We Can Keep Children Safe In School There Are Solutions
This one thing will fix it all ! Really, will new gun control really fix it all? And when can we expect this fix? When hell freezes over?
Do human beings all of a sudden pick up a gun and go shoot people?
How does a person come to this point? Do we need to fix people, not blame the gun?
My point -- at best should we not be looking for alternatives to keeping children safe now?
The sad part is that in the aftermath of mass shootings politicians pull out the fix-all solution. Which is to get guns out of the killer's hands, and change gun laws. First, how many decades have we been debating new gun laws, and how many mass schools shooting have we had thus far? Lots of shouting for a few days, and then back to the status quo. Until the next time. So, common sense dictates we need some solutions to keep our children safe in school.
Can we really keep guns out of the hands of people that seek them? I say, no we can't. On the other hand couldn't we at least provide children a safe haven to get an education, and could we do it quickly to perhaps stop the next school shooter?
We need solutions, not the same old political spin. Many private schools assure student safety with security guards, yes, armed, but in many cases, the weapon is out of sight. So, could this be an immediate answer for our public schools? Don't all children deserve protection? We live in an angry society, with little help for persons that have a mental illness. So do we not need some very common-sense solutions now, to stop mass school shootings?
Our tax dollars are spent on many less important issues, and projects. We certainly are a country that can afford to keep our children safe while in school.
Is it not time to say to politicians we are done with hearing the same old words. We need a solution right now. Have we not witnessed this ongoing fight about gun laws enough to say, we need solutions now? Let them fight about gun laws another 50 years. I want a great big ass bandaid now. We can't go on using our children as political clubs to beat the other political party over the head. Children need to be safe, that's the bottom line. They need to be safe now. Why do we the people put up with this kind of carnage? Some people don't we make sure our children are safe when they go to school. We are problem solvers. We know we can't depend on politicians. It takes community intervention, it takes concerned parents, and it takes citizens to demand solutions at local and state levels."Why do we the people put up with this kind of carnage?"
Because the goal is not to keep children safe, but to keep guns out of the hands of the citizenry.
You are absolutely correct that there are other solutions. While nothing can ever be absolutely foolproof, they WILL produce a far lower body count than trying, again and for the umpteenth time, to disarm America.
Armed teachers. Building schools as fortresses. Armed guards. Metal detectors. Complete lockdown systems (already show to be effective). Better psych evaluations of students. There are many possibilities...but we will waste our time trying to take on the gun rights advocates yet again.Band-aid?? Never going to happen. Not even an antiseptic will help. It is simply a part of Modern American life. Why? Because . . . it just is!
Anyone can read studies and articles until blue in the face and not arrive upon a solution while discovering if not known yet America has dismal numbers.. Arming teachers and armed guards will not stop someone who is suicidal hell bent on leaving a mark on the world from stopping his mission to succeed. After all we value success more than life itself these days don't we? Or, so it seems at times. It is win at all costs, survival of the fittest, and the fight/flight response. What the threat is is the question isn't it?
Just a somewhat cynical perspective . . .I'm sorry, but you are wrong.
The only way you stop someone "who is suicidal hell bent on leaving a mark on the world" is to meet them with deadly force as quickly as possible.
The only way to protect our children in schools is to have well trained, armed, professional, capable officers willing to meet out that force with extreme prejudice to protect those children.
With a percentage of the school staff well trained and ready to handle such a situation being an additional asset and support.
Every other solution is one presented in ignorance or deception of the truth.
Once it gets to the point where an armed aggressor is on school property the reaction must be swift and immediate and without hesitation. Better one mentally deranged individual be put out of their misery than many innocents losing their lives because of an unwillingness to accept reality.Yet, Ken, it did not stop it. Yes, it may lessen deaths or prevent them all together, yet it did not stop it!!! Even with armed guards and teachers it will continue happening. Period!!! IMO and I am not saying it is gospel. Go figure!
You are correct. By the time a shooter shows up to a school it's almost too late. Even when schools do have officers inside, they are at an extreme disadvantage because they are outgunned by better armed shooters.
I think you are correct it will continue to happen until the root of the reasons it is happening are resolved. So, should we continue to do much of nothing?
IMO, it shows a lack of common sense to do pretty much nothing but wring our hands. We had done that for many years have we not?
Would doing something be more intelligent than doing much of nothing?
Do overkill our problems by taking years to consider what
should be done to solve a problem?I don't understand your argument nor Ken's! I did not say do nothing. If I did please point it out to me! What I said is:
"Arming teachers and armed guards will not stop someone who is suicidal hell bent on leaving a mark on the world from stopping his mission to succeed."Actually isn't your quoted statement a misnomer of sorts then?
How do you stop such a person if not with armed officers and staff?
Note I said "officers" not guards.
I expect the most professional, well trained, background vetted individuals available to protect our children, not a "security guard".I was refering to our society as a whole. MY words were not meant to be directed at you.
"I think you are correct it will continue to happen until the root of the reasons it is happening are resolved. So, should WE continue to do much of nothing?
IMO, it shows a lack of common sense to do pretty much nothing but wring OUR hands. WE have done that for many years have WE not? "
I am sorry you took my comment personally.I am going to go out on a limb here. I know we are not supposed to post our own articles, but I'm willing to risk it. I wrote this article in 2020 and I think everything that I said is still relevant and applies today about the 2nd amendment and gun control.
Everyone is looking for one root cause and one solution. The problem is there are many root causes where each one requires its own solution. It is a multi-faceted problem.
https://soapboxie.com/social-issues/The … s-Analysis
Totally agree we need to keep our children safe.
It's a tragedy that so many communities still believe the idea that by banning guns from their school, or county, or town, or state that they have protected themselves.
All they have done is made themselves easy victims for the next mass murderer.
The only way to protect yourself from such violence is to be capable of eliminating such a threat in quick and permanent fashion.
In my county, each school has an armed officer on duty, at the school, and armed staff.
We the people of this county voted on this measure, we the people of this county want such people shot dead with extreme prejudice before they have the chance to harm one child.
I could not stomach, and would not abide, living in some sad and vulnerable "gun free zone" community. It is almost always in such places where these tragedies take place.
In this instance, this sick disgusting piece of filth walked the halls of that school for almost an hour before being confronted by anyone.
An off-duty Customs and Border Protection agent from an elite tactical unit finally appeared on the scene to stop the teenager before he continued adding victims.
The tragedy was that the parents and that community were willing to place their kids in school with no protection and no means of defense."In my county, each school has an armed officer on duty, at the school, and armed staff."
Is the officer armed with an AR-15? If not, what use will his small gun be? Are staff armed with military style weapons also? As a former educator I find the idea of arming teachers absolutely ridiculous and such a liability. Conservatives don't trust teachers to teach a history lesson but you want to strap a gun to their hip? And if I'm to have a gun in my classroom, then shouldn't it match the gun power coming in? Essentially all of the mass shootings were committed by a shooter with an assault rifle. And as far as this shooter being unconfronted for an hour, Didn't they have to get a tactical team together?
Why not try some preventive measures for once? It was interesting that Governor Abbott turned to mental health issues as the blame for the shooting yet he just cut his states budget for mental health. What a hypocrite.
Every other Western democracy has figured out this issue yet we can't?
Despite having 4 percent of the world's population, the U.S. made up 31 percent of all public mass shootings globally between 1966 and 2012, according to a 2015 study by Adam Lankford, a professor of criminal justice at the University of Alabama.
What is our problem?
Obviously such a question/statement is one made due to ignorance of weapons and close quarters combat (CQC).
Depending on the officers training, the situation, and so many other factors, a typical 9MM pistol is more than sufficient to stop an armed aggressor within a confined/enclosed area.
The true danger of an AR-15 or any other semi-automatic rifle is in the long range accuracy they have. In the hands of a well trained rifleman a person with an AR-15 could continue to snipe (kill) from hundreds of feet away, leaving the scene before any response can zero in on his position.
For within a school, any type of semi-automatic weapon is equally deadly and dangerous, whether it is a pistol or rifle.
Again, an opinion formed in ignorance of weapons and the reality that the only way you can protect yourself from armed murderers in such a situation is with deadly force.
The more people who are willing and capable of engaging such evil on the premises, the more likely the threat is eliminated before the number of innocent children murdered goes up.
Well armed, well trained, officers and staff is the ONLY preventive measures that work.
Any other answer is self-delusion or a lie.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/22/worl … weden.html
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/12/uk/plymo … index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/22/europe/a … index.html
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ge … index.html
Every other Western Democracy has had similar tragedies in the not too distant past. Despite much stricter gun control laws, despite not having the level of social disruption and discontent we have here (due largely to a stable populace and shared social/cultural background that is increasingly absent in America).Efforts to arm teachers have caused additional violence. After the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, the state passed a law allowing teachers to be armed in the classroom. Shortly afterward, there were several incidents including in California, Virginia, and Florida of armed teachers and school resource officers accidentally firing their weapons or injuring students.
I also find it increasingly impossible to understand how one could believe that the solution to school shootings is arming teachers or having a security guard protecting every school. If a group of police officers couldn’t stop the shooter in Texas , then why would we expect an individual teacher or security guard to do better? The guard was killed in Buffalo and The security guard in Texas was ineffective.
The real issue is that America’s shelves are stocked with a shockingly high number of guns that are designed to kill huge numbers of people with extreme efficiency. We have few safeguards for ensuring that these guns are not grabbed up or held by people inclined to use them for murder, and we have a political environment incapable of tackling the question of how to regulate civilian access to and possession of these weapons that were designed for military use.
Additionally, there would be a lot of objections from teachers not wanting to have a gun strapped to them. What would you do in that case? Force them?This is a nonsensical, unsupported statement.
Those situations sound as if we have security guards and even officers that are incompetent and incapable of handling any real situation of violence appropriately.
I am not arguing to have people ignorant of how to use weapons or how to confront violent individuals be made to protect our children.
I am saying you put professional, well trained police officers in schools. And you train a certain, willing, capable, number of staff/teachers to handle such dire situations as well.
Anything less just invites this situation to occur in your schools.
We have well trained police officers in our schools, and trained school staff as well. I wouldn't want it any other way, and thankfully neither does the majority of parents/voters in my county. One of the few remaining sane ones left in America.
The important omission is how often these shooters are showing up in full body armor. These security guards, as brave as they are, cannot stop them. You even note that it took someone originally not on site to stop the shooter in Texas. The security guard met him before entering the building and 19 people still died. Faye's point is more than valid as the last two shootings (Buffalo and Texas) have seen armed security unable to prevent mass killings and more heavily armed, outside law enforcement needed to end the threat.
Tops in Buffalo - armed former police officer. Mowed down.
Parkland - armed security. Didn't help.
Uvalde - security force. Didn't help.
'It is unclear if Uvalde CISD typically stations its police officers at the elementary school campus, but according to a briefing from Abbott Wednesday afternoon, one of the district’s officers approached the shooter as he was heading into the building Tuesday.'
Security met him at the entrance and still 19 people died.
This solution seems as effective as putting up fake cameras to thwart robberies. All fluff, no substance.Our schools try to have a local law enforcement person at the school.
We also have doors locked and no one can gain entry without appointment or getting approved to enter.
Only certain people are listed to come to school to drop off things for children.
You are right about the gun power. We need to stop people from getting access to these types of guns.In my area I believe the high schools all have an armed SRO officer on site nearly 100% of the time. But the rest of the schools - well, there is one officer for the dozen or so "alternative" schools (charter schools, a mix of corporate and state control) and I don't know if there is even that for elementary schools.
I picked my grandson up just the other day (charter school) and simply walked through the double, airlock style, doors. No visible security at all.
No, she is not right about the gun power. It doesn't take a bullet from an AR15 to stop a person using an AR15. It can take a bat to the head or a fist to the mouth if it comes to that, but certainly a handgun bullet will do just fine. In general, and in close quarters such as a classroom or hallway, a handgun is superior to a long gun. It is just as accurate at those distances and can carry a lot more stopping power than an AR15 that shoots a 22 caliber slug.How is a teacher to stand a chance against someone firing a rifle with high-velocity bullets at triple the speed of a handgun? rapidly firing how many rounds before even needing to reload? That's having a lot of faith in a teacher's ability to accurately get off her one shot before she/he absolutely riddled with bullets.
By staying calm, using their training and killing the intruder.
You obviously have little to no experience with either rifles or handguns, and a matching knowledge. It takes a single bullet to put down a shooter, it is quicker and easier to use a handgun, and neither has any real advantage in accuracy at close quarters. In addition, many (if not most) handguns fire a larger bullet than an AR15, if not as fast, and have an equal or greater stopping ability. Most semi-automatic handguns will put out 10 or so rounds; if you haven't hit the target by then you aren't going to. That awful "assault rifle" will fire no more quickly, is more difficult to aim, is heavier and more awkward - the advantage is all handgun at close quarters.I am not an expert in firearm use, but what if the kid has body armor?
I don't see how you can equate a single shot pistol with a weapon having a 100 round magazine? Unless she is Annie Oakley, or "Dirty Harry, James Bond, I can't see how she could possibly prevail.
It is unlikely that any "school teacher" is so extraordinary that she could put down an assailant armed to the teeth. She has to protect herself and the kids in the classroom, a major disadvantage right there.
It is no wonder so many teachers intend to resist this additional duty as outside their job description, putting their lives at risk for a relative pittance. I wouldn't do it.Wilderness: You said the magic word "training." If you put yourself in the place of the teachers, how many do you think would want to get that training? That is what we have law enforcement for. Mass shooters can be thought of as terrorists. That is why we have a 2nd amendment is to protect us from tyranny. However, it is to be done with a well regulated civilian militia and that is where the 2nd amendment falls short, because it was for a different time, not today.
