Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[Gospel]

For example Judd takes the position that it's not the guns it's mental health. While that is true it also doesn't help that you give more people access to guns by lowering the age range. This in fact increases the amount of people with mental health issues getting access to guns. Judd is wrong on that count. But as far as police response in Texas that day, he is spot on. Go in and get the shooter, fuck your own life.

 

[Copernicus]

For example Judd takes the position that it's not the guns it's mental health. While that is true it also doesn't help that you give more people access to guns by lowering the age range. This in fact increases the amount of people with mental health issues getting access to guns. Judd is wrong on that count. But as far as police response in Texas that day, he is spot on. Go in and get the shooter, fuck your own life.

First of all, what is he referring to when he says "It's not the guns"? What does "it" refer to? That's like saying, upon seeing a hole with a shovel lying next to it, "it's not the shovel". Of course, the hole could have existed without the shovel, but shovels were invented for the purpose of digging holes. The will to dig a hole also has something to do with the hole's existence, but it's best not to sell people shovels, if you don't want holes dug. They can promise not to dig holes when buying their shovel, but should we not expect a few shovel buyers to lie? Or maybe get the itch to dig a hole after they buy the shovel? They could promise to only use the shovel to fill in holes that they might encounter but then end up digging a gratuitous hole in a moment of weakness.

 

[abaddon]

I favor locked doors to the outside, but allowing people to exit in case of fire.

I think that's already required in all public buildings and probably was the case at Robb Elementary.

There are supposed to be "crash bars", also known as "panic bars", on the doors of restaurants, malls, schools, et al. They're that large rectangular bar that'll compress while a person pushes their way out through the door.

Doors with panic bars only open to people on the outside in 3 ways: 1) if someone on the inside puts the panic bar in "open" position with an allen wrench. 2) IF there's a keyhole on the outside, it'll retract the latch but only for so long as you've got the key turned (so the door locks behind you automatically once it closes again). 3) if someone props the door open so it can't close and lock automatically, like apparently a teacher did at this school.

 

[Gospel]

It's straight forward. Judd believes guns aren't the problem it's people. I disagree with him on that. It's both people and guns in my opinion. Guns are designed to kill. The act of killing is something that needs to be done in some situations and guns make the job easier (aka level the battle field). Guns also make the job easier for people who chose to misuse them. I'd prefer there to be no guns but that is a pipe dream so I prefer we adopt laws like comparable (term used loosely) countries that don't have issues with gun violence like America does.


Note: it's a pipe dream because gun tech is out there and people will make and sell them even if the world governments ban them. As a result we can never do away with them completely and will need guns to fight against guns

 

[Copernicus]

It's straight forward. Judd believes guns aren't the problem it's people. I disagree with him on that. It's both people and guns in my opinion. Guns are designed to kill. The act of killing is something that needs to be done in some situations and guns make the job easier (aka level the battle field). Guns also make the job easier for people who chose to misuse them. I'd prefer there to be no guns but that is a pipe dream so I prefer we adopt laws like comparable (term used loosely) countries that don't have issues with gun violence like America does.


Note: it's a pipe dream because gun tech is out there and people will make and sell them even if the world governments ban them. As a result we can never do away with them completely and will need guns to fight against guns

I get why people say "It's not the guns". They don't want to face the fact that gun sales need to be restricted to people with a bona fide need and that gun ownership needs to be carefully regulated, just as it normally is for other kinds of dangerous equipment. There are people who say we should ban all guns, but most people don't take that kind of ridiculous hyperbole seriously. Gun regulation is really quite easy to implement, in principle, but the US has got itself into a situation where gun ownership is treated as a sacred right--a myth surrounding the second amendment that gun manufacturers have successfully promoted for the obvious reason that they make a living from selling guns. Until recently, the law was interpreted as a "collective right", not a personal right to own a gun. That's why the amendment was written the way it was--to restrict the right to the collective defense as embodied in a militia. Nothing in there about gun ownership for personal self defense or recreational use.

