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

[GoAU 1,600]

1 minute ago, icanthearyou said:

MORE GUNS.  Brilliant.

Well, since talking nicely and saying please doesn’t deter violent criminals- yes.  

[CoffeeTiger 5,108]

Here's a video of Ted Cruz getting offended and running away from a British Journalist when asked why this type of thing only happens in the United States. The journalist also asks why Ted thinks Guns aren't part of the problem, and Ted Cruz just says that's Democrat and media propaganda without actually answering the question. 

stellar showing as always from Cruz. 

Edited May 26, 2022 by CoffeeTiger

[autigeremt 6,631]

Here's a potential measure that could be funded (as much money as we waste) to help in these situations. 

https://www.facebook.com/winston.edmondson/videos/574701914275830 

Edited May 26, 2022 by autigeremt

[autigeremt 6,631]

1 hour ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Here's a video of Ted Cruz getting offended and running away from a British Journalist when asked why this type of thing only happens in the United States. The journalist also asks why Ted thinks Guns aren't part of the problem, and Ted Cruz just says that's Democrat and media propaganda without actually answering the question. 

stellar showing as always from Cruz. 

Of all these gun related deaths how many of them were committed by the gun, or a person using one? 

[AUDynasty 585]

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/26/1101418947/onlookers-urged-police-to-charge-into-texas-school

So, the police had an opportunity to get in the school. They didn't. I can't imagine how these parents felt knowing they cannot get in even if they wanted due to for some unknown reasons. It could be that the police deemed the situation too dangerous to go in.

My first thought is that it makes sense that cops cannot be expected to deal with a shooter with semiautomatic gun. Another thought is that some cops may not be relied to do their duties at all.

Either way, wouldn't banning semiautomatic guns like AR-15 guns help cops take down the shooters and mitigate more destruction in future? 🤷‍♂️

[CoffeeTiger 5,108]

11 minutes ago, AUDynasty said:

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/26/1101418947/onlookers-urged-police-to-charge-into-texas-school

So, the police had an opportunity to get in the school. They didn't. I can't imagine how these parents felt knowing they cannot get in even if they wanted due to for some unknown reasons. It could be that the police deemed the situation too dangerous to go in.

Yep, reports are coming in that it may have been 40mins to an hour from the time police arrived on scene to the time they actually entered the school to stop the shooter. 

 

11 minutes ago, AUDynasty said:

My first thought is that it makes sense that cops cannot be expected to deal with a shooter with semiautomatic gun. Another thought is that some cops may not be relied to do their duties at all.

Either way, wouldn't banning semiautomatic guns like AR-15 guns help cops take down the shooters and mitigate more destruction in future? 🤷‍♂️

 

Had some conservative friends on Facebook this morning posting about how they'll never give up their assault weapons because they might need it to topple our corrupt government one day. They also were talking about how they have a right to have equivalent weapons and equipment to the police. 

 

Goes back to an article i posted yesterday in this thread. For many conservatives the gun conversation is consumed by personal fear. I need these weapons to fight the government. I need these weapons to fight police who come to take my guns. I need these weapons to fight off ANTIFA who wants to rape my family. I need these weapons to fight off commie Chinese when they invade. 

It's all built on fear  

 

Edited May 26, 2022 by CoffeeTiger

[abw0004 10,113]

So I have an unusual approach to this.  Before I start, I will disclose that I am a gun owner.  I have a grade 3 Silver Pidgeon Beretta.

I think it is fine for anyone to own shotguns, pistols, and hunting rifles.  What I am against is regular citizens owning assault rifles, extended magazines, repeaters, etc.  I think in order to qualify to own one of these items personally you have to have served in our military for a minimum of four years.  This will ensure they have been properly trained to use these weapons.  If you aren't willing to serve our country, you are not allowed to buy a gun whose sole purpose is to kill other people.

 

Edited May 26, 2022 by abw0004

[icanthearyou 4,463]

2 hours ago, GoAU said:

Well, since talking nicely and saying please doesn’t deter violent criminals- yes.  

Thank you.  Now, the real debate may begin.

Side A:  common sense gun laws

vs.

