Third Party & Independents Archives

Just Another School Shooting

Current news is that a school shooting in Santa Fe, Texas has killed 8-10 people, mostly students.

What has changed since the last school shooting? Nothing I’m aware of.

We need to stop school shootings. The most effective counterforce for such actions is to place drones throughout school buildings, armed and ready to take flight at the first warning of an incident.

Currently, it would take a number of drones placed throughout school buildings to ensure full coverage. The number of drones could be greatly reduced by building in 'drone fly thru holes above doorways allowing one drone to traverse large sections of a school building.

Two people could manage the drone squad in providing 14-16 hiour daily security coverage. Initial cost of the drones would be the major capital outlay for such a program.

Drones could be implemented in smaller schools starting today where there are interconnecting hallways permitting drone egress.

Why this hasn't been done I cannot understand. Drones are the best technology available to provide such a service. Cost effective, when compared to putting an adequate security force on school property. Most expedient way to stop a shooter, way quicker than a responding armed officer(s).

Why, Why Why ? ? ?

Posted by Roy Ellis at May 19, 2018 1:11 AM
Comments
Comment #427046

Senator Croz and Tx governor b4 the cameras touting the same old spiel.

Posted by: Roy ellis at May 18, 2018 2:20 PM
Comment #427052

F**k Drones Roy we need militia 24/7 at all schools to supplement the armed teachers and armed students that supplement the armed school support staff. If everyone doesn’t carry then they deserve to be the victim…right?

What kind of world do they think Treump’s America is, it da*n sure isn’t for those to weak to defend themselves from assault weapon fire at any given time. It is dog eat dog and drones are for sissies. Otherwise our 2nd amendment rights to kill others is at risk.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 18, 2018 8:07 PM
Comment #427053

If bad guys are entering schools with guns there needs to be good guys with guns to greet him. History proves it works. Why is there an argument?

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 18, 2018 8:37 PM
Comment #427054

I think there is a correlation between the passing of the 1990’s assault weapons ban and the number of people murdered in school shootings. Sure, there were school shootings before that, but they weren’t indiscriminate blood baths.

I think the cause of these episodes is an impression of weakness displayed when supporting a ban. Support of a ban projects a desperation and weakness to defective people willing to take advantage of it. The more gun bans are promoted the more killings are going to take place.

We don’t need drones, we need to provide a sense of stability. If we stood up and said a ban on any weapon is out of the question, the certainty of that message would reduce the number of killings.

I believe that.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 18, 2018 8:47 PM
Comment #427055

Think about it. If someone got up and started to promote a ban on surveillance cameras in grocery stores we would see an increase in shrinkage. Would anyone like to promote a ban on cameras?

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 18, 2018 8:54 PM
Comment #427056

Some really weak and misguided comments thus far.
J2, the idea is to take out the shooter in the most efficient and least invasive way. We don’t need a bunch of military types hanging out in the hallways in schools across America. We need an out of sight drone that can respond and kill the shooter more quickly and efficiently. We don’t need to run schools like a military camp, troops patrolling the halls 24/7. We need an out of sight drone system that doesn’t bleed when shot, that gets on target quicker and is more deadly accurate with the kill.

J2, these copycat school shooters don’t give a whit about bans, types of weapons and so on … this guy used a shotgun which is what he was able to lay his hands on to carry out the attack.

A drone might well have reached the shooter before he was able to get off any shots. A drone should be able to reach the full range of their area of support within 20 or so seconds. A human would take more like 3 minutes. Gotta unlock the gun room, unlock the gun locker, load some bullets in the magazine and so on …

No cops/military get wounded or killed with a drone system.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at May 18, 2018 9:34 PM
Comment #427065

Roy, schools do need to be run like military camps when anyone and everyone is capable of getting guns. When they aren’t run like prisons or military camps the shooters get in and kill innocent kids.

The weapons used in this latest killing belonged to the shooters family, as I understand it, so it really wasn’t hard for him to obtain the guns used to kill the innocent kids. We have so many weapons out there the only solution is to arm everyone all the time.

We need to learn from other countries but we hide when all those countries that don’t have this type of problems are mentioned…right? So we need to learn from the third world where life is cheap and armed camps are a necessity. Lets face it Trump and the rest of the wealthy oligarchs really don’t need us anymore to do their labor so we are expendable. The Texas Lt. governor says less doors is the answer, most of the rest of the hypocritical politicians think prayers are the answer.

But just like drones less doors means the killers could use fire as a weapon. A bit of spray paint or a round or two and the drone is gone. We can’t expect cops to rush into a live fire zone, it isn’t TV after all, so the only answer is the ability to return fire. I mean why ban anything when their are ways around it..right?

Weary, I thought it was the ban on backpacks that caused this type of mass killing. I mean after the backpacks were relegated to the locker the killings just kept going. I mean without a backpack the shooter can tell who is defenseless and who isn’t right. I know this is the type of “less cameras” logic you would like to see. Using that logic more backpacks would be as effective in preventing pilferage as well …right?

I don’t know if your theory is accurate, or factual for that matter, but yes the correlation is the number of guns sold both before and after the ban was in place allowed for easier access to weapons. The NRA has been using the “gonna take your guns away” advertising for so long that guns are available to everyone including this law abiding guy that just killed 10 people. I would like to say the ban only kept law abiding people from having access to guns but hey that would be a lie wouldn’t it?

Of course an outright refusal to ban any weapon would stop everyone Weary great thinking there. These killers would know not to try anything cause…well…why…exactly Weary? So I’m thinking the third world approach, armed camps and more doors combined with more backpacks in schools seems so logical to me.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 19, 2018 3:40 PM
Comment #427067

From what I have read, the majority of school shooters have been minors who obtained their weapon(s) from home.

Obviously, legal gun owners have a moral responsibility to keep those weapons secure; as there has never been a case of a secure weapon injuring anyone.

Educating gun owners about securing firearms can help. Laws punishing those who failed to secure firearms that are used in a murder can be considered.

Punishing legal gun owners for the acts of others is nonsense.

We are dealing with mostly minor children. Certainly these children can be more carefully monitored to predict the likelihood of them becoming shooters.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 19, 2018 4:46 PM
Comment #427068

Food for thought.

“Over the past quarter-century, on average about 10 students are slain in school shootings annually.

Compare the school fatality rate with the more than 100 school-age children accidentally killed each year riding theirbikes or walking to school. Congress might be too timid to pass gun legislation to protect children, but how about a national bicycle helmet law for minors? Half of the states do not require them. There is no NRA — National Riding Association — opposing that.”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/02/19/parkland-school-shootings-not-new-normal-despite-statistics-stretching-truth-fox-column/349380002/

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 19, 2018 4:53 PM
Comment #427069

http://www.tampabay.com/news/Drones-can-stop-school-shooters-inventor-says-Students-work-to-prove-it-_167727232

Maybe the students will have to same themselves as the bleeding heart liberals and lap dog republicans are not coming to the rescue.

Good for the students but their concept of using AI to identify the shooter is wrong. That function would be done by a security type monitoring a drone camera with x-hairs. Killing the shooter needs to be the responsibility of a person.

Would just be a matter of adapting military off the shelf stuff to a school environment. A squad of drones for a medium sized school would cost maybe - $20k/yr to operate. Less than a man or two to manage them.

I don’t believe anyone wants a gaggle of police officer types hanging around the school drinking coffee 12 hours a day, year over year waiting for an incident.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at May 19, 2018 6:28 PM
Comment #427070

If drones are put in place by people who believe they will be effective, that’s a good thing. It’s an American thing. What isn’t American is the federal government demanding everyone do it the way they say to do it.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 19, 2018 6:48 PM
Comment #427071

Allowing students to arm themselves in a responsible way is the only way to stop an intruder. An armed student will be the most effective because they won’t be doing it for money or someone tells them to do it. They’re doing it to save themselves.

The most effective motivator is self-preservation. Denying the individual their 2nd amendment right is converting the self-preservation instinct into nothing but pure terror.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 19, 2018 6:56 PM
Comment #427078

Cant wait to see this drone in action. If it can identify guns and start returning fire one can only hope it can identify teachers with weapons and police when they arrive brandishing all sorts of military weapons or the AI creed will be…Oh wait… it would be anyway if the drone killed someone. Great third world thinking IMHO.

But hey this is the type of third world thinking we have come to expect from conservatives. But one does have to wonder why these shootings that occur at the local level still happen since we all know the local governments are so much better than the federal government…right Weary?

Royal would have us go half way into third world thinking by insisting guns be under lock and key, I mean what good is a gun under lock and key except as a boat anchor? As if there has been a case of a secure weapon saving any of these kids from slaughter. We have seen trained experts teaching others shoot themselves. So of course bicycle helmet laws is the answer, really it’s not a red herring at all when thirs world thinking is applied.


All this half stepping guys …. lets go complete third world and just admit life is cheap.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 20, 2018 8:30 AM
Comment #427079

Thanks for the vid, j2t2. It reminded me of the 1968 Democratic party convention which initiated the group think mentality that exists today.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 20, 2018 9:44 AM
Comment #427080

So lets extend the current third world thinking we see from our conservative friends a bit just to see where it leads.

Trump, of course he is a federal level government type so does he really count?, tells us or did recently the problem is a mental health problem. Our conservative friends then tell us the answer is more guns. Or flying guns, or securing guns, and pronouncements of never having gun bans to scare the mentally ill into retreat. Great third world thinking IMHO. Of course we haven’t got to the “no such thing as an assault weapon” yet but be patient it is a matter of time.


The latest school had a plan and officers yet 10 were dead and how many injured. So what can be learned from this? Well for starters nothing to help the mentally ill, other than to place blame, has been done. This is with a repub majority and president controlling the government. Very sound third world implementation of policies IMHO. Unless of course you consider sending prayers to the victims a mental health policy. Oh and bicycle helmets cause the problem isn’t that big a deal.

So continuing with the life is cheap response to 2nd amendment rights I offer the following idea, body armor. Body armor for all kids whilst in school. A uniform of sorts and a chance to have concealed carry weapons in the body armor allowing for a return fire scenario. Because mental health is the problem surely more guns is the answer…right?

The problem we seem to have is registering guns. If we did away with registered firearm laws and handed weapons out like a corporation hands out money to Congress surely the potential shooter just won’t know who is returning fire. Support the mentally ill by demanding less restrictive laws on registering weapons seems a third worlds response to the problem. And bicycle helmets of course. Cause without a red herring what have we got…right conservatives.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 20, 2018 9:59 AM
Comment #427081

Oh I seem to have forgotten a key ideological principle of conservatism, The good guy with a gun. Oh crap they did have two good guys with guns and more good guys responded quickly , one receiving serious wounds, yet 10 were killed. What does that say about the good guy with a gun argument. Well according to Weary it says “history proves it works”! and “why is there an argument”! Only 10 dead and 14 injured so it worked! Great third world logic IMHO. And Bicycle helmets.

What we know is Dallas has a bicycle helmet law and they didn’t have a school shooting. So that works as well as anything else…right? Would bicycle helmet laws in Santa Fe Texas have saved those killed in the school shooting?

We also have had a lot of prayers for the victims. By those staunch defenders of 2nd amendment rights especially. But these prayers are after the fact, prayers for the dead don’t seem to work. Why not prayers before the fact. Specific prayers directed at shooters and victims alike. Each day these conservative senators and reps should get together and pray for specific schools IMHO. Because prayers and bicycle helmets together are third world solutions to problems facing us today.

