Log In

Your email is not your username

Register

If you were a member of the old Bodybuilding.com forums and would like to reuse your previous username, you can request it below. We use your email only for registration and do not store it. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.

Confirm your email

A registration code was sent to your email. Enter it here.

Welcome

You have successfully setup your account.

Sign in

Quick Navigation Bottom Misc
Forum » ** Official Florida Shooting Endless Argument Thread **
  1. Results 1621 to 1650 of 1820
  2. Page 55 of 61
  3. First
  5. 53
  6. 54
  7. 55
  8. 56
  9. 57
  11. Last

Thread: ** Official Florida Shooting Endless Argument Thread **

post 1544018631 02-16-2018, 01:21 PM
-
#1621
  1. Farley1324
  2. I can do this all day
  1. Farley1324
  2. I can do this all day
  3. Join Date: Mar 2008
  4. Location: Cumming, Georgia, United States
  5. Posts: 151,489
  6. Rep Power: 564644
Originally Posted By midcoastking33⏩
effective screening methods. stop with the 100,000 posts of nothing but non sequitors
Who do they screen, and how?

You realize they have a population of 8.5 million, which is fewer than 11 individual US states, yes?
post 1544018641 02-16-2018, 01:21 PM
-
#1622
  1. xxmrbeastxx
  2. Bulking For LIFE
  1. xxmrbeastxx
  2. Bulking For LIFE
  3. Join Date: Feb 2010
  4. Posts: 1,245
  5. Rep Power: 1311
Originally Posted By Farley1324⏩
What needs to show up on a background check?

Be specific
Not sure why you want me to spell this out for you. I’m not claiming to have all the solutions in the world, but a more thorough check would have kept this kid from having his hands on the gun he used. Could have he haven gotten a gun another way? Maybe. But I’d take the risk of maybe over certainly.
US NAVY
post 1544018791 02-16-2018, 01:22 PM
-
#1623
  1. Farley1324
  2. I can do this all day
  1. Farley1324
  2. I can do this all day
  3. Join Date: Mar 2008
  4. Location: Cumming, Georgia, United States
  5. Posts: 151,489
  6. Rep Power: 564644
Originally Posted By xxmrbeastxx⏩
Not sure why you want me to spell this out for you.
1. Because you don't even know what it is you are proposing

2. Because you'll probably get mad if I decide what you think for you
Originally Posted By xxmrbeastxx⏩
I’m not claiming to have all the solutions in the world, but a more thorough check would have kept this kid from having his hands on the gun he used. Could have he haven gotten a gun another way? Maybe. But I’d take the risk of maybe over certainly.
You are claiming to have one, but you don't even have that. You just have a neat idea you'd like somebody to figure out how to do, possibly via magic.

What "more thorough check"? Who would do this check? What would they check? What would have disqualified him?

What relevance does "the Sheriff's department went to his house when he was 13" have on this?

You keep acting like there is a simple, easy, and obvious solution...there isn't.
post 1544019191 02-16-2018, 01:25 PM
-
#1624
  1. Jhalf
  2. Registered BAMF
  1. Jhalf
  2. Registered BAMF
  3. Join Date: Apr 2010
  4. Location: Virginia, United States
  5. Posts: 7,119
  6. Rep Power: 25809
Originally Posted By TheJediBrah⏩
That's exactly the point. If you're unwilling to compromise then that's your prerogative. End of discussion I guess.



Didn't he have mental health history? I don't know tbh. But there have been massacres in the past where the perpetrator has had significant history. So what would it do? It would have prevented many deaths.



So that's a choice the people have to make, if you want to prevent such massacres. Gun education isn't going to do a thing for these situations.


I've suggested a couple of feasible and sensible solutions just off the top of my head and I'm not a professional. You just don't like them.
haha, end of discussion, followed by three more counter arguments
MISC Strength Crew
post 1544019571 02-16-2018, 01:28 PM
-
#1625
  1. xxmrbeastxx
  2. Bulking For LIFE
  1. xxmrbeastxx
  2. Bulking For LIFE
  3. Join Date: Feb 2010
  4. Posts: 1,245
  5. Rep Power: 1311
Originally Posted By Farley1324⏩
1. Because you don't even know what it is you are proposing

2. Because you'll probably get mad if I decide what you think for you



You are claiming to have one, but you don't even have that. You just have a neat idea you'd like somebody to figure out how to do, possibly via magic.

