Here’s how you know the media-driven debate over shootings is dishonest & performative. The person who says we should ban guns & confiscate AR-15s (not feasible) is praised while the person who says we should secure schools (feasible) is mocked.
11 comments
The person who says we should ban guns & confiscate AR-15s
Quit straw (gun)manning, ABS!
They’re saying that guns should be as regulated as, what, alcohol.
Right, because wanting a background check, maybe getting evaluated before owning a weapon that can shoot a large number of people quickly (or be used to kill yourself, as is often the case) is so unfeasible.
There have been 27 school shootings in the United States so far this year, according to NPR. The conversation about them is not media-driven; it's reality-driven: There is something dreadfully wrong in America.
So-called biblical values, as coming from the hypocrites who peddle them for political points, will not fix this sickness but will only make it worse. For one thing, their idea of biblical values is very narrow and doesn't include the entire text but rather just a few proof quotes to direct specifically at their political enemies. They have weaponized religion, even as they weaponize everything else.
These people aren't Quakers. They're not even fire and brimstone preachers. They are credulous, mean-spirited, and elected .
The fact these nutbars can achieve public office while openly holding beliefs so far fetched is frightening.
...well, a Conservative government thought it was more than feasible to ban guns in Britain post-Dunblane atrocity because so many voters of not only that party wrote lobbying letters to their MPs, including someone who did so to the then Labour MP for Hull East - John Prescott - in 1996:
Me.
I did my part in ensuring so many children since then grew up to bring forth the future of my country who were free to return home from school alive as is their basic human right so what's your excuse, A Lie...?!
Why is it not feasible? We banned semi-automatics after the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996, when some lunatic murdered 35 people including young children. As did the UK, then in New Zealand in 2019 after Christchurch. Meanwhile we all know how effective the school security at Uvalde wasn't. 😓
the person who says we should secure schools (feasible) is mocked.
Because the school in Uvaldi WAS secure. There was an on-site security group and the classrooms all had “Columbine doors” which could only be locked from the inside. Guess what? Said security group decided it wasn’t worth dying to stop the shooter and mulled around outside along with the local cops, and those secure doors were what prevented anyone from stopping the shooter for a full hour… Because he locked the doors from the inside before he started killing. THAT’S why suggestions on securing schools are being mocked; because you’re literally one step away from insisting everyone in the school should be armed “just in case”… Fox even fucking suggested that schools should start teaching CHILDREN how to fire guns, so they can have one to defend themselves. That’s where your bullshit gun obsession has gone…
“while the person who says we should secure schools (feasible) is mocked.”
No shit.
But then, the shooters still have guns, they’ll just go to supermarkets or concerts or parades or churches. Securing is kind of a weird solution to not doing a fucking thing about gun proliferation and limited resources for mental health issues.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
