“He has a battle rifle”: Police feared Uvalde gunman’s AR-15

[CoffeeTiger 5,102]

I've attached what I think is an excellent investigative article on the Uvalde Shooting and the history of the AR-15 Rifle. I've attached a few select paragraphs below, but I'd encourage you to read the entire piece, it gives various examples of how police can often believe themselves to be outgunned and underequipped to face off against suspects/shooters armed with AR-15 Rifles, and that creates hesitation and uncoordinated responses like in the Uvalde,Tx massacure and the parkland school shooting in florida 

It goes into detail about how the AR-15 was developed, how deadly it can be, how its popularity in America has exploded among civilians who want a AR-15 for reasons beyond sport or self defense, and how AR-15 rifles have increasingly become the weapon of choice among mass shooters, whereas in past decades, ARs were rarely used at all. 

It also goes into how the Uvalde shooters was able to legally purchase multiple AR-15 Rifles, thousands of rounds of ammo, and rifle attachments without drawing any suspicion or red flags.  

 

Makes me think about some of the solutions for school shootings I see advocated for. police officers and guards on campus? Evidence shows they are just as likely to run or hide if they believe their own lives are in grave danger, and that they often see AR-15 rifles as high powered weaponry that they don't feel comfortable confronting. Also the "arm teachers" idea seems especially silly when our trained and well equipped police force will hide and wait for backup before confronting school shooters, yet some people think and  expect civilian school teachers to jump in and play Rambo? 

 

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/03/20/uvalde-shooting-police-ar-15/

In previously unreleased interviews, police who responded to the Robb Elementary shooting told investigators they were cowed by the shooter’s military-style rifle. This drove their decision to wait for a Border Patrol SWAT team to engage him, which took more than an hour.

 

Almost a year after Texas’ deadliest school shooting killed 19 children and two teachers, there is still confusion among investigators, law enforcement leaders and politicians over how nearly 400 law enforcement officers could have performed so poorly. People have blamed cowardice or poor leadership or a lack of sufficient training for why police waited more than an hour to breach the classroom and subdue an amateur 18-year-old adversary.

But in their own words, during and after their botched response, the officers pointed to another reason: They were unwilling to confront the rifle on the other side of the door.

A Texas Tribune investigation, based on police body cameras, emergency communications and interviews with investigators that have not been made public, found officers had concluded that immediately confronting the gunman would be too dangerous. Even though some officers were armed with the same rifle, they opted to wait for the arrival of a Border Patrol SWAT team, with more protective body armor, stronger shields and more tactical training — even though the unit was based more than 60 miles away.

“You knew that it was definitely an AR,” Uvalde Police Department Sgt. Donald Page said in an interview with investigators after the school shooting. “There was no way of going in. … We had no choice but to wait and try to get something that had better coverage where we could actually stand up to him.”

...

Mass shooting protocols adopted by law enforcement nationwide call on officers to stop the attacker as soon as possible. But police in other mass shootings — including at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, and the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida — also hesitated to confront gunmen armed with AR-15-style rifles.

...

 

 

That’s what happened in Uvalde.

In two and a half minutes, before any police officer set foot inside the school, the gunman fired more than 100 rounds at students and teachers from point-blank range. Several victims lost large portions of their heads, photos taken by investigators show. Bullets tore gashes in flesh as long as a foot. They shattered a child’s shin, nearly severed another’s arm at the elbow, ripped open another’s neck, blasted a hole the size of a baseball in another’s hip. Other rounds penetrated the wall of Room 111, passed through the empty Room 110, punctured another wall and wounded a student and teacher in Room 109, who survived.

When medics finally reached the victims, there was nothing they could do for most, they said in interviews with investigators. Eighteen of the 21 were pronounced dead at the school. Police assigned each a letter of the alphabet and took DNA samples so they could be identified by family.