What "more thorough check"? Who would do this check? What would they check? What would have disqualified him?

What relevance does "the Sheriff's department went to his house when he was 13" have on this?

You keep acting like there is a simple, easy, and obvious solution...there isn't.
You must have a lot of time on your hands lol.

When did I say I have there is a simple, obvious, easy solution... Doing nothing like we have been doing clearly isn’t working. You have to start somewhere.
US NAVY
post 1544019591 02-16-2018, 01:29 PM
-
#1626
  1. Jhalf
  2. Registered BAMF
  1. Jhalf
  2. Registered BAMF
  3. Join Date: Apr 2010
  4. Location: Virginia, United States
  5. Posts: 7,119
  6. Rep Power: 25809
Originally Posted By supersystem3⏩
The reason people ITT refuse to give specifics and keep things as vague as possible and just want to "DO SOMETHING!" is because they don't want to admit what their actual end state is. They want near total disarmament such as Australia, and for it to be illegal to even use a firearm for defensive purposes even when your life is being threatened, just like Australia. They realize admitting this sounds terrible, so they keep weaseling out of saying it. Anything short of total bans wont even begin to stop mass shootings. Obama even mentioned Australia gun laws as something to emulate, so it's not like this isn't a popular position being advocated under 'common sense'.

Note also that they keep going back to the big bad scary AR-15, despite mass shootings like Virginia Tech where a standard pistol and a target pistol were able to kill vastly more people than in Florida.
Lived through this shooting so i have an opinion on these matters.

And i love the ridiculous comparison to austraila that people make. When aus shares a very long border with a very bad country and aus stops people from coming through that border and successfully demonstrates how to stop firearms coming across that border, i would love to emulate aus rules and regulations. until then leave aus out of it
MISC Strength Crew
post 1544019681 02-16-2018, 01:29 PM
-
#1627
  1. Vexidi
  2. ( . )( . )
  1. Vexidi
  2. ( . )( . )
  3. Join Date: Mar 2012
  4. Location: Texas, United States
  5. Age: 48
  6. Posts: 37,351
  7. Rep Power: 459730
[QUOTE=JUGGERNAUT1333 post_id=1544014911]Looks like FBI ignored a second tip about this guy. This is in addition to the youtube thing.

[url]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/fbi-admits-ignoring-tip-florida-high-school-shooter-article-1.3825007[url][/QUOTE]Obviously the solution is to make more laws and background checks so everyone can ignore them.
post 1544019821 02-16-2018, 01:30 PM
-
#1628
  1. Farley1324
  2. I can do this all day
  1. Farley1324
  2. I can do this all day
  3. Join Date: Mar 2008
  4. Location: Cumming, Georgia, United States
  5. Posts: 151,489
  6. Rep Power: 564644
Originally Posted By xxmrbeastxx⏩
You must have a lot of time on your hands lol.
No answers? Okay then
post 1544020391 02-16-2018, 01:34 PM
-
#1629
  1. SpeedCheeser
  2. 4doorsmorewhores
  1. SpeedCheeser
  2. 4doorsmorewhores
  3. Join Date: Apr 2010
  4. Location: Texas, United States
  5. Posts: 15,626
  6. Rep Power: 147987
Originally Posted By xxmrbeastxx⏩
I think it’s fairly obvious that something like that should be on a background check. And if it’s not a standard background check they need to be more in-depth.

Which would = stricter background checks
The point Farley is trying to get at is that there is a reason that current background checks only pick up actual convictions. Obviously having the cops called out that many times looks bad, and retrospectively we have an idea what that could have been about, but there's a massive gray area as to what that could mean. But say I'm your neighbor and I simply don't like you, so I call noise complaints in pretty much weekly. The cops have to come out and visit and ask you to turn down your radio, not mow your lawn at X hours, etc. Is that something that should show up on your background check and possibly prevent you from certain things? I think we can all agree that no, it probably shouldn't. Which is why saying "stricter background checks" can sound good in theory, but you really need to be specific as to what you expect that to mean before trying to run with it.