Side B:  more guns, open carry

 

You have convinced me!!!  1873 with assault rifles.  Cool!!!  No pretense of civility, just the constant threat of death.

 

[aubiefifty 16,793]

3 hours ago, GoAU said:

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. 

you  are right i am way too emotional now. i cannot get past the kids turned into hamburger and requiring dna to be identified. in my hurt and anger i was not trying to make you mad i was and am frustrated by what is happening and will happen again and again. and in my haste i am a five point vet. i would never dare to pretend i fought. anyway i might lurk some but i am going to try to take a break.

[AU9377 4,933]

1 hour ago, autigeremt said:

Of all these gun related deaths how many of them were committed by the gun, or a person using one? 

That doesn't change the fact that if some types of weapons are harder to get, the incidents in which they are used would decrease.  Again, simply re authorizing the assault weapons ban that was the law of the land for years would be a major step forward and it wouldn't deprive anyone of anything.  We already know that the law is constitutional.

[AU9377 4,933]

3 hours ago, autigeremt said:

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

This is the letter he signed supporting the ban.

[GoAU 1,600]

52 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Yep, reports are coming in that it may have been 40mins to an hour from the time police arrived on scene to the time they actually entered the school to stop the shooter. 

 

 

Had some conservative friends on Facebook this morning posting about how they'll never give up their assault weapons because they might need it to topple our corrupt government one day. They also were talking about how they have a right to have equivalent weapons and equipment to the police. 

 

Goes back to an article i posted yesterday in this thread. For many conservatives the gun conversation is consumed by personal fear. I need these weapons to fight the government. I need these weapons to fight police who come to take my guns. I need these weapons to fight off ANTIFA who wants to rape my family. I need these weapons to fight off commie Chinese when they invade. 

It's all built on fear  

 

According to the CDC study (and not exactly a gun friendly entity) there are between 500k and 3M defensive uses of handguns annually.  Call it fear, call it independence, self reliance, or being prepared - I guess it’s all kind of the same.  Some people aren’t comfortable having their (or their family’s) safety & security only in the hands of others, without having the ability to influence the situation themselves.  

24 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Thank you.  Now, the real debate may begin.

Side A:  common sense gun laws

vs.

Side B:  more guns, open carry

 

You have convinced me!!!  1873 with assault rifles.  Cool!!!  No pretense of civility, just the constant threat of death.

 

What if “common sense” is what is already in place and the current rules just need to be fully enforced?

11 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

you  are right i am way too emotional now. i cannot get past the kids turned into hamburger and requiring dna to be identified. in my hurt and anger i was not trying to make you mad i was and am frustrated by what is happening and will happen again and again. and in my haste i am a five point vet. i would never dare to pretend i fought. anyway i might lurk some but i am going to try to take a break.

I understand you emotion, and ensure you I feel the same way about these scumbags.  We have the same objective (keeping people safe) just difference of opinion on how to get there.  
 

There is a special spot in hell just for people that pray on vulnerable children and women.  
 

No hard feelings on my side, brother.  

[icanthearyou 4,463]

2 minutes ago, GoAU said:

According to the CDC study (and not exactly a gun friendly entity) there are between 500k and 3M defensive uses of handguns annually

link please, need more context

[CoffeeTiger 5,108]

44 minutes ago, GoAU said:

According to the CDC study (and not exactly a gun friendly entity) there are between 500k and 3M defensive uses of handguns annually.  Call it fear, call it independence, self reliance, or being prepared - I guess it’s all kind of the same.  Some people aren’t comfortable having their (or their family’s) safety & security only in the hands of others, without having the ability to influence the situation themselves.  

 

The reason we have such an enormous range (500k-3m!?) indicates that the study didn't really have any idea how many defensive gun uses there actually are. That number range was also obtained from a small number of surveys where people were counted on to be honest about their use of guns.

Harvard has it's own research and came to different conclusions rejecting the claim that there are "millions" of defensive gun uses per year. 

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

. Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments, and are both socially undesirable and illegal

We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the auspices of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.  Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah.  Gun use in the United States: Results from two national surveys.  Injury Prevention.  2000; 6:263-267.

