naraku360

Dude. Seriously. Take a break from the internet, find a therapist, and maybe come back when you're willing to read what people are saying. Because that's not what anyone said.

Nah.

I respect you more now. You might actually be my hero

Look, I'd fuck H. Jon Benjamin's voice. Like no homo. But you know you would too.

Ah, no school shootings if there's no school. Clever.

Nobody is saying to throw away self defense. Vigilantism, on the other hand, is typically viewed as one of the worst ways to deal with it. Like every job I've ever had ever strictly teaches evacuation or getting to a safe spot out of view (locked door with barricades being ideal), and explicitly advise against engaging the shooter unless it's a last resort. The mere act of taking a gun out is also extremely dangerous in that situation. Police strictly recommend against doing so because if you have s gun out during an active shooter situation, cops can easily mistake you for the shooter. For real, your suggestions on this are all escalations. It's like you looked at what the police themselves ask you to do for the safety of yourself and those around you, and you decided to do the exact opposite at every turn. Bring armed officers to guard schools=more guns. If the presence of guns increase the likelihood of violence, the more guns part of your suggestion is liable to create more shootings. Convenient you have yet to acknowledge the fact that guns create tension, and the more tension the more people lose their shit. Being surrounded by armed guards all the time as a kid would be basically traumatizing. The amount of paranoia that would spark from it would be unreal.

Too bad the presence of guns create greater escalation. Your recommendation would potentially lead to more shootings, not less: Also, you still haven't answered on the discrimination issue. If trained cops keep shooting babies because they might have a gun in their diaper, what makes you think they'd not do the same when stationed at a building full of kids potentially old enough to actually have gotten their hands on one?

https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/weapons-effects-and-individual-intent-do-harm-influences-escalation-violence The study data included interviews with over 704 offenders regarding violent and potentially violent events experienced by the offenders. The researchers developed information on interaction type, weapon choice, and intent to do harm. Respondents were asked to recall incidents when they had avoided violence and incidents when they had perpetrated or experienced violence. As memory played a substantial role in data reliability, information regarding memory and memory reliability was presented. Prior research by Kleck and McElrath (1991) on weapon instrumentality effect was discussed. However, the authors’ data concerning weapons effect on likelihood of attack were opposite of the findings of the earlier researchers. The current study indicated that presence of a gun or knife made an attack more likely, not less likely. The authors caution that the ability to assess the weapon instrumentality effect of guns was complicated by the factors that influenced weapon choice. Specifically, individuals wishing to do the greatest harm may have an increased propensity to selecting a firearm as their weapon of choice. The authors’ analysis also provides independent effects that differ across the stages of an incident. 4 tables, 5 notes, 40 references, appendix

How are we going to pay for M4A or student loan forgiveness?! HOW DO YOU PAY FOR IT?!?! Also, we should put armed militias at all the schools.

You didn't address the part about the clear pattern of discrimination.

😐

Name another country that does need to do it.

Conservatives: "The government is too big." "Also, we need an army present at kindergarten."

19 officers staged outside the classroom. 78 minutes elapsed before they entered. Children repeatedly called 911 from inside. “It was the wrong decision,” top officer says. They needed a top officer to speak authoritatively on the matter.

Well, yeah, but I'm asking Nabs what his plan would be. Mostly because it's funny since he wants us to believe he has a plan, but we wll know he doesn't.

I just don't get the idea of "The defense is impotent, therefore have no defense instead." Like I ask what do you do after you quit voting and the answer is "get a new party," it's like, yeah no shit. But that's like saying "If you're poor, the solution is to not be poor any more." Great, thanks for the advice, very helpful. Nabs isn't wrong about Dems being garbage. "Get not garbage people" is a goal. It's not a plan.

How?

Would Roe v. Wade be on the table with a Clinton SCOTUS? The difference is pretty simple: You give Republicans power and they break shit because Democrats suck and let them You remove Republicans from the equation by removing them from power, then fewer of them have the power to put those awful policies on the table in the first place. Nabs' solution is just give up, let Republicans win, and have no follow up strategy.

Then what?

Ha! As if they cook it.