In this specific case, this kid was never further investigated or convicted of anything in any of these police visits. So what exactly should have been included on the background check and how should it be handled?
Misc Firearms Crew

Official Supp. Misc Beer Crew

RIP YGST
post 1544020511 02-16-2018, 01:35 PM
-
#1630
  1. Future24
  2. Future Covers
  1. Future24
  2. Future Covers
  3. Join Date: Jul 2008
  4. Posts: 36,576
  5. Rep Power: 126691
Originally Posted By xxmrbeastxx⏩
You must have a lot of time on your hands lol.

When did I say I have there is a simple, obvious, easy solution... Doing nothing like we have been doing clearly isn’t working. You have to start somewhere.
Guy has a massive hardon for guns.

Last year I spent more money on spilled liquor in bars than 99% of miscers make in a year.
post 1544020531 02-16-2018, 01:36 PM
-
#1631
  1. Jhalf
  2. Registered BAMF
  1. Jhalf
  2. Registered BAMF
  3. Join Date: Apr 2010
  4. Location: Virginia, United States
  5. Posts: 7,119
  6. Rep Power: 25809
Originally Posted By otakutrevan⏩
Black brah checking in. Taking a look back in American history...well just human history in general. Only a fool would hand his arms over to the state.


"Black brah"? you mean "black brother"? Whos brother?

what the **** does you being black have anything to do with this argument. get over yourself
MISC Strength Crew
post 1544021131 02-16-2018, 01:41 PM
-
#1632
  1. Farley1324
  2. I can do this all day
  1. Farley1324
  2. I can do this all day
  3. Join Date: Mar 2008
  4. Location: Cumming, Georgia, United States
  5. Posts: 151,489
  6. Rep Power: 564644
Originally Posted By Future24⏩
Guy has a massive hardon for guns.
More red herring.

I expect nothing less
post 1544021321 02-16-2018, 01:42 PM
-
#1633
  1. dhawkeye1980
  2. Banned
  1. dhawkeye1980
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Apr 2012
  4. Posts: 33,168
  5. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By Future24⏩
Guy has a massive hardon for freedom

Sucks your so anti america
post 1544021361 02-16-2018, 01:42 PM
-
#1634
  1. Farley1324
  2. I can do this all day
  1. Farley1324
  2. I can do this all day
  3. Join Date: Mar 2008
  4. Location: Cumming, Georgia, United States
  5. Posts: 151,489
  6. Rep Power: 564644
Originally Posted By SpeedCheeser⏩
TIn this specific case, this kid was never further investigated or convicted of anything in any of these police visits. So what exactly should have been included on the background check and how should it be handled?
Surely, this question will be answered
post 1544021511 02-16-2018, 01:44 PM
-
#1635
  1. xxmrbeastxx
  2. Bulking For LIFE
  1. xxmrbeastxx
  2. Bulking For LIFE
  3. Join Date: Feb 2010
  4. Posts: 1,245
  5. Rep Power: 1311
Originally Posted By SpeedCheeser⏩
The point Farley is trying to get at is that there is a reason that current background checks only pick up actual convictions. Obviously having the cops called out that many times looks bad, and retrospectively we have an idea what that could have been about, but there's a massive gray area as to what that could mean. But say I'm your neighbor and I simply don't like you, so I call noise complaints in pretty much weekly. The cops have to come out and visit and ask you to turn down your radio, not mow your lawn at X hours, etc. Is that something that should show up on your background check and possibly prevent you from certain things? I think we can all agree that no, it probably shouldn't. Which is why saying "stricter background checks" can sound good in theory, but you really need to be specific as to what you expect that to mean before trying to run with it.

