tvc184

Fake news… the Dems said in 10 years it would pay for itself.

[Hidden Content]

I like that Penny Benjamin will be in it.

Fake news and right wing propaganda. Only guns can kill almost 100 people in seconds. ……

In another thread in this forum they talk about the woman who stopped the possible mass murder by shooting a man with her pistol when he brought out an A.R. 15 and started firing rounds. At the time there were two parties going on in an apartment complex and a fairly large crowd. Gun opponents will surely say, that man was evidence that people should not have firearms or AR 15 or whatever. He apparently was angry because he was told to leave the complex and he wanted to take revenge. So here is the question for those people. If he did not have access to a firearm and he was angry and wanted to kill and injure a bunch of people with what he had available, could he have? It was a crowd of people with two parties going on outside. What if he had been going approximately 100 miles an hour and driven into the crowd? Would it make us feel better if there were 15 dead people and 20 injured but it’s OK because it was not a gun?

Here is the timeline from a police website. It sheds some light on the incident and also some of the BS from the media. [Hidden Content]

I don’t know but I don’t think so. I think all of the politicians and that includes the Chiefs of police and some of the commanders, are falling all over themselves pointing fingers. Everybody is playing for the media. I think Abbott did the same thing. I would like to know what actually happened. I am talking the actual conversations, the timeline of what happened, what was heard and so on. I might look at the facts, not the innuendo and claims on TV and social media and give my opinion that the officers inside of the school should be fired the next day. I suspect however what was reported was not the entire truth. Everybody claims this was an active shooter but it went on for an hour or so. Do you mean that he was firing that gun for an hour and the police cannot hear it? Did they hear it and were just afraid to go in? I mean I would be afraid but that is what you signed on for. Then I’m still to this day reading people claiming that 19 police were in the building but an off-duty BP agent showed up with a shotgun and went on there and ended it like a Rambo or something. That sounds like some of the most BS stuff I have ever heard. I would like to know how they entered. There are still claims that they use the keys to get in the room. Was that key available earlier? Was it possible to breach that door by other means? I have seen other police officers claim that no matter what they would’ve just charged in. Really? No plan? Supposedly a steel door with a steel frame that is dead bolted. What are you going to do? Stand in front of the door and kick it until you get killed and then we had to send another cop to try to drag you out? The police are supposed to be brave but not suicidal. I don’t see the point in sending two cops to the door and they get killed . OK send two more, oh they got killed also. OK let’s send four to keep crashing that door that will not open. Supposedly the Uvalde chief or maybe an on scene commander determined that it was not an active shooter it was merely a barricaded lone suspect by that point. Does that mean they were there for half an hour or so and heard no shots from inside? If that is true would that indicate a barricaded person and not a person actively shooting? Let’s go out on a limb and say if there were four or five kids still alive making 911 calls almost up until the point with a police made entry (as is some claims). The BP swat team on their own initiative decided to act and quickly ended the incident. Then how did the children die? did the shooter know where they were at the entire time and simply waited until the police tried to make entry to finish them off? If that was true, would it have mattered at all if they went in 10 minutes earlier, 20 minutes earlier, 30 minutes earlier? if he was going to wait until the police made their final assault to kill the children, where are the claims coming from that had they gone in earlier they would have been saved? There are way too many questions and almost no answers that I can see. I mean we know things like he shot his grandmother in the face, stole her truck and wrecked it, he bought a couple of guns a short time earlier, the number of dead, etc. What do we know what actually happened inside the building? The stupid media is worried about the outside perimeter cops stopping the parents. I swear there are people that saw that and think that was all the cops on scene. Absolutely not. That was the cops protecting the ones inside by keeping people away from them. It is called putting up a perimeter. On a typical Swat scenario, there is an outside perimeter that might be a block or two away that is keeping roadways and alleys clear of people and helping to evacuate people living in the immediate area of a home for example. Then there is an inside perimeter which is part of swat itself and they are just outside of the objective. Up close and may be inside is the immediate team call such terms as an arrest team, contact team, react team, assault team, etc. They all basically mean the same thing. So at the very least they are normally three levels of police officers at such an incident. The media gets some citizen video of the outside perimeter and then claims that all of the police were outside fighting with the parents and not inside trying to make a rescue. That is utter garbage. could they ask for an explanation or find out what’s going on? No, that is not what the media is for. They are for sensationalism and getting views for money. I will shut down my comments for the moment but the automatic claim that these officers were cowards is based on……. emotions? Again, they might actually have been cowards but I have a hard time believing that 19 police officers were in the building and they all decided that it was too scary.

