RedEye9 wrote on May 25, 2022, 18:27:

jdreyer wrote on May 25, 2022, 18:15:

Blue wrote on May 25, 2022, 09:48:

jdreyer wrote on May 24, 2022, 22:23:
If a crazed gunman, or group of them took out a couple dozen congress people, or the entire supreme court, we might see some actual change to the gun laws. Until then nothing will change. If it couldn't change after Sandy Hook or Orlando or Vegas, it won't change until congress is actually affected.

I think you are underestimating the power of lobbying dollars over cognitive dissonance, because this has already proven to not be the case:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/12/steve-scalise-shooting-gun-rights-interview

I think that is different from what I'm talking about.
1) No one died
2) Only one congressperson was affected
3) Good Guy with a Gun™️ was activated

In my scenario, I don't think there is change unless dozens die. It's just an observation on previous legislation that has moved through congress quickly when they were personally affected.

I was thinking the same. Would we have the Brady bill if James had only been winged instead of permanently disabled or if he'd been a member of congress. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/brady-bill-signed-into-law#

Still waiting for Wayne "blood on his hands" LaPierre's good guy with a gun to make an appearance. It's been 12 years since he vomited that statement and all its done was make for nra fundraising material.

EDIT
It's official. NRA Sets 1,000 Killed In School Shooting As Amount It Would Take For Them To Reconsider Much Of Anything https://www.theonion.com/nra-sets-1-000-killed-in-school-shooting-as-amount-it-w-1819573533

I guess my real concern is that I don't think any amount of casualties is too many to be the proverbial straw for the camel. People have already forgotten about Stephen Paddock in Las Vegas. He killed 59 people and wounded 411 in only 10 minutes. Charles Whitman killed fewer people (and wounded far fewer) in over an hour and a half. When Las Vegas happened and didn't stir anything toward action, I pretty much quit holding my breath. Yeah, it resulted in bump-stocks being banned, but that isn't really fixing much. I don't believe there is any number no matter how high that would budge the hardcore base that has its hold over the GOP. I suspect the most that might ever happen is location-specific (such as restrictions against carrying in state houses) but not any kind of national policy.

jdreyer wrote on May 25, 2022, 18:15:

Blue wrote on May 25, 2022, 09:48:

jdreyer wrote on May 24, 2022, 22:23:
If a crazed gunman, or group of them took out a couple dozen congress people, or the entire supreme court, we might see some actual change to the gun laws. Until then nothing will change. If it couldn't change after Sandy Hook or Orlando or Vegas, it won't change until congress is actually affected.

I think you are underestimating the power of lobbying dollars over cognitive dissonance, because this has already proven to not be the case:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/12/steve-scalise-shooting-gun-rights-interview

I think that is different from what I'm talking about.
1) No one died
2) Only one congressperson was affected
3) Good Guy with a Gun™️ was activated

In my scenario, I don't think there is change unless dozens die. It's just an observation on previous legislation that has moved through congress quickly when they were personally affected.

I was thinking the same. Would we have the Brady bill if James had only been winged instead of permanently disabled or if he'd been a member of congress. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/brady-bill-signed-into-law#

Still waiting for Wayne "blood on his hands" LaPierre's good guy with a gun to make an appearance. It's been 12 years since he vomited that statement and all its done was make for nra fundraising material.

EDIT
It's official. NRA Sets 1,000 Killed In School Shooting As Amount It Would Take For Them To Reconsider Much Of Anything https://www.theonion.com/nra-sets-1-000-killed-in-school-shooting-as-amount-it-w-1819573533

This comment was edited on May 25, 2022, 20:18.

cappy wrote on May 25, 2022, 17:58:

Blue wrote on May 25, 2022, 09:48:

jdreyer wrote on May 24, 2022, 22:23:
If a crazed gunman, or group of them took out a couple dozen congress people, or the entire supreme court, we might see some actual change to the gun laws. Until then nothing will change. If it couldn't change after Sandy Hook or Orlando or Vegas, it won't change until congress is actually affected.

