Jump to content

9 dead in South Carolina Church shooting:


ChitHappens

Recommended Posts

  • Members

I think the current gun control laws should be actually enforced, rather than violent criminals having access to firearms because of all the loopholes and lax enforcement.

Most people who have LEGAL guns prefer not to use them, they simply have them for protection.

If only our current control laws weren't such a laughingstock, to say nothing of true enforcement of what we do have, heinous things like this would not happen.

Let's place the responsibility where it belongs. Not on an inanimate object, but on the sick freak who used that object.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

The NRA applaud you for parroting their every talking point. Svengali himself could not have gotten you to say what he wanted any better than the brainwashing the NRA has accomplished on you and everyone who believes this nonsense you spout. Enjoy the semi-annual murder sprees that literally always are committed with a gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I support gun control, but this guy didn't have any type of record or warning signs, did he? Now we hear "I was his friend/I knew him and he'd been planning this for months," but was there a track record that would have stopped him from doing what he did?

Often times I feel like these types would get a gun pretty easily even with stricter laws, especially if they are white and somewhat well off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This. People in America who think these don't happen because of your insane gun culture are fools and ignorant. The gun culture in America is part of the reason most of the people I work with dread even hearing anything about having to visit America. Nobody wants to go there because all we ever see or hear about is stuff like this. It seems like nowhere is safe- you can't walk down the street, you can't go to the cinema, you can't go to places of worship, you can't even send 6 year olds to school without having to worry about them getting shot. I see on the news all time about this supposed "gun given right" Americans have to own any sort of gun they can get their hands on but what about everyone else's right to live and not have to worry about getting gunned down the minute they step outside. Yes the mentally ill need help too but call these people that commit these acts what they are. They might be troubled but they're also evil thugs and terrorists who never should have been allowed to be anywhere near a gun in the first place yet because of America's gun culture, they're allowed to commit these acts. Sorry to say it, but if 5 and 6 year old getting gunned down at an elementary school can't change America's sick culture, then I don't know what ever will.

I've lived in Australia off and on my entire life. We get the same the movies, video games, and tv shows you all do and people here don't behave that way. We had a mass shooting 18 years ago and massive gun control laws went into effect. We've had one incident since then. America has one every other month.

Also, his apparent "love" for white supremacy ruled Rhodesia and apartheid era South Africa show exactly what kind of person he was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

And then people who want to kill mass amounts of people will use other means. Like driving a hummer into a crowd of people, like making a bomb out of a pressure cooker, etc. etc. Assault weapons... fine to get rid of. If you want gun violence to slow down, make it so if you commit a CRIME with a gun, you go to jail FOREVER anf you never come back. Even a 17 year old kid holding up a 7-11, life in prison, no chance of parole. I bet that would slow their roll!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The United States of America is the only advanced country in the world to experience the level of gun violence that it does. It's also the most advanced country in the world to have little to no gun control.

Australia, Canada, the UK...all countries with gun control and plenty of American popular culture. Also countries that experience so little gun violence that when it happens it is a national event. In the United States this is just a bimonthly happening.

PATHETIC!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

So let them use the other means. How many children do you want to see killed by guns before you say "ok, lets give gun control a chance"? All I ask of every republican and gun rights maniac is just give a number. How many people do you want to see die before you say "ok, it is possible we are wrong and it couldn't hurt to try". Is it a million? Ten million? A hundred? Just give a number so we can start keeping count to that eventual day when your number is reached and then we can try gun control. Why gun advocates are pro murder I'll never understand. Just listen to yourself "If they didn't have a gun they'd use something else. So lets give them guns and make their job easier". I guess in the gun rights world we have to be fair to killers and maximize their options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Except people in this country realized driving drunk was a hazard and killer which is why over the last 25 years drunk driving laws have become much more strict and the number of deaths caused by drunk drivers is down. So in this world why can't we apply the same logic and incorporate tougher gun laws. For example someone needs to explain to me WHY anyone needs an automatic weapon. For protection really? Those are weapons used for combat not something every Tom Dick and Harry are entitled to own. That's what the man who killed those 26 people at Sandy Hooke had.

I live in Chicago and people always hold up the failure of Chicago's strict gun control laws as a reason they don't work. Well I can also say that law enforcement here had no interest in enforcing those laws because in their mind "let them kill each other". Those are words by the way from a Chicago Police office I know talking about what they see as the "undesirable" element. And the occasional bystander who happens to get killed as a result is just a casualty of that mentality.

