Reply With QuoteSurprised the sanctimonious BS response didn’t include arming more janitors, catering staff and children to deter the use of guns in schools. The only sane answer (after lots of praying) I assume!
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Surprised the sanctimonious BS response didn’t include arming more janitors, catering staff and children to deter the use of guns in schools. The only sane answer (after lots of praying) I assume!
Fairly standard response in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy though isn't it? Think of the victims etc?Originally Posted by jon1959
More widely, I remember when these incidents were the biggest news of the month. Columbine was huge news. Occured of a larger scale but demonstrates that these things weren't so common twenty or so years ago.
It's the standard republican response, but that's the shortened version.
It's normally when they're asked about stronger regulation or restriction of guns after a school shooting. The line is "thoughts and prayers to the victims, this is not the time to talk about regulation".
Yes, these are more common now, hence why there are much stronger calls for regulation, and "thoughts and prayers" is an increasingly pathetic reply.
Sure there is a wider debate to be had, and that goes much wider than simply being about gun control, but this doesn't strike me as a particularly inappropriate statement in the immediate aftermath of a mass shooting. Some people may want it politicized but I'm not sure that's appropriate literally hours after the death when no one knows the full story
"Leigh Ann and I are praying for the victims, their families, and all students at Apalachee High School in Barrow County,” he wrote on X. “We extend our gratitude to law enforcement for their swift action to secure the school and get the shooter in custody. I have spoken with Sheriff Smith and told him my team and I are available to assist in any way necessary. We will continue to monitor and provide updates as prudent.”
I am surprised the NRA havnt revived Charlton Heston to give a speech
Like they did at the time of columbine
Now that was inappropriate
True, although that was Michael Moore who did that really - his "cold dead hands" speech was more than a year after Columbine.
The kid who killed people here used an assault rifle again. How can anyone justify their legality, even within the wider right to bear arms (which I can understand even if I don't agree with it)
https://youtu.be/ORYVCML8xeE?si=JrusrxeMWp11CM1g
An absolute selfish paranoid redneck nutter preaching to his mates
There are millions of guns in circulation in America because of this lot
It's not appropriate for you to politicize this literally hours after the death when no one knows the true story.
You're quoting a politician, the governor is also in that article saying “I urge all Georgians to join my family in praying for the safety of those in our classrooms, both in Barrow County and across the state,”
These are the lawmakers, that's why it's nonsense that they offer 'thoughts and prayers' but do nothing about it because they like the NRA money coming their way. I'll let you into a secret here, they talk about thoughts and prayers because they know that in two days time they won't be asked about it any more and they won't have to actually do anything about it and it is absolutely guaranteed that children will continue to be gunned down in school.
Here's another one:
https://www.axios.com/2022/05/25/ted...oting-comments
I could spend all day posting up republicans saying this over the years after the hundreds of school shootings that they've had.
Brian Kemp:
Now is not the time to talk about safety and policy, thoughts and prayers to victims, law enforcement and teachers
Brian Kemp at other times:
Signs into law the right to carry a handgun in public without a permit
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/12/us/ge...ned/index.html
I'm not, Im replying to Sludge, about an event that happened 25 years ago, as you well know
Incidents like these get the public onside in handing over their weapons, and that’s also what the government want, so however tragic, it’s a win -win
I would be in agreement with you on the banning of assault weapons, but lawmakers are also community representatives and offering condolences in the light of a tragic event that has happened literally hours earlier is also pretty standard behaviour.
In the Bible (2 Timothy 3 v5) the apostle Paul describes the nature of people in the last days. In his description, he warns of people who are characterized as “having a form of godliness" *. Paul then issues this command: “Have nothing to do with such people.”
Those who have a form of godliness are those who make an outward display of religion. They present themselves as godly, but it is all for show. There is no power behind their religion, as evidenced in the fact that their lives are unchanged. They speak of God and live in sin, and they are fine with that arrangement. As commentator Charles Ellicott wrote, “These, by claiming the title of Christians, wearing before men the uniform of Christ, but by their lives dishonouring His name, do the gravest injury to the holy Christian cause”.
* I would suggest that the gun promoting "religious" folk fall into that category. There will be some people for whom the "thoughts and prayers" response is genuine and so we need to be careful not to group everyone under the same redneck/gun toting category.
From very different starting points we may both agree that the ‘thoughts and prayers’ reflex is shallow nonsense - but even if some of these bible bashing gun promoters believe what they say, I don’t see why they should be applauded.
They are offering a superstitious crutch where hard headed (and brave) anti gun laws are needed. Face down the lobby, don’t fall back on meaningless pap when more kids have been shot!
Americas gun laws are ridiculous, we all know that, particularly in relation to assault rifles.
But that doesn't change the fact that offering prayers to victims families (in a pretty religious place) is a reasonable statement in the immediate aftermath of a disaster. What did our politicians say after three people were stabbed to death in Nottingham, or the other occasions of mass stabbings? I suspect "thoughts were with the victims families" then too.
It doesn't change the elephant in the room about gun policy, but the idea that politicians should instantly politicize tragedies isn't right in my opinion
Aside from anything else, this kid had been spoken to about murder threats before apparently, so for a politician to instantly talk about gun laws would lend people to argue they are trying to distract from the failure of intervention in this particular perpetrator.
They're not 'also' offering condolences. They are 'only' offering condolences. Assault weapons were banned until 2004, when the republicans under Bush failed to extend it. Mass shootings became commonplace after this.
The republicans blocked a ban on them last year.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-...se-2023-12-06/
This year, the majority republican nominated Supreme Court chose not to step in to ban assault weapons in Illinois
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...rms-rcna153971
There's loads more examples like this. That's why people are sick of 'thoughts and prayers' and no action.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ponse-backlash
Our politicians changed the law after Dunblane.
https://theweek.com/100174/what-happened-at-dunblane
Or do you think they were just 'politizing' it too?
Whoosh
They didn't do it hours after did they? And the UK is not the US. If you think it is, then no wonder you don't get what is happening. There isnt hundreds of years of constitution behind it, millions of guns in circulation or widespread belief in the right to bear arms.
I entirely support banning assault weapons and completely agree with you. But people offering condolences after people have been murdered is not uncommon. You just want them to politicize it the way you see it. But as I said, in this case the person was "on a watchlist" so maybe that is where it should be politized. Stop suggesting there is some simple solution and that offering condolences after a situation is somehow an abomination, when it plainly isn't.
There's no whoosh about it. You either misread it or made a deliberate attempt to mislead.
I said they are also community representatives. Which they are. And it's pretty normal to offer condolences to the victims after such an event, wherever in the world it is.
I'm sure you were against the instant politicization of events after the Southport stabbings, and yet you are clamouring for it here within the same timeframe, even though the facts arent known and the blood isn't dry.
I guarantee you will not find a post by me like that about the Southport stabbings. Feel free to search my history
The 'whoosh' exchange was me highlighting the irony in your reply, sorry that you missed it.
Offering condolences is fine. Offering condolences and doing nothing to help, and in fact doing more to make it worse, when you are literally the only people who can do something about it, is not fine.
There are hundreds of school shootings in the US. We can use the facts of any of those if you're worried that the blood isn't dry enough on this one.
Posting Permissions
