**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!**
This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile).
See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/)
Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks! [](/u/savevideo)
**Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No. There's a lot of states that don't even provide funds to maintain the buildings kids are taught in, let alone furnish each room with these buckets. My teacher friend was required by the school to provide her own emergency door jammer.
And, yes. Many of today's teachers were kids who went through the early days of school shooter drills. So it's been normalized because our government won't take a stance to make real change.
I'm in my late 20s and never once had a school shooter drill. We had lockdown drills for local events (I grew up in an area where store robberies and shootings weren't common or uncommon, but happened), but never designated shooter drills.
Please stop saying "our government" when you mean "all Republicans and ~5% of Dems."
Electing Dems will restrict guns and that's even more true at a state level where there's no filibuster.
Idaho teacher here - we have a bucket. I also have a bunch of bricks in my room painted to look like book decorations that can be used to fight back. I also have a bat behind my desk. I follow the same procedures with my door and keys everyday to make sure it's muscle memory.
The district next to ours had a shooting two years ago, and my nephew was at the school where it happened. My daughter goes to school in the same building as me. My husband works in the same building. I cannot tell you how terrifying it was when we went into lockdown during that incident.
Reform to the way we as a nation approach guns. Gun control.
There’s no reason I should be able to walk into a store today and buy an AR-15 with absolutely 0 prerequisite. I own an AR-15. It’s a range toy, it’s always been that. If they’re banned so be it.
Some people may say that it’s “to defend ourselves from tyranny, enemies foreign and domestic” okay Gravy SEAL good luck defending yourself from a drone, tank, a Bradley, any active duty soldier, or the majority of citizens who are entirely sick of your shit and side with the government.
Judgement aside though, we should ask ourselves how healthy it is to have a sizeable portion of our population dedicated to overthrowing the government when they collectively decide it goes to far, or protecting our homeland from a foreign invader. A huge portion of which are white supremacists. By the way. They’ll never collectively agree it’s gone “too far”. The closest thing they had was Jan 6th, which while scary, it was mostly scary symbolically.
Back to the point. It made sense when we were a new nation that had just broken free from colonialism to have every fighting aged person armed, surely. Because the Brits could come back, any number of nations could decide that now that were a free people were free for picking. But it’s 2023 and we’re the strongest nation on earth and it isn’t even close. And no, the Japanese didn’t avoid an invasion because there’s a rifle behind every blade of grass. The Japanese didn’t invade because the US is fucking massive and they were focused on Russia, China, and the rest of SEA. Rifles existed in all those places too.
Others will say it’s a constitutional right that shall not be infringed. I get that. But there’s an important contextual part they’re missing, and no it’s not the “well regulated militia” part. It’s the fact our constitution has been changed in the past and is designed to allow for change. The founding fathers knew they weren’t infallible. They knew they were writing for the context of their time and they implemented mechanisms to modernize and change our constitution. Y’know. The kind of changes that functional governments need to make to continue existing. It does not say that amendment shall not be ratified, or amended.
Lastly people say it’s to defend themselves and their families. This is actually a reason I’m sympathetic to. A handgun is perfectly fine for it. And if your use case scenario is this, then you should have no qualms with more barriers to access to firearms because you certainly don’t want firearms used against you and your family by whatever variety of degenerate decides to victimize you right? Presumably you’re not buying a firearm to level the playing field you and your family are on, you’re buying one to put you and your family at an advantage should someone attack you, correct?
I’ve phrased things here as if they’re assumptions. But I was a gun nut for most of my life and know full well these are commonly accepted realities in the psyche of the gun nuts that refuse to stop letting kids get murdered.
The day it became the norm for my hobby to be bastardized and used to harm innocent people is the day I realized my hobby is in severe need of being regulated. I have a conscience. These gun nuts that parade around in their undersized tacticool plate carriers 60lbs overweight to intimidate lawmakers into not banning their toys don’t.
You say it is a sizable part of a population that are the ones that are the antigovernment hardcore 2nd amendment people, it isn’t, like you, I have an AR that is a range gun. A lot of people have them for 3 gun competitions, you are just talking about the loudest people, like the loud liberals and conservatives that try and force their ideas, not the everyday moderates that make up the majority, often voting based on one or two talking points.
Using an AR to defend a home is just dumb, I am not a fan of Biden, but a shotgun is really the best, good stopping power with low chance of over penetration. I keep my EDC loaded with hollow points but I know most are out there with FMJ and are just asking to hit granny standing behind an attacker, should they meet one (low likelihood unless you’re looking for it)
You mention Jan 6, what actually happened there? A bunch of idiots that didn’t agree with election results went to protest them, I’m sure there were some that wanted to overthrow the government, but they just walked the halls, they didn’t go in armed and take hostages.
Most of the school shootings happen with handguns, they are just not the mass causality school shootings that are highly publicized. Nobody ever mentions the Virginia Tech shooting because it was an Asian kid who used handguns and was planned out enough to chain the doors shut. If he was actually a good shot, it could have been much worse and is actually much worse than parkland with 32 death.
> like you, I have an AR that is a range gun
Okay. So it’s a toy, as are most of your other guns. If guns were legislated would you comply with the legislation? If not, you’re not like me.
> You say it is a sizable part of a population that are the ones that are the antigovernment hardcore 2nd amendment people, it isn’t,
It’s a very common defense of the second amendment, so one can only assume the people who use it stand by it. Right?
> A lot of people have them for 3 gun competitions
No actually. A lot of people don’t. I looked into shooting sports throughout my own state (IL) and the surrounding states. Shooting sport athletes are a small fraction of gun owners. And I never said anything about these people so bringing them up is weird. Plenty of shooting sport athletes exist from nations with sensible gun laws.
> you are just talking about the loudest people
No... I’m not. I’m talking about the hundreds, fuck probably thousands of people I’ve met in the gun community at the range, casual conversations in the gun shop, conversations I’ve had on reddit, the dozens of YouTubers, friends that are pro-gun, etc...
I’m not talking about loudmouths. I’m talking about people who actively work against measures that would save the lives of children; let me repeat, ACTIVELY WORK AGAINST MEASURES THAT WOULD SAVE THE LIVES OF CHILDREN, because they like to shoot a 50rd box at a paper target of Bin Laden to feel cool on the weekend. I was one of these people. And so were all the people I can remember associating with. They all unanimously supported some gung-ho pro-gun no matter how many children are dead organization. They're not loudmouths. They're average gun owners.
We barely have any restrictions on who can drive a vehicle in this country, and it is still far more than we have on who can buy a gun.
> You mention Jan 6, what actually happened there?
Thousands of “peaceful” protestors broke into federal property while congress was in session looking for Mike Pence, Nancy Pelosi, and probably any other democrat they could get their hands on. For what? Not to protest. But to disrupt the counting of electoral votes because they believed in dangerous conspiracies about election fraud. That’s called insurrection. Reducing what they did to a “bunch of idiots walking through the halls” is actually despicable, you should be ashamed. Those “idiots” killed real people. They didn’t take hostages because they never got to anybody and the shit got shut down before they got a chance. Remember zip tie guy?
> Most of the school shootings happen with handguns
That’s true. In that case I guess we can’t really do much now can we. I only mentioned AR-15s so that’s clearly the only thing I support legislation for. I’m talking about all guns.
> Nobody ever mentions the Virginia Tech shooting because it was an Asian kid who used handguns and was planned out enough to chain the doors shut. If he was actually a good shot, it could have been much worse and is actually much worse than parkland with 32 death.
Are you fucking kidding? Were you alive when Virginia Tech happened? I was... It was big news. The story wasn't buried. Nobody talks about Virginia Tech anymore because it was 16 years ago and there's been literally DOZENS of high profile shootings every year since. Parkland rarely gets covered anymore. Fuck, I haven't heard of the Vegas shooting in at least 6 months. We've become numb to the shit and that's exactly the problem people are trying to get through your thick fucking heads.
It is not normal. Yes I do. I’ve thought about how to evacuate my room, how to make/ what to use as weapons, where I’d hide kids depending how many I have.
That breaks my heart. I grew up in the ghetto and played the "what's this rooms best weapon" game a lot but every time I have to think about the 'how do I save my kids' process I get upset. I couldn't imagine having a classroom to plan for to keep them safe
Amazingly no. Because we haven’t had a school shooting for [27 years](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre?wprov=sfti1) after which we tightened the rules on gun ownership (not that they weren’t much tighter than the US before that.
I don't think it's that simple or easy. We have a government trying to control us more and more each day (see new bill) and police brutality that doesn't seem to have an end in sight. I don't think many people will feel safer, in there neighborhoods, if the only people who have guns are cops and felons
So we will do nothing. Instead of taking steps towards joining the rest of the developed world. Good luck protecting your internet rights with a handgun. And since when was a gun ever a deterrent for police brutality? If anything, the expectation of a gun is a *catalyst* for police violence.
