Unusually this one doesn't seem to be your run of the mill, rampage, murder suicide or terrorist attack.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34613033 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34613033)
QuoteUS Tennessee university shooting: One dead and two injured
23 October 2015
One person has been shot dead and three others wounded in a shooting incident at Tennessee State University in Nashville, US police say.
Police in Nashville tweeted that the violence arose after an apparent row over a dice game on Thursday night.
A 19-year-old man was killed in the argument, and three female students who were passing by were wounded.
The latest incident comes a week after three people were wounded by gunfire at an off-campus party near the college.
The suspect fled the scene on foot.
A university spokeswoman said the two men involved in the argument were not students and were believed to have been gambling.
If dice-playing is criminalized, only criminals will own dice.
Sadly another shooting, on going:
QuotePolice search for 'active shooter' at school in Parkland, Florida14 February 2018
Share
Image copyright
EVN
Police in Parkland, Florida, are responding to reports of an active shooter at a local high school.
The Broward Sherriff's Office said it was "working a developing incident" at Stoneman Douglas High School.
"There are reports of victims," it added, warning that the shooter was still at large and urging people to avoid the area.
A local Fox news affiliate reported seeing several people being treated for injuries outside the school.
Helicopter video showed armed police at the building's perimeter.
Coral Springs Police department, meanwhile, tweeted instructions to teachers and students to "remain barricaded inside until police reach you".
....
Full item here:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43066226 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43066226)
Hoping no one killed in this outrage.
2 and a half years since last post, maybe these aren't as routine as we were told. :hmm:
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 14, 2018, 04:25:26 PM
2 and a half years since last post, maybe these aren't as routine as we were told. :hmm:
It's Mongers. :secret:
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 14, 2018, 04:25:26 PM
2 and a half years since last post, maybe these aren't as routine as we were told. :hmm:
Quote
At least 18 school shooting this year
According to research conducted by Everytown for Gun Safety, this is at least the 18th shooting in the US this year that occurred on or around school premises.
Since 2013, there have been 291 reported school shootings in America, which averages out to about one per week.
On 24 January 2017, two people were killed and 17 injured at a high school in Kentucky.
Still leaves the question, why necro an old thread which got no traction instead of creating a new one.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 14, 2018, 04:25:26 PM
2 and a half years since last post, maybe these aren't as routine as we were told. :hmm:
January 15, 2015, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Wisconsin Lutheran High School.
January 16, 2015, Ocala, Florida
February 4, 2015, Frederick, Maryland, Frederick High School
February 14, 2015, Merced, California, Tenaya Middle School
February 23, 2015, Daytona Beach, Florida, Bethune-Cookman University
March 30, 2015, University City, Missouri, Pershing Elementary School.
April 13, 2015, Goldsboro, North Carolina, Wayne Community College.
April 16, 2015 Paradis, Louisiana, J.B. Martin Middle School
April 27, 2015 Lacey, Washington, North Thurston High School
May 12, 2015 Jacksonville, Florida,
May 24, 2015 Flint, Michigan, Southwestern Classical Academy
August 27, 2015, Savannah, Georgia, Savannah State University
September 3, 2015 Sacramento, California, Sacramento City College.
September 14, 2015, Cleveland, Mississippi, Delta State University
September 30, 2015, Harrisburg, South Dakota, Harrisburg High School
October 1, 2015, Roseburg, Oregon, Umpqua Community College
October 9, 2015, Flagstaff, Arizona, Northern Arizona University.
October 9, 2015, Houston, Texas, Texas Southern University
October 22, 2015, Nashville, Tennessee, Tennessee State University
November 1, 2015, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Winston-Salem State University
November 20, 2015, North Las Vegas, Nevada, Mojave High School.
January 22, 2016, Indianapolis, Indiana, Lawrence Central High School.
January 29, 2016, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Franklin High School
February 9, 2016, Muskegon Heights, Michigan, Muskegon Heights High School.
February 12, 2016, Glendale, Arizona, Independence High School.
February 29, 2016, Middletown, Ohio, Madison High School
April 23, 2016, Antigo, Wisconsin, Antigo High School
June 1, 2016, Los Angeles, California, UCLA
June 8, 2016, Dorchester, Massachusetts, Jeremiah Burke High School
September 9, 2016, Alpine, Texas, Alpine High School
September 28, 2016, Townville, South Carolina, Townville Elementary School
October 11, 2016, Mobile, Alabama, Vigor High School
October 13, 2016, Columbus, Ohio, Linden McKinley STEM Academy
October 18, 2016, San Francisco, California, June Jordan High School for Equity
October 25, 2016, Sandy, Utah, Union Middle School
December 1, 2016, Bountiful, Utah, Mueller Park Junior High School
January 20, 2017, West Liberty, Ohio, West Liberty-Salem High School
January 20, 2017, Seattle, Washington, Red Square at University of Washington
March 21, 2017, King City, California, King City High School
April 10, 2017, San Bernardino, California, North Park Elementary School
May 4, 2017, Irving, Texas, North Lake College
September 13, 2017, Rockford, Washington, Freeman High School
September 20, 2017, Mattoon, Illinois, Mattoon High School
November 14, 2017, Rancho Tehama Reserve, California, Rancho Tehama Elementary School
December 7, 2017 Aztec, New Mexico, Aztec High School
January 9, 2018, Forest City, Iowa
January 20, 2018, Winston-Salem, Wake Forest University.
January 22, 2018, Italy, Texas, Italy High School
January 22, 2018, New Orleans, Louisiana, NET Charter High School
January 23, 2018, Marshall County, Kentucky, Marshall County High School
February 1, 2018, Los Angeles, California, Sal Castro Middle School/Belmont High School.
February 14, 2018 Parkland, Florida
Mongers didn't feel like posting about those.
It's a lot of responsibility on the shoulders of Mongers :(
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 14, 2018, 05:34:14 PM
It's a lot of responsibility on the shoulders of Mongers :(
And gun laws in the UK won't even let him defend himself :(
I read somewhere that shootings involving Bethune-Cookman students accounted for like half of the shootings in Daytona Beach at one point.
E: 30%: https://www.thetrace.org/2016/03/bethune-cookman-university-students-florida-shootings/ It talks about the shit that went down on Feb 23 too.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 14, 2018, 05:25:50 PM
Still leaves the question, why necro an old thread which got no traction instead of creating a new one.
Classic Languish, focus on the procedural niceties / conventions, rather than the issue at hand. ;)
Without proper procedure there is only chaos. :sleep:
Quote from: mongers on February 14, 2018, 05:57:46 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 14, 2018, 05:25:50 PM
Still leaves the question, why necro an old thread which got no traction instead of creating a new one.
Classic Languish, focus on the procedural niceties / conventions, rather than the issue at hand. ;)
A megathread isn't much with just two incidents posted about.
Quote from: garbon on February 14, 2018, 06:08:44 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 14, 2018, 05:57:46 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 14, 2018, 05:25:50 PM
Still leaves the question, why necro an old thread which got no traction instead of creating a new one.
Classic Languish, focus on the procedural niceties / conventions, rather than the issue at hand. ;)
A megathread isn't much with just two incidents posted about.
The original thread served it's purpose, to say school shootings could almost be thought of as common, guess what in the intervening period they have indeed become routine.
It's not my fault you guys have become normalised to these outrages. Or that most couldn't be bothered to post about them, so a bit weak to expect foreigners to post about them, no?
To be frank, when I now hear about these commonplace massacres, my feeling tends to be "thank god I don't live in that fucked up country"
I have posted about some of the mass murders in the gun thread, but wasn't sure that was the appropriate place, given the responsible behaviour shown in it by the likes of 11B4V.
Seems like a pretty bad one even for US standards. :(
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/14/us/florida-high-school-shooting/index.html
You know, I'll respect gun enthusiasts if their argument was "freedoms come with costs, freedom to own guns with few restrictions are worth the human toll of additional homicides and successful spontaneous suicides". I may agree or disagree with it, I'm not sure myself on the answer, but it's an honest argument. There are other freedoms that come with a death toll, and we're fine with that.
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people" or the various more modern derivatives of that same tripe? Just STFU. You're either stupid, brainwashed, or a liar, if you think that is a logical or relevant argument. People with guns kill people far more effectively, that is the fucking problem people have with guns.
Frankly, I've stopped caring about these shootings. These things are bound to happen as long as the US continues its highly unusual and unreasonable stance on guns. Wake me up when the regulations change, and I don't expect that to happen any time soon.
Quote from: mongers on February 14, 2018, 06:17:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 14, 2018, 06:08:44 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 14, 2018, 05:57:46 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 14, 2018, 05:25:50 PM
Still leaves the question, why necro an old thread which got no traction instead of creating a new one.
Classic Languish, focus on the procedural niceties / conventions, rather than the issue at hand. ;)
A megathread isn't much with just two incidents posted about.
The original thread served it's purpose, to say school shootings could almost be thought of as common, guess what in the intervening period they have indeed become routine.
It's not my fault you guys have become normalised to these outrages. Or that most couldn't be bothered to post about them, so a bit weak to expect foreigners to post about them, no?
To be frank, when I now hear about these commonplace massacres, my feeling tends to be "thank god I don't live in that fucked up country"
I have posted about some of the mass murders in the gun thread, but wasn't sure that was the appropriate place, given the responsible behaviour shown in it by the likes of 11B4V.
Fascinating
Quote from: garbon on February 14, 2018, 07:48:45 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 14, 2018, 06:17:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 14, 2018, 06:08:44 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 14, 2018, 05:57:46 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 14, 2018, 05:25:50 PM
Still leaves the question, why necro an old thread which got no traction instead of creating a new one.
Classic Languish, focus on the procedural niceties / conventions, rather than the issue at hand. ;)
A megathread isn't much with just two incidents posted about.
The original thread served it's purpose, to say school shootings could almost be thought of as common, guess what in the intervening period they have indeed become routine.
It's not my fault you guys have become normalised to these outrages. Or that most couldn't be bothered to post about them, so a bit weak to expect foreigners to post about them, no?
To be frank, when I now hear about these commonplace massacres, my feeling tends to be "thank god I don't live in that fucked up country"
I have posted about some of the mass murders in the gun thread, but wasn't sure that was the appropriate place, given the responsible behaviour shown in it by the likes of 11B4V.
Fascinating
Nice to see you back on form. ;)
Quote from: Monoriu on February 14, 2018, 07:43:34 PM
Frankly, I've stopped caring about these shootings. These things are bound to happen as long as the US continues its highly unusual and unreasonable stance on guns. Wake me up when the regulations change, and I don't expect that to happen any time soon.
One of the positive aspects of our unusual and unreasonable stance is that since the government doesn't have a monopoly, we're not as cowed by it as people in more reasonable countries.
Do you actually believe that, or it is just prompted by jingoism?
Quote from: Monoriu on February 14, 2018, 07:43:34 PM
Frankly, I've stopped caring about these shootings. These things are bound to happen as long as the US continues its highly unusual and unreasonable stance on guns. Wake me up when the regulations change, and I don't expect that to happen any time soon.
The gun people won. I am basically in the same boat you are at this point. Of course even if regulations did change it would take decades before it would have much of an impact.
Classic meaningless boilerplate BS from a politician:
Quote
Just finished update from fed authorities on #FloridaSchoolShooting. It is clear attack was designed & executed to maximize loss of life
— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) February 15, 2018
Quote from: Valmy on February 14, 2018, 08:12:23 PM
The gun people won. I am basically in the same boat you are at this point. Of course even if regulations did change it would take decades before it would have much of an impact.
This is why periodic reminders that this is not normal, nor inevitable, but the result of deliberate political choices, are salutary.
Quote from: mongers on February 14, 2018, 08:14:46 PM
Classic meaningless boilerplate BS from a politician:
Quote
Just finished update from fed authorities on #FloridaSchoolShooting. It is clear attack was designed & executed to maximize loss of life
— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) February 15, 2018
'Designed and executed'? He makes it sound like a terrorist attack by some criminal network not just some asshole.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 14, 2018, 08:00:03 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on February 14, 2018, 07:43:34 PM
Frankly, I've stopped caring about these shootings. These things are bound to happen as long as the US continues its highly unusual and unreasonable stance on guns. Wake me up when the regulations change, and I don't expect that to happen any time soon.
One of the positive aspects of our unusual and unreasonable stance is that since the government doesn't have a monopoly, we're not as cowed by it as people in more reasonable countries.
Is that really how it works? Even if I own a gun, I can't imagine I can defy the government in any meaningful way. I'll still have to obey the law, pay my taxes, etc. They are the government. They have professionally trained and organised police and soldiers. They have nuclear weapons, fighter jets, tanks, armoured personnel carriers, machine guns, missiles, etc. My chances against them are still zero, regardless of how many AK47s I own.
Quote from: Monoriu on February 14, 2018, 08:21:18 PM
Is that really how it works? Even if I own a gun, I can't imagine I can defy the government in any meaningful way. I'll still have to obey the law, pay my taxes, etc. They are the government. They have professionally trained and organised police and soldiers. They have nuclear weapons, fighter jets, tanks, armoured personnel carriers, machine guns, missiles, etc. My chances against them are still zero, regardless of how many AK47s I own.
Even if I did have a fighting chance I don't know if I have what it takes to gun down cops and I doubt most of the gun crowd does either. But I don't think that was what Eddie was referring to.
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 14, 2018, 08:10:39 PM
Do you actually believe that, or it is just prompted by jingoism?
If it's jingoistic to prefer the US system to the Chinese, then count me in, by jingo!
I don't see any reason to believe democracy or civil liberties depend upon an armed citizenry.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 14, 2018, 08:31:38 PM
If it's jingoistic to prefer the US system to the Chinese, then count me in, by jingo!
No, it's jingoistic to raise the stakes of the conversation to such silly heights when all that has been said is that the current US stance on mass shootings, and gun control, are highly "unusual" and "unreasonable". No one has seriously been arguing that the only alternative to the current US situation is to turn the American political system into a Chinese-style dictatorial regime.
I suspect, though I may be wrong, that what irks here is that foreigners continue to be appalled, and call attention to this highly "unusual" aspect of the US, while Americans are resigned to it. Jingoism comes in when it's the source of the criticism (foreigners) rather than the substance of it, that provokes a reaction.
Quote from: Valmy on February 14, 2018, 08:12:23 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on February 14, 2018, 07:43:34 PM
Frankly, I've stopped caring about these shootings. These things are bound to happen as long as the US continues its highly unusual and unreasonable stance on guns. Wake me up when the regulations change, and I don't expect that to happen any time soon.
The gun people won. I am basically in the same boat you are at this point. Of course even if regulations did change it would take decades before it would have much of an impact.
Quitters
Quote from: 11B4V on February 14, 2018, 08:49:10 PM
Quitters
Hey I am always open to other methods to fighting school shootings. Maybe heavily armed defense drones.
Quote from: Valmy on February 14, 2018, 08:51:00 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on February 14, 2018, 08:49:10 PM
Quitters
Hey I am always open to other methods to fighting school shootings. Maybe heavily armed defense drones.
50 years ago gay marriage was a pipe dream. With guns it will take time too, but it will get there.
Quote from: Valmy on February 14, 2018, 08:51:00 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on February 14, 2018, 08:49:10 PM
Quitters
Hey I am always open to other methods to fighting school shootings. Maybe heavily armed defense drones.
One of the local systems near me(Riverside) has put guns into the school that authorized people can access the gun safe.
I assume it won't work as the teachers would wet their pants. LIBERUL TEACHERS.
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 14, 2018, 08:43:56 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 14, 2018, 08:31:38 PM
If it's jingoistic to prefer the US system to the Chinese, then count me in, by jingo!
No, it's jingoistic to raise the stakes of the conversation to such silly heights when all that has been said is that the current US stance on mass shootings, and gun control, are highly "unusual" and "unreasonable". No one has seriously been arguing that the only alternative to the current US situation is to turn the American political system into a Chinese-style dictatorial regime.
I suspect, though I may be wrong, that what irks here is that foreigners continue to be appalled, and call attention to this highly "unusual" aspect of the US, while Americans are resigned to it. Jingoism comes in when it's the source of the criticism (foreigners) rather than the substance of it, that provokes a reaction.
Not foreigners. Mono. A guy who won't say a word against his own government but feels free to criticize mine.
But that's beside the point. I do believe guns have a deterrent effect on government agents acting with impunity and I do believe an armed populace is less accepting of limitations on its liberty. That's not to say the US and Chinese systems are the only options, but... It does seem like Euros are more deferential to their governments and more amenable to restrictions on their liberty than we are.
That's not to say I oppose various gun control measures that might be proposed in congress. But I think the right to bear arms is important.
I'd like to say that I don't believe that guns (at least in the hands of civilians) have any deterrent effect on government. I don't know why this fantasy that the government is kept in check by gun owners is so pervasive in the US. Do other countries have it?
I blame the tyrannical British.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 14, 2018, 10:05:30 PM
I'd like to say that I don't believe that guns (at least in the hands of civilians) have any deterrent effect on government. I don't know why this fantasy that the government is kept in check by gun owners is so pervasive in the US. Do other countries have it?
I don't know why you can't distinguish between government and government agents.
There are certainly armed citizens in Sweden who at least attempt to intimidate government agents. They are a small minority though, and they don't use legally acquired firearms.
Might be mildly interesting to know: there are about 2 million registered civilian firearms in Sweden (pop 10 million).
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 14, 2018, 11:00:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 14, 2018, 10:05:30 PM
I'd like to say that I don't believe that guns (at least in the hands of civilians) have any deterrent effect on government. I don't know why this fantasy that the government is kept in check by gun owners is so pervasive in the US. Do other countries have it?
I don't know why you can't distinguish between government and government agents.
In this instance the distinction is irrelevant. Americans are afraid of their own government & have been since the start.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 14, 2018, 11:00:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 14, 2018, 10:05:30 PM
I'd like to say that I don't believe that guns (at least in the hands of civilians) have any deterrent effect on government. I don't know why this fantasy that the government is kept in check by gun owners is so pervasive in the US. Do other countries have it?
I don't know why you can't distinguish between government and government agents.
I don't know what you are getting at here.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 15, 2018, 08:16:13 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 14, 2018, 11:00:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 14, 2018, 10:05:30 PM
I'd like to say that I don't believe that guns (at least in the hands of civilians) have any deterrent effect on government. I don't know why this fantasy that the government is kept in check by gun owners is so pervasive in the US. Do other countries have it?
I don't know why you can't distinguish between government and government agents.
I don't know what you are getting at here.
Government = evil entity.
Govt. agents = mouth of Sauron.
All gun owners = potential heroes.
:unsure:
Quote from: mongers on February 14, 2018, 08:14:46 PM
Classic meaningless boilerplate BS from a politician:
Quote
Just finished update from fed authorities on #FloridaSchoolShooting. It is clear attack was designed & executed to maximize loss of life
— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) February 15, 2018
Quote
But he said that it was too soon to debate whether tighter gun laws could have stopped it.
"You should know the facts of that incident before you run out and prescribe some law that you claim could have prevented it," he told Fox News.
But apparently not to soon to go on 'news media' and apply some political spin.
Quote""This is US," the New York Daily News declared on Thursday's front page, highlighting the fact there have been 300 such incidents in schools since the Sandy Hook tragedy in 2012.
In those six years, there have been 1,607 mass shootings, with at least 1,846 people killed, according to the Gun Violence Archive."
The Guardian agrees with mongers but uses a more modern language in its title: The New Normal - school shootings every 60 hours
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/15/new-normal-school-shooting-every-60-hours-us-accepts-grim-reality/
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 14, 2018, 08:00:03 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on February 14, 2018, 07:43:34 PM
Frankly, I've stopped caring about these shootings. These things are bound to happen as long as the US continues its highly unusual and unreasonable stance on guns. Wake me up when the regulations change, and I don't expect that to happen any time soon.
One of the positive aspects of our unusual and unreasonable stance is that since the government doesn't have a monopoly, we're not as cowed by it as people in more reasonable countries.
Actually ... it would appear that Americans have good reason to be
more frightened of their government and its authorities than citizens of other, comparable first world nations.
The authorities lock up a far greater percentage of the civilian population, and the police kill far more of them.
US prison population by percentage is highest rate in the world: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/prisons/html/nn2page1.stm
US shootings by police: https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-07-12/when-it-comes-police-shootings-us-doesnt-look-developed-nation
If widespread, unrestrained gun ownership makes people safer from their own government, there is very little evidence in the US situation for it.
Yeah, I think Teach is off his rocker on that front.
Also, concerns about citizens having guns has only made government agents (e.g. cops) more likely to shoot civilians.
As long as we allow lobbyists and corporations to buy elected officials, it'll never change. :mellow:
Guns make everyone less safe. The stats prove that. Owning a gun makes you many times as likely to die of gunshot wounds than not owning a gun. It probably is a pity that it isn't even further more likely than it is, as that gene might Darwin itself out of the US gene pool.
As far as rational discussion on gun control, I don't think it is possible. If 20 slaughtered six-year-olds doesn't faze the National Riot Association and its accomplices, nothing will. I got a laugh out of the statement by some NRA (member of supporter, didn't catch which) guy on the radio, where he argued that it wasn't guns that caused the problem, but rather that too many Americans saw violence as an acceptable solution to problems. I was thinking "now that's just an even better argument for getting rid of all the guns!"
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 14, 2018, 09:01:03 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 14, 2018, 08:51:00 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on February 14, 2018, 08:49:10 PM
Quitters
Hey I am always open to other methods to fighting school shootings. Maybe heavily armed defense drones.
One of the local systems near me(Riverside) has put guns into the school that authorized people can access the gun safe.
I assume it won't work as the teachers would wet their pants. LIBERUL TEACHERS.
No problem. That's where the teacher of History and Moral Philosophy comes in.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 14, 2018, 09:16:21 PM
But that's beside the point. I do believe guns have a deterrent effect on government agents acting with impunity and I do believe an armed populace is less accepting of limitations on its liberty. That's not to say the US and Chinese systems are the only options, but... It does seem like Euros are more deferential to their governments and more amenable to restrictions on their liberty than we are.
Are you kidding? You live in a country where the State can and does regularly gun down its own citizens with impunity.
To this outsider Americans seem more deferential to government agents in uniform (especially police and the military) than the norm I've seen elsewhere.
Quote from: Iormlund on February 15, 2018, 01:48:37 PM
Are you kidding? You live in a country where the State can and does regularly gun down its own citizens with impunity.
I live here and the weird acceptance of this just blows my mind. Or I guess would, but somehow whether or not cops should shoot people without trial became part of the culture wars with it being code for other shit.
Quote from: Jacob on February 15, 2018, 03:02:11 PM
To this outsider Americans seem more deferential to government agents in uniform (especially police and the military) than the norm I've seen elsewhere.
It's complicated.
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2018, 08:54:09 AM
If widespread, unrestrained gun ownership makes people safer from their own government, there is very little evidence in the US situation for it.
Top 10 countries in guns per capita:
USA, Serbia, Yemen, Cyprus, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Uruguay, Norway, France, Canada.
Not sure what inference can be drawn from this. It certainly doesn't make the case that gun ownership is a good hedge against government oppression.
Incidentally North Korea and Japan happen to have the same exact level of gun ownership.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 15, 2018, 04:15:19 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2018, 08:54:09 AM
If widespread, unrestrained gun ownership makes people safer from their own government, there is very little evidence in the US situation for it.
Top 10 countries in guns per capita:
USA, Serbia, Yemen, Cyprus, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Uruguay, Norway, France, Canada.
Not sure what inference can be drawn from this. It certainly doesn't make the case that gun ownership is a good hedge against government oppression.
Incidentally North Korea and Japan happen to have the same exact level of gun ownership.
But Hitler took away the Jews' guns first!
Please don't get murdered at school today (https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/please-dont-get-murdered-at-school-today)
I was going to the dr's office this morning, so I took my kids to school. On Thursdays my wife usually stays a few minutes to read with Timothy, so I did that. I heard the school announcements. They were doing a school lockdown drill. Not a fire drill, where everyone files out of the building, but a lockdown drill, where everyone gets locked in their rooms.
I don't remember doing lockdown drills as a kid.
I wonder if all those people who insisted Sandy Hook was done by Obama (clarification: there was no massacre at Sandy Hook and Obama invented it is the story) are still on that after all of this. Or maybe they just say Trump is in on it.
Based on my discussions at the Regal Beagle I think gun nuts are edging to the position that something needs to be done to keep guns away from nutters.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 15, 2018, 04:15:19 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2018, 08:54:09 AM
If widespread, unrestrained gun ownership makes people safer from their own government, there is very little evidence in the US situation for it.
Top 10 countries in guns per capita:
USA, Serbia, Yemen, Cyprus, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Uruguay, Norway, France, Canada.
Not sure what inference can be drawn from this. It certainly doesn't make the case that gun ownership is a good hedge against government oppression.
Incidentally North Korea and Japan happen to have the same exact level of gun ownership.
There is also this: not all guns ownership laws allow for the same things: in Canada, for example, long gun ownership (shotguns and rifles) is widespread, outside of major cities - but they are usually intended for hunting or target shooting; they are typically not the rapid-fire weapons used to kill people in large numbers, or the handguns used for self-defense (or murder); both are illegal here.
Quality as well as quantity is very significant, as is cultural expectations.
I myself have access to guns, I've even trained my young son in target-shooting and gun safety - but with a single-shot bolt action .22. Not the weapon likely to be useful in shooting up a school.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 15, 2018, 04:15:19 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2018, 08:54:09 AM
If widespread, unrestrained gun ownership makes people safer from their own government, there is very little evidence in the US situation for it.
Top 10 countries in guns per capita:
USA (edging toward CW?),
Serbia (Had recent CW),
Yemen (In a CW),
Cyprus (Had CW and invasion <50 yrs),
Saudi Arabia (Exports CWs to keep populous happy),
Iraq (Had recent CW, recent Invasion, current insurgency),
Uruguay (minor urban revolt <50yrs),
Norway (Hunting, fishing, shooting paradise),
France (Had threat of CW <50 yrs, disastrous colonials 55-70 yrs ago),
Canada. (Hunting, fishing, shooting paradise, smugger version thereof)
Not sure what inference can be drawn from this. It certainly doesn't make the case that gun ownership is a good hedge against government oppression.
Incidentally North Korea and Japan happen to have the same exact level of gun ownership.
I annotated your post. :)
Stop relying so much on conventional wisdom, mongers.
Quote from: Valmy on February 15, 2018, 04:30:17 PM
I wonder if all those people who insisted Sandy Hook was done by Obama (clarification: there was no massacre at Sandy Hook and Obama invented it is the story) are still on that after all of this. Or maybe they just say Trump is in on it.
Nope. It was a Dreamer-Muslim-Antifa thing. I didn't make that up. That was an actual claim being made.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 15, 2018, 09:41:01 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 15, 2018, 04:30:17 PM
I wonder if all those people who insisted Sandy Hook was done by Obama (clarification: there was no massacre at Sandy Hook and Obama invented it is the story) are still on that after all of this. Or maybe they just say Trump is in on it.
Nope. It was a Dreamer-Muslim-Antifa thing. I didn't make that up. That was an actual claim being made.
Wasn't a similar narrative pushed by that regard at InfoWars?
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 14, 2018, 09:16:21 PM
That's not to say the US and Chinese systems are the only options, but... It does seem like Euros are more deferential to their governments and more amenable to restrictions on their liberty than we are.
:D
Well that was a good one.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 15, 2018, 04:15:19 PM
Not sure what inference can be drawn from this.
It is possible to have gun ownership without a high incidence of deaths caused by guns if gun ownership is appropriately regulated while high levels of gun ownership without appropriate regulation creates the opposite result.
Quote from: Barrister on February 15, 2018, 04:24:19 PM
I don't remember doing lockdown drills as a kid.
Every month now in the public school system, mandatory throughout the state. Because, you know, freedom.
Welcome to America!
Quote from: Barrister on February 15, 2018, 04:24:19 PM
I was going to the dr's office this morning, so I took my kids to school. On Thursdays my wife usually stays a few minutes to read with Timothy, so I did that. I heard the school announcements. They were doing a school lockdown drill. Not a fire drill, where everyone files out of the building, but a lockdown drill, where everyone gets locked in their rooms.
I don't remember doing lockdown drills as a kid.
I did it as a teen. Code Black and Orange.
We never had lockdown drills when I was a kid. Only fire drills.
Lots of things were different. It was just a more innocent or more naïve time - I once brought a crossbow in to grade 6 for show-and-tell; the teachers loved it, and the whole class trooped out to the yard for an officially encouraged shooting demo. Nowadays, a kid doing that would probably end up in handcuffs. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on February 16, 2018, 09:47:23 AM
We never had lockdown drills when I was a kid. Only fire drills.
Lots of things were different. It was just a more innocent or more naïve time - I once brought a crossbow in to grade 6 for show-and-tell; the teachers loved it, and the whole class trooped out to the yard for an officially encouraged shooting demo. Nowadays, a kid doing that would probably end up in handcuffs. :lol:
The safety concerns we had when I was in elementary school was fire and what to do in case of a nuclear attack. As a recall the answer to both was to form a line and calmly walk out to of the school to the playing field. :D
Never had active shooter lockdown drills in School.
Our 1st one at work is planned for when springs return.
Never had a lockdown drill. Going to school on Vancouver Island the drills we did were fire, earthquake and I remember some volcano related activities after Mount St. Helens went off.
Never did any kind of fire drills or anything like that. Probably because there simply was no open space that allowed all students to gather. Only way to get the students out was to tell them to go home from school.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 16, 2018, 11:05:39 AM
The safety concerns we had when I was in elementary school was fire and what to do in case of a nuclear attack. As a recall the answer to both was to form a line and calmly walk out to of the school to the playing field. :D
We were instructed to either crouch under our desks or against the wall in the hallway in the event of a nuclear attack. It was just the same stuff as a tornado warning.
