Leftists owe the rest of us an explanation for the Florida shooting

[otto105]

Why does the left always support what fails to be effective or successful?

Over the course of the January call, which lasted more than 13 minutes, the tipster warned the F.B.I. that Mr. Cruz had been adrift since his mother’s death in November. She said that Mr. Cruz had “the mental capacity of a 12 to a 14 year old.” The tipster provided four Instagram accounts for Mr. Cruz, which she said showed photos of sliced up animals and the firearms he had amassed.

So to recap - the left wants to give more power and control to the government that failed to act to protect the children and take away citizens right to defend themselves.

Failed government?

You have have to disregard or ignore the corporations pushing it to get to that point.


We have an opioid addiction problem in white rural a Merica because the government failed to regulate or because we have millions more pills to be sold by corporate a Merica?

 

[P@triot]

Why does the left always support what fails to be effective or successful?

Over the course of the January call, which lasted more than 13 minutes, the tipster warned the F.B.I. that Mr. Cruz had been adrift since his mother’s death in November. She said that Mr. Cruz had “the mental capacity of a 12 to a 14 year old.” The tipster provided four Instagram accounts for Mr. Cruz, which she said showed photos of sliced up animals and the firearms he had amassed.

So to recap - the left wants to give more power and control to the government that failed to act to protect the children and take away citizens right to defend themselves.

Failed government?

You have have to disregard or ignore the corporations pushing it to get to that point.


We have an opioid addiction problem in white rural a Merica because the government failed to regulate or because we have millions more pills to be sold by corporate a Merica?

Sorry snowflake...we won’t let you derail this thread in a desperate attempt to draw away attention from the fact that you progressives have thoroughly had your asses kicked with facts here. If you want to discuss heroin - start a thread on it (and then I’ll jump in and own your ass in there as well).

You’re demanding that only government be armed when armed government officials stood outside like ****’n cowards while children were being slaughtered. It proves unequivocally that you are dead-wrong in your government worship. They failed to stop the shooter in advance when they had ample opportunity and then they failed again to stop the shooter after the attacks.

So the question becomes - why do you low-life’s keep advocating for what you know has failed?

 

[BlindBoo]

LOL

Apparently, in your hollow cranial cavity, Democrats don’t represent the left.

Regardless of your insignificant dismissal, gun-free zones were sponsored by a Democrat. Voted for by a margin of 313-1, which means both left and right supported it, and signed into law by a Republican Party. That was nearly 3 decades ago and while both parties have been in control at various times over that period, neither party has attempted to revoke gun free zones. The whiney, sniveling right look like the fools they are for blaming the problem on gun-free zones when they are equally responsible for them.

There's a lot of overlap, no denying that, but leftists don't have to be Democrats, and Democrats don't have to be leftists. My objection is to the philosophy, not the political party.

The rest of your post proves my point. One does not have to be a Democrat to engage in egregious left-think.

Then your point is DOA because if that’s how you want to look at it, neither the “left” nor the “right” write laws. Democrats and Republicans do. And Democrat and Republican law makers in Congress represent the entire country, left, right, middle, i.e, everyone. And Democrats and Republicans together passed gun-free zones. 313-1.

Neither side can blame the other on this issue. I don’t actually know that either side wants to blame the other or even thinks it’s the problem; just a relative few people who don’t know where to turn or are seeking to blame someone else.

So your position is that if someone joins a political party, that negates their ability to hold a political philosophy? It's not at all possible in your worldview for someone to do both?

No, that not my position.

And I clearly stated my position.

Well yeah I did start out with a partisan and flippant remark about the OP. Since I haven't been here all year I didn't want to jump into any long established discussions. Didn't the OP blame the Left exclusively for the gun free zone laws for this atrocity, which were in reality a bipartisan venture? Also, if we're going to blame the laws for failing to stop the behavior they were intended to restrict, do we blame all the murders committed on the laws against it? No of course not. Do you blame the rapist or the laws against rape for failing to stop the crime? Ridiculous!

