Thoughts and Prayers: A Discussion

[Sean 3760]

So I notice time after time when disasters strike, people rush to social media and ensure they send out all their "thoughts and prayers" to the families and victims of said disasters.

 

Personally, I believe this is a waste of time, and is basically saying "I have knowledge of this situation, and would like to show my friends that I feel bad". 

 

Personally, I think actions speak louder than words. Thoughts and prayers don't mean shit. If you want to make a difference, go donate blood or donate financially to the right cause. Social media is a waste of time.

 

 

 

tl;dr 1 like = 1 prayer

[Dakota 4722]

 

[ThatOllieWhoDies 1177]

Gonna have to agree with you here Sean. I went through my IG(Instagram) the morning after the shooting and many of the people that were posting "My prayers go out to the victims blah blah" were IG thots where their page is full of videos of them twerking. Funny

 

[Imperium 295]

[Sith 1050]

If people want to help, vote for harsher gun restrictions or more thorough vetting. Donate your money or your time.

 

If you don't do any of these things and have the balls to say "MY thoughts and prayers" then you're just disrespectful for saying anything at all.

 

It's the most efficient way of not doing anything at all regarding the incident but making it seem that you're contributing to some invisible accumulation of "vibes" which is just a compilation of people just as sad as you, trying their hardest to bastardize empathy.

[Swed 2651]

https://www.thoughtsandprayersthegame.com/

[trav 6834]

 

[water.exe 725]

14 hours ago, Sith said:

If people want to help, vote for harsher gun restrictions or more thorough vetting. Donate your money or your time.

 

If you don't do any of these things and have the balls to say "MY thoughts and prayers" then you're just disrespectful for saying anything at all.

 

It's the most efficient way of not doing anything at all regarding the incident but making it seem that you're contributing to some invisible accumulation of "vibes" which is just a compilation of people just as sad as you, trying their hardest to bastardize empathy.

I don't think a knee jerk reaction to this is the exact way laws should be passed. The real problem was this was just an average dude that did this and none of the checks in place were going to stop it. To add on to this statement look at Chicago it is the epitome of what democats want as gun laws and control and it averages the highest killing by guns because bad people will always get guns to break laws. If anything comes from this I hope it is more people willing to get a CCW license and actively carry.

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

1 minute ago, water.exe said:

I don't think a knee jerk reaction to this is the exact way laws should be passed. The real problem was this was just an average dude that did this and none of the checks in place were going to stop it. To add on to this statement look at Chicago it is the epitome of what democats want as gun laws and control and it averages the highest killing by guns because bad people will always get guns to break laws. If anything comes from this I hope it is more people willing to get a CCW license and actively carry.

Chicago is a city surrounded by a country with the most lenient gun laws in the western world so that's fucking stupid to say. Australia completely eliminated mass shootings when they had a "knee  jerk reaction" and passed heavy gun control after a mass shooting. Also do you really think a bunch of people pulling concealed pistols out during this situation wpuld have been a good thing? It probably would have ended with panicked people shooting eachother.

[trav 6834]

32 minutes ago, water.exe said:

I don't think a knee jerk reaction to this is the exact way laws should be passed. The real problem was this was just an average dude that did this and none of the checks in place were going to stop it.

 

The thing is maybe he wouldn't have been able to stockpile 42 guns so easily if there were checks in place.

 

Is it hard to get guns illegally in America? I'm not sure but one thing's for sure... It's nuts that you can just walk into a gun shop, buy as many guns as you'd like and walk out without any checks in place.

 

Should guns be banned? I don't think so but stricter rules, licenses and background checks should be in place before you get access to a gun and there should be a limit on how many guns you can own.

 

Honestly, I think if it were harder to get a gun or if you have to go through loops mass shootings would be less prevalent, especially if its knee-jerk reactions from some psycho. Would it have stopped this recent tragedy? Maybe not. But it could have done something.

 

The problem really lies in how many guns America has and the culture surrounding it.

 

Guns being a right but access to health care a privilege is backwards as fuck but what can you expect from 'Murica?

