Cops in TX tackle & block desperate parents, while they let shooter rampage thru the school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what would have made this less likely to happen? Age limits on guns. This is out of control. Teenagers should not be allowed to buy these weapons.

18 year olds who serve this country have guns placed in their hands. Minimum age to be a police officer is 18-21, depending on the state.

Those 18 year olds have extensive training drilled into them.

If you don't agree with age limits, do you think we should require 6 months of training before purchasing a gun? For everyone?

Not only that! They have to undergo background checks to get into service in e first place. I’m fine using that standard! If an 18 year old wants a gun he should be able to get security clearance first

This 18 year old had a background check. Sadly, he passed.

What does the background check entail?

NP here. I want a background check like the kind conducted for high security clearances in the government, not just “are they a felon”. I’m not a fed so not super familiar with them but I know they’re involved. Mandatory reference checks. It should take a few weeks.

So let's say a woman decides to leave her abusive husband and wants a firearm in her home. Because of his abuse, she has been kept away from others. Where does she get her reference checks? His friends and family? A few weeks can get an abused woman killed - the most dangerous time for abused women is just after they leave.

She's better off carrying pepperspray or getting an alarm system.

She really isn't. Just WOW.

Yes she is. Especially if she has kids. Guns in the house increase risk of death by guns exponentially.

Tell that to the women brutally stabbed and beaten to death. A firearm keeps those people at bay and gives women a fighting chance. You really don't have much faith in individual women, and their ability to protect themselves, do you pp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids should not go to school in a prison. That’s completely f**ked up. Who are you monsters?!


Ban guns! It’s so easy to fix.

+1

As someone who taught in a school that was fashioned like a prison I 100% agree. That does something to a child’s psyche that I would not want children to experience. Stop putting all of our burdens on our most vulnerable population. Adults don’t seem to want to make change or sacrifice anything for children.

Make those changes, but they take time. But in the meantime? Save the children. The door, according to MSN who referenced video, was left propped open. Teacher went out, got his/her phone to call authorities after the shooter crashed his truck and shot at funeral home personnel, went back in and sadly didn't shut the door. Not his/her fault, just an unfortunate circumstance.

Just think if he didn’t have a gun, we wouldn’t be having this discussion and burying a bunch of children.

If the teacher had a weapon in his/her car, got that instead of just a cell phone, shut the door and stood on the inside, or if there wa s an armed resource officer inside, it could have been different too.

We can both play the wish it was game. But that won't change a thing tomorrow. Again, even if there was a massive ban and buyback program, that takes time. There are things that can be changed today to protect kids tomorrow

How do you feel about "proper perimeter fences" that are "intended to deter"? Big fan?

I think anything you do to slow down someone is helpful. Ted Bundy got Kimberly Leach on school grounds. He would have had a hard time climbing a locked fence with a child in tow.

The gunman climbed an 8' fence to get in.

The police had a lot of time to act. They chose not to.

I'm confused. There were police inside the school area and outside the school area and not one of them shot a guy with a gun climbing the fence right in front of them? Or did he take off and they could not find him fast enough?

What about the door that was left propped open? Not a problem re: security?

They were 3-7 there almost immediately after he entered. He fired in their general direction and they ran away. 19 of them then waited 40 minutes in a hallway and told to stand down. Eventually the border patrol guys arrived and after 20 minutes arguing with the Uvalde police they decided to go in themselves.

Response time was not a problem. They had it. They were there.

At the school, agree. I mean after the truck crashed and before he breached the fence and entered through the open door.

It took him at least 12 minutes to get inside the building. He shot at people outside too. The police station is 1.5 miles away. The 911 calls started within 2 minutes of the crash. A patrol car drove past him.

Only two things could have prevented this. Banning AR-15s or having uncowardly cops. Lower capacity magazines and ammo purchase limits would have helped reduce the death toll.