None of this will get done, because it is all backed by big money politics and interest. It will eventually cool down...until the next mass shooting of children and then it will start all over again and nothing will get done again...our thoughts and prayers are with you and your families. That is the extent of it.
We are the only developed country in the world that has a 2nd amendment that was intended for another time in our history and we are still trying to contrive it to fit modern times.
When was the last time, in this country a well regulated civilian militia had to defend itself from foreign tyranny? When Obama was president gun sales went up like crazy, because the right wing nut cases were led to believe he was going to commit acts of tyranny and they had to protect themselves. The conservative psyche is all about protecting yourself first, no matter what the cost to others, including the children.Yes, of course training. How many teachers? Well, those I know are pretty concerned about their children. They take extra time to call them, or their parents, on their personal time. They bring food to them. They bring school supplies to the kids. They treat them as their own.
And at least some of those teachers would take the training (certainly some of them are already gun owners and some have been trained in safety and marksmanship). It needn't be all of them; two or three in an elementary school (maybe 10 classrooms in my area) could make a truly major difference in an active shooter situation. Or any other situation involving violence in "their" school.
We have a difference of opinion of why the amendment was put into place. Yes, the tyranny of government was a part of it, but so was the other uses of guns. It had not been that long since Indians were a problem, and still were just a little further west. People still hunted for food, and they still protected themselves from "highwaymen" or other forms of violence. The writers wanted to protect the people from tyranny...but they had to notice as well that guns were a useful tool. Just as they noted that the first step in total control is disarmament.
You think that wanting a gun to protect yourself, either from government or other, means that your kids come first? You may be right, but it does not mean they are insensitive to the problem of other children dying. My son and I discussed it a couple of nights ago and he was frantic with the need to do something that might help keep his two still in school safe.
Have you thought about the actions of the liberals here? For 20 years they have tried the same thing over and over and over (taking guns from the people)...and we all watched while the death toll climbed and climbed and climbed. Now we see it again: Chuck Shumer flat refused to allow the Senate to even discuss any form of school security, telling them that they would instead try the same thing that has failed for 20 years or more. The bill produced from years of work on school safety will NOT be discussed in the Senate, not until Shumer has spent a few months trying the same failed actions he has tried before.
Don't blame conservatives; blame the one track mind of liberals that refuse to consider anything that might help our kids except their pet peeve and the one that will get them the most votes. We've watched this play out for decades now, just as you say. There is a school massacre, Democrats wave their arms, shout their shouts, cry their tears...and nothing else happens. This time will be no different, and more of our kids will die as a result of liberal refusal to do anything but what has failed us for decades.I have said the same thing about conservatives with their static view that guns and their availability to everybody and anyone without restriction is sacred.
The difference being that Schumer's proposals have the vast majority of Americans in support since they are common sense laws. And still, the GOP obstructs. Pathetic.
And all Wilderness can continue to claim is that it's about taking away or banning guns, which is such a fabrication.
I was prompted to start this thread yesterday an 18-year-old here in my very neck of the woods was arrested for making a threat on social media.
SHELBY TOWNSHIP, Mich. (FOX 2) - An 18-year-old Shelby Township man is in custody after authorities say he made a school shooting threat on social media.
On Tuesday, Texas Rangers contacted the Shelby Township Police about a post threatening to shoot and kill students at an unspecified school. Investigators said they tracked the threats to a Michigan address.
Related: 19 children, 2 children killed in Texas school shooting
Detectives interviewed and arrested the suspect at his home. He is being held pending arraignment, and his identity has not been released.
Weapons found at the residence were removed from the home for safekeeping, police said.
The investigation is ongoing.
This arrest comes a day after an 18-year-old gunman shot and killed 19 children and two teachers at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas.
IT is just a matter of time before this kind of mass shooting will happen again at a school.
I agree that we need to do whatever we can to protect our children. Politicians use the gun issue as a club, and let's face it this club has been used for many years and will be used for many more years. We need solutions right now.
I think armed security is the way to go for a quick solution. Yes, we need to have more, but we need to step up and do what we can now.
Yes, I agree from this day on -- The tragedy will be that the parents and that community were willing to place their kids in school with no protection and no means of defense. It's up to communities, and parents to demand solutions at their local and state levels.I'm glad to know that this one was stopped.
I do think there needs to be a way of alerting law enforcement & schools immediately whenever there is a threat posted on social media.
This guy posted his events on social media before doing them.
If a teacher or guard had a gun, it would make sense to pump hot lead into the mentally deraged boy arm and disable, and arrest him. Its also very baffling that no one opposite the school, or behind can come to the help these defenceless children. My question is: Is the the shooter a student of the school or is a mere outsider?
It's important for people to realize the percentage of guns obtained illegally is astounding.
"But it is still fairly clear with a cursory glance of some statistics that illegal weapons have made their ways into the hands of plenty of criminals. 86% of juveniles in correctional facilities are reported to have owned a gun at some point, all of which would have been illegal weapons for the juveniles to own. 65% of juvenile offenders tend to own three or more illegal weapons and firearms."
https://gun.laws.com/illegal-guns/illeg … statisticsMore of the standard rightwing whining and BS, I see.
The idea of turning all schools and school grounds into armed camps with teachers strapped with pistols and armed guards with assualt weapons, as a typically conservative a solution, is quite inane. If we do it for the schools, we better do it for the post offices, libraries, churches, etc.
Under such a scenario, there would probably be a greater aggregate of fatalities due to accidents, etc, then all the periodic massacre type assaults combined. The idea that these educators/school teachers will be gunslinging Wyatt Earp types who can prepare themselves instantly against an assailant who has the advantage of surprise and heavy weaponry is a fantasy. The "good gun, bad gun" analogy is just more BS to entertain the feeble minded.
Then we have the cowards, Abbott and Cruz talking about God and prayers, instead of practical solutions.
Conservatives in their nervous fears and insecurities feel that everyone want to take their precious guns. Well, it is just a fantasy, as there are more guns in America then people, so such a possibility is remote from any standpoint.
They talk about containing the mentally ill. Well here is the other part of the fantasy, without background checks it is difficult to identify these people before they can buy a gun. A retrograde state like Texas that make it easier to buy a gun then to buy a chocolate malt, should recognize and comes to terms with this. Thank God, that I wisely decided not to settle there.
I should include a short waiting period between period between sale and receipt of the weapon.
I say, in keeping with the 2nd Amendment, you all can have your guns. But, in compromise with the Left, which will be necessary as we will be harboring a grudge with the Right over this and other issues this fall, background checks and waiting periods should be required. How do you determine a person who wants a weapon to be mentally Sound without one? If you are serious about addressing mental illness as being the solution and you want to go beyond mere mumbo-jumbo, a tangible remedy must be employed.Spoken like someone with an axe to grind and a bias, while not considering the facts at all.
Children cannot protect themselves from the growing number of psychotic mentally unstable threats our society is producing.
Grown adults can, whether they are in a library, church, or anywhere else, carrying a concealed weapon and training oneself on how to use it is the right of most non-felon Americans.
If you want to protect yourself from those who want to take your life, I suggest you arm yourself, and train yourself.
Schools on the other hand, should be well guarded and when someone approaches them armed with assault rifles and body armor they should be terminated without hesitation.
By professionals in their prime and trained to act, not a unarmed security officer, not an over the hill retired policeman.
And certainly not by being ignorant enough to think that by making carrying or owning a gun illegal in your community it is going to protect you any.Well said, Ken. Some play the bitter blame game while having no real solutions to share, that could truely make a difference.
Not sure how many people I hear trying to make 'owning a gun illegal in their communities.' Restricting access to certain kinds of guns until certain ages, perhaps.
And if the solution is to put the 28-year old female teacher up against the 18-year old wearing body armor and carrying a long gun with the modified high capacity cartridge, that sounds like the same eventuality.
Finding a way back to where we do not need to turn our schools into militarized zones sounds more appealing.So you don't think we should turn our schools into militarized zones? Neither do I. I don't have a suggestion either but I am giving some thought to the age restriction idea.
GAAnother idea I saw, which I need to do more research about, is someone claimed that 60% of the mass shooters have had a domestic violence conviction previously. I want to look more into that, but if that's the case, I would be fine making some restrictions based on that common link.
This guy talks like a redneck, so it must be true:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5g7OE3REMEThis guy talks like a redneck? That was humor, right?
GAIndeed. I started on a farm, so I have some redneck humor in me even though I became an educated, liberal later in life. Snowmobiles and guns to wine and golf.
Hold on now, rednecks golf too, they just don't go the wine route, (wine's a woman's drink). That's where you went wrong, you traded your balls for grapes. ;-)
GA
So a society armed like old West Dodge City appeals to you?
If everybody is obligated to be armed there are going to be many more fatalities, if just by accident. Public and private schools where teachers are armed to the teeth, not very appealing to educators. The schools become akin to prisons based on an infinitesimal risk, education is out of necessity put on the back burner. How many "professionals are available to cover all high risk areas, schools in particular?
I say that the problem needs to nipped at the source. Background checks, waiting periods and reports to authorities when anyone buys body armor. Connect the dots properly and you begin to identify a profile and, consequently, a identifiable risk prior to his attack.
That does not take anyone's guns or their rights away, but better than to think that a school marm is going to stop a well armed determined killer with the advantage of surprise. Yours is a needle in a haystack approach, while I want much more comprehensive remedies.
Even though much of this may not be palatable for the gun nuts, it is a solution and approach that is more viable than turning schools into prisons.These are such absurd responses.
I articulated that well trained officers should be at every school.
I see it at work every day in my county, what I see being replied in turn is nonsense, people here are talking in ignorance.
Ignorance about weapons, ignorance about the need to protect our children from the growing threats of mentally deranged individuals in our populace.
This thread reminds me of a humorous video I saw not too long ago:
https://youtu.be/OP1vosHA1jESorry Ken, you articulated more than just well trained officers at every school.
'Grown adults can, whether they are in a library, church, or anywhere else, carrying a concealed weapon and training oneself on how to use it is the right of most non-felon Americans.'
And to think that everyone else's suggestions are nonsense and ignorance when they have the data to show how these things work in other countries is pretty rich. All those other countries have mentally deranged individuals, yet they do not see this level of gun violence. So they have solutions that work to this problem. Your denial of that is the, what did you say, 'ignorance and nonsense.'Ken, I agree with having security guards in the schools. It is clear these types of shootings have been ongoing for many years now, with no real solutions. The politicians are not solving the problem, and it is evident that they won't. Do we go on using children as political tools?
We need solutions now, or we will be talking about this in the future, as we do every time a mass shooting incident happens. Our children need protection now. And it will... And all the big brains will pull out the same crap to discuss, while more children are buried. Yes, we need some better solutions, but while we work on such changes, we need to protect children.
y grandson is in a private school, they have a double door lock system, cameras, and an armed guard, with his weapon not visible to the children.
It is comforting to know these precautions are in place. Yes, I am sure nothing is foolproof. But, something is better than nothing.
It's only a matter of time before this kind of carnage will happen again.
"SHELBY TOWNSHIP, Mich. (FOX 2) - An 18-year-old Shelby Township man is accused of making threats against a Texas school the same day a gunman opened fired in an Uvalde elementary, killing 19 students and two teachers.
More: 19 children, 2 children killed in Texas school shooting
Joseph Vojnoski is charged with making a terrorist threat or false report of terrorism and using a computer to commit a crime.
Texas Rangers reached out to Shelby Township police about the threats to shoot and killed students at an unspecified school after they traced them to Vojnoski's home Wednesday. He was arrested and appeared in court Thursday." https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/18-yea … cial-media
Something is so much better than nothing... Just common sense.Yes.
You have to train to deal with such a situation.
You have to have on school premises the ability to eliminate such a threat.
In other words you have to accept reality for what it is, accept the world for what it is, so that you can protect the children.
It is people's ignorance and political ideologies that get in the way of schools being protected.
In our school system, each school has a sheriff's office, within the school, each school has one officer on duty at all times. And during high traffic times there is also a police car with an officer on duty as well. Making for two officers at the minimum.
They are trained to deal with active shooters first and foremost. They are there to identify threats and eliminate them.
In addition training is mandatory for all school staff, some get far more into the depths of how to react and what to do. Like a reactionary force, they have specific duties to perform as soon as any lockdown protocols are initiated.
Response time for additional police support is under three minutes. We have one of the best sheriff departments in the nation and the people in our community support them and expect them to provide protection of our schools as one of their primary duties."In other words you have to accept reality for what it is, accept the world for what it is, so that you can protect the children.
It is people's ignorance and political ideologies that get in the way of schools being protected"
I totally agree. It's more than time to admit what kind of society we are dealing with. And deal with the fact we will have these shootings, and gun reform unfortunately would do little to stop someone from getting a gun.
It is disturbing that we have many that won't come to the reality we need solutions now. And the politicians are not going to solve the problem of school shootings. Private schools as a rule have good security. It's unfortunate our public schools can have the protection that private schools offer. The difference between private and public schools, more parents get involved, and they are listened to. For example, many children missed a handful of days during COVID. Parents have more of an input in private schools.
I would be so scared if my little grandson did not have armed security in his school."And deal with the fact we will have these shootings, and gun reform unfortunately would do little to stop someone from getting a gun."
Does that mean that it would not have any effect, are we just to dismiss the concept totally because it may not be a ideal solution? Every possible remedy must and should be on the table if we serious about solutions and not just focused on protecting gun access and their owners.....It could have some effect, but can we depend on what little it might offer?