[Sith 1050]

6 hours ago, water.exe said:

I don't think a knee jerk reaction to this is the exact way laws should be passed. The real problem was this was just an average dude that did this and none of the checks in place were going to stop it. To add on to this statement look at Chicago it is the epitome of what democats want as gun laws and control and it averages the highest killing by guns because bad people will always get guns to break laws. If anything comes from this I hope it is more people willing to get a CCW license and actively carry.

 

You're right, we need at least maybe three more mass slaughters to justify doing something about it, lets drag it out until people get complacent. And only then, when everyone's tweet about thoughts and prayers become another post count increment, there will be another shooting BUT lets not be too rash. The problem is that humans are short-sighted and have short-term memory. If its not affecting us here and now, we might not feel as strongly about it until later when it happens again; just to be as surprised as the first time as to why nothings been done about it yet.

 

How many times have we discussed gun reform, how many people had their life snuffed short because of someone else's insanity, how many times have we lied to families that their children's, parents, and siblings didn't die for nothing, how this time it's different? How many times have we said #neverforget only to be reminded a year later from an annually timed post that today something terrible happened?

 

Or how about we ask a scarier question: How many more times will this happen before we decide that maybe "those" people who died may be "our" people next time? What if the next shooting isn't in the middle of a dense strip or in the packed nightclub? What if it happens in your school, or your town, or your fast food joint? Sure, it's probably not likely. That's the reasoning we use: "I live in a smaller town", "There's nothing important here for anyone to shoot", "I don't hang out with a shady crowd". If the day ever comes that you or your family and friends get gunned down because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, ask yourself this: How many people in the US are thinking exactly what I was thinking before this happened to me.

[water.exe 725]

15 hours ago, Sith said:

 

You're right, we need at least maybe three more mass slaughters to justify doing something about it, lets drag it out until people get complacent. And only then, when everyone's tweet about thoughts and prayers become another post count increment, there will be another shooting BUT lets not be too rash. The problem is that humans are short-sighted and have short-term memory. If its not affecting us here and now, we might not feel as strongly about it until later when it happens again; just to be as surprised as the first time as to why nothings been done about it yet.

 

How many times have we discussed gun reform, how many people had their life snuffed short because of someone else's insanity, how many times have we lied to families that their children's, parents, and siblings didn't die for nothing, how this time it's different? How many times have we said #neverforget only to be reminded a year later from an annually timed post that today something terrible happened?

 

Or how about we ask a scarier question: How many more times will this happen before we decide that maybe "those" people who died may be "our" people next time? What if the next shooting isn't in the middle of a dense strip or in the packed nightclub? What if it happens in your school, or your town, or your fast food joint? Sure, it's probably not likely. That's the reasoning we use: "I live in a smaller town", "There's nothing important here for anyone to shoot", "I don't hang out with a shady crowd". If the day ever comes that you or your family and friends get gunned down because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, ask yourself this: How many people in the US are thinking exactly what I was thinking before this happened to me.

Not to belittle you or your argument or anyone elses argument but the guns laws we have now prevent guns being bought legally from convicted felons, people with a poor background(as in domestic battery and such), the mentally incompetent & Seperated military with a dishonorable discharge. I'm saying a kneejerk reaction to use this to strengthen how hard it is to obtain a gun isn't the solution.

 

21 hours ago, Travesty said:

 

The thing is maybe he wouldn't have been able to stockpile 42 guns so easily if there were checks in place.

 

Is it hard to get guns illegally in America? I'm not sure but one thing's for sure... It's nuts that you can just walk into a gun shop, buy as many guns as you'd like and walk out without any checks in place.

 

Should guns be banned? I don't think so but stricter rules, licenses and background checks should be in place before you get access to a gun and there should be a limit on how many guns you can own.

 

Honestly, I think if it were harder to get a gun or if you have to go through loops mass shootings would be less prevalent, especially if its knee-jerk reactions from some psycho. Would it have stopped this recent tragedy? Maybe not. But it could have done something.

