Another mass shooting in the US

[Fonz]

The frustration of it all... he's not wrong, though. As others said, if nothing substantial was done after Sandy Hook, will things ever change?

https://twitter.com/MikeSington/status/

It’s to late, ban guns and a civil war/martial law might be the only outcome.
Just saw the post from Kawasaki above, the tweet from Eileen conly said it all , these laws exist but nobody wants them because “ my freedom “

Look at the political spectrum, most of the republican’ new generation are closer to David Duke’s views than Ronald Reagan.

Civil war/strife incoming?
I'm sticking to my prediction of something along the lines of Spanish civil war.

Lots of people are saying this sort of thing nowadays, but I don't expect anything quite that spectacular. I think it's much more likely we slowly morph into an English-speaking Brazil with uglier women and shittier weather.

[fishfoodie]

Look at the political spectrum, most of the republican’ new generation are closer to David Duke’s views than Ronald Reagan’s.

For the record Reagan was racist. Caught on tape calling Africans "monkeys" in a telephone conversation with Nixon. Opposed MLK getting a national holiday, opposed sanctions against South Africa, popularised the dog whistle "welfare queen" trope in the 70s, against affirmative action, opposed civil rights.

The worst type of racist infact, one that tries to hide it with spurious justifications.

Hardly a surprise; he was an, "actor", who informed on dozens of people in Hollywood he considered Commies, to McCarthy.

Like Wayne, he never served during WW II, & pricks still felt entitled to question other people, who did serve's Patriotism

[Fonz]

Look at the political spectrum, most of the republican’ new generation are closer to David Duke’s views than Ronald Reagan’s.

For the record Reagan was racist. Caught on tape calling Africans "monkeys" in a telephone conversation with Nixon. Opposed MLK getting a national holiday, opposed sanctions against South Africa, popularised the dog whistle "welfare queen" trope in the 70s, against affirmative action, opposed civil rights.

The worst type of racist infact, one that tries to hide it with spurious justifications.

Hardly a surprise; he was an, "actor", who informed on dozens of people in Hollywood he considered Commies, to McCarthy.

Like Wayne, he never served during WW II, & pricks still felt entitled to question other people, who did serve's Patriotism

Woah woah woah, we'll have none of that John Wayne slander here...for the record:

Wayne was exempted from service due to his age (34 at the time of Pearl Harbor) and family status (classified as 3-A – family deferment). Wayne repeatedly wrote to John Ford saying he wanted to enlist, on one occasion inquiring whether he could get into Ford's military unit.[39] Wayne did not attempt to prevent his reclassification as 1-A (draft eligible), but Republic Studios was emphatically resistant to losing him, since he was their only A-list actor under contract. Herbert J. Yates, president of Republic, threatened Wayne with a lawsuit if he walked away from his contract,[40] and Republic Pictures intervened in the Selective Service process, requesting Wayne's further deferment.[41]

U.S. National Archives records indicate that Wayne, in fact, did make an application[42] to serve in the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), precursor to the modern CIA, and had been accepted within the U.S. Army's allotted billet to the OSS. William J. Donovan, OSS commander, wrote Wayne a letter informing him of his acceptance into the Field Photographic Unit as a special forces commando, but the letter went to his estranged wife Josephine's home. She never told him about it.

[Niegs]

Woah woah woah, we'll have none of that John Wayne slander here...for the record:

Wayne was exempted from service due to his age (34 at the time of Pearl Harbor) and family status (classified as 3-A – family deferment). Wayne repeatedly wrote to John Ford saying he wanted to enlist, on one occasion inquiring whether he could get into Ford's military unit.[39] Wayne did not attempt to prevent his reclassification as 1-A (draft eligible), but Republic Studios was emphatically resistant to losing him, since he was their only A-list actor under contract. Herbert J. Yates, president of Republic, threatened Wayne with a lawsuit if he walked away from his contract,[40] and Republic Pictures intervened in the Selective Service process, requesting Wayne's further deferment.[41]

U.S. National Archives records indicate that Wayne, in fact, did make an application[42] to serve in the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), precursor to the modern CIA, and had been accepted within the U.S. Army's allotted billet to the OSS. William J. Donovan, OSS commander, wrote Wayne a letter informing him of his acceptance into the Field Photographic Unit as a special forces commando, but the letter went to his estranged wife Josephine's home. She never told him about it.

Hmm ... didn't stop Jimmy Stewart or Clark Gable or Henry Fonda when bosses tried to keep them out of action. Lew Ayres, in a way, went to greater lengths to serve despite not wanting to 'fight'.

