USA 15 dead in Elementary school shooting at Robb elementary school

Hugh Gains said:
Bottled a forum post?
Behave yourself.



Whilst it's true there was significant disruption isn't that the aim of a protest, it would be pretty toothless otherwise. However disruption does not equate to violence or it being illegal and certainly did not warrant the use of a totally egregious emergency powers act, which is pure comedy to see a 'liberal' leader pull out the totalitarian truncheon. With merely the stroke of a pen he was able to take away peoples civil liberties, arrest them and cut them off from their finances before the ink had even dried. No veto and no courts. How anyone can deem that response acceptable in a democratic society, my word. It's alarmingly eye opening.

www.independent.co.uk

We should be outraged by Trudeau’s efforts to shut down the Canadian trucker protests

I disagree with everything they stand for, but I also believe in the right to protest disruptively in a democratic society
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk

The impetus for all of these was, of course, that the protests were “disruptive” — the same logic now being used by Trudeau. But protests are meant to be disruptive! Civil disobedience is, after all, a hallmark of nonviolent protests.

Similarly, the Black Lives Matter protests of the past few years have frequently closed freeways and occupied the streets.

Many of us on the left rightly cheered these actions on as loudly and resoundingly as we condemned both Tom Cotton’s op-ed and Trump’s use of state violence against peaceful protestors. Protests are a democratic right, we pointed out, while the actions of the Republicans were the hallmarks of an authoritarian regime — not of a democratic society.

The invocation of the Emergencies Act paves the way for such a gross violation of civil liberties. Trudeau may think he can get away with it because these protests are so unpopular; nearly three-quarters of Canadians want the convoy protests to cease. But the mark of a democratic society is not how it responds to popular views. It is how it tolerates unpopular and dissenting views. And right now, Canada is not meeting its mark.'

His response to this has been nothing short of authoritarian and the manner in which he's orchestrated the Canadian COVID responses echoes similar sentiments. And yes he did vilify the anti-vax and the unvaccinated, repeatedly. It's one thing to bring in laws/measures to require vaccination it's another to publicly criticise, dismiss, shame and ostracise those who don't agree thus creating a divide.
Click to expand...

I don't think a reasonable or proportionate level of disruption is how most would describe the scale of the Ottawa blockade. It forced the government to direct additional policing resources to Ottawa for over a month. Business were disrupted, local residents were intimidated, kept awake at night by lorry horns, and in some cases stuck inside their homes. You seem to take a very sympathetic approach to the truckers, but what about the local residents whose lives they disrupted?

I could understand if public opinion was overwhelmingly on their side, but it wasn't. Multiple opinion polls demonstrated the public didn't support the convoy's motives or methods, and even some conservative voices came out against the protest.

I understand that protest is meant to disrupt, but it isn't reasonable or proportionate to blockade a city for a month.

You ask how anyone can deem it acceptable to freeze financial assets or invoke emergency powers legislation. You don't seem to ask how anyone can deem it acceptable to blockade a city, to intimidate residents and to force businesses to close?

What exactly did he say that "criticised, dismissed, shamed and ostracised" those who didn't agree with his COVID policy?

It seems like you're backing the truckers because of their motives, if I'm honest. I have to ask - if BLM protestors blockaded a city in the exact same way, would you support it?
 


Frijj said:
I don't think a reasonable or proportionate level of disruption is how most would describe the scale of the Ottawa blockade. It forced the government to direct additional policing resources to Ottawa for over a month. Business were disrupted, local residents were intimidated, kept awake at night by lorry horns, and in some cases stuck inside their homes. You seem to take a very sympathetic approach to the truckers, but what about the local residents whose lives they disrupted?

I could understand if public opinion was overwhelmingly on their side, but it wasn't. Multiple opinion polls demonstrated the public didn't support the convoy's motives or methods, and even some conservative voices came out against the protest.

I understand that protest is meant to disrupt, but it isn't reasonable or proportionate to blockade a city for a month.

You ask how anyone can deem it acceptable to freeze financial assets or invoke emergency powers legislation. You don't seem to ask how anyone can deem it acceptable to blockade a city, to intimidate residents and to force businesses to close?

What exactly did he say that "criticised, dismissed, shamed and ostracised" those who didn't agree with his COVID policy?

It seems like you're backing the truckers because of their motives, if I'm honest. I have to ask - if BLM protestors blockaded a city in the exact same way, would you support it?
Click to expand...

