|
|
Post by Lor on Oct 4, 2017 18:12:32 GMT -5
Again with the false dichotomies and ridiculous narratives. "If you don't want your rights taken away for absolutely no fucking reason, then clearly you are okay with children being slaughtered." Um, no. That's not even close to what I said, no false dichotomies or ridiculous narratives here. It's a sincere question. |
|
|
|
Post by andrea on Oct 4, 2017 18:13:10 GMT -5
What can be done?
Well, we could increase security in establishments surrounding open air venues about to host large amounts of people which could be used as a staging area.
For example, all bags of hotel guests searched upon arrival would have flagged this dude. Is that what we want? It may be.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrea on Oct 4, 2017 18:34:24 GMT -5
I'd add for those who feel the need to do something: we may be at the point where we have to consider every place where people gather as a potential target and act accordingly. Maybe we need to do what Israel does.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lor on Oct 5, 2017 8:23:39 GMT -5
What can be done? Well, we could increase security in establishments surrounding open air venues about to host large amounts of people which could be used as a staging area. For example, all bags of hotel guests searched upon arrival would have flagged this dude. Is that what we want? It may be. I've seen people talking about the fact that they are reconsidering going to concerts/sporting events etc. because of fear so increased security at large events seems like a good place to start. I'm guessing that most would not be happy with having their bags searched when checking into a hotel but perhaps it's time to look at modifying safety training for staff to look out for suspicious behaviour. It seems like if people were trained in what to look for they may have flagged the fact that he brought 10 suitcases full of weapons to his hotel room. |
|
|
|
Post by alicechalmers on Oct 5, 2017 8:49:06 GMT -5
Frankly, I don't think there are any reasonable things that could have been done to prevent this. I don't want the government telling hotels to search people and have metal detectors or any other such nonsense. And I sure don't want to have my hotel door beaten down by government agents because someone thought they "saw something."
|
|
|
|
Post by Tpatt100 on Oct 5, 2017 8:56:36 GMT -5
I remember after 9/11 and the building I worked at installed metal detectors. People were happy to have them but a few months later were complaining about waiting in a short line
|
|
|
|
Post by Sprockey on Oct 5, 2017 9:01:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by stellarfeller on Oct 5, 2017 9:20:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by alicechalmers on Oct 5, 2017 9:25:06 GMT -5
And that is exactly why the cries for gun control ring so hollow. People are killed using guns every damn day, but what are we doing about controlling and violent men? Exactly fucking nothing. But a scary public thing happens and we should get rid of guns. Right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tpatt100 on Oct 5, 2017 9:35:01 GMT -5
I would think not being in an abusive relationship in the first place is a good start
|
|
|
|
Post by Lor on Oct 5, 2017 9:48:22 GMT -5
And that is exactly why the cries for gun control ring so hollow. People are killed using guns every damn day, but what are we doing about controlling and violent men? Exactly fucking nothing. But a scary public thing happens and we should get rid of guns. Right. Things have been done though. The problem is far from solved but awareness and support have definitely increased in the past few decades, there was a time that abused women were literally stuck because they have nowhere to turn. We've come a long way in understanding the psychology behind abused people and abusers and there are a lot more support systems in place than there used to be. Much more is required but in my experience it's not fair to say nothing is being done. I would think not being in an abusive relationship in the first place is a good start If only it were that simple. |
|
|
|
Post by Tpatt100 on Oct 5, 2017 9:57:01 GMT -5
I know it’s not that “simple” but using statistics to show how dangerous guns are in an abusive relationship just glosses over the fact that abusive relationships are already dangerous.
If you are in an abusive relationship is the abuser going to even listen to your opinion about owning a gun in the first place?
