieve anything. You see that actually has historic pretext.

+1
-2
-1
Vote comment up/down
eh's picture

Doing nothing has a known result. Nothing.

+1
+2
-1
Vote comment up/down
puttefnask's picture

And it is also not what I said.

 

What we've been doing haven't been working, so we should consider new things like fixing one problem at a time rather than blame something or someone without an actual achievable solution.

 

 

Killing a bunch of people is not a solution any sane person would recommend to stopping the killing of people,unless you are one of the people who wants to kill a bunch of people.

 

That is the thought that goes through some of these people's heads before they commit mass shootings. They can't sit by and do nothing. And they must do something very drastic for things to truly change.

 

Anders Breivik felt he had to warn the world against Muslims taking over European countries and implementing Sharia Law, so he targeted a specific bunch of people and politicians who he felt were responsible, planned everything for years and still ended up killing mostly random Norwegian children.

 

His idols fucking disowned him. Even racist organisations banned him. He is the definition of failure.

 

But hey let's kill a specific bunch of people, that'll solve it.

It will be our final solution, if you may, to all our problems.

And it's so simple. All it takes, is the scenario you suggested.

It has never happened before. If it did, the outcome would be exactly what you suggested.

Oh, here's just some random videos from last year.

+1
-2
-1
Vote comment up/down
Swuave's picture

+1
-3
-1
Vote comment up/down
eh's picture

LOL I was wondering if that regular gun nut chart would come up. The problem? It's statistical method to produce questionable data. First, it ends in 2015 and mass shootings have exploded in the U.S. Second, school shootings in the U.S. are more than the rest of the world COMBINED. Third, and very important is the simple fact that the chart was created by Dr. John R Lotte Jr. creator of the Crime Prevention Research Center and crimeresearch.org, who also happens to be a Fox News columnist and the data is misleading.

 

The CPRC uses all sorts of methods to manipulate the data. Just one example among many

For example, the CPRC did not include the 7 June 2013 killings of five people in Santa Monica, California. John Zawahri shot and killed his father and brother at home, set the house on fire, then shot and killed three more people at Santa Monica College.

Although Zawahri killed five people, only three were killed in public in the second part of a shooting spree that was only ended when police killed him outside the college’s library. This might appear to many observers to be a mass shooting in which the attacker killed five people, but it was left out of the CPRC analysis, apparently because two of the five fatal shootings took place in a private home.

 

The example of Norway gives a good illustration of just how absurd this use of statistics is. In 2009 and 2010, according to Lott’s data, there were zero mass shooting deaths in Norway. In 2011, far-right extremist Anders Behring Breivik killed eight people in a series of bombings in Oslo, then shot dead 69 more in a massacre at a Labor Party summer camp on Utoya island. 

In 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015, there was not a single death from a mass shooting in Norway.

 

 

 

As you can see, the United States is the only country on the list where mass shootings took place consistently between 2009 and 2015, with the CPRC recording at least 12 deaths annually in that period. In fact, of the sixteen countries that Lott chose for his analysis, only one saw mass shooting deaths in more than two out of those seven years — the United States.

 

Again, the manipulated data presented by the CPRC is 2009- 2015. Show the up-to-date statistics and they are  damning.

 

Between 2009 and 2015, the United States was the only country on that list where someone died every year in a mass shooting. Every other country had at least five out seven years without a death from a mass shooting. 

Finally, the death rate from mass shootings has significantly increased in the United States since Lott published his research in 2015. We applied the CPRC criteria to the frequently updated database of mass shootings maintained by Mother Jones, and found that in 2016, there were 65 deaths in incidents that would be designated mass shootings under CPRC criteria, and in 2017 there were 94. Over the two years, that is an average annual death rate of 0.24 per million people, which is almost three times higher than the United States death rate between 2009 and 2015. 

In other words, things have become dramatically worse in the United States since the CPRC research was first published.

 

 

 

The chart shows the spike in Norway from the mass killing by Anders Behring Breivik in 2011 and the massacre by terrorists in Paris, France in 2015. Take those out and take a look at the chart. Include up-to-date numbers and you would be "Blown away", no pun intended.

+1
+2
-1
Vote comment up/down
Swuave's picture

tl;dr
Here is the source for the image if you want it.

https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public...
 

+1
-5
-1
Vote comment up/down
eh's picture

Perfect. Thanks. Makes the point.

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Muchos Munchbagger's picture

we gotta git doze commies heads outta der collective asses. Thiink about it. Fake newzzz tels us we get freqiuent mass shootins goin on. Der liberal agendasnevergunnagitmahguns!!!!  Thiink about it man. We'll set dah record straight.

Thiink about it.

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
DroINwinD's picture

There is simply no way to get Americans to give up their right to defend themselves. 

Should have never believed "Gun free zones" would have done ANYTHING good, except keep them out of the lawful citizens hands and creating openings for those who don't follow the law. Human nature, not everyone cares about laws.

Enacting more laws that won't work doesnt seem like a good idea either. 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

More mass shootings occur in homes and "in the streets" than in gun free zones.  Think about how many cities there are in the United States and think about how many mass shootings that occur in homes and on the streets...and those certainly are *NOT* gun free zones.  Here's just a few from my home town and area of South Bend, Indiana:

August of 2017 --> https://www.abc57.com/news/wife-of-shooting-victim-speaks-out

 

March of 2018 -->  https://www.abc57.com/news/south-bend-police-ask-for-help-in-dayton-stre...

 

December of 2016 --> http://wsbt.com/news/local/its-a-tragedy-elkhart-community-reacts-after-...