The one thing these shootings have in common is the white on white killings. As our life is cheap thought process tells us the problem isn’t guns it is white guys are mentally ill. Now just a few months ago when the Parkland shootings had the NRA all defensive Roy told us we should arm those lily white hero students to protect others. Third world thinking IMHO. So with all the white on white shootings IMHO we should arm minority kids with weapons to protect us from the white guys. This could be a two birds one stone solution to the problems of the country. Think about it through the life is cheap lens of conservatism and it makes perfect sense. A minority kid carrying a loaded weapon down the street to school and the police response to the problem would equal less minority kids at school. A true third world win win approach to class size, school shootings and that minority problem we all have. Not to mention the good guy with a gun line of crap…oh and bicycle helmets.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 20, 2018 10:34 AM
Comment #427082

I guess the push by Liberals to turn WatchBlog into a comedy skit it in full force. j2t2 seems to be applying for a writer’s position on Saturday Night Live. Good luck, j2t2. I don’t watch SNL so if you do get the position, I hope you don’t feel the need to expose your comedy routines to WatchBlog contributors any longer. It won’t be necessary, because the SNL audience might have a few more viewers than WatchBlog.

Maybe.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 20, 2018 10:38 AM
Comment #427084

Weary, If it weren’t such an accurate reflection of the facts my comments could be taken as an ironic comedy sketch. But these are real comments from conservatives that you make fun of. Perhaps it is the arrangement that you find comical but lets be serious for a moment.

Third world thinking- what do you find comical about that Weary?

Red Herrings like bicycle helmets are funny?

The thought that promoting the lack of gun laws to scare the mentally ill into submission is comical…well..ok…you got me there.

The good guy with a guy is laughable especially after the school shooter plan included 2 officers and we are thinking wow only 10 dead.

Life is cheap ideology that demands all of us be armed to protect ourselves from law abiding citizens that decide to shoot up the town.

Politicians offering prayers is funny to you? Those that accept NRA funds and are basically gun manufacturers praying after a mass killings for the victims just doesn’t seem that funny to me Weary.

Taking away backpacks in schools or trench coats perhaps is comical to me Weary OI have to admit. The irony of guns don’t kill people, people kill people but trench coats and backpacks do kill people.

Using your own logic that claims weapons bans are out of the question will stop the mentally ill from…ok well you got me again.

You don’t want an armed camp …just drones racing to the gun…hopefully the right gun… and armed teachers and police but not an armed camp cause 2nd amendment rights…right?

Arming teachers doesn’t sound like a drastic solution to you but calling it an armed camp or third world thinking does!

And bicycle helmets to distract from the problem of school kids getting killed in schools every 4 months or so is funny to you? Body armor makes you laugh? The good guys wear it but the victims …well…thats …funny!

What exactly do you have against calling the ideas you guys have came up with for what they are. third world thinking, dog eat dog social Darwinism, life is cheap but we have our rights thinking? The do little government ideology of conservatives that asks us to believe the federal government can’t do anything to help solve the issue.

White on white crime makes you laugh! Or was it the difference in how the police treat minorities that you found funny. The two birds approach is third world isn’;t it? Surely it can’t be the deflection that WoW crime is to the issue.

Ironic no one mentioned anything about fearless leader’s mentally illness is the cause comment. No solutions to keep the mentally ill off the streets or at least away from weapons used for mass killings.

So come on Weary make your case. What can we do about mental illness that doesn’t violate someones right to arm themselves and kill others. But please the whole “less is more logic” you have used in this thread is laughable, I was inspired by you so be aware of that in your reply.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 20, 2018 1:00 PM
Comment #427085

I don’t get the humor you find in your comments, j2t2. Perhaps if you did your due diligence and provided links to your assertions we all could evaluate them independently instead of just taking your word for it.

Your description of “the gun” running around sounds like it’s straight out of a cartoon where there’s a gun with a cowboy hat on and two skinny arms sprouting out the stock riding a green horse or something. How can we take you seriously? It sounds like comic relief to me.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 20, 2018 2:11 PM
Comment #427086

I don’t know if you notice, j2t2, but you are 100% negative when it comes to other people’s comments. It really does bring me back to the narcissist and how they treat their victims.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 20, 2018 2:12 PM
Comment #427087
Perhaps if you did your due diligence and provided links to your assertions we all could evaluate them independently instead of just taking your word for it.

My assertions Weary? I was responding to what you guys said in this thread.

Roy says “The most effective counterforce for such actions is to place drones throughout school buildings, armed and ready to take flight at the first warning of an incident.”

You said “I think there is a correlation between the passing of the 1990’s assault weapons ban and the number of people murdered in school shootings.”

Which of course is your assertion not mine. I threw in the backpacks and trench coats because it makes as much sense as your assertion. Like hoodies on a black guy Weary.


IMHO, as I have previously stated, these approaches are third world answers. I mean look at the first world countries outside of the US and tell me what approaches they use and compare them to the ideas we see in this thread.


Still on the narcissism and not mentioning Trump, get real Weary. You are criticizing the messenger not the message Weary. Why is that?

Posted by: j2t2 at May 20, 2018 2:36 PM
Comment #427088

j2t2, if drone operators could successfully thwart any attempt like the one’s we’ve witnessed recently, why not implement that idea as a solution? Why must you discount it as you laughingly do? Is it because you don’t want to see a solution that is not initiated by the left?

Where did this bicycle helmet thing come from? Again, where are your supporting links that make sense of your gibberish? Where is your rabid denunciation of shoe removal at airports?

Let’s run an experiment. Let’s have grocery store after grocery store tell the media and the world that they are banning security cameras from their stores. Let’s have them continue this exercise year after year, even after some stores realize the mistake and reinstall the cameras. Let’s tell the world over and over again removing security cameras will reduce theft. Let’s see how that goes, okay?

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 20, 2018 3:04 PM
Comment #427089

As usual, j2t2 let’s his keyboard fingers do the talking rather than his brain.

Securing weapons in households with children is hardly third world. Common sense escapes our Libeee Pal. Rather than secure weapons some Leftie’s want to ban them.

Somehow j2t2 equates my comments on saving children by requiring bicycle helmets as a “gun measure”. Wow…his summer “tea” must be spiked with something hallucinogenic.

It has never been about saving school children with these folks. Helmets would save children, and yet half our states don’t require wearing them. Guns, by themselves, don’t kill anyone; yet many of our states would ban them.

The lesson Conservatives on WB should know by now is simply…Never bring logic and common sense to a discussion with Leftys.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 20, 2018 3:05 PM
Comment #427090

Hmmm…let’s see, j2t2 writes that children killed on bicycles due to head injuries, which very likely would not have died if wearing a helmet, don’t really count as dead children. Only those killed by guns matter.

Well, bicycle helmet laws just don’t make great media headlines for politicians to preach about. Dead school kids killed by guns is a delicious political recipe for Democrats.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 20, 2018 3:16 PM
Comment #427091

Let’s clarify the definition of the word “impossible”. I would say it means there is a 0% chance of something happening. Not 0% chance it would likely not happen. It means 0%.

Now, how do we know these mass shootings aren’t the product of a deep state plot? How do we know these shooters actually killed themselves? How do we know they weren’t instigated by people who want the aftermath of these school shootings to influence the ownership of guns in our society? Did we actually see the bodies of all these murderers who we were told killed themselves or were killed by response teams? Is it impossible for a shooter to be declared dead, when actually they were spirited away with large sums of cash to a remote country to live the life of leisure as a reward for their actions? Is it guaranteed this is impossible.

The left is ridiculing us for thinking there is voter fraud. They claim repeatedly it is non-existent, even after people are convicted of it. Perhaps we are simply looking in the wrong area! Perhaps Trump should have looked at our CIA, FBI, DOJ, IRS, and the Democratic Party leadership for voter fraud instead of every county clerk in every state. Perhaps we’re missing the forest because of the trees.

In this day and age we should not rule anything impossible. I don’t believe George W. Bush paid 19 Saudi terrorists to fly planes into the WTC, but I don’t think it impossible they were allowed to complete their plot by some who had ulterior motives.

Anything is possible, nothing is impossible.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 20, 2018 4:13 PM
Comment #427092
Why must you discount it as you laughingly do? Is it because you don’t want to see a solution that is not initiated by the left?

Because Weary it is an after the fact solution that at best would serve to limit the total numbers of deaths. As far as initiated by the left I think if you look back on WB to the parkland shootings and see who planted the seed on Roys mind about drones.

Where did this bicycle helmet thing come from?

From deep in right field Weary. It was Royal who linked to some weird far right propaganda outlet. It is a deflection from the issue. It asks why not have bicycle helmet laws because more kids die from bicycle accidents than from gunshots in schools although it seems we are working hard to even it out here lately. Yes it is an annoyance Weary , but not the the left.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 20, 2018 4:57 PM
Comment #427093

Obama’s former assistant secretary of education, Peter Cunningham has a great idea.

“Maybe it’s time for America’s 50 million school parents to simply pull their kids out of school until we have better gun laws”

Of course, he can’t tell us what those “gun laws” would be. Can any Libby on WB tell us what gun laws would do the job?

j2teehee2 writes; “It was Royal who linked to some weird far right propaganda outlet.”

Who would have guessed that USA Today is a “weird far right propaganda outlet” as teehee wrote.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 20, 2018 5:05 PM
Comment #427094

Funny! I was just reading this!

USA Today Praises School Shooter’s Use Of ‘Less Lethal Weapons’ To Kill 10

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 20, 2018 5:11 PM
Comment #427095

How many of you have seen this episode repeatedly displayed on the MSM news?


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/05/16/dixon-illinois-school-resource-officer-thwarts-mass-shooting/615519002/

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 20, 2018 5:14 PM
Comment #427096

Thanks Weary. Can you believe our Pal j2t2 believes they are a “weird far right propaganda outlet”?

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 20, 2018 5:36 PM
Comment #427097

Liberalism succinctly stated.

“That is one reason “feelings” and “compassion” are two of the most often used liberal terms. “Character” is no longer a liberal word because it implies self-restraint. “Good and evil” are not liberal words either as they imply a moral standard beyond one’s feelings. In assessing what position to take on moral or social questions, the liberal asks him or herself, “How do I feel about it?” or “How do I show the most compassion?” — not “What is right?” or “What is wrong?” For the liberal, right and wrong are dismissed as unknowable, and every person chooses his or her own morality.” — Dennis Prager

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 20, 2018 5:56 PM
Comment #427098

I don’t care if they feel or show as they will. That’s an American privilege. Being allowed to feel or show is what the American experience is all about.

When Liberals demand the rest of us feel and show the same as them, well, that’s not the American experience. The whole idea of insisting the rest of us must step aside for their feelings and their shows is anti-America.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 20, 2018 8:12 PM
Comment #427099

The blog was very interesting to read and has a good point in this article. So, thanks for sharing this blog with us.

Thai spa in Kolkata

Posted by: Samayaaspa at May 20, 2018 10:19 PM
Comment #427101

Jesus what a bunch of crap you guys.

First of all Royal you win the “arguing with yourself” award for this month with this gem of misinformation

1.Somehow j2t2 equates my comments on saving children by requiring bicycle helmets as a “gun measure”. Wow…his summer “tea” must be spiked with something hallucinogenic.

Really Royal what did I actually say?
“And bicycle helmets to distract from the problem of school kids getting killed in schools every 4 months or so is funny to you?”
And
“And bicycle helmets of course. Cause without a red herring what have we got…right conservatives.”

Hardly the moronic babbling you have come up with Royal.

The lesson Conservatives on WB should know by now is simply…Never bring logic and common sense to a discussion with Leftys.

