Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[Loren Pechtel]

But the problem in the US isn't population density, which is much worse in many other developed countries than in the US. It is the easy availability of guns, especially military style weapons that lend themselves to mass murder, and extremely lax regulation on gun ownership. That is an American thing.

The vast majority of guns used in crime are handguns, not military style rifles. Military rifles are simply too hard to conceal, while they are common in mass shootings they are a tiny fraction of gun crime overall. And mass shootings are less than 1% of murders.

Great. Then ban them. there is no need for them in any civilized society.

Ban them because they're rarely used in crime?! You've got it bass ackwards!

"Assault weapons" are really just light hunting rifles that are easy to customize. They're good for lighter game, they're good home defense weapons.

 

[Copernicus]

But the problem in the US isn't population density, which is much worse in many other developed countries than in the US. It is the easy availability of guns, especially military style weapons that lend themselves to mass murder, and extremely lax regulation on gun ownership. That is an American thing.

The vast majority of guns used in crime are handguns, not military style rifles. Military rifles are simply too hard to conceal, while they are common in mass shootings they are a tiny fraction of gun crime overall. And mass shootings are less than 1% of murders.

Yes, I know full well that the majority of guns used in crime are handguns because they are easy to conceal. I also know that most murders do not happen in mass shootings. The easy availability of guns is also relevant to the statistics associated with those other crimes, too, but this thread is about a mass shooting. Restoring the ban on military-style assault weapons that Congress let expire would almost certainly bring down the number of mass shootings, although we have now quite stupidly allowed a vast number of these weapons to be sold since the end of the ban. So there's this:

Mass shootings in the U.S. have nearly tripled since 2013, Gun Violence Archive data shows​

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

One big change was that the assault weapons ban of 1994 only lasted 10 years. Congress let it expire. Afterwards, military style assault weapons became the weapon of choice for mass shootings. Quick trigger action and very high capacity magazines allow even poorly trained users to kill and injure a lot of people very quickly. Add body armor to keep the shooter alive, when security forces finally show up. Here is a  List of school shootings in the United States. That page is a rather long list that covers just those since 2000. There is a link to another long list for those that took place in the previous century. Most of these shootings only manage to kill a few people or even fail to accomplish that, but the frequency and lethality have gone up over time as more and more guns with enhanced firepower have become available to the public.

The assault weapons ban did nothing. Fundamentally, it was based on evil looks, not on function. It's just an example of the left trying to chip away at gun rights, just like the right likes to chip away at abortion rights.

link

Mass-shooting fatalities were 70% less likely to occur during the federal ban period (relative rate, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.22-0.39).

Banning or greatly restricting access to large magazines and semi-automatics weapons will not end gun violence by a long shot, but...

Assault rifles accounted for 430 or 85.8% of the total 501 mass-shooting fatalities reported (95% confidence interval, 82.8-88.9) in 44 mass-shooting incidents.

...maybe we can do something stop these mass shootings!

If there was a car seat that killed 300 children in the last 20 years, that thing would have been banned before reaching 10!

 

[ZiprHead]

One big change was that the assault weapons ban of 1994 only lasted 10 years. Congress let it expire. Afterwards, military style assault weapons became the weapon of choice for mass shootings. Quick trigger action and very high capacity magazines allow even poorly trained users to kill and injure a lot of people very quickly. Add body armor to keep the shooter alive, when security forces finally show up. Here is a  List of school shootings in the United States. That page is a rather long list that covers just those since 2000. There is a link to another long list for those that took place in the previous century. Most of these shootings only manage to kill a few people or even fail to accomplish that, but the frequency and lethality have gone up over time as more and more guns with enhanced firepower have become available to the public.

The assault weapons ban did nothing. Fundamentally, it was based on evil looks, not on function. It's just an example of the left trying to chip away at gun rights, just like the right likes to chip away at abortion rights.

Joe Biden
stated on May 24, 2022 in a national address from the White House.:
"When we passed the assault weapons ban, mass shootings went down. When the law expired, mass shootings tripled."

"Mostly true."

