19 Children and 2 Adults Killed In Texas Elementary School Mass Shooting.

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

1 minute ago, AU9377 said:

........and at the time that was written, nobody alive could have envisioned a military styled weapon with a magazine with 30 clips, much less people using them in an elementary school.  We have had restrictions in our recent past.  We should at the very least return to those.

If you are referring to the assault weapon ban of 1994-2004, that proved assault weapon did not cause the desired affect the ban sought and, therefore, assault weapons were reinstated.  Biden erroneously stated murders went up 3xs after the ban was lifted.

The other issue with that was the definition of *assault weapon*.  That would have to be tied down.

[CoffeeTiger 5,108]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

If you are referring to the assault weapon ban of 1994-2004, that proved assault weapon did not cause the desired affect the ban sought and, therefore, assault weapons were reinstated.  Biden erroneously stated murders went up 3xs after the ban was lifted.

The other issue with that was the definition of *assault weapon*.  That would have to be tied down.

 

"Did not have the desired effect" is a clever way of getting around the fact that it DID have a small positive effect and that the use of assault weapons for mass murder after the ban ended has increased dramatically 

When the law went into effect mass shootings did decrease by a little bit (keep in mind the ban didn't effect already produced weapons so even during the assault weapon ban there were still millions of assault weapons still in legal circulation that could be used. It simply stopped new production from entering the market.) 

What's not indisputable is that after the ban ended, mass shooting deaths from assault weapons have skyrocketed. 

https://infogram.com/mass-shooting-deaths-awb-1ho16voz0d89x4n

 

 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

3 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

"Did not have the desired effect" is a clever way of getting around the fact that it DID have a small positive effect and that the use of assault weapons for mass murder after the ban ended has increased dramatically 

When the law went into effect mass shootings did decrease by a little bit (keep in mind the ban didn't effect already produced weapons so even during the assault weapon ban there were still millions of assault weapons still in legal circulation that could be used. It simply stopped new production from entering the market.) 

What's not indisputable is that after the ban ended, mass shooting deaths from assault weapons have skyrocketed. 

https://infogram.com/mass-shooting-deaths-awb-1ho16voz0d89x4n

 

 

 

So, why did they lift the ban?  Do you have a good definition of an assault weapon?

[CoffeeTiger 5,108]

6 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

So, why did they lift the ban?  Do you have a good definition of an assault weapon?

The ban expired because it's supporters couldn't find the votes to renew it. 

That are several reasons. First of those being that the idea of 'absolute 2nd amendment rights' was even MORE popular back then than it is now. Democrats faced a big blowback from Conservative and rural voters from the assault weapon ban and they attribute some lost elections to that blowback. 

Before it expired Democrats were too afraid of the political consequences of renewing it, and Republicans of course universally opposed it when they were in power. 

Also I'll add that the NRA actually bribed...I mean donated to plenty of Democrats back in the day for their support too. It's only been in the last 10 or so years that the NRA has become an unofficial arm of the Republican Party.  In the late 90's, early 2000's the NRA was sending as much as 30-40% of it's yearly donations to Democrats. Today NRA political donations are effectively 100% Republican. 

[GoAU 1,600]

2 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Again, disingenuous.  The perfectly designed killing tool tore these children to shreds.  The perfectly designed killing tool kept law enforcement at bay.

You continue to claim the weapon is meaningless yet, you demand that you need this weapon.

You are a big part of the problem.  This is on you.

This is “on me” no more than the crime rates and drug overdoses is on you for failing to support already existing laws.  My conscience is clear on this, and your ridiculous attempt to assign blame for those who break the law on those who follow the law is garbage.  
 

The countless attempts to make analogies to cars is silly.  If you want to continue that analogy more closely, how about restricting the speed limits of all cars to 65, since speed kills and having cars that can exceed the speed limit isn’t necessary.  There’s no need to drive faster than the speed limit.  We should also limit rapid acceleration as this is dangerous and puts people at risk.  The bottom line is that guns ARE regulated.  I won’t even discuss voting, as many regulations around voting went right out the window in the last election.  
 

At this point, we’ll just agree to disagree - neither side will give.  I’ve expressed the willingness to make some change, but clearly it’s not enough for the left.  You guys can keep punishing the innocent on this while catering to the criminals by refusing to enforce existing laws, refusing to prosecute criminals, letting criminals out of jail early,  not enforcing the borders (causing drug overdoses to skyrocket) and legalizing drugs.  At some point it may just make more sense to part ways amicably before things get really stupid. .  
 

 

 

[SLAG-91 1,483]

I don't think I could look at myself in the mirror ever again if I were those LEOs...that is a damning timeline for all involved in responding.

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

17 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

The ban expired because it's supporters couldn't find the votes to renew it. 

That are several reasons. First of those being that the idea of 'absolute 2nd amendment rights' was even MORE popular back then than it is now. Democrats faced a big blowback from Conservative and rural voters from the assault weapon ban and they attribute some lost elections to that blowback. 

Before it expired Democrats were too afraid of the political consequences of renewing it, and Republicans of course universally opposed it when they were in power. 

Also I'll add that the NRA actually bribed...I mean donated to plenty of Democrats back in the day for their support too. It's only been in the last 10 or so years that the NRA has become an unofficial arm of the Republican Party.  In the late 90's, early 2000's the NRA was sending as much as 30-40% of it's yearly donations to Democrats. Today NRA political donations are effectively 100% Republican. 

You can make all the excuses you want, but the fact remains the ban was lifted.  You may get a 2nd bite at the apple, but to do that there will have to be a acceptable definition of an *assault weapon*.  Texas law allows an 18 yo to buy a long rifle, which includes the AR-15 style rifle.  Florida, after the Parkland shooting upped the age to buy a long rifle to 21, again this is all inclusive when it comes to rifles, including the AR-15.

To ban an *assault weapon* you better be able to narrowly define that weapon or you risk banning all semiautomatic rifles.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

16 hours ago, GoAU said:

This is “on me” no more than the crime rates and drug overdoses is on you for failing to support already existing laws.  My conscience is clear on this, and your ridiculous attempt to assign blame for those who break the law on those who follow the law is garbage.  
 