See, again, you're conflating a discussion of "left and right" with "Democrat and Republican". A policy may be "bipartisan" in the sense of getting people from both political parties to vote for it (which is kinda the definition of "bipartisan"), but that doesn't apply to the philosophical divide of leftist and conservative. Gun-free zones are 100% leftist; there is no permutation in which they are remotely conservative. Therefore, the blame for any harm caused by them belongs to the left, not the right. The fact that Republican sometimes vote for leftist policies just demonstrates what I said before: left-think is more contagious than a flaming case of herpes.

Furthermore, we are not blaming laws for failing to stop behavior; we are blaming them for actively exacerbating that behavior. Gun-free zones not only do NOT prevent spree shooters from bringing guns into them to kill people, they ENCOURAGE them to go to those places for their slaughterfests, because they know all their targets will be defenseless. THAT is our objection.

Laws against murder in general act as a deterrent for most of society, including some criminals (who, for example, commit burglaries when no one is home, rather than when the family is present), but their primary purpose isn't to prevent murders so much as it is to offer a framework for which to arrest and punish people who commit them. More importantly in this context, they do not actively encourage people to do what they prohibit.

As for stopping rape, in a lot of cases, I blame the same gun laws I'm blaming for school shootings, because they prevent the victims from being able to defend themselves.

I disagree that most of the mass murderers choose the location of their slaughter because they are gun restricted areas. Fact is most of the deadliest ones did not happen in a gun free zone. Sadly, I think more schools now do need to have more armed security and more individuals authorized/allowed to carry weapons. They certainly need to implement better security policies to prevent access to the so called gun free zones.

Whoa up there, Trigger.

"Most of the deadliest ones did not happen in a gun free zone". Okay, and now you're going to explain how you got THAT statement.

But I appreciate that you're starting to come around to our argument on the subject of armed security.

"Of the 24 deadliest mass murders over the last 50 years only six of them happened at schools or “gun free zones” as described by “Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990”. The rest happened at homes, restaurants, places of employment, the street, a mall, and two at Military bases. "

Conservative Legislation Provides Support for Gun Control | HuffPost

Of course that was a year and a half ago so things changed a bit but not that much.

Mass shootings in the United States - Wikipedia

It's pathetic when they include the shooter(s) who are human garbage.

Now replace "school" with "gun free zone" and you have most of them.

BTW, "Gun free School Zones Act of 1990 zone act" and "schools" are synonymous.

Those six shootings were also as of the last 18 years. I find it interesting though that you're arguing now that school shootings are not really significant. Funny how you're not saying to the leftists screaming for more laws

What i find interesting is how you imagine me arguing that these school shooting are not really significant. I call into question the 98 % figure being thrown around as fact and proof that the gun free zone laws themselves are the cause of most all of these shootings.

Fact is the truth is much more complicated than a political slogan.

Trumpians salivate like Pavlov's Dogs over zingy political slogans.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Anyone else notice that when Trump or a Trump supporter gets on the television to talk about this it is all about mental health and background checks.

The one word missing out of all of their conversations is guns. They don't want to piss off the NRA.

 

[kaz]

We banned guns from schools, just like you wanted. Even people with concealed carry permits trained to use their guns safely didn't have them. And your plan worked. No one had a gun and was able to defend themselves and shoot back. And 17 people died because of it.

You owe us an explanation. What is wrong with your plan? Why isn't it working?

Maybe you can ask your drug dealer why banning guns doesn't work the next time you buy a doobie ...

People in other countries do not need guns to fight back at schools. It is an American epidemic, and guns are not the solution.

Single cause fallacy.

And we didn't have shooters 30 years ago and we had the guns. What you have here is a lot of nothing.

Have you mentioned to your drug dealer your theory that if we make something illegal, that means we can't get it?

But you have the constant massacres today, and probably less guns 39 years ago.

There are MORE gun laws now than 39 years ago.

If we'd followed the law in Florida, there would have been no shooting. The only thing more laws do is disarm honest citizens and restrict our ability to protect ourselves.

Riddle me this, Batman.

Are leftists so dumb that they want more gun laws even though a cursory review of shootings shows they don't restrict shooters, they just increase body counts?