It's funny to me how all these so called "patriots" are pro life also believing that something like abortion (which since it's been legalized the rate of abortions is down), don't see guns as a death tool yet feel that legal adults can own a gun no problem but should not have the right to control their own life and bodies and use their own judgment to make sound decisions. As if the millions of people who carry guns do since they don't seem to have to undergo less scrutiny than someone wanting to get a legal abortion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think its laughable how the gun rights lobby decries liberal policies when apparently they love our liberal (i.e. lax) gun laws. That liberal policy they would fight to the death to sustain.wacko.png

Anyway,

Right on to John Stewart who put it all so succintly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjzrvRKv6Ks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Some people still believe the day is going to come when militias need to overcome an unjust federal government. It's crazy that these people think they would ever stand a chance against the U.S. military, but there are A LOT of everyday people who believe they have the right to bear arms for this very reason. Ingrained belief in militias and vigilante justice are a big part of American culture. It's way more of an issue than any video games will ever be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I think we have learned by now that you can never be sure anyone's actually dead on a soap...
    • I think this has been one of the best years in a long time. In no small part due to the fact that so many countries have chosen to sing in their native language. Songs like the ones from Greece and Latvia have benefitted immensely from this, and made those two personal favourites of mine. I think Greece has the most incredibly beautiful staging and Klavdia's voice is outstanding. I don't think she has any real chance of winning, but if she did I would be ecstatic. Luxembourg is another favourite of mine and Laura (with her dancers) really sold that song with the new staging. Her performance in the final was flawless and I will be very disappointed if she doesn't improve on last year's result for Luxembourg (13th).
    • If those came from that mass-produced CD that was put out a while back, I'm afraid those episodes are wildly out of order and are very confusing to listen to. I had to painstakingly put them in order to make sense of things. I need to make my own CD to give to people just to try and fix the problem. Thankfully, I had time during the lockdown to do that. Just a word of warning. 
    • Some spoilery press photos:

