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

[GoAU 1,600]

5 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

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

And since you like to try to put words in peoples mouths,, allow me to reiterate (again) - guns are tools.  Much like tools in my shop or golf clubs, you don’t use the same tool for every job.  There are certainly some situations I would prefer an AR for self defense, and others I would prefer and handgun, and almost never a shotgun.  
 

my statement in case you are uninformed on ballistics is that at close ranges like that, over penetration of rifle calibers lose a lot of their advantages over handguns.  Hand guns are much more concealable.  Many handguns these days have magazines over 20 rounds.  It’s not that hard to see pros & cons, unless you choose not to. 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

5 minutes ago, GoAU said:

I also don’t do mass shootings - poor analogy 

No, disingenuous.  You stated you needed it in case of home invasion by multiple people.  Apparently, from your own words, other firearms are just as efficient.

[GoAU 1,600]

13 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

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

Point blank ranges don’t have anything to do with training.  Reloading a pistol faster is actually easier.  It’s not as hard to steady a pistol with one hand while manipulating the magazine with the other. 

6 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

No, disingenuous.  You stated you needed it in case of home invasion by multiple people.  Apparently, from your own words, other firearms are just as efficient.

Different tools, different uses, different preferences. 

[AU9377 4,931]

7 hours 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.  

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

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.  

This is not a hand gun. I think we can both agree that this is not needed to protect someone's home.

[AU9377 4,931]

3 hours ago, GoAU said:

Point blank ranges don’t have anything to do with training.  Reloading a pistol faster is actually easier.  It’s not as hard to steady a pistol with one hand while manipulating the magazine with the other. 

Different tools, different uses, different preferences. 

He didn't need to reload much.  He had 30 rounds in the magazine.

[GoAU 1,600]

4 hours ago, GoAU said:

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.  

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.

[GoAU 1,600]

4 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

This is not a hand gun. I think we can both agree that this is not needed to protect someone's home.

You are correct, that is not a handgun.  However, it could be used to defend a home, or any number of other uses.  “Need” is a word I’m not willing to commit to - either for or against.  There are too many variables in play to do that.   Situation, distances, ranges, ammunition, number of attackers all come in to play.  
 

And remember the 2A is not just about defensive uses in someone’s home. 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

Texas cops reveal there was NO armed guard on campus when gunman walked through unlocked door with his AR-15: First officers on scene retreated when he opened fire on them then waited an HOUR for SWAT

By Jennifer Smith, Chief Reporter For Dailymail.Com

Published: 15:49 EDT, 26 May 2022 | Updated: 19:14 EDT, 26 May 2022

 

Texas cops have revealed that there was no armed guard on campus when the gunman arrived on Tuesday which allowed him to walk 'unobstructed' through an unlocked door and into the building where he slaughtered 21 people. 

At a press conference on Thursday afternoon, Victor Escalon, the Regional Director for the Department of Public Safety South Texas, said Salvador Ramos walked through an unlocked door 'unobstructed' and that there was no guard 'readily available'. 

It contradicts earlier reports that he fired at a school resource officer. 

Ramos entered the school at 11.40am, 12 minutes after crashing his truck outside the school and walking towards campus with his AR-15. That is when police were alerted to the scene. 

At 11.44am, the first cops entered the school. Ramos shot at them and they retreated. 

It's unclear if he had already shot the kids and teachers in the fourth grade classroom by then, or if he went on to attack them after those cops retreated. 

It then took an hour for specialized SWAT teams to arrive. At 1.06pm, the incident was declared over after Ramos was shot dead. 

In the meantime, 150 cops were gathering outside. Some of them were filmed pinning parents to the floor and some were even placed in handcuffs, according to witnesses. 

'He walked in unobstructed initially. He was not confronted by anybody. Four minutes later, law enforcement are coming in to solve this problem,' Escalon said. 

When the first cops entered the building, he fired at them, injuring at least two of them. The cops then retreated, leaving him to carry on with his killing. 

'They hear gunfire, they take rounds, get back and take cover... they don't make entry initially because of the gunfire they are receiving. They are calling for additional resources, tactical teams, we needed body armor, precision rifles, negotiators. 

