The Silence Here Is Deafening

[shemp]

You know what I'm referring to.

[Hotarubi]

You know what I'm referring to.

Is it your fat wife's farts?

[izittrue]

What?

[Grammatron]

The sound of silence.

[Carr]

There's no loud talking in the building!

[Hotarubi]

[The Atheist]

You know what I'm referring to.

It's only been four days, mate!

It takes time for shithead apologists to think up reasons why all is well.

[The Atheist]

This looks like it belongs here:

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1530322212309200896

[Pyrrho]

I can't hear a damned thing over the noise the politicians and pundits are making.

[robinson]

On my woke as fuck forum it’s non stop

But instead of wanting police to stop shooting people they are mad the cops didn’t shoot somebody quicker

[robinson]

Not being an expert on these matters I side with the Jews in Israel who figured out how to stop school shootings back in 2008

[Doctor X]

https://i.giphy.com/media/114w0sdvpggw3C/giphy.webp

– J.D.

[The Atheist]

It's amazing how the "Good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns" commentary disappears when the good guys with guns stood around for an hour, waiting for the kids to bleed to death.

[Doctor X]

Sorry, I did hear a Racist Cunt crying.

– J.D.

[Ben Trovado]

I'm not sure the "police stood around for an hour doing nothing while your kids were being gunned down" line is quite as good an argument against personal gun ownership as some people apparently believe.

Have they thought this one through?

[Hotarubi]

Have they thought this one through?

Tough question.

[Pyrrho]

What the police did or did not do isn't relevant to the 2nd Amendment.

[Doctor X]

Actually, it is in that one of the arguments against 2nd Amendment rights is the existence of the police . . . that many of those making that argument wanted defunded!

The police actually have no obligation to protect you.

However, I fear the arguments over the 2nd Amendment distract from the fact that this was yet another known loon ignored. So the Anti-Gun Lobby screeches ignorance about "assault weapons" and "bullets that EXPLODES lungs!" – okay groomer – whilst the Pro-Gun Lobby offers what as a solution?

– J.D.

P.S. Meanwhile, 50+ shot in Chicago over the weekend. The silence over that has been going on for decades.

[Grammatron]

Actually, it is in that one of the arguments against 2nd Amendment rights is the existence of the police . . . that many of those making that argument wanted defunded!

The police actually have no obligation to protect you.

However, I fear the arguments over the 2nd Amendment distract from the fact that this was yet another known loon ignored. So the Anti-Gun Lobby screeches ignorance about "assault weapons" and "bullets that EXPLODES lungs!" – okay groomer – whilst the Pro-Gun Lobby offers what as a solution?

– J.D.

P.S. Meanwhile, 50+ shot in Chicago over the weekend. The silence over that has been going on for decades.

The Pro-Gun Lobby offers a solution to punish people for crime and enforce existing laws. Taking away ed's guns will not stop any tragedy in Texas.

[Anaxagoras]

Any suggestions that would have prevented this from happening?

[Anaxagoras]

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

UVALDE, TX—In the hours following a violent rampage in Texas in which a lone attacker killed at least 21 individuals and injured several others, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Tuesday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said Idaho resident Kathy Miller, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep this individual from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what they really wanted.” At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past eight years were referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless.”

[Doctor X]

The Pro-Gun Lobby offers a solution to punish people for crime and enforce existing laws.

Then how, according to reports, could this loon purchase his weapons legally, assuming those reports are correct?

Taking away ed's guns will not stop any tragedy in Texas.

I am not aware that I suggested it would.

Any suggestions that would have prevented this from happening?

Prayer and more Junior according to Faux News.

See?

It is all settled.

– J.D.

[Grammatron]

Any suggestions that would have prevented this from happening?

Sure, lots of them and they range from utopian to practical. But I can't tell if this is a throw away comment or you actually care to hear me out.

[Grammatron]

Then how, according to reports, could this loon purchase his weapons legally, assuming those reports are correct?

