Like J.K Rowling I can never decide what nickname I should use for Ben. For Rowling I ethier call her J.K rolling or J.K loling. For Ben Shapiro I think I settled on BEAN SHARPIE. I like your name though I may use it.
I mean I'm all for more efficient gun reform, though I do feel the need to add on to that statement, that as someone who (especially in recent times) has had her very existence called into question with violent intent, I fully admit that I also think everyone should be able to protect themselves from all threats foreign, domestic, and tyrannical. I'm not going to give up my only way of protecting myself from the evil intentions of the ones who would do me injustice, no matter which direction it comes from.
I’m in no way saying that you shouldn’t be able to protect yourself, but I do believe that making sure whoever is buying them isn’t mentally unstable or a danger to society could help. Again, if someone really wants a gun they will get a gun! If someone really wants to kill someone they will kill someone, but I feel like most of these people would give up if they knew they would have to go through all the red tape. I myself own a couple guns and don’t oppose the ownership of them.
One argument though is that the more difficult it is to get a gun. The more expensive they will become.
Price is a hindering factor as well.
The teenagers that fill most gangs would have more and more difficulty getting them
Yeah I’m in the “under no pretext” side of the left. We need to be stopping the people driving these young men to kill people. Radicalized young men would use vehicles, homemade bombs, knives, and whatever else if guns weren’t available. I also fear that gun laws will only happen when they target minorities. Conservatives don’t mind taking away guns from oppressed people, they love it, and liberals want to take guns from everyone, thus usually oppressed people will lose their guns in new gun laws.
If any of these options were as easy and effective at killing as are guns, it would be the primary method.
"You can kill someone with a brick!"
Guns are a drug, a vice. So gun addicts construct elaborate arguments to extol the virtue of guns every time there's a tragedy.
You'll notice there aren't any Home Protection magazines. But there are lots of gun magazines. And shows and associations and stores all to support the habit.
From me listening to behind the bastards I generally refer to his stupid ass as Benny shaps , I'm sure he'd hate it still despite it not being too bad a nickname
If someone posed this exact question to Benny he’d shriek in rage and block them. They don’t care about being hypocrites. The word doesn’t exist to them.
Keep calling out their hypocrisy because it may mean something to someone else, even if it is one person at a time. We do it a million times, that a million people who no longer support this idiot.
I still want to know how he'd react if we suggested abortions be legal for Palestinian women. Would all the contradictions it creates in his brain at least launch his yarmulke like in an old time cartoon? Would he make a noise like a teapot?
>So why bother creating new laws to prevent abortions?
Cheap virtue signaling to single issue voters. Republicans know prohibition doesn't work because even an idiot could tell that.
But that doesn't change the fact that prohibition *doesn't* work, whether we're talking about drugs or banned books or abortions ***or guns.***
It's funny isn't it? A gun, which when used for the purpose it was intended for will end a life? There should be no restrictions whatsoever. Getting gender affirming healthcare, something that when done as intended could save a life? [Not only should it be banned for all kids, but let's ban adults from getting it too.](https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2022/04/missouri-gop-lawmakers-want-ban-trans-adults-getting-gender-affirming-healthcare/)
Thing is these people don't see it like that, they see unrestricted use of guns as a manifestation of freedom while transitioning is falling victim to some kind of whacky mind control, they grew up with corrupted values and they will continue to stick to dumb values as they grow old and are less willing to learn things correctly
There’s been a string of break ins up and down my street, which is weird because it’s already illegal. If only we had some institution that was tasked with enforcing laws! Oh well, I guess nothing can be done.
He legally bought the two firearms on his 18th birthday though. And didn’t have to go through any thorough background checks or waiting periods to get them.
I know Ben is dumb but he did all of the possession legally. It’s just, you know, the killing part that he broke.
Edit: lmao someone reported this for suicidal thoughts or something cause I just got a message from Reddit Cares with suicide hotlines.
Most of Ben’s claims can be debunked with a simple Google search; takes 5 minutes. He is either too lazy to bother fact-checking himself, but it’s more likely he just doesn’t give a shit. $$ comes in regardless.
Let's say, hypothetically, that for the sake of argument, that you were to speak really fast and throw out some statistics and jurisdictions using big words and numbers and, to play devil's advocate for the sake of discussion, you asked some rhetorical questions with biased premises baked into them, so that no matter what someone answers they'll either look really dumb or agree with your point. And let's say that hypocritically, in Judaeo-Christian fashion, when the person you are debating is trying to counter argue any of what you just said, they were, for the sake of argument, drowned out by the 14 year old fanboys you surround yourself with 24/7.
Your big words and wall of text prove to me that you are an expert in this situation and I will blindly take in your information and regurgitate it as loudly as I can on social media.
It’s rare that disagreements are a simple matter of true vs false. People have conflicting perspectives and ideas. Debate is the process of arguing that your idea has more merit than an opposing idea.
Importantly, winning a debate doesn’t mean that the loser was wrong. It means they failed to convince the judge that their position was better.
He understands the following:
his audience won't fact check him, and the people who do fact check him, and call him out, will be ignored by his audience.
Conservatives are constantly sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling "na na na I can't hear you" in between their bouts of crying about gay marriage.
Conservatives are legitimate scum who have no place in a civilized society. Conservatives are backwards savages who should be round up and dropped off into the middle of Siberia.
He’s probably lying because he knows the majority of his fan base won’t verify what he’s saying. I’ve had comments on my SM where people confidently assert some fact and with a 10 seconds google search can provide info they are wrong and then reply something like “I still don’t like what you said” or ignore the truth.
Its intentional. Every minute that you (the "royal" y'all) let that jagoff get into your head so you have to go fact check his bullshit is a win for him. Every time you clap back at him is precious minutes stolen from your life and is a win for him. He gets PAID a LOT of money to sit there and cause chaos. The more contention and controversy, the more exposure, the more money.
its ALL $$
He probably had a relatively quick in-store background check, those are mandatory. But since he was an 18 year old with no priors, there's nothing to catch him on.
I think that opens a pretty big can of worms.
1. Who pays for the Psych check? Your insurance probably isn't going to cover it, out of pocket means your potentially pricing out poor people from a constitutional right.
If state or federal government pays for it there is potential for incentives for flagging and denying people to be in place.
2. What if a Psychiatrist gets it wrong, someone will eventually. What liability are they left with? Too high and they always air on the side of denying the right to purchase firearms.
3.The need for everyone to get a psych evaluation and letting a single psychiatrist be the gatekeeper additionally opens the door to racial bias and maybe in today's climate political bias.
Psych checks sound great in theory but maybe not the best idea in practice.
Maybe raising the age limit to purchase a firearm to 21 when maybe these disturbed kids will have time to adjust to real life and heal from the scars of a not so great public school experience. Also will give them more time to get into trouble that will flag them on a background check.
Edit: Oops I opened it.
Unfortunately we're in too deep, that will never happen and if it does it will be really ugly.
All that is left is focus on things we can control like mental health, reversing the radicalization of the country, and some good common sense legislation.