PolitiFact - Joe Biden said mass shootings tripled when the assault weapon ban ended. They did

There was no mistaking President Joe Biden’s plea for some sort of concrete response to the slaying of 19 elementary sch

www.politifact.com

 

[Playball40]

And drugs. Once the government makes them illegal there’ll be no more drugs.

We are talking homicides. Drugs would be a good parallel if talking suicide by guns.

If people were using drugs to kill other people intentionally, the FBI and police would be all over it, trying to stop it.

And finally, this teen purchased this at a store. Had he needed to go 'elsewhere' it'd been harder to get what he wanted.

You missed there point there, Jimmy.

It wasn't a particularly well made point. It could justify legalizing murder. Get rid of the drinking age because of under aged drinking?

Guns aren't disappearing if we make sales of semi-automatics very difficult. But that doesn't mean we should just not put any barrier in front of a prospective mass killer.

I didn’t say there shouldn’t be a barrier. I’d suggest that gun purchases be 21+. Though, they may not be constItutional. But I’d strongly oppose punishing law abiding citizens for the actions of a few crazies.

NO ONE IN A CIVILIZED SOCIETY NEEDS MILITARIZED WEAPONRY. PERIOD.

A handgun and rifle are not military weapons.

If they are rapid fire, they are. Sorry. If you cannot "hunt" without a rapid fire magazine, you shouldn't hunt. I'm over trying to be 'reasonable' on this issue.

Machine guns are already illegal.

Uh-huh....sure. A wolf in sheep's clothing is still a wolf. No one is being fooled here. No one NEEDS an AR-15. Or a high powered magazine. Or BODY armor. Or bullets that explode upon entry.

What would it have mattered what gun this guy had? He went into a soft target knowing there’d be no resistance. Shit. Knife attacks in East Asia kill more.

Because we've had so many school mass 'knife attacks'

 

[Patooka]

I just heard this morning some idiot Florida congress person actually said dead kids are an okay price to pay for the second amendment.

Maybe it's time to see how far these people are willing to go for their 2A rights. Someone should argue that convicted felons should be allowed to own a gun because of the whole "shall not be infringed" bullshit. I'd be interested to see the sort of bullshit mental gymnastics 2A fanboys will use.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

the lesson is that being a bully has zero consequence and you can escalate as much as you want.
the lesson is that you have no options within the existing system to stop bullying and so your only recourse is to go outside the system.

I've lived in the US all my life and I've never found any of that to be even a little bit true.

Going to school that's exactly what I saw--no meaningful consequences for the bullies. Victims quickly learned to shut up about it as the system was powerless to do anything about it. Including the police--while they could arrest the bullies they would just be released back to their parents. If the parents didn't care nothing would happen--and of course the parents liked their kids being top dog, not understanding what would happen when they turned 18.

Or parents are in denial. Or parents are so….caught up in their own personal lives, often involving substance abuse and violence against each other and kids that it just is not within them to even notice what is going on with their kids.

The ones I saw it wasn't substance abuse. No idea on domestic violence. I definitely did see the denial bit--they wouldn't believe anything wrong about their kid unless they witnessed it. I do not believe it was a case of being too caught up in their own lives--they would act if they believed there was wrongdoing, it's just they wouldn't believe any third party about the existence of said wrongdoing.

Or neither school nor parents are able to obtain effective mental health resources for the bully who is also seriously mentally ill ( this is unusual for a serious mental health issue to be involved—but it does happen) and the school refuses to enact common sense measures such as separating bully from preferred target by moving to a different class or moving lockers or changing seating assignments to create a buffer.

Step #1 has to be to admit there is a problem that needs professional help.

Your common sense measures wouldn't have helped me one bit--it was never in the classroom. The only thing that might have helped is expulsion of the two ringleaders. (I got lucky in that regard--both of them lived on the other side of 39th and thus went to a different high school. About half of the followers ended up in the same high school I did but without the ringleaders there were no more problems.)

 

[Playball40]

So if you were armed and outside a school where kids were being killed you’d just . . . stand there? It’s true we don’t know how we’d react until we’re actually facing peril, but come on. Perhaps this is why it was the border patrol, and not the local cops, who took him out.

