News Us politics - read first post before comment

[Deleted member 41765]

Please keep these different skill sets seperate.

Please be coherent in your argument as I no longer understand what it is you are attempting to say.

 

[SaharaSon]

@SaharaSon You contradict yourself, if a teachers first job is to protect the child...

You have to distinguish between every adult's responsibility to protect children entrusted to their care as best they can and personnel specifically trained in security. You are being silly now, and are just trying to muddy the waters. I was logicly consistent. You just made a false interpretation/analogy. :D

Please be coherent in your argument as I no longer understand what it is you are attempting to say.[/Q...

I recommend you study my argument for a few days. You may eventually get it.:D

 

[LuckiLee]

I believe what he's saying is if teachers 1st responsibility is the children's safety they should put it in the correct hands. With security personnel.

I mean my g*d even Beyoncé has armed security. <sarcasm > kinda.

Have a good night.

 

[Deleted member 45988]

There will always be arguments for and against guns. I get that. Some people feel that because of the s...

I wish the media would ignore mass shootings. I feel like they give ideas to troubled people who maybe decide that they want to go out in a violent blaze or something or copy or try to outdo some shooting. I feel like, yeah, it's a fair criticism of conservatives that people get guns that shouldn't have them, but then the largely liberal media manages to make messed up celebrities of violent killers.

 

[Deleted member 541]

@Pokeyslow That’s like saying that because you read about a violent crime here, that you went out and committed the same crime. The news isn’t responsible for others actions. Every person on this earth is responsible for THEIR OWN actions.

The news agencies have the right to publish and air the news, and to suggest that they pick and choose what they should or shouldn’t do, is not in line with the first amendment. They have the right to do exactly what they do. Is it repetitive? Yes. But then again, isn’t all of it?????

 

[Deleted member 45988]

@Pokeyslow That’s like saying that because you read about a violent crime here, th...

I think the media has the right to air news about the most recent shooting. I just think there is something unique about shooters. Something like millions of people suddenly know the name of latest shooter and there is no other crime that can make an individual as suddenly infamous.

 

[Deleted member 541]

You can say that about any serious crime. Ted Bundy. Charles Manson.

 

[SaharaSon]

I think the media has the right to air news about the most recent shooting. I just think there is so...

Not just "shooting" terrorists Pokey, what about the ones that run down lots of people with vehicles, or bomb lots of people, or fly planes into buildings? Terrorism of any kind should not be sensationalized. Many journalists prostitute themselves for the almighty dollar and ratings. Many have no soul. Laws need to be instituted to limit the sensationalizing of terrorism by utterly corrupt journalists. They are inciting more terrorism and need to be held personally accountable. Just like one does not have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, there are limits to free speech. :D

 

[scout86]

I just think there is something unique about shooters.

I can't help but wonder if that's part of the problem. I don't have any data, but I don't think we have more guns, per capita, than we did say 100 years ago. We have more rules about who can own them and how they can get them. The system isn't perfect by any means, but there was a time in this country where there WAS no system. It seems like there are more of this very public mass shootings now than in the past. I've done a little research, it really does look like there's data to back that up. So, what's the cause? I can't help but wonder if the "Hey watch this!" dynamic that's fed by things like YouTube videos and "reality" TV isn't a factor. What's the motive for these shootings? In at least a couple of cases, I've heard that the shooter wanted fame and the highest body count. I'm not sure what we do about that, but isn't it worth considering?

What I keep seeing as the "profile" of a mass shooter is "young, male, angry, and disengaged from others". So, if you want attention and acclaim, and you can't get your needs met any other way....... If you take the gun away from a person like that, he's going to find other ways to get his needs met. Yes, it wouldn't be with a mass shooting, but it would still be bad. Even if he "just" rapes some girl who refuses to go out with him and kicks the dog, it would be bad. So wouldn't it make sense to try to head things off before they get that far?

"Conspiracy theories"......... I'll admit, I can be really fast to find rabbit holes & head down them. And I'm not sure I can tell what information out there is trustworthy and what's not. No, I take that back, my ex-husband was an awesomely good liar, I needed independent confirmation of the facts to tell with him, and that's probably true most of the time.

So, I haven't watched any of the videos that, it's been suggested, were faked, or actors, or what ever. Similar stories came out after Sandy Hook, & maybe in other situations as well. I know you can fake videos and hire actors. But, to pretend Sandy Hook never happened (as an example) I can't imagine what the point would be. And that's a HUGE conspiracy. Not only do you have to fake the families, you have to have law enforcement, funeral directors, cemeteries, clean up crews, politicians, emergency rooms, therapy dogs, and 60 Minutes all in on the story and tied up somehow. Seems like kind of a stretch, to me. It just does. And then I wonder who'd gain by that? Seriously, because there's been no impact on gun control, so I have a hard time believing it's anti-gun forces. What got fueled was the divisiveness and the intensity of the debate. Didn't really help either "side".