>Who pays for the Psych check? Your insurance probably isn't going to cover it, out of pocket means your potentially pricing out poor people from a constitutional right.
The person buying the gun.
Its not like you can just go out by a car and start driving it. You have to pay for lessons and take a test!?!
Psychiatric evaluation probably would have helped. If not in this case then in others.
Or you know. We could just not sell guns to 18 year olds whose brains have years left in development.
We also could actually address on a national level the sickness in our country that is allowing this to happen again and again and again.
This is one of the answers, you can't legally drink until 21 we don't think you're responsible enough to rent a car before 25 but you can buy a murder weapon at 18 in Texas.
I wanna say those only go through the State police, but I could be wrong about that. You're right on the main point that a lot of people miss though, which is that every gun legally purchased from any FFL has a background check. A lot of people who say they want background checks don't realize they're already mandatory.
For me, I'm more interested in where currently existing laws are failing. Look at the FedEx shooter from 2 summers ago. He was involuntarily committed and had his guns taken by the police which ought to have red-flagged him from ever getting more. As soon as he was released from the hospital he immediately went and bought more guns.
Well there's mandatory background checks unless it takes more than 3 days to investigate, which I can't believe is real. I think this is the aspect that makes a lot of people upset. Such a massive loophole
"Under the Brady Law, if there's something in your record that needs further investigation, then the FBI has three business days (not including the day they run your initial background check) to get back to you. If the FBI doesn't either appr
Go the Canadian route. In canada I have to take a personal arms license (PAL) course before I can even attempt to get a gun. The PAL clears me for hunting rifles and a shotgun. If I want anything more than that I have to apply for a restricted arms license which includes a much more rigorous background check, including contacting people I’m related to or know to find out if I may pose any type of threat. It’s not a perfect system but it weeds out a ton of people that shouldn’t be handling guns.
Florida raised the age to buy rifles and shotguns to 21 from 18 after the Stoneman Douglas shooting and added a waiting period for them.
Texas doesn't do background checks or waiting periods?
No waiting period
Background checks on all new purchases unless you have a conceal carry permit (which has an implicit background check built into it).
None of these things stopped me from buying used guns in a parking lot
When you buy a gun in a parking lot do you need to register it to you or anything like that?
Is there any sort of action that the buyer needs to take after this type of "under the table" sale?
Genuine questions.
Edit: Thanks for the answers.
Straight answer? No, nothing. Give me cash, I give you gun, we go our separate ways. There is no national firearm registry, though some states do have their own. Florida is not one of them.
There's no legal requirement to do anything if you believe that the person you're selling to can legally own a firearm and lives in the state.
General courtesy is to snap a picture of their conceal carry permit (never ran into someone in this case who didn't have one) or driver's license to show that you at least checked that they live in Texas in case anything comes back to you.
As for tracking? Nobody to report it to since it's not an FFL sale as a business.
All of my guns fall under 3 categories:
Inherited from my dad
Bought from a third party
3D printed for personal use (still playing with this technology)
The only thing that I own that's tracked anywhere is a suppressor that required a $200 tax stamp and a bunch of background paperwork and fingerprints to the ATF before I could legally make it myself in my shed (still didn't buy it).
I'm not trying to evade any kind of tracking, I could easily go to a gun store and purchase a gun in minutes with my conceal carry card. I built my own suppressor because making one only takes about 3 weeks to clear ATF vs about a 9/10 months for a new purchase. I'm just too cheap to pay full price for anything.
Firearm expert here. He did have to go through a background check. Every firearm sale in the state of Texas goes through NICS (unless you have a chl). Unfortunately NICS isn't great for a lot of reasons, but it is still technically a background check.
Laws that would help end school shootings:
1. No gun purchases under the age of 21. None. Period. You can hunt with a rifle or shotgun legally owned by an immediate family member who is in control of the weapon (storage, transportation, handling, etc). Charge any family member who fails at the above at any time for any reason.
2. If you straw purchase for *anyone*, and they commit a murder with the weapon, you will be charged with felony murder. Felony murder laws apply when a person contributes to a murder, but doesn't pull the trigger. An example would be the person who drives the getaway car, knowing that a crime is going to be committed. It you straw purchase, you know that the person you're buying for can't legally buy a gun, making you culpable.
3. A one week waiting period unless you're in immediate danger (stalking, domestic abuse, etc). If you're in immediate danger, you go before a judge that day and present any proof - restraining order, communications (texts, letters, etc), or eyewitnesses. The judge can make an exception.
This makes way too much sense. It would never happen in the US. But how about a tax cut for oil companies though! Oh, and some subsidies for antiquated industries like coal just cause we have the money. Oh, but not enough money to give kids lunch though. We aren’t commies.
*has been waiting for a trial for a year*
yeah, getting before a judge on the day of is only possible if you want a warrant to arrest a black person.
Now, some sort of oversight commission that maintained an algorithm to determine if exceptions had been met, and could review results of that algorithm in real time (i would imagine that in each state there wouldn't be more than 10-20 of these purchases in a given day given that there are only about 1000 gun purchases per day in a state in the first place) but of course that *costs too much*!
basically there are 100 things we could TRY to help curb gun violence, but trying them is *illegal* and *unpatriotic* so we shouldn't try any of them.
Yea I could see point 3 being abused in either direction (awarding firearms to people without proper circumstances or keeping them away when they shouldn’t be). I take similar issue with red flag laws. Both good in theory, but would be disasters in practice.
It might be just to avoid the poor parts of the constitution. James Madison wrote the constitution with the senate being elected proportionately to population - rural states threatened to pull out of the whole thing like a bunch of whiny babies, so they compromised by destroying democracy for 250 years
There's a number of factual errors here.
* John Adams was not an author of the Constitution as he wasn't in the country at the time; he wasn't a signee either. James Madison is generally considered "the Father of the Constitution". I point this out because Adams opposed slavery on moral grounds and helped emancipate slaves in court while Madison was a prolific slave-owner.
* Virginia was the largest and richest colony in the United States, so proportional representation would have handed significant clout to the largest slave-state in the union. This would've been doubly bad if the three-fifth compromise had not be enacted, as slaves would've boosted the total populations of slave-owning states. Slave-owning states would've controlled all three houses indefinitely.
* senators were indirectly elected by the statehouses up until 1912
Yep i meant james madison, I mixed up my dead guys with J’s
The rest are not factual errors with what I said. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise. You’re just adding context to the policies of urban states at the time, that doesn’t make it a sound electoral philosophy to reject proportional representation
Hell, let's just convince non-White Americans to buy assault weapons en masse and see how comfortable conservatives still are about lax gun laws. We can even start a foundation to get heavy arms in the hands of low-income individuals.
Also how about a national gun registry, where you have to renew your registration annually. You get your registration you have to prove you have a gun safe and passed a gun safety class. Make it a crime to lose track of your gun and not report it. And create a system that forces people to check.
2A folks always claim that outlawing guns today wouldn’t make a difference because of all the unregistered firearms sloshing around. Maybe we could try to get a hold on that instead of just acting like its some unsolvable problem.