[average joe]

Almost everyone was racist sexist bigots back then. It was the in thing to be. If we're going to judge dead people on stuff that was a norm 50 years ago, we'll be hard pressed finding historical role models.

[Gumboot]

Almost everyone was racist sexist bigots back then. It was the in thing to be. If we're going to judge dead people on stuff that was a norm 50 years ago, we'll be hard pressed finding historical role models.

"Everyone" as in everyone everywhere in the world, or as in every white person in South Africa?

[laurent]

Almost everyone was racist sexist bigots back then. It was the in thing to be. If we're going to judge dead people on stuff that was a norm 50 years ago, we'll be hard pressed finding historical role models.

"Everyone" as in everyone everywhere in the world, or as in every white person in South Africa?

To be clear the US was still segregated in large extents.

[FalseBayFC]

Almost everyone was racist sexist bigots back then. It was the in thing to be. If we're going to judge dead people on stuff that was a norm 50 years ago, we'll be hard pressed finding historical role models.

"Everyone" as in everyone everywhere in the world, or as in every white person in South Africa?

1972 I would say most white people around the world would held views or exhibited behaviour that was problematic by todays standards. TV shows were full of casual racism, homophobia and sexism. Institutional racism was practiced in NZ, Canada, Aus and the US. And of course South Africa were way out in front. I don't think AF is too far off with his assertion there.

[JM2K6]

Nah, Reagan was particularly bad for it, in both words and deeds, even for the standards of American politicians at the time. Certainly by the standards of who came before and after him. He was pretty hardline on race. GWH Bush was hardly a poster boy for equal rights but even the guy who campaigned on the Willy Horton ad was a mile better than Reagan. And Reagan followed Carter, who was basically a civil rights hero. Carter followed Gerald Ford, who worked pretty hard to break down racial discrimination.

Plus plenty of segregationists actually became more understanding as they grew older, and apologised for what they'd said and done. Reagan was proud of it though.

It's a bit like the argument about one of my favourite horror writers, H.P. Lovecraft. Ole' HP was a massive racist. "So was everyone else back then!" they cry. Well, yes and no. There were more racists and more overt racism. But even by the standards of the day, Lovecraft was pretty fucking awful.

[Marylandolorian]

It’s to late, ban guns and a civil war/martial law might be the only outcome.
Just saw the post from Kawasaki above, the tweet from Eileen conly said it all , these laws exist but nobody wants them because “ my freedom “

Look at the political spectrum, most of the republican’ new generation are closer to David Duke’s views than Ronald Reagan.

Civil war/strife incoming?
I'm sticking to my prediction of something along the lines of Spanish civil war.

Lots of people are saying this sort of thing nowadays, but I don't expect anything quite that spectacular. I think it's much more likely we slowly morph into an English-speaking Brazil with uglier women and shittier weather.

Keul as you say. You mean that it’ll be to dangerous stop at the red lights?

I’m not as optimistic as you are, it’s a lot of hate all over the places now.

[Marylandolorian]

Look at the political spectrum, most of the republican’ new generation are closer to David Duke’s views than Ronald Reagan’s.

For the record Reagan was racist. Caught on tape calling Africans "monkeys" in a telephone conversation with Nixon. Opposed MLK getting a national holiday, opposed sanctions against South Africa, popularised the dog whistle "welfare queen" trope in the 70s, against affirmative action, opposed civil rights.

The worst type of racist infact, one that tries to hide it with spurious justifications.

Yeah yeah, we know that. Read what I wrote, I didn’t say Reagan was great, I just pointed that the Reps are going even more extreme now.

[average joe]

Nah, Reagan was particularly bad for it, in both words and deeds, even for the standards of American politicians at the time. Certainly by the standards of who came before and after him. He was pretty hardline on race. GWH Bush was hardly a poster boy for equal rights but even the guy who campaigned on the Willy Horton ad was a mile better than Reagan. And Reagan followed Carter, who was basically a civil rights hero. Carter followed Gerald Ford, who worked pretty hard to break down racial discrimination.

Plus plenty of segregationists actually became more understanding as they grew older, and apologised for what they'd said and done. Reagan was proud of it though.

It's a bit like the argument about one of my favourite horror writers, H.P. Lovecraft. Ole' HP was a massive racist. "So was everyone else back then!" they cry. Well, yes and no. There were more racists and more overt racism. But even by the standards of the day, Lovecraft was pretty fucking awful.

Or he was just more honest about it.