Royal would you know logic and commonsense if it bit you on the a**? I doubt it based on your comments in this thread.

Yep and those were the more intelligent comments from you guys. It seem you are unable to understand let alone talk about the issue with any clarity.

You have lived down to the third world logic statements I have made, and that is sad guys. Tell you what come to the table with an intelligent response to my previous comments and we can continue but this crap from the last several comments between Royal and Weary are to ignorant to be called anything but trolling. It is a waste of time guys. You have embarrassed yourselves.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 20, 2018 10:36 PM
Comment #427102

Do you realize you are complaining about our complaining about your complaining? Why can’t you explain your logic with facts that back you up instead of complaining about us complaining about your lack of facts?

Why do you have to be the grumpy dwarf in the WatchBlog household?

On another note: Has anyone used the Donate button? I can’t get it to work. Is it my connection, or something else?

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 20, 2018 10:52 PM
Comment #427103

At least phx8 introduces new material when he comments. He’s always wrong, but at least he’s trying to contribute to the WatchBlog experience.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 20, 2018 10:54 PM
Comment #427104

Do you know what I like about the WatchBlog experience? I like the fact that I can have a discussion about a certain topic and days later see that discussion repeated on the floor of the U.S. Senate!

There’s not a lot of room on the floor of the senate to discuss complaints about complaints.

There’s room for more here, j2t2. You can’t be so closed minded to where you can’t agree on anything! Open up! Listen to others! Ask yourself if what someone else is saying really effects you at all! If it doesn’t then just leave it alone! You don’t have to degrade everything someone else says!

Give it a break!

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 20, 2018 11:09 PM
Comment #427106

The Blog was very interesting and have a good involving point.

“>http://www.h2ohamam.com”> Thai spa in Kolkata

Posted by: Hamam Spa at May 21, 2018 1:33 AM
Comment #427130

Roy,
The technology and school infrastructure is not where it needs to be to have armed drones patrolling our schools.

Weary,

“You don’t have to degrade everything someone else says!”

The talking-points told them that we had to ban the AR-15. They couldn’t tell us why, but they fearfully parroted the propaganda as they were told to do. When that didn’t work, they demanded a ban of the AR-15 and started attacking their fellow Americans who are members of the NRA and calling them terrorists.
When questioned, they repeated the lie that nobody wants to ban guns. When pressed, they finally concede that they do want to ban guns, but only the AR and ‘high capacity’ mags. Not shotguns or revolvers. When told those were just as deadly, they said nobody wants to ban guns.

Basically, they have painted themselves into a corner with their own ignorance, hypocrisy, and blind obedience to ideology. They are incapable of discussing facts and all they have left are personal attacks and nonsensical blabbering about nazi’s and fascism. And now it seems ‘the third world’ has been added to their talking-points.

Posted by: kctim at May 21, 2018 8:23 AM
Comment #427131

Weary let me make sure I understand you correctly. You are saying “Why can’t you explain your logic with facts that back you up instead of complaining about us complaining about your lack of facts?” While not presenting anything that would require a factual response yet expecting a factual response from me.

This is a circle jerk Weary, because you and your right wing pals lack the cajones to have an honest discussion about the mass killings. Instead you use logical fallacies to

A third world response is all you guys have put on the table.
1. Drones after the attack has started.
2. There needs to be good guys with guns because it works once every 10 times or so.
3. Allowing students to arm themselves….
4. Arm teachers to respond to ongoing attacks
5. Police in the schools to respond to ongoing attacks
The problem is these are only half a** third world responses at that. For these to be effective we need armed camps instead of schools.

You see it is just an arms race, Weary, not a solution. A life is cheap approach IMHO. You are willing to sacrifice some to give time to react to the assault. A first world solution would stop the assault. Like all the other 1st world countries have done.

But lets get back to the diversions so we can’t expose the foolish solutions proposed so far. And heaven forbid we talk about limiting weapons availability.

So you want to be able to criticize the messenger instead of the message and then complain when I respond to the criticism ! Then you get all butt hurt when I stick to the subject instead of falling for the red herring and strawman arguments you and Royal attempt. I mean quoting Dennis Prager on Liberalism is hardly factual information but you don’t apply your demands to Royal.

You are silent when Royal abuses my name yet criticize me for responding to these ignorant verbal attacks!

You guys are something Weary. So let me repeat what I asked earlier ” tell you what come to the table with an intelligent response to my previous comments and we can continue but this crap from the last several comments between Royal and Weary are to ignorant to be called anything but trolling, it is a waste of time guys…”

Weary is this you idea of something factual?
“The left is ridiculing us for thinking there is voter fraud. They claim repeatedly it is non-existent, even after people are convicted of it. Perhaps we are simply looking in the wrong area! Perhaps Trump should have looked at our CIA, FBI, DOJ, IRS, and the Democratic Party leadership for voter fraud instead of every county clerk in every state. Perhaps we’re missing the forest because of the trees.”

Because if it is you have made my point for me.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 21, 2018 10:11 AM
Comment #427132

kctim, coming to the discussion armed with bulls**t I see. You may not like the third world response to the problem but it is what it is.

As far as painting themselves into a corner it seems the same can be said about conservatives and their third world responses to the issue. If you get to the mentally ill as a possible solution it costs money and the rights of people and you guys don’t see that as an alternative. Weapons bans we can’t even discuss because God gave us our rights to kill others at whim. That was the intent right? Because if it was to defend ourselves as a militia wouldn’t we have an armory? Like they do on military bases? Except in war zones of course, but that isn’t…where..we…are …oh nevermind.

Seems you came to the discussion unarmed with anything intelligent to discuss. Talking points that haven’t been talked about and nothing to add just criticizing the messenger.

I have to say I’m a bit disappointed you fell for Weary’s smoke screen but you did. I guess when you don’t have anything to add it is what is left. Oh wait you can mess up on my name as Royal likes to do.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 21, 2018 10:23 AM
Comment #427133

3. Allowing students to arm themselves….

An excellent solution. Self preservation is a grand motivator. Cops arm themselves, why should the rest of us believe a cop is going to protect us at the critical moment? It rarely happens.

2. There needs to be good guys with guns because it works once every 10 times or so.

Sarcasm? Is that constructive? No one said it works once every 10 times. It works far more times than advertising weakness and hiding in a closet. If the media ran stories of people saving their own lives and the lives of others the reports would far outnumber the abuses. I wrote and responded at length about how the media promotes gun violence by fixating on it and ignores millions of times when weapons are used for good.

4. Arm teachers to respond to ongoing attacks

Another excellent solution. The Texas shooter was in the class room for 30 minutes. An armed teacher could have stopped him from killing the people hiding in the closet. Any armed student in that classroom could have ended the situation. Two, or three, or four, good guys with a gun will definitely work more often than cowering under a desk.

5. Police in the schools to respond to ongoing attacks

Why is this 3rd world, j2t2? I’m at a loss how you believe this is third world. There are armed guards in many places that aren’t attacked at all, because there are armed guards. Get it?

1. Drones after the attack has started.

If they can get this to work who the hell are you to tell them not to do it?

Where’s your solutions, j2t2. It seems to me your side already tried your solutions, i.e. gun free zones and assault weapons bans, and they haven’t solved the problem. In fact, these episodes are more frequent now that schools are advertising the sitting duck policy on every school door.

Like I said, all you do is bitch. If you had a solution you would bring it up and defend it, but you know your solutions aren’t working.

So you want to be able to criticize the messenger instead of the message and then complain when I respond to the criticism !

Quote where I criticized you personally, j2t2. I’m waiting.

Weary is this you idea of something factual?

That was a suggestion, j2t2. I did not say it was a fact. You’re deflecting.

I also suggested limited access and walls. I’ve also suggested trained canines. You poo-pooed the ideas out of hand, or ignored them. I swear, if I said the grass was green you would argue.

One of the solutions a mother of one of the victims said was, “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all.”. Give it a shot, j2t2. It can be far more constructive than you think it can. I don’t think you realize how many people you dissuade from commenting on WatchBlog because you and phx8 are the first out of the block with your negativity. Give it a break for a while and see if others contribute something constructive.


Posted by: Weary Willie at May 21, 2018 11:03 AM
Comment #427134

J2,
This ‘third world’ response only highlights that the actual goal is getting rid of the 2nd Amendment, not protecting innocent people.

Drones are becoming more important with each passing day, it is not inconceivable to suggest they have a use for security.
Armed individuals and stricter security measures are proven tactics that private businesses and public offices use to deter or minimize violence.
As it requires a certain state of mind to be able to shoot a bunch of people, it would be irresponsible to not address the mental illness aspect of this. Especially for the ones that involve mind altering drugs.
None of these are “half a** third world responses.” IF the goal is to save lives, they ALL must be a part of the equation.

The 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with having a right to “kill others at whim.” That is nothing but fearful partisan hyperbole. But you already know that.

As far as “weapons bans”, you guys REALLY need to know what the he11 you are talking about before bringing it up, IF you want to be taken seriously. You also need to be honest.

IF you want to save lives, J2, it’s going to take rational discussion, so you’re gonna have to leave your hate and talking-points behind.


Posted by: kctim at May 21, 2018 11:27 AM
Comment #427135

Third World thinking, kctim, is about the solutions proposed by conservatives to fix the problem of mass shootings in this country.

Drones and armed personnel at schools are a third world thinking, life is cheap response to the problem kctim. To think we need to arm teachers or students as the solution to the problem is third world thinking.

Of course the goal is to save lives, kctim but you are creating an arms race that will at best cut the number of dead in one of these situations. That is third world thinking. More and bigger weapons has only led to the police becoming militarized and a proliferation on weapons readily available to anyone.

First world countries have made it much harder to get the weapons in the first place and have drastically reduced the number of gun related deaths, that is just a fact. That isn’t a solution for the US so we need to come up with another first world solution to the problem. Perhaps doing something with mental illness could be the answer for us.

Rational discussion are you kidding me kctim, try that here on WB. Look at this thread and tell me about rational discussion, you yourself bring up “talking points” and hatred for no reason other than to keep rational discussion out of the equation.

What is rational about “the good guy with a gun”? The shooter is still in the school shooting people.

What is rational about discarding half the second amendment to get to where we are today?

What is rational about using military drones in public schools to protect our children from shooters?

You may not like the term third world thinking but that is exactly what it is kctim. Not a talking point I have heard anywhere.

What is rational about a fear of the government to the point you join a militia group and practice to kill first responders.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 21, 2018 12:38 PM
Comment #427136

J2,
Any proposals that can actually help deter future shootings cannot simply be dismissed as “third world thinking.” It is a fact that new technology is constantly being adopted for security. It is a fact that armed individuals are used every day to deter violence. It is a fact that mental illness plays a part in these shootings and that it should be included in the scope.
ALL of those things play a big role in trying to save lives.

Third world thinking is believing that stripping away individual rights will make you safer. It’s believing that banning guns is the only answer and ignoring the Constitution and the impossible task of enforcement. It’s demanding and only accepting what you want, rather than working with what’s possible.
Rational discussion is a two-way street grounded in reality, not fantasy.

Other first world nations do not enjoy the same freedoms and liberties that we do, nor are they as protected as ours are. That is what makes us so unique.

Posted by: kctim at May 21, 2018 1:32 PM
Comment #427137

One simple preventative measure instead of Drones could be having one central entrance with metal detectors and police or private security all other exit/entrances would be exit only with cameras at each door. This is standard O. P. at all federal and state buildings and as tax payers we endure the cost there are our kids less important?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 21, 2018 2:27 PM
Comment #427138
Other first world nations do not enjoy the same freedoms and liberties that we do, nor are they as protected as ours are. That is what makes us so unique.