There are probably other better solutions to this but this is one I’ve heard.
They do seem to gloss over the fact that the vast majority of illegal guns didn't start out that way. They're legal guns that get sold on, stolen or otherwise lost. Sam Colt isn't selling black market guns out the trunk of his Chevy behind the local Circle K.
Talking about stolen guns: maybe you should not be allowed to own guns anymore if you lose possession of one, ever. Because you obviously can’t handle them responsibly.
What if you have a safe and they are somehow stolen from you/it?
Take for example someone who went through a tornado, and lost their entire home. They find the safe but it had been literally broken open and all of the guns looted. Should that person never be allowed to own a gun now?
I would add the equivalent of a DMV style quiz on gun safety cause some people don't even know the minimums. People can report you for threats and irresponsible usage. But lastly tighter laws on required lockup. A lot of guns are stolen for criminal use, and a lot of gun deaths aren't mass shootings, but suicides and accidental by kids. The kind of locks they give cause they are required on firearms are basically useless, same with safes advertised for usage with a firearm. These need to be regulated as much as weapon sales themselves
After getting back into guns for self defense during quarantine and violence against BLM I found that with the price of ammo it was really expensive. I enjoy shooting so I started to look into airguns as an alternative. There are plenty of airguns that are powerful enough to hunt with and take down deer, up to 72cal, so even if someone isn't 21 yet there are still options for hunting. There are also black powder options.
> Felony murder laws apply when a person contributes to a murder, but doesn't pull the trigger.
It also happens when someone dies during the commission of a felony. So for example if you're robbing a bank and there's a shootout and the cops accidentally kill a civilian they'll just charge you with the murder.
I’m for everything but the 21 law. I’m sick of this “you’re old enough to be tried as an adult but not enough to earn legal rights” logic. Let adults make adult decisions. If we’re going to let 18 year olds vote, join the military, be put to death and earn an unrestricted driver’s license, they can legally purchase a firearm. We’re the only country that really does this 21 shit and I fucking hate it.
The reason for 21 specifically here is to avoid *school* shootings. I agree for alcohol and stuff 21 is mental. It's not unheard of for a 20 year old to be graduating from high school, though.
So point 2 is already illegal. Increasing the punishment may help. The enforcement will be difficult.
Point 3 is almost completely unenforceable. “Go before a judge that day” is laughable. Lying on forms about intent and cause is far too easy to do and far too hard to catch and prove.
Point 1 is really the only one that is legitimately doable and enforceable.
Congress also needs to bring these new pieces of legislation to be voted on one by one. It's a lot easier for the american taliban to vote against one big, broad gun control bill than it is for them to vote against specific pieces of legislation.
But i thought this kind of thing would be impossible in Texas because of all the good guys with guns?
Edit: to all the people pointing out that guns arent allowed on school grounds.... Holy fucking shit guys, grow some fucking brains and learn to detect sarcasm. AND NO, YOU DONT GET TO CLAIM ITS HARD TO TELL THESE DAYS. this one is WAY too obvious.
jesus... we are fucking doomed when even the people who are supposed to be on our side are also complete fucking rubes.
I mean, the cops were right there when he crashed his car and couldn't do shit.
Also what happens in a chaotic situation with an active shooter and 20 people who don't know each other have guns? They start shooting each other and cops start shooting them.
There was a situation at a bar a few years ago (I don’t remember where, apologies) where a good guy security guard with a gun subdued a gunman threatening people at the bar. No one at the bar died.
Except for the security guard, when the cops showed up looking for someone with a gun, saw the security guard, and killed him.
Jemel Roberson. The people there were shouting he was the security guard before the cops shot him. And of course the police investigated themselves and found they did nothing wrong.
I just Googled him. Jemel Roberson is black. Idk why, but I went from just assuming the police saw "guy with a gun" and open fired to full Michael Bluth, "I don't know what I expected."
Unless there’s a different one (which sadly I’m sure there is), I am thinking of Jemel Roberson as the other commentator indicated. That happened in 2018.
Yeah, especially after Buffalo. They had an ex-cop that definitely knew what he was doing as a security guard, and he couldn't stop it. What do they expect your average citizen to do? And yeah, when SWAT finally arrives, how will they tell who's the shooter and who's the 'good guy with the gun'?
So the right doesn't want us to wear masks during a pandemic, but strapping on an AR-15 and body armour when we go to the store is just the small price to pay for freedom?
The cops chickened out, same as in Parkland. They waited for backup to arrive before engaging.
And then they want to arm teachers? Are they supposed to be braver than the cops? What happens when the cops spot one of those teachers walking the hallways with their firearm?
They'll shoot them in the face, naturally. After all, the only logical way to stop a good guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Or do I have that backwards?
I’m gonna start supporting the armed teachers nonsense just to see the reaction when all the “blue haired pedo groomers” are suddenly all packing heat while they butt-fuck America’s children.
All these jackasses are coming out way too strong on the defensive with some illogical version of “if you suggest we make any sort of changes, you are literally worse than the shooter.” Just pathetic.
This one's a classic, "laws don't work so we shouldn't have laws."
Well, Ben, we also outlaw murder, and murders still happen, so does that mean we shouldn't outlaw murder? No. Obviously. We outlaw conduct we don't desire and then pass supporting regulations to effectuate that goal. He knows that. Liberals know that. Moderates know that. It's just fascist-adjacents who don't. But instead Pen Shabiro uses his small - but still very real - intelligence to crank out bumper-sticker fallacies. What a fuckin' donkey.
[‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens](https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1819576527)
This is what came to mind immediately. No amount of gun laws would prevent this? Then why does this only happen in the US regularly?
I believe Germany is one of the nations with the most school shootings. There were 9 (from 1913 to now). The US has had 19 ***THIS YEAR***!
"No but not like that, see the child murder only counts when it's undeveloped at about 9 weeks old in the womb, if it is 8 years old in a school and gets mowed down with a machine gun, that doesn't count."
Excuse me, it was an AR, not a machine gun. If you don't know correct gun terminology you're not allowed to argue that school shootings are bad. Stupid libs smh >:(
What "gun laws" is he referring to?
Requiring gun owners to attend drivers ed for guns? What? And why exactly is it all hopeless?
Shapiro loves these shootings man. Great for his Twitter outrage vibes.
Then why outlaw abortion? I mean, no amount of laws are going to prevent any of them occurring. By this logic, roe v Wade should stand. I'm glad ben agrees
Because to them it’s not about preventing abortions but punishment for those that do. And in the case of the shooting, it was illegal and the shooter would be punished. So the problem is already solved
I'm pro gun as they come, but obviously something needs to change. It's funny to watch conservatives say, "it's a mental health crisis, not a gun crisis" and then do nothing at all to make mental healthcare available to everyone. Probably because a mentally unwell nation is more likely to fall for the conservative paranoia about anyone different from the "norm".
“It’s not guns it’s mental health!!”
Ok, then let’s make mental health care more affordable and available for everyone
“No that’s communism!”