I don't know, it's still too soon to have the whole picture. It's a guess, but I think there were early signs and like in the past few tragedies they were ignored or lessened enough as to allow this "loon" to purchase weapons.

I am not aware that I suggested it would.

– J.D.

No you did not. It was a remark at the general anti-gun solution.

[Doctor X]

I don't know, . . .

Evasion noted. [Stop that! – Ed.] Sorry, sorry, could not resist!

. . . it's still too soon to have the whole picture.

Fair enough on that, because, frankly, the story has changed from hour to hour and "what I heard" regarding the legality of the purchase may be a load of Adamsonian Dingo Kidneys.

But if he did obtain his weapons legally. . . .

It's a guess, but I think there were early signs and like in the past few tragedies they were ignored or lessened enough as to allow this "loon" to purchase weapons.

And there is the problem. I believe you have heard that California wants to stop reporting threats made in school. Stepping away from the Hasty Over Simplification, I can understand not wanting to haul away some eight year-old who screamed "I'll kill you!" during a fight or a repeat of the infamous "bit his bread in the shape of a gun," but when you have a loon, or someone who acts as a loon, would rather think such should not have access to a weapon, be it a gun, a knife, or a garlic press.

Which is what I think 憮然ワイフのご主人 Anax is asking: what practically can we do?

– J.D.

[Anaxagoras]

Raise the age at which you can purchase guns to 21. (or higher, frankly)

Require a license, like the license you need to drive a car. Have it include a mental health evaluation and safety training. Check their social media.

I don't know about the shooter in Uvalde, but the one in Buffalo apparently passed a background check and purchased his weapons legally. He illegally modified the rifle to accept 30-round magazines, which are illegal in New York.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Buff ... ng#Weapons

Weapons

Gendron cleared the background check (known in the United States as a Form 4473), as is typically required under U.S. federal law, when he purchased the rifle; the seller claimed to have not come across any obvious red flags.[48][49] He cleared another check while purchasing a shotgun at a store in Pennsylvania, claiming to need it for target practice.[46]

On his rifle, he had reportedly written the word nigger and referenced reparations,[50] along with the names of white supremacist mass murderers Dylann Roof, Robert Bowers, Brenton Tarrant, and John Earnest, the acronym SYGAOWN (Stop Your Genocide Against Our White Nations),[51] and the year 2083, a reference to the manifesto of Anders Behring Breivik.[52] A law enforcement source told The Daily Beast he had also written on his rifle names of one or more victims of the Waukesha Christmas parade attack.[53] On the weapons in his car which had not been used during the shooting, he reportedly had written "White Lives Matter" and "what appears to be the name of a victim of a crime committed by a black suspect" according to CNN.[54] Before the shooting, Gendron wrote that he had purchased a rifle and illegally modified it to accept magazines capable of holding up to thirty rounds, which are illegal in New York state, where the limit is ten rounds.[55][56]

I guess the same is true for Uvalde/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robb_Elem ... erpetrator

Salvador Rolando Ramos was a resident of Uvalde and a former student at Uvalde High School.[101] He did not have a criminal record or any documented mental health issues.[51]

In September 2021, Ramos asked his older sister to buy him a gun, but she refused, according to the Texas Department of Public Safety.[62] He then legally purchased a Smith & Wesson assault-style semi-automatic rifle from a local gun store on May 17, 2022, a day after his 18th birthday, and he purchased another rifle three days later.[55] He also sent an Instagram message to an acquaintance he met through Yubo, which showed a receipt for an AR-15 style rifle purchased from Georgia-based online retailer Daniel Defense eight days before the shooting.[1][110][111] He then posted a picture of two rifles on his Instagram account three days before the shooting.[112]

Ahead of the shooting, Ramos had purchased 1,657 total rounds of ammunition,[113] including 375 rounds of 5.56 NATO ammunition purchased on May 18, 2022.[55] A total of 315 rounds were found inside the school, consisting of 142 spent cartridges (fired bullets) and 173 live rounds (unfired bullets); additionally, a total of 922 rounds were found on school property outside the building, consisting of 22 spent cartridges and 900 live rounds.[113]

Both of these individuals were quite insane and dangerous, but both were able to pass a background check at the age of 18.