Well that certainly is the myth anyway, however facts say otherwise. I’m hard pressed to find a first world country that scores as low as we do on the Freedom House index kctim.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 21, 2018 2:41 PM
Comment #427139

Yep nothing says freedom like one central entrance with metal detectors and police at the door.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 21, 2018 3:21 PM
Comment #427140

J2, forgive me if I don’t accept leftists promoting democracy by redefining individual rights, freedoms, liberties etc… Especially when you use a link based on disagreement with our longstanding laws and our sovereignty.

When it comes to speech, religion, the right to keep and bear arms, equal representation, taxes etc…, we have more rights and freedoms than other nations.

The way they run their country has absolutely no bearing on how we should, or are even allowed to, run ours.
So how about we stick with discussing how to deal with these nuts shooting up places.

Posted by: kctim at May 21, 2018 3:35 PM
Comment #427141

Typical liberal response j2, run your mouth with no specific remedy.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 21, 2018 3:46 PM
Comment #427143

j2t2 writes; “…you and your right wing pals lack the cajones to have an honest discussion about the mass killings…”

Really? We have given ideas that you ridicule and you have offered nothing. Please share with us your ideas j2t2. Any idea you have that involves my gun ownership is a non-starter unless you can have the 2nd amendment abolished.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 21, 2018 4:48 PM
Comment #427144
The way they run their country has absolutely no bearing on how we should, or are even allowed to, run ours. So how about we stick with discussing how to deal with these nuts shooting up places.

Well you do recall it was you that perpetrated the myth to begin with kctim instead of discussing how to deal with these nuts. How quick to change you tune when confronted with facts.

How other countries have dealt with the problem is important IMHO kctim. The first world solution works in many countries. But we have to keep up the third world thinking because that is what is left to us it seems. I had hoped for better from those who value the 2nd amendment to such a degree they will sacrifice young school kids. I had hoped a first world solution would eventually be presented that met with the agreement of those that put gun rights over life.

KAP it is third world thinking you suggest. I was hoping for something better from you. IMHO with rights come responsibilities and right now we have a problem festering in this country. I think those that twist the 2nd amendment to it’s current meaning should be responsible for a first world solution to the problem that doesn’t pose a 2nd amendment problem.

Hey BTW are you guys in a tizzy after the Oklahoma Gov. vetoed the gun law in Oklahoma just recently? Seems the legislature decided anyone and everyone should be allowed to have a gun.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 21, 2018 4:49 PM
Comment #427145

Thanks, Rich KAPitan. I’ve been trying to tell j2t2 the same thing for a while now.

Is Great Britain a first world country that j2t2 describes? I think he is referring to Britain, because Britain has been passing firearms legislation since the 1500’s. Even after repeated laws being enacted, Wikipedia sections, describing each legislation passed, states, “In the aftermath of the XXX massacre…”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_policy_in_the_United_Kingdom#Firearms_crime

What does that tell me? Even after centuries of gun legislation people are still using firearms to kill people in Britain.

Today Great Britain is under siege by people who are using knives to terrorize the population. They have no firearms to protect them from knife wielding criminals. Even the cop are unarmed.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-crime-murder/violent-scourge-on-london-streets-as-murder-figures-overtake-new-york-idUSKCN1HA1DH

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 21, 2018 4:54 PM
Comment #427146

j2,
It is a fact that other countries do not share the same freedoms and liberties we have. Their governments do not face the same restrictions as ours does, which is why discussing how they handle the situation is a waste of time.
We have to deal with what is possible for our government, and until you can repeal the 2nd Amendment, it is part of the discussion.

If you are hoping for better, you are going to have to throw away your hate and bring better. And no, the little remarks about sacrificing kids or putting rights before lives, doesn’t do it.
Especially with me.

Posted by: kctim at May 21, 2018 5:03 PM
Comment #427147

Our airports are third world, our Federal Buildings are third world and our state buildings are third world and there hasn’t been a mass shooting at any of them lately. I’ll go with third world remedies as long as they work anytime j2. Our kids are worth the third world remedies as long as they are safe. Beats anything you have come up with.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 21, 2018 5:07 PM
Comment #427148

“Yep nothing says freedom like one central entrance with metal detectors and police at the door.”

Right j2t2. And nothing says freedom like banning knives in London…a Liberal First World Favorite Country.

Hmmm….perhaps we could copy the North Korea model…not any school shootings there either.

A free people with liberty, as envisioned by our Founders, includes a necessity to endure excess of some constitutional rights. We witness excess and abuse in speech, press, and religious rights frequently. We tolerate it as we wish to remain free and at liberty to pursue our goals.

We don’t abolish constitutional rights because some abuse them.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 21, 2018 5:14 PM
Comment #427149

“I had hoped for better from those who value the 2nd amendment to such a degree they will sacrifice young school kids.”

Such a simple and elegant solution j2t2. Abolish our right to own firearms.

Abortion is not a right spelled out in the Constitution j2t2. Can we abolish that to save the unborn?

Helmut laws save children too j2t2. Why not insist that all states pass laws that require them?

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 21, 2018 5:31 PM
Comment #427152
Such a simple and elegant solution j2t2. Abolish our right to own firearms.

So Royal once again you mislead us with your response to my comment, what is it man can you not read or do you just refuse to read? Show me the part where I said anything about abolishing guns Royal.

What I want to see is simple and elegant Royal, I want a first world solution to the problem not a third world solution to the problem. Most first world countries have decided to restrict guns or ban guns or some degree of one or the other. But I guess you assume there is no other answer. That is sad. I think we both realize that some gun control legislation that could possibly be passed wouldn’t solve the problem so IMHO we need to find a first world solution that works for us.


What I notice about gun rights guys is they want the right but refuse the responsibility that comes with the right to run around with any gun you choose. Or they come up with the “when you are a hammer every thing is a nail” solution or third world solution as I have mentioned.

Simply put a first world solution would be preventive in nature a third world solution is armed camp batten down the hatches mentality that may serve to lessen the damage or become so restrictive as to make the solution unacceptable.

I also expect those that stand so firm on the 2nd amendment to be responsible for that first world solution. All I have seen so far other than babble from our conservatives friends on WB is third world solutions. I would suggest you guys stop being so defensive and reading so much into my words that just isn’t there and think instead of a proactive answer to the problem.

The closed minds we have seen so far need to take a deep breath get beyond the “they are coming to yake our guns away” mentality and brainstorm a solution that is a first world solution. I would suggest that instead of the denial of what other first world countries are doing you guys take a look at the different countries and what they do to see if we can adopt something that would work for us.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 21, 2018 6:54 PM
Comment #427153

“… you guys take a look at the different countries and what they do to see if we can adopt something that would work for us.”

What in the world are you talking about j2t2. Why is the onus upon us? You seem to be the one with all the knowledge about different countries solutions. You tell us.

“What I notice about gun rights guys is they want the right but refuse the responsibility that comes with the right to run around with any gun you choose.”

Please tell us about who is irresponsible with gun rights j2t2. We want facts, not your imaginings. Liberal beliefs rarely reflect reality.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 21, 2018 7:04 PM
Comment #427155

Agree kctim. There are no drones or schools currently ready to undertake a security roll of taking out shooters in a school shooting situation.

But, doesn’t mean we should not have a program to get us to a position whereby drones replace people in schools charged with taking out a shooter.

I saw an article a few hours ago relating that AI development had drones flying thru encumbered indoor areas. The drone could pass thru windows and doors with something like 400 successes to 5 failures and the drone was damaged by the failure. Unable to find it. If someone sees it please try to put it on WB.

I don’t know which way development should go to get drones up to the job. Could be a magnetic system that would serve as a commo relay for drones. Could be low freq RF with a number of xmitters placed around the school compound. Could be sctive sensors laid out throughout the complex which would allow the drone to navigate a ‘track’ to wherever. Could be some Ghz commo strategically placed throughout the building.

As to school infrastructure, it seems drones could make use of existing doors that would automatically open on alarm. Could be we would need to install cutouts above doorways that would spring open automatically on signal to allow drone access to wherever.

Easiest thing in all this is to integrate a ‘shooting’ capability in the drone. Maybe two mechanisms to feed 20 bullets from either side, for balance/stability, to the firing mechanism.

I think,no matter the technology used, firing the weapon would need to be done by a responsible person watching the scene thru a drone mounted camera with crosshairs.

Using current or technology being developed, I can’t see where it would take more than a year to get some schools implemented with such a system.

States could join together to pay for drone development. I would think cost would be something like $2k per drone as a one time expense. Modifying schools to facilitate drone movement would fer shure be more expensive but a one time expense.

Two drone pilot/officers would be necessary to cover the school day at considerable cost.

Advantages over a school having six or either armed officers available to cover a sixteen hour day would be cost. Further, the armed officers couldn’t move to the target as quickly as a drone. Then you’ve got the collateral damage that could occur with armed officers shooting in a classroom environment. None of that with an armed drone.

Some type of drone system should be ready for install within a year.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at May 21, 2018 7:28 PM
Comment #427156

You wouldn’t need weapons attached to a drone. The drone could be the “bullet”. We could call it a Kamikaze drone.

j2t2, we have had your “first world” solution implemented in schools since the 1990’s. Weapons of any kind have been banned for decades in schools. Banning weapons is your first world solution, isn’t it? Why isn’t it working? Are you going to tell us it is working?

Answer the question with something other than, “You’re criticizing me!”.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 21, 2018 10:08 PM
Comment #427196

I heard that they install metal detector in school.

Posted by: email qa at May 22, 2018 6:15 AM
Comment #427199

J2,
You have been given ideas that are proven to deter (PREVENT) violence on a daily basis. You have been given ideas that embrace the future of technology in order to help PREVENT shootings.
You dismiss them all as ‘third world thinking.’
Your reply is that you want a “first world solution,” which you define as being “preventative?”
Stop hiding and tell us exactly what so-called first world solution you are calling for.

“I also expect those that stand so firm on the 2nd amendment to be responsible for that first world solution.”

From what I have seen so far, you only expect people to be ‘responsible’ enough to agree with you. You are intentionally being vague and hoping that once you dismiss all ideas that don’t support your goal, people will have no other choice but to agree with you. Boring and, IMO, quite cowardly. You should be able to state what you want and back it up with facts.

“The closed minds we have seen so far need to take a deep breath get beyond the “they are coming to yake our guns away” mentality”

Does your so-called first world solution involve taking guns away?

“and brainstorm a solution that is a first world solution.”

In case you haven’t noticed, YOU are the only one who is unwilling to discuss ideas that might save lives.

Posted by: kctim at May 22, 2018 8:39 AM
Comment #427201
Really? We have given ideas that you ridicule and you have offered nothing.

Royal, So sensitive so PC when it comes to what others say. I am pointing out the problems with all the third world solutions you guys have come up with, nothing more.


Please share with us your ideas j2t2.

Well Royal we see what works in first world countries. Because we never dig deep into any one country to see if we have a solution choosing to never speak about gun laws I don’t see any viable options that would be considered first world solutions. But IMHO the Onus should be on those that tell us anything ” that involves my gun ownership is a non-starter unless you can have the 2nd amendment abolished.” because we have gun laws now. So to say the 2nd amendment is so special and so different from any other amendment that it is absolute is part of the problem.


IMHO the 2nd amendment doesn’t prohibit the federal government from sane laws despite what the NRA tells us. The Heller decision was overreach from a activist originalist and NRA funded majority court. IT, the SCOTUS is at fault as much as the NRA is at fault for protecting the killers. But it is what it is now a tangled mess of laws that really doesn’t do much to protect the people of this country from mass killers. So it is time to find another preventive first world solution to the problem.

Third world thinking doesn’t solve the problem it may at best serve to turn our schools into third world armed camps that resemble prisons more than schools.

So my idea is to hold those that have twisted the 2nd amendment, to the point it makes current law ineffective, responsible for coming up with a first world plan to prevent the mass killings we regularly have in this country. IMHO it is time for gun rights advocates to be held responsible for finding a solution that meets their version of the 2nd amendment and meets first world criteria as well. I also want these people to do it without confiscation of guns and ammo. Because I have a hard time believing the founding fathers wanted to hold future generations of school kids hostage to mass killers.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 22, 2018 10:11 AM
Comment #427202

Comment #427201

Really? We have given ideas that you ridicule and you have offered nothing.

Royal, So sensitive so PC when it comes to what others say. I am pointing out the problems with all the third world solutions you guys have come up with, nothing more.


I called that bitching in a previous comment. Thank for verifying what I said.

Well Royal we see what works in first world countries.

I have commented on Britain’s gun laws and the history demonstrates that the laws implimented there DON’T work. Every entry in Wikipedia mentions “in the aftermath of xxx massacre…”. Every 10 years they impliment a new law and 10 years later “in the aftermath of xxx massacre…”.

Because we never dig deep into any one country to see if we have a solution choosing to never speak about gun laws I don’t see any viable options that would be considered first world solutions.

This comment shows you are not listening. I dug deep into Britain’s “solutions” that you refer to as first world and the history shows the laws are ineffective. Your comment only shows you have given up on achieving any solution.

NRA funded majority court.
PROVE IT. You’re big on spouting this nonsense, j2t2. Prove it with links to examples of the NRA funding the court.
the SCOTUS is at fault as much as the NRA is at fault for protecting the killers.

How do you expect to be taken seriously after making comments like that, j2t2. That, for lack of a better word, is bullshit.

Do your precious government buildings resemble armed camps and prisons. Sure, some of them are actual prisons, but if you think these countermeasures are bad for school, you must admit they are bad for government buildings, banks, jewelry stores, shopping malls, and all the other places that are smart enough to install the preventive measures you despise.

It’s the laws that are ineffective, j2t2. It has been proven that gun bans and gun free zones are ineffective. What has been proven to be effective, but you aren’t being shown the proof, is another gun on the scene stopping the criminal. That has been effective in over 2 million examples each year and the media will not tell you that. It doesn’t follow the narrative so you and I are not allowed to see it.

I also want these people to do it without confiscation of guns and ammo. Because I have a hard time believing the founding fathers wanted to hold future generations of school kids hostage to mass killers.

That goes against what is being pushed on us, j2t2. I have yet to hear you state gun bans are unacceptable. Are you suggesting that guns must become wall ornaments before they are acceptable to public ownership?

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 22, 2018 10:43 AM
Comment #427203

https://31bullets.suntimes.com/

Posted by: Ohrealy at May 22, 2018 11:44 AM
Comment #427206

Well look at that, j2.
Even a non-responsive Russian bot can post ideas worthy of debate.

Posted by: kctim at May 22, 2018 1:28 PM
Comment #427207

Please tell us j2t2 if banning knives in London is the “first world criteria” you are speaking about.

While you are at it j2t2, should murders committed in “first world countries” with hammers, beer bottles, insect spray and plastic bags, result in laws banning those objects; and should those laws be adopted in the US?

If I understand j2t2 correctly, his “first world countries” will be found primarily in Europe. Isn’t it telling that the US has had to rescue them twice because they were unprepared for violence?

Please impress us with your immense intellect j2t2.

Is it easier to invade a country with an unarmed population?

Is it easier to kill students in an unarmed school?

Is it easier to disarm me, and other law abiding gun owners, than to arm school personnel?

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 22, 2018 3:46 PM
Comment #427209

j2t2 isn’t responding. I think he feels he lost this argument. Instead of saying he sees our point of view, he would rather take his marbles and leave.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 22, 2018 4:48 PM
Comment #427211

Weary, it appears our Pal j2t2 is simply overcome by our logic.

It is unfathomable to me that any American would advocate abolishing any of the first ten amendments which are the heart and soul of our Constitution and the protection it provides citizens.

Our Founders did not intend these ten amendments to be political or ever imagine anyone being opposed to them. The constitution would never have been ratified by all the colonies without these guarantees being added.

The Second Amendment guarantees individual states the right to maintain “a well regulated militia,” and citizens the right to “keep and bear arms.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 22, 2018 5:51 PM
Comment #427214

I think they look at the Bill of Rights as a luxury. They haven’t been taught that the Bill of Right limits government, not embellishes people. That’s why people who shout down others consider their actions to be a first amendment right.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 22, 2018 6:42 PM
Comment #427218

I called that bitching in a previous comment. Thank for verifying what I said.

So much for an intelligent conversation Weary, is this the absolute best you can do?

I have commented on Britain’s gun laws and the history demonstrates that the laws implimented there DON’T work. Every entry in Wikipedia mentions “in the aftermath of xxx massacre…”. Every 10 years they impliment a new law and 10 years later “in the aftermath of xxx massacre…”.

Weary listen to yourself every 10 years but I’m not sure you are referring to school shootings. It seems you are thinking of terrorist attacks.

This comment shows you are not listening. I dug deep into Britain’s “solutions” that you refer to as first world and the history shows the laws are ineffective.

I don’t know what you consider “deep” Weary but considering they haven’t had a school shooting since ‘96 I wonder WTF you are referring to. I mean they had several terrorist attacks and back in the 60’s-80’s they had IRA bombings I have to ask you to be specific.

NRA funded majority court.

PROVE IT. You’re big on spouting this nonsense, j2t2. Prove it with links to examples of the NRA funding the court.

Here is one for starters.

the SCOTUS is at fault as much as the NRA is at fault for protecting the killers.

Scalia overturned many years of precedence writing for the majority in the Heller decision Weary, it’s just a fact.

How do you expect to be taken seriously after making comments like that, j2t2. That, for lack of a better word, is bullshit.

I’m sorry it goes against what you have heard while being indoctrinated into the conservative cult Weary but it is simply fact.

Do your precious government buildings resemble armed camps and prisons.

I don’t have any precious government buildings Weary.

Sure, some of them are actual prisons, but if you think these countermeasures are bad for school, you must admit they are bad for government buildings, banks, jewelry stores, shopping malls, and all the other places that are smart enough to install the preventive measures you despise.

When you went to school Weary, pre-originalist interpretation of the 2nd amendment, did your school resemble an armed camp? Because that is what we are talking about here Weary, not terrorist attacks from far right nationalist on government buildings.

It’s the laws that are ineffective, j2t2.

Then suggest improvements Weary. Instead of the conservative whining about having any laws provide laws that work, provide first world solutions not armed camp third world solutions.
As an example if the father of the shooter had trigger locks on the weapons the shooter used would the shooter have been able to use the weapons he had available to him?


It has been proven that gun bans and gun free zones are ineffective.

Only in NRA propaganda Weary, in the real world they have proved effective. Sorry to burst your bubble but that is the facts.

What has been proven to be effective, but you aren’t being shown the proof, is another gun on the scene stopping the criminal.

There were 2 cops at the school yet 10 people were killed and that many more injured including a good guy with a gun.


That has been effective in over 2 million examples each year and the media will not tell you that. It doesn’t follow the narrative so you and I are not allowed to see it.

So this is a secret fact that only NRA members have or what Weary? I call bulls**t and ask you to provide a reliable source of proof for this propaganda.

I also want these people to do it without confiscation of guns and ammo. Because I have a hard time believing the founding fathers wanted to hold future generations of school kids hostage to mass killers.

Yet here we are today with yet another school shooting. I think you need to get your story together it is filled with unreliable myths and misinformation Weary.

I have yet to hear you state gun bans are unacceptable.

Machine guns were banned in the 20’s Weary they still are and we have seen that banning machine guns has worked to keep machine guns off the street and …..when was the last time a machine gun was used to murder someone?

Are you suggesting that guns must become wall ornaments before they are acceptable to public ownership?

Not at all Weary. Once again you guys, only this time pay fu**ing attention to what I am saying. I do not want to see guns banned or confiscated. Try to get beyond what you have been indoctrinated to believe about us. Stop being so defensive and for gods sake please stop repeating NRA BS every time we have this discussion.

What we know is gun bans work both here and in the first world countries. I am asking for you guys, gun right advocate, ammose**als, weekend warriors, gunsmiths, hobbyist and hunters to think out side the NRA propaganda box and come up with laws that work without banning and/or confiscating guns. Without depriving someone else of their rights, and keeping within the 2nd amendment. Or at the least the pre-originalist version of the 2nd amendment.

All we get from you guys are myths misinformation half truths and/or outright lies when it comes to guns. You have a responsibility that goes along with the right to bear arms. Well and third world solutions to the problem. Do better or eventually the generation coming up will be fed up with being the sacrificial lambs at school and ban guns.


Posted by: j2t2 at May 22, 2018 9:56 PM
Comment #427219

kctim, you asked for an intelligent discussion and the next comment from you is about a Russian bot! Lead by example my friend.

The 31 bullets has 19 ideas, has any of the conservatives looked at any of them and do y’all have anything intelligent to say about them? Who can add anything for 20 to 31?

Posted by: j2t2 at May 22, 2018 10:03 PM
Comment #427220

So Weary lets do the math. 2 million per year would be 166,166 per month. Now go find a years worth of your NRA magazines and see if they tell us of around 166,666 good guy with a gun cases. If they don’t then either they are part of the vast media conspiracy you think keeps this information secret or the source of your information is wrong as is the information. Please let us know at your earliest convenience.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 22, 2018 10:14 PM
Comment #427222

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/62993000/gif/_62993691_firearms_offences_624gr.gif

How does Heller protect killers? How much money does Planned parenthood spend endorsing judges? So what? You’re deflecting, j2t2.

I’m sorry it goes against what you have heard while being indoctrinated into the conservative cult Weary but it is simply fact.
So much for an intelligent conversation j2t2 (sic), is this the absolute best you can do?
I don’t have any precious government buildings Weary.

Ouch! Got me there!

When you went to school Weary, pre-originalist interpretation of the 2nd amendment, did your school resemble an armed camp?

I went to school before the government tried to undermine the 2nd, j2t2. Long before the government started selling military arms to local police forces. However, I was in 2nd grade when a state cop pulled up to my school in his squad car, opened his trunk, and introduced me to Marijuana. Strange, don’t you think?

Because that is what we are talking about here Weary, not terrorist attacks from far right nationalist on government buildings.

No, we’re talking about government enforced gun free zones in schools and other public venues that have no protection. Now, ask yourself why government buildings don’t get attacked, j2t2. Is it because they are armed camps? Isn’t the objective to harden schools? Why do you not blink an eye when government employees are more important than school children?


As an example if the father of the shooter had trigger locks on the weapons

A first world solution would be trigger locks on the explosive devices he had also, yes?

There were 2 cops at the school yet 10 people were killed and that many more injured including a good guy with a gun.

Was access limited to one protected entrance? Were there metal detectors implemented? These are solutions used in government buildings but not in this school! Did the teacher in the room the shooter was in for 30 minutes have a weapon? Did any trained students have a weapon to counter the presence of this shooter for 30 minutes?

