Uvalde School Shooting, 21 Dead

[SmashMouth]

2 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Maybe not, but to say other countries don't deal with this is dishonest.

That's fair.

[Boyz N Da Hood]

20 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Apparently you don't, sounds like having to hear about abortion is simply a nuisance to you.

When we're discussing school murders, abortion has no relevance to the topic! 

[Boyz N Da Hood]

22 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Other countries do, google it.

Your kidding right? Clueless 

[LumRaiderFan]

25 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

FWIW, when I purchased my last AR online the local FFL holder literally said "check them all _______ except for the last one and sign here" or something to that affect.  I'm really starting to get the opinion that we need to hold retailers responsible when events like this happens.  If you overserve somebody at a bar, you get charged if they drive off and kill somebody.  I'm kinda getting the same feeling about gun dealers and individuals who sell/give away their guns.  If that gun dealer in Uvalde knew that he faced prison time if that goth kid in the black trench coat came in wanting to buy a couple of ARs and few hundred rounds of ammo (a humongous red flag, IMO).... this whole thing might not have happened.  Kinda like when I was watching the news on the morning after the shooting in Vegas and listening to the gunfire I instantly said "holy crap.... that's full auto."  Then some 2A nutjob that manufactures the "bumpstocks" comes on trying to explain how it ISN'T an automatic weapon, but rather a semi-auto that fires itself and I thought to myself... "this jerk has to know that these things will only be used for one thing... spraying a crowd... and he's trying to defend it.  

The gun owners are losing the argument and their too stubborn to realize it. 

It's time to make some changes that don't involve point our fingers at the other guys. 

So what changes would you make?  You going to turn in your AR?

You complain about the gun crowd (which you are) but I haven't seen you come up with a fix.

Apparently you're ok with what happened.

[LumRaiderFan]

5 minutes ago, 45thSucks said:

When we're discussing school murders, abortion has no relevance to the topic! 

Sorry, you don't get to decide what's relevant.

 

[tvc184]

38 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

Well, if you're unhappy with something and unwilling to do anything about it, then you are in fact okay with it.   That's just common sense. 

I hear what you're saying... but that also would mean that we should be able to own a fully automatic machine gun if we wished.  There are restrictions in place on those (or at least you have to have a license to own one) and I think that the common sense of most people would point towards a consensus that the restrictions on automatic weapons are good thing... even if it "infringes" on your right to shoot up a school. 

When there are so many school shootings going on that we can't even keep track of them all anymore, it's getting a little late to keep sticking our heads in the sand as gun owners and saying "I don't care about those kids.... I've got my rights, you know."  Because that's kinda what's happening these days.  

 

 

You can own a fully automatic weapon if you wish. There are no laws against it unless you are a convicted felon, not convicted of domestic violence, are currently under indictment or have been adjudicated as mentally ill. 

[Boyz N Da Hood]

4 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Sorry, you don't get to decide what's relevant.

 

👍🏽

[Boyz N Da Hood]

6 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

You can own a fully automatic weapon if you wish. There are no laws against it unless you are a convicted felon, not convicted of domestic violence, are currently under indictment or have been adjudicated as mentally ill. 

Why do we have laws that say a convicted felon can't own a weapon? Isn't that taking away someone's rights? I mean they go to prison and do time, shouldn't they then be able to possess? Which I'm not arguing that someone shouldn't be able to own if there a felon but I don't recall the constitution stating someone can lose rights to own if they're in trouble! "Shall not be infringed"

[LumRaiderFan]

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

So you're okay if events like the one in Uvalde keep happening? 

There's going to come a time when law abiding gun owners are going to have to come up with a better answer than "no."  If you have no suggestions of how to make it stop other than "we need to put prayer back in schools" or "shall not be infringed," you're going to lose the argument in the long run. 

 

 

55 minutes ago, Bobcat1 said:

 

How is it NOT a gun issue?

I've showed that other countries with strict gun laws and regulations have less gun violence. 

 

Still waiting to hear what new gun laws we need to stop this from happening.

You both insist that this is a gun problem so what is the fix?

[Unwoke]

28 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

 

 

Still waiting to hear what new gun laws we need to stop this from happening.

You both insist that this is a gun problem so what is the fix?

He’s looking for another article written by a law firm.

[Hagar]

33 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

 

 

Still waiting to hear what new gun laws we need to stop this from happening.

You both insist that this is a gun problem so what is the fix?

 

33 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

 

 

Still waiting to hear what new gun laws we need to stop this from happening.

You both insist that this is a gun problem so what is the fix?

