Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[Derec]

But of the crimes killing school children, what is the gun of choice??

I don't know, what is it? Do you have data on that?

And one can often slice data so fine that one can get a preferred outcome. It does not necessarily mean anything. Oh, not all homicides, just mass shooting. Oh, not all mass shootings, just the ones involving school children. Do the rest of us not count?

 

[Derec]

Infatuated?

Yes. Several Dem controlled states like Colorado and Illinois are about to pass "assault weapon" bans even though it will not do much good, if any.

The idea of ever limiting access to simple handguns is more fantasy than Narnia.

Banning handguns is fantasy. Reasonable restrictions not really.
What should happen first is enforce existing laws. Don't release gun criminals early for example. Don't charge armed robberies as larcenies in the name of "progressive" reform.

That didn't go far either... but really it seems our only hope. And we aren't all too hopeful, resigned to the next mass school shooting that will inevitably occur.

And if certain rifles are banned, the shooter will either use a different firearm such as other rifles (there are non-assaulty rifles shooting AR15 and AK47 ammo) or handguns (the VT shooter has demonstrated that they work quite well for killing many people quickly) or, if resourceful enough, obtain an "assault weapon" illegally.
A ban like this would affect law-abiding citizens far more than the criminals or would-be mass shooters.

So, it has nothing to do with being "infatuated", it has everything to do with "we recognize there ain't no chance in hell" to manage hand guns.

So do something that will do (next to) no good, just so they can say they did something, if if that something is ineffective?

This happened just the other day. Just a handgun, so nothing to see there ...
Suspected Denver high school gunman Austin Lyle found dead of apparent suicide: report

Lyle allegedly shot two school administrators just before 10 a.m. when they searched him for weapons, a daily requirement because of the boy’s behavioral issues.
The teenager was transferred to the high school last year after he was removed from a nearby Aurora school for unspecified violations of school policies.

Another article.
East High shooting suspect already on probation for 'ghost gun' incident: Sources

CBS News Colorado has learned via multiple law enforcement sources that the suspect in the Wednesday morning shooting of two East High School administrators was arrested in 2021 for possession of a so-called "ghost gun" and possessing an extended gun magazine, also known as a high capacity magazine. Law enforcement sources familiar with the case say Austin Lyle, 17, remains on probation for that 2021 incident.

That's what I am talking about. Probation for something like that? And he was allowed to physically go back to school? Smh.

 

[Rhea]

But of the crimes killing school children, what is the gun of choice??

I don't know, what is it? Do you have data on that?

No, I haven’t looked up the data, but from what we see, it’s a good bet we would make an impact. It’s right in our faces.

And one can often slice data so fine that one can get a preferred outcome. It does not necessarily mean anything.

And sometimes it means everything. It’s how you prioritize. Does the deaths of school children bother you? Then this topic is to discuss it. And AR rifles seem to be a unique threat to these kids.

The gun fetishist’s tactic is to always slice and dice in a way to divert attention. Like, “a discussion of dead first graders? May I bring your attention to drug killings in Black communities?” No, you may not. We are talking about dead first graders and what are the most likely gun issues for them and how to solve it. Oh, and by the way, Black comunities have beeing trying to mitigate gun violence for a long time and are facing barriers from gun fetishists, so when we start a thread for that issue, you can learn all the things they’ve been trying to do for decades. But that is not the topic of school killings, which is the topic of this thread.

So take your whataboutism, turn it to positive energy and start a thread on how to reduce violence from [whatever hobby horse - “don’t the rest of us count”]

Oh, not all homicides, just mass shooting. Oh, not all mass shootings, just the ones involving school children. Do the rest of us not count?

In a thread about school shootings, I would submit that if you are not a student, a school employee or a parent of school age children, then perhaps not, eh? Although if you are like many of us, you may care about violence to young children even if they are not you or yours.

But if that is not the case, then you are empowered to start a thread on threats to you. I expect they are unique and have very specific targeted dangers, just as this thread focuses on the unique and targeted dangers to school children.

 

[Shadowy Man]

That said, let's say what you say happens. Would you not think that a budding mass shooter who thinks that far ahead would also find a way to get a rifle capable of shooting rounds 5.56x45 or 7.46x39 even if an "assault weapons" ban were reinstated (as Dems desperately want). Either a legal non-assaulty one, or an illegal AR15 or AK47.