 

[Mims44 1,867]

21 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

I've attached what I think is an excellent investigative article on the Uvalde Shooting and the history of the AR-15 Rifle. I've attached a few select paragraphs below, but I'd encourage you to read the entire piece, it gives various examples of how police can often believe themselves to be outgunned and underequipped to face off against suspects/shooters armed with AR-15 Rifles, and that creates hesitation and uncoordinated responses like in the Uvalde,Tx massacure and the parkland school shooting in florida 

It goes into detail about how the AR-15 was developed, how deadly it can be, how its popularity in America has exploded among civilians who want a AR-15 for reasons beyond sport or self defense, and how AR-15 rifles have increasingly become the weapon of choice among mass shooters, whereas in past decades, ARs were rarely used at all. 

It also goes into how the Uvalde shooters was able to legally purchase multiple AR-15 Rifles, thousands of rounds of ammo, and rifle attachments without drawing any suspicion or red flags.  

 

Makes me think about some of the solutions for school shootings I see advocated for. police officers and guards on campus? Evidence shows they are just as likely to run or hide if they believe their own lives are in grave danger, and that they often see AR-15 rifles as high powered weaponry that they don't feel comfortable confronting. Also the "arm teachers" idea seems especially silly when our trained and well equipped police force will hide and wait for backup before confronting school shooters, yet some people think and  expect civilian school teachers to jump in and play Rambo? 

 

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/03/20/uvalde-shooting-police-ar-15/

In previously unreleased interviews, police who responded to the Robb Elementary shooting told investigators they were cowed by the shooter’s military-style rifle. This drove their decision to wait for a Border Patrol SWAT team to engage him, which took more than an hour.

 

Almost a year after Texas’ deadliest school shooting killed 19 children and two teachers, there is still confusion among investigators, law enforcement leaders and politicians over how nearly 400 law enforcement officers could have performed so poorly. People have blamed cowardice or poor leadership or a lack of sufficient training for why police waited more than an hour to breach the classroom and subdue an amateur 18-year-old adversary.

But in their own words, during and after their botched response, the officers pointed to another reason: They were unwilling to confront the rifle on the other side of the door.

A Texas Tribune investigation, based on police body cameras, emergency communications and interviews with investigators that have not been made public, found officers had concluded that immediately confronting the gunman would be too dangerous. Even though some officers were armed with the same rifle, they opted to wait for the arrival of a Border Patrol SWAT team, with more protective body armor, stronger shields and more tactical training — even though the unit was based more than 60 miles away.

“You knew that it was definitely an AR,” Uvalde Police Department Sgt. Donald Page said in an interview with investigators after the school shooting. “There was no way of going in. … We had no choice but to wait and try to get something that had better coverage where we could actually stand up to him.”

...

Mass shooting protocols adopted by law enforcement nationwide call on officers to stop the attacker as soon as possible. But police in other mass shootings — including at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, and the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida — also hesitated to confront gunmen armed with AR-15-style rifles.

...

 

 

That’s what happened in Uvalde.

In two and a half minutes, before any police officer set foot inside the school, the gunman fired more than 100 rounds at students and teachers from point-blank range. Several victims lost large portions of their heads, photos taken by investigators show. Bullets tore gashes in flesh as long as a foot. They shattered a child’s shin, nearly severed another’s arm at the elbow, ripped open another’s neck, blasted a hole the size of a baseball in another’s hip. Other rounds penetrated the wall of Room 111, passed through the empty Room 110, punctured another wall and wounded a student and teacher in Room 109, who survived.

When medics finally reached the victims, there was nothing they could do for most, they said in interviews with investigators. Eighteen of the 21 were pronounced dead at the school. Police assigned each a letter of the alphabet and took DNA samples so they could be identified by family.

 

This might be the dumbest s*** I've ever read.

[CoffeeTiger 5,102]

ok?

Edited March 21, 2023 by CoffeeTiger

[Mims44 1,867]

1 hour ago, CoffeeTiger said:

ok? Most of the article was actual quotes from people and statistics and facts on gun history. What do you disagree with? 