Firstly whilst I believe there legitimacy of protest the crux of the matter is the disproportionate and egregious abuse of power and circumvention of democratic principals to quell, diminish, quash and alienate those connected to the events. It's dangerous rhetoric and fundamentally concerning.

On comments critical of unvaccinated, they are a plenty.

Here's a relatively recent interview and assess the questions answers and general discourse for yourself.

'The vast majority of Canadians have stepped up, it's not just the government and hospital staff that are frustrated, it's fellow Canadians'.

'Services and treatments are suspended as beds are full with those who chose to not get vaccinated, were frustrated'.

'When people see where in lockdowns and serious public health restrictions right now because the risk posed to us due to unvaccinated people'.

'We've put in place measures to incentivise, educate, cajole to remind people that it's never to late to do the right thing'.


The rhetoric is clear, it's divisive, it's you and them. The idea that he brands it the right thing is morally corruptible, it's pure self determined but that won't stop him pressuring building and building the narrative.

He's pointing the finger and blaming the unvaccinated for a suspension of hospital services, consuming resources and the biggest laugh of all being the main reason they kept the stringent lockdowns and public restrictions in place. This interview is Jan 2022 and he's blaming the unvaccinated for all their problems when we know the vaccine isn't the be all and end all, it's effective to a means. It's googleable but approx 85% of Canadians are vaxxed with at least 1 dose and he's going to push the narrative the unvaxxed are the sole reason restrictions remained in place.

Furthermore below shows a breakdown of those hospitalised from Statista. If you add the The undetermined, partially, fully and boosted vaxxed admissions together you get circa 44k vaxxed admissions contrasted to 52k unvaxxed, a more or less equitable split. Also remembering that Canada had a staggered vaccine rollout so you could also consider the fact that some of the unvaccinated admissions were actually unable to be vaccinated at the point in time due of their admission.

https://imgur.com/f7KeKWK

Look I am not anti-vax, but what I am is anti-bullshit and on this issue this guy is divisive and ultimately blaming the unvaccinated for all his COVID and associated problems, deflecting from his own government policy making. It's as if this guy can do know way and his policy making is majestic and immune from contempt or judgement.
 
Last edited:
Hugh Gains said:
Firstly whilst I believe there legitimacy of protest the crux of the matter is the disproportionate and egregious abuse of power and circumvention of democratic principals to quell, diminish, quash and alienate those connected to the events. It's dangerous rhetoric and fundamentally concerning.

On comments critical of unvaccinated, they are a plenty.

Here's a relatively recent interview and assess the questions answers and general discourse for yourself.

'The vast majority of Canadians have stepped up, it's not just the government and hospital staff that are frustrated, it's fellow Canadians'.

'Services and treatments are suspended as beds are full with those who chose to not get vaccinated, were frustrated'.

'When people see where in lockdowns and serious public health restrictions right now because the risk posed to us due to unvaccinated people'.

'We've put in place measures to incentivise, educate, cajole to remind people that it's never to late to do the right thing'.


The rhetoric is clear, it's divisive, it's you and them. The idea that he brands it the right thing is morally corruptible, it's pure self determined but that won't stop him pressuring building and building the narrative.

He's pointing the finger and blaming the unvaccinated for a suspension of hospital services, consuming resources and the biggest laugh of all being the main reason they kept the stringent lockdowns and public restrictions in place. This interview is Jan 2022 and he's blaming the unvaccinated for all their problems when we know the vaccine isn't the be all and end all, it's effective to a means. It's googleable but approx 85% of Canadians are vaxxed with at least 1 dose and he's going to push the narrative the unvaxxed are the sole reason restrictions remained in place.

Furthermore below shows a breakdown of those hospitalised from Statista. If you add the The undetermined, partially, fully and boosted vaxxed admissions together you get circa 44k vaxxed admissions contrasted to 52k unvaxxed, a more or less equitable split. Also remembering that Canada had a staggered vaccine rollout so you could also consider the fact that some of the unvaccinated admissions were actually unable to be vaccinated at the point in time due of their admission.

https://imgur.com/f7KeKWK

Look I am not anti-vax, but what I am is anti-bullshit and on this issue this guy is divisive and ultimately blaming the unvaccinated for all his COVID and associated problems, deflecting from his own government policy making. It's as if this guy can do know way and his policy making is majestic and immune from contempt or judgement.
Click to expand...