A society without high levels of gun violence is obviously possible, since very few countries have anything approaching the level of such violence in the US. It is the leading cause of death from injury in the US. Reducing the massive number of guns in private hands is not a pipe dream, but our ability to do anything about it is diminished to the extent that we call it a pipe dream. That suggests we just shouldn't bother trying, and that is exactly what those who oppose any gun regulation want--a feeling of hopelessness among those who want to try.

 

[Toni]

My favorite Sheriff.

Cool. But an officer engaged the shooter before he got to the school. The shooter had body armor which is why he managed to get into the school. It isn't easy to hit a moving target, especially when it is shooting back at you. The target, in this case, would have been the head but the first officer could not have known that the shooter had body armor. It is not easy for a decent human being to shoot another human being in the head.

For everyone talking about locking school doors: Cool unless there is a fire.

I favor locked doors to the outside, but allowing people to exit in case of fire.

And if there is a need for emergency personnel such as PD, FD, EMTs?

I do get the need for security. I honestly do. I also understand the need for rapid access which may not be provided by persons inside a building if, say, they are being held hostage.

 

[lpetrich]

I'm not impressed by all this talk about mental health, because it seems so insincere when it comes from Republicans. They object to all non-punitive government spending except for what benefits their big donors.

 

[lpetrich]

Other Countries Had Mass Shootings. Then They Changed Their Gun Laws. - The New York Times

The world over, mass shootings are frequently met with a common response: Officials impose new restrictions on gun ownership. Mass shootings become rarer. Homicides and suicides tend to decrease, too.

After a British gunman killed 16 people in 1987, the country banned semiautomatic weapons like those he had used. It did the same with most handguns after a 1996 school shooting. It now has one of the lowest gun-related death rates in the developed world.

In Australia, a 1996 massacre prompted mandatory gun buybacks that saw, according to some estimates, as many as one million firearms melted into slag. The rate of mass shootings plummeted from once every 18 months to, so far, only one in the 26 years since.

Canada also tightened gun laws after a 1989 mass shooting. So did Germany in 2002, New Zealand in 2019 and Norway last year.

Often it was conservative governments that did so.

Noting
What Do We Know About the Association Between Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Injuries? - PubMed

Evidence from 130 studies in 10 countries suggests that in certain nations the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths. Laws restricting the purchase of (e.g., background checks) and access to (e.g., safer storage) firearms are also associated with lower rates of intimate partner homicides and firearm unintentional deaths in children, respectively.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Cool. But an officer engaged the shooter before he got to the school. The shooter had body armor which is why he managed to get into the school. It isn't easy to hit a moving target, especially when it is shooting back at you. The target, in this case, would have been the head but the first officer could not have known that the shooter had body armor. It is not easy for a decent human being to shoot another human being in the head.

For everyone talking about locking school doors: Cool unless there is a fire.

Doesn't look like it went down as they were claiming.

 

[bilby]

I favor locked doors to the outside, but allowing people to exit in case of fire.

I think that's already required in all public buildings and probably was the case at Robb Elementary.

There are supposed to be "crash bars", also known as "panic bars", on the doors of restaurants, malls, schools, et al. They're that large rectangular bar that'll compress while a person pushes their way out through the door.

Doors with panic bars only open to people on the outside in 3 ways: 1) if someone on the inside puts the panic bar in "open" position with an allen wrench. 2) IF there's a keyhole on the outside, it'll retract the latch but only for so long as you've got the key turned (so the door locks behind you automatically once it closes again). 3) if someone props the door open so it can't close and lock automatically, like apparently a teacher did at this school.

I am pretty confident that any system that depends for its effectiveness on keeping children out of school buildings, is utterly futile.

In the unlikely event that you could keep all the children out of the school, the school would cease to have any utility as a school.

A door cannot tell the difference between a child with a gun and a child without a gun.

 

[abaddon]

I favor locked doors to the outside, but allowing people to exit in case of fire.

I think that's already required in all public buildings and probably was the case at Robb Elementary.

There are supposed to be "crash bars", also known as "panic bars", on the doors of restaurants, malls, schools, et al. They're that large rectangular bar that'll compress while a person pushes their way out through the door.