 

Now think about how many mass shootings happened in Chicago, Columbus, Detroit, St. Louis, Champaign and Decatur (IL), Indianapolis, Grand Rapids...and I've only listed cities from three states so far in the Midwest.  There are literally hundreds of mass shootings that occur inside homes and on the streets every few weeks in gun-PRESENT zones.  But the media doesn't post on those because you and I aren't looking to learn about Jamal Suggs who shot three dudes in a drug deal gone bad.  You and I aren't clicking on the report of Greg White getting high on meth and shooting six people at a party.  Those stories don't sell because the idea is that "those people deserve whatever happens to them"...and there's no fear there.  You should be more concerned about how your kid may get shot at a public school.  Now that is fearful and that sells.  

 

Gun free zones are ideals AND both you and I know they're not real.  I attended high school from 1995 to 1999 and there was always an armed guard present and I know that was true as well of my cousins who attended from ~2000 to ~2012.  There are obviously guns present and yet we hear of so few stories of good guys with guns taking out or preventing bad guys with guns.  

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
DroINwinD's picture

by the very definition... mass shootings do not occur in homes.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

If that is the case then "gun free zones" are just a red herring because we can change the definition at any time. 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
DroINwinD's picture

The word "MASS" is important when you say Mass shootings. Gun Violence happens everywhere, violence in general happens everywhere. Take away one Tool, and they find another to perform the same deed. Its Human nature, and this argument ignores it.

Gun free zones are a problem. Take away the lawfuls ability to defend, and you think you have suceeded, but in reality you've just made it easier to control the masses and make them less safe. 

Those who give up liberty for security deserve niether.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

"Gun Violence happens everywhere, violence in general happens everywhere. Take away one Tool, and they find another to perform the same deed."

 

That is an interesting platitude, but it really doesn't hold up in the real world.  I'm interested in comparing the murder rate of Canada, France, Great Britain, Sweden, Norway, Germany, and Belgium to the United States of America.  According to your statement above, they should be the same, right?  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_...

 

The facts don't seem to be on your side.  Violence does happen everywhere, but to state that as much gun violence occurs in Great Britain as it does in America is pretty foolish, even on a percentage level.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
DroINwinD's picture

You want to compare, but you cannot. The countries listed do not share the constitution. 

To my statement you tried to smack down... It absolutely holds in the "real world"... for an actual comparison, the places with the highest gun laws (in the united states) have the highest %'s of gun violence. Not to mention mass shootings taking place in north of 90% in Gun Free Zones, and why is it that paces like Kennesaw Ga have the lowest crime rates? (for that example, blue laws exist that you have to own a firearm to purchase a home there)

Take your pick on which facts to follow. Your mind is obviously made up.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

My mind is made up because I literally live in the middle of it.  I live in South Bend, Indiana, about ~100 miles to the East of Chicago.  The vast majority of guns that fuel Chicago's gang wars come from South Bend/Elkhart, where gun laws are very lax.  "Sharing the same Constitution" is a moving the goalposts response: guns are either in abundance in a given region or they are restricted.  Again, let's compare a like-minded capitalistic democracy such as Germany, Australia, Great Britain, and all of the usual suspects against the United States. 

 

I notice with a very keen eye that in places where guns are heavily restricted that the instances of gun violence and murder are also minimized.  I wonder if there is a correlation there.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
DroINwinD's picture

your mind is made up. Now you wish to impose your will on the rest of the country. Like the other nations you describe, what works for them does not work for everyone. Also, people of those places do not become benevolent human beings, remove the tool and another replaces it. Its not Gun control, is just control. Americans are not going to give up their weapons without a civil war, and the gun control folks will lose that war. It really is that simple.

Comparing the different nations still does not work. There is already "a gun behind every blade of grass". There was intent to that notion.

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones's picture

nothing beats a sawn-off for close-quarters carnage

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
eh's picture

Absolutely. Bullied kids need to step it up and get some military grade equipment for their school shootings though.

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
sli0701948's picture

https://i.imgur.com/ucUMgzC.jpg

+1
+2
-1
Vote comment up/down
Ziggy's picture

Illuminati confirmed!

+1
+3
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

The saddest fucking thing about this is that rather than eradicating the root of the problem the twat that is the president and now some governer twat too call to "arm the teachers".

 

I think nowhere else in the world (other than maybe in countries number one twat above would call shitholes, but I seriously doubt that) they are even remotely thinking about measures like this. 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
DroINwinD's picture

no where else in the world are people allowed to defend themselves like the constitution provides americans.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

You're arguing against your own point.  Are you safer in Berlin or Chicago?

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Muchos Munchbagger's picture

The constitution isnt the ethos of humanity. It's simply a successful American policy (for its time) that some hold dear. If you want to open up peoples minds.. i.e. "gun safety", you can't start with a limitation created from a past. That's dogma and people have been trying to "enlighten" others all the time using tenets and scriptures from the past. It never works as times,culture and circumstances evolve past previous times, culture and circumstances. Even laws in some cases (would you believe it!!).

The momentum of time is way more sacred than it's epochs or moments. You can only learn from the past or you can become enslaved by it. 

+1
+2
-1
Vote comment up/down
DroINwinD's picture

indeed. the founders had already had that experience from the past when writing it. there is much wisdom in it, though it isnt perfect. What we have is the best thats come to date, but we are supposed to become, just like everyone else?

 

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Muchos Munchbagger's picture

 

 

 

 

!!!!!!!!!!!    ALL HAIL SKY CLOTH    !!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down