On the truckers - and a hope that you'll tell me how you'd feel if BLM used a lorry blockade

I don't think it's fair to say that Trudeau's government sought to diminish, quash or alienate the truckers. They protested for a whole month. They weren't cut off from society or ostracised. Yet again I have to ask - where is your concern for the residents of Ottawa and the misery they endured for a whole month. You say Trudeau's methods of dispersing the protest were authoritarian and disproportionate...yet they protested for a whole month.

I absolutely accept that Trudeau's policy would have made life difficult for truckers who didn't want the vaccine. However, the protest morphed way beyond that. It became a focal point for people wanting an end to all restrictions. The Canadian people did not want that. I could accept society being ground to a halt if a government completely opposed the will of the vast majority...but Trudeau's COVID policies had public backing.

I ask you again - would you back a Black Lives Matter protest group that drove lorries into Washington DC and blockaded the streets in order to protest the deaths of black people at the hands of police?

--------------------------------------

On vaccinations - and specifically how Trudeau is right on unvaccinated people using services.

You've pivoted from 'vilifying' to 'criticising' unvaccinated people. It seems that you're against legitimate criticism of people's choice to remain unvaccinated. Can I ask why that criticism isn't allowed in your book?

You criticise Trudeau for blaming the unvaccinated for consuming resources. You say that 85% of Canadians have had at least one vaccine. You then go on to compare the 44k hospital admissions in the vaccinated population, to the 52k admissions in the unvaccinated population. You claim this is a "more or less equitable" split, but you've not crunched the numbers.

If there were 44k admissions from the vaccinated, and 52k admissions from the unvaccinated, those are not equitable figures, because you said 85% of the population of Canada has been vaccinated. At a rough guess, Canada's adult population is in the region of 30m. 85% of that is 25m.

So that's 44,000 admissions from 25,000,0000 people and 52,000 admissions from 5,000,000 people, or to put it another way, for every 10,000 vaccinated people, there were 18 hospital admissions. For every 10,000 unvaccinated people there were 104 hospital admissions. That's a rate over 5 times higher - that's not equitable at all.

To go a step further, if the unvaccinated people had a hospital admission rate of 18 in every 10,000, rather than 104 in every 10,000, they'd have seen 9,000 admissions. You said there were 96,000 admissions in total, so if the unvaccinated had been vaccinated, roughly speaking, there would have been 43,000 fewer hospital admissions. So hospital admissions would have almost halved if the unvaccinated, had been vaccinated.

Trudeau is absolutely right to claim that unvaccinated people were disproportionately using resources. If people want to remain unvaccinated that is there choice in most instances so fine fair enough, but remaining unvaccinated does put you at substantially greater risk of being admitted to hospital, and thus using services. If you don't believe me, Google it - the exact same numbers were seen in the UK.

I do not blame you for seeing 44k and 52k and assuming that vaccination made little difference. These figures are not intuitively understood, but they're right, because the vaccinated population is huge. You said it yourself - 85% have been vaccinated. 85% have fewer total admissions, than the other 15% do.
 
Last edited:
Frijj said:
On the truckers - and a hope that you'll tell me how you'd feel if BLM used a lorry blockade

I don't think it's fair to say that Trudeau's government sought to diminish, quash or alienate the truckers. They protested for a whole month. They weren't cut off from society or ostracised. Yet again I have to ask - where is your concern for the residents of Ottawa and the misery they endured for a whole month. You say Trudeau's methods of dispersing the protest were authoritarian and disproportionate...yet they protested for a whole month.

I absolutely accept that Trudeau's policy would have made life difficult for truckers who didn't want the vaccine. However, the protest morphed way beyond that. It became a focal point for people wanting an end to all restrictions. The Canadian people did not want that. I could accept society being ground to a halt if a government completely opposed the will of the vast majority...but Trudeau's COVID policies had public backing.

I ask you again - would you back a Black Lives Matter protest group that drove lorries into Washington DC and blockaded the streets in order to protest the deaths of black people at the hands of police?

--------------------------------------

On vaccinations - and specifically how Trudeau is right on unvaccinated people using services.

You've pivoted from 'vilifying' to 'criticising' unvaccinated people. It seems that you're against legitimate criticism of people's choice to remain unvaccinated. Can I ask why that criticism isn't allowed in your book?

