Another gunman, another elementary school

[Anonymous]

What we are leaning about the police response is disheartening but did anyone really think the this small town had a crack police force? Police forces around the country are unable to hire and anyone that can leave is leaving. People that want a career in law enforcement (and there aren’t many) will look to federal employment first, then to the major cities, which have better pay, training, equipment and benefits. Are any of you aware of the recent academy classes in the DMV? They are empty. And the idea that a private security guard getting $15/hr with no pension and no union is going to run in after a guy with an AR-15 is utterly fanciful.
Everyone wants and expects a highly trained force to serve and protect. But who wants to do this job ? Apparently no one.

That’s all utterly aside from our insane lack of gun regulation, but the two do feed into each other. Maybe if we didn’t have a populace armed to the teeth with military weapons we would be able to staff a police force, and those officers wouldn’t be so worried that every potential offender is armed like an insurgent.

And, of course, the great irony of the second amendment is that if you asked our rich, white, elitist founding fathers if they thought every yahoo in the country should have their own military grade weaponry, they would say God no. When they said well regulated militia they meant landed white guys who trained together. They liked universal gun ownership even less than universal suffrage!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Um, criminals will ALWAYS get a way to commit “mass” murder. They do NOT obey laws.

No, they actually don’t. That’s why other countries don’t have these mass murder problems. Because they are stopped.

+1 Maybe there will be one mass murder in a country in 3 years. But there won't be 1 per week slaughtering children. Just look at the data. When there's a mass shooting in Europe or Asia it's a life altering event. Here it's just another day in America. If you've lived in any other developed country, you find the USA barbaric in this aspect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Um, criminals will ALWAYS get a way to commit “mass” murder. They do NOT obey laws.

So we have to get rid of guns and ammunition.

Just like you’re getting rid of deadly fentanyl flooding our open border?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Um, criminals will ALWAYS get a way to commit “mass” murder. They do NOT obey laws.

No, they actually don’t. That’s why other countries don’t have these mass murder problems. Because they are stopped.

Criminals in other countries actually get serious consequences. American criminals these days are largely protected from harsh consequences. How about you address that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t want to live in a country where an armed guard is necessary for my kids to go to school safely. Moreover one armed guard isn’t sufficient. Should we arm the kids next??? This is insanity. It’s guns. It’s choosing to live in a state of warfare vs. peace.

Read the second amendment. “Well regulated” are words that do not mean anything goes.

The disconnect is unreal. It’s the I assume it will not matter to me, take NRA money, look the other way, move on. It’s just 21 families I don’t know and don’t care about.

Why isn't one armed guard not sufficient?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only upside is this and Buffalo should hopefully put an end to that “good guy with a gun” bull$hit.

What exactly are you talking about?

“The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

Both Buffalo and this school had “good guys with guns” and they did not stop the bad guy with the gun. So I don’t want to hear that anymore as a retort to calls for gun control.

What might happen if we had more good guys with guns?

Question:
Why do you think these raging boys target schools?

Answer:
They know it’s a “gun free zone”.

They ain’t dumb. They want to finally do something big that EVERYONE will notice and remember. High time to get effective help for struggling teens, especially if they’re from broken homes like most killers are.

It wasn’t a gun free zone, idiot. The teachers could carry and the security guard was armed.

There was no armed security guard. That was initially reported, but later corrected.

I just posted on previous page that a new timeline was released tonight showing that he shot OUTSIDE for 12 minutes.

It’s almost like a cry for help, and nobody answered. It’s clear there was fail, after fail, after fail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Schools now HAVE 211 Billion unspent covid dollars. Let’s see if some of that can be used to get a highly trained armed guard in every public school that wants one. It could even be a veteran or retired cop. Why not?

Is there some company on here that is in the biz of supplying school guards? We want to get rid of the guns...not bring more of them into our schools. How many times do we need to say the same thing. Learn to read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Schools now HAVE 211 Billion unspent covid dollars. Let’s see if some of that can be used to get a highly trained armed guard in every public school that wants one. It could even be a veteran or retired cop. Why not?

Is there some company on here that is in the biz of supplying school guards? We want to get rid of the guns...not bring more of them into our schools. How many times do we need to say the same thing. Learn to read.

Why don't you want guards with guns in school again? Who is supposed to kill the deranged person before they shoot any kids? What are you expecting to happen if there is nobody there with a gun when the place is breached?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only upside is this and Buffalo should hopefully put an end to that “good guy with a gun” bull$hit.

What exactly are you talking about?

“The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

Both Buffalo and this school had “good guys with guns” and they did not stop the bad guy with the gun. So I don’t want to hear that anymore as a retort to calls for gun control.

What might happen if we had more good guys with guns?

Question:
Why do you think these raging boys target schools?

Answer:
They know it’s a “gun free zone”.

They ain’t dumb. They want to finally do something big that EVERYONE will notice and remember. High time to get effective help for struggling teens, especially if they’re from broken homes like most killers are.

It wasn’t a gun free zone, idiot. The teachers could carry and the security guard was armed.

There was no armed security guard. That was initially reported, but later corrected.

I just posted on previous page that a new timeline was released tonight showing that he shot OUTSIDE for 12 minutes.

It’s almost like a cry for help, and nobody answered. It’s clear there was fail, after fail, after fail.

Yup. High time to STOP “minding your own business”. Teach your children: “See something, Say something.” That includes if there’s a “weird” kid (or teacher!) who seems “off” or “creepy”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can states require that ammunition/bullets be prohibitively expensive with no shipment to other states? Is there stuff that can be done by some states to try and protect? It’s obviously not a fleshed out idea. I just feel like throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks at this point.

Of course they can. Check out gas and cigarette taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can states require that ammunition/bullets be prohibitively expensive with no shipment to other states? Is there stuff that can be done by some states to try and protect? It’s obviously not a fleshed out idea. I just feel like throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks at this point.

Of course they can. Check out gas and cigarette taxes.

However, if you make it "prohibitively expensive", it would not be constitutional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can states require that ammunition/bullets be prohibitively expensive with no shipment to other states? Is there stuff that can be done by some states to try and protect? It’s obviously not a fleshed out idea. I just feel like throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks at this point.

Of course they can. Check out gas and cigarette taxes.

I hope that some states start requiring bullets and belt cost exorbitantly. We have to start somewhere.

Please collectively don’t talk to the guy ranting about fentanyl. Lets keep this on topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can states require that ammunition/bullets be prohibitively expensive with no shipment to other states? Is there stuff that can be done by some states to try and protect? It’s obviously not a fleshed out idea. I just feel like throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks at this point.

Of course they can. Check out gas and cigarette taxes.

So let’s tax the crap out of ammunition and firearms as well as magazines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can states require that ammunition/bullets be prohibitively expensive with no shipment to other states? Is there stuff that can be done by some states to try and protect? It’s obviously not a fleshed out idea. I just feel like throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks at this point.

Of course they can. Check out gas and cigarette taxes.

However, if you make it "prohibitively expensive", it would not be constitutional.

Commerce clause?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t want to live in a country where an armed guard is necessary for my kids to go to school safely. Moreover one armed guard isn’t sufficient. Should we arm the kids next??? This is insanity. It’s guns. It’s choosing to live in a state of warfare vs. peace.

Read the second amendment. “Well regulated” are words that do not mean anything goes.

The disconnect is unreal. It’s the I assume it will not matter to me, take NRA money, look the other way, move on. It’s just 21 families I don’t know and don’t care about.

Why isn't one armed guard not sufficient?

Really? I can think of many reasons and so can you. Don’t be that Wizard of Oz dude asking questions we all know the answer to just to feel important. You aren’t Socrates.