Yet another school shooting.

[GrantDawg]

What war on the guns? You mean the war on children.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[GrantDawg]

But, my guns!
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRceKWEQ/

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

The War on Guns will surely end as well as the War on Drugs did.

First off. There is no war on guns. No one other than the most fringe people are saying take away all the guns. What we are saying is maybe not make it so easy for someone under mental health care to obtain 7 guns legally? Maybe not make it so easy for someone with a domestic violence history to obtain a gun? Maybe outlaw guns capable of mass destruction that have zero practical purpose?

If anything the GOP is going the other way. Wearing AR pins on their lapels while decimating gun laws in red states. god forbid anyone brings up reform and they go to their stock answers of "it is too soon"

Literally every other developed nation has strict gun reform with almost no mass shootings.

[Edward64]

Just for the record, I believe the below have said remove ALL guns from our earlier June 2022 (and current) discussion in this thread. Apologies if I'm mistaken but glad to dig up the quote if you think I'm wrong.

1) Flere (current)
2) Brian S
3) JPhillips
4) Lathum

I believe the below have said if given a choice between status quo or remove all guns, then remove ALL guns

1) Kodos

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Lathum

lets be honest, there will never be more gun control so given the choice between status quo and removing all guns I'll take the later.

Unless there is a different comment this is what I said. Way to twist my words. Far from advocating a total ban.

Regardless, I’m not talking about a bunch of middle aged dopes on a message board. I’m talking about lawmakers but I suspect you know that and you’re just doing that thing you do by dragging this into the mud.

Of, and the Florida legislature just signed a bill legalizing concealed carry anywhere in the state.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Unless there is a different comment this is what I said. Way to twist my words. Far from advocating a total ban.

Regardless, I’m not talking about a bunch of middle aged dopes on a message board. I’m talking about lawmakers but I suspect you know that and you’re just doing that thing you do by dragging this into the mud.

Of, and the Florida legislature just signed a bill legalizing concealed carry anywhere in the state.

Er, I was referring to this passage

Originally Posted by Lathum

caveats aside ban them all. There is your answer. They cause FAR more harm than good and there is no way our forefathers could have anticipated this nor can I imagine they would have approved of how it is being used to excuse mass shootings so people can keep their arsenal.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I believe the below have said if given a choice between status quo or remove all guns, then remove ALL guns

I stand by that. If the choice is between continuing to do nothing or getting rid of the all, then get rid of them all. I’d rather see common sense measures instituted (like the ones we’ve gone over so many times on this board), but if we can’t do any of those, then yes, the greater good for society is to get rid of them all.

[Lathum]

I literally said caveats aside. Regardless I’m not doing your usual bullshit that ruins threads.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I stand by that. If the choice is between continuing to do nothing or getting rid of the all, then get rid of them all. I’d rather see common sense measures instituted (like the ones we’ve gone over so many times on this board), but if we can’t do any of those, then yes, the greater good for society is to get rid of them all.

Understood.

And I understood the point and caveat you were making, and hence the separate category.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I literally said caveats aside. Regardless I’m not doing your usual bullshit that ruins threads.

If you look at the trail, the caveat was the Kodos and your caveat about if having to choose. Kodos stuck to his caveat, you pushed it aside and stated what you stated.

But fine. I make clarifications all the time (ask miami_fan). I'll assume your most current statement above is your position.

[PilotMan]

If terrorists were using planes to kill people, you can sure bet a small, overly irrational part of the country wouldn't be arguing that planes don't kill people and demanding that there be no restrictions on who could fly airplanes.

Also, tough to argue that there should be ANY restrictions on planes at all, since they were not mentioned in the Constitution.

OR

Planes shouldn't even be allowed to operate, and people shouldn't be flying them since the Founding Fathers didn't mention that in the Constitution.

[JPhillips]

Yesterday: What do you not understand about shall not infringe?

