Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[blastula]

Self-defense killings always exceed mass shooter deaths.

How many mass shootings are stopped with a gun in self-defense? That's the better comparison, if you're going to exclude all other shooting deaths.

 

[Elixir]

Self-defense killings always exceed mass shooter deaths.

How many mass shootings are stopped with a gun in self-defense? That's the better comparison, if you're going to exclude all other shooting deaths.

There’s a Catch-22 there… if anyone ever prevented a mass shooting, it wasn’t ever recorded as a mass shooting.
That said, I suspect the number may be zero or very close to it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Self-defense killings always exceed mass shooter deaths.

How many mass shootings are stopped with a gun in self-defense? That's the better comparison, if you're going to exclude all other shooting deaths.

Loren is right, deaths in mass shootings are generally lower than justifiable homicides. I wouldn't consider that a win for Loren, however.

WashPo has an old article (2015).

For every justifiable homicide with a gun, there are these with a gun:

• 34 criminal homicides
• 78 suicides
• 2 accidental deaths

Let that soak in. Guns end up killing its own shooter (on purpose) nearly two magnitudes more often than killing someone else in self-defense. The statistics clearly show that getting a gun is significantly much more likely to kill its owner on purpose, than to actually kill in self defense. Yes, guns can be used without killing someone in self-defense, but suicides are also not always successful.

 

[Jarhyn]

Loren, look at the kind of comparison you are making between 298 justifiable civilian homicides and mass shooting death tolls, which compared with only a fraction of the 10,380 unjustifiable civilian homicides. Laughing dog pointed this out to you, but it is worth reflecting on why your comparison was so misleading. Justified homicides in general are not a fair or reasonable amount to compare against just a fraction of unjustified homicides. They need to be compared against all unjustified homicides. We should not just be concerned with mass shootings, but with all criminal shootings. Gun control is not about just stopping mass shootings and letting all those other shootings keep on going at the same high level. It is about bringing down the amount of unjustifiable shootings of all types. This thread is about a particular mass shooting, so maybe what you need to find is some statistics on the number of justified mass civilian homicides. Can you do that?

What you are missing is that the proposed gun measures will do squat about the unjustified homicides in general. Thus comparing self-defense cases vs homicide in general is not a realistic look at the costs/benefits. I'm doing an apples-to-apples comparison, the benefits (few mass shootings) vs the costs (a lack of ability to defend oneself.)

I think you’re wrong, Loren. Regulation of firearms reduced the number of gun homicides and suicides when it was put into effect.

I’m also extremely skeptical of firearms being useful in self defense. In three separate instances, close family members were held up at gunpoint, in their own homes, by strangers. Everyone survived with zero injuries. Only one had a firearm fired at him: the one who was himself armed and extremely proficient with firearms. He and his wife were shot at with HIS gun in his own small kitchen. Fortunately, the thieves were terrible shots. The stress of this situation precipitated a heart attack shortly after and a breakdown from the stress. One triple bypass and valve replacement later and some meds, he was fine, but he nearly lost his life during the robbery. BTW, two of those robberies took place at farm houses. The other took place in an upscale suburb and required a SWAT team to resolve, with zero shots fired/no injuries except to dignities.

I have never been in a situation once where I might have needed a gun to defend myself, outside of being in the military, and I didn't ever once discharge my rifle towards anyone who might have even tentatively been considered an enemy, even in warning.

This is not to say I wouldn't have. I explicitly would have. I once was given explicit orders to stand down without making a warning shot, and I know damn well those orders were the only reason I did not.

On the other hand I have been in other situations where having a nice blunt object of appropriate weight, and occasionally having some friends along, has paid dividends.

Again, I have never had to actually strike someone with such an object as would truly injure them; never once has anyone pushed me to that point, though they have pushed me to the point where the offer has been made to strike them, to be redeemed upon their continued unethical advances.

There are some conflicts I've been in that turned physical for no good reason and which I initiated upon but were nonetheless inevitable, admittedly, but again none of that would have been made any better by the leverage of a gun or even of anything more lethal than a fist.

The only person I've ever treated like that for the last 13 years is myself, when I thought I might have killed my favorite thing in the whole world through carelessness and even so, I am ashamed I acted that way towards myself.

I'm a veteran of a combat zone deployment in a combat MOS as a truck gunner, I live in the inner city, I've been victim to an attempted mugging, witness to a successful mugging wherein at least one of the muggers got picked up by the cops, and have interceded in a couple of incidents that never became assaults because someone stepped up to say no.