 

The problem really lies in how many guns America has and the culture surrounding it.

 

Guns being a right but access to health care a privilege is backwards as fuck but what can you expect from 'Murica?

Backgrounds checks are already federally required to purchase a gun in any state and if a yellow flag comes up on the background check you must fill out additional information in order to obtain a firearm. Also for certain types of guns to be owned you do need a license in order to possess it or even fire it.

To clarify my statement A knee-jerk reaction to limit good people from owning guns is a terrible solution to this all. Yes what has happened with the shooting is terrible and I have personally already donated to some funds that will benefit the families. The easiest way to put this is bad guys that want to bad things will always do it by whatever way possible. Could a CCW have stopped all the people from dying probably if he was in the hotel at the time the shooting started. I am simply asking for everyone that is advocating for stronger guns laws to think critically about this. Like I said I would like to see more people in America as whole obtain a CCW permit.

[Sean 3760]

Isn't it crazy that gun violence is practically non-existent in Canada due to the fact that we have extremely strict gun laws? Why do all Trump supporters love guns so much?

 

 

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

32 minutes ago, Sean said:

Isn't it crazy that gun violence is practically non-existent in Canada due to the fact that we have extremely strict gun laws? Why do all Trump supporters love guns so much?

 

 

Because a ton of people in this country misinterpret the 2nd amendment and the mindset of those who wrote it.

[Sean 3760]

@water.exe

 

Few questions.

 

1. Why do "good" people need to own a gun? I don't know a single person who has the "NEED" to own a gun.

 

2. Why do you think people who get flagged while trying to purchase a firearm still get the opportunity to after filling out some sheets of paper? 

 

3. You say certain guns need licenses to carry or fire, don't you think it should be all firearms?

 

I need to understand why you think it is so necessary to own a gun. I certainly don't think it is... please don't tell me it is for you to be able to protect yourself. We have police for that. They carry guns for a reason.

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

Friendly reminder that you can legally get a gun without passing a background check if it takes longer than 3 days to get it done 

[trav 6834]

5 hours ago, Sean said:

@water.exe

 

I need to understand why you think it is so necessary to own a gun. I certainly don't think it is... please don't tell me it is for you to be able to protect yourself

 

Because most Americans live in constant state of fear that someone might try to harm them /shrug

[JXC 31]

 

[trav 6834]

17 hours ago, water.exe said:

Could a CCW have stopped all the people from dying probably if he was in the hotel at the time the shooting started. I am simply asking for everyone that is advocating for stronger guns laws to think critically about this. Like I said I would like to see more people in America as whole obtain a CCW permit.

 

So you're saying if everyone had a concealed carry weapon permit, and carried a gun on them at all times, gun violence would decrease?

[Dakota 4722]

18 hours ago, water.exe said:

Could a CCW have stopped all the people from dying probably if he was in the hotel at the time the shooting started.

 

Are you suggesting that a CCW holder would have stood a chance against the shooter, with basically automatic rifles, who had cameras rigged in the halls so he could wall bang approaching people, if he so happened to rambo into the hotel room, without breaching charges, and got into a shootout in the room?

18 hours ago, water.exe said:

probably

 

15 hours ago, Sean said:

I need to understand why you think it is so necessary to own a gun.

I assume you know the answer but lets be redundant.

Our country was founded on a massive rebellion from a country seen as tyrannical. It lead to a war, you've probably heard about it. Written into our wholesome Constitution is the provision that would limit the government from restricting our access to firearms, which were and still are the best personal weapon for defense. This is necessary in the event that the United States does a heel turn and the citizens need to protect themselves. I could draw parallels to what is happening in Spain. If Texas wanted to seceded from the union, which they commonly threaten, the federal government will have a tougher time preventing that.

 

I would never feel the need to carry a pistol on me at all times. That's a bit paranoid. But you damn well bet I want a 12 gauge sawed off by my night stand so when I hear my dog barking I know full well I'm gonna protect my shit. I'm too small to rely on my using a club or bat better than the other guy.