In this specific case, this kid was never further investigated or convicted of anything in any of these police visits. So what exactly should have been included on the background check and how should it be handled?
It’s not like we don’t have technology capable to perform in-depth checks. Something like the situation you mentioned should be easily differentiated from something that warrants being on a “no-gun list”. It might not be easy to draw the line but it can be done.
US NAVY
post 1544021551 02-16-2018, 01:44 PM
-
#1636
  1. Vexidi
  2. ( . )( . )
  1. Vexidi
  2. ( . )( . )
  3. Join Date: Mar 2012
  4. Location: Texas, United States
  5. Age: 48
  6. Posts: 37,351
  7. Rep Power: 459730
Originally Posted By Future24⏩
Guy has a massive hardon for guns.
He's one of the only people ITT offering legitimate debate. And like clockwork, every time he does, the gun grabbers start babbling nonsense or resorting to personal attacks.
post 1544021701 02-16-2018, 01:45 PM
-
#1637
  1. Farley1324
  2. I can do this all day
  1. Farley1324
  2. I can do this all day
  3. Join Date: Mar 2008
  4. Location: Cumming, Georgia, United States
  5. Posts: 151,489
  6. Rep Power: 564644
Originally Posted By xxmrbeastxx⏩
Not sure why you want me to spell this out for you.
1. Because you don't even know what it is you are proposing

2. Because you'll probably get mad if I decide what you think for you
Originally Posted By xxmrbeastxx⏩
I’m not claiming to have all the solutions in the world, but a more thorough check would have kept this kid from having his hands on the gun he used. Could have he haven gotten a gun another way? Maybe. But I’d take the risk of maybe over certainly.
You are claiming to have one, but you don't even have that. You just have a neat idea you'd like somebody to figure out how to do, possibly via magic.

What "more thorough check"? Who would do this check? What would they check? What would have disqualified him?

What relevance does "the Sheriff's department went to his house when he was 13" have on this?

You keep acting like there is a simple, easy, and obvious solution...there isn't.
Originally Posted By xxmrbeastxx⏩
It’s not like we don’t have technology capable to perform in-depth checks. Something like the situation you mentioned should be easily differentiated from something that warrants being on a “no-gun list”. It might not be easy to draw the line but it can be done. I’m
What did the shooter do, RE: visits to his home by LE (going back to when he was 13), that warranted being prohibited from possessing a gun?

Please tell me you know what the reason for each of those visits was. I mean, surely, based on how easily you can tell that it warranted him being barred a fundamental Right, you know that. Care to fill us in?
post 1544021861 02-16-2018, 01:46 PM
-
#1638
  1. Future24
  2. Future Covers
  1. Future24
  2. Future Covers
  3. Join Date: Jul 2008
  4. Posts: 36,576
  5. Rep Power: 126691
Originally Posted By dhawkeye1980⏩
Sucks your so anti america
Wanting stricter gun regulation is anti-American? Interesting definition you have of being 'American.'
Last year I spent more money on spilled liquor in bars than 99% of miscers make in a year.
post 1544022531 02-16-2018, 01:50 PM
-
#1639
  1. Farley1324
  2. I can do this all day
  1. Farley1324
  2. I can do this all day
  3. Join Date: Mar 2008
  4. Location: Cumming, Georgia, United States
  5. Posts: 151,489
  6. Rep Power: 564644
Originally Posted By Future24⏩
Wanting stricter gun regulation is anti-American? Interesting definition you have of being 'American.'
Originally Posted By Future24⏩
Stricter background checks.
"Did I miss where you showed when he was officially declared "deranged", and who made that decision? Aware me on this"


What about his background should have shown up on a background check??
post 1544022691 02-16-2018, 01:51 PM
-
#1640
  1. SpeedCheeser
  2. 4doorsmorewhores
  1. SpeedCheeser
  2. 4doorsmorewhores
  3. Join Date: Apr 2010
  4. Location: Texas, United States
  5. Posts: 15,626
  6. Rep Power: 147987
Originally Posted By xxmrbeastxx⏩
It’s not like we don’t have technology capable to perform in-depth checks. Something like the situation you mentioned should be easily differentiated from something that warrants being on a “no-gun list”. It might not be easy to draw the line but it can be done.
How can someone have done something to be considered so dangerous to the public that they can't practice in all freedoms and rights, including that to own a gun, and not be convicted of any wrong doing or even charged with anything, or at least declared by a court to be too mentally unstable to be in public without supervision?