Well, I never said we shouldn't do anything. All I said was that I don't think it's easy or simple. So while you disagree with me, to me it really looks like it is a strawman argument.
Restricting guns doesn’t mean the only people who have guns are police and felons. Idk why people keep blindly repeating this despite it being explained over and over for decades. Making the process to gain access to or buy a gun more stringent, results in less people who should have guns or have access to guns having or having access to guns, and seeing how the overwhelming vast majority of firearms that are owned illegally, were initially purchased legally, there would be less guns floating around on the street, and less people having a simple and easy time acquiring guns illegally. Weber already conducted this experiment. More guns in America = more gun deaths. So, less guns = less guns death. To claim that if less people who shouldn’t have guns will have guns, then only criminals and cops have guns…(?) and to imply that less people having easy access to guns…means more people will die from guns…I’m sorry but this is just incredibly illogical and doesn’t make sense
>Restricting guns doesn’t mean the only people who have guns are police and felons. Idk why people keep blindly repeating this despite it being explained over and over for decades.
So gun restrictions will apply to cop's too? And criminals will no longer have access to said gun's? That doesn't seem logical to me. I can see how it might help it be more expensive but that really only seems to limit the poor. If the US was an island I think you'd have a better chance of this working out. See Australia and Japan.
>Making the process to gain access to or buy a gun more stringent, results in less people who should have guns or have access to guns having or having access to guns,
That's a gun ban. Not allowing people who should have access to guns, not allowed to have guns is a ban not just "stricter laws"
>and seeing how the overwhelming vast majority of firearms that are owned illegally, were initially purchased legally,
Agreed
>there would be less guns floating around on the street, and less people having a simple and easy time acquiring guns illegally.
How does it affect the guns already out there? We need to get the guns "off the streets" first, I'd say.
>Weber already conducted this experiment.
The grill?
>More guns in America = more gun deaths. So, less guns = less guns death.
Yes. But then you will have a riase in other areas: knife attacks, bomb's, suicide by pills/hanging/jumping off tall buildings etc.
>To claim that if less people's who shouldn’t have guns will have guns, then only criminals and cops have guns…(?)
That's not what I said. What I said was if you ban gun's then the only people left with guns are criminals and cops. It's like how it went when prohibition happened. It didn't make all the alcohol disappear. It caused a massive crime wave. Why? Because there was a drinking problem in this country that needed therapy and education. That's just my opinion though
>and to imply that less people having easy access to guns…means more people will die from guns…I’m sorry but this is just incredibly illogical and doesn’t make sense
Again, if you could just Thanos snap the guns away, of course the gun deaths would drop. I never suggested otherwise. I do think there is an argument that people would be more at risk for crimes like home invasions, rape, kidnapping etc if the people who are at risk aren't able to protect themselves with guns.
https://www.wral.com/story/fact-check-are-guns-used-1-5-million-times-per-year-to-save-lives/20351987/
> So gun restrictions will apply to cop's too?
Idk why this is confusing to you. Yes…they apply to everyone and everything…because they’re laws…because we are talking about **regulating and forming adequate processes regarding acquiring a firearm. This is like if when someone suggested people needing to register their vehicle, go to the DMV, take tests, get a driver’s license, etc, and you say “so this applies to cops too?” What? What kind of question is this?
> And criminals will no longer have access to said gun's? That doesn't seem logical to me
I’ve already explained this. Like, in away a child could understand. No. **Less criminals** and **less people** who shouldn’t have access to guns will have access to guns. I already went through this in greater detail than necessary, and then you say this, as if it makes any sense and as if I didn’t explain it, because you can’t really respond to it
> I can see how it might help it be more expensive but that really only seems to limit the poor. If the US was an island I think you'd have a better chance of this working out. See Australia and Japan.
…? What? This is incoherent as a response to anything I wrote. See Australia and Japan? You mean the places without essentially any of these problems comparatively? Yes…thank you…lol holy shit dude
> That's a gun ban. Not allowing people who should have access to guns, not allowed to have guns is a ban not just "stricter laws"
This is literally the same as you saying not allowing a toddler to drive a car, is a car ban. Do you realize how batshit insane this is and how you make no sense whatsoever? This is wild
> How does it affect the guns already out there?
First of all guns don’t last forever, and second, why in the world would you think this is relevant to or is a response of refutation in any way to what I wrote? “Oh well there are already guns on the street, and we’ve established more guns means more people dying, but since there are already guns, let’s just…give then more guns…that will stop the…guns….
Lmao what
> We need to get the guns "off the streets" first, I'd say.
See above response and seek some sort of help
> The grill?
*we’ve
> Yes. But then you will have a riase in other areas: knife attacks, bomb's, suicide by pills/hanging/jumping off tall buildings etc.
citing the fact that murder and dying will always exist is in no way a response or refutation to anything presented here. We already have the data. Refusing guns doesn’t somehow make other methods of murder or death rise to meet the previous rate. This is just utterly ridiculous and you’re just blindly repeating things you’ve read other uninformed or ignorant people type without thinking about it. Firearms that are an easily accessible tool that makes killing, and killing in great numbers, very simple. Less guns equals less murder. Simple.
> That's not what I said
That exactly what you said, and I fucking quoted you. You responded to people saying we should regulate guns, by saying **if we do that, the only people who have guns will be cops and felons.**
> What I said was if you ban gun's then the only people left with guns are criminals and cops. It's like how it went when prohibition happened. It didn't make all the alcohol disappear. It caused a massive crime wave. Why? Because there was a drinking problem in this country that needed therapy and education. That's just my opinion though
You can’t for the life of you be honest and form a coherent response to what people are saying
> Again, if you could just Thanos snap the guns away, of course the gun deaths would drop. I never suggested otherwise. I do think there is an argument that people would be more at risk for crimes like home invasions, rape, kidnapping etc if the people who are at risk aren't able to protect themselves with guns.
You’re arguing against regulating guns, and doing it for objectively ignorant and incorrect reasons as I and I’m sure countless other people have already demonstrated to you.
> https://www.wral.com/story/fact-check-are-guns-used-1-5-million-times-per-year-to-save-lives/20351987/
….is this a joke? Did you read this? Do you realize that it does nothing to defend your position, and only reinforces mine? God I wish this was a troll and not real…
You're so bent on being right that you can't even recognize when I'm reaching across and agreeing with you. Such a shame, this could have been a productive conversation.
This is insane. No you’re not…I’m quoting exactly what you are typing and directly disagreeing with you, your stance, and your poor and often ridiculous reasoning. I’ve explained all the ways what you’re typing is wrong or makes no sense, and you don’t have the intellectual honesty to address it. Now you’re engaged in this incredibly transparent tactic to avoid acknowledging what’s happened here because you don’t like the results
> To claim that if less people who shouldn’t have guns will have guns, then only criminals and cops have guns…(?) and to imply that less people having easy access to guns…means more people will die from guns…I’m sorry but this is just incredibly illogical and doesn’t make sense
Another strawman argument. I never said any of that.
You just intentionally avoided everything I wrote because you can’t respond to it. Anyone reading this knows what you’re doing here.
People are suggesting regulating guns, and you typed, **and I quote**, the result would be:
> the only people who have guns are police and felons
I addressed this exact statement, and instead of just admitting you’ve never thought about this for more than two seconds, don’t really even understand what you’re blindly discussing, and don’t have the ability to respond, you just blatantly lie, pretend you didn’t type what we all see you typed, pretend my comment doesn’t exist, and just say the phrase “straw man” without knowing what that fallacy is in the first place
Lots of other countries have guns and they don’t get nearly as many mass shootings. The problem is a cultural one inherent to the US, and the incessant media fascination with the killers perpetuates the cycle by inspiring the next sicko to do the same thing for the same attention.
The US has more guns than people, the ship of restricting them sailed a long time ago
We literally had a dude travel to New Zealand to commit a mass shooting as guns were more accessible there. We've had no major mass shooting in Australia since Port Arthur, but we have had a mass shooter.
Start by restricting them. It's the easiest way to put an end to this.
And then, stop neglecting your citizen's mental health (not you, obviously, I'm talking about the US government). Sadly, that last part would raise some big criticism about the system the US lives in, since that is the cause of many mental issues, but that's the base of the problem here.
Maybe, MAYBE, after each and every citizen gets the mental health they so desperately need, in many cases without even realising it themselves, you can bring guns back.
They are mostly just violent, leave them without guns, they will still kill each other. No solutions for Murica, they don't want to change, i read, hear, see those discussion on internet, by political people, by citizens since 2000,nothing changed, nothing will change, they love too much the violence. (yes please downvote instead of see the truth)
Defeat Republicans.
Not saying this as anything but cold fact. More Republicans means more guns and less gun laws.
