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

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Just now, I_M4_AU said:

I don’t think the purpose of the press conference was to find solutions to mass shootings, I believe it was to give an update about the shooting.  That should come later.

Then Gov. Abbott could have done the update by himself, or with him and the relevant public safety people.  By positioning a bunch of GOP politicians up there with him and zero Democrats, he was trying to use the moment for political gain and posturing.

[I_M4_AU 7,839]

1 minute ago, AUDub said:

Come on, man. The largest school shooting since Sandy Hook just occurred in his state. Attending a fundraiser is a very bad look.

"Prior commitments" is a hilarious cop out. 

I agree it is a bad look, but the poster asked why I thought he attended and I go with what the spokesperson said.  I have no other information.

[AU9377 4,933]

58 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

Mine was given to my by my uncle on my 18th birthday. Love that ole girl. 

I'm sorry but I don't trust todays "leaders" and government under the current circumstances. I've seen enough. Like I've said before if they want to pass a constitutional amendment to take them away from me I'll reluctantly comply and move to the Islands. 

The thing is, no legislation has ever been introduced that would do that, ever.  If all that 18 year old was armed with had been one of those guns, I doubt that more than 4 or 5 kids out of 19 would be dead today.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Just now, I_M4_AU said:

I agree it is a bad look, but the poster asked why I thought he attended and I go with what the spokesperson said.  I have no other information.

I think Gov Abbott is an experienced enough politician to know optics.  He isn't dumb.  If he tells them that a fundraiser in the same week as a mass shooting of children in his state isn't the right time, they'd move it.  He chose money and placating fat cat donors.

[AU9377 4,933]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

 

Why do you think Beto showed up at that press conference?

Showing up at that press conference was the smart thing to do.  He was polite.  He wasn't the one screaming obscenities.  Is that not what free speech is all about?

[I_M4_AU 7,839]

6 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Then Gov. Abbott could have done the update by himself, or with him and the relevant public safety people.  By positioning a bunch of GOP politicians up there with him and zero Democrats, he was trying to use the moment for political gain and posturing.

And this is probably why Beto took it upon himself to intervene. He couldn’t stand that he didn’t have a voice, just poor execution.

[I_M4_AU 7,839]

2 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Showing up at that press conference was the smart thing to do.  He was polite.  He wasn't the one screaming obscenities.  Is that not what free speech is all about?

Since it was Texas and the Republican’s know Beto they didn’t have to guess why he was there, they just had to wait until he opened his mouth.   Beto has yet to run a worthy campaign.

[AU9377 4,933]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Since it was Texas and the Republican’s know Beto they didn’t have to guess why he was there, they just had to wait until he opened his mouth.   Beto has yet to run a worthy campaign.

This isn't a worthy campaign?  I beg to differ.

[I_M4_AU 7,839]

3 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

This isn't a worthy campaign?  I beg to differ.

It appears by that graphic he lost.  Are we counting moral victories?

Edited May 26, 2022 by I_M4_AU

[AUDub 11,149]

2 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

This isn't a worthy campaign?  I beg to differ.

Texas is extremely close to being a purple state. 

[autigeremt 6,631]

17 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

The thing is, no legislation has ever been introduced that would do that, ever.  If all that 18 year old was armed with had been one of those guns, I doubt that more than 4 or 5 kids out of 19 would be dead today.

It would be if they thought they could get away with it. 

[AU9377 4,933]

 

I read today that the 18 year old in Uvalde, Texas didn't even have a driving license.  We wouldn't license him to drive, yet we allowed him to buy 2 assault weapons that are made for nothing other than killing humans.  Who are we as a society?  People used to say that we were a shining city on a hill.  That is laughable at this point.  Our stubborn partisan refusal to even attempt to reach a compromise on this issue is a pathetic example of how this democracy is failing. (yes, I know we are a Republic, blah blah blah)

 

 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/countries-show-us-americas-gun-violence-epidemic/story?id=80495637

[AU9377 4,933]

14 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

It appears by that graphic he lost.  Are we counting moral victories?

You can run a worthy campaign and lose.

[AU9377 4,933]

9 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

It would be if they thought they could get away with it. 

I don't believe that.  I do believe that the NRA pounds that into the minds of people in order to refuse any compromise, regardless of how reasonable it is.  Reagan was a big supporter of the assault weapons ban.  Was he weak?