You criticise Trudeau for blaming the unvaccinated for consuming resources. You say that 85% of Canadians have had at least one vaccine. You then go on to compare the 44k hospital admissions in the vaccinated population, to the 52k admissions in the unvaccinated population. You claim this is a "more or less equitable" split, but you've not crunched the numbers.

If there were 44k admissions from the vaccinated, and 52k admissions from the unvaccinated, those are not equitable figures, because you said 85% of the population of Canada has been vaccinated. At a rough guess, Canada's adult population is in the region of 30m. 85% of that is 25m.

So that's 44,000 admissions from 25,000,0000 people and 52,000 admissions from 5,000,000 people, or to put it another way, for every 10,000 vaccinated people, there were 18 hospital admissions. For every 10,000 unvaccinated people there were 104 hospital admissions. That's a rate over 5 times higher - that's not equitable at all.

To go a step further, if the unvaccinated people had a hospital admission rate of 18 in every 10,000, rather than 104 in every 10,000, they'd have seen 9,000 admissions. You said there were 96,000 admissions in total, so if the unvaccinated had been vaccinated, roughly speaking, there would have been 43,000 fewer hospital admissions. So hospital admissions would have almost halved if the unvaccinated, had been vaccinated.

Trudeau is absolutely right to claim that unvaccinated people were disproportionately using resources. If people want to remain unvaccinated that is there choice in most instances so fine fair enough, but remaining unvaccinated does put you at substantially greater risk of being admitted to hospital, and thus using services. If you don't believe me, Google it - the exact same numbers were seen in the UK.

I do not blame you for seeing 44k and 52k and assuming that vaccination made little difference. These figures are not intuitively understood, but they're right, because the vaccinated population is huge. You said it yourself - 85% have been vaccinated. 85% have fewer total admissions, than the other 15% do.
Click to expand...

The BLM riots/protests whatever you want to address them as were arguably worse. They were widespread, there was significant violence, looting, arson, it goes on. Parking a lorry somewhere would be entirely more palatable whilst inconvenient. Furthermore the BLM riots did not result in the response that Trudeau wielded in Canada. The ultimate issue here is the response to these event and in Canada the means were undeniably unproportionate, undemocratic and as stated set a dangerous precedent and is fundamentally concerning. It's this which is the issue as opposed to the dispersion of an inconvenient protest.


On the vaccines I have not pivoted away from anything, the rhetoric is there and there are countless media edits, interviews and segments in print and video addressing this. Whilst this is his political stance it is not possible to argue that whilst he's pro-vaccine that he is not levelling disproportionate villainy towards those un-vaxxed. Whilst it's one thing to pour all blame on the unvaxxed it's another to do it using the vocabulary and mannerisms he is. It's on purpose and divisive.

Secondly you think you've caught me on vaccines, but hold on, wait a minute. Let's dive deeper into this, I claimed an equitable split and rightly so, as the data in that particularly data set alluded to it. I do concede that you need to consider the landscape of 85% vaxxed and look at it proportionally, but you need to acknowledge that vaccines weren't perhaps available to individuals admitted at their moment of admission and furthermore you need to breakdown and look at the data related to the admitted. Look at the data below below, it would be a far greater truth to say that it disproportionally affects the elderly and compromised as opposed to younger healthy individuals.

I do not diminish the vaccines, they work, but the idea that it's the get out of jail card we need, the be all and end all and that not being vaxxed is the source of all our problems is the biggest myth pertaining to this mess. Off the top of my head, 0.3% of Canadians ended up admitted during a pandemic. Suggesting to me that a targeted rollout of vaccines to elderly and compromised rather than chastising a minority of those who wish to make their own decision through divisive and dangerous rhetoric and proportioning blame to a subset of the population to offset and distract from his policy making.

https://imgur.com/Csz8PhS
 
Hugh Gains said:
The BLM riots/protests whatever you want to address them as were arguably worse. They were widespread, there was significant violence, looting, arson, it goes on. Parking a lorry somewhere would be entirely more palatable whilst inconvenient. Furthermore the BLM riots did not result in the response that Trudeau wielded in Canada. The ultimate issue here is the response to these event and in Canada the means were undeniably unproportionate, undemocratic and as stated set a dangerous precedent and is fundamentally concerning. It's this which is the issue as opposed to the dispersion of an inconvenient protest.