 

On 3/20/2023 at 3:24 PM, CoffeeTiger said:

In previously unreleased interviews, police who responded to the Robb Elementary shooting told investigators they were cowed by the shooter’s military-style rifle. This drove their decision to wait for a Border Patrol SWAT team to engage him, which took more than an hour. Starting off bad, 'military style rifle' no police should be this ignorant or scared. At least it's somewhat genuine in admitting they were 'cowed' as in being cowards.

 

Almost a year after Texas’ deadliest school shooting killed 19 children and two teachers, there is still confusion among investigators, law enforcement leaders and politicians over how nearly 400 law enforcement officers could have performed so poorly. People have blamed cowardice or poor leadership or a lack of sufficient training for why police waited more than an hour to breach the classroom and subdue an amateur 18-year-old adversary. This part is spot on, agree 100%

But in their own words, during and after their botched response, the officers pointed to another reason: They were unwilling to confront the rifle on the other side of the door. No shi.... yeah.

A Texas Tribune investigation, based on police body cameras, emergency communications and interviews with investigators that have not been made public, found officers had concluded that immediately confronting the gunman would be too dangerous. Even though some officers were armed with the same rifle, they opted to wait for the arrival of a Border Patrol SWAT team, with more protective body armor, stronger shields and more tactical training — even though the unit was based more than 60 miles away. bolded underlined part points out the dumb narrative. A single teenager is armed with the same weapons we all have, guess we can't do our jobs then. The part immediately after that, what police force comes with body armor not rated for 5.56? This would be funny if not so sickeningly sad.

“You knew that it was definitely an AR,” Uvalde Police Department Sgt. Donald Page said in an interview with investigators after the school shooting. “There was no way of going in. … We had no choice but to wait and try to get something that had better coverage where we could actually stand up to him.” There was no way of going in, except that one cop who went in to save his own kids, or the parents who snuck in to save their kids, or the woman who was thrown in a police cruiser for trying to get her kids, who then broke free and also got inside and got her kids... smdh This entire narrative that a large force of trained and armed professionals cannot enter a large building with multiple exits because one armed teenager is inside. I guess we were all marvel superheroes in Iraq kicking in doors with a small fireteam?

 

...

Mass shooting protocols adopted by law enforcement nationwide call on officers to stop the attacker as soon as possible. But police in other mass shootings — including at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, and the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida — also hesitated to confront gunmen armed with AR-15-style rifles. Underlined the important part, this is what you train for, this is your job, your duty. Pointing out other instances of cowardice doesn't make it less heinous.

...

 

 

That’s what happened in Uvalde.

In two and a half minutes, before any police officer set foot inside the school, the gunman fired more than 100 rounds at students and teachers from point-blank range. Several victims lost large portions of their heads, photos taken by investigators show. Bullets tore gashes in flesh as long as a foot. They shattered a child’s shin, nearly severed another’s arm at the elbow, ripped open another’s neck, blasted a hole the size of a baseball in another’s hip. Other rounds penetrated the wall of Room 111, passed through the empty Room 110, punctured another wall and wounded a student and teacher in Room 109, who survived.

When medics finally reached the victims, there was nothing they could do for most, they said in interviews with investigators. Eighteen of the 21 were pronounced dead at the school. Police assigned each a letter of the alphabet and took DNA samples so they could be identified by family.

Almost sounds like this paragraph is setting up to say how important it is for police to act as a QRF unit and not, ya know... chill and play on their phones and pull their firearms on the scared and desperate parents sitting outside listening to their children be murdered inside.

 

Look, I get peoples arguments for changes to the 2nd amendment, I get wanting to grab onto whatever narrative you think gives your side a chance to succeed. Heck, I can even get behind some changes. But don't let your want for change allow you to excuse the utterly reprehensible and cowardly actions of these police officers.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

How brave is anyone going up against a barricaded shooter with a weapon that fires 700-900 rounds per minute?

