Welcome to Thunderdome

Another car attack in Germany.

"Guns are the problem."

In England, where gun ownership is already thisclose to being verboten (You can own one, but you need a reason and it's heavily regulated, so most people don't.), they're now going after swords.

What will be next because if you think they're stopping there, you're crazy.

All this in a country that has imported millions of illegals with a very restrictive culture, and are also now jailing people for saying mean things online.

Pretty soon the government will cut your steak for you.

Then they'll ban steak.

I'm surprised they dont call them Asian Assult Swords.

This really destroys the "it's the guns" argument.

Funny and pretty accurate.

I don't remember body armor covering dicks.

That's pretty good.

Nine killed in school shooting in Austria.

"This only happens in the U.S.", but I can't seem to find that state on a map...

It's not the guns. It's mental illness, seeking attention, feeling marginalized, copy cats, and opportunity. The increased use of cars as killing machines proves the point. It's about opportunity.

If farts could kill, some people would eat a case of beans and head to the subway.

Thinking that removing the means of killing will stop the killing is about as stupid as it gets. You have to solve the WHY. Deciding to use ______ to murder a random group of people is not a normal decision. Why did that person get to that point? Were there signs? Could we have stopped it? And so on.

Trying to keep people with ill intent from getting guns is like trying to stop the tide with a slotted spoon. Keep in mind that the #1 customer of gun companies are governments. So, to eliminate guns, you have to take the need for guns away from the people with all the power and the constant desire to hold that power. Good luck with that.

Now make it full auto

What an asshole. He took the wrong fucking elevator, ended up in the wrong place, and just decided to kill people there. Left a note to pretend he's a martyr, but in reality, he's just an ignorant piece of shit who wouldn't take responsibility for his shitty life.

There was also a mass stabbing in Traverse City over the weekend.

"Slippery slope is such a bullshit argument..."

BTW, England is in great shape right now, huh?

Minneapolis school shooting.

Because evil is always gonna evil.

Shooter is dead and was in his 20s. Catholic school, so his background will be interesting.

Charlie Kirk shot and killed today. Republican performative outrage in full bloom.

Last thing Charlie said in his life was to try to lump the blame of mass shootings to inner city gangs.

Seems unlikely in this case.

So it's ok to kill people who say things you don't agree with.

Check.

I never said anything about this situation was ok. I stated a fact, citing Charlies' last words, and a opinion that I didn't think the inner city gangs were responsible for this shooting.

e: actually, I have significantly more empathy for this shooting victim then the shooting victim himself expressed to shooting victims in general.

e2: that was before he became a shooting victim, If you were able to ask him, his opinion would likely be different with that knowledge, maybe.

Troy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 10, 2025 8:58 pm I never said anything about this situation was ok.

You're right. I should have come up with a better response to make my point. My bad. My excuse, I've logged 36 hours of work in the last 48 hours (managed two separate 2 hour naps since Monday morning) and my brain is fried.


Were other people shot to make this a mass shooting? I honestly don't know. I've only read the headlines and a description of the 15 seconds surrounding his death.

My take on his comment was showing that stats are spun to support an agenda or world view. Should gang shootings be included in mass shooting stats? I think he was arguing that gang violence shouldn't be part of the metric that is determining if we have a gun problem. I happen to agree.

You're take was that he was blaming gangs for all of the mass shootings, or lumping the blame on them. And that he would have somehow learned a lesson in all of this. I think he would have just said that he was victim of 'this kind' of shooting, not the 'other kind' that often gets add to 'this kind' so 'this kind' seems more prevalent than it is.

I think he argues that gang violence using guns is different from 'gun violence' where a crazy person shoots the most vulnerable. This is from the maybe 90 total minutes I've spent on him over the years.

I think a gang spraying a house of a rival is SIGNIFICANTLY different from someone walking into an elementary school. These problems are addressed with WILDLY different approaches and are a result of WILDLY different situations. So if we were going to be talking about shootings, I would very much want to nail down "which version are we talking about. Or, what's the context behind the shooting".

I feel like he was establishing the definition of a 'mass shooting'. And then he was going to make sure it was the version that was going to piss off the person he was talking to. Because he was very good at controlling the variables that were part of the conversation. They always let him (or he made them let him) control the narrative.

And this is the biggest take away in my opinion. He was just an entertainer. He was there doing his job. Playing the character of 'the guy that pisses off liberal college students'. If these kids hate him so much, why did they line up to see him? Did they really think "I'm going to change his mind"? He was a media personality. An actor, even. He got paid to push people's buttons. People need to learn to change the channel if they don't like what they are watching.

Now I'm going to bed.