Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[Derec]

152 shots fired by shooter in Tennessee.

And she only hit 6. That chick was a horrible shot!

A person with a handgun, could fire off that many shots, but it'd take a while and require a number of reloadings

She would have had to reload the rifles as well. Besides, one can fit a large magazine to a handgun as well.
One of the weapons she had was the Sub 2000 Carbine.

You can see that she had an extended magazine. But since the gun shoots handgun ammo (and is not an "assault weapon" btw), she could have just as easily used a similar magazine for her handgun.

All because some people think the Founding Fathers would think for a moment, that this was an acceptable cost to a nearly unregulated firearm trade in our nation.

I agree that we need stricter laws. I disagree that we need to ban the class of weapons that is responsible for relatively few homicides.

 

[Derec]

A shooting plot by a trans person was prevented before carried out.

This time the other way around - male to female.
The sister was the one who called it in. Good on her.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

152 shots fired by shooter in Tennessee.

And she only hit 6. That chick was a horrible shot!

You mean only killed six people, including 3 children. The shooter was able to kill several people despite being a horrible shot because of the gun you are in support of being sold to her.

All because some people think the Founding Fathers would think for a moment, that this was an acceptable cost to a nearly unregulated firearm trade in our nation.

I agree that we need stricter laws. I disagree that we need to ban the class of weapons that is responsible for relatively few homicides.

There is no regulation that manages that. You say you want to do something but then say you don't want to do something that could actually make a difference.

 

[ZiprHead]

152 shots fired by shooter in Tennessee.

And she only hit 6. That chick was a horrible shot!

If you remember from the police video of the takedown, the shooter was in the common area firing wildly. There were no human targets to fire at.

 

[Elixir]

152 shots fired by shooter in Tennessee.

And she only hit 6. That chick was a horrible shot!

You mean only killed six people, including 3 children. The shooter was able to kill several people despite being a horrible shot because of the gun you are in support of being sold to her.

All because some people think the Founding Fathers would think for a moment, that this was an acceptable cost to a nearly unregulated firearm trade in our nation.

I agree that we need stricter laws. I disagree that we need to ban the class of weapons that is responsible for relatively few homicides.

There is no regulation that manages that. You say you want to do something but then say you don't want to do something that could actually make a difference.

That is the kind of thing that emerges from ignorance about the difference between a pistol wound and a wound from a high velocity, low recoil assault rifle. Derec has never seen the radiographs.
Just this morning I saw ANOTHER surgeon complaining that kids shot with ARs/AKs never make it to surgery - they die at the scene. Derec thinks a killer could do that with a popgun or a .22 LR.

 

[blastula]

TBI director shares new details on The Covenant School shooter's manifesto

TBI Director David Rausch shared new details about the so-called "manifesto" left behind by The Covenant School shooter. Director Rausch told sheriffs that the writings still reveal no clear motive.

www.newschannel5.com

Authorities have yet to release what was written publicly. But TBI director David Rausch did talk candidly about the contents of the manifesto at a Tennessee Sheriffs' Association meeting. Rausch said what police found isn't so much a manifesto spelling out a target but a series of rambling writings indicating no clear motive.

Investigators searched the Nashville home of the Covenant School shooter leaving with among other things — a number or handwritten journals, some videos and computer hard drives. Rausch told sheriffs that the review so far of the material finds that the killer did not write about specific political, religious or social issues. In fact, a primary focus in the journals is on idolizing those who committed prior school shootings.

She appears to have followed their lead planning for months and acted alone.

"We have teams scouring the internet, social media, talking to friends, seeing what the motivation is for this. Who was behind this, what kind of clues we can learn from this?"

Certainly more details will emerge. But at this point, Rausch indicated it does not appear the shooter wrote of any particular agenda regarding politics or to target a specific person or religion. So, for now, a clear motive remains a mystery.