I think you are underestimating the power of lobbying dollars over cognitive dissonance, because this has already proven to not be the case:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/12/steve-scalise-shooting-gun-rights-interview

True

Possibly - and I mean only possibly - if Sandy Hook or Uvalde or similar massacres were treated the way Emmett Till's mother did "I wanted the world to see what they did to my baby" - then maybe there might be enough public outcry that might push toward a solution. The problem is that mass shootings are so routine that there's a day of shock and then it dissipates. They show pictures of the victims when they were smiling and happy, and people feel sad. No one is forced to confront the havoc wrought on children's bodies with civilian variants of modern-day military weapons. As horrifying as the idea of showing the victims as victims would be, maybe that would be the only thing that could wake up enough collective horror to encourage *something* to be done. But of course, that will never happen.

So instead we get the cycle:

1) Initial shock at the latest horrific mass shooting
2) Calls for something to be done
3) The Deflection Playbook rolled out (no need to dust it off, because these things happen to often in America to accumulate dust)
a) Thoughts and Prayers
b) The Democrats/Left/liberals are politicizing this when we should all focus on our grief. It's "too soon" to talk about fixing things. People are too emotional. We should allow grief (and more importantly, people's attention) to dissipate before talking about solutions (which we will never talk about)
c) This tragic incident is indeed tragic, but no policy could ever have prevented it with 100% certainty. Policies must always either be 100% effective or they cannot be done at all (applies only to guns - not to safety measures for food, drugs, automobiles, planes, airport security, border walls, etc.)
d) There are rumors that the perpetrator was a (fill in blank for proxy for some kind of liberal-associated cause)

So far, all the bingo boxes have already been checked. Rep Paul Gosar helpfully filled in 3(d) this morning.

If anyone is interested, Jim Wright of Stonekettle Station has a pretty good series of essays on America's gun violence:

https://www.stonekettle.com/2022/05/the-gun-posts.html

Thank you Cappy (i quoted you and forwarded to my friends), Blue and everyone with a sane head on their shoulders.
As for Rep Gosar, that pos is truly unfit for office, unbelievable.

Blue wrote on May 25, 2022, 09:48:

jdreyer wrote on May 24, 2022, 22:23:
If a crazed gunman, or group of them took out a couple dozen congress people, or the entire supreme court, we might see some actual change to the gun laws. Until then nothing will change. If it couldn't change after Sandy Hook or Orlando or Vegas, it won't change until congress is actually affected.

I think you are underestimating the power of lobbying dollars over cognitive dissonance, because this has already proven to not be the case:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/12/steve-scalise-shooting-gun-rights-interview

I think that is different from what I'm talking about.
1) No one died
2) Only one congressperson was affected
3) Good Guy with a Gun™️ was activated

In my scenario, I don't think there is change unless dozens die. It's just an observation on previous legislation that has moved through congress quickly when they were personally affected.

Blue wrote on May 25, 2022, 09:48:

jdreyer wrote on May 24, 2022, 22:23:
If a crazed gunman, or group of them took out a couple dozen congress people, or the entire supreme court, we might see some actual change to the gun laws. Until then nothing will change. If it couldn't change after Sandy Hook or Orlando or Vegas, it won't change until congress is actually affected.

I think you are underestimating the power of lobbying dollars over cognitive dissonance, because this has already proven to not be the case:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/12/steve-scalise-shooting-gun-rights-interview

True

Possibly - and I mean only possibly - if Sandy Hook or Uvalde or similar massacres were treated the way Emmett Till's mother did "I wanted the world to see what they did to my baby" - then maybe there might be enough public outcry that might push toward a solution. The problem is that mass shootings are so routine that there's a day of shock and then it dissipates. They show pictures of the victims when they were smiling and happy, and people feel sad. No one is forced to confront the havoc wrought on children's bodies with civilian variants of modern-day military weapons. As horrifying as the idea of showing the victims as victims would be, maybe that would be the only thing that could wake up enough collective horror to encourage *something* to be done. But of course, that will never happen.

So instead we get the cycle:

1) Initial shock at the latest horrific mass shooting
2) Calls for something to be done
3) The Deflection Playbook rolled out (no need to dust it off, because these things happen to often in America to accumulate dust)
a) Thoughts and Prayers
b) The Democrats/Left/liberals are politicizing this when we should all focus on our grief. It's "too soon" to talk about fixing things. People are too emotional. We should allow grief (and more importantly, people's attention) to dissipate before talking about solutions (which we will never talk about)
c) This tragic incident is indeed tragic, but no policy could ever have prevented it with 100% certainty. Policies must always either be 100% effective or they cannot be done at all (applies only to guns - not to safety measures for food, drugs, automobiles, planes, airport security, border walls, etc.)
d) There are rumors that the perpetrator was a (fill in blank for proxy for some kind of liberal-associated cause)

So far, all the bingo boxes have already been checked. Rep Paul Gosar helpfully filled in 3(d) this morning.