Possibly, but it would make it much harder. even Republicans think that putting legal barriers ahead of something can make it less likely that it happens. so there’s merit in instituting stricter laws.

 

[Oleg]

What should happen first is enforce existing laws. Don't release gun criminals early for example.

I think a law that any crime committed with a gun means no bail. But because of "equity" that probably can't happen.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Furthermore, there were several cops and only one shooter at Uvalde. I remember doing a lot of playing of first-person shooters, and while they have plenty of unrealistic features, they seem realistic about doing urban warfare. I remember doing things like hiding behind corners and door frames and the like, and peeking every now and then. Furthermore, with firearms, it isn't the biggest one winning, it's whoever hits first winning.

The basic problem is one of going through a funnel. Think you can get through a door that someone is covering without being hit?

One person can cover one entrance. That's a problem if the active shooter is in a bank vault or a bunker. Or if there are lots of active shooters. Not if he's outnumbered by cops and trying to cover every entry point to a school classroom - assuming US schools have windows as well as doors.

You don't need to be able to climb in through a window in order to shoot someone through it. It's not even a risky shot, if he's busy staring at the door.

My understanding is that there were no windows.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And sometimes it means everything. It’s how you prioritize. Does the deaths of school children bother you? Then this topic is to discuss it. And AR rifles seem to be a unique threat to these kids.

The gun fetishist’s tactic is to always slice and dice in a way to divert attention. Like, “a discussion of dead first graders? May I bring your attention to drug killings in Black communities?” No, you may not. We are talking about dead first graders and what are the most likely gun issues for them and how to solve it. Oh, and by the way, Black comunities have beeing trying to mitigate gun violence for a long time and are facing barriers from gun fetishists, so when we start a thread for that issue, you can learn all the things they’ve been trying to do for decades. But that is not the topic of school killings, which is the topic of this thread.

The problem is you are making a think-of-the-children type argument. They are almost always wrong, either excessive or ineffective or both. In this case the fundamental problem is that "assault weapon" isn't actually distinct from other guns. It's simply a matter of degree.

In reality going after assault weapons is an attempt to chip away at guns very much like the eternal efforts from the right to undermine abortion.

 

[Shadowy Man]

In reality going after assault weapons is an attempt to chip away at guns very much like the eternal efforts from the right to undermine abortion.

Just as most people would agree that abortion should have some restrictions so do people agree that guns should have some restriction. Both currently do. What we can’t seem to have is a good faith discussion about where to draw the lines of regulation. At some points the needs of public health can outweigh the rights of the individual and we have made those decisions on many subjects before.

 

[ZiprHead]

Furthermore, there were several cops and only one shooter at Uvalde. I remember doing a lot of playing of first-person shooters, and while they have plenty of unrealistic features, they seem realistic about doing urban warfare. I remember doing things like hiding behind corners and door frames and the like, and peeking every now and then. Furthermore, with firearms, it isn't the biggest one winning, it's whoever hits first winning.

The basic problem is one of going through a funnel. Think you can get through a door that someone is covering without being hit?

One person can cover one entrance. That's a problem if the active shooter is in a bank vault or a bunker. Or if there are lots of active shooters. Not if he's outnumbered by cops and trying to cover every entry point to a school classroom - assuming US schools have windows as well as doors.

You don't need to be able to climb in through a window in order to shoot someone through it. It's not even a risky shot, if he's busy staring at the door.

My understanding is that there were no windows.

That looks like a lot of windows to me.

 

[Rhea]

And sometimes it means everything. It’s how you prioritize. Does the deaths of school children bother you? Then this topic is to discuss it. And AR rifles seem to be a unique threat to these kids.

The gun fetishist’s tactic is to always slice and dice in a way to divert attention. Like, “a discussion of dead first graders? May I bring your attention to drug killings in Black communities?” No, you may not. We are talking about dead first graders and what are the most likely gun issues for them and how to solve it. Oh, and by the way, Black comunities have beeing trying to mitigate gun violence for a long time and are facing barriers from gun fetishists, so when we start a thread for that issue, you can learn all the things they’ve been trying to do for decades. But that is not the topic of school killings, which is the topic of this thread.

