Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[Toni]

The liars are already coming out of the woodwork. A photograph is making the rounds on Truth Social and other social media showing the shooter to be a transsexual! Another social media lie is the claim that ABC News altered a photograph of the shooter to make him appear more Caucasian.

All that may not be true, but what is true (as I have seen it myself) the CNN was very interested in speculating about the shooter being a "white supremacist" because the school was mostly hispanic. After the identity of the shooter was revealed as being "Salvador Ramos" they immediately lost all interest in the identity of the shooter.

Or look at the Korean hair salon attack. It was committed by a black perp, and so the media is downplaying his identity unlike in cases where the perp is white.
One congresswoman (Joyce Beatty) even claimed that the attack was perpetrated by a "white supremacist".
Ohio Democratic rep. blames white supremacy for Dallas Korean hair salon shooting

That MSM and many politicians are interested in blaming everything on whitey is not a conspiracy theory.

Before long we'll be hearing that the massacre was a "false flag" operation, or didn't happen at all.

How is that different than left wingers claiming "false flag" whenever #BLMers or Antifa torch a building?
Pox on both extremes!

Racism gets eyeballs. Thus they will play it up when they can. It's not that they are trying to portray whites as bad, it's that they're trying to find an angle to make their version of the news more attractive. You'll do better if you read your news and don't watch news.

Except for occasionally watching on public tv, I never watch the news. I read at least 3 well respected newspapers/day.

 

[laughing dog]

Getting rid of the guns does reduce mass shootings--but they're outliers in the first place. The US is not an outlier in crime rates in general--if anything we're below average.

Irrelevant - if getting rid of guns reduce mass shootings, then that is sufficient to get rid of guns.

In the US, we are not going to get rid of guns completely. It will take time to change attitudes because there are way too many cowards, fearful people and men who are self-conscious about their penis size to eliminate guns to do this quickly or easily.

But this shooting (as all mass shootings) shows we should be doing things to
1) make it harder to buy guns (like have an age limit, mandatory background checks, licensing to own a functional firearm, and having high federal taxes on "war weapons"), and
2) reduce guns (gun buy backs).

Yes, there are costs to every gun regulation policy. But there are costs to doing nothing.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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, i.e. guns with a fully automatic firing system where the gun keeps firing as long as you hold the trigger down have been illegal since the 80's. You can still buy a machine gun today that was made before the ban, but they are priced out of reach of most people, and there is a shitload of paperwork to go through to become licensed.

A Colt Single Action Army revolver made 150 years ago can be a "rapid fire" gun in the hands of an experienced shooter. Likewise for a lever action rifle from that same period, or a 100 year old 1911 pistol. None of these guns are fully automatic, you have to release and activate the trigger every time you want to fire the gun. Even the simplest bolt-action rifle can be a rapid-fire weapon in the right hands. There is also no such thing as a rapid fire magazine - the rate at which a non- fully automatic gun can be fired is a function of both the mechanism that ejects the spent casing and loads a fresh round in the chamber, and the skill of the shooter. We could ban high-capacity magazines for these guns (except the revolver of course), but again, an experienced shooter can drop an empty magazine and insert a fresh magazine in the well in very little time, to the point where it makes a discussion about magazine capacity largely moot.

Just adding some context to what you said. Understanding the fundamentals of how guns work might make you a better advocate for your cause. I see no way to ban the kinds of guns I mention in the previous paragraph (some of which are of great historical significance) without a Constitutional amendment, and that is not going to happen anytime soon. America does not have the will to make it happen, no matter how many innocents are killed. For fuck's sake, approximately 75 million people voted for Trump in the last election, despite being fully aware of just how colossal a fucktard he is.

A nice and well thought out post. Thanks.

One thing that was not mentioned is most of these shootings don’t involve skilled shooters, and the death toll has been magnified greatly by the tech of equipment these people have been allowed to purchase with no care as to the purchaser’s intent.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Lots of friends own firearms. Those owners fall into two general categories, those who use their guns for sport such as hunting, and those who have guns and ammo out the ass because they are paranoid, xenophobic and violent, Some of the latter category also believe in bigfoot.

The sport owners tend to be higher educated and democratic. The psycho paranoid category are republican and high school educated, like to carry and always talk about how threatened they are.

I think it's a matter of education, nothing else. There are a few folks who own a gun because they want to be able to defend themselves but have never had to use it that way. Some carry it all the time, especially when they are outdoors. I guess they are afraid of bears and tigers that might eat them.

The liklihood of anyone having to use a gun for self protection is remote and I do not know anyone who ever has. I know people who told me how threatened they felt by those other people but their story sounded like bullshit bravado., dick wagging.

