6 dead in shooting at Christian elementary school in Nashville

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

After the past page or so somehow degenerating into abortion sniping as well as the obviously relevant trans sniping and gun sniping, I'm tempted to speculate darkly about this shooting being the final boss of the culture wars, but unfortunately I don't think it's even close. We are the sick man of today's world, not geostrategically but morally.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Well, this shooting has touched all of the major culture war topics raging in America right now.

It has nothing to do with abortion except posters disliking one another's rhetorical choices and making the whole thread about them. In the beginning was the Discourse.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It has nothing to do with abortion except posters disliking one another's rhetorical choices and making the whole thread about them. In the beginning was the Discourse.

Yeah, I know. I wasn't talking about abortion or those posts.

The shooter & shooting itself hit all of the culture war craze.

It's unusual and depressing that it already involves guns, religion, schoolchildren, and The Transgendereds without this forum having to actively make it about those subjects, yes.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

https://twitter.com/JDVance1/status/1640501236343382016

Hearing this from J.D. Vance is like hearing it from an MSI lawmaker during the Years of Lead.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Sincere question for conservatives here: why do you think America is the only developed country where this happens regularly? Are Americans uniquely evil/mentally ill, or is it maybe the fact that there are more guns than people in this country?

The wide availability of guns is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for America's epidemic of violence. You don't see this in Switzerland or Czechia. American society is just deeply broken and it's only getting worse. Insane political, religious, ethnic and culture war (relevant in this case...) polarization, the breakdown of social cohesion, the opioid epidemic, and the massive differences between rich and poor all seem to be relevant factors to me.

...So then yes, Americans are fundamentally worse than non-Americans?

What a grim, pessimistic perspective to have.

That's not even what he was saying dude.

In fact I'd say that "if a society is pervasively toxic, and getting worse, it must be because the people in that society are inherently morally vicious" is itself grim and pessimistic, especially coming from someone left-of-center.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

1. So what would be an effective deterrent for school shooters?

There is no "deterring" them. They're criminally insane and they intend to die while committing their killings.

So Fergie’s point is moot

How? If anything, Dule's argument affirms my point. I'm literally saying that the death penalty won't deter them. If there is no deterring school shooters, then implementing harsher punishment is pointless.

Just because it won’t deter them, that doesn’t change the fact that they still need to be appropriately punished for their crimes.

Why is the death penalty more appropriate than life in prison?

Because they took the lives of multiple children.

How would you construct an evidentiary standard that would allow for the execution of mass shooters but avoid wrongful executions with 100% accuracy?

Is there any case where someone was wrongly incarcerated for a school shooting?

So you would say that the death penalty should apply only to mass shootings and nothing else?

I don't hold this position myself, but "exceptionalist" views on the death penalty (only for mass shootings/child murders/crimes committed in wartime/etc.) aren't really that unusual, especially in other countries.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

1. So what would be an effective deterrent for school shooters?

There is no "deterring" them. They're criminally insane and they intend to die while committing their killings.

So Fergie’s point is moot

How? If anything, Dule's argument affirms my point. I'm literally saying that the death penalty won't deter them. If there is no deterring school shooters, then implementing harsher punishment is pointless.

Just because it won’t deter them, that doesn’t change the fact that they still need to be appropriately punished for their crimes.

Why is the death penalty more appropriate than life in prison?

Because they took the lives of multiple children.

How would you construct an evidentiary standard that would allow for the execution of mass shooters but avoid wrongful executions with 100% accuracy?

Is there any case where someone was wrongly incarcerated for a school shooting?

So you would say that the death penalty should apply only to mass shootings and nothing else?

I don't hold this position myself, but "exceptionalist" views on the death penalty (only for mass shootings/child murders/crimes committed in wartime/etc.) aren't really that unusual, especially in other countries.

Sure, but my next question was going to be how we define a "mass shooting." When we think of this term, we generally think of a psychopath stalking from room to room with an assault rifle gunning people down, caught on camera from multiple angles, and publishing a manifesto taking credit for the attack. I understand that there's really no credible question of guilt in such cases. But how do we parse out a statutory distinction between that and, say, a drive-by gang shooting with no surveillance footage, in which guilt is not as certain?

I agree entirely, which is the second-biggest reason why I don't hold this position myself, after categorical opposition to the death penalty in general.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

https://twitter.com/aridrennen/status/1640919786766073856

I hope Hale becomes a Great Villain of LGBT History. This was foreseeable and avoidable, whether the proximate motive had anything to do with gender or not.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Didn't we already know from the beginning that this was an anti-Christian hate crime? I'm pretty sure it was discussed here, like, that afternoon.

I guess the race angle wasn't known.

     Yeah, this is the big surprise for me. That the attack was anti-Christian is the most obvious thing in the world, but I don't think anyone predicted it would be anti-white too.

It's like if a CRT woke person used 4chan language. Very bizarre. Regardless, she was clearly crazy and never should have been allowed near a gun but Republicans don't want to address this in any way.

If GOP was smart they would make a law that a diagnosis of gender dysphoria makes one ineligible for gun ownership. There have already been two trans identifying females who have committed mass shootings. Obviously the testosterone is destroying their brains.

Hell no. "Shall not be infringed". I have no interest in playing political games with core Constitutional rights.

Actually, stopping violent lunatics from owning firearms is good. In NYC gun control paired with stop-and-frisk was amazing at controlling violent crime. The point of the right to bear arms is to protect private property rights. Violent criminals and mentally ill leftists/socialists do not support property rights, so giving them access to firearms would actually undermine this fundamental right.

Aurelius is 100% right, though your view is how I'm guessing most Republicans and maybe some Dems like Gottheimer will approach guns in the future

They will respect and encourage gun ownership for "real Americans" while finding ways to discourage and or ban it for those with views they find undesirable.

Aurelius' view is left-wing. I do hope the GOP gets sane on guns and stops working with the far-left progressive prosecutor movement to get rid of "racist" gun laws. Unfortunately the GOP hates urban America and wants our cities to be crime-ridden hellholes. Why else would they support gun rights for urban criminals and the pro-life movement?

Violent crime went way down this year. COVID was a blip. I live in the big city and things are pretty good here. You're being very dramatic.

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/08/09/murder-rates-are-falling-in-a-majority-of-american-cities

But yes, I agree that support for gun rights is left wing.

Violent crime rates in American cities are still a massive outlier in the world. I demand 1950's level crime rates in our cities. The fact that we tolerate massive levels of urban dysfunction is a policy choice. If they cared about America the GOP's number one priority would be solving this problem by any means necessary. Unfortunately they are actually making the problem worse.

Universal healthcare (including mental health) and a more generous welfare state are the two most sensible ways to decrease crime.

If by “mental health” you mean forced treatment and/or jail for mentally ill people causing social dysfunction, like homeless drug users, then yes. Other than that, no. The idea that poverty causes crime is a myth. The solution to crime in America is mass incarceration, overturning terrible pro-criminal SCOTUS decisions like Miranda, and bringing back strict enforcement of quality-of-life offenses, ESPECIALLY illegal handgun possession. Plus actually using the death penalty, like Singapore. The death penalty is the only known policy to have 0% recidivism rate, unlike prison time or “rehabilitation”.

You're not the real Judge Dredd and I'm pretty sure impersonating him is a death penalty offense itself.