It was actually four BP officers who took out the gunman.

Right. Not the local cops. They were all afraid to enter, apparently. My guess, highly conjectural, is that not much happens in Uvalde. So these cops really were befuddled on what to do.

Or they were ordered to wait for other resources, such as someone with sniper training. Difficult situation, gunman armed with semiautomatic weapons, school full of children. I would not like to be the officer whose stray bullet struck an 8 year old.

I will be curious to know why the armed resource officer did NOT stop him from gaining entry to the building. That is my biggest question.

The resource officer was shot by the assailant. I don't know if he survived or did not.

I cannot find this anywhere. I only find that he engaged with the killer.

 

[Toni]

But the problem in the US isn't population density, which is much worse in many other developed countries than in the US. It is the easy availability of guns, especially military style weapons that lend themselves to mass murder, and extremely lax regulation on gun ownership. That is an American thing.

The vast majority of guns used in crime are handguns, not military style rifles. Military rifles are simply too hard to conceal, while they are common in mass shootings they are a tiny fraction of gun crime overall. And mass shootings are less than 1% of murders.

Great. Then ban them. there is no need for them in any civilized society.

Ban them because they're rarely used in crime?! You've got it bass ackwards!

"Assault weapons" are really just light hunting rifles that are easy to customize. They're good for lighter game, they're good home defense weapons.

Those are exactly what mass shooters use.

I grew up in a household where game probably bided a significant portion of our groceries. My grandfather, uncle and father were expert shots. They NEVER used semiautomatic weapons. I do not think that wildlife has evolved to be immune to the types of weapons my family used.

Fuck the sissies who can’t go hunting without semiautomatic weapons. If you are not in bear or mountain lion country you have no business at all with such weapons and then, if and only if you have passed firearm training and safety courses and are properly licensed.

 

[blastula]

Texas DPS held a press conference today, and they still could not say why officers waited about an hour to go in. The guy said they don't know, still gathering information. Weird.

They did clear up that there was no confrontation from a school officer before the shooter entered the school. He walked in through an unlocked door without incident.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I didn’t say there shouldn’t be a barrier. I’d suggest that gun purchases be 21+. Though, they may not be constItutional. But I’d strongly oppose punishing law abiding citizens for the actions of a few crazies.

21 and if the parents allow their <21 children access to their firearms the parents can be criminally liable for their misuse if there was reason to suspect there was an issue. Mass shootings don't just suddenly happen, people around them realize something's off. (Although when the mass shooter is an adult not living with their parents others aren't likely to realize the size of the problem as they'll remove themselves from the situation before it gets bad.)

 

[Playball40]

They weren’t unprepared. They were cowards. They wanted to do the easy stuff and appear to be doing something.

I frequently hear about how cops put their lives on the line anytime they do something as innocuous as a traffic stop and yet here are the keystone cops dicking around outside, messing with distraught parents. All part of the jobs worth "procedures" I expect.

Again, one officer was shot trying to stop the gunman. I honestly do get the hesitancy of going in when there are a LOT of children present. One needs to be very, very certain of what one is doing in such situations. Very few police officers are trained to engage in a firefight, particularly with children present. Very few police officers have training and qualifications as sharpshooters/snipers.

I disagree with that assertion. Enough was known about the situation, a lone gunman was in a classroom shooting children. Desperate times calls for desperate measures. I'm pretty sure just about any of the parent would not hesitate to get in there and try to stop it. Wouldn't you?

Really? You think that just anyone who had access to a gun and the guts to rush in could take down someone armed with a semi-automatic weapon and wearing body armor? And not shoot more children and adults?

You watch too many movies and play too many video games.

I'm sorry Toni, but if I heard that gun going off inside that class room and I was armed, I DO think I would have tried. I just cannot imagine hearing the screams of children and NOT trying to do something. Right or wrong, there is no way I could have 'stood down' for the perfect shot.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So if you were armed and outside a school where kids were being killed you’d just . . . stand there? It’s true we don’t know how we’d react until we’re actually facing peril, but come on. Perhaps this is why it was the border patrol, and not the local cops, who took him out.

It was actually four BP officers who took out the gunman.