If anyone is interested, Jim Wright of Stonekettle Station has a pretty good series of essays on America's gun violence:

https://www.stonekettle.com/2022/05/the-gun-posts.html

RedEye9 wrote on May 25, 2022, 11:54:
Here's some food for thought but I guess you'll be too disgusted to eat after hearing this:
Abbott, disgraced president 45, t.cruz and cornyn are confirmed speakers at the National Rifle Association's annual meeting later this week in Houston, about a 4 hour drive from Uvalde.🤮

I'm sure they'll have all kinds of great things to say. Like lets arm 10 year olds and if only the school had automated 50 cal turrets in the ceiling.

Of course, no one will put forth the idea of funding a proper armed security force for schools, because that would cost money, much of which would be spent securing schools that aren't in wealthy white neighborhoods.

Here's some food for thought but I guess you'll be too disgusted to eat after hearing this:
Abbott, disgraced president 45, t.cruz and cornyn are confirmed speakers at the National Rifle Association's annual meeting later this week in Houston, about a 4 hour drive from Uvalde.🤮

So now they're saying the sun is actually good for us .. and Vit D supplements are a bust.
The movie Sleeper said that ribeye steaks washed down with a hot fudge sundae was healthy. I want that future and toss in a little sun.

jdreyer wrote on May 24, 2022, 22:23:
If a crazed gunman, or group of them took out a couple dozen congress people, or the entire supreme court, we might see some actual change to the gun laws. Until then nothing will change. If it couldn't change after Sandy Hook or Orlando or Vegas, it won't change until congress is actually affected.

I think you are underestimating the power of lobbying dollars over cognitive dissonance, because this has already proven to not be the case:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/12/steve-scalise-shooting-gun-rights-interview

jdreyer wrote on May 25, 2022, 09:05:
Congress is nothing if not self-interested. It's almost a shame that Jan 6 didn't involve a bunch of oathkeepers and their AR pattern rifles. Almost. It would have been a terrible tragedy, but it would have resulted in the kind of substantial change which is otherwise impossible.

Maybe. Personally, I kind of doubt it. I'm not sure an non-terrestrial invasion could unite the various fractions. Even if it did, the moment the exterior threat was gone, fractions would again form.

GaianElite wrote on May 24, 2022, 23:12:

jdreyer wrote on May 24, 2022, 22:23:
If a crazed gunman, or group of them took out a couple dozen congress people, or the entire supreme court, we might see some actual change to the gun laws. Until then nothing will change. If it couldn't change after Sandy Hook or Orlando or Vegas, it won't change until congress is actually affected.

That's insane, power is a helluva drug. Don't they know they are bringing it to their doorstep? Was Jan. 6th not a wakeup call after everything else that happened? Must feel good knowing you have service detail... poor service workers do so much to protect absolute idiots.

Congress is nothing if not self-interested. It's almost a shame that Jan 6 didn't involve a bunch of oathkeepers and their AR pattern rifles. Almost. It would have been a terrible tragedy, but it would have resulted in the kind of substantial change which is otherwise impossible.

* No political appointments for family or business associates.
etc.
But it isn't happening, too much corruption plus the general ignorance and carelessness.
Democracy is dead and replaced by a greedy manipulative plutocracy.

Dacron wrote on May 25, 2022, 00:42:

Hardline Mike wrote on May 24, 2022, 17:24:
Already seeing the "false flag" and "crisis actor" chatter in conservative forums. These people are so despicable.

... do you really surf conservative forums just to get upset? That seems so backwards to me.

I like to see what they are saying/believing, since I spend most of my time in heavily liberal forums.

Hardline Mike wrote on May 24, 2022, 17:24:
Already seeing the "false flag" and "crisis actor" chatter in conservative forums. These people are so despicable.

... do you really surf conservative forums just to get upset? That seems so backwards to me.

Burrito of Peace wrote on May 24, 2022, 22:16:
As citizens? Given how divided this country is, not much.