Guns wouldn't have helped in any of it, and if things had gone sideways, there would have been hearse rides instead of ambulance rides, and instead of having a bad day, whoever it is would end up seeing the end of days.

 

[Copernicus]

Apparently, the Oklahoma shooter bought his AR15 a few hours before his rampage in that Tulsa hospital. He blamed a back surgeon there for pain he was suffering after his surgery, so he wanted to murder him. It's really convenient not to have those pesky waiting period laws or intrusive background checks to get in the way of an instant solution. Oklahoma's Republican lawmakers have been hard at work to get the government off the backs of citizens in a hurry.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

gift link

The gunman who killed four people at a Tulsa hospital on Wednesday blamed a doctor at the facility for ongoing pain after back surgery and vowed to kill him and anyone who got in his way, police said Thursday.

Tulsa Police Chief Wendell Franklin told reporters that Michael Louis bought an AR-15-style weapon about an hour before the attack, killing St. Francis Hospital doctors Preston Phillips and Stephanie Husen. Two other victims were identified as William Love, a patient, and Amanda Glenn, a receptionist.

Oklahoma, Texas two of the states that let you purchase weapons with the intent of murdering people. But we are powerless to do anything about it because we need people to have the right to murder themselves with firearms... and in tiny fraction of cases, defend themselves from others.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Cenk Uygur on Twitter: "He speaks for me. Every word. In fact, I’ll be using the “Marine Standard” from now on. If we can’t ask civilians to be at least as careful as Marines are with their weapons, then they shouldn’t have them. And yes, “well-regulated” in fact means “well-regulated” in English." / Twitter
noting
LifeIndiscreet on Twitter: "This guy here.A Fellow vet said it perfectly. I couldn’t have stated it better. #guncontrol (vid link)" / Twitter
Someone describes the gun regulations from his military service. Like having to spend 2 weeks of every year demonstrating that one is proficient in using one's guns. Also not permitting soldiers to store their guns in their barracks.

BeaglesResist on Twitter: "@LifeIndiscreet To underscore this excellent video and for those interested in what really happens with weapons in the military, here is a detailed thread from another former military firearms trainer. (link)" / Twitter
noting
John on Twitter: "THREAD. ..." / Twitter

THREAD. Folks, bear with me for a minute, please. I want to address a point that is often made by gun rights advocates, but which is a fallacy that civilians may not realize. In the interest of full disclosure, I served 30 years in the Army and Army Reserve, I’ve taught marksmanship in the Army and supervised firing ranges and arms storage/security, and am a gun collector who supports the 2nd Amendment in that I believe that a law abiding citizen has the right to be armed if he or she so chooses, but I also believe that this right – like all of our rights – carries with it significant responsibilities. So, my point: we often hear people say that since we trust an 18-year old soldier to carry an M-16 (the military version of the AR-15), then we should be comfortable allowing 18 year old private citizens to carry one.

But here’s what those folks are NOT telling you: 1) no brand new enlistee in the Army (or any branch of the military) is given a firearm on Day 1 of his/her service. They receive quite a bit of training in firearm safety before they ever are allowed to handle the weapon – even if they grew up around guns and know all about them. 2) When they do get to handle their M-16s for the first time, there are no bullets ANYWHERE around. After being trained in firearm safety, they are then trained on the weapon itself without ever firing a live round. They learn how to handle it, carry it safely, disassemble it, clean it, check it for functionality, and reassemble it. 3) When they finally do get to fire the weapon, they are closely, CLOSELY supervised by their sergeants and officers. In fact, when the trainees go to the trainees go to the firing range for the first time, there are almost as many sergeants on the range as there are trainees. And some of the sergeants are assigned the specific responsibility for ensuring everything is done according to Army safety regulations. 4) Once the recruits finish their training and join their units, they NEVER get to carry their firearms around. Those weapons are kept in the unit arms room under double lock and key – each weapon is locked into its storage rack and the arms room itself is locked. And the arms room is protected by an alarm system. 5) No soldier of ANY rank can simply go to the unit armorer (the sergeant responsible for the arms room) and say, “Gee, Sergeant, may I please sign out my M-16? I feel like exercising my 2nd Amendment right today by carrying my rifle around just because I can.”