Should we expect our police officers to be this brave?

The gun culture itself is all about fear.  It is inherently cowardly.

[homersapien 11,367]

2 hours ago, Mims44 said:

 

 

Look, I get peoples arguments for changes to the 2nd amendment, I get wanting to grab onto whatever narrative you think gives your side a chance to succeed. Heck, I can even get behind some changes. But don't let your want for change allow you to excuse the utterly reprehensible and cowardly actions of these police officers.

Given the wide range of domestic situations our police are expected to face and the amount of different training those situations require, is it realistic to expect the (regular) police to deal effectively with what is an essentially combat situation?

Even our military doesn't need to train for such a wide range of situational responses.

I am not trying to make excuses for their actions - or inactions - in this case.  But at what point do our expectations for regular policemen become unrealistic?

At what point do we take more of a systemic approach?

 

 

 

Edited March 21, 2023 by homersapien

[aubiefifty 16,766]

4 hours ago, Mims44 said:

This might be the dumbest s*** I've ever read.

have you no shame sir?

In two and a half minutes, before any police officer set foot inside the school, the gunman fired more than 100 rounds at students and teachers from point-blank range. Several victims lost large portions of their heads, photos taken by investigators show. Bullets tore gashes in flesh as long as a foot. They shattered a child’s shin, nearly severed another’s arm at the elbow, ripped open another’s neck, blasted a hole the size of a baseball in another’s hip. Other rounds penetrated the wall of Room 111, passed through the empty Room 110, punctured another wall and wounded a student and teacher in Room 109, who survived.

When medics finally reached the victims, there was nothing they could do for most, they said in interviews with investigators. Eighteen of the 21 were pronounced dead at the school. Police assigned each a letter of the alphabet and took DNA samples so they could be identified by family.

 

[Leftfield 2,595]

5 hours ago, Mims44 said:

Look, I get peoples arguments for changes to the 2nd amendment, I get wanting to grab onto whatever narrative you think gives your side a chance to succeed. Heck, I can even get behind some changes. But don't let your want for change allow you to excuse the utterly reprehensible and cowardly actions of these police officers.

I don't think Coffee, or the article, was attempting to excuse the lack of action on the part of the police. The fact is that a powerful weapon like an AR-15 changes how people approach a situation. The section of the article you quoted demonstrates why, considering a bullet passed through two walls and still managed to injure two people, meaning it likely passed through one of them. The doctors also described some of the horrific injuries. I've read injury descriptions from other doctors in other shootings with these types of weapons, and they say those injuries are simply on another level. Victims of handguns may have a chance at times, but those chances are drastically reduced with high-powered weapons because of the amount of damage caused. 

I would love to think that I would not have waited had I been one of those police officers, but for whatever reason there were many dozens of people who didn't act. Maybe some of them were willing, but if they were ordered not to they may have feared for losing their job if they disobeyed orders. Would those orders have been different if there had only been a hand gun? Based on the statements in the article I think it's safe to say that they would have. Should that not give us pause as to whether we're doing things right with the weapons we allow average citizens to own?

I think we'd find it much easier to get rid of all the AR-15s than to get rid of all the cowards.

Edited March 22, 2023 by Leftfield

[Mims44 1,867]

12 hours ago, homersapien said:

Given the wide range of domestic situations our police are expected to face and the amount of different training those situations require, is it realistic to expect the (regular) police to deal effectively with what is an essentially combat situation?

Even our military doesn't need to train for such a wide range of situational responses.

I am not trying to make excuses for their actions - or inactions - in this case.  But at what point do our expectations for regular policemen become unrealistic?

At what point do we take more of a systemic approach?

 

 

 

I don't understand what your 'wide range' comment means? You train for active shooters in buildings, you train for potential shooters in buildings. The layout of the buildings always change, your conditions for success rarely do. AND your conditions for success are NEVER pull your firearms on the innocent parents of kids being murdered instead of doing your damn job.

