20 victims reported at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big Pharma is a big problem here not guns. Majority of these shooters are on SSRI’s or recently, puberty blockers. Nobody wants to call out the elephant in the room:
Big Pharma

It is insane to me how among the listed side effects for SSRIs - drugs given for severe depression - are suicidal thoughts and suicidal behavior! What are the point of these poisonous things???

It’s also dumb that teens can’t vape or smoke until 18 or drink till they’re 21 because alcohol is considered a mind altering drug yet they can take SSRI’s or completely change their gender with puberty blockers while underage.

Teens are already mentally not all the way there so imagine with medication

You can’t drink until 21 but you can buy a gun at 18.

Guns should require a safety class and test (like driving lessons) that come with a cost and parental and medical provider sign-off before anyone gets close to having the privilege to buy a gun.

This is the solution! A start. Banning firearms is the end goal, but this is what we do as soon as we have a real leader in the USA. Or even on state level in states with sensible lawmakers.

Why not just start with the end goal? Don’t you even care about all the people who will still die getting from your “start point” to the end goal? What about them? Don’t they matter? You’re willing to sacrifice them to incremental progress?

That’s F’d up.

Firearms cannot be banned. Not lawfully. Not practically. It is a reality-denying confabulation to insist on magical solutions while ignoring the root causes of psychopathy and criminal violence.

We can work within the 2a and some states already do with success.

The Gifford Foundation and Everytown for Gun Safety both have really good resources about changing state laws within the limits of the constitution. Minnesota does prohibit the possession of fully automatic guns -- in another state, the killer might have murdered dozens of kids in the same time span. The fact that there are so many survivors who were shot but not killed is also a result of the weapon available to the murderer -- it wasn't like the Uvalde situation.

Tell us you don’t have the slightest clue about firearms or firearms law without using those words . . . Oh, you just did.

The exact model(s) of firearm(s) this demented psychopath used haven’t been announced (or I haven’t seen the information). The firearm criminally misused at Uvalde reportedly was a semiautomatic rifle, not a machine gun.

Nobody can know why, despite expending a reportedly significant amount of ammunition, this particular wretch managed to hit relatively few of the fish in a barrel he was targeting, but the fact that he reportedly stayed outside and shot through what were probably at least semi-opaque stained glass windows would be a good bet for starters.

Lawfully owned machine guns are essentially never used in crimes.

Regardless, states with more permissive gun laws will see excessive pediatric deaths. Restrictions can be applied within 2a to save children's lives.

Precisely which State(s) have these “strict” laws that purport to be so effective in reducing “excessive” pediatric deaths?

How do those laws differ from the laws of other States with a greater “excess” of pediatric deaths?

Are all States involved in the analysis identical in terms of every other potential contributing factor for “excess” pediatric deaths? Things like education, income, two-parent households, and other socio-economic and demographic contributors to crime?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big Pharma is a big problem here not guns. Majority of these shooters are on SSRI’s or recently, puberty blockers. Nobody wants to call out the elephant in the room:
Big Pharma

It is insane to me how among the listed side effects for SSRIs - drugs given for severe depression - are suicidal thoughts and suicidal behavior! What are the point of these poisonous things???

When I was in my late 20s a good friend on anti-depressants (SSRIs) committed suicide.

+1 I've known of several in our community. Sadly, one of them also killed his wife. Her parents raised their children.

Now go out and find out the total number of people on SSRIs versus the total of number of people not on SSRIs and compare the percentage of people who commit violent acts in each group. Then get back to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big Pharma is a big problem here not guns. Majority of these shooters are on SSRI’s or recently, puberty blockers. Nobody wants to call out the elephant in the room:
Big Pharma

It is insane to me how among the listed side effects for SSRIs - drugs given for severe depression - are suicidal thoughts and suicidal behavior! What are the point of these poisonous things???

It’s also dumb that teens can’t vape or smoke until 18 or drink till they’re 21 because alcohol is considered a mind altering drug yet they can take SSRI’s or completely change their gender with puberty blockers while underage.

Teens are already mentally not all the way there so imagine with medication

You can’t drink until 21 but you can buy a gun at 18.

Guns should require a safety class and test (like driving lessons) that come with a cost and parental and medical provider sign-off before anyone gets close to having the privilege to buy a gun.

This is the solution! A start. Banning firearms is the end goal, but this is what we do as soon as we have a real leader in the USA. Or even on state level in states with sensible lawmakers.