The problem is you are making a think-of-the-children type argument.

Yes. Indeed. If there is something that is afflicting children, we should look at it and see if we can mitigate it. Because children are vulnerable in many ways, and being all together in schools appears to be one of them.

Why would we NOT think about things that are adversely affecting lots of children?

??

They are almost always wrong, either excessive or ineffective or both.

Citation absolutely needed.
Thinking of the children seems to have been a stellar strategy with Polio.

In this case the fundamental problem is that "assault weapon" isn't actually distinct from other guns. It's simply a matter of degree.

No shit. Welcome to the discussion. (And note I did not use the term “assault weapon,” you brought it up as a straw man to distract from the post. Which is typical of the gun fetishists.)

But yes, fast-firing weapons that make insecure people feel powerful are a problem. Why NOT focus on the one that is used most often by people trying to force their feelings of power onto others?

In reality going after assault weapons is an attempt to chip away at guns very much like the eternal efforts from the right to undermine abortion.

Is there a problem with chipping away at the dangerous parts of gun culture?

Do you have some self-imposed rule that says any attempt to put a boundary around how bad guns can be is a risk to all guns? Why? Why are you not willing to find a reasonable middle ground where guns that are actually needed for something are regulated and those that are no good for anything but mass killings are prohibited or at least highly restricted?


What exactly IS WRONG with chipping away at gun culture? Are you making the fallacy of the slippery slope? That if one chip is successful then complete gun bans start the following morning?

Or are you one of those that says, “wait, if you make sure people can’t get their guns stolen and straw purchases are stopped, that means only the criminals will have guns” Which is non-sensical?

Sorry, I don’t have patience for gun fetishists.
Guns should be controlled such that:
- their sales are known and followed - no more illegal straw sales
- their ownership is known and controlled - no more stolen guns
- their use is controlled and misuse heavily penalized - no more people walking around with guns and the lack of ability to tell which are legal

Any time a gun fetishist replies with, “but gun control means you’ll take them all!1!!1!” I will reply, “if those are the only two choices you can envision, you deserve to have them all taken.”

I own guns and I have no patience at all for the stupid dangerous sky-is-falling arguments of fetishists.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And sometimes it means everything. It’s how you prioritize. Does the deaths of school children bother you? Then this topic is to discuss it. And AR rifles seem to be a unique threat to these kids.

The gun fetishist’s tactic is to always slice and dice in a way to divert attention. Like, “a discussion of dead first graders? May I bring your attention to drug killings in Black communities?” No, you may not. We are talking about dead first graders and what are the most likely gun issues for them and how to solve it. Oh, and by the way, Black comunities have beeing trying to mitigate gun violence for a long time and are facing barriers from gun fetishists, so when we start a thread for that issue, you can learn all the things they’ve been trying to do for decades. But that is not the topic of school killings, which is the topic of this thread.

The problem is you are making a think-of-the-children type argument.

We are talking about preventing more massacres involving children. In general, as a species, we are pretty protective of children. We go to long lengths, further safety regards than for adults.

Next, this isn't a panic sort of reaction. I don't drop off my daughter scared to death she won't be sleeping in her bed that night because a person who had ridiculously easy access to weapons, was able to kill her and several of her classmates. I don't have nightmares about it. But the reality is, that while my daughter will most likely not be murdered in cold blood while in the alleged safety of school, some kids are. That has become a new normal in our country. So trying to manage what has become inevitable isn't running around screaming "won't someone think of the children", but instead people asking "shouldn't we be protecting the children from these massacres?"

They are almost always wrong, either excessive or ineffective or both. In this case the fundamental problem is that "assault weapon" isn't actually distinct from other guns. It's simply a matter of degree.

I suppose the question is, what is the fire power of the weapon and what chance does it give a bystander to be able to reach the shooter.

In reality going after assault weapons is an attempt to chip away at guns very much like the eternal efforts from the right to undermine abortion.

Dude, we ain't taking the guns. It isn't feasible. There are too many fucking guns to take away! The goal is to minimize the number of guns that make self-defense against them a pathetic joke. We just don't want another Sandy Hook. Is that too much to ask?! I can't imagine the remainder of my life with out my daughter. I can't imagine what it is like to go through what all of those parents went and continue to go through... all so that you can feel cozy that America doesn't ban too many guns. That doesn't feel like a fair trade off.

