The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

....could not stop a single bad teenager with a gun.

Now we have all of these trained police officers who were apparently terrified to confront an teenage boy armed with a AR-15. But wait, now they want to arm teachers to confront these people....now what can what go wrong with that.

But where was Trump when you need him....

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump, who’s been highly critical of the law enforcement response to the Florida school shootings, says he would have rushed in, unarmed, if he’d been there.

Speaking to a roomful of governors at the White House, Trump said Monday, “You don’t know until you’re tested, but I think I really believe I’d run in there even if I didn’t have a weapon, and I think most of the people in this room would have done that, too.”

If only there were more people with guns in this country, children wouldn't be dying by the dozens. If only there was a good guy there with a gun it never would have happened.

At least that's what Republicans keep telling us.

Are you gonna tell me they don't know what the fuck they are talking about?


And now the NRA gun rights organization has a meeting where nobody attending is allowed their right to carry a gun. And why? Because they realize guns are far too dangerous to have around when you have a room full of angry old white men grunting in brotherhood. The proper place for guns is at country western bars, biker rallies, and teachers' desks. Oh, and of course Republican political rallies and protests. There always seems to be some counter protester there who needs some serious learnin' under threat of death.

So we should turn in our guns and the police will protect us? Good thread.

Many countries highly restrict firearm ownership and some even ban firearms outright. And they have significantly lower rates of gun violence.

That being said, I don't have any issues with people possessing rifles for hunting or concealed carry permits for pistols. Allowing the general populous to possess military type weaponry is a really bad idea.

The cops have now admitted that they stood idly by for 78 minutes before nailing that lunatic in Uvalde.

I generally support cops (tough job, low pay), but if they lacked the courage to protect kids they should have given pistols to parents (and any vets near) and let them take out the wacko Ramos.

"So we should turn in our guns and the police will protect us? Good thread."-brandon

That sounds clever, but you forget that if you turned in all your guns, there would be no need to be protected from guns by police, would there.

The extent to which you need to be protected from guns in directly related to how many guns are out there. Fewer guns per capita, fewer gun deaths per capita. It's pretty much that simple.

Look at this chart: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... emic-chart
Look where gun deaths per capita stand in the U.S. compared to every other country. Have more guns in the U.S. made us any safer over the past 40 years? (That's a simple "yes" or "no" anyone can answer.) Do you honestly think getting even more guns into the population will make you one bit safer?

"Other countries have responded aggressively to their own gun problems with success. In Scotland, after a similar school shooting in 1996, lawmakers banned private ownership of handguns and automatic weapons. There haven’t been any school shootings since. And in dealing with its own gun violence problems in the 1990s, Australia took and destroyed roughly 650,000 guns from private citizens as part of a buyback program. Rates of gun homicides and suicides plummeted."-VOX (In other words, people were actually safer, unlike what has happened in the U.S.)


Instead of merely being flip about it, think about what is going to happen when even more people are armed. There is a direct link between the number of guns and the number of gun deaths and incidence of gun violence.

If gun rules worked, Chicago would be quiet this weekend.

Instead, the hills -- the concrete canyons of Chicago -- are alive with the sound of gunfire.

Nonsense, johnny, "gun rules" have worked in many countries, dummy.

I gave you some of them already.

Your vocal contempt for the law and your refusal to obey the law is not an excuse not to make rules about guns. Just the opposite.

Simply saying YOU won't obey the law is not a reason for the rest of us not to make laws to protect ourselves from you and your ilk.

"At least 40 people were shot and 6 were killed in #Chicago over #MemorialDayWeekend, said police."

And Chicago has the strictest gun rules in America.

I'm proud of johnforbes coming right out and admitting that Chicago's gun rules aren't strict enough.

Sadly, they are only as strict as Republicans will allow. And every time Democrats pass effective rules that work in other countries, Republicans stop them with lawsuits to repeal them.

If Chicago's strict gun laws worked, then Chicago would not be awash in violence.

But it is.

"If Chicago's strict gun laws worked, then Chicago would not be awash in violence."-johnflubs

Again, I am surprised to see johnforbes assert that Chicago's so-called 'strict' gun laws are insufficient to curb gun violence. I agree.

But when Democrats propose banning the most egregiously unnecessary types of weapons or taking guns away from criminals or mentally unstable people, the NRA and Republicans step in and stop it in the name of "freedom" and the Second Amendment.