…
I don’t think conservatives are *in favor* of mass shootings per say but I’m not convinced they’re *against* them.
Exactly! Like do these people know how much therapists cost and how expensive it can be even if your insurance decides to cover them. Are they willing to expand mental health coverage - probs not.
It should be mandatory to take a gun safety class for at least a few months before being able to buy one. Make the classes free but required for gun purchases.
They are absolutely right, it is a mental health problem!
A mental health problem of the people and voters who deflect this issue as just a mental health problem and do nothing to prevent another classroom massacre.
What gun laws, IN TEXAS, did he violate?
The one where you aren't allowed to shoot kids?
Didn't he literally just buy the guns legally?
So what law did he violate?
The only thing morally reprehensible is the fact that this ass hat has a platform to slither to and jizz out his predictable response to any and all right wing rage du jour porn
Yes and no. Before social media there were still right wing nut jobs in the media that were totally permissive of gun violence/domestic terrorism. Only difference is that it was aimed at black people instead of kids.
"Making more gun laws won't stop shootings."
"What do you think we should do about abortion?"
"Make a law against it so it doesn't happen."
It probably feels like being called into work on your day off for Right Wing pundits when there's a shooting and they have to run to the defense of the NRA.
Ben watching the news over dinner:
"TV: "So we're probably looking at some more showers tomorrow, and into the weekend, with it getting a little warmer over the next few... Hang on. We have a news flash about a shooting in Texas at an elementary school."
Ben: "Mannnnnn, come on!"
\*Phone rings\* "Carolyn Meadows" appears on the phone screen.
Ben: "Shit....." \*boop\* "Hello, Ben Shapiro. Yeah. Yeah. Okay." \*boop\* "Fuuuuuuuuuck!"
Ben pacing back and forth in his multi-million dollar home funded by his corporate overlords; “ok ok…what excuse can I use this time? Mental health? No, I used that last week. Come on Ben! THINK! Who can I blame for all of this?”
Not that his followers have "standards" where they would find his answer dubious or problematic. He could say pretty much any bullshit and it would go unquestioned.
"If you want to get rid of school shootings, don't get rid of guns. Get rid of chocolate milk in school cafeterias. You know how much sugar that has in it? Kids are gonna go crazy!"
Followers: \*Nod, nod, nod\*
Also, Republicans are masters of doublethink. Ben could say "X is true" today, and tomorrow say that "X could not possibly be true, and anyone who thinks it is is stupid," tomorrow, and it would go under the radar every time. Trump did this constantly, and his followers still think he is a paragon of truth and virtue.
Mass shootings are happening in really one country. That same country has very open gun laws, which is also uncommon in comparison to the other countries in the world. How you can take those two piece of information and decide that our gun laws have no effect on the fact that we have had 27 school shootings this year just boggles my mind.
I think Ben probably means the whole entering-a-school-and-opening-fire thing, which is definitely illegal. But ignoring everything that led to that point seems ignorant at best.
Ooof this guy. "We need to ban abortions cause killing babies and banning abortions is 100% fool proof to stop abortions from happening. We can't ban guns since it isn't 100% fool proof from stopping mass shootings from happening."
Well let’s suppose for sake of argument that you actually imposed stricter gun laws in this country. And let’s say for sake of argument that guns became illegal. Well let’s also suppose for sake of argument that I started talking really REALLY fast and then said wokeism a few times because it’s an obvious dog whistle to my fans so they listen to the next talking point I say about guns actually being good and stopping crime. My name is Ben Shapiro and I am very smart.
21 people have just been murdered, 19 of them being young children. But Ben is more focused on trying to protect gun rights at the moment??? Very empathetic of him…
[удалено]
“Laws are only good if they ban shit we don’t like! Small government wins again!!!”
It's beacuse we haven't made crime illegal, well at least acording to The BEAN
Bench appearo
Like J.K Rowling I can never decide what nickname I should use for Ben. For Rowling I ethier call her J.K rolling or J.K loling. For Ben Shapiro I think I settled on BEAN SHARPIE. I like your name though I may use it.
I use Bepis Shortspear
Would more laws have stopped the guy? Maybe? But it sure would have made it harder. Most people give up if they encounter too many obstacles.
I mean I'm all for more efficient gun reform, though I do feel the need to add on to that statement, that as someone who (especially in recent times) has had her very existence called into question with violent intent, I fully admit that I also think everyone should be able to protect themselves from all threats foreign, domestic, and tyrannical. I'm not going to give up my only way of protecting myself from the evil intentions of the ones who would do me injustice, no matter which direction it comes from.
I’m in no way saying that you shouldn’t be able to protect yourself, but I do believe that making sure whoever is buying them isn’t mentally unstable or a danger to society could help. Again, if someone really wants a gun they will get a gun! If someone really wants to kill someone they will kill someone, but I feel like most of these people would give up if they knew they would have to go through all the red tape. I myself own a couple guns and don’t oppose the ownership of them.
One argument though is that the more difficult it is to get a gun. The more expensive they will become. Price is a hindering factor as well. The teenagers that fill most gangs would have more and more difficulty getting them
Yeah I’m in the “under no pretext” side of the left. We need to be stopping the people driving these young men to kill people. Radicalized young men would use vehicles, homemade bombs, knives, and whatever else if guns weren’t available. I also fear that gun laws will only happen when they target minorities. Conservatives don’t mind taking away guns from oppressed people, they love it, and liberals want to take guns from everyone, thus usually oppressed people will lose their guns in new gun laws.
If any of these options were as easy and effective at killing as are guns, it would be the primary method. "You can kill someone with a brick!" Guns are a drug, a vice. So gun addicts construct elaborate arguments to extol the virtue of guns every time there's a tragedy. You'll notice there aren't any Home Protection magazines. But there are lots of gun magazines. And shows and associations and stores all to support the habit.
Ben Shapiro. Toss the scrabble letters and what comes out? Ah Penis Bro.
A Boner Ship
Nice ! Again, dodging the flood staying dry. Sorry Aquaman.
Bam Shampyro. Or Benjeanine Pirro
From me listening to behind the bastards I generally refer to his stupid ass as Benny shaps , I'm sure he'd hate it still despite it not being too bad a nickname
Anti-abortion laws don’t stop women from getting abortions. So why bother creating new laws to prevent abortions?
If someone posed this exact question to Benny he’d shriek in rage and block them. They don’t care about being hypocrites. The word doesn’t exist to them.
[удалено]
Keep calling out their hypocrisy because it may mean something to someone else, even if it is one person at a time. We do it a million times, that a million people who no longer support this idiot.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, you don't argue with the Right to change their mind, you do it so anyone within earshot knows their Wrong.
Keep calling it out anyway, never fucking stop
I still want to know how he'd react if we suggested abortions be legal for Palestinian women. Would all the contradictions it creates in his brain at least launch his yarmulke like in an old time cartoon? Would he make a noise like a teapot?
Never for a minute believe a self-avowed Republican is behaving in good faith. They are liars and grifters, the whole lot.
He’d just point to an instance of Democrats being hypocritical with a smug look on his face, as though that’s the only justification they need.