The countless attempts to make analogies to cars is silly.  If you want to continue that analogy more closely, how about restricting the speed limits of all cars to 65, since speed kills and having cars that can exceed the speed limit isn’t necessary.  There’s no need to drive faster than the speed limit.  We should also limit rapid acceleration as this is dangerous and puts people at risk.  The bottom line is that guns ARE regulated.  I won’t even discuss voting, as many regulations around voting went right out the window in the last election.  
 

At this point, we’ll just agree to disagree - neither side will give.  I’ve expressed the willingness to make some change, but clearly it’s not enough for the left.  You guys can keep punishing the innocent on this while catering to the criminals by refusing to enforce existing laws, refusing to prosecute criminals, letting criminals out of jail early,  not enforcing the borders (causing drug overdoses to skyrocket) and legalizing drugs.  At some point it may just make more sense to part ways amicably before things get really stupid. .  
 

 

 

I have never mentioned cars.  Why are you?

Things have gotten really stupid.

Yes, this is on you, your precious assault rifle, your NRA, your party.  Remember, it is your disgraceful party that actually blocked funding for continued research into the prevention of gun violence.

All I have learned from your posts is, your precious little killing machine is some sort of emotional support figure, more important than human lives.  I think you need help.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

15 hours ago, SLAG-91 said:

I don't think I could look at myself in the mirror ever again if I were those LEOs...that is a damning timeline for all involved in responding.

One way to look at it.  Another way would be,,, how effective an assault weapon really is.  Even tough talking, cowboy hat wearing, Texans don't want to run into a choke point against an assault rifle.

[aubiefifty 16,791]

On 5/26/2022 at 9:42 PM, GoAU said:

I thought this was interesting, so I’ve been looking a little deeper and ran across this article.  Of course some will disagree, and still blame the tool, but it’s hard not to see a correlation.  And for those that blame the gun lobbyists- look at the lobby funds of big pharma - it dwarfs the NRA.  
 

http://www.bigskywords.com/montana-blog/does-teen-antidepressant-use-cause-more-school-shootings

Does Teen Antidepressant Use Cause More School Shootings? 5/31/2018 0 Comments   There are 4 steps:   Think about it Make the decision Get the gun Do the shooting   Two of those steps involve guns. Two of them do not.   Today I’d like to talk about the two steps that lead to so many of our young people reaching for a gun so they can kill their peers.   School shootings happen so often in America that we don’t really pay much attention to them anymore.   The recent shooting in Texas confirmed this, with TV news moving off the subject rather quickly, in just a couple days.   A big reason for this is people have become inured to school shootings…just when the number of school shootings is skyrocketing.           It seems from that graph that 2015 was the real jump-off point for our current, society-wide problem.   And we’ve seen this trend coming for some time now.   Back in 2013, a U.S. Justice report analyzed three decades of data and told us that by 2011, the country had entered a new era of mass shootings. The number had tripled between 2000 and 2009, going from an average of five a year to fifteen a year.   So what’s the reason behind this?   Is it guns…bullying…stress…or something else?   I often wonder if that ‘something else’ is teen antidepressant use. Here’s a graph of what that looks like:

Not a huge increase for the overall teen population over the past 15 years.
 
Still, some say that 90% of school shooters were on, or had been on, antidepressants when they committed their crimes.
 
That seems high to me, but when you look at the individual cases, perhaps there’s something to it.
 

• In February, the aunt of the 19-year-old school shooter in Florida told the Miami Herald that she thought he was on “medication to deal with his emotional fragility.”

 

• Back in 2013, family friends of the Newtown school shooter told CBS News that they knew “he was on medication and everything.”

 
Aside from those two high-profile shootings, we know the following school shooters were also on some kind of psychiatric medications:
 

• The 1988 Illinois school shooter was on the mania drugs, Anafranil and Lithium.

 

• The 1989 California school shooter was on the antidepressant called Amitriptyline, as well as the antipsychotic drug, Thorazine.

 

• The 1997 Kentucky school shooter was on Ritalin.

 

• The 1998 Oregon school shooter was on both Ritalin and Prozac.

 

• One of the 1999 Columbine school shooters was on the antidepressant Luvox.

 
And it’s not just school shootings.
 

• In 1981, would-be Reagan assassin John Hinckley took four Valium just hours before trying to shoot the president.

 

• In 1989, a man in Kentucky killed nine coworkers after he’d been taking Prozac for a month.

 

• In 1996, 18-year-old Kurt Danysh killed his father just two weeks after starting Prozac.

 

• In 2001, Andrea Yates of Texas killed her five children. She’d been on the antidepressant Effexor.

 

• Also in 2001, a 12-year-old in South Carolina killed his grandparents while they slept. He’d been on the antidepressants Paxil and Zoloft.

 

• In 2005, a man in Minnesota killed nine people and himself while taking Prozac.

 

• In 2012, the Colorado movie theater shooter was on the antidepressant Sertraline.

We often say our modern era of mass school shootings began in 1999 with Columbine.
 
As I mentioned, one of those shooters was on the antidepressant Luvox.
 
The maker of Luvox, Solvay Pharmaceuticals, has admitted that 1-in-25 youth on the drug will develop mania, or 4% of users.
 
Two years after that tragedy, we had Andrea Yates kill her kids and blame it on Satan. She was taking Effexor.
 
Effexor made Wyeth $3 billion in sales just a couple years ago, with 19.2 million prescriptions going out. That means thousands could have “homicidal ideation.”
 
In fact, the antidepressant drug industry is a $300 billion a year industry. Last year, the Guardian told us that pharmaceutical companies poured nearly $2.5 billion “into lobbying and funding members of Congress over the past decade.”
 
For comparisons sake, the NRA has spent $203 million on lobbying over the past twodecades.
 
It doesn’t even come close. But that’s not really important. As a society, we’ve convinced ourselves that guns are the problem, not drugs.
 
And that’s no surprise. Last year USA Todaytold us that drugmakers had spent $6.4 billion on direct-to-consumer advertising in 2016, which was up 5% from 2015. In fact, drug ads were the 12th-largest TV ad category in 2012, but by 2016 they’d moved up to 6th.
 
My how this creates demand! As 2017 began, we knew that 17% of Americans were taking a psychiatric drug, or 1-in-6.
 
