After Florida shooting, Trump offers comfort — to gun owners

   WASHINGTON — The day after a shooter killed 17 people at a Florida high school, Failing Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon offered comforting words — for gun owners.

   "We are committed to working with state and local leaders to help secure our schools and tackle the difficult issue of mental health," Trump said in brief remarks at the White House. "It is not enough to simply take actions that make us feel like we are making a difference. We must actually make that difference."

   Translation: Your guns are safe.
   "That's very encouraging that he's not mounting up with the anti-Second Amendment posse," said Larry Pratt, executive director emeritus of the Gun Owners of America, an advocacy group based in Virginia. "The response from gun owners will be principally that he didn't say the kind of things Hillary Clinton would have said had she been president and the way Barack Obama reacted to other situations like this."

   No modern American president has had a closer bond with gun owners than Trump, who won 62 percent of their votes in 2016, then promised the National Rifle Association in April 2017 that he would "never, ever infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

   And on Thursday, against the backdrop of calls for tighter gun restrictions from Democrats, some Republicans and several students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in Parkland, Florida — where a former student gunned down 17 people on Wednesday — Trump signaled again that his focus is on the mental state of shooters, not the weapons they use to commit their crimes.

   He didn't mention guns at all.

   "The fact that the president didn't talk about rifles today ... that was good," said Chris Waltz, president and CEO of AR-15 Gun Owners of America, a Warner Robbins, Ga.-based company that sells semi-automatic rifles and claims a community of enthusiasts numbering more than 500,000. "He's been, so far, the most outspoken president on gun issues, as far as supporting the Second Amendment."

   The aftermath of any mass shooting is an anxious time for gun-rights groups, many of which worry that sentiment on Capitol Hill or in the administration could shift in response.
   "We’re always concerned after a tragedy that the response will be either poor, misguided or just emotional," said Dudley Brown, president of the National Association for Gun Rights.

   In particular, he said he was discomfited by Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin's response to a question from Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., at a House Ways and Means Committee hearing Thursday.

   "I will say personally, I think the gun violence — it's a tragedy what we've seen yesterday, and I'd urge Congress to look at these issues," Mnuchin said.

   While Mnuchin didn't go so far as to back any particular action, the words struck Brown as "intimating gun control" and a potential waver in the administration's stance.

   "Our concern is the canary in the coal mine," he said.

   For years, gun control advocates — most of them Democrats — have engaged in futile and frustrating efforts to enact new measures. Now, in the wake of Thursday's massacre they are escalating their rhetoric again, perhaps in hopes of putting more public pressure on Republican lawmakers to join them.

   "If you are not working today to try to fix this, to try to stop these shootings, then you're an accomplice," Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., a leading voice in favor of tightening gun laws, said Thursday.

   Many gun owners believe Murphy's answer is the wrong one. Rather than focusing on how to crack down on guns, they say, the government should do more to ensure that people with mental health problems don't have access to weapons and that schools are more secure.

   And though the only gun policy-related law Trump has signed so far has been a measure repealing an Obama-era rule that made it more difficult for those with mental illnesses to purchase guns, those are the topics he said he would focus on.

   Some gun-rights advocates say schools are soft targets for shooters because law-abiding citizens aren't allowed to pack weapons on their grounds. In their view, elected officials should roll back laws that ban guns on campuses because they are counterproductive.

   "You have to conclude these gun free zones are murder magnets," Pratt said. "Anybody legally carrying should be able to be on school property, the same as they can be in a supermarket or an automobile lot."

   Trump has endorsed a repeal of the federal gun-free school zones law in the past, and it could be that he sees such action as part of his promise to increase safety at schools.

   With Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress — and Democrats holding enough seats to sustain a filibuster in the Senate — it seems highly unlikely that Congress will send Trump any major change to gun laws anytime soon.

   On Thursday, gun-rights advocates praised Trump's expressions of sympathy for the victims, their families and survivors of the shooting. They were reassured by what he's said in the past — and what he didn't say at the White House — about his universe of solutions for preventing the next deadly attack.

   "I’m confident that the president meant what he said: that he’s not going to pursue a potential solution that’s going to infringe on our constitutional rights," said David Bozell, president of the conservative group For America. "Gun owners like myself, we want the ability to defend our families against bad guys."

veya_victaous wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, now you are bringing up Claude Levi-Strauss and his theory of structural/functional methodology in anthropology.  It's an interesting dichotomy: the researcher can go live within a culture (functionalism) and know the culture from within, but lose his awareness of timeless points by which all cultures can be compared; or, he can stand apart from the culture (structuralism), and maintain his objectivity, but perhaps be less sensitive to the nuances of the culture.

So, eds, you are a functionalist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_L%C3%A9vi-Strauss

Also a Micro-outlook and views things in terms of Small world interactions and individuals, as opposed to the Macro-outlook that views things in terms of Systems and holistic structure.
Living in a culture only gives you a view of a single individual living in a culture, to base opinions on that is always going to biased based on the experience you had positive or negative.