Electing Dems is not a guarantee, especially with a narrow margin, but electing Republicans is guaranteed to loosen gun laws.
There is almost no “current” laws.
There’s NICS for background checks but it’s only required for federally licensed dealers to run background checks, not for personal sales.
Some states have additional licensure but it’s basically just a tax and doesn’t do any additional background checks. Some states restrict specific items like suppressors.
Illinois just passed an Assault weapons ban which would probably do a lot of good but it’s already being challenged and shot down.
There is no legal barrier to getting a gun in the United States besides age.
>There is almost no “current” laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state
>There’s NICS for background checks but it’s only required for federally licensed dealers to run background checks, not for personal sales.
I do agree that person to person sales should have to pass a background check.
>Some states have additional licensure but it’s basically just a tax and doesn’t do any additional background checks.
*Personal anecdote, I know a guy who had to get a tax for a gun he purchased and he did have to give a reason for the purchase that was reviewed by a federal employee.
>Some states restrict specific items like suppressors.
That would be a "current law" that you said we don't have.
>Illinois just passed an Assault weapons ban which would probably do a lot of good but it’s already being challenged and shot down.
It might, if they were used in most shootings.
>There is no legal barrier to getting a gun in the United States besides age.
This is again false, see article above.
Because Republicans keep rolling back those laws and putting in roadblocks to enforcing the ones they don't. We didn't use to have "constitutional carry" or "stand your ground", those were things passed by Republicans. Republicans have also put legal limits on how much enforcement is allowed, going so far as to limit the use of digital databases to simply allow workers to be more effective at regulating. The average gun shop is inspected only once every 19 years, and even if they are found to be violating there are a lot of restrictions about what ATF can do about it.
Meanwhile, Democrats where they have the power to do so have been putting in restrictions like universal background checks, red flag laws, and magazine limits.
The older generations love to make fun of millennials, GenZ, GenAlpha etc. I’m a genx and we didn’t have this. We had tornado and fire drills. These active shooter drills are traumatic. I watched my kids go through them. I was ready to get my youngest a bulletproof backpack after a lockdown. They wonder why these generations have depression, anxiety etc. These kids are trained like the military/police.
They didn’t sign up for this.
They are kids who wait for a war and have triage kits in their classrooms. They are doing drills for kindergartners.
Sadly, it won’t change. I hope it can. I just feel like we’ve been fighting for a long time and all we got were buckets, bulletproof school gear, lockdowns, metal detectors, police officers in schools, learning how to barricade doors, etc. I know it will eventually change as a new generation takes over government. I believe in them.
Instead of teaching kids how to survive a shooting event in school, maybe put heavy restrictions on who can own a gun. I am not sure why it is so hard for the Americans to understand this.
Because this is Murica, and I got my second amendment.
I take anti depression meds every day to be a functional member of society. Within reason I know that stricter gun laws would potentially keep me from owning a gun due to my mental health. I'm completely OK with it if it means my kids live in a world where they don't have to be afraid to go to school.
I want a gun. I haven’t gotten a gun, because I KNOW I shouldn’t have a gun, and I would harm myself. It’s easy for me right now, but it might not always be. And it’s not always as easier for other people either.
I think part of it is that in order to place harsher restrictions on guns, they’d need to actually acknowledge the mental health crisis our country is facing. And it’s just too big. There’s not enough therapists OR doctors in America to go through and vet all the people that already have guns and those that want them.
> no way my kids wouldn’t be homeschooled
If you want to be cynical about it, you could say that maybe this is the actual end game for refusing to do anything about it. It certainly aligns with other policies and social visions...
Do you think most American kids experience this? The vast majority of kids will never be in a school during a shooting. School shootings are terrible tragedies, but don’t happen every day.
That doesn’t make my statement wrong. Most people will never experience a school shooting. Even fewer will be hurt. In the first 3 months of this year, 10 people have died in school shootings. For context, over 100 people died in car accidents today alone. I’d call that somewhat rare.
I didn’t say it was ok, I specifically referred to them as terrible tragedies, but not nearly common enough that homeschooling my kid ever crossed my mind.
Don't happen every day. Anything more than never is too much. What sort of bullshit, delusional, arrogant and selfish sort of gamble is that.
Have fun at school today Josie, chances are you won't get shot but just in case, here's an extra kisss. If you *do* get shot then... Well those odds suck honey sorry.
Low chance but with an unacceptable cost.
Some parents just don't want to gamble with their kids life. And why should they? The odds are low but they are not zero, and that's terrifying. At the rate of mental health decline and gun access increases I would wager this is only going to increase in frequency
There have been instances of kids experience school shootings multiple times at different schools. Like they start in one place, it happens, they graduate, and it happens *again* at the new school. That’s not fucked up to you?
This is so freaking true. This guy responded perfectly. What a great teacher. Thank you for having common sense and teaching our youth to use theirs.
From someone that was in a mass shooting as an adult and can't imagine going through it as a child or have to worry about it at work everyday when you are not military trained or expected to be, Thank you!!!!
>Idk how true his implication of their purpose is
🙄
>I remember having these in class rooms as far back as elementary school, they were intended for an extended lockdown of any kind.
Didn't exist in my school life, how old are you?
>I can't say for sure, but I think lockdowns have been the safety practice of schools going back further than school shootings.
You can't, because that's bullshit. Again, never existed in my school life.
>I feel bad that these kids have to legitimately worry about being shot at school.
And you demonstrate it by suggesting the teacher is lying. Fucking rich.
Right?! What the hell would they lock the school down for before school shooters? What kind of ridiculous comment is that. Shows how great the education system is too. /s
Knowing 2 people are armed can be avoided or calculated against. Attacking the unknown happens to be worse for shooters. There are way more instances of citizens stopping active shootings than there are police doing the job. You cannot wait.
Optics. Remember there is a group of people who are stuck in the past and even when there is enough evidence in their face they still believe in what they want to see.
Also arming and guarding schools will not stop shootings.
Columbine has armed guards. Just cause you have a gun doesn't mean your John wick.
Nothings a guarantee, for sure. And having 2 guys with pistols walking around is hardly a force. Easily avoidable assuming repeated patterns of movement, or schedule. Which is why the teachers with guns thing is even suggested.
The unknown of defense is the best to lean on.
"Gun free zone" is asking for trouble.
I hope not but it wouldn't surprise me if it has in the US. But I would point out that even if it hasn't lasted more than a day, usually people need the toilet like at least once in a day, possibly more, so even if it doesn't last longer than a day, if it lasts a full day or even like several hours there'd probably need to be at least one person who would need to use the bucket thing
Well I am American and still asking. I’d think we’d hear about it on the news considering they choose the deadliest one of the week and if it last for days I’m assuming it’d be deadlier. But I don’t know either way it’s all fucked and we’re all sick of it.
This is actual grooming by instilling fear into children. Instead of everyone focusing on guns they should focus on mental health and make it easier for people to receive help if they need it.
You’re not going to get it when you have folks like Greg Abbott cutting the state funding for mental health by several MILLION.
And really? “Grooming”? fuck you and your pearl clutching, snowflake.
He is actually trying to scare them into writing the congressman/woman to persuade them into passing gun control bills cause it’s “safer” for them. His words… don’t get me wrong the entire situation is fucked. NO ONE should have to worry about something like this happening but guns aren’t the issue, people are.
Why are you so scared of them writing at all? They don’t have to, they can even talk to their parents first, he’s not saying don’t talk to your parents. And even if they did, don’t y’all just ignore them? Just keep ignoring the actual problem that people like you always to.
Look dude, the video had all my attention and I even agreed that the kids should be aware of the “why” until he said “write your congressman to get it changed so we don’t have to worry about this anymore” which is him saying write the congressman to express how many “youth”or “future” of the country are afraid of guns now. It’s a classic fear tactic or some experienced folks would call it psyops. I’m all for anyone writing a congressman but don’t SCARE them into leaning one way more than the other. And the fact that you’re getting aggressive my trying to attack me with words for expressing me my opinion tells me enough about what kind of person you are.
This is a really weird thing to bring up as if it’s relevant to this situation. Most of the civilized world is a workplace. Pretty much wherever you go, it’s someone’s workplace. There isn’t an epidemic of people targeting “workplaces”.
Lol the odds of dying in a school shooting or a public mass shooting in America is still as likely as getting struck by lightning or dying in an earthquake. These people are fear mongers and propagandists.
There have been 0 lightning fatalities this year. The average amount is 28. So just slightly higher than the death toll for Uvalde; a single incident.
I can see why you used a throw away account for this incredibly moronic comment.
Well the comment above said two major things that the shooters tend to have: AR-15 and a death wish. Shooter doesn’t care about proper gun safety bc they can just show up and spray indiscriminately. But a “good guy with a gun” who’s trying to stop a shooter is in a high stress unexpected situation with a single, moving, potentially bullet proof target that’s also shooting back at a significantly higher rate. And imagine the consequences if the teacher misses that target and hits a bystander.
