The mass shooting today.

good read on the 2A.

(I got into a bit of back and forth on twitter where some guy insisted that the 2A insures the 1A. I said that's b.s. but he refused to provide details. Anyone heard of this argument? I googled a bit but found nothing significant.)


nohero said:

RTrent said:

The article you linked proves you need to arm every citizen because as shown you can't depend on the police. A well armed citizenry is a safe citizenry. /s

Because of the ignorant and undereducated who are the "thought leaders" of conservatism, sarcasm like that is dead. For example -

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a LOT of people own guns in Texas and many carry them.  Why didn't any of them run into the school in Uvalde?  


yahooyahoo said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a LOT of people own guns in Texas and many carry them.  Why didn't any of them run into the school in Uvalde?  

The police were there already.


Plus they have a SWAT team… more guns than guts.


nohero said:

yahooyahoo said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a LOT of people own guns in Texas and many carry them.  Why didn't any of them run into the school in Uvalde?  

The police were there already.

1 1/2 hours of not confronting the shooter while kids were being shot and bleeding to death. The commander in charge ordered them not to confront the shooter now claiming it was just a barricaded hostage situation where no one else was being shot or hurt. Even though kids were bleeding to death and 911 calls were received stating he's still shooting.

Were they deaf? Did they not hear the continued shootings? Just following his orders even though he was obviously wrong? Or did they just lack guts, waiting for the heavily armored special response unit so they wouldn't get hurt?

The police were assertive in one thing. They prevented civilians who wanted to rescue the kids from entering. They even handcuffed in person.


Jaytee said:

Plus they have a SWAT team… more guns than guts.

It wasn't a question of guts.  The police chief was incompetent and perhaps guilty of dereliction of duty.  I wonder if he will leave town.  I can't imagine he will ever be forgiven.  Jeez, if you think the gunman is barricaded in a room, why wouldn't you flood the school with police and medics to get everybody out of the school and to hospitals if necessary.


tjohn said:

It wasn't a question of guts.  The police chief was incompetent and perhaps guilty of dereliction of duty.  I wonder if he will leave town.  I can't imagine he will ever be forgiven.  Jeez, if you think the gunman is barricaded in a room, why wouldn't you flood the school with police and medics to get everybody out of the school and to hospitals if necessary.

There was a lot of incompetence, starting with the planning.  The "chief" of the 4 person "police force" for the school district shouldn't have been in charge. The fact that this "chief" was didn't have any plan to keep track of where the students were at the time only compounds the incompetence.


RTrent said:

The police were assertive in one thing. They prevented civilians who wanted to rescue the kids from entering. They even handcuffed in person.

There's a lot they did wrong. But, not allowing random people, armed or not, to enter the building was not wrong.


nohero said:

There's a lot they did wrong. But, not allowing random people, armed or not, to enter the building was not wrong.

Why was it wrong? Obviously police were not doing their job. What are you supposed to do? Just accept it?

Yeah, its possible a parent or two may have been shot. But they could have prevented further carnage.

If a murderer entered your house and terrorized your family while shooting one every 20 minutes would you wait supinely outside?


tjohn said:

It wasn't a question of guts.  The police chief was incompetent and perhaps guilty of dereliction of duty.  I wonder if he will leave town.  I can't imagine he will ever be forgiven.  Jeez, if you think the gunman is barricaded in a room, why wouldn't you flood the school with police and medics to get everybody out of the school and to hospitals if necessary.

It wasn't just the police chief.

Three Uvalde police officers rush to the same door that the gunman used
to enter, which was closed. They enter and receive grazing wounds from
the gunman. They retreat.

But then the chief issued his hold order. Which police from all these different agencies found it so important to follow from the self appointed commander of a six man dip s*it school police force.

Until the Border Patrol Tactical team arrived and confronted at their own initiative.


RTrent said:

nohero said:

There's a lot they did wrong. But, not allowing random people, armed or not, to enter the building was not wrong.

Why was it wrong? Obviously police were not doing their job. What are you supposed to do? Just accept it?

Yeah, its possible a parent or two may have been shot. But they could have prevented further carnage.

The parents weren't going to the part of the building where the shooter was.


RTrent said:

Why was it wrong? Obviously police were not doing their job. What are you supposed to do? Just accept it?

Yeah, its possible a parent or two may have been shot. But they could have prevented further carnage.

If a murderer entered your house and terrorized your family while shooting one every 20 minutes would you wait supinely outside?

According to the public timeline, the gunman fired more than a hundred rounds within four minutes of entering the school. Seven minutes later, there was more gunfire while police officers were inside the school.

That’s it until a half-hour later, when three shots are heard on a 911 call, then the gunman fires at a door, and then a Border Patrol officer kills the gunman.

What carnage were armed parents who arrived on the scene going to prevent?


I hate to bring up this because it would give people ideas, but there's been so much focus of arming teachers - armed guards - locking doors, etc.  What do you do when school lets out - there's hundreds of students coming out in specific areas - or if there's a fire drill - or moving between classes, hallways are crowded.  There are many "what if" scenarios that aren't discussed.

Bottom line - we need fewer guns.  But with the mantra of the democrats want to "take your guns away" will become a strong motivator.  Any hint of this will get the current militias out there riled up.  It's similar in some ways of not wanting to fight Putin because he has nukes.

Bottom line, nothing will happen.  