I am pro gun, think that progressive Democrats are idiots about gun control which is about people control, not injury. However, there will be a shooting at a campus where teachers are allowed to carry. Probably 99% of the schools in this country do not have armed teachers. Anyone could make the bet that the next school shooting will be at a campus where teachers are not allowed to carry and there’s a 99% chance of the being correct. I’ll take that bit every time and make a ton of money. Most of the people that commit these heinous crimes know that they are not going to live through it. They are either going to be killed or they will commit suicide. The fact that it is a teacher and not a police officer is hardly a factor. In my opinion …. The problem with opinions or stats like this is that once you bring it up, it might soon happen.

I can think of two mass shootings off the top of my head where a rifle really made a difference. In perhaps most of the mass shootings, a handgun would be the weapon of choice for mobility, the caring of ammunition, concealability, within its range just as deadly, etc. The two exceptions off the top of my head are the Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas and the five officers shot and killed in Dallas. Those were standoff murders where the shooter was a good distance away and used the long range capability of a rifle. In a case like the Mandalay Bay, a pistol would have still done a lot of damage but not quite as significant as the A.R. 15. That could have been just as many victims however more of them would have been survivable probably. On the other hand if he would’ve been firing a suppressed 9 mm pistol, he could have hit thousands of people and no one would even have a clue what was happening. In the Dallas incident, a handgun could have been very deadly from the range he was using it however he could not target nearly good enough with a handgun. Firing into a crowd would have been deadly but he was specifically targeting police officers. As the FBI statistics show, about 5 to 10 times more people are killed every year with hands, feet and personal weapons held such as knives or baseball bats. In 2019 as an example, I believe 364 people were killed with a rifle from all incidents combined. Almost 3000 were killed with personal weapons. Let that sink in while complaining about rifles specifically. Out of 15,000 murders a year, a little over 300 are with rifles. Yet what is in the news all the time… Got a ban those evil rifles because they are doing so much damage. That alone tells you it’s about a control agenda and not about saving lives.

Since you keep beating your drum, give us your “common sense” (I despise the term but it is like a mantra) gun laws that can even slow down any mass murder attack at churches, stores, concerts…..

That is incorrect in Texas.

And exactly what kind of test do you propose that would stop a person from having a gun? How do you charge someone with a crime for something another person does without proving they knew what law the borrower was going to break?

For about 30 years when people talk about or laugh about people who might be caring a .32 or .22 for self-defense, it sure a beats pointing your finger and going Bang!!

Guns are not the problem. Your only solution is, you gun rights refuse anything. What is your plan that would have stopped this? Limiting gun purchases to once a month? A national computer system that tracks individual purchases of bullets?

A bartender breaks the law when he sells to intoxicated person. A licensed dealer such as this case, broke no law unless he knew the purchaser’s intent. Talk about a slippery slope. Sorry sir, you complied with all of the laws that we gave you but we’re going to have to charge you with a crime anyway. What crime? Well, you should have been a pre-cog and know that the guy intended to kill children at a school. If you can’t read a mind, you are a criminal.

Yes, schools are not only soft targets but they are filled with hundreds of helpless individuals. While 800 adults (or even 10 in a diner) might eventually attack and overcome a shooter, small children will not.

