The things you speak of concerning problematic domestic issues is result of out of control war spending overseas and any political system that is organized knows how to multi-task on a variety of issues where if it can’t it becomes useless. What’s interesting about the radical left of the United States where I’ve said elsewhere is how it went from being anti war in the 1960’s to being pro war in the early 2000’s.
Now they’re trying to say this Nikolas Cruz guy was a white supremacist or nationalist. 
Pathetic and funny!
How long before they start blaming school shootings on white supremacists and nationalists everywhere? We’re entering a new era of retarded here. Wait for it…
What good is freedom when you can’t protect your children from being gunned down, slaughtered, and massacred in public schools?
Serious question, and I want people to answer.
I say give everybody guns and let everybody shoot each other where the victor wins the conflict.
We’re only a hair away from civil war anyways, just need one big event nationally to light the fuse now.
You have a child, don’t you? So you would accept your child being gunned down in a public school? What if it happened to you?
Guns don’t kill people. People kill people through intent or negligence. Sometimes they use guns, sometimes they use other things. And killing people with any object is… against the law already.
Next you will want to ban or register all knives because there was a stabbing… and knife ownership isn’t even protected by the constitution!
A well armed populace isn’t just important practically it is a basic human right as a free non-criminal adult to own the means to defend yourself and people around you. The leftists miscalculate: the more they secretly pray for more gun violence so they can push their psyop gun control nonsense, the more important and rational it becomes to actually own a gun and know how to use it.
More insane nonsense and mind control from the left. It’s funny how predictable it is. As predictable as it is vacuous.
You have a child, don’t you? So you would accept your child being gunned down in a public school? What if it happened to you?
Unless you live in or around the town this occurred, I’m sorry to say, but really it isn’t a big deal.
The odds of your kid being gunned down by a guy with a semi-auto are about the same as you winning the lottery jackpot, I wouldn’t bet on it.
You or your family are thousands of times more likely to be killed by a drunk driver, so if you really want to improve your safety, you should invest more time and energy into prohibiting or further regulating alcohol, or educating people about the dangers of lightning bolts for that matter.
For example, did you know if lightning strikes your house, and you’re in the shower, it could easily travel through the faucet and kill you?
I learned that from watching the discovery channel years ago.
Switzerland has about as much access to guns as the states, so why aren’t they proportionately killing as many people?
Right, perhaps it has less to do with guns and more with something else.
Maybe there’s more poor Americans than poor Swiss, or poor Americans are poorer than poor Swiss. Maybe American families and communities aren’t as strong, maybe American history and culture is more violent, from the individuals to the government.
Maybe Americans take more prescription psychotropics, maybe Americans eat more junk food, hell maybe America itself is kind of toxic, but we can’t look into any of that, because that’d upset Americans, and the military industrial complex, and the corporations, especially big pharma.
If we’re going to discuss this, it isn’t just about guns, let’s at least be 3 dimensional about it.
It has become prevalent to the point of commonplace. So your argument is invalid. Ask yourselves, do you want to live in a world where public schools need armed guards? Isn’t this symbolic of a severely sick and perverse society? Again I ask, what good is freedom when you cannot protect children from being savagely machine gunned down in high schools?
Put yourselves in the shoes of those being slain, if you aren’t so callous, selfish, and egotistical?
A surefire (ha) way to prevent any kind of constructive discourse is to put words in other people’s mouths, to exaggerate, and to build a straw man.
I see this constantly. “I can’t possibly even try to actually understand an opposing view because it feels all icky inside and I have some reasons to think my way, therefore my woefully insufficient, intentionally laughable guesses and caricatures must be their actual reasoning, and that’s just ridiculous! They must be stupid to think like I am thinking they think!”
You think you’re being edgy and clever, knowing others better than they know themselves, when in actual fact you’re presenting yourself as a complete moron who knows nothing - never mind about others, but not even about yourself.
UrGod, you really want to punctuate the above with a slippery-slope fallacy? Why don’t I turn that around and claim that next you will want it to be a basic human right for everyone to own a nuclear weapon. I mean, nuclear weapons don’t kill people, if you misuse or abuse your nuclear weapon that’s your fault as a person.
Perhaps you want to claim that intent or negligence with a gun is just the same as intent or negligence with a knife, or a spoon!? Oops, I dropped my spoon, it’s dirty now. Oops, I dropped my gun, it went off and killed my 5 year old child - both scenarios happen all the time. Any rational person realises there is a line where gambling with inevitable intent or negligence with something that can be used to harm is no longer a safe bet. Other more developed countries have realised that you draw the line before you get to guns, and they get violence with other weapons with much less collateral damage and gun violence all but disappears. WEIRD. It’s like actual facts mean something and making up a ridiculous position that others don’t actually hold means fuck all.
Yes, you did miss anything. You missed everything.
Topkek
You’re begging the question there and also note I’ve never said anything about restrictions on guns where your question is pointless. I’m all for people having guns actually.
Almost a full page in, and no valid, meaningful conversation, just amateur trolling and low iq posturing… well done.
I used to be very pro-gun, but these abundance of school spree-shooting has me second-guessing that.
It maybe time to ban machine guns and “assault” (rapid-fire) rifles to the general public. I would make it only legal to own with very strict guidelines (25 years of age, military service preferred, police service preferred, etc).
These are new times which call for new social mandates. Maybe change is in order?
Sure, let me rephrase that. I am all for people owning guns but concerning civilians no owning of guns that are military grade. Pistols, shotguns, and rifles are fine but nothing beyond that.
Maybe we should look into banning the antianxiety and antidepressants these mass murderers were on, many-most of them were on psychotropics when they committed these atrocities.
Maybe psychotropics ought to be subjected to decades of study, before we permit big pharma to peddle them.
That’s just more symptoms of a much larger problem. The problem is cultural and it is systemic all throughout society.
No, they can’t do that as there is too much profit involved.
If culprits of spree-shootings are on, or were on, medications, then those should be liable for damages. Lawsuits should be filed by schools, familes, victims, and the like, against drug companies and pharmaceuticals. That would compel drug-profiteering to rethink their monopoly on civilization