'They are also evacuating students. There's a lot going on,' he said.

It's unclear if there was meant to be a resource officer at the school that day. There are four in the district and there are nine schools, including four elementary schools, a junior high and a high school.   

On Thursday, Escalon claimed that most of the shooting occurred early in the standoff and that the only shots fired once cops were there were to keep them at bay. 

Now, there are questions over why it took so long to catch the gunman and whether or not any of the kids could have been saved.

'There are a lot of possibilities, there was numerous officers at that classroom. Once we interview all those officers and find out what they were thinking, we'll have a better idea,' he said. 

Javier Cazares, whose nine-year-old daughter was murdered, says cops were 'just standing there' and waiting for protective shields to arrive at the scene before they went in. 

'They said they rushed in and all that, we didn’t see that,' he told The New York Times, adding that many were 'just standing there.' 

'There were plenty of men out there armed to the teeth that could have gone in faster. This could have been over in a couple minutes,' he said. 

He added that police were faster to escort Beto O'Rourke out of the press conference yesterday when he started heckling the governor than they were to get into the school. 

Angel Garza, whose daughter was killed, was handcuffed after trying to run into the school when he heard that a 'girl called Amerie' had been shot. He later found out that she was among those who died while giving medical aid to other children who escaped. 

Derek Sotelo, 26, who works in a tire shop nearby, said parents were begging to be let into the school.  

'They were just angry, especially the dads. We were wondering, "What the heck is going on? Are they going in?" 'The dads were saying, "Give me the vest, I’ll go in there!' 

Frustrated parents were standing outside the school begging cops to go inside when the shooting was unfolding.

One child told KENS 5 that he was able to hide under a desk, but that a girl who yelled out 'help' when police arrived was executed. 

'When the cops came, the cop said: "Yell if you need help!" And one of the persons in my class said 'help.' The guy overheard and he came in and shot her. The cop barged into that classroom. The guy shot at the cop. And the cops started shooting,' the boy said. 

One shocking video shows them even holding some parents back as they tried to get inside. 

The footage shows a parent being pinned to the ground by an officer, while another carrying a taser stands guard nearby. 

Other footages shows parents begging the cops: 'What are you doing!? Get inside the building!'  

Another woman could be heard to say 'They're trapped inside' as howls of pained anguish rang out in the background. 

It was unclear at what time the footage was shot. It also emerged Wednesday that Customs and Border Patrol agents who rushed to the scene had to grab a key from school staff to open the door of the classroom where the bloodbath took place.

That is because they were unable to break the door down themselves.  

The first 911 call was received at 11:32am on Tuesday, and the gunman was killed at 1pm - after a Border Patrol agent was given a key to the door, behind which the gunman was barricaded with the fourth grade class. 

Javier Cazares, whose fourth grade daughter, Jacklyn Cazares, was killed in the attack, said he raced to the school when he heard about the shooting, arriving while police were still gathered outside the building.

Upset that police were not moving in, he raised the idea of charging into the school with several other bystanders.

'Let's just rush in because the cops aren't doing anything like they are supposed to,' he said. 

'More could have been done. They were unprepared.'

He added: 'There was at least 40 lawmen armed to the teeth but didn't do a darn thing until it was far too late.

'The situation could've been over quick if they had better tactical training, and we as a community witnessed it firsthand.' 

One woman was yelling at the police outside the school, said Juan Carranza, 24, who lives opposite. 

He said she was screaming: 'Go in there! Go in there!'

Carranza said the officers did not go in.

Department of Public Safety Director Steve McCraw told reporters that 40 minutes to an hour elapsed from when Salvador Ramos, 18, opened fire on the school security officer to when the tactical team shot him, though a department spokesman said later that they could not give a solid estimate of how long the gunman was in the school or when he was killed.

'The bottom line is law enforcement was there,' McCraw said. 

'They did engage immediately. They did contain (Ramos) in the classroom.'

Meanwhile, a law enforcement official familiar with the investigation told AP the Border Patrol agents had trouble breaching the classroom door and had to get a staff member to open the room with a key.