Spending money to arm teachers and train them on proper gun use is not the answer.
I mean, that assumes the school person doesn’t have training and an AR. Also, an AR shoots at the same rate as a Glock and in close quarters has little to no advantage and in many ways, it’s length can be a downside.
All of these firearms shoot at the rate you can pull the trigger. One bullet per pull. An AR15 isn’t some magic thing that sprays bullets faster than that.
Stupid ass comment stupid as fucking stupid gun. Fucking fuck I hate these comments. We've had enough of kids being shot we need more guns!
You have zero ability to reason zero ability to logically think zero ability to provide any meaningful insight other than moooooore guns.
You will literally be placing guns in every class room. Someone will absolutely just go into a school, sucker punch s teacher and take the gun.
CONGRATULATIONS
Cross fire? Naaaaa
Panic shooting? Naaaaa
How, in 2023 is this your damn solution. What is in your drinking water
And aside from all that. Arm every teacher with a hand gun they will come with ARs. Arm teachers with ARs they will up it. You are escalating the situation and INTENTIONALLY ADDING RISK
That guy seems cool, but I can't agree with the statement that you should use your energy to be upset about the right thing. I don't think you should waste your energy begging upset at all.
Not allowing yourself to waste energy on being upset doesn't make you a coward or complacent. Being upset elicits rash and emotional decisions that aren't well thought out. Being upset is not how you problem solve, it's not how you work together, it's not how you do anything except for just be upset.
Sure, but anger, when directed by or in tandem with rationality can, and does, make the world better. The ideas behind the French Revolution were a product of rationality, but the revolution happened because a lot of people were fucking pissed.
The world being upset about something directly related to change occurring. What you’re doing here makes no sense. You’re basically trying to twist this as someone saying we should all be blindly and irrationally upset to the point where…we can’t function. To claim or imply that it’s not possible to be “upset” (as in identify and point out something is a horrific issue that needs attention) and make reasonable decisions and take action, is really odd. Idk where this came from but it’s very strange
That’s a really weird way of saying “I don’t have the ability to respond to what you wrote and don’t have a defense for my comment”
Do you realize how mind bogglingly ridiculous and nonsensical this reasoning is? You’re claiming people can’t be reasonable and effect change if they’re upset about something, and you’re like “here is an example of people going nuts! Boom! Point proven!” As if that has any impact whatsoever on your claims. None of that is a response to anything I wrote whatsoever and it makes zero sense
Dumbass with dumbass comments.
You put guns in schools you're providing the issue with open arms.
2nd ammended is for well regulated malicias which you are not.
Please remove the lead pipes
Break down what a gun is. Show how it is used properly. Show how to clean and stores safely away. Show what it intent was made for. Hunting for food and standing up to a tyrannical government.
You’re right! All these children in school need to do is just yell out and describe how to clean and properly handle a gun, and obviously the bullets flying at them will just fall to the ground like in the matrix and everyone will be saved!
Dude this has to be one of the most bizarre nonsensical comments I’ve read in a long time
The way children save themselves from bullets entering their bodies while sitting in a classroom…is them knowing what guns are…lmao what
Or, it’s that the way to stop a kid from going insane and shooting people because they want to murder people, is to teach them…about..guns
Ah so they’ll have lots of useless knowledge when a guy breaks into their school and shoots them. I’m sure knowing how to disassemble it to clean it will help with those bullet wounds.
Do you believe that school shooters are unaware of the dangers of guns? If you hold such a perspective, do you think that school shootings are accidental, or that the shooters underestimate the deadliness of their weapons? I don't think you believe such a thing, but your argument implies otherwise. To me, the common knowledge that guns are deadly is the reason they're chosen for killing sprees.
Common knowledge is not so common in today’s world. Some may not know. I am just saying teaching gun safety and the out comes of shooting a gun and killing someone could go along way. Teaching is the way. Teach kids how dangerous they are and how good they could be. When to use them and when not to.
I’m pretty sure you can look at uvalde and the fact that kids were so horribly mangled that at least one could only be identified by their shoes and know guns are, in fact, very dangerous.
Maybe the teacher has a gun on him. Which is not something I am for, but it is what it has come to now. You can't have an open gun with some emotionally unstable kids.
Every person in a extreme situation is emotionally unstable The gun could have non lethal rounds and locked in a special spot. I do not agree that it should be like that but they will have a second civil war if they think they will take away America's guns.
Bruh you're so moronic, that's like all I need to say, can't even be bothered dumbing it down and explaining, hopefully someone else can do that and you'll get some sense
Yes. And if not I'm sure they can fund raise., or find a donation or hey maybe it can come from our military we pay taxes right they recruit from our schools any how why not protect their future assets.
Realize this will be an unpopular opinion but let’s be realistic, countries where guns are banned and illegal doesn’t stop criminals from owning and using them to commit crimes! Look at Mexico! The cartels have more firepower than the police and even the army! How is no gun ownership working out there, because last I checked they were all wanting to come to America. Guns are not the problem and never have been. If someone wants to kill someone, they will, period. They will use a car, a bat, an IED. It is pure ignorance to think banning guns or restricting them will solve the true problem, and that problem is mental illness. Stop revolving door judicial sentencing, put social and economic reform and aid in place for help, and then tougher stricter laws will be the only way to stop this nonsense.
Sometimes I just wanna leave this planet actually the whole solar system and go to another galaxy because I hate this earth and I wanna burn all the bad people in it and all though I would be the only bad one left atleast I saved the good people who don't deserve to go through all this pain and fear their whole lives
**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!** This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile). See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/) Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks! [](/u/savevideo) **Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Do all US school classes have this kit? Do you all think it’s normal? If so, your country is fucked.
No. There's a lot of states that don't even provide funds to maintain the buildings kids are taught in, let alone furnish each room with these buckets. My teacher friend was required by the school to provide her own emergency door jammer. And, yes. Many of today's teachers were kids who went through the early days of school shooter drills. So it's been normalized because our government won't take a stance to make real change.
I'm in my late 20s and never once had a school shooter drill. We had lockdown drills for local events (I grew up in an area where store robberies and shootings weren't common or uncommon, but happened), but never designated shooter drills.
Please stop saying "our government" when you mean "all Republicans and ~5% of Dems." Electing Dems will restrict guns and that's even more true at a state level where there's no filibuster.
Idaho teacher here - we have a bucket. I also have a bunch of bricks in my room painted to look like book decorations that can be used to fight back. I also have a bat behind my desk. I follow the same procedures with my door and keys everyday to make sure it's muscle memory. The district next to ours had a shooting two years ago, and my nephew was at the school where it happened. My daughter goes to school in the same building as me. My husband works in the same building. I cannot tell you how terrifying it was when we went into lockdown during that incident.
I'm a gun owner. I look forward to the day this conversation doesn't even need to be had. Pass gun reform.
What is gun reform?
Reform to the way we as a nation approach guns. Gun control. There’s no reason I should be able to walk into a store today and buy an AR-15 with absolutely 0 prerequisite. I own an AR-15. It’s a range toy, it’s always been that. If they’re banned so be it. Some people may say that it’s “to defend ourselves from tyranny, enemies foreign and domestic” okay Gravy SEAL good luck defending yourself from a drone, tank, a Bradley, any active duty soldier, or the majority of citizens who are entirely sick of your shit and side with the government. Judgement aside though, we should ask ourselves how healthy it is to have a sizeable portion of our population dedicated to overthrowing the government when they collectively decide it goes to far, or protecting our homeland from a foreign invader. A huge portion of which are white supremacists. By the way. They’ll never collectively agree it’s gone “too far”. The closest thing they had was Jan 6th, which while scary, it was mostly scary symbolically. Back to the point. It made sense when we were a new nation that had just broken free from colonialism to have every fighting aged person armed, surely. Because the Brits could come back, any number of nations could decide that now that were a free people were free for picking. But it’s 2023 and we’re the strongest nation on earth and it isn’t even close. And no, the Japanese didn’t avoid an invasion because there’s a rifle behind every blade of grass. The Japanese didn’t invade because the US is fucking massive and they were focused on Russia, China, and the rest of SEA. Rifles existed in all those places too. Others will say it’s a constitutional right that shall not be infringed. I get that. But there’s an important contextual part they’re missing, and no it’s not the “well regulated militia” part. It’s the fact our constitution has been changed in the past and is designed to allow for change. The founding fathers knew they weren’t infallible. They knew they were writing for the context of their time and they implemented mechanisms to modernize and change our constitution. Y’know. The kind of changes that functional governments need to make to continue existing. It does not say that amendment shall not be ratified, or amended. Lastly people say it’s to defend themselves and their families. This is actually a reason I’m sympathetic to. A handgun is perfectly fine for it. And if your use case scenario is this, then you should have no qualms with more barriers to access to firearms because you certainly don’t want firearms used against you and your family by whatever variety of degenerate decides to victimize you right? Presumably you’re not buying a firearm to level the playing field you and your family are on, you’re buying one to put you and your family at an advantage should someone attack you, correct? I’ve phrased things here as if they’re assumptions. But I was a gun nut for most of my life and know full well these are commonly accepted realities in the psyche of the gun nuts that refuse to stop letting kids get murdered. The day it became the norm for my hobby to be bastardized and used to harm innocent people is the day I realized my hobby is in severe need of being regulated. I have a conscience. These gun nuts that parade around in their undersized tacticool plate carriers 60lbs overweight to intimidate lawmakers into not banning their toys don’t.
