So... sorry. not sure if people know that I suffer from manic/depression. at one point i was diagnosed as bipolar, and treated for it, but they kind of got it wrong, so... i have tools and such to keep it in control. today, i'm stressed out, and it's flaring a bit, so yeah, please don't take anything i might post too seriously... and i PROMISE that your story won't get lost, Kimmi. pinkie swear...

so... non-story writing related. i think a lot of you know i've been dabbling in music for a bit. guitar, effects, now synths. it's fun. i'm working with someone i call The Doctor (he wears a wizard hat, like Gandalf, btw, and he's very awesome and teaching me how to patch and stuff like that) anyway, i was recently, through him, informed of an event in Berlin called Super Booth. it's like THE BIGGEST synth show in the world. why don't we know about these things here? it's a conspiracy, i tell you!

anyway, so i'm following a lot of the reports on youtube this morning, it's this weekend, and it's kind of awesome and mindblowing. i wish i could go, seriously. some day. these people are crazy geniuses with some of the new product coming out - it's fascinating. just sort of sharing cause... i wanted to. look it up on youtube. Superbooth 2023. so f'ing cool. Also, check out MakeNoise - it's a company. The Doctor has some of their gear. it's awesome. it makes crazy cool sounds. sometimes he lets me mess with it. supervised, of course.

i'm in a bad mood. give me all your donuts and booze. AND MAKE IT GODDAMNED SNAPPY! fucking place. oh, and i wrote another flash piece. should show up sometime soon. the publishing system changes, whoever, continue to plague me - i think it's just specifically me. it's not like i'm stupid - i KNOW how to publish stories here, but it's completely fucked every time i try now. i'm about to just stop even trying.

Octo-punk.

Quote by KimmiBeGood

Afternoon Rumpies.

Happy Mother's Day weekend to all you fabulous mothers (and any fathers pulling double duty!)

And shockingly I'm finishing my comp entry this weekend. My 5th try at one. We'll see if it can escape my garbage can. It's a Silkpunk story. I'm hoping no one knows what that is, so I can't be judged. :)

I do like my title and cover. And parts of the story don't suck big hairy balls.

YAY! it's not a comp until Kimmi enters a story! thank god! silkpunk, btw, is the japanese version of steampunk. the good news for you is that i can't be a judge since i'm a contestant. (that's why i enter, btw, so i don't have to be a judge. it's a LOT of work and i'm lazy as fuck).

Quote by Chryses

... chuckling ... And his and your comments came about after his frustrated complaint about my opinion of the appropriateness of the term 'weirdo' for that individual.

Please comment on the topic rather than just ramble on in circles. Thanks. I'm very close to going in and cleaning up all your comments that don't actually add to the dialogue.

passionate

Quote by sprite

nonconsensual sexual abuse = . what a bs verdict. i am angry beyond belief.

that said, he is now, officially, a sexual predator. HA!

Quote by Tantaleyes

Maybe Trump’s conviction today for defamation and battery will help even the percentages.

i doubt it will make a lick of difference to his supporters. probably make them more fervent in their support.

Quote by WellMadeMale

One down...

Three more to go.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/e-jean-carrolls-lawyers-close-with-trumps-own-damning-words

All of this Trump winning... How amazing, so much winning.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/jury-says-donald-trump-didnt-rape-e-jean-carroll-but-liable-for-battery

nonconsensual sexual abuse = . what a bs verdict. i am angry beyond belief.

Quote by Magical_felix

There's something wrong with this kid

If you don't have anything to add to the conversation, please refrain from posting. thanks.

Quote by Chryses

You mistakenly inferred that you and I agreed about the use of the term 'weirdo,' "... as you can see from Chrysis [sic] "fruitcake" comment below, he gleaned the same impression as i did." That mistake.

You need like nothing I post.

I think those who address others in a public forum by screaming and screaming their hate qualify for many descriptions, "weirdo" and "fruitcake" being on that list.

Back to you.

ok - sorry i thought you might have actually said something with a tinge of empathy attached to it. what the hell was i thinking? cool. i can go back to pretending you don't exist anymore. at least on this account.

Quote by Ironic
Why wouldn't you want to try both approaches?

bangs my head against the wall repeatedly let's see if i can make this EVEN clearer. i am in favor of using ANY reasonable approach that has a chance of working. i am also in favor of working to solve the issue permanently, regardless of how long it might take. Both. or more, if there are more 'bandaids' and/or cures. then just one.

Quote by Ironic

Why wouldn't you want to try both approaches?

go re-read my post again, then think about it, then come back and comment, please (she says after JUST saying. i'm okay with the bandaid as LONG as we don't abandon pushing forward the long-term actual solution that deal with more than just the symptoms) ;)

Quote by Ironic

I think it has potential, and even if it does work, it is a bandaid. But it's one of the symptom treatments that can be applied now.

