Shooting in a Christian School in the US. Whether or not it will be Highly Publicized is Yet to be Determined (ie, the shooter's political status)

[CdnFox]

28 minutes ago, User said:

No one needs to go to the lake to enjoy a nice cool swim, boating, or other activity on a hot summer day either... I guess you don't care about all the people who die and drown unless we outlaw this activity. 

 

Dude.... HE BELIEVES THAT.   Go look at the forest fire thread.  Where they banned access to AN ENTIRE PROVINCE, not because there WERE fires but that there MIGHT be if they let people go into the woods hiking!!! 

You think you're offering a gross exaggeration to prove your point, it is NOT an exaggeration to them a all!!

They want humans banned from EVERY activity that they don't personally authorize them to do.  You're not highlighting the ridiculousness of their argument for them, you're preaching to the choir as far as they're concerned 

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, West said:

No but you are suggesting these kids were murdered because someone said mean things to the mutilation cult (allegedly). 

Everyone (else) knows the Catholic POLICIES, lDIOT, so NO ONE NEEDS them spelled out except YOU.

But thanks for spelling out just HOW CONTEMPTUOUS you are of the LGTBQ, and that makes YOU a big part of the PROBLEM.

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

Your attitude is the biggest problem.  The cause of the 48,000 gun deaths a year is a simple one to understand.  You will never eliminate all the tens of millions of people with mental problems.  You should know that.  It is a simple thing to understand.  It is like 1 + 1 = ? .... Two of course.  One problem is the mental instability of millions of people and the other problem is you are putting guns in their hands.

Wake up and smell the coffee.   It's not complicated.

You are obviously driven by an ideological agenda.   You think if the government brings in gun controls and stops the widespread proliferation of guns, it is somehow a threat to your freedom.  That is absolutely absurd.  Ending the private ownership of hand guns and assault rifles has nothing to do with individual freedom.  Nobody needs to own those guns.

They simple don't.  It would not affect your freedom.   You simply don't need to own handguns and assualt rifles.  That is not freedom.  There is no such right in the real world.

If you want to be a hunter or target shoot, then you could take a safety course and pass the exam and they could check your mental history.  But a hunting rifle is not the same as a hand gun or assault rifle.  No need for everyone to have those things.

A case might be made for women being able to carry a hand gun as they are particularly vulnerable esp when alone on the street and we will never get rid of all the guns that are EVERYWHERE.

Of course the problem is in the vast majority of cases, the victim is caught by surprise and is unable to even get their gun out to use it for defense.

[gatomontes99]

Apparently a few people are able to get their gun out. 

Quote

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

Estimates over the number of defensive gun uses vary wildly, depending on the study's definition of a defensive gun use, survey design, country, population, criteria, time-period studied, and other factors. Low-end estimates for the United States are in the range of 55,000 to 80,000 incidents per year, while high end estimates reach 4.7 million per year. 

 

 

[West]

44 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Everyone (else) knows the Catholic POLICIES, lDIOT, so NO ONE NEEDS them spelled out except YOU.

But thanks for spelling out just HOW CONTEMPTUOUS you are of the LGTBQ, and that makes YOU a big part of the PROBLEM.

I do stand firmly in opposition to your disgraceful point of view that Christians deserve to get murdered because they dont align with your radicalized view on gender ideology. Any politician pushing this point of view is vile scum

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Mental health is the problem. The solution to mental health is not fewer guns. The two are not related. 

 

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

No. That, ☝️ right there ☝️, is the problem. I come forward with a solution to the problem and you aren't willing to entertain it. You would rather attack me and ignore the problem than find a real solution.

That is false.  You offer no serious solution.   We agree the human side of the problem is there is a vast mental health problem.  Man is born with a sinful, fallen nature and for many people this remains a problem throughout life and often gets worse.

You have no solution to the mental health problem and you claim just keep allowing everyone to have guns.

We agree mental health is a problem.  But why allow 48,000 people a year to be shot or shot themselves because of mental issues?   You offer no solution to that.

This is not a game of politics or partisanship.  It is a simple issue of common sense.  You don't give children loaded guns to play with.  Neither should you give millions of people with mental problems guns.