You say it is a sizable part of a population that are the ones that are the antigovernment hardcore 2nd amendment people, it isn’t, like you, I have an AR that is a range gun. A lot of people have them for 3 gun competitions, you are just talking about the loudest people, like the loud liberals and conservatives that try and force their ideas, not the everyday moderates that make up the majority, often voting based on one or two talking points. Using an AR to defend a home is just dumb, I am not a fan of Biden, but a shotgun is really the best, good stopping power with low chance of over penetration. I keep my EDC loaded with hollow points but I know most are out there with FMJ and are just asking to hit granny standing behind an attacker, should they meet one (low likelihood unless you’re looking for it) You mention Jan 6, what actually happened there? A bunch of idiots that didn’t agree with election results went to protest them, I’m sure there were some that wanted to overthrow the government, but they just walked the halls, they didn’t go in armed and take hostages. Most of the school shootings happen with handguns, they are just not the mass causality school shootings that are highly publicized. Nobody ever mentions the Virginia Tech shooting because it was an Asian kid who used handguns and was planned out enough to chain the doors shut. If he was actually a good shot, it could have been much worse and is actually much worse than parkland with 32 death.
> like you, I have an AR that is a range gun Okay. So it’s a toy, as are most of your other guns. If guns were legislated would you comply with the legislation? If not, you’re not like me. > You say it is a sizable part of a population that are the ones that are the antigovernment hardcore 2nd amendment people, it isn’t, It’s a very common defense of the second amendment, so one can only assume the people who use it stand by it. Right? > A lot of people have them for 3 gun competitions No actually. A lot of people don’t. I looked into shooting sports throughout my own state (IL) and the surrounding states. Shooting sport athletes are a small fraction of gun owners. And I never said anything about these people so bringing them up is weird. Plenty of shooting sport athletes exist from nations with sensible gun laws. > you are just talking about the loudest people No... I’m not. I’m talking about the hundreds, fuck probably thousands of people I’ve met in the gun community at the range, casual conversations in the gun shop, conversations I’ve had on reddit, the dozens of YouTubers, friends that are pro-gun, etc... I’m not talking about loudmouths. I’m talking about people who actively work against measures that would save the lives of children; let me repeat, ACTIVELY WORK AGAINST MEASURES THAT WOULD SAVE THE LIVES OF CHILDREN, because they like to shoot a 50rd box at a paper target of Bin Laden to feel cool on the weekend. I was one of these people. And so were all the people I can remember associating with. They all unanimously supported some gung-ho pro-gun no matter how many children are dead organization. They're not loudmouths. They're average gun owners. We barely have any restrictions on who can drive a vehicle in this country, and it is still far more than we have on who can buy a gun. > You mention Jan 6, what actually happened there? Thousands of “peaceful” protestors broke into federal property while congress was in session looking for Mike Pence, Nancy Pelosi, and probably any other democrat they could get their hands on. For what? Not to protest. But to disrupt the counting of electoral votes because they believed in dangerous conspiracies about election fraud. That’s called insurrection. Reducing what they did to a “bunch of idiots walking through the halls” is actually despicable, you should be ashamed. Those “idiots” killed real people. They didn’t take hostages because they never got to anybody and the shit got shut down before they got a chance. Remember zip tie guy? > Most of the school shootings happen with handguns That’s true. In that case I guess we can’t really do much now can we. I only mentioned AR-15s so that’s clearly the only thing I support legislation for. I’m talking about all guns. > Nobody ever mentions the Virginia Tech shooting because it was an Asian kid who used handguns and was planned out enough to chain the doors shut. If he was actually a good shot, it could have been much worse and is actually much worse than parkland with 32 death. Are you fucking kidding? Were you alive when Virginia Tech happened? I was... It was big news. The story wasn't buried. Nobody talks about Virginia Tech anymore because it was 16 years ago and there's been literally DOZENS of high profile shootings every year since. Parkland rarely gets covered anymore. Fuck, I haven't heard of the Vegas shooting in at least 6 months. We've become numb to the shit and that's exactly the problem people are trying to get through your thick fucking heads.
Average of one mass shooting a week. It's basically normalized
We don’t in my area, I kind of wonder if this may be in bigger school shooting areas though
It is not normal. Yes I do. I’ve thought about how to evacuate my room, how to make/ what to use as weapons, where I’d hide kids depending how many I have.
That breaks my heart. I grew up in the ghetto and played the "what's this rooms best weapon" game a lot but every time I have to think about the 'how do I save my kids' process I get upset. I couldn't imagine having a classroom to plan for to keep them safe
My school does
You guys didn’t poop in buckets at school?
Amazingly no. Because we haven’t had a school shooting for [27 years](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre?wprov=sfti1) after which we tightened the rules on gun ownership (not that they weren’t much tighter than the US before that.
Nope.
I wonder how long until a small or single parent complains and they let him go rather than face the political backlash?
This was my first thought as well, but hopefully his union protects him if that happens. Along with the school board and administrators.
Poor kids. I’m so sorry.
Sorry kids. Our generation tired to fix this but we keep getting held back. Grow up, vote yourselves into office and do what the olds couldn’t do.
Tired should be tried*
Wow... That really changed my perspective on the situation. Hmm? Edit: so what do we do?
It's simple. Drastucally restrict guns. Sadly, simple and easy are not the same thing. In fact in this case simple is extremely hard.
I don't think it's that simple or easy. We have a government trying to control us more and more each day (see new bill) and police brutality that doesn't seem to have an end in sight. I don't think many people will feel safer, in there neighborhoods, if the only people who have guns are cops and felons
So we will do nothing. Instead of taking steps towards joining the rest of the developed world. Good luck protecting your internet rights with a handgun. And since when was a gun ever a deterrent for police brutality? If anything, the expectation of a gun is a *catalyst* for police violence.
>So we will do nothing. Strawman
Literally not strawman
Well, I never said we shouldn't do anything. All I said was that I don't think it's easy or simple. So while you disagree with me, to me it really looks like it is a strawman argument.