      Please register in order to view this content

       
    • With so many reference to Caroline, how many months before 'Linus' appears? We already know *twins* run in the Spencer family. We know very little about Liam's birth, etc. Please tell me it'll never happen. Brad undercutting the significance of Steffy/Hope scenes, which were great, by having Steffy squeal to Taylor less than an hour later. I was initially glad that Carter finally got a leading man story, except they've completely destroyed what made him likeable - from the imaginary House of Forrester, fake LLC papers and, Friday, he blames everything on Hope. Gross. Daphne being certain that Hope would go back to Liam is contrived. She knows nothing about their history. How many times has the Nose met Liam? If, say, Katie, Ridge or Steffy made the suggestion, at least, it would be believable from those characters' history/point-of-view.  
    • Sometimes I forget Mindy had been married four times in the space of a decade. Those are Erica Kane numbers. 
    • This is Part 2 but I was wrong, there is no 3.  Today we are going review one of the questions: “What are your thoughts on the validity of the Daytime Emmy Awards?”  At this time, there was a lot of negative feelings about the awards, from the politics, the nomination process and even, where should they be held. MARY STUART: “No, comment.  No, I really think it’s silly.  It’s only an award for one particular performance, too.  It’s ridiculous.” CARL LOW: “I understand they’re trying to change the format of selection, because a one-shot performance does not reflect a year’s work.  Who can remember that one particular performance?” MARY STUART: “You’re supposed to save it.  Three years in a row my tapes were erased.  So I’m ineligible?  One of the other sponsors said they didn’t want anyone on a P&G show nominated.  Does that make sense?  And the people who really hold the industry together never have any juicy scenes.  People like Charita Bauer and Carl Low.  I wish it were not a national game, but instead, a peer activity.  I would believe in it if it were presented by our peers and it were private, within the industry from people who really care.  Then it means something.” Mary made some very valid points. Until 1976, except for her nomination in the first year, no actor for a P&G show was nominated in the first two years of the awards. So, 1974 one nominee & 1975 zero nominees. That means only one out of about a hundred actors over five shows (SFT, EON, GL, ATWT and AW) were not nominated. LARRY HAINES: “I don’t think there should be fewer categories in daytime than there are in nighttime awards.  If there is one for best performer, there has got to be one for best supporting performer, because nobody plays in a vacuum.  It’s not a one person effort.  The categories are voted on by a completely unbiased panel.” BILLIE LOU WATTS: “I agreed to be a judge last year.  But I was not allowed to vote for best actor because we had two for our cast were nominees – Larry (Haines) and Michael (Nouri).  I might be biased toward them.  I also could not vote in best actress, since Mary (Stuart) was nominated.  I could only vote in categories where I had no personal attachments.  The only problem about the daytime awards is that the great test of a performer on a daytime show is how well he performs all year long.  You can’t judge that unless you have someone who monitors it every week.  They have increased it from judging just one scene to three, but…” VAL DUFOUR: “I resent the Daytime Emmy Awards and will have anything to do with them, as long as were presented in the daytime, with stuffed animals, instead of at night. I’m a member of AFTRA (American Federation of Television and Radio Artists), Screen Actors Guild (SAG) and Equity (the theater union) and I want the work I do represented with other member of my profession.  As far as I am concerned, they are an insult to the actor.  Number one, they (Academy members) don’t even begin to understand how to decide or judge, to say nothing of the fact the whole premise is phony, because it’s a bought, political thing.  If you can get together 25 votes, then they’ll nominate you.  They have advised us not to put up any actor, unless he or she’s known for anything else, because we’ll be wasting our votes!  Now how do you like that!?  Another thing, where does he good performer come in?  It’s a different thing if you have a 2 ½ hour picture and you’re discussing this actor and only that performance – how can you do this on a soap?  The worst actor in the world can be brilliant in one scene – it has to be looked at in a broader scope; you have to get a continuity of an actor’s performance on a soap.  The Daytime Emmy’s are a raunchy, cheap marketplace that has nothing to do with the honor that should be placed on a beautiful performance.” MORGAN FAIRCHILD: “I’m very apolitical and consider the whole thing very political.  And I think anybody on the soaps realizes this.” MICHAEL NOURI: “I have mixed feelings about it.  Having been nominated for one was very flattering and having been nominated, I like that part.  But there’s something farcical about it: the Academy Awards, all awards. People are judged on the basis of one performance, which says nothing about somebody’s overall character portrayal.  I have seen some people come in for just a one-short.  I can sense how really good they are, but because of their nervousness, they’re just not relaxed enough to get to what they have to offer.  So the criterion for the awards is off-base, I think.” TOM KLUNIS: “In a way I think it’s good and gives recognition to the actor and the medium.  I think possibly it’s commercially necessary…” MARIE (MAREE) CHEATHAM: “That’s not high on my list of feelings.  How can you judge…If a performer is consistently fine and does something very interesting with very little material…that’s the trick in daytime.” LEWIS ARLT: “No comment.” MILLIE TAGGART: “I think the award for the male performer who won last year’s award was the most valid award ever given.  I can’t judge for any others, but Larry is a wonderful, wonderful actor-he’s the best that I’ve ever known.” JOHN CUNNINGHAM: All such awards are really invalid because the only way could really judge whose better for that year, would be if everybody contesting then played the same part. Because to say an apple is better than an orange is crazy. You just can’t do that.  That’s why George C. Scott was right to turn down his Oscar.  Somebody has to stand up every so often and say it’s a lot of crap.” MILLIE TAGGART: “You can have a wonderful story one year, while someone else is vacuuming…” JOEL HIGGINS: “It’s a very loaded question at this time because there is a furor raging between L.A. and New York about the whole thing and when it gets to the point, it’s silly.  You’re no longer awarding someone because they’re the best…You’re awarding them because they live in L.A. or New York.  I’m sure anyone who has ever won is talented.  But I think there are so many talented people-how you can possibly say this person’s better than that? It depends on the character, what they get to play…a million things. Stack the Emmy’s up against the Pulitzer Prize, where it’s not a group of nominees and only one winner.  They say, “We’re going to give 12 of them this year, because these were all good achievements.”” PETER SIMON: “Ludicrous, absolutely ludicrous.” COURTNEY SHERMAN: “I hate the idea.  Talk about various aspects of the business, the daytime drama is definitely a field unto itself; there really is a repertory company feeling here.  I don’t think it is ever to any one’s advantage to have competition for awards.  As dignified as everyone may act about it, I think it’s destructive and silly.  It’s different with a play or movie-they’re entities unto themselves, but I find the Emmys offensive. PETER SIMON: “The process of selection is all done on the number of friends you have for votes.  And this ridiculous competition now between the two coasts, as to where the Emmys are going to be handed out.  I mean, what are they talking about? In a soap, where does the performance end? There are certain people in the shows who have all the gravy and other really fine actors who do nothing but the drudgery.  The categories in soaps should be best recap, best getting through a scene without fainting…” COURTNEY SHERMAN: “Not that you can’t be a fine actor sitting and drinking coffee, but is that the scene you’re going to give to the board of judges?” Obviously a lot about the Emmys have changed since 1976.  But a lot has stayed the same as well.  Too many fine actors, both in Daytime and Primetime have NEVER been nominated.  Whole shows are ignored while others are nominated year after year.  Love of Life was only nominated for ONE acting award, and that was for Shepperd Strudwick, who has previously been nominated.  This year in primetime, Ted Lasso (an excellent show) got many nominations as it has every year, but Ghosts has been ignored again.  Different shows, but both excellent. What is your opinion?  
    • very danceable theme song https://x.com/iammskye1/status/1923509048416043443
    • You are not. I'm so happy that this storyline for Anita is finally showing movement. 
    • A shame that Santa Barbara lost the Andrades but I wonder what the Dobsons had in mind for them. From what I know of the Joe/Kelly situation, they didn't seem to know what to do with the Perkins. I don't think McConnell in particular gets enough acclaim for what she added to the show.  The Dobsons (from what I know of the show) didn't seem to know what to do with Augusta. This was especially true on their second go around but that was also Rauch getting back at her, so who knows?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy