tvc184

The Texas Size spoons at HEB…. along with the Texas bowls.

I think it is important only if someone helped him. He could have saved it, stolen it, used grandma’s credit cards, etc. If someone gave him the money knowing his intent, then that person also committed a crime. If no one else was criminally involved, how he got it might be an entertaining footnote in a horrible story. in my opinion……

I know hardly anything about these murders except the timeline… somewhat. That in the piling on of the Uvalde ISD police chief. Maybe deserved and maybe not but I have seen no facts to substantiate either.

I can’t agree with this. It’s coup de grâce.

Cruise is probably politically, personally and religiously goofy in my opinion. But the guy can act and has been in several entertaining movies. The ones that I think of are such as…. Taps Top Gun Cocktail Young Guns Rain Man Born on the Fourth of July A Few Good Men Jerry McGuire Minority Report The Last Samurai War of the Worlds Jack Reacher And other good ones.

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?