Going out onto the playground is better. At least you guys would get a good view of the canned sunshine before being vaporized.
E: This makes me wonder how many warheads SA would have taken back in the day. There were (are still) a bunch of bases in town, so presumably my best hope was that I would become a regular non-feral ghoul after all the radiation exposure. Being a kid ghoul seems like it would suck pretty hard though.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWKy7u_XUAAdPEB.jpg)
Given the latest news, looks like it's bye bye FBI, as least in it's current form.
Given the latest latest news, looks like the FBI PR department is better than their other departments.
I'm not sure what law enforcement can do if unless a guy gives a very specific threat.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 16, 2018, 03:02:07 PM
I'm not sure what law enforcement can do if unless a guy gives a very specific threat.
Well, you could follow up on a "tip that Nikolas Cruz owned guns, wanted to kill people, and could be a future school shooter."
https://www.vox.com/2018/2/16/17020764/nikolas-cruz-fbi-report-authorities
Quote from: ulmont on February 16, 2018, 04:05:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 16, 2018, 03:02:07 PM
I'm not sure what law enforcement can do if unless a guy gives a very specific threat.
Well, you could follow up on a "tip that Nikolas Cruz owned guns, wanted to kill people, and could be a future school shooter."
https://www.vox.com/2018/2/16/17020764/nikolas-cruz-fbi-report-authorities (https://www.vox.com/2018/2/16/17020764/nikolas-cruz-fbi-report-authorities)
What could you charge him with?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 16, 2018, 04:54:36 PM
Quote from: ulmont on February 16, 2018, 04:05:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 16, 2018, 03:02:07 PM
I'm not sure what law enforcement can do if unless a guy gives a very specific threat.
Well, you could follow up on a "tip that Nikolas Cruz owned guns, wanted to kill people, and could be a future school shooter."
https://www.vox.com/2018/2/16/17020764/nikolas-cruz-fbi-report-authorities (https://www.vox.com/2018/2/16/17020764/nikolas-cruz-fbi-report-authorities)
What could you charge him with?
What would a terrorist be charged with in the same situation?
Quote from: mongers on February 16, 2018, 05:00:04 PM
What would a terrorist be charged with in the same situation?
Nothing.
Quote from: Malthus on February 16, 2018, 09:47:23 AM
We never had lockdown drills when I was a kid. Only fire drills.
Lots of things were different. It was just a more innocent or more naïve time - I once brought a crossbow in to grade 6 for show-and-tell; the teachers loved it, and the whole class trooped out to the yard for an officially encouraged shooting demo. Nowadays, a kid doing that would probably end up in handcuffs. :lol:
We never had any lockdown drills, and it's probably a good thing we didn't. We would have probably rioted.
Lockdowns are a stupid idea anyway. "Let's keep the students and teachers trapped in the building with the gunman instead of letting them run away from him". Just fucking brilliant.
Quote from: dps on February 16, 2018, 05:10:12 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 16, 2018, 09:47:23 AM
We never had lockdown drills when I was a kid. Only fire drills.
Lots of things were different. It was just a more innocent or more naïve time - I once brought a crossbow in to grade 6 for show-and-tell; the teachers loved it, and the whole class trooped out to the yard for an officially encouraged shooting demo. Nowadays, a kid doing that would probably end up in handcuffs. :lol:
We never had any lockdown drills, and it's probably a good thing we didn't. We would have probably rioted.
Lockdowns are a stupid idea anyway. "Let's keep the students and teachers trapped in the building with the gunman instead of letting them run away from him". Just fucking brilliant.
Do you know they're a stupid idea, or do you think they are?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 16, 2018, 05:04:14 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 16, 2018, 05:00:04 PM
What would a terrorist be charged with in the same situation?
Nothing.
Surely a terrorist would be charged with whatever crime he committed that had made him a terrorist, unless he'd already been tried for it.
Quote from: The Brain on February 16, 2018, 06:09:11 PM
Surely a terrorist would be charged with whatever crime he committed that had made him a terrorist, unless he'd already been tried for it.
mongers asked about the same situation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 16, 2018, 06:12:43 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 16, 2018, 06:09:11 PM
Surely a terrorist would be charged with whatever crime he committed that had made him a terrorist, unless he'd already been tried for it.
mongers asked about the same situation.
Yes?
The problems is that making it's really hard to convict someone for simply "wanting" to commit a crime. They tend to need to make a specific threat or take some sort of concrete step, or plan something with another person.
Quote from: DGuller on February 16, 2018, 05:36:03 PM
Quote from: dps on February 16, 2018, 05:10:12 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 16, 2018, 09:47:23 AM
We never had lockdown drills when I was a kid. Only fire drills.
Lots of things were different. It was just a more innocent or more naïve time - I once brought a crossbow in to grade 6 for show-and-tell; the teachers loved it, and the whole class trooped out to the yard for an officially encouraged shooting demo. Nowadays, a kid doing that would probably end up in handcuffs. :lol:
We never had any lockdown drills, and it's probably a good thing we didn't. We would have probably rioted.
Lockdowns are a stupid idea anyway. "Let's keep the students and teachers trapped in the building with the gunman instead of letting them run away from him". Just fucking brilliant.
Do you know they’re a stupid idea, or do you think they are?
Didn't mean to necro the thread, but I thought I'd posted a response to this. Yes, I know that staying in a building with an active shooter is a bad idea, unless you're in a secure area the perp can't enter or fire into (and almost any firearm WILL be able to put rounds through the internal walls of most public buildings). If there's not a secure area, what you want to do is get as far away from the shooter as quickly as possible.
Now, placing a location on lockdown to preserve evidence and interview witnesses when there's no longer an active threat is a different story.
Quote from: dps on February 28, 2018, 06:48:48 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 16, 2018, 05:36:03 PM
Quote from: dps on February 16, 2018, 05:10:12 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 16, 2018, 09:47:23 AM
We never had lockdown drills when I was a kid. Only fire drills.
Lots of things were different. It was just a more innocent or more naïve time - I once brought a crossbow in to grade 6 for show-and-tell; the teachers loved it, and the whole class trooped out to the yard for an officially encouraged shooting demo. Nowadays, a kid doing that would probably end up in handcuffs. :lol:
We never had any lockdown drills, and it's probably a good thing we didn't. We would have probably rioted.
Lockdowns are a stupid idea anyway. "Let's keep the students and teachers trapped in the building with the gunman instead of letting them run away from him". Just fucking brilliant.
Do you know they're a stupid idea, or do you think they are?
Didn't mean to necro the thread, but I thought I'd posted a response to this. Yes, I know that staying in a building with an active shooter is a bad idea, unless you're in a secure area the perp can't enter or fire into (and almost any firearm WILL be able to put rounds through the internal walls of most public buildings). If there's not a secure area, what you want to do is get as far away from the shooter as quickly as possible.
Now, placing a location on lockdown to preserve evidence and interview witnesses when there's no longer an active threat is a different story.
Do you know better than the people designing the protocols for such an event? I'm not saying that experts are infallible, but your objection seems obvious enough that it must've occurred to them as well.
I'm not an expert either, but here is my layman train of thought. How exactly are students supposed to exit the building during a shooting? Teleport? Usually you have to use the hallways to do that. If the gunman is roaming inside the school building, what would be easier for him: gun down the people running in panic in the hallway, or break into a barricaded classroom, one at a time?
Quote from: DGuller on February 28, 2018, 08:26:37 PM
Do you know better than the people designing the protocols for such an event? I'm not saying that experts are infallible, but your objection seems obvious enough that it must've occurred to them as well.
I'm not an expert either, but here is my layman train of thought. How exactly are students supposed to exit the building during a shooting? Teleport? Usually you have to use the hallways to do that. If the gunman is roaming inside the school building, what would be easier for him: gun down the people running in panic in the hallway, or break into a barricaded classroom, one at a time?
Current best practice is to run. Just had our briefing from the Sheriff's department.
Quote from: grumbler on February 28, 2018, 09:33:27 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 28, 2018, 08:26:37 PM
Do you know better than the people designing the protocols for such an event? I'm not saying that experts are infallible, but your objection seems obvious enough that it must've occurred to them as well.
I'm not an expert either, but here is my layman train of thought. How exactly are students supposed to exit the building during a shooting? Teleport? Usually you have to use the hallways to do that. If the gunman is roaming inside the school building, what would be easier for him: gun down the people running in panic in the hallway, or break into a barricaded classroom, one at a time?
Current best practice is to run. Just had our briefing from the Sheriff's department.
Yep. We've had training at work on how to deal with an active shooter, and the first rule is to try to get away.
Again, I'm no expert, but it seems like the kind of thing where there is no universal answer. Obviously if you can run away without crossing paths with the shooter, you do that and don't even think about it. It gets more complicated when you're trapped: do you hunker down and buy time, or do you make a run for it?
Given that in Florida, the shooter pulled the fire alarm, he obviously thought that it would be more preferable for him if the students didn't hunker down in their classrooms. If I were in the third floor classroom and my way out looked like this:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f4/Middletown_High_School_North_Hall.jpg/640px-Middletown_High_School_North_Hall.jpg)
, I would still do what I was trained to do, but I'd be not that confident if that involved running out into that hallway with my classmates and making it virtually impossible for the shooter to miss with any shot he manages to get off.
Fatal Funnel.
Apparently there's a way the NRA helps reduce gun related injuries in the US:
QuoteLike clockwork, the National Rifle Association reduces gun injuries in the US for three days every year -- when it holds its annual convention.
Authors of a Harvard Medical School report published in the New England Journal of Medicine examined the "natural experiment" that occurs when about 80,000 NRA members hole up in a conference center. The finding: a 20 percent drop in injuries inflicted by the weapons compared to the same days of the week in the three weeks before and after the event.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-28/for-these-three-days-nra-reduces-gun-injuries-research-shows (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-28/for-these-three-days-nra-reduces-gun-injuries-research-shows)
you're think that so many gun nuts in one place there'd be more accidents
Quote from: HVC on March 01, 2018, 03:40:17 PM
you're think that so many gun nuts in one place there'd be more accidents
An armed convention is a polite convention.
1988 to 2018
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DYQ5yp_W4AAW5vQ.jpg)(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DYQ5yp-XkAAMfTt.jpg)
Why CDC? :unsure:
Quote from: Monoriu on March 15, 2018, 01:04:47 AM
Why CDC? :unsure:
Congress banned them on doing research on the effect of firearms on mortality or something like that IIRC.
The AIDS one doesn't make a bunch of sense either.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 15, 2018, 01:30:40 AM
The AIDS one doesn't make a bunch of sense either.
The FDA was conservative in releasing experimental AIDS drugs.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 15, 2018, 01:29:32 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 15, 2018, 01:04:47 AM
Why CDC? :unsure:
Congress banned them on doing research on the effect of firearms on mortality or something like that IIRC.
Then the culprit is Congress, not CDC.
Protest on the mall
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZFV4OxVMAA2D-W.jpg)
Close enough.
A protest in the general vicinity of the Mall.
A protest so close to the mall the protesters can see it, unless there's a building in the way.
Are they protesting to take away Bravo's guns?
Yeah, I think it's the school kids thing.
This ad is a gutpunch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nQUU0ytshQ&feature=youtu.be
I don't think it was the ad. You probably just ate something that didn't agree with you.
Laura Ingraham decided to make fun of one of the Parkland school shooting activists by calling out the colleges that have rejected him. WTF? :(
Quote from: garbon on March 29, 2018, 11:26:37 AM
Laura Ingraham decided to make fun of one of the Parkland school shooting activists by calling out the colleges that have rejected him. WTF? :(
Wow, classy individual; was totally unsurprised to find out she's a Fox personality, when I googled to find out who she was.
She seems to be becoming more like Ann Coulter every year.
What did she do before she became a Fox talking head?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 29, 2018, 12:42:48 PM
What did she do before she became a Fox talking head?
She used to have a radio show which before she had gotten cancer used to be something I'd listen to as a teen before bed. She was a middle of the road Republican with a liberal gay brother in Marin County.
I honestly think the Fox people, all of them, are just straight up paid propagandists. They don't have actual positions, per se, they are no more independent than Trumps press secretary.
And now he's calling a boycott on her 12 top advertisers
This activist is a kid or an adult?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 29, 2018, 02:54:50 PM
This activist is a kid or an adult?
18 year old high school student.
Quote from: HVC on March 29, 2018, 02:32:59 PM
And now he's calling a boycott on her 12 top advertisers
QuoteHogg dismissed Ingraham's apology in an interview Thursday with The New York Times.
"She only apologized after we went after her advertisers," Hogg said. "It kind of speaks for itself. ... I'm not going to stoop to her level and go after her on a personal level. I'm going to go after her advertisers."
I'm not sure how he's trying to claim moral high ground while simultaneously attacking her livelihood. :huh:
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 29, 2018, 03:33:06 PM
I'm not sure how he's trying to claim moral high ground while simultaneously attacking her livelihood. :huh:
It was right there in the post. He's not going to go after her personally, just after the platform she uses to go after him.
So he's going after 3rd parties who are just trying to reach potential customers.
Quote from: dps on March 29, 2018, 04:46:58 PM
So he's going after 3rd parties who are just trying to reach potential customers.
Is that a bad thing?
Quote from: dps on March 29, 2018, 04:46:58 PM
So he's going after 3rd parties who are just trying to reach potential customers.
He's asking them to try to reach potential customers another way.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 29, 2018, 03:33:06 PM
I'm not sure how he's trying to claim moral high ground while simultaneously attacking her livelihood. :huh:
Her livelihood is propaganda and attacking children.
She isn't a professor somewhere who dared speak out against identity politics (if that was the case, Jake would be telling us its really no big deal, and studies show that most college students are ossum), she is a paid propaganda artist - her livelihood IS her speech.
I have no problem with him going after those who are hoping to make money off advertising to those who follow her. In this case, she deserves it, and in the general case, I consider that fair pool when it comes to political talking heads who make their living off advertising.
Quote from: Berkut on March 29, 2018, 04:48:17 PM
Quote from: dps on March 29, 2018, 04:46:58 PM
So he's going after 3rd parties who are just trying to reach potential customers.
Is that a bad thing?
I'm not entirely sure, but I have reservations about it. It seems like a back-door attempt to restrict free speech. Even if the speech in this case was a classless bit of crap better suited to being said by a 3rd rate stand-up comic than to someone who claims to be a newsperson.
Yuge difference in my mind between actually restricting free speech and deciding you no longer want to fanance it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 29, 2018, 05:05:09 PM
Yuge difference in my mind between actually restricting free speech and deciding you no longer want to fanance it.
Indeed.
She has a platform because advertisers see her as a way to get to an audience.
It is most certainly fair play to let them know that their plan is backfiring.
ADvertisers want to use celelbrity to sell products. She (and others like her) carefully manage and craft their image to make them marketable to advertisers. That is their job.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 29, 2018, 05:05:09 PM
Yuge difference in my mind between actually restricting free speech and deciding you no longer want to fanance it.
Quoted to preserve "fanance." This is a cromulent word and should not be lost to editing.
Fair game, sure. Hardly taking the "high road". If he's successful, his boycott causes a lot more damage than a bit of name-calling.
Quote from: Berkut on March 29, 2018, 04:51:33 PM
(if that was the case, Jake would be telling us its really no big deal, and studies show that most college students are ossum)
:lol: :console:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi0.kym-cdn.com%2Fphotos%2Fimages%2Foriginal%2F000%2F759%2F561%2F6e9.png&hash=299961600ff6f2f766f212e832b474fde7969ef5)
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 29, 2018, 05:26:16 PM
Fair game, sure. Hardly taking the "high road". If he's successful, his boycott causes a lot more damage than a bit of name-calling.
He's not attacking her character, he's attacking the platform she's using to attack his character.
Whether you'd consider that the "high road" or not depends, I suppose, on whether you value your personal integrity more or less than your bread and butter.
His bread and butter isn't in question.
Quote from: dps on March 29, 2018, 04:55:51 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 29, 2018, 04:48:17 PM
Quote from: dps on March 29, 2018, 04:46:58 PM
So he's going after 3rd parties who are just trying to reach potential customers.
Is that a bad thing?
I'm not entirely sure, but I have reservations about it. It seems like a back-door attempt to restrict free speech. Even if the speech in this case was a classless bit of crap better suited to being said by a 3rd rate stand-up comic than to someone who claims to be a newsperson.
Free speech does not include freedom from others being convince they should not support what is said.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 29, 2018, 06:26:05 PM
His bread and butter isn't in question.
Nor is her character it seems.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 29, 2018, 06:26:05 PM
His bread and butter isn't in question.
From his perspective at least, his life is.
Has Ingraham said something to put him in danger?
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 29, 2018, 07:47:25 PM
Has Ingraham said something to put him in danger?
She reduced, or at least tried to reduce, the probability of gun law reform.
Ok, statistically significant danger?
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 29, 2018, 08:03:43 PM
Ok, statistically significant danger?
If you want to make it a question of strictly summing up and comparing lost utiles, you need to include the risks faced by others as well.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 29, 2018, 06:30:15 PM
Quote from: dps on March 29, 2018, 04:55:51 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 29, 2018, 04:48:17 PM
Quote from: dps on March 29, 2018, 04:46:58 PM
So he's going after 3rd parties who are just trying to reach potential customers.
Is that a bad thing?
I'm not entirely sure, but I have reservations about it. It seems like a back-door attempt to restrict free speech. Even if the speech in this case was a classless bit of crap better suited to being said by a 3rd rate stand-up comic than to someone who claims to be a newsperson.
Free speech does not include freedom from others being convince they should not support what is said.
So instead of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", it's "I disapprove of what you say, and will therefore attempt to deprive you of your livelihood"?
In this particular case, what she said was a personal attack on him, so I suppose it's fair enough that he responds by attacking her personal ability to make a living. But what if he were calling for a boycott against someone who merely stated a disagreement with his views? It doesn't seem like a good way to advance debate.
My disagreement was that his choice of tactics(boycott) was somehow a noble response. If you want to argue his choice of sides gives him the high road, that's a different matter.
The question I often ask myself is: would I be okay with this if the tactic were used against gay rights supporters back when gay rights weren't so popular? It's good that in current times, the power of the advertising dollar is on the side of the good guys when push comes to shove, but there is no guarantee that this will always be the case.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 29, 2018, 08:32:27 PM
My disagreement was that his choice of tactics(boycott) was somehow a noble response. If you want to argue his choice of sides gives him the high road, that's a different matter.
Personally I think you can - and are - making a legitimate argument. Conversely, I think there's also a legitimate argument to be made that your character is more valuable than your sway with advertisers.
Quote from: DGuller on March 29, 2018, 08:43:39 PM
The question I often ask myself is: would I be okay with this if the tactic were used against gay rights supporters back when gay rights weren't so popular? It's good that in current times, the power of the advertising dollar is on the side of the good guys when push comes to shove, but there is no guarantee that this will always be the case.
Personally I think that politics is a rough and tumble game and that one should not get too precious about it. There are things that are beyond the pale, but hitting advertising dollars is - IMO - a perfectly legitimate technique. It's unpleasant when it's happening to you - and should be countered to the best of your ability when it happens - but there's nothing inherently wrong about it.
Quote from: DGuller on March 29, 2018, 08:43:39 PM
The question I often ask myself is: would I be okay with this if the tactic were used against gay rights supporters back when gay rights weren't so popular? It's good that in current times, the power of the advertising dollar is on the side of the good guys when push comes to shove, but there is no guarantee that this will always be the case.
It's a tool that can be used be good or evil causes, but is not inherently good or evil itself.
Quote from: Jacob on March 29, 2018, 08:45:16 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 29, 2018, 08:32:27 PM
My disagreement was that his choice of tactics(boycott) was somehow a noble response. If you want to argue his choice of sides gives him the high road, that's a different matter.
Personally I think you can - and are - making a legitimate argument. Conversely, I think there's also a legitimate argument to be made that your character is more valuable than your sway with advertisers.
I think people already love or hate Ingraham, so her character was a less vulnerable target than her ad dollars.
Quote from: Jacob on March 29, 2018, 08:50:20 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 29, 2018, 08:43:39 PM
The question I often ask myself is: would I be okay with this if the tactic were used against gay rights supporters back when gay rights weren't so popular? It's good that in current times, the power of the advertising dollar is on the side of the good guys when push comes to shove, but there is no guarantee that this will always be the case.
Personally I think that politics is a rough and tumble game and that one should not get too precious about it. There are things that are beyond the pale, but hitting advertising dollars is - IMO - a perfectly legitimate technique. It's unpleasant when it's happening to you - and should be countered to the best of your ability when it happens - but there's nothing inherently wrong about it.
It's a fair point. There was definitely a "roughness gap" between conservatives and liberals over the past few decades, which allowed conservatives to pull out some victories from the jaws of defeat, and we're all worse off as a result.
Let's be real about this. The kids can call for anything. In the end, it's up to the companies to decide how to respond. In this case, eight out of 12 companies agreed that she went beyond the pale in her show.
That's free market coupled with free speech. It's always been the American way.
So he called for her to lose 12 advertisers and she has now lost 12.
Shooting at Youtube HQ.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/03/us/youtube-shooting.html
I wonder if it has anything to do with the NRA's call for it's members to "rise up" against them
https://twitter.com/aravosis/status/981282612512686082
Who is stinchfield1776 and what entitles him to speak for the nra?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43638221
Apparently she was angry at Youtube for demonetizing her videos.
"Vegan bodybuilder" right there you know she's crazy.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 03, 2018, 11:53:31 PM
Shooting at Youtube HQ.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/03/us/youtube-shooting.html
I wonder if it has anything to do with the NRA's call for it's members to "rise up" against them
https://twitter.com/aravosis/status/981282612512686082
Guess not. Sorry Tim, I know you had your hopes up for this one :(
Quote from: dps on March 29, 2018, 08:30:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 29, 2018, 06:30:15 PM
Quote from: dps on March 29, 2018, 04:55:51 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 29, 2018, 04:48:17 PM
Quote from: dps on March 29, 2018, 04:46:58 PM
So he's going after 3rd parties who are just trying to reach potential customers.
Is that a bad thing?
I'm not entirely sure, but I have reservations about it. It seems like a back-door attempt to restrict free speech. Even if the speech in this case was a classless bit of crap better suited to being said by a 3rd rate stand-up comic than to someone who claims to be a newsperson.
Free speech does not include freedom from others being convince they should not support what is said.
So instead of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", it's "I disapprove of what you say, and will therefore attempt to deprive you of your livelihood"?
In this particular case, what she said was a personal attack on him, so I suppose it's fair enough that he responds by attacking her personal ability to make a living. But what if he were calling for a boycott against someone who merely stated a disagreement with his views? It doesn't seem like a good way to advance debate.
The freedom to express views includes the freedom to denounce the views of others in the strongest terms which includes calling for a boycott. Freedom of expression does not, and should not, be constrained by polite debating rules.
Now it may be that some take the view that calling for a boycott was not appropriate. That is also freedom of expression in action. But it is odd to say that exercising a right to denounce a viewpoint is itself a violation of freedom of expression.
CC-- Along similar lines, what do you think about the heckler's veto? Does it also not violate freedom of expression?
Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2018, 02:45:09 PM
CC-- Along similar lines, what do you think about the heckler's veto? Does it also not violate freedom of expression?
Yes, I think that is clearly a violation of expressive rights.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 04, 2018, 01:41:34 PM
The freedom to express views includes the freedom to denounce the views of others in the strongest terms which includes calling for a boycott. Freedom of expression does not, and should not, be constrained by polite debating rules.
Now it may be that some take the view that calling for a boycott was not appropriate. That is also freedom of expression in action. But it is odd to say that exercising a right to denounce a viewpoint is itself a violation of freedom of expression.
He said it was a bad way to advance a debate not that he should be arrested for calling for a boycott.
I mean you are free to not debate people but instead go on the offensive and try to destroy them. That is what Laura Ingraham was trying to do after all.
Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2018, 06:42:47 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 04, 2018, 01:41:34 PM
The freedom to express views includes the freedom to denounce the views of others in the strongest terms which includes calling for a boycott. Freedom of expression does not, and should not, be constrained by polite debating rules.
Now it may be that some take the view that calling for a boycott was not appropriate. That is also freedom of expression in action. But it is odd to say that exercising a right to denounce a viewpoint is itself a violation of freedom of expression.
He said it was a bad way to advance a debate not that he should be arrested for calling for a boycott.
I mean you are free to not debate people but instead go on the offensive and try to destroy them. That is what Laura Ingraham was trying to do after all.
Valmy, were you intending to respond to what I said?
And another one bites the dust.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/10/jamie-allman-resigns-david-hogg-sexual-assault-threat
QuoteTV host who said he would sexually assault Parkland's David Hogg resigns
A conservative commentator who sent a tweet saying he would use "a hot poker" to sexually assault an outspoken 17-year-old survivor of the Florida high school shooting has resigned from a St Louis TV station and been taken off the radio after several advertisers withdrew from his shows.
KDNL-TV accepted Jamie Allman's resignation and canceled The Allman Report, according to a brief statement from the Sinclair Broadcast Group, which operates the TV station. Before the show's launch in January 2015, KDNL-TV touted it as a nontraditional newscast with a conservative spin.
Allman's radio show on KFTK-FM has been taken off the air while the company "looks into the matter", said Esther-Mireya Tejeda, a spokeswoman for Entercom, which began operating the station last month.
Allman hasn't responded to messages seeking comment.
Several businesses pulled advertising from Allman's shows after he sent the 26 March tweet targeting David Hogg, who has strongly advocated for stricter gun control since 17 people were killed in the 14 February mass shooting at his school in Parkland, Florida.
In the tweet, Allman wrote: "I've been hanging out getting ready to ram a hot poker up David Hogg's ass tomorrow."
Allman's Twitter account was "locked" shortly after he sent the tweet, restricting access to his account, but a screenshot of it has been widely circulated on social media.
Hogg's willingness to take on the gun-control cause has made him a target for some conservatives. Fox News Channel's Laura Ingraham took a week's leave after apologizing via social media for her tweet saying that Hogg had "whined" about not getting in to some colleges.
Another student, Emma Gonzalez, has been falsely depicted in a doctored photo tearing up the Constitution.
Sinclair is a conservative-leaning company that owns nearly 200 local TV stations, making it one of the largest such companies in the US.
Donald Trump last week defended the company after a video showing dozens of Sinclair news anchors reading a script expressing concern about "fake stories" and "one-sided news stories plaguing the country" appeared on TV news reports and circulated online. Trump said rival TV stations were merely "worried about the competition and quality of Sinclair Broadcast".
Sinclair also has pushed for regulation of the broadcast industry to be eased and is trying to buy Tribune Media in a move that would dramatically increase the company's reach.
Fuck.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/18/texas-school-shooting-santa-fe-high
QuoteSanta Fe shooting: at least eight killed at high school in Texas
Sheriff says at least eight and perhaps 10 people are dead, and the alleged shooter in custody is believed to have been a student
Between eight and 10 people have been killed and a number of people injured in a shooting at a Texas high school on Friday, local law enforcement reported.
Police responded to reports of a shooter at Santa Fe high school about an hour from Houston on Friday morning before 8am local time. Students evacuated Santa Fe high school, about 35 miles south-east of downtown Houston, amid a heavy presence of law enforcement and medical first responders.
The Harris county sheriff, Ed Gonzalez, said in the late morning that at least eight and perhaps 10 people, including students and staff from the school, were dead. One male, a student at the school believed to be the shooter, has been arrested and a second "person of interest" has been detained, Gonzalez said. A school district police officer was among the injured and officers were searching the school, he added.
"The number varies; it could be anywhere from eight to 10 fatalities," he said.
Donald Trump broke off from an event at the White House and called the situation " a very sad day". He condemned "an absolutely horrific attack" and said his administration was "determined to do everything in our power" to prevent such incidents.
"We are with you in this tragic hour and we will be with you forever. We will do everything we can to keep weapons out of our schools and out of the hands of those who should not have them," he said.
The president pledged action on gun violence after the in Parkland, Florida, in February, and held high level meetings with victims, survivors and lawmakers at the White House. But little action has resulted at the national level to change gun laws, despite a huge movement sparked by Parkland students calling for greater gun control.
One student told KHOU local news that he saw a girl limping after being shot in the leg.
One student told Houston television station KTRK in a telephone interview that a gunman came into her first-period art class and started shooting. "We thought it was a fire drill at first but really, the teacher said, 'Start running,"' the student told the television station.
"We were in class. It was first period. The alarm started going off, everybody went outside, all the teachers were like: 'Get this way, get this way, come over here.' Next thing you know we hear the booms and everybody starts running as fast as they can," Dakota Shrader, a 10th grader, told reporters. A friend was shot in the leg, she said, "and the next thing you know all the art [class] windows are getting shot, shattered."
Authorities have not yet confirmed that report. Aerial footage from the scene showed students standing in a grassy field and three life-flight helicopters landing at the school.
The US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said it was responding to a shooting at the school.
There was a large law enforcement response to the same school in February when it was placed on lockdown after students and teachers said they heard "popping sounds".
Santa Fe police swept the campus but found no threat.
Santa Fe is a city of about 13,000 residents located 30 miles (48km) south-east of Houston.
As seen on twitter :
Reporter: "Was there a part of you that was like, 'this isn't real, this would not happen in my school?'"
Student: "No ... it's been happening everywhere, I always kind of felt like eventually it was going to happen here too."
Oh FFS. :(
Terrible :(
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 18, 2018, 11:53:07 AM
As seen on twitter :
Reporter: "Was there a part of you that was like, 'this isn't real, this would not happen in my school?'"