Why not just start with the end goal? Don’t you even care about all the people who will still die getting from your “start point” to the end goal? What about them? Don’t they matter? You’re willing to sacrifice them to incremental progress?

That’s F’d up.

Firearms cannot be banned. Not lawfully. Not practically. It is a reality-denying confabulation to insist on magical solutions while ignoring the root causes of psychopathy and criminal violence.

We can work within the 2a and some states already do with success.

The Gifford Foundation and Everytown for Gun Safety both have really good resources about changing state laws within the limits of the constitution. Minnesota does prohibit the possession of fully automatic guns -- in another state, the killer might have murdered dozens of kids in the same time span. The fact that there are so many survivors who were shot but not killed is also a result of the weapon available to the murderer -- it wasn't like the Uvalde situation.

Tell us you don’t have the slightest clue about firearms or firearms law without using those words . . . Oh, you just did.

The exact model(s) of firearm(s) this demented psychopath used haven’t been announced (or I haven’t seen the information). The firearm criminally misused at Uvalde reportedly was a semiautomatic rifle, not a machine gun.

Nobody can know why, despite expending a reportedly significant amount of ammunition, this particular wretch managed to hit relatively few of the fish in a barrel he was targeting, but the fact that he reportedly stayed outside and shot through what were probably at least semi-opaque stained glass windows would be a good bet for starters.

Lawfully owned machine guns are essentially never used in crimes.

Semi-Automatic rifles are dangerous and we should ban them. We should outlaw them. We should invest a lot of money in buying back a lot of the ones that are out there. And we should be able to walk around in this country, the entire country, without worrying about anyone getting gunned down with a semi-automatic rifle.

I suspect you don’t have a clue what differentiates semi-automatic rifles from any other kind, and couldn’t articulate for money what makes them “dangerous” in comparison to other firearm types.

One cannot “buy back” something one did not sell, not even with other people’s money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am so deeply offended by the mainstream reporting on this attacker as "she." I don't know how any woman can continue supporting this utter fallacy.

You can be offended all you want. The reality in 2025 is that she is a woman.

Accept it or be a weirdo hater. Your choice.

We don’t need to be respectful of a psychotic murderer.

[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:Big Pharma is a big problem here not guns. Majority of these shooters are on SSRI’s or recently, puberty blockers. Nobody wants to call out the elephant in the room:
Big Pharma

It is insane to me how among the listed side effects for SSRIs - drugs given for severe depression - are suicidal thoughts and suicidal behavior! What are the point of these poisonous things???

It’s also dumb that teens can’t vape or smoke until 18 or drink till they’re 21 because alcohol is considered a mind altering drug yet they can take SSRI’s or completely change their gender with puberty blockers while underage.

Teens are already mentally not all the way there so imagine with medication

You can’t drink until 21 but you can buy a gun at 18.

Guns should require a safety class and test (like driving lessons) that come with a cost and parental and medical provider sign-off before anyone gets close to having the privilege to buy a gun.

This is the solution! A start. Banning firearms is the end goal, but this is what we do as soon as we have a real leader in the USA. Or even on state level in states with sensible lawmakers.

Why not just start with the end goal? Don’t you even care about all the people who will still die getting from your “start point” to the end goal? What about them? Don’t they matter? You’re willing to sacrifice them to incremental progress?

That’s F’d up.

Firearms cannot be banned. Not lawfully. Not practically. It is a reality-denying confabulation to insist on magical solutions while ignoring the root causes of psychopathy and criminal violence.

We can work within the 2a and some states already do with success.

The Gifford Foundation and Everytown for Gun Safety both have really good resources about changing state laws within the limits of the constitution. Minnesota does prohibit the possession of fully automatic guns -- in another state, the killer might have murdered dozens of kids in the same time span. The fact that there are so many survivors who were shot but not killed is also a result of the weapon available to the murderer -- it wasn't like the Uvalde situation.

Tell us you don’t have the slightest clue about firearms or firearms law without using those words . . . Oh, you just did.

The exact model(s) of firearm(s) this demented psychopath used haven’t been announced (or I haven’t seen the information). The firearm criminally misused at Uvalde reportedly was a semiautomatic rifle, not a machine gun.

Nobody can know why, despite expending a reportedly significant amount of ammunition, this particular wretch managed to hit relatively few of the fish in a barrel he was targeting, but the fact that he reportedly stayed outside and shot through what were probably at least semi-opaque stained glass windows would be a good bet for starters.

Lawfully owned machine guns are essentially never used in crimes.