Has anybody said both approaches couldn't be tried?

i thought i just did...

Quote by Ironic

The School Guardian Act is an example. That's the OP.

PS There's more than one treatment.

yep, there is. so, which treatment is the GOP (because, let's be honest here, they are the party, currently, that is cockblocking most gun legislation - and that's not just a bias on my part - it's fact, based on their voting records) going to help pass? And yes. the school guardian act. kind of a crappy bandaid. Uvalde. How many armed cops stood outside in the hall listening as kids were being shot? For how long? that said, i don't believe i am on record and being against it as long as it doesn't stop there. use it like a bandaid, but don't do it and say - there! problem solved! nothing more to do! that's my concern. it's tending to the symptoms and ignoring the root cause. why can't we do both? why does it have to be an either/or thing? how about we make things a little better short term while continuing to look for a real solution longterm?

Quote by Ironic

Everybody knows you dislike him, but he did review (with links to sourc.e material) some of the ways the right to own guns. If you're interested, you can read what he has to say

i don't have to like him to respect him. that's the issue. he's proven himself to be disingenuous and dishonest. on more occasions than i can abide. he is also, in my opinion, a troll, so no, i am not interested in what he has to say to be completely honest since his source material is usually pretty suspect as well.

Quote by Ironic

Fine. Don't. But if there's a symptom treatment that reduces the number = even if it doesn't address the root cause - then I'd have thought you'd be in favor.

okay, sure. what is the symptom treatment then? sell me on it and i'd be happy to use it as a bandaid to slap on while we also take the long-term approach - doing one doesn't mean we can't do the other - bandaid is great for stopping the blood flow on a temp basis. but you need to tend to the wound long-term, so that it heals without infection and leaves as small a scar as possible.

Quote by Ironic

Chryses covered the revoking aspect several pages back.

Chryses mostly says a lot of things without really saying anything - he's like a hot air balloon - so i tend to ignore most of what he says. even if i disagree with you, i read and reply to your posts, because you actually attempt to debate your position honestly and i can at least respect that if not agree with it.

Quote by Ironic

Because until the constitution is revised, the basics of US gun ownership will remain, and the shootings will continue, and it's the shootings I think that you really care about.

well, i could wave my magic wand and wish the shootings away instead. let's give it a try. or just throw up my hands and do nothing. why are you opposed to trying to change the status quo, regardless of how long it might take? i refuse to accept that this is just the way it is, get used to it.

Quote by Ironic

Well, Good Luck, but then you've got to accept the long term results.

if the long term results are less gun violence/death? why would i have any issues with that?

Quote by Ironic

That's not even required for a driving license, and driving is a privilege, not a right.

owning a gun should also be considered a privilege and not a right. sadly, we're a little backward on that. i think that, just like driving, let's say if you go out shooting while drunk, your right to own a gun should be revoked. if you accidentally shoot someone because you're not being safe, your right to own a gun should be revoked. treat it like driving. you break the law, you cause someone harm? you act dangerously? BAM. no more gun for you, buddy. REVOKED. let's not cite the second amendment and just think about this - anyone here have an issue with that? or you think there is no reason why anyone should have their right to own a gun taken away under any circumstance?

Quote by Ironic

Then you shouldn't associate the the two 40%s as you did.

If you're taking the long road - the constitutional amendment - you'll need to wait a long while for the result you want.

as i said, it's worth it, IF the changes actually happen. i mean, i don't think it'll happen in the next few years or even decades, but eventually? i mean, what about making things better for your children, if not yourself?

Quote by Ironic

More red flag laws - if they can be written well enough to get through the course.

The thread topic idea should be discussed instead of dismissed.

you realize that a lot of people, including those in power, bristle at the idea of red-flag laws and starting going on about RIGHTS whenever the subject is broached, right? to me, they're common sense, but then i consider myself pretty reasonable.

Quote by Ironic

Nobody's worth an infinite amount of money.

Why are you assuming that the 40% reduction would reduce the shootings by 40%? It probably would reduce the shootings, but there's no obvious reason to assume that the 40% reduction would be taking all the guns that would otherwise have been used in shootings.