Student: "No ... it's been happening everywhere, I always kind of felt like eventually it was going to happen here too."
Jesus, now that is seriously fucked up.
Quote from: Berkut on May 18, 2018, 12:32:59 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 18, 2018, 11:53:07 AM
As seen on twitter :
Reporter: "Was there a part of you that was like, 'this isn't real, this would not happen in my school?'"
Student: "No ... it's been happening everywhere, I always kind of felt like eventually it was going to happen here too."
Jesus, now that is seriously fucked up.
She's not wrong though.
Quote from: Barrister on May 18, 2018, 12:38:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 18, 2018, 12:32:59 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 18, 2018, 11:53:07 AM
As seen on twitter :
Reporter: "Was there a part of you that was like, 'this isn't real, this would not happen in my school?'"
Student: "No ... it's been happening everywhere, I always kind of felt like eventually it was going to happen here too."
Jesus, now that is seriously fucked up.
She's not wrong though.
That's why it is fucked up.
Quote from: garbon on May 18, 2018, 12:38:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 18, 2018, 12:38:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 18, 2018, 12:32:59 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 18, 2018, 11:53:07 AM
As seen on twitter :
Reporter: "Was there a part of you that was like, 'this isn't real, this would not happen in my school?'"
Student: "No ... it's been happening everywhere, I always kind of felt like eventually it was going to happen here too."
Jesus, now that is seriously fucked up.
She's not wrong though.
That's why it is fucked up.
True.
Quote from: Barrister on May 18, 2018, 12:38:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 18, 2018, 12:32:59 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 18, 2018, 11:53:07 AM
As seen on twitter :
Reporter: "Was there a part of you that was like, 'this isn't real, this would not happen in my school?'"
Student: "No ... it's been happening everywhere, I always kind of felt like eventually it was going to happen here too."
Jesus, now that is seriously fucked up.
She's not wrong though.
Surely there are plane crash survivors that felt it was reasonably their plane would go down. The liklihood of a given high school student being on site of a school shooting is incredibly low.
We should still try to have less plane crashes and school shootings, but that that is different from saying the student was right to expect a shooting.
Quote from: Berkut on May 18, 2018, 12:32:59 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 18, 2018, 11:53:07 AM
As seen on twitter :
Reporter: "Was there a part of you that was like, 'this isn't real, this would not happen in my school?'"
Student: "No ... it's been happening everywhere, I always kind of felt like eventually it was going to happen here too."
Jesus, now that is seriously fucked up.
I know. It's crazy, I heard that news with all the emotional reaction of hearing about a particularly bad weather situation. It is so common now.
My kid's elementary school got evacuated because of a bomb threat and I never once thought 'WTF? Who would bomb threat an elementary school?' instead it was sort of like 'well...of course that happened.'
I had a shooter situation when I was at UT and I fully expect my kids to have one during their time in school at some point.
Quote from: garbon on May 18, 2018, 12:38:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 18, 2018, 12:38:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 18, 2018, 12:32:59 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 18, 2018, 11:53:07 AM
As seen on twitter :
Reporter: "Was there a part of you that was like, 'this isn't real, this would not happen in my school?'"
Student: "No ... it's been happening everywhere, I always kind of felt like eventually it was going to happen here too."
Jesus, now that is seriously fucked up.
She's not wrong though.
That's why it is fucked up.
Indeed and sadly the thread title is becoming less inaccurate as US political life continues as usual.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wN2RnCenxm4
Junior High (Middle School) in Noblesville Indiana. Two injured, science teacher tackles shooter.
Looks like Marty was right.
Quote from: Valmy on May 18, 2018, 02:09:54 PM
My kid's elementary school got evacuated because of a bomb threat and I never once thought 'WTF? Who would bomb threat an elementary school?'
The students, to get out of class. At least that's likely what it would have been back when I was in school (and yes, for the record, we did have a few bomb threats called in when I was in elementary school, and while AFAIK it was never proven to be students, that was the assumption--but to their credit, the authorities did treat the bomb threats as credible anyway and appropriately evacuated the school). Or just a prankster who's a bit asinine.
The bad thing isn't that there are bomb threats called into schools, but that nowadays the likelyhood of there actually being a bomb is probably greater than it was 40-some years ago.
Is it really a credit to authorities to take school bomb threats seriously? If you're really going to bomb a school, you're actually not required to issue a bomb threat beforehand. Responding to bullshit bomb threats must be a serious cost-benefit fail.
Quote from: DGuller on May 26, 2018, 09:01:59 PM
Is it really a credit to authorities to take school bomb threats seriously? If you're really going to bomb a school, you're actually not required to issue a bomb threat beforehand. Responding to bullshit bomb threats must be a serious cost-benefit fail.
I'll stipulate that someone actually wanting to bomb a school probably isn't going to call in a bomb threat, but I'd still say that responding to a bomb threat as if there really is a bomb is the only smart thing to do. The potential costs of assuming that such a threat is just b.s. is way too high if it turns out that there is actually a bomb. After all, what's the cost of evacuating the school building? The students miss a day of class where they probably wouldn't have learned anything anyway? If that's a major concern, you can always have a make-up day.
The bomb in the school is just a diversion. Haven't you guys seen Die Hard 3?
Quote from: dps on May 26, 2018, 09:30:07 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 26, 2018, 09:01:59 PM
Is it really a credit to authorities to take school bomb threats seriously? If you're really going to bomb a school, you're actually not required to issue a bomb threat beforehand. Responding to bullshit bomb threats must be a serious cost-benefit fail.
I'll stipulate that someone actually wanting to bomb a school probably isn't going to call in a bomb threat, but I'd still say that responding to a bomb threat as if there really is a bomb is the only smart thing to do. The potential costs of assuming that such a threat is just b.s. is way too high if it turns out that there is actually a bomb. After all, what's the cost of evacuating the school building? The students miss a day of class where they probably wouldn't have learned anything anyway? If that's a major concern, you can always have a make-up day.
The actual cost is waste of police resources and waste of time of thousands of people, plus the cost of delayed police response to non-bullshit calls. One of the most wrong sayings is "you can never be too safe". Yes, you can be too safe, if the cost of that safety is counter-productive.
Quote from: DGuller on May 27, 2018, 12:32:31 AM
Quote from: dps on May 26, 2018, 09:30:07 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 26, 2018, 09:01:59 PM
Is it really a credit to authorities to take school bomb threats seriously? If you're really going to bomb a school, you're actually not required to issue a bomb threat beforehand. Responding to bullshit bomb threats must be a serious cost-benefit fail.
I'll stipulate that someone actually wanting to bomb a school probably isn't going to call in a bomb threat, but I'd still say that responding to a bomb threat as if there really is a bomb is the only smart thing to do. The potential costs of assuming that such a threat is just b.s. is way too high if it turns out that there is actually a bomb. After all, what's the cost of evacuating the school building? The students miss a day of class where they probably wouldn't have learned anything anyway? If that's a major concern, you can always have a make-up day.
The actual cost is waste of police resources and waste of time of thousands of people, plus the cost of delayed police response to non-bullshit calls. One of the most wrong sayings is "you can never be too safe". Yes, you can be too safe, if the cost of that safety is counter-productive.
So are you seriously arguing that if a bomb threat is called in to a school, the authorities should treat it as a prank or hoax and not evacuate the building, and then if a bomb does go off and kill a bunch of people, the authorities can legitimately state that they made the right call because taking the threat seriously wouldn't have been cost-effective?
Quote from: dps on May 27, 2018, 12:48:14 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 27, 2018, 12:32:31 AM
Quote from: dps on May 26, 2018, 09:30:07 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 26, 2018, 09:01:59 PM
Is it really a credit to authorities to take school bomb threats seriously? If you're really going to bomb a school, you're actually not required to issue a bomb threat beforehand. Responding to bullshit bomb threats must be a serious cost-benefit fail.
I'll stipulate that someone actually wanting to bomb a school probably isn't going to call in a bomb threat, but I'd still say that responding to a bomb threat as if there really is a bomb is the only smart thing to do. The potential costs of assuming that such a threat is just b.s. is way too high if it turns out that there is actually a bomb. After all, what's the cost of evacuating the school building? The students miss a day of class where they probably wouldn't have learned anything anyway? If that's a major concern, you can always have a make-up day.
The actual cost is waste of police resources and waste of time of thousands of people, plus the cost of delayed police response to non-bullshit calls. One of the most wrong sayings is "you can never be too safe". Yes, you can be too safe, if the cost of that safety is counter-productive.
So are you seriously arguing that if a bomb threat is called in to a school, the authorities should treat it as a prank or hoax and not evacuate the building, and then if a bomb does go off and kill a bunch of people, the authorities can legitimately state that they made the right call because taking the threat seriously wouldn't have been cost-effective?
Yes, I am seriously arguing that, unless they have reasons to believe that the threat is unusually legitimate. Authorities should have some room to excercise common sense, they should not be straight-jacketed into stupidly wasteful actions on the assumption that the public is too stupid to understand balanced decision-making.
We got a bomb threat when I was in school. Pro-life rally got a bit out of control at the capital and one of the more excitable participants decided to call the police and tell them that if the governor didn't care about the unborn she would take it out on the living children. I forgot how that was suppose to work exactly. This was before 911 and so many people in the community were sympathetic to the woman's cause no charges were filed.
:mad:
Two survivors from Parkland commit suicide.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/us/parkland-suicide-marjory-stoneman-douglas.html
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 24, 2019, 09:53:42 PM
Two survivors from Parkland commit suicide.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/us/parkland-suicide-marjory-stoneman-douglas.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/us/parkland-suicide-marjory-stoneman-douglas.html)
Well, all those people who cried "Crisis actor" are happy.
Quote
Colorado shooting: Teenager killed in high school attack
8 May 2019
A teenager has been killed and seven others injured after two pupils allegedly opened fire in a US school.
The attack at the STEM School Highlands Ranch, near Denver, Colorado, took place on Tuesday, police said. Both attackers have now been arrested.
Highlands Ranch is just 8km (5 miles) from Columbine High School - the site of one of the US's worst school shootings 20 years ago.
This is believed to be the 115th mass shooting in the US in 2019.
Full item here:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48196487
The thought, 'they got of lightly' crossed my mind, forgetting for a moment that someone's child was killed and others likely maimed for life. <_<
Quote from: Razgovory on May 26, 2018, 03:36:34 PM
Looks like Marty was right.
This time he appears to have been less right.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/09/florida-armed-teachers-school-districts
QuoteFlorida schools reject law allowing teachers to carry guns
Florida's new law allowing teachers to carry guns in their classrooms is largely impotent, research by the Guardian has found, with dozens of school districts across the state rejecting the controversial measure.
Ron DeSantis, the Florida governor, signed the bill into law on Wednesday that expands a campus "armed guardian" program established in the wake of the 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school massacre to include trained teacher volunteers.
According to the Republican lawmakers who pushed through the bill last week despite criticism from teachers, gun safety groups and several law enforcement agencies, the move was designed to improve the security of students, especially in rural counties where a police response to any incident could be slower.
But after leaving Florida's 67 counties to make their own decision about allowing teachers to participate, the scale of opposition quickly became apparent. Following the bill's passage, the Guardian canvassed the 25 largest school districts by size, covering more than 2.3 million of the state's 2.8 million school-age children, and established from interviews, a study of public statements and resolutions passed by school board members, that none were planning to allow their teachers to be armed.
Additionally, several district superintendents have spoken out strongly against the law, including those in Miami-Dade, Broward, Hillsborough and Orange counties, the four most populated districts with a combined student count of more than 1 million.
"The school board voted on a resolution against arming teachers more than a year ago," Robert Runcie, the superintendent of the Broward school district that includes Stoneman Douglas (MSD), said in a statement also sent to parents.
"We did that because we want our schools to be safe places for teaching and for learning. We do not want to create a psychological impact on our children knowing their teachers have guns, nor create stress on our teachers as they deal with more non-instructional duties. Arming teachers will create an unsafe environment."
Tony Gregory, the Broward county sheriff recently appointed by DeSantis, backed Runcie's comments in a strongly-worded letter in which he said Florida legislators "missed the mark by proposing to arm teachers".
"Having untrained personnel carrying firearms is more likely to create a tragic scenario where innocent people can get injured or killed," he warned. "Having more firearms in an active shooter situation would make it more difficult for police officers to identify the shooter."
Broward was among 25 counties that signed up for the Aaron Feis guardian program, named for the MSD football coach who was one of the 17 victims of last year's Valentine's Day shooting. Initially, the program, created by last year's MSD High School Public Safety Act and run in conjunction with local police and sheriff's agencies, allowed non-teaching volunteers to train to act as armed campus monitors to supplement or in some cases take the place of law enforcement personnel.
...
It was not until Florida's 27th-most populated school district, Bay county with only 28,000 students, that the Guardian found school leaders publicly supportive. "We're excited about it," the schools safety and security chief Mike Jones told reporters in March. "I'm 100% in favor. It's a chance to put more armed people on our campuses to combat these guys."
Opponents of the law, however, take little comfort that so many school districts have come out against it.
"I would love to say it's encouraging that the majority of our students won't be in harm's way, however it will be the rural school districts that will suffer the most," said Gay Valimont, the volunteer leader of the Florida chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. "We're here to save the most lives and even if it's putting [just] a fraction of our children in danger then it's an ill-conceived bill.
The sponsor of the bill, the Florida senate president, Bill Galvano, insisted the aim was only to offer school districts another option to meet the MSD Public Safety Act's requirement of at least one armed "safe-school officer" on campus, and not to place teachers with guns into classrooms.
...
Quote from: garbon on May 10, 2019, 07:16:45 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/09/florida-armed-teachers-school-districts
...
Is this happening anywhere else in the world?
Or is this a rare example of 'Only in America' actually being appropriate?
I don't think it is a good idea to place guns in a school environment. The risks involved cannot be underestimated. Students can steal them. The guns can go off accidentally. It is unreasonable to expect teachers to handle deadly weapons.
Quote from: Monoriu on May 10, 2019, 10:08:22 AM
I don't think it is a good idea to place guns in a school environment. The risks involved cannot be underestimated.
:hmm:
Unless you're a GOP politician or the NRA.
Quote"It is sobering that in 2017, there were 144 police officers who died in the line of duty and about 1,000 active duty military throughout the world who died, whereas 2,462 school-age children were killed by firearms,"
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/03/22/health/gun-deaths-school-age-children-trnd/index.html
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 21, 2019, 11:47:02 PM
Quote"It is sobering that in 2017, there were 144 police officers who died in the line of duty and about 1,000 active duty military throughout the world who died, whereas 2,462 school-age children were killed by firearms,"
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/03/22/health/gun-deaths-school-age-children-trnd/index.html
I have a feeling that the active duty military deaths are a bit higher than what this report states.
At any rate, the article isn't really relative to this thread. The vast majority of those school age children weren't shot at school.
Accidents I presume?
Quote from: Valmy on May 22, 2019, 12:02:22 AM
Accidents I presume?
Some, I assume. But most were probably murders that didn't happen at schools. Not a good thing, but also not the topic of the thread. Which would be Ok if it were an ACW hijack.
From the link:
"The study found these listed causes of death among the children: 61% from assault; 32% from suicide; 5% accidental; and 2% undetermined"
There is no reason to ruin a good point with intellectually dishonest statistics. There are a bit more children then there are police officers, so comparing number of deaths between the two groups is moronic or misleading.
Quote from: DGuller on May 22, 2019, 01:21:12 PM
There is no reason to ruin a good point with intellectually dishonest statistics. There are a bit more children then there are police officers, so comparing number of deaths between the two groups is moronic or misleading.
Or neither.
Quote from: DGuller on May 22, 2019, 01:21:12 PM
There is no reason to ruin a good point with intellectually dishonest statistics. There are a bit more children then there are police officers, so comparing number of deaths between the two groups is moronic or misleading.
Yeah, and both groups knew what they were signing up for when they joined. Complaining is for losers.
Quote from: DGuller on May 22, 2019, 01:21:12 PM
There is no reason to ruin a good point with intellectually dishonest statistics. There are a bit more children then there are police officers, so comparing number of deaths between the two groups is moronic or misleading.
There is nothing dishonest or moronic about it.
The comparison is between US school-aged children and total police and military personnel in the world.
There are approximately 57 million school-aged children in the US.
There are approximately 19 million active duty military and 12 million police officers in the world = 31 million.
So if US children die at the same rate as military and police, one would expect about 2050 child deaths, as opposed to 2,462 observed.
Quote from: DGuller on May 22, 2019, 01:21:12 PM
There is no reason to ruin a good point with intellectually dishonest statistics. There are a bit more children then there are police officers, so comparing number of deaths between the two groups is moronic or misleading.
How do you suggest making the point that being a school aged child in the US is more dangerous than professions which are considered to be very dangerous.
I think it's pretty unfair to compare untrained US students against trained world servicemen. Even the shittiest militaries equip their soldiers with a rifle and ammunition, while US students go without even a pistol unless it's self-provided and brought to school.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 23, 2019, 09:49:09 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 22, 2019, 01:21:12 PM
There is no reason to ruin a good point with intellectually dishonest statistics. There are a bit more children then there are police officers, so comparing number of deaths between the two groups is moronic or misleading.
There is nothing dishonest or moronic about it.
The comparison is between US school-aged children and total police and military personnel in the world.
There are approximately 57 million school-aged children in the US.
There are approximately 19 million active duty military and 12 million police officers in the world = 31 million.
So if US children die at the same rate as military and police, one would expect about 2050 child deaths, as opposed to 2,462 observed.
I'm pretty sure the cop deaths at least are US figures, otherwise it would be so small as to defy common sense. I think same goes for military deaths. Apart from that, there is mixing and matching of causes of death; counting some for children while not counting them for cops.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 23, 2019, 09:57:01 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 22, 2019, 01:21:12 PM
There is no reason to ruin a good point with intellectually dishonest statistics. There are a bit more children then there are police officers, so comparing number of deaths between the two groups is moronic or misleading.
How do you suggest making the point that being a school aged child in the US is more dangerous than professions which are considered to be very dangerous.
As a rule, I suggest not making points that are most likely false.
This discussion is weird to me.
It's disappointing to me. While erosion of critical thinking on the left is understandable, it is still depressing, and I believe will prove to be ultimately destructive.
The good people really have to turn on their brain and think through the news pieces that confirm their worldview before reacting to it, or we'll just be a different kind of non-thinking vegetables.
Quote from: DGuller on May 23, 2019, 10:29:22 AM
turn on their brain
Yes please in one meaning of the term, no please in another.
Quote from: DGuller on May 23, 2019, 10:15:43 AM
I'm pretty sure the cop deaths at least are US figures, otherwise it would be so small as to defy common sense. I think same goes for military deaths. A
From the article:
QuoteIt is sobering that in 2017, there were 144 police officers who died in the line of duty and about 1,000 active duty military throughout the world who died
I read this as police and military deaths worldwide. There is no question that the active military figures are worldwide figures. There is some ambiguity about the police figures. If you interpret it as just US police it doesn't change the math that much, the police + military are now dying at a slightly higher rate, but it is still extremely scandalous that the rates are so close.
Quotepart from that, there is mixing and matching of causes of death; counting some for children while not counting them for cops
On the contrary, it appears to be counting military+police deaths from all on duty causes versus gun deaths only for the kids. So the real situation appears to be worse thanthe numbers suggest.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 23, 2019, 11:28:07 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 23, 2019, 10:15:43 AM
I'm pretty sure the cop deaths at least are US figures, otherwise it would be so small as to defy common sense. I think same goes for military deaths. A
From the article:
QuoteIt is sobering that in 2017, there were 144 police officers who died in the line of duty and about 1,000 active duty military throughout the world who died
I read this as police and military deaths worldwide. There is no question that the active military figures are worldwide figures. There is some ambiguity about the police figures. If you interpret it as just US police it doesn't change the math that much, the police + military are now dying at a slightly higher rate, but it is still extremely scandalous that the rates are so close.
Quotepart from that, there is mixing and matching of causes of death; counting some for children while not counting them for cops
On the contrary, it appears to be counting military+police deaths from all on duty causes versus gun deaths only for the kids. So the real situation appears to be worse thanthe numbers suggest.
I think the comparison is a 'valid' one, even if it only generates an interesting discussion here and elsewhere.
I can't be sure, but I'd hazard a guess that the active military deaths, might well be only for the US, as thousands of Iraqi and Afghan military/police have died in the last year alone.
Now the 1,000+ figure for US military deaths seems high, after all one can only remember a few attacks that have killed a handful of servicemen each time, but when you take into account the total US strength, probably over 1.5 million (wild guess) , and the risky environment they operate in, then accidents, disease and suicide whilst deployed are going to significantly exceed the deaths from enemy action.
It's a statistical word salad to compare all causes of child deaths to duty deaths of US police and duty deaths of worldwide active duty soldiers, and without even doing it on a per capita basis in the original article. It's a classic case of starting with a conclusion and then cherrypicking random statistics with no regard to intellectual honesty. Unfortunately it's very common on the left, which sometimes makes it very difficult to be a liberal statistician.
I will dig into the numbers tonight and try to un-bullshit them to the extent possible, but the conclusion this piece of gross statistical malpractice is steering us towards just doesn't pass the smell test. What happens with guns in the US is unconscionable, but that doesn't mean that you can't over-egg the pudding in stating that, and do a disservice to everyone by ruining your credibility and dealing collateral damage to others.
There's no way that's worldwide police and military. Afghanistan alone has that beat by several orders of magnitude.
I can't find DOD casualty statistics for 2017. The summaries for the 2000-10 period indicate 1000 active duty deaths would be normal. So I stand corrected on the numbers, DG is correct that there is a big disparity between US police + active military numbers of about 2.2 million and the 57 million school aged children in the US
However the same data show large proportions of accidental deaths and illness related deaths, the majority of which presumably don't directly involve firearms. A comparable "firearm only" list of military deaths would be considerably lower than the 1144 number.
It looks like US military and police are about 6 times more likely to die from firearms than a school aged child. That is still really bad.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 23, 2019, 05:20:45 PM
I can't find DOD casualty statistics for 2017. The summaries for the 2000-10 period indicate 1000 active duty deaths would be normal. So I stand corrected on the numbers, DG is correct that there is a big disparity between US police + active military numbers of about 2.2 million and the 57 million school aged children in the US
However the same data show large proportions of accidental deaths and illness related deaths, the majority of which presumably don't directly involve firearms. A comparable "firearm only" list of military deaths would be considerably lower than the 1144 number.
It looks like US military and police are about 6 times more likely to die from firearms than a school aged child. That is still really bad.
There are so many things that are not comparable that I don't think it's even worth digging into further, to be honest. That piece pulled together so many apples and oranges, some of them non-sequitur, that trying to untangle it would make you spend more time on it than the authors did.
Comparing active duty deaths and firearm deaths is silly, those are two different things, and neither is a subset of the other. You're talking about extra deaths counted for cops due to non-firearm causes of death, but ignoring the extra deaths counted for children due to suicides, which are not included in active duty death numbers for the cops. Suicides are a materially bigger cause of death than homicides for all age groups, as far as I know.
The military deaths do include suicides as well as vehicles crashes, non-firearm related training accidents, drownings, etc.
It's all so fucking moot. Kids are being shot up by gang bangers in Chicago. So then what do we do?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 24, 2019, 01:09:05 AM
It's all so fucking moot. Kids are being shot up by gang bangers in Chicago. So then what do we do?
I agree, it is a distraction. Regardless of statistics, there are a lot of kids getting shot, and they shouldn't be shot.
My point is that you have to exercise intellectual honesty even when arguing for things that are good, and implying that kids are in more danger than cops and military was one hell of a whopper. As a reader, you also have to exercise your critical thinking muscle, and don't automatically accept everything that supports your worldview without even so much as a double take. When you give up the high ground on intellectual rigor, you also give up the moral high ground.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 24, 2019, 01:09:05 AM
It's all so fucking moot. Kids are being shot up by gang bangers in Chicago. So then what do we do?
I think the problem is that kids are also being shot by family members, other kids, and themselves - probably in larger numbers than by gang bangers.
The solution is both obvious and apparently undoable - adopt the same firearms restrictions other first world nations typically have, which is apparently causally connected to such nations having less kids die in homicides, suicides and fatal accidents overall.
Quote from: DGuller on May 24, 2019, 09:04:12 AM
Regardless of statistics, there are a lot of kids getting shot, and they shouldn't be shot.
But there are also a lot of kids that should be shot.
I think the debate should be reframed: rather than how do we stop the kids from being shot, how do we redistribute the shooting of kids from those that shouldn't be shot to those that should be shot.
Time to go back to school
https://youtu.be/b5ykNZl9mTQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q5dQxp_F_8
Texas A&M homecoming party, two dead, shooter on the loose.
In another timeline, this would have been my highschool.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/14/santa-clarita-california-saugus-high-school-police-shooting
QuoteAuthorities said multiple people were hurt in a shooting on Thursday morning at Saugus high school in Santa Clarita, a city 30 miles north of Los Angeles.
The Santa Clarita sheriff's department said "a male Asian suspect [in] black clothing" had not been apprehended and told people "anywhere near" Saugus high to lock themselves inside.
Saugus high school and other schools in the area including two elementary schools identified by authorities as Rosedell and Highland were locked down.
Television images showed sheriff's deputies swarming the school and several people being moved on gurneys. Lines of students were escorted away by armed deputies.
Los Angeles county fire department spokesman Christopher Thomas told the Associated Press it was not immediately clear if those injured suffered gunshot wounds or other injuries.
There were three confirmed injuries, he said, adding that initial accounts of at least six victims may have been because of duplicate reports.
The Santa Clarita sheriff said: "If you live in neighbourhoods anywhere near Saugus High, PLEASE LOCK DOORS and stay inside. If you see suspect, male dark clothing, in backyards, etc. CALL 911."
It also said Central Park on Bouquet Canyon was "being used as reunification point for parents" and said: "Parents, deputies are on scene everywhere protecting your children. Victims have been transported to hospital."
The Santa Clarita area was recently hit by a serious wildfire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IKbgO9qnLs
Live stream footage of a shootout in a church in Texas. This being Texas, three parishioners draw and throw down on the perp.
Shouldn't that be in the Routine Church Shootings Megathread? :hmm:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lunP-GsVRo
Sixth grade girl shoots up middle school in Idaho. 3 injuries, non life threatening.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 07, 2021, 01:19:28 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lunP-GsVRo
Sixth grade girl shoots up middle school in Idaho. 3 injuries, non life threatening.
a female teacher tackled her.
Martinus is vindicated.
Relevantly :bleeding:
BBC News - US gun laws: Judge overturns California assault weapons ban
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57368211
That opening paragraph... The gun nuts arent even trying to pretend to be acting in good faith are they?
If you are facing 30-50 feral hogs, I can think of no better weapon.
Quote from: Tyr on June 05, 2021, 05:37:23 AM
Relevantly :bleeding:
BBC News - US gun laws: Judge overturns California assault weapons ban
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57368211
That opening paragraph... The gun nuts arent even trying to pretend to be acting in good faith are they?
QuoteLike the Swiss Army knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle."
:lmfao:
Right, the knife is pretty weak in battle.
The AR 15 would not be my first choice for home defense.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on June 05, 2021, 08:44:07 AM
Right, the knife is pretty weak in battle.
It's not just a knife, it's a Swiss Army knife!
The Swiss haven't lost a battle since they invented the knife.
bump.
The stuff about arming teachers is even more absurd and extraordinary given the reports of how the police behaved in Uvalde.
I think it was the WSJ who reported that put a parent in handcuffs and told her she was arrested for "interfering with an active investigation" when she was berating them for not going onto the scene.
I am curious about the reporting here. I suspect that once details are known, their actions won't seem so absurd.
The big issue seems to be the "pause" after the shooting ended and before they went in and killed him, of about 30 minutes. During which time, he was barricaded into the room.
Now, that sounds bad, but one report I read was that during that time, when he was contained, they were still evacuating the rest of the school and making sure it was secure. At that point, they don't know if he is the only shooter, and their priority is evacuating the rest of the building.
Letting some parents, as distraught as they are, go into the building, even if they want to break down that door themselves, is a fucking terrible idea for about half a dozen different reasons.
Sure - that may well be the case.
My point is that it shows how crazy the idea is of arming teachers and expecting them to do things to save children that police forces - from what I understand - including SWAT didn't do and, possibly correctly, wouldn't do for reasons of safety etc.
I don't see the issue here. It doesn't sound like a situation in the other mass shooting where the cop was too cowardly to take on the shooter while the shooter was still shooting. If the shooter were trapped and no longer presented an immediate danger, then they could've waiting for him to starve to death if that made the most tactical sense.
Quote from: DGuller on May 26, 2022, 02:21:39 PMI don't see the issue here. It doesn't sound like a situation in the other mass shooting where the cop was too cowardly to take on the shooter while the shooter was still shooting. If the shooter were trapped and no longer presented an immediate danger, then they could've waiting for him to starve to death if that made the most tactical sense.
As I say, my point is more around the arming teacher thing.
But surely there's an urgency to get in as soon as you can to save lives? There'll be injured people who may survive if you get in quick enough.
My understanding is there is now a review by authorities (not sure who) of the police response in particular the timeline because earlier statements about the police exchanging fire with the shooter have since been proven to be untrue and there, reportedly discrepancies in accounts.
This is a town of 13 000 people that spends half their municipal budget on police funding.
Money well spent.
Shelf, no one here is arguing for arming teachers.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 26, 2022, 02:31:37 PMMy understanding is there is now a review by authorities (not sure who) of the police response in particular the timeline because earlier statements about the police exchanging fire with the shooter have since been proven to be untrue and there, reportedly discrepancies in accounts.