Or do leftists not care about that because they are getting what they actually want, disarmed honest citizens?

Are leftists stupid or evil? What say you?

 

[kaz]

We banned guns from schools, just like you wanted. Even people with concealed carry permits trained to use their guns safely didn't have them. And your plan worked. No one had a gun and was able to defend themselves and shoot back. And 17 people died because of it.

You owe us an explanation. What is wrong with your plan? Why isn't it working?

Maybe you can ask your drug dealer why banning guns doesn't work the next time you buy a doobie ...

People in other countries do not need guns to fight back at schools. It is an American epidemic, and guns are not the solution.

Single cause fallacy.

And we didn't have shooters 30 years ago and we had the guns. What you have here is a lot of nothing.

Have you mentioned to your drug dealer your theory that if we make something illegal, that means we can't get it?

We had shooters 30 years ago and we kept adding guns per the orders of the NRA. Now we have more shooters.


If we ban drugs only criminals will have drugs....so let’s give everyone drugs.

There weren't the mass shootings 30 years ago at a high rate, particularly at gun free zone schools. That's a lie.

It's racism, isn't it, dumb ass?

What we have here is a single cause fallacy. You're just guilty over the blood of 17 students on your hands.

Let's pretend that gun laws keep guns out of the hands of shooters and remove the ability of anyone to defend themselves now as if it does. Then when it doesn't work, we blame the NRA and demand more laws.

If one digs into your plan, it's as stupid as the first reading of our plan

Why do you not need similar defence in other countries?

There are a lot of other countries. Actually, in many countries you need the same or more defense. You have to be more specific than a sweeping, shallow question

 

[kaz]

Arming every one is not a solution either, not every one is suted to carry a fire arm

NO ONE has proposed this. Proposing that we do not disarm people is not in any way equivalent to arming everyone. Stop wasting people's time with this stupid shit

BTW, here's a word you may be interested in

Definition of PARAGRAPH

 

[evenflow1969]

Arming every one is not a solution either, not every one is suted to carry a fire arm

NO ONE has proposed this. Proposing that we do not disarm people is not in any way equivalent to arming everyone. Stop wasting people's time with this stupid shit

BTW, here's a word you may be interested in

Definition of PARAGRAPH

Hey, Kaz get ******* bent! I am not waisting time, and oh ya this is america I can put what the **** I want on here. You can take that podantic know it all attitude and put it up your ******* ass. you are not my english teacher so go **** your self! aRMING EVERY ONE IS BASICALLY WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED. The right is saying arm teachers. I say most of them have no buisness with a fire arm. I say most people who live in the city do not need one. I have yet to meet a city dweller I would go hunting with. I wish this place was like it used to be, with people nderstanding where thier food came from, how to trap and hunt. The reality is that most people today live in a city where theyt do not know how to do these things and I am not jumping up and down to arm them. I am for the second amendment, you will not take my guns. I do not think taking the guns will work nor do I think arming teachers will work. Both those solutions end up with more dead bodies not less.

 

[kaz]

Fact is the truth is much more complicated than a political slogan

What's "complicated" about that in shooting after shooting in "gun free zones," only the shooter is armed? Explain what confuses you about that

Trumpians salivate like Pavlov's Dogs over zingy political slogans

It's hilarious how you just told me the world isn't simplistic for something that is simple. Then you turn around with duh, dar, you're not a Democrat, so you're a Trump supporter. Irony is lost on shallow people like you.

Gotcha, Fido. There are Democrats and Trump supporters. Not Democrat = Trump supporter. That's the world, at least as far as you're capable of processing it.

You need to spend more time chasing sticks and barking at cars, thinking's not your forte

 

[kaz]

aRMING EVERY ONE IS BASICALLY WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED

No one is proposing that. You are a LIAR

 

[kaz]

The shooter was a Trump supporter, he has pictures showing him target practicing in his backyard wearing a Make America Great Again hat.

Pitiful redirect there, snowflake. I don’t care what he wore. It was failed left-wing policy that allowed him to kill.

The Trump supporting shooter is responsible.

Patirot is a mental retard.....(no offense retards)...