|
|
|
|
Post by alicechalmers on Oct 5, 2017 10:21:50 GMT -5
Sure, things are different than they were thirty years ago. People - particularly women - in violent relationships are far more likely to be killed than a concert attendee, but that's not what the gun control folks concentrate on. Why? Because it's not politically persuasive. When something dramatic happens and it makes the news, people who want to ban guns seize on it and use it to further their agenda. They don't address every day violence, because it's not about keeping people safe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2017 11:24:58 GMT -5
I'll just walk around dittoing tpatt. Wanting to ban guns has no more to do with protecting people than the drug war does. My God, you people have such stubborn "zero/one minds"! Most people do not want to "ban guns", they just want some sane laws governing their sale, distribution, and ownership. Just because we have a myriad of laws governing the use of automobiles doesn't mean there is a determined plot to get rid of them all! Right now, I can drive to a gun show in Indiana with a suitcase full of cash, buy a dozen assault rifles WITH ABSOLUTELY NO PAPER WORK OR BACKGROUND CHECK, and then drive back to Chicago and get them on the streets. Just because I want to make that insanity illegal, I want to "ban guns"? By the way, the Republicans just eliminated Obama's executive order designed to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. That should "help". |
|
|
|
Post by alicechalmers on Oct 5, 2017 11:35:39 GMT -5
Good. The government has no business eliminated people's rights based on medical records.
And assault rifles cannot be sold in Indiana or anywhere else without paperwork. They're enormously difficult to purchase.
|
|
|
|
Post by TapToTalk on Oct 5, 2017 11:56:08 GMT -5
Lor didn’t say that. She asked what can be done then? No one seems to have anything real to suggest, so carrying on seems to be the only option. I’ve been wanting to ask, but haven’t been able to figure out a way to ask what can be done that doesn’t put people on the defensive. I have heard a lot of noise about silencers and bump stocks. Let's say that we got a bipartisan consensus to ban these, it passed tomorrow and Trump signed it. We will have done "something". Will that please the "do something" crowd. Doubtful. Michael Moore has called for repeal and replace of the Second Amendment. People have argued here that repealing the Second Amendment is NOT what most liberals want. After Sandy Hook, there was four months of debate. There was legislation. It wasn't passed because of four Democrats. Yes, there is the usual outcry to do "something", the problem is that not even the pro-"something" crowd can agree on what a meaningful "something" is. "Something" ends up being some highly technical language of specifications that can be bypassed by someone with the means and imagination to do harm. |
|
|
|
Post by alicechalmers on Oct 5, 2017 12:03:04 GMT -5
Word. Doing "something" is pointless and potentially harmful. Neither side has much to offer about what will actually work. Being opposed to a "something" that has the very real potential to adversely affect people's lives is NOT the same as being okay with mass murder, and frankly that is a really shitty accusation to make.
All the hysterical moralizing I see on Facebook has confirmed for me why Trump won. The Left as a whole just loves to condescend, especially when it comes to rural conservatives. Rural folk aren't actually stupid, much as high and mighty liberals believe. They do know when they are despised and insulted, and it's really no wonder they protested in the most effective way they could.
|
|
|
|
Post by puppylove on Oct 5, 2017 12:05:12 GMT -5
Word. Doing "something" is pointless and potentially harmful. Neither side has much to offer about what will actually work. Being opposed to a "something" that has the very real potential to adversely affect people's lives is NOT the same as being okay with mass murder, and frankly that is a really shitty accusation to make. All the hysterical moralizing I see on Facebook has confirmed for me why Trump one. The Left as a whole just loves to condescend, especially when it comes to rural conservatives. Rural folk aren't actually stupid, much as high and mighty liberals believe. They do know when they are despised and insulted, and it's really no wonder they protested in the most effective way they could. Preach it, sister. |
|
|
|
Post by nansel on Oct 5, 2017 12:45:35 GMT -5
I think I’m starting to understand why things will never change. I’m not being snarky, I’m trying to be straightforward . The cultural difference between Canada and the US are massive on this one, and that’s why I’m having trouble.
We have a mild rural/urban divide, but nothing like I’m seeing in this thread. Gun ownership here isn’t all that far off of the US, but the attitude and the type of guns do differ. Hugely. And I guess it shall remain so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sprockey on Oct 5, 2017 12:49:00 GMT -5
Word. Doing "something" is pointless and potentially harmful. Neither side has much to offer about what will actually work. Being opposed to a "something" that has the very real potential to adversely affect people's lives is NOT the same as being okay with mass murder, and frankly that is a really shitty accusation to make. All the hysterical moralizing I see on Facebook has confirmed for me why Trump won. The Left as a whole just loves to condescend, especially when it comes to rural conservatives. Rural folk aren't actually stupid, much as high and mighty liberals believe. They do know when they are despised and insulted, and it's really no wonder they protested in the most effective way they could. It's girl crush day. You win |
|