Semi-Automatic rifles are dangerous and we should ban them. We should outlaw them. We should invest a lot of money in buying back a lot of the ones that are out there. And we should be able to walk around in this country, the entire country, without worrying about anyone getting gunned down with a semi-automatic rifle.

I suspect you don’t have a clue what differentiates semi-automatic rifles from any other kind, and couldn’t articulate for money what makes them “dangerous” in comparison to other firearm types.

One cannot “buy back” something one did not sell, not even with other people’s money.

You most certainly can. Other countries have invested in buy back programs successfully.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am so deeply offended by the mainstream reporting on this attacker as "she." I don't know how any woman can continue supporting this utter fallacy.

You can be offended all you want. The reality in 2025 is that she is a woman.

Accept it or be a weirdo hater. Your choice.

We don’t need to be respectful of a psychotic murderer.

But you don't get to paint all trans people with the same brush because of one psycho. If you do, you need to tell us how all males need their rights curtailed, since they commit the vast majority of mass shootings, rapes, etc.

Go on...be balanced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am so deeply offended by the mainstream reporting on this attacker as "she." I don't know how any woman can continue supporting this utter fallacy.

You can be offended all you want. The reality in 2025 is that she is a woman.

Accept it or be a weirdo hater. Your choice.

There is nothing weird about it. You cannot really believe it is okay for men with mental illness to shield themselves by acting out the most demeaning parodies of women and insisting we all get on board with it. The whole thing is so offensive to women that I am in utter shock and dismay everyday at how weak and maladjusted women on the left have become. I consider myself a progressive who fights for women's rights. Why don't you? Why are you okay with men prancing around acting out weird fantasies and considering themselves women just because they act frilly and feminine. Please show me one transwoman who acts like a strong, intelligent woman, respectful of all of us. You can't. And this person is simply not a woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an elementary school teacher, it broke my heart to see the kids being interviewed and struck me how they were not at all surprised that this happened to them. Our kids are growing up expecting to go through an active shooter situation at school.

We are breeding the next generation of domestic terrorists.

+1 How can this be the world we leave to our children?

It's only the "world" in the US. Other civilized countries don't have this issue.

I've told my kids who have dual citizenship with a European country to seriously think about moving there if they have kids. The US is a horrible place to raise children.

My friend moved to Portugal with her family, including little kids. They never ever worry about school shootings, or shootings anywhere.

If you think other civilized countries in the world don’t have this problem you are ill informed. It might not be guns in Europe but there are now frequent mass killings using vehicles and knives.

Sydney, Australia mall killings April 2024. Man uses knife to kill 6 people and injure 12.

Norway July 2011. Man sets off bomb in Oslo killing 7 then goes to an island where there was a youth camp and killed 69 people there.

Germany 6 dead, 200 injured in Dec 2024 Christmas market attack. 2016 Christmas market attack in Germany killed 12.

China 2023 man uses knife to kill 6 children in a kindergarten.

China 2024 man uses knife to
Kill 8 and injure 17.

Portugal Sept 2014. 12 year old boy wearing a bulletproof vest stabs six children ages 11-14 at his school.

Austria June 2025 school shooting. 21 year old shoots and kills 9 at a school.

2002 Germany school shooting kills 17.

Jokela Germany school shooting in 2007 kills 9.

Finland school shooting 2008 kills 10. Gunman was inspired by 2007 German killing.

May 2023 school shooting in Serbia kills 10.

Chech Republic Dec 2023 school shooting 15 dead

Swedish school shooting 2025 former student kills 10.

I don’t think it should be legal to have the type and variety of guns that are available in the US but I no longer believe in banning guns. It’s too late.

I think the internet should be massively censored instead. Online chat rooms of people discussing violence and people being able to look up details of previous school shootings should not be allowed. Media coverage of school shoutings should be censored with no details given of shooter besides sex and age. No names or photos available. This recent school shooter wrote about being inspired by Sandy Hook.

It’s a perverse cycle. Parents want their kids to have a phone in case of a school shooting but the internet on those phones are deadly.

None of those victims are as dead as people killed with guns tho. Guns are different.

Right. Of course other countries have issues with mental illness. Of course there are attempts at mass killings. But if this disturbed person had taken a knife into the church to kill, it would have been much harder for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am so deeply offended by the mainstream reporting on this attacker as "she." I don't know how any woman can continue supporting this utter fallacy.

You can be offended all you want. The reality in 2025 is that she is a woman.

Accept it or be a weirdo hater. Your choice.

We don’t need to be respectful of a psychotic murderer.