I don't own a gun because I think I don't need one. But if a hunter (rifle) feels a need for a handgun for self defense, then that's 2 for the hunter. Since the right exists and will continue to exist until amended away, I think laws limiting the number that can be owned legally will be difficult to get past judicial review.

i am not assuming that a 40% reduction would reduce shootings by 40%, hence the word 'theoretically'. thing is, i'd be happy with ANY reduction - even 1% would work. did you know that, so far this year, there have been 17 mass shooting just in Texas? if we could have reduced that to 16 - one less - that would make it worth it, imo. def make it worth it to however many people that equates to. let's say it's 4. four lives saved. to me, that's an epic win. to those 4 people and their families, it would be a miraculous win. see where i'm going here? we seem to be having more and more mass shooting. turning it around to less and less would be a good thing, right? unless we're just okay with mass shootings as long as we maintain our rights to own guns?

right, you might not need one. i am assuming that you're (and don't take this as an insult or me taking shots at you, it's just reality) a target of any kind - white. middle-aged. straight. male. probably not outspoken about unpopular stances or politically involved outside of the internet, where you can maintain some anonymity. does that sound about right? not all of us fit that description. i (and my wife) had a very long discussion about it - there were a lot of factors that went into the decision, but essentially, we came to the conclusion that we are both potential targets and it would be prudent to be prepared in case things go completely south at some point in our lives. I mean, dude, Trump DOES plan on running again, right?

Quote by Ironic

No, I didn't. You're wrong, and you can't quote me posting what noll aid I did.

You're right about the mass shooting issue not being resolved here, though.

Are you proposing an approach requiring a constitutional amendment? If so, I think you've selected an approach that's take a long, long time.

just because it might take a long long time, doesn't mean it's not worth pursuing. there are a lot of things that took a long long time to change. slavery comes to mind. worth it, in the long run? you betcha. the sooner we start, the sooner the change, a change that is good for, imo, both society and individuals (frankly, i think people are getting sick of burying sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, moms, dads... well, i think i don't need to go on - you get the point, right?).

Quote by Ironic

That country-specific approach is what I told Dani.

Take the buyback campaigns, for example. There are millions of privately owned guns here in the US. Any meaningful buyback program would cost a lot of money, and after it was over, what of the guns whose owners didn't sell?

saving lives > saving money, imo. as for gun owners who didn't sell - let's say you only take 40% of said guns off the street - theoretically, that could save 40% of the lives taken by gun violence or accidents. see, the thing is? i'm weird. i value human life over the need to own a gun. if you take a moment and really examine the issue, why do Americans NEED so many guns? Sure, it's a right, but in all honesty, so we really need them? okay, hunting. i get that. kind of, though i'm not a fan. i think that about covers it

btw, i am a gun over - a very recent event. a handgun - and i have a CC permit. the gun resides in a locked safe. it comes out for target practice once a month. and then goes back in. i have taken safety courses and it is registered. this is reasonable and sensible gun ownership, in my opinion. if everyone followed my example, i would be fine with people owning guns. not everyone does. most don't, imo. that is the real issue.

Quote by Ironic

You already know Americans don't have the right to own any and every firearm, so why are you asking?

Your use of "sane" when describing people engaged in a debate is pejorative; so's "committing mass murder".

I happen to agree with you that there's little reason for the retail sale of assault rifles.

they currently have the right to own semi-automatic weapons, whose singular use seems to be killing a large number of people, including kids. and there are kits that enable owners to turn semi-automatic weapons into fully automatic weapons. there are also lobbyists who would like to make automatic weapons legal, so really, the question is, are you okay with that or do you think that limiting/taking away certain firearms seems like a common sense move?

and okay, i will withdraw the word "sane" and replace it with "sensible" as well as withdraw the phrase "committing mass murder" with "killing a bunch of innocent people/target shooting/protecting your home with a weapon that is, frankly, overkill". better?

Quote by noll

Many countries have things like licenses, registrations and perhaps occasional buy back campaigns. The details are of course (or hopefully) fine-tuned for that specific country, but the general approach is often similar in nature.

most other countries have decided that common sense and sanity are integral to the quality of life and a safe and happy society.

Quote by Ironic

We all know Americans have the right to own firearms. Posts which are proposals to remove guns from Americans are as unproductive as complaining about gravity pulling on us because taking guns away from Americans will require a constitutional amendment, and that's not going to happen anytime soon.

what about posts that propose to restrict the use of certain models of firearms, aka automatics and semi-automatics? do Americans have the right to own any and every firearm? and yes, it's not going to happen soon, but should it happen? i'm not talking about taking away all guns. i'm talking about restricting the right to own certain guns that most sane people can agree that their only real use is for committing mass murder.

Quote by Chryses

I accept you still do not understand the mistake sprite made.

what mistake? for the record, i don't like the use of either "weirdo" or "fruitcake" to describe people when the only information you have to work with is a 30 second clip posted online. IMO it veers very close to calling someone a "retard" which i am obviously not a fan of. so, again, what mistake did i make, so i can defend myself?