Should the White House condemn shootings?

@MistyCee You are right it probably isn’t although the noise from the extreme right often drowns the more moderated views of the garden variety conservative view.

@justanothername It's hard to call killing conservative in any real sense, and these folks aren't actually willing to articulate crap like culling the herd, which actually might be conservative.

@MistyCee That "replace the whites" fable is mainstream Republican dogma. Their is no end to their craziness and depravity.

@BigAssLeech There are no mass shootings in places like North Korea. Are you willing to live in a system like that?

It's a tragedy when a person wakes up and does a simple thing like going to the grocery store and gets murdered by a fruitcake. That might happen to anyone at anytime in America. Families are devastated when that happens.

But look at all of the things that happen every day. There have been over 63,000,000 abortions since Roe v. Wade and before that there were forced sterilizations. Almost everyday cops murder innocent people and never suffer the consequences. So, life in America is cheap. In the case of the Buffalo shooter the cops treated him with velvet gloves and gave him the red carpet. If they see a Black guy selling a cigarette on the street five or six of them will jump on him and strangle him to death. But when a White guy murders a dozen Black people they take him out to lunch.

Maybe North Korea does have a better system.

@Carla
WTF does that mean?

@Graylight You are going about it wrong. People have the right to bear arms. But guns use manufactured ammo. Eliminate retail ammo sales. Hunters will have to get their ammo at the local police station.

@Diotrephes The 2nd Amendment is the law of that land (relatively recently), and this I respect. Nor do I dislike firearms. But when the house is flooding you turn off the water main and eliminate the damage while you work the problem. You don't wait a week for a guy to call back to set up a window of time while your property's floating away.

If we do it through earned bulled credits or police station ammo or taking the guns for a hot moment, it matters little to me. But anything other than "how to we eliminate the problem long enough to solve it" is - excuse my language - bullsh*t lip service. Poll 100 5-year-olds and then let's do whatever they suggest, because even they understand a problem this simple.

@Graylight Looking at the big picture, the movement to ban guns is led by members of a certain ethnic group, who have introduced most of the federal gun control laws. That is a fact.

Another fact is that some State constitutions included clauses when the country was founded that say that the people have the right to change the government by whatever means they (the people) deem necessary when the government gets off track. That includes armed revolution, which will be considered treason if it fails.

Another fact is that the government exists to serve the needs of the people. The people don't exist to serve the whims of the bureaucrats.

The ultimate objective is to seize all of the people's guns so that they won't be able to put up any effective resistance when the cabal takes control. That would be a major undertaking because the military would have to be involved and it is doubtful if the troops would do it. Some cops would try it for sure but others wouldn't help at all. And since guns can be easily hidden, it would take hours to do a search of a house. It would also be in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Plus all of the State constitutions would have to delete the right to bear arms from their constitutions.

@Diotrephes lol. I've read about it. I just don't have personal memories.

@Diotrephes I consider it more a question of lethality, so do many countries. Hunting rifles for example might still be allowed during hunting season for example but semi automatics might not be allowed.

Be at ease? Certainly not, I'm almost never at ease around any males no matter what. As for ease around what someone is packing...knives are preferable to guns if I had to choose. Guns make me more nervous.

And everyone I know who has been in real fight would rather face someone with a knife then a gun as well. While, I'm not keen on knife scars, I would agree that my survivability rate and the survivability of bystanders would be higher. Sad to say it, but I've dated a guy who taught me a little bit of what to do if you have a knife or gun pulled on you (He was in a gang) and after being in a real threatening situation, I can recognize that my ability to defend myself unarmed against a knife wielding foe vs a gunwielding foe is greater.

Buying kids guns in the 1950's sure made people keen to join the army in 1960 and 1970, didn't it?

I'd say joining the army is a complex issue and not one that boils down to fear of guns or not. Or whether you owned a gun or not.

