Notice From My Cold Dead Hands...... (2 Viewers)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

So the guy who we’ve been told killed the shooter from day one, who was on the news two days ago talking about how he himself killed the shooter, is back on television this morning saying he in fact did not kill the shooter and didn’t even enter the school. Apparently the story now is the Uvalde swat team, who literally nobody saw enter the building, are the ones who neutralized the threat?
What the fuck is going on?
 
So the guy who we’ve been told killed the shooter from day one, who was on the news two days ago talking about how he himself killed the shooter, is back on television this morning saying he in fact did not kill the shooter and didn’t even enter the school. Apparently the story now is the Uvalde swat team, who literally nobody saw enter the building, are the ones who neutralized the threat?
What the fuck is going on?
Thin Blue Line
 
So the guy who we’ve been told killed the shooter from day one, who was on the news two days ago talking about how he himself killed the shooter, is back on television this morning saying he in fact did not kill the shooter and didn’t even enter the school. Apparently the story now is the Uvalde swat team, who literally nobody saw enter the building, are the ones who neutralized the threat?
What the fuck is going on?

What a shit show
 
Because that's what they do? Pay something lip service and then vote against it.
Good. Let's make them go on record and vote against it so it can be used against them in their next election.
 
Last edited:
Well, we can wait and see. When any of those things passes, please post here and I will happily agree you were right.

But until and unless that happens... I'm going to continue to think you are wrong.
But then why not force them to vote on it so it can be used against them in the next election?


No. Republicans are likely to hold the purse strings by January. Even if they wrote a bill and passed it tomorrow (which you know isn't the way things work) there's no way every school, or even 0.1% of schools, would be completed by January.
True. Just thinking here... could they get it passed and allow schools to prepay for the work? Thereby preventing republicans from jacking it up? Perhaps via a forgivable bond or something? I feel like there must be a way to force the government to completely pay for something they agree to pay for... And this is just a budget issue, so it should be able to pass with a party line reconciliation vote, right?



True, Republicans are mentally ill. But they don't realize it, so they are happy voting against their self-interest.
True


Nope. I'm saying it's going to a long, multi-decade fight. One that is worth having.
Is it really worth fighting over something we could solve in other ways, with fewer obstacles, that would save and improve an order of magnitude more lives than completely eliminating guns from the equation ever could? We're talking millions per year vs at MOST 50k per year. Only 10k of which are homicides, and most of those due almost entirely to poor economic conditions for given demographics...

And remember, over half of all gun deaths are suicides. Which is obviously a mental health problem (which would be addressed).
 
Many of you have probably seen the interview with the woman who escaped police detainment and entered the school, unarmed, DURING the shooting and retrieved both of her children, as well as one of their friends.
I’m now reading that this woman was told by members of the Uvalde police department that if she gave anymore interviews regarding the incident, her probation would be revoked and she’d go to prison. Holy fucking shit the levels of cowardice are beyond comprehension.
 
Many of you have probably seen the interview with the woman who escaped police detainment and entered the school, unarmed, DURING the shooting and retrieved both of her children, as well as one of their friends.
I’m now reading that this woman was told by members of the Uvalde police department that if she gave anymore interviews regarding the incident, her probation would be revoked and she’d go to prison. Holy fucking shit the levels of cowardice are beyond comprehension.
100% corrupt
 
As long as they can shout Shall not be infringed!, then thoughts and prayers plays fine with their base.
I'm not talking about their base. We can't just be satisfied with pointing fingers. That's what they (The American Oligarchs) want.
 
Last edited:



On why she says we need to train children to flee first rather than hide:

When I was working with then-Vice President Biden's team after the Sandy Hook shooting to look for solutions, one of the decisions that we made as a group - all the federal agencies said, 'run, hide, fight' is what people do in a shooting. And 'run, hide, fight' teaches us to do the 'run' part first. What we're teaching kids in school is the 'hide' part, but we're not teaching the 'run' part. We don't do that anyplace else in society. We don't tell kids in a mall, 'OK, just hide. Whatever's going on, hide under the bench at the Starbucks kiosk.' So somehow, when it comes to schools, we missed an opportunity to teach children and teach adults in schools that they need to run. That's the first thing they need to do. They need to escape.

If it's your only response, then, you know, your next response should be to fight. Fight the shooter as long and hard as you can. I know so many heroic stories about people who fought or ran. There were little kids who escaped from the Sandy Hook Elementary School because their teacher stepped up, stood in the way of the shooter, and they escaped out a side door. And the FBI, even just in recent years, released new training that says escape. Your first priority has to be to escape. You just can't be killed if you're not there.


On what an ideal response would have been according to the active shooter program she designed:

Let me qualify a little bit and just say, the law enforcement training that the FBI is pushing out and has pushed out for years requires that when there is active shooting underway, even if it's a single officer, you must pursue to the sound of the shooting or where you believe the shooter is. You must pursue all the way to the shooter and neutralize the shooter. That is the lone objective, and that — you should never waver from that.