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

Just now, Beerman said:

 

Are you suggesting that a CCW holder would have stood a chance against the shooter, with basically automatic rifles, who had cameras rigged in the halls so he could wall bang approaching people, if he so happened to rambo into the hotel room, without breaching charges, and got into a shootout in the room?

 

I assume you know the answer but lets be redundant.

Our country was founded on a massive rebellion from a country seen as tyrannical. It lead to a war, you've probably heard about it. Written into our wholesome Constitution is the provision that would limit the government from restricting our access to firearms, which were and still are the best personal weapon for defense. This is necessary in the event that the United States does a heel turn and the citizens need to protect themselves. 

 

See the thing is people misinterpret the viewpoint of the founding fathers. The reason the second amendment includes the sentence "a well regulated militia" is because it was actually saying the federal govenrment would not take away the rights of state and local governments to maintain their own militias which is what was common in those days. Local government's would stockpile guns to be distributed if the need arose. This was guaranteed for two reasons 1. Appease state governments that were a little worried the federal gov would reduce their power. And 2. Because the threat of a British reinvasion still was there and we didn't have the money to pay for a real military. Basically both reasons are now moot because we see states can still maintain influence without their own militias and also because we now have an incredibly overpowered military that wouldn't let an enemy land let alone conquer us. There's really no evidence any founding father gave a shit about some random farmer's right to own a rifle. I'm not saying ban guns. But the case people make for why we can't "infringe on gun rights at all" comes from people nkt bothering to even read the full amendment and consider why the militia part was added 

[Sean 3760]

On top of this, I have no issue with the average joe owning a shotgun, AFTER THEY GO THROUGH SAFETY TESTS, RECEIVE THE REQUIRED LICENSE, AND BACKGROUND CHECKS.

 

See: Canadian Gun Laws

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Canada#Licensing_of_firearms_owners

[Dr Pepper 1491]

kinda old but i still stand by what he says.

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

Just now, Dr Pepper said:

kinda old but i still stand by what he says.

He makes so many bad points in this video so I'll just point out the very first one which I've heard from so many gun nuts. When people say "planes didn't cause 9/11 bad people did" or something about trucks being dangerous to I point out that you can't fly without a license and certification and many other checks and balances. You don't even have the right to be a passenger without heavy security checks. Also the defense against tyranical government thing is bs considering last I checked Sean and Travesty don't live in a police state. Make the right to own a gun associated  with the ability to pass a test and prove you're capable of operating it safely and are mentally fit to do so. Watch how fast these shootings plummet. 

[Rootbeer 1293]

Just now, Ordinarygamer96 said:

Make the right to own a gun associated with the ability to pass a test and prove you're capable of operating it safely and are mentally fit to do so. Watch how fast these shootings plummet. 

 

I didn't dig too much on the Vegas shooter's history, did he have any red flags at all? What little I know of the guy is that he was somewhat wealthy and the only thing that raises a ! is the fact that his dad was on the FBI's most wanted list, and just being the kid of a criminal isn't a crime in itself. Just based on that relatively clean history of his, I don't see how he could've failed any sanity test thrown at him nor would I expect any examiners to have treated him differently from anyone else applying for a gun.

 

I think looking for ideas to make it harder for the mentally ill to obtain weapons is great but idk if a test is a viable one. After getting a "No" to "Do you think it's okay to shoot people", there's really not much more you can ask. In a similar vein, and mabey meds are just lax but I thought it'd be super difficult to obtain stimulants for my ADHD, with stims being a very closely monitored drug. The big questions that were asked were simply:

1. Do you have thoughts of hurting others or yourself?

2. Are you seeing or hearing things you shouldn't be?
3. Are you feeling depressed at all?

and one or two more but they were all very generic and yes/no questions. Say no 4-5 times whether you're lying or not (I only lied to #1, I often have thoughts to violently harm Narwhals everytime I hear his voice) and bam, you're legally mentally fit. Honestly, place a harder test than the one here and I'm pretty sure a large portion of the population will be considered mentally ill -- even the ones who aren't.