 
     |
| School shootings... what changed? (Page 19/33) |
|
blackrams
|
MAY 28, 11:19 AM
|
|
------------------
Rams
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun.........
|
|
|
williegoat
|
MAY 28, 11:54 AM
|
|
^^^ That is the funniest thing I have seen all week ^^^
|
|
|
|
williegoat
|
MAY 28, 11:57 AM
|
|
I want to elaborate on my suggested solutions:
| quote | The the kid had a miserable family life. I am not sure it could even be called family life. Somewhere along the way, someone should have recognized this. Maybe the schools should have seen it. I have been through training to recognize drug abuse, school faculty should have something similar.
|
|
In an earlier post, I suggested that one contributing factor in these incidents is the lack of respectable adult male role models. This seems to be the case in the Uvalde murders.
There should be some kind of mechanism in place, maybe within the school system, to identify potential problems before they get out of hand. The kid needed help long before he became dangerous. There should be “counselors” who could step in and provide the necessary adult guidance. This is where people who claim to care about the children could show that they are sincere.
| quote | The next opportunity for intervention came after the many overt warning signs, threats, social media posts, etc.
|
|
This is when the authorities should have been involved.
When the kid says that he wants to kill everybody, someone needs to knock on his door. We do that when someone threatens the president. Is Joe Biden’s life more important than the children who were killed?
-In summary-
I am not saying that every kid who grows up in less than ideal circumstances will become a killer, but I know that there are people who have the experience to identify those who might. As another member is fond of saying, “Nip it in the bud.”
I am not saying that every threat will be followed through, but if we can investigate everybody who was in DC on January 6th, we can certainly investigate a kid who says he is going to commit mass murder.
We need to get our priorities in order. The recent incidents in Buffalo and Uvalde were far worse than anything that took place in DC on Jan 6th. The worst thing on that day was when the U.S. government used a gun to execute an unarmed citizen. This is unacceptable.
Don’t blame the U.S. citizens, don’t blame the gun. You are only contributing to the problem.
Fix the system that has been perverted by decades of failed leftist policy, or get the F**K out of the way and let the adults handle it.
|
|
|
|
MidEngineManiac
|
MAY 28, 12:14 PM
|
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
MAY 28, 12:32 PM
|
|
The gun was legal.
Under state law, the young man who killed 19 children and two teachers at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, was entitled to his guns. He bought his AR-platform rifles legally for his 18th birthday. He had no criminal record. He was, until the moment he shot his grandmother, a law-abiding citizen, the kind of person we are supposed to trust with high-powered firearms.
But this gets to the fundamental problem with the conservative idea that the only people with guns we have to worry about are the “bad guys.” It’s the idea that, as Senator Ted Cruz of Texas put it last year, after a gunman killed 10 people at a grocery store in Boulder, Colo.: “You go after violent criminals, you go after felons, you go after fugitives, you go after those with serious mental illness, you stop them from getting guns. And when they try to illegally buy a firearm from you, lock them up and put them in jail.”
To the conservatives who posit a sharp distinction between “good guys with guns” and “bad guys with guns,” law-abidingness is an inherent trait of a class of individuals. It is an ontological category; some people have it, others don’t. Any form of gun control is verboten in this worldview because it could interfere with the ability of a “good guy” — of a “law-abiding citizen” — to obtain that to which he is entitled.
This is not how the world works. People are law-abiding until the moment they are not. They are “good guys” with guns until their circumstances and their choices make them “bad guys” with guns. And from the perspective of the person who sells guns and ammunition, there’s no way to know whether a law-abiding customer will, at some point, become a criminal.
The most vociferous supporters of permissive gun laws seem to believe that an armed society will be, for the most part, self-regulating. That we will be able to keep weapons out of the hands of the wrong people and insofar as we can’t, a law-abiding citizen will be there, with a gun, to stop the bad guys, whenever and wherever they appear.
But people don’t exist on such a strict binary. And when we allow for the unlimited proliferation of weapons, we guarantee that when the switch flips, people will die.
If that is the cost of freedom — if our liberty demands the occasional massacre — then conservatives ought to make that case.
* * * * * *
Guess what? I did not write this.
"When the Cost of Liberty Is the Occasional Massacre"
Jamelle Bouie for the New York Times; May 28, 2022.
https://www.nytimes.com/202...lican-gun-texas.html[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-28-2022).]
|
|
|
|
williegoat
|
MAY 28, 12:54 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
The gun was legal.
Under state law, the young man who killed 19 children and two teachers at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, was entitled to his guns. He bought his AR-platform rifles legally for his 18th birthday. He had no criminal record. He was, until the moment he shot his grandmother, a law-abiding citizen, the kind of person we are supposed to trust with high-powered firearms.
