20 victims reported at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This particular deranged murderer made a lot of noise and managed to kill (I think) just two people. The very list of knife events you reject demonstrates how quickly the body count can rise with a committed knife attacker. Bladed weapons were responsible for industrial-strength slaughter for millennia.

Besides the two dead, there were 17 injured including 14 children. Many of these (especially among those classified as being in critical condition) will likely be crippled for life.

Also note that the murderer shot at the children through the Church windows. This is something that could not be done with a knife. Yes, a committed knife attacker can kill multiple people, but it is much, much easier done with a gun.

+1

Also BFR. If you were shopping at Target with your kids and a crazy violent person came into the store, would you rather they have an AR-15 or a knife? … there is only one sane answer here

An ER doctor wrote an oped about the damage that an AR15 does to the body compared to a single shot pistol. He stated that most victims of one shot gun shot wounds can be saved, but the damage to a victim from an AR15 was basically like a blender came through the insides of the person.

There is no reason for an AR15, that's for sure.

The terminal ballistics of a 5.56 rifle bullet are relatively unpredictable and depend on, among other things, the weight and jacket material of the bullet, its design, the propellant used, and the length and twist rate of the barrel, as well as the range from which the wound is inflicted, and the build and clothing of the individual struck. Even when all else is equal, two different 5.56 wounds can vary from a small through and through wound to one with greater tissue destruction. The AR15 is popular but it is not the only firearm that uses 5.56 ammunition. And not all AR15’s use that round. The idea that a bullet wound is ever “like a blender came through a person” is simply ridiculous hyperbole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The gun for him is a TOOL.

His own mental illness is revealed in his writings. You have to deal with the mental illness.

Mental illness is a global issue. Every country has people with mental illness. But, other civilized countries don't have mass shooting problems like we do. They don't have easy access to guns like we do.

You have to deal with the easy access to guns AND mental illness.

Access to firearms in the US is “easy” only in comparison to totalitarian models that would be unlawful here. There are layers upon layers of federal and state laws governing the purchase and use of firearms in the US. The criminal misuse of firearms is unlawful everywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why wasn't someone at the church armed? Like a security guard?

So what? There was an armed guard at the grocery store in Buffalo and it did not matter. There probably were armed customers as well. Did not matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This particular deranged murderer made a lot of noise and managed to kill (I think) just two people. The very list of knife events you reject demonstrates how quickly the body count can rise with a committed knife attacker. Bladed weapons were responsible for industrial-strength slaughter for millennia.

Besides the two dead, there were 17 injured including 14 children. Many of these (especially among those classified as being in critical condition) will likely be crippled for life.

Also note that the murderer shot at the children through the Church windows. This is something that could not be done with a knife. Yes, a committed knife attacker can kill multiple people, but it is much, much easier done with a gun.

+1

Also BFR. If you were shopping at Target with your kids and a crazy violent person came into the store, would you rather they have an AR-15 or a knife? … there is only one sane answer here

It depends. Are they 5 feet away? Is the weapon drawn and ready? Am I armed ? Is there cover nearby? Does the crazy person have concealment? Have clear are their lines of shooting or are there objects that make wielding a knife easier than a gun?

If you have self defense training, which I highly recommend anyone get in this reality you learn that some situations are more favorable than others based off what scenario you are in as to weapon type of an aggressor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why wasn't someone at the church armed? Like a security guard?

Undoubtedly it was a “gun free zone,” but the magic incantation didn’t work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wasn't someone at the church armed? Like a security guard?

So what? There was an armed guard at the grocery store in Buffalo and it did not matter. There probably were armed customers as well. Did not matter.

So let’s have the “magic magnet” be the solution?

There are multiple recent cases where armed resistance stopped church attacks, including one where a very well trained security person put down a shotgun-armed attacker from a considerable distance with a single pistol shot. In another case a congregant cut short an attack when he got his own rifle from a vehicle and started shooting back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why wasn't someone at the church armed? Like a security guard?

I've gone to Catholic churches my entire life, never seen one with a guard or any kind of security.

You might have a cop directing traffic if it's a big church.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This particular deranged murderer made a lot of noise and managed to kill (I think) just two people. The very list of knife events you reject demonstrates how quickly the body count can rise with a committed knife attacker. Bladed weapons were responsible for industrial-strength slaughter for millennia.