This person is a psycho murderer because they are a psycho murderer. Being a depraved homicidal Maniac is not due due to your gender or your race or your sexual orientation or your height.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am so deeply offended by the mainstream reporting on this attacker as "she." I don't know how any woman can continue supporting this utter fallacy.

You can be offended all you want. The reality in 2025 is that she is a woman.

Accept it or be a weirdo hater. Your choice.

There is nothing weird about it. You cannot really believe it is okay for men with mental illness to shield themselves by acting out the most demeaning parodies of women and insisting we all get on board with it. The whole thing is so offensive to women that I am in utter shock and dismay everyday at how weak and maladjusted women on the left have become. I consider myself a progressive who fights for women's rights. Why don't you? Why are you okay with men prancing around acting out weird fantasies and considering themselves women just because they act frilly and feminine. Please show me one transwoman who acts like a strong, intelligent woman, respectful of all of us. You can't. And this person is simply not a woman.

You are over reacting. Most trans people are living quiet lives that affect you not one bit. You have fallen for the GOP over-hype of this issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big Pharma is a big problem here not guns. Majority of these shooters are on SSRI’s or recently, puberty blockers. Nobody wants to call out the elephant in the room:
Big Pharma

It is insane to me how among the listed side effects for SSRIs - drugs given for severe depression - are suicidal thoughts and suicidal behavior! What are the point of these poisonous things???

It’s also dumb that teens can’t vape or smoke until 18 or drink till they’re 21 because alcohol is considered a mind altering drug yet they can take SSRI’s or completely change their gender with puberty blockers while underage.

Teens are already mentally not all the way there so imagine with medication

You can’t drink until 21 but you can buy a gun at 18.

Guns should require a safety class and test (like driving lessons) that come with a cost and parental and medical provider sign-off before anyone gets close to having the privilege to buy a gun.

This is the solution! A start. Banning firearms is the end goal, but this is what we do as soon as we have a real leader in the USA. Or even on state level in states with sensible lawmakers.

Why not just start with the end goal? Don’t you even care about all the people who will still die getting from your “start point” to the end goal? What about them? Don’t they matter? You’re willing to sacrifice them to incremental progress?

That’s F’d up.

Firearms cannot be banned. Not lawfully. Not practically. It is a reality-denying confabulation to insist on magical solutions while ignoring the root causes of psychopathy and criminal violence.

They actually can be banned but Republicans refuse to allow it.

“Banned” like illicit narcotics and all the other contraband in which the country is, and has long been, awash? There is a federal “ban” on marijuana. Illegitimate and unprescribed fentanyl is “banned” everywhere. We all know how that’s worked out.

Do you think we are idiots that don’t know other nations don’t have our gun violence issues?

“Gun violence” is a handy rhetorical buzzword for criminal misuse of firearms.

I didn’t call anybody any names. If somebody feels like they’re an idiot when the error of what purports to be their reasoning becomes evident, that feeling would be for them to examine.

Other nations, as has been repeatedly and exhaustively discussed in this and other threads, are not the same as the United States. There are places in the world where essentially every home has a fully automatic, machine gun, battle rifle, weapon of war, AK pattern rifle. They have plenty of internecine violence but nobody is shooting up schools.

It is delusional to believe that firearms can be magically “disappeared” from the United States, never to reappear. Continuing to posit that as a “solution” to unlawful criminal violence committed with firearms distracts from the real problem of criminal psychopaths and their psychopathic criminal misconduct.

In any event, the point of my post was that paper “bans” may briefly feel satisfying, but that there is a long way between what’s on paper and what’s actually happening in reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am so deeply offended by the mainstream reporting on this attacker as "she." I don't know how any woman can continue supporting this utter fallacy.

I'm a woman and I find it irrelevant that they identified as trans. I find it offensive that the RWNJs are focusing on that and the media are feeding it. It is more relevant that this person has a history of ranting on video about guns and violence.

Meanwhile, the majority of mass shooters are males. Should we start curtailing all the rights and activities of all males as a result?

But you cannot separate those things. This complete freak show was allowed to continue ranting and acting out because if anybody tried to stop him, they'd be excoriated for their discrimination against trans people. Do you not see how "affirming" mental illness has gotten out of control?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big Pharma is a big problem here not guns. Majority of these shooters are on SSRI’s or recently, puberty blockers. Nobody wants to call out the elephant in the room:
Big Pharma

It is insane to me how among the listed side effects for SSRIs - drugs given for severe depression - are suicidal thoughts and suicidal behavior! What are the point of these poisonous things???