A law enforcement officer, if they're trained, should continue moving forward, even if it means busting through a door, shooting through a door. I recognize the risks that are going through their heads, 'oh, my gosh, there's children in that classroom. I don't want to hurt a child. I don't want to' — but we need to pursue, pursue, pursue, because the shooters have already proven that they're willing to kill people, and they'll continue doing it. That's why the priority is, you keep moving forward, even if it means you go through walls and if you go through windows and if you go through doors.
 
Last edited:

Police say Gaston matched with a person on the dating app BLK posing as a 22-year-old woman named “Jada.” She asked the person, who is not named in court records, to meet her at Kain Palms Apartments, where her brother, Jermon Kennard, 18, was waiting nearby to rob the person, the records state.

When a masked Kennard threatened the person with a knife, he shot Kennard with a gun that was concealed in his waistband. Kennard was taken to Tampa General Hospital, where he died of gunshot wounds to his head and chest, records state.
 
I appreciate that Lanny.
Of course, you engage in thoughtful conversation which makes it easy for me to want to engage with you in the same manor.

I know I sometimes go too far in retaliation. Often times to my own detriment. I need to take a page out of your book (likely several pages).
True, no, not the part about me.
I overlook a lot about what other people say because it's not as important as my friendships. I invite all of you to try it.
 
https://www.businessinsider.com/mat...ss-root-problem-need-gun-policy-reform-2022-6

Matthew McConaughey says the GOP's views on gun control 'address the root of the problem' but 'we also need to lean into not allowing the bad guy' to get a gun 'before we have to catch him'

  • Matthew McConaughey said we need to "lean into not allowing the bad guy to get [a gun] before we have to catch him."
  • The actor has become a staunch advocate for gun reform following the school shooting in his hometown of Uvalde, Texas.
  • While the GOP is looking at the "root of the problem," he says gun policies are needed to stop mass shootings at the inception.

61a4e7451ca528001811a028
 
Even then a shotgun provides better protection.
Handguns are plenty accurate at far greater distances than 7 yards. 15-20 yards is well within accurate range for pretty much any handgun.

US Army lists maximum effective range of a 9mm handgun at 50 meters.
 
Last edited:
Is it really worth fighting over something we could solve in other ways, with fewer obstacles, that would save and improve an order of magnitude more lives than completely eliminating guns from the equation ever could? We're talking millions per year vs at MOST 50k per year. Only 10k of which are homicides, and most of those due almost entirely to poor economic conditions for given demographics...

And remember, over half of all gun deaths are suicides. Which is obviously a mental health problem (which would be addressed).

I really meant all the options. The mental health, the poverty, the education, AND the guns.

Suicide is often an impulsive decision. Not having an easy way close at hand to carry out the urge will save a whole bunch of lives.

barfo
 
I really meant all the options. The mental health, the poverty, the education, AND the guns.

Suicide is often an impulsive decision. Not having an easy way close at hand to carry out the urge will save a whole bunch of lives.

barfo

Restricting healthy law abiding Americans in the hopes of preventing unwell Americans from killing themselves is a tough sell.

We should get people as much help as possible. That's how we address suicides, IMO.
 
Last edited:
But to your earlier arguments, banning those people from guns will not matter, because there are 400 million in thr country, or they could just 3d print one at home for cheap. So what good is that law?
Sorry, I thought I'd already replied to this but it doesn't appear that I have.

I believe in punishing people who do wrong as a disincentive. And people who do wrong in a violent way or with weapons are proving themselves to be dangerous people who should have that right taken from them.
 
So employers have to provide healthcare. Great. Does that mean all the shootings elsewhere are just a bunch of uninsured kids who’s parents are either jobless or homeless? These kids seem to come from
working families much of the time.

The same kinds of kids coming from traumatic or abusive home lives, probably also dont have someone at home to take them to mental health care appointments.

An implementation in schools is an elegant way to address that.
 
@Chris Craig , I apologize for this response taking so long, but here goes...

Most people here are not saying ban all guns. Maybe 2 posters have said that. Its not going to happen. It will never be on the table.

Most people here want restrictions. Restriction doesn't mean we want it banned, just harder to get.

Fair enough. I think most liberal republicans(non politicians) are willing to have some restrictions such as clip bullet limits, potentially upping the age to 21, etc. I am not sure if any gun ban will pass though. Regardless of my stance, congress just wants to fight and blame. So then details of what restrictions must be spelled out.

Though, I don't see a reason for civilians to have access to versions of military guns other than they are cool. That cool factor is part of what has led to a culture around guns like the AR-15.

So let's examine this. Why is this? Why are guns and shooting becoming increasingly cool amongst our youth? Where do these kids with gun fascinations come from and what is their daily life like? Without reading logs and logs of case studies, but going by my personal life experiences of entering MANY families homes over the years as a technician, I have come under the opinion it is largely due to parental neglect, which has many facets. It seems as if many parents have come to believe that they are not responsible for their children's education and that is the government and the school districts responsibility. I have personally witnessed parents who have kids still in diapers playing video games with soldiers and guns, while mom sits their chatting it up on the phone with her friend, getting rude when I need to ask some questions in order to complete my job. (Not many were rude, but the neglect of the child's need for attention was still apparent)
I believe that it is an extremely rare individual who is born evil regardless of good parenting. I believe most become this way due to early childhood neglect and lack of proper intellectual growth.
I do not claim this to be fact, nor do I claim to have seen the areas where these shooters have actually come from. But I strongly believe that lack of education breeds poverty, bad choices, anger issues(lack of self control/discipline) and I cant help be think this is a large contributor. The disintegration of family bonding and community coming togethers.