But they don’t have to go through extensive training. That is to be part of a specific state program to give certain teachers police like authority only on campus and only during critical incidents. Unless something has changed fairly recently, the school principal can give someone written permission to carry on campus. I have read about some school districts in Texas where teachers are armed and not in the School Marshal program. Kind of like the old days, Texas law in three or four situations allows a police officer to deputize a citizen on the spot. They don’t swear them in like in the cowboy movies but the law says a police officer can call any number of citizens of his county to his aid and they must by law come to the officer’s aid. The Texas school marshal program is basically the same thing but the request for aid is given beforehand. If an incident happens, the teachers have already been given lawful authority to act as a peace officer. A teacher/person not in that program, has the authority to use deadly force in defense of another person and to make arrests. So the marshal program in a way doesn’t really do much legally EXCEPT… it mandates training including the best way to respond and is way better than simply telling some teachers, you have my permission to carry. So training is not mandated but why wouldn’t a district want to? I do not know the answer to this but the school marshal program might also give qualified immunity to a teacher acting during such an incident the same way as it generally protects officers individually. As long as the teacher acted within policy and within the law, he/she cannot be sued individually. The school district can be sued for failing to train or having a bad policy but the teacher who complied with everything, just like police officers in the same situation, might be covered against individual lawsuits.

Yes it could have, a teacher could have (probably) followed school policy and not propped a door open for the shooter to make entry. But I get what you’re talking about, gun laws.

Another Brandon Tatum response. I think it is 39 minutes but about the first 15 pretty much describing the incident. [Hidden Content]

Take away the AR15, what would have changed?

It seems that emotional issues take away some people’s reasoning ability. The Texas DPS commander threw the on scene commander, his employee, under the bus. He’s probably trying to protect his own job but that is a different issue. He said In hindsight it should have been done differently, then added, But I wasn’t there on scene having to face those decisions. Okay, we have his opinion on record. What he did not address that I saw was this question. Would breaching that steel door a few minutes earlier have changed the outcome? The tactical team was able to get in with a key. How could they have gotten through that steel door without the key? There are now reports that children inside the room, who are killed, were making 911 phone calls right before the police entered. The shooter on saying that the police were going to breach the door, then apparently killed the other children. So why did he not kill all of the children immediately? Was he going to maybe use them for a bargaining chip? Did he not know they were alive until the police entered? We will likely never know those answers however….. it appears that once the police started to go in, the shooter used his last effort to kill the remaining children. Had the police gone in earlier, would that have changed his decision? To think otherwise is really stretching the what if question beyond reasonableness.

Did you see his mother’s comments??

I believe that all rights have limitations. The problem is what do certain rights mean or what was their intent? Does freedom of religion mean that I can use cocaine because I belong to the Church of the Rock-Cocaine? Does freedom of speech mean that I can make threats against politicians who I think are traitors? But we are discussing gun control. SCOTUS has ruled that well regulated militia is the justification for being armed, not a requirement. So there is no requirement to be in a militia. “Armed” in 1776 meant handguns and long guns yet Washington DC had a city ordinance banning the possession of a handgun “in your home” without a license AND the handgun had to be disassembled. That has to be one of the most ludicrous laws ever yet The Democrats say, we will not try to take your rights away. No one is coming for your guns. So you can have a gun but you can’t even load it in your own homy for self defense? Fortunately SCOTUS tossed that and a similar law in Illinois but only 5-4. How is that even a question? Did the founding fathers intend that you could on a handgun or rifle but you could not even assemble it? That is where the left is going however. Those are actually laws on the books and not some theoretical intempt. Last anyone forget with the people on the left one. They claim that they are not for taking weapons or denying their use but all you have to do is look at the United States Capitol and their absolutely stupid law. That kind of negates the claim of, common sense gun laws.

You will have to ask the lawmakers that. I have never brought up the shall not be infringed argument.

