Another mass shooting

[Sparko]

GOOD GUY AND GIRL (?) WITH GUNS ALERT

Teenagers killed in Olathe double homicide shot each other inside car, police say

https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/c ... rylink=cpy



So. We have another shooting.

That means, you guessed it!, a double round of WHAT MENTAL ILLNESS PULLED THE TRIGGER???

We have:

* being a teenager
* being a woman
* being a man
* being black (?)
* being in a car
* not knowing the other person in a car
* breathing oxygen

The best part of this game is how silly it is; these youngsters were gonna die someday no matter what!

LOL!

are you certain they weren’t suffering from gender dysphoria?

did they have any health issues?

I need to know if their lives had any value or not.

Only fetal heartbeats matter

[jfish26]

[KUTradition]

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/8-peop ... ngton-d-c/



(apologies for the poor taste humor, but it’s about all i’ve got at this point)

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

Possibly/probably a stupid question but I'm going to ask it regardless.....
If I say people who are ardent supporters of the 2nd Amendment truly frighten and threaten me, according to many of those people's logic, do they feel I have the right to shoot (and kill) them?

[KUTradition]

it’s apparent you don’t even have to do that much (or anything at all, really)

[jfish26]

Well the MOST important thing is simply for everyone to arm themselves at all times.

[jfish26]

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/8-peop ... ngton-d-c/



(apologies for the poor taste humor, but it’s about all i’ve got at this point)

Spin the wheel! Maybe here it lands on mental illness. Or maybe lack of father figures. Or just plain crazy.

One thing is certain - if there were tougher gun laws, this might have been the most disturbing mass kazoo attack in American history.

[randylahey]

[Shirley]

If anyone were seriously talking about banning "rifles", you'd have a point.

They're not, so you don't.

[Overlander]

If anyone were seriously talking about banning "rifles", you'd have a point.

They're not, so you don't.

Here’s the deal, Randy never had a point.
He spends his entire existence googling shit that he thinks will rub folks the wrong way.

[randylahey]

[KUTradition]

[KUTradition]

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... e-00092413

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

Step by step response.....

It's time to address a common contradiction in the gun control debate: the argument that rifles are too dangerous to be available to the public, but at the same time, they wouldn't be useful for individuals to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. This makes zero sense.

* "Rifles are too dangerous to be available to the public".... Because the "public" can and does USE THEM TO SHOOT INNOCENT CIVILIANS.
Yes, they MIGHT be useful for individuals to defend themselves against a tyrannical government - but define "useful". I would like an "army's" chances against an individual's.

Here's the deal: if rifles are as dangerous as some people claim, then it only makes sense that they would be effective tools for self-defense. I mean, when you're facing a violent threat, you need a weapon that can actually stop that threat, right? And a rifle, with its longer range and greater firepower, fits the bill perfectly.

* "IF"? No "IF". Yes, rifles ARE as dangerous as MOST people claim. The "violent threat" shit is laughable.
Let me know how some schmuck named Bubba who has a "rifle" is going to stop a sub, warship, tank, helicopter, fighter jet, etc.


On the other hand, if rifles are truly useless for self-defense, then it suggests that they're not as dangerous as some would like to believe. After all, if a rifle couldn't be used to defend oneself, it wouldn't be a significant threat to public safety.

* Who has said rifles are truly useless for "self-defense"? "Self defense" against who/what? Against another individual? No, not useless. Against an army that has much greater means to take out a person with a "riffle", yes - pretty much useless.


So what's the truth? Are rifles too dangerous to be allowed in civilian hands, or are they too ineffective for self-defense? The answer is neither. Rifles, like any other weapon, can be dangerous in the wrong hands, but they can also be valuable tools for personal protection.

* Yes, the truth is rifles are too dangerous to be allowed in civilian hands. Yes, they can be too ineffective for self defense - or they can be 100% effective for self defense. All depends on the circumstances. The answer is both.
Amazing that I read through all that to get to the last sentence.... "Rifles, like any other weapon, can be dangerous in the wrong hands, but they can also be valuable tools for personal protection".
BINGO!!!! So why did they use all those words to say something everyone should agree about?

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

The not funny thing is the shit you keep sharing isn't bringing me closer to Libertarianism, it's pushing me further away.
It's helping to confirm what I have been saying for many years and what I feel we as a country are bringing ourselves closer to - an eventual (and inevitable?) civil war in which more than just words are exchanged and all of the gun nuts will get their wet dreams to come true and their prayers answered.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

Yep, guns aren't the/a problem.
JFC! How hard is it for people to comprehend?

[KUTradition]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 726913002/

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 726913002/

How many of the 250 were "good guys" with guns?
How many were "bad guys"?
Were the "bad guys" "good guys" before they used their gun/s?
Here is a crazy thought. If no one there (good guy/bad guy) had a gun, no one would have been shot.

[zsn]

Proof that randy is sheeple: dutifully doing The Master’s bidding by doing what the echo chamber tells him to do (line indicated by ). Some free thinker, this randy.

[randylahey]