My entire thoughts are consumed with the now... Have we not been going in a circle for years, and it would appear many don't see we have had any success whatsoever to date. It's all and well to continue to look for solutions. But I am not willing to join that with others to watch these shootings time after time, and then hear all the same words.
We owe it to our children to protect them not with words, but in any way we can. To be truthful it discouraging to eleven read some of these posts.
I have heard this crap over and over. Yes, it would be wonderful to change some gun laws and get military-like weapons off the market. This is not going to happen, is it? Time to be realistic, armed guards in schools, and a double door system will help keep our children, no not 100% safe, but safer while we continue to go around and around in the same circle.
So, no we need not dismiss your concepts, the concepts we have been talking about for decades now. But we need to as I said, get some bandaids in place. We owe it to all school children.Some studies have findings about what might prevent mass shootings.
One was a requirement that a gun purchaser go through a licensing process. "A licensing process requires someone to directly apply and engage with law enforcement, sometimes there's safety training and other requirements.
Another approach that seemed to reduce deaths from mass shootings was state bans on buying large-capacity magazines or ammunition-feeding devices for semiautomatic weapons.
Keeping guns away from young people, whether through safe storage of firearms in a home or age restrictions on purchasing, would also be expected to have a protective effect, based on data showing that "the peak ages for violent offending with firearms is roughly 18 to 21."
It seems plausible that age restrictions might make it harder for young adults to access weapons capable of creating a mass shooting.
I think it's an approach that has to be multifaceted And it's certainly has to be begin before a heavily-armed shooter is on school grounds. Our building was locked at least 15 years ago and we did have an armed officer. Thank God he never had to face someone with an AR-15, I'm fairly certain he would have been outgunned. Firepower would then need to be evenly matched.
But even before all of that, we need to stop giving lip service to mental health and start actually funding it. We blame these shootings on deranged people but at some point, a mental health intervention program or strategy may eventually help to at least reduce these types of shootings. Politicians need to stop using the mental health excuse while they slash their own budgets for such services.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho … to-come-byEvery word you shared is very much common sense. How will you bring all of your suggestions to fruition? And in the meantime (is what I have been discussing) what do we do? Do we wait until listen to you, to Cred, to me, or to the many Americans that share your good solutions?
Do we keep talking about this time after time, year after year?
Realistically my common sense tells me we will be back talking about this time after time Faye.
I am just promoting security guards in schools now, until all the wonderful ideas that many have come about. We have no right to draw a line in the sand when it comes to keeping our schools safe.
This is a political club, and kids are not even being considered I my view."I am just promoting security guards in schools now, until all the wonderful ideas that many have come about."
That is fine with me as long as we see that the "wonderful ideas" get an audience and are acted upon."That is fine with me as long as we see that the "wonderful ideas" get an audience and are acted upon."
But have they ever been truely acted upon? This would be the best scenario, we are not dealing with the worse scenario. A wide majority of Americans want gun reform, they have for decades. Are our voices being heard? They may be being heard at state levels, and our individual states are representing the wants of their citizens. So what do we do about that?
Red states have limited gun laws, what can we do about that? Do you see where I am coming from?
Yes, we need to keep pushing for better more common-sense
gun laws, until someone listens, but let's keep kids safe and not smack in the middle of the fight.
You really do not understand weapons, tactical situations, combat, etc.
It is why so many places fail to have the ability to prevent such tragedies. People who do not have any real experience with weapons or security or combat are the ones making the decisions or forcing their misguided beliefs on those who have to make those decisions.In the Buffalo situation, to say that a former policeman, with 30 years of experience, failed to have the ability to prevent the tragedy seems like an odd statement. He had the training and experience, but was met by someone with a higher level of newly purchased tactical gear than he had and that's why he failed.
Likely without the body armor, he could have stopped him in the parking lot at three victims since he did hit the shooter's armor, but was outmatched on the equipment front.
"I have heard this crap over and over. Yes, it would be wonderful to change some gun laws and get military-like weapons off the market. This is not going to happen, is it? "
-------
It can be done if "certain factions" stop in their resistance. It can happen, so why is it not happening?
I support background checks for purchase of any firearm, how else are we to know if the purchaser is an not ex felon or has a criminal record that would statutorily disqualify that individual from ownership?
I would support a waiting period of approximately a week, so that those that would engage in a crime of passion would have the opportunity to reconsider, if so inclined.
I would have a federal database for all those that buy body armor.
By combining data bases, those buying weapons along with what can be identified as usually large quantities of ammunition,( you gun people tell me, would buying 500 rounds of AR-15 ammo at one time be excessive?) with purchase of body armor combined with arrest records or misdemeanor infractions that normally would not be disqualifying for acquiring a weapon but when combined with other red flags and established profiles (youthful-male etc.) it would justify the attention of authorities to identify a possible threat, prior to any crime being committed.
When I think at how efficiently the banking industry manages my money and the myriads of accounts, I can't see why we cannot take this efficiency to the areas of law enforcement where it is so urgently needed.
Thes are common sense precautions that do not deprive any law abiding citizen from buying or owning a gun. Why are we not considering these things?"It can be done if "certain factions" stop in their resistance. It can happen, so why is it not happening?"
The Republicans are not ever, I mean ever going to give up their rights to carry guns. That's a moot subject. Should they work to put in place some better gun laws? IMO, yes. Will they?
So where from here? While we the people stand by, when we could interview in our communities children are being killed.
Again all you and Faye have offered up are wonderful suggestions. So, how are you going to have your solutions implemented?
I am not arguing the fact we need better gun laws, I am saying your words, my words, mean nothing. We can do things in our communities to make children safer.
"Thes are common sense precautions that do not deprive any law abiding citizen from buying or owning a gun. Why are we not considering these things?"
I want to hear how you can do this? It's not that WE are not considering your suggestions, it's a fact we can't implement these great ideas.It is the Republicans and conservatives that are killing kids with their obstanance. When all people get on the same page with the need to make corrections do we begin to make progress.
Even when no one threatens to confiscate guns, we cannot come to meaningful compromise between respecting the 2nd Amendment and reasonable precautions in the interests of public safety. Conservatives are keeping us all from making meaningform reforms, so, as they say, the enemy is us.
After each massacre, they have just doubledown on making firearm acquisition ever more easy. Why?
My suggestion is that conservatives, Republicans, give a little and compromise realizing that buying a gun can no longer be as simple as my getting a Baby Ruth at the corner drug store, or ordering from the Sears and Roebuck Catalogue like my great grandfather use to.
As fast as they washed away abortion rights, they could move on this at least as quickly. There is your solution."It is the Republicans and conservatives that are killing kids with their obstanance. When all people get on the same page with the need to make corrections do we begin to make progress."
Who's page, who's corrections? Is it one side that is more correct than the other?
When all people get on the same page, this sounds very odd to me in the context you have used it.
Does it or would it make sense to you if I substituted the words Demacrats/l liberals for Republicans and conservatives?
It would seem the circle will go around and around. You seem to ignore my thoughts about doing something in our communities about making ab attempt to make children safer. The blame game has thus far fixed anything, and it won't.
You see it is easy to come up with what we want our Governments to do, it takes no work, it takes no effort.
"As fast as they washed away abortion rights, they could move on this at least as quickly. There is your solution."
Once again, today one can get an abortion in any state in America. Our Constitution gives us the right to own a gun. There are literally millions of responsible gun owners.
States make gun laws, the people can vote out the representatives if they are dissatisfied with the laws these representatives are creating.
Can we respect the majority of each state to make their voices heard? Once again, much of our society will not respect each other's ideologies in regard to gun laws and abortion laws? Is it so unreasonable to let each state dictates its own laws, as they have been doing by the voice of the people?"You seem to ignore my thoughts about doing something in our communities about making ab attempt to make children safer."
-------
Nothing wrong with those thoughts, but why not walk and chew gum at the same time and pursue all avenues? Heaven knows that I pay these politicians enough to expect them to think out of the box.
We seem to be talking past each other, is such the case with progressives and conservatives?
Will the women be able to get an abortion under the same conditions tomorrow? If Oklahoma is a guide, I would say, NO.
And the states can change the gun laws just as quickly in the face of the need to do so. Is easing restrictions in the purchase and possession of dangerous firearms going to help, or does it hinder a solution?Does your side acknowledge any need to address ready availability of firearms which certainly contributes to these massacres?
If places like Texas want to blame Woke liberals, broken families, the mentally ill and all the peripheries while ignoring the "elephant in the room", I guess that is OK. We know that arming teachers is undesirable and a majority of them do not want to cooperate. Why should they, they are educators not security guards. How are these "immediate" solutions in your eyes, when they are also controversial?
Yes, each state makes its own laws, but be honest enough to admit that in Texas laws are not aggressively pursued over the problem of firearm proliferation because that is the expressed will of conservatives and Republicans that overrun Texas. They themselves are responsible for limiting the conversation and thus the options for correction.
Excuses and irrational cause and effect explanations will not pass muster.
These are all good things, common sense, you can even limit a person to buying one weapon at a time, a limited amount of ammo at a time, etc.
Exceptions for police and security forces could be easily made, even when purchasing as a private citizen.
But the focus of this topic is schools, and the ability to eliminate a threat when it presents itself is what will do the most to protect children in school.
All the other issues, from addressing mental health problems to preventing 18 year olds from gaining access to an arsenal all in one purchase will not protect children in school from a murdering psychopath.
In order to protect the children it requires officers well trained and ready to engage an active shooter. Already on the premises, experts at identifying and eliminating such threats, that is their primary purpose for being there.Ken, it's all about getting their way, the dead children are a tool, they seem very unconcerned about doing what needs to be done NOW, to protect children. They are filled with rage about guns, but actually not about solutions to make schools safe spaces.
I just listened to Trump's NRA speech. Reminded me of the short time we had a president that cared about Americans had great common sense and was a problem solver.
No angry red face, no shouting, no confusing non-sensical statements..It's less about our way, than the way that the vast majority of the country is more than willing to try. There's one party that's backing the 10% of the country on one measure and maybe 25% on a few others.
And it's not rage about guns, but rage about children dying. That you can misinterpret that so badly is not surprising though, as the far-right does that so often with trying to figure out what the left really wants.
And saying that liberals are using 'dead children as a tool' seems to be the kind of hate speech that needs reporting.Let's break down this situation.
The school did not have officers on site, they were not trained to deal with an active shooter.
The police that arrived on the scene were untrained cowards. Just because someone is allowed to be a police officer does not mean they are properly trained or vetted.
The police milled about outside, some of them armed with assault rifles and body armor, for almost an hour as shots rang out inside the school and children screamed.
Without trained officers willing to engage and eliminate an active shooter with speed and violent determination, such tragedies cannot be stopped.
If the people you pay to protect and serve are incompetent, poorly trained, or just plain cowards... Then this cannot be stopped anymore than banning weapons or eliminating your police force will stop it.
This was a failure at the school level, the community level, the police force was completely worthless all deserve to be brought up on charges or at the least, lose their jobs.Not trained? Again, interesting claim.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/uvalde-had-p … 10546.html
"These are all good things, common sense, you can even limit a person to buying one weapon at a time, a limited amount of ammo at a time, et"
Now, does that sound like taking people's guns away? In the face of this, why can't you tell your conservative friends to "bottle the acid".
Nothing is ever foolproof, Ken, the idea of the deterrent is to make something undesirable less likely to occur. I have trouble getting that across to a lot of conservative thinkers on this forum. Right now, we need to avail ourselves of every tool in the tool box if we want the carnage to be brought under control.Will you stop there? Or, when it doesn't work (and it won't) will you demand a longer wait time. Deeper background check, costing the gun buyer a couple of hundred? Will you then decide that all the fake "assault rifles" have to go?
You have to avail yourself of every tool - when the simple ones don't work will you move to the next or find a different avenue of attack?But, I know as a fact that nothing that is never tried will never work.
You have all of these doomsday scenarios that you envision that is all part of your fears and insecurities that are simply not substantiated.
Why won't Ken's suggestion not be a good one?"But, I know as a fact that nothing that is never tried will never work."
You're right of course, so we look at experience from the past and other nations. Doing so we find that fewer guns does not mean fewer murders, and yet that is the only solution suggested from the left. Are they incapable of learning from others or from the past? They have used that strategy for decades...and watched the death toll rise, so do it again. Doesn't make sense, does it?
I can live with Ken's suggestion and find it reasonable. I do NOT find the scare tactics of claiming military weapons are used daily to kill others reasonable, but that's what the left provides and then demands banning them...even though they are already banned and haven't been used to murder for a long, long time. Of course, the objective is not to ban military weapons, but to ban the scary looking ones that are proclaimed to be military. And handguns. And when it doesn't work, any other gun they can go after. That's the problem, not reasonable (MY definition, not yours) gun laws.That post had so many fabrications in it.
1.) 'Doing so we find that fewer guns does not mean fewer murders, and yet that is the only solution suggested from the left.'
- That's a statement from someone clearly not informed on current proposals. Many that have been listed in these threads very recently.
2.) 'And handguns.'
-Please go ahead a post the proposal that aims to ban handguns. Many of us will want to see that since you made the ridiculous claim.
3.) Murder rate and gun death rate are two very separate statistics that you often interchange to try and soften the carnage from guns. Subtle, but not fooling anyone."That's a statement from someone clearly not informed on current proposals. Many that have been listed in these threads very recently."
Perhaps I missed it, but can you point to a few suggestions from the left that do NOT involve denying guns to people? Even a couple? I think not, whereupon the statement is entirely relevant; fewer guns does not equate to fewer deaths.