It is completely a gun issue or absolutely not a gun issue at all. It is according to your take on the weapon possession. If you ban all firearms in the United States and confiscate or attempt to confiscate them all and ban any further manufacture, yes it can make a difference. You’ll just have to trim a little fat off of the Constitution. But if you uphold the 2A at all, any firearms laws will likely be useless. I have already mentioned, the deadliest school attack with a firearm in United States history is it Virginia Tech and it was with the small 9mm and .22 pistols. At classroom ranges they are just as deadly as rifles and in some respects, more so. If the same guy got into the same classroom in Uvalde with almost any modern handgun which carries about 20 rounds and had five or six magazines in his front pocket, could he have killed the same number of people? In fact he might have killed more. If you restricted the magazines to 10 rounds, would it have changed anything? No I was a young police officer in 1984 when a man went into a McDonald’s in San Ysidro, California and murdered 21 people. It was the largest firearms mass murder in US history up to that point. About six years later I was working a regular off-duty security job on my day off at a bank. I got to know the bank president fairly well. He asked if I would give a presentation at one of the service organization, maybe the Lions Club. He said at their monthly meeting they always had a guest speaker. It would only be for 10 or 15 minutes. I could eat with them since they always had a meal during this time and after the talks and meal, they conduct their business and I could leave. To say that I hated the idea would be an understatement. I had no public speaking skills at that time and I would be in front of probably several businessman from the area. Even the thought of it rattled me pretty good. I hated to tell the guy no however and finally accepted. I asked what I should talk about since they were about 1 million police topics that could last for 10 minutes and he said I had to pick. I absolutely hated that even worse and would rather him just given me a topic. I had no self-confidence whatsoever and was afraid I would look like an idiot. I decided to talk about drunk drivers since I was a certified Intoxilyzer operator. I could easily get a 10 minute talk on that. So I wrote up an outline and practiced my delivery. What did not bother me in most public speaking was me answering questions. I even tried to get it where I would just answer any questions about police work but no, I had to give a talk. After I was introduced at the meeting and scared to death, some business guy in the audience gave me the break that I needed. He said that before I spoke could I answer a question. YES YES YES!!! He said they have been discussing it and what about the mass shooting a few years ago in San Ysidro and should they ban “assault weapons”? In that shooting I think the perpetrator was armed with a couple of handguns but also an Uzi and a shotgun. I think that is he was the big story weapon…. the dreaded 9mm Uzi. Being totally unprepared for that question, I felt perfectly comfortable answering. I said that the weapon was not the issue. I said that I would make a prediction if somebody would take a Glock type weapon (they were extremely new) and kill more people and likely quicker. How? Well a combat rifle or submachinegun like an Uzi is relatively heavy and reasonably hard to lug around when compared to handguns. Also the magazines and ammo are huge in comparison and they are slower to reload unless you’re an expert. On the other hand a guy could have a Glock 9mm with 19 rounds in the magazine and have about four magazines in each front pocket for a total of almost 200 rounds. At typical mass murder shooting distances, a guy with that GLOCK could get off 100 rounds in about 45 seconds. A very short time later like maybe weeks, the Luby’s mass murder in Killeen Texas happened. That guy killed 23 people with……. a Glock and Ruger pistols. He wounded 27 others, all with 9mm handgun bullets. I so wished that I could go back just for 30 second, I told you so comment. So it is a rare instance where a rifle is really a better choice for a mass murder. One of the extremely rare examples is Las Vegas where the guy was a quarter of a mile away and hammered away at a crowd of several thousand people. Much was made about Adam Landsa and Sandy Hook and him having an AR15. He got into the classroom and walked up and shot the kids in the head. Would it really have mattered what firearm heused to shoot kids in the head or even in the heart? So are firearms the problem? If your idea is to take all of them away, then yes. If you’re going to allow people to have semi-automatic handguns however, banning rifles might stop a Mandalay Bay shooting like in Las Vegas but that’s about it.