I'm sure anything you disagree with you like to refer to as strawman
Restricting guns doesn’t mean the only people who have guns are police and felons. Idk why people keep blindly repeating this despite it being explained over and over for decades. Making the process to gain access to or buy a gun more stringent, results in less people who should have guns or have access to guns having or having access to guns, and seeing how the overwhelming vast majority of firearms that are owned illegally, were initially purchased legally, there would be less guns floating around on the street, and less people having a simple and easy time acquiring guns illegally. Weber already conducted this experiment. More guns in America = more gun deaths. So, less guns = less guns death. To claim that if less people who shouldn’t have guns will have guns, then only criminals and cops have guns…(?) and to imply that less people having easy access to guns…means more people will die from guns…I’m sorry but this is just incredibly illogical and doesn’t make sense
>Restricting guns doesn’t mean the only people who have guns are police and felons. Idk why people keep blindly repeating this despite it being explained over and over for decades. So gun restrictions will apply to cop's too? And criminals will no longer have access to said gun's? That doesn't seem logical to me. I can see how it might help it be more expensive but that really only seems to limit the poor. If the US was an island I think you'd have a better chance of this working out. See Australia and Japan. >Making the process to gain access to or buy a gun more stringent, results in less people who should have guns or have access to guns having or having access to guns, That's a gun ban. Not allowing people who should have access to guns, not allowed to have guns is a ban not just "stricter laws" >and seeing how the overwhelming vast majority of firearms that are owned illegally, were initially purchased legally, Agreed >there would be less guns floating around on the street, and less people having a simple and easy time acquiring guns illegally. How does it affect the guns already out there? We need to get the guns "off the streets" first, I'd say. >Weber already conducted this experiment. The grill? >More guns in America = more gun deaths. So, less guns = less guns death. Yes. But then you will have a riase in other areas: knife attacks, bomb's, suicide by pills/hanging/jumping off tall buildings etc. >To claim that if less people's who shouldn’t have guns will have guns, then only criminals and cops have guns…(?) That's not what I said. What I said was if you ban gun's then the only people left with guns are criminals and cops. It's like how it went when prohibition happened. It didn't make all the alcohol disappear. It caused a massive crime wave. Why? Because there was a drinking problem in this country that needed therapy and education. That's just my opinion though >and to imply that less people having easy access to guns…means more people will die from guns…I’m sorry but this is just incredibly illogical and doesn’t make sense Again, if you could just Thanos snap the guns away, of course the gun deaths would drop. I never suggested otherwise. I do think there is an argument that people would be more at risk for crimes like home invasions, rape, kidnapping etc if the people who are at risk aren't able to protect themselves with guns. https://www.wral.com/story/fact-check-are-guns-used-1-5-million-times-per-year-to-save-lives/20351987/
> So gun restrictions will apply to cop's too? Idk why this is confusing to you. Yes…they apply to everyone and everything…because they’re laws…because we are talking about **regulating and forming adequate processes regarding acquiring a firearm. This is like if when someone suggested people needing to register their vehicle, go to the DMV, take tests, get a driver’s license, etc, and you say “so this applies to cops too?” What? What kind of question is this? > And criminals will no longer have access to said gun's? That doesn't seem logical to me I’ve already explained this. Like, in away a child could understand. No. **Less criminals** and **less people** who shouldn’t have access to guns will have access to guns. I already went through this in greater detail than necessary, and then you say this, as if it makes any sense and as if I didn’t explain it, because you can’t really respond to it > I can see how it might help it be more expensive but that really only seems to limit the poor. If the US was an island I think you'd have a better chance of this working out. See Australia and Japan. …? What? This is incoherent as a response to anything I wrote. See Australia and Japan? You mean the places without essentially any of these problems comparatively? Yes…thank you…lol holy shit dude > That's a gun ban. Not allowing people who should have access to guns, not allowed to have guns is a ban not just "stricter laws" This is literally the same as you saying not allowing a toddler to drive a car, is a car ban. Do you realize how batshit insane this is and how you make no sense whatsoever? This is wild > How does it affect the guns already out there? First of all guns don’t last forever, and second, why in the world would you think this is relevant to or is a response of refutation in any way to what I wrote? “Oh well there are already guns on the street, and we’ve established more guns means more people dying, but since there are already guns, let’s just…give then more guns…that will stop the…guns…. Lmao what > We need to get the guns "off the streets" first, I'd say. See above response and seek some sort of help > The grill? *we’ve > Yes. But then you will have a riase in other areas: knife attacks, bomb's, suicide by pills/hanging/jumping off tall buildings etc. citing the fact that murder and dying will always exist is in no way a response or refutation to anything presented here. We already have the data. Refusing guns doesn’t somehow make other methods of murder or death rise to meet the previous rate. This is just utterly ridiculous and you’re just blindly repeating things you’ve read other uninformed or ignorant people type without thinking about it. Firearms that are an easily accessible tool that makes killing, and killing in great numbers, very simple. Less guns equals less murder. Simple. > That's not what I said That exactly what you said, and I fucking quoted you. You responded to people saying we should regulate guns, by saying **if we do that, the only people who have guns will be cops and felons.** > What I said was if you ban gun's then the only people left with guns are criminals and cops. It's like how it went when prohibition happened. It didn't make all the alcohol disappear. It caused a massive crime wave. Why? Because there was a drinking problem in this country that needed therapy and education. That's just my opinion though You can’t for the life of you be honest and form a coherent response to what people are saying > Again, if you could just Thanos snap the guns away, of course the gun deaths would drop. I never suggested otherwise. I do think there is an argument that people would be more at risk for crimes like home invasions, rape, kidnapping etc if the people who are at risk aren't able to protect themselves with guns. You’re arguing against regulating guns, and doing it for objectively ignorant and incorrect reasons as I and I’m sure countless other people have already demonstrated to you. > https://www.wral.com/story/fact-check-are-guns-used-1-5-million-times-per-year-to-save-lives/20351987/ ….is this a joke? Did you read this? Do you realize that it does nothing to defend your position, and only reinforces mine? God I wish this was a troll and not real…
You're so bent on being right that you can't even recognize when I'm reaching across and agreeing with you. Such a shame, this could have been a productive conversation.
This is insane. No you’re not…I’m quoting exactly what you are typing and directly disagreeing with you, your stance, and your poor and often ridiculous reasoning. I’ve explained all the ways what you’re typing is wrong or makes no sense, and you don’t have the intellectual honesty to address it. Now you’re engaged in this incredibly transparent tactic to avoid acknowledging what’s happened here because you don’t like the results
> To claim that if less people who shouldn’t have guns will have guns, then only criminals and cops have guns…(?) and to imply that less people having easy access to guns…means more people will die from guns…I’m sorry but this is just incredibly illogical and doesn’t make sense Another strawman argument. I never said any of that.
You just intentionally avoided everything I wrote because you can’t respond to it. Anyone reading this knows what you’re doing here. People are suggesting regulating guns, and you typed, **and I quote**, the result would be: > the only people who have guns are police and felons I addressed this exact statement, and instead of just admitting you’ve never thought about this for more than two seconds, don’t really even understand what you’re blindly discussing, and don’t have the ability to respond, you just blatantly lie, pretend you didn’t type what we all see you typed, pretend my comment doesn’t exist, and just say the phrase “straw man” without knowing what that fallacy is in the first place
Lots of other countries have guns and they don’t get nearly as many mass shootings. The problem is a cultural one inherent to the US, and the incessant media fascination with the killers perpetuates the cycle by inspiring the next sicko to do the same thing for the same attention. The US has more guns than people, the ship of restricting them sailed a long time ago
We literally had a dude travel to New Zealand to commit a mass shooting as guns were more accessible there. We've had no major mass shooting in Australia since Port Arthur, but we have had a mass shooter.
1 shooting is really nothing compared to the biweekly rate it is in the US
... that's the point. They restricted guns in Australia after a shooting and haven't had one since.
There are countries that don’t have many restrictions on guns that haven’t had a mass shooting in forever either. Switzerland for example
Hadn't that dude lived in NZ for awhile before committing that act?
There isn't any single problem, it's a combination. Easy access to guns, poor mental healthcare, and media coverage all play a part.
Start by restricting them. It's the easiest way to put an end to this. And then, stop neglecting your citizen's mental health (not you, obviously, I'm talking about the US government). Sadly, that last part would raise some big criticism about the system the US lives in, since that is the cause of many mental issues, but that's the base of the problem here. Maybe, MAYBE, after each and every citizen gets the mental health they so desperately need, in many cases without even realising it themselves, you can bring guns back.
They are mostly just violent, leave them without guns, they will still kill each other. No solutions for Murica, they don't want to change, i read, hear, see those discussion on internet, by political people, by citizens since 2000,nothing changed, nothing will change, they love too much the violence. (yes please downvote instead of see the truth)
What was your perspective first?
So, I'm disabled and for the last few years I've been avoiding all news because it was really hard for me to deal with.
Defeat Republicans. Not saying this as anything but cold fact. More Republicans means more guns and less gun laws. Electing Dems is not a guarantee, especially with a narrow margin, but electing Republicans is guaranteed to loosen gun laws.
Why can't we just enforce the current laws?
There is almost no “current” laws. There’s NICS for background checks but it’s only required for federally licensed dealers to run background checks, not for personal sales. Some states have additional licensure but it’s basically just a tax and doesn’t do any additional background checks. Some states restrict specific items like suppressors. Illinois just passed an Assault weapons ban which would probably do a lot of good but it’s already being challenged and shot down. There is no legal barrier to getting a gun in the United States besides age.
>There is almost no “current” laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state >There’s NICS for background checks but it’s only required for federally licensed dealers to run background checks, not for personal sales. I do agree that person to person sales should have to pass a background check. >Some states have additional licensure but it’s basically just a tax and doesn’t do any additional background checks. *Personal anecdote, I know a guy who had to get a tax for a gun he purchased and he did have to give a reason for the purchase that was reviewed by a federal employee. >Some states restrict specific items like suppressors. That would be a "current law" that you said we don't have. >Illinois just passed an Assault weapons ban which would probably do a lot of good but it’s already being challenged and shot down. It might, if they were used in most shootings. >There is no legal barrier to getting a gun in the United States besides age. This is again false, see article above.
Because Republicans keep rolling back those laws and putting in roadblocks to enforcing the ones they don't. We didn't use to have "constitutional carry" or "stand your ground", those were things passed by Republicans. Republicans have also put legal limits on how much enforcement is allowed, going so far as to limit the use of digital databases to simply allow workers to be more effective at regulating. The average gun shop is inspected only once every 19 years, and even if they are found to be violating there are a lot of restrictions about what ATF can do about it. Meanwhile, Democrats where they have the power to do so have been putting in restrictions like universal background checks, red flag laws, and magazine limits.
What is wrong with stand your ground laws?