This has made the psychiatric drug industry a $300 billion a year juggernaut. For comparisons sake, the gun and ammunition manufacturing industry saw $13.5 billion in revenue in 2014. We know that 31% of American households own guns.
 
And if you’re a TV network that makes a lot of money from drug companies for TV ads – but little if any from the gun industry – wouldn’t you rather blame guns than drugs for the school shooting problem? After all, why ruin the bottom line?
 
I think it’s clear that Big Pharma lobbies Congress a lot more than the NRA, and that Big Pharma makes a lot more in profits.
 
Now let’s consider if Big Pharma’s products are dangerous or not. Surely if they were, the company would lose a lot of money should that become public.
 
So the goal is to not let it go public. They’ve been very successful with this before.
 
These companies know they have a dangerous product, and sometimes that gets out in the court records.
 

• After the 1989 Kentucky shooting, survivors sued Prozac-maker Eli Lilly, with the company settling out of court.

 

• After the 2001 Andrea Yates murders, Effexor-maker Wyeth Pharmaceuticals admitted that homicidal ideation was one of the “rare adverse events” that could occur while on the drug, meaning it could happen to 1 person in 1,000.

 
When it comes to Paxil, the FDA label even lists things like “mania” and “psychosis” and “hostility” and “delirium” and “abnormal thinking” as possible “adverse drug reactions.”
 
In fact, the FDA has what they call “black box” warning labels, which are their most serious drug warning. All these drugs warn of “increased risks of suicidal thinking and behavior, known as suicidality, in young adults ages 18 to 24.”
 
The main type of antidepressants being prescribed in America today are called SSRIs, or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.
 
In England, regulators have discovered that 60 murders over the past three decades are linked to SSRI use.
 
Here in America, the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) has determined that child and teen antidepressant use increased from 1.3% to 1.6% between 2005 and 2012.
 
The same group tells us that pediatric prescriptions for antipsychotic drugs increased 65%, from 2.9 million to 4.8 million, between 2002 and 2009.
 
They also discovered that 150,000 kids were taking stimulants for ADHD in the 1970s, but by 2014 a whopping 4.3 million kids were on them, accounting for a 2,766% increase.
 
A study of 31 drugs that have been linked to violence told us that five of the top ten most popular of those dugs are antidepressants: Prozac, Paxil, Luvox, Effexor and Pristiq.
 
 
Conclusion
 
I think it’s clear that antidepressant drugs are dangerous at any age, but particularly for the young, still-developing brain.
 
And yet those drugs are being increasingly prescribed to teenagers.
 
Most of the teenagers that have done school shootings were on some kind of antidepressant.
 
Yet in the media, and in our national discussions, we rarely if ever mention this.
 
Instead we blame guns.
 
But what were the reasons and causes leading up to that teen getting a gun and going to school and shooting people?
 
What got them to thinking that using a gun would be a good idea, perhaps the answer to all their problems?
 
School shootings in this country aren’t going to stop.
 
Even if we got rid of guns, these teens would just find another way…perhaps with a bomb or even a knife.
 
Why are they doing this?
 
I think we should look at the prescription drug angle a lot more, though I’m confident that as a society we will not.
 
Let’s look at any angle, but please…let’s stop blaming guns.
 
Remember, two steps involve guns, but the two steps leading up to that do not.
 
Teens think about it and premeditate it, and guns have nothing to do with those thoughts.
 
Guns are the tool that the sick mind is using.
 
Let’s talk more about those sick minds.
 
I’m afraid if we don’t, we’ll just keep seeing the same problem over and over again.

i took lexapro which was prescribed by a doc for anxiety and depression. it was an eye opening experience. before i realized what was happening i was laying in bed with a pistol aimed at my head trying to get the nerve up to pull the trigger. when the thirde time rolled around it finally became clear this drug changed me and my perception of life. my anger was worse and i just wanted to die but i could never quite pull the trigger. i got smart enough to quit the lexapro after a little over three months. i lost a ton of friends and i almost left this world to early. my family was all gone so i had no backup but a doc. once i quit those meds the suicidal stuff went away. my anger actually got somewhat better even tho it got worse on those meds. now paxil and another drug which i have forgotten worked great but they just quit working after a while. it has been a nightmare i can tell you. at the end of the day my shrink told me to self mediate with pot. he said he had other elderly patients who could not tolerate most meds and he advised them to to the same. so yes meds are a tricky business. some work. some do not. and some make it worse. and pot helps but as much as i love it i am not gonna stay stoned 24 7. look at all the vets taking their selves out. cops. dentists. we are failing badly in the mental health arena. i have younger friends that came back from the middle east with ptsd and from appearances they do not get any help. but one of the biggest culprits is i think some people have just gotten tired of the same ol same ol and are angry as hell. they feel alone and abandoned. they do not think anyone cares enough to help them out. and when you cannot help yourself what comes next?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

14 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

i took lexapro which was prescribed by a doc for anxiety and depression. it was an eye opening experience. before i realized what was happening i was laying in bed with a pistol aimed at my head trying to get the nerve up to pull the trigger. when the thirde time rolled around it finally became clear this drug changed me and my perception of life. my anger was worse and i just wanted to die but i could never quite pull the trigger. i got smart enough to quit the lexapro after a little over three months. i lost a ton of friends and i almost left this world to early. my family was all gone so i had no backup but a doc. once i quit those meds the suicidal stuff went away. my anger actually got somewhat better even tho it got worse on those meds. now paxil and another drug which i have forgotten worked great but they just quit working after a while. it has been a nightmare i can tell you. at the end of the day my shrink told me to self mediate with pot. he said he had other elderly patients who could not tolerate most meds and he advised them to to the same. so yes meds are a tricky business. some work. some do not. and some make it worse. and pot helps but as much as i love it i am not gonna stay stoned 24 7. look at all the vets taking their selves out. cops. dentists. we are failing badly in the mental health arena. i have younger friends that came back from the middle east with ptsd and from appearances they do not get any help. but one of the biggest culprits is i think some people have just gotten tired of the same ol same ol and are angry as hell. they feel alone and abandoned. they do not think anyone cares enough to help them out. and when you cannot help yourself what comes next?