Doors with panic bars only open to people on the outside in 3 ways: 1) if someone on the inside puts the panic bar in "open" position with an allen wrench. 2) IF there's a keyhole on the outside, it'll retract the latch but only for so long as you've got the key turned (so the door locks behind you automatically once it closes again). 3) if someone props the door open so it can't close and lock automatically, like apparently a teacher did at this school.

I am pretty confident that any system that depends for its effectiveness on keeping children out of school buildings, is utterly futile.

In the unlikely event that you could keep all the children out of the school, the school would cease to have any utility as a school.

A door cannot tell the difference between a child with a gun and a child without a gun.

I don't know what you're talking about. My input's there only because it seemed to me the convo about doors was confused.

 

[bilby]

It's straight forward. Judd believes guns aren't the problem it's people. I disagree with him on that. It's both people and guns in my opinion. Guns are designed to kill. The act of killing is something that needs to be done in some situations and guns make the job easier (aka level the battle field). Guns also make the job easier for people who chose to misuse them. I'd prefer there to be no guns but that is a pipe dream so I prefer we adopt laws like comparable (term used loosely) countries that don't have issues with gun violence like America does.


Note: it's a pipe dream because gun tech is out there and people will make and sell them even if the world governments ban them. As a result we can never do away with them completely and will need guns to fight against guns

Guns are cheap and easy to obtain everywhere in the world.

But having one without a licence (outside war zones, third world shitholes, and the USA) qualifies you for a world of hurt from the authorities, so the vast majority of people wisely choose not to obtain them.

The idea that you can completely eliminate guns is dumb. The idea that you need to, in order to eliminate the vast majority of shootings, is even dumber.

If your boat is sinking, bailing out the vast majority of the water is a good idea even if you understand that you can never get rid of it all.

Getting rid of all guns is a strawman. It’s never going to happen, and it doesn’t need to happen.

The difference between the USA and (for example) the UK, isn’t that it’s impossible to obtain a gun and tuck it away in your bedroom closet in the UK; It’s that in the UK, if the cops find a gun tucked away in your bedroom closet, you are going to jail, your home is going to be torn apart by forensics looking for any further guns or ammunition, and you will make headlines as the nutter with the guns. If you have a licence, you might avoid jail time, but you will certainly be fined, and lose both your guns and your licence, for failure to store your guns securely.

In the USA, the cops react the same way as if they had found an old flannel shirt in there. If you have kids, maybe they’ll suggest you store it somewhere else. Maybe.

 

[bilby]

I favor locked doors to the outside, but allowing people to exit in case of fire.

I think that's already required in all public buildings and probably was the case at Robb Elementary.

There are supposed to be "crash bars", also known as "panic bars", on the doors of restaurants, malls, schools, et al. They're that large rectangular bar that'll compress while a person pushes their way out through the door.

Doors with panic bars only open to people on the outside in 3 ways: 1) if someone on the inside puts the panic bar in "open" position with an allen wrench. 2) IF there's a keyhole on the outside, it'll retract the latch but only for so long as you've got the key turned (so the door locks behind you automatically once it closes again). 3) if someone props the door open so it can't close and lock automatically, like apparently a teacher did at this school.

I am pretty confident that any system that depends for its effectiveness on keeping children out of school buildings, is utterly futile.

In the unlikely event that you could keep all the children out of the school, the school would cease to have any utility as a school.

A door cannot tell the difference between a child with a gun and a child without a gun.

What the hell are you talking about? My input's there only because it seemed to me the convo about doors was confused.

I don’t think what I said was difficult to understand. And I am aware of your input and it’s purpose.

What exactly do you need me to clarify?

 

[abaddon]

I am aware of your input and it’s purpose.

What is its purpose? I don't know how "system that depends for its effectiveness on keeping children out of school buildings" relates at all to what was said.

 

[bilby]

I am aware of your input and it’s purpose.

What is its purpose? I don't know how "system that depends for its effectiveness on keeping children out of school buildings" relates at all to what was said.

If you don’t think that doors which only open from the inside are for keeping people out of buildings, then I am not sure how to help you.