There’s an old joke “why do you carry a gun?” Answer: “Because a policeman is too heavy.” Response time can be dreadful. Even if they are there in a timely matter, it often still is too late. Again, the door was left wide open AFTER someone saw the guy shooting across the street. Once he got in, sadly, he controlled the scene. You and I don’t know whether or not an armed resource officer or a few volunteer armed teachers would have made a difference. It sure would have helped change the trajectory though, because the perp would be engaged with those individual(s). We’ve seen this again and again, most recently in Charlestown WV, where a woman killed a man with her hand gun who opened fire on a party with his AR-15. He’s the only one who was hit and died. There are many other instances in the news. When you want to take ALL guns away, you won’t get ALL guns. And there lies the problem.

Your rationalizing this. Response time was good. Why a school resource officer and some teachers be better than cops? The cops were there and ran away. I mean I guess you're correct that people in the school might not have been so willing to abandon 10 year olds to fate but it can't be stated enough. The cops responded in time. Unfortunately, they ran away. If the very people that are trained to respond are too afraid. If the very people most heavily armed and equipped are too afraid. If the very people that are supposed to protect and serve are too afraid. Then what good is more weapons? In California, last week - omg, an unarmed middle aged doctor sacrificed his life and saved the day. In Schanksville, unarmed people sacrificied their lives and saved the day. Guns don't save the day. People save the day. If the Uvalde police had a mini-gun it wouldn't have changed a single thing. Since people being selfless instead of selfish is the determining factor then shouldn't we give them a fighting chance by banning military grade assault weapons?

Because they are in the building already and know the building's layout.

Guess what. The Uvalde police department does regular walkthroughs just for that purpose. They also monitor social media and have a SWAT team. They do and have everything suggested. None of that did anything because the cops were afraid.

This.

And they were afraid because the state of TX is full of gun toting vigilantes, and that culture is promoted by those at the very top. I wouldn’t want to be a law enforcement officer in TX. It’s lawless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what would have made this less likely to happen? Age limits on guns. This is out of control. Teenagers should not be allowed to buy these weapons.

18 year olds who serve this country have guns placed in their hands. Minimum age to be a police officer is 18-21, depending on the state.

Those 18 year olds have extensive training drilled into them.

If you don't agree with age limits, do you think we should require 6 months of training before purchasing a gun? For everyone?

Not only that! They have to undergo background checks to get into service in e first place. I’m fine using that standard! If an 18 year old wants a gun he should be able to get security clearance first

This 18 year old had a background check. Sadly, he passed.

Why wouldn't he have passed? 18-year-olds have clear records that are sealed from juvenile offenses which starts the day they turn 18. He waited and he pounced. Stupidity.

EXACTLY! Do you not see the problem with expunging records of ALL people when they turn 18? Do you really want those 13/14/15 year olds who kill others in carjackings back on the street with clear records in 3-5 years?

Interesting that you bring up the majority black children doing single-vehicle carjacking. The majority not fatal. Meanwhile 95% of MASS shooters are white and white teen males at that. So maybe focus on the kids and men killing 20-80 people at once (take your pick). Also ask why their communities aren't advocating to jail these mentally-deranged teens and/or their parents who buy them $5,000 assault weapons for their birthdays.

Do you think most teen carjackers are black? Wow, pretty racist. I said nothing about race.

Oh please we all know you're the first one to throw up a thread on a carjacking. So tell us what do you want to do with the all-white mass shooter problem? Please. I want an answer. For kids terrified to go to school or the movie theater or the grocery store or a church service or a music festival.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what would have made this less likely to happen? Age limits on guns. This is out of control. Teenagers should not be allowed to buy these weapons.

18 year olds who serve this country have guns placed in their hands. Minimum age to be a police officer is 18-21, depending on the state.

Those 18 year olds have extensive training drilled into them.

If you don't agree with age limits, do you think we should require 6 months of training before purchasing a gun? For everyone?

Not only that! They have to undergo background checks to get into service in e first place. I’m fine using that standard! If an 18 year old wants a gun he should be able to get security clearance first

This 18 year old had a background check. Sadly, he passed.