Besides the two dead, there were 17 injured including 14 children. Many of these (especially among those classified as being in critical condition) will likely be crippled for life.

Also note that the murderer shot at the children through the Church windows. This is something that could not be done with a knife. Yes, a committed knife attacker can kill multiple people, but it is much, much easier done with a gun.

+1

Also BFR. If you were shopping at Target with your kids and a crazy violent person came into the store, would you rather they have an AR-15 or a knife? … there is only one sane answer here

An ER doctor wrote an oped about the damage that an AR15 does to the body compared to a single shot pistol. He stated that most victims of one shot gun shot wounds can be saved, but the damage to a victim from an AR15 was basically like a blender came through the insides of the person.

There is no reason for an AR15, that's for sure.

The terminal ballistics of a 5.56 rifle bullet are relatively unpredictable and depend on, among other things, the weight and jacket material of the bullet, its design, the propellant used, and the length and twist rate of the barrel, as well as the range from which the wound is inflicted, and the build and clothing of the individual struck. Even when all else is equal, two different 5.56 wounds can vary from a small through and through wound to one with greater tissue destruction. The AR15 is popular but it is not the only firearm that uses 5.56 ammunition. And not all AR15’s use that round. The idea that a bullet wound is ever “like a blender came through a person” is simply ridiculous hyperbole.

Not hyperbole when it hits a child.

-RN

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This particular deranged murderer made a lot of noise and managed to kill (I think) just two people. The very list of knife events you reject demonstrates how quickly the body count can rise with a committed knife attacker. Bladed weapons were responsible for industrial-strength slaughter for millennia.

Besides the two dead, there were 17 injured including 14 children. Many of these (especially among those classified as being in critical condition) will likely be crippled for life.

Also note that the murderer shot at the children through the Church windows. This is something that could not be done with a knife. Yes, a committed knife attacker can kill multiple people, but it is much, much easier done with a gun.

+1

Also BFR. If you were shopping at Target with your kids and a crazy violent person came into the store, would you rather they have an AR-15 or a knife? … there is only one sane answer here

An ER doctor wrote an oped about the damage that an AR15 does to the body compared to a single shot pistol. He stated that most victims of one shot gun shot wounds can be saved, but the damage to a victim from an AR15 was basically like a blender came through the insides of the person.

There is no reason for an AR15, that's for sure.

The terminal ballistics of a 5.56 rifle bullet are relatively unpredictable and depend on, among other things, the weight and jacket material of the bullet, its design, the propellant used, and the length and twist rate of the barrel, as well as the range from which the wound is inflicted, and the build and clothing of the individual struck. Even when all else is equal, two different 5.56 wounds can vary from a small through and through wound to one with greater tissue destruction. The AR15 is popular but it is not the only firearm that uses 5.56 ammunition. And not all AR15’s use that round. The idea that a bullet wound is ever “like a blender came through a person” is simply ridiculous hyperbole.

Not hyperbole when it hits a child.

-RN

From your alleged sample size of?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wasn't someone at the church armed? Like a security guard?

So what? There was an armed guard at the grocery store in Buffalo and it did not matter. There probably were armed customers as well. Did not matter.

So let’s have the “magic magnet” be the solution?

There are multiple recent cases where armed resistance stopped church attacks, including one where a very well trained security person put down a shotgun-armed attacker from a considerable distance with a single pistol shot. In another case a congregant cut short an attack when he got his own rifle from a vehicle and started shooting back.

Does not matter. The higher the gun ownership the higher the pediatric deaths by state. And even if folks get lucky as above, people are still getting shot for some time before they get their gun unless the good guy is psychic.

Children's lives should matter to everyone regardless of political party and there are ways to reduce victims statistically while still keeping 2a. It is possible to have bipartisan agreement on some basic limitations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wasn't someone at the church armed? Like a security guard?

I've gone to Catholic churches my entire life, never seen one with a guard or any kind of security.

You might have a cop directing traffic if it's a big church.

One near me has at least one uniformed police officer inside at every Mass.

A large pilgrimage destination I’m aware of had at least three openly armed security guards who did not bunch up.