[Gumboot]

Almost everyone was racist sexist bigots back then. It was the in thing to be. If we're going to judge dead people on stuff that was a norm 50 years ago, we'll be hard pressed finding historical role models.

"Everyone" as in everyone everywhere in the world, or as in every white person in South Africa?

To be clear the US was still segregated in large extents.

Which is why the Civil Rights Act was passed...58 years ago.

[JM2K6]

Nah, Reagan was particularly bad for it, in both words and deeds, even for the standards of American politicians at the time. Certainly by the standards of who came before and after him. He was pretty hardline on race. GWH Bush was hardly a poster boy for equal rights but even the guy who campaigned on the Willy Horton ad was a mile better than Reagan. And Reagan followed Carter, who was basically a civil rights hero. Carter followed Gerald Ford, who worked pretty hard to break down racial discrimination.

Plus plenty of segregationists actually became more understanding as they grew older, and apologised for what they'd said and done. Reagan was proud of it though.

It's a bit like the argument about one of my favourite horror writers, H.P. Lovecraft. Ole' HP was a massive racist. "So was everyone else back then!" they cry. Well, yes and no. There were more racists and more overt racism. But even by the standards of the day, Lovecraft was pretty fucking awful.

Or he was just more honest about it.

He was honestly more of a racist and by the standards of other people in his position he was fucking awful. Sorry.

[Fonz]

Civil war/strife incoming?
I'm sticking to my prediction of something along the lines of Spanish civil war.

Lots of people are saying this sort of thing nowadays, but I don't expect anything quite that spectacular. I think it's much more likely we slowly morph into an English-speaking Brazil with uglier women and shittier weather.

Keul as you say. You mean that it’ll be to dangerous stop at the red lights?

I’m not as optimistic as you are, it’s a lot of hate all over the places now.

It's kewl, for the record. And while I don't think it's truly dangerous not to, I can think of a fair few places where not stopping at red lights after dark probably passes a basic cost-benefit analysis.

I did an effortpoast on the bored a little while back on the subject, maybe I'll dig it up later.

[average joe]

Nah, Reagan was particularly bad for it, in both words and deeds, even for the standards of American politicians at the time. Certainly by the standards of who came before and after him. He was pretty hardline on race. GWH Bush was hardly a poster boy for equal rights but even the guy who campaigned on the Willy Horton ad was a mile better than Reagan. And Reagan followed Carter, who was basically a civil rights hero. Carter followed Gerald Ford, who worked pretty hard to break down racial discrimination.

Plus plenty of segregationists actually became more understanding as they grew older, and apologised for what they'd said and done. Reagan was proud of it though.

It's a bit like the argument about one of my favourite horror writers, H.P. Lovecraft. Ole' HP was a massive racist. "So was everyone else back then!" they cry. Well, yes and no. There were more racists and more overt racism. But even by the standards of the day, Lovecraft was pretty fucking awful.

Or he was just more honest about it.

He was honestly more of a racist and by the standards of other people in his position he was fucking awful. Sorry.

So what level of racism would be acceptable to you? I never thought one could apply a Dante's inferno type of understanding on racism. My understanding is you're either a racist or you're not.

[JM2K6]

Of course there's varying degrees of prejudice, kinda mad to think otherwise.

[Rinkals]

Or he was just more honest about it.

He was honestly more of a racist and by the standards of other people in his position he was fucking awful. Sorry.

So what level of racism would be acceptable to you? I never thought one could apply a Dante's inferno type of understanding on racism. My understanding is you're either a racist or you're not.

Can you seriously look at a person and judge if they are black or white? Apart from the obvious extremes of course.

Don't you remember the 'pancil test'? I'll remind you: in order to judge whether a person was black or white, a pencil was inserted into their hair. If it fell out, you were white.

I'm pretty sure that Connie Mulder would have failed that test. What about Damian de Allende? wasn't he deemed coloured for representative purposes against his own protestations?

The point is that racial distinctions are largely contrived and anyone who isn't racist recognises that.

[average joe]

Of course there's varying degrees of prejudice, kinda mad to think otherwise.

Of course yes, but your degrees of prejudice does not make you any less or more a racist. If you only whisper your prejudice to your partner in the confines of your room or you broadcast it on national radio, you're still just a racist. If you only hate black people that comes from a certain part of Africa or anyone with different coloured skin, you're still just a racist.

[average joe]

He was honestly more of a racist and by the standards of other people in his position he was fucking awful. Sorry.