 

[marc]

Wow!! Tucker going on about the danger of stoking political fear, telling people their lives are in danger and to get guns "How do you think that ends?" Of course it is not an admission of guilt, or the actions of his entire network. He is complaining that gay/trans people are told to be afraid, so they are starting to arm themselves.

 

[Rhea]

Wow. He is a disgusting human.

 

[Oleg]

He is complaining that gay/trans people are told to be afraid, so they are starting to arm themselves.

No. He’s pointing out the hypocrisy that the left only wants gun control when it’s imposed on groups it doesn’t like.

 

[lpetrich]

Tucker Carlson described so very well a big part of right-wing activism: get people worked up about how some horrible villains are coming to get them, and hint that what they need is a military-grade rifle, like an AR-15 or an AK-47. It's great for the sellers of these weapons, even if not so great for the rest of us.

The right wing does projection so much that one has to ask how uncreative many right-wingers are, if all they can do is claim that their targets are guilty of their misdeeds.

Here's another tweet on that clip:
Erin Reed on Twitter: "Hmmmm... Republicans loving guns until a minority starts arming themselves in response to people calling for their eradication and targeting them through legislation and violence.
Funny how that happens. (vid link)" / Twitter

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In reality going after assault weapons is an attempt to chip away at guns very much like the eternal efforts from the right to undermine abortion.

Just as most people would agree that abortion should have some restrictions so do people agree that guns should have some restriction. Both currently do. What we can’t seem to have is a good faith discussion about where to draw the lines of regulation. At some points the needs of public health can outweigh the rights of the individual and we have made those decisions on many subjects before.

And we already did--machine guns, things over .50 caliber and disguised guns are highly restricted.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is you are making a think-of-the-children type argument.

Yes. Indeed. If there is something that is afflicting children, we should look at it and see if we can mitigate it. Because children are vulnerable in many ways, and being all together in schools appears to be one of them.

Why would we NOT think about things that are adversely affecting lots of children?

Because think of the children arguments are almost always proposing going too far.

??

They are almost always wrong, either excessive or ineffective or both.

Citation absolutely needed.
Thinking of the children seems to have been a stellar strategy with Polio.

Polio isn't a think of the children argument.

In this case the fundamental problem is that "assault weapon" isn't actually distinct from other guns. It's simply a matter of degree.

No shit. Welcome to the discussion. (And note I did not use the term “assault weapon,” you brought it up as a straw man to distract from the post. Which is typical of the gun fetishists.)

But yes, fast-firing weapons that make insecure people feel powerful are a problem. Why NOT focus on the one that is used most often by people trying to force their feelings of power onto others?

Mass shootings are less than 1% of murders. Most murders are committed with ordinary handguns.

In reality going after assault weapons is an attempt to chip away at guns very much like the eternal efforts from the right to undermine abortion.

Is there a problem with chipping away at the dangerous parts of gun culture?

And why do you call them the dangerous part?

What exactly IS WRONG with chipping away at gun culture? Are you making the fallacy of the slippery slope? That if one chip is successful then complete gun bans start the following morning?

Because the intent is to go down that slope. It's the same thing the Christians have been doing with abortion.

Or are you one of those that says, “wait, if you make sure people can’t get their guns stolen and straw purchases are stopped, that means only the criminals will have guns” Which is non-sensical?

Sorry, I don’t have patience for gun fetishists.
Guns should be controlled such that:
- their sales are known and followed - no more illegal straw sales
- their ownership is known and controlled - no more stolen guns

And how does that stop the theft of guns??

The only way to stop the theft is to remove them all--which is the intent.

- their use is controlled and misuse heavily penalized - no more people walking around with guns and the lack of ability to tell which are legal

Any time a gun fetishist replies with, “but gun control means you’ll take them all!1!!1!” I will reply, “if those are the only two choices you can envision, you deserve to have them all taken.”

I own guns and I have no patience at all for the stupid dangerous sky-is-falling arguments of fetishists.