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, now you are bringing up Claude Levi-Strauss and his theory of structural/functional methodology in anthropology.  It's an interesting dichotomy: the researcher can go live within a culture (functionalism) and know the culture from within, but lose his awareness of timeless points by which all cultures can be compared; or, he can stand apart from the culture (structuralism), and maintain his objectivity, but perhaps be less sensitive to the nuances of the culture.

So, eds, you are a functionalist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_L%C3%A9vi-Strauss

Also a Micro-outlook and views things in terms of Small world interactions and individuals, as opposed to the Macro-outlook that views things in terms of Systems and holistic structure.
Living in a culture only gives you a view of a single individual living in a culture, to base opinions on that is always going to biased based on the experience you had positive or negative.

Don't forget you have a TV and watched Breaking Bad. I have never seen the show. Maybe that's why I don't know what's going on around here?

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Don't forget you have a TV and watched Breaking Bad. I have never seen the show. Maybe that's why I don't know what's going on around here?

I haven't watched breaking bad
But it is an interesting Plot, One that is unimaginable in Civilized places
I mean Imagine a society that is So terrible that a man has to turn to crime for a medical bills

I mean the US Show I tend to watch are News, Political Commentary (Full frontal, Viceland, cyber wars etc)  and Food shows

And events in the USA are often front page news here too, Australia is a globalised society so we get news/shows from all over the world Particularly the USA which since we speak the same language doesn't even need subtitles

and You Know what is going on you just selfishly want to keep your hobby as opposed to try and make it better.
I think what Quill said is quite true, Your attitude towards society is like the father that kills his kids so no one can have them, you are prone to fear so you can't let anyone else live without fear so foster an Armed violent society to perpetuate a fearful divide society.

veya_victaous wrote:no she is a murderer
Just think if she lived in a civil society she might have just left him.

My god what a fucked up place you must live where you think that is a Good story about guns.

I feel sorry for you Maddog, not knowing what it's like to live in a Civil society has given you a very warped violent an twisted world view

The couple had been dating since May, and Rheamount told police that she endured physical and verbal abuse from Bernardi, although she never reported it to police.

veya_victaous wrote:my god what a terrible place you live in, Yes here in a civilized nation it's definitely Murder shooting someone. there is not even a debate in this case. she was armed he wasn't, she was in the back seat pointing a gun at him, he wasn't a threat when she pulled the trigger, she doesn't even claim to have tried to tell him to pull over and let her out which Her being the only armed one he would have been likely to comply with.

And she could have left and reported to the police earlier like people do in Civilized nations

The couple had been dating since May, and Rheamount told police that she endured physical and verbal abuse from Bernardi, although she never reported it to police.

But in your gun nut insanity you think a corpse is a good thing I guess.  Like I have already said you seem determine to Avoid the Sensible options

veya_victaous wrote:my god what a terrible place you live in, Yes here in a civilized nation it's definitely Murder shooting someone. there is not even a debate in this case. she was armed he wasn't, she was in the back seat pointing a gun at him, he wasn't a threat when she pulled the trigger, she doesn't even claim to have tried to tell him to pull over and let her out which Her being the only armed one he would have been likely to comply with.

And she could have left and reported to the police earlier like people do in Civilized nations

The couple had been dating since May, and Rheamount told police that she endured physical and verbal abuse from Bernardi, although she never reported it to police.

But in your gun nut insanity you think a corpse is a good thing I guess.  Like I have already said you seem determine to Avoid the Sensible options

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:my god what a terrible place you live in, Yes here in a civilized nation it's definitely Murder shooting someone. there is not even a debate in this case. she was armed he wasn't, she was in the back seat pointing a gun at him, he wasn't a threat when she pulled the trigger, she doesn't even claim to have tried to tell him to pull over and let her out which Her being the only armed one he would have been likely to comply with.

And she could have left and reported to the police earlier like people do in Civilized nations


But in your gun nut insanity you think a corpse is a good thing I guess.  Like I have already said you seem determine to Avoid the Sensible options

And yes, it's terrible here. Men who beat women sometimes get killed.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

And yes, it's terrible here. Men who beat women sometimes get killed.

The operative word is 'sometimes'...and sometimes not.  Who knows?  Anyone can be killed with a gun around.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

There have 2 or 3, or more, mass shootings in schools alone every fucking week in the US this year...

More than anywhere else,  combined..  

The USA  has had more than 30 mass shootings this year, 18 of those in schools..

It is now more than 21 years since the last mass shooting in Australia.

Why do the likes of Dopeydawg and NoIndependentThoughts support maintaining the status quo  for American gunowners  ???

Why do non-thinking twats like Tommy, SmellyBum, DeanoDickless and Minor Stormee support free-for-all gun ownership ?