At least he can write in complete sentences and you can understand what he said, unlike you

 

[Faun]

aRMING EVERY ONE IS BASICALLY WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED

No one is proposing that. You are a LIAR

LOL

Can’t you even work the quote button?

 

[evenflow1969]

Fact is the truth is much more complicated than a political slogan

What's "complicated" about that in shooting after shooting in "gun free zones," only the shooter is armed? Explain what confuses you about that

Trumpians salivate like Pavlov's Dogs over zingy political slogans

It's hilarious how you just told me the world isn't simplistic for something that is simple. Then you turn around with duh, dar, you're not a Democrat, so you're a Trump supporter. Irony is lost on shallow people like you.

Gotcha, Fido. There are Democrats and Trump supporters. Not Democrat = Trump supporter. That's the world, at least as far as you're capable of processing it.

You need to spend more time chasing sticks and barking at cars, thinking's not your forte

You need to spend less time patting your stupid self on the back, when you do not know your ass from the grand canyon. Here is what I know about dumb ***** with a gun. I got shot in the ass with bird shot by an idiot. I understand that in the real worl there are idiots like you that should not be carrying. Guess what that dumb **** is doing today! He is a ******* teacher I do not mind having a gun around I just do not want it in the hands of idiots. I do not want to push people into carrying. People who are not comfortable carrying will be, so they feel they can do thier job as now expected. I am more confortable with people making htat decision on thier own. Our gun free zones were made that way for a reason dumb ass! We do not let guns in bars or schools because they are filled with idiots. I am not saying no one should have a gun at the school, I just want it in the hands of some one who knows how to use it, respects it, and is not afraid of using it. Further, more than one peron on campus should be armed and not just with a pistol. A rifle should be included in the car to put the guard on even footing with a shooter. I have been around enough drunks and teens to know, they do not need a gun and would be more of a hindrance in an actual shooter situation than help. Beyond all of that I do not even think we are in the same conversation here. I said nothing of Democrats nor Trump, what the **** are you talking about.

 

[kaz]

I got shot in the ass with bird shot by an idiot

I said I'm sorry. How many times do I have to apologize for that?

 

[evenflow1969]

I got shot in the ass with bird shot by an idiot

I said I'm sorry. How many times do I have to apologize for that?

Ya, and i am sorry for all those meals you sucked through straw after! How ya like them titanium plates in jaw buddy!

 

[BlindBoo]

Fact is the truth is much more complicated than a political slogan

What's "complicated" about that in shooting after shooting in "gun free zones," only the shooter is armed? Explain what confuses you about that

Trumpians salivate like Pavlov's Dogs over zingy political slogans

It's hilarious how you just told me the world isn't simplistic for something that is simple. Then you turn around with duh, dar, you're not a Democrat, so you're a Trump supporter. Irony is lost on shallow people like you.

Gotcha, Fido. There are Democrats and Trump supporters. Not Democrat = Trump supporter. That's the world, at least as far as you're capable of processing it.

You need to spend more time chasing sticks and barking at cars, thinking's not your forte

The original Gun Free School Zone law was passed overwhelmingly by both parties and signed by a Republican President. That bill tried to mandate punishment for students who were caught bringing guns to school. Furthermore it allow for authorized armed personnel. Last I heard of the most recent attack, there were at least four officers who did not advance toward the shooter even though they were armed. So if(and that's a big if) the gun free zones are the main problem in stopping these shootings, the blame for their existences does not lie totally on one side or the other.

 

[rshermn]

Fact is the truth is much more complicated than a political slogan

What's "complicated" about that in shooting after shooting in "gun free zones," only the shooter is armed? Explain what confuses you about that

Trumpians salivate like Pavlov's Dogs over zingy political slogans

It's hilarious how you just told me the world isn't simplistic for something that is simple. Then you turn around with duh, dar, you're not a Democrat, so you're a Trump supporter. Irony is lost on shallow people like you.

Gotcha, Fido. There are Democrats and Trump supporters. Not Democrat = Trump supporter. That's the world, at least as far as you're capable of processing it.

You need to spend more time chasing sticks and barking at cars, thinking's not your forte

The original Gun Free School Zone law was passed overwhelmingly by both parties and signed by a Republican President. That bill tried to mandate punishment for students who were caught bringing guns to school. Furthermore it allow for authorized armed personnel. Last I heard of the most recent attack, there were at least four officers who did not advance toward the shooter even though they were armed. So if(and that's a big if) the gun free zones are the main problem in stopping these shootings, the blame for their existences does not lie totally on one side or the other.

Good post. Kind of puts the con drivel about the problems with gun free zones in a rational, as opposed to stupid, light. Gun free zones mean nothing at all to this issue. It is simply stupid to say it does. If they want guards with guns, schools can have them. If cons want students with guns, then they are simply proving themselves to be dumb.

The problem is obvious enough to see. Just look at the world. Of the 35 other advanced nations of the world, the US has about 25 times as many mass shootings and mass killings as the rest. Only difference is we allow assault rifles.

 

[Pogo]

We banned guns from schools, just like you wanted. Even people with concealed carry permits trained to use their guns safely didn't have them. And your plan worked. No one had a gun and was able to defend themselves and shoot back. And 17 people died because of it.

You owe us an explanation. What is wrong with your plan? Why isn't it working?

Maybe you can ask your drug dealer why banning guns doesn't work the next time you buy a doobie ...

Actually the gun nuts (still) need to essplain how morphing schoolrooms into war zones and putting firearms in educators' pockets where they can and will (a) be grabbed by a would-be shooter who doesn't even have to worry about bringing his own into the building; (b) be the instrument of crossfire that hits some innocent bystander, and (c) ensure that in the event a shooter does come in with his own arms, the teacher will be the first target, leaving a room full of kids with no adult in charge at all.

(C) is the most troubling, since it means that once you put the word out that "teachers are armed here", even if a given teacher declines to participate in Rambo Education and stays arm-free ---- she becomes a shooter's first target, just because some dickheads on the outside insist on foisting arms into what's supposed to be an educational institution. All she wanted to do was teach -- her blood is on their hands.

Nothing about those questions is "left" or "right". They're more about "life" and "death".

 

[kaz]

I got shot in the ass with bird shot by an idiot

I said I'm sorry. How many times do I have to apologize for that?

Ya, and i am sorry for all those meals you sucked through straw after! How ya like them titanium plates in jaw buddy!

That actually sounded good to you? Probably did since you're the liar who makes up the stupid shit that anyone is advocating that everyone should be armed

 

[kaz]

Fact is the truth is much more complicated than a political slogan

What's "complicated" about that in shooting after shooting in "gun free zones," only the shooter is armed? Explain what confuses you about that

Trumpians salivate like Pavlov's Dogs over zingy political slogans

It's hilarious how you just told me the world isn't simplistic for something that is simple. Then you turn around with duh, dar, you're not a Democrat, so you're a Trump supporter. Irony is lost on shallow people like you.

Gotcha, Fido. There are Democrats and Trump supporters. Not Democrat = Trump supporter. That's the world, at least as far as you're capable of processing it.

You need to spend more time chasing sticks and barking at cars, thinking's not your forte

The original Gun Free School Zone law was passed overwhelmingly by both parties and signed by a Republican President. That bill tried to mandate punishment for students who were caught bringing guns to school. Furthermore it allow for authorized armed personnel. Last I heard of the most recent attack, there were at least four officers who did not advance toward the shooter even though they were armed. So if(and that's a big if) the gun free zones are the main problem in stopping these shootings, the blame for their existences does not lie totally on one side or the other.

It's leftists who are all over the board arguing that the solution to our existing gun laws not working is to pass more gun laws. You're the ones fighting against allowing CCs by teachers and administrators. You're the ones who's plan is to keep 300 million guns and other weapons away from people who want to murder and you're the ones fighting to maintain that we have no southern border.

You even gave the example where four armed police didn't enter while teachers and administrators who were trained and inside weren't allowed to defend themselves.

Leftists used to be at least honest enough to say that mass shooters wouldn't be stopped by gun laws. You just have no intellectual honesty left