Take a look at our history; Chicago quickly comes to mind as banning handguns. They are banned already in every "gun free" zone, whether geographical or a single building. So take your lie that handguns are never banned and tell someone else; most of us already know better.
You're right - gun deaths and murder rate are very different things. It is useful for the left to talk only of gun deaths, apparently because it is better for a body to have no bullet holes. Perhaps the grieving survivors will feel better that way. For me, though, the only statistic of any value is how many people are murdered, not whether they were murdered and have a bullet hole in them. I'll leave that particular number to those whose goal is to remove guns from society, insinuating that without that all important bullet hole it's OK to be killed.Again, I'm not your teacher, go educate yourself on the proposals that are there that in no way are about banning guns. But I like what you did there in changing your claim of bans, to policy that denies guns to people. We're on to you when you shift the goalposts like that by modifying your words to completely change a meaning.
Is your stance that every person has a right to a gun then with that wording? Felons? Mentally ill? I'm sorry, but some people should not have a gun. That is not a ban. That is smart policy and you just argued against it.
Your Chicago example was overturned - 12 years ago. Please list the current handgun ban proposals. We'll wait since you made the claim.
And gun free zones do not ban people from guns. They ban guns from certain places. Are you saying that everyone should have a right to carry a gun everywhere, no matter what? Again, what you argue is not common sense or backed by law since there are plenty of times you're not allowed to bring a gun - the NRA Convention for example.
A question about the murder rate. Is that just gun murder rate? Can't murder be committed in ways not involving guns? Don't bother asking, I already know the data since when I ask a question, I know how to answer my own query, unlike you.
As flinty as Republicans generally are, do you think that they would be willing to give more than just lip service to such a proposal?
Ken, just linking something that you might consider
https://news.yahoo.com/too-many-doors-l … 56293.htmlStripped of the ridiculous verbiage, doors are a problem. Perhaps not insoluble, though - can hallways be made virtually fireproof, as well as sprinkled anyway?
Some of the many schools I helped build had an outside door in every classroom, not only for ease of access to the outdoors but as a fire safety. That can no longer happen, not in our violent society, but is there no other way to protect occupants from a fire? I think not.
A bigger problem, seems to me, is the proliferation of buildings at schools. Where I am nearly every school we built had at least one trailer - a mobile home converted to a classroom - added within a year or two. Sometimes before the school even opened. Such poor planning simply destroys any attempt at security.You know, I have to consider your point. I can see where there is room for improved building security without having to arm school personnel.
All doors except one would allow for regular access to the building. That door could have a security person there. Other doors can be activated opened or closed by remote control by school officials in case of fire or other reasons where students need to exit quickly. You can also have key card access for other school employees to access from other doors.
It can certainly can be considered as such key card access was introduced by my federal employer after the OKC bombing.
It is an improvement that merits attention.I hope you're also removing all the windows from ground floor classrooms. I hear bullets fly through glass fairly easily.
GOP schools in the near future...a happy and positive learning environment.
Yes, I overlooked that problem. I stand for all the precautions I spoke of previously, tightening up on the ease at which these weapons may be acquired. At least the building structure suggestion could assist in controlling access to the building by unauthorized personnel, as too many of these shooters actually got inside.
Yeah, the image says it all, I am willing to look at any practical solution, even it comes from Republicans, to help us not find ourselves there.Would you prefer that or one covered in blood? Apparently the liberals prefer the latter, for they will accept nothing but the same efforts they have done for a decade...while watching the body count grow.
I am going to go out on a limb here. I know we are not supposed to post our own articles, but I'm willing to risk it. I wrote this article in 2020 and I think everything that I said is still relevant and applies today about the 2nd amendment and gun control.
Everyone is looking for one root cause and one solution. The problem is there are many root causes where each one requires its own solution. It is a multi-faceted problem.
https://soapboxie.com/social-issues/The … s-AnalysisThis morning I had a chance to visit your HP. I must say it was so well written and put together. Very informative.
It truely lays out cause why we are having so many problems with getting new gun laws to please all, and why some end up using a gun to kill.
But, are we not discussing how we can protect our children at this point?
It's all well and good to push for solutions to ty to keep guns out of the hands of those that would kill. This discussion has been going on for decades.
Should we not at this point assertion we have a huge societal problem of children being killed, and come up with some way to keep them safe while we all continue to fight about gun laws?
Our society created this problem, maybe time to admit that first, and try to solve the problem of children being killed in school.
Your article was great, showing how we got to the point we are at. But where now, what now? Do we protect children right now to
the best of our ability?Doesn't prevention also protect the children?
What you're talking about is preventing it when the mass shooter has shown up. What so many others are talking about is protecting the children by making sure the shooter never shows up. Both are good ideas, not sure why you're only pushing for the prior while throwing cold water over the latter.
If we stop advocating for what we know to be right because of past precedence, we might still have slavery, segregation, and the failure of women to have a right to vote. The Constitution can be amended, as noted by those changes, when the issues are seen as important enough.
Isn't the killing of children in schools that important to the right? It's worth asking, because it doesn't appear that they care more about that than the ability to own a gun. Which is what many cannot fathom.Prevention is the key, to a perfect world. We are not living in a perfect world. How have we done thus far with preventing young men that clearly have mental problems from getting a gun, and using that gun?
Yes, as I said in comment after comment we need new gun laws. But I for one think the "now" is what we need to deal with quickly to prevent more children from being killed. Yes, this is unfortunate that we need to face such a crisis of protecting children from shooters, but we do.
In none of my comments have I not promoted continuing to look for solutions in regards to gun laws. But I yes, am promoting doing something here and now. My gosh, I am not sure of your age, but I can say with good confidence we have been fighting for better gun laws for
decades. Never would I say give up on that solution.
What, do you feel we should do here, now while we continue for another decade fighting? I am just being realistic.
While we fought for women to vote, no one was being killed in the long battle.
I can't answer why some on the right fight adamantly to prevent gun reform. I am not one of that crew.
I can say we have gotten almost nowhere, and no we should not stop. However, while we argue, should children being killed be ignored?
It seems my point just can't be understood or excepted by some. But I will hold to it. I have for many school shootings and will push to keep them safe. Because this is an obvious crisis that goes unsolved, and we have lived through many school shootings, and we have done little in the schools to protect our children. The bickering between the right and left has done nothing to help this crisis. It really appears more care about the blame game, and the fight to win for their side. The children, the here and now are put on the back burner.
Our society created this problem with young men taking a gun in hand and killing... We need to first admit that and work on that huge problem alongside trying to keep guns out of their hands. But the most important issue for me --- is protecting children while we have such a crisis with young men and mental illness, that want to kill.
I say we can walk and chew gum. Let's continue to discuss better gun laws, and protect our kids.But the now can be immediately passing common sense gun laws that the majority of Americans back, as noted by the stats I posted this morning, that would have an effect to keep guns out of the hands of young men. Even Mike's idea on a course is a good idea that could train and also possibly identify those same young men that could pose a threat.
And that's the whole point here. There is one party standing in the way of those simple and common sense proposals in this country. One party that refuses to even talk about them, even though is clear they should be tried and could help.
What I suggest is a national teacher walkout until elected reps agree to enact those common sense and majorly supported measures. That's in the here and now and something that would be unable to deny. It's their lives on the line here too.
But I also suggest voting out those standing in the way of those measures. Almost a 90% support and the GOP won't even allow discussion. That's putting lives in danger, purposefully. No one should be serving in Congress that goes against 90% of the country and endangering lives.
We can agree that securing schools should be addressed. And in this case, it was and still failed. They had their own security force, had fencing, had single entry policies in place, and it didn't help due to human error. And none of that prevented the shooter from shooting through the windows either. Nor will it stop someone determined from bringing a means to break through one of those locked doors to enter a school.
Logistically, securing schools and the costs may not be doable. Contrary to some claims here, Uvelde had done training for this very situation and still failed. Parkland had armed security, and they still failed. The measures many are talking about have been tried and are failing to prevent in three of the last mass shootings (Parkland, Buffalo, Uvelde).
Time to try something new. Immediately. But one party won't even consider it. And between that stance and eliminating Roe, you can forget winning in the 2022 midterms. The GOP is toast.Costs for protecting schools may not be doable? We gave away over a trillion dollars, mostly to people that did not need it. We "budgeted" another Trillion for infrastructure...most of which is not intended for infrastructure at all. Yet we can't afford to protect our schools?
Yes, it's time to try something new. So you demand the same efforts that have been tried for decades and failed miserably. Makes good sense. Not.
I will agree, though, that anything we do will, ultimately, depend on human response, and a correct one. Uvalde, for instance; a teacher had blocked open a side door, Police sat outside for an hour while children were being murdered. There was no armed guard on site. Beyond that, if we pass a law restricting gun ownership someone has to enforce it and we've become extremely lax about responding to violence, or intended violence (except when directed at or near politicians). The human factor will be there no matter what is tried.'Yes, it's time to try something new. So you demand the same efforts that have been tried for decades and failed miserably. Makes good sense. Not.'
What exactly did I demand that was the same? And of what is being proposed currently, what had actually been passed and not just proposed?
Please, let us know, because as I note, you're not even remotely aware of what is being proposed. You keep begging us to tell you. And then you try and claim it's all the same.
Your false perception is that the proposals are all just bans. And that's where you need to go out and get some background to actually understand the issue and the changes being discussed here.
"But the now can be immediately passing common sense gun laws that the majority of Americans back, as noted by the stats I posted this morning, that would have an effect to keep guns out of the hands of young men. "
This would be the very best solution, and yes the majority of Americans including me would very much approve of common-sense gun laws. However, no progress is being made in regard to common-sense gun laws.
It would seem the GOP thus far will not accept anything put in front of them. Realistically, yes we can be angry, and more needs to be done to let Republican Representatives realize they are not doing the people's bidding. It starts and ends with voting. I feel more Republicans in Congress are starting to realize the time has come to work with the other side to work on new gun laws to make it harder for an 18-year-old to even buy a gun, and hopefully make even buying an automatic rifle very difficult for anyone."It would seem the GOP thus far will not accept anything put in front of them. Realistically, yes we can be angry, and more needs to be done to let Republican Representatives realize they are not doing the people's bidding. It starts and ends with voting. I feel more Republicans in Congress are starting to realize the time has come to work with the other side to work on new gun laws to make it harder for an 18-year-old to even buy a gun, and hopefully make even buying an automatic rifle very difficult for anyone."
I know that you have been speaking of immediate solutions. But, it just seems that we go through a turnstile at a revolving door finding ourselves in the same place after each and every tragic shooting. You have noted that the Republicans have been obstinate, and that along with the influence of the powerful NRA lobby, this is the reason nothing gets done and we must always revert to bandaids over comprehensive solutions. They are going to wait until the details of the tragedy fades from the headlines with time, knowing that people will-forget and they can go on with business as usual until the next outrage.No, the reason is that Democrats refuse to consider anything BUT a bandaid; any attempt to address the cause is rejected. The problem is not school shooters; it is that some people are crazy enough (I know; I'm not very PC) to kill a bunch of small children because they're upset about something.
Until the cause for that is found, and solved, nothing is going to change but Democrats want only the bandaid of limiting guns so the dead won't have bullet holes in them.Wilderness: I see two root causes, the mentally ill and big money interest that funds our congress for re-election campaigns. The NRA and the gun industry have some of the biggest lobbyist groups in Washington. That's why nothing gets done. And you and others say that Democrats are doing the same thing over and over again. It is because congress is beholden to the those big money interest.
Assault rifles were banned for 10 years with a sunset clause. After 10 years congress never renewed it because they were and still are beholden to big money interest. Congress is playing the passive resistance role and blaming Democrats for doing the same thing over and over when in fact the GOP does not want anything done. They like it just the way it is as the money keeps flowing in.I don't see big money creating, training, or significantly aiding the mentally ill in their efforts to harm people. They supply the preferred weapon, just as they supply the preferred gun to millions of other Americans. Big Money cannot be held responsible for the mental illness of those people.
Same for Congress; that it does nothing is not due to Big Money. Big Money may be cause they do not ban guns...but there is far more that could and should be done and Big Money is not causing that failure.
Your pose appears to completely ignore that simple fact; that Congress can do things other than limiting gun ownership. Instead they do the same thing year after year after year; more attempts to limit gun ownership. Something they have failed at for decades and the Democrats simply keep repeating the same failure year after year while refusing to consider any other response to the problem.
Buying an automatic rifle is as nearly impossible as it can get and still have a very faint chance of occurring. It is VERY highly regulated.
No. Not at all.
"After Tuesday’s school shooting in Uvalde, Texas left 19 children and two adults dead, we wondered how difficult it was to order a DDM4V7, one of the two rifles the gunman bought a few days after turning 18 years old, according to reports.
The answer: Five clicks."
The AR-15-style weapon, made by Georgia-based Daniel Defense, sells online for $1,870, plus tax. Shipping to a local gun shop is free.
After clicking “place order” we received an email confirming the purchase, promising to send a tracking number once the gun was on its way to the pickup point.
That’s it. We’d ordered a gun. It won’t be delivered at our doorstep, like that Lego set or the pair of shoes, and to take it home we’ll have to fill out paperwork for a background check (in fact, you can’t order it to your home, only to a licensed dealer). Still, the fact that shopping for a firearm does not feel noticeably different than ordering those everyday items is a telling commentary on the prevalence of guns in US culture."
https://qz.com/2170207/we-ordered-the-a … asy-it-is/An AR15, or anything like it, is NOT an automatic rifle. Nor is that automatic rifle a simple matter of filling out a few questions and having a background check - it as far, far beyond such simple things.