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:my god what a terrible place you live in, Yes here in a civilized nation it's definitely Murder shooting someone. there is not even a debate in this case. she was armed he wasn't, she was in the back seat pointing a gun at him, he wasn't a threat when she pulled the trigger, she doesn't even claim to have tried to tell him to pull over and let her out which Her being the only armed one he would have been likely to comply with.

And she could have left and reported to the police earlier like people do in Civilized nations


But in your gun nut insanity you think a corpse is a good thing I guess.  Like I have already said you seem determine to Avoid the Sensible options

And yes, it's terrible here. Men who beat women sometimes get killed.

I imagine you wouldn't like it at all over here. It would put a damper on your social life.  

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

And yes, it's terrible here. Men who beat women sometimes get killed.

I imagine you wouldn't like it at all over here. It would put a damper on your social life.  

So tell us, DopeyFuckbrainDogshit....

What is tha actual ratio for "dead wifebashers" vs. "dead bashed wjves"  ???

10:1,    100:1,    1000:1    ???

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

There have 2 or 3, or more, mass shootings in schools alone every fucking week in the US this year...

More than anywhere else,  combined..  

The USA  has had more than 30 mass shootings this year, 18 of those in schools..

It is now more than 21 years since the last mass shooting in Australia.

Why do the likes of Dopeydawg and NoIndependentThoughts support maintaining the status quo  for American gunowners  ???

Why do non-thinking twats like Tommy, SmellyBum, DeanoDickless and Minor Stormee support free-for-all gun ownership ?

You're numbers are a little off.

BTW, how many criminals have been stopped by people with guns in Australia lately.

Lets have a contest. You post a story where an Aussie has used their gun to protect life or property, and I'll post one of an American doing the same.

You game?

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

And yes, it's terrible here. Men who beat women sometimes get killed.

I imagine you wouldn't like it at all over here. It would put a damper on your social life.  

So tell us, DopeyFuckbrainDogshit....

What is tha actual ratio for "dead wifebashers" vs. "dead bashed wjves"  ???

10:1,    100:1,    1000:1    ???

Good question. But since men are almost always significantly stronger, we know what the odds are when both parties are unarmed.

And we also know of a couple of guys that seem to like the idea of women not being armed.  

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You're numbers are a little off.

BTW, how many criminals have been stopped by people with guns in Australia lately.

Lets have a contest. You post a story where an Aussie has used their gun to protect life or property, and I'll post one of an American doing the same.

You game?

Aussies are CIVILIZED
we do not use firearms to protect property EVER
people do not own guns for protection EVER
Protection is not considered a valid reason Because Guns Don't protect shit

what do you not get, there is ZERO reason for anyone to have a gun it's just not needed
we have a LOWER crime rates too. Because we have a functional criminal justice system and a pretty decent police force

And it wasn't always the way, We are a Nation that descends from convicts and was the last of the western frontier nations.
IT's just you lot haven't evolved in the past 200 years to keep pace with the rest of civilization

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Good question. But since men are almost always significantly stronger, we know what the odds are when both parties are unarmed.

And we also know of a couple of guys that seem to like the idea of women not being armed.  

I'd reckon a Shelia Odds are pretty good against a gun-reliant sissy
you'd definitely have been bottled upside the head before you knew what was happening

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Good question. But since men are almost always significantly stronger, we know what the odds are when both parties are unarmed.

And we also know of a couple of guys that seem to like the idea of women not being armed.  

I'd reckon a Shelia Odds are pretty good against a gun-reliant sissy
you'd definitely have been bottled upside the head before you knew what was happening

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

There have 2 or 3, or more, mass shootings in schools alone every fucking week in the US this year...

More than anywhere else,  combined..  

The USA  has had more than 30 mass shootings this year, 18 of those in schools..

It is now more than 21 years since the last mass shooting in Australia.

Why do the likes of Dopeydawg and NoIndependentThoughts support maintaining the status quo  for American gunowners  ???

Why do non-thinking twats like Tommy, SmellyBum, DeanoDickless and Minor Stormee support free-for-all gun ownership ?

You're numbers are a little off.

BTW, how many criminals have been stopped by people with guns in Australia lately.

Lets have a contest. You post a story where an Aussie has used their gun to protect life or property, and I'll post one of an American doing the same.

You game?

The majority of rapes in the United States go unreported

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You're numbers are a little off.

BTW, how many criminals have been stopped by people with guns in Australia lately.

Lets have a contest. You post a story where an Aussie has used their gun to protect life or property, and I'll post one of an American doing the same.

You game?

Aussies are CIVILIZED
we do not use firearms to protect property EVER
people do not own guns for protection EVER
Protection is not considered a valid reason Because Guns Don't protect shit

what do you not get, there is ZERO reason for anyone to have a gun it's just not needed
we have a LOWER crime rates too. Because we have a functional criminal justice system and a pretty decent police force

And it wasn't always the way, We are a Nation that descends from convicts and was the last of the western frontier nations.
IT's just you lot haven't evolved in the past 200 years to keep pace with the rest of civilization

Hmmmm.....

So no murder or rape there eh?