10 people were killed and one injured because Democratics are against these countermeasure. You cannot use these deaths as an excuse for the left’s obstruction.

Only in NRA propaganda Weary, in the real world they have proved effective.

False, the Assault weapons ban was determined to be ineffective and did not get extended.
Wikipedia:

In 2003, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services, an independent, non-federal task force, examined an assortment of firearms laws, including the AWB, and found “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.”[30] A 2004 critical review of firearms research by a National Research Council committee said that an academic study of the assault weapon ban “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes.”


I remember in the 70’s uzis were popular. Of course the popularity was driven by the media reporting these weapons used by criminals against cops and movies glorifying criminals using them. Also, they weren’t banned as in inaccessible. You can get a machine gun if you wanted one. You only have to pay the money and jump through the hoops. The cops have machine guns, also.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-police-departments.html

During the Obama administration, according to Pentagon data, police departments have received tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars and aircraft.

Most illegally possessed machine guns were stolen from police.

We are discussing alternatives to the status quo, j2t2. It is you who is not paying f*ing attention. We are offering suggestions, real suggestions, doable immediately shovel ready solutions, and you bitch. You have not suggested anything other than we are not a first world country, whatever that means.

We suggested metal detectors, the same ones used in government buildings, and you say “No armed camps!.” We suggest single egress points and you say “No armed camps! Too third worldy!”. We suggest arming teachers and you say “No armed camps! Hide in a closet and throw canned food!”

We have made suggestions and you discount them. You are obstructing. You are responsible for the deaths of every child from here on, j2t2, because you refuse to be a part of any solution.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 22, 2018 11:22 PM
Comment #427223

https://www.inquisitr.com/4874328/more-guns-are-used-in-self-defense-than-violent-crime-suggests-data-never-made-public-by-the-cdc/

According to unreleased statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, guns are used more for self-defense than used to commit crimes. Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist, found figures from the agency that suggest nearly 2.5 million people use a gun to defend themselves every year, significantly more than those that use a gun in crimes.
Posted by: Weary Willie at May 22, 2018 11:35 PM
Comment #427249
Please tell us j2t2 if banning knives in London is the “first world criteria” you are speaking about.

While you are at it j2t2, should murders committed in “first world countries” with hammers, beer bottles, insect spray and plastic bags, result in laws banning those objects; and should those laws be adopted in the US?

Royal are these mass school killings you are asking about?

If I understand j2t2 correctly, his “first world countries” will be found primarily in Europe. Isn’t it telling that the US has had to rescue them twice because they were unprepared for violence?

Unprepared for violence! seriously Royal are you gonna stop the Blitzkrieg before or after the military surrenders?

Is it easier to invade a country with an unarmed population?

When they kill each other off at the rate we are Royal who needs to invade? This type of fearmongering is why an intelligent discussion is so hard to find here on WB.

Is it easier to kill students in an unarmed school?

Do we really want our children to suffer from PTSD as part of their school curriculum, as if they were in a war zone?

Is it easier to disarm me, and other law abiding gun owners, than to arm school personnel?

So you have zero answers to the problem …right Royal. Other than a third world armed camp batten down the hatches at the local school.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 23, 2018 7:02 AM
Comment #427250

So that link is your “deep” analysis Weary, ROTFLMAO. Come back when you are serious.

False, the Assault weapons ban was determined to be ineffective and did not get extended.

What is false Weary is your vapid interpretation of the assault ban. It was not extended because of the NRA. It was to short a time frame to be effective.

Gotta go I’ll respond to the rest of this crap later Weary.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 23, 2018 7:10 AM
Comment #427251

The Inquistor! Seriously you can’t expect anyone to take you seriously when the disinformation came from a contributor at the Inquistor Weary. The CDC was stopped from gathering data and studying gun violence by NRA backed reps in Congress Weary. This means nothing.

Now I’m late gotta go.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 23, 2018 7:49 AM
Comment #427252

Wrong. They gathered the data but didn’t publish it. I wonder why? Got any ideas, j2t2?

Are we shooting the messenger again? Maybe the Inquisitor is the only honest publication willing to report what the left would condemn them for reporting, like you just did.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 23, 2018 8:04 AM
Comment #427253
It was to short a time frame to be effective.

Ten years is not enough time for a liberal left law to take effect!? How long are we supposed to wait to become first world, j2t2? Should we wait for 15 years? 20 years? Hmm… These kids would be diapers again by the time liberal laws become effective, right?

That is an incredible obfuscation on your part. I can see where you’re coming from though. Obama’s economy languished for 8 years without any improvement. Maybe it didn’t have enough time to become effective. Thank Obama for setting the stage, and America for waiting the requisite decade or more for his policies to finally work, right?

Perhaps it only needed a Republican, no nonsense, non-politician, president to get it started again.


Posted by: Weary Willie at May 23, 2018 8:19 AM
Comment #427254

Why yes, J2, I have indeed checked out those 31 points and, much like yourself, they are based on responses founded in fear and pushing an agenda. Not saving lives.
Because of that, most of their ideas lack knowledge and disregard facts.

Guns in classrooms: They only want to “help educators recognize the warning signs of potential perpetrators.” While you would call this ‘third world thinking,’ I actually believe it would be beneficial educating teachers in such a way.
This combined with allowing teachers to be armed would go a long way in minimizing damage, which means fewer lives lost.

Lock and ‘safe storage’ laws are unenforceable, but education would probably work like it has with seat belt use and could possibly lead to lives saved.

Conceal carry, silencers, the NRA, open carry, bump stocks, universal background checks - have nothing to do with stopping school shootings.

Licensing and registration are a non-starter and only hinder the support needed to address the issue of school shootings.

There is plenty of room for working together on the issue while also respecting the Constitution, leftists just need to be willing to accept that:
Large urban areas do not define America.
You don’t strip away everybody’s rights because of the extreme actions of a very very few.
Shouting racist, murderer, and terrorist at those who disagree with you, creates resentment and division, not support.
Lack of knowledge and emotional outbursts don’t help your position.
You have got to be honest. Stop telling people that you don’t want to ban guns when your goal is to ban guns.

Posted by: kctim at May 23, 2018 9:08 AM
Comment #427255

j2t2 likes the 31(18) points because they criticize solutions, not offer solutions.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 23, 2018 9:23 AM
Comment #427256

That’s all the left can do is criticize solutions. Weary, they have no ideas of their own. Unless it’s total repeal of the 2nd amendment and confiscation of all legally owned guns.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 23, 2018 11:48 AM
Comment #427257

Remember the 70’s when Democratics always accused society of the problem? “It’s society’s fault kids are in jail!”. “It’s society’s fault prisons are full!”.

http://capitalismmagazine.com/2001/09/gangs-societys-fault/

Society isn’t a reason for crime. Many of the reasons are noted in the link above. What’s telling is, it’s always a Democratic who blames society in the effort to push their agenda. An agenda that adds to the problem, not solving it.

Democratics are defending MS13 gang members now! Not because they think MS13 thugs are upstanding citizens. They defend them because they want to undermine a sitting president. It’s shameful. All the while these gang members are thinking, “See, it’s society’s fault! I’ll go shoot up a school to get even!”

We should openly criticize Democratics as instigators of the crime and gun violence we see today. Just like they tried to criticize Palin for the Gifford shooting, we should start blaming Chuck Schumer for the gun violence in inner cities. We should call out Juan Williams as a facilitator of the murder and torture committed by the MS13 members he defends.

Enough is enough. It’s time to call a spade a spade. It’s time to fight back against the left’s immunity from criticism. We need to start pointing out how obvious the left’s actions are in instigating these situations. They’re not as clean and pure as the wind driven snow. They’re actually the one’s pissing in it attempting to write their own name, at the expense of the rest of us.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 23, 2018 12:40 PM
Comment #427258

Society is not at fault for what a kid does, his parents are and how they raise him/her. Prisons are full because PARENTS didn’t teach them respect. MS13 gang members are not animals they are worse then animals calling them animals give the animals a bad name. They are uncivilized monsters and should be accorded the same treatment given to their victims.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 23, 2018 1:11 PM
Comment #427259

I once read a news story about a guy who beat and buried alive a girl. People were talking about it and said he came from a broken home and didn’t know better. I called them out and said the guy needed to be executed.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 23, 2018 1:32 PM
Comment #427262
Wrong. They gathered the data but didn’t publish it. I wonder why? Got any ideas, j2t2?

Sure do Weary but it is factual so you might not like it. The Dickey Amendment is why the research stopped.

Are we shooting the messenger again? Maybe the Inquisitor is the only honest publication willing to report what the left would condemn them for reporting, like you just did.

Oh please Weary 166,666 good guy with guns incidents a month, or 5555 a day 222 and hour and you don’t question it! FFS man you believe the real media is covering it up but believe this nonsense. No wonder the country has a problem today.


Posted by: j2t2 at May 23, 2018 4:09 PM
Comment #427263

So how did Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist, find figures from the agency that suggested nearly 2.5 million people use a gun to defend themselves every year, significantly more than those that use a gun in crimes?

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 23, 2018 4:37 PM
Comment #427264

The Dickey Amendment states that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

Sooooo apparently, the CDC was NOT stopped from gathering data and studying gun violence by NRA backed reps in Congress.

Doubt that’s why the left and its media ignored the 2013 CDC study though.

Posted by: kctim at May 23, 2018 4:54 PM
Comment #427265

They ignored it because it didn’t fit the narrative of banning guns.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 23, 2018 5:05 PM
Comment #427266

I asked j2t2 three simple questions. He responded with “So you have zero answers to the problem …right Royal.”

Numerous Conservatives on WB have put forth ideas to curb school shootings. Since none of them involved taking away guns from citizens who have a Constitutional right to possess them; j2t2 is flummoxed and can’t answer.

It is just too, too easy to flummox our Liberal Pals on WB. It must be his enthralled interest in Third World ideas and solutions.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 23, 2018 5:54 PM
Comment #427268

It’s their ulterior motives that keep them from offering solutions. That’s why I think this is a morbid exercise in manipulation.

First they attempt to ban weapons, then they create gun free zones, then they refuse to offer solutions while people are being massacred.

I think they will continue to refuse any suggestion that solves the problem if it doesn’t involve gun bans and confiscation. They will continue to allow children to be killed. The evidence is in. Children are being killed on a monthly basis and they continue to hold out for the confiscation of legally owned weapons without any effort to address criminals or the mentally ill.

It’s a sick and morbid exercise in manipulation on a national scale.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 23, 2018 8:06 PM
Comment #427300
Sooooo apparently, the CDC was NOT stopped from gathering data and studying gun violence by NRA backed reps in Congress.

Jesus why is this so hard for you guys. Read a bit further, the Dickey amendment took away the funding for the study on gun violence at the request of the NRA. Instead of trying to make it sound as if it weren’t true why not ask yourself why the NRA wanted the funds taken away for the study. While you are at it why not ask why, if your conservative narrative on the Dickey amendment has any merit, did they reinstate funding again just recently..

Posted by: j2t2 at May 24, 2018 9:01 AM
Comment #427301

Man alive so many foolish comments, so much wild conspiracy thinking, so many red herrings, so many straw men, so many diversions, so many projections so much third world armed camp thinking yet nothing intelligent to respond to. I just don’t have the time these days to deal with all the nonsense. We are going around in circles. 222 good guy with a gun incidents an hour! Yet we don’t need gun control of any kind. I guess every bad guy in the US is armed to the teeth and are attacking the good guys so often and not one conservative questions the sheer numbers of the 1992 study It’s like giving monkeys a computer and waiting for a book to be produced.