What does the background check entail?

NP here. I want a background check like the kind conducted for high security clearances in the government, not just “are they a felon”. I’m not a fed so not super familiar with them but I know they’re involved. Mandatory reference checks. It should take a few weeks.

So let's say a woman decides to leave her abusive husband and wants a firearm in her home. Because of his abuse, she has been kept away from others. Where does she get her reference checks? His friends and family? A few weeks can get an abused woman killed - the most dangerous time for abused women is just after they leave.

She's better off carrying pepperspray or getting an alarm system.

She really isn't. Just WOW.

Yes she is. Especially if she has kids. Guns in the house increase risk of death by guns exponentially.

Tell that to the women brutally stabbed and beaten to death. A firearm keeps those people at bay and gives women a fighting chance. You really don't have much faith in individual women, and their ability to protect themselves, do you pp.

So let me get your argument straight. 18 year old boys should have unfettered access to assault rifles … to protect battered women? You are too much, even for DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of these fences all of these secure buildings do nothing when hundreds of children leave that building every day and stand in lines waiting to get on buses or be picked up by their parents. Everyone is a sitting duck at that point We need to get rid of guns and have meaningful gun reform.

Bomb can be used. Evil is just that - it finds a way.

We can imagine scenarios forever though. Better to start by securing things right away and simultaneously work on meaningful reform.

Evil manages to not find a way in countries that have meaningfully banned guns. Get your head out of the sand.

There are no more killings at all?

Nobody is claiming gun laws would end all school shootings. But say they would cut them in half, so that 75,000 fewer students would experience a school shooting in the next decade (based on stats that 300,000 students have experienced a school shooting in the past 20 years). And half as many students would die yearly, so that guns were no longer the biggest killers of children. Is that not worth it to you?

But like?

Yes. I’m dumbing the discourse down for you since you don’t seem to grasp fairly obvious points.

Its how you speak. Admit it...genius.

You use that word a lot, making you easy to identify.

And I’m supposed to care why? I see you don’t want to acknowledge basic facts, but would rather be oddly menacing. Not surprising for a gun nut.

I don't own one gun. My husband brought them in without asking. He voted for Obama and Biden. I don't feel we have a need for them where we live. We have dogs and have an alarm system.

Good for you? I’m not sure what is on your mind but I’m sure it’s very profound. To sum it up: countries with tighter gun controls have fewer guns. Thus fewer gun deaths. It’s a tough logical leap to make but if you think on it a little I am sure it will start to make sense, even to you.

What's on my mind is that I was mischaracterized. The PP was wrong about me. It's easy to control guns on islands. Remember, though, the attack of the youth camp in Norway. 85 killed. Norway had some of the toughest gun laws around: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/24/norway-strict-gun-laws-circumvented

List all the other mass shootings in Norway over the last 30 years.

85 people is a LOT. And this happened despite harsh laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what would have made this less likely to happen? Age limits on guns. This is out of control. Teenagers should not be allowed to buy these weapons.

18 year olds who serve this country have guns placed in their hands. Minimum age to be a police officer is 18-21, depending on the state.

Those 18 year olds have extensive training drilled into them.

If you don't agree with age limits, do you think we should require 6 months of training before purchasing a gun? For everyone?

Not only that! They have to undergo background checks to get into service in e first place. I’m fine using that standard! If an 18 year old wants a gun he should be able to get security clearance first

This 18 year old had a background check. Sadly, he passed.

Why wouldn't he have passed? 18-year-olds have clear records that are sealed from juvenile offenses which starts the day they turn 18. He waited and he pounced. Stupidity.

EXACTLY. Do we really want the records sealed of cold blooded killers and crazies just because they hit a magic age?

The kid didn't have a record...neither did the shooters of Majory Stoneman Douglas or Sandy Hook or Las Vegas Mandalay Bay or Isla Vista or Charleston.

What EXACTLY do you plan to do to combat these teen boys with with no state or federal prison records, no prior arrests, and not even a parking ticket that are snapping and getting weapons of mass war from parents or grandparents?