10 hours ago, Leftfield said:

I don't think Coffee, or the article, was attempting to excuse the lack of action on the part of the police. The fact is that a powerful weapon like an AR-15 changes how people approach a situation. The section of the article you quoted demonstrates why, considering a bullet passed through two walls and still managed to injure two people, meaning it likely passed through one of them. The doctors also described some of the horrific injuries. I've read injury descriptions from other doctors in other shootings with these types of weapons, and they say those injuries are simply on another level. Victims of handguns may have a chance at times, but those chances are drastically reduced with high-powered weapons because of the amount of damage caused. 

I would love to think that I would not have waited had I been one of those police officers, but for whatever reason there were many dozens of people who didn't act. Maybe some of them were willing, but if they were ordered not to they may have feared for losing their job if they disobeyed orders. Would those orders have been different if there had only been a hand gun? Based on the statements in the article I think it's safe to say that they would have. Should that not give us pause as to whether we're doing things right with the weapons we allow average citizens to own?

I think we'd find it much easier to get rid of all the AR-15s than to get rid of all the cowards.

To the bolded statement, would they though? Or would they have been cowards again and talked about how a .45 is so much larger and louder than a 5.56, how much more scary it is hearing the very loud bang bangs instead of the pew pews. How much more deadly being hit with that round is compared to a 5.56 round created with the intent to injure and thus remove more total fighters from an engagement?

My point is, cowards will always find an excuse for their cowardice.

 

13 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

How brave is anyone going up against a barricaded shooter with a weapon that fires 700-900 rounds per minute?

Should we expect our police officers to be this brave?

The gun culture itself is all about fear.  It is inherently cowardly.

Almost didn't respond to you, since you are and always have been this forums worst troll.

Please find me the AR 15 where someone fires 700-900 rpm. 

[creed 1,635]

I have yet to understand the utility of an AR-15. My thoughts are it's just a tool for killing. There are better options for defense IMO. 

[Mims44 1,867]

26 minutes ago, creed said:

I have yet to understand the utility of an AR-15. My thoughts are it's just a tool for killing. There are better options for defense IMO. 

I can 100% understand this thought. A shotgun is a ton better, I use a m&p but only because the government spent a lot of time/money on training me with those types of firearms so I'm most comfortable with them. But for gen pop, 100% a shotgun for home defense.

I hope people aren't getting me wrong in this, my posts aren't about 2nd amendment rights, or whether they need to be changed etc.

They are 100% about; do not lay the blame of those cops inaction at the feet of a random type of firearm.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

17 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

How brave is anyone going up against a barricaded shooter with a weapon that fires 700-900 rounds per minute?

Should we expect our police officers to be this brave?

The gun culture itself is all about fear.  It is inherently cowardly.

Not sure if you are trolling or just that dumb..........

[Mims44 1,867]

9 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Not sure if you are trolling or just that dumb..........

That's his schtick ... none of us are ever sure.

[Mikey 16,578]

The AR-15 may be the current whipping boy, but law enforcement concern about what weapons a criminal has is nothing new. From as long as 40 years back, and probably longer, a LEO's first question is "Does he have any long guns?"

Without going into a dissertation about ballistics, long guns are more deadly. They always have been, it's the nature of the beast.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

The AR-15 is the most popular rifle worldwide and it can easily fire as many as 800 – 1200 RPM depending on the version of the gun, caliber, and trigger.

In contrast with the AR-15, AK-47 rifles have an average fire rate of about 700 RPM. The AK-47 is also a popular rifle used by militaries and law enforcement around the world

The AR-10 is a semi-automatic rifle that is similar to the AR-15. It has a lower rate of fire, which means you can expect it to shoot at around 330 RPM. The AR-308 is another recent semi-automatic rifle similar to the AR-15 and it has an average rate of fire of about 450 RPM.

