I’ve been enjoying the long peace after the Vietnam War protestors took over. No more nonsensical wars in foreign nations for nebulous reasons. Its been great.
The cynical part comes from the concert quality stage that just happened to be where they were protesting at. The giant professional banners just fell from the sky like manna.
They couldn’t be bothered with the fact that they were killed by one of their fellow students. The problem is social violence. But that doesn’t fit the political narrative.
This was a political stunt that used students as stage props. Shame on those who were too chicken to speak for themselves at the event they manipulated and paid for.
All the children got out of this was training for future strip searches.
That’s part of the problem, sure. What the student survivors are calling attention to is that social violence enhanced by high-powered firearms is a lot more broadly destructive than social violence committed with fists, for example.
:dubious: How exactly could the protestors have engaged in a major demonstration involving hundreds of thousands of people and millions of dollars in donations in a way that your fastidious taste would have deemed sufficiently “authentic”? By individually hand-drawing a quarter-million signs with Magic Markers and posterboard on their dining-room tables?
If the students did something small, you would have sneered that they’re just a tiny bunch of angsty teens too insignificant to deserve national attention. When they do something big, you sneer that they’re just naive puppets being manipulated and exploited by “professionals”. Clearly, you have already made up your mind not to take them seriously no matter what they do.
Which is certainly your right, of course. All I ask of you on this issue is the same thing I ask of climate-science deniers: Make sure that your grandchildren hear your opinions. They’re the ones who are going to be inheriting these problems, and they are entitled to know where Gramps stood on them.
So if it was done by a truck then… what exactly?
The problem is the person who does the killing.
Stand on the steps of the capital with a $20 bullhorn.
This was a rally bought and paid for by a political party who used children to hide behind. It was a politically risk-free TV soundbite.
We need trucks. We don’t need guns.
Then that clearly illustrates why trucks and motor vehicles in general are required to be registered and inspected, their users tested and licensed, and their size and operation subject to lots of legal restrictions. The same should be true of firearms.
Sure, there are always going to be some people who misuse potentially dangerous machinery to deliberately hurt others, but that doesn’t mean that sensible laws to regulate the acquisition and use of potentially dangerous machinery aren’t worth having. If we controlled and monitored guns to the extent we control and monitor trucks and motor vehicles in general, that would definitely be a big step forward.
So you could then ignore them as being just a tiny insignificant fringe. Like I said, the kids can’t win whatever they do: if they go small you scoff at them for being unimportant, if they go big you whine about their being “used” as figureheads by larger organizations.
How many kids in a school building, or even outside of a school building, in America, have been killed by trucks?
Like, could you kill me from across the lunchroom with a truck?
America is not Australia. Gun control advocates can keep publicly crowing “we need to be like Australia, we need to be like Australia”, i.e. we need as close to total gun buybacks/confiscation as possible, and they can keep failing to get any legislation passed and they can keep failing to get elected and they can keep enabling people like Trump to win.
I’m not saying they can’t achieve some of their goals, but they need to be more suave about it.
None of that has any affect at all in the use of a vehicle to kill people. Absolutely nothing.
Agreed. You need gun bans not gun registration.
There’s nothing insignificant about a large number of people on the steps of the capital with a bullhorn. It’s not like they aren’t going to get TV coverage.
Bringing in a Hollywood stage with giant professional signs just proves it’s someone else’s protest using the children to front it.
No we don’t. the recent vehicle attacks around the world show the flaw in that reasoning.
Sure it does. If the murderer had been able to rent, say, a 16-wheeler and drive it anywhere he wanted, the damage would have been much worse. Restrictions on the use of dangerous machinery are well worth having even though they can’t prevent all misuse.
I agree, though, that maybe the driver licensing procedure ought to be more rigorous in terms of mental-stability background checks. But we certainly have the right idea (and so does Canada) in decreeing that operating this kind of dangerous machinery is a societally regulated privilege rather than an inalienable right in and of itself. The same ought to be true of firearms.
I doubt they are, but even if they are, what are you upset about? You don’t like people being able to fund a group that has a message they agree with? Is that your point? Weak sauce dude.
And again, I doubt they are. This is the kids’ own message.
No. You’re just employing Trump logic which is “hey look over there! There’s something over there!”
I’m getting the sense that you don’t quite understand what “a large number of people” means in the context of a mass demonstration. Addressing hundreds of thousands of people with a bullhorn from the Capitol steps isn’t really feasible.
You may not agree with those hundreds of thousands of people, but their anger and concern are real, as are those of the student organizers of the protest. Trying to pretend that their movement is all a fake because organizations and businesses as well as individuals were involved “professionally” in their mass protest doesn’t somehow make them not real.
No, the existence of one kind of dangerous machinery does not mean that there’s no point trying to control the impacts of another kind of dangerous machinery.
I personally agree with you, though, that wholesale gun bans are not the solution. Sensible regulation, along the lines of what we now require for motor vehicles, and ultimately the removal of firearms ownership as a constitutional right, are the solution. We don’t need to get rid of all guns in order to substantially diminish the widespread dangerous-wacko attitudes toward guns.
What the hell even is a “16-wheeler”, anyway? I meant to type “18-wheeler”.