So go to www.vacps.org/public-policy/the-contradictions-of-kleck so the ignorance can stop.

Lets see 3 questions from Royal, all nonsensical yet I must be wrong because I didn’t waste my time on them!

Lock laws can’t be enforced because…. so what law can be enforced then? The “logic” must be the old NRA presidents comment about the government being our mother, implying door to door searches for unlocked guns. Tell you what guys why not extrapolate this out with other laws and then laugh at yourself for buying into this crap so easily. Just think if we had a lock law on the books in Texas perhaps the shooter wouldn’t have been able to get the guns he used and if he did Dad would have to answer for not locking them up , for allowing easy access to weapons that killed 10 and injured as many in a few minutes.

I just don’t understand why conservatives will buy into so much ignorance, so much third world armed camp thinking and then act as if it were true. This type of stupid has caused the arms race, the militarization of the police and many unnecessary deaths. When combined with the hatred conservatives have for anybody not as gullible as they are it is dangerous IMHO.


Posted by: j2t2 at May 24, 2018 9:26 AM
Comment #427302

“Read a bit further, the Dickey amendment took away the funding for the study on gun violence”

- In 2013, President Barack Obama directed the CDC to research gun violence. The CDC responded by funding a research project in 2013 and conducting their own study in 2015. That month, a spokeswoman for the agency, Courtney Lenard, told the Washington Post that “It is possible for us to conduct firearm-related research within the context of our efforts to address youth violence, domestic violence, sexual violence, and suicide.

Sooooo, President Obama directed some gun violence research, and the CDC funded gun violence research because it IS possible for the CDC to conduct gun violence research. BUT, the Dickey Amendment took away funding for gun violence research?

Oh, Jesus, I forgot to “read a bit further” in your link:

- While the amendment itself remains, the language in a report accompanying the Omnibus spending bill clarifies that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can, in fact, conduct research into gun violence. It was signed into law by U.S. President Donald J. Trump on March 23, 2018.

Posted by: kctim at May 24, 2018 9:54 AM
Comment #427305

J2,
NRA brainwashing minds and controlling government? Arms race? Armed camps? People who disagree with you are stupid, but THEY are the ones who hate?
You do know that you are only arguing against your own hyperbole, don’t you?

Lock laws cannot be enforced because government has no idea who owns a gun and cannot verify who is not in compliance with such a law.
Use lock laws to threaten parents? Most parents don’t believe their child is capable of murder, let alone shooting up a school. In some cases the kid bides their time until they can get at a locked gun, kills their parent and then heads to a school. In some cases the gun comes from someplace other than home and the parents don’t even know about it.
Have lock laws so you punish parents for the actions of their kids? Doesn’t save any lives, the others are still dead. Isn’t the goal to prevent unnecessary deaths and save lives?

Securing firearms is a good idea, but the time and money would be more effective being used to educate people.

Posted by: kctim at May 24, 2018 10:31 AM
Comment #427306

Look at the time frame kctim. From 96 to 2013 none, then 2015 limited research and it wasn’t until 2018 that specific research could begin.

Lets not forget it was active interference by the NRA and their paid off reps in Congress that stalled any useful research by the CDC into gun violence at a crucial time. They wanted to stifle anything that lead to gun control. Which as we know is now considered to be banning guns.

So I think we agree on this but it seems you are trying to say something different. So go to # 427262 and read what I said so you guys don’t have to continue bumbling around on this point.

So I feel the need to bring up the famous quote attributed to Mark Twain because it I seem to have been doing just this. Paraphrased it is;
“Never argue with idiots they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” Although I guess I am just overwhelmed with all the idiocy and don’t have the time to respond to most of it. So let me end my comments with this.

To all my conservative friends
Nothing you guys have come up with is anything more than armed camp batten down the hatches third world solutions. You tell me laws cannot be enforced, you exaggerate my words, you use false conclusions, weirdly outrageous conspiracy theories without any proof, and parrot the NRA on anything and everything. When exposed to other solutions or discussion such as 31 bullets you run like a scalded dog back to the NRA talking points. The inability to think for yourselves about a first world solution without shutting down and reverting to red herrings, straw men, diversions, name calling, projecting, false conclusions and debunked studies to reject anything and everything. Paralyzed with fear of your own made up banning and confiscation of guns you falsely attack me with these claims instead of using your heads to come up with laws that will work. So it seems we have reached an end to my responding to any additional BS on this thread. So unless you can come up with something intelligent I have to stop for now, I just feel to dumbed down by your comments to seek why it is worthwhile to continue.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 24, 2018 10:54 AM
Comment #427307

Please tell us j2 what law will a criminal obey? What law will keep guns out of their hands? You condemn conservatives but what have you come up with? What law will keep a person hell bent on killing from the deed?

Posted by: Richard Kapitan at May 24, 2018 11:28 AM
Comment #427308

Why not just look at what the Dickey Amendment actually says, J2? That way we can just avoid all your assumptions and hyperbole.

- The Dickey Amendment states that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

According to you, “The CDC was stopped from gathering data and studying gun violence” and “The Dickey Amendment is why the research stopped.”

Fact is, the Dickey Amendment didn’t stop research as you claim, it prevented the biased gathering of information that would be used to advocate or promote gun control.

“I just feel to dumbed down by your comments to seek why it is worthwhile to continue.”

No, you are only frustrated because you are unwilling to state and defend your supposed ‘first world’ solutions. You try to hide this by purposely being evasive, dishonest and trying to place the onus on others, so that you can insult the intelligence of those who disagree with you in order to deflect from the fact that saving lives is not the lefts primary goal.
You don’t feel it’s not worthwhile because you have been “dumbed down,” it’s because on this issue you are out of your league.

Posted by: kctim at May 24, 2018 12:07 PM
Comment #427313

j2t2 writes; “…I just feel to dumbed down…”

Well, I said flummoxed; but “dumbed down” is good too.

Let’s wave a fond farewell to our Libby Pal j2t2 as he seeks shelter in his cave.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 24, 2018 4:55 PM
Comment #427319
Fact is, the Dickey Amendment didn’t stop research as you claim, it prevented the biased gathering of information that would be used to advocate or promote gun control.

Well kctim you would have the CDC doing only one sided research except you conveniently leave out the lack of funding for any research on gun violence. What you seem to be suggesting is biased in the other direction research had the funds not been diverted to brain damage instead. So anyway yes had the funds been there the scientist at the CDC could have done half a**ed research or, as the NRA does propaganda, but then what good is that.


But hey why take my word for it why not read what Dickey himself said
“In a 2012 op-ed, Dickey and Rosenberg argued that the CDC should be able to research gun violence,[6] and Dickey has since said that he regrets his role in stopping the CDC from researching gun violence,[7] saying he simply didn’t want to “let any of those dollars go to gun control advocacy.”[8]”

So yes kctim in 1996 the Dickey amendment effectively cut funding for research on gun violence because the NRA paid off politicians to get funds diverted and to make sure their propaganda wasn’t countered with truth. In 2013, after some 17 years without the ability to conduct research Obama did direct the CDC to fund an outside study and then later a CDC study but as the wiki link told us it was not directly on gun violence. Then in 2018, this year, the NRA requirement in the Dickey amendment was done away with. My statement was correct.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 24, 2018 10:21 PM
Comment #427346

Not bad post.

Posted by: SpeedyPaper at May 25, 2018 8:35 AM
Comment #427348

https://abcnews.go.com/US/federal-government-study-gun-violence/story?id=50300379

“the CDC has consistently declined to allocate money to study the issue.”

“researchers remain afraid to even delve into that area of research because they’re afraid of having their funding pulled”

It’s about money and partisan politics, J2. The CDC is worried that anti 2nd Amendment left-wing politicians will use the research to advocate or promote gun control, which could affect their funding.
The amendment itself did not prevent or halt research.

But, if you want to believe that the NRA is secretly running the country, go right ahead.

Posted by: kctim at May 25, 2018 8:44 AM
Comment #427349

Weary I know you think there is a conspiracy to hide the 222 per day good guy with a gun incidents and I find it laughable that someone your age could be so foolish as to believe this nonsense. Anyway here is a link to the latest from the AP. You know the AP, it is part of the MSM that doesn’t cover these things….only they do, just not close to 222 times a day. Because they don’t happen 222 times a day as you and the guy from FSU would have us believe.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/police-2-shot-oklahoma-restaurant-civilian-kills-gunman-045102499.html

Kctim, when you take away the money as they did in 1996 it does have an impact. Dickey acknowledged it stopped gun violence research for years as was intended. you should come to terms with it as well instead of falsely blaming the left because the NRA feared the dems would use the research to promote gun control.

Your exaggeration isn’t all that intelligent is it kctim? I didn’t say the NRA runs the country, I said they bought politicians to do their bidding to keep their propaganda from being exposed which is what happened in 1996. Secretly running the country is an exaggeration and a straw man. It ain’t no secret and it ain’t the whole country just selected politicians that will do their bidding on certain issues.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 25, 2018 9:29 AM
Comment #427350

The NRA got Trump elected. The NRA got all Republicans elected. The NRA owns all the judges on the Supreme Court. Of course the NRA is running the country. Aren’t you paying attention, kctim?!


j2t2, please explain the logic behind your statement. How can pointing out an example of self defense prove self defense cases are not common? I’m at a loss as to your reasoning.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 25, 2018 10:08 AM
Comment #427351

Weary, you to exaggerate way to much. Not all repubs, not all judges, just enough to get their way on certain issues. I would give Putin credit for getting Trump elected.

Weary you were trying to sell a conspiracy about the MSM not reporting good guys with a gun so I showed you they did in fact report them with the link to AP.

You also need to remember you said on average 222 incidents a day, and that is based on 2 million not 2.5 million BTW, which of course is simply false. No one is saying they don’t happen I am saying they don’t happen 222 times a day. Not even close, not half of that, not 10% of that. I asked you to go back through your NRA magazines and see how many your team propagandist reports but so far you haven’t done that. If indeed there are as many as you say in one month the NRA mag would have 6660 incidents on average, do they?

So logic wise, two things were mentioned. One to dispute the numbers of incidents and one to dispute the claim the MSM didn’t report these incidents. I don’t understand why you would have a difficult time with that logic.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 25, 2018 11:55 AM
Comment #427353

Prove the figures wrong by providing an accurate account of when weapons were used to prevent, end, or thwart crime.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 25, 2018 1:38 PM
Comment #427354

How many times has a store owner, when thugs enter his store, picked up a shotgun and started to polish the stock, and prevented a crime?

How many times has a person on the street shown a weapon to stop a mugging?

How many times has the presence of a weapon convinced a criminal not to commit a crime?

These aren’t questions you can answer, j2t2, but you can certainly turn them around and get figures to the opposite.

You can count instances where an unarmed store owner was killed by a criminal during a robbery.

You can count how many people were mugged.

You can tell how many people committed a crime on defenseless people.

Ignoring the good weapons do in self defense isn’t a reason to condemn weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 25, 2018 1:45 PM
Comment #427360

Weary I see you are in backed into a corner trying to prove the faulty study by this FSU guy actually has merit. No wonder you believe all these right wing conspiracies.

So let me ask you this did the store owner that pulled the shotgun out stop a crime or merely change the location of the crime? And the person on the street flashing a gun did he stop anything or just change the location of the crime. Do you also wonder how many times the presence of a gun just meant the crime was escalated or moved to a different location. That is why there are figures showing the opposite Weary the crime was still committed just in a different location or the level of violence rose to a higher level.