So what level of racism would be acceptable to you? I never thought one could apply a Dante's inferno type of understanding on racism. My understanding is you're either a racist or you're not.

Can you seriously look at a person and judge if they are black or white? Apart from the obvious extremes of course.

Don't you remember the 'pancil test'? I'll remind you: in order to judge whether a person was black or white, a pencil was inserted into their hair. If it fell out, you were white.

I'm pretty sure that Connie Mulder would have failed that test. What about Damian de Allende? wasn't he deemed coloured for representative purposes against his own protestations?

The point is that racial distinctions are largely contrived and anyone who isn't racist recognises that.

I don't know what you're on about. It's nether here nor there and this is way I choose not to engage with you on anything.

[sockwithaticket]

There are degrees of racism. Someone who believes in and perhaps voices derogatory stereotypes about a race is a little different from someone who specifically won't hire people of a certain race or, as we've seen in the recent incident, goes on a murderous rampage because they believe in replacement theory. In a binary test of 'are each of these 3 people racist?' the answer is obviously yes, but it has manifestations that differ in severity and impact.

[Tilly Orifice]

Of course there's varying degrees of prejudice, kinda mad to think otherwise.

Of course yes, but your degrees of prejudice does not make you any less or more a racist. If you only whisper your prejudice to your partner in the confines of your room or you broadcast it on national radio, you're still just a racist. If you only hate black people that comes from a certain part of Africa or anyone with different coloured skin, you're still just a racist.

If you adopt a condescending attitude toward black people, and make sure to offer them a bit more help and supervision at work; are you as racist as a bloke who enjoys a good lynching?

[JM2K6]

Of course there's varying degrees of prejudice, kinda mad to think otherwise.

Of course yes, but your degrees of prejudice does not make you any less or more a racist. If you only whisper your prejudice to your partner in the confines of your room or you broadcast it on national radio, you're still just a racist. If you only hate black people that comes from a certain part of Africa or anyone with different coloured skin, you're still just a racist.

That's fine. The point is that levels of racism don't mean they're not racists. Yes, they're all racists. But the guy who only hires white people without consciously recognising that that's what he's doing is probably less prejudiced than the old woman who fears being around black people because she's been fed a diet of nightmare stories by the right wing media who is probably less prejudiced than the guy who believes black people are inferior to white people and actively works to cause them harm...

Sure, they're all racist in some way. But it's daft to pretend there isn't a difference between, say, Stephen Miller and Ron Atkinson.

[average joe]

Of course there's varying degrees of prejudice, kinda mad to think otherwise.

Of course yes, but your degrees of prejudice does not make you any less or more a racist. If you only whisper your prejudice to your partner in the confines of your room or you broadcast it on national radio, you're still just a racist. If you only hate black people that comes from a certain part of Africa or anyone with different coloured skin, you're still just a racist.

That's fine. The point is that levels of racism don't mean they're not racists. Yes, they're all racists. But the guy who only hires white people without consciously recognising that that's what he's doing is probably less prejudiced than the old woman who fears being around black people because she's been fed a diet of nightmare stories by the right wing media who is probably less prejudiced than the guy who believes black people are inferior to white people and actively works to cause them harm...

Sure, they're all racist in some way. But it's daft to pretend there isn't a difference between, say, Stephen Miller and Ron Atkinson.

So that brings me back to my question. What level of racism is acceptable to you?

[JM2K6]

Of course yes, but your degrees of prejudice does not make you any less or more a racist. If you only whisper your prejudice to your partner in the confines of your room or you broadcast it on national radio, you're still just a racist. If you only hate black people that comes from a certain part of Africa or anyone with different coloured skin, you're still just a racist.

That's fine. The point is that levels of racism don't mean they're not racists. Yes, they're all racists. But the guy who only hires white people without consciously recognising that that's what he's doing is probably less prejudiced than the old woman who fears being around black people because she's been fed a diet of nightmare stories by the right wing media who is probably less prejudiced than the guy who believes black people are inferior to white people and actively works to cause them harm...

Sure, they're all racist in some way. But it's daft to pretend there isn't a difference between, say, Stephen Miller and Ron Atkinson.

So that brings me back to my question. What level of racism is acceptable to you?

What a weird non-sequitor of a question. What does this have to do with Reagan being quite a bit more racist than many of his contempories and with you trying to make out everyone was the same, when a cursory understanding of the line of US presidents shows that was not true at all?