I don't claim these changes will prevent all shootings, but they might have prevented these ones.

[The Atheist]

The police actually have no obligation to protect you.

Tubbo, tubbo, tubbo.

You just love being wrong, don't you?

https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/local ... d1d2aee5b4

[Ben Trovado]

Prior to 2005, Jessica Gonzales sued the Castle Rock, Colorado police department for failing to arrest her husband, who had violated a protective order. The violation resulted in the murder of her three children. She lost her case after it went to the Supreme Court. Despite the fact that the order required arresting her husband upon violation, the Court stated that “a well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes.” In other words, you have no recourse if the police decide not to arrest a violent offender, even with a specific protective order in place against him. Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005).

That case relied on precedent in Deshaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989). In Deshaney, a young boy was repeatedly abused at the hands of his father. The county's Social Services agency was well aware of the abuse, but made no effort to remove the child. His mother sued after the four-year old had been placed in a vegetative state, and the Court ruled that that the state did not have a special obligation to protect a citizen against harms it did not create (the "state-created danger" doctrine).

In other words, the police do not have to act if someone is actively being harmed, they do not have to arrest someone who has violated orders, and they do not have any legal obligation to protect you from others.

The counter-claim is that they have a theoretical duty, but you have absolutely no way to enforce it or make them follow the duty should they decide to ignore it. I am not sure I would have chosen the word "duty" for that.

[The Atheist]

You're making the precise error explained in the article, so well done.

Just for a split millisecond imagine what the reaction of everyone but the furthest-right morons like WildCat and Post-Skeptic will be if SCOTUS upholds the actions to come against the Uvalde police. There's no doubt lawsuits will happen and it's an absolute certainty that SCOTUS will refuse to hear the case - if any entity thinks an appeal is a good idea to begin with, which I severely doubt.

The clutching of the tiniest straws while exiting a sunken boat in a hurricane would be hilarious if there weren't a load of dead kids involved.

This is a black and white situation, and but it does nicely show how far the lunatic fringe will go. (not necessarily including you in that - I think you're probably making an honest mistake, unlike the short-arse, fence-sitting tub of lard I quoted)

[Grammatron]

You're making the precise error explained in the article, so well done.

You don't know what you are talking about. The article is talking about police, as an entity in the community, having a duty to show up to the job and work. What the police do not have a duty of is protecting a specific individual in a specific time.

The police have a duty to protect people living in the city, but they do not have a duty to protect an individual.

[Ben Trovado]

The counter-claim is that they have a theoretical duty, but you have absolutely no way to enforce it or make them follow the duty should they decide to ignore it. I am not sure I would have chosen the word "duty" for that.

[Doctor X]

And how does one protect oneself and others when the police legally do not have to?

– J.D.

[Pyrrho]

Phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range.

[Doctor X]

Just what is in the store.

– J.D.

[Hotarubi]

Actually, it is in that one of the arguments against 2nd Amendment rights is the existence of the police . . . that many of those making that argument wanted defunded!

The police actually have no obligation to protect you.

However, I fear the arguments over the 2nd Amendment distract from the fact that this was yet another known loon ignored. So the Anti-Gun Lobby screeches ignorance about "assault weapons" and "bullets that EXPLODES lungs!" – okay groomer – whilst the Pro-Gun Lobby offers what as a solution?

– J.D.

P.S. Meanwhile, 50+ shot in Chicago over the weekend. The silence over that has been going on for decades.

The Pro-Gun Lobby offers a solution to punish people for crime and enforce existing laws.

Too late for kids in schools and neither a prevention or cure.

Taking away ed's guns will not stop any tragedy in Texas.