If we have a list of people that are considered so dangerous to the public that they can't own a firearm, why are they free to roam about the masses anyway? You're trying to tell me that someone's past is so bad that we're afraid they're a high risk of murdering people, but we only care if they do it with a legally obtained firearm? That's just asinine to me.
Misc Firearms Crew

Official Supp. Misc Beer Crew

RIP YGST
post 1544023241 02-16-2018, 01:55 PM
-
#1641
  1. SpeedCheeser
  2. 4doorsmorewhores
  1. SpeedCheeser
  2. 4doorsmorewhores
  3. Join Date: Apr 2010
  4. Location: Texas, United States
  5. Posts: 15,626
  6. Rep Power: 147987
Originally Posted By Future24⏩
Wanting stricter gun regulation is anti-American? Interesting definition you have of being 'American.'
Well, you're anti 2nd Amendment, and if you're in line with the other guy regarding what should be on background checks, then it sounds like you're anti 5th Amendment as well.
Misc Firearms Crew

Official Supp. Misc Beer Crew

RIP YGST
post 1544023601 02-16-2018, 01:58 PM
-
#1642
  1. Future24
  2. Future Covers
  1. Future24
  2. Future Covers
  3. Join Date: Jul 2008
  4. Posts: 36,576
  5. Rep Power: 126691
Originally Posted By Farley1324⏩
"Did I miss where you showed when he was officially declared "deranged", and who made that decision? Aware me on this"


What about his background should have shown up on a background check??
Expelled from school, multiple police calls against him. That would be a good start.
Originally Posted By SpeedCheeser⏩
Well, you're anti 2nd Amendment, and if you're in line with the other guy regarding what should be on background checks, then it sounds like you're anti 5th Amendment as well.
How is a background check anti 5th amendment? No you are really stretching it. And no, wanting stricter gun laws is not anti 2nd amendment. You are becoming delusional as to what rights you actually have.
Last year I spent more money on spilled liquor in bars than 99% of miscers make in a year.
post 1544023641 02-16-2018, 01:58 PM
-
#1643
  1. xxmrbeastxx
  2. Bulking For LIFE
  1. xxmrbeastxx
  2. Bulking For LIFE
  3. Join Date: Feb 2010
  4. Posts: 1,245
  5. Rep Power: 1311
Originally Posted By SpeedCheeser⏩
How can someone have done something to be considered so dangerous to the public that they can't practice in all freedoms and rights, including that to own a gun, and not be convicted of any wrong doing or even charged with anything, or at least declared by a court to be too mentally unstable to be in public without supervision?

If we have a list of people that are considered so dangerous to the public that they can't own a firearm, why are they free to roam about the masses anyway? You're trying to tell me that someone's past is so bad that we're afraid they're a high risk of murdering people, but we only care if they do it with a legally obtained firearm? That's just asinine to me.
I think that’s part of the problem that we are afraid to update or a revise a document written over 200 years ago. We still hold onto the idea that owning a gun is a fundamental right. And frankly it shouldn’t be.
US NAVY
post 1544024121 02-16-2018, 02:03 PM
-
#1644
  1. SpeedCheeser
  2. 4doorsmorewhores
  1. SpeedCheeser
  2. 4doorsmorewhores
  3. Join Date: Apr 2010
  4. Location: Texas, United States
  5. Posts: 15,626
  6. Rep Power: 147987
Originally Posted By Future24⏩
Expelled from school, multiple police calls against him. That would be a good start.

How is a background check anti 5th amendment? No you are really stretching it. And no, wanting stricter gun laws is not anti 2nd amendment. You are becoming delusional as to what rights you actually have.
The previous poster wants police visits added to background checks. No charges filed, no convictions, no due process of law.

And yes, wanting infringements to the right to keep and bear arms IS anti 2A.
Originally Posted By xxmrbeastxx⏩
I think that’s part of the problem that we are afraid to update or a revise a document written over 200 years ago. We still hold onto the idea that owning a gun is a fundamental right. And frankly it shouldn’t be.
I disagree entirely.

If you really believe that, perhaps you should start with that as your argument and work towards an amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment. But I wouldn't expect that to go over well.
Misc Firearms Crew

Official Supp. Misc Beer Crew

RIP YGST
post 1544024151 02-16-2018, 02:03 PM
-
#1645
  1. plsmire
  2. Registered User
  1. plsmire
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jul 2012
  4. Location: London, State / Province, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
  5. Posts: 5,042
  6. Rep Power: 29655
Originally Posted By Jhalf⏩
Lived through this shooting so i have an opinion on these matters.