Love you so my brother.  You are a good man.

[homersapien 11,374]

23 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

So, why did they lift the ban?  Do you have a good definition of an assault weapon?

My understanding is the law had a sunset clause (expiration date).

[homersapien 11,374]

Our gun problem is the fact the country is absolutely awash in them.  This is due to the confluence of greed (manufacturers wanting to sell as many guns as possible), money in politics and culture - particularly by the large number of rural states who represent a minority of the country.

I don't see much hope without re-writing the constitution. 

We are no longer a democracy. Our political system has failed.

 

Maker of rifle used by Texas gunman draws fury for ‘incendiary’ ads

Georgia-based firearm maker Daniel Defense is facing heavy scrutiny in the wake of Tuesday’s mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Texas.

 

By Rich Schapiro

Eight days before a Texas teenager killed 19 children and two teachers at Robb Elementary School, the manufacturer of the rifle used in the massacre posted an ad on social media that featured a toddler holding a similar weapon. 

“Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it,” read the post from Daniel Defense on May 16, the same day the Robb Elementary shooter turned 18.

The ad represented the kind of provocative marketing that has helped the Georgia-based gun company become one of the largest privately owned firearms manufacturers in the country. 

Eight days before a Texas teenager killed 19 children and two teachers at Robb Elementary School, the manufacturer of the rifle used in the massacre posted an ad on social media that featured a toddler holding a similar weapon. 

“Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it,” read the post from Daniel Defense on May 16, the same day the Robb Elementary shooter turned 18.

The ad represented the kind of provocative marketing that has helped the Georgia-based gun company become one the largest privately owned firearms manufacturers in the country. 

“In an industry with 500 companies all making the same products, you have to get ahead somehow,” said Ryan Busse, a former firearms executive and author of the book “Gunfight: My Battle Against the Industry that Radicalized America.”

Busse said the “incendiary marketing” pushed by Daniel Defense founder Marty Daniel has long broken norms in the industry. 

“This is how he has grown his business by being on the edge and wrapping this holy roller thing around it,” added Busse, who is a senior adviser for the gun violence prevention group Giffords.

The company, which declined interview requests, is now on the defensive in the wake of Tuesday’s mass shooting in the tiny town of Uvalde. Daniel Defense pulled out of an NRA convention taking place this weekend in Houston. It also locked its Twitter page amid growing outrage.

But in a cruel irony for gun control advocates, the rampage at Robb Elementary School is likely to boost gun sales for Daniel Defense and other manufacturers, experts say. 

Daniel himself acknowledged the effect of high-profile shootings on his business five years after 20 kids and six teachers were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.

“The mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in 2012 drove a lot of sales,” Daniel said in a 2017 interview with Forbes. “That was a horrible event and we don’t use those kinds of terrible things to drive sales, but when people see politicians start talking about gun control, they have this fear and they go out and buy guns.”

In the same interview, Daniel dismissed a question about his position on “common-sense gun control proposals” like closing the gun-show loophole.

“Terms like ‘common sense’ come from people whose only goal is to take our guns away,” Daniel said. 

This is not the first time the company’s weapons have been used in a mass shooting.

In the worst such case in modern U.S. history, in 2017 a gunman in Las Vegas perched in his hotel suite opened fire on an outdoor music festival and killed  58 people; nearly 500 others were wounded. Among the arsenal discovered in his hotel room were four semi-automatic rifles manufactured by Daniel Defense. 

“Our deepest thoughts and prayers are with the victims and families of the Las Vegas incident,” the company said in a statement posted to its Facebook page after the shooting. 

Daniel Defense posted a similar statement on its website after the Robb Elementary shooting.

“We are deeply saddened by the tragic events in Texas this week,” it said. “Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families and community devastated by this evil act.”

A Daniel Defense spokesman told NBC News that the company has decided to skip the NRA event in Houston "due to the horrifying tragedy in Uvalde, Texas where one of our products was criminally misused."

"We believe this week is not the appropriate time to be promoting our products in Texas at the NRA meeting," he added.

The weapon used by the Texas shooter was a DDM4 V7 rifle, which sells for upward of $1,870. A Daniel Defense promotional video hails it as “a perfect rifle for everybody.” 

Daniel Defense makes some of the priciest semi-automatic rifles on the market, charging upward of  $3,000 for versions of weapons that can be bought elsewhere for less than a quarter of the price.

In 2016, Daniel Defense brought in $73 million in sales, Marty Daniel told Forbes.

The company also makes firearms for U.S. special forces and the British military, according to its founder.

Daniel, who twice flunked out of Georgia Southern University before finally graduating years later, launched a garage door company out of college. According to him, Daniel Defense would likely not exist were it not for his terrible golf game. 

“Daniel Defense got its start because Marty’s golf game sucked,” the company's website says. 

“He would spend most of his free time unwinding on the golf course, until the day a friend invited him to shoot his AR. That invitation proved to be a golden opportunity, as Marty had been looking for a recreational outlet to deal with the stress of being a business owner and had a strong desire to work in a field he was truly passionate about. He found a path to fulfilling both of these goals that day at the range. Every shot he fired filled him with a satisfaction he’d never before experienced.”

Daniel Defense manufactured its first firearm in 2009. Over the next several years, Daniel’s notoriety grew along with his company’s.

Two days before the 2016 presidential election, he was named to Donald Trump Jr.’s “Second Amendment coalition.” Trump Jr. was photographed with Daniel and his wife two years later at an industry trade show in Las Vegas. 

In a 2017 interview with Breitbart News — the right-wing news site founded by former White House adviser Steve Bannon — Daniel said he believes the right to bear arms is granted by God. 

“We are in business, we believe, to be a supporter of the Gospel,” Daniel said. “And, therefore, a supporter of the Second Amendment. In other words, not only do we have those Second Amendment rights because God gives them to us, but also the Gospel.”

The company sought to make a huge splash in 2014 with its first Super Bowl ad — a spot featuring a fictional Marine vet with his wife and baby  — but it was denied due to league rules. 

Since then, the gun-maker has filled its social media pages with ads featuring Bible verses and heroic images of heavily armed men and women.

One post shows what appears to be a soldier in a war zone shooting an assault-style rifle. 