Today: Trans people should be banned from owning guns.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Just for the record, I believe the below have said remove ALL guns from our earlier June 2022 (and current) discussion in this thread. Apologies if I'm mistaken but glad to dig up the quote if you think I'm wrong.

You're wrong. I said make them as hard to get as abortions which a) isn't a total ban and b) was clearly a flippant answer about how the GOP treats individual liberty.

Originally Posted by Lathum

Regardless I’m not doing your usual bullshit that ruins threads.

Same. I don't see what sorting our responses into categories brings to this thread. Maybe r/politics wants to rehash a gun control thread, but I doubt FOFC does.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

You're wrong. I said make them as hard to get as abortions which a) isn't a total ban and b) was clearly a flippant answer about how the GOP treats individual liberty.

Okay, I misunderstood the below then.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'm OK with that. In fact, I think we should stop beating around the bush - the second amendment is an obsolete anachronism and should be repealed.

Same. I don't see what sorting our responses into categories brings to this thread. Maybe r/politics wants to rehash a gun control thread, but I doubt FOFC does.

Just trying to level set based on our Jun 22 discussion. Good thing as it seems I misunderstood some statements. FWIW, I didn't bring up gun control in this recent discussion and I was not the first to respond. I'm pretty sure gun control discussions will come up again (but promise I won't be the first to bring it up).

I'll go ahead and post Brian S and JPhillips for the record in case I've misinterpreted.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

We know how to stop shootings, ban guns and make buybacks mandatory. That won't happen, though, because the GOP position is now that no gun control laws can be passed because someday they may want to start killing people and overthrow the government.

It's madness.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

FWIW, I'm the one who brought up gun elimination, and I didn't do so as a dog whistle. It's a serious proposal. Not one that I personally advocate, but it is what I think is required to get to a level of violence that many would consider acceptable.

[Ksyrup]

Not at a school, but a bank in downtown Louisville this morning. About 3-4 blocks from my office, and I happen to be in today. Fun! We're on lockdown but it appears to be isolated. Initial reports are a "mass casualty incident" and perhaps 1 LE shot (according to a news tweet I saw).

[Thomkal]

stay safe!

[Ksyrup]

6 dead including shooter, 6 injured. I'm hearing it was a 24 year old who called his parents, told them he was suicidal and was going to take out as many people as possible, and they called the cops. I believe he worked there (at the bank or somewhere in the building).

One of my co-worker's friends was shot in the calf but OK.

[Ksyrup]

I have a name and LinkedIn page but probably not something I should be sharing in case this info isn't accurate (although it came from someone who was shot so...).

Graduated from Alabama with an undergrad and masters in Finance, looks like he's been at that bank as summer associate and then full time for about 5 years.

[Lathum]

I can understand someone wanting to take their own life. I will never understand why you would take people with them.

[Ksyrup]

I believe this is going to be another mental illness thing. It's hard to rationally analyze the why when you're dealing with mental illness. Mix that with the work relationship (or any close interpersonal relationships), and (solely from a clinical perspective) you can see why someone who want to inflict damage on others they perceive to have caused their situation.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I can understand someone wanting to take their own life. I will never understand why you would take people with them.

The shooter was probably in deep mental anguish and wanted the world to feel his/her pain.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

6 dead including shooter, 6 injured. I'm hearing it was a 24 year old who called his parents, told them he was suicidal and was going to take out as many people as possible, and they called the cops. I believe he worked there (at the bank or somewhere in the building).

One of my co-worker's friends was shot in the calf but OK.

wow

[Ksyrup]

My boss knew one of the victims. He, a guy he co-founded a business with, and this guy were part of a group who owned a race horse about 15 years ago. He was a close friend of the co-founder. His financial advisor was in the 3rd floor and locked in his office until the cops cleared the building.

Looks like a former employee who knew they always had a Monday morning meeting in a particular conference room. He shot out the windows from outside and went directly to the conference room. That's where the victim and the other guy who got shot in the calf were.