Both seller and buyer must sign the papers. The buyer must submit a recent photo, fingerprints and $200. If your locality requires more, that, too, must be submitted to the the Bureau ATF with the other forms. IF you are approved for the sale you get the forms back.
Again, the AR15 is NOT an automatic rifle and is NOT used by any military in the world (or ever has been) no matter what you have been told.
https://legalbeagle.com/4454981-buy-aut … eapon.htmlThis weapon is easily ordered online. I never said it was an automatic weapon either. I was raised in Missouri and live in Arkansas, suffice it to say I understand much about guns and more importantly gun culture
It cannot be emphasized enough, however, exactly what the AR-15 is: It is a weapon of war. It was made to blow humans apart. It is successful in doing just that. The requests for DNA tests in Uvalde stand as a testament to the gun’s success, but the conclusion that the weapon excelled at blowing people apart was well documented by the U.S. military itself during early field tests.
During the Vietnam War, the U.S. conducted a survey into the impact of the AR-15 and its use on the battlefield. To put it bluntly, the survey found that the weapon, chambered with same .223 caliber rounds that Ramos used in Uvalde, was exceedingly good at killing human beings.
A copy of the survey, which was published by Sam Biddle in 2016, shows that Viet Cong fighters hit with the weapon were frequently decapitated and dismembered, many looking as though they had “exploded.” A field report documented how an AR-15 had blown up a man’s head and turned another’s torso into “one big hole.” The weapon was lauded by soldiers on the battlefield for its effectiveness at killing adversaries and even cutting through dense jungle forest.
Some of the reports on Viet Cong soldiers killed with the weapon read like a matter-of-fact recounting from a horror film: “Chest wound from right to left, destroyed the thoracic cavity,” said the description of one AR-15-inflicted wound. “Stomach wound, which caused the abdominal cavity to explode,” said another.
Though it has become available domestically in the years since, the weapon was made for war, no matter what the National Rifle Association says and was noted even at the time as being a significant escalation in the lethality of rifles.
the aftermath of mass shootings targeting children, it is sometimes suggested that the public should be allowed to see the bodies. The impact of seeing actual flesh-and-blood children killed by assault rifles might shake the sensibilities of Americans enough that they enact serious changes to gun control laws that would make it less likely that AR-15s would be used again for such massacres.
Public aside, however, the reality is that the government has known for a long time what these weapons do. It has been sending AR-15s to wars abroad for decades and has documented in graphic detail the exploded and mangled corpses left behind. That such knowledge exists, and yet AR-15s are still commercially available for use by civilians in this country, tells you all you need to know about what pro-gun politicians are willing to tolerate.Please stop grabbing things off line and throwing info out there like it is gospel and you are some sort of expert on the topic.
You are not anywhere close to being an expert on weapons, combat or tactical situations.
It really is the biggest problem we have in the debate about how to properly counter murdering psychopaths threatening our children... People that think they know about weapons and combat that have no clue, but are convinced they know what is best, and want to force it on everyone else.Where were you when the 2020 election was being talked about? Pretty damn sure most of the people giving their opinion on the election were not experts. If being an expert on something was a prerequisite to post in these forums, we would have very few posts.
Instead of thinking you have some right to give her an order about what she can post, just put out your expert opinions and educate her. I've seen your resume, you have military and security guard experiences prior to your current real estate gig. Just relay what you've learned.I think you are so condescending, overbearing and misogynistic. Never said I had the gospel. Just putting out my opinion and thoughts like everyone else but yeah okay Mr. Ken if that's the best you've got. Exactly everything that you said to me I can completely say back to you. . Sorry, you're not close to being an expert on anything but you want to silence or denigrate anyone else's opinions.
I almost put misogynistic as well, but he often takes the same superiority stance with me. But on this topic, he's definitely got major experience. Doesn't mean his angle of just arming everyone and securing schools should be the only option.
Faye; I have seen slow motion videos of what it looks like when a hollow point round shot from an AR-15 enters into a block of Jello-o. It is designed to tumble and tear everything apart.
Doctors have shown what it does when it enters a body in one place and tears through the flesh, organs, and bones and exits in another place. It is not even a through and through shot. Doctor's say they can't can even save lives because the body is so torn apart.
Sorry for the graphic description, but it needs to be stated.A hollow point round? Really? You might want to read up on that a bit. Hollow point rounds are for hand guns. They are difficult to feed on a rifle of any type. So, a hollow point round fired from an AR-15 would lead me to have a lot of questions.
The hollow point is made to mushroom and stop within the target.
The green tip is made to penetrate body armor.
The normal 5.56 is designed to tumble through the body and create massive internal damage.
The AR-15 can use a .223 or 5.56, grain amount will determine the distance and velocity of the round. Though the 556 will damage an AR-15 over time and may cause the rifle to malfunction.
It's not the weapon, it's not the rounds, it's the lack of being able to stop the psychopath on school premises determined to kill that is the problem.
Police milling around outside the school as shots ring out and children scream is the problem.
The unwillingness to take responsibility to do what it takes to protect the children is the problem.
Communities not willing to vote out incompetent school boards, governors, sheriffs, that don't believe in protecting schools and children is the problem.
In addition, restricting access to such weapons may be a wise thing to enact, the ease with which an 18 year old is able to purchase a large arsenal of weapons should be looked at.
We don't trust 18 year olds to drink, but they can be trusted with semi-automatic weapons, without showing need, without showing proof of training?
At the end of the day no one "needs" an AR-15 for hunting or defensive purposes. Still, If it were not available, some other weapon would take it's place.
More damage can be done in close quarters with other weapons you can buy, a shotgun that can hold 9 shells will do far more damage to a room full of people in a short period of time than the AR-15.
The focus needs to be placed on protection and deterrence available right at the school, the AR-15 being available to purchase or not will make no difference in deterring a murderer.You are not anywhere close to being an expert on weapons, combat or tactical situations.
It really is the biggest problem we have in the debate about how to properly counter murdering psychopaths threatening our children... People that think they know about weapons and combat that have no clue, but are convinced they know what is best, and want to force it on everyone else.
Sharlee: Thank you for reading the article and the complements. It is a very complex situation and requires many solutions to protect the children. However, I believe the common denominator is money to reduce the chances of the mentally ill doing it again.
When Reagan was in office, he removed all the funding for mental institutions and put the residents on the streets. Since then there has never been any funding of mental institutions and those institutions are gone or are in a state of disrepair..
We now know that most of the mass shootings in schools are done by the mentally ill. What we don't know is when they are going to do it. We need money to study how to detect what they are going to do before they do it and if required institute them. It needs a slogan and a mentality like they use to detect terrorism, "If you see something, say something." We all need to follow that.
It is still very complex and is like a used car that has many problems to fix, before it can be operational again. As my article states, it is a multi-faceted problem that requires multi-faceted solutions. But I believe money is the common denominator. But money will never be removed from politics, gun manufactures, or the other stakeholders who have a vested interest in guns.I finally found your link and read it. Wish I could have commented on it.
But I think you were pretty much right, right down the line. It would be interesting to see you research and publish the opposing side as well - why is the gun control group so adamant about their side of the equation, and why are most of them liberals.
For instance, your paragraph on fear. You hit the nail on the head, but excluded the opposite side. There is zero doubt that fear is being used to fuel the GC group - one has only to look at the terminology of "assault weapon", and the actual definitions, to determine that it is indeed NOT a military weapon. Nevertheless a great many people think it is, and that we have military grade weapons being used on our streets daily - fear, in other words.For starters - We need to have better healthcare services for the mentally ill.
Hallelujah. Praise. Yes, we could potentially avert some of the heartbreaking issues that many in our society are suffering from that lead them to horrendous actions. It's just mind-boggling that in the span of a couple of weeks that two 18 year olds were compelled to take their anguish out on society. Maybe they could have been reached long ago, before these thoughts ever entered their mind.
Mental illness, and what to do about it, is a really tough nut to crack, at least for me. The very mention of governmental thought police running around looking for anyone acting differently than what some committee buried in the Capital basement thinks is "normal" gives me the shivers.
On top of that, who are WE to declare that a mentally ill person must be incarcerated and drugged into oblivion (as far as they are concerned, anyway). Now add in that no top psychiatrist will tell you that we can tell who is going to kill and who is not before it happens and, well, it is a tough nut to crack.
So it's liberals who won't even bring up debate in the Senate on common sense preventative measures that large majorities of Americans are in support of? That's your belief?
Also have to consider a shooter that sits outside a fire escape and then sets off the fire alarm. But such things can be handled with proper consideration. Lots of things to consider, and I'm certainly not the expert to do it, but none are insoluble.
For the life of me, though, I cannot understand the reluctance to protect our children with an armed guard. We do it on the streets, we do it at music festivals and other big gatherings - why not the schools?
I'd like to see every school building staffed with counselors/social workers to aid in identifying issues in children that could potentially lead to later violence (How many times do we need to be told about the effects of bullying) and connect those families with resources. In my experience, elementary buildings generally have none., Middle schools share a few of these professionals who rotate buildings. It isn't until a high school where a full staff is employed but even then not enough to cover the building population.
Could SSRI Antidepressants Be One of the Causes Behind These Mass Shootings?
By Bob Hoge | May 26, 2022 7:30 AM ET
Mass shootings in the United States have increased dramatically over the last few decades. Those trying to explain the phenomenon have blamed gun laws, social media, white nationalism, extremist politics, pandemic policies—the list goes on. But what if there’s another factor at work here?
Guess what else has soared in the last few decades? The use of anti-depression medication, especially SSRIs. It was in 1987 that the first selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, commonly known as an SSRI, was developed and it quickly became the standard. You’ve probably heard its name–Prozac. Other SSRIs were soon produced, and SSRIs are now the most prescribed antidepressant in the US.
The drugs are fairly effective—depending on who you ask—at treating depression, and many users report remarkable improvements in their mental health. I know quite a few people who take them and they describe the lifting of the dark cloud of depression and despair that had been dominating their lives.
But there’s another side to these drugs, one that must be taken into account. Read the potential side effects that the FDA requires to be printed on the label of every antidepressant:
Anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, akathisia, hypomania, and mania have been reported in adult and pediatric patients being treated with antidepressants for major depressive disorder as well as for indications, both psychiatric and nonpsychiatric.
We all know that every FDA warning label will scare the pants off if you read it closely, but this one seems especially concerning. The National Institutes of Health way back in 2006 studied the SSRI-violence link in judicial outcomes, and came to this conclusion:
Both clinical trial and pharmacovigilance data point to possible links between these drugs and violent behaviours. The legal cases outlined returned a variety of verdicts that may in part have stemmed from different judicial processes. Many jurisdictions appear not to have considered the possibility that a prescription drug may induce violence.
A more recent Swedish report from 2020 made a similar conclusion:
This work shows that SSRI treatment appears to be associated with an increased risk for violent criminality in adults as well as adolescents, though the risk appears restricted to a small group of individuals… Previous work has found an association between SSRI use and violence in young individuals, but not in adults. Ours is a much bigger study which allows us to confirm that there is an association in adults as well.
Perhaps the most serious effect could be the “emotional blunting” (or detachment) that has been linked to SSRI use. Some people who have taken the drugs report “not feeling” or “not caring” about anything. Not feeling and not caring could explain how these mass shooters have the capacity to engage in horrific, evil conduct that most of us can’t even fathom.
Terrorists for instance are known to use drugs as “chemical courage” so they don’t feel pain, they don’t feel tired, and they don’t feel empathy. From The Sun:
Suicide bombers, like Manchester terrorist Salman Abedi, are said to be pumped full of drugs before they are sent on a mission, giving them red eyes and a distinctive look of confusion. The drug turns the terrorists into “unforgiving killing machines.”
While the drugs these terrorists use are not SSRIs, as far as I know, they still show what chemicals can do to the brain.
Substack author Alex Berenson argues for another cause: cannabis. He notes how the Uvalde shooter was a known toker, as was the Parkland shooter, the Texas church killer, and the Waukesha Christmas Parade murderer. I would further argue it is likely that some — if not all — of these killers were also on other medications too, including SSRIs, and that the ensuing toxic cocktail contributed to their psychosis. Remember, virtually all recent mass casualty killers had shown signs of problems, had spent time in the mental health system, and had most likely been prescribed anti-depressants or antipsychotic drugs, which are often used in combination with SSRIs.
An article from Thought Catalog claims that 37 notorious recent mass killers were either on medication at the time of their crimes or had recently gone off their meds. The list includes the Batman movie killer, one of the Columbine shooters, the Virginia Tech gunman, and Charleston church murderer Dylan Roof, among others. I have no way to know if this is accurate, because the author does not indicate his sourcing, but I also have no reason to believe it’s not true. If it is—why isn’t this a bigger story?! Why aren’t the media giants reporting it?
(Note: After writing this story, I saw that Tucker Carlson did, in fact, bring up the subject on his Wednesday show.)
In conclusion, I’m not arguing that SSRI medication should be pulled from the market, or that anti-depressants are somehow inherently evil. Simply put, I’m not an “anti-medication advocate.” Depression is a serious problem, and medication has done a lot of good for a lot of people, most of whom don’t go out and mow down innocents. Rather, I just wish that instead of the political screeching and inflammatory statements that inevitably come after one of these tragic events, a comprehensive study of this phenomenon would take place.