“Use what they use,” it reads.

Busse, the former firearm executive, said the industry largely shunned marketing campaigns like these 15 years ago, but now it's not unusual to see ads focused on AR-15s and gear like bulletproof vests, which he said are often cloaked with political and religious messaging — and sometimes feature scantily clad women.

“I look at it and think how can you be surprised that 19-year-old kids are attracted to this,” Busse said. 

On Tuesday, the company posted a photo on its Twitter page showing a DDM4 V7 rifle and an assortment of Daniel Defense gear. 

Hours later, the Robb Elementary shooter showed up at the school with the same gun, and began firing at children and teachers.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/maker-gun-used-uvalde-shooting-long-known-incendiary-ads-rcna30631?cid=referral_taboolafeed

 

But hey, he offer up his "thoughts and prayers" while looking forward to increased sales.  (all emphasis's  mine)

 

 

The Real Reason America Doesn’t Have Gun Control

The basic rules of American democracy provide a veto over national policy to a minority of the states.

By Ronald Brownstein

After each of the repeated mass shootings that now provide a tragic backbeat to American life, the same doomed dance of legislation quickly begins. As the outraged demands for action are inevitably derailed in Congress, disappointed gun-control advocates, and perplexed ordinary citizens, point their fingers at the influence of the National Rifle Association or the intransigent opposition of congressional Republicans. Those are both legitimate factors, but the stalemate over gun-control legislation since Bill Clinton’s first presidential term ultimately rests on a much deeper problem: the growing crisis of majority rule in American politics.

Polls are clear that while Americans don’t believe gun control would solve all of the problems associated with gun violence, a commanding majority supports the central priorities of gun-control advocates, including universal background checks and an assault-weapons ban. Yet despite this overwhelming consensus, it’s highly unlikely that the massacre of at least 19 schoolchildren and two adults in Uvalde, Texas, yesterday, or President Joe Biden’s emotional plea for action last night, will result in legislative action.

That’s because gun control is one of many issues in which majority opinion in the nation runs into the brick wall of a Senate rule—the filibuster—that provides a veto over national policy to a minority of the states, most of them small, largely rural, preponderantly white, and dominated by Republicans.

David Frum: America’s hands are full of blood

The disproportionate influence of small states has come to shape the competition for national power in America. Democrats have won the popular vote in seven of the past eight presidential elections, something no party had done since the formation of the modern party system in 1828. Yet Republicans have controlled the White House after three of those elections instead of one, twice winning the Electoral College while losing the popular vote. The Senate imbalance has been even more striking. According to calculations by Lee Drutman, a senior fellow in the political-reform program at New America, a center-left think tank, Senate Republicans have represented a majority of the U.S. population for only two years since 1980, if you assign half of each state’s population to each of its senators. But largely because of its commanding hold on smaller states, the GOP has controlled the Senate majority for 22 of those 42 years.

The practical implications of these imbalances were dramatized by the last full-scale Senate debate over gun control. After the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Connecticut, the Senate in 2013 voted on a measure backed by President Barack Obama to impose background checks on all gun sales. Again assigning half of each state’s population to each of its senators, the 54 senators who supported the bill (plus then–Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who opposed it only for procedural reasons) represented 194 million Americans. The remaining senators who opposed the bill represented 118 million people. But because of the Senate’s filibuster rule, which requires the backing of 60 senators to move legislation to a vote, the 118 million prevailed.

The outcome likely would not differ today. Last year, the House passed legislation to expand and strengthen background checks. But it, too, has been blocked by a Republican filibuster in the Senate.

That impassable opposition reflects the GOP’s reliance on the places and voters most deeply devoted to gun culture. Polling last year by the Pew Research Center found that the share of Republicans who live in a household with a gun (54 percent) far exceeds the share of Democrats who do (31 percent). (In all, Pew found that four in 10 adults live in a house with a gun and only three in 10 own one.) A 2020 Rand Corporation study found that the 20 states with the highest rates of gun ownership had elected almost two-thirds of the Senate’s Republican lawmakers (32 of 50) and comprised about two-thirds of the states that President Donald Trump carried in the 2020 election (17 of 25). In an almost mirror image, the 20 states with the lowest rates of gun ownership had elected almost two-thirds of the Senate’s Democratic lawmakers (also 32 of 50) and comprised about two-thirds of the states Biden won (16 of 25). The 20 states with the lowest rates of gun ownership have more than two and half times as many residents (about 192 million) as the states with the highest gun-ownership rates (about 69 million). But in the Senate, these two sets of states carry equal weight.

In their opposition to gun control, Republicans in Congress clearly are prioritizing the sentiments of gun owners in their party over any other perspective, even that of other Republican voters. The Pew polling found that significant majorities of Americans support background checks (81 percent), an assault-weapons ban (63 percent), and a ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines (64 percent); a majority also opposes concealed carry of weapons without a permit. Majorities of Republicans who don’t own guns shared those opinions, as did Democratic gun owners, by even more lopsided margins. Even most Republicans who do own guns said in the polling that they support background checks and oppose permitless concealed carry (which more red states, including Texas, are authorizing). Despite all of this, Republican elected officials, in their near-lockstep opposition to gun control, have bent to groups like the NRA in equating almost any restrictions as a sign of disrespect to the values of red America.

Even though the NRA has weakened institutionally, its influence inside the GOP has been magnified by the reconfiguration of American politics along geographic lines. When Congress, during Clinton’s first term, created the national background-check system through the Brady Bill and later approved a ban on assault weapons (which has since expired), significant numbers of congressional Democrats representing rural constituencies opposed the legislation, while significant numbers of Republicans with big suburban constituencies supported it. But three decades of electoral re-sorting has significantly shrunk both of those groups. As a result, when the House passed its universal-background-check bill in 2021, only eight Republicans voted for it, while just a single Democrat voted against it.

Clint Smith: No parent should have to live like this

The Senate’s small-state bias is impeding legislative action on other issues on which Americans broadly agree, including climate change, abortion, and immigration. As with gun control, polls consistently show that a majority of Americans support acting on climate change, oppose overturning Roe v. Wade, and back comprehensive immigration reform, including offering legal status to undocumented immigrants (especially young people brought into the country by their parents). The House has passed legislation reflecting each of those perspectives. The Senate’s inaction on these issues again reflects the outsize influence of those states with the highest gun-ownership rates—which also tend to be those enmeshed in the fossil-fuel economy, with high shares of culturally conservative white Christians and low shares of immigrants.