Cazares said he wanted answers from local authorities as to why the shooter was not stopped before or during the attack.

'I'm a gun owner and I do not blame the weapons used in this tragedy,' he said.

'I'm angry how easy it is to get one and young you can be to purchase one.'  

The massacre is the worst school shooting in the United States since Sandy Hook in 2012, when 20 children and six teachers were killed.

Ramos on Tuesday first shot his 66-year-old grandmother Cecilia Gonzalez in the face, leaving her severely injured, before stealing her pickup truck and driving towards the school.

Unable to drive, he crashed into a ditch and then ran to the school on foot, where he was met by an armed security guard.

Yet he was still able to enter the school and kill 21 people - and was not stopped until around 1pm, when a Border Patrol agent backed up by a tactical team shot him dead.  

One of those involved in training schools how to deal with an active shooter lost his wife in Tuesday's tragedy.

Ruben Ruiz, 43, a veteran detective and SWAT team member, works as a police officer for the school district, and on March 22 held an active shooter drill at the school.

His wife Eva Mireles, 44, was one of the two teachers killed by Ramos on Tuesday.  

Uvalde, home to 16,000 people, is 80 miles west of San Antonio.

Steve McCraw, director of the Texas department of public safety (DPS), said on Wednesday that a 'brave' school resource officer 'approached him' and 'engaged him' - but added that 'gunfire was not exchanged.' He did not explain why.

The New York Times reported that their sources said at least one armed law enforcement officer from the Uvalde school district was at the school, and that officer exchanged gunfire with the gunman, but the gunman was able to get past.

Ramos was carrying an AR-type rifle, which he had bought the week before, on turning 18.

He purchased one of the rifles on May 17, and the following day he bought 375 rounds of 5.56mm ammunition. Ramos purchased another rifle on May 20, and posted pictures of the guns on Instagram.

He was also wearing 'a tactical vest carrier with no ballistic panels,' said Lt. Chris Olivarez, the DPS's spokesperson.

Ramos then made it into the school, running down a hallway to two adjoining classrooms.

He barricaded himself inside the fourth grade classroom run by teachers Irma Garcia, 46, and Mireles.

'And that's where the carnage began,' McCraw said.

All of the 19 children who died were inside the one classroom.

Officers were unable to enter it, The New York Times said.

Olivarez said some of the officers were shot by the gunman, so others began breaking windows around the school trying to evacuate children and teachers.

Ramos remained there until a tactical unit from the Border Patrol killed the gunman, shortly after 1pm, according to state police reports.

Olivarez said 'tactical law enforcement' forced their way into the classroom, where 'they were met with gunfire as well, but they were able to shoot and kill that suspect.'

The unnamed agent who shot and killed Ramos is believed to be from the Border Patrol Tactical Unit (BORTAC), which has specialized agents dispersed throughout the United States.

The BORTAC agent, whose identity has not yet been revealed, rushed into the school without waiting for backup.

Ramos was behind a barricade, returning fire, but the border patrol agent managed to shoot and kill the gunman before he could claim more victims.

'They came in from opposite sides. The BORTAC agent ended up exchanging gunfire with the shooter, killed the shooter, and I am told that the agent was injured in his leg,' Olivarez told Fox News .

'They are trying to figure out if he was shot in the leg or hit by shrapnel.'

BORTAC is headquartered in El Paso, Texas, and the U.S.-Mexico border is only 80 miles away - explaining the presence of the agent from the unusual tactical unit.

The unit is unique in that it conducts training and operations both in the United States and in other countries 'in furtherance of the US Border Patrol's mission', according to CBP.

Multiple teams of Border Patrol agents raced to the school, according to Jason Owens, a top regional official with the Border Patrol.

A number of the shooting victims are children of Customs and Border Protection agents.

'It hit home for everybody,' said Owens.

McCraw praised the officers and denied there had been a failure - emphasizing that the arriving officers 'engaged him' and were able to 'keep him pinned down in that location.'

Asked about the delay, he replied: 'Obviously, this is situation we failed in the sense that we didn't prevent this mass attack.