[homersapien 11,367]

7 hours ago, Mims44 said:

I don't understand what your 'wide range' comment means? You train for active shooters in buildings, you train for potential shooters in buildings. The layout of the buildings always change, your conditions for success rarely do. AND your conditions for success are NEVER pull your firearms on the innocent parents of kids being murdered instead of doing your damn job.

 

I was referring to the sort of situations police respond to a routine basis - such as intervening in family disputes, dealing with mentally ill people in crisis, public disturbances, traffic stops and a myriad of other "normal" situations. 

All of these situations involve risk, but risk that can be reasonably managed with special training and expertise, at least ideally.

Now on top of that, we are expecting police to throw themselves in what amounts to a full combat situation, thanks to the weaponry we legally allow.

Personally, I can understand an attitude that would say: 

"Screw it, if our society/political system doesn't give a s*** about limiting availability of these weapons, I am not going to accept the personal responsibility of sacrificing myself for the inevitable result of such policy."  

Again, I am not making excuses for their response. I am just asking at what point are we expecting too much from police.  At what point are we limiting the availability of well-qualified individuals who would otherwise make good officers?

Do we need to restrict responses to situations involving these weapons to SWAT teams?

 

Edited March 22, 2023 by homersapien

[icanthearyou 4,462]

We have widely circulated a class of  weapons that cowers the average police officer.  The problem isn't difficult to define. 

Is the solution escalating the killing ability criminals and the police?  Are we truly that stupid?

[wdefromtx 3,159]

5 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

The AR-15 is the most popular rifle worldwide and it can easily fire as many as 800 – 1200 RPM depending on the version of the gun, caliber, and trigger.

In contrast with the AR-15, AK-47 rifles have an average fire rate of about 700 RPM. The AK-47 is also a popular rifle used by militaries and law enforcement around the world

The AR-10 is a semi-automatic rifle that is similar to the AR-15. It has a lower rate of fire, which means you can expect it to shoot at around 330 RPM. The AR-308 is another recent semi-automatic rifle similar to the AR-15 and it has an average rate of fire of about 450 RPM.

You conveniently left the part of that article states that it has a rate of 45 rpm in the legal semi-auto version. You have to do illegal modifications to achieve the rates you want to try to make it support your idiotic idea that the cops were afraid of his firepower. Even with the modifications to increase the rate of fire you have something call physics that gets in the way. Just because a certain caliber of bullet allows for a max rate does not mean the gun can handle it. Any prolonged use at say about 600 rpm will start to melt the barrel. 

Not to mention the illegal magazines required to support that kind of rate of fire. 

I am not advocating for the AR-15, but be realistic about your side of the argument and don't try to make it seem as if all these AR-15's out are setup to fire 1200 rpm. 

 

[AuCivilEng1 11,004]

You guys forgot that conservative men are manly men! Alphas! They’d go in Rambo style and use tactical Timmy leaping ability to dodge out of the way of the bullet spray. For this reason I vote that we put conservative Trump voters in  the front lines of the war on AR’s. We will call it.. Operation Red Shield!

[Mikey 16,578]

9 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

We have widely circulated a class of  weapons that cowers the average police officer.  The problem isn't difficult to define. 

Is the solution escalating the killing ability criminals and the police?  Are we truly that stupid?

Some fools think the solution is that more laws should be passed. The criminals who are ignoring current laws will also ignore the new laws but woke politicians can beat their chests and point to the useless laws they just passed.

[creed 1,635]

6 hours ago, Mikey said:

Some fools think the solution is that more laws should be passed. The criminals who are ignoring current laws will also ignore the new laws but woke politicians can beat their chests and point to the useless laws they just passed.

What is your solution? 

[Mims44 1,867]

19 hours ago, homersapien said:

I was referring to the sort of situations police respond to a routine basis - such as intervening in family disputes, dealing with mentally ill people in crisis, public disturbances, traffic stops and a myriad of other "normal" situations. 

All of these situations involve risk, but risk that can be reasonably managed with special training and expertise, at least ideally.