I obviously don't know the details of what happened in Texas.
Generally though, police (and even SWAT officers) are trained not to go in guns a-blazing, but to try and control and de-escalate the situation. Their biggest priority is the safety of all involved - including the shooter and police.
That goes out the window though if the shooter is actively killing. But by the time police arrived it's not clear what was going on.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 26, 2022, 03:08:25 PMShelf, no one here is arguing for arming teachers.
No one here is but the top law enforcement official in the state where this occurred is proposing exactly that.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 26, 2022, 03:42:49 PMNo one here is but the top law enforcement official in the state where this occurred is proposing exactly that.
Sure, but that's like trying to argue with Syt's sisters.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 26, 2022, 04:43:19 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on May 26, 2022, 03:42:49 PMNo one here is but the top law enforcement official in the state where this occurred is proposing exactly that.
Sure, but that's like trying to argue with Syt's sisters.
It is also the only thing that has any chance of actually happening.
I thought Texas teachers can already have guns.
Gun Welfare?
Also, teachers with guns will just mean that murder-intending students will just need to take Teach's gun away instead of having to buy one.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 26, 2022, 03:08:25 PMShelf, no one here is arguing for arming teachers.
No, Fox News has recognized the absurdity of this. It's better to argue for parents' responsibility in enrolling kids in a safe school. That apparently makes more sense.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 26, 2022, 06:36:34 PMGun Welfare?
Also, teachers with guns will just mean that murder-intending students will just need to take Teach's gun away instead of having to buy one.
they ain't taking their guns but from their cold, dead hands...
Quote from: Berkut on May 26, 2022, 02:08:42 PMI am curious about the reporting here. I suspect that once details are known, their actions won't seem so absurd.
The big issue seems to be the "pause" after the shooting ended and before they went in and killed him, of about 30 minutes. During which time, he was barricaded into the room.
Now, that sounds bad, but one report I read was that during that time, when he was contained, they were still evacuating the rest of the school and making sure it was secure. At that point, they don't know if he is the only shooter, and their priority is evacuating the rest of the building.
Letting some parents, as distraught as they are, go into the building, even if they want to break down that door themselves, is a fucking terrible idea for about half a dozen different reasons.
I would argue the priority of tactical police teams in this situation should be neutralizing the shooter(s). Eliminate the threat and you immediately ensure the physical safety of innocents. There are a lot of unknown details right now, but that above all should have been their priority.
Alas, it might be that we're slow in shifting our assumptions. The police tactics of the past for something like this probably assumed more of a hostage situation. We may be overdue in need of assuming these will be a mass murder situation.
Sept 11, 2001 kinda turned that knob quickly when it comes to airline hijackings.
Did you guys know that American schools lock all their doors once the starting bell rings? I only learned this when I visited my nephew's rural school.
I guess the parents with kids will know this.
They started doing that when I was was in High School, right after Columbine. All the doors but two, since our school had two buildings and students had to go between them. Unfortunately our school was badly overcrowded so people would often leave the building and enter through another door to avoid the crowded halls. The new policy succeeded in only making everyone late to class.
The whole idea of "hardening" schools as if they are isolated US Marine bases in Iraq c. 2004 is almost absurd as forcibly drafting 3rd grade teachers into paramilitary defense forces. As if a shooter loaded up with tactical gear, who just ambushed and took out the armed guard is going to give up and walk away quietly because a door is locked.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 26, 2022, 08:59:37 PMThey started doing that when I was was in High School, right after Columbine. All the doors but two, since our school had two buildings and students had to go between them. Unfortunately our school was badly overcrowded so people would often leave the building and enter through another door to avoid the crowded halls. The new policy succeeded in only making everyone late to class.
Either you are younger than I thought or Columbine was longer ago than I thought..
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 26, 2022, 09:13:25 PMQuote from: Razgovory on May 26, 2022, 08:59:37 PMThey started doing that when I was was in High School, right after Columbine. All the doors but two, since our school had two buildings and students had to go between them. Unfortunately our school was badly overcrowded so people would often leave the building and enter through another door to avoid the crowded halls. The new policy succeeded in only making everyone late to class.
Either you are younger than I thought or Columbine was longer ago than I thought..
Columbine was nearly a quarter century ago. I'm 40.
Christ
I only hear about one or two per year in the international media, but school shootings in the US are apparently much more common:
(https://i.redd.it/ch6ta0temv191.png)
Unfortunately there is no way to prevent them.
Quote from: Tamas on May 27, 2022, 02:46:08 AMUnfortunately there is no way to prevent them.
You've been reading The Onion, I see. :P
https://www.theonion.com/ (https://www.theonion.com/)
That front page is pretty damning...
Quote from: The Larch on May 27, 2022, 03:11:58 AMQuote from: Tamas on May 27, 2022, 02:46:08 AMUnfortunately there is no way to prevent them.
You've been reading The Onion, I see. :P
https://www.theonion.com/ (https://www.theonion.com/)
That front page is pretty damning...
:pinch:
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 26, 2022, 07:27:29 PMI would argue the priority of tactical police teams in this situation should be neutralizing the shooter(s). Eliminate the threat and you immediately ensure the physical safety of innocents. There are a lot of unknown details right now, but that above all should have been their priority.
I think I read in the NYT that this has been the training for police since Columbine.
I'm reading online a smattering of messages and info pieces that puts the Uvalde PD in some pretty bad light, as well as making the seemingly standard precautions taken by the school pointless. I hope things are clearer in the near future and it turns out it's not as bad as it looks, but things seem pretty muddled right now.
If I get things right:
- The shooter spent around 15 minutes shooting people outside the school, entering it unopposed.
- Police appeared in the scene after the shooter entered the school, and after an initial exchange of gunfire with the shooter, settled back to securing the perimeter.
- During the stand-off, parents gathered around the school and were prevented by police officers from entering it in order to rescue their children, with accounts of parents getting handcuffed, tackled and pepper sprayed by police/marshalls.
- This lasted for one hour, until a tactical team from the Border Patrol entered the school and shot down the shooter.
I guess that plenty of questions will be asked. Why did the police wait for one hour to enter the school and engage the shooter? This is no rinky dink two horse town police force of a couple of guys, the Uvalde PD costs the city (pop. 13k) 4 million dollars per year, 40% of its annual budget, and has a 9 officer strong SWAT team. On top of that, the school district also has a police department, although much smaller, and they were the ones who initially engaged with the shooter, rather than the Uvalde PD. What's the point of this small town multi-million police departments with SWAT teams if they have to wait for federal troops to do the dirty work? I mean, if you have a bloated, militarized and extremely expensive police force, they could at least do the job they're meant to do.
Quote from: The Larch on May 27, 2022, 07:07:04 AMI mean, if you have a bloated, militarized and extremely expensive police force, they could at least do the job they're meant to do.
Quote from: The Larch on May 27, 2022, 07:07:04 AM- During the stand-off, parents gathered around the school and were prevented by police officers from entering it in order to rescue their children, with accounts of parents getting handcuffed, tackled and pepper sprayed by police/marshalls.
Sounds like mission accomplished.
QuoteTexas Police Lieutenant Says Cops Were Reluctant to Engage Gunman Because 'They Could've Been Shot'
A Texas Department of Public Safety official said responding officers were cautious as they entered Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas because "they could've been shot."
(...)
On Thursday's The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, the host discussed the Tuesday's horrifying events with DPS Lt. Chris Olivarez.
Blitzer asked his guest if officers at the scene made the correct choice to wait for backup before they went after the gunman.
Olivarez said officers were inside the school quickly, and they heard gunfire when they arrived. They called for reinforcements, he said. The officers in the building waited for a special tactical team to show up as they isolated the shooter to one classroom.
"Don't current best practices, don't they call for officers to disable a shooter as quickly as possible, regardless of how many officers are actually on site?" Blitzer asked him.
Olivarez said the officers who arrived at the school quickly might have been shot had they attempted to take out the gunman alone.
I mean...
Quote from: The Larch on May 27, 2022, 07:07:04 AMI'm reading online a smattering of messages and info pieces that puts the Uvalde PD in some pretty bad light, as well as making the seemingly standard precautions taken by the school pointless. I hope things are clearer in the near future and it turns out it's not as bad as it looks, but things seem pretty muddled right now.
If I get things right:
- The shooter spent around 15 minutes shooting people outside the school, entering it unopposed.
- Police appeared in the scene after the shooter entered the school, and after an initial exchange of gunfire with the shooter, settled back to securing the perimeter.
- During the stand-off, parents gathered around the school and were prevented by police officers from entering it in order to rescue their children, with accounts of parents getting handcuffed, tackled and pepper sprayed by police/marshalls.
- This lasted for one hour, until a tactical team from the Border Patrol entered the school and shot down the shooter.
I guess that plenty of questions will be asked. Why did the police wait for one hour to enter the school and engage the shooter? This is no rinky dink two horse town police force of a couple of guys, the Uvalde PD costs the city (pop. 13k) 4 million dollars per year, 40% of its annual budget, and has a 9 officer strong SWAT team. On top of that, the school district also has a police department, although much smaller, and they were the ones who initially engaged with the shooter, rather than the Uvalde PD. What's the point of this small town multi-million police departments with SWAT teams if they have to wait for federal troops to do the dirty work? I mean, if you have a bloated, militarized and extremely expensive police force, they could at least do the job they're meant to do.
Keep the blacks in their place?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 26, 2022, 09:28:03 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on May 26, 2022, 09:21:00 PMChrist
Died at 33 :contract:
Note that the romans didn't have any guns and he was killed with 2 other dudes which made it a mass casualty incident. If we ban the guns the killers will just mass crucify people. Don't try to argue this, it is the gospel truth.
The republican nominee for senate from Georgia (and ahead in at least one poll), with a history of mental health issues and all sorts of abuse allegations, has the solution to this that I don't think anyone has come up with before "a department that can look at young men that's looking at women that's looking at social media."
He has also previously said he has played russian roulette over 6 times, so that is fairly convincing evidence that guns aren't that dangerous: if they were he wouldn't be here, right?
See, this is why we need to arm teachers. Police are only trained to gun down unarmed black people, they just don't have the training to confront an active shooter.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 27, 2022, 08:14:10 AMThe republican nominee for senate from Georgia (and ahead in at least one poll), with a history of mental health issues and all sorts of abuse allegations, has the solution to this that I don't think anyone has come up with before "a department that can look at young men that's looking at women that's looking at social media."
He has also previously said he has played russian roulette over 6 times, so that is fairly convincing evidence that guns aren't that dangerous: if they were he wouldn't be here, right?
I feel like these may be related. Does he have a hole in his head?
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on May 27, 2022, 09:00:20 AMQuote from: alfred russel on May 27, 2022, 08:14:10 AMThe republican nominee for senate from Georgia (and ahead in at least one poll), with a history of mental health issues and all sorts of abuse allegations, has the solution to this that I don't think anyone has come up with before "a department that can look at young men that's looking at women that's looking at social media."
He has also previously said he has played russian roulette over 6 times, so that is fairly convincing evidence that guns aren't that dangerous: if they were he wouldn't be here, right?
I feel like these may be related. Does he have a hole in his head?
Probably CTE from his football/MMA days, which would have made a fatal outcome in russian roulette really tragic with the loss of the ability of science to study his brain.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 27, 2022, 08:10:36 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on May 26, 2022, 09:28:03 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on May 26, 2022, 09:21:00 PMChrist
Died at 33 :contract:
Note that the romans didn't have any guns and he was killed with 2 other dudes which made it a mass casualty incident. If we ban the guns the killers will just mass crucify people. Don't try to argue this, it is the gospel truth.
Guns don't kill people, procurators do.
Let's face it: Jesus and his apostles were radical left woke activists. They mixed with prostitutes, political radicals and drug addicts (claiming to be possessed or having "visions"). They rejected traditional values like respect for authority and corporal punishment of criminals. They encouraged loose behavior in women by rejecting tried-and-true punishments like stoning. But the worst was their treasonous rejection of the right to self-defense. The Romans would have never messed with Judaea if the Jews were packing AR-15s and kevlar. Instead they were nationcucked because the woke apostles pussied out about turning the other cheek.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 27, 2022, 01:09:28 PMLet's face it: Jesus and his apostles were radical left woke activists. They mixed with prostitutes, political radicals and drug addicts (claiming to be possessed or having "visions"). They rejected traditional values like respect for authority and corporal punishment of criminals. They encouraged loose behavior in women
To this point I was thinking this sounds like Madison Cawthorn.
Quote from: The Larch on May 27, 2022, 07:26:43 AMQuoteTexas Police Lieutenant Says Cops Were Reluctant to Engage Gunman Because 'They Could've Been Shot'
A Texas Department of Public Safety official said responding officers were cautious as they entered Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas because "they could've been shot."
(...)
On Thursday's The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, the host discussed the Tuesday's horrifying events with DPS Lt. Chris Olivarez.
Blitzer asked his guest if officers at the scene made the correct choice to wait for backup before they went after the gunman.
Olivarez said officers were inside the school quickly, and they heard gunfire when they arrived. They called for reinforcements, he said. The officers in the building waited for a special tactical team to show up as they isolated the shooter to one classroom.
"Don't current best practices, don't they call for officers to disable a shooter as quickly as possible, regardless of how many officers are actually on site?" Blitzer asked him.
Olivarez said the officers who arrived at the school quickly might have been shot had they attempted to take out the gunman alone.
I mean...
I am confused about the timing here...
If they're talking not assaulting the shooter at the moment where he is confined alone to a classroom, I think it's wise to wait for backup.
If they were afraid of entering the building while he was actively shooting kids, it's another matter entirely.
I am unsure about what moment they're talking about, and what happened at first too.
Quote from: The Larch on May 27, 2022, 07:07:04 AMI'm reading online a smattering of messages and info pieces that puts the Uvalde PD in some pretty bad light, as well as making the seemingly standard precautions taken by the school pointless. I hope things are clearer in the near future and it turns out it's not as bad as it looks, but things seem pretty muddled right now.
If I get things right:
- The shooter spent around 15 minutes shooting people outside the school, entering it unopposed.
- Police appeared in the scene after the shooter entered the school, and after an initial exchange of gunfire with the shooter, settled back to securing the perimeter.
- During the stand-off, parents gathered around the school and were prevented by police officers from entering it in order to rescue their children, with accounts of parents getting handcuffed, tackled and pepper sprayed by police/marshalls.
- This lasted for one hour, until a tactical team from the Border Patrol entered the school and shot down the shooter.
I guess that plenty of questions will be asked. Why did the police wait for one hour to enter the school and engage the shooter? This is no rinky dink two horse town police force of a couple of guys, the Uvalde PD costs the city (pop. 13k) 4 million dollars per year, 40% of its annual budget, and has a 9 officer strong SWAT team. On top of that, the school district also has a police department, although much smaller, and they were the ones who initially engaged with the shooter, rather than the Uvalde PD. What's the point of this small town multi-million police departments with SWAT teams if they have to wait for federal troops to do the dirty work? I mean, if you have a bloated, militarized and extremely expensive police force, they could at least do the job they're meant to do.
From what I'm reading - and it could well be misinformed - it sounds like most of the children and teachers were murdered after the police arrived on the scene while they waited for the SWAT team to arrive.
Also it appears that the husband of the teacher who was murdered died of a heart attack shortly afterwards, leaving four children behind.
Oh, Christ. :cry:
Yeah, this is not looking great for the PD.
This timeline:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/05/27/us/timeline-texas-shooting-uvalde.html
Does't look great, but it doesn't look as bad as I've heard either ("They waited on hour!").
Police officers entered the building and exchanged fire with the gunman within minutes of him entering the building.
Quote from: Berkut on May 27, 2022, 05:57:12 PMYeah, this is not looking great for the PD.
This timeline:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/05/27/us/timeline-texas-shooting-uvalde.html
Does't look great, but it doesn't look as bad as I've heard either ("They waited on hour!").
Police officers entered the building and exchanged fire with the gunman within minutes of him entering the building.
Paywalled. Summary?
Another timeline, from CNN with no paywall CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/27/us/uvalde-shooting-police-response-timeline/index.html)
Looks really bad. There were seven police officers in the building by 11:35 and the suspect was still shooting people at 12:21. And how many kids bled out while the cops had their thumbs up their asses?
Christ. People are going to hang for this.
Yep, police entered the school 2 minutes after the gunman did - wtf did they do!
Also presumably the stuff around "hardening" schools make it even more important to act quickly because once they're in, they can take advantage of those measures to barricade themselves?
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 27, 2022, 06:42:53 PMAlso presumably the stuff around "hardening" schools make it even more important to act quickly because once they're in, they can take advantage of those measures to barricade themselves?
The point of "hardening the schools" is to avoid doing anything about guns.
*redundant see post below*
From the NYT link:
11:27 a.m. According to video evidence, Mr. McCraw said, the door where the gunman entered the school had been propped open by a teacher.
11:28 The gunman's truck crashes nearby. The teacher at the door enters the school, apparently to retrieve a phone.
The gunman crashed a truck near Robb Elementary School, then approached the school on foot. Ivan Pierre Aguirre for The New York Times
At the same time, two men at the funeral home across the street hear the truck crash. They run toward the truck and see the suspect, Salvador Ramos, exit with a gun and a backpack. The men flee, and the gunman fires at them but misses. One of them falls while running, but both make it back to the funeral home. The gunman travels on foot toward the school.
The teacher appears on video inside the school, now talking on a phone, apparently to 911.
11:30 A witness who called 911, possibly the teacher, says a vehicle has crashed and there's a man with a gun there.
11:31 Now in the school parking lot, the gunman begins shooting at the school. Meanwhile, a patrol vehicle arrives at the funeral home. An officer drives into the school parking lot, passing by the gunman, and eventually confronts someone in the parking lot who turns out to be a teacher.
11:32 More shots are fired at the school.
The gunman jumped over a chain-link fence and entered through the back door on this side of the school. Jordan Vonderhaar/Getty Images
11:33 The suspect enters the school and walks down a hallway toward two classrooms, 111 and 112, which are connected by a bathroom. He fires more than 100 rounds.
A video posted to Facebook shows someone matching the description of the gunman entering the school. Source: Elsa G Ruiz via Facebook
11:35 Three Uvalde Police Department officers enter the school through the same door used by the gunman and two are grazed by gunfire. Four more officers later enter the building, including the deputy county sheriff. Both doors into the adjoining classrooms where the gunman is located are locked at this time.
11:37 Another 16 rounds are fired.
11:51 The police sergeant and other law enforcement agents start to arrive.
12:03 p.m. By this time, as many as 19 officers have gathered in the school hallway. A student calls 911 and whispers that she is in Room 112. The call lasts 1 minute 23 seconds.
12:10 The same student calls 911 again and says that multiple people are dead.
12:13 The same student again calls 911.
12:15 Members of the Border Patrol Tactical Unit arrive with shields.
12:16 The same student calls 911 again and says eight to nine students are still alive.
12:19 A different student, this one in Room 111, calls, but hangs up when another student tells her to.
12:21 The gunman, believed to be at the classroom door, fires again. Officers move down the hallway. Shots are heard over a 911 call from inside.
12:36 The first student calls 911 again. She is told to stay on the line and stay quiet. The student tells 911 that the gunman shot the door.
12:43 and 12:47 The student on the line asks 911 to please send the police now.
12:46 The student says that she can hear the police next door.
12:50 Law enforcement officers breach a classroom door using keys they've obtained from a janitor and kill the suspect. Shots are heard over the 911 call.
12:51 On the 911 call, officers can be heard moving children out of the classroom. When the call ends, the same child who had called is outside.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 27, 2022, 06:38:54 PMYep, police entered the school 2 minutes after the gunman did - wtf did they do!
doors were locked, they didn't risk shooting the locks, I guess. Or they couldn't.
What bugs me more is the delay, first for the arrival of the tac team in a city that is supposed to have its own, and second, while the 35 min delay between their arrival and when they confront the shooter.
I'm not sure how the cops who were in the building listening to the gunmen kill kids and doing nothing to stop him will ever sleep again. "Didn't want to risk getting shot?" Turn in that badge.
Wow, this is just awful. If the children are calling from the room where the gunman is, and police are sitting there preserving their lives, there is just no scenario where they're going to look anything other than murderously incompetent.
Quote from: grumbler on May 27, 2022, 08:32:10 PMI'm not sure how the cops who were in the building listening to the gunmen kill kids and doing nothing to stop him will ever sleep again. "Didn't want to risk getting shot?" Turn in that badge.
Another NYT article says they were told to wait, not to enter the classroom.
QuoteUVALDE, Texas — Furtively, speaking in a whisper, a fourth-grade girl dialed the police. Around her, in Room 112 at Robb Elementary School, were the motionless bodies of her classmates and scores of spent bullet casings fired by a gunman who had already been inside the school for half an hour.
She whispered to a 911 operator, just after noon, that she was in the classroom with the gunman. She called back again. And again. "Please send the police now," she begged.
But they were already there, waiting in a school hallway just outside. And they had been there for more than an hour.
The police officers held off as they listened to sporadic gunfire from behind the door, ordered by the commander at the scene not to rush the pair of connected classrooms where the gunman had locked himself inside and begun shooting shortly after 11:30 a.m.
[...]
the relevant part.
the rest is here:
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/05/27/us/texas-school-shooting
I don't know why the commander told them to wait, and why they kept following this order hearing the gunshots inside...
Definitely not what John McClane would have done.
QuoteOlivarez said the officers who arrived at the school quickly might have been shot had they attempted to take out the gunman alone.
:bleeding:
Quote from: Tamas on May 28, 2022, 04:18:51 AMQuoteOlivarez said the officers who arrived at the school quickly might have been shot had they attempted to take out the gunman alone.
:bleeding:
Heaven forbid a cop should be shot instead of a bunch of kids
If a dozen cops can't save a kid, what's a teacher with a gun going to do.
I can see a valid concern in not wanting to start a firefight in a classroom, potentially catching kids in the crossfire. But this gets close to dereliction of duty.
It seems to me that if one person is armed with a weapon that scares multiple police officers, the public should be banned from having access to that weapon.
Quote from: celedhring on May 28, 2022, 05:46:50 AMI can see a valid concern in not wanting to start a firefight in a classroom, potentially catching kids in the crossfire. But this gets close to dereliction of duty.
That concern is only valid if shooting is not already occurring.
Quote from: Tamas on May 28, 2022, 04:18:51 AMQuoteOlivarez said the officers who arrived at the school quickly might have been shot had they attempted to take out the gunman alone.
:bleeding:
Look, I know it is awesome to feel all superior. But he isn't saying that in the manner it is being portrayed. He isn't saying "If he tried he might be shot, and that would be sad for the officer, so he didn't try".
He is saying, and this used to be standard tactics in these situations, that if you go after the guy alone and get shot, now you've made the situation worse. Now there is another victim, and any information you have is likely lost, and a potential resource that might be needed is gone.
That is not current tactics however - current tactics is that in an active shooter situation, you go. You don't wait.
They fucked this up. But at the same time, lets quit pretending like any of us know what we would have done in that situation, even with their training. There is more that goes into all this then simply bravery or cowardice (although there is that as well).
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 28, 2022, 06:56:02 AMQuote from: celedhring on May 28, 2022, 05:46:50 AMI can see a valid concern in not wanting to start a firefight in a classroom, potentially catching kids in the crossfire. But this gets close to dereliction of duty.
That concern is only valid if shooting is not already occurring.
Yeah, I walk through the timeline, and try to think "If I was there, with their training, at what points in this timeline would I act differently, or at least hope the act differently"?
There are a couple, depending on my role. If I am the guy in charge, on scene or not (actually, if I am not on scene and in charge I would think I would immediately delegate tactical decision making to whomever is on scene and senior, but lets put that aside for the moment), and I think a "barricade" situation has developed, then my instructions to those guys outside the classroom is not "Do not enter" it is "Do not enter yet, but prepare to go, and go without further instruction if there is any additional gunfire inside that classroom".
If I was one of the guys outside that classroom, and I was told "Do not go", I think I would tell everyone around me "OK, we hold off, but the moment I hear anything inside that suggests someone needs to be saved, we go orders or not - lets be ready to do that".
Of course, I was not there, so who fucking really knows what I would have done.
My nephew, the deputy sherriff who was shot, called me yesterday to let me know that his attackers trial ended.
We talked about this, and he expressed surprise at the police response. He said "Well, they are damned if they do and damned if they don't - the public is going to hate them no matter what, and the public has no idea what being in a situation like that is like, or how fast the moment changes, and the right response changes. But yeah....that is definitely not a good look. Current training is to go after they shooter aggressively, with whatever you have in the moment. If that is just you, then you go solo. If the shooter is shooting at you, at least they aren't shooting at someone else. And if that means you are quite possibly going to get shot, then that is the job. If you aren't ok with that, find another job".
He really emphasized how much the training changed on this. Current training is basically to respond as aggressively as possible, immediately. Do not wait for anything while shots are being fired.
Quote from: Josquius on May 28, 2022, 05:02:32 AMQuote from: Tamas on May 28, 2022, 04:18:51 AMQuoteOlivarez said the officers who arrived at the school quickly might have been shot had they attempted to take out the gunman alone.
:bleeding:
Heaven forbid a cop should be shot instead of a bunch of kids
There is an old saying that if you can't fight, wear a big hat. Those Texas lawmen do have some really big hats.
Quote from: Berkut on May 28, 2022, 07:47:55 AMHe is saying, and this used to be standard tactics in these situations, that if you go after the guy alone and get shot, now you've made the situation worse. Now there is another victim, and any information you have is likely lost, and a potential resource that might be needed is gone.
That is not current tactics however - current tactics is that in an active shooter situation, you go. You don't wait.
Although from what I've read this hasn't been the approach since Columbine. So we're talking about standard tactics for the last 25 years. If a doctor was using techniques that haven't been used for 25 years, they'd be struck off - or a fire department responding to a tower block fire was doing the same it'd be, rightly, called out as negligent (at best).
QuoteThey fucked this up. But at the same time, lets quit pretending like any of us know what we would have done in that situation, even with their training. There is more that goes into all this then simply bravery or cowardice (although there is that as well).
I don't think it's about what any of us would do or the random man on the street but the standards for police and for a public service. I think 25 year old out of date tactics are below the standards the public have a right to expect - and 9 times out of 10 that may not really matter because it's just an inconvenience or a frustrating experience. But in this case it has just utterly heartbreaking consequences.
I think in particular if a town of about 15,000 is spending almost half its budget on law enforcement and they've decided to invest in a SWAT team then they are entitled to even higher expectations.
The only relevance of what we would do in that situation is, as I say, that it seems absurd to me to see politicians arguing that armed teachers is the response when the people whose job this is failed to respond appropriately. I don't know how anyone can expect teachers with guns to be better able to do police work than police officers. Obviously they just don't want to talk about gun control but it just seems a little Marti to me.
I read, but can't find it anymore, that the guy in charge was a emergency dispatcher before he was elected to the position. Seems less then ideal if true.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 28, 2022, 08:13:40 AMQuote from: Berkut on May 28, 2022, 07:47:55 AMHe is saying, and this used to be standard tactics in these situations, that if you go after the guy alone and get shot, now you've made the situation worse. Now there is another victim, and any information you have is likely lost, and a potential resource that might be needed is gone.
That is not current tactics however - current tactics is that in an active shooter situation, you go. You don't wait.
Although from what I've read this hasn't been the approach since Columbine. So we're talking about standard tactics for the last 25 years. If a doctor was using techniques that haven't been used for 25 years, they'd be struck off - or a fire department responding to a tower block fire was doing the same it'd be, rightly, called out as negligent (at best).
Theya re not doctors with a decade of intensive training. They are cops, and they probably have a few dozen hours of training in this kind of situation, at best. They are a social team, not individuals. The comparison to a doctor is poor.
Us sitting here critiquing them is more akin to us critiquing the actions of soldiers in combat, not doctors in surgery.
And I am pretty reluctant to do that as well. Not entirely reluctant, just pretty reluctant. And I am definitely cognizant of the twitter mob mentality of any criticism.
Quote from: Berkut on May 28, 2022, 08:26:56 AMTheya re not doctors with a decade of intensive training. They are cops, and they probably have a few dozen hours of training in this kind of situation, at best. They are a social team, not individuals. The comparison to a doctor is poor.
They're a public service who are armed and empowered to use force and detain their fellow citizens. It's entirely justified for the public to have expectations of a public service.
The reason I used the doctor comparison is they're also allowed to do things that in any other circumstance would be a crime and have life and death decisions, but it also works for nurses or fire departments. They're serving the public.
QuoteUs sitting here critiquing them is more akin to us critiquing the actions of soldiers in combat, not doctors in surgery.
And I am pretty reluctant to do that as well. Not entirely reluctant, just pretty reluctant. And I am definitely cognizant of the twitter mob mentality of any criticism.
I think soldiers are different than police - which is why I think it's normally a bad idea to use soldiers for policing/call in the yeomanry.
And I get the point about the Twitter mob mentality - from outside the US looks like it has one side on "abolish the police" and the other insisting on such levels of deference and special privileged treatment (show respect, the whole police card thing) as to almost make them a separate caste.
My view is just they are public servants like any other. Many people in the public sector have difficult and at times dangerous jobs - fire departments, nurses and care workers over the last couple of years. The police have slightly higher powers because they can use force and they can arrest people. As with any other public service we are entitled to have standards that we expect them to meet and from what I've read this force has failed to do that.
I didn't say that soldiers were not different from police, I said the circumstances the police find themselves in during an active shooter situation is more like a soldier being in combat then it is like a doctor performing surgery.
I don't think that is a tough idea to get Shelf.