'But I can tell you those officers that arrived on the scene and put their lives in danger — they saved other kids.

'They kept him pinned down.'

He said the team was 'very proud' of that.

Greg Abbott, the governor of Texas, also heaped praise on the law enforcement officials.

'The reason it was not worse is because law enforcement officials did what they do,' Abbott said on Wednesday.

'They showed amazing courage by running toward gunfire for the singular purpose of trying to save lives.

'They were able to save lives. Unfortunately, not enough.'

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10858529/Texas-cops-reveal-NO-armed-guard-campus-gunman-walked-unlocked-door.html

[CoffeeTiger 5,108]

So…the good guys with guns waited outside because they were afraid, yet we should arm teachers, who are going to haul off a couple of shots while they try to protect and comfort scared kids?

If over 100 cops were afraid to engage with one teenager with an AR-15 then maybe we shouldn't sell these weapons to civilians.

 

[ShocksMyBrain 9,366]

6 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

So…the good guys with guns waited outside because they were afraid, yet we should arm teachers, who are going to haul off a couple of shots while they try to protect and comfort scared kids?

If over 100 cops were afraid to engage with one teenager with an AR-15 then maybe we shouldn't sell these weapons to civilians.

 

They want to play military with all their tactical gear and army guns, then tuck tail when it gets serious. That entire department is embarrassing. 
 

Imagine a fire department showing up to a house on fire and the firemen decided they didn’t want to put it out because they could get burned. 

Edited May 27, 2022 by ShocksMyBrain

[CoffeeTiger 5,108]

 

[fishepa 1,904]

1 hour ago, ShocksMyBrain said:

They want to play military with all their tactical gear and army guns, then tuck tail when it gets serious. That entire department is embarrassing. 
 

Imagine a fire department showing up to a house on fire and the firemen decided they didn’t want to put it out because they could get burned. 

It definitely doesn't paint them in a good light.  I mean, if you're part of the police force that's kind of what you have to do to protect people, especially children.  I know they would have been scared, hell I would have been scared to death, but I'm sure they have protocols and training for this.  Send in 20 at a time and find that murderer and let him have it.

[GoAU 1,600]

10 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

I can get behind raising the age to purchase any firearm to 21, possibly with an exemption for military members.  Would also say we need to raise the age to vote too, but that’s a different subject.  
 

Background checks exist for the vast majority of firearm purchases. The only exception, as mentioned, is individual to individual sales.  The key thing left off HR 8 is how it will be enforced?    
 

The most of the rest of the video is foul mouthed emotional appeals without much substance that will make a difference.  
 

Not saying that the government can’t address multiple issues simultaneously - but where is the same outrage about the criminals committing most of the gun crimes in large cities or or the surging drug OD deaths from opioids and fentanyl streaming across our borders?

How about we take a good, hard look at the real impacts of the prescription psychotropic drugs we are pumping into our kids in record numbers?   You talk about powerful lobby groups - big pharma is orders of magnitude above the NRA 

 

[CoffeeTiger 5,108]

32 minutes ago, GoAU said:

I can get behind raising the age to purchase any firearm to 21, possibly with an exemption for military members.  Would also say we need to raise the age to vote too, but that’s a different subject.  
 

Background checks exist for the vast majority of firearm purchases. The only exception, as mentioned, is individual to individual sales.  The key thing left off HR 8 is how it will be enforced?    

 

I agree. Don't know how it would be enforced. Gun registries would be a start. If a private seller sells without a background check and that gun is used in a crime the seller gets charged as an accessary. 

32 minutes ago, GoAU said:

 

 

The most of the rest of the video is foul mouthed emotional appeals without much substance that will make a difference.  

 

I disagree. restricting the sale of body armor and high capacity ammo and guns isn't a useless emotional appeal considering these items specifically have been used in 2 mass killings within the last few weeks and have little to no utility outside of warzones and law enforcement actions. 

I know you don't beleive that anyone should need to have a reason or a specific need for these things in order to have a right to own them, but this is just where we'll have to disagree. 

