Another mass shooting in the US

[Uncle fester]

Cruz being Cruz...




(One of the top comments shares some video from parents begging cops to go in and cops detaining one who wanted to. I get that there's probably procedure, maybe even flawed procedure, but not a good look when many US cops these days are tooled up to the gills in expensive military-grade gear.)

Fücking Snowflake couldn't hack being asked some pertinent questions.

[Gumboot]

For cunts like Cruz, it's all about the bucks.

[fishfoodie]

Four more lives destroyed

Mrs Garcia was married and had four children - two boys and two girls ranging from 12 to 23 years old.

[Hugo]

All these shootings become world wide news but if this happened any where else in the World it be worth about a minutes news.
BTW
Before anyone says anything, my heart bleeds for the parents and families of the victims.

Its because these shootings are at odds with the United States government portrayal of the country as the "leader of the free world". Other countries might be equally as violent but they don't have the same pretensions of world leadership that the US does.

[Jock42]

When I joined the job a significant minority were ex-forces, lots of Falklands and NI vets. Many others were bizarrely ex-miners. The main requirement was being able to keep a police hat 5'10 off the ground. There were some real, big hard bastards, for a reason, we were a force to keep society safe.

There were no armed response vehicles but all ex-forces were authorised to draw handguns from a local private armoury.

It is totally changed days and the vast majority of cops now are young, university educated kids who have no concept or ability about how to deal with truly violent situations. Also handicapped by the fact that the few that can know they will get no backing at all to deal with the aftermath.

Oddly when the first armed response vehicle were muted, the majority of ex-forces refused to apply and the general consensus was that those that did volunteer were the wrong type.

My father was a generation before that. He had enlisted in the Navy towards the end of WWII and joined the police when demobbed.

He was over 6 foot and the product of West Coast crofting. They were hard men, not men you messed with, and whatever else, I do respect that he had a clear sense of duty, and that was to protect the public.

I have mentioned before that my son was working doors in Edinburgh. He has now set up a security firm with a pal and are doing some decent contracts. They have a couple of ex-army guys working for them and it strikes me that these guys would have been the type to go into the police in my father's day. Not academically talented, but decent guys who are not afraid to put themselves at physical risk to do their job while playing (mostly) by the rules.

Totally agree. There is far too much emphasis on education in the recruiting process, when it is blatantly obvious that many do not have either the physical or mental attributes required to be good officers. Most ex forces are incredibly adaptable and would be more than capable of doing almost any job available in the police, however many of these kids are never going to attain the mental and physical attributes that are required to be effective police officers.

Your comment about "mostly" by the rules is quite telling. It's a dirty bloody job and whilst I accept there are lines that cannot be crossed, it's always been very difficult to do it without blurring a few.

My old man was a prison officer and they were actively recruiting ex-forces guys at that time. Most of his social circle as I was growing up were ex-forces. Exactly the type of guys you want in a Cat A jail imo. Like the police the prison has gone the same way.

I briefly toyed with the idea of the police. Very glad I didn't ho down that road, the next time I end up helping a cop whilst their oppo looks on won't be the first.

[Rinkals]

Yes, people will know that he's full of shit, although that's nothing unique for a politician. People who like their guns simply won't trust him, even if they agree that gun control needs tightening in their state.

What I know about O'Rouke is that he's somebody that puts himself about to serve his community.

But if you tell