St. Patrick’s in New York always has multiple uniformed police.

Church security planning (like any institutional security planning) needs to go beyond preparing an organized armed response but that’s a good place to start.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This particular deranged murderer made a lot of noise and managed to kill (I think) just two people. The very list of knife events you reject demonstrates how quickly the body count can rise with a committed knife attacker. Bladed weapons were responsible for industrial-strength slaughter for millennia.

Besides the two dead, there were 17 injured including 14 children. Many of these (especially among those classified as being in critical condition) will likely be crippled for life.

Also note that the murderer shot at the children through the Church windows. This is something that could not be done with a knife. Yes, a committed knife attacker can kill multiple people, but it is much, much easier done with a gun.

+1

Also BFR. If you were shopping at Target with your kids and a crazy violent person came into the store, would you rather they have an AR-15 or a knife? … there is only one sane answer here

An ER doctor wrote an oped about the damage that an AR15 does to the body compared to a single shot pistol. He stated that most victims of one shot gun shot wounds can be saved, but the damage to a victim from an AR15 was basically like a blender came through the insides of the person.

There is no reason for an AR15, that's for sure.

The terminal ballistics of a 5.56 rifle bullet are relatively unpredictable and depend on, among other things, the weight and jacket material of the bullet, its design, the propellant used, and the length and twist rate of the barrel, as well as the range from which the wound is inflicted, and the build and clothing of the individual struck. Even when all else is equal, two different 5.56 wounds can vary from a small through and through wound to one with greater tissue destruction. The AR15 is popular but it is not the only firearm that uses 5.56 ammunition. And not all AR15’s use that round. The idea that a bullet wound is ever “like a blender came through a person” is simply ridiculous hyperbole.

Not hyperbole when it hits a child.

-RN

From your alleged sample size of?

We know you're bent over for the NRA. You can argue up down back and forth about the severity of the wounds and it's not going to change the fact that there is a significant majority that would like to see significant pushback against these weapons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wasn't someone at the church armed? Like a security guard?

So what? There was an armed guard at the grocery store in Buffalo and it did not matter. There probably were armed customers as well. Did not matter.

So let’s have the “magic magnet” be the solution?

There are multiple recent cases where armed resistance stopped church attacks, including one where a very well trained security person put down a shotgun-armed attacker from a considerable distance with a single pistol shot. In another case a congregant cut short an attack when he got his own rifle from a vehicle and started shooting back.

Does not matter. The higher the gun ownership the higher the pediatric deaths by state. And even if folks get lucky as above, people are still getting shot for some time before they get their gun unless the good guy is psychic.

Children's lives should matter to everyone regardless of political party and there are ways to reduce victims statistically while still keeping 2a. It is possible to have bipartisan agreement on some basic limitations.

You keep chanting this mantra but did not respond to any of the underlying factual questions posed above.

[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.

Oh totally; we don’t need them anymore because my trust in our federal government has never been higher than right now.

/s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This particular deranged murderer made a lot of noise and managed to kill (I think) just two people. The very list of knife events you reject demonstrates how quickly the body count can rise with a committed knife attacker. Bladed weapons were responsible for industrial-strength slaughter for millennia.

Besides the two dead, there were 17 injured including 14 children. Many of these (especially among those classified as being in critical condition) will likely be crippled for life.

Also note that the murderer shot at the children through the Church windows. This is something that could not be done with a knife. Yes, a committed knife attacker can kill multiple people, but it is much, much easier done with a gun.

+1

Also BFR. If you were shopping at Target with your kids and a crazy violent person came into the store, would you rather they have an AR-15 or a knife? … there is only one sane answer here

An ER doctor wrote an oped about the damage that an AR15 does to the body compared to a single shot pistol. He stated that most victims of one shot gun shot wounds can be saved, but the damage to a victim from an AR15 was basically like a blender came through the insides of the person.

There is no reason for an AR15, that's for sure.

Yes, I made this post upthread. It's sort of amazing that so many of the children shot will live, and many apparently without major injury. That didn't happen in Uvalde or other places where more extreme weapons were used. The framers of the Constitution had muskets and pistols -- they did not anticipate the insanity of the current weaponry being managed by individual citizens who are not part of any "well regulated militia".