Quote from: Berkut on May 28, 2022, 08:48:06 AMI didn't say that soldiers were not different from police, I said the circumstances the police find themselves in during an active shooter situation is more like a soldier being in combat then it is like a doctor performing surgery.
I don't think that is a tough idea to get Shelf.
Sure - and I don't disagree with that.
My point is the public's side of the deal is to provide the police with the equipment, training and resources they need to do their job and meet the public's standards - given the size of budget here that seems very much like it happened. The flipside of that deal is that the police, with their extraordinary powers, are accountable if they fail to meet those standards.
However difficult the situation 25 year old out of date practice is significantly below the standards I think the public are entitled to expect. It's not about bravery or courage or what any of us would do, but what we are entitled to expect from a public service.
Quote from: Berkut on May 28, 2022, 07:52:04 AMIf I was one of the guys outside that classroom, and I was told "Do not go", I think I would tell everyone around me "OK, we hold off, but the moment I hear anything inside that suggests someone needs to be saved, we go orders or not - lets be ready to do that".
My thinking would be dominated by the fact that there were kids lying on the floor bleeding out, and that every moment of delay involves the likelihood that someone is dying who could have been saved if I'd just acted. Go in both doors (it is absolute bullshit that they waited for someone with keys - classroom doors are just regular hollow-core doors and you can kick them in if you have to) and then you have someone behind the perp as well as in front of them. Nothing is served by waiting while people die and the perp has more time to prepare for a police response.
If I was ordered to go in immediately, I'd go in. If I was ordered not to go in, I'd go in.
QuoteOf course, I was not there, so who fucking really knows what I would have done.
There is, of course, that, as well as the fact that there may be more facts here that we don't know about. But it sure has horrific optics to me.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 28, 2022, 08:53:47 AMQuote from: Berkut on May 28, 2022, 08:48:06 AMI didn't say that soldiers were not different from police, I said the circumstances the police find themselves in during an active shooter situation is more like a soldier being in combat then it is like a doctor performing surgery.
I don't think that is a tough idea to get Shelf.
Sure - and I don't disagree with that.
My point is the public's side of the deal is to provide the police with the equipment, training and resources they need to do their job and meet the public's standards - given the size of budget here that seems very much like it happened. The flipside of that deal is that the police, with their extraordinary powers, are accountable if they fail to meet those standards.
However difficult the situation 25 year old out of date practice is significantly below the standards I think the public are entitled to expect. It's not about bravery or courage or what any of us would do, but what we are entitled to expect from a public service.
I'm not arguing that there is a pretty clearly fucked up result here that is 100% a failure that must be looked at.
I am just disputing that it is oh so clear that the failure is one of a bunch of cops who didn't have the balls to do the job. That might be the case for some of them, but is very unlikely to be the case for all of them. I don't KNOW of course, but I suspect that if there were 15 cops in that hallway, at least some of them were probably saying "FUCK FUCK FUCK LETS GO!"
What I find objectionable about the mob response is that it immediately goes to whatever the mob gets its emotional satisfaction from - that the cops are just a bunch of fucking cowards. If you want to go there, my response is "You go do the job then, if you are so fucking brave". Because that isn't about outrage at them not doing their job, that is about second hand schadenfreude from a bunch of armchair soldiers who think they have the first idea about what being in that moment is like, and can make emotive judgements about people they don't know reacting to circumstances they cannot possibly understand.
Quote from: grumbler on May 28, 2022, 08:59:41 AMQuote from: Berkut on May 28, 2022, 07:52:04 AMIf I was one of the guys outside that classroom, and I was told "Do not go", I think I would tell everyone around me "OK, we hold off, but the moment I hear anything inside that suggests someone needs to be saved, we go orders or not - lets be ready to do that".
My thinking would be dominated by the fact that there were kids lying on the floor bleeding out, and that every moment of delay involves the likelihood that someone is dying who could have been saved if I'd just acted. Go in both doors (it is absolute bullshit that they waited for someone with keys - classroom doors are just regular hollow-core doors and you can kick them in if you have to) and then you have someone behind the perp as well as in front of them. Nothing is served by waiting while people die and the perp has more time to prepare for a police response.
If I was ordered to go in immediately, I'd go in. If I was ordered not to go in, I'd go in.
I am wondering why anyone was even waiting for orders one way or the other. Especially once they realize there are TWO doors into those rooms. At that point, the tactical situation seems very straightforward, and the cops have the advantage. Worst case is that one or two get shot (and they have body armor), but there is no reasonable outcome where they don't neutralize the shooter in the process.
QuoteQuoteOf course, I was not there, so who fucking really knows what I would have done.
There is, of course, that, as well as the fact that there may be more facts here that we don't know about. But it sure has horrific optics to me.
Trying to play devils advocate, the only thing I can think of is that maybe they don't know there is only one shooter?
Even then, I still think you just crash both doors at the same time.
Quote from: Berkut on May 28, 2022, 09:06:16 AMI'm not arguing that there is a pretty clearly fucked up result here that is 100% a failure that must be looked at.
I agree - I don't think the focus should be on cowardice or lack of bravery. However, I fully accept that is an entirely understandable response and thing for the families and that community to think, especially given that they were also being policed. And I imagine there's not a person alive who wouldn't run into that situation if it was their loved ones. I think their anger, however they're feeling it is justified.
So I get that but agree it's not for randos on the internent.
And in generally I think failures are normally less to do with individuals and their own virtues or flaws, and normally more to do with the structure and institution they're working in. That's where I think the failure was - there may be individual wrong calls, but I suspect it's more institutional and probably requires reform and a bit of a clean sweep.
I am fairly sure the residents of Uvalde, TX will never look at their law enforcement the same again.
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 28, 2022, 09:17:17 AMI am fairly sure the residents of Uvalde, TX will never look at their law enforcement the same again.
Hopefully law enforcement in Uvalde will never look at themselves the same again.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 28, 2022, 09:15:49 AMAnd in generally I think failures are normally less to do with individuals and their own virtues or flaws, and normally more to do with the structure and institution they're working in. That's where I think the failure was - there may be individual wrong calls, but I suspect it's more institutional and probably requires reform and a bit of a clean sweep.
There is the old saying that "collectively, we are dumber than any of us are individually" and that plays in here a bit, but there's also "I couldn't live with myself if I stood by and let that happen," and I don't understand how the former overwhelmed the latter in this case.
Maybe it was just the stress of the situation not allowing the police in the building to think clearly and their leadership failing to give them proper direction. I know what I hope I would do but also acknowledge Berkut's caution that, until you've actually seen the elephant, saying what you'd do when you see it is just talk.
A guy from the NYT has been reviewing the training received by the Uvalde PD, and it turns out that they did receive training on how to respond to active shooters, with at least two training days specifically devoted to that in the last couple of years, the last one only two months ago.
These training days included RPing such a scenario in the school itself. In the training received two months ago the guidelines specifically stressed that the main priority of such a scenario is confronting the attacker, even if it's by a single officer, that such a scenario requires immediate response to minimize casualties. The materials specifically included the following sentence: "A first responder unwilling to place the lives of the innocent above their own safety should consider another career field."
Apparently all this training amounted to fuck all at the end of the day.
I would say it didn't amount to fuck all at all.
They did go in. Several of them followed the shooter into the school, and they did neutralize him and did save several lives in the process.
Quote from: Berkut on May 28, 2022, 09:49:53 AMI would say it didn't amount to fuck all at all.
They did go in. Several of them followed the shooter into the school, and they did neutralize him and did save several lives in the process.
I would say that you don't need that much training to do the bare minimum expected of your job.
Quote from: The Larch on May 28, 2022, 09:53:47 AMQuote from: Berkut on May 28, 2022, 09:49:53 AMI would say it didn't amount to fuck all at all.
They did go in. Several of them followed the shooter into the school, and they did neutralize him and did save several lives in the process.
I would say that you don't need that much training to do the bare minimum expected of your job.
I think you need quite a lot of training to do the bare minimum of many jobs, including the job of "React to heavily armed person shooting up a school".
Armed female bystander kills man firing at party in West Virginia https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61615236 (http://armedfemalebystanderkillsmanfiringatpartyinwestvirginiahttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61615236)
Apparently some soccer mommy gave the republicans wank material for decades to come.
Noteworthy that race hasn't entered into the Texas shooting discussion.
Quote from: Threviel on May 28, 2022, 11:19:07 AMArmed female bystander kills man firing at party in West Virginia https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61615236 (http://armedfemalebystanderkillsmanfiringatpartyinwestvirginiahttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61615236)
Apparently some soccer mommy gave the republicans wank material for decades to come.
Yeah, heard about this, seems to be getting splashed about all over in response to the school shooting :bleeding:
I'm having a hard time with this one. They keep showing photos of these kids. Little girl who looks dressed up for first communion, pictures like that. It's just too much. Can't watch it. I really wish there was something I could do to prevent these things from happening.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 28, 2022, 05:16:29 PMI'm having a hard time with this one. They keep showing photos of these kids. Little girl who looks dressed up for first communion, pictures like that. It's just too much. Can't watch it. I really wish there was something I could do to prevent these things from happening.
You can vote and organize for the Democratic party. That's about it.
https://mobile.twitter.com/FrankFigliuzzi1/status/1530752937638739969
:pinch:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 28, 2022, 02:53:54 PMNoteworthy that race hasn't entered into the Texas shooting discussion.
I foolishly looked at Breibart comments and the shooter being brown was the only thing they taled about
Quote from: Gups on May 29, 2022, 04:55:09 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on May 28, 2022, 02:53:54 PMNoteworthy that race hasn't entered into the Texas shooting discussion.
I foolishly looked at Breibart comments and the shooter being brown was the only thing they taled about
The first days after the standard thing was "He was an illlegal immigrant we must secure the border!!!!!!!"
Quote from: Josquius on May 28, 2022, 05:14:49 PMQuote from: Threviel on May 28, 2022, 11:19:07 AMArmed female bystander kills man firing at party in West Virginia https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61615236 (http://armedfemalebystanderkillsmanfiringatpartyinwestvirginiahttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61615236)
Apparently some soccer mommy gave the republicans wank material for decades to come.
Yeah, heard about this, seems to be getting splashed about all over in response to the school shooting :bleeding:
I mean sure that does happen but you never know how people are going to respond to a high stress situation like that. Even soldiers who have spent months or years for battle will freeze up under fire. Simply having armed people around is not guarantee of security, especially as the nut job will get the first shots. And these nuts are expecting to die, being killed is not really a deterrent.
This song kind of disappeared, the issue overshadowed by Covid and GOP coup attempts. Sadly it seems relevant again.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 28, 2022, 09:05:13 PMQuote from: Razgovory on May 28, 2022, 05:16:29 PMI'm having a hard time with this one. They keep showing photos of these kids. Little girl who looks dressed up for first communion, pictures like that. It's just too much. Can't watch it. I really wish there was something I could do to prevent these things from happening.
You can vote and organize for the Democratic party. That's about it.
Mancin is a Democrat, and he does not want more gun control than there is now.
Quote from: The Larch on May 28, 2022, 09:53:47 AMQuote from: Berkut on May 28, 2022, 09:49:53 AMI would say it didn't amount to fuck all at all.
They did go in. Several of them followed the shooter into the school, and they did neutralize him and did save several lives in the process.
I would say that you don't need that much training to do the bare minimum expected of your job.
There is a piece in the New York Times written by the person who developed the FBI training for active shooting events.
"Current protocol and best practices say officers must persistently pursue efforts to neutralize a shooter when a shooting is underway. This is true even if only one officer is present. This is without question the right approach."
The writer then goes on to describe that the problem is likely that police officers undertake the training to tick a box and never really mentally prepare themselves for what what they must do in those high stress situations.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 30, 2022, 07:34:10 PMQuote from: The Larch on May 28, 2022, 09:53:47 AMQuote from: Berkut on May 28, 2022, 09:49:53 AMI would say it didn't amount to fuck all at all.
They did go in. Several of them followed the shooter into the school, and they did neutralize him and did save several lives in the process.
I would say that you don't need that much training to do the bare minimum expected of your job.
There is a piece in the New York Times written by the person who developed the FBI training for active shooting events.
"Current protocol and best practices say officers must persistently pursue efforts to neutralize a shooter when a shooting is underway. This is true even if only one officer is present. This is without question the right approach."
The writer then goes on to describe that the problem is likely that police officers undertake the training to tick a box and never really mentally prepare themselves for what what they must do in those high stress situations.
Dawson College comes to mind. The officers were already on site, but they weren't armed with anything else than their usual service weapon, a 9mm. As soon as they heard the first shot, they ran toward it and eventually confronted the shooter, wounded him and he took his own life. One dead, 17-18 injured, but it could have been much worst, had they hesitated or not been already in the site.
A similar scene was reproduced in the Canadian tv show 19-2, in English and French.
https://www.politicususa.com/2022/05/31/uvalde-police-lied-a-teacher-never-left-the-door-open.html
Reports that Uvalde police are also going to stop cooperating with the state investigation into the shooting.
Again they're a public service who should be accountable.
Police should never have the option to refuse to cooperate.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 31, 2022, 05:44:40 PMReports that Uvalde police are also going to stop cooperating with the state investigation into the shooting.
Again they're a public service who should be accountable.
They can and probably should take the Fifth. The state can provide temporary law enforcement assistance while the Uvalde police are suspended with pay, pending charges (afterwards it will be without pay).
It will be interesting to hear what actually happened, rather than the police lies about it.
You'd think that, if they decided that they were going to lie about it, they'd come up with a lie that didn't make them look like incompetent cowards.
Quote from: viper37 on May 30, 2022, 08:27:13 AMQuote from: Zoupa on May 28, 2022, 09:05:13 PMQuote from: Razgovory on May 28, 2022, 05:16:29 PMI'm having a hard time with this one. They keep showing photos of these kids. Little girl who looks dressed up for first communion, pictures like that. It's just too much. Can't watch it. I really wish there was something I could do to prevent these things from happening.
You can vote and organize for the Democratic party. That's about it.
Mancin is a Democrat, and he does not want more gun control than there is now.
If you elect more Democrats, you don't need every single one to pass legislation.
Quote from: The Brain on May 30, 2022, 01:35:37 AMThis song kind of disappeared, the issue overshadowed by Covid and GOP coup attempts. Sadly it seems relevant again.
I missed that song the first time around. Eminem still has it...damn...
Quote from: viper37 on May 31, 2022, 02:58:43 PMA similar scene was reproduced in the Canadian tv show 19-2, in English and French.
Damn that was super intense, disturbing and well made. Is the rest of this show that good?
It's not a fun song.
There are good moments, but not as tense as this one.
Well, people in red States don't want gun control, and they don't want Democrats for various reasons. I can't see the Senate turning blue by the next midterm elections.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 30, 2022, 07:34:10 PMQuote from: The Larch on May 28, 2022, 09:53:47 AMQuote from: Berkut on May 28, 2022, 09:49:53 AMI would say it didn't amount to fuck all at all.
They did go in. Several of them followed the shooter into the school, and they did neutralize him and did save several lives in the process.
I would say that you don't need that much training to do the bare minimum expected of your job.
There is a piece in the New York Times written by the person who developed the FBI training for active shooting events.
"Current protocol and best practices say officers must persistently pursue efforts to neutralize a shooter when a shooting is underway. This is true even if only one officer is present. This is without question the right approach."
The writer then goes on to describe that the problem is likely that police officers undertake the training to tick a box and never really mentally prepare themselves for what what they must do in those high stress situations.
Yes and
Uvalde was a disaster.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H12nSccBdOE
Breaking news, shooter at Tulsa medical center.
Why can't we ever have a mass shooting at a prison or an Alt-Right rally? Why can't it ever be someone who deserves it?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 01, 2022, 11:38:50 PMWhy can't we ever have a mass shooting at a prison or an Alt-Right rally? Why can't it ever be someone who deserves it?
They don't allow guns there.
Quote from: grumbler on May 27, 2022, 06:32:49 PMChrist. People are going to hang for this.
No they're not.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 02, 2022, 12:23:04 AMQuote from: Razgovory on June 01, 2022, 11:38:50 PMWhy can't we ever have a mass shooting at a prison or an Alt-Right rally? Why can't it ever be someone who deserves it?
They don't allow guns there.
:lol:
Quote from: 11B4V on June 02, 2022, 12:23:04 AMQuote from: Razgovory on June 01, 2022, 11:38:50 PMWhy can't we ever have a mass shooting at a prison or an Alt-Right rally? Why can't it ever be someone who deserves it?
They don't allow guns there.
They're cynics and exploiters, but they're not stupid.
Not a defense of the conduct of Uvalde PD, but I don't find it entirely surprising that the PD of a rinky-dinky exurban town of 15,000 people - finding itself confronted by a crazed deadly shooter in a confined space - opted for discretion over valor. The context makes that choice very ugly indeed but the self-preservation instinct is powerful. Small town PDs sign up for govt job benefits and a uniform with the expectation of handling some DUIs, petty thefts, and the like. The Uvalde PD undoubtedly merits an ample share of blame, but blame also needs to cast on social choices that result in police being forced into the position of risking their lives to confront armored killers wielding deadly weapons and an arsenal of ammo.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 02, 2022, 11:59:04 AMNot a defense of the conduct of Uvalde PD, but I don't find it entirely surprising that the PD of a rinky-dinky exurban town of 15,000 people - finding itself confronted by a crazed deadly shooter in a confined space - opted for discretion over valor. The context makes that choice very ugly indeed but the self-preservation instinct is powerful. Small town PDs sign up for govt job benefits and a uniform with the expectation of handling some DUIs, petty thefts, and the like. The Uvalde PD undoubtedly merits an ample share of blame, but blame also needs to cast on social choices that result in police being forced into the position of risking their lives to confront armored killers wielding deadly weapons and an arsenal of ammo.
In that case, it seems 50% of the municipal budget is not warranted.
It's only 40%. And it also includes animal control, so there's that.
Quote from: Zoupa on June 02, 2022, 12:30:27 PMIn that case, it seems 50% of the municipal budget is not warranted.
I don't know. The two main small town municipal budget priorities are education and police, and education seems like a dumb thing to spend money on if your kids won't survive to adulthood.
Zoupa may not be aware that in the US it is common that local education spending is not done through the municipal budget but through a separately operated and managed school district. That appears to be the case with Uvalde.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 02, 2022, 11:59:04 AMNot a defense of the conduct of Uvalde PD, but I don't find it entirely surprising that the PD of a rinky-dinky exurban town of 15,000 people - finding itself confronted by a crazed deadly shooter in a confined space - opted for discretion over valor. The context makes that choice very ugly indeed but the self-preservation instinct is powerful. Small town PDs sign up for govt job benefits and a uniform with the expectation of handling some DUIs, petty thefts, and the like. The Uvalde PD undoubtedly merits an ample share of blame, but blame also needs to cast on social choices that result in police being forced into the position of risking their lives to confront armored killers wielding deadly weapons and an arsenal of ammo.
So why did they have a SWAT unit then?
They wanted fancy pew pew's
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 02, 2022, 12:47:23 PMZoupa may not be aware that in the US it is common that local education spending is not done through the municipal budget but through a separately operated and managed school district. That appears to be the case with Uvalde.
Really poor cheap shot on your part. What does the education spending have to do with the funding of a police department that did not do its job?
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 02, 2022, 12:50:09 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on June 02, 2022, 12:47:23 PMZoupa may not be aware that in the US it is common that local education spending is not done through the municipal budget but through a separately operated and managed school district. That appears to be the case with Uvalde.
Really poor cheap shot on your part. What does the education spending have to do with the funding of a police department that did not do its job?
??
The point was that the PD appears to take up a huge chunk of the budget because the other major spending item is off budget.
Not a shot on Zoupa but just a comment he may not be aware of quirks in organization of local governments in the US.
Quote from: The Larch on June 02, 2022, 12:48:36 PMSo why did they have a SWAT unit then?
Graft and toys to play with.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 02, 2022, 12:52:31 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on June 02, 2022, 12:50:09 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on June 02, 2022, 12:47:23 PMZoupa may not be aware that in the US it is common that local education spending is not done through the municipal budget but through a separately operated and managed school district. That appears to be the case with Uvalde.
Really poor cheap shot on your part. What does the education spending have to do with the funding of a police department that did not do its job?
??
The point was that the PD appears to take up a huge chunk of the budget because the other major spending item is off budget.
Not a shot on Zoupa but just a comment he may not be aware of quirks in organization of local governments in the US.
His point was that funding for the police in that community was a waste of money if your post was accurate. It has nothing to do with him misunderstanding anything.
I was responding to the 50% figure. Not his assessment of the value of the department.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 02, 2022, 12:53:44 PMQuote from: The Larch on June 02, 2022, 12:48:36 PMSo why did they have a SWAT unit then?
Graft and toys to play with.
So, widely tollerated corruption and inefficiency, then?
Quote from: The Larch on June 02, 2022, 01:03:49 PMGraft and toys to play with.
More seriously, it's hard to say. Logic would suggest a town of 15,000 doesn't need a SWAT team. OTOH if a basic function of every small town American PD is now the ability to storm a building and take out fully equipped and geared shooters, one could argue that every podunk hamlet from Maine to Guam needs one.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 02, 2022, 01:17:48 PMQuote from: The Larch on June 02, 2022, 01:03:49 PMGraft and toys to play with.
More seriously, it's hard to say. Logic would suggest a town of 15,000 doesn't need a SWAT team. OTOH if a basic function of every small town American PD is now the ability to storm a building and take out fully equipped and geared shooters, one could argue that every podunk hamlet from Maine to Guam needs one.
Or they could just do the thing sensible countries do and share these special resources between a whole bunch of towns.
Every town having its own completely independent police force is madness on both a practical policing and economic front.
Did they have a SWAT team? I thought they waited for the Border Patrol SWAT.
Quote from: Josquius on June 02, 2022, 02:13:04 PMOr they could just do the thing sensible countries do and share these special resources between a whole bunch of towns.
Every town having its own completely independent police force is madness on both a practical policing and economic front.
It depends on context. What you describe works for where I live for example - I live in small town with around the same pop as Uvalde but in a densely populated county where the County PD has specialized units that serve all the towns in the county.
But Uvalde is the country seat of its own county. That pooling model starts to fall apart where you have large, sparsely populated areas. The alternative would be to rely on the SWAT 2 hours away in San Antonio.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 02, 2022, 02:14:38 PMDid they have a SWAT team? I thought they waited for the Border Patrol SWAT.
(https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/05/swat-team.jpg?quality=75&strip=all&w=744)
Oh, Jesus Christ.
If they're like a lot of small(er) town SWATs, they're probably regular flatfeet that do the SWAT duty only when an event calls for it, but are otherwise doing the usual traffic stops, escorting old ladies across the street, being off-duty, etc. But with some extra training...that pew-pew time referenced earlier. And the just being all tacticool nonsense.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 02, 2022, 03:32:50 PMOh, Jesus Christ.
Yep, making themselves look like one of the several Russian internal police forces that are soley dedicated to beating protestors/dissadents.
Quote from: The Larch on June 02, 2022, 02:31:57 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on June 02, 2022, 02:14:38 PMDid they have a SWAT team? I thought they waited for the Border Patrol SWAT.
(https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/05/swat-team.jpg?quality=75&strip=all&w=744)
They should've specified that they'll only meet you if you're not currently committing a mass shooting. They don't need that shit.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 02, 2022, 12:53:44 PMQuote from: The Larch on June 02, 2022, 12:48:36 PMSo why did they have a SWAT unit then?
Graft and toys to play with.
Plus a lot of of perverse incentives, in all likelihood. I think that I have mentioned before that my small town has one police officer but three cop cars, because state and federal matching funds wouldn't kick in until the town had bought one car, in which case the state and the feds each gave the town a matching cop car. When you see that one car waiting off the side of the road to catch people speeding in the school zone there's less than a one in three chance the car is actually manned. But you can't tell by looking at it because of the tinted windows.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 02, 2022, 01:17:48 PMQuote from: The Larch on June 02, 2022, 01:03:49 PMGraft and toys to play with.
More seriously, it's hard to say. Logic would suggest a town of 15,000 doesn't need a SWAT team. OTOH if a basic function of every small town American PD is now the ability to storm a building and take out fully equipped and geared shooters, one could argue that every podunk hamlet from Maine to Guam needs one.
A lot of small towns use volunteer firefighters and volunteer EMS. Why not volunteer SWAT teams? Thanks to our forever war policies the past few decades, small towns have plenty of combat veterans to call upon.
The Tulsa shooter was pissed at his doctor for not fixing his back pain.
Just heard on NPR about some shooting at a funeral, Milwaukee I think. Lively week.
Based on statistics, every week is a lively week for mass shootings.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2022
Quote from: alfred russel on June 02, 2022, 07:27:40 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on June 02, 2022, 01:17:48 PMQuote from: The Larch on June 02, 2022, 01:03:49 PMGraft and toys to play with.
More seriously, it's hard to say. Logic would suggest a town of 15,000 doesn't need a SWAT team. OTOH if a basic function of every small town American PD is now the ability to storm a building and take out fully equipped and geared shooters, one could argue that every podunk hamlet from Maine to Guam needs one.
A lot of small towns use volunteer firefighters and volunteer EMS. Why not volunteer SWAT teams? Thanks to our forever war policies the past few decades, small towns have plenty of combat veterans to call upon.
This actually doesn't seem such a mad idea in theory.
Gives the gun nuts some form of leadership and control (choosing the right person will be key), and the chances of them actually being needed is really low (again provided the police keep a sane level of time to call the swat)
That is not a mad idea, it is fucking insane.
*Most* gun nuts are people you don't want around a gun to begin with. Well, maybe not most, but plenty of them.
Do you know how many Kyle Rittenhouses are wandering around out there now, just itching for a chance to use their shiny assault rifle, to be the "good guy with the gun"?
Giving them some imprint of authority and legitimacy is a fucking horrific idea.
Don't be so pessimistic berkut. Modern citizen militias have a fantastic track record, from Beirut to rural Colombia to 1990s Bosnia.
I think it could work great in underpopulated areas like the arid regions of Texas. IIRC there was a documentary not the long ago about such an effort, I think in the Australian bush. A citizen leader named Joe was able to control crime and give restless young men in the area a sense of purpose through being "witnessed" Sadly the promising experiment was brought to a premature end by a band of woke feminists.
Well, this is interesting, in light of the conversations me and grumbler had:
QuoteThe officers who finally breached the locked classrooms with a janitor's key were not a formal tactical unit, according to a person briefed on the response. The officers, including specially trained Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and a sheriff's deputy, formed an ad hoc group on their own and gathered in the hallway outside the classroom, a tense space where they said there appeared to be no chain of command.
They were done waiting for permission, one of them said, according to the person, before they moved toward the classroom where the gunman waited. They continued even after one of them heard a command crackling in his earpiece: Do not breach
They entered the room and killed the gunman.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/03/us/uvalde-police-response.html
Quote from: Berkut on June 08, 2022, 07:24:34 AMThat is not a mad idea, it is fucking insane.
*Most* gun nuts are people you don't want around a gun to begin with. Well, maybe not most, but plenty of them.
Do you know how many Kyle Rittenhouses are wandering around out there now, just itching for a chance to use their shiny assault rifle, to be the "good guy with the gun"?
Giving them some imprint of authority and legitimacy is a fucking horrific idea.
Whose talking about giving them authority?
Put a sane cop in charge of the volunteer SWAT and you have them taking orders against their impulses. Basically just adding oversight to already existing militas.
More from that article:
QuoteIn the hallway outside the classrooms, a throng of heavily armed law enforcement officers anxiously awaited instructions. But frustrations were growing, particularly among members of a Border Patrol tactical unit, according to the person who was briefed on the team's response.
"No one entity or individual seemed to have control of the scene," the person said. "It was chaos."
The sense of frustration among tactical team members was corroborated by two officials familiar with their debriefing.
After more than an hour, the ad hoc group of officers who had arrived ready to attack the gunman was growing impatient, and decided to move in.
One of the members — equipped with an earpiece and small microphone — quietly announced over the radio that the group was preparing to go into the classrooms. At that point a voice responded, telling them not to breach the doors.
They ignored the directive.
As the agents entered, the gunman appeared to be ready for them, the person said. He fired. They fired back, with at least one bullet striking him in the head. A bullet fragment also grazed the head of one of the Border Patrol agents.
As soon as the agents announced over the radio that the gunman had been killed, attention turned to treating the wounded. The agents helped set up a triage system, as more officers and emergency medical workers descended on the classrooms, trying to stabilize the children who had been shot but were still alive. At one point during the siege, one of the two children who called 911 had reported that at least eight or nine of the children in the two classrooms were still alive.
Khloie and her surviving classmates were rushed from the classroom. The bodies of 19 children were recovered, along with those of the two teachers. Seventeen people, including a third teacher, were wounded.
"I don't understand why somebody did not go in," said Khloie's mother, Jamie Torres. Children and teachers would have still been shot, she said, "but it would have been way less than 21."
That is simply awful. Enraging. Just....impossible to explain.
Quote from: Josquius on June 08, 2022, 08:35:34 AMQuote from: Berkut on June 08, 2022, 07:24:34 AMThat is not a mad idea, it is fucking insane.
*Most* gun nuts are people you don't want around a gun to begin with. Well, maybe not most, but plenty of them.
Do you know how many Kyle Rittenhouses are wandering around out there now, just itching for a chance to use their shiny assault rifle, to be the "good guy with the gun"?
Giving them some imprint of authority and legitimacy is a fucking horrific idea.
Whose talking about giving them authority?
Put a sane cop in charge of the volunteer SWAT and you have them taking orders against their impulses. Basically just adding oversight to already existing militas.
If they are members of a fucking tactical police response unit, that is definitely giving them authority.
Who is in charge when the "sane cop" isn't around?