No, the troops only sign out their weapons for authorized purposes, such as marksmanship training or field exercises, and when they do that, they are ALWAYS under the supervision of a sergeant – usually under the supervision of several sergeants and a few officers, to boot. So, friends, that’s the rest of that story. Those 18 year old soldiers whom we trust to carry an assault rifle are doing to under conditions so tightly regulated as to make any gun rights activist blanche in anger. The military recognizes that those weapons are so deadly that they never allow soldiers to just carry them around on the installation. Those are the facts of the matter. So the next time one of your gun rights advocating friends tries to feed you that particular line, you can refute them with the facts.

Is there anyone here with military experience? Is any of that typical?

This is 100% spot on.

I even had my Physical Security training certificate from the army, and was one of the folks who was responsible for the arms room secondary key safe.

Even this is not the full story.

Nobody, not even the armorer has direct access to the keys outside of when the arms room is open, and they are in attendance.

Not even the armorer can access the armory without having the first sergeant open the safe where the locked key cans are stored.

The armorer has a key to that locked can, which the first sergeant DOES NOT have.

Nobody can get into that room without working together.

The secondary key cans are also locked, in a safe controlled by the security office for the battalion behind another reinforced locked door to a room full of soldiers, and sealed with numbered seals so it is clear when they have been opened and used. The numbers are recorded and kept locked up elsewhere.

Opening the arms room and closing it is a whole secondary rigamarole.

2nded.

And unless you are going to the range, 95% of the time your weapon will have a little red cube on the end of it that plugs the barrel (otherwise the rifle won't work correctly if you are firing blanks).

aa

 

[Jarhyn]

Cenk Uygur on Twitter: "He speaks for me. Every word. In fact, I’ll be using the “Marine Standard” from now on. If we can’t ask civilians to be at least as careful as Marines are with their weapons, then they shouldn’t have them. And yes, “well-regulated” in fact means “well-regulated” in English." / Twitter
noting
LifeIndiscreet on Twitter: "This guy here.A Fellow vet said it perfectly. I couldn’t have stated it better. #guncontrol (vid link)" / Twitter
Someone describes the gun regulations from his military service. Like having to spend 2 weeks of every year demonstrating that one is proficient in using one's guns. Also not permitting soldiers to store their guns in their barracks.

BeaglesResist on Twitter: "@LifeIndiscreet To underscore this excellent video and for those interested in what really happens with weapons in the military, here is a detailed thread from another former military firearms trainer. (link)" / Twitter
noting
John on Twitter: "THREAD. ..." / Twitter

THREAD. Folks, bear with me for a minute, please. I want to address a point that is often made by gun rights advocates, but which is a fallacy that civilians may not realize. In the interest of full disclosure, I served 30 years in the Army and Army Reserve, I’ve taught marksmanship in the Army and supervised firing ranges and arms storage/security, and am a gun collector who supports the 2nd Amendment in that I believe that a law abiding citizen has the right to be armed if he or she so chooses, but I also believe that this right – like all of our rights – carries with it significant responsibilities. So, my point: we often hear people say that since we trust an 18-year old soldier to carry an M-16 (the military version of the AR-15), then we should be comfortable allowing 18 year old private citizens to carry one.

But here’s what those folks are NOT telling you: 1) no brand new enlistee in the Army (or any branch of the military) is given a firearm on Day 1 of his/her service. They receive quite a bit of training in firearm safety before they ever are allowed to handle the weapon – even if they grew up around guns and know all about them. 2) When they do get to handle their M-16s for the first time, there are no bullets ANYWHERE around. After being trained in firearm safety, they are then trained on the weapon itself without ever firing a live round. They learn how to handle it, carry it safely, disassemble it, clean it, check it for functionality, and reassemble it. 3) When they finally do get to fire the weapon, they are closely, CLOSELY supervised by their sergeants and officers. In fact, when the trainees go to the trainees go to the firing range for the first time, there are almost as many sergeants on the range as there are trainees. And some of the sergeants are assigned the specific responsibility for ensuring everything is done according to Army safety regulations. 4) Once the recruits finish their training and join their units, they NEVER get to carry their firearms around. Those weapons are kept in the unit arms room under double lock and key – each weapon is locked into its storage rack and the arms room itself is locked. And the arms room is protected by an alarm system. 5) No soldier of ANY rank can simply go to the unit armorer (the sergeant responsible for the arms room) and say, “Gee, Sergeant, may I please sign out my M-16? I feel like exercising my 2nd Amendment right today by carrying my rifle around just because I can.”