If there is any hope for congressional action on gun control in the aftermath of the Uvalde tragedy—or another mass shooting in the future—it almost certainly will require reform or elimination of the filibuster. Otherwise, the basic rules of American politics will continue to allow Republicans to impose their priorities even when a clear majority of Americans disagree. The hard truth is that there’s no way to confront America’s accelerating epidemic of gun violence without first addressing its systemic erosion of majority rule.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2022/05/senate-state-bias-filibuster-blocking-gun-control-legislation/638425/?utm_source=pocket-newtab

 

 

 

 

Edited May 28, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,374]

6 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

You can make all the excuses you want, but the fact remains the ban was lifted.  You may get a 2nd bite at the apple, but to do that there will have to be a acceptable definition of an *assault weapon*.  Texas law allows an 18 yo to buy a long rifle, which includes the AR-15 style rifle.  Florida, after the Parkland shooting upped the age to buy a long rifle to 21, again this is all inclusive when it comes to rifles, including the AR-15.

To ban an *assault weapon* you better be able to narrowly define that weapon or you risk banning all semiautomatic rifles.

If it takes that, I'll gladly sacrifice my BAR deer rifle for the sake of the country.

Edited May 28, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,374]

22 hours ago, GoAU said:

This is “on me” no more than the crime rates and drug overdoses is on you for failing to support already existing laws.  My conscience is clear on this, and your ridiculous attempt to assign blame for those who break the law on those who follow the law is garbage.  
 

The countless attempts to make analogies to cars is silly.  If you want to continue that analogy more closely, how about restricting the speed limits of all cars to 65, since speed kills and having cars that can exceed the speed limit isn’t necessary.  There’s no need to drive faster than the speed limit.  We should also limit rapid acceleration as this is dangerous and puts people at risk.  The bottom line is that guns ARE regulated.  I won’t even discuss voting, as many regulations around voting went right out the window in the last election.  
 

At this point, we’ll just agree to disagree - neither side will give.  I’ve expressed the willingness to make some change, but clearly it’s not enough for the left.  You guys can keep punishing the innocent on this while catering to the criminals by refusing to enforce existing laws, refusing to prosecute criminals, letting criminals out of jail early,  not enforcing the borders (causing drug overdoses to skyrocket) and legalizing drugs.  At some point it may just make more sense to part ways amicably before things get really stupid. .  
 

 

 

Whataboutism is no defense of what keeps happening in this country.

Coming to our senses regarding the proliferation of military style weaponry in this country has nothing to do with imprisonment issues, drugs, driving laws, immigration, or "catering to criminals".   Nothing.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

Federal agents entered Uvalde school to kill gunman despite local police initially asking them to wait

Two senior federal law enforcement officials said the federal agents decided after about 30 minutes not to wait any longer and entered the school to find gunman Salvador Ramos.

 

 

May 27, 2022, 5:47 PM CDT / Updated May 27, 2022, 6:06 PM CDT

By Julia Ainsley

 

Federal agents who went to Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, on Tuesday to confront a gunman who killed 19 children were told by local police to wait and not enter the school — and then decided after about half an hour to ignore that initial guidance and find the shooter, say two senior federal law enforcement officials.

According to the officials, agents from BORTAC, the Customs and Border Protection tactical unit, and ICE's Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) arrived on the scene between noon and 12:15 p.m. on Tuesday. Local law enforcement asked them to wait, and then instructed HSI agents to help pull children out of the windows.

The BORTAC team, armed with tactical gear, at first did not move toward the gunman. After approximately 30 minutes passed, however, the federal agents opted of their own volition to lead the “stack” of officers inside the school and take down the shooter.

Steven McCraw, the director of the Texas Department of Public Safety, said Friday that Peter Arredondo, the chief of police for the Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District, had stopped at least 19 officers from breaking into the school as the gunman opened fire for at least an hour. 

Arredondo believed that the shooter had barricaded himself and that the children were not under an active threat, said McCraw at a news conference.

“From the benefit of hindsight where I’m sitting now, of course, it was not the right decision. It was a wrong decision. Period. There was no excuse for that,” McCraw said. “There were plenty of officers to do what needed to be done, with one exception, is that the incident commander inside believed he needed more equipment and more officers to do a tactical breach at that time.”

According to McCraw, Arredondo believed there was no active threat, so instead of sending officers in, he spent time finding keys that would let him into the school. During this time, however, Ramos had unencumbered access to carry out the attack. Nineteen students and two teachers were killed.

Arredondo was not present among law enforcement officials standing with McCraw on Friday, and McCraw did not explicitly name him. 

Arredondo did not immediately return a request for comment by NBC News.

Two teachers and 19 students, many of them fourth graders, were killed inside a single classroom during Tuesday’s massacre.

McCraw said Friday that two students inside the school dialed 911 multiple times during the shooting and begged authorities for help. The calls began at 12:03 p.m. and lasted through most of the hour.

At 12:47 p.m., one of the students called a 911 operator and said “please send the police now.” 

Both students survived, McCraw said.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/federal-agents-entered-uvalde-school-kill-gunman-local-police-initiall-rcna30941

 

Thank God the Border Patrol agents weren't afraid of taking out the shooter.

[GoAU 1,600]

7 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

I have never mentioned cars.  Why are you?

Things have gotten really stupid.

Yes, this is on you, your precious assault rifle, your NRA, your party.  Remember, it is your disgraceful party that actually blocked funding for continued research into the prevention of gun violence.

All I have learned from your posts is, your precious little killing machine is some sort of emotional support figure, more important than human lives.  I think you need help.

I mentioned the car analogy because it was used in a prior post, not by you.  
 

Attempting to lay the blame for a deranged killer on law abiding gun owners is just as disingenuous as blaming all drinking and driving deaths on anyone that consumes alcohol and doesn’t support prohibition.  Or blaming all the fentanyl deaths on Democrats who (criminally) neglect to secure our borders.  
 