[aubiefifty 16,793]

1 hour ago, GoAU said:

I have blamed nothing, and absolutely have proposed to do something.  The thing you refuse to understand is my proposal is to address the CAUSE of these events, not an inanimate object.  The guns aren’t causing the shootings.  Even if we were magically able to make all guns disappear, these idiots will find other ways to kill large numbers of people (cars, bombs, etc).  In interim there are definitely things we can do to secure schools.  
 

You have no idea what I care about, and your ignorant assertions are not productive.  
 

if you want to bring up my signature - yes, I am very proud of my service in the Army, and there are certainly elements of the human gene pool that we would be better off without.  I’ve “done something” to serve and protect others rather than just ranting about banning things.  
 

have a nice day. 

you people are arguing about a certain kind of gun when a shotgun would protect your home. and by the way when the assault weapon ban was in effect it worked and as soon as it was allowed to lapse it tripled. and we still have school children mowed down like they were nothing. some turned into hamburger meat. i was not taking a shot at your service dude i was trying to make a point of your motto you seem to love but people are dying. you do not want to hear my points ignore me. i am a vet as well and i will say what i wish on here within boundaries of the rules.

[CoffeeTiger 5,108]

58 minutes ago, GoAU said:

  Even if we were magically able to make all guns disappear, these idiots will find other ways to kill large numbers of people (cars, bombs, etc).  In interim there are definitely things we can do to secure schools.  
 

 

There's no evidence that says this is true. We don't have people bombing schools, we don't have people crashing cars into schools. Other countries with strict gun control do not have people bombing or crashing cars into schools or killing dozens of children with a knife or a baseball bat. 

Schools massacre's always occur with guns because guns are the easiest, most accessible, most effective tool of mass murder that exist. 

It's a false argument to say that if people did not have easy access to very deadly weapons of mass killing that they would simply do something much more complicated, but possibly just as deadly like building bombs or whatever. 

They might turn to things like knives, which certainly can kill but knives are generally much less deadly than any given gun can be and are easier to disarm. 

 

Yes, murderers will always murder people no matter what. That's not the debate. The question is, does easy access to guns allow murders to murder more people more easily. And the answer to that is indisputably, yes.  

 

[aubiefifty 16,793]

1 hour ago, GoAU said:

First of all, you need to step back and calm down.  Your inability to have a rational discussion without losing your mind is concerning.  
 

If you’d like to conflate this with abortion we can, but it’s like comparing apples and footballs.  The issue is not restricting the mothers right to an abortion, it is preventing the killing of a child.  Personally, I disagree with abortion, but would be willing to compromise to something around allowing it in early stages - perhaps around a heartbeat or brain formation.  I absolutely stand against 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion.  
 

I never said anything about supplying weapons to children and “mentals”.  You need to read a little more before you get your rant on. 

that is what your side is doing. and do not tell me to calm down after how damn many of our children have murdered for how many years now?

If "guns don't kill people, people kill people" why did the NRA ban guns from this event?and when the ban on assault weapons lapsed mass shootings have tripled. so how are these guns not killing people again? they are an instrument of death and your way is not working. in fact it is getting worse.

[autigeremt 6,631]

47 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

I don't believe that.  I do believe that the NRA pounds that into the minds of people in order to refuse any compromise, regardless of how reasonable it is.  Reagan was a big supporter of the assault weapons ban.  Was he weak?

No he wasn’t…..but it’s no longer 1988

[autigeremt 6,631]

21 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

that is what your side is doing. and do not tell me to calm down after how damn many of our children have murdered for how many years now?

If "guns don't kill people, people kill people" why did the NRA ban guns from this event?and when the ban on assault weapons lapsed mass shootings have tripled. so how are these guns not killing people again? they are an instrument of death and your way is not working. in fact it is getting worse.

I’d be dead 100 times over if guns kill people. Mine would have sawed me in half. 

[GoAU 1,600]

28 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

you people are arguing about a certain kind of gun when a shotgun would protect your home. and by the way when the assault weapon ban was in effect it worked and as soon as it was allowed to lapse it tripled. and we still have school children mowed down like they were nothing. some turned into hamburger meat. i was not taking a shot at your service dude i was trying to make a point of your motto you seem to love but people are dying. you do not want to hear my points ignore me. i am a vet as well and i will say what i wish on here within boundaries of the rules.