No, the troops only sign out their weapons for authorized purposes, such as marksmanship training or field exercises, and when they do that, they are ALWAYS under the supervision of a sergeant – usually under the supervision of several sergeants and a few officers, to boot. So, friends, that’s the rest of that story. Those 18 year old soldiers whom we trust to carry an assault rifle are doing to under conditions so tightly regulated as to make any gun rights activist blanche in anger. The military recognizes that those weapons are so deadly that they never allow soldiers to just carry them around on the installation. Those are the facts of the matter. So the next time one of your gun rights advocating friends tries to feed you that particular line, you can refute them with the facts.

Is there anyone here with military experience? Is any of that typical?

This is 100% spot on.

I even had my Physical Security training certificate from the army, and was one of the folks who was responsible for the arms room secondary key safe.

Even this is not the full story.

Nobody, not even the armorer has direct access to the keys outside of when the arms room is open, and they are in attendance.

Not even the armorer can access the armory without having the first sergeant open the safe where the locked key cans are stored.

The armorer has a key to that locked can, which the first sergeant DOES NOT have.

Nobody can get into that room without working together.

The secondary key cans are also locked, in a safe controlled by the security office for the battalion behind another reinforced locked door to a room full of soldiers, and sealed with numbered seals so it is clear when they have been opened and used. The numbers are recorded and kept locked up elsewhere.

Opening the arms room and closing it is a whole secondary rigamarole.

2nded.

And unless you are going to the range, 95% of the time your weapon will have a little red cube on the end of it that plugs the barrel (otherwise the rifle won't work correctly if you are firing blanks).

aa

God I fucking hated firing blanks.

Most exercises were blank round exercises but GDI I fucking hated those goddamn things.

 

[ZiprHead]

Guns for teachers: Ohio Statehouse passes bill, DeWine ‘looks forward’ to signing it

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) – An Ohio bill allowing education staff to carry guns in schools with reduced training is on its way to Gov. Mike DeWine’s desk. On the heels of a mass shooting at a Texas ele…

www.nbc4i.com

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) – An Ohio bill allowing education staff to carry guns in schools with reduced training is on its way to Gov. Mike DeWine’s desk.

On the heels of a mass shooting at a Texas elementary school that left 21 people dead, the bill was fast-tracked through the Statehouse Wednesday, with the Senate voting 23-9 in favor of the bill, and the House approving it just hours later with a 56-34 vote, with nine abstentions.

The bill, House Bill 99, allows any adult in a public or private school to carry a concealed firearm in a school’s safety zone if a district chooses to do so without the 737 hours of peace officer training required by current law.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Thomas Hall (R-Madison Township), passed the House in November with a 59-33 vote but was returned to the House for a concurrence vote after the Senate’s passage.

 

[ZiprHead]

Funerals for children killed in mass shooting continue in grieving Uvalde as police, bikers barricade press

The bikers physically obstructed cameras within those designated areas and followed...

www.houstonchronicle.com

Funerals for children killed in mass shooting continue in grieving Uvalde as police, bikers barricade press

Journalists watching the ceremony from a distance were met with a fleet of police officers and, later, bikers who threatened to arrest them for stepping outside of designated areas across the street. The bikers physically obstructed cameras within those designated areas and followed reporters. One biker club member, who declined to give her name, was part of a group called Guardians of the Children and said they were working with police.

“They asked us to be here,” the woman said.

Other biker clubs in the group included Thin Blue Line LEMC and Marines MC.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Guns for teachers: Ohio Statehouse passes bill, DeWine ‘looks forward’ to signing it

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) – An Ohio bill allowing education staff to carry guns in schools with reduced training is on its way to Gov. Mike DeWine’s desk. On the heels of a mass shooting at a Texas ele…

www.nbc4i.com

The bill, House Bill 99, allows any adult in a public or private school to carry a concealed firearm in a school’s safety zone if a district chooses to do so without the 737 hours of peace officer training required by current law.

Does the weapon have to be concealed? I'm assuming it can be concealed or not. This of course means the 18 year old shooter in Uvalde would be legal in Ohio.

 

[ZiprHead]

Rep Louie Gohmert (R-Etard) knows why these mass shootings are happening!

 

[Derec]

Apparently, the Oklahoma shooter bought his AR15 a few hours before his rampage in that Tulsa hospital. He blamed a back surgeon there for pain he was suffering after his surgery, so he wanted to murder him. It's really convenient not to have those pesky waiting period laws or intrusive background checks to get in the way of an instant solution. Oklahoma's Republican lawmakers have been hard at work to get the government off the backs of citizens in a hurry.