 

5. Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Center, we examined the extent and nature of offensive gun use.  We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense.  All reported cases of criminal gun use, as well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially undesirable.

Hemenway, David; Azrael, Deborah.  The relative frequency of offensive and defensive gun use: Results of a national survey.  Violence and Victims.  2000; 15:257-272.

 

6. Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, we investigated how and when guns are used in the home.  We found that guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime; other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns.

Azrael, Deborah R; Hemenway, David.  In the safety of your own home: Results from a national survey of gun use at home.  Social Science and Medicine.  2000; 50:285-91.

 

11. Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions

Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases).  Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action.  Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.

Hemenway D, Solnick SJ.  The epidemiology of self-defense gun use: Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Surveys 2007-2011.  Preventive Medicine.  2015; 79: 22-27.

[GoAU 1,600]

43 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

link please, need more context

Will try to do better when I get home, but here are a couple:

https://nap.nationalacademies.org/cart/download.cgi?record_id=18319&file=11-68

Defensive Use of Guns
Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defen- sive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 vio- lent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.
A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numer- ous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun- wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence
16 RESEARCH TO REDUCE THE THREAT OF FIREARM-RELATED VIOLENCE

defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.

 

 

 

 

The article above is referenced here along with some other studies, but admittedly Crouder himself is clearly pro 2A , he cites multiple sources   The quote below is an excerpt from an article he quotes, not his statement  

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/amp/cdc-releases-gun-report-2645835122

Here's the actual passage from the CDC report (which you can download in full here😞

Estimates of gun use for self-defense vary widely, in part due to definitional differences for self-defensive gun use; different data sources; and questions about accuracy of data, particularly when self-reported. The NCVS has estimated 60,000 to 120,000 defensive uses of guns per year. On the basis of data from 1992 and 1994, the NCVS found 116,000 incidents (McDowall et al., 1998). Another body of research estimated annual gun use for self-defense to be much higher, up to 2.5 million incidents, suggesting that self-defense can be an important crime deterrent (Kleck and Gertz, 1995). Some studies on the association between self-defensive gun use and injury or loss to the victim have found less loss and injury when a firearm is used (Kleck, 2001b).

[GoAU 1,600]

Coffee - one of the articles you quoted literally cited random phone surveys as it method of gather info.   And you questioned the CDC studies data?   
 

2/3 of the gun death figures quoted are suicides and accidental, not homicides.  If you factor the real offensive violence (homicides) by the number of guns (or gun owners to exclude crazy people like EMT that have more than 1 gun) you see that offensive use of firearms Are much lower than even the most conservative numbers of defensive uses.  Then factor that “assault rifles” are a very small percentage of even those offensive uses, you can see we are chasing statistical anomalies.  That being said, I am NOt saying they don’t matter - they are innocent children, I am just saying there are better ways to protect them.  

[SaltyTiger 7,808]

59 minutes ago, GoAU said:

What if “common sense” is what is already in place and the current rules just need to be fully enforced?

Normally I see your side but in this one “common sense” is not in place. No way in living hell that a weapon enabling this type of destruction should have been obtained with the ease it appears. Obviously schools are easy targets. Not like these folks that choose to ambush them are trained assassins.

Gun owner myself and all for 2A but feel severe restrictions needed on this type of weaponry. Hopefully it could in part be a factor in circumventing these reoccurring events.

I have really been astounded the past few years by the numbers of young people that feel the need for this type of weapon and more ammo than they can possibly use.

Guess you need look no further than nightly entertainment on television and games. It is sickening.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

17 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Will try to do better when I get home, but here are a couple:

https://nap.nationalacademies.org/cart/download.cgi?record_id=18319&file=11-68

Defensive Use of Guns
Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defen- sive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 vio- lent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.
A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numer- ous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun- wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence
16 RESEARCH TO REDUCE THE THREAT OF FIREARM-RELATED VIOLENCE

defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.