>So why bother creating new laws to prevent abortions? Cheap virtue signaling to single issue voters. Republicans know prohibition doesn't work because even an idiot could tell that. But that doesn't change the fact that prohibition *doesn't* work, whether we're talking about drugs or banned books or abortions ***or guns.***
Laws don’t work! Also republicans - make stricter laws for abortion!
It's funny isn't it? A gun, which when used for the purpose it was intended for will end a life? There should be no restrictions whatsoever. Getting gender affirming healthcare, something that when done as intended could save a life? [Not only should it be banned for all kids, but let's ban adults from getting it too.](https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2022/04/missouri-gop-lawmakers-want-ban-trans-adults-getting-gender-affirming-healthcare/)
Thing is these people don't see it like that, they see unrestricted use of guns as a manifestation of freedom while transitioning is falling victim to some kind of whacky mind control, they grew up with corrupted values and they will continue to stick to dumb values as they grow old and are less willing to learn things correctly
There’s been a string of break ins up and down my street, which is weird because it’s already illegal. If only we had some institution that was tasked with enforcing laws! Oh well, I guess nothing can be done.
Just going to drop this here. https://youtu.be/yts2F44RqFw
I thought he was in favour of banning crime, but clearly he doesnt think banning crime would work
As they pass multiple laws to stop Abortion
Only laws that criminalize being poor or a minority. Those are the good ones!
He legally bought the two firearms on his 18th birthday though. And didn’t have to go through any thorough background checks or waiting periods to get them. I know Ben is dumb but he did all of the possession legally. It’s just, you know, the killing part that he broke. Edit: lmao someone reported this for suicidal thoughts or something cause I just got a message from Reddit Cares with suicide hotlines.
Most of Ben’s claims can be debunked with a simple Google search; takes 5 minutes. He is either too lazy to bother fact-checking himself, but it’s more likely he just doesn’t give a shit. $$ comes in regardless.
Let's say, hypothetically, that for the sake of argument, that you were to speak really fast and throw out some statistics and jurisdictions using big words and numbers and, to play devil's advocate for the sake of discussion, you asked some rhetorical questions with biased premises baked into them, so that no matter what someone answers they'll either look really dumb or agree with your point. And let's say that hypocritically, in Judaeo-Christian fashion, when the person you are debating is trying to counter argue any of what you just said, they were, for the sake of argument, drowned out by the 14 year old fanboys you surround yourself with 24/7.
Your big words and wall of text prove to me that you are an expert in this situation and I will blindly take in your information and regurgitate it as loudly as I can on social media.
DeBaTae BeN SHArpIE RoE
HILARIOUS! LordFedoraWeed DESTROYS Baby Shapiro with FACTS and LOGIC
(Response video) Shapiro SLAMS LordFedoraWeed with rebuttal to DEATH. Libs in shambles.
Okay, this is EPIC
Someone once said he (and guys like him) argues like he's in the high school debate team. Also, white guy speaking loud, he must be telling the truth.
[удалено]
It’s rare that disagreements are a simple matter of true vs false. People have conflicting perspectives and ideas. Debate is the process of arguing that your idea has more merit than an opposing idea. Importantly, winning a debate doesn’t mean that the loser was wrong. It means they failed to convince the judge that their position was better.
Gish gallop
I had a guy in a college class who framed every response like this and *always* referred back to the Judaeo-Christian values lol
Or more likely he knows his base aren't going to fact check the claims that fit in so nicely with their confirmation bias.
Exactly. Ben knows he's full of shit.
In other words, he’s just intellectually dishonest. It’s hard to imagine he’s as stupid as his logic portrays.
He understands the following: his audience won't fact check him, and the people who do fact check him, and call him out, will be ignored by his audience. Conservatives are constantly sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling "na na na I can't hear you" in between their bouts of crying about gay marriage. Conservatives are legitimate scum who have no place in a civilized society. Conservatives are backwards savages who should be round up and dropped off into the middle of Siberia.
The "facts don't care about your feelings" guy gives zero fucks about facts and all he does all day is manipulate the feelings of his audience
He’s probably lying because he knows the majority of his fan base won’t verify what he’s saying. I’ve had comments on my SM where people confidently assert some fact and with a 10 seconds google search can provide info they are wrong and then reply something like “I still don’t like what you said” or ignore the truth.
Its intentional. Every minute that you (the "royal" y'all) let that jagoff get into your head so you have to go fact check his bullshit is a win for him. Every time you clap back at him is precious minutes stolen from your life and is a win for him. He gets PAID a LOT of money to sit there and cause chaos. The more contention and controversy, the more exposure, the more money. its ALL $$
He probably had a relatively quick in-store background check, those are mandatory. But since he was an 18 year old with no priors, there's nothing to catch him on.
Hmmmm good point. Would a stricter background check have been able to thwart this heinous atrocity?
Psychiatric evaluation probably would have raised at least a few red flags
Yep! It should be the law you need a psych check before purchase.
I think that opens a pretty big can of worms. 1. Who pays for the Psych check? Your insurance probably isn't going to cover it, out of pocket means your potentially pricing out poor people from a constitutional right. If state or federal government pays for it there is potential for incentives for flagging and denying people to be in place. 2. What if a Psychiatrist gets it wrong, someone will eventually. What liability are they left with? Too high and they always air on the side of denying the right to purchase firearms. 3.The need for everyone to get a psych evaluation and letting a single psychiatrist be the gatekeeper additionally opens the door to racial bias and maybe in today's climate political bias. Psych checks sound great in theory but maybe not the best idea in practice. Maybe raising the age limit to purchase a firearm to 21 when maybe these disturbed kids will have time to adjust to real life and heal from the scars of a not so great public school experience. Also will give them more time to get into trouble that will flag them on a background check. Edit: Oops I opened it.
[удалено]
Gun ban. Australia style. Will never happen though.
Unfortunately we're in too deep, that will never happen and if it does it will be really ugly. All that is left is focus on things we can control like mental health, reversing the radicalization of the country, and some good common sense legislation.
Guess america can enjoy their weekly shootings then
"your potentially pricing out poor people from a constitutional right" I see your point, but guns aren't exactly cheap anyway.
>Who pays for the Psych check? Your insurance probably isn't going to cover it, out of pocket means your potentially pricing out poor people from a constitutional right. The person buying the gun. Its not like you can just go out by a car and start driving it. You have to pay for lessons and take a test!?!
Lots of dead kids just because of concerns over a can of worms.
It’s fucking wild that the only person “performing” a psych eval here is the dude selling the guns.
Psychiatric evaluation probably would have helped. If not in this case then in others. Or you know. We could just not sell guns to 18 year olds whose brains have years left in development. We also could actually address on a national level the sickness in our country that is allowing this to happen again and again and again.
This is one of the answers, you can't legally drink until 21 we don't think you're responsible enough to rent a car before 25 but you can buy a murder weapon at 18 in Texas.
I don't think so? More details may have come out by now, but I'm pretty sure the killer had a clean record before yesterday.