Psychreg writer Caleb Owens puts it best:
When it comes to mass shootings, there’s no easy solution. Violence, especially random violence, is a complex manifestation of various thoughts, feelings, and external factors. While it may be impossible to fully stop mass murders, ignoring the fact that certain medications, including SSRIs, play a role in a high percentage of these violent acts, no justice is being served.
Amen, brother.Some here love their opinion polls, so here we go:
A Politico/Morning consult poll out Wednesday showed “huge support” for gun regulations. It showed that 88% of voters strongly or somewhat support background checks on all gun sales, while only 8% strongly or somewhat oppose such checks. That’s a net approval of +80.
Preventing gun sales to people who have been reported to police as dangerous by a mental health provider is supported by 84% of voters while only 9% oppose it, a net approval of +75.
Seventy-seven percent of voters support requiring guns to be stored in a safe storage unit, while only 15% oppose such a requirement, a net approval of +62.
A national database for gun sales gets 75% approval and 18% disapproval, a net approval rate of +57.
Banning assault style weapons like the AR-15 has an approval rate of 67% of voters while only 25% disapprove. That’s a net approval of +42.
And fifty-four percent of voters approve of arming teachers with concealed weapons, while only 34% oppose it, a net approval of +20.
Yet one party will seemingly only entertain the last, and least popular, option currently on the table. That often seems to be their stance, to go against what the majority of America wants. Bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see how it plays out.Could we benefit from implementing a system similar to what they have in Israel?
I would have no problem with gun owners being required to take a course to own a gun.
"How schools in Israel keep students safe and prevent mass shootings"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-school … shootings/In my county we have a lical law enforcement agent at the school.
We also have the entry way blocked so no one can just walk inside.
Metal detectors.
It's a slippery slope & sad that children cannot enjoy school like we all did back in the day, but life changed too.
Iur children can no longer play outside by themselves.
Why are we going after assault weapons when hand guns are the most used for mass shootings?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/476 … ypes-used/
Edit: A very comprehensive article based on statistics by Everytown Research and Policy. Adding it because it states only 16% of mass shootings involved an assault rifle, yet 55% were with high capacity magazines.
https://everytownresearch.org/maps/mass … n-america/
Is it because recently it has been shown to be the weapon of choice for the mass shootings that have received Broad media attention spawned by the body count?
And, why are we thinking the cause is mental illness? Professional's researching that disagree.
"Conclusion
The central consequence of the continuum described here is that-based on the best available evidence-most mass shooters would not fall into the range of frank mental illness or disorder.2,3 This has critical implications not only for our everyday understanding of mass shooters, but also for forensic and legal determinations; for example, regarding use of the so-called “insanity defense” in cases involving mass shooters. This is not to say that serious mental illness, including psychotic conditions, plays no role in mass shootings. It’s likely that a small percentage of mass shooters do have bona fide mental disorders of psychotic proportions. But most-like our composite character, Tyler-are profoundly unhappy people whose worldview is shaped by “the 3 Rs”: rage, resentment, and revenge.
Accordingly, when we psychiatrists are asked by the media, “How can someone who randomly shoots ten or twenty people not be mentally ill?”, we can reply by pointing out two things: first, that there is a distinction, however nuanced, between PED (Persistent Emotional Disturbance) and mental illness; and second, that horrific violence on a mass scale is well within the range of socially deviant but psychiatrically “non-disordered” human behavior. Tragically, human history tells us that this has always been so.16
https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/m … y-spectrum
Like I said in another post one can research to their heart's content seeking solutions to this American phenomena and not come upon a resolute answer. It is confounding. All one has to do is type "Is mental illness the cause of mass shootings" in a search bar and article after article will say maybe sometimes, but overall No. And, searching weapon of choice articles and statistics will show it is a hand gun.
Yes, I, too think there are band-aids for preventative precautions, yet as I shared elsewhere it won't stop it. IMO it is a social problem pure and simple while unfortunately is an American Phenomena. We own it!!The difference seems to be the definition used by professional psychiatrists and the definition used by the public. Personally, for me, anyone looking to murder a room full of children is mentally ill. I cannot define the specific illness and I have no idea what the symptoms are (outside of a desire to kill) but it is far enough outside the normal mental functioning that I will call it an illness. Whatever the professionals term it.
Most people think that way. But, as technical as it gets in these forums I think it is important to know there is a difference. If one only reads the article one may discover there is much more to it than using a blanket for mental illness as the cause.
For instance what about socialization within American society as a cause. One of the big factors of socialization is entertainment; TV, Movies, Video Games, etc. I don't know about elsewhere, but here where I live every news hour has violence in it and seems to be at least 2 or more times a week it is due to gun violence of some type. Is that common elsewhere I have no idea.
Anyway, regard socialization three articles I read are below.
Violence in the Media and Entertainment (Position Paper) from The American Academy of Family Physicians Foundation
https://www.aafp.org/about/policies/all … nment.html
Violence in the Media: What Effects on Behavior? (2012 so one can extrapolate to today) from Psychiatric Times
https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/v … s-behavior
The Impact of Electronic Media Violence: Scientific Theory and Research from National Library of Science
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704015/
My thinking for now is it is a socialization problem. Yes, mental illness may play a small role, yet some think anyone who loses their temper is mentally ill. Homicide, suicide, and shooting the Bad Guy is socialized as a problem resolution. And, the Bad Guy is subjective to the individual and the circumstances. In other words the cop can be a Bad Guy in one's mind. Taking from the previous article are those three R's - Rage, Resentment, and Revenge followed by an action using a familiar problem resolution.I tend to agree it is a social problem, that our culture emphasizes and promotes violence far too much.
Nevertheless, that very large majority of people are able to cope with this, while those few that can't go on a shooting rampage. Something inside them makes it impossible to behave "normally", then. And that, in my world, becomes an illness - there is something different inside those people, something different enough to apply the term "illness", just as we would for a failing heart, an inability to move a limb or other physical problem.I would call it weakness instead of illness. I can follow tsmog's "socialization" thought. In agreement with your thought about the condition of anyone that would do such a thing, I too would call them nuts, but my nuts just means they are a deviant, not necessarily clinically mentally ill.
GAYes, and these issues often reside in teenagers, so while not fitting the "mentally ill" medical definition, one could say the teenager had issues, psychotic ones at that.
Another problem I have with this is that the MSM news and our President has put forth a false narrative as to what happened.
The police never confronted him prior to his going in the school.
There was no Security Guard that confronted him at the school.
“He walked in unobstructed initially,” Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) Regional Director Victor Escalon said. “So from the grandmother’s house, to the (ditch), to the school, into the school, he was not confronted by anybody.”
Escalon said that the suspect, Salvador Ramos, shot his grandmother and then wrecked his truck in a ditch outside the school at 11:28 a.m. He exited the truck with a rifle and shot at two people across the street, Escalon said. He then approached the school and shot at the building multiple times and walked in through an apparently unlocked door at 11:40 a.m., according to Escalon.
There was no school resource officer on site or available at the time, he said. Inside, the suspect walked into a classroom and fired more than 25 times, Escalon said. The majority of the gunfire was in the beginning of the attack, he said.
Officers arrived at the school at 11:44 a.m., but when they went to confront the gunman, they received fire and took cover, Escalon said.
Officers called for more resources and personnel, evacuated students and teachers in other parts of the school, and at some point entered “negotiations” with the suspect, Escalon said. After about an hour, a US Border Patrol tactical team came to the classroom, forced entry and fatally shot the suspect, he said.
Olivarez said officers saved lives despite waiting before physically confronting the suspect.
“At that point, they had the suspect contained inside the classroom,” he told CNN. “If those officers weren’t there, if they did not maintain their presence, there is a good chance that gunman could have made it to other classrooms and commit more killings.”
Based on the footage I saw, I tend to disagree that the officers did enough, I still lean towards cowardly and incompetent, but it often takes a person of strong leadership skill to take control and do the right thing in such a situation... and from experience I can tell you most, be they military, police, or security don't possess the "right stuff" for such situations."but it often takes a person of strong leadership skill to take control and do the right thing in such a situation... and from experience I can tell you most, be they military, police, or security don't possess the "right stuff" for such situations".
How many people such as these are available to go around based on your solution of education fortresses?This is why the parents of Sandy Hook were awarded 73 million from Remington Firearms for their marketing of the AR-15 style weapon. Also please pay attention to PLCAA at the end of the video.
https://youtu.be/ZJwf7oBVHKEThanks for the link, i saw it all. It appears that neither Remington nor any of the other major firearm manufacturers are close to being repentant. That six times lethality as compared with a handgun was certainly an eye opener.
In spite of their cover, this PLCAA, one manufacturer paid the piper and other more may as well.
There are plenty, if you select for that, train them for it, and enforce it.
There are always people willing to step up, just as there are always people wanting to be SEALs and Rangers in the military.
You set the expectations, enforce the standard, provide the training and support.
It's easy if you have a community that embraces their sheriff/police force and incorporates them into the community.Ken: Please view this.
https://youtu.be/ZJwf7oBVHKEHow many slots are available to fill for Army Rangers or Navy Seals? Many more people than available slots, I would think?
There are many educators who has expressed resistance to having to be armed while doing their jobs.
We all like police and law enforcement, but will only go so far in doing their jobs for them.
I still believe that it will be a miracle to find the Enough of the GI-Joe types to fill the countless positions within public and private schools let alone every other place where people are to gather?
You see so much on military terms when this is a civilian based society.
Sorry, It appears that we disagree again.."We all like police and law enforcement, but will only go so far in doing their jobs for them."
You're going to do a lot more towards filling their jobs if we don't come to our sense and quite defunding police, handcuffing them with foolish rules that put their lives at risk, demanding that they be all knowing about every mental and physical illness on the planet, etc.Wilderness: Please view this. This is really what AR-15's are about.
https://youtu.be/ZJwf7oBVHKE
Imagine that, I see a violent deadly combat situation on military terms.
And that is why my solution is the best, and most likely to result in children in schools getting the maximum protection possible in an ever more chaotic world.
While people such as yourself, want to handle a deadly, violent, combat situation with civilian solutions.
That's always been my problem, dealing with reality the way it is, not being interested in sugar coating it, or dressing it up in niceities.We are not all in a hurry to live in an armed camp. We could learn a lot from Arthur and the English as to how they handle things.
The reality is unacceptable, so let's change it. Instead of protecting the gun, let's look at protecting people and their right to thoroughfare without living in a state of constant fear.
Is that the kind of society you really want to live in?Reactionary versus preventative. Stopping it only after it begins versus stopping it before it can begin.
Military versus civilian solutions.Yes, Valeant,
Living in Panama for 4 months is an example.
Military/police contingent were at every grocery store armed with sub machine guns. Picking up anything that you did not pay for or otherwise "getting out of line", would invite a hassle quite contrary to having a pleasant shopping experience.
Take a bus from one city to another and you could be stopped at periodic checkpoints by these same law enforcement types armed with submachine guns. Most of it was based on immigration issues. You had better have you documents and papers in order. What could happen? The nice ones might actually let you off with a warning. But, the ones not so nice could haul you off from the bus, put you under arrest, throw you into one of their dank dungeons. Then you are frantic about reaching the American embassy. And through all of this, you hope that no one gets physical with you on the way.
The fear that I and my wife always lived with made us check everything before we tried to move around the country, fear was our constant companion. It was one of several reasons that we decided to return to the states.
Now, conservatives are more than anxious to bring all of that down on us again. How is that possible? This is America.Do you really feel the majority of Americans would ever stand for such a scenario? Conservatives have always strived for the least intrusion from Federal and state governments. Not sure why you feel conservatives would in any case support any form of government that would set forth such military control.
It is obvious you have put all conservatives in one box, and are very set in your dislike for a large part of American's population. Well," to each his own".The solutions of being in reaction to a problem rather than being preventative to include the idea of fortress hardening of schools and such that is being promoted by conservatives regarding the gun crisis reveals a slippery slope going in the Panama direction.
I am just part of an also large portion of America's population who would more accurately say that they distrust conservatives, more than dislike them.I do believe your statement would have been correct some years ago. The Biden administration has the general public very disappointed with the Democratic Party versus the Republican party.
The latest polls show otherwise. April 2022
Six months out from the midterm election, Republicans running for Congress are enjoying the strongest public support they have seen in a decade, according to the latest PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist poll. As President Joe Biden struggles to gain political momentum, the GOP is also getting more favorable marks on key issues like inflation — signaling challenging, if not dismal, days ahead for the Democratic Party.
Roughly half of U.S. adults — 47 percent — said they would support a Republican candidate if the 2022 midterm election was held today, and slightly fewer — 44 percent — back the Democrats. Republicans have strong support among independents who break toward the GOP by 7 points, and only one in 10 say they’re still undecided on which party to support.
Black voters still offer Democrats some of the party’s most loyal support. But after a majority of Latino voters picked Biden in 2020, about half now say they would vote to send a Republican candidate to the nation’s capital — a dramatic swing, and a reminder to election watchers that demographic groups are not monolithic in their values.
The Republican Party rarely polls ahead of Democrats on the generic ballot, according to political scientist Lara Brown, who directs the Graduate School of Political Management at George Washington University. For Democrats to come back and win elections, they need to make significant gains in public support. But, she added, it’s too early, and political churn is too volatile, to know which party will emerge victorious from the midterms."
Sharlee, as for the Hispanics, I will wait and see if the current polling pans out in the election booth.
Yes, I am disappointed as well, but for me, Republican can never be the solution, more than they just present a different set of problems less palatable than the current ones.My comment was just to point out that Americans quickly change within the wind. I found many articles that were not current that totally would support your view. But when looking at the current the wind changed, as it could again.