On the vaccines I have not pivoted away from anything, the rhetoric is there and there are countless media edits, interviews and segments in print and video addressing this. Whilst this is his political stance it is not possible to argue that whilst he's pro-vaccine that he is not levelling disproportionate villainy towards those un-vaxxed. Whilst it's one thing to pour all blame on the unvaxxed it's another to do it using the vocabulary and mannerisms he is. It's on purpose and divisive.

Secondly you think you've caught me on vaccines, but hold on, wait a minute. Let's dive deeper into this, I claimed an equitable split and rightly so, as the data in that particularly data set alluded to it. I do concede that you need to consider the landscape of 85% vaxxed and look at it proportionally, but you need to acknowledge that vaccines weren't perhaps available to individuals admitted at their moment of admission and furthermore you need to breakdown and look at the data related to the admitted. Look at the data below below, it would be a far greater truth to say that it disproportionally affects the elderly and compromised as opposed to younger healthy individuals.

I do not diminish the vaccines, they work, but the idea that it's the get out of jail card we need, the be all and end all and that not being vaxxed is the source of all our problems is the biggest myth pertaining to this mess. Off the top of my head, 0.3% of Canadians ended up admitted during a pandemic. Suggesting to me that a targeted rollout of vaccines to elderly and compromised rather than chastising a minority of those who wish to make their own decision through divisive and dangerous rhetoric and proportioning blame to a subset of the population to offset and distract from his policy making.

https://imgur.com/Csz8PhS
Click to expand...

On your continued reluctance to answer whether or not you'd back BLM using the same methods as the truckers:

You're like a human chaff grenade mate. I know what you're doing and I'm surprised you think I'm daft enough to fall for it. You think that if you throw enough waffle and irrelevance around then I'll get drawn away from the points you're clearly not wanting to answer.

I'm not asking you what you think of Black Lives Matter's protests. I'm asking what you'd think if Black Lives Matter used the exact same methods as the truckers, in Washington DC. You can't hide from the question by bringing up rioting or whatever else at other BLM protests, because that's clearly not the scope of the question.

The question was and remains - would you back a Black Lives Matter protest group that drove lorries into Washington DC and blockaded the streets in order to protest the deaths of black people at the hands of police?

Yes or no. Everything would be the same, the only difference would be the lorries would be driven by a Black Lives Matter protest group. Everything else remains the same.

-

On vaccines, Trudeau and stats:

1. If you want to condemn Trudeau's rhetoric towards the unvaccinated, you can if you want. I don't agree, but it's a matter of opinion. I'm not wasting time on a matter of subjective opinion.

2. What is not a matter of opinion though, is the numbers. Let's take this point by point.

  • You claim an equitable split in the number of cases between the unvaccinated and vaccinated, despite the unvaccinated people having more cases, in a population that's five times smaller. That's not equitable. That's quite clearly inequitable. It's hugely disproportionate.

  • It doesn't matter if the vaccines weren't available. That's an irrelevance that you're resting upon and I don't understand why. All that matters is that not being vaccinated, increased the risk of being admitted to hospital, relative to being vaccinated. The data clearly shows this.

  • You move on to talk about older people being more likely to be admitted to hospital (this is true) but doesn't this undermine your argument? If older people are disproportionately likely to be admitted, and older people were the first to receive the vaccine, then that means those unvaccinated admissions, are going to be unvaccinated older people in the main, aren't they? Therefore - even though it doesn't actually matter - those unvaccinated people admitted to hospital, will in the main, have been offered the vaccine.
3. Your logic here is unfortunately a classic example of people revising history. They say things like "it turns out the pandemic wasn't as bad as it could have been, so why did we even need restrictions"...forgetting of course that the pandemic only wasn't as bad as it could have been, because of restrictions. It's sadly also a classic example of people not truly grasping the scale of small percentages.

0.3% sounds like nothing right? A 0.3% chance of something happening? Never happen right? Problem is, 0.3% of the population of Canada is 114,000 people. When the denominator is really big, then even a marginal shift in the percentage figure, is a lot of people.

4. I'm glad you agree the vaccines work. You are clearly not a conspiracist and you clearly mean well because you acknowledge the fundamental truth here - vaccines work. I think your direction of travel is all wrong though when you're looking at the data. It isn't tealeaves mate. It clearly shows that vaccines work - which we agree on - and it clearly shows that unvaccinated people were disproportionately using hospital resources.
 