 

[Tigers!]

Looking from Australia I am always astounded at how much you Yanks hate each other. I cannot understand it.
Why do you shoot first and ask questions later?
Why is a gun the first response for so many of you?

That's not it. What's "it" is money. Those dead kids don't contribute to the political coffers of Abbott or Gonzalez. But the NRA does, to the tune of millions. So who's more important? It sounds overly simplistic but just follow the money.

A question without notice.
Having not much knowledge of how US system of governance works - If a president/party has control of both of your houses why then was nothing substantive seemingly done i.e. if Obama/Democrats (as an example) had a time when they were in control why were changes not implemented? It the opportunity was there and it was ignored then negligence is a factor.
It might be claimed that any such changes might be reversed by the next or a future government. So what? That is a possibly for any legislation yet that does not deter parties from pushing forward legislation.

I can't help think that both parties in the US really don't give a damn about the problem. We hear the wailing, we see the hand-wringing but when there is a window of opportunity nothing is done. Just excuses. Use the bloody humanity you claim you possess and bite the bullet (no pun intended).
Otherwise spare us (the rest of the world) the nauseating and gratuitous spectacle of Yanks engaging in another bout of self-flagellation.

 

[Patooka]

A question without notice.
Having not much knowledge of how US system of governance works - If a president/party has control of both of your houses why then was nothing substantive seemingly done i.e. if Obama/Democrats (as an example) had a time when they were in control why were changes not implemented? It the opportunity was there and it was ignored then negligence is a factor.
It might be claimed that any such changes might be reversed by the next or a future government. So what? That is a possibly for any legislation yet that does not deter parties from pushing forward legislation.

You're forgetting one very important difference between the US and Australia. Judges get elected in the US. They campaign. as well. One very popular publicity stunt a judge can make during election season is suing the federal government for passing legislation that is "unconstitutional" (meaning they don't like it). There is also legislation on the books prohibiting federal agencies for enforcing anything gun related like the Dickey Amendment or the Firearms Owners Protection Act. So even if Democrats passed legislation (and in the past 30 years there has been 24 months where this could have happened), Republicans and the NRA already have measures in place to make any such laws irrelevant.

So basically you are asking why Democrats haven't passed legislation that they knew was going to fail and pretty much guarantee their opponents unlimited funding from groups like the NRA (and in case you weren't aware, they aren't the only gun group in America by a long shot). Do you really need an explaination as to why that is such a bad idea?

I can't help think that both parties in the US really don't give a damn about the problem.

That's not even remotely fair, for the reasons I stated above.

 

[Copernicus]

...

Self-defense killings always exceed mass shooter deaths.

Can you back this up with a link to data? Self-defense killings are almost negligible when compared with other gun-injury deaths according to what I've read. For example, see:

Self-Defense Gun Use​

The use of guns in self-defense by private citizens is extremely rare. VPC research has found a gun is far more likely to be used in a homicide or suicide than in a justifiable homicide. More guns are stolen each year than are used in self-defense.

The gun lobby seeks to expand the carrying of concealed, loaded handguns into an ever-increasing number of public spaces, while at the same time blocking any restrictions on the availability of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. The main argument used to advance these policies is that guns are a common and effective tool for self-defense. This argument is false.

A series of VPC studies on guns and self-defense thoroughly disprove the NRA myth. These studies analyze national data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program’s Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Among the findings of the most recent edition of the study are the following:

• In 2017, the FBI reports there were only 298 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm. That same year, there were 10,380 criminal gun homicides. Guns were used in 35 criminal homicides for every justifiable homicide.
• Intended victims of violent crimes engaged in self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 1.1 percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2014 and 2016.
• Intended victims of property crimes engaged in self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 0.3 percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2014 and 2016.

When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense.

 

[bilby]

Getting rid of the guns does reduce mass shootings--but

Fuck your but.

There’s no ‘but’; Reducing mass shootings is a good and noble goal, worthy of pursuit.

But nothing.

 

[Tigers!]

A question without notice.
Having not much knowledge of how US system of governance works - If a president/party has control of both of your houses why then was nothing substantive seemingly done i.e. if Obama/Democrats (as an example) had a time when they were in control why were changes not implemented? It the opportunity was there and it was ignored then negligence is a factor.
It might be claimed that any such changes might be reversed by the next or a future government. So what? That is a possibly for any legislation yet that does not deter parties from pushing forward legislation.