Most people don't join the army because they love or feared guns or not. And if a child doesn't own a gun doesn't mean they will be a fearful person. Lol. Owning a gun doesn't make someone brave either. In other countries it doesn't prevent people from joining their armies either. The idea that people join the army because "guns" is asinine.

Respecting the lethality of a weapon out in a public place and taking steps to assure the safety of yourself and others however might be considered common sense. Guns are more lethal. And if I am in a position to be responsible for the safety of others, yeah I don't want people to be packing guns thanks.

Revering guns and their ability to kill and as a tool of violence against others seems to have become just as much a part of that right to bear arms especially for white people.

Whatever, America is a seriously fucked up country. We're leaving first chance we get anyway.

@Scribbles Imagine if 30% of the Ukrainian adults in the cities had a Javelin missile apiece. They would have destroyed the Russian army in less than an hour.
https://www.businessinsider.com/video-ukrainians-with-javelin-take-out-russian-rocket-launcher-2022-5

Right now it would tick me off to no end to get shot but I may change my mind as I get older, especially if I come down with a serious disease. In any case I am against all actions that limit the rights of citizens. I don't have any guns and most definitely would never shoot anyone. So, although someone might shoot me I am against taking his gun from him.

@MarineBob Who knows what kind of deal(s) was/were struck on this.

@soar2newhighs and people want give me shit for getting grants. Because they're to lazy to apply for them

@Bill1372 There are over 330,000,000 people in the country. Do you have any idea how many shrinks would be required to identify and treat the 170,000,000 nutcases? (It is estimated that half of the population is nutty).

https://www.mentalhealthfirstaid.org/2019/02/5-surprising-mental-health-statistics/

@independentone I wanna like this comment but I also don't wanna end up on a watch list 👀

@BigAssLeech Oh, I'm not endorsing or suggesting that members of Congress should be shot. What I am saying is that is the only thing in my opinion that will finally make act.

@eli1601 That did get a lot of coverage, and Scalise was in the news for a long time after the shooting. Thankfully the Capitol Hill Police were present to stop the guy after 1 person was shot.

@ninalanyon Why not. As society changes laws need to change to move with the times.

@MistyCee If they are no longer unusual then they aren't extreme in my view.

My opinion is based on Jens Stoltenberg's reaction to the Utøya event. He very quickly made the point that Norwegian society was not going to be changed by a criminal intent on political change by mass crime. And this was carried through, the perpetrator was tried as a common criminal and denied a platform for their obnoxious views.

@justanothername Exactly, and an extreme event is not necessarily a society changing event.

@HoraceGreenley The executive branch has the authority to prosecute or not prosecute and to pardon. So, it gets to decide what it will or won't do and how energetic it will do its work. And the people are the final authority since the jury is not obligated to find anyone guilty of any crime.

@Diotrephes There is some discretion but the decisions are not completely up to the whims of individuals.

At least that's the law. Whether the individuals are held to the standards is another matter.

@HoraceGreenley It's up to the cops if they want tp arrest the person. That usually a done deal. The the DA looks at the case and may squish it by putting on a weak grand jury case. If it goes to the jury they will usually convict but not always.

@jshm2 hence my question. Why bother?

Does America need a moral voice from the White House?

@MarineBob Ah yes, jeopardizing comments such as "murdering people is bad"

@MarineBob I get that, for sure.

@Harmonium1923 You say that as if Donald Trump didn't spend 4 years doing exactly that.

@LordShadowfire Fair point.

@hunkalove Nah, really, they don't, at least fast enough not to be condemned for not doing it quick enough..

Imo, it's kind of sad that's it's an issue, but my gut feeling is too many Americans want to see other Americans dead.

@MistyCee I think ever since the Manson trial the official White House response is very measured as not to influence a jury pool.

@SageWanderer That'd be nice.

@MarmeeMarch As opposed to Biden speaking in Buffalo like its a campaign stop, which is what he did.

@MarmeeMarch Exactly