[Fortuna]

Uh oh. It looks like the veneer was just washed off Robert’s agenda. And I’d venture to say all the other Democrats had a similar reaction. Now, with a second shooting occurring only an hour or so ago in Ohio, they’ll probably go full tilt with gun control in their campaigns. I don’t think they’ll be able to take down the 2nd Amendment, but I can see most blue states banning rifle ammo over the course of the next couple of years.

0:43

[Lord Dave]

1. If all Democrats have the same reaction as one, does that mean all republicans wanna go on a shooting rampage like the shooter?

2. Thats called choking up.  Grief is horrible and talking about it makes alot of facial expressions.  That wasn't a laugh ya twit.

[Fortuna]

That wasn't a laugh ya twit.

Thanks CNN, but that wasn’t even a subtle smirk. It was practically a full on guffaw. If you’re going to be dumb, don’t do it in the serious boards.

[Lord Dave]

That wasn't a laugh ya twit.

Thanks CNN, but that wasn’t even a subtle smirk. It was practically a full on guffaw. If you’re going to be dumb, don’t do it in the serious boards.

No. 
And even if it was, what was he laughing about?  According to fox, Dems hate guns and hate mexicans dying.  3 died.  So by fox logic, he should be horrified and distraught at the loss of immigrant and mexican lives, yes?

Or is he laughing because crazy, gun toting republicans are funny?

[Rama Set]

That wasn't a laugh ya twit.

Thanks CNN, but that wasn’t even a subtle smirk. It was practically a full on guffaw. If you’re going to be dumb, don’t do it in the serious boards.

You think he was laughing at the shooting? Make your argument why then.

I’d say it’s more likely he laughed at himself, as a defense mechanism to not be vulnerable in front of fifty people because that’s a hard thing to do. My wife does that sort of thing because she feels silly showing emotion. I’ve done it too. If you really think it’s more likely that he is laughing at a mass shooting than feeling awkward you should probably substantiate it rather than insulting someone else.

[Roundy]

Uh oh. It looks like the veneer was just washed off Robert’s agenda. And I’d venture to say all the other Democrats had a similar reaction. Now, with a second shooting occurring only an hour or so ago in Ohio, they’ll probably go full tilt with gun control in their campaigns. I don’t think they’ll be able to take down the 2nd Amendment, but I can see most blue states banning rifle ammo over the course of the next couple of years.

0:43

U b trollin.  That was a heartfelt display of genuine emotion.

Anyway I'll take your bait. Which Democrats, specifically, have called for abolishing the 2nd Amendment in the wake of these tragedies? That always seems like a talking point for the Right when these things happen (politicizing a tragedy, if ya can believe it), but I don't see where it has any real substance.

[Fortuna]

That wasn't a laugh ya twit.

Thanks CNN, but that wasn’t even a subtle smirk. It was practically a full on guffaw. If you’re going to be dumb, don’t do it in the serious boards.

You think he was laughing at the shooting? Make your argument why then.

I’d say it’s more likely he laughed at himself, as a defense mechanism to not be vulnerable in front of fifty people because that’s a hard thing to do.

Because he’s a trained, professional speaker. They don’t get awkward in front of 50 people. And he’s already using it as political ammo for his campaign.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/08/04/beto-orourke-trump-el-paso-white-nationalist-1445700

[AATW]

I don’t think they’ll be able to take down the 2nd Amendment, but I can see most blue states banning rifle ammo over the course of the next couple of years.

Are you suggesting that would be a bad thing? As a Brit who cannot begin to understand the US’s relationship with guns I cannot begin to imagine why any of you would want a semi-automatic rifle in your houses. If you think they’re fun to shoot then super, go to a range. If you buy the “self defence” argument (which is bollox) then you don’t need a sodding assault rifle for self defence.

You needn’t worry, as a society it’s clear you’re more concerned with your rights than you kids’ lives. I will literally never understand that.

[Lord Dave]

That wasn't a laugh ya twit.

Thanks CNN, but that wasn’t even a subtle smirk. It was practically a full on guffaw. If you’re going to be dumb, don’t do it in the serious boards.

You think he was laughing at the shooting? Make your argument why then.

I’d say it’s more likely he laughed at himself, as a defense mechanism to not be vulnerable in front of fifty people because that’s a hard thing to do.

Because he’s a trained, professional speaker. They don’t get awkward in front of 50 people. And he’s already using it as political ammo for his campaign.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/08/04/beto-orourke-trump-el-paso-white-nationalist-1445700

Well, with Trump, he's well armed, isn't he?

[Fortuna]

I don’t think they’ll be able to take down the 2nd Amendment, but I can see most blue states banning rifle ammo over the course of the next couple of years.