You're forgetting one very important difference between the US and Australia. Judges get elected in the US. They campaign. as well. One very popular publicity stunt a judge can make during election season is suing the federal government for passing legislation that is "unconstitutional" (meaning they don't like it). There is also legislation on the books prohibiting federal agencies for enforcing anything gun related like the Dickey Amendment or the Firearms Owners Protection Act. So even if Democrats passed legislation (and in the past 30 years there has been 24 months where this could have happened), Republicans and the NRA already have measures in place to make any such laws irrelevant.

The laws are not irrelevant whilst in force. As to judges being elected we do not have time/space to discuss that here. No-one is trying at all that is the problem

So basically you are asking why Democrats haven't passed legislation that they knew was going to fail and pretty much guarantee their opponents unlimited funding from groups like the NRA (and in case you weren't aware, they aren't the only gun group in America by a long shot). Do you really need an explaination as to why that is such a bad idea?

Trying to pass legislation to prevent mass shooting is a bad idea? Who'd have thought that? That is a mealy mouthed excuse. For the length of time the legislation is in force it is relevant. Force the other side(s?) and the public at large to see that change is possible. If is is repealed that is indeed bad but at least somebody tried. The lines will much less blurry after that. At the moment no-one is trying. It is just too hard isn't it?

I can't help think that both parties in the US really don't give a damn about the problem.

That's not even remotely fair, for the reasons I stated above.

Your logic is impeccable. Tell the latest victims that we cannot treat politicians (and cowardly cops) unfairly. Their inaction apparently is excusable.

As I said earlier I tire of the constant spectacle of wailing and hand-wringing we see all too often accompanied by inaction and callous (yes i choose that word deliberately) indifference from the chattering and political classes and the public in the US. Let Ukraine be an example.

 

[Patooka]

Can you back this up with a link to data? Self-defense killings are almost negligible when compared with other gun-injury deaths according to what I've read.

Yeah, I'm kinda curious about this myself. The NRA can quite literally buy and sell senators. They are well organised and well motivated in their beliefs. On top of that, It's pretty obvious they have meaningful connections with law enforcement and political leaders in the US. If there was statistical, numerical proof of what Loren is asserting, the pro gun lobby would have it and it is a much more significant argument to have than "doors are the fucking problem".

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Patooka]

The laws are not irrelevant whilst in force.

No shit. That's why federal agencies have been hamstrung. They become irrelevant when agencies are powerless to enforce them. Imagine if the AFP was expressly forbidden to have electronic databases of gun ownership in Australia and you might have some (but only some) idea of the extent Republicans have pushed to sabotage enforcement.

As to judges being elected we do not have time/space to discuss that here. No-one is trying at all that is the problem

That is your ignorance showing again. Plenty of initiatives have been made over the last decade. People are trying and Republicans/NRA are trying equally hard to stomp on them. And here's the thing - it means fuck all if there isn't some effort on a federal level. Do you really think Howard's buyback scheme would have been effective if it was only enforced in Tasmania? So fuck your "both sides" rhetoric. It is clearly one side in America that is causing this problem; try to lay the blame correctly.

Trying to pass legislation to prevent mass shooting is a bad idea?

Yep. In the states it is.

That is a mealy mouthed excuse.

I'd point out your ignorance again, but I'll just ask you instead. What is better - politicians who do nothing or politicians who make matters worse? Because take a wild guess which politicians win elections in the states and then pass legislation that allow 18 year old to carry a gun without a permit, or zero background checks, or allow gun companies to sell to terrorists overseas? This bears repeating - fuck your "both sides" rhetoric. One side is clearly the problem.

Your logic is impeccable. Tell the latest victims that we cannot treat politicians (and cowardly cops) unfairly

They're busy being dead, and I suspect the families of the victims don't give a fuck what you or I think. And I'm pretty sure they know who to blame:

As I said earlier I tire of the constant spectacle of wailing and hand-wringing we see all too often accompanied by inaction and callous (yes i choose that word deliberately) indifference from the chattering and political classes and the public in the US.

Some advice; just because you personally don't see any action on SKY or Channel Nine doesn't mean it's not happening.

 

[Elixir]

I guess they are afraid of bears and tigers that might eat them.

That sounds rather silly, though it’s surely as likely as anything else they’ll ever encounter that might require enough force to kill 20+ people.
But they speak in terms of “neutralizing threats” rather than specifying who or what they want to shoot. Sounds cooler anyhow.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Can you back this up with a link to data? Self-defense killings are almost negligible when compared with other gun-injury deaths according to what I've read.

You are obviously forgetting about all those phantom self-defense kills we witness in the movies. Heck the other day I must have witnessed a couple dozen. Go to youtube. Lots of bad guys getting stopped by good guys with guns, just like in John Wayne old western movies.

