Another gunman, another elementary school

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we blaming everything else, it's the shooter and family that needs to be held accountable they failed

That doesn't help the 14 grieving moms and 14 grieving dads tonight.

If it were your kid would you just say "I blame the shooters parents" and nothing needs to change?

19

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's less saying NO guns ever. It's saying if you want a gun you need prove you are responsible enough to own one. This way, you make it harder for access unless you are truly serious about gun ownership and the nut jobs who really love them still can actually get em.

This means you need to learn to shoot, take and pass a course on safety and protocols (ie process like getting your drivers license!)

It means you have to need to pass a background check that you're not a felon and also take a battery of tests to ensure you are mentally stable enough to be responsible to own.

What they ought to do is add another layer for security: fees/penalties for crimes using the weapon. So if a kid accidentally uses it to kill someone or if someone uses your weapon to kill someone else, etc. you're on the hook.

Personally I would be much more at ease if above was the change. I think it's unrealistic clearing out what's already on the streets and I also don't think gun lobby/politically we will ever agree to a outright banning of legit gun ownership. Making it hard to get is best case scenario.

It's the conceal and carry law is what is going to kill us all!!!!

1. Mandatory safety courses are nothing but an inconvenience to an evil-possessed individual bent on destruction.

2. The shooter passed a background check. No “battery of tests” could identify anyone but a florid schizophrenic. So called psychological tests are objectively unreliable and depend on significant judgement (read guesswork) from the examiner.

3. The shooter used his own weapon. Most jurisdictions have enhanced penalties for criminal misuse of firearms. How much more “liable” can a person get in a death penalty jurisdiction like TX?

4. A huge number of people lawfully “conceal and carry” throughout the country, including in DC, MD and VA, every single day. They’re not the ones committing murder.

I’d like to know why the school was not more secure.

Yes, keep victimizing kids attending school because an 18 year old with body armor could purchase a large capacity magazine and outgun multiple police officers. Christ, what an asshole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we blaming everything else, it's the shooter and family that needs to be held accountable they failed

That doesn't help the 14 grieving moms and 14 grieving dads tonight.

If it were your kid would you just say "I blame the shooters parents" and nothing needs to change?

19

21. The teachers had parents too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can 21 families sue NRA, Abbott and every representative who has received money from gun lobbyists? $100 mln per lost life?

They can sue. But the cases will be dismissed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

1. Mandatory safety courses are nothing but an inconvenience to an evil-possessed individual bent on destruction.
2. The shooter passed a background check. No “battery of tests” could identify anyone but a florid schizophrenic. So called psychological tests are objectively unreliable and depend on significant judgement (read guesswork) from the examiner.

3. The shooter used his own weapon. Most jurisdictions have enhanced penalties for criminal misuse of firearms. How much more “liable” can a person get in a death penalty jurisdiction like TX?

4. A huge number of people lawfully “conceal and carry” throughout the country, including in DC, MD and VA, every single day. They’re not the ones committing murder.

I’d like to know why the school was not more secure.

BS.

You know why there are no mass shootings in Russia? There are plenty of mentally ill people, plenty of criminals and gangs. And no public mass shootings?

Because in Russia you have to get a psychiatrist’s permission as well as other paperwork. Also, there is gun registration. You can’t just give it to your neighbor.

The same in other countries. That’s why they don’t have mass shootings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's less saying NO guns ever. It's saying if you want a gun you need prove you are responsible enough to own one. This way, you make it harder for access unless you are truly serious about gun ownership and the nut jobs who really love them still can actually get em.

This means you need to learn to shoot, take and pass a course on safety and protocols (ie process like getting your drivers license!)

It means you have to need to pass a background check that you're not a felon and also take a battery of tests to ensure you are mentally stable enough to be responsible to own.

What they ought to do is add another layer for security: fees/penalties for crimes using the weapon. So if a kid accidentally uses it to kill someone or if someone uses your weapon to kill someone else, etc. you're on the hook.

Personally I would be much more at ease if above was the change. I think it's unrealistic clearing out what's already on the streets and I also don't think gun lobby/politically we will ever agree to a outright banning of legit gun ownership. Making it hard to get is best case scenario.

It's the conceal and carry law is what is going to kill us all!!!!

1. Mandatory safety courses are nothing but an inconvenience to an evil-possessed individual bent on destruction.

2. The shooter passed a background check. No “battery of tests” could identify anyone but a florid schizophrenic. So called psychological tests are objectively unreliable and depend on significant judgement (read guesswork) from the examiner.

3. The shooter used his own weapon. Most jurisdictions have enhanced penalties for criminal misuse of firearms. How much more “liable” can a person get in a death penalty jurisdiction like TX?