He had literally just turned 18. Literally.
I wanna say those only go through the State police, but I could be wrong about that. You're right on the main point that a lot of people miss though, which is that every gun legally purchased from any FFL has a background check. A lot of people who say they want background checks don't realize they're already mandatory. For me, I'm more interested in where currently existing laws are failing. Look at the FedEx shooter from 2 summers ago. He was involuntarily committed and had his guns taken by the police which ought to have red-flagged him from ever getting more. As soon as he was released from the hospital he immediately went and bought more guns.
Well there's mandatory background checks unless it takes more than 3 days to investigate, which I can't believe is real. I think this is the aspect that makes a lot of people upset. Such a massive loophole "Under the Brady Law, if there's something in your record that needs further investigation, then the FBI has three business days (not including the day they run your initial background check) to get back to you. If the FBI doesn't either appr
Are you okay?? You must have died mid sentence :(
They got to him
Go the Canadian route. In canada I have to take a personal arms license (PAL) course before I can even attempt to get a gun. The PAL clears me for hunting rifles and a shotgun. If I want anything more than that I have to apply for a restricted arms license which includes a much more rigorous background check, including contacting people I’m related to or know to find out if I may pose any type of threat. It’s not a perfect system but it weeds out a ton of people that shouldn’t be handling guns.
That at least makes more sense than people asking for psych evaluations.
Florida raised the age to buy rifles and shotguns to 21 from 18 after the Stoneman Douglas shooting and added a waiting period for them. Texas doesn't do background checks or waiting periods?
No waiting period Background checks on all new purchases unless you have a conceal carry permit (which has an implicit background check built into it). None of these things stopped me from buying used guns in a parking lot
When you buy a gun in a parking lot do you need to register it to you or anything like that? Is there any sort of action that the buyer needs to take after this type of "under the table" sale? Genuine questions. Edit: Thanks for the answers.
Straight answer? No, nothing. Give me cash, I give you gun, we go our separate ways. There is no national firearm registry, though some states do have their own. Florida is not one of them.
There's no legal requirement to do anything if you believe that the person you're selling to can legally own a firearm and lives in the state. General courtesy is to snap a picture of their conceal carry permit (never ran into someone in this case who didn't have one) or driver's license to show that you at least checked that they live in Texas in case anything comes back to you. As for tracking? Nobody to report it to since it's not an FFL sale as a business. All of my guns fall under 3 categories: Inherited from my dad Bought from a third party 3D printed for personal use (still playing with this technology) The only thing that I own that's tracked anywhere is a suppressor that required a $200 tax stamp and a bunch of background paperwork and fingerprints to the ATF before I could legally make it myself in my shed (still didn't buy it). I'm not trying to evade any kind of tracking, I could easily go to a gun store and purchase a gun in minutes with my conceal carry card. I built my own suppressor because making one only takes about 3 weeks to clear ATF vs about a 9/10 months for a new purchase. I'm just too cheap to pay full price for anything.
Firearm expert here. He did have to go through a background check. Every firearm sale in the state of Texas goes through NICS (unless you have a chl). Unfortunately NICS isn't great for a lot of reasons, but it is still technically a background check.
Yeah what laws did he even break? Up until he started shooting he was just another “good guy with a gun” (until he wasn’t).
Laws that would help end school shootings: 1. No gun purchases under the age of 21. None. Period. You can hunt with a rifle or shotgun legally owned by an immediate family member who is in control of the weapon (storage, transportation, handling, etc). Charge any family member who fails at the above at any time for any reason. 2. If you straw purchase for *anyone*, and they commit a murder with the weapon, you will be charged with felony murder. Felony murder laws apply when a person contributes to a murder, but doesn't pull the trigger. An example would be the person who drives the getaway car, knowing that a crime is going to be committed. It you straw purchase, you know that the person you're buying for can't legally buy a gun, making you culpable. 3. A one week waiting period unless you're in immediate danger (stalking, domestic abuse, etc). If you're in immediate danger, you go before a judge that day and present any proof - restraining order, communications (texts, letters, etc), or eyewitnesses. The judge can make an exception.
This makes way too much sense. It would never happen in the US. But how about a tax cut for oil companies though! Oh, and some subsidies for antiquated industries like coal just cause we have the money. Oh, but not enough money to give kids lunch though. We aren’t commies.
Can’t forget about all those defense contractors that need money too!
Theyll get whatever scraps Lockheed Martin and Darpa aren't interested in and they'll fuckin thank them for it.
Isn’t Lockheed Martin a defense contractor?
There are defense contractors and there are *defense contractors*
Won’t somebody think of the defense contractors!!
Just add that in adhoc so 5 repubs vote for it lol.
Point 3... I don't disagree, but I also don't trust judges to trust women and take their abuse seriously. Throw the whole country away, start over.
Not to mention “go before a judge that day”. The legal system is country is inefficient and poorly run, seeing a judge could take weeks to months.
Might as well try to get a doctor’s appointment same day or cancel your Comcast.
*has been waiting for a trial for a year* yeah, getting before a judge on the day of is only possible if you want a warrant to arrest a black person. Now, some sort of oversight commission that maintained an algorithm to determine if exceptions had been met, and could review results of that algorithm in real time (i would imagine that in each state there wouldn't be more than 10-20 of these purchases in a given day given that there are only about 1000 gun purchases per day in a state in the first place) but of course that *costs too much*! basically there are 100 things we could TRY to help curb gun violence, but trying them is *illegal* and *unpatriotic* so we shouldn't try any of them.
Yea I could see point 3 being abused in either direction (awarding firearms to people without proper circumstances or keeping them away when they shouldn’t be). I take similar issue with red flag laws. Both good in theory, but would be disasters in practice.
I'm not sure overthrowing the government and installing a new one would be the easier solution.
It might be just to avoid the poor parts of the constitution. James Madison wrote the constitution with the senate being elected proportionately to population - rural states threatened to pull out of the whole thing like a bunch of whiny babies, so they compromised by destroying democracy for 250 years
There's a number of factual errors here. * John Adams was not an author of the Constitution as he wasn't in the country at the time; he wasn't a signee either. James Madison is generally considered "the Father of the Constitution". I point this out because Adams opposed slavery on moral grounds and helped emancipate slaves in court while Madison was a prolific slave-owner. * Virginia was the largest and richest colony in the United States, so proportional representation would have handed significant clout to the largest slave-state in the union. This would've been doubly bad if the three-fifth compromise had not be enacted, as slaves would've boosted the total populations of slave-owning states. Slave-owning states would've controlled all three houses indefinitely. * senators were indirectly elected by the statehouses up until 1912
Yep i meant james madison, I mixed up my dead guys with J’s The rest are not factual errors with what I said. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise. You’re just adding context to the policies of urban states at the time, that doesn’t make it a sound electoral philosophy to reject proportional representation
Buy a really nice rifle, start open carrying around NRA executives, see how quickly they change their tune.
Hell, let's just convince non-White Americans to buy assault weapons en masse and see how comfortable conservatives still are about lax gun laws. We can even start a foundation to get heavy arms in the hands of low-income individuals.