But, if we're going to go conspiracy theory, how about this. How about the Russians (or someone else) are behind some of the hoopla?

For the benefit of anyone who hasn't noticed, I think of myself as a liberal. (I usually describe my politics as a cross between Paul Wellstone and Jesse Ventura, when he was governor.) I had a lot of gun control conversations with my adopted, conservative brother. (He didn't want to seek therapy because he was sure "they" were going to take his guns. He was also pretty sure Obama wanted his guns, although he was a lot more measured pre-PTSD.) I always told him I didn't think he had to worry about Obama taking his guns. That brand of liberal is pretty live and let live, when it comes right down to it. They may have opinions and they may think they know best, but they aren't really that big on MAKING people live life to their standards. I told him what he had to watch out for was when the conservatives came for his guns because THEY would be serious. They're the ones who want to impose their standards on who you can marry and how you live your life. If they come for your guns, it's because the see you as a threat to them, and they'll mean it. (Remember, I said I like conspiracy theories. :D)

Meanwhile, I'm not sure any of this is going anywhere, Personally, I think background checks make sense, but that the information ought to be up to date and accurate. Maybe doing that is a big enough challenge for now. On the who can own what and when and how, side of things, I'd sure like to see a fact based discussion. (How many people here know that the "AR" in "AR 15" doesn't stand for "assault rifle"?) Stuff should be counted in or out based on what it does and doesn't do, not based on what it looks like. Separate topic, but, what ever we do, I'd sure like to see it actually thought out.

 

[Deleted member 45988]

Not just "shooting" terrorists Pokey, what about the ones that run down lots of people with vehicles,...

I just feel like all people tend to be hypocritical and freedom of speech in the press is more like freedom to agree with shared political inclinations of those in control and freedom to agree with currently socially acceptable beliefs or get ostracized for failing to agree.

With school shootings, I feel like liberal people, who make up the majority of media, see these things as opportunities to blame and accuse and punish their enemies, those evil pro-gun conservatives, and fail to realize, or at least take responsibility, for their part in the mess.

So, to me it's like conservatives make sure potential shooters can get guns, but then liberals really are the driving force in shootings by making celebrities of violent criminals. Like they are both ganging up to make some tragic social problem a reality, while neither is willing to take any sort of responsibility for their own behavior.

 

[Deleted member 541]

I don’t agree that liberals make shooters into celebrities. As with any horrific crime, it’s the nature of the news that drives the reporting, it’s the same for natural disasters, you see channel after channel reporting on the latest raging fire, hurricane, tornado, earthquake and all with loss of life. The news is repetitive and will continue until the next BIG news story.

I’ll agree that the conservatives allow you to get the guns though!!!!!!

 

[Anarchy]

I know you can fake videos and hire actors. But, to pretend Sandy Hook never happened (as an example) I can't imagine what the point would be.

I don't know that the conspiracy theorists are suggesting that no one got killed. Perhaps some are?

The main thrust seems to be that crisis actors were in place ready for the event to happen, with their lines for the media well rehearsed.

The majority of the population at sandyhook were living in a new development. It wasn't a long established community.

If the conspiracy theorists do have a point, it would have been relatively easy to put crisis actors in place there, and have them appear as part of that new community.

The most bizarre thing that I remember from the sandy hook coverage was the speeded up video of the crowd at the fire house.

In the official coverage, the crowd was supposed to be families going to be reunited with their children.

In the speeded up video, it shows a crowd that is circulating in one door, out of the other and back across the yard to the in door again, and again, and again, and again... WTF?

With the coward county shooting, YouTube seems to be having a very busy time deleting videos of people who saw a second shooter, why? Why the desperation for only one narrative?

There's also a big hole appeared in the official timeline.
Cruz (my keyboard corrects his name to "crazy" and "cruzbekistan"), a kid who is claimed to be on the autistic spectrum and unable to feed himself... got an uber ride to the school, with his gun disassembled in a bag. The time that he was dropped off is well constrained.

The time that the shooting started is fairly well constrained too. Two minutes after he got out of the taxi.

One of the teachers is now reporting that the shooter had full body armour and a gas mask on.

If it was Cruz, he's been ultra quick at kitting up, reassembling the gun and getting into the school. But with a mask and body armour on, how does anyone know that it was Cruz?


The theorists do have factual events to work from. Between the late 1960s to around 1990, terrorist attacks were staged across Europe. The deaths were real, including a former Italian prime minister.
Some perpetrators (patsies) were arrested for some of the events. some didn't make it to trial, some were thrown out of upper floor windows of police stations.

In 1990, it was revealed that the terrorism had been ordered via NATO headquarters. It was to discredit parties of the left, and to open the way for draconian restrictions on freedom.

Nothing moves in NATO without agreement from officials in DC and London.

DC has had its hands dirty already. It's only right that people are vigilant and question, and keep questioning.