 

[Copernicus]

TBI director shares new details on The Covenant School shooter's manifesto

TBI Director David Rausch shared new details about the so-called "manifesto" left behind by The Covenant School shooter. Director Rausch told sheriffs that the writings still reveal no clear motive.

www.newschannel5.com

Authorities have yet to release what was written publicly. But TBI director David Rausch did talk candidly about the contents of the manifesto at a Tennessee Sheriffs' Association meeting. Rausch said what police found isn't so much a manifesto spelling out a target but a series of rambling writings indicating no clear motive.

Investigators searched the Nashville home of the Covenant School shooter leaving with among other things — a number or handwritten journals, some videos and computer hard drives. Rausch told sheriffs that the review so far of the material finds that the killer did not write about specific political, religious or social issues. In fact, a primary focus in the journals is on idolizing those who committed prior school shootings.

She appears to have followed their lead planning for months and acted alone.

"We have teams scouring the internet, social media, talking to friends, seeing what the motivation is for this. Who was behind this, what kind of clues we can learn from this?"

Certainly more details will emerge. But at this point, Rausch indicated it does not appear the shooter wrote of any particular agenda regarding politics or to target a specific person or religion. So, for now, a clear motive remains a mystery.

What does it mean to "idolize" those who had committed previous mass murders? How did they recognize it as such? I suspect that there were details in her writing that gave insight into motive, but the TBI might not have people capable of identifying them or willing to admit to them.

 

[Bomb#20]

All because some people think the Founding Fathers would think for a moment, that this was an acceptable cost to a nearly unregulated firearm trade in our nation.

The reason we overturn laws that conflict with the Constitution is not because some people think the Founding Fathers would have thought their law was better public policy than our law. What the Founding Fathers would have thought is immaterial and the court system doesn't give a rat's ass about that. We overturn laws that conflict with the Constitution because the Constitution is the law the states agreed to be governed by when they joined the union. When a judge enforces a contract you agreed to last year that you now want to get out of, it isn't because she thinks a-year-ago-you knew what's in your best interests better than present-day-you.

 

[Bomb#20]

A person with a handgun, could fire off that many shots, but it'd take a while and require a number of reloadings

She would have had to reload the rifles as well. Besides, one can fit a large magazine to a handgun as well.

"Handgun" is an overbroad category.

One of the weapons she had was the Sub 2000 Carbine.
...
You can see that she had an extended magazine. But since the gun shoots handgun ammo (and is not an "assault weapon" btw), she could have just as easily used a similar magazine for her handgun.

Not if her handgun hadn't taken a magazine, she couldn't. If she'd needed to pop it open, empty out six casings, put new bullets in one at a time, close it up, and pull the hammer back, her victims would have had a lot more chance.

I agree that we need stricter laws. I disagree that we need to ban the class of weapons that is responsible for relatively few homicides.

So how about just banning self-reloading guns? An attack with a semi-automatic pistol is more likely to become a homicide than an attack with a revolver.

 

[Jarhyn]

152 shots fired by shooter in Tennessee.

And she only hit 6. That chick was a horrible shot!

You mean only killed six people, including 3 children. The shooter was able to kill several people despite being a horrible shot because of the gun you are in support of being sold to her.

All because some people think the Founding Fathers would think for a moment, that this was an acceptable cost to a nearly unregulated firearm trade in our nation.

I agree that we need stricter laws. I disagree that we need to ban the class of weapons that is responsible for relatively few homicides.

There is no regulation that manages that. You say you want to do something but then say you don't want to do something that could actually make a difference.

That is the kind of thing that emerges from ignorance about the difference between a pistol wound and a wound from a high velocity, low recoil assault rifle. Derec has never seen the radiographs.
Just this morning I saw ANOTHER surgeon complaining that kids shot with ARs/AKs never make it to surgery - they die at the scene. Derec thinks a killer could do that with a popgun or a .22 LR.

I recall at one point hearing a foreign victim of US aggression being quoted as calling them "little bullet, big hole" I their native tongue.

 

[bilby]

Getting shot in the tongue must hurt a lot, even if the hole were quite small.