Saving peoples lives will inevitably mean that good gun owners will have to give up a few of their freedoms regarding guns and the 2nd amendment. That's just reality.  Either gun owners accept that fact or the rest of America gets fed up enough with this that they force the changes in laws are yet to be seen.

 

32 minutes ago, GoAU said:

 

Not saying that the government can’t address multiple issues simultaneously - but where is the same outrage about the criminals committing most of the gun crimes in large cities or or the surging drug OD deaths from opioids and fentanyl streaming across our borders?

How about we take a good, hard look at the real impacts of the prescription psychotropic drugs we are pumping into our kids in record numbers?   You talk about powerful lobby groups - big pharma is orders of magnitude above the NRA 

 

 

Agree. Opiates and gangs shooting at each other in big cities is a problem. 

We're not talking about those or outraged about those right now because we are currently in the "school shooting" season of America.  Lets focus on that for awhile. Maybe in the fall the mass shootings will stop for a bit and we can focus on the drugs and gang problems more. 

 

 

Edited May 27, 2022 by CoffeeTiger

[TitanTiger 20,482]

It's interesting how these conversations evolve.  This has been mostly interesting and good.  But you start to recognize patterns after so many of these over the years.  And the one I notice frequently is where the folks who are most resistant to any new or more restrictive regulations on guns throw out all manner of other possible causes - gun free zones, not enforcing current laws, various prescription drugs used for treating depression and such - basically anything other than the all too easy availability of lethal weapons capable of killing dozens of people in seconds.

We don't treat other things like this.  For instance, we don't just let any person own rocket launchers, missile batteries, grenades, tanks, or C4.  All of these would fall under the term "arms," yet no one in their right mind would assert that any US citizen has the right to own these things. 

When cars came along and we began to recognize that these machines going at high rates of speed around other people needed to be regulated and to be safer for the drivers and occupants.  So we developed car safety standards, set minimum ages to be able to drive, required written and practical tests to get a license to drive, required proof of liability insurance and so on.  And for large commercial vehicles like 18-wheelers, dump trucks and buses, those requirements are even stricter - with higher minimum ages, more extensive testing and training, higher levels of insurance, etc because these types of vehicles are much larger and heavier and capable of far more damage and destruction.

You could probably name other things that citizens are allowed to have and use, but have various regulations, restrictions, registration requirements, training and testing requirements and such.  And the fact that the right to bear arms is in the Constitution doesn't change that.  Our other enumerated rights have limits and various legal requirements regarding the exercise of that right.

Plus we have the history and data from numerous other countries around the world, especially those we consider our peers - ones that do not ban all guns or make it insanely onerous to obtain one.  And the unbroken testimony of that history and data is that the United States is unique with regard not only to gun deaths in general, but in mass shootings.  No one else has anything close to this order of magnitude of a problem with mass shooting events.  At some point, you have to start believing what's right in front of your face - tighter gun regulations, making it hard for certain kinds of weapons to be obtained by the average person, better and more thorough background checks with no loopholes, registration, and other restrictions work.  They do. 

Americans are not some uniquely violent and mentally unstable people compared to people in Australia, Sweden, or Canada.  By and large we're like everyone else in Western civilization - minus quick and easy access to firearms capable of killing many people in a very short amount of time.  That's the difference.  Figure out a way to properly regulate that while preserving 2nd Amendment rights in a reasonable manner and we'll see similar drops in gun deaths and mass shootings.  We're not a unique snowflake unlike all the others.

[AU9377 4,931]

41 minutes ago, GoAU said:

I can get behind raising the age to purchase any firearm to 21, possibly with an exemption for military members.  Would also say we need to raise the age to vote too, but that’s a different subject.  
 

Background checks exist for the vast majority of firearm purchases. The only exception, as mentioned, is individual to individual sales.  The key thing left off HR 8 is how it will be enforced?    
 

The most of the rest of the video is foul mouthed emotional appeals without much substance that will make a difference.  
 

Not saying that the government can’t address multiple issues simultaneously - but where is the same outrage about the criminals committing most of the gun crimes in large cities or or the surging drug OD deaths from opioids and fentanyl streaming across our borders?