Let's say he wasn't able to buy an AR15. He also had a handgun. Handguns are also very effective firearms, especially at close range.
If he still wanted the firepower of a rifle but without access to an AR15, there are non-assaulty rifles that fire the same cartridge as the AR15, and thus have similar ballistics.

I think the whole assault weapons angle is a distraction. Vast majority of gun crimes are committed with handguns.

 

[Gospel]

Apparently, the Oklahoma shooter bought his AR15 a few hours before his rampage in that Tulsa hospital. He blamed a back surgeon there for pain he was suffering after his surgery, so he wanted to murder him. It's really convenient not to have those pesky waiting period laws or intrusive background checks to get in the way of an instant solution. Oklahoma's Republican lawmakers have been hard at work to get the government off the backs of citizens in a hurry.

Let's say he wasn't able to buy an AR15. He also had a handgun. Handguns are also very effective firearms, especially at close range.
If he still wanted the firepower of a rifle but without access to an AR15, there are non-assaulty rifles that fire the same cartridge as the AR15, and thus have similar ballistics.

I think the whole assault weapons angle is a distraction. Vast majority of gun crimes are committed with handguns.

Then we need to do what the constitution says and have a WELL REGULATED militia. If you're not a part of the militia NO FUCKING GUN FOR YOU.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Rep Louie Gohmert (R-Etard) knows why these mass shootings are happening!

They are sounding like web board posters now days.

 

[Gospel]

At least in comparable countries when there is a mass shooting they get to bury the dead before there is another mass shooting. You'd think that only happens during a war. There was a mass shooting at a Medical center in Oklahoma, a Cemetary in Wisconsin & a church parking lot in Iowa since this thread was created.

Yeah, we don't need to WELL REGULATE which law-abiding citizens get guns.

 

[Gospel]

Not to mention an escaped convict in Texas who magically came across a rifle and pistol along his travels. If those guns belonged to a well-regulated militia I'm certain they would have been secured. May not have avoided the killing of 1 adult and 4 children (the police could have prevented that by having better security), but it would have decreased the odds of him arming himself against the police. Guns being everywhere and not well-regulated did that.

 

[Copernicus]

Apparently, the Oklahoma shooter bought his AR15 a few hours before his rampage in that Tulsa hospital. He blamed a back surgeon there for pain he was suffering after his surgery, so he wanted to murder him. It's really convenient not to have those pesky waiting period laws or intrusive background checks to get in the way of an instant solution. Oklahoma's Republican lawmakers have been hard at work to get the government off the backs of citizens in a hurry.

Let's say he wasn't able to buy an AR15. He also had a handgun. Handguns are also very effective firearms, especially at close range.
If he still wanted the firepower of a rifle but without access to an AR15, there are non-assaulty rifles that fire the same cartridge as the AR15, and thus have similar ballistics.

I think the whole assault weapons angle is a distraction. Vast majority of gun crimes are committed with handguns.

In this particular case, Derek, the perpetrator bought both the handgun and the AR-15 legally on the same day. He bought the AR-15 about an hour before the shooting. The most immediate failure here is the lack of a waiting period, not the availability of the type of weapon used.

Apparently, the killer thought he could put both types of weapon to good use, so he bought one that he could easily carry and conceal and another one that could give him more firepower. As you know, the AR-15 is among the most coveted by those planning a mass killing. My guess is that the handgun was for backup. He was successful in killing the spinal surgeon that he blamed for his pain, but there were other innocent people who got killed, as well.

The Oklahoma governor has said that now is not the time to talk about gun control. Presumably, the proper time would be after all of the latest victims have been buried or cremated and there is a hiatus between mass shootings. Gospel seems to think that such hiatuses are rare, but I do think that there are such pauses. At that point, Republicans will be ready to come forward with their mental health proposals. Right now, they are busy proposing laws to put more guns in the hands of more people. Ohio is in the process of passing a law that will require less training for teachers and other adults in schools to qualify to carry a gun. That will create more parity between the shooters invading the school and the armed defenders, I suppose.

 

[Elixir]

Gospel seems to think that such hiatuses are rare, but I do think that there are such pauses.

28 or 29 so far this year means more than one a week on average. If you’re looking for a pause of several weeks, it could be a long wait.

 

[Gospel]

Gospel seems to think that such hiatuses are rare, but I do think that there are such pauses.

Read what I said again then ask yourself. What country had another mass shooting before the dead were buried from a previous mass shooting? My statement had nothing to do with how often hiatuses occur, it was that only in America are there cases where there isn't one.