I will ignore your petty little personal digs.  Although I enjoy civil debate on topics, I expected more from you. 

7 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

One way to look at it.  Another way would be,,, how effective an assault weapon really is.  Even tough talking, cowboy hat wearing, Texans don't want to run into a choke point against an assault rifle.

I agree the police botched this, but the situation was solved by a single Border Patrol agent with a gun.  Hard to believe that such a lethal instrument allowed the shooter to be dispatched by a single man. 

6 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

i took lexapro which was prescribed by a doc for anxiety and depression…..

First, I am genuinely grateful you were able to realize what was happening and correct it before tragedy occurred.  
 

My post was not intending to cast blame or guilt on anyone coping with issues. I am just concerned in a lot of cases teachers and doctors are very quick to get children on various medications and it is well known many have horrible side effects.  I encourage everyone to look at the amount of money the pharmacy lobby throws around.   It is orders of magnitude more than the “gun lobby”. Actually there are many organizations throwing around a lot more money.  
 

Ive lost friends to PTSD and understand how horrible of a place people can find themselves in.  There definitely needs to be more and better ways to address the mental health issues our nation faces.  

[GoAU 1,600]

A couple facts in the story below - which just occurred today.   

1) Good guy with gun stops bad guy with gun - saving lives

2) The “perfect killing machine” stopped by a handgun  

3) Shooter has been in and out of prison multiple times.   Frequent flier in the criminal justice system. 

4) In possession of the rifle illegally 

I guess the bad guy may not have been aware he wasn’t supposed to have the gun. 
 

West Virginia woman with pistol shoots, kills man firing at graduation party: 'Saved several lives'

A woman in West Virginia fatally shot a man Wednesday night who had begun firing an AR-15-style rifle into a crowd of dozens. 

Charleston Police identified the man as 37-year-old Dennis Butler. 

The people were attending a birthday and graduation party outside a Renaissance Circle apartment complex. 

Butler had been at the apartment complex earlier in the evening in a vehicle and was warned to slow down because children were playing, according to authorities. 
 

He left but later returned and parked in front of the complex before shooting.

The woman was attending the West Virginia party. She drew a pistol and fired on Butler. 
 

The woman then waited for police to arrive, and she and several witnesses have cooperated with the investigation.

"Instead of running from the threat, she engaged with the threat and saved several lives last night," Chief of Detectives Tony Hazelett told news outlets Thursday.

Hazelett said no charges would be filed against the woman.

In an interview with MetroNews' "Talkline" Thursday, Police Chief Tyke Hunt said Butler was a convicted felon who had "been to prison a few times." 
 

Hunt said Butler illegally possessed the gun he fired, adding the matter was still under investigation. 

WSAZ said the Kanawha County Prosecutor’s Office is investigating. 
 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/west-virginia-woman-shoots-kills-man-fired-party

 

Before everyone starts complaining about the article / link being from Fox News, I tried to link to CNN, but surprisingly they didn’t cover this story….

Edited May 29, 2022 by GoAU

[tgrogan21 6,198]

28 minutes ago, GoAU said:

A couple facts in the story below - which just occurred today.   

1) Good guy with gun stops bad guy with gun - saving lives

2) The “perfect killing machine” stopped by a handgun  

3) Shooter has been in and out of prison multiple times.   Frequent flier in the criminal justice system. 

4) In possession of the rifle illegally 

I guess the bad guy may not have been aware he wasn’t supposed to have the gun. 
 

West Virginia woman with pistol shoots, kills man firing at graduation party: 'Saved several lives'

A woman in West Virginia fatally shot a man Wednesday night who had begun firing an AR-15-style rifle into a crowd of dozens. 

Charleston Police identified the man as 37-year-old Dennis Butler. 

The people were attending a birthday and graduation party outside a Renaissance Circle apartment complex. 

Butler had been at the apartment complex earlier in the evening in a vehicle and was warned to slow down because children were playing, according to authorities. 
 

He left but later returned and parked in front of the complex before shooting.

The woman was attending the West Virginia party. She drew a pistol and fired on Butler. 
 

The woman then waited for police to arrive, and she and several witnesses have cooperated with the investigation.

"Instead of running from the threat, she engaged with the threat and saved several lives last night," Chief of Detectives Tony Hazelett told news outlets Thursday.

Hazelett said no charges would be filed against the woman.

In an interview with MetroNews' "Talkline" Thursday, Police Chief Tyke Hunt said Butler was a convicted felon who had "been to prison a few times." 
 

Hunt said Butler illegally possessed the gun he fired, adding the matter was still under investigation. 

WSAZ said the Kanawha County Prosecutor’s Office is investigating. 
 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/west-virginia-woman-shoots-kills-man-fired-party

 

Before everyone starts complaining about the article / link being from Fox News, I tried to link to CNN, but surprisingly they didn’t cover this story….

I'm glad the good guy stopped the bad guy this one time. But more often than not they don't as proven when 19 police officers didn't do anything to stop an 18 year old from murdering 21 people. And a police chief told border patrol agents not to go in to help for over 30 minutes. The same border patrol agents that actually stopped the bad guy.

You act like if stricter gun control laws were passed it would just magically stop every evil from happening but that's not going to be the case and no one should ever think that. We have laws that stop us from speeding but we still do. We have laws that stop us from stealing but people still do. Just because bad guys will break the law doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws.

If it stops ONE innocent life from being taken from us then it's better than what we have now. People are more concerned about their guns than children being gunned down in school. T

[GoAU 1,600]

22 hours ago, tgrogan21 said:

I'm glad the good guy stopped the bad guy this one time. But more often than not they don't as proven when 19 police officers didn't do anything to stop an 18 year old from murdering 21 people. And a police chief told border patrol agents not to go in to help for over 30 minutes. The same border patrol agents that actually stopped the bad guy.

You act like if stricter gun control laws were passed it would just magically stop every evil from happening but that's not going to be the case and no one should ever think that. We have laws that stop us from speeding but we still do. We have laws that stop us from stealing but people still do. Just because bad guys will break the law doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws.

If it stops ONE innocent life from being taken from us then it's better than what we have now. People are more concerned about their guns than children being gunned down in school. T

You make my point for me - thank you.  
 

you’re right, passing more laws will not stop the bad guys, that are already bent on committing much more serious crimes than possessing a gun.  It will however stop good people, that follow the law, from having guns to protect themselves and others.  
 