Jesus, you are suggesting giving Dwight an assault rifle, body armor, and a mission to use them to get the bad guys.
This might be the worst idea ever proposed on Languish.
Quote from: Berkut on June 08, 2022, 07:24:34 AMThat is not a mad idea, it is fucking insane.
FYI, mad and insane are synonyms.
Also, it is worth remembering that it is something the founding fathers would have been familiar with--slave patrols which were often connected to militias functioned as a kind of early police force in the early republic. These forces often had some military experience or training and frequently weren't paid.
Quote from: Berkut on June 08, 2022, 08:43:03 AMQuote from: Josquius on June 08, 2022, 08:35:34 AMQuote from: Berkut on June 08, 2022, 07:24:34 AMThat is not a mad idea, it is fucking insane.
*Most* gun nuts are people you don't want around a gun to begin with. Well, maybe not most, but plenty of them.
Do you know how many Kyle Rittenhouses are wandering around out there now, just itching for a chance to use their shiny assault rifle, to be the "good guy with the gun"?
Giving them some imprint of authority and legitimacy is a fucking horrific idea.
Whose talking about giving them authority?
Put a sane cop in charge of the volunteer SWAT and you have them taking orders against their impulses. Basically just adding oversight to already existing militas.
If they are members of a fucking tactical police response unit, that is definitely giving them authority.
Who is in charge when the "sane cop" isn't around?
Jesus, you are suggesting giving Dwight an assault rifle, body armor, and a mission to use them to get the bad guys.
This might be the worst idea ever proposed on Languish.
No, its telling Dwight and co who on weekends play army games in the woods that they can be official volunteer SWAT troops if they pay attention to Officer Johanson and do nothing to bring the police into disrepute. If they're extra good boys maybe they'll even get a volunteer SWAT t-shirt.
Maybe, just maybe, they might be called upon some theoretical day in the future when there's a lunatic with a gun on the loose. But probably not.
OK, not going to comment further. It's an absolutely terrible idea.
Quote from: Josquius on June 08, 2022, 09:00:57 AMNo, its telling Dwight and co who on weekends play army games in the woods that they can be official volunteer SWAT troops if they pay attention to Officer Johanson and do nothing to bring the police into disrepute. If they're extra good boys maybe they'll even get a volunteer SWAT t-shirt.
Maybe, just maybe, they might be called upon some theoretical day in the future when there's a lunatic with a gun on the loose. But probably not.
If they want to do so, they can apply to be police officers.
Quote from: Berkut on June 08, 2022, 08:40:55 AMMore from that article:
QuoteIn the hallway outside the classrooms, a throng of heavily armed law enforcement officers anxiously awaited instructions. But frustrations were growing, particularly among members of a Border Patrol tactical unit, according to the person who was briefed on the team's response.
"No one entity or individual seemed to have control of the scene," the person said. "It was chaos."
The sense of frustration among tactical team members was corroborated by two officials familiar with their debriefing.
After more than an hour, the ad hoc group of officers who had arrived ready to attack the gunman was growing impatient, and decided to move in.
One of the members — equipped with an earpiece and small microphone — quietly announced over the radio that the group was preparing to go into the classrooms. At that point a voice responded, telling them not to breach the doors.
They ignored the directive.
As the agents entered, the gunman appeared to be ready for them, the person said. He fired. They fired back, with at least one bullet striking him in the head. A bullet fragment also grazed the head of one of the Border Patrol agents.
As soon as the agents announced over the radio that the gunman had been killed, attention turned to treating the wounded. The agents helped set up a triage system, as more officers and emergency medical workers descended on the classrooms, trying to stabilize the children who had been shot but were still alive. At one point during the siege, one of the two children who called 911 had reported that at least eight or nine of the children in the two classrooms were still alive.
Khloie and her surviving classmates were rushed from the classroom. The bodies of 19 children were recovered, along with those of the two teachers. Seventeen people, including a third teacher, were wounded.
"I don't understand why somebody did not go in," said Khloie's mother, Jamie Torres. Children and teachers would have still been shot, she said, "but it would have been way less than 21."
That is simply awful. Enraging. Just....impossible to explain.
Then there's the mom who was initially detained by police, talked an officer into releasing her, entered the school and got her kids out.
And was threatened with probation for speaking out.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/uvalde-mom-who-saved-kids-from-school-shooting-says-police-threatened-her/ar-AAY5l4C
Quote from: alfred russel on June 08, 2022, 08:50:27 AMAlso, it is worth remembering that it is something the founding fathers would have been familiar with--slave patrols which were often connected to militias functioned as a kind of early police force in the early republic. These forces often had some military experience or training and frequently weren't paid.
Another very good argument against the proposal.
Kind of an aside, but I have to wonder how the men who finally went in feel now.
On the one hand, they finally ended the situation, at great personal risk to themselves. They should be lauded as heroes, especially whoever decided to go in against orders.
On the other hand, I am sure they are bitterly angry with themselves for not ignoring those orders much, much sooner then they did.
As is the case for many of these situations, it would be unsurprising to see a number of suicides, from police, kids, first responders, parents, in the years to come. Those get unreported as victims of these sorts of crime. To say nothing of those injured, paralyzed, depressed, turning to drugs or alcohol, etc.
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 08, 2022, 10:57:54 AMAs is the case for many of these situations, it would be unsurprising to see a number of suicides, from police, kids, first responders, parents, in the years to come. Those get unreported as victims of these sorts of crime. To say nothing of those injured, paralyzed, depressed, turning to drugs or alcohol, etc.
The teachers husband who had a heart attack a day or two later....
All worthy sacrifices to our precious idols.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 08, 2022, 10:53:52 AMAnother very good argument against the proposal.
I was proposing it in the vein of jonathan swift but it seems better received than many of the ideas i'm more serious about so considering just running with it.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 08, 2022, 11:11:23 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on June 08, 2022, 10:53:52 AMAnother very good argument against the proposal.
I was proposing it in the vein of jonathan swift but it seems better received than many of the ideas i'm more serious about so considering just running with it.
It is a uniquely horribly bad idea, which I thought was kind of obvious from the way it was proposed.
I mean....deliciously terrible. Entire shows have used the "volunteer authority" as a comedic device.
There's volunteer police here and in other countries but given guns I can't see how it could work in the US and making the most armed and dangerous bit of the police force volunteer strikes me as risky :lol:
Accidentally creating a paramilitary force in every town in a polarised country :ph34r:
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 08, 2022, 11:52:58 AMThere's volunteer police here and in other countries but given guns I can't see how it could work in the US and making the most armed and dangerous bit of the police force volunteer strikes me as risky :lol:
Accidentally creating a paramilitary force in every town in a polarised country :ph34r:
The RCMP has a system of volunteer auxiliary Constables for a number of years. It still exists, but due to increasing concern about their safety I haven't actually seen an auxiliary Cst. for years and years.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 08, 2022, 11:52:58 AMThere's volunteer police here and in other countries but given guns I can't see how it could work in the US and making the most armed and dangerous bit of the police force volunteer strikes me as risky :lol:
Accidentally creating a paramilitary force in every town in a polarised country :ph34r:
Don't they have regular volunteer sheriffs in the US? Wasn't Dwight in the office one?
Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2022, 12:50:38 PMThe RCMP has a system of volunteer auxiliary Constables for a number of years. It still exists, but due to increasing concern about their safety I haven't actually seen an auxiliary Cst. for years and years.
Apparently about 10,000 volunteer police here (130,000 police total), which is a record low. But I don't think it's driven by safety fears just under-investment. There were surges in 2008 and in the run-up to the 2012 Olympics when there were big campaigns to encourage people to join and money around recruiting and training them.
It seems slightly weird given the last decade of austerity and big cuts to police numbers and Cameron's whole "Big Society" theme that increasing recruitment of volunteers wasn't a bigger focus :huh:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 08, 2022, 08:04:51 AMDon't be so pessimistic berkut. Modern citizen militias have a fantastic track record, from Beirut to rural Colombia to 1990s Bosnia.
Ukraine and its Azov militia.
They brought them into the fold, made them a regular army branch and it has reduced the number of neo nazis in its ranks and made them somewhat accountable, as far as it can be in a lawless zone.
The efficacy of a citizen's militia depends on the leadership it is given. If you give it free will to harrass people, they will. If you look at Beirut, rural Columbia and Bosnia, the crimes committed weren't any different than those of the regular army.
Recruiting gun nuts into SWAT, keeping them busy with training and making them accountable for their actions is the key here. Sadly, I think that last part seems lacking in the US.
Quote from: Josquius on June 08, 2022, 01:42:56 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on June 08, 2022, 11:52:58 AMThere's volunteer police here and in other countries but given guns I can't see how it could work in the US and making the most armed and dangerous bit of the police force volunteer strikes me as risky :lol:
Accidentally creating a paramilitary force in every town in a polarised country :ph34r:
Don't they have regular volunteer sheriffs in the US? Wasn't Dwight in the office one?
Sheriff is an elected position.
Some places do have volunteer sheriff's deputies.
I think Shaq is one in LA County.
I don't know how applicable it is, but Beslan school siege ended in part because the armed civilians descended on the school.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/21/us-senators-gun-violence-bill-bipartisan-support
QuoteUS Senators announce gun violence bill with bipartisan support
The breakthrough in a 29-year stalemate on gun reform comes after two devastating mass shootings in Texas and New York
US senators have announced an agreement on a bipartisan gun violence bill, marking a small but notable breakthrough on gun control in the wake of recent mass shootings.
Nine days after Senate bargainers agreed to a framework proposal – and 29 years after Congress last enacted major firearms curbs – senators Chris Murphy, a Democrat and John Cornyn, a Republican, told reporters on Tuesday that a final accord on the proposal's details had been reached.
The legislation would toughen background checks for the youngest firearms buyers, require more sellers to conduct background checks and beef up penalties on gun traffickers. It would also disburse money to states and communities aimed at improving school safety and mental health initiatives.
The bill also contains provisions to curb domestic violence, including prohibiting romantic partners convicted of domestic violence and not married to their victim from getting firearms. And it would provide money to the 19 states and the District of Columbia that have "red flag" laws that make it easier to temporarily take firearms from people adjudged dangerous, and to other states that have violence prevention programs.
Lawmakers released the 80-page bill Tuesday evening. The measure is estimated to cost around $15bn, which Murphy said would be fully paid for.
The legislation lacks the far more potent proposals that Joe Biden supports and Democrats have pushed for years without success, such as banning assault-type weapons or raising the minimum age for buying them, prohibiting high-capacity magazines and requiring background checks for virtually all gun sales. Those measures were derailed by Republican opponents in an evenly divided Senate.
But the bill, if enacted, will still represent a modest but telling shift on an issue that has defied compromise since Bill Clinton was president. Congress prohibited assault-type firearms in 1993 in a ban that expired after a decade, lawmakers' last sweeping legislation addressing gun violence.
Senators have seized on the momentum in the wake of devastating killings in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, New York. Murphy said that after Buffalo and Uvalde: "I saw a level of fear on the faces of the parents and the children that I spoke to that I've never seen before." He said his colleagues also encountered anxiety and fear among voters "not just for the safety of their children, but also a fear about the ability of government to rise to this moment and do something, and do something meaningful."
This bill, Murphy said, was a partisan breakthrough that would "save thousands of lives." Before entering the Senate, his House district included Newtown, Connecticut, where 20 children and six staff members perished in a 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school.
"Some think it goes too far, others think it doesn't go far enough. And I get it. It's the nature of compromise," Cornyn said.
But he added, "I believe that the same people who are telling us to do something are sending us a clear message, to do what we can to keep our children and communities safe. I'm confident this legislation moves us in a positive direction."
The Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, said his chamber would begin debating the measure right away and move to final passage "as quickly as possible".
And in a positive sign about its fate, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell voiced his support, calling it "a commonsense package of popular steps that will help make these horrifying incidents less likely while fully upholding the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens."
The National Rifle Association, which has spent decades derailing gun control legislation, said it opposed the measure. "It falls short at every level. It does little to truly address violent crime while opening the door to unnecessary burdens on the exercise of Second Amendment freedom by law-abiding gun owners," the gun lobby group said.
...
Thought I'd slip this in here, since I am not sure which of the shootings/terrorism/crime threads would be a better fit...
https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/what-were-they-waiting-for-woman-inside-saanich-bank-amid-shootout-describes-calm-gunmen-1.5968446
Seems a little reminiscent of that famous LA bank robbery from some time ago.
Yeah it's pretty wild.
So those two Vancouver shooters were apparently hard into anti-government, "Fuck Trudeau" right wing bs. They also were triplets, leaving a sister behind =/
In other news, apparently California passed a law allowing victims of gun violence to sue gun manufacturers.
How's that going to play out, I wonder?
Struck down by the courts, I'd guess.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 12, 2022, 09:31:33 PMStruck down by the courts, I'd guess.
You mean the US Supreme Court?
Quote from: Jacob on July 12, 2022, 06:17:20 PMIn other news, apparently California passed a law allowing victims of gun violence to sue gun manufacturers.
How's that going to play out, I wonder?
A shitshow.
Unless some very imaginative lawyer manages to convince a jury or judge that a certain trigger design compelled the owner to shoot people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-avgbyKt8xU
CCTV footage from inside Uvalde school.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 12, 2022, 09:45:35 PMA shitshow.
Unless some very imaginative lawyer manages to convince a jury or judge that a certain trigger design compelled the owner to shoot people.
I dunno... how different is it from suing tobacco companies for selling products that are dangerous to people? That worked out okayish, I think. Though it didn't hit right smack in a culture-war fault line.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 12, 2022, 09:45:35 PMQuote from: Jacob on July 12, 2022, 06:17:20 PMIn other news, apparently California passed a law allowing victims of gun violence to sue gun manufacturers.
How's that going to play out, I wonder?
A shitshow.
Unless some very imaginative lawyer manages to convince a jury or judge that a certain trigger design compelled the owner to shoot people.
I mean you can technically sure anybody for anything. I guess I would have to read the law to understand what the basis is for suing the law is establishing.
And that sounds boring.
Quote from: Jacob on July 12, 2022, 10:48:08 PMI dunno... how different is it from suing tobacco companies for selling products that are dangerous to people? That worked out okayish, I think. Though it didn't hit right smack in a culture-war fault line.
It's different in that firearms manufacturers aren't telling the public their products are safer (or less addictive) than they are.
It strikes me as an act of legislative cowardice. If firearms are so dangerous the threat of liability can be used to frighten manufacturers to not sell in Canada, then just ban firearms.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 12, 2022, 11:33:35 PMQuote from: Jacob on July 12, 2022, 10:48:08 PMI dunno... how different is it from suing tobacco companies for selling products that are dangerous to people? That worked out okayish, I think. Though it didn't hit right smack in a culture-war fault line.
It's different in that firearms manufacturers aren't telling the public their products are safer (or less addictive) than they are.
It strikes me as an act of legislative cowardice. If firearms are so dangerous the threat of liability can be used to frighten manufacturers to not sell in Canada, then just ban firearms.
It is California and I am pretty sure they cannot Constitutionally ban firearms.
Canada just makes getting a gun a pain in the ass.
Quote from: Valmy on July 12, 2022, 11:40:57 PMIt is California and I am pretty sure they cannot Constitutionally ban firearms.
My bad.
Quote from: Jacob on July 12, 2022, 06:17:20 PMIn other news, apparently California passed a law allowing victims of gun violence to sue gun manufacturers.
How's that going to play out, I wonder?
Preempted by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/florida-dads-accused-of-shooting-each-other-s-daughters-in-road-rage-incident/ar-AA12ThHG?rc=1&ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=23ff48145b9d413597d03587056b1367&fbclid=IwAR3m1rPamhsdw93lbIhrUvDFCXfhbpk-5Iwt8I9l61k7GeYXErsnFFRuZ0g
More great Americans exercising their Second Amendment rights in the great state of Florida.
The best part is how after their children were shot, they were still more intent on fighting each other then getting them help.
Quote from: Berkut on October 13, 2022, 09:19:31 AMhttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/florida-dads-accused-of-shooting-each-other-s-daughters-in-road-rage-incident/ar-AA12ThHG?rc=1&ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=23ff48145b9d413597d03587056b1367&fbclid=IwAR3m1rPamhsdw93lbIhrUvDFCXfhbpk-5Iwt8I9l61k7GeYXErsnFFRuZ0g
More great Americans exercising their Second Amendment rights in the great state of Florida.
The best part is how after their children were shot, they were still more intent on fighting each other then getting them help.
The best part is
QuoteBoth men are out on bail.
Why would the judge let two homicidal maniacs charged with attempted murder out on bail? There's not much more of a clear-cut "danger to society" than these two.
Quote from: grumbler on October 13, 2022, 12:15:55 PMQuoteBoth men are out on bail.
Why would the judge let two homicidal maniacs charged with attempted murder out on bail? There's not much more of a clear-cut "danger to society" than these two.
I don't know about the intricacies of Florida bail law, but more generally if they have no record, are employed, looking after/supporting children, and it was an impulsive rather than planned act - good luck to the prosecutor trying to deny them bail. Plus it probably doesn't hurt that they're white.
Quote from: Barrister on October 13, 2022, 12:32:25 PMI don't know about the intricacies of Florida bail law, but more generally if they have no record, are employed, looking after/supporting children, and it was an impulsive rather than planned act - good luck to the prosecutor trying to deny them bail. Plus it probably doesn't hurt that they're white.
"If it was an impulsive rather than a planned act" logically makes it worse, because not even the accused can say if they will try it again tomorrow. I know logic doesn't always apply ("the Law is an ass") but I find it kind of amusing in this case.
Of course, they've been convicted of nothing, either.
They need to work, medical bill wont pay themselves.
Quote from: Barrister on October 13, 2022, 12:32:25 PMQuote from: grumbler on October 13, 2022, 12:15:55 PMQuoteBoth men are out on bail.
Why would the judge let two homicidal maniacs charged with attempted murder out on bail? There's not much more of a clear-cut "danger to society" than these two.
I don't know about the intricacies of Florida bail law, but more generally if they have no record, are employed, looking after/supporting children, and it was an impulsive rather than planned act - good luck to the prosecutor trying to deny them bail. Plus it probably doesn't hurt that they're white.
Their action demonstrate exactly the opposite, they're both a danger to their own and other children.
I wonder if the two would have gotten bail if accussed of sexually abusing children?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1JTp-v1O8s
15 year old kills 5 in Raleigh NC.
According to an interviewee on an NPR show about Alex Jones, 1/5 of Americans believe high visibility mass shootings are staged by the government.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 16, 2022, 03:27:21 PMAccording to an interviewee on an NPR show about Alex Jones, 1/5 of Americans believe high visibility mass shootings are staged by the government.
I wish they were that competent
Surprised it's not more. US has a lot of gun nuts. Wonder how it breaks down by states.
Quote from: HVC on October 16, 2022, 05:24:33 PMSurprised it's not more. US has a lot of gun nuts. Wonder how it breaks down by states.
It's shockingly high to me. I know a few gun nuts and none of them would buy this QAnon garbage.
This has been in a way the most depressing aspect of the Trump phenomenon, to find out how many of my countrymen are psychos.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 16, 2022, 06:04:52 PMQuote from: HVC on October 16, 2022, 05:24:33 PMSurprised it's not more. US has a lot of gun nuts. Wonder how it breaks down by states.
It's shockingly high to me. I know a few gun nuts and none of them would buy this QAnon garbage.
This has been in a way the most depressing aspect of the Trump phenomenon, to find out how many of my countrymen are psychos.
Isn't it just an offshoot of the black helicopter and the fake moon landing people? I always imagined that was a large portion of the rural dumbfuck population, of which the number is vast.
When you get down to 1/5 of the population, don't you get all kinds of wacky stuff? That's about the number of insane morans in society.
Quote from: The Brain on October 17, 2022, 12:56:50 AMWhen you get down to 1/5 of the population, don't you get all kinds of wacky stuff? That's about the number of insane morans in society.
Up until Trump I had this idea that wackos made up about 5%.
https://youtube.com/shorts/Xnopjeu0yxg?feature=share
Kind of weird that stuff like this happens in the US. not to mention active shooter drills.
Quote from: HVC on December 04, 2022, 08:05:02 AMhttps://youtube.com/shorts/Xnopjeu0yxg?feature=share
Kind of weird that stuff like this happens in the US. not to mention active shooter drills.
Horrific, not weird.
(https://i.redd.it/5bf4hjvvs6aa1.png)
Too bad nothing can be done about this.
I remember reading up about Boomtown Rats' "I don't like Mondays" which is based on a 1979 school shooting.
Maybe once you have to specify *which* Cleveland Elementary School Shooting an article is about, you may have an issue with school shootings. :ph34r:
(https://i.postimg.cc/W4Sw-stxN/image.png)
Having a Cleveland Elementary school makes a lot more sense in Stockton than San Diego.
Quote from: Josquius on January 05, 2023, 08:53:06 AMHaving a Cleveland Elementary school makes a lot more sense in Stockton than San Diego.
:hmm:
Quote from: garbon on January 05, 2023, 09:00:58 AMQuote from: Josquius on January 05, 2023, 08:53:06 AMHaving a Cleveland Elementary school makes a lot more sense in Stockton than San Diego.
:hmm:
I don't think he knows about the Ohio one :P
Edit or that there's a Stockton in California
Original Stockton:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockton-on-Tees
Briefly part of the county of Cleveland, the historic Cleveland region not being too far away. Today.
QuotePolice Cleveland
Fire Cleveland
Ambulance North East
Quote from: Josquius on January 05, 2023, 09:09:12 AMOriginal Stockton:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockton-on-Tees
Briefly part of the county of Cleveland, the historic Cleveland region not being too far away. Today.
QuotePolice Cleveland
Fire Cleveland
Ambulance North East
Sigh.:P
Six-year old shot his teacher.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/06/us/newport-news-virginia-shooting/index.html
If we gave the other 6 year olds guns this never would have happened.
If only a good guy with a gun was there to shoot six year olds.
Shooting at Michigan State. 1 dead so far. Close to Berkey Hall..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZGZFB1mUM4
3 kids and 3 adults shot in Nashville private elementary school. Female (!) shooter shot by police.
Tell me why I don't like Mondays ...
:(
Shooter was a 28 year old transgender woman who once attended the school.
Been a while since you mongered mongers.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2023, 04:44:23 PMShooter was a 28 year old transgender woman who once attended the school.
Well we know what the GOP talking points will be...
Apparently this was the last Christmas card from the local representative in the House.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FsPocbRaMAAS8t3?format=jpg&name=large)
Don't know what's more jarring, the whole scene per se or the fact that the younger kid is holding a Christmas card of some sort while the rest of the family is heavily armed.
It won't stop until people start taking out republican politicians.
Hello government agencies, this is not a threat :D
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2023, 05:22:26 PMBeen a while since you mongered mongers.
I hadn't realised from what you posted that the "shot" were also fatalities, so thought it in poor taste or not appropriate to open up that debate given the circumstance. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Barrister on March 27, 2023, 05:35:38 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2023, 04:44:23 PMShooter was a 28 year old transgender woman who once attended the school.
Well we know what the GOP talking points will be...
Given the level of anti-trans sentiment, there's a real possibility of it being used as a convenient excuse for worse that just talking points, ala Herschel Grynszpan's assassination of the Nazi ambassador being used as an excuse for Kristalnacht.
Wouldn't it be cool if this just stopped happening?
Trans kid shoots up a Christian school... Oh boy do you know the point is going to be completely missed here.
I see British news at least do not stand by the whole "trans X are X" thing much as they all report this as a woman shooting people. Either way, right wing fucktards will of course use this as anti-trans propaganda as opposed to what it should be used for: anti-gun fetish propaganda.
I wonder whether we could get them to agree on a ban on trans people owning assault weapons.... And whilst we're at it let's just expand that to a sensible group of, I don't know, the general population.
Assault weapons are already banned.
Quote from: grumbler on March 28, 2023, 07:49:59 AMAssault weapons are already banned.
Can't americans buy preban assault rifles? Or am I misremembering. Although I don't know how many would still be in circulation.
Regardless it wasn't used here so not really pertinent
(https://preview.redd.it/kpf9oxd8vfqa1.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=bdec4f2b69731a7be05fb7502766bfe8a2bff170)
That's 3 out of ... how many?
Quote from: Syt on March 28, 2023, 07:59:54 AM(https://preview.redd.it/kpf9oxd8vfqa1.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=bdec4f2b69731a7be05fb7502766bfe8a2bff170)
That's 3 out of ... how many?
The average one every two days I think, so 3 out of 43
I went to check and it's quite a shock that when putting "Denver shooting" on wiki you're given 4 different options... A bit difficult to know who they're referring to as "the Denver shooter".
Quote from: grumbler on March 28, 2023, 07:49:59 AMAssault weapons are already banned.
Aren't those assault rifles in the photo?
Quote from: HVC on March 28, 2023, 07:55:29 AMQuote from: grumbler on March 28, 2023, 07:49:59 AMAssault weapons are already banned.
Can't americans buy preban assault rifles? Or am I misremembering. Although I don't know how many would still be in circulation.
Regardless it wasn't used here so not really pertinent
Actually, I have to correct my statement; the federal Assault Weapons Ban Act expired after ten years, and thus in 2004. The US currently, as far as I can tell, only bans the sale of assault weapons by state law.
Quote from: HVC on March 28, 2023, 08:02:25 AMQuote from: Syt on March 28, 2023, 07:59:54 AM(snip)
That's 3 out of ... how many?
The average one every two days I think, so 3 out of 43
Now let's see what Benny -boys analysis would lok like if he replaced "identified as X" with "possessed a firearm." What would that say about the gun fetish movement's contribution to terrorism?
I wonder why "just straight facts" Benny doesn't seem to make the proper connections.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FsTX0spWcAAOZFt?format=jpg&name=small)
That includes gangs. Should stick to school shootings only.
Only in discussing America could I say that about mass killings. Both sad and funny.
I was off. Average is one every 11 days
(https://staticweb.usafacts.org/media/images/2022_05_25_SchoolShooting_Casualties_Clear.width-1200.png)
I've mentioned this one before (in reference to the song "I don't like Mondays"), but I feel it bears repeating - maybe there's too many school shootings if:
(https://i.postimg.cc/zGYx1BhV/image.png)
I have said before but I think Sandy Hook was the one that made me think America is, for want of a better word, irredeemable on this. If that wasn't prompt change, I just nothing will. And consequently we just have these regular horrors instead :(
Last time To make a change was columbine. After that people got used to it and views became even more entrenched. Ain't nothing going to change unless a new black panther movement comes along (only thing white people with guns really fear is black people with guns) or, like I said, some group forms and starts picking off republican politicians.
They cannot enact changes with this dead cult still getting so many votes. The only shot (haha) at it would be for Biden, Hillary and Obama to start plsing with assault rifles.
Quote from: HVC on March 28, 2023, 10:00:28 AMLast time To make a change was columbine. After that people got used to it and views became even more entrenched. Ain't nothing going to change unless a new black panther movement comes along (only thing white people with guns really fear is black people with guns) or, like I said, some group forms and starts picking off republican politicians.
You may be right that it was after Columbine when something could have happened. But I just don't understand how nothing happens after 6 and 7 years olds have been shot (far less that some of the families end up being libelled).
And as I say if that doesn't cause change then I just don't think anything will.
I've just got my fingers crossed this is another one where we will be able to finally relax on the bodies of dead boomers.
Good work by the two or three cops who responded first and managed to kill the attacker, because from the look of the security video the killer was acting in a very determined, organised way.
Seems that though the idiots have wasted no time bashing trans people, the trans narrative here is actually rather shaky.
It was a cis woman still using a woman's name who has just started talking about maybe being trans on social media.
Quote from: Josquius on March 28, 2023, 04:05:25 PMSeems that though the idiots have wasted no time bashing trans people, the trans narrative here is actually rather shaky.
It was a cis woman still using a woman's name who has just started talking about maybe being trans on social media.
You raised a similar point during the prison rape discussion and I thought it was wacky then too.
Every other group in the world consists of varying shades of good and bad people, of pychos and well adjusted people. But you seem to think if a trans person does or says something bad they can't be a real(tm) trans person.
That's not logical. That's an act of faith on your part.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 28, 2023, 03:34:34 PMYou may be right that it was after Columbine when something could have happened. But I just don't understand how nothing happens after 6 and 7 years olds have been shot (far less that some of the families end up being libelled).
'Nothing happens' because America is a plutocracy/corporatocracy, not a democracy. Profits before people, dude.
It's why the really stupid Repubs like MTG tweet responses to this massacre that basically the solution is *more* guns, not less.... because that's what her NRA handlers tell her to say, or what she thinks she needs to say so the funds keep flowing. :sleep:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2023, 04:14:41 PMQuote from: Josquius on March 28, 2023, 04:05:25 PMSeems that though the idiots have wasted no time bashing trans people, the trans narrative here is actually rather shaky.
It was a cis woman still using a woman's name who has just started talking about maybe being trans on social media.
You raised a similar point during the prison rape discussion and I thought it was wacky then too.
Every other group in the world consists of varying shades of good and bad people, of pychos and well adjusted people. But you seem to think if a trans person does or says something bad they can't be a real(tm) trans person.
That's not logical. That's an act of faith on your part.
Wow. That's a weird attack out of nowhere.
Not in the slightest. Whether that Scottish rapist was really trans or not was relevant there as it was genuinely questionable whether they actually were trans or not. The timing was off. Just because one person may have been lying doesn't change that you do get actual trans people committing crimes.
It's relevant to mention here as a lot of deflection seems to be coming from those trying to make it a trans issue despite, as I've scratched the surface a little, I've seen that it does not neatly fit into that narrative.
Even if we take straight up that he was trans it's curious that it's FTM, all assumptions seem to have MTF.