Are you suggesting that would be a bad thing? As a Brit who cannot begin to understand the US’s relationship with guns I cannot begin to imagine why any of you would want a semi-automatic rifle in your houses. If you think they’re fun to shoot then super, go to a range. If you buy the “self defence” argument (which is bollox) then you don’t need a sodding assault rifle for self defence.

You needn’t worry, as a society it’s clear you’re more concerned with your rights than you kids’ lives. I will literally never understand that.

Are you presenting your lack of understanding as an argument? That's an odd way to go about it.

[AATW]

Are you presenting your lack of understanding as an argument? That's an odd way to go about it.

I don't need to make an argument, the stats about mass shooting do that for me.
I'd be interested to know what your argument is.

[Fortuna]

I don't need to make an argument, the stats about mass shooting do that for me.

So you just thought you'd make a post about how little you know? Okay.

I'd be interested to know what your argument is.

You could start by reading the thread.

[AATW]

You could start by reading the thread.

I have. You have implied you are against gun control but you explicitly stated your opinion.
When you do we can have a conversation.

My position, if it's not clear, is that you have a problem in the US. I don't really feel I have to back that up, the shooting stats speak for themselves.
Offering up "thoughts and prayers" isn't really cutting it.
"Good guy with a gun" is a stupid argument - from what I've read the shooter in Ohio was shot and killed within a minute of opening fire which is commendably efficient, but in that time he managed to kill 10 people.

No-one should have a semi-automatic assault rifle in their house. Even if you buy the self-defence argument you don't need a gun that powerful to do that.
So that type of gun should absolutely be controlled, and that sort of control has worked in other countries. Debatable whether it would work in the US, the genie is arguably out of the bottle already, but doing nothing hasn't worked so maybe you should try doing something about this problem.

[Fortuna]

You could start by reading the thread.

No-one should have a semi-automatic assault rifle in their house. Even if you buy the self-defence argument you don't need a gun that powerful to do that.

It's more a question of rights rather than immediate usefulness. However, I do buy the "muh oppressive gubment" argument. At least they had the sense to also take guns away from police in the UK. Our government, in the US, is not as sensible.

[Rama Set]

That wasn't a laugh ya twit.

Thanks CNN, but that wasn’t even a subtle smirk. It was practically a full on guffaw. If you’re going to be dumb, don’t do it in the serious boards.

You think he was laughing at the shooting? Make your argument why then.

I’d say it’s more likely he laughed at himself, as a defense mechanism to not be vulnerable in front of fifty people because that’s a hard thing to do.

Because he’s a trained, professional speaker. They don’t get awkward in front of 50 people.

Nonsense. Of course they do.  Why wouldn’t they? No amount of training can properly prepare you for the reality of dealing with a situation like this.

And he’s already using it as political ammo for his campaign

Irrelevant. His reaction to a situation in the moment in no way dictates how he will tactically use the situation to further an agenda.

[Fortuna]

Irrelevant. His reaction to a situation in the moment in no way dictates how he will tactically use the situation to further an agenda.

I guess you missed the part where he immediately began blaming Trump for the shooting.

[Rama Set]

Irrelevant. His reaction to a situation in the moment in no way dictates how he will tactically use the situation to further an agenda.

I guess you missed the part where he immediately began blaming Trump for the shooting.

I don’t see how having a speech planned and having a spontaneous emotional reaction are exclusive.

[Lord Dave]

Irrelevant. His reaction to a situation in the moment in no way dictates how he will tactically use the situation to further an agenda.

I guess you missed the part where he immediately began blaming Trump for the shooting.

I don't see how stating facts is bad.

[Fortuna]

Irrelevant. His reaction to a situation in the moment in no way dictates how he will tactically use the situation to further an agenda.

I guess you missed the part where he immediately began blaming Trump for the shooting.

I don't see how stating facts is bad.

Since you seem to have fallen into insanity, I guess we're done here.

[AATW]

It's more a question of rights rather than immediate usefulness.

It's a right most people in the UK don't understand or desire. I don't really buy the self defence argument but I can see how that argument could be made.
But you don't need a sodding assault rifle for that, I cannot overstate how crazy it seems to most of us in the UK that you can legally own weapons that powerful and some of you think it's important that you have the right to do so.
If you really want to hunt (even then you don't need a semi-automatic weapon!) or shoot for fun then there are places you can go to do that, you don't need one in your home.
I can only think of one purpose for having such a weapon and it isn't good, it's just asking for trouble.

However, I do buy the "muh oppressive gubment" argument.

That's an interesting one, I don't really buy it simply because they still have bigger and better toys than you.
And I don't regard the US government as particularly oppressive. Dysfunctional, certainly, but probably not much worse than our lot