But this gets to the fundamental problem with the conservative idea that the only people with guns we have to worry about are the “bad guys.” It’s the idea that, as Senator Ted Cruz of Texas put it last year, after a gunman killed 10 people at a grocery store in Boulder, Colo.: “You go after violent criminals, you go after felons, you go after fugitives, you go after those with serious mental illness, you stop them from getting guns. And when they try to illegally buy a firearm from you, lock them up and put them in jail.”
To the conservatives who posit a sharp distinction between “good guys with guns” and “bad guys with guns,” law-abidingness is an inherent trait of a class of individuals. It is an ontological category; some people have it, others don’t. Any form of gun control is verboten in this worldview because it could interfere with the ability of a “good guy” — of a “law-abiding citizen” — to obtain that to which he is entitled.
This is not how the world works. People are law-abiding until the moment they are not. They are “good guys” with guns until their circumstances and their choices make them “bad guys” with guns. And from the perspective of the person who sells guns and ammunition, there’s no way to know whether a law-abiding customer will, at some point, become a criminal.
The most vociferous supporters of permissive gun laws seem to believe that an armed society will be, for the most part, self-regulating. That we will be able to keep weapons out of the hands of the wrong people and insofar as we can’t, a law-abiding citizen will be there, with a gun, to stop the bad guys, whenever and wherever they appear.
But people don’t exist on such a strict binary. And when we allow for the unlimited proliferation of weapons, we guarantee that when the switch flips, people will die.
If that is the cost of freedom — if our liberty demands the occasional massacre — then conservatives ought to make that case.
* * * * * *
Guess what? I did not write this.
"When the Cost of Liberty Is the Occasional Massacre"
Jamelle Bouie for the New York Times; May 28, 2022.
https://www.nytimes.com/202...lican-gun-texas.html
|
|
Because only the government has the wisdom to kill unarmed citizens?
|
|
|
|
MidEngineManiac
|
MAY 28, 01:19 PM
|
|
THAT is simple common sense, Rinse.
Just like a Rat, we can be free and at risk, or safe in a cage.
|
|
|
|
Jake_Dragon
|
MAY 28, 01:20 PM
|
|
This is not a gun issue.
Keep saying the same thing over an over but it does not change the facts.
This young man was systematically turned into the monster that killed those kids. He didn't wake up one day like this, this was an erosion of his soul. Broken family, no one wanted him. Bullied and abused at school and once again no one paid attention. Father was absent and when he was there he was a horrible role model. Mother was a drug abuser, could not take care of the child so off to the grandmothers. Friends stopped hanging out with him and abandoned him when he started down this path of violence. The signs were there but no one was paying attention to this kid.
The school system was not following policy, the door was propped open and he came into the school without anyone challenging him. There was an active shooter in the vicinity with documented 911 calls and the school was not locked down. He had already shot his grandmother, wrecked his truck and then shot a two more people as he fled the now wrecked truck. Walked to the school while the cops were going to where the two men he shot at.
Once inside he.... well you know what he did, I can't make myself write it.
During this time there are several on going 911 calls, kids as well as adults. But by now its too late to lock down the school.
As the cops started arriving its been said that the order to stand down and secure the school was given. That order came from the Chief of police. The border patrol agent was off duty and getting a hair cut. He arrived with a barrowed shotgun from the barber. I am not positive but I suspect he was the one that ended this.
There will be a lot of spin and damage control, a lot of "if he did not have a gun" but lets not lose focus. While the cops were outside they were told to stand down. They were told that the kid had killed everyone in the room and was barricaded in and no further threat. From what I read this was not the truth, and during this time there were still kids inside the school on the phone with 911.
In the days and weeks we are going to see them focus on the Gun, lay sole blame on the shooter and once again those that let this happen will go back to doing the same thing and create more walking time bombs.
They failed this kid, they failed the kids that he killed and the cops failed the people they swore an oath to protect. This is not a gun issue, this is a people issue. The ones that just wanted to let this kid age out of their responsibility and go home.
Its disgusting and makes me sick thinking how everyone in this kids life let this happen.
|
|
|
|
williegoat
|
MAY 28, 01:31 PM
|
|
As I alluded to earlier, two of the worst mass murderers in history advocated for disarmament and socialism.
They were the government: Mao and Stalin.
The U.S. founding fathers knew, from personal experience, that such men existed. This is why we have the second amendment.
I will not submit.
 [This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 05-28-2022).]
|
|
|
|
williegoat
|
MAY 28, 01:46 PM
|
|
Jake is absolutely right, and his post made me think of something else.
Why don't we put cameras in every classroom? If something like this is happening, the police could see inside and respond accordingly. An added benefit would be that both students and teachers might just think twice before engaging in questionable activity.
Cameras are cheap nowadays. They are almost ubiquitous. Public schools are public.
|
|
|
|