That building is less than a 15 minute walk from my office.

[CrimsonFox]

double hitter today

‘Find justice for my niece:’ 3 killed, 2 injured in shooting at Orlando park

[RainMaker]

Ted might have to update this tweet.

Yesterday, I reintroduced the Securing Our Schools Act and the Protect Our Children’s Schools Act.

Sadly, Senate Democrats played politics and blocked these two critical school safety bills.
https://t.co/jEAkAO6YH4 pic.twitter.com/VBIo5iKnqy

— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) March 31, 2023

[GrantDawg]

Well, he only did this because he had pronouns in his profile! It is the pronouns, not guns, that kill people. At least that is what Twitter is telling me.

[Ksyrup]

No shit. I saw the same thing. It's a Liberal DemoKKKrat trans-Q fanatic-inspired killing - based solely on the fact that he had pronouns on his LinkedIn account.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

No shit. I saw the same thing. It's a Liberal DemoKKKrat trans-Q fanatic-inspired killing - based solely on the fact that he had pronouns on his LinkedIn account.

Easy to spot the people who don't work in the real world. I'd say 30% of people list pronouns in their bio or e-mail signature at work these days. I personally don't, but it's pretty standard in business.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Easy to spot the people who don't work in the real world. I'd say 30% of people list pronouns in their bio or e-mail signature at work these days. I personally don't, but it's pretty standard in business.

Well there's a sad indictment of the prospective workforce

[Ksyrup]

Yeah, it really isn't political, it's more people of a certain age. When we toured 8 colleges last year, every single student who introduced themselves gave their pronouns, and typically, 30-ish and under business people are more likely than not to put it in social accounts or email signatures, etc.

[thesloppy]

i am certainly not opposed to or offended by pronouns, but I do think it's weird when people introduce themselves with them. If there's one time when I'm guaranteed NOT to use or need your prononuns it's when I'm talking directly to you.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Well there's a sad indictment of the prospective workforce

It's an imperfect comparison, but is it really much different than, say, "Ms vs Mrs vs Miss"?

SI

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Yeah, it really isn't political, it's more people of a certain age. When we toured 8 colleges last year, every single student who introduced themselves gave their pronouns, and typically, 30-ish and under business people are more likely than not to put it in social accounts or email signatures, etc.

In business, it's used a lot more because there is no face-to-face or even phone contact with people these days. Especially true for younger people and remote workers. It's more of a way to introduce yourself when there is no visual or audio element to the relationship.

For instance, our company has been working with a lawyer named Kelly for a year now. Around Christmas, he called about something and it was the first time I had ever spoken to him. I had thought Kelly was a woman and I had probably referred to him as "her or she" in our company Slack till that moment.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

In business, it's used a lot more because there is no face-to-face or even phone contact with people these days. Especially true for younger people and remote workers. It's more of a way to introduce yourself when there is no visual or audio element to the relationship.

For instance, our company has been working with a lawyer named Kelly for a year now. Around Christmas, he called about something and it was the first time I had ever spoken to him. I had thought Kelly was a woman and I had probably referred to him as "her or she" in our company Slack till that moment.

I send a lot of emails at work and not knowing how to properly address someone because the name could be either is annoying.

It's easy when it's a doctor or military, but for everyone else I end up digging through my emails to see if they give me a clue.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I send a lot of emails at work and not knowing how to properly address someone because the name could be either is annoying.

It's easy when it's a doctor or military, but for everyone else I end up digging through my emails to see if they give me a clue.

Another vote for they/them universality.

[miami_fan]

So apparently, the shooter find out he was fired and decided he was going to go out in a blaze of glory. After reading the back story in the news article, I get the impression that this was his first bit of personal failure and he could not handle it. I look forward to more info coming out on him.

Evidently, he shot up a staff meeting that was occurring before the bank was open. When did we start allowing fired employees at staff meetings after they were fired? I thought it was standard procedure to treat fired employees as if they might come back and shoot up the place?

