This user has been banned.
Uh… no. I implied they borrow more from the OT than the PT did.
Edit: in fact I explicitly said it.
I think we should all be pleased we’re talking about gun control (mostly large scale banning of guns) exclusively, while some are)admitting it’s almost certainly not going to happen in the foreseeable future. Meanwhile we ignore the enormous numerous failings that could have been avoided to prevent the deaths here and at other schools. Round of applause!
Okay, why don’t you start? What sort of failings?
They’ve been in the news and I’ve mentioned them previously in the thread. But there were the calls to the FBI, including a post by Cruz that he wanted to be a “professional school shooter.” He was expelled from school because he had bullets in his backpack. The family he lived with knew he was deeply troubled, knew he had guns (but apparently not how many and where). Kids at school were afraid of him. People knew he tortured and killed animals. Numerous police and social service visits to the house with no actions taken. The deputy working at the school that day stayed outside when the shooting was going on.
But if he hadn’t had a gun, we wouldn’t be talking about this right now. We would be talking about Trump’s claim that he is, in fact, one-fourth Chinese.
Setting aside the practicality of gun bans, if he didn’t have a rifle, I don’t see why he wouldn’t use a handgun, and if not a handgun, a knife or an explosive device. And then maybe we could talk about how we could stop him from killing whatever number of people he killed. Would it be only 5 dead children? Maybe. We can only guess. There’s a sleight of hand going on here and it’s not by me. If you think this kid only killed people because he had a gun you’re ignoring all those facts, strangely because they’re not controversial.
Of course he had the desire to kill because of all these factors — where did I ever doubt that? Making the process more efficient at catching those at risk is part of the guns debate.
Didn’t mean to respond to your post.
But restricting access to guns makes sense.
The total gun ban idea is unrealistic and wrongheaded.
And for the millionth time, a total gun ban is not the objective. Go back and look at the Australian law posted a couple pages back - that’s the ideal objective we should be working toward IMO.
The realistic goal is the Australian policy. The actual goal to me is a total gun ban. I think it should be for every human.
TPM and AotC borrowed elements from SW and TESB respectively too, but not to the extent of the ST. That’s really making the ST seem pointless imo.
But I do get what you’re saying.
Chyron looks kind of pissed.
Something’s not right here. I don’t want to post this in the bully thread, but if we’re losing so many valuable members in such a short period of time then something’s wrong.
Mark’s Down On Your Syntax said:
I half-jokingly wondered if somebody had used this app for porno purposes. Then my curiosity got the better of me. Now I need therapy. The things I’ve seen should not be seen.
It’s like the plot of the second X-Files movie only with computers performing the surgery. What the hell is wrong with people?! How can THAT possibly be erotic?
Sweet Christmas.
FakeApp had to be either regulated or banned in Reddit because of porn…
I love it!
I remember at the time of TFA, JJ said something like “every SW movie needs a cantina”. It’s not a big deal I guess, but it feels like this is the overall mentality that has been applied to these films rather than any need to tell a coherent story. In the case of Snoke, clearly JJ and Kasdan were thinking “every SW movie needs an Emperor” (not to mention an Empire, a Death Star, a Tatooine, a Hoth, a Dagobah cave scene etc etc etc) without much thought beyond the visual aesthetic of such a character.
Don’t get me wrong, I like these new films, but my ‘head-canon’ seems to be veering towards seeing them as interesting alternate interpretations of SW and TESB (with a dash of ROTJ) rather than legitimate continuations of the OT.
It’s odd to me since I consider TFA to be a soft reboot that starts the franchise out in a similar fashion and then the Last Jedi takes it somewhere different.
TLJ is basically an alternate TESB while TFA is basically a retelling of SW with the same exact story beats etc.
I’m screwed.
How so?
My teacher is going to eat me alive. I hate her and she hates me so she’s going to do everything she possibly can to fuck my life.
Amazingly, none of the deleted scenes’ names left me excited to see them. I was looking forward to them. Let’s hope they’re actually interesting.
Highway To Hell by AC/DC. I really love them. It had been a while, and it felt really good.
I’m screwed.
Do exactly what I did in the post above.
I’m really proud this thread isn’t a giant bitch session about how Discovery Changed Things Now It Sucks. We may be growing up as a forum.
checks the TLJ thread
Oh, never mind.
TLJ thread isn’t that bad these days
Oh. I believe that the first time it said “A New Hope” on the cover was for the 1995 Faces VHS Boxset release. And it wasn’t even on the actual cover, only on the sides. Before that it was only labeled as “Star Wars”.
here’s the faces boxset: 
Here’s what most US releases of Star Wars on VHS looked like: 
I was this close to doing it.
I’m actually totally on board with this, since I’m someone who edits posts quite often because of typos and such.
What do you want to know? If it’s the OOT or the SE?
Lol.
Couldn’t take a picture of it, but I bought this:
I love everyone here, even the guys who occasionally piss me off. My life would be bleaker without you all.
As would mine. I feel like this is the only place that really speaks the same language as me, sometimes.
This. And I’ve only been here for a few months.
For what it’s worth, this forum takes too much of my time and energy. I know the regulars here will criticize me for what I’m about to do. I know that two years from now, someone will say something like, “Remember when darth_ender took his ball and went home?” Regardless, I think I should just give greater energy to real life and stop wasting it trying to be friends with Internet people, especially people who really don’t care. Overall, it’s been a pleasant seven-ish years, people. I’m sure I’ll continue to read the threads I care about. I am just going to log out on all my devices and don’t intend to log back in much if ever again. Thank you for the enjoyable interactions. I mean that sincerely.
Sad news. :’(
I have grappled with the gun issue a while and see no reason not to implement intensive restrictions and ban assault rifles and such. I think I lean more towards the gun-control side of things as of right now and for those of you who agree, I am curious how you respond to the following argument from gun activists. I hear it often and don’t really have an adequate response and am curious what your thoughts are. The basic idea is the following:
“No matter what gun laws are put in place, it will not change the fact that criminals and people who wish to do harm will always be able to illegally acquire guns.”
It doesn’t really change my views all that much but it seems like a good point. Is there any form of gun control that would help make it more difficult for criminals to illegally attain guns?
Looking forward to some responses as it’s definitely an important discussion to be having as a country right now.
There is no short term solution. Gun activists and some republicans keep claiming that if we restrict gun access it won’t solve anything right now and that is true. Because of how easily accessible weapons are nowadays it’s going to be hard to take it out of both illegal and legal market in the near future. but you have to start somewhere. If we don’t restrict/regulate guns now, a problem that could be solved in the next 5-10 years will only be solved in the next 20-25 years because of pure inaction.
There’s also the side that Ash pointed out: why the heck have laws in the first place? If the criminals are going to break them anyway. That for me is the ultimate argument against the argument you’re pointing out and there’s no way to counter it.
We have to start somewhere though. I don’t think most mass shooters would go completely out of their ways to acquire guns. I think some of them just did it because of how easy it is to acquire such guns and the amount of exposition they probably had to weapons in general at an early age.
Think of the John Lennon murderer. He basically was so obsessed with him that he decided to kill him. If he had no gun that wouldn’t have happened, for example. And I’m pretty sure he legally acquired that gun.