 

[Rhea]

So even if Democrats passed legislation (and in the past 30 years there has been 24 months where this could have happened), Republicans and the NRA already have measures in place to make any such laws irrelevant.

9 months. There have been only 9 months in the last 30 years that Democrats - assuming every single one of them agreed without a single red-state senator allowed to think differently - 9 months in the last 30 years that Democrats could have passed something… that would have been sued within seconds of being signed.

The laws are not irrelevant whilst in force. As to judges being elected we do not have time/space to discuss that here. No-one is trying at all that is the problem

Bullshit. That’s what Republicans want to sell to keep people from supporting the ONLY party that is working against them. Democrats are trying as hard as they can. Many of them. We needed to have won the senate in Maine, and North Carolina. Then we could have done this. But we have Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Synema and their intransigence is NOT the fault of the rest of the democratics senators. It’s the fault of the voters in Maine and North Carolina. It’s the fault having to deal with the electoral college that keeps a minority in power.

Trying to pass legislation to prevent mass shooting is a bad idea? Who'd have thought that? That is a mealy mouthed excuse. For the length of time the legislation is in force it is relevant. Force the other side(s?) and the public at large to see that change is possible. If is is repealed that is indeed bad but at least somebody tried. The lines will much less blurry after that. At the moment no-one is trying. It is just too hard isn't it?

Democrats are trying. Your whinging drives people away from the solution, not toward it.

 

[Copernicus]

Can you back this up with a link to data? Self-defense killings are almost negligible when compared with other gun-injury deaths according to what I've read.

You are obviously forgetting about all those phantom self-defense kills we witness in the movies. Heck the other day I must have witnessed a couple dozen. Go to youtube. Lots of bad guys getting stopped by good guys with guns, just like in John Wayne old western movies.

You are right, and the same kind of evidence can be brought to show that you can bludgeon people in the head pretty hard without killing them. They just lose consciousness for a while and then spring back up, good as new.

 

[Tigers!]

So even if Democrats passed legislation (and in the past 30 years there has been 24 months where this could have happened), Republicans and the NRA already have measures in place to make any such laws irrelevant.

9 months. There have been only 9 months in the last 30 years that Democrats - assuming every single one of them agreed without a single red-state senator allowed to think differently - 9 months in the last 30 years that Democrats could have passed something… that would have been sued within seconds of being signed.

The laws are not irrelevant whilst in force. As to judges being elected we do not have time/space to discuss that here. No-one is trying at all that is the problem

Bullshit. That’s what Republicans want to sell to keep people from supporting the ONLY party that is working against them. Democrats are trying as hard as they can. Many of them. We needed to have won the senate in Maine, and North Carolina. Then we could have done this. But we have Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Synema and their intransigence is NOT the fault of the rest of the democratics senators. It’s the fault of the voters in Maine and North Carolina. It’s the fault having to deal with the electoral college that keeps a minority in power.

Of course it is the voter's fault. Good excuse for the pollies.

Trying to pass legislation to prevent mass shooting is a bad idea? Who'd have thought that? That is a mealy mouthed excuse. For the length of time the legislation is in force it is relevant. Force the other side(s?) and the public at large to see that change is possible. If is is repealed that is indeed bad but at least somebody tried. The lines will much less blurry after that. At the moment no-one is trying. It is just too hard isn't it?

Democrats are trying. Your whinging drives people away from the solution, not toward it.

I am in Australia. We do not have the problem. IF my "whinging" drives you yanks away from a solution then truly you are all stuffed. Your people will continue to die.

 

[Tigers!]

Some advice; just because you personally don't see any action on SKY or Channel Nine doesn't mean it's not happening.

Why the assumption that somehow I watch Sky? (Just laziness on your part.)
Some advice for you: if the killings continue apace then nothing useful is being done to stop them. Wailing and hand-wringing are nothing.
This is a US problem and only they can solve it. When the mass killings start to disappear I will be very pleased that people are safer. Until that happens then nothing is happening.
The Senate/House could pass legislation that whenever a mass killing occur their pay drops by N%. The public will support that measure. Might the the only way to get the pollies to pay attention - hit them in their hip pocket.

 

[Tigers!]

What a disgraceful bunch good liars are.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Getting rid of the guns does reduce mass shootings--but

Fuck your but.

There’s no ‘but’; Reducing mass shootings is a good and noble goal, worthy of pursuit.

But nothing.

As I slipped into the NRA quote in another thread ‘They think banning these weapons would lead to utopia,’ but all it would do is lead to fewer dead children.

And what is the cost? Lost gun sales. This is the is it. Children dead for money.