As a country, here is a non-exhaustive list:

• Outlaw PACs
• Outlaw lobbying
• Outlaw campaign contributions. Every political official runs on a limited, public fund
• Term limits for all politicians and judges
• Outlaw redistricting
• Dismantle the Electoral College and go to a total public vote
• Disallow riders on bills. Every bill must stand on its own merit
• Create and enforce solid, well reasoned domestic terror charges
• Revamp the tax system and return to a progressive tax
• Political officials must divest themselves of all interests and stocks in any corporation prior to taking office and may not hold any interests or stocks during the course of their term
• Elected officials may not have held a corporate board seat ten years prior to or after their term
• Maximum age limits on elected officials

Here are a few more.

• Term Limits for all elected positions, and the supreme court
• Pass a constitutional amendment that overturns citizens united. Corporations are not people and must be held accountable for their fuck ups, and money is not speech.
• Free healthcare and education for all citizens

jdreyer wrote on May 24, 2022, 22:23:
If a crazed gunman, or group of them took out a couple dozen congress people, or the entire supreme court, we might see some actual change to the gun laws. Until then nothing will change. If it couldn't change after Sandy Hook or Orlando or Vegas, it won't change until congress is actually affected.

That's insane, power is a helluva drug. Don't they know they are bringing it to their doorstep? Was Jan. 6th not a wakeup call after everything else that happened? Must feel good knowing you have service detail... poor service workers do so much to protect absolute idiots.

GaianElite wrote on May 24, 2022, 21:05:

fakespyder wrote on May 24, 2022, 19:14:
Now that I'm up to speed on the horror that's happened. What can you say that isn't just another empty thoughts and prayers statement?

Is there anything we can do as citizens or does something need to be done on the national level? What type of event has to happen for our leaders to do something? Like if an entire school was executed? Starting to doubt even that. Voting seems like an impasse. It's like there are several hundred ticking time bombs at any moment in this country that could be set off. I'm not Superman and this is incredibly frustrating, but then again not even Superman can be everywhere all at once. Those are my neighbors who are dying.

#FuckAbbot
#FuckCruz
#FuckCornyn

If a crazed gunman, or group of them took out a couple dozen congress people, or the entire supreme court, we might see some actual change to the gun laws. Until then nothing will change. If it couldn't change after Sandy Hook or Orlando or Vegas, it won't change until congress is actually affected.

GaianElite wrote on May 24, 2022, 21:05:
Is there anything we can do as citizens or does something need to be done on the national level? What type of event has to happen for our leaders to do something? Like if an entire school was executed? Starting to doubt even that. Voting seems like an impasse. It's like there are several hundred ticking time bombs at any moment in this country that could be set off. I'm not Superman and this is incredibly frustrating, but then again not even Superman can be everywhere all at once. Those are my neighbors who are dying.

#FuckAbbot
#FuckCruz
#FuckCornyn

As citizens? Given how divided this country is, not much.

As a country, here is a non-exhaustive list:

• Outlaw PACs
• Outlaw lobbying
• Outlaw campaign contributions. Every political official runs on a limited, public fund
• Term limits for all politicians and judges
• Outlaw redistricting
• Dismantle the Electoral College and go to a total public vote
• Disallow riders on bills. Every bill must stand on its own merit
• Create and enforce solid, well reasoned domestic terror charges
• Revamp the tax system and return to a progressive tax
• Political officials must divest themselves of all interests and stocks in any corporation prior to taking office and may not hold any interests or stocks during the course of their term
• Elected officials may not have held a corporate board seat ten years prior to or after their term
• Maximum age limits on elected officials

fakespyder wrote on May 24, 2022, 19:14:
Now that I'm up to speed on the horror that's happened. What can you say that isn't just another empty thoughts and prayers statement?

Is there anything we can do as citizens or does something need to be done on the national level? What type of event has to happen for our leaders to do something? Like if an entire school was executed? Starting to doubt even that. Voting seems like an impasse. It's like there are several hundred ticking time bombs at any moment in this country that could be set off. I'm not Superman and this is incredibly frustrating, but then again not even Superman can be everywhere all at once. Those are my neighbors who are dying.

#FuckAbbot
#FuckCruz
#FuckCornyn

This comment was edited on May 24, 2022, 21:42.

And moral people are continually surprised by the immorality and cruelty of scientists who needlessly experiment on animals.