I thought this Ted talk was useful. The speaker is Ryan Busse, a former exec in the gun industry and a gun enthusiast



Aren’t the words “well regulated” included in the second amendment?


We've had a lot of guns in this country for a long time.  Why has this phenomenon surfaced only in the last 20 years or so? 


terp said:

We've had a lot of guns in this country for a long time.  Why has this phenomenon surfaced only in the last 20 years or so? 

The number of guns has increased astronomically in the last 30 years. And with it has grown a degenerate, angry, gun-culture, that occasionally, and far too often, spits out someone who needs to kill people.


drummerboy said:

terp said:

We've had a lot of guns in this country for a long time.  Why has this phenomenon surfaced only in the last 20 years or so? 

The number of guns has increased astronomically in the last 30 years. And with it has grown a degenerate, angry, gun-culture, that occasionally, and far too often, spits out someone who needs to kill people.

Your theory is that the increase of guns has caused the people who have those guns to become angry and then this anger spits out people who need to kill other people?

Do you mean to say that they're just missed recruitment opportunities for our military and our intelligence agencies?


terp said:

drummerboy said:

terp said:

We've had a lot of guns in this country for a long time.  Why has this phenomenon surfaced only in the last 20 years or so? 

The number of guns has increased astronomically in the last 30 years. And with it has grown a degenerate, angry, gun-culture, that occasionally, and far too often, spits out someone who needs to kill people.

Your theory is that the increase of guns has caused the people who have those guns to become angry and then this anger spits out people who need to kill other people?

Do you mean to say that they're just missed recruitment opportunities for our military and our intelligence agencies?

What's your answer as to why it has become more common?


terp said:

We've had a lot of guns in this country for a long time.  Why has this phenomenon surfaced only in the last 20 years or so? 

Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004.

When compared to data from 1984 to 1994, the U.S. saw a 43% drop in gun massacre deaths and a 26% decline in gun massacre deaths involving assault weapons in 1994 to 2004, according to one report.


drummerboy said:

terp said:

drummerboy said:

terp said:

We've had a lot of guns in this country for a long time.  Why has this phenomenon surfaced only in the last 20 years or so? 

The number of guns has increased astronomically in the last 30 years. And with it has grown a degenerate, angry, gun-culture, that occasionally, and far too often, spits out someone who needs to kill people.

Your theory is that the increase of guns has caused the people who have those guns to become angry and then this anger spits out people who need to kill other people?

Do you mean to say that they're just missed recruitment opportunities for our military and our intelligence agencies?

What's your answer as to why it has become more common?

I don't have an answer.  While I understand the instinct that many have to ban guns, I think that it is unwise.   

It does seem that our culture is not doing very well. We are an extremely violent society with falling living standards. 

I think there are many possibilities. I do think our society alienates quite a few people and social media certainly can amplify that effect.  I wonder if some of our mental health treatments backfire on occasion.  But that is all speculation 


terp,

do you think that the existence of people like this indicates a healthy society?


No.  But I'm not sure your disdain for them indicates a healthy society either.


terp said:

No.  But I'm not sure your disdain for them indicates a healthy society either.

I don't have disdain for them. I think they're horrible people that should be shamed out of existence. I think their gun fetish is destroying us.

Clear enough?


drummerboy said:

terp said:

No.  But I'm not sure your disdain for them indicates a healthy society either.

I don't have disdain for them. I think they're horrible people that should be shamed out of existence. I think their gun fetish is destroying us.

Clear enough?

Yeah. You clearly have disdain for them.


I have disdain for Nazis too. Gun fetishists are worse.


drummerboy said:

I have disdain for Nazis too. Gun fetishists are worse.

Not Ukranian Nazis nor Ukranian gun fetishists eh?


terp said:

drummerboy said:

I have disdain for Nazis too. Gun fetishists are worse.

Not Ukranian Nazis nor Ukranian gun fetishists eh?

not worth a response


wheeeeee! perfectly normal in an advanced society.

https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/crime/shooting-incident-north-st-louis-county-grocery-store-wellston-food-market/63-d569c7f8-e6ba-4f09-9181-bd73079d7b1a

WELLSTON, Mo. — A suspect and two bystanders were injured in a shootout outside a nWellston grocery store Friday afternoon, police said.

Officers responded to a call for "shots fired" at Wellston Food Market at 6250 Page Ave. at about 2:45 p.m. They found a man lying in front of the store who had been shot.

Major Ron Martin with the North County Police Cooperative said that moments before the shooting, a man with a rifle had entered the grocery store.

Martin said he was "open carrying" the rifle in a sleeve underneath his shirt and did not threaten anyone while inside the store.

The man then left the store, and he was confronted outside by another man with a gun, who announced a robbery and demanded his rifle.

The man gave up the rifle, then went to his vehicle and grabbed another gun as the alleged robber was walking away. He fired at the robber, and a shootout between the two began.

The alleged robber was shot several times.

Two innocent bystanders, both women, had just pulled up to the market and were also shot. Their injuries were not life-threatening, police said.

The man who was robbed of his rifle fled the scene. Moments later, police believe a third man came and shot the alleged robber again, then left.

The man who took the rifle was rushed to an area hospital in critical condition.

It was unclear if the three men know each other. 


for perspective, the rate of gun deaths (homicide/suicide) has remained fairly constant for many years. (It's very high however, compared to most other countries). What's increased is the number of "active shooter" incidents.  What's changed there? I'd have to surmise it's the increased availability of higher-capacity weapons post 2004.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.