A bat or a rock “could protect a home” but #1 that is not the entire point of 2A and #2 it’s frequently not the best tool for the job. 
 

as for the signature line - you are trying to connect things that have no comparison.  ISIS, AQ, Al Shabab and the like are NOT the same as school children.  Let it go.  
 

I DO want to hear your, and other, opposing viewpoints- that’s why I come here. I certainly respect your opinions, even if it’s wrong.  (OK, the last one was a dig done in jest - just trying to lighten the mood). More people need to be able to have civil dialogue without demonizing the opposing views.  
 

I appreciate your service. 

[CoffeeTiger 5,108]

1 hour ago, GoAU said:

How many gun show shootings have there been?  
 

how many shootings at gun stores, ranges, or competitive shooting events?  
 

If your assertion was accurate, these types of things would be bloodbaths.  
 

94% of mass shootings happen in gun free zones or in places where the average citizens are significant hindered from carrying weapons or defending themselves.   That’s why murderers choose these targets, along with trying to gain maximum shock value.  

 

By your same logic court houses, airports, indoor concerts, political rallies, sporting events, etc should all be regularly targeted by mass shooters because normal citizens aren't allowed to have guns in those places. They are by your definition "gun free zones" 

"but Coffee many of those places have police presences to guard them" 

Yeah....So do these schools and stores that these mass shooters are still targeting anyway and either sabotage, out gun/out armor, or simply outmaneuver the guards/police. A shooter with body armor and a rifle that isn't afraid of the school police officer also isn't going to give a s*** if he knows Mr. Rogers in History class has a little dinky handgun in his office. 

 

These shooters regularly target schools because they go to that school and or they have some specific connection to that school. I don't believe there is any evidence that these shooters targeting these schools specifically because they are "gun free" zones or that they'd choose not to commit the crime if they knew there might be some teachers with access to handguns in the school. They target these schools because they are sadistic, mentally ill, have a connection to the school, etc. 

 

The whole point of posting these police and school resource officers in all schools in the first place was because it was supposed to stop school shooters because they'd know there was a police officer there on scene to stop them. 

didn't end up workling...so now the argument is to give out guns to the teachers and pricniples and trust that they can react and shoot properly in a high stress active shooter situation? AND that they'll always properly secure their guns and not have accidental discharged and or stolen guns in the classroom? comeon. 

 

Edited May 26, 2022 by CoffeeTiger

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 hour ago, GoAU said:

How many gun show shootings have there been?  
 

how many shootings at gun stores, ranges, or competitive shooting events?  
 

If your assertion was accurate, these types of things would be bloodbaths.  
 

94% of mass shootings happen in gun free zones or in places where the average citizens are significant hindered from carrying weapons or defending themselves.   That’s why murderers choose these targets, along with trying to gain maximum shock value.  

Why are there no guns allowed at the NRA convention?

I know the answer.  I am just trying to match you disingenuousness.

Edited May 26, 2022 by icanthearyou

[GoAU 1,600]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

 

I read today that the 18 year old in Uvalde, Texas didn't even have a driving license.  We wouldn't license him to drive, yet we allowed him to buy 2 assault weapons that are made for nothing other than killing humans.  Who are we as a society?  People used to say that we were a shining city on a hill.  That is laughable at this point.  Our stubborn partisan refusal to even attempt to reach a compromise on this issue is a pathetic example of how this democracy is failing. (yes, I know we are a Republic, blah blah blah)

 

 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/countries-show-us-americas-gun-violence-epidemic/story?id=80495637

Hmmm, if he didn’t have a drivers license, how did he get to the school?

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

I don't believe that.  I do believe that the NRA pounds that into the minds of people in order to refuse any compromise, regardless of how reasonable it is.  Reagan was a big supporter of the assault weapons ban.  Was he weak?

The reason the majority of gun owners resist more “compromise” is because it is not compromise at all.   Taking something away, and saying you can keep whatever is left that you already had is not compromise.  
 

Reagan wasn’t weak, but on that point he was wrong. 