 

[lpetrich]

Ben Shapiro says trans people should be banned from owning firearms | Media Matters for America - he says “That seems to me a pretty significant symptom of an underlying mental malaise”

The gun control narrative is ridiculous in the sense that this person legally obtained the guns. I'm unaware what law would -- would be passed that would've prevented this person from obtaining the guns. I'm perfectly fine with banning people who suffer from gender dysphoria from purchasing weapons. That seems to me a pretty significant symptom of an underlying mental malaise that is going -- that could theoretically be a problem in terms of owning firearms. But I don't think the left believes the same thing.

An exception to gun-rights absolutism from a prominent right-winger.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

All because some people think the Founding Fathers would think for a moment, that this was an acceptable cost to a nearly unregulated firearm trade in our nation.

The reason we overturn laws that conflict with the Constitution is not because some people think the Founding Fathers would have thought their law was better public policy than our law. What the Founding Fathers would have thought is immaterial and the court system doesn't give a rat's ass about that.

Ummm, no. SCOTUS have turned to the Federalist Papers, letters written by the Founders for guidance on their views.

We overturn laws that conflict with the Constitution because the Constitution is the law the states agreed to be governed by when they joined the union. When a judge enforces a contract you agreed to last year that you now want to get out of, it isn't because she thinks a-year-ago-you knew what's in your best interests better than present-day-you.

Yeah that isn't remotely parallel. We are talking about the intent of the 2nd amendment as it applies with 21st century weapons. SCOTUS could snap their fingers in one case and change how that Amendment is seen within the intent of the Founders inside our 21st century nation.

 

[Bomb#20]

All because some people think the Founding Fathers would think for a moment, that this was an acceptable cost to a nearly unregulated firearm trade in our nation.

The reason we overturn laws that conflict with the Constitution is not because some people think the Founding Fathers would have thought their law was better public policy than our law. What the Founding Fathers would have thought is immaterial and the court system doesn't give a rat's ass about that.

Ummm, no. SCOTUS have turned to the Federalist Papers, letters written by the Founders for guidance on their views.

"Their views" are what they actually thought, not what they "would think" about some alternate world they never imagined where a schoolgirl could get off 152 shots before anyone tackled her or returned fire. A court looks at the other writings of legislators to clarify what the words and phrases that were used meant in context, so it'll know what the legislature understood itself to be approving. That way if somebody nowadays claims he had a constitutional right to shoot that grizzly and take its forelegs as trophies because that's what "bear arms" means, the court will have grounds to tell him that's not what the legislators meant and he can get as stuffed as his bear arms.

We overturn laws that conflict with the Constitution because the Constitution is the law the states agreed to be governed by when they joined the union. When a judge enforces a contract you agreed to last year that you now want to get out of, it isn't because she thinks a-year-ago-you knew what's in your best interests better than present-day-you.

Yeah that isn't remotely parallel. We are talking about the intent of the 2nd amendment as it applies with 21st century weapons.

So? The intent of a law can't time-travel and retroactively change just because conditions change. If some law seemed like a good idea in the 18th century and now no longer seems like a good idea, well, that's what the amendment process was put in for.

(But why that should be necessary in this case is beyond me. If Congress or a state bans AR-15s and some yahoo claims this infringes his right to bear arms, the judge should just ask him exactly which part of "well-regulated" he didn't understand. When he appeals, the appellate court should cite Heller and tell him to go buy a revolver like a normal gun-owner. When he appeals again the SCOTUS should decline to hear the case without comment.)

SCOTUS could snap their fingers in one case and change how that Amendment is seen within the intent of the Founders inside our 21st century nation.

They can snap their fingers and change how it's enforced. How it's seen, not so much; and the rest of your sentence is word salad.

 

[bilby]

Wanting to own a firearm for use against human targets...

seems to me a pretty significant symptom of an underlying mental malaise

The difference between the US and the restaurant of the developed world isn't that guns are easier to obtain in the US; It's that obtaining them for the express purpose of using them against human beings is considered legitimate and reasonable in the US (typically the wording is euphemisms such as "self defence", or "home protection", but make no mistake, this means "in case I want to shoot a person").