How about we take a good, hard look at the real impacts of the prescription psychotropic drugs we are pumping into our kids in record numbers?   You talk about powerful lobby groups - big pharma is orders of magnitude above the NRA 

 

I agree that there are a number of things that need to be addressed.  I honestly believe that you want to find a solution or make steps in the right direction.  I just believe that making it more difficult to obtain a weapon like the one used in this situation has to be part of that solution. 

I spent some time living in a couple of different places in Europe.  That was 15 - 20 years ago at this point, but this issue is the same today as it was then.  I have always been proud to be an American, yet I know that this isn't the America that I am proud of.  In my opinion, these type of mass killings do more to deprive Americans of freedom than any foreign threat.  For that reason, I believe we have to address it with the same amount of urgency. 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

I do not believe we can fix the incivility at the bottom of society until, we fix the corruptions at the top of society.

 

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

It's interesting how these conversations evolve.  This has been mostly interesting and good.  But you start to recognize patterns after so many of these over the years.  And the one I notice frequently is where the folks who are most resistant to any new or more restrictive regulations on guns throw out all manner of other possible causes - gun free zones, not enforcing current laws, various prescription drugs used for treating depression and such - basically anything other than the all too easy availability of lethal weapons capable of killing dozens of people in seconds.

The pattern I see is we have a mass shooting and emotion takes over the narrative and the gun is blamed.  The liberals only talk about restricting rights of citizens that are law abiding and do not consider any other mitigations that are available, as if the only reason for the mass shooting is the gun.

It’s not that simple, but the narrative is always restrict guns.  The Democrats will not talk about other measures to protect schools and school children other than their primary goal of banning Assault Rifles.  The Republicans are reluctant to breach the *shall not be infringed* part of the amendment and he we stand.

If we can get congress to debate this it would serve the American people, but it is not going to happen now with the midterms looming or if it does, someone in going to cave.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

36 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The pattern I see is we have a mass shooting and emotion takes over the narrative and the gun is blamed.  The liberals only talk about restricting rights of citizens that are law abiding and do not consider any other mitigations that are available, as if the only reason for the mass shooting is the gun.

It’s not that simple, but the narrative is always restrict guns.  The Democrats will not talk about other measures to protect schools and school children other than their primary goal of banning Assault Rifles.  The Republicans are reluctant to breach the *shall not be infringed* part of the amendment and he we stand.

If we can get congress to debate this it would serve the American people, but it is not going to happen now with the midterms looming or if it does, someone in going to cave.

No.  This is a lie.  Democrats do wish to address all of the relevant issues (Democrats constantly talk about social programs), including the guns that are made for no other purpose than to be highly efficient tools for mass killing.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

42 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The pattern I see is we have a mass shooting and emotion takes over the narrative and the gun is blamed.  The liberals only talk about restricting rights of citizens that are law abiding and do not consider any other mitigations that are available, as if the only reason for the mass shooting is the gun.

We regulate and restrict the rights of law abiding citizens on all sorts of things.  No right is absolute and with zero requirements, regulations.  The right to keep and bear arms is not a right to any arms we wish to have.

I think what you'd probably find is that most liberals (and conservatives who think we could stand to have *some* stricter regulation of guns or at least certain classes of firearms) would be willing to discuss a lot of other measures - in conjunction with the glaringly obvious issue of the easy availability of these weapons of mass killing.  We literally see the evidence in every other modern, industrialized country on earth, but somehow think the US is some unique flower where such things wouldn't apply or work.

 

42 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

It’s not that simple, but the narrative is always restrict guns.  The Democrats will not talk about other measures to protect schools and school children other than their primary goal of banning Assault Rifles.  The Republicans are reluctant to breach the *shall not be infringed* part of the amendment and he we stand.

Of course it isn't that simple.  Most people are decent drivers.  Most people don't go around screaming "FIRE" in a crowded theater or inciting violence.  Most people don't try to cheat in elections.  But because some people are irresponsible, selfish and evil, and it's important to public safety and a well ordered society, we have requirements, regulations and other things that affect even the law abiding folks on such things.  The right to keep and bear arms is no different.