Right. Not the local cops. They were all afraid to enter, apparently. My guess, highly conjectural, is that not much happens in Uvalde. So these cops really were befuddled on what to do.

Local cops in a small town are rarely worth much.

 

[Playball40]

But the problem in the US isn't population density, which is much worse in many other developed countries than in the US. It is the easy availability of guns, especially military style weapons that lend themselves to mass murder, and extremely lax regulation on gun ownership. That is an American thing.

The vast majority of guns used in crime are handguns, not military style rifles. Military rifles are simply too hard to conceal, while they are common in mass shootings they are a tiny fraction of gun crime overall. And mass shootings are less than 1% of murders.

Great. Then ban them. there is no need for them in any civilized society.

Ban them because they're rarely used in crime?! You've got it bass ackwards!

"Assault weapons" are really just light hunting rifles that are easy to customize. They're good for lighter game, they're good home defense weapons.

Those are exactly what mass shooters use.

I grew up in a household where game probably bided a significant portion of our groceries. My grandfather, uncle and father were expert shots. They NEVER used semiautomatic weapons. I do not think that wildlife has evolved to be immune to the types of weapons my family used.

Fuck the sissies who can’t go hunting without semiautomatic weapons. If you are not in bear or mountain lion country you have no business at all with such weapons and then, if and only if you have passed firearm training and safety courses and are properly licensed.

Totally agree!!

 

[Ford]

One big change was that the assault weapons ban of 1994 only lasted 10 years. Congress let it expire. Afterwards, military style assault weapons became the weapon of choice for mass shootings. Quick trigger action and very high capacity magazines allow even poorly trained users to kill and injure a lot of people very quickly. Add body armor to keep the shooter alive, when security forces finally show up. Here is a  List of school shootings in the United States. That page is a rather long list that covers just those since 2000. There is a link to another long list for those that took place in the previous century. Most of these shootings only manage to kill a few people or even fail to accomplish that, but the frequency and lethality have gone up over time as more and more guns with enhanced firepower have become available to the public.

The assault weapons ban did nothing. Fundamentally, it was based on evil looks, not on function.

The firearms makers and dealers rely on looks rather than function to sell their products. Go to your local gun store's website. The front page is splashed with rifles that look exactly like military weapons. They fly off the shelves, but a semi-automatic rifle with the same or more firepower as an AR but has a more traditional look with a wooden stock? That's not "cool." In fact you've got to drill down to find those old, uncool (but still powerful) weapons.

It's all marketing, and I know, because I made ads for a gun dealer. They had the word "tactical" in the name, and their business was mostly in selling rifles that looked like military weapons, and all the "tactical" gear you need to cosplay as a soldier. Tactical vests. Tactical sunglasses. Tactical wallets. Seriously, you can buy a "tactical" wallet.

When I was a kid, a nice rifle was one with quality woodwork on the stock, or a good sight. Nowadays, the kids are sold on how "badass" their rifle looks, and it is worth noting that the perpetrator in this latest shooting was a fucking teenager. So was the one who shot up the store in Buffalo. So was the darling of the gun-nut right, Kyle Rittenhouse. The Oxford Michigan shooter was 15. The Sandy Hook shooter was an old man at 20, and who can forget the teenage Columbine killers?

The gun manufacturers and dealers are marketing these things to fucking teenagers based upon whether or not they look "cool" and resemble big boy weapons. Function? I guess if it looks cool and gets the job done, you get your fifteen minutes of fame for killing fifteen or more of your fellow children.

Now you might be saying "hold on there, Ford...are you suggesting we should pass legislation that keeps companies who make a deadly product from marketing it to children? That seems crazy, and it sure won't work."


Excuse me, but I'm a bit overheated right now and need to take a smoke break...the kids today...they all smoke cigarettes like when I was young, right?

 

[Playball40]

I didn’t say there shouldn’t be a barrier. I’d suggest that gun purchases be 21+. Though, they may not be constItutional. But I’d strongly oppose punishing law abiding citizens for the actions of a few crazies.