I have no real idea what level of racism is "acceptable" to me. I'd have to define acceptable, which can mean all kinds of things. I'd have to define "levels", which seems pretty pointless after everything I just wrote. And I'd essentially have to take every situation on a case-by-case basis, as you'd expect. And I'm certainly not willing to do any of that for the sake of jumping through hoops for someone who seems to be arguing in bad faith.

And hey, guess what? Even I thought all racism was acceptable, and in fact wanted all black people to be shot into the sun, it still wouldn't make Reagan comparable to his peers.

[weegie01]

If you adopt a condescending attitude toward black people, and make sure to offer them a bit more help and supervision at work; are you as racist as a bloke who enjoys a good lynching?

New to South Africa, my first visit to Soweto was in the company of a wealthy couple white couple who did a great deal of charity work there. Shortly afterwards, they won an important award for their work.

It was only later that I realised that they were amongst the most racist people I knew. As you allude to above, their fundamental belief was that the black population was less able than the white, so needed help and support. It was the most classic manifestation of white saviour complex I had seen up to that point.

[inactionman]

Of course yes, but your degrees of prejudice does not make you any less or more a racist. If you only whisper your prejudice to your partner in the confines of your room or you broadcast it on national radio, you're still just a racist. If you only hate black people that comes from a certain part of Africa or anyone with different coloured skin, you're still just a racist.

That's fine. The point is that levels of racism don't mean they're not racists. Yes, they're all racists. But the guy who only hires white people without consciously recognising that that's what he's doing is probably less prejudiced than the old woman who fears being around black people because she's been fed a diet of nightmare stories by the right wing media who is probably less prejudiced than the guy who believes black people are inferior to white people and actively works to cause them harm...

Sure, they're all racist in some way. But it's daft to pretend there isn't a difference between, say, Stephen Miller and Ron Atkinson.

So that brings me back to my question. What level of racism is acceptable to you?

I'm not sure if it's ever acceptable, but some persons and acts are certainly more contemptible than others.

Strangely - as ignorance is one of the things that usually gets me disproportionately riled - I've more tolerance for racists whose racism is caused mainly by ignorance than those who have had ample opportunity to address their prejudice but don't have the character to do so. I'm wondering how many times Ron Atkinson had his prejudice challenged in his daily life (clearly not enough) - is he irredeemably racist or someone who simply needs educating? One of the most unsavoury aspects of Trump's dogwhistling, for example, is the degree of cynical calculation. I've a degree of sympathy for the poorly educated person who falls for the dogwhistle. Yes, Trump is playing on latent racism but he's embedding it rather than dismantling it, and it's yet another reason to hold him in contempt. I say all this to make the laboured point that some racists just seem to have prejudice dripping from every pore of the body, others just seem to be, well, a bit gullible, but this at least gives us a chance to address their ignorance.

[Line6 HXFX]

That's fine. The point is that levels of racism don't mean they're not racists. Yes, they're all racists. But the guy who only hires white people without consciously recognising that that's what he's doing is probably less prejudiced than the old woman who fears being around black people because she's been fed a diet of nightmare stories by the right wing media who is probably less prejudiced than the guy who believes black people are inferior to white people and actively works to cause them harm...

Sure, they're all racist in some way. But it's daft to pretend there isn't a difference between, say, Stephen Miller and Ron Atkinson.

So that brings me back to my question. What level of racism is acceptable to you?

I'm not sure if it's ever acceptable, but some persons and acts are certainly more contemptible than others.

Strangely - as ignorance is one of the things that usually gets me disproportionately riled - I've more tolerance for racists whose racism is caused mainly by ignorance than those who have had ample opportunity to address their prejudice but don't have the character to do so. I'm wondering how many times Ron Atkinson had his prejudice challenged in his daily life (clearly not enough) - is he irredeemably racist or someone who simply needs educating? One of the most unsavoury aspects of Trump's dogwhistling, for example, is the degree of cynical calculation. I've a degree of sympathy for the poorly educated person who falls for the dogwhistle. Yes, Trump is playing on latent racism but he's embedding it rather than dismantling it, and it's yet another reason to hold him in contempt. I say all this to make the laboured point that some racists just seem to have prejudice dripping from every pore of the body, others just seem to be, well, a bit gullible, but this at least gives us a chance to address their ignorance.

Yeah, but you know, how do you go through life being "innocently" ignorant, or ignorantly racist? If I turned up to the office or workplace and was all racist, I would be on a HR course on racial diversity in 3 seconds flat. I don't believe you can innocently or ignorantly hate anyone. Trump supporters
largely came from the educated middle classes, who have self serving contempt for anyone not like them.it serves them to have contempt for different groups of people, so they do. Self serving contempt goes way beyond "innocent" hatred.

