Tim Walz has said he’s “sick and tired of hearing about thoughts and prayers” following the Apalachee High School shooting in Georgia, which left four dead.
Walz, who was named as Kamala Harris’ running mate in the race for the White House in August, spoke about the Wednesday (4 September) shooting at a campaign rally at the Highmark Amphitheater in Erie, Pennsylvania on Thursday.
He told his supporters: “We believe in the freedom to send our kids to school without being shot dead in the hall.”
“The news cycle moves on within a day,” he commented of the incident, adding that kids had returned to school feeling excited and “now we have four dead”.
We now go live to the official reaction of the American Fascist Party:
Whoa buddy, too soon. Now is not the time to talk policy. Trans kids are playing soccer.
It’s those damned books fault. Better ban them all to be safe
I have an idea… shoots books
Problem solved.
Walz’s response to this is in very stark contrast to his rival Vance here. Vance gave a shockingly tone-deaf, “It’s a fact of life” response that spits in the face of the victims and their families. It shows a fundamental lack of empathy that borders on cruelty (which might be the point).
Thots 'n Pears can only go so far, in this case not far at all.
Feels like that bulletproof glass is infringing on my 2nd Amendment Rights.
I used to be lukewarm on the issue of gun control, ya know… “Yes, it’s a tragedy… but, we’ve got a second amendment, just increase security in schools or something.”
But… eventually it got to the point where I realized I felt nothing hearing about the dead kids and the constant shootings. I was just completely numb to it, and that’s when I realized “Oh shit…”
When I found that the death of children wasn’t something that even made me flinch anymore, I realized… That even if we have to destroy every gun in the West, something has to be done.
“They’ll just use knives”
And when you can kill as many people with a knife in as short of a time as an AR-15, that’s when I’ll give a shit about knives.
PS: I totally call it the Assault Rifle 15. I know it’s the “Arma Rite 15” or whatever, but it pisses conservatives off when I get it wrong intentionally.
Knives are easier to defend. That’s why the gun was made. If it didn’t make warfare cheaper and quicker, they would have stayed with knives and swords.
I’m torn on this issue. I want the sort of gun control that you’re describing, but I really don’t know if it would be constitutional, and defying the constitution is a slippery slope that could cause more harm than even gun violence. The problem in my view is the second amendment itself - it’s vague, outdated, and in desperate need of clarification. The fact that it deals with possession of technology but hasn’t been updated in 250 years is insane.
I’m with anyone calling for gun control, but we really ought to be demanding constitutional revision to address this issue.
One thing that really made it hit for me was when Australia had a mass knifing so bad the fucking pope commented on it and the numbers felt low for it to be such a tragedy of violence. It felt like it wouldn’t hit the state level news in America with a gun.
It’s really fun to call it an “assault weapon”. That pops them off to an astonishing degree.
we’ve got a second amendment
Which very clearly states itself as being relevant to citizen militias, and somehow says nothing about a fundamental right to murder children in large numbers.
‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
This shooting in particular shows major society-level failures. The parents were victims of the opiate crisis. Society failed to treat that problem at an appropriate level when it first cropped up and they failed to claw back the profits pharmaceutical companies made off creating addicts. We failed to fund school mental health services that could have helped a child who everyone knew was struggling. Society failed to recognize and address the domestic violence situation, failed to intervene when the child was being raised by addicts, and failed to remove guns from such a volatile situation. There are so many levels on which any significant intervention could have prevented this chain of events.
I don’t want to argue against mental health services, i think mental health services could be helpful. However, i do want to point something out here: saying this is a mental health problem really doesn’t make sense. You know a group that has mental health problems? Women. You know who else? Black people. You know who barely do any mass shootings? Either of those groups. We’re not (just) talking mental health issues, we’re talking about people who view “shooting up a school” as an appropriate way to resolve their social grievances. You can help that with mental health services, you can take their power away by blocking easy access to guns, but that’s a pretty big component here as well.
The expression of mental health problems varies widely based on the cause. Societal and cultural pressures are vastly different for different groups. Men in general are 4 times more likely to commit suicide than women for example. Women are twice as likely as men to suffer major depression.hormones also impact the expression of mental illness. Men experiencing depression are more likely to exhibit irritability, sudden anger, increased loss of control, risk-taking, and aggression. Men are also more likely to feel social pressure to deal with their problems alone and are more likely to turn to drugs or alcohol.
This kid was already reported for threatening a school school shooting last year and the investigation stopped after they asked him if he did that and he said no. It’s a fucking joke.
Country that insists we have a “mental health crisis” providing absolutely zero mental health care to people who are clearly showing all the symptoms of said crisis.
Country that says “nothing can be done to stop this” did nothing to try to stop this.
If they did literally ANYTHING after that it would have Infringed on his Second Amendment Rights! Your ONLY allowed to take someone’s Guns away AFTER they’ve killed people! Or they’re
NigBlack!Or they’re Black!
Hey, you can’t just take away Black people’s guns like that! You shoot them for having a gun, because you “feared for your safety” because they were exercising their Second Amendment Rights!
easy: strict gun control. look at Europe.
Sadly that won’t happen because Americans are special - and I say ‘special’ in that Midwestern-US, ‘bless their heart’ way
The US government tries to pass (or enforce) any meaningful gun legislation, a third of the country stamps their feet and tells ‘NO!’ and the gov’t backs down. Rinse & repeat
shiiiii it doesnt even get to us s’more like 2/3 of the country asks for (x) regulation, the govt starts making noises about regulating (x), a bunch of political ads come out to convince public (x) regulation is bad, contributions come from the (x) companies to the politicians regulating (x), business (x) is added to the commitee deciding rules for (x), regulation is watered down or outright defeated.
at almost no point in the process is the public will treated as anything other than a problem to solve.
Europe also has things like universal healthcare and much less of an opioid crisis and whatnot. Without those, this wouldn’t have been prevented – the kid would’ve just used a knife or explosives or something instead.
i agree with specific point you’re making about the cause of shootings being lack of healthcare access in the US. You are also correct in my opinion that all three things are necessary for a healthy society. I think you might be missing your own point here with a typical assumption i see thrown out by the media, that asking for one of those 3 things precludes our ability to have the others. In other words, that we can’t advocate equally for all 3 at the same time!
The idea that it is impossible for the US govt to work on these things in tandem over DECADES (these issues are DECADES in the making) is pervasive, effective, and inhibits progress on any. So why does it persist?
Somehow while we know we should have them all, we are convinced to argue we cannot have one without the other first. Should not ask for one without the other more important issue first.
The thing i’m trying to say is, yes we can. The government is (yaknow, hypothetically) able to tackle multiple issues at once and anyone who gets tricked into arguing which one we should pick allows the big G to have an excuse for not working on ANY of them.
As you say, without all three the problems will not cease, they’ll just change shape. All the more reason to advocate for each, always, until they’re tackled, one by one.
I think everyone sick of being in this time loop of the same result happening over and over. Action is the only solution.