But enough with the BS Weary. Be a man and tell the truth of course 222 times an hour is BS or the figures would be shouted to the high heavens in the NRA magazine and other conservative media outlets. You lose credibility when you stoop to this level Weary, be a better man and admit the FSU study is as bad as it seems.

“In fact, Cook told The Washington Post that the percentage of people who told Kleck they used a gun in self-defense is similar to the percentage of Americans who said they were abducted by aliens.”

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/602143823/how-often-do-people-use-guns-in-self-defense

Here is another study from your link that discredits your sky high numbers Weary. IMHO you should stick to alien abductions it is more believable.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743515001188

Posted by: j2t2 at May 25, 2018 6:56 PM
Comment #427361
But for years, experts have been divided over how often people actually use guns in self-defense. The numbers range from the millions to hundreds of thousands, depending on whom you ask.

I think you’ve used that link before.

Was the location of the crime just moved? Yes, to a liberal’s gun free zone. Is that the law abiding gun owner’s fault? NO. It’s the fault of the liberal who expects someone else to protect him.

See, the whole point of a society protecting itself is the whole society must protect itself. It’s up to each and every person to take responsibility for their safety.

Are you blaming the actions of a criminal on the person who prevents a crime? That’s a retarded position!

Your statement implies that you are insisting the law abiding gun owner give up his weapon and be the victim, because you believe it is his turn, not the next person’s. That’s insane. It is the height of hubris to force law abiding citizens to give up their security.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 25, 2018 7:33 PM
Comment #427367

Weary, can you prove your statement to be true? I mean how do you know these crimes are moved to a liberal gun free zone? Where did you get your statistics to prove this from some guy at FSU that did his basic research wrong? The fact is your claim was false, your strawmen were wrong, and it is time to tell us the truth on this subject Weary. 222 times and hour is as bogus a claim as you have made on WB and you have made many. Your credibility is waning, time to de-Trump your argument and resort to the truth. Anyway I am moving on.

So to those third worlders that believe arming teachers is such a great idea do you know even trained police only hit their targets roughly 33% of the time. Do you wonder how many of those killed in mass shootings were the victims of good guys with guns?

BTW de-Trump = stops with the false hoods.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 26, 2018 8:45 AM
Comment #427368

Your own link mentions a 2 million figure, j2t2. You prove it wrong.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 26, 2018 9:27 AM
Comment #427370

Jeezus Weary read the thing.

“The numbers range from the millions to hundreds of thousands, depending on whom you ask.” The next sentence goes on the say “The latest data show that people use guns for self-defense only rarely.” So if you believe the first sentence you used proves your 2 million number then the second sentence should be all the proof I need…right?

Posted by: j2t2 at May 26, 2018 10:06 AM
Comment #427372

You said the 2 mil figure is wrong. I asked you to prove it. Your link mentioned 2 mil and you repeated it. Then you tell me to prove it’s correct.

You’re insisting I ignore the 2 mil figure so you can say you are correct. I won’t do that. I can ignore the 200,000 figure to insist I am correct. We can both be right using your logic. That’s as far as I go with agreeing with you.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 26, 2018 10:48 AM
Comment #427375

Weary read what you said You told us the 2 million figure was right and even though it has been discredited and I have provided links to show it has been discredited you are still wanting more. Just because the link I provided mentioned the 2 million figure as an example of an extreme numbers some provide you want us to believe it proves something!

You are not using my logic you are disregarding the information and cherry picking bits of words to try and make your case. This is typical of the right to obfuscate the facts to defend their position. Even the 200,000 figure or 23 and hour couldn’t be proven with factual information.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 26, 2018 1:01 PM
Comment #427376

But for years, experts have been divided over how often people actually use guns in self-defense. The numbers range from the millions to hundreds of thousands, depending on whom you ask.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 26, 2018 1:06 PM
Comment #427386

No most experts have said the FSU study was flawed Weary. Just because it exists doesn’t mean it has merit. A tainted study may help convince conservatives they have a leg to stand because they want it to but it doesn’t make it real.

From the sciencedirect link Weary-

“Of over 14,000 incidents in which the victim was present, 127 (0.9%) involved a SDGU. SDGU was more common among males, in rural areas, away from home, against male offenders and against offenders with a gun. After any protective action, 4.2% of victims were injured; after SDGU, 4.1% of victims were injured. In property crimes, 55.9% of victims who took protective action lost property, 38.5 of SDGU victims lost property, and 34.9% of victims who used a weapon other than a gun lost property.
Conclusions

Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that SDGU is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.”

SDGU is “self defense gun used” Weary. The time frame was 2007-2011. 14,000 incidents yet only 127 cases of SDGU over 5 years.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 26, 2018 6:11 PM
Comment #427387

If 14000 people had a weapon to protect themselves with that number would be much lower.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 26, 2018 6:21 PM
Comment #427388

True third world armed camp batten down the hatches thinking Weary. The problem with third world thinking is we all need to be armed, even the children, to protect ourselves from each other. Then of course we have the arms race to be able to return fire against a more well armed individual then we start running in packs to go anywhere, but hey life is cheap….right?

So we have come full circle Weary. The FSU study is total BS and out of 14000 actual incidents .9% made a difference. If we used any other example of the .9% you would…. well let me ask you this- If your surgeon who was scheduled to perform a certain surgery on you had a success rate of .9% for that particular surgery would you have the surgeon perform it on you or would you go a different route?

Posted by: j2t2 at May 26, 2018 9:10 PM
Comment #427389

What surgeon would be allowed to practice with a record you manufactured?

You are denying the .9% from saving their lives. Your philosophy would increase the number of casualties, not reduce them.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 27, 2018 12:25 AM
Comment #427391

So you now admit the 2 million good guy with a gun line you tried to pass off as fact is a bogus number Weary! Seems we are making headway. Seems we are now down to the more realistic number of 127 good guy with a gun incidents. Thank you for shaking off the myth Weary, now perhaps you can get on with thinking about an actual first world solution that would work.

But you assume that the first world answer is to confiscate guns. Although this has been proven to work I don’t agree with you that it is the only answer and that we have to throw the .9% under the bus. Get with your fellow gun advocates/gun nuts/ ammos**uals/ gun enthusiasts/gun worshipers/ hunters/ weekend warriors and lets come up with laws and ideas that work.

The first step is the hardest Weary and shaking off that myth was the first step. Remember to focus on first world ideas.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 27, 2018 1:23 PM
Comment #427392

Weary I feel our work here on WB has opened a door! As a second step can you see your way clear to shake off the “all liberals want to confiscate our guns” myth? My thought is that if you could do that it could be a catalyst to coming up with better ideas on how to solve the problem. In fact maybe you could lead your fellow conservatives out of the darkness and into being able to think for themselves on this issue. Get rid of the NRA crap and lets get serous about solving the problem.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 27, 2018 1:28 PM
Comment #427395

I dont’ know where you got that. I guess delusion goes all ways. Why would you deny the people who protect themselves a means to do that?

I’ve witnessed the Democratic party, throughout my lifetime, say one thing and then when they get what they want, do another. It’s a common trait of liberals to lie and exaggerate to get what they want. Then when they get what they want they move the goalposts and rinse and repeat.

It’s time to try it the other way. It’s proven to work between 100,000 and 2 mil times a year.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 27, 2018 4:43 PM
Comment #427396

I have a first world solution for you to ponder, j2t2.

Let’s try taking weapons away from criminals!

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 27, 2018 4:45 PM
Comment #427415
I dont’ know where you got that. I guess delusion goes all ways. Why would you deny the people who protect themselves a means to do that?

Weary you accepted the .9% in order to make your previous comment, and I thought you had overcome your conservative movement brainwashing, all the alternative facts forced upon you by the movement propagandist, all the fake news you have endured from conservative media outlets, all the myths you take as gospel, all the misinformation you have been fed, all the half truths that have been used to sway you, and all the outright lies you have accepted as fact to get to the hate filled old man you have become. Of course I was wrong you went right back to all of that in your next comment.

Let’s try taking weapons away from criminals!

So Weary are you suggesting the 2nd amendment doesn’t apply to all Americans? That the 2nd amendment is not an inalienable god given right that can not be regulated? Anyway lets go with your comment a bit. How do we separate the criminals from those just waiting to be criminals? The latest shooter had no criminal record nor did his father. We can’t retroactively take guns away and expect to save lives. So how do we keep guns away from those that would use them for criminal activities.

In the good old days when machine guns were used for criminal activities they restricted them and it didn’t violate the 2nd amendment. Today we have the NRA half of the 2nd amendment 6that wouldn’t allow for such a thing to happen. SO enlighten me as to how you would accomplish this.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 28, 2018 10:46 AM
Comment #427418

You’ve just lost the debate, j2t2. You can have nothing to add if you resort to name calling

the hate filled old man you have become

and support criminals
So Weary are you suggesting the 2nd amendment doesn’t apply to all Americans?

I don’t know how it’s done on Tellar Prime, but there’s no longer any point in discussing this with you here on Earth.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 28, 2018 11:25 AM
Comment #427419
You’ve just lost the debate, j2t2. You can have nothing to add if you resort to name calling

Oh if the discussion was over when the first name was called what have we been doing the last hundred or so comments?

Posted by: j2t2 at May 28, 2018 1:26 PM
Comment #427420

This thread is 128 comments long and the first 28 comments contain no name calling. Again, you are wrong. Are you sure you’re not phx8?

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 28, 2018 1:55 PM
Comment #427421

Weary grasping at straws? Isn’t 125 or so close to 128?

Posted by: j2t2 at May 28, 2018 10:06 PM
Comment #427422

Are you trying to start another argument? Try backing up your assertion that criminals have a constitutional right to own firearms. You said it, now state your reasons for believing it, or do you? Did you say it simply to disagree, Mr. Tellarite, or are you going to back up what you say?

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 28, 2018 11:15 PM
Comment #427426

I would like to say thanks for share an interesting and informative post. keep posting ..
Free love astrology
Get my love back

Posted by: sonamsharma at May 29, 2018 5:16 AM
Comment #427432

Great, I like this photo very much

Posted by: Girl Vashikaran by hair at May 29, 2018 9:09 AM
Comment #427446

I wish I could watch j2t2’s head explode when he watches this!

https://youtu.be/FWJ62QBzpeI

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 29, 2018 4:59 PM
Comment #427482

Weary you are so lost in your misconceptions about others I’m surprised its not your head exploding when you babble like this.

I found the video to be interesting, at least the 2/3rds I watched of it, much better than the conservative propaganda we see most places today. Some of the gun owners actually had intelligent thoughts about the problem of mass killings. They give me hope we can find an answer to the problem of mass killings without taking away anyone’s rights or continuing the arms race.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 30, 2018 4:06 PM
Comment #427822

This post is really astounding one! I was delighted to read this, very much useful. Many thanks
Muslim Vashikaran Specialist

Posted by: ruhikhan at June 9, 2018 3:53 AM
Comment #428268

Reading your post is just like reading an official journal.
Intercast love marriage problem

Posted by: Love solution at June 22, 2018 7:13 AM
Comment #428272

Great Job, your post content Too short but Very well define and much effective.
Kala Jadu to Get Love Back for Love Attraction

Posted by: Rehana Malik at June 22, 2018 7:38 AM
Comment #430824

I am glad to see this brilliant post. all the details are awesome and good in this post.
How to Stop Extramarital Affairs Baba Ji

Posted by: vashilove at September 1, 2018 9:44 AM
Post a comment