Has in the UK. Unarguable according to stats both before and after Dunblane and Hungerford which were the exceptions to the rule. So if its not availability of weapons is it down to the British sense of reserve?

Determined nutters will always cause havoc. Except with swimming pools.

Look I'm pro ownership. Im an owner myself - I've stated that before on a few occasions. I wish people who are pro 2nd amendment would stop using fallacious arguments and clichés to defend a position they feel they have to because they look and sound like demented parrots.

BTW. It is surprisingly easy to get a gun license in the UK and guns were banned at the recent NRA convention.

[Grammatron]

Too late for kids in schools and neither a prevention or cure.

What isn't too late?

It could be prevention: if there were times when this individual could have been punished and thus prevented from purchasing guns. The system(s) in place to safeguard against these monsters rely on certain prerequisites to work. The same way those cops at the school just stood around, the authorities are just "standing around" in dealing with these individuals until a horrible tragedy unfolds, and then it's only guns to blame.

Taking away ed's guns will not stop any tragedy in Texas.

Has in the UK. Unarguable according to stats both before and after Dunblane and Hungerford which were the exceptions to the rule. So if its not availability of weapons is it down to the British sense of reserve?

Determined nutters will always cause havoc. Except with swimming pools.

Look I'm pro ownership. Im an owner myself - I've stated that before on a few occasions. I wish people who are pro 2nd amendment would stop using fallacious arguments and clichés to defend a position they feel they have to because they look and sound like demented parrots.

BTW. It is surprisingly easy to get a gun license in the UK and guns were banned at the recent NRA convention.

Every country is different and such comparisons are a bit futile in my opinion.

As far as 2nd amendment my view is that everyone has a right to arm and defend themselves. Taking away that right from everyone for some greater good while leaving them less safe does not make sense to me.

[Ben Trovado]

There are measures that could be moved forward. Keeping people with previous violent (with or without mental health issues) problems from passing background checks could be done. Laws already requiring heftier sentences against person convicted of gun violence (or violence in general) could work. Hardening schools, armed school resource officers, allowing school personnel with the desire and training to carry might help.

But instead, people are released from custody because of mutual combat, a free pass is given to even violent criminals, suggestions to harden schools are met with disingenuous derision, and laws are passed where even people with violent offenses cannot be identified to the feds handling the background checks.

"Defund the police, ACAB, also, give up your guns so that only the police could protect you."

[sparks]

You're making the precise error explained in the article, so well done.

You don't know what you are talking about. The article is talking about police, as an entity in the community, having a duty to show up to the job and work. What the police do not have a duty of is protecting a specific individual in a specific time.

The police have a duty to protect people living in the city, but they do not have a duty to protect an individual.

How in the name of hell do you define those terms? Fuck oh dear: Individuals collectively are the community.

[Grammatron]

You're making the precise error explained in the article, so well done.

You don't know what you are talking about. The article is talking about police, as an entity in the community, having a duty to show up to the job and work. What the police do not have a duty of is protecting a specific individual in a specific time.

The police have a duty to protect people living in the city, but they do not have a duty to protect an individual.

How in the name of hell do you define those terms? Fuck oh dear: Individuals collectively are the community.

I don't know why you are being combative.

The rights in this country are afforded to individuals because tyranny of the majority is a real threat.

[Grammatron]

There are measures that could be moved forward. Keeping people with previous violent (with or without mental health issues) problems from passing background checks could be done. Laws already requiring heftier sentences against person convicted of gun violence (or violence in general) could work. Hardening schools, armed school resource officers, allowing school personnel with the desire and training to carry might help.

But instead, people are released from custody because of mutual combat, a free pass is given to even violent criminals, suggestions to harden schools are met with disingenuous derision, and laws are passed where even people with violent offenses cannot be identified to the feds handling the background checks.

"Defund the police, ACAB, also, give up your guns so that only the police could protect you."

Yes all of this.