 

[Patooka]

It should be worth pointing out that this cartoon is over a decade old:

 

[Harry Bosch]

I am aware of your input and it’s purpose.

What is its purpose? I don't know how "system that depends for its effectiveness on keeping children out of school buildings" relates at all to what was said.

If you don’t think that doors which only open from the inside are for keeping people out of buildings, then I am not sure how to help you.

Funny. I'm kinda surprised that this issue is controversial. The standard today to limit entry to one "port"; but allow multiple outflows. This is very common. All offices and buildings are going this direction. I have a friend who owns a construction company focusing on installing heavy duty security. He is swamped right now.

 

[ZiprHead]

I am aware of your input and it’s purpose.

What is its purpose? I don't know how "system that depends for its effectiveness on keeping children out of school buildings" relates at all to what was said.

If you don’t think that doors which only open from the inside are for keeping people out of buildings, then I am not sure how to help you.

Funny. I'm kinda surprised that this issue is controversial. The standard today to limit entry to one "port"; but allow multiple outflows. This is very common. All offices and buildings are going this direction. I have a friend who owns a construction company focusing on installing heavy duty security. He is swamped right now.

As more information has come out, it is now my understanding that the door the perp cam in was a one way locked door. A teacher had left it open.

 

[abaddon]

I am aware of your input and it’s purpose.

What is its purpose? I don't know how "system that depends for its effectiveness on keeping children out of school buildings" relates at all to what was said.

If you don’t think that doors which only open from the inside are for keeping people out of buildings, then I am not sure how to help you.

Funny. I'm kinda surprised that this issue is controversial. The standard today to limit entry to one "port"; but allow multiple outflows. This is very common. All offices and buildings are going this direction. I have a friend who owns a construction company focusing on installing heavy duty security. He is swamped right now.

As more information has come out, it is now my understanding that the door the perp cam in was a one way locked door. A teacher had left it open.

Maybe he or she was trying to solve the problem of students not getting an education because of doors that lock, like @bilby was worried about.

 

[Gospel]

It's straight forward. Judd believes guns aren't the problem it's people. I disagree with him on that. It's both people and guns in my opinion. Guns are designed to kill. The act of killing is something that needs to be done in some situations and guns make the job easier (aka level the battle field). Guns also make the job easier for people who chose to misuse them. I'd prefer there to be no guns but that is a pipe dream so I prefer we adopt laws like comparable (term used loosely) countries that don't have issues with gun violence like America does.


Note: it's a pipe dream because gun tech is out there and people will make and sell them even if the world governments ban them. As a result we can never do away with them completely and will need guns to fight against guns

I get why people say "It's not the guns". They don't want to face the fact that gun sales need to be restricted to people with a bona fide need and that gun ownership needs to be carefully regulated, just as it normally is for other kinds of dangerous equipment. There are people who say we should ban all guns, but most people don't take that kind of ridiculous hyperbole seriously. Gun regulation is really quite easy to implement, in principle, but the US has got itself into a situation where gun ownership is treated as a sacred right--a myth surrounding the second amendment that gun manufacturers have successfully promoted for the obvious reason that they make a living from selling guns. Until recently, the law was interpreted as a "collective right", not a personal right to own a gun. That's why the amendment was written the way it was--to restrict the right to the collective defense as embodied in a militia. Nothing in there about gun ownership for personal self defense or recreational use.

A society without high levels of gun violence is obviously possible, since very few countries have anything approaching the level of such violence in the US. It is the leading cause of death from injury in the US. Reducing the massive number of guns in private hands is not a pipe dream, but our ability to do anything about it is diminished to the extent that we call it a pipe dream. That suggests we just shouldn't bother trying, and that is exactly what those who oppose any gun regulation want--a feeling of hopelessness among those who want to try.

I said getting rid of guns entirely is a pipe dream. I also said I think the US should adopt laws like comparable countries (again I use comparable loosely) that don't have issues with gun violence as we do. I thought that insinuated that I thought it would help decrease gun violence in the US. I didn't say that was a pipe dream.