You are the one driven by partisan politics.  You claim it is your right to own a gun.  There is no such thing as a right for people with mental issues to be armed with guns and that includes likely a hundred million people in the U.S. more or less.   Your supporting anybody to have guns means you are partly responsible for what these people are doing with those guns.

Edited August 30, 2025 by blackbird

[blackbird]

56 minutes ago, robosmith said:

A case might be made for women being able to carry a hand gun as they are particularly vulnerable esp when alone on the street and we will never get rid of all the guns that are EVERYWHERE.

Of course the problem is in the vast majority of cases, the victim is caught by surprise and is unable to even get their gun out to use it for defense.

It would make more sense to not allow everyone to have a handgun.  Millions of people with mental issues or criminal mentality should not have guns. 

The idea that people should be allowed to carry handguns for self defence is a useless idea because as you said in most cases, they will not get the chance to use it to defend themselves.  What that kind of system does is it gives massive numbers of mentally ill or criminals guns.   Better to eliminate handguns completely except for police and security guards.  That would save countless lives.

[gatomontes99]

17 minutes ago, blackbird said:

It would make more sense to not allow everyone to have a handgun.  Millions of people with mental issues or criminal mentality should not have guns. 

Should we ban knives because some will misuse them? Why are you so eager to take away a gun from someone that never has and never will violate the law? 

I'll tell you. Because it isn't about saving lives. You want control. That is it. If you wanted to help people, you would push for mental health help for those that need it. You don't care for that. You call say it isn't a solution. Your solution is to punish the sane and law abiding. 

[User]

21 minutes ago, blackbird said:

It would make more sense to not allow everyone to have a handgun.  Millions of people with mental issues or criminal mentality should not have guns. 

You literally have no idea what you are talking about. 

Everyone can't have a handgun. 

People who have been institutionalized or ruled mentally defective can't own firearms. 

24 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The idea that people should be allowed to carry handguns for self defence is a useless idea because as you said in most cases, they will not get the chance to use it to defend themselves.

Most people will never need a seatbelt either... so, I guess we shouldn't wear seatbelts. 

[User]

28 minutes ago, blackbird said:

What that kind of system does is it gives massive numbers of mentally ill or criminals guns. 

The "system" doesn't do this. 

[Nationalist]

A crazy-ass trannie opens fire in a church...one it attended before...

And Libbies think guns are the problem. 

Have any of you read the profile on this bugger? Outcast...angry...sexually confused...man the guy's mom worked at that church as well. Robin/Robert was a product of social decay.

[CdnFox]

41 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Should we ban knives because some will misuse them?

England did. 

Basically he wants to ban you from owning ANYTHING that he didn't personally approve.  You don't deserve to own your own home, that's elitist.  You don't deserve to own your own business, that's exploitive. If you want your own car you must hate the planet, public transit's fine. You don't' deserve to own a gun or a knife because you're too stupid and might be dangerous. Welcome to the mentality of the left.  Criminals are the victims, lawful owners are the problem, freedom is dangerous. 

Edited August 30, 2025 by CdnFox

[CdnFox]

 

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

A crazy-ass trannie opens fire in a church...one it attended before...

And Libbies think guns are the problem. 

 

That's not true..  The 'think' part i mean. 

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

Have any of you read the profile on this bugger? Outcast...angry...sexually confused...man the guy's mom worked at that church as well. Robin/Robert was a product of social decay.

That's racist. 

[User]

4 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

A crazy-ass trannie opens fire in a church...one it attended before...

And Libbies think guns are the problem. 

Have any of you read the profile on this bugger? Outcast...angry...sexually confused...man the guy's mom worked at that church as well. Robin/Robert was a product of social decay.

Exactly. 80 Million + Lawful gun owners and some nut job mental defect kills people and the liberals want to disarm everyone else. 

No thanks. 

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

Should we ban knives because some will misuse them? Why are you so eager to take away a gun from someone that never has and never will violate the law? 

I'll tell you. Because it isn't about saving lives. You want control. That is it. If you wanted to help people, you would push for mental health help for those that need it. You don't care for that. You call say it isn't a solution. Your solution is to punish the sane and law abiding. 