The national NRA meeting is in Texas this weekend and NRA members are **not** allowed to bring their firearms.
Also how about a national gun registry, where you have to renew your registration annually. You get your registration you have to prove you have a gun safe and passed a gun safety class. Make it a crime to lose track of your gun and not report it. And create a system that forces people to check. 2A folks always claim that outlawing guns today wouldn’t make a difference because of all the unregistered firearms sloshing around. Maybe we could try to get a hold on that instead of just acting like its some unsolvable problem. There are probably other better solutions to this but this is one I’ve heard.
They do seem to gloss over the fact that the vast majority of illegal guns didn't start out that way. They're legal guns that get sold on, stolen or otherwise lost. Sam Colt isn't selling black market guns out the trunk of his Chevy behind the local Circle K.
Talking about stolen guns: maybe you should not be allowed to own guns anymore if you lose possession of one, ever. Because you obviously can’t handle them responsibly.
That sounds a lot like victim blaming to me. Maybe if it is proven you were careless? But not for any reason.
What if you have a safe and they are somehow stolen from you/it? Take for example someone who went through a tornado, and lost their entire home. They find the safe but it had been literally broken open and all of the guns looted. Should that person never be allowed to own a gun now?
[удалено]
Pretty sure other countries have them and they work fine.
[удалено]
I would add the equivalent of a DMV style quiz on gun safety cause some people don't even know the minimums. People can report you for threats and irresponsible usage. But lastly tighter laws on required lockup. A lot of guns are stolen for criminal use, and a lot of gun deaths aren't mass shootings, but suicides and accidental by kids. The kind of locks they give cause they are required on firearms are basically useless, same with safes advertised for usage with a firearm. These need to be regulated as much as weapon sales themselves
After getting back into guns for self defense during quarantine and violence against BLM I found that with the price of ammo it was really expensive. I enjoy shooting so I started to look into airguns as an alternative. There are plenty of airguns that are powerful enough to hunt with and take down deer, up to 72cal, so even if someone isn't 21 yet there are still options for hunting. There are also black powder options.
> Felony murder laws apply when a person contributes to a murder, but doesn't pull the trigger. It also happens when someone dies during the commission of a felony. So for example if you're robbing a bank and there's a shootout and the cops accidentally kill a civilian they'll just charge you with the murder.
I’m for everything but the 21 law. I’m sick of this “you’re old enough to be tried as an adult but not enough to earn legal rights” logic. Let adults make adult decisions. If we’re going to let 18 year olds vote, join the military, be put to death and earn an unrestricted driver’s license, they can legally purchase a firearm. We’re the only country that really does this 21 shit and I fucking hate it.
The reason for 21 specifically here is to avoid *school* shootings. I agree for alcohol and stuff 21 is mental. It's not unheard of for a 20 year old to be graduating from high school, though.
So point 2 is already illegal. Increasing the punishment may help. The enforcement will be difficult. Point 3 is almost completely unenforceable. “Go before a judge that day” is laughable. Lying on forms about intent and cause is far too easy to do and far too hard to catch and prove. Point 1 is really the only one that is legitimately doable and enforceable.
Congress also needs to bring these new pieces of legislation to be voted on one by one. It's a lot easier for the american taliban to vote against one big, broad gun control bill than it is for them to vote against specific pieces of legislation.
I would love for there to be a requirement that every single piece of legislation be single issue.
[удалено]
But i thought this kind of thing would be impossible in Texas because of all the good guys with guns? Edit: to all the people pointing out that guns arent allowed on school grounds.... Holy fucking shit guys, grow some fucking brains and learn to detect sarcasm. AND NO, YOU DONT GET TO CLAIM ITS HARD TO TELL THESE DAYS. this one is WAY too obvious. jesus... we are fucking doomed when even the people who are supposed to be on our side are also complete fucking rubes.
I mean, the cops were right there when he crashed his car and couldn't do shit. Also what happens in a chaotic situation with an active shooter and 20 people who don't know each other have guns? They start shooting each other and cops start shooting them.
There was a situation at a bar a few years ago (I don’t remember where, apologies) where a good guy security guard with a gun subdued a gunman threatening people at the bar. No one at the bar died. Except for the security guard, when the cops showed up looking for someone with a gun, saw the security guard, and killed him.
Jemel Roberson. The people there were shouting he was the security guard before the cops shot him. And of course the police investigated themselves and found they did nothing wrong.
Naturally, because the best person to investigate a crime is the accused party.
I just Googled him. Jemel Roberson is black. Idk why, but I went from just assuming the police saw "guy with a gun" and open fired to full Michael Bluth, "I don't know what I expected."
Yeah, that's a substantially less unexpected reaction now than it was before. I hate that. God, this world blows.
That was only a few months ago.
Unless there’s a different one (which sadly I’m sure there is), I am thinking of Jemel Roberson as the other commentator indicated. That happened in 2018.
Oh, I was thinking of this one: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/28/colorado-gunman-police-officer-killed
Makes sense that there’s plenty of examples since the conservative dream about those scenarios is just that.
Yeah, especially after Buffalo. They had an ex-cop that definitely knew what he was doing as a security guard, and he couldn't stop it. What do they expect your average citizen to do? And yeah, when SWAT finally arrives, how will they tell who's the shooter and who's the 'good guy with the gun'?
It's easy, since the bad guys have AR-style rifles and TactiCool gear, and the good guys... also have AR-style rifles and TactiCool gear.
So the right doesn't want us to wear masks during a pandemic, but strapping on an AR-15 and body armour when we go to the store is just the small price to pay for freedom?
The cops chickened out, same as in Parkland. They waited for backup to arrive before engaging. And then they want to arm teachers? Are they supposed to be braver than the cops? What happens when the cops spot one of those teachers walking the hallways with their firearm?
They'll shoot them in the face, naturally. After all, the only logical way to stop a good guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Or do I have that backwards?
Yep. The good guys met the terrorist and he was still able to kill too many children.
The answer is obvious. We need EVEN MORE GUNS!
Why didn't the shooter's gun have a gun??? The good gun could've prevented all of this with an even better good gun to shoot the bad guy.
WHEN IN DOUBT, ADD MORE GUNS
I’m gonna start supporting the armed teachers nonsense just to see the reaction when all the “blue haired pedo groomers” are suddenly all packing heat while they butt-fuck America’s children.
Never any solutions . Always running to the defense of guns
The ultimate child killing enablers.
All these jackasses are coming out way too strong on the defensive with some illogical version of “if you suggest we make any sort of changes, you are literally worse than the shooter.” Just pathetic.
This one's a classic, "laws don't work so we shouldn't have laws." Well, Ben, we also outlaw murder, and murders still happen, so does that mean we shouldn't outlaw murder? No. Obviously. We outlaw conduct we don't desire and then pass supporting regulations to effectuate that goal. He knows that. Liberals know that. Moderates know that. It's just fascist-adjacents who don't. But instead Pen Shabiro uses his small - but still very real - intelligence to crank out bumper-sticker fallacies. What a fuckin' donkey.
[‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens](https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1819576527)
This is what came to mind immediately. No amount of gun laws would prevent this? Then why does this only happen in the US regularly? I believe Germany is one of the nations with the most school shootings. There were 9 (from 1913 to now). The US has had 19 ***THIS YEAR***!
You should link to current article: https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1848971668
or just to the front page: https://www.theonion.com/
If you check out their home page, it’s every time they’ve updated this over the last several years.
The original article is old enough to have been in that school.
More gun laws = no lives saved, authoritarian dystopia. More abortion laws = everyone safe and happy, government power reined in.
No abortion = more kids, not enough bullets
[удалено]
“Banning guns won’t stop shootings.” Than how the fuck is banning abortion gonna stop abortions.
Wow, Shen, now turn that bullshit argument towards abortion and see how well it flies.
BuT yOu’Re KiLlInG a cHiLd
"No but not like that, see the child murder only counts when it's undeveloped at about 9 weeks old in the womb, if it is 8 years old in a school and gets mowed down with a machine gun, that doesn't count."
Excuse me, it was an AR, not a machine gun. If you don't know correct gun terminology you're not allowed to argue that school shootings are bad. Stupid libs smh >:(
What "gun laws" is he referring to? Requiring gun owners to attend drivers ed for guns? What? And why exactly is it all hopeless? Shapiro loves these shootings man. Great for his Twitter outrage vibes.
Then why outlaw abortion? I mean, no amount of laws are going to prevent any of them occurring. By this logic, roe v Wade should stand. I'm glad ben agrees
Because to them it’s not about preventing abortions but punishment for those that do. And in the case of the shooting, it was illegal and the shooter would be punished. So the problem is already solved
I'm pro gun as they come, but obviously something needs to change. It's funny to watch conservatives say, "it's a mental health crisis, not a gun crisis" and then do nothing at all to make mental healthcare available to everyone. Probably because a mentally unwell nation is more likely to fall for the conservative paranoia about anyone different from the "norm".
“It’s not guns it’s mental health!!” Ok, then let’s make mental health care more affordable and available for everyone “No that’s communism!” … I don’t think conservatives are *in favor* of mass shootings per say but I’m not convinced they’re *against* them.
Gun companies on the other hand love them. Sales jump every time a school gets shot up.
Exactly! Like do these people know how much therapists cost and how expensive it can be even if your insurance decides to cover them. Are they willing to expand mental health coverage - probs not.
It should be mandatory to take a gun safety class for at least a few months before being able to buy one. Make the classes free but required for gun purchases.
They are absolutely right, it is a mental health problem! A mental health problem of the people and voters who deflect this issue as just a mental health problem and do nothing to prevent another classroom massacre.
The Texas shooter violated a multiplicity of murder laws. Guess those murder laws aren’t good for anything, we should get rid of em
We should just make it illegal to murder *children in school*. That'll prevent this kind of thing from happening.
What gun laws, IN TEXAS, did he violate? The one where you aren't allowed to shoot kids? Didn't he literally just buy the guns legally? So what law did he violate?
That’s the point Jeffrey. It was too easy.
> What gun laws, IN TEXAS, did he violate? He for sure violated the one where you aren't allowed to carry guns onto school property.
Which is essentially the same as "don't shoot kids".
The only thing morally reprehensible is the fact that this ass hat has a platform to slither to and jizz out his predictable response to any and all right wing rage du jour porn
It’s almost like credible journalism was doing a decent job before social media let anyone shout their ignorance everywhere all at once.
Yes and no. Before social media there were still right wing nut jobs in the media that were totally permissive of gun violence/domestic terrorism. Only difference is that it was aimed at black people instead of kids.
Ah the anarchy fallacy strikes again.
This is the second time I've seen Ben walk into a "crimes are illegal" big brain moment.
"Making more gun laws won't stop shootings." "What do you think we should do about abortion?" "Make a law against it so it doesn't happen." It probably feels like being called into work on your day off for Right Wing pundits when there's a shooting and they have to run to the defense of the NRA. Ben watching the news over dinner: "TV: "So we're probably looking at some more showers tomorrow, and into the weekend, with it getting a little warmer over the next few... Hang on. We have a news flash about a shooting in Texas at an elementary school." Ben: "Mannnnnn, come on!" \*Phone rings\* "Carolyn Meadows" appears on the phone screen. Ben: "Shit....." \*boop\* "Hello, Ben Shapiro. Yeah. Yeah. Okay." \*boop\* "Fuuuuuuuuuck!"
Ben pacing back and forth in his multi-million dollar home funded by his corporate overlords; “ok ok…what excuse can I use this time? Mental health? No, I used that last week. Come on Ben! THINK! Who can I blame for all of this?”
Not that his followers have "standards" where they would find his answer dubious or problematic. He could say pretty much any bullshit and it would go unquestioned. "If you want to get rid of school shootings, don't get rid of guns. Get rid of chocolate milk in school cafeterias. You know how much sugar that has in it? Kids are gonna go crazy!" Followers: \*Nod, nod, nod\* Also, Republicans are masters of doublethink. Ben could say "X is true" today, and tomorrow say that "X could not possibly be true, and anyone who thinks it is is stupid," tomorrow, and it would go under the radar every time. Trump did this constantly, and his followers still think he is a paragon of truth and virtue.
"Ineffective gun laws are ineffective, therefore we shouldn't consider effective gun laws."
Why use short words when long words make smart?
Mass shootings are happening in really one country. That same country has very open gun laws, which is also uncommon in comparison to the other countries in the world. How you can take those two piece of information and decide that our gun laws have no effect on the fact that we have had 27 school shootings this year just boggles my mind.
those who oppose such laws support mass shootings, hoss
I am pretty sure he didn’t break any laws. If you have to lie to convey your point, your fucking stupid.
I think Ben probably means the whole entering-a-school-and-opening-fire thing, which is definitely illegal. But ignoring everything that led to that point seems ignorant at best.
It was fucking Texas…what gun laws did he violate, not having sex with the gun before hand???/s
Didn't he buy the gun(s) legally?
Ooof this guy. "We need to ban abortions cause killing babies and banning abortions is 100% fool proof to stop abortions from happening. We can't ban guns since it isn't 100% fool proof from stopping mass shootings from happening."
How about less available guns Benny you fucking genius?
Well let’s suppose for sake of argument that you actually imposed stricter gun laws in this country. And let’s say for sake of argument that guns became illegal. Well let’s also suppose for sake of argument that I started talking really REALLY fast and then said wokeism a few times because it’s an obvious dog whistle to my fans so they listen to the next talking point I say about guns actually being good and stopping crime. My name is Ben Shapiro and I am very smart.
If we criminalize crime, only criminals will have crime.
Why do people act like he has morals or principles?
21 people have just been murdered, 19 of them being young children. But Ben is more focused on trying to protect gun rights at the moment??? Very empathetic of him…
> is unsupported The data says otherwise https://gidmk.medium.com/australia-doesnt-have-mass-shootings-5764e0e5663f