Just hope to produce evidence that one (any citizen) can change their mindset. Not sure why you feel so very set in your views. Times change and political parties change. Actually never so true as what we see today. Both parties have splintered, and the agendas widely vary.
I can agree in one respect, the conservative Republicans hold very steadily when it comes to their ideologies.Sharlee, you seem to be fervently convinced of your own point of view. You would not think that mine tendencies would be any less committed?
My agenda is usually left of center, the party that comes closest to my ideals would gain my support. I would not expect any less from you in regards to the politicians and ideas that you support.
And 5 months can be a virtual eternity in politics....
And since that poll came out, Roe is going bye-bye and another mass shooting where Republicans barely blink an eye on common sense gun reforms. Using a poll five-weeks old with so much that has happened does prove anything.
You are being hyperbolic.
We are discussing one thing.
Schools.
Where innocent children are gathered and have no means to protect themselves.
Unless we are smart enough as a community to provide that protection for them.
Unless the adults in the community accept the fact that there are psychotic murderers out there willing to target their children.
All else is BS... Talk of other countries where armed guards everywhere, at every store, or of making guns illegal, or of mental health support. All BS that provides no protection to those most needing to be protected.But the implications for us all go beyond just "one thing". Adult cadavers are not any more acceptable than those of children. What would have prevented a Buffalo or El Paso, or Las Vegas? We have to harden the Walmart's and Casinos?
Looking at alternatives besides the armed camps idea surely wouldn't hurt.I do not worry about implications or other events.
I look at the schools, protection of children, as a singular thing. The topic of focus.
In this, I am channeling my inner GA.
While often in debates here I expand upon a topic to consider the bigger picture... In this matter I don't.
Primarily because, for me, for my beliefs, there is nothing more important than protecting young children. This is something far easier to relate to I suppose, when one has children.
I cannot expect someone who has not been a parent, a father or mother that has committed themselves to the care and upbringing of children, to understand this in the same way, or with the same level of conviction.
But I don't put adults or their protection in the same category of importance, not close.
Adults have the ability to choose to conceal carry, they have other ways to protect themselves or get themselves out of harms way. Options and abilities children do not have.
You're going to need to extend that to playgrounds, ballgames, community pools and any other place large groups of kids congregate. Once schools cannot be breached, someone willing to kill who has access to weapons, will just switch the venue. Hence, what Cred is getting at.
Two things, in many of those scenarios there will be adults present, many of those adults may have CCWs or be off duty officers.
Also in those venues, often times police officers are present.
So again, I bring back the focus to schools, the one place where children are gathered and left with no protection, unless it is provided.
Sadly, the more times this happens, the more times it will happen, until adults like yourself are outvoted and outvoiced by people like me in the community, that value protecting the children.
In my community, voices like yours are in the minority, and I hope it always stays that way. Its issues like this that make me remain involved in the community, I would otherwise rather be left alone and leave others to their own designs.And I feel the same because the delusion that a shooter with body armor is going to be stopped by someone with a concealed carry or an off-duty officer at one of those venues will likely turn out just like Buffalo. It's something you never acknowledge in any of your posts, that a 30-year police vet with training could not stop him. In Uvalde, the police drove right by the shooter and then delayed. The district had a security force.
Sadly, when gun lovers who think every human deserves to have a weapon, regardless of age and mental status, these shootings will continue and the good guy with a gun will continue to get mowed down or be inept and children will still die.Had the time to do the digging.
What it came down to these cops to varying degrees were incompetent, corrupt and cowardly.
A couple of quotes:
I’m a Texan, conservative, pro cop (family are cops), military and an operator in the special operations community. These cops are cowards! Their Chief is inept and needs to be held accountable! All of them have blood on their hands. My neighbor in San Antonio , where I currently live, is a fire fighter who was tasked to respond to the scene. He said the entire thing was a shit show and the cops had no idea what to do or how to respond. This makes sense when these yokels join the force. They join in their best interest. Not to protect and serve but rather serve themselves. This is disgusting and my heart breaks for these parents. I only wish I was on scene with the weapons and equipment they had available. It is terrifying but in this case you have to run towards the gunfire and fight like hell.
Steven McCraw, Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety gave the first real report of what occurred, more than a day after the tragic event. He was visibly emotional as he read the log of 911 calls from the children, begging for help. McCraw had the decency to say what was obvious to everyone; it was the WRONG decision NOT to confront the shooter as soon as possible, and end the threat. Videos and statements by parents, private phone recordings, provide a very different picture from the "official" reports of SROs and Police engagement.
There was no SRO (Armed or Unarmed).
The first Police arrived in 3 minutes and listened to the whole thing take place for an hour. They assaulted parents trying to get them to save their children, cuffing and pepper spraying them. The police never engaged in trying to stop the shooter, that was left to a Border Patrol team that arrived on the site nearly an hour after the shooting started, and once there, they ignored orders to stand by, ending the threat.
Some perspectives:
https://prospect.org/justice/why-uvalde … s-shooter/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/ … uxbndlbing
https://nypost.com/2022/05/28/uvalde-sc … -neighbor/Ken, its not only very shameful. But (cowardice?) at it's utmost. Cowardly, 19 grown up cops are afraid to face a single 18 year old demeted gun man? Cowards!!! Critically, this make me take a further look at the gun control question. It's a pity that not a single teacher at the school had a gun. Critically again, its good that the citizen learn to arm themselves, even with a pepper spray against such killer armed introders. Many thanks Ken, for providing me with near original links to the Ulvade school shooting. (editing
The truth of these claims seems so obvious and so damning that I can't accept them without hearing from the police. I want to. I think the obvious probably is the truth, but that truth is so horrible that I want to be sure it is the truth.
GACheck out this article. What a mess!
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/06/11026683 … -shootingsYep, it is a mess. I have heard the 'different radio channel' criticisms before. That should be an easy fix. But it must not be because they haven't fixed it yet.
Why isn't it as simp[le as a nationally designated 'Emergency Command Channel' along the lines of the national 911 adoption?
GA
GA, when you hear the truth from the police tell us. And of course, what truth can the police tell you when it had a negatively? 19 kids plus 2 class teacher lay fad in their pool of blood. And, GA, you want to do a doctorate out of that? Good luck to you.
Nope, I just want to know enough, for sure, for me to make the gut condemnations that are waiting for authorization. I've got them caged for now. I want to hear from the officers. I will decide for myself whether to believe them and whether they deserve the blame it looks like they deserve.
Don't misunderstand me Miebakagh57. My reservation isn't because of some grand judicious manner, it's because what I think, from the media presentation, is so bad that it wouldn't reflect well on me to be wrong. I don't trust the media or rushed judgments. So I will wait.
GA
Well, I think this is one of those moments where the sum of my military and security experiences help me more easily recognize the truth of the matter, than most.
But I will allow a true expert to express my belief on this, it is far more valuable coming from such a personage of experience... Especially noteworthy from the 4 minute mark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-Kb4XuHoKwHa!, (that's two Ha!s tonight). Good timing, I watched several of the Sherrif's press videos this afternoon. I agree with both of you, with one nagging question that makes me pause. The classroom door issue. For me, the details of that could define the degree and application of guilt
For instance, consider this unrealistic and hyperbolic example: Suppose 4 brave cops were at the back of that packed hallway, and they tried to fight their way to the front to charge the shooter. But, 10 other cops from the school and local force were in the front of the hallway and wouldn't let the brave cops through. Maybe they even sat on them to hold them down.
If that really happened, surely you wouldn't assign them equal blame? So, follow that thought down to the possible, is it possible the construction and operation of that door, combined with the ineptness and unpreparedness of the local forces, could have turned that door into an insurmountable obstacle for any brave cops in the hallway? I don't know, and knowing could make an important difference.
I'm not promoting that idea, I'm wondering. If I'm going to consider someone the very worst of cowards, the kind that hides behind badges and positions of courage, I want to be sure.
GAThose hypotheticals don't apply for one single reason.
It was a Border Patrol tactical team that killed the suspect, according to Lt. Christopher Olivarez, a spokesperson for the Texas Department of Public Safety.
It was not members of the police, they never, during the 40 - 60 minutes prior to the Border Patrol team arriving, attempted to engage the shooter.
Now you may have heard that it was an off-duty Border Patrol officer that killed the school shooter. This is not the case.
Jacob Albarado is that off duty officers name, and in his statements, where he is denying this report, he reveals some interesting information:
When he first arrived at Robb Elementary School, Albarado said he coordinated with officers outside the building to evacuate as many kids as possible. Two officers provided cover for him with guns drawn as he helped children climb out windows.
Albarado said he also moved towards the wing of the school that contained his second grade daughter Jayda's classroom to guide children to safety as they evacuated through a door, but he never physically went inside the school building.
"All the officers have all their gear and they had radio communication, and I didn't have any of my gear," Albarado said. "I can't go in there when I can't communicate with people and shots are being fired. "
During this time, he said he received a text from his wife that she made it safely to a funeral home across the street. Albarado also saw his daughter among the crowd of kids he helped evacuate.
That is a damning statement in my book, while officers were on the scene shots were being fired. In another break down, it was detailed that the shooter was not barricaded in one room, but was walking from room to room looking for victims.
Police chief Pedro Arredondo, was acting as incident commander and he made the call that the officers on scene should wait. His order ran against protocols developed since the 1999 Columbine school shooting, which call for police to confront shooters as soon as possible.
Had I been there and received such an order, I would have told good ol' Pedro to go F himself, I would have led any others willing to do the right thing to engage the shooter, doing everything within my ability to permanently end that threat.
I can't imagine not doing so, I wouldn't be able to live with myself. None of those police that were present for over 40 minutes should ever be allowed to wear a uniform again, unless it is a prison uniform.Yeah, I wouldn't be able to live with myself either. However, I think your response illustrates the reason for my hesitation. We don't really know what happened in there, yet.
You think the extreme example doesn't apply because . . . of the things you described, but you didn't address the possibility that there could be such a condition that would more accurately reflect the fault.
Again you illustrate the point that we don't what to believe yet in the inference of your "walking from room to room looking for victims." description. While technically true, the room-to-room part is related to two interconnected classrooms connected by common bathroom access. It wasn't a 'free to wander classrooms' type of 'free.' The shooter was still within a locked classroom environment.
I am not trying to defend anyone or their actions. Your view may be exactly correct, but if it's not, then your condemnations are yours to own, and that wouldn't be a flattering thing in my view.
GAI have enough evidence as to what happened:
https://rumble.com/v17boea-angel-mom-at … olice.html
https://reason.com/2022/05/26/witnesses … -shooting/
https://news.yahoo.com/shot-uvalde-teac … 02260.html
I understand if you wish to withhold judgement, you and I have very different backgrounds, I have responded to similar situations in training and in reality enough times to feel confident in my assessment of what occurred, the level of weapons and protective gear those officers on the scene had, etc.
I am comfortable in my condemnations and complete disdain for those officers who chose not to act, allowing that tragedy to continue unabated for up to an hour.Your first two links weren't making any progress, but your third is pretty damning.
GAYour first two links weren't making any progress, but your third is pretty damning.
Now there's another potential damning question. It appears your 3rd link's classroom was the one adjoining the shooter's room by the common bathroom. The teacher says his door wasn't locked. If that is true then the police could have gotten to the shooter through that unlocked door.
GAUPDATE: The Uvalde school board will NOT punish 'coward' police chief who refused to send cops in to building.
The Uvalde school board did not punish the district police chief who refused to send cops into Robb Elementary School while a gunman was shooting kids dead.
During its first board meeting since the May 24 shooting, the Uvalde Independent School District (UCISD) declined to fire school police chief Pete Arredondo on Friday.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … lding.htmlMaybe I'm missing something here, but in my experience a school board has no authority over police. Zero. The school board does not hire, fire, train or have any other form of authority over police.
At most they might (might) have some over an SRO officer assigned to the school, but never the police chief or any other cop.The answer seems to be there in the article, it appears that they do:
Arredondo was hired to lead the school district police force, which has a half-dozen officers, in 2020. The force is responsible for providing security at district campuses, staffing sporting events and handling narcotics work.That sounds more like what I would call an SRO officer. School Resource Officer. Tied with the police, but tied just as tightly (I think) to the school.
That seems right. Wait until facts on known before acting. I bet that decision will change if things turn out to be just what they appear..
GAI get what you are saying, I really do.
But I know how they are supposed to react, I know they had to have had Active Shooter training, and I know they had the protective gear and weapons on scene necessary to end the shooting an hour before they did.
I know these things, and hence have voiced my opinion rather strongly, but I also realize you and most others don't have the type of background I have that helps to make such a determination.
Those police should be condemned, they should never be allowed to serve in that capacity again, I consider their incompetence criminal.
But going back to another thread you started, we have no shame in this country anymore. This is just one more tragic example that proves the point.
'Once schools cannot breached, someone willing to kill, who has access to weapons, will just switch venue.' Great input indeed. But the question still persists in my mind: why were schools made such a target? Are these killers members of the school, and had an issue with the students like bulling, and are/is terribly disgraced by the school, and plans a revenge? On another note, is America practicing a type of Nigerian politics where innocent human blood is sacrifice to the Devil to win votes? And 'will just switch venue'. Which or what venue? In my part of the world, we held something similar as a Texas man or woman would. What happens there stays there. My people held that it die there and arise no more.
It appears that many are willing to continue to really realize what our society has become. And that while yes we need to address all of the problems that got us here --- children need to be protected in schools while we continue to work on those problems.
Thus far we have not made any ground, and we have been going back and forth for many decades and witnessed many children being killed in their classrooms.