False again.  I never said anything about treating or not treating mental health problems.  Of course they should be treated.  But there are millions of people, maybe hundreds of millions with mental health problems.  How do you treat that number?  That is a whole different problem that should be addressed as well.

But you need to be realistic.  Mental health problems could be a large segment of the population depending how it is defined.  That is not going to disappear.   In the meantime, stop giving all these troubled people hand guns to kill others with.   We know we need knives in the kitchen and in some work places.  Nobody needs to carry a knife around on their body either. 

Perhaps there are laws against carrying knives around already if the blade is over so many inches in length.  That should be enforced also.

The only way you could seriously reduce the gun crime is to take away hand guns from most of the population unless it is needed for their occupation.  Eliminating all the hand guns in the population would be a major task and would likely need to be done by legislation.

Nobody needs to have hand guns or assault rifles.  You tell me why do millions, maybe a hundred million or more people, need hand guns or assault rifles?  Just because.  that's all.  It's a feel good thing.  But it is costing tens of thousands of lives every year for nothing.

 

Edited August 30, 2025 by blackbird

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

And Libbies think guns are the problem. 

So a crazy guy with serious mental issues was allowed to own a bunch of guns and you think that is ok?  Seriously.. get a grip.

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, blackbird said:

False again.  I never said anything about treating or not treating mental health problems.  Of course they should be treated.  But there are millions of people, maybe hundreds of millions with mental health problems.  How do you treat that number?  That is a whole different problem that should be addressed as well.

But you need to be realistic.  Mental health problems could be a large segment of the population depending how it is defined.  That is not going to disappear.   In the meantime, stop giving all these troubled people hand guns to kill others with.   We know we need knives in the kitchen and in some work places.  Nobody needs to carry a knife around on their body either. 

Perhaps there are laws against carrying knives around already if the blade is over so many inches in length.  That should be enforced also.

The only way you could seriously reduce the gun crime is to take away hand guns from most of the population unless it is needed for their occupation.  Eliminating all the hand guns in the population would be a major task and would likely need to be done by legislation.

Nobody needs to have hand guns or assault rifles.  You tell me why do millions, maybe a hundred million or more people, need hand guns or assault rifles?  Just because.  that's all.  It's a feel good thing.  But it is costing tens of thousands of lives every year for nothing.

 

Liar  Once again you've got to go back and rewrite what you said because you got caught being stupid 

[West]

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

So a crazy guy with serious mental issues was allowed to own a bunch of guns and you think that is ok?  Seriously.. get a grip.

Which mental health problems do you propose cause you to lose a right enshrined in the country's constitution? (Like it or not)

Most people who struggle with mental health are not homicidal 

[SpankyMcFarland]

It is already highly publicized because it is a catastrophic event.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, West said:

Which mental health problems do you propose cause you to lose a right enshrined in the country's constitution? (Like it or not)

Most people who struggle with mental health are not homicidal 

Except about 48,000 people a year in the U.S. die from guns, half from suicide by guns and the other half by homicide.

It's pure madness to give hand guns and assault weapons to everyone regardless of their mental or psychological condition.  The simple fact is thousands of people do shot other people every year.  For what reason should that be allowed to continue?   

Wikipedia says this about the "Right to bear arms" in the 2nd amendment:

"....... the Supreme Court affirmed that the right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home,^[4][5][6][7] while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons"

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

This says clearly the right is for SELF DEFENSE in the home and prohibitions against mentally ill possessing firearms or prohibitions against the mentally ill having them are reasonable and within the Constitution.

So we must ask why do all these people who are going out and shooting other people and mass shootings given the right to bear firearms?  According to the Supreme Court, the government has the right to deny them the right to possess firearms.  There is the answer.  Strict screening of everyone who wants to own firearms should take place.  Also, the right to bear firearms does not necessarily mean in our modern society that anyone should own assault rifles.

Assault rifles are not needed for self defence in a home.

The hundreds of millions of firearms owned by almost anyone needs to stop and they need to be eliminated.

Edited August 30, 2025 by blackbird

[West]

29 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Except about 48,000 people a year in the U.S. die from guns, half from suicide by guns and the other half by homicide.

It's pure madness to give hand guns and assault weapons to everyone regardless of their mental or psychological condition.  The simple fact is thousands of people do shot other people every year.  For what reason should that be allowed to continue?   