Frijj said:
On the truckers - and a hope that you'll tell me how you'd feel if BLM used a lorry blockade

I don't think it's fair to say that Trudeau's government sought to diminish, quash or alienate the truckers. They protested for a whole month. They weren't cut off from society or ostracised. Yet again I have to ask - where is your concern for the residents of Ottawa and the misery they endured for a whole month. You say Trudeau's methods of dispersing the protest were authoritarian and disproportionate...yet they protested for a whole month.

I absolutely accept that Trudeau's policy would have made life difficult for truckers who didn't want the vaccine. However, the protest morphed way beyond that. It became a focal point for people wanting an end to all restrictions. The Canadian people did not want that. I could accept society being ground to a halt if a government completely opposed the will of the vast majority...but Trudeau's COVID policies had public backing.

I ask you again - would you back a Black Lives Matter protest group that drove lorries into Washington DC and blockaded the streets in order to protest the deaths of black people at the hands of police?

--------------------------------------

On vaccinations - and specifically how Trudeau is right on unvaccinated people using services.

You've pivoted from 'vilifying' to 'criticising' unvaccinated people. It seems that you're against legitimate criticism of people's choice to remain unvaccinated. Can I ask why that criticism isn't allowed in your book?

You criticise Trudeau for blaming the unvaccinated for consuming resources. You say that 85% of Canadians have had at least one vaccine. You then go on to compare the 44k hospital admissions in the vaccinated population, to the 52k admissions in the unvaccinated population. You claim this is a "more or less equitable" split, but you've not crunched the numbers.

If there were 44k admissions from the vaccinated, and 52k admissions from the unvaccinated, those are not equitable figures, because you said 85% of the population of Canada has been vaccinated. At a rough guess, Canada's adult population is in the region of 30m. 85% of that is 25m.

So that's 44,000 admissions from 25,000,0000 people and 52,000 admissions from 5,000,000 people, or to put it another way, for every 10,000 vaccinated people, there were 18 hospital admissions. For every 10,000 unvaccinated people there were 104 hospital admissions. That's a rate over 5 times higher - that's not equitable at all.

To go a step further, if the unvaccinated people had a hospital admission rate of 18 in every 10,000, rather than 104 in every 10,000, they'd have seen 9,000 admissions. You said there were 96,000 admissions in total, so if the unvaccinated had been vaccinated, roughly speaking, there would have been 43,000 fewer hospital admissions. So hospital admissions would have almost halved if the unvaccinated, had been vaccinated.

Trudeau is absolutely right to claim that unvaccinated people were disproportionately using resources. If people want to remain unvaccinated that is there choice in most instances so fine fair enough, but remaining unvaccinated does put you at substantially greater risk of being admitted to hospital, and thus using services. If you don't believe me, Google it - the exact same numbers were seen in the UK.

I do not blame you for seeing 44k and 52k and assuming that vaccination made little difference. These figures are not intuitively understood, but they're right, because the vaccinated population is huge. You said it yourself - 85% have been vaccinated. 85% have fewer total admissions, than the other 15% do.
Click to expand...
Had to check the thread title...the mother of all hijacks.
errant said:
If this is the answer…

https://twitter.com/x/status/1536042176391544832

What is the question?
Click to expand...
Excuse my ignorance, but are they bullet proof shields?
 
Last edited:
Fred Secrets said:
That is so f***ing ridiculous, it's funny.

Those stupid Americans are unbelievable.
Click to expand...

This is what happens when rural America exercises grossly disproportionate influence over the senate.

Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, West Virginia, Idaho, Nebraska and Kansas have 17 Republicans between them, and combined about half the population of California with 2 democrats.
 
Last edited:
Frijj said:
I was a little taken aback by how brutally honest he was. It was a little upsetting but people need to be upset. I’ve put what he said in a spoiler just because of how graphic it was.

I want every senator to have to see the photos from the scene. I want them to have to look at the barely identifiable remains and justify to the parents why they won’t do something.

Will they though, or will they just pander to the gun lobby?

he pretty much said the exit wounds from an AR-15 are so large that it mutilated the bodies and left some of them unidentifiable
Click to expand...
Good news, they’ve build Kevlar bookcases to protect the children
Or to help the gunman protect himself while inside


Anything but the real issue :rolleyes:
 

Back
Top