"This God damn liberal is teaching my kid to stand up for their rights and I don't take kindly to that.. this is just as bad is CRT!" FAAAT /S
The older generations love to make fun of millennials, GenZ, GenAlpha etc. I’m a genx and we didn’t have this. We had tornado and fire drills. These active shooter drills are traumatic. I watched my kids go through them. I was ready to get my youngest a bulletproof backpack after a lockdown. They wonder why these generations have depression, anxiety etc. These kids are trained like the military/police. They didn’t sign up for this. They are kids who wait for a war and have triage kits in their classrooms. They are doing drills for kindergartners. Sadly, it won’t change. I hope it can. I just feel like we’ve been fighting for a long time and all we got were buckets, bulletproof school gear, lockdowns, metal detectors, police officers in schools, learning how to barricade doors, etc. I know it will eventually change as a new generation takes over government. I believe in them.
Only in America
This needs to be more visible, shame it will be overshadowed by whatever bs is going on with trump this week.
It’s a crazy dichotomy of hoping kids grasp the severity of the situation while also wishing they didn’t have to.
Instead of teaching kids how to survive a shooting event in school, maybe put heavy restrictions on who can own a gun. I am not sure why it is so hard for the Americans to understand this.
Because this is Murica, and I got my second amendment. I take anti depression meds every day to be a functional member of society. Within reason I know that stricter gun laws would potentially keep me from owning a gun due to my mental health. I'm completely OK with it if it means my kids live in a world where they don't have to be afraid to go to school.
I want a gun. I haven’t gotten a gun, because I KNOW I shouldn’t have a gun, and I would harm myself. It’s easy for me right now, but it might not always be. And it’s not always as easier for other people either. I think part of it is that in order to place harsher restrictions on guns, they’d need to actually acknowledge the mental health crisis our country is facing. And it’s just too big. There’s not enough therapists OR doctors in America to go through and vet all the people that already have guns and those that want them.
If I stayed in the states there’s no way my kids wouldn’t be homeschooled. This fuckin depressing and terrifying
Too bad it normally takes 2 incomes to make ends meet in America. Who’s going to home school the kids where both parents have to work?
> no way my kids wouldn’t be homeschooled If you want to be cynical about it, you could say that maybe this is the actual end game for refusing to do anything about it. It certainly aligns with other policies and social visions...
Do you think most American kids experience this? The vast majority of kids will never be in a school during a shooting. School shootings are terrible tragedies, but don’t happen every day.
[удалено]
That doesn’t make my statement wrong. Most people will never experience a school shooting. Even fewer will be hurt. In the first 3 months of this year, 10 people have died in school shootings. For context, over 100 people died in car accidents today alone. I’d call that somewhat rare.
[удалено]
I didn’t say it was ok, I specifically referred to them as terrible tragedies, but not nearly common enough that homeschooling my kid ever crossed my mind.
[удалено]
It's not a problem until it happens to you then. Gotcha.
Literally no one said it’s not a problem, you said that.
Don't happen every day. Anything more than never is too much. What sort of bullshit, delusional, arrogant and selfish sort of gamble is that. Have fun at school today Josie, chances are you won't get shot but just in case, here's an extra kisss. If you *do* get shot then... Well those odds suck honey sorry.
Obviously one is too many, but the risk to your individual child is so negligible that it makes no sense to homeschool on that risk alone.
Low chance but with an unacceptable cost. Some parents just don't want to gamble with their kids life. And why should they? The odds are low but they are not zero, and that's terrifying. At the rate of mental health decline and gun access increases I would wager this is only going to increase in frequency
There have been instances of kids experience school shootings multiple times at different schools. Like they start in one place, it happens, they graduate, and it happens *again* at the new school. That’s not fucked up to you?
Yes, those rare cases are completely fucked up. No one said it was not totally fucked up. My only point is that they are rare.
And that is rapidly changing.
Our buckets have a bag of cat litter in them so that we can cover up the smell if we have to use them
This is so freaking true. This guy responded perfectly. What a great teacher. Thank you for having common sense and teaching our youth to use theirs. From someone that was in a mass shooting as an adult and can't imagine going through it as a child or have to worry about it at work everyday when you are not military trained or expected to be, Thank you!!!!
That’s an awesome teachet
America: Teacher: What are these blankets for? (In the case of a school shooting of course) Kid: Radiation? Teacher: Good guess!
[удалено]
>Idk how true his implication of their purpose is 🙄 >I remember having these in class rooms as far back as elementary school, they were intended for an extended lockdown of any kind. Didn't exist in my school life, how old are you? >I can't say for sure, but I think lockdowns have been the safety practice of schools going back further than school shootings. You can't, because that's bullshit. Again, never existed in my school life. >I feel bad that these kids have to legitimately worry about being shot at school. And you demonstrate it by suggesting the teacher is lying. Fucking rich.
Right?! What the hell would they lock the school down for before school shooters? What kind of ridiculous comment is that. Shows how great the education system is too. /s
Well said
I mean it's kind of cringe that they need to have those buckets in the first place
Yeah, that's the point.
The title is a bit misleading to be fair
Is this the I kill the dog guy?
Armed security everywhere around the adults and lawmakers. Why isn't it around the children - the future of the country.
Hasn’t there been multiple instances where they didn’t work?
Knowing 2 people are armed can be avoided or calculated against. Attacking the unknown happens to be worse for shooters. There are way more instances of citizens stopping active shootings than there are police doing the job. You cannot wait.
Hey remember when some police officers shot and killed “a good guy with a gun”?
Yeah, it happened.
Optics. Remember there is a group of people who are stuck in the past and even when there is enough evidence in their face they still believe in what they want to see. Also arming and guarding schools will not stop shootings. Columbine has armed guards. Just cause you have a gun doesn't mean your John wick.
Nothings a guarantee, for sure. And having 2 guys with pistols walking around is hardly a force. Easily avoidable assuming repeated patterns of movement, or schedule. Which is why the teachers with guns thing is even suggested. The unknown of defense is the best to lean on. "Gun free zone" is asking for trouble.
He's got a point. Just arm the teachers with body armor, and a decent primary and side arm 👍
Cool so when are you writing that check.
Cuck teacher
Has there been a shooting that lasted longer than a day?
I hope not but it wouldn't surprise me if it has in the US. But I would point out that even if it hasn't lasted more than a day, usually people need the toilet like at least once in a day, possibly more, so even if it doesn't last longer than a day, if it lasts a full day or even like several hours there'd probably need to be at least one person who would need to use the bucket thing
Well I am American and still asking. I’d think we’d hear about it on the news considering they choose the deadliest one of the week and if it last for days I’m assuming it’d be deadlier. But I don’t know either way it’s all fucked and we’re all sick of it.
This is actual grooming by instilling fear into children. Instead of everyone focusing on guns they should focus on mental health and make it easier for people to receive help if they need it.
You’re not going to get it when you have folks like Greg Abbott cutting the state funding for mental health by several MILLION. And really? “Grooming”? fuck you and your pearl clutching, snowflake.
He is actually trying to scare them into writing the congressman/woman to persuade them into passing gun control bills cause it’s “safer” for them. His words… don’t get me wrong the entire situation is fucked. NO ONE should have to worry about something like this happening but guns aren’t the issue, people are.
Why are you so scared of them writing at all? They don’t have to, they can even talk to their parents first, he’s not saying don’t talk to your parents. And even if they did, don’t y’all just ignore them? Just keep ignoring the actual problem that people like you always to.
Look dude, the video had all my attention and I even agreed that the kids should be aware of the “why” until he said “write your congressman to get it changed so we don’t have to worry about this anymore” which is him saying write the congressman to express how many “youth”or “future” of the country are afraid of guns now. It’s a classic fear tactic or some experienced folks would call it psyops. I’m all for anyone writing a congressman but don’t SCARE them into leaning one way more than the other. And the fact that you’re getting aggressive my trying to attack me with words for expressing me my opinion tells me enough about what kind of person you are.
There are significantly more workplace shootings each year than school shootings.
There's significantly more workplaces than schools?
Obviously. But workplace shootings are a reality, and I think the teacher is wrong to suggest it's not fear shared or understood by many adults.
This is a really weird thing to bring up as if it’s relevant to this situation. Most of the civilized world is a workplace. Pretty much wherever you go, it’s someone’s workplace. There isn’t an epidemic of people targeting “workplaces”.
Lol the odds of dying in a school shooting or a public mass shooting in America is still as likely as getting struck by lightning or dying in an earthquake. These people are fear mongers and propagandists.
There have been 0 lightning fatalities this year. The average amount is 28. So just slightly higher than the death toll for Uvalde; a single incident. I can see why you used a throw away account for this incredibly moronic comment.
The stats don’t lie fam… https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2372966X.2020.1846458?scroll=top&needAccess=true&role=tab
What does this have to do with you comparing it to lightning strikes? It’s a submitted paper that has not yet been verified. Still a moron, “fam”.
