The Soviet Union could have worked out too if everyone believed in it.

OFc it happened during Pride.

Not sure what Trump getting a plurality of a minority has to do with anything.



http://digbysblog.blogspot.com

If polls are to be believed a solid majority want a ban on assault weapons, and a vast majority of voters want background checks on all gun buyers. So no, I don't accept your assertion.

Was there a point in your MacGuffin?

Read your own post. You're demanding people vote.

What party did those people elect to run the House and Senate in 2014?

Polls conducted in the wake of a massacre are always going to be objective.

Records are there to be broken!

^ (smirk)

Maybe if he wanted people to talk about LGBT issues, he shouldn't have murdered 50 people. Because then, and rightly so, it becomes a much more serious gun issue.

He didn't want to talk about LGBT issues, because our culture is one where you can shoot your way out of problems.

Not sure anyone in the history of your country has ever shot their way out of problems.

What culture are you talking about and why weren't there 10x as many events like this 10 years ago and 200x as many 50 years ago if LGBT prejudice is the causal factor? And why aren't there massive LGBT mass murder revenge killings in ISIS controlled territory or Saudi Arabia or Iran where massive discrimination does occur?

I agree. But it doesn't stop dumbasses from trying.

I want to respond to so many of your posts, but I don't want to clog up the thread with with multiple reposts.

DP-I did, but you couldn't be bothered to elaborate or specify your original response. Your posts are often cryptic to everyone but yourself due to their open ended cookie fortune wisdom.

Caius-2014 in some ways proves my point with only 36.4% registered voters bothering to vote.

Algren-Since there seems to be be a massacre every few months, no poll could ever meet your unrealistic standard of being massacre free.

Magnus-BS. It is like talking about a serial killer like Ted Bundy and dismissing his abusive drinking habits. His mental illness was the primary problem, but other factors combined to create the prolific killer. Others make salient points to rebut your contention.

Algren II-"Not sure anyone in the history of your country has ever shot their way out of problems." Hundreds of Hollywood screenwriters and directors beg to differ.

Bill O'Reilly was on Colbert last night. And he actually gave some reasonable! options, until he went on his anti-Islam tirade.

Make it so the punishment for using a gun in a crime a Federal offense. A minimum X(10? 15?) number of years on top of the criminal charge. Then have Congress debate which guns will be illegal to buy/sell. The 2nd part is tricky because so many of them are bought out by the NRA, but you would hope they would ban most/all assault rifles and only allow hunting rifles/handguns to be available to the public.

There are many factors involved here and the fact that the US is so polarised and neither side is willing to consider any viewpoint other than their own ensures this wont be fixed. At least anytime soon.

Edited for brevity

I don't know what the driving force was. I am not a mental health nor criminal behavior expert. I do know that one guy was so filled with hate or self loathing that he felt his only option was to destroy those he blamed for his pain. I am not so sure that if the country was twice as tolerant in terms of Islam and LBGT issues it would have made any difference for this one individual.

However, I do know that hundreds if not thousands of the Orlando community came out to donate blood to their fellow citizens on Sunday and Monday. They were making their actions known to show that this one individual's actions did not speak for them nor the community as a whole. We can't be deterred by the reactionary forces resorting to violence to hold on to their warped worldview. It may be at times ugly over the the next decade or two, but the power of these haters will dissipate eventually.

We have been more polarized in the past. We just have better technology for mass shootings.

1927 http so://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

The US is a federal republic. It is difficult to get things done even with a substantial majority. In the Senate 10 states with a population of 10 million have 20 Senators. California with a population of 40 million has only 2 senators. You can get a filibuster with 40 senators. The 20 smallest states don't even have a combined population of 30million, but they can stop a bill with a filibuster. if they all join together. Then there is the fact that the House districts are not balanced due to the effects of gerrymandering. The Democrats have to win by approximately 8% to get a simple majority, not 50%+1. I won't go into the situation in the individual states.

The media plays up the difference and never calls dishonest spin on issues like climate change. Basic scientific understanding like the Big Bang theory or the theory of Evolution are treated under the layman's rhetoric rarely as an established scientific term. The news is basically used to confuse and depress not to enlighten and enable.

You're framing it to put the blame on people who don't vote. As if we would be better to do as you do. Thus my comment on why not voting is fine, and any criticism of it requires a strong argument.

You don't understand what I'm saying because if your own biases/problems. Even your comment here about their power betrays that you think playing by your rules is the only viable possibility. It's always virtue signalling such as to avoid the difficult and complex issues that don't fit well within the western narrative.

I made no distinction between the proper course of action. i.hope and chippy were debating proposed changes to lower gun deaths. I asked for clarification from i.hope on exactly what he meant in his last response. He so far has not clarified that statement. In his original statement he wrote "I do not know any more what could have prevented these horrific killings."

I am not a mind reader, but in my estimation that response most likely shows either a lack of imagination or historical understanding of how the country and government can and is supposed to work. So, I attempted to point out that if people were really motivated to attempt to prevent future mass shootings it was not inconceivable by the way of the ballot box. That we have lowered the death rates in other areas of American life even over objections to personal liberty, economic cost, and other factors.

Then you posted two responses that mischaracterized my response or you misunderstood what I wrote. I didn't demand anyone's vote, unless they thought that was a proper course of action to achieve their desired change.

Vote or don't vote, take to the streets and burn the muthafucker down (I don't advocate this course), just live with your choice and don't throw up your hands that it is hopeless. There is a vast chasm between difficult and impossible.

I am not sure if you're passive aggressively trying to advocate some spectrum of anarchism or a moral nihilism. Over the past few years whenever I read your posts, I feel like I'm reading a magic 8-ball. Perhaps my fault for not being familiar enough with your thought process and writing style.

I'm not nihilistic, I just realize that denying reality misses the point. It's the state of the world as we know it, not any possible world/time/place. It's just that change can conflict with the interests of power. So it may not happen until power can't prevent it. I'm still developing my political philosophy.

The culture in the US is so toxic that any real discussion is impossible. This guy was fucked regardless if he was a closet gay who also loved ISIS.

It will take an absolutely transformative figure to break the mold, and the figure has to be a die hard Republican. Republicans will never listen to a Democrat, but most Democrats are reasonable enough to vote on issues rather than strictly party. What is bizarre is Trump is EXACTLY the type of person the GOP needs on this issue. But, he runs to the right instead of the left. Trump would score some MAJOR points for himself & his party if he came out, in his blunt style, and said "ENOUGH. We have to live in reality at the end of the day, assault rifles and hand guns are terrible, no background checks make no sense, it's time change".

You're right in that Trump would likely gain some Dem support from such a statement, particularly because of all the controversy surrounding Clinton's honesty leaves some Dems looking for something else to latch onto. However, the NRA has such a pull on the GOP that he'd probably lose more Republicans than he'd gain Democrats.