The forces trying to "regulate" guns have admitted their goal is banning.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Tucker Carlson described so very well a big part of right-wing activism: get people worked up about how some horrible villains are coming to get them, and hint that what they need is a military-grade rifle, like an AR-15 or an AK-47. It's great for the sellers of these weapons, even if not so great for the rest of us.

The ones he riles up have basically zero effect on the rest of us--those guns aren't going to shoot anyone. The mass shooters aren't the ones he's pushing.

 

[Shadowy Man]

In reality going after assault weapons is an attempt to chip away at guns very much like the eternal efforts from the right to undermine abortion.

Just as most people would agree that abortion should have some restrictions so do people agree that guns should have some restriction. Both currently do. What we can’t seem to have is a good faith discussion about where to draw the lines of regulation. At some points the needs of public health can outweigh the rights of the individual and we have made those decisions on many subjects before.

And we already did--machine guns, things over .50 caliber and disguised guns are highly restricted.

That’s your opinion where the line should be drawn but there are other opinions to be had. Since they disagree with yours they’re probably wrong. But they’re there.

 

[southernhybrid]

The problem is you are making a think-of-the-children type argument.

Yes. Indeed. If there is something that is afflicting children, we should look at it and see if we can mitigate it. Because children are vulnerable in many ways, and being all together in schools appears to be one of them.

Why would we NOT think about things that are adversely affecting lots of children?

Because think of the children arguments are almost always proposing going too far.

??

They are almost always wrong, either excessive or ineffective or both.

Citation absolutely needed.
Thinking of the children seems to have been a stellar strategy with Polio.

Polio isn't a think of the children argument.

In this case the fundamental problem is that "assault weapon" isn't actually distinct from other guns. It's simply a matter of degree.

No shit. Welcome to the discussion. (And note I did not use the term “assault weapon,” you brought it up as a straw man to distract from the post. Which is typical of the gun fetishists.)

But yes, fast-firing weapons that make insecure people feel powerful are a problem. Why NOT focus on the one that is used most often by people trying to force their feelings of power onto others?

Mass shootings are less than 1% of murders. Most murders are committed with ordinary handguns.

In reality going after assault weapons is an attempt to chip away at guns very much like the eternal efforts from the right to undermine abortion.

Is there a problem with chipping away at the dangerous parts of gun culture?

And why do you call them the dangerous part?

What exactly IS WRONG with chipping away at gun culture? Are you making the fallacy of the slippery slope? That if one chip is successful then complete gun bans start the following morning?

Because the intent is to go down that slope. It's the same thing the Christians have been doing with abortion.

Or are you one of those that says, “wait, if you make sure people can’t get their guns stolen and straw purchases are stopped, that means only the criminals will have guns” Which is non-sensical?

Sorry, I don’t have patience for gun fetishists.
Guns should be controlled such that:
- their sales are known and followed - no more illegal straw sales
- their ownership is known and controlled - no more stolen guns

And how does that stop the theft of guns??

The only way to stop the theft is to remove them all--which is the intent.

- their use is controlled and misuse heavily penalized - no more people walking around with guns and the lack of ability to tell which are legal

Any time a gun fetishist replies with, “but gun control means you’ll take them all!1!!1!” I will reply, “if those are the only two choices you can envision, you deserve to have them all taken.”

I own guns and I have no patience at all for the stupid dangerous sky-is-falling arguments of fetishists.

The forces trying to "regulate" guns have admitted their goal is banning.

Are. you serious? I've yet to hear any large group of people say that their goal is to ban all guns. I'd love it if there was no such thing as guns, but I'm living with a man who owns several guns, all unloaded. Hopefully, they will be sold before too long, if I keep reminding him. I'm a realist. I understand that we have the 2nd amendment and SCOTUS has interpreted in a way that I don't like. Nothing I can do about that.

The majority of people, including gun owners, want much tighter gun regulation. Of course this won't stop all murders. Of course, there will still be illegally owned guns. But, we need to start somewhere to lesson the impact of gun shootings, especially school shootings. You and I didn't have to deal with this when we were in school, did we? Real change takes time. If we sit back and whine that we can't due a damn thing to slow down school shootings, we are stupid, lazy people.

For example, how did a 6 year old have access to a gun that was used to shoot his teacher? Why? Can't we do something to keep guns out of the hands of children and teenagers if we really try?