And i love the ridiculous comparison to austraila that people make. When aus shares a very long border with a very bad country and aus stops people from coming through that border and successfully demonstrates how to stop firearms coming across that border, i would love to emulate aus rules and regulations. until then leave aus out of it
You make a legit point. But pro-guns people should be making that point, not non-sensical bs like "guns dont kill people, people do". Probably the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard.

The other one is, "if you ban guns, bad people will still get a hold of it". Not necesarily, maybe in the US where they share borders with Mexico and has 300mil guns out there, but it sure wasn't the case for Aus.
post 1544024321 02-16-2018, 02:04 PM
-
#1646
  1. SpeedCheeser
  2. 4doorsmorewhores
  1. SpeedCheeser
  2. 4doorsmorewhores
  3. Join Date: Apr 2010
  4. Location: Texas, United States
  5. Posts: 15,626
  6. Rep Power: 147987
Originally Posted By plsmire⏩
You make a legit point. But pro-guns people should be making that point, not non-sensical bs like "guns dont kill people, people do". Probably the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard.

The other one is, "if you ban guns, bad people will still get a hold of it". Not necesarily,maybe in the US where they share borders with Mexico and has 300mil guns out there, but it sure wasn't the case for Aus.
Well, we're currently discussing matters within the US...so...
Misc Firearms Crew

Official Supp. Misc Beer Crew

RIP YGST
post 1544024591 02-16-2018, 02:07 PM
-
#1647
  1. Farley1324
  2. I can do this all day
  1. Farley1324
  2. I can do this all day
  3. Join Date: Mar 2008
  4. Location: Cumming, Georgia, United States
  5. Posts: 151,489
  6. Rep Power: 564644
Originally Posted By Future24⏩
Expelled from school, multiple police calls against him. That would be a good start.
Being expelled from school means you lose your Right to keep and bear arms? To be clear, you think everybody who is expelled from school becomes a prohibited person and cannot possess a gun?

"multiple police calls" brb calling in two noise complaints so my neighbor gets her guns taken away
Originally Posted By Future24⏩
How is a background check anti 5th amendment? No you are really stretching it. And no, wanting stricter gun laws is not anti 2nd amendment. You are becoming delusional as to what rights you actually have.
BRB taking away Rights and Liberties because of breaking school rules or playing a radio too loudly
post 1544024671 02-16-2018, 02:08 PM
-
#1648
  1. Farley1324
  2. I can do this all day
  1. Farley1324
  2. I can do this all day
  3. Join Date: Mar 2008
  4. Location: Cumming, Georgia, United States
  5. Posts: 151,489
  6. Rep Power: 564644
Originally Posted By xxmrbeastxx⏩
I think that’s part of the problem that we are afraid to update or a revise a document written over 200 years ago. We still hold onto the idea that owning a gun is a fundamental right. And frankly it shouldn’t be.
Frankly it IS just as it should be.
post 1544024751 02-16-2018, 02:08 PM
-
#1649
  1. dhawkeye1980
  2. Banned
  1. dhawkeye1980
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Apr 2012
  4. Posts: 33,168
  5. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By Future24⏩
Wanting stricter gun regulation is anti-American? Interesting definition you have of being 'American.'
Again what stricter gun regulations would stop mass shootings? You love using catch phrases like "stricter background check" but you have no clue what is involved in a current background check or even an idea on how to make it "stricter"

What do you think "shall not be infringed" means? Before the revolutionary war the british soldiers attempted to confiscate guns from the colonies because they had started to resist british rule. Thats why the 2A was written
post 1544024791 02-16-2018, 02:08 PM
-
#1650
  1. Farley1324
  2. I can do this all day
  1. Farley1324
  2. I can do this all day
  3. Join Date: Mar 2008
  4. Location: Cumming, Georgia, United States
  5. Posts: 151,489
  6. Rep Power: 564644
Originally Posted By plsmire⏩
"if you ban guns, bad people will still get a hold of it". Not necesarily, maybe in the US
You realize we're talking about the US, right?
Quick Navigation Top Misc
Bookmarks
Digg.com
Digg
del.icio.us
del.icio.us
Stumbleupon.com
StumbleUpon
Google.com
Google
Facebook.com
Facebook
Posting Permissions
  1. You may not post new threads
  2. You may not post replies
  3. You may not post attachments
  4. You may not edit your posts