And that’s the problem.  We sit around discussing guns and it’s obvious, to a few of us at least, that it’s not a gun problem, it’s a people problem.  I could list a plethora of reasons, not the least of which is Dr. Spock’s infamous book, “The Common Book of Baby and Child Care”.  This idiot turned parents into “would be psychologists”, raising children without physical discipline.  The old saying, spare the Rod and spoil the child, was shelved for verbal chastisement and ‘time out’.  Probably our first step into wokeism 🐂💩.  Then add the decline of Christianity (morals), prayer out of school, lack of corporal punishment in schools, disintegration of the family, etc, etc, etc.  Again, I go back to the weight scales.  You keep taking from the good side (the side that had been working fairly good) and adding it to the bad side, it didn’t take long to create chaos.  Guns the problem?  Lay that rifle/pistol down and see how many people it kills.  Guy wants to kill, he’ll find a way - no gun - no problem.  He’ll get a knife, machete, baseball bat, whatever.  No folks, it’s a people problem.

[tvc184]

45 minutes ago, Bobcat1 said:

 

How is it NOT a gun issue?

I've showed that other countries with strict gun laws and regulations have less gun violence. 

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. 

[tvc184]

44 minutes ago, 45thSucks said:

Why do we have laws that say a convicted felon can't own a weapon? Isn't that taking away someone's rights? I mean they go to prison and do time, shouldn't they then be able to possess? Which I'm not arguing that someone shouldn't be able to own if there a felon but I don't recall the constitution stating someone can lose rights to own if they're in trouble! "Shall not be infringed"

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

[baddog]

If this guy had committed this heinous crime in LA, he would be out on bond with an ankle bracelet. 
 

A segment of society wants less police presence and defund whoever is left. Then, they are the first to question why the police did not stop this from happening. Talk about a”Catch 22”.

[CardinalBacker]

Despite the fact that this is a hotly debated political issue (gun rights vs. gun control), there comes a point in which we ALL should be talking about ways to reduce the chances of this happening again.  

If your solution is "we're going to take your guns," you're not being reasonable.  If your response is "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED," you're being unreasonable, too.  

[SmashMouth]

59 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

Despite the fact that this is a hotly debated political issue (gun rights vs. gun control), there comes a point in which we ALL should be talking about ways to reduce the chances of this happening again.  

If your solution is "we're going to take your guns," you're not being reasonable.  If your response is "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED," you're being unreasonable, too.  

I don’t totally disagree, but nor do I have the complete answers. I will say that banning a 30 round AR  will not solve the issue. 

[tvc184]

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.

[thetragichippy]

I FIND THE LACK OF BLAMING THE SHOOTER VERY DISTURBING

[LumRaiderFan]

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

Despite the fact that this is a hotly debated political issue (gun rights vs. gun control), there comes a point in which we ALL should be talking about ways to reduce the chances of this happening again.  

If your solution is "we're going to take your guns," you're not being reasonable.  If your response is "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED," you're being unreasonable, too.  

I’ve asked you twice for the compromise gun owners should give, no answer.

I’ve given my answer, make schools hard targets by allowing teachers to carry and campus police.

Rather than pointing fingers at both sides let’s hear your answer.

[bullets13]

8 hours ago, Bobcat1 said:

I again agree with this - but which ones should be allowed to carry?  

Are we letting anyone...or should we MAYBE do a background check....like most employers do....possibly a psych eval? 

Teachers who carry go through fairly extensive training and a psych evaluation.  

[baddog]

2 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

Despite the fact that this is a hotly debated political issue (gun rights vs. gun control), there comes a point in which we ALL should be talking about ways to reduce the chances of this happening again.  

If your solution is "we're going to take your guns," you're not being reasonable.  If your response is "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED," you're being unreasonable, too.  

I guess I’ll be unreasonable. We are still talking guns and it’s not a gun issue, but here we are. I own an AR but I haven’t killed anyone with it. Anyone who can’t see that difference, well, I feel sorry that they have lost the ability to reason. It’s what separates us from the animal world.

I have already offered up some things I think may have prevented this or, in the least, make it a possibility. I get no response and it goes back to discussing guns.

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, thetragichippy said:

I FIND THE LACK OF BLAMING THE SHOOTER VERY DISTURBING

Did you see his mother’s comments??

 

[tvc184]

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.

[Mr. Buddy Garrity]

19 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

Did you see his mother’s comments??

 

She seems like a real peach. 🙄 

[Unwoke]

10 hours ago, Bobcat1 said:

States with the most gun related homicides 

Louisiana - R

Mississippi - R 

Alabama - R 

Missouri - R 

Maryland - R

South Carolina - R 

Tennessee - R 

Illinois - D 

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

So now what is it you are showing me from this article written by criminalattorneycincinnati.com? What does the D and R represent in reference to each state? A Republican State whose 3 biggest cities in those states are ran by Democrat mayors, prosecutors, and judges? Just want to make sure I understand you correctly. My post was addressing the deadliest cities with gun related homicides. They are ran and controlled by Democrats. I never said anything about states.