The “if it will save one life” argument is a fallacy.  I have shown statistics that guns are used in large numbers of cases for defensive purposes.   Taking guns from law abiding citizens will cost lives too.  Just because you don’t see the defensive uses plastered all over the media doesn’t mean they don’t happen.   I can share many more examples if you’d like. I just thought it was ironic that this happened today, and was omitted from coverage by some media sources.  

Edited May 30, 2022 by GoAU

[tgrogan21 6,198]

11 minutes ago, GoAU said:

You make my point for me - thank you.  
 

your right, passing more laws will not stop the bad guys, that are already bent on committing much more serious crimes than possessing a gun.  It will however stop good people, that follow the law, from having guns to protect themselves and others.  
 

The “if it will save one life” argument is a fallacy.  I have shown statistics that guns are used in large numbers of cases for defensive purposes.   Taking guns from law abiding citizens will cost lives too.  Just because you don’t see the defensive uses plastered all over the media doesn’t mean they don’t happen.   I can share many more examples if you’d like. I just thought it was ironic that this happened today, and was omitted from coverage by some media sources.  

 Passing stricter gun laws would do NOTHING to stop the good guys from having guns. If you're a good guy, you would be able to pass background checks, mental health checks, you would be old enough, etc. The only thing it would do is make it a little more difficult to get a gun which shouldn't be a problem. I'm sorry, I will never understand the fetishism that people have with guns.

NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT TAKING ALL GUNS AWAY. I don't know why you keep bringing this BS argument up. We just want to make it harder for the bad guys to get a gun. I don't know why anyone would be opposed to this unless they just care more about their guns than innocent lives. You would still have your handguns, and your shotguns, and your hunting rifles. You do not NEED to have an AR-15 that is so dangerous even cops don't want to confront you because you can mow them all down in the matter of minutes.

[GoAU 1,600]

4 minutes ago, tgrogan21 said:

 Passing stricter gun laws would do NOTHING to stop the good guys from having guns. If you're a good guy, you would be able to pass background checks, mental health checks, you would be old enough, etc. The only thing it would do is make it a little more difficult to get a gun which shouldn't be a problem. I'm sorry, I will never understand the fetishism that people have with guns.

NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT TAKING ALL GUNS AWAY. I don't know why you keep bringing this BS argument up. We just want to make it harder for the bad guys to get a gun. I don't know why anyone would be opposed to this unless they just care more about their guns than innocent lives. You would still have your handguns, and your shotguns, and your hunting rifles. You do not NEED to have an AR-15 that is so dangerous even cops don't want to confront you because you can mow them all down in the matter of minutes.

This is exactly how it will play out, because it is already happening in “liberal” states.  Banning “assault rifles” which is hard enough, but lets say it’s defined as magazine fed, semi automatic rifles.  Then mass shootings continue to happen, because we are not addressing the root causes, except now with handguns. I’m places like schools, just as much damage can be done with handguns.   As a matter of fact, less than 3% of all gun homicides use a rifle - that is ALL rifles.  So let’s just assume that 100% of rifles used in homicides are “Assault Rifles” (which is a significant misnomer, as the civilian variants we are discussing are not select fire), you are barely scratching the surface.  See where the next steps go?   
 

As for you psychiatric evaluations - this sounds like a great idea on the surface, as do “red flag” laws, until you really start thinking about how they can (and will) be abused.  

[DKW 86 7,425]

9 hours ago, GoAU said:

This is exactly how it will play out, because it is already happening in “liberal” states.  Banning “assault rifles” which is hard enough, but lets say it’s defined as magazine fed, semi automatic rifles.  Then mass shootings continue to happen, because we are not addressing the root causes, except now with handguns. I’m places like schools, just as much damage can be done with handguns.   As a matter of fact, less than 3% of all gun homicides use a rifle - that is ALL rifles.  So let’s just assume that 100% of rifles used in homicides are “Assault Rifles” (which is a significant misnomer, as the civilian variants we are discussing are not select fire), you are barely scratching the surface.  See where the next steps go?   
 

As for you psychiatric evaluations - this sounds like a great idea on the surface, as do “red flag” laws, until you really start thinking about how they can (and will) be abused.  

Go AU is correct. Only 3% of these problems come from rifles. 

This is far more complicated than a simple meme will fix.

[tgrogan21 6,198]

12 hours ago, GoAU said:

This is exactly how it will play out, because it is already happening in “liberal” states.  Banning “assault rifles” which is hard enough, but lets say it’s defined as magazine fed, semi automatic rifles.  Then mass shootings continue to happen, because we are not addressing the root causes, except now with handguns. I’m places like schools, just as much damage can be done with handguns.   As a matter of fact, less than 3% of all gun homicides use a rifle - that is ALL rifles.  So let’s just assume that 100% of rifles used in homicides are “Assault Rifles” (which is a significant misnomer, as the civilian variants we are discussing are not select fire), you are barely scratching the surface.  See where the next steps go?   
 

As for you psychiatric evaluations - this sounds like a great idea on the surface, as do “red flag” laws, until you really start thinking about how they can (and will) be abused.  

There you go again worrying about a hypothetical situation that has not happened and more than likely will never happen. No one is going to take all of your guns. Don't worry you and people like you can still fetishize them to the extreme. Just come out and admit that you don't really care about innocent people dying in mass shootings. You only care about your guns.

And I stand by the fact that if making it harder to get these guns saves 1 life than it's worth it. Passing stricter gun laws doesn't mean that you won't still get your guns it just means it'll take you a bit longer to get one in your hand. Sorry that trying to save innocent people is such an inconvenience for you.

[DKW 86 7,425]

45K Deaths from guns last year. I lost a very dear friend to suicide from a gun 28-DEC-22. 24K or more were suicides. 

We have well over 300M weapons in this nation. Even counting the 45K, the percentage of weapons involved in deaths in America comes to..... .015% Of those deaths, the rifles accounted for a whopping 3%. The issue is handguns, by and large.

We have to do better and I am open to any real discussion and moves and laws. But lets address THE REAL ISSUES.