[Marylandolorian]

You are so wrong, Trump supporters largely are the least educated lower middle classes.

[Tilly Orifice]

So that brings me back to my question. What level of racism is acceptable to you?

I'm not sure if it's ever acceptable, but some persons and acts are certainly more contemptible than others.

Strangely - as ignorance is one of the things that usually gets me disproportionately riled - I've more tolerance for racists whose racism is caused mainly by ignorance than those who have had ample opportunity to address their prejudice but don't have the character to do so. I'm wondering how many times Ron Atkinson had his prejudice challenged in his daily life (clearly not enough) - is he irredeemably racist or someone who simply needs educating? One of the most unsavoury aspects of Trump's dogwhistling, for example, is the degree of cynical calculation. I've a degree of sympathy for the poorly educated person who falls for the dogwhistle. Yes, Trump is playing on latent racism but he's embedding it rather than dismantling it, and it's yet another reason to hold him in contempt. I say all this to make the laboured point that some racists just seem to have prejudice dripping from every pore of the body, others just seem to be, well, a bit gullible, but this at least gives us a chance to address their ignorance.

Yeah, but you know, how do you go through life being "innocently" ignorant, or ignorantly racist? If I turned up to the office or workplace and was all racist, I would be on a HR course on racial diversity in 3 seconds flat. I don't believe you can innocently or ignorantly hate anyone. Trump supporters
largely came from the educated middle classes, who have self serving contempt for anyone not like them.it serves them to have contempt for different groups of people, so they do. Self serving contempt goes way beyond "innocent" hatred.

You're unnecessarily confounding racism and hatred.

[robmatic]

Yeah, but you know, how do you go through life being "innocently" ignorant, or ignorantly racist? If I turned up to the office or workplace and was all racist, I would be on a HR course on racial diversity in 3 seconds flat. I don't believe you can innocently or ignorantly hate anyone. Trump supporters
largely came from the educated middle classes, who have self serving contempt for anyone not like them.it serves them to have contempt for different groups of people, so they do. Self serving contempt goes way beyond "innocent" hatred.

I have a bit more sympathy for the ignorant because I only learned this week that the phrases 'people of colour' and 'coloured people' are not the same and in fact one of them is a massively racist slur.

[Slick]

Yeah, but you know, how do you go through life being "innocently" ignorant, or ignorantly racist? If I turned up to the office or workplace and was all racist, I would be on a HR course on racial diversity in 3 seconds flat. I don't believe you can innocently or ignorantly hate anyone. Trump supporters
largely came from the educated middle classes, who have self serving contempt for anyone not like them.it serves them to have contempt for different groups of people, so they do. Self serving contempt goes way beyond "innocent" hatred.

I have a bit more sympathy for the ignorant because I only learned this week that the phrases 'people of colour' and 'coloured people' are not the same and in fact one of them is a massively racist slur.

Except in some places where it's the other way round. It's tough, don't be hard on yourself.

[fishfoodie]

Here we go again

Texas, 18 yo Incel, 14 dead children, & a dead teacher..


Lets start giving guns to 5 years olds, it's the only possible solution

[sefton]

Here we go again

Texas, 18 yo Incel, 14 dead children, & a dead teacher..


Lets start giving guns to 5 years olds, it's the only possible solution

When I saw that pop up on my phone it just left me speechless.

[Wyndham Upalot]

Land of the free, and right to bear arms, stupid cunts don't learn, RIP those innocent kids and people. It won't change because ... dollar signs dominate. Thank fuck I have the mobility and freedom that those poor bastards didn't. Love visiting the US, fuck living there.

[Slick]

Here we go again

Texas, 18 yo Incel, 14 dead children, & a dead teacher..


Lets start giving guns to 5 years olds, it's the only possible solution

Primary school.

Genuinely upset by this. Speech from the President incoming. Nothing will change. What a fucked up situation.

[Gumboot]

[Kawazaki]

[fishfoodie]

Biden needs to come in & announce a plan to take the GOP template for allowing individual citizens to sue abortion providers, & make it a Federal law to allow individuals to sue gun brokers, makers, licensees (i.e. States), for punitive damages, if they supply, or authorize a gun in a mass shooting.

There are 15 bereaved families today, that should be able to sue the, Great State Of Texas for a billion dollars each, & for whatever bunch of death merchants put the gun in his hands,

[Kiwias]

Feelings expressed best with this gif from the previous page, because we know there will be no concrete steps taken to reduce the insanity.