That this person's transness just seems to have come from some recent social media posts and they're using their very female birth name...time will tell what the verdict is there.
A line of attack that seems to always anger the gun fetishist is when you claim they are okay with children dying. That they are blood thirsty cultist. I think there could be some political possibility there.
Quote from: Josquius on March 28, 2023, 04:37:18 PMWow. That's a weird attack out of nowhere.
Not in the slightest. Whether that Scottish rapist was really trans or not was relevant there as it was genuinely questionable whether they actually were trans or not. The timing was off. Just because one person may have been lying doesn't change that you do get actual trans people committing crimes.
It's relevant to mention here as a lot of deflection seems to be coming from those trying to make it a trans issue despite, as I've scratched the surface a little, I've seen that it does not neatly fit into that narrative.
Even if we take straight up that he was trans it's curious that it's FTM, all assumptions seem to have MTF.
That this person's transness just seems to have come from some recent social media posts and they're using their very female birth name...time will tell what the verdict is there.
It does seem like an amazing coincidence that the two self proclaimed trans people who's sincerity you've seen fit to question have committed terrible crimes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2023, 05:19:18 PM]
It does seem like an amazing coincidence that the two self proclaimed trans people who's sincerity you've seen fit to question have committed terrible crimes.
Regular people doing nothing special with their lives tend not to make the news.
The sincerity of some randomer deciding to tell the world they're trans out of nowhere with interesting timing for something in their agenda isn't a topic that ever really comes up.
And I hope you're not suggesting this shooter is the same as the Scottish rapist here.
Quote from: Josquius on March 28, 2023, 04:37:18 PMNot in the slightest. Whether that Scottish rapist was really trans or not was relevant there as it was genuinely questionable whether they actually were trans or not. The timing was off. Just because one person may have been lying doesn't change that you do get actual trans people committing crimes.
It's relevant to mention here as a lot of deflection seems to be coming from those trying to make it a trans issue despite, as I've scratched the surface a little, I've seen that it does not neatly fit into that narrative.
Even if we take straight up that he was trans it's curious that it's FTM, all assumptions seem to have MTF.
That this person's transness just seems to have come from some recent social media posts and they're using their very female birth name...time will tell what the verdict is there.
Ultimately, how is it relevant that they are trans or not?
If they were gay, would it be relevant? Lots of heteros commit crimes, we don't specifically mention it in the news. Should we pay attention to it if they are gay or hetero? If they claim they are gay, should we investigate their level of 'gayness' prior to their crimes?
I'm with Yi on this. There are psychos in every group. That a trans person would be a psycho would not surprise me, it can happen, they are unfortunately not immune to snapping.
If that trans person had not committed a murder but was asking for something else, you would not be telling us she is not a real trans person.
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 28, 2023, 04:58:06 PMA line of attack that seems to always anger the gun fetishist is when you claim they are okay with children dying. That they are blood thirsty cultist. I think there could be some political possibility there.
That's actually a good point. Eveything else in politics gets sold by "thinking of the children". Why can't the Dems lean in on that? Anyone against gun control? Think of the children, how dare you!
Quote from: viper37 on March 28, 2023, 05:35:30 PM]
Ultimately, how is it relevant that they are trans or not?
If they were gay, would it be relevant? Lots of heteros commit crimes, we don't specifically mention it in the news. Should we pay attention to it if they are gay or hetero? If they claim they are gay, should we investigate their level of 'gayness' prior to their crimes?
I'm with Yi on this. There are psychos in every group. That a trans person would be a psycho would not surprise me, it can happen, they are unfortunately not immune to snapping.
It's not relevant. Thats exactly my point. I'm commenting on those who have decided it is.
I'm the one who in the other thread specifically said there are crooks in every group. It's folk of a different bent who insist certain groups are particularly bad off the back of a few examples. Just look up thread to see some examples from twitter.
QuoteIf that trans person had not committed a murder but was asking for something else, you would not be telling us she is not a real trans person.
This is a nonsense.
Who is this theoretical person? Why are they claiming to be trans? When did they decide this? Do they have any past evidence or its just out of nowhere? Why are we discussing them? Does it matter whether they're trans or not? What is the impact of just accepting their claim at face value?
It's not black and white.
Quote from: Josquius on March 28, 2023, 05:33:54 PMAnd I hope you're not suggesting this shooter is the same as the Scottish rapist here.
I'm pretty sure they're different people. One's blonde, one's brunette. One lives in the US, one lives in Scotland.
I have no idea what stage the Nashville shooter was at in terms of therapy, but I'm reminded that my homosexualist bartender buddy said FTM transgenders can sometimes get geeked out because of the testosterone they're taking.
I only know one FTM and he is not geeked out at all.
Quote from: Josquius on March 28, 2023, 03:43:15 PMI've just got my fingers crossed this is another one where we will be able to finally relax on the bodies of dead boomers.
Hale wasn't a boomer and the gun cult is made up overwhelmingly of Gen X and Gen Y. You can't simply complacently argue that Boomers are the cause of all the world's problems and the world will be a utopia when every Boomer is dead. Lazy thinking like yours is what got the world into the shape it is in.
Quote from: Tamas on March 28, 2023, 05:36:17 PMQuote from: Oexmelin on March 28, 2023, 04:58:06 PMA line of attack that seems to always anger the gun fetishist is when you claim they are okay with children dying. That they are blood thirsty cultist. I think there could be some political possibility there.
That's actually a good point. Eveything else in politics gets sold by "thinking of the children". Why can't the Dems lean in on that? Anyone against gun control? Think of the children, how dare you!
For these people, life begins at conception and ends at birth.
NY Post keeping their tone sombre and calm, I guess ...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FsT3cKWWcAEk8ob?format=png&name=small)
https://twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514384735739904
QuoteRep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) on school shootings:
"We're not gonna fix it."
REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"
BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."
REPORTER: "What else should be done to protect people like your little girl?"
BURCHETT: "Well, we homeschool her."
Burchett on drag shows a few weeks ago: "We don't put up with that crap in Tennessee."
So apparently guns are the leading cause of death for American children and teens, surpassing even cars: http://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/29/health/us-children-gun-deaths-dg/index.html
Quote from: Syt on March 29, 2023, 04:33:45 AMhttps://twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514384735739904
QuoteRep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) on school shootings:
"We're not gonna fix it."
REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"
BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."
REPORTER: "What else should be done to protect people like your little girl?"
BURCHETT: "Well, we homeschool her."
Burchett on drag shows a few weeks ago: "We don't put up with that crap in Tennessee."
I am not sure how one could mess up a school shooting. Seems already messed up to a maximum degree.
Reads to me that "mess things up" = "take people's guns away", and that's obviously off the table for the death cultist party.
Quote from: Jacob on March 29, 2023, 10:02:25 PMReads to me that "mess things up" = "take people's guns away", and that's obviously off the table for the death cultist party.
Right. He doesn't want to do anything to piss off his lobby so he plays the "government only screws things up" card.
But the Republicans have spoken out about mental health and its impact on mass shootings before. They could do things in the mental health field without doing some big gun control law. They don't even want to do that though.
Of course they also blame video games so I guess I should be happy they aren't banning all violent video games or something.
Quote from: Josquius on March 28, 2023, 03:43:15 PMI've just got my fingers crossed this is another one where we will be able to finally relax on the bodies of dead boomers.
Maybe go to the doctor with that.
Quote from: Jacob on March 29, 2023, 10:02:25 PMReads to me that "mess things up" = "take people's guns away", and that's obviously off the table for the death cultist party.
Yes :yes:
There is no possibility for people's guns to be taken away; the USA has 336 million people many of whom are heavily armed; a proportion of these will have mental health problems or subscribe to extremist ideologies; therefore the mass shootings will continue at roughly the current rate.
Quote from: Valmy on March 29, 2023, 10:22:09 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 29, 2023, 10:02:25 PMReads to me that "mess things up" = "take people's guns away", and that's obviously off the table for the death cultist party.
Right. He doesn't want to do anything to piss off his lobby so he plays the "government only screws things up" card.
But the Republicans have spoken out about mental health and its impact on mass shootings before. They could do things in the mental health field without doing some big gun control law. They don't even want to do that though.
Of course they also blame video games so I guess I should be happy they aren't banning all violent video games or something.
The only thing Republicans are willing to do is increase the number of arms, be that by arming teachers, deploying more police or turning schools into mini-fortresses. Anything but actually devising a sensible gun control policy.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 30, 2023, 01:19:16 AMQuote from: Jacob on March 29, 2023, 10:02:25 PMReads to me that "mess things up" = "take people's guns away", and that's obviously off the table for the death cultist party.
Yes :yes:
There is no possibility for people's guns to be taken away; the USA has 336 million people many of whom are heavily armed; a proportion of these will have mental health problems or subscribe to extremist ideologies; therefore the mass shootings will continue at roughly the current rate.
Yup, they're basically coming out in public tacitly admitting that they're fine with a certain number of kids and random innocents getting mowed down every year in order to keep the gun nuts happy.
Dunno, are you saying these measures (from 2018) aren't enough?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DfBLCyxVQAAZRD4?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Source: https://twitter.com/radiofreegeorgy/status/1004385249520996352 & https://www.vox.com/2018/6/7/17439268/school-shooting-lockdown-nursery-rhyme
Seems bullet-proof!
*badum-tssss*
Quote from: The Larch on March 30, 2023, 03:59:19 AMQuote from: Valmy on March 29, 2023, 10:22:09 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 29, 2023, 10:02:25 PMReads to me that "mess things up" = "take people's guns away", and that's obviously off the table for the death cultist party.
Right. He doesn't want to do anything to piss off his lobby so he plays the "government only screws things up" card.
But the Republicans have spoken out about mental health and its impact on mass shootings before. They could do things in the mental health field without doing some big gun control law. They don't even want to do that though.
Of course they also blame video games so I guess I should be happy they aren't banning all violent video games or something.
The only thing Republicans are willing to do is increase the number of arms, be that by arming teachers, deploying more police or turning schools into mini-fortresses. Anything but actually devising a sensible gun control policy.
That's how they fixed their President getting attacked & killed. It's a policy that can work.
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 30, 2023, 06:08:02 AMQuote from: The Larch on March 30, 2023, 03:59:19 AMQuote from: Valmy on March 29, 2023, 10:22:09 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 29, 2023, 10:02:25 PMReads to me that "mess things up" = "take people's guns away", and that's obviously off the table for the death cultist party.
Right. He doesn't want to do anything to piss off his lobby so he plays the "government only screws things up" card.
But the Republicans have spoken out about mental health and its impact on mass shootings before. They could do things in the mental health field without doing some big gun control law. They don't even want to do that though.
Of course they also blame video games so I guess I should be happy they aren't banning all violent video games or something.
The only thing Republicans are willing to do is increase the number of arms, be that by arming teachers, deploying more police or turning schools into mini-fortresses. Anything but actually devising a sensible gun control policy.
That's how they fixed their President getting attacked & killed. It's a policy that can work.
What do you mean?
They gave guns to some tax collectors and made them the presidents bodyguard
*very over simplified :D
Quote from: HVC on March 30, 2023, 06:45:40 AMThey gave guns to some tax collectors and made them the presidents bodyguard
*very over simplified :D
Are you talking about the creation of the secret service?
Quote from: The Larch on March 30, 2023, 06:49:19 AMQuote from: HVC on March 30, 2023, 06:45:40 AMThey gave guns to some tax collectors and made them the presidents bodyguard
*very over simplified :D
Are you talking about the creation of the secret service?
Yup. Started off as part of the treasury IIRC
Quote from: HVC on March 30, 2023, 06:51:28 AMQuote from: The Larch on March 30, 2023, 06:49:19 AMQuote from: HVC on March 30, 2023, 06:45:40 AMThey gave guns to some tax collectors and made them the presidents bodyguard
*very over simplified :D
Are you talking about the creation of the secret service?
Yup. Started off as part of the treasury IIRC
Well, I don't think that giving a president a security detail is exactly a massive escalation of things. :P
So apparently the Missouri house of representatives, right after this shooting, is voting on making gun & ammo sales tax-free. :wacko:
Quote from: The Larch on March 30, 2023, 06:53:07 AMQuote from: HVC on March 30, 2023, 06:51:28 AMQuote from: The Larch on March 30, 2023, 06:49:19 AMQuote from: HVC on March 30, 2023, 06:45:40 AMThey gave guns to some tax collectors and made them the presidents bodyguard
*very over simplified :D
Are you talking about the creation of the secret service?
Yup. Started off as part of the treasury IIRC
Well, I don't think that giving a president a security detail is exactly a massive escalation of things. :P
It was the only thing I could think of that fit what he said :D
Quote from: The Larch on March 30, 2023, 06:57:16 AMSo apparently the Missouri house of representatives, right after this shooting, is voting on making gun & ammo sales tax-free. :wacko:
Lobby money is worth a few dead kids.
Quote from: The Larch on March 30, 2023, 06:53:07 AMQuote from: HVC on March 30, 2023, 06:51:28 AMQuote from: The Larch on March 30, 2023, 06:49:19 AMQuote from: HVC on March 30, 2023, 06:45:40 AMThey gave guns to some tax collectors and made them the presidents bodyguard
*very over simplified :D
Are you talking about the creation of the secret service?
Yup. Started off as part of the treasury IIRC
Well, I don't think that giving a president a security detail is exactly a massive escalation of things. :P
That's only because so much time has passed that the change seems mundane. They also turned and turn where the President goes/is into a fortress.
Lincoln created the secret service, but he was also the first on killed. So, it didn't work :P
Quote from: HVC on March 30, 2023, 06:51:28 AMQuote from: The Larch on March 30, 2023, 06:49:19 AMQuote from: HVC on March 30, 2023, 06:45:40 AMThey gave guns to some tax collectors and made them the presidents bodyguard
*very over simplified :D
Are you talking about the creation of the secret service?
Yup. Started off as part of the treasury IIRC
Still part of Treasury, according to William Friedkin's
To Live and Die in L.A. :P
Quote from: The Larch on March 30, 2023, 06:57:16 AMSo apparently the Missouri house of representatives, right after this shooting, is voting on making gun & ammo sales tax-free. :wacko:
The problem with the idea that deterrence is the way to go is that these shootings are not being by criminals trying to achieve some sort of rational goal. This isn't gangs trying to kidnap kids to hold them for ransom or organized crime trying to defend their drug selling turf or something like that. Those kinds of groups would be concerned if suddenly their goals of making money through criminal activity were really dangerous all the sudden.
But these school shooters, to them being killed is not a bug but a feature. So it seems to be the danger of having loads of weapons in a building full of children and untrained adults, with all the potential for tragic accidents, offset the probability that a school shooter may be taken out while their body count is still low. It doesn't seem likely that the school shooting would not occur at all, just that maybe if some well trained security person were on site maybe they might make it marginally less deadly...maybe.
I don't think deterrence is going to do anything. But, granted, I haven't seen a breakdown looking at the types of schools these shootings have occurred in vs their particular security arrangements. What do I know? Maybe schools with hired security goons have an advantage. But IIRC even Columbine, one of the first big school shootings, had a security guy he just lost his nerve when the moment came...which is always a risk with human beings going into live fire situations for the first time.
Back in the 1980s we had much more of a consensus on gun control and even then the measures were pretty limited I thought. But also back in those days gun violence was much more gang and criminal related. Back then gun control was limited by the fact that these types were going to get guns anyway, it was the whole "if guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns" idea. Well now shootings are not being done by criminals but by randos with a weird nihilistic death wish. Though granted I guess I cannot ignore the fact that after the Brady bill gun violence did go down significantly for awhile (along with other sorts of violence...what was going on in the 1990s?).
But since we are unlikely to ever get the other major party on board with gun control measures, I sure wish we were actively and aggressively pursuing other angles. The whole idea that the government should not be involved in crime prevention because they would just screw it up is a weird kind of position to take even for a small government conservative. What? Do we need private militias roaming the streets gunning down all suspected school shooters pre-emptively? Is that going to make things better?
So while I get it and I don't expect Democrats to just drop the gun control thing, but since the other side is so intractable and so sure that this isn't about preventing mass shootings but instead setting up a Stalinist Police State...maybe see what the Republicans are willing to do? As I said they talked about mental health. Ok that's great. I think also we need to develop a sophisticated profile of who these shooters are and keep people who fit that profile under surveillance. When they start purchasing guns law enforcement should be on high alert. It seems like every time we hear about a mass shooting, it is some known mentally unstable person who the community is aware is dangerous suddenly started purchasing weaponry. If the police make this a priority, I think we have a decent shot of preventing a few of these from occurring. These are the new domestic terrorists of our day and should be considered as much.
Republicans are not willing to do anything. Mental health is just empty talk. It's the current version of thoughts and prayers. That's the point. The issue is much more profitable politically as a cultural marker. Once you have people sending Christmas cards with assault weapons, you can be sure it's not about finding a solution.
Propose a multi-billion program to aggressively address the mental health crisis. See how many Republicans vote for it.
The only thing Republicans are willing to do to help people who are mentally ill is nominate one of them for President.
I won't do it, but I might as well lock this thread I started, as it's just so depressing and nothing will change the situation.
I wonder if the Aztec also had significant opposition to their blood sacrifices?
Quote from: mongers on March 30, 2023, 02:42:25 PMI wonder if the Aztec also had significant opposition to their blood sacrifices?
I believe that some other Mesoamerican tribes actually allied with the Spaniards because of the Aztec's fondness for human sacrifices.
Quote from: The Larch on March 30, 2023, 02:46:36 PMI believe that some other Mesoamerican tribes actually allied with the Spaniards because of the Aztec's fondness for human sacrifices.
Although I think most other Mesoamerican cultures practiced human sacrifices. I think it was less that they were unhappy with the idea and more than they weren't happy being sacrificed, which is fair enough.
I remember chatting with a woman who was a little annoyed at how modern Mexico had adopted Aztec symbols and there's lots about them especially in Mexico City. But she's Zapotec and they were conquered by the Aztecs and that's alsoo part of the story that I think she felt was a bit missing.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 30, 2023, 01:48:28 PMPropose a multi-billion program to aggressively address the mental health crisis. See how many Republicans vote for it.
The only thing Republicans are willing to do to help people who are mentally ill is nominate one of them for President.
:)
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 30, 2023, 02:51:21 PMQuote from: The Larch on March 30, 2023, 02:46:36 PMI believe that some other Mesoamerican tribes actually allied with the Spaniards because of the Aztec's fondness for human sacrifices.
Although I think most other Mesoamerican cultures practiced human sacrifices. I think it was less that they were unhappy with the idea and more than they weren't happy being sacrificed, which is fair enough.
Human sacrifice was definitely widespread in the region, but there was a sliding scale on how often it was resorted to, and AFAIK the Aztecs were definitely in the bloodthirstier end of the scale, as they were a very agressive conquering nation and prisoners of war were one of the largest sources for sacrifices. Mesoamerican cultures also had differents kinds of war, so besides regular wars of conquest or raiding they also had what were called "Flower wars", which were ritualistic in nature and waged between rival cities as an attempt to placate the gods after a natural disaster or a bad harvest or somesuch.
Before the arrival of Cortés the tribes of Central Mexico had been waging an on and off Flower War for like 65 years, during which the Aztecs routinely bullied their neighbouring city states, like Tlaxcala, Texcoco, Cholula and others. When the Spaniards entered the picture, some of these city states that were rivals of the Aztecs joined Cortés in order to take the Aztecs out, and for instance the bulk of Cortes' army was composed of Tlaxcalan warriors.
Regarding how commonplace human sacrifice was, there's even a (of course) rather gory legend about a princess from a neighbouring city that the Aztecs sacrificed in a misunderstanding between the ruling chieftains. In case you want to know the details... :ph34r:
QuoteObeying the promptings of Huitzilopochtli's priests, they had approached Achitometl, one of the Culhua magnates, asking for his beautiful daughter as their "sovereign" and "wife of Huitzilopochtli". Not understanding the implications of this request, Achitometl acceded to the honour; his daughter went to Tizaapan, where she was splendidly arrayed and sacrificed. Following an old custom, the body was flayed and a priest donned her skin in an ancient agricultural rite symbolising the renewal of life. The unsuspecting chieftain Achitometl, invited to participate in the concluding festivities, suddenly recognised the skin of his daughter on the body of the priest. The outraged Culhua took arms and were joined by others and, in the wild melee of javelins and arrows, the Mexica were once again driven into the reeds and brackish swamps of Lake Tezcoco.
QuoteI remember chatting with a woman who was a little annoyed at how modern Mexico had adopted Aztec symbols and there's lots about them especially in Mexico City. But she's Zapotec and they were conquered by the Aztecs and that's alsoo part of the story that I think she felt was a bit missing.
Yes, picking the Aztecs as the sole representatives of Mexico's native past is a disservice to its huge diversity and how divided the region was before the arrival of the Spanish. There's for instance a historical character, "La Malinche", which has been vilified because of this. She was an enslaved Nahua woman who was given as a gift/tribute (together with 19 others) to Cortés and his men by one of the first native tribes they defeated. She then became Cortés consort/lover/advisor, and acted as his translator in his negotiations and diplomacy with the local tribes. Traditionally she had been presented as some sort of mother figure for modern Mexico, as the son she had with Cortés was probably one of the very first mixed race "mestizos" that went on to populate the country, but nowadays in Mexico and other parts of Latin America the term "Malinchism" denotes a "race traitor" of some kind, somebody who hates who they are and has an inferiority complex because of it, and thus looks towards other countries (historically Europe, nowadays the US) for their identity while renouncing their roots.
This thread's suddenly gone all Languish like.
Quote from: Josephus on March 31, 2023, 06:04:29 AMThis thread's suddenly gone all Languish like.
We can't help it... :blush:
Yeah I think Malinche came up in basically every museum (in Mexico City) and never in a very flattering way. Very much betrayer and cause of disaster - I think there's possibly also a bit of sexism/misogyny in that blaming the woman but maybe not :mellow:
So I think the mother of the nation reputation is definitely gone now.
You have to admit that is kind of an unfair accusation to make to a slave.
Mexica is just another term for Aztec is it not? So not too surprising they are seen as the true Mexicans.
Camilla Townshend has written a long book rehabilitating the figure of Malinche - if nothing else in its complexity.
She really is a fascinating figure.
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 31, 2023, 10:27:19 AMCamilla Townshend has written a long book rehabilitating the figure of Malinche - if nothing else in its complexity.
She really is a fascinating figure.
I've used her case a number of times in my AP World History class. Her story is a classic example of how many people's conclusions about her are/were based on the filters through which one examines her story. Bias is present in all historical accounts, but her case is one of the most clear-cut examples of "where you end up depends on where you started."
While the Mesoamericans were engaging in human sacrifice, Euros were still burning heretics and witches...birds of a feather it seems to me.
What makes you think that the Mesoamericans weren't killing witches?
The Mexican Inquisition very rarely got involved with natives.
All in all it executed maybe 50 people in 250 years, mostly marranos (former Jews who secretly still followed Judaism).
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 01, 2023, 12:44:12 AMWhile the Mesoamericans were engaging in human sacrifice, Euros were still burning heretics and witches...birds of a feather it seems to me.
Fair - although because they're already so tarnished by the black legend, worth noting the Spanish didn't really go into witch-burning.
That is very much an Anglo-world and German specialism - and particularly in Protestant areas. Maybe it's because the Catholic world in general had very real threats within - heretics and crypto-Protestants; and in Spain that role was played by conversos. The Protestant world didn't have those actual communities to be scapegoated, so blamed women.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 01, 2023, 02:42:01 PMQuote from: Tonitrus on April 01, 2023, 12:44:12 AMWhile the Mesoamericans were engaging in human sacrifice, Euros were still burning heretics and witches...birds of a feather it seems to me.
Fair - although because they're already so tarnished by the black legend, worth noting the Spanish didn't really go into witch-burning.
That is very much an Anglo-world and German specialism - and particularly in Protestant areas. Maybe it's because the Catholic world in general had very real threats within - heretics and crypto-Protestants; and in Spain that role was played by conversos. The Protestant world didn't have those actual communities to be scapegoated, so blamed women.
In fact the Spanish Inquisition had some remarkably liberal guidelines for witch trials.
QuoteIn December 1525, the Spanish Inquisition issued guidelines in how to deal with witch trials. The guidelines cautioned skepticism against spells, which caused most accusations and death sentences, banned the confiscation of the property of anyone condemned for witchcraft, reserved for the Inquisition the right to try witches, and paid more attention to "re-educating" witches rather than issuing death sentences.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 01, 2023, 02:42:01 PMQuote from: Tonitrus on April 01, 2023, 12:44:12 AMWhile the Mesoamericans were engaging in human sacrifice, Euros were still burning heretics and witches...birds of a feather it seems to me.
Fair - although because they're already so tarnished by the black legend, worth noting the Spanish didn't really go into witch-burning.
That is very much an Anglo-world and German specialism - and particularly in Protestant areas. Maybe it's because the Catholic world in general had very real threats within - heretics and crypto-Protestants; and in Spain that role was played by conversos. The Protestant world didn't have those actual communities to be scapegoated, so blamed women.
In the Orthodox world men usually got burned as witches. So yeah it was definitely a regional deal.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2023/04/06/gun-deaths-among-us-kids-rose-50-percent-in-two-years/?stream=top
QuoteGun deaths among U.S. children and teens rose 50% in two years
The number of children and teens killed by gunfire in the United States increased 50% between 2019 and 2021, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of the latest annual mortality statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
In 2019, before the coronavirus pandemic, there were 1,732 gun deaths among U.S. children and teens under the age of 18. By 2021, that figure had increased to 2,590.
The gun death rate among children and teens – a measure that adjusts for changes in the nation's population – rose from 2.4 fatalities per 100,000 minor residents in 2019 to 3.5 per 100,000 two years later, a 46% increase.
Both the number and rate of children and teens killed by gunfire in 2021 were higher than at any point since at least 1999, the earliest year for which information about those younger than 18 is available in the CDC's mortality database.
The rise in gun deaths among children and teens is part of a broader recent increase in firearm deaths among Americans overall. In 2021, there were 48,830 gun deaths among Americans of all ages – by far the highest yearly total on record and up 23% from the 39,707 recorded in 2019, before the pandemic.
The total number of gun deaths among children and teens in 2021 includes homicides, suicides, accidents and all other categories where firearms are listed on death certificates as the underlying cause of death. It does not include deaths where firearms are listed as a contributing, but not underlying, cause of death.
Homicide was the largest single category of gun deaths among children and teens in 2021, accounting for 60% of the total that year. It was followed by suicide at 32% and accidents at 5%. Among U.S. adults, by contrast, suicides accounted for a 55% majority of gun deaths in 2021.
In addition to data on gun fatalities, the CDC publishes estimates on nonfatal gun-related injuries sustained by children and teens. In 2020 – the most recent year with available data – there were more than 11,000 emergency-room visits for gunshot injuries among children and teens under the age of 18 – far higher than in other recent years. An exact count is not possible, however, because the CDC's estimate is based on a sample of U.S. hospitals, not all U.S. hospitals, and is subject to a large margin of error.
In the U.S., some groups of children and teens are far more likely than others to die by gunfire. Boys, for example, accounted for 83% of all gun deaths among children and teens in 2021. Girls accounted for 17%.
Older children and teens are much more likely than younger kids to be killed in gun-related incidents. Those ages 12 to 17 accounted for 86% of all gun deaths among children and teens in 2021, while those 6 to 11 accounted for 7% of the total, as did those 5 and under. Still, there were 179 gun deaths among children ages 6 to 11 and 184 among those 5 and under in 2021.
For all three age groups, homicide was the leading type of gun death in 2021. But suicides accounted for a significant share (36%) of gun deaths among those ages 12 to 17, while accidents accounted for a sizable share (34%) of gun deaths among those 5 and under.
Racial and ethnic differences in gun deaths among kids are stark. In 2021, 46% of all gun deaths among children and teens involved Black victims, even though only 14% of the U.S. under-18 population that year was Black. Much smaller shares of gun deaths among children and teens in 2021 involved White (32%), Hispanic (17%) and Asian (1%) victims.
Looked at another way, Black children and teens were roughly five times as likely as their White counterparts to die from gunfire in 2021. There were 11.8 gun deaths per 100,000 Black children and teens that year, compared with 2.3 gun deaths per 100,000 White children and teens. The gun death rate among Hispanic children and teens was also 2.3 deaths per 100,000 in 2021, while it was lower among Asian children and teens (0.9 per 100,000).
There are also major racial and ethnic differences in the types of gun deaths involving children and teens. In 2021, a large majority of gun deaths involving Black children and teens (84%) were homicides, while 9% were suicides. Among White children and teens, by contrast, the majority of gun deaths (66%) were suicides, while a much smaller share (24%) were homicides.
In this analysis, Black, White and Asian children and teens include only those who are single-race and not Hispanic, while Hispanic children and teens are of any race.
A sizable share of American parents are worried about their kids getting shot. In a fall 2022 Pew Research Center survey, 22% of parents with children under 18 said they were extremely or very worried about any of their children getting shot at some point, while another 23% said they were somewhat worried. Still, more than half said they were not worried about this.
The survey found demographic differences in these concerns. Around four-in-ten Hispanic parents (42%) and about a third of Black parents (32%) said they were extremely or very worried about their children getting shot, compared with smaller shares of Asian (23%) and White (12%) parents.
Parents in self-described urban communities (35%) were considerably more likely than those in rural (19%) or suburban (17%) areas to be extremely or very worried about any of their children being shot. And lower-income parents (40%) were far more likely than middle-income (16%) and upper-income (10%) parents to be extremely or very worried.