The kid had an extensive history, including threats. So did the Douglas shooter and the Sandy Hook shooter. The one thing they had in common was the school system let their history go unpunished. The kids who knew these young adults were very vocal about that. We don't know ANYTHING about the Vegas shooter, certainly less than we knew about Rittenhouse. Why would that be? Charleston guy was also a known nutter. Regarding the Isla sister shooter:

Before driving to the sorority house, Rodger uploaded a video to YouTube titled "Elliot Rodger's Retribution", in which he outlined his planned attack and his motives. He explained that he wanted to punish women for rejecting him, and sexually active men because he envied them. He also emailed a lengthy autobiographical manuscript to acquaintances, his therapist, and family members; the document appeared on the Internet and became widely known as his manifesto. In it, he described his childhood, family conflicts, frustration over his inability to find a girlfriend, his hatred of women, his contempt for couples (particularly interracial couples) and his plans for what he described as "retribution".


So yeah, there were extensive warnings in all these situations except Vegas, and I'd say that's because he was old enough to know how to cover his tracks well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what would have made this less likely to happen? Age limits on guns. This is out of control. Teenagers should not be allowed to buy these weapons.

18 year olds who serve this country have guns placed in their hands. Minimum age to be a police officer is 18-21, depending on the state.

Those 18 year olds have extensive training drilled into them.

If you don't agree with age limits, do you think we should require 6 months of training before purchasing a gun? For everyone?

Not only that! They have to undergo background checks to get into service in e first place. I’m fine using that standard! If an 18 year old wants a gun he should be able to get security clearance first

This 18 year old had a background check. Sadly, he passed.

Why wouldn't he have passed? 18-year-olds have clear records that are sealed from juvenile offenses which starts the day they turn 18. He waited and he pounced. Stupidity.

EXACTLY. Do we really want the records sealed of cold blooded killers and crazies just because they hit a magic age?

The kid didn't have a record...neither did the shooters of Majory Stoneman Douglas or Sandy Hook or Las Vegas Mandalay Bay or Isla Vista or Charleston.

What EXACTLY do you plan to do to combat these teen boys with with no state or federal prison records, no prior arrests, and not even a parking ticket that are snapping and getting weapons of mass war from parents or grandparents?

The kid had an extensive history, including threats. So did the Douglas shooter and the Sandy Hook shooter. The one thing they had in common was the school system let their history go unpunished. The kids who knew these young adults were very vocal about that. We don't know ANYTHING about the Vegas shooter, certainly less than we knew about Rittenhouse. Why would that be? Charleston guy was also a known nutter. Regarding the Isla sister shooter:

Before driving to the sorority house, Rodger uploaded a video to YouTube titled "Elliot Rodger's Retribution", in which he outlined his planned attack and his motives. He explained that he wanted to punish women for rejecting him, and sexually active men because he envied them. He also emailed a lengthy autobiographical manuscript to acquaintances, his therapist, and family members; the document appeared on the Internet and became widely known as his manifesto. In it, he described his childhood, family conflicts, frustration over his inability to find a girlfriend, his hatred of women, his contempt for couples (particularly interracial couples) and his plans for what he described as "retribution".


So yeah, there were extensive warnings in all these situations except Vegas, and I'd say that's because he was old enough to know how to cover his tracks well.

Again SCHOOL THREATS are not a county, state or federal record. Go on any thread in Fairfax or MCPS and ask them if you should report a bullying incident to the police and those parents will shout you down. They do not want their precious kids to be brought to the attention of the law.

That is what happened here. Even ISS or OSS are not a record. It does not allow law enforcement to keep an eye on you, prevent you from purchases guns or weapons, or even keep you out of public service buildings.

What do you not understand?

[Anonymous]

So we’ve established background checks aren’t good enough. Good. We’re getting somewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what would have made this less likely to happen? Age limits on guns. This is out of control. Teenagers should not be allowed to buy these weapons.