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

19 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

We regulate and restrict the rights of law abiding citizens on all sorts of things.  No right is absolute and with zero requirements, regulations.  The right to keep and bear arms is not a right to any arms we wish to have.

I think what you'd probably find is that most liberals (and conservatives who think we could stand to have *some* stricter regulation of guns or at least certain classes of firearms) would be willing to discuss a lot of other measures - in conjunction with the glaringly obvious issue of the easy availability of these weapons of mass killing.  We literally see the evidence in every other modern, industrialized country on earth, but somehow think the US is some unique flower where such things wouldn't apply or work.

 

Of course it isn't that simple.  Most people are decent drivers.  Most people don't go around screaming "FIRE" in a crowded theater or inciting violence.  Most people don't try to cheat in elections.  But because some people are irresponsible, selfish and evil, and it's important to public safety and a well ordered society, we have requirements, regulations and other things that affect even the law abiding folks on such things.  The right to keep and bear arms is no different.

We do license a lot of things in the US..  Cars, planes, etc were not around at the time the Constitutions was written and the government took control, as they should, by giving citizens the privilege of driving, flying, practicing medicine, etc.  these things are given and can be taken away by the government if certain criteria are not met.

The 2nd amendment gives the citizen the right to bear arms without applying for a license to do so by some government decree.  Yes, we are a law abiding group, but there are some that are irresponsible in carrying out their lives and for those there are laws to punish wrong doers.  You can get arrested for assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery and murder, etc.  So it boils down to the pure evil among us that is the outlier.  Those are the people we really don’t want to acknowledge exist.  It’s those people we would rather restrict the use of *weapons of mass killing* then finding a way to identify and control their behavior.

I would think most liberals and conservatives would be able to work things out, but we are governed my Democrats and Republicans.  The midterms are coming up and the Democrats are using gun control against the Republicans for control of the congress this November.  It is pure political and it is not in the best interest of Americans.  It is not how it should be, but it is the way it will be and nothing will get done or the Republicans will cave to public pressure and the real problem will still exist.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

52 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

We do license a lot of things in the US..  Cars, planes, etc were not around at the time the Constitutions was written and the government took control, as they should, by giving citizens the privilege of driving, flying, practicing medicine, etc.  these things are given and can be taken away by the government if certain criteria are not met.

The 2nd amendment gives the citizen the right to bear arms without applying for a license to do so by some government decree.  Yes, we are a law abiding group, but there are some that are irresponsible in carrying out their lives and for those there are laws to punish wrong doers.  You can get arrested for assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery and murder, etc.  So it boils down to the pure evil among us that is the outlier.  Those are the people we really don’t want to acknowledge exist.  It’s those people we would rather restrict the use of *weapons of mass killing* then finding a way to identify and control their behavior.

The Constitution gives us the right to free speech.  It gives us the right to vote.  Both of these things were around at the time that the Constitution was written.  Neither are absolutes.  Some speech is illegal and can result in fines, imprisonment, being subject to civil lawsuits and such.  Voting requires certain procedures be followed - registration, proof of address/residency, having to vote only in designated precincts and polling places, showing identification and providing a signature every time we vote.  Things such as driving, flying, practicing medicine and operating heavy machinery aren't any different and whether some of those things were around with the Constitution was written makes no difference.

The point of all of this is, while most people are decent, law abiding folks who wouldn't use their speech to slander someone, cause a panic that results in serious injuries, or try to incite others to assault or kill someone else, we have laws and restrictions in place that apply to everyone, law abiding or not.  We have requirements and regulations on voting not because most people would try to rig an election, but because some would.  Thus we all have to put up with some inconveniences and limits on how we vote.  Same goes with the other things just mentioned. 

There's no reason the same cannot apply to gun ownership.  And there's a great deal of evidence to show that certain regulations and limits could greatly lessen the chances and frequency of mass shooting events and perhaps other gun deaths.  No one can craft a law that perfectly and *only* affects those who would wish to do harmful or unethical things.  All of the regulations and limits on all the things we've just discussed affect everyone who engages in speech and expression, votes in elections, drives, practices medicine and so on.  All of us have to put up with some things that wouldn't have to be in place or specified in laws or regulations if no one did the wrong thing.