 

 

 

 

The article above is referenced here along with some other studies, but admittedly Crouder himself is clearly pro 2A , he cites multiple sources   The quote below is an excerpt from an article he quotes, not his statement  

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/amp/cdc-releases-gun-report-2645835122

Here's the actual passage from the CDC report (which you can download in full here😞

Estimates of gun use for self-defense vary widely, in part due to definitional differences for self-defensive gun use; different data sources; and questions about accuracy of data, particularly when self-reported. The NCVS has estimated 60,000 to 120,000 defensive uses of guns per year. On the basis of data from 1992 and 1994, the NCVS found 116,000 incidents (McDowall et al., 1998). Another body of research estimated annual gun use for self-defense to be much higher, up to 2.5 million incidents, suggesting that self-defense can be an important crime deterrent (Kleck and Gertz, 1995). Some studies on the association between self-defensive gun use and injury or loss to the victim have found less loss and injury when a firearm is used (Kleck, 2001b).

This does not help your credibility. 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

Seriously though, why the need for an AR-15? 

I am all for the 2A, but I do just fine with my handguns, shotgun and hunting rifles. If someone needs something a little spicier than that get some tannerite to shoot at. 

[tgrogan21 6,198]

30 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Guess you need look no further than nightly entertainment on television and games. It is sickening.

There have been many reports disproving that there is correlation between violent games/movies and aggression in real life. It's a very old "boogeyman" tale that the older generation/politicians keep trying to bring up to scare parents into not allowing their children to play/watch this type of stuff.

If it was true that this type of media spurred more and more acts of aggression then why are mass shootings almost non-existent in every developed country? Do they not have the same type of nightly entertainment as we do in the US?

Everything else in your post, I agree with, though.

[GoAU 1,600]

1 hour ago, wdefromtx said:

Seriously though, why the need for an AR-15? 

I am all for the 2A, but I do just fine with my handguns, shotgun and hunting rifles. If someone needs something a little spicier than that get some tannerite to shoot at. 

You do realize that far, far more homicides occur with handguns than ARs, right?   When it comes to school shooting someone could walk in with 2-3 handguns with standard sized magazines and do just as much damage.  
 

The particular weapon being used hardly, if at all, impacts the outcome, unless after ARs, we plan on moving to handgun magazines over 10 rounds, then 6, then who knows where?  
 

in some ways use of a handgun could be even more deadly as it is much easier to conceal all the way up to point of use.  

[icanthearyou 4,463]

11 minutes ago, GoAU said:

You do realize that far, far more homicides occur with handguns than ARs, right?   When it comes to school shooting someone could walk in with 2-3 handguns with standard sized magazines and do just as much damage.  
 

The particular weapon being used hardly, if at all, impacts the outcome, unless after ARs, we plan on moving to handgun magazines over 10 rounds, then 6, then who knows where?  
 

in some ways use of a handgun could be even more deadly as it is much easier to conceal all the way up to point of use.  

Totally disingenuous.  The gun is meaningless in terms of mass shootings but,,, you can't live without yours.

[GoAU 1,600]

44 minutes ago, tgrogan21 said:

There have been many reports disproving that there is correlation between violent games/movies and aggression in real life. It's a very old "boogeyman" tale that the older generation/politicians keep trying to bring up to scare parents into not allowing their children to play/watch this type of stuff.

If it was true that this type of media spurred more and more acts of aggression then why are mass shootings almost non-existent in every developed country? Do they not have the same type of nightly entertainment as we do in the US?

Everything else in your post, I agree with, though.

Agree with your point on games & movies - not the cause.  However, I am concerned with the amount of kids being prescribed medications for ADD / ADHD, bullying, social media, etc.  I’m not saying games and movies couldn’t be minor contributors, but with all of the other variables it can’t help (not saying to ban them).  Look at the mental health history of those in question and the percentages that were on psychotropic drugs.  
 

Im not concerned we know all of the potential side effects.  

[GoAU 1,600]

3 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Totally disingenuous.  The gun is meaningless in terms of mass shootings but,,, you can't live without yours.

I also don’t do mass shootings - poor analogy 

[SaltyTiger 7,808]

19 minutes ago, GoAU said:

in some ways use of a handgun could be even more deadly as it is much easier to conceal all the way up to point of use.  

Sure, by a trained user looking at a specific target. Not true in mass shootings imo