18 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

By your same logic court houses, airports, indoor concerts, political rallies, sporting events, etc should all be regularly targeted by mass shooters because normal citizens aren't allowed to have guns in those places. They are by your definition "gun free zones" 

"but Coffee many of those places have police presences to guard them" 

Yeah....So do these schools and stores that these mass shooters are still targeting anyway and either sabotage, out gun/out armor, or simply outmaneuver the guards/police. A shooter with body armor and a rifle that isn't afraid of the school police officer also isn't going to give a s*** if he knows Mr. Rogers in History class has a little dinky handgun in his office. 

 

These shooters regularly target schools because they go to that school and or they have some specific connection to that school. I don't believe there is any evidence that these shooters targeting these schools specifically because they are "gun free" zones or that they'd choose not to commit the crime if they knew there might be some teachers with access to handguns in the school. They target these schools because they are sadistic, mentally ill, have a connection to the school, etc. 

 

The whole point of posting these police and school resource officers in all schools in the first place was because it was supposed to stop school shooters because they'd know there was a police officer there on scene to stop them. 

didn't end up workling...so now the argument is to give out guns to the teachers and pricniples and trust that they can react and shoot properly in a high stress active shooter situation? AND that they'll always properly secure their guns and not have accidental discharged and or stolen guns in the classroom? comeon. 

 

There is evidence of killers passing some targets in favor of easier ones.  One immediate example that comes to mind is the movie theater shooting in Colorado.  The killer there, on the way from his house passed by a theater on the way to the one he chose.  The one he passed had similar movies and attendance- what it didn’t have was the picture of a circle & slash over a gun on the front door.  
 

I do agree with you that there are a number of reasons these monsters target schools.  But the impact / shock and easy target factor clearly play a part.  I also agree that someone he’ll bent on inflicting carnage like that cannot be 100% prevented from gaining access, but it can definitely be further mitigated.  Have a token SRO is not adequate.   I am not downplaying their efforts or responsibility, but the size and population of schools calls for more than 1 person.  
 

My arguement certainly does not call for “giving out guns” to untrained teachers - you are trying to put words in my mouth.  This would be akin to me saying only token methods of defending schools have been implemented because people want more school shootings to further their case for additional gun control.  We have more security around government officials, banks and movie stars than we have guarding out children.   It may be hard to do while defunding the police though.    Maybe we can hire veterans and cal them something different?   

[icanthearyou 4,463]

2 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Hmmm, if he didn’t have a drivers license, how did he get to the school?

The reason the majority of gun owners resist more “compromise” is because it is not compromise at all.   Taking something away, and saying you can keep whatever is left that you already had is not compromise.  
 

Reagan wasn’t weak, but on that point he was wrong. 

There is evidence of killers passing some targets in favor of easier ones.  One immediate example that comes to mind is the movie theater shooting in Colorado.  The killer there, on the way from his house passed by a theater on the way to the one he chose.  The one he passed had similar movies and attendance- what it didn’t have was the picture of a circle & slash over a gun on the front door.  
 

I do agree with you that there are a number of reasons these monsters target schools.  But the impact / shock and easy target factor clearly play a part.  I also agree that someone he’ll bent on inflicting carnage like that cannot be 100% prevented from gaining access, but it can definitely be further mitigated.  Have a token SRO is not adequate.   I am not downplaying their efforts or responsibility, but the size and population of schools calls for more than 1 person.  
 

My arguement certainly does not call for “giving out guns” to untrained teachers - you are trying to put words in my mouth.  This would be akin to me saying only token methods of defending schools have been implemented because people want more school shootings to further their case for additional gun control.  We have more security around government officials, banks and movie stars than we have guarding out children.   It may be hard to do while defunding the police though.    Maybe we can hire veterans and cal them something different?   

MORE GUNS.  Brilliant.

[GoAU 1,600]

13 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Why are there no guns allowed at the NRA convention?

I know the answer.  I am just trying to match you disingenuousness.

The answer you are seeking is in the original link posted.   This is a Secret Service decision, not the NRA   

 

Former President Donald Trump is scheduled to speak at the National Rifle Association's Annual Leadership Forum on Friday. But audience members at the group's annual meeting, being held this year in Houston, won't be able to carry guns during his address.

The conference is going ahead in the shadow of Tuesday's mass shooting at a Uvalde, Texas, elementary school that killed at least 21 people — including 19 students.

According to the NRA, the Secret Service is taking control of the hall during Trump's speech and is prohibiting attendees from having firearms, firearms accessories and knives. Ammunition, laser pointers, pepper spray, toy guns, backpacks and other items also won't be allowed.