[Kodos]

I thought he shot his way into the building through a window or something like that.

[GrantDawg]

Shoot a 14 year old and a 5 year old because someone threw a water bottle. No charges.

Two motorists got into a rolling gunfight on a Florida highway. Each wounded the other's daughter: one 5; one 14. The man who actually fired first will go free under "stand your ground" because he was retaliating against a hurled water bottle. https://t.co/awUkxOjjDY pic.twitter.com/lPY0qAYOil

— David Frum (@davidfrum) April 11, 2023

[Bobble]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Another vote for they/them universality.

The only thing I don't like about that is that they/them already means more than one person. "They went to the party." goes from a perfectly understandable sentence to an ambiguous (pun intended?) one.

Give me something like ze/zim that's just a genderless singular.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I thought he shot his way into the building through a window or something like that.

Yes, I believe that's what happened. He knew who was in the same Monday morning meeting every week. I assume they froze him out of systems and physical entry as part of firing him, but he shot his way into the building.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Bobble

The only thing I don't like about that is that they/them already means more than one person. "They went to the party." goes from a perfectly understandable sentence to an ambiguous (pun intended?) one.

Give me something like ze/zim that's just a genderless singular.

Nah, they/them is better than a made-up one. It's what my younger child prefers and it was really easy to get used to. Actually I find myself slipping sometimes using it generally for anyone else we may be talking about.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

So apparently, the shooter find out he was fired and decided he was going to go out in a blaze of glory. After reading the back story in the news article, I get the impression that this was his first bit of personal failure and he could not handle it. I look forward to more info coming out on him.

Also his multiple concussions while playing sports. Wonder if CTE is a factor.

[miami_fan]

“Some people would say well water bottles shouldn’t be more aggravated than a gun but under the case law that the state cited a water bottle is considered a deadly missile.”

This quote needs to go in the time capsule.

[Ksyrup]

If it's true he was still employed with access as now appears to be the case, and all they did was notify him of his impending termination, that's unfathomable negligence on the part of the bank as an employer. I know the whole "ambush someone on Friday afternoon, put their belongings in a box and have them escorted off the premises" thing is cold and callous, but it also helps to mitigate this type of thing.

[bryce]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

If it's true he was still employed with access as now appears to be the case, and all they did was notify him of his impending termination, that's unfathomable negligence on the part of the bank as an employer. I know the whole "ambush someone on Friday afternoon, put their belongings in a box and have them escorted off the premises" thing is cold and callous, but it also helps to mitigate this type of thing.

I used to work for a firm that, during a period of layoffs, sent calendar invites out one evening to certain people for a meeting with HR the following day. It was obvious what the reasoning was. Poorly handled, to say the least.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

This quote needs to go in the time capsule.

I can't qwhite figure out why neither of them got charged

SI

[RainMaker]

Like I said, mass shootings are the new America's pasttime. If he was alive, we could get him to sign it with a certificate of authenticity. Maybe PSA could grade it too.

“Greenberg also said, under Kentucky law, the rifle used in the shooting would be auctioned off in the future.” https://t.co/YhiVGh8Ofi

— stephen fowler (@stphnfwlr) April 11, 2023

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by bryce

I used to work for a firm that, during a period of layoffs, sent calendar invites out one evening to certain people for a meeting with HR the following day. It was obvious what the reasoning was. Poorly handled, to say the least.

I used to work at a place where you could tell people were getting let go by the presence of police guarding the front door.

[Lathum]

My wife had to fly out to Oregon a couple years ago to fire a guy. Whenever her team travelled there they always stayed at the same hotel. I made he stay at a different one that time. Just can't be careful enough.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I can't qwhite figure out why neither of them got charged

I mean, it's in the quoted tweet:

The man who actually fired first will go free under "stand your ground" because he was retaliating against a hurled water bottle.

Probably would have gotten charged if he was dressed like a drag queen, though.