It’s also dumb that teens can’t vape or smoke until 18 or drink till they’re 21 because alcohol is considered a mind altering drug yet they can take SSRI’s or completely change their gender with puberty blockers while underage.

Teens are already mentally not all the way there so imagine with medication

You can’t drink until 21 but you can buy a gun at 18.

Guns should require a safety class and test (like driving lessons) that come with a cost and parental and medical provider sign-off before anyone gets close to having the privilege to buy a gun.

This is the solution! A start. Banning firearms is the end goal, but this is what we do as soon as we have a real leader in the USA. Or even on state level in states with sensible lawmakers.

Why not just start with the end goal? Don’t you even care about all the people who will still die getting from your “start point” to the end goal? What about them? Don’t they matter? You’re willing to sacrifice them to incremental progress?

That’s F’d up.

Firearms cannot be banned. Not lawfully. Not practically. .

We’re way past worrying about what’s “lawful” or not in this country. Just do it. Laws be damned.

Do what? Send armed murderers door to door to collect all the guns they can find and murder anyone who resists?

I don’t think that would work out too well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big Pharma is a big problem here not guns. Majority of these shooters are on SSRI’s or recently, puberty blockers. Nobody wants to call out the elephant in the room:
Big Pharma

It is insane to me how among the listed side effects for SSRIs - drugs given for severe depression - are suicidal thoughts and suicidal behavior! What are the point of these poisonous things???

It’s also dumb that teens can’t vape or smoke until 18 or drink till they’re 21 because alcohol is considered a mind altering drug yet they can take SSRI’s or completely change their gender with puberty blockers while underage.

Teens are already mentally not all the way there so imagine with medication

You can’t drink until 21 but you can buy a gun at 18.

Guns should require a safety class and test (like driving lessons) that come with a cost and parental and medical provider sign-off before anyone gets close to having the privilege to buy a gun.

This is the solution! A start. Banning firearms is the end goal, but this is what we do as soon as we have a real leader in the USA. Or even on state level in states with sensible lawmakers.

Why not just start with the end goal? Don’t you even care about all the people who will still die getting from your “start point” to the end goal? What about them? Don’t they matter? You’re willing to sacrifice them to incremental progress?

That’s F’d up.

Firearms cannot be banned. Not lawfully. Not practically. It is a reality-denying confabulation to insist on magical solutions while ignoring the root causes of psychopathy and criminal violence.

They actually can be banned but Republicans refuse to allow it.

“Banned” like illicit narcotics and all the other contraband in which the country is, and has long been, awash? There is a federal “ban” on marijuana. Illegitimate and unprescribed fentanyl is “banned” everywhere. We all know how that’s worked out.

Do you think we are idiots that don’t know other nations don’t have our gun violence issues?

“Gun violence” is a handy rhetorical buzzword for criminal misuse of firearms.

I didn’t call anybody any names. If somebody feels like they’re an idiot when the error of what purports to be their reasoning becomes evident, that feeling would be for them to examine.

Other nations, as has been repeatedly and exhaustively discussed in this and other threads, are not the same as the United States. There are places in the world where essentially every home has a fully automatic, machine gun, battle rifle, weapon of war, AK pattern rifle. They have plenty of internecine violence but nobody is shooting up schools.

It is delusional to believe that firearms can be magically “disappeared” from the United States, never to reappear. Continuing to posit that as a “solution” to unlawful criminal violence committed with firearms distracts from the real problem of criminal psychopaths and their psychopathic criminal misconduct.

In any event, the point of my post was that paper “bans” may briefly feel satisfying, but that there is a long way between what’s on paper and what’s actually happening in reality.

It's not delusional. We're spending billions and billions and billions of dollars on building concentration camps in swamps. That could go a long long way towards getting rid of a lot of ridiculous weaponry. We have a lot of money. What are we going to do with it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am so deeply offended by the mainstream reporting on this attacker as "she." I don't know how any woman can continue supporting this utter fallacy.

You can be offended all you want. The reality in 2025 is that she is a woman.

Accept it or be a weirdo hater. Your choice.

We don’t need to be respectful of a psychotic murderer.

But you don't get to paint all trans people with the same brush because of one psycho. If you do, you need to tell us how all males need their rights curtailed, since they commit the vast majority of mass shootings, rapes, etc.

Go on...be balanced.

I don’t have to do any such thing but this one was a psycho killer and now kids are dead. And we don’t have to give respect to someone who was so disrespectful of the sanctity of human life, it’s a two way street.