 

52 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I would think most liberals and conservatives would be able to work things out, but we are governed my Democrats and Republicans.  The midterms are coming up and the Democrats are using gun control against the Republicans for control of the congress this November.  It is pure political and it is not in the best interest of Americans.  It is not how it should be, but it is the way it will be and nothing will get done or the Republicans will cave to public pressure and the real problem will still exist.

As a person who is generally conservative and votes almost exclusively Republican, I'll tell you what my fear is on this.  Like it or not, the more frequently these mass casualty events from a person using a gun happen, the more public sentiment is shifting toward some restrictions on firearm ownership.  People are just sick and tired of seeing children and teenagers, and people who were just out shopping for groceries getting mowed down by people in body armor and strapped with a high powered, rapid-fire firearms that can kill dozens before the nearest policeman can turn his squad car around.  They're tired of the same arguments for inaction resulting in a lot of tears, "thoughts and prayers," and then....nothing of substance.  And the more Republicans and conservatives basically stonewall and refuse to even consider anything that might make obtaining any class of gun the least bit less convenient, the more they erode their own credibility in an increasing number of Americans' eyes. 

Right now, smart conservatives would be figuring out a way to be an integral part of crafting smart gun legislation with some teeth that could make a difference.  But what most Republicans and conservatives are doing is the same old thing they do every time - block anything from happening.  And what's eventually going to happen, after more schools, grocery stores or workplaces get shot up and 10, 15, 20 people die each time is that there *will* be a political consensus to make major changes - and thoughtful 2nd Amendment advocates and the GOP/conservatives won't have a seat at the table.  They'll be viewed as so thoroughly discredited, no one will take them seriously on the subject - even when they're offering good warnings and things to consider.  They just won't be a voice that's seen as worth listening to anymore.  And then you're going to get REALLY bad policy on this matter.

The question isn't if we're going to see things change in firearm regulations and such, it's when.  Conservatives and 2nd Amendment advocates can either stop listening to the hair-on-fire absolutists like the NRA and help in the development of good gun policy that makes a real difference in drastically reducing these awful incidents, or they can yell into the wind from the nosebleed section where no one can hear them.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

21 hours ago, GoAU said:

And since you like to try to put words in peoples mouths,, allow me to reiterate (again) - guns are tools.  Much like tools in my shop or golf clubs, you don’t use the same tool for every job.  There are certainly some situations I would prefer an AR for self defense, and others I would prefer and handgun, and almost never a shotgun.  
 

my statement in case you are uninformed on ballistics is that at close ranges like that, over penetration of rifle calibers lose a lot of their advantages over handguns.  Hand guns are much more concealable.  Many handguns these days have magazines over 20 rounds.  It’s not that hard to see pros & cons, unless you choose not to. 

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.

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

It will be interesting to see what this convention brings or doesn’t.

 

 

[AU9377 4,931]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

We do license a lot of things in the US..  Cars, planes, etc were not around at the time the Constitutions was written and the government took control, as they should, by giving citizens the privilege of driving, flying, practicing medicine, etc.  these things are given and can be taken away by the government if certain criteria are not met.

The 2nd amendment gives the citizen the right to bear arms without applying for a license to do so by some government decree.  Yes, we are a law abiding group, but there are some that are irresponsible in carrying out their lives and for those there are laws to punish wrong doers.  You can get arrested for assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery and murder, etc.  So it boils down to the pure evil among us that is the outlier.  Those are the people we really don’t want to acknowledge exist.  It’s those people we would rather restrict the use of *weapons of mass killing* then finding a way to identify and control their behavior.

I would think most liberals and conservatives would be able to work things out, but we are governed my Democrats and Republicans.  The midterms are coming up and the Democrats are using gun control against the Republicans for control of the congress this November.  It is pure political and it is not in the best interest of Americans.  It is not how it should be, but it is the way it will be and nothing will get done or the Republicans will cave to public pressure and the real problem will still exist.

........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.