Now on top of that, we are expecting police to throw themselves in what amounts to a full combat situation, thanks to the weaponry we legally allow.

Personally, I can understand an attitude that would say: 

"Screw it, if our society/political system doesn't give a s*** about limiting availability of these weapons, I am not going to accept the personal responsibility of sacrificing myself for the inevitable result of such policy."  

Again, I am not making excuses for their response. I am just asking at what point are we expecting too much from police.  At what point are we limiting the availability of well-qualified individuals who would otherwise make good officers?

Do we need to restrict responses to situations involving these weapons to SWAT teams?

 

Wanted to separate these two highlighted spots, to the first I agree 100%. Police should not have to be mental health professionals or crisis counselors. I've also seen this brought up a lot among newsgroups and politicians... but as far as I know... not much if anything is being done to rectify the situation.

 

To the second highlighted part, and I hope I'm not misreading your intent again. I would read 'full combat situation' as you meaning  something akin to militarized combat scenarios. Which I would say that a lone teenager with a semi auto rifle does not qualify as.

To your middle part, What do you do? restrict mag sizes? That's too easy to create yourself. Make only bolt action firearms legal? I mean, maybe. Presents a ton of issues about confiscation and (like weed) turning a ton of law abiding citizens into criminals overnight. And we'll likely only cut down on kids being shot in school until the first weirdo loser gets plastered on TV 24/7 for using his grand daddies bolt action to snipe multiple classmates and a few teachers  from 300+ meters away, then every loser teen will again be looking to copycat to get their 10 minutes of notoriety. 

Now that's not saying I'm against changes being made I'm just not sure how you move forward with anything besides some obvious steps that still need to be taken, which I'll respond to more replying to Mikey...

 

9 hours ago, Mikey said:

Some fools think the solution is that more laws should be passed. The criminals who are ignoring current laws will also ignore the new laws but woke politicians can beat their chests and point to the useless laws they just passed.

Mikey, I'd say some of the issues are the laws that are too easily skirted.

 

For example, let's say I am a violent criminal fresh out of prison. I go grab a wad of cash and run to a gun store... as soon as they run my background check they tell me to get out of their store.

So I take my wad of cash a few streets over to a Gun Show, I ask to buy the same rifle and the man takes my money and hands me the rifle, no questions asked.

 

This is a stupidly easy way to legally circumvent the checks put on violent criminals and the mentally unwell from buying firearms.

 

[Mikey 16,578]

39 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

This is a stupidly easy way to legally circumvent the checks put on violent criminals and the mentally unwell from buying firearms.

It is, but there's no practical way to stop it. If they don't get their weapon from a gun show they'll get it off the streets. Similar to opioids.

4 hours ago, creed said:

What is your solution? 

Criminals don't like to be shot either. Specific to the school situation, arm teachers who volunteer to go through some basic firearms training. This won't 100% stop school shootings but it should cut way back on the numbers of incidents and the number of casualties per incident.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Dumping these weapons into society has PROVEN to be highly destructive.   The reality can no longer be denied.

[CoffeeTiger 5,102]

 

1 hour ago, Mikey said:

Criminals don't like to be shot either. Specific to the school situation, arm teachers who volunteer to go through some basic firearms training. This won't 100% stop school shootings but it should cut way back on the numbers of incidents and the number of casualties per incident.

Like in the Uvalde shooting, the perpetrator obviously had no intention of coming out of that situation alive. If he didn't surrender during an hour standoff and forced a swat team to move in and take him out, he sure as hell wouldn't have cared if a few teachers at the school had a gun on them. Parkland had a armed school police officer on campus who ran away to call for backup. But you think teachers with guns would perform better in shooting situations than police officers do? 

 

There's no evidence that putting more guns in schools would solve anything. it wont have any affect on school shootings other than giving students easier access to guns that are assigned to teachers, and if the school guns are secured properly then a school shooting event would be well underway or even concluded before the schools specially trained SWAT teachers could get their guns unsecured and loaded to respond.