18 year olds who serve this country have guns placed in their hands. Minimum age to be a police officer is 18-21, depending on the state.

Those 18 year olds have extensive training drilled into them.

If you don't agree with age limits, do you think we should require 6 months of training before purchasing a gun? For everyone?

Not only that! They have to undergo background checks to get into service in e first place. I’m fine using that standard! If an 18 year old wants a gun he should be able to get security clearance first

This 18 year old had a background check. Sadly, he passed.

What does the background check entail?

NP here. I want a background check like the kind conducted for high security clearances in the government, not just “are they a felon”. I’m not a fed so not super familiar with them but I know they’re involved. Mandatory reference checks. It should take a few weeks.

So let's say a woman decides to leave her abusive husband and wants a firearm in her home. Because of his abuse, she has been kept away from others. Where does she get her reference checks? His friends and family? A few weeks can get an abused woman killed - the most dangerous time for abused women is just after they leave.

She's better off carrying pepperspray or getting an alarm system.

She really isn't. Just WOW.

Yes she is. Especially if she has kids. Guns in the house increase risk of death by guns exponentially.

Tell that to the women brutally stabbed and beaten to death. A firearm keeps those people at bay and gives women a fighting chance. You really don't have much faith in individual women, and their ability to protect themselves, do you pp.

Wanna know what the one thing is that raises the possibility of getting shot in your own home is? Having a gun in your home. Look it up.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

If you're old enough to hold and fire a AR-15 you're old enough for prison. Reduce the minimum age for prison based on terrorist threats to 15 years. Youtube threat? Prison for three months. In-school threat? Same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you're old enough to hold and fire a AR-15 you're old enough for prison. Reduce the minimum age for prison based on terrorist threats to 15 years. Youtube threat? Prison for three months. In-school threat? Same.

How about just not letting pissed off teenaged boys ( that would be all of them) to buy guns? Seems a bit easier and more effective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're old enough to hold and fire a AR-15 you're old enough for prison. Reduce the minimum age for prison based on terrorist threats to 15 years. Youtube threat? Prison for three months. In-school threat? Same.

How about just not letting pissed off teenaged boys ( that would be all of them) to buy guns? Seems a bit easier and more effective.

So your suggestion is what exactly? Raise the minimum age of purchase for all guns to what minimum? Keep in mind these mass shooters are often 17-21 and recent graduates of whatever school system or university they're targeting. So you want a minimum of 23-25 to be safe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're old enough to hold and fire a AR-15 you're old enough for prison. Reduce the minimum age for prison based on terrorist threats to 15 years. Youtube threat? Prison for three months. In-school threat? Same.

How about just not letting pissed off teenaged boys ( that would be all of them) to buy guns? Seems a bit easier and more effective.

So your suggestion is what exactly? Raise the minimum age of purchase for all guns to what minimum? Keep in mind these mass shooters are often 17-21 and recent graduates of whatever school system or university they're targeting. So you want a minimum of 23-25 to be safe?

Totally fine with that. At least 21. Also, I want mandatory liability insurance for very gun owner. And licensing. And maybe probationary periods for men under 25.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're old enough to hold and fire a AR-15 you're old enough for prison. Reduce the minimum age for prison based on terrorist threats to 15 years. Youtube threat? Prison for three months. In-school threat? Same.

How about just not letting pissed off teenaged boys ( that would be all of them) to buy guns? Seems a bit easier and more effective.

So your suggestion is what exactly? Raise the minimum age of purchase for all guns to what minimum? Keep in mind these mass shooters are often 17-21 and recent graduates of whatever school system or university they're targeting. So you want a minimum of 23-25 to be safe?

Totally fine with that. At least 21. Also, I want mandatory liability insurance for very gun owner. And licensing. And maybe probationary periods for men under 25.

Responding PP again - I support all that. I also want the household owners of these weapons (often they belong to the parents or guardians of the home) to be charged with felony murder or accessory to murder if their weapon is used in a mass shooting with the result of death.