Partisan differences were evident, too. Democratic and Democratic-leaning parents were roughly twice as likely as Republican and Republican-leaning parents to say they were extremely or very worried about their children getting shot at some point (27% vs. 14%).
(https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/SR_23.03.30_KidsGuns_1.png)
(https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/SR_23.03.30_KidsGuns_2.png)
(https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/SR_23.03.30_KidsGuns_3.png)
(https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/SR_23.03.30_KidsGuns_4.png)
Not at a school, but still egregious...
16-year old boy goes to pick up his brother in Kansas City. Knocks on the door of the wrong house and is shot several times. Passed away from his injuries a few days later.
There is something deeply wrong with a society that accepts this culturally and legally.
Quote from: Jacob on April 17, 2023, 12:58:29 PMNot at a school, but still egregious...
16-year old boy goes to pick up his brother in Kansas City. Knocks on the door of the wrong house and is shot several times. Passed away from his injuries a few days later.
I think he's still alive.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2023, 01:06:54 PMI think he's still alive.
Oh you're right, thank goodness.
I misread.
Unfortunately this elderly homeowner proved to have better aim: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ny-woman-driven-wrong-address-fatally-shot-homeowner-98645999.
She's white, young, and blonde. He's screwed.
Quote from: Hamilcar on April 17, 2023, 01:01:49 PMThere is something deeply wrong with a society that accepts this culturally and legally.
Corporations are people. they can funnel money through not only just lobbying but direct bribery, err I mean contributions. Mix that with a weird "mah freedoms" mentality and you have a lethal combination
Quote from: HVC on April 17, 2023, 10:09:24 PMShe's white, young, and blonde. He's screwed.
He was just standing his ground.
I wonder if one day there'll be a mass shooting at an NRA event. Would be ironic.
Quote from: Jacob on April 18, 2023, 10:29:55 AMI wonder if one day there'll be a mass shooting at an NRA event. Would be ironic.
Actually gun injuries seems to drop during NRA conventions. :P
Article from 2018:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/gun-injuries-drop-20-percent-nationwide-during-nra-conventions-study-says-but-why
QuoteGun injuries drop 20 percent nationwide during NRA conventions, study says. But why?
After 17 people died during the Parkland school shooting in Florida two weeks ago, many lawmakers and gun control advocates have called for tighter regulations on who can buy and keep guns.
The National Rifle Association has rebuffed those calls. But a new study published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine is suggesting that firearm injuries actually drop during the group's annual conventions — when roughly 80,000 members, and their guns, are off the street and in meetings.
The study analyzed nearly 76 million private insurance claims filed nationwide for people under age 65 — specifically, from emergency department visits during convention dates between 2007 and 2015, plus three weeks before and three weeks after each annual meeting.
When conventions weren't happening during that roughly six-week window, firearm injuries occurred at a rate of 1.5 per 100,000 people, the report says. But during conventions, that rate dipped to 1.2 per 100,000 people — a 20-percent drop nationwide, according to the study.
Anupam Jena, the lead author on the study, is an economist and physician with an eye for Freakonomics-style research. He has studied how marathon routes clog city streets and hurt survival rates for heart attack patients. He has explored the relationship between major cardiology conferences and health outcomes for heart disease patients.
In his latest study, Jena, an associate professor of health care policy at Harvard Medical School, wanted to know what data revealed about firearms injuries nationwide when tens of thousands of gun owners suddenly leave home and head to the same location.
What drove Jena to conduct this analysis was the argument that if people were trained to use guns more safely, then fewer gun injuries would occur. In the report, the authors suggest "firearm-safety concerns and risks of injury are relevant even among experienced gun owners."
The NRA did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the study.
This observational study does not provide conclusive evidence about the NRA's influence on gun safety overall and "cannot be causally attributed to the meetings themselves," the report said. But Jena said the study does raise an important question: "What is the risk of a gun injury just simply by using guns alone?"
It's a question that has dominated political debates in the days since a gunman entered Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and opened fire on students and teachers, killing 17 people.
There's not much federal research on gun violence. In 1996, Congress passed a provision known as the Dickey Amendment, that said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can't use funding to "advocate or promote gun control." That does not directly rule out research, but has had what many have called "a chilling effect" on what data the agency has produced. Some lawmakers have called for rolling back that provision.
This latest study, while statistically significant, is "not necessarily meaningful," said Mark Rosenberg, the president emeritus of the Task Force for Global Health and the founding director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. It highlights the fact the the United States has "so little meaningful data."
"We're so ill-prepared to answer the most compelling questions" about gun violence, said Mark Rosenberg, the president emeritus of the Task Force for Global Health and the founding director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. "If you don't know what works, you can claim anything works."
Rosenberg said the country needs to appropriate money so the CDC can collect "large-scale, multi-jurisdictional data" about gun violence to better understand what the problem is, what causes are driving it, what solutions work and how to scale them up."
Republican Govs. Rick Scott of Florida and Bill Haslam of Tennessee , split from the NRA and their party on tightening gun control laws after Parkland. Both said they want to ban bump stocks, and Scott, who has been Florida's governor during three mass shootings since 2016, said he wanted require that a person must be at least 21 before buying a gun.
During the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) near Washington, D.C., NRA Executive Vice-President Wayne LaPierre criticized Democrats and the media as being elitists eager to attack the NRA and "eradicate all individual freedom."
"As usual, the opportunists wasted not one second to exploit tragedy for political gain" with calls for more gun control, LaPierre said, adding that the "breathless national media" was "eager to smear the NRA."
On Feb. 19, Dallas Mayor Pro-Tem Dwaine Caraway stood before a bank of microphones and said the NRA should "reconsider coming to Dallas" this May for its annual convention. A self-professed "believer in the Second Amendment" who owns five guns, Caraway said he didn't want to host the group until it came to the table "to solve the problem."
Responding to Caraway's comments, Andrew Arulanandam, the NRA's managing director of public affairs, said in a written statement to the PBS NewsHour: "Dallas, like every American city and community, is populated by NRA members."
"No politician anywhere can tell the NRA not to come to their city," he said. "We are already there."
Going forward, Jena said he wanted to analyze state Medicaid data to see if similar trends emerged during NRA convention dates.
So what you're saying is the best way to cut down on gun deaths is to launch a TV channel specifically designed to keep gun nuts entertained and out of trouble?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FvDGadRWcAExBFt?format=jpg&name=large)
I guess he prefers people knock :unsure:
So if you ring a doorbell and the person pulls a gun at you, are you allowed to return fire? You know, in self-defense? Or is that only if you're a police officer?
Quote from: Jacob on May 03, 2023, 09:44:33 AMSo if you ring a doorbell and the person pulls a gun at you, are you allowed to return fire? You know, in self-defense? Or is that only if you're a police officer?
What are the skin colours of the persons in this scenario?
If you don't ring doorbells in 2023, why hasn't he removed his doorbell? :hmm:
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 03, 2023, 11:29:10 AMIf you don't ring doorbells in 2023, why hasn't he removed his doorbell? :hmm:
Aesthetics?
Seems an unnecessary removal cost if people are not using it.
What are we supposed to do in 2023? Just let ourselves in?
The polite thing to do is shoot your way in. Or drive your tank in.
I don't know all the legal intricacies of every state's stand your ground law, but I think homeowners would still be justified in shooting at you if you try to shoot your way in.
Quote from: DGuller on May 03, 2023, 02:13:59 PMI don't know all the legal intricacies of every state's stand your ground law, but I think homeowners would still be justified in shooting at you if you try to shoot your way in.
True. :hmm:
That must be why I would need to drive my tank.
At least have the decency to post a sign saying if you ring my doorbell I will blow your head off.
Oh yeah, they caught the Texas dude who killed a bunch of his neighbors. Story has immigration status angle.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2023, 03:02:31 PMAt least have the decency to post a sign saying if you ring my doorbell I will blow your head off.
Doesn't that totally ruin the element of surprise?
Quote from: DGuller on May 03, 2023, 03:13:08 PMDoesn't that totally ruin the element of surprise?
Good manners sometimes means sacrificing your own self interest.
Quote from: Syt on May 03, 2023, 09:37:35 AM[snip]
A guy at the door might be Deliveroo or a parcel - unexpected phone callers on the other hand....<_<
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 03, 2023, 03:32:57 PMA guy at the door might be Deliveroo or a parcel - unexpected phone callers on the other hand....<_<
Those quaint English and their charming little local brands.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 03, 2023, 03:32:57 PMQuote from: Syt on May 03, 2023, 09:37:35 AM[snip]
A guy at the door might be Deliveroo or a parcel - unexpected phone callers on the other hand....<_<
The change in etiquette on phone calls just shocks me from when I was young.
I mean - as a kid we had one house line. If the phone rang, you answered it!
Now, my wife for one refuses to ever answer her own phone unless she recognizes the number. In my own experience when I try to contact witnesses I often have to text to say who I am in advance before people will talk to me - if I call unsolicited they'll just refuse to answer.
One does not answer phone calls no. Or check messages. Too much spam.
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2023, 03:43:32 PMNow, my wife for one refuses to ever answer her own phone unless she recognizes the number. In my own experience when I try to contact witnesses I often have to text to say who I am in advance before people will talk to me - if I call unsolicited they'll just refuse to answer.
The telephone solicitation business totally ruined it for everybody.
I don't get many phone calls. I always try to answer them though whether I notice or not is a big question.
Even if it's a scammer better they talk to me than someone who will believe them.
Most scams I get are text messages. Super common to get them claiming to have a package I need to pay a few pound to recieve.
Wonder why it is you get so many
Yeah.
I answer my phone but I'd say 3/4 are scms, the other 1/4 are recruiters (scams in suits).
If i don't recognize a number I don't answer. Like valmy said telemarketers ruined telephones.
Don't know if it's an android thing ( dont recall it on iphone) but you can report a number as fraud when you block it so that when they call someone else the tag "likely fraud" shows up on their phone.
I answer my phone because I worry that the call center immoral scam guy in India will feel rejected if I don't.
I care.
I try to answer my phone but I genuinely miss 9 out of 10 calls.
I wonder what I'm doing right. I basically don't get scam/spam phone calls. Maybe once a month now.
I missed all my calls on my landline until recently since I had put my phone on silent mode, due to spam and scammers calls, precisely.
Just heartbreaking :cry:
https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/man-witnessed-allen-outlet-mall-shooting/
From that interview
https://twitter.com/RexChapman/status/1655070374676295686
(https://images-ext-2.discordapp.net/external/Zbd_FNABaJk_Eq0Si4_wanvxpOn-xNt9oycbNh3VMWc/https/pbs.twimg.com/media/Fvf39giXwAAcnGV.jpg?width=1295&height=670)
The NRA really are evil.
Quote from: Josquius on May 07, 2023, 05:07:52 AMThe NRA really are evil.
And we now know that a bunch of good guys with guns won't stop a car plowing in pedestrians.
Quote from: Josquius on May 07, 2023, 05:07:52 AMThe NRA really are evil.
I hope that folks who feel the need to conduct mass shootings start picking NRA conventions as their target instead of schools.
Imo, Fox News and CPAC are a lot more responsible than the NRA.
I put Republican voters at the top of the list.
Can I blame lobby money and politicians? If so, I blame lobby money and politicians.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 07, 2023, 08:53:16 PMI put Republican voters at the top of the list.
Yep. The politicians aren't joining the Death Cult because of the money, it is because of the votes. A third of the GOP absolutely believes that there is an international conspiracy to steal children for sex, and another third believes that there is a "Them" that is trying to replace all whites in the US with colored foreigners. Each of those groups believes that they will be called upon to be the armed heroes who save America. The remaining third are absolutely adamant that they won't be disarmed now, right before End Times.
I'm conflicted on who to blame. On the one hand, it's the voters that subscribe to a hateful ideology from which the vast majority of inexplicable political opinions originate. On the other hand, we should know by now that modern propaganda methods are extremely effective, and they can really warp your perception of reality if you fall into the rabbit hole prepared for you. A lot of the GOP voters subscribe to a hateful ideology because they fell under the spell of modern day Jim Jones and his cable news channel, and they wouldn't have subscribed to it otherwise. Assuming that the voters have full agency does not seem to capture what is actually happening.
Quote from: DGuller on May 07, 2023, 11:32:23 PMI'm conflicted on who to blame. On the one hand, it's the voters that subscribe to a hateful ideology from which the vast majority of inexplicable political opinions originate. On the other hand, we should know by now that modern propaganda methods are extremely effective, and they can really warp your perception of reality if you fall into the rabbit hole prepared for you. A lot of the GOP voters subscribe to a hateful ideology because they fell under the spell of modern day Jim Jones and his cable news channel, and they wouldn't have subscribed to it otherwise. Assuming that the voters have full agency does not seem to capture what is actually happening.
Hell no. You don't need to be some superior ball of light to be repulsed by the far-right bile, plenty of people who fall into patronised demographics can't stand it. The likes of Fox News reinforce unpleasant personality traits for sure, but they don't create them.
Like it or not there will always be a segment of people who will not subscribe to anything that is not hate-driven. Contain them by force of law (such as not letting them own military grade weapons) is the only thing we (as in civilised people) will ever be able to do about them.
Quote from: Tamas on May 08, 2023, 03:51:57 AMHell no. You don't need to be some superior ball of light to be repulsed by the far-right bile, plenty of people who fall into patronised demographics can't stand it. The likes of Fox News reinforce unpleasant personality traits for sure, but they don't create them.
Like it or not there will always be a segment of people who will not subscribe to anything that is not hate-driven. Contain them by force of law (such as not letting them own military grade weapons) is the only thing we (as in civilised people) will ever be able to do about them.
When you get fed hate for over 30 years (and critically get very little other input) you start to internalize it. Nobody is immune to hate, and getting a constant stream of propaganda will warp most people.
There's an assumption that critical thinking is innate to us. It's something that has to be learned, and if it isn't then it makes you much more vulnerable to influence.
(https://i.redd.it/x5wmo55z0nya1.jpg)
Isn't Geraldo on FOX News? :hmm:
(I've seen commenters drawing parallels to pro-life/anti-choice activists using images of aborted fetuses to drive their anti-abortion message.)
Oh, also:
(https://i.redd.it/n55y187xypya1.jpg)
(https://i.redd.it/jhvr9tamdoya1.png)
It is very hard for them to believe that a Nazi white supremacist could ever do anything evil.
:D
Also seeing a bunch of "can't have been white supremacist, because he's Latino" and "so suspicious that all his views were documented online and then removed ... psyops to distract from the transgender shooter?"
Surely on the last point, by now you just need to wait a week for a new mass shooting to distract from the previous mass shooting :( No need for psyops.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 09, 2023, 01:57:59 PMSurely on the last point, by now you just need to wait a week for a new mass shooting to distract from the previous mass shooting :( No need for psyops.
Word.
I've honestly already forgotten the last one.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 09, 2023, 02:04:23 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on May 09, 2023, 01:57:59 PMSurely on the last point, by now you just need to wait a week for a new mass shooting to distract from the previous mass shooting :( No need for psyops.
Word.
I've honestly already forgotten the last one.
The one before that in Texas was a week earlier (gun nut decided that he didn't like his neighbors complaining about him firing his AR-15 in his back yard, so he went next door and killed five of them, including one child).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RetXzscemDQ
12 yo and 20 yo kill burger joint worker in Texas.
Yeah, well, what else is new? :(
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 09, 2023, 01:57:59 PMSurely on the last point, by now you just need to wait a week for a new mass shooting to distract from the previous mass shooting :( No need for psyops.
I have a funny feeling we'll be hearing about that trans one for years to come.
Quote from: Josquius on May 17, 2023, 06:10:02 AMQuote from: Sheilbh on May 09, 2023, 01:57:59 PMSurely on the last point, by now you just need to wait a week for a new mass shooting to distract from the previous mass shooting :( No need for psyops.
I have a funny feeling we'll be hearing about that trans one for years to come.
Well, you keep bringing it up...
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 17, 2023, 06:29:52 AMQuote from: Josquius on May 17, 2023, 06:10:02 AMQuote from: Sheilbh on May 09, 2023, 01:57:59 PMSurely on the last point, by now you just need to wait a week for a new mass shooting to distract from the previous mass shooting :( No need for psyops.
I have a funny feeling we'll be hearing about that trans one for years to come.
Well, you keep bringing it up...
:unsure:
I do?
Quote from: Josquius on May 17, 2023, 06:10:02 AMQuote from: Sheilbh on May 09, 2023, 01:57:59 PMSurely on the last point, by now you just need to wait a week for a new mass shooting to distract from the previous mass shooting :( No need for psyops.
I have a funny feeling we'll be hearing about that trans one for years to come.
One of the reasons it will live on is that it probably is not even true. Those kinds of stories become grist for the conspiracy mills.
Yeah I think I read somewhere or heard something about how the popular memory of Columbine is very wrong. Once something coalesces in the public mind, I think it's really difficult to shift.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 17, 2023, 06:56:41 AMYeah I think I read somewhere or heard something about how the popular memory of Columbine is very wrong. Once something coalesces in the public mind, I think it's really difficult to shift.
Which is why movies about historic events that play with the truth are so insidious.
What do you mean about the memory of Columbine being wrong?
Quote from: grumbler on May 17, 2023, 06:53:09 AMQuote from: Josquius on May 17, 2023, 06:10:02 AMQuote from: Sheilbh on May 09, 2023, 01:57:59 PMSurely on the last point, by now you just need to wait a week for a new mass shooting to distract from the previous mass shooting :( No need for psyops.
I have a funny feeling we'll be hearing about that trans one for years to come.
One of the reasons it will live on is that it probably is not even true. Those kinds of stories become grist for the conspiracy mills.
Not true how so?
Quote from: Josquius on May 17, 2023, 11:04:58 AMWhat do you mean about the memory of Columbine being wrong?
Quote from: grumbler on May 17, 2023, 06:53:09 AMQuote from: Josquius on May 17, 2023, 06:10:02 AMQuote from: Sheilbh on May 09, 2023, 01:57:59 PMSurely on the last point, by now you just need to wait a week for a new mass shooting to distract from the previous mass shooting :( No need for psyops.
I have a funny feeling we'll be hearing about that trans one for years to come.
One of the reasons it will live on is that it probably is not even true. Those kinds of stories become grist for the conspiracy mills.
Not true how so?
Because it may not even involve a trans person. It's true that Audrey Hale started referring to herself/himself as "he" and "Aiden" immediately before this all went down, but it isn't clear from reports from friends that this was legit and not just another way to trigger his/her parents.
You know the US is fucked when Serbia of all places shows how people are meant to behave after a mass shooting.
BBC News - Serbians hand in guns and question culture of violence after two shootings
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65597622
Quote from: Josquius on May 18, 2023, 01:30:00 AMYou know the US is fucked when Serbia of all places shows how people are meant to behave after a mass shooting.
It is the second amendment. As soon as you even discuss doing anything people freak out like you want to overturn the Constitution and set up a dictatorship.
Quote from: Valmy on May 18, 2023, 07:31:20 AMQuote from: Josquius on May 18, 2023, 01:30:00 AMYou know the US is fucked when Serbia of all places shows how people are meant to behave after a mass shooting.
It is the second amendment. As soon as you even discuss doing anything people freak out like you want to overturn the Constitution and set up a dictatorship.
Despite the thing literally being called an amendment.
Quote from: Josquius on May 18, 2023, 07:32:38 AMQuote from: Valmy on May 18, 2023, 07:31:20 AMQuote from: Josquius on May 18, 2023, 01:30:00 AMYou know the US is fucked when Serbia of all places shows how people are meant to behave after a mass shooting.
It is the second amendment. As soon as you even discuss doing anything people freak out like you want to overturn the Constitution and set up a dictatorship.
Despite the thing literally being called an amendment.
The first ten amendments are supposed to be the fundamental rights of all people, so not exactly optional.
Despite the fact that most people cannot tell you what the other amendments say or what they mean, everybody knows that the Second Amendment means that owning guns is a fundamental right of all people that can never be impeached or tyranny will reign forever.
Despite the fact that the text says:
QuoteA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
If the idea was that every person should be able to have unregulated and unlimited access to guns as a fundamental right of people, why wasn't that what the 2nd Amendment said? Why did it go into having regulations on a militia? The idea seems to me pretty clear is that the people should organize themselves into a militia and have rules and training and so forth. Which in the context of a frontier settler society in the 18th century makes perfect sense. You would have to be a nut to live in most of the United States in the 18th century and not have a fire arm and the skill to use and maintain it even if you lived in some pacifist Quaker community or something.
But it is pretty hopeless. The interpretation that this means every psychopath with a desire to murder, and untrained and unqualified amateur, should be able to have unlimited access to weaponry seems to be both enshrined in law but also in the minds of many Americans. I don't know what the ultimate outcome is but we seem to be going down this track for a while. I do think eventually there will be a reaction against this idea but we will see.
There will be no reaction.
I mean. There's nothing right now. What will change?
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 18, 2023, 08:21:02 AMThere will be no reaction.
I mean. There's nothing right now. What will change?
If there isn't, there isn't. I have this weird feeling we have been around this block before, where long celebrations of gun culture have this reaction and then swings back in the other direction for awhile.
Over time as more and more people get personally impacted suddenly shit becomes real. Or at least that is how it is happened before with other issues.
I am not even saying this as some kind of optimistic prediction that good sense and virtue will prevail. Just that eventually there will be a reaction, it might be worse than the disease. I don't know.
Quote from: Valmy on May 18, 2023, 07:31:20 AMQuote from: Josquius on May 18, 2023, 01:30:00 AMYou know the US is fucked when Serbia of all places shows how people are meant to behave after a mass shooting.
It is the second amendment. As soon as you even discuss doing anything people freak out like you want to overturn the Constitution and set up a dictatorship.
The second amendment is just an excuse to justify a pre-existing viewpoint. For two centuries no one interpreted the Second Amendment to block severe regulation of personal use of firearms; it took a court deliberately packed with radical extremists to pick up fringe scholarship and make it into constitutional law.
Quote from: Valmy on May 18, 2023, 08:43:58 AMIf there isn't, there isn't. I have this weird feeling we have been around this block before, where long celebrations of gun culture have this reaction and then swings back in the other direction for awhile.
I don't think there has been any point in US history with this kind of entrenched, politicized gun culture.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 18, 2023, 08:48:58 AMQuote from: Valmy on May 18, 2023, 08:43:58 AMIf there isn't, there isn't. I have this weird feeling we have been around this block before, where long celebrations of gun culture have this reaction and then swings back in the other direction for awhile.
I don't think there has been any point in US history with this kind of entrenched, politicized gun culture.
Politicized, I guess not. Though I do kind of think about the romanticization of guns right after the Civil War and the blowback that eventually created, but that certainly wasn't political in the same sense.
Just typically whenever this country goes into some kind of extreme position eventually the next generation tends to react strongly in the other direction. But I do have to admit the fundamentalist belief that owning guns is an essential human right and a guard against tyranny and injustice and all the propaganda that goes along with that is a very potent political powerhouse, so we will see.
Quote from: Valmy on May 18, 2023, 08:43:58 AMIf there isn't, there isn't. I have this weird feeling we have been around this block before, where long celebrations of gun culture have this reaction and then swings back in the other direction for awhile.
Things don't automatically generate reaction. They need to be sustained politically, systematically, financially, institutionally. Issues need to be shaped, directed, constituted. As horrible as the situation currently is, there is not enough sustained pressure generated against the very entrenched political and cultural position that sustain the intimate association between conservative collective identity and gun ownership, use, and fetichism. Streets are empty. Shoulders are shrugged. Meanwhile, there are active shooters drill in schools, and people are debating arming teachers.
Quote from: Valmy on May 18, 2023, 09:01:07 AMPoliticized, I guess not. Though I do kind of think about the romanticization of guns right after the Civil War and the blowback that eventually created, but that certainly wasn't political in the same sense.
But even the post-ACW gun culture, to the extent that it existed at all, was perfectly fine with local rules like "no guns allowed inside town limits." Guns were only considered necessary and proper when individuals had to face potential harm away from the protections of the law.
QuoteJust typically whenever this country goes into some kind of extreme position eventually the next generation tends to react strongly in the other direction. But I do have to admit the fundamentalist belief that owning guns is an essential human right and a guard against tyranny and injustice and all the propaganda that goes along with that is a very potent political powerhouse, so we will see.
This is just an extension of the superheroes vs supervillains mindset that the American right has invented and sold to a gullible people. And if you have a gun in order to spring into action as a superhero, you might as well use it to defend against people ringing your doorbell because they might be supervillains.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 18, 2023, 09:20:07 AMStreets are empty.
Well yeah. Who wants to be an easy target?
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 18, 2023, 09:20:07 AMMeanwhile, there are active shooters drill in schools, and people are debating arming teachers.
Debating? I thought they were already doing it in some States?
I thought the debate was about arming students now.
Saw it on Twitter, not a shooting and hopefully won't become one but it is absolutely sick, I don't know what else you need as proof for a dysfunctional society when this is allowed:
https://twitter.com/TollyTaylor/status/1659271827879804928
QuoteTonight on @wbaltv11: A man with an AR-15 has been showing up for weeks to a school bus drop off for local elementary school students.
Parents say their kids are afraid, the man says he's protesting @GovWesMoore's new gun control law. You'll hear from both sides at 5+6pm.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fwbq7s-WAAAkH1T?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Can you imagine having kids in your family use the school bus every day with that lunatic standing there with an assault rifle? Where is the police? Don't tell me they don't have their ways to harass him off.
What is even the solution to such a situation? Should a couple of parents accompany the bus with their AR-15s just in case the guy flips? Kids caught in the inevitable crossfire would be just "no way to stop this" collateral damage? WTF?
QuoteTonight on @wbaltv11: A man with an AR-15 has been showing up for weeks to a school bus drop off for local elementary school students.
Parents say their kids are afraid, the man says he's protesting @GovWesMoore's new gun control law. You'll hear from both sides at 5+6pm.
:lmfao:
Amazing that random dude with an assault rifle hanging around a bunch of little kids on their way to school, and parents who are a tinsy bit concerned about this, is a both sides issue..
I have to wonder. If he was just showing up without the gun would the police have stepped in already concerned about him being a paedo?
Quote from: Tamas on May 19, 2023, 03:02:55 AMWhat is even the solution to such a situation? Should a couple of parents accompany the bus with their AR-15s just in case the guy flips? Kids caught in the inevitable crossfire would be just "no way to stop this" collateral damage? WTF?
All the kids get little bullet proof vests and the parents escort them to the stop with bullet proof riot shields.
Well... if a parent feels threatened by this guy, they're within their rights to shoot him in self-defence I should think? Or if he makes a sudden movement or whatever?
Quote from: Jacob on May 19, 2023, 03:12:17 PMWell... if a parent feels threatened by this guy, they're within their rights to shoot him in self-defence I should think? Or if he makes a sudden movement or whatever?
Or if one of the elementary school students feels threatened,
they can shoot him.
Stand Your Ground!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 19, 2023, 03:03:09 PMQuote from: Tamas on May 19, 2023, 03:02:55 AMWhat is even the solution to such a situation? Should a couple of parents accompany the bus with their AR-15s just in case the guy flips? Kids caught in the inevitable crossfire would be just "no way to stop this" collateral damage? WTF?
All the kids get little bullet proof vests and the parents escort them to the stop with bullet proof riot shields.
Bullet proof backpacks.
https://tuffypacks.com/
https://tuffypacks.com/images/pdfs/TuffyPacks-Parents-Guide.pdf
Shooting event at a music festival in WA. "Only" two dead (obviously not only to their friends and family). Still hits closer as one of my colleagues was attending the festival.
For a while I've been thinking about the role Hollywood has played in this. Lots of 80's and 90's movies about the lone, well armed, dude being hunted by "the Government" and using violence to defend himself. "Enemy of the State" and the like.
Since a lot of people get their world view from entertainment that shit must have had an effect on peoples distrust of government and in extension their views on gun control.
Thankfully, Chuck Norris' Lone Wolf McQuade (1983) was more subtle than that. :P
:nerd:
There was also a future Star Trek Voyager actor in it.
Quote from: Threviel on June 21, 2023, 03:18:31 AMFor a while I've been thinking about the role Hollywood has played in this. Lots of 80's and 90's movies about the lone, well armed, dude being hunted by "the Government" and using violence to defend himself. "Enemy of the State" and the like.
Corrupt government, decent man has to resort to violence in order to get justice... You are talking about
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, aren't you?
Interesting decision in Oregon upholding the state's ban on large capacity magazines - including an interesting use of history in reaching the conclusion that the ban was lawful and did not infringe on the 2nd Amendment.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.170381/gov.uscourts.ord.170381.252.0.pdf
Quote from: Threviel on June 21, 2023, 03:18:31 AMFor a while I've been thinking about the role Hollywood has played in this. Lots of 80's and 90's movies about the lone, well armed, dude being hunted by "the Government" and using violence to defend himself. "Enemy of the State" and the like.
Since a lot of people get their world view from entertainment that shit must have had an effect on peoples distrust of government and in extension their views on gun control.
We need a wave of films showing a more realistic version - humanised government agent and their team track down and stops well armed mentally unstable nutter.
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 23, 2023, 08:25:24 PMInteresting decision in Oregon upholding the state's ban on large capacity magazines - including an interesting use of history in reaching the conclusion that the ban was lawful and did not infringe on the 2nd Amendment.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.170381/gov.uscourts.ord.170381.252.0.pdf
Interesting history of firearms and firearm technological development.
And shocking that the husband of the Plaintiff was permitted to give admissible expert testimony, even if it was given little weight.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/29/us/unc-chapel-hill-campus-shooting-tuesday/index.html
QuoteUNC graduate student charged with murder in fatal shooting of associate professor
(https://i.postimg.cc/9c1ZQLDw/image.png)