So the criminals are armed to the teeth at their Republican gun shop that enthusiastically sells them yet another weapon and high capacity magazine. They aren't even forced by the Federal Government to do a meaningful background check.

52 shot, 10 dead in Chicago this weekend.

This despite the country's toughest gun rules.

Yes, johnny, we understand---the Chicago gun laws are not strict enough.

You've convinced us.

"9 killed in 14 mass shootings over holiday weekend: watchdog"-The Hill
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing ... -watchdog/

And dishonestjohnforbes still insists guns have nothing to do with it.

14 in three days...unbelievable. But johnny knows he can't blame Democrats for it. They keep trying to act. Republicans merely obstruct any attempts they make. The Republican plan is to send "thoughts and prayers" to the victims.

Thanks for nothin.

You know some 11 year old girl had to go and smear one of her classmates blood over her and to play dead so she wouldn't get shot. And the Republicans want everybody to believe that the problem is with the doors and police response. So now we are debating if guns are more important than the lives of our children? Just thinking about it is going to make my head explode. No wonder why the rest of the world thinks we have gone batshit nuts.....

Fentanyl kills far more than firearms.

A drunk driver like Pelosi's husband is as dangerous statistically, and far more common.

"Fentanyl kills far more than firearms."-johnflubs

Well then by all means we should just casually accept all those tens of thousands of Fentanyl deaths just as johnforbes wants us to accept all those gun deaths.

But johnforbes has no problem at all with laws making a mass killer like Fentanyl illegal.

Or is johnny trying to say he believes Fentanyl should be legal the same way guns are legal?

If only he would give us his thoughts on an issue so we would know what he's trying to say with this irrelevant red herring of his.

Clowntoker seems to fancy himself capable of giving my thoughts, but he isn't.

I'm against illegal drugs, and believe people would often be better off if they used less legal ones.

As evidence, just take a gander at any of the many posts Clownslacker has made while stoned.

johnny, you believe gun laws won't curb gun shootings, so why do you think drug laws will curb drug deaths?

You claim you're against Fentanyl, but you're FOR gun deaths that are inevitable and increase with the number of guns in the hands of the public, as proven by the past 40 years.

But I forgot. You still have all the same beliefs and ideas you had as a child 40 years ago.

Grow up and grow out of your nonsensical partisan hypocrisy, johnny.

Clown may think he can skate by because it is Gay Pride Month and we are respecting his dark, deviant, demented deeds, but the simple truth is:

"If Guns are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have Guns"

If Fidel Casto's son Trudreau gets his way, law-abiding Canadians won't have guns with crooks will.

And if drugs are outlawed, only outlaws will have drugs.

But for some reason you still support outlawing drugs.

So what's your point? Your irrational partisan hypocrisy is staggering.

"If Guns are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have Guns"

If Fidel Casto's son Trudreau gets his way, law-abiding Canadians won't have guns with crooks will.

And if drugs are outlawed, only outlaws will have drugs.

But for some reason you still support outlawing drugs.

So what's your point? You seem to have overlooked answering that salient question. Try again, johnny.

The point is obvious -- criminals don't care about, or adhere to, gun rules or other laws.

There was a so-called "assault weapon ban" for a decade, but it did nothing to lessen the problem.

"The point is obvious -- criminals don't care about, or adhere to, gun rules or other laws."-johnfoibles

The trouble is, most of the mass shootings are not perpetrated by "criminals." They have no criminal records. So your 'point' does not address the issue of mass shootings and what should be done about them. In other words, your simplistic and meaningoless slogan is irrelevant.

Your position of "We shouldn't do anything about mass shootings because mass shooters have a right to own guns" is ridiculous. We shouldn't resign ourselves to being the victims of gun nuts as you are telling us we should. We shouldn't resign ourselves to having fortress grade schools without doors or windows, and with armed teachers to protect our children. You pretend to be so worried about the effect of COVID rules on children, but you are just fine with the PTSD, depression, and suicide many children have been facing for years because of your insane gun policies.

Well, technically, anybody who commits a crime is a criminal.

Semantics aside, criminals and psychopaths are not affected by gun restrictions.

I don't ever remember an individual ever committing a mass murder with a knife or fists in the United States. Mass murders used assault rifles to commit their crimes............

Like most leftists, you don't know what an "assault rifle" is.