21 and if the parents allow their <21 children access to their firearms the parents can be criminally liable for their misuse if there was reason to suspect there was an issue. Mass shootings don't just suddenly happen, people around them realize something's off. (Although when the mass shooter is an adult not living with their parents others aren't likely to realize the size of the problem as they'll remove themselves from the situation before it gets bad.)

Unless of course they shoot their caregivers first......hmmm wonder if THAT'S happened.

 

[Patooka]

Found this post from some arrogant cunt in another school shooting thread a few years ago:

Also, it appears that there is a lot less paperwork involved in purchasing a firearm than a car. Every year, my car needs to have an eSafety check, it needs to be insured with a CTP provider before I can take it out on the road. And even then I'm not allowed to drive it if my dinner comprised of Jim Beam and coke, and I'm not allowed to drive at the speed of sound near primary schools in the morning or afternoon. These are fair and reasonable restrictions in my opinion. I just don't see why there can't be restrictions and regulations involving firearms designed to keep the general public safe. And a firearm is far, far less useful in my day-to-day than a car.

Additionally, who the fuck is advocating that all firearms need to be confiscated and shot into the sun? My take on gun control is something like this:

IF weapon is superior than what allied soldiers used to invade Normandy in 1944 in terms of rate of fire and ammunition capacity
- THEN explain in 30 seconds or less why such a weapon is necessary for you to own.
- IF explanation is woefully inadequate (it probably will be, dick compensating is not an acceptable justification)
- THEN surrender said firearm
ELSE have a nice day.

Actually, I didn't realise I use the "You daily life isn't as fucking stressful as D-Day" trope a bit too much.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

They weren’t unprepared. They were cowards. They wanted to do the easy stuff and appear to be doing something.

I frequently hear about how cops put their lives on the line anytime they do something as innocuous as a traffic stop and yet here are the keystone cops dicking around outside, messing with distraught parents. All part of the jobs worth "procedures" I expect.

Again, one officer was shot trying to stop the gunman. I honestly do get the hesitancy of going in when there are a LOT of children present. One needs to be very, very certain of what one is doing in such situations. Very few police officers are trained to engage in a firefight, particularly with children present. Very few police officers have training and qualifications as sharpshooters/snipers.

I disagree with that assertion. Enough was known about the situation, a lone gunman was in a classroom shooting children. Desperate times calls for desperate measures. I'm pretty sure just about any of the parent would not hesitate to get in there and try to stop it. Wouldn't you?

Really? You think that just anyone who had access to a gun and the guts to rush in could take down someone armed with a semi-automatic weapon and wearing body armor? And not shoot more children and adults?

You watch too many movies and play too many video games.

I'm sorry Toni, but if I heard that gun going off inside that class room and I was armed, I DO think I would have tried. I just cannot imagine hearing the screams of children and NOT trying to do something. Right or wrong, there is no way I could have 'stood down' for the perfect shot.

But we get back to, okay, you enter the school... now what? How many shooters? Where are the shooter(s)? Also, when the cops do breach, how fucked are you?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A handgun and rifle are not military weapons.

If they are rapid fire, they are. Sorry. If you cannot "hunt" without a rapid fire magazine, you shouldn't hunt. I'm over trying to be 'reasonable' on this issue.

You appear not to know much about firearms.

In practice the vast majority of firearms have basically the same firing rate. And there is a reason for semi-auto in a hunting weapon--you're less likely to leave behind a wounded animal. If you have a bolt action rifle and don't get a clean hit you have little chance of a second shot.

Virtually all handguns have the same firing rate--single shot handguns are little more common than hen's teeth and to the extent they exist they're basically last resort holdout weapons.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So if you were armed and outside a school where kids were being killed you’d just . . . stand there? It’s true we don’t know how we’d react until we’re actually facing peril, but come on. Perhaps this is why it was the border patrol, and not the local cops, who took him out.

It was actually four BP officers who took out the gunman.

Right. Not the local cops. They were all afraid to enter, apparently. My guess, highly conjectural, is that not much happens in Uvalde. So these cops really were befuddled on what to do.

Local cops in a small town are rarely worth much.

I haven't heard cops were waiting outside WHILE shots were being fired inside.