Literally no other developed nation allows this; If you have a gun for hunting or sporting purposes, you might end up using it to shoot a burglar, but you're not allowed to have a gun for the primary purpose of shooting burglars. Even in places like Switzerland, where almost everyone is allowed a gun, you might be treated as an exception to that general rule, if you express a desire to own one specifically for such a purpose.

This is the gun problem in the USA. Not that guns are commonplace, nor that they are easily obtained, nor even that they have high capacity magazines and self loading features. The problem is that in the US, uniquely, it's not considered unacceptable to want a gun for no other reason than to shoot people with it.

Everywhere else, you can only have a gun explicitly for shooting people, if you are doing so in your role as a policeman or soldier, under the orders of a hierarchy that sets strict rules about when shooting people is allowed. A situation that in a bygone era might have been characterised as "a well regulated militia".

 

[Shadowy Man]

Wanting to own a firearm for use against human targets...

seems to me a pretty significant symptom of an underlying mental malaise

The difference between the US and the restaurant of the developed world isn't that guns are easier to obtain in the US; It's that obtaining them for the express purpose of using them against human beings is considered legitimate and reasonable in the US (typically the wording is euphemisms such as "self defence", or "home protection", but make no mistake, this means "in case I want to shoot a person").

Literally no other developed nation allows this; If you have a gun for hunting or sporting purposes, you might end up using it to shoot a burglar, but you're not allowed to have a gun for the primary purpose of shooting burglars. Even in places like Switzerland, where almost everyone is allowed a gun, you might be treated as an exception to that general rule, if you express a desire to own one specifically for such a purpose.

This is the gun problem in the USA. Not that guns are commonplace, nor that they are easily obtained, nor even that they have high capacity magazines and self loading features. The problem is that in the US, uniquely, it's not considered unacceptable to want a gun for no other reason than to shoot people with it.

Everywhere else, you can only have a gun explicitly for shooting people, if you are doing so in your role as a policeman or soldier, under the orders of a hierarchy that sets strict rules about when shooting people is allowed. A situation that in a bygone era might have been characterised as "a well regulated militia".

Well, the people making money off of selling us guns are telling us we need them for those reasons. And who better than the ones selling guns would know how best to use them?

 

[Swammerdami]

I'm not certain how people having AK-47s helps the US with a well regulated militia. We have a standing military.

Who would you rather have defending our Sacred White Christian Nation? A bunch of boys (many queer) and lesbians indoctrinated into communist thinking by Biden and Soros and their "generals", and who get their fake news from NPR and CNN?

Or God-fearing patriots who understand and respect America's noble traditions, are willing to fight back next time the Left steals an election, and who all understand that "wokeness" is the biggest threat to America since Soros attacked the World Trade Center on 9-11-2001? [/sarcasm]

Maybe it's Biden, Soros and other traitors like AOC who should be banned from owning guns.

 

[Elixir]

So how about just banning self-reloading guns? An attack with a semi-automatic pistol is more likely to become a homicide than an attack with a revolver.

I can hear the wails: “Most gun deaths are suicides, and that won’t help!”

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And it is. Red flag usually doesn't give the accused any defense. And you often don't get your guns back even if you're cleared.

Oh, no!

That's just tragic. I'm overwhelmed with sympathy for any poor person who has to suffer such an awful fate.

In other news, school shooters usually don't give their victims much of a defence, and you often don't get your children back, even if the shooter is killed or arrested.

One of these tragedies is not like the other. One of these tragedies demands action to defend the defenceless victims.

Hint: It's not the one you have picked.

So the Constitution is only for you, not for those you don't like?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And it is. Red flag usually doesn't give the accused any defense. And you often don't get your guns back even if you're cleared.

I can't help but think if that was even remotely true the NRA would be parading those statistics night and day. Seeing as they aren't...

Think the press will say much?!

Remember the case in IIRC Florida where the accuser wouldn't bother to go to court (it was most likely wrong identity), the sheriff finally relented under public pressure.

And there are stunts like storage fees that can easily end up more than the value of the guns.