Wikipedia says this about the "Right to bear arms" in the 2nd amendment:

"....... the Supreme Court affirmed that the right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home,^[4][5][6][7] while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons"

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

This says clearly the right is for SELF DEFENSE in the home and prohibitions against mentally ill possessing firearms or prohibitions against the mentally ill having them are reasonable and within the Constitution.

So we must ask why do all these people who are going out and shooting other people and mass shootings given the right to bear firearms?  According to the Supreme Court, the government has the right to deny them the right to possess firearms.  There is the answer.  Strict screening of everyone who wants to own firearms should take place.  Also, the right to bear firearms does not necessarily mean in our modern society that anyone should own assault rifles.

Assault rifles are not needed for self defence in a home.

The hundreds of millions of firearms owned by almost anyone needs to stop and they need to be eliminated.

Which do you want me to address? 

Its already illegal in the United States to access a firearm for a number of reasons. The vast majority of what would be considered "mass shootings" in the United States are gang related and carried out by hand guns. The press uses some mass shootings predominantly as a weapon against conservatives. I dont take their solutions seriously as its often most about politics than actually finding a solution. See whackos like Jen Psaki mocking prayer after this one like a true sicko

Assault riffles (whatever those are) are not the culprit when it comes to the vast majority of deaths by firearm in the United States. 

Suicide is sad. I had a close friend hang themselves a few years ago. I dont hear too many people calling to ban tow ropes.

And all this is a distraction from the fact it was a TRANS SHOOTER who decided to committ a hate crime against christian children 

Edited August 30, 2025 by West

[User]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Nobody needs to have hand guns or assault rifles.  You tell me why do millions, maybe a hundred million or more people, need hand guns or assault rifles?  Just because.  that's all.  It's a feel good thing.  But it is costing tens of thousands of lives every year for nothing.

Nobody needs to have swimming pools or recreational swimming.  You tell me why do millions, maybe a hundred million or more people, need swimming pools or recreational swimming?  Just because.  that's all.  It's a feel good thing.  But it is costing tens of thousands of lives every year for nothing.

[User]

5 hours ago, robosmith said:

But thanks for spelling out just HOW CONTEMPTUOUS you are of the LGTBQ, and that makes YOU a big part of the PROBLEM.

This is a thread on how some mentally deranged person shot up a bunch of kids... and you have spent the entire time trying to blame everyone except the mentally deranged murderer. 

 

[gatomontes99]

8 hours ago, blackbird said:

False again.  I never said anything about treating or not treating mental health problems. 

You said dealing with mental health is not a solution. 

8 hours ago, blackbird said:

But you need to be realistic.  Mental health problems could be a large segment of the population depending how it is defined.  That is not going to disappear.   In the meantime, stop giving all these troubled people hand guns to kill others with.   We know we need knives in the kitchen and in some work places.  Nobody needs to carry a knife around on their body either. 

Perhaps there are laws against carrying knives around already if the blade is over so many inches in length.  That should be enforced also.

The only way you could seriously reduce the gun crime is to take away hand guns from most of the population unless it is needed for their occupation.  Eliminating all the hand guns in the population would be a major task and would likely need to be done by legislation.

Nobody needs to have hand guns or assault rifles.  You tell me why do millions, maybe a hundred million or more people, need hand guns or assault rifles?  Just because.  that's all.  It's a feel good thing.  But it is costing tens of thousands of lives every year for nothing.

You have this bad habit of presuming you know what others need. That is what makes you liberal. It is not up to you to determine what others need. It is up to them. Yes, they will do things you don't like. But, good, normal people don't try to dictate what others do. 

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, blackbird said:

Except about 48,000 people a year in the U.S. die from guns, half from suicide by guns and the other half by homicide.ated.

well no. 

But lets take a step back.  Guns don't make people commit suicide.  Japan has no guns at all pretty much yet the suicide rate is much higher. 

So that reasoning is out the window. 

And of the rest the VAST Majority is criminals shooting at criminals.  Those people will get guns regardless of the laws JUST AS THEY DO IN CANADA WITH TONNES OF LAWS. 

You're 100 percent in the wrong