The blame game goes on and on, and the dead kids have gone unnoticed. The bickering goes on, with no solutions. Common sense says the only way to protect children in school NOW, is to prevent the mentally ill to get to them as best as we can. However, it is clear we have a fight, a purely ideological war. The kids are in the middle, and need protecting, while we all climb high on soapboxes.
We need to solve the immediate problem of protecting children, instead of sitting by as we have done time after time.Each community, county, state has to determine what to do.
I have explained in this thread what my community & county has done.
We have a Sheriff's office in each school, with an officer on duty at each school and one on duty outside in a vehicle, the school staff trains for active shooter situations, our children are protected. The Sheriff's Office is part of our community, they are our friends and neighbors.
Other communities choose to defund their police, make them the enemy, refuse them access to their schools, make their communities "gun free zones" ... wouldn't live in such a place or let my kids go to school there.
I guess that will be the answer we see in America for a long time to come, some communities will embrace protecting their children, allow for weapons, incorporate their police force into their community in the most positive ways possible.
Others will try to outlaw weapons, keep police out of their communities and hope for the best when their kids are at school.Schools tried preparing for this exact situation and have not been sitting by. But the solution of having security and adding in training were not successful. So having a security force and training still leads to 19 dead. Time for a different approach.
At least for one party it is.I will be honest, I don't know if there were security guards present in any of the mass school shootings? I do know one was not in the building in the Texas school shooting. I can agree armed guards in schools may not prevent such attacks 100% of the time. However, it certainly is a better option than doing nothing, while we flail about for solutions.
It is very obvious and true the Republicans in Congress have long fought for gun reform. Gun reform is long overdue.
How one decides for self what is mental illness will always be subjective. For instance what about the kid that shoves another? Is he/her mentally ill? Or, exhibiting signs of it? To me it is the same problem resolution at the core of it. Violence is violence. And, it is being used as a problem resolution unfortunately to the extent that someone decides a gun will be a good tool to use to act on Rage, Resentment, and Revenge.
No one has mentioned the role of gender in mass shootings.
The Sandy Hook families just won a massive settlement against the gun manufacturer Remington. The case sets a remarkable precedent for gun manufacturers to be held liable for expressly preying on men’s specific vulnerabilities. Lawyers representing the families argued that the company “tapped into anxieties of masculinity” to sell men military-grade rifles.
The Remington settlement marks the first time a gunmaker has been held accountable for its product’s role in a mass murder in the U.S.
But why are nearly all mass shooters men? Should this be addressed?
Is toxic masculinity in the American culture at the root of mass shootings?Deleted
If Remington was responsible for selling men "military-grade rifles" there is a massive problem in that courtroom, for they are not doing that. As pointed out earlier, military grade rifles (automatic weapons) are NOT freely available to the public, there are only a relative few in the hands of the public, and they are very difficult to obtain.
In an earlier post you explained that the AR15 was used in Vietnam, and it was. It just was not the same AR15 that is being sold over the counter - it was an automatic rifle instead of the semi-automatic that can be purchased in gun stores. A massive difference between the two.An article countering your position the AR-15 was an automatic weapon. This article states it was a semi-automatic.
"The AR-15 is a lightweight, 5.56 mm, air-cooled, gas-operated, magazine-fed semi-automatic rifle, with a rotating-lock bolt, actuated by direct impingement gas operation or long/short stroke piston operation. It is manufactured with the extensive use of aluminum alloys and synthetic materials."
From VietNamWar.fandom
https://vietnamwar.fandom.com/wiki/AR-15
Edit: The articles gives the complete history of the AR-15An AR-15 is fun to have for target practice, but as a high velocity weapon of choice for those who use it to do harm to others, it is devastating war machine designed to do as much damage as possible to the victim.
For the doctors, first responders, and families it is the devastating effects of being shot by an AR-15. They don't care about the scientific mental state of the shooter, they have to deal with what is left of the victim and their families.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar … ns/553937/Here is the real reason nothing has been done or ever will be done in congress about mass shootings.
The Real Reason America Doesn’t Have Gun Control
The basic rules of American democracy provide a veto over national policy to a minority of the states.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar … on/638425/Yay, the Republic is working like it is supposed to, and protects against mob rule and over-reaction.
Of course, a considerable amount of that article is biased, but I agree, it is those racist white states causing all the problems.
I think the best way of fixing that is to just force those states to secede from the Union, especially Florida, let them run their States the way they want to without DC support/control... that will teach them.
Unless things have change in the last 5 or 10 years even police Officers are not allowed to use hollow poin rounds in their duty firearms.
The police would have had use descretion to handle the situation to arrest the 18 years old gun man, or to shoot him dead. Nevertheless, they inactivity, they docile, nature, they ineptness still stand as a symbol of foolishness. All said, these police men or officers should take to the honourable way out, resignation.
Other countries have figured this problem out. We just don't want to. My right to my gun supercedes your child's right to life. (Aren't these same folks the Right to Lifers?)
Have they? Really figured it out?
Then why do we see the UK with far fewer guns than other countries but double, triple or more homicide rates? How does that work if they have figured it out?If gun laws were the answer why are there so many gun deaths weakly in Chicago? It's the same in New York. Why don't gun laws work?
Because 60% of the gun crimes are committed with guns from neighboring states with lax gun laws in reference to Chicago.
As for New York, prove that claim. I think it's a lie.Sure they are. And when it doesn't work, entice the neighboring states to also grab the guns. And when every state has done so and it still doesn't work, get Mexico to do the same, along with Canada, Cuba and any other country that has a seagoing port or an airport.
An educated person would have done the research to know that statistic.
Ah yes, lax gun laws must equal grab the guns. The old Wilderness modification of words to mean something different.What else do you think gun restrictions are for if not to restrict ownership? Including taking those already in the possession of American citizens?
I always need to ask this...do you believe all Americans should be able to possess guns?
Restrictions are being added to try and keep them out of the hands of those who pose a danger to others. Your general arguments always seem to want every adult in the country to be able to possess guns. That's not really a smart policy argument if you ask me.No, it involves responsible ownership, not confiscation. I don the see how that would be a negative for anyone.
"Because 60% of the gun crimes are committed with guns from neighboring states with lax gun laws in reference to Chicago."
You've been taking Lightfoot at her word...shouldn't do that. Isn't it interesting that ONLY Chicago, with all their gun laws, claims this? It is further evidence gun laws don't stop gun crime.
"New York has tough gun laws, but that didn't prevent Buffalo's mass shooting"
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/18/10996806 … s-shootingActually, I take the Chicago Police Department at their word. Again, way to bring a black woman into the argument to unfairly disparage her without cause. Seems to be a common theme with you today.
And New York just closed some of the Red Flag loopholes that allowed the Buffalo shooter to evade being flagged. The law is still fairly new, it will need tweaking to perfect. But they have nabbed a few other incidents in the state.
https://news.yahoo.com/students-arreste … 14527.htmlWilderness, RMN and others: Relax nobody is coming for your guns because nothing is going to be done. The gun industry, the NRA, and the GOP congress have already got this all wrapped up.
The older than 21 proposal won't be passed, McConnell already said it violates the 2nd amendment rights of those under 21. AR-15 Style weapons will not be banned, because the gun industry has made it impossible to define what it is.
They have sold so many variations of the weapon and provided so many "cosmetic" add-ons, it can't even be defined. Therefore no laws can be passed if it can't be defined. Then there are kits, where you can mix and match your orders to customize the gun to your liking; ghost guns; 3D printed, and don't forget buying them online or in the parking lots at gun shows
You guys are safe, just follow the money. They are not going to jeopardize that cash cow, just because hundreds of school children have been massacred by high velocity weapons that send shock waves through their flesh so the only way they can identify them is by their shoes. You can continue to enjoy your recreational gun hobby as mental ill people take those same guns and massacre others..
And also nothing will be done with the mentally ill because we don't know when they are going to commit their heinous crimes and there is no funding to detect who these people are. Reagan took care of that when he shutdown the institutions and put those people on the streets, under the guise of stopping big government spending. You can also point out there are more people killed by other means and also in inner cities.
So you have it made, it will be business as usual and I do mean big business. Don't forget our thoughts and prayers are always with you and your families."Therefore no laws can be passed if it can't be defined."
If that is true, does it mean that there will be no more efforts to ban "assault weapons" or "military style" ones? Some are ongoing now - will they be abandoned, forever?
I think not. And not because, unlike the mental illness problem where we actually cannot identify those that will kill in the future, those definitions have already been made. You remember - anything with a folding stock or barrel shroud is 10X as deadly and must be banned? Where a pistol grip turns an ordinary rifle into a killing machine, hardly needing a human hand to pull the trigger? A trigger that operates in the "military style", shooting an unending stream of bullets?
The point is that these lies, and others, are now written into law as well as being spread throughout the nation. And nothing at all will stop the fear mongers from demanding they be removed. Followed by anything else they can somehow classify as a "gun".Wilderness: I believe nothing will be done as far as gun control goes. The GOP congress has too much to lose from their constituents, The NRA, and the gun lobbyist.
The gun industry has too much to lose from selling ammo and accessories to those who already have guns and too much to lose in profits from new sales.
Your guns will never be taken away from you because they are already grandfathered in from the 1994 act. Again, it's all about the money and the oligarchs who benefit from it. It is capitalism at its finest at the expense of those who die from the effects of their greed.And you may be right. Or you may be wrong; strong politicians all over the country are listening to the cries of millions and millions of people that they have trained to believe the lies the politicians promote.
Personally, I think America will be effectively disarmed in the next 50 years. They won't get mine because I don't have one, but neither will anyone else (behaving in a legal manner) in the not so distant future. Of course, at my age 50 years is not so distant - considerably less than my lifetime.If we do not have a social or economic collapse that changes this country drastically before then.
If we get 50 years down the road without having WWIII or a Civil War.
Then it is likely that 50+ years from now they can disarm America.
The majority of young men no longer are exposed to weapons like my generation and earlier were.
The vast majority of young men no longer learn to hunt, no longer learn to shoot in school or camp or the boyscouts, and they no longer are drafted into the service and learn marksmanship even if they are not working in combat related occupations.
So, I could definitely see it occurring after my generation and all those that came before me have passed away.I agree. Part of the problem is the youngsters today that have never learned to shoot, don't need to, and believe the lies from the left about "military weapons" in the hands of civilians. They are trained to be afraid of all guns and anyone that has one.
Of course, if the calls to do away with police continue to grow that may change."trained" or indoctrinated or groomed or through propaganda which is why murders get so much coverage.
The goal is to de-weaponize and also limit or remove local police. So that United Nations or International Police can then be used.
Americans acting inhumanely to other Americans is not nearly as easy to accomplish as if you are using foreign "police" to enforce international law.I certainly hope the UN police never enter, thinking they can police the country. While they might (might) be effective in large, liberal cities, the moment they step outside those cities they will be targets, nothing more. Conservatives are simply not ready to have police from outside not only the area they live in but outside the country, enforcing laws from outside the country as well. Might as well paint a bullseye on their backs.
Of course, if liberals ever manage to disarm the American public, it might work.Well here we are again today with another school shooting. This time at a well to do parochial school. A woman armed with TWO assault rifles and a handgun. Don't our children deserve better? Where is the legislation to address this? Republicans would have us belief that books, drag shows, LGBTQ issues are the real threats to our children. When is someone going to say enough is enough? Sadly, they've got a number of citizens buying into this culture war bunk
One for the good guys with a gun crew:
https://policetribune.com/breaking-alab … ry-school/
But interesting how the narrative is a bot different among different media:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/09/us/alaba … index.html
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles … ama-schoolFrom what limited info was given... it sounds textbook.
Call for back-up, report position, engage and eliminate the threat.
Every school should have a trained and competent SRO available.
Every school should have its staff trained on what to do, who to call, etc.
And this story should get far more coverage than it will, if stories like this are on national MSM it might help deter people from thinking Schools are an easy undefended target.
Related Discussions
- 12
Should public school teachers be encouraged or allowed to be armed in the class
by Ralph Deeds 11 years ago
Should public school teachers be encouraged or allowed to be armed in the class room?Do you agree with the National Rifle Association's recommendation that teachers be encouraged, after training, to be armed in the classroom?
- 22
Do you think teachers and those in authority should have armed weapons in our pu
by Mary Hyatt 11 years ago
Do you think teachers and those in authority should have armed weapons in our public schools?With all the recent events on shootings, do you think our children would be safer if teachers and other in authority carried guns?
- 103
The Politics of School Safety
by Dan Harmon 2 years ago
Some 4 years ago, a man lost his child at the Parkland, Fl. school shooting. He has spent the intervening time working on school safety, from bullying to mass shootings and has done a wonderful job at it - his compilation of suggestions is beyond just good.A Senator has taken his suggestion...
- 32
Tasers and Stun Guns might be good alternatives
by Brenda Durham 11 years ago
With all the controversy about guns in society, in particular in schools these days, I think tasers and stun guns might be a feasible and good way to arm teachers in classrooms. For one thing, I don't think teachers should have to be focused on how to use an actual...
- 26
Do you think the N.R.A. statement concerning school violence was crazy?
by IDONO 11 years ago
Do you think the N.R.A. statement concerning school violence was crazy?At first, I did. But after thinking a bit, I realized that for now, it's the best safety step for our kids until we can come up with something better. All these grandios ideas of government legislating safety with gun rules and...
- 25
Does violence really solve violence?
by maddot 11 years ago
Does violence really solve violence?The NRA want school staff to be armed. Will throwing more guns at the probem solve it or make it worse?