It's the gun of choice for mass shooters for a reason.

Rest assured. Take away the AR-15 and those who want to kill will find another gun of equal potential destruction or worse, go the bomb route. This is appauling to have to even compare, but what would be worse, an AR-15 shooting or a guy with a bomb strapped to himself walking into a classroom and setting it off?

You were talking about video games earlier. Well, the problem his gun makers, have taken the video game and made it real by offering versions of the guns in games. It's not the game itself, but the realization of that game via guns like Ar-15s

Are you sure about this? Seems to me guns have been around much longer than games and the games I play have guns mimicking what is out there already. Without some evidence I would find it hard to believe that video games are influencing gun makers, vs gun makers influencing video game makers.

Why do people kill is an age old question. Are they driven to it? Are they born with wicked capabilities and compulsions? Mental illness? Isolation? Bad parenting? The answer needs to be sought out yes, but there are things we can do in the meantime.

Some of this was addressed above. I do not disagree with trying all realistic avenues to curb mass shootings.

I believe that eventually better more accessible healthcare could help curb some of this. But, it's going to take time. Getting rid of poverty would be great and would help too, but it will never happen. The rich won't allow it.

I am not sure I am following. I believe most rich would love to see poverty go away. Poverty stricken people have less money to spend on the rich peoples goods.

The fastest things we can do now in the moment are:
  • raising the age to buy guns. I agree. 21 would be fair to me for any fully automatic weapon, possibly semi autos as well. However the thing about raising the age is will it really have any affect on shootings? Are most mass shootings from individuals under 21 who bought the gun? or was it a parents gun? So yes, I can agree with raising the age because I believe it could be done with little overhead costs, but I don't think it will have a large impact or even a small one really.
  • Making guns harder to get via background checks, etc. I am not privy to all the details, but do not most states have a 3-5 day wait time as the background check is done, before they can get a gun? If not, i'm fully on board with anyone buying a gun having to have a background check and possibly even a personal life investigation for fully automatic weapons.
  • Offer gun buybacks to get some guns off the street. All for it
  • Push for more responsible parenting To me this is the most important, but also the most complicated, as there isn't a universal answer for all families. But without this, I don't see much else working.
  • Hold parents responsible if their kids gets ahold of their weapons and use them nefariously. All for it. This ties in with the parenting issues.
  • Better school security upgrades (Doors that are locked from the outside, but can open from the inside and buzz in systems. Etc)I thought I remember being told by someone that most of the schools out there already have the locked outside but not inside doors? And the more I recall, my highschool and jr high's were like that back in the 80's-90's. But I am willing to entertain thoughts outside the box. how about schools with 12 foot ceilings with gun holes every so often and cameras with someone behind a joystick who could be alerted and take out a shooter walking down the hall? I know the costs and reality of that is pretty far fetched, but I believe this is an issue serious enough we should entertain all new ideas initially.
We could also look to ban military style rifles among other things but that's probably not going to happen, so I'm not including that. Though most of my ideas won't happen anyway.

See above in red.

Yes, banning guns from planes has deterred some hijackings. Not all, but some. Implementing other strategies has helped to deter them even more. It's nearly impossible to hijack a plane post 9-11 because we did what we needed to do. If we sat around saying oh it's not going to work and the such we would have likely had more hijackings. Can you name a hijacking post 9-11 here in the US?

We need to attack gun violence, especially school shootings like we did hijacking, with several solutions at once. That's how it stops.

I cannot. However, that came at a cost of longer lines and delayed entries while passengers go through the more extensive screening to get through, as well as a more intensive social media monitoring and tracking of suspected terrorists. ( all worth it) Is this something we should have at our schools? A guard at every entry able to pat down anything he thinks may have a gun, have all bags go through a scanner with another person watching the screen and then a metal detector to pass through? A higher level of governmental surveillance on kids social media pages? I would entertain that thought, but not sure if I would go for it without know many many more details of how things would work and cost.
I agree we should try all realistic options and entertain all ideas until scrutiny/studies show them not worthy of having an effect.
The key is though? people working together for a common goal to find a solution to a problem no one on either side of the political isle wants. Republicans don't want mass shootings to happen any more than Democrats. Republicans have children too.
It's sad that the few extremes on both sides have the loudest voices and make this issue a political one to be argued over ad nausium vs putting aside fringe differences and finding common ground to start building a foundation of trust off of, to be able to work together,instead of tear each other's respective party down. I am not sure we are not in an all time low regarding our elected officials capacity to put personal differences aside for the good of all.

I don't claim to have the answers, but I also don't want to see us make the wrong decisions. It could potentially exacerbate the problem into a civil war of chaos and destruction.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top