this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2024
302 points (98.1% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2697 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 38 points 2 months ago (3 children)

So he's unequivocally stating that there is nothing he plans on doing to reduce the killing of children. If you support no action, this is the guy you should support.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago (2 children)

In the article he calls for bolstering security at schools. Which I always find funny because what if.... And this is a wild idea... But what if there's a shooting at a location other than a school? Not to mention that studies have shown that the presence of armed guards in schools doesn't actually do much to deter shootings.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Security has a place. But even at schools, really all it can do is prevent a handful of deaths from turning into dozens or hundreds. You can have someone manning a metal detector at the front door. But a gunman can just walk in, shoot that person first, and walk right through the security checkpoint. Lockdowns and secure classrooms help, but they can still shoot plenty of people as they're running for the exits or running to the secure classrooms. If a gunman comes to a high school during their passing period, there really just isn't anything that can be done to prevent them from taking a handful of lives at a minimum. Even having armed swat teams available within minutes just reduces the final body count; it doesn't eliminate it. When you can just walk into a crowded building and start spraying gunfire, security really just can't prevent that, just ameliorate it.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

Why would armed guards have an impact? These kids that plan on shooting up their schools are planning it as a suicide mission. It's a super elaborate suicide by cop, taking out as many of their classmates and tormentors, perceived or otherwise, as possible. Armed guards aren't going to help. Stricter rules on guns and mental fucking health care might, but that would be actually doing something that the vast majority of Americans support, and we can't do that. If we let people think overwhelming support for something gets it then they may get uppity and start demanding other things, like unions and healthcare

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

So he’s unequivocally stating that there is nothing he plans on doing to reduce the killing of children. If you support no action, this is the guy you should support.

Remember, after one of the other school shootings (The fact that I cannot remember which one is itself a telling statement, isn't it?), one of our wonderful elected officials literally stated that they were going to do nothing about it.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago

Guns have more rights than our children