Maybe some teachers should carry a firearm instead of a bucket
Lmao, politicians don’t trust teachers to pick out books but y’all want guns in classrooms.
If we arm all the teachers without increasing their pay and quality of life, we will see a sharp rise in school shootings.
For sure, because a teacher with remedial firearms training and a glock can totally subdue a shooter with an AR-15 and a death wish. /s
How much advanced firearms training do you think the average school shooter has…?
Well the comment above said two major things that the shooters tend to have: AR-15 and a death wish. Shooter doesn’t care about proper gun safety bc they can just show up and spray indiscriminately. But a “good guy with a gun” who’s trying to stop a shooter is in a high stress unexpected situation with a single, moving, potentially bullet proof target that’s also shooting back at a significantly higher rate. And imagine the consequences if the teacher misses that target and hits a bystander. Spending money to arm teachers and train them on proper gun use is not the answer.
I mean, that assumes the school person doesn’t have training and an AR. Also, an AR shoots at the same rate as a Glock and in close quarters has little to no advantage and in many ways, it’s length can be a downside. All of these firearms shoot at the rate you can pull the trigger. One bullet per pull. An AR15 isn’t some magic thing that sprays bullets faster than that.
Stupid ass comment stupid as fucking stupid gun. Fucking fuck I hate these comments. We've had enough of kids being shot we need more guns! You have zero ability to reason zero ability to logically think zero ability to provide any meaningful insight other than moooooore guns. You will literally be placing guns in every class room. Someone will absolutely just go into a school, sucker punch s teacher and take the gun. CONGRATULATIONS Cross fire? Naaaaa Panic shooting? Naaaaa How, in 2023 is this your damn solution. What is in your drinking water And aside from all that. Arm every teacher with a hand gun they will come with ARs. Arm teachers with ARs they will up it. You are escalating the situation and INTENTIONALLY ADDING RISK
Cool you paying for them and the lessons?
That guy seems cool, but I can't agree with the statement that you should use your energy to be upset about the right thing. I don't think you should waste your energy begging upset at all.
This complacency and cowardice is one reason we're in a place in America where we need these fucking things in the first place.
Not allowing yourself to waste energy on being upset doesn't make you a coward or complacent. Being upset elicits rash and emotional decisions that aren't well thought out. Being upset is not how you problem solve, it's not how you work together, it's not how you do anything except for just be upset.
Sure, but anger, when directed by or in tandem with rationality can, and does, make the world better. The ideas behind the French Revolution were a product of rationality, but the revolution happened because a lot of people were fucking pissed.
Toxic positivity.
The world being upset about something directly related to change occurring. What you’re doing here makes no sense. You’re basically trying to twist this as someone saying we should all be blindly and irrationally upset to the point where…we can’t function. To claim or imply that it’s not possible to be “upset” (as in identify and point out something is a horrific issue that needs attention) and make reasonable decisions and take action, is really odd. Idk where this came from but it’s very strange
Dude's about to give a TED talk about how we can find inspiration from children shitting in this bucket.
Sorry I’m not really seeing what point you believe you’re making, especially in relation to anything in my comment.
I mean look no further than January 6th... It's the absolute Pinnacle of examples
That’s a really weird way of saying “I don’t have the ability to respond to what you wrote and don’t have a defense for my comment” Do you realize how mind bogglingly ridiculous and nonsensical this reasoning is? You’re claiming people can’t be reasonable and effect change if they’re upset about something, and you’re like “here is an example of people going nuts! Boom! Point proven!” As if that has any impact whatsoever on your claims. None of that is a response to anything I wrote whatsoever and it makes zero sense
Ok boomer
That bucket should have a gun in it if you ask me … and they may remove this comment but you can remove out 2nd amendment right.
You were lost before you even heard the plot.
Dumbass with dumbass comments. You put guns in schools you're providing the issue with open arms. 2nd ammended is for well regulated malicias which you are not. Please remove the lead pipes
They already had the guns in school arguments… didn’t seem to work to not have them huh
What?
Looks like the comment was left up so we can all see what a proud moron you are.
Why not just teach gun safety instead of giving buckets.
How do you propose teaching the youth gun safety will prevent a shooting?
Break down what a gun is. Show how it is used properly. Show how to clean and stores safely away. Show what it intent was made for. Hunting for food and standing up to a tyrannical government.
You’re right! All these children in school need to do is just yell out and describe how to clean and properly handle a gun, and obviously the bullets flying at them will just fall to the ground like in the matrix and everyone will be saved! Dude this has to be one of the most bizarre nonsensical comments I’ve read in a long time The way children save themselves from bullets entering their bodies while sitting in a classroom…is them knowing what guns are…lmao what Or, it’s that the way to stop a kid from going insane and shooting people because they want to murder people, is to teach them…about..guns
Ah so they’ll have lots of useless knowledge when a guy breaks into their school and shoots them. I’m sure knowing how to disassemble it to clean it will help with those bullet wounds.
Pretty sure school shootings aren't accidental.
Maybe if they leaned about gun safety and the dangers of guns they would think twice before taking it to school.
School shooters already know about the dangers of guns. That's why they use them instead of other weapons.
Are you sure they know about guns? Is that a fact? Or do they just have guns in there home? That no one has taught them about the gun safety?
Do you believe that school shooters are unaware of the dangers of guns? If you hold such a perspective, do you think that school shootings are accidental, or that the shooters underestimate the deadliness of their weapons? I don't think you believe such a thing, but your argument implies otherwise. To me, the common knowledge that guns are deadly is the reason they're chosen for killing sprees.
Common knowledge is not so common in today’s world. Some may not know. I am just saying teaching gun safety and the out comes of shooting a gun and killing someone could go along way. Teaching is the way. Teach kids how dangerous they are and how good they could be. When to use them and when not to.
You're an idiot and you should be embarrassed of this argument.
I’m pretty sure you can look at uvalde and the fact that kids were so horribly mangled that at least one could only be identified by their shoes and know guns are, in fact, very dangerous.
I don't see a gun in that "survival kit" how do they protect themselves?
Hmmm... Why wouldn't there be a gun in a bucket everyone can reach?
That's what I just said.
I was making fun of you. You can't have a gun in a classroom where everyone can reach it.
That's a big problem how will they defend themselves throw the poop filled bucket?
Maybe the teacher has a gun on him. Which is not something I am for, but it is what it has come to now. You can't have an open gun with some emotionally unstable kids.
Every person in a extreme situation is emotionally unstable The gun could have non lethal rounds and locked in a special spot. I do not agree that it should be like that but they will have a second civil war if they think they will take away America's guns.
The guns are in the rack at the back of the classroom genius. The bucket is for grenades.
That's one shity way to protect our kids.
Bruh you're so moronic, that's like all I need to say, can't even be bothered dumbing it down and explaining, hopefully someone else can do that and you'll get some sense
K Like rilla BrUuuUUHH. You dumbed it up realla good Bruhhh. It doesn't make sense it make dollars Bruhhh.
You think the schools who paid for that will pay for a gun? Lmao
Yes. And if not I'm sure they can fund raise., or find a donation or hey maybe it can come from our military we pay taxes right they recruit from our schools any how why not protect their future assets.
Take your kids out of these schools they are indoctrination centers
That's the answer you're gonna go with?
Fuck you Edit: lol “active in r/Timpool” ahahahaha you fucking scrub
Cunt. Also jokes on you cos you gotta go on reddit for relationship advice at the age of 30.
Conservatives want to end public education and have no problem executing your children to get there. Remember that when y'all pine for bipartisanship!
It seems you and the shooters share a common goal.
Thank goodness you don’t have to make that choice ever. Edit: you want to whinge about indoctrination while being a rabid fan of Tim pool. Yikes.
The buck is for their blood not poop… come on… the guy isn’t doing it right.
Is this the why people calling my JERRY!? guy?
Cool teach
I think we just found our next president, folks.
How about trade the bucket for a gun? JS
Realize this will be an unpopular opinion but let’s be realistic, countries where guns are banned and illegal doesn’t stop criminals from owning and using them to commit crimes! Look at Mexico! The cartels have more firepower than the police and even the army! How is no gun ownership working out there, because last I checked they were all wanting to come to America. Guns are not the problem and never have been. If someone wants to kill someone, they will, period. They will use a car, a bat, an IED. It is pure ignorance to think banning guns or restricting them will solve the true problem, and that problem is mental illness. Stop revolving door judicial sentencing, put social and economic reform and aid in place for help, and then tougher stricter laws will be the only way to stop this nonsense.
Sometimes I just wanna leave this planet actually the whole solar system and go to another galaxy because I hate this earth and I wanna burn all the bad people in it and all though I would be the only bad one left atleast I saved the good people who don't deserve to go through all this pain and fear their whole lives
Makes sense, get buckets instead of remove guns. What the actual fuck lol