4. A huge number of people lawfully “conceal and carry” throughout the country, including in DC, MD and VA, every single day. They’re not the ones committing murder.

I’d like to know why the school was not more secure.

A criminal conviction, including a death sentence, has nothing to do with legal liability, but you know that, right?

[Anonymous]

Donate at flippable and let's get something done!

https://swingleft.org/p/funds

Pass it on on your social media.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I'm sure this has been asked and answered in this thread but I can't comb through 30 pages.

Obviously gun control is the answer here. But in lieu of actual sensible reform, why can we not secure these school buildings? I work in a hospital. It's badge in, badge out. No exceptions. There's three big-@ss security guards at every door (and only two entrances). No sketchy teen with a backpack full of anything is getting past these guys.

I'm trying to figure out how an 18 yo blows into an elementary school in body armor with a backpack. Why wouldn't we start with a simple security fix??

I worry for your patients if you are this naïve. You think a gun can’t get past three “big @ss” security guards? My dear, that is the entire point of a gun- to give the weakest, flabbiest man the power to kill anyone or anything.

Ignoring your rude comment towards my patients, security guards are *but one* measure of establishing safeguards around a vulnerable population. Others include ID requirements, badge access, check in/out, etc etc. The county courthouse should not be safer than the elementary school. My point is that building security is low-hanging fruit and should be addressed while we work towards safer gun laws.

Doubling down on the stupid, I see.

I'm the hospital worker suggesting increased building security. I've been called "stupid" twice in 4 posts, PP is "worried for my patients". This kind of combative, insulting behavior is why we can't have discussions at this time in our country.

Yes I know you can "shoot your way into a building", as someone else put it. That's not what happened in this scenario, nor is it usually the case. This kid walked into the building. No I don't think "big guys" can stop bullets. Many layers of protection are needed if security is the goal.

There is nothing that will stop these events other than sensible gun control. Nothing. Most Americans (including me) support that. We have 50 sitting senators not listening to the majority of Americans. So what are we doing about that? Obviously we need to vote them out and lobby for what's right. Also, tomorrow another one of these shootings will happen. Asking aloud what we're doing to prevent another school shooting tomorrow isn't "stupid". Anyone hurling insults, wringing their hands, or "sending thoughts and prayers" without also making practical suggestions is part of the problem. Gun control is the answer. I will do everything I can as a voting citizen to get us there. The question is how we are keeping our kids safe today.

I agree with you. A locked door would have stopped him or slowed him down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can 21 families sue NRA, Abbott and every representative who has received money from gun lobbyists? $100 mln per lost life?

+1
It was predictable, it was preventable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

1. Mandatory safety courses are nothing but an inconvenience to an evil-possessed individual bent on destruction.
2. The shooter passed a background check. No “battery of tests” could identify anyone but a florid schizophrenic. So called psychological tests are objectively unreliable and depend on significant judgement (read guesswork) from the examiner.

3. The shooter used his own weapon. Most jurisdictions have enhanced penalties for criminal misuse of firearms. How much more “liable” can a person get in a death penalty jurisdiction like TX?

4. A huge number of people lawfully “conceal and carry” throughout the country, including in DC, MD and VA, every single day. They’re not the ones committing murder.

I’d like to know why the school was not more secure.

BS.

You know why there are no mass shootings in Russia? There are plenty of mentally ill people, plenty of criminals and gangs. And no public mass shootings?

Because in Russia you have to get a psychiatrist’s permission as well as other paperwork. Also, there is gun registration. You can’t just give it to your neighbor.

The same in other countries. That’s why they don’t have mass shootings.

The most cursory of checks would have revealed some of the concerning behavior. Shooting at vehicles with a BB gun. A propensity to fighting at school, including carrying around boxing gloves. Issues with his mother. No longer attending school. Quitting his part time job at Wendy’s. Red flags everywhere.

[Anonymous]

Reports that the shooter was bullied mercilessly at school due to a lisp and stutter. More red flags.

[Anonymous]

None of that matters. People who get bullied in other countries don’t shoot up schools because they don’t have access to guns.

[Anonymous]

P.s. - I don't watch Fox News, OANN, or Newsmax. Nice try. I just have common freaking sense!

Do you believe in gun control? Please go and read the profiles of these innocent, sweet children and the postings of their relatives, so gracious during a time of unimaginable loss, and their teachers who died trying to protect their students. Then explain why you don’t believe in gun control.

No, this person doesn't believe in "gun control." The question is, do they believe in Massacre Reduction?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:None of that matters. People who get bullied in other countries don’t shoot up schools because they don’t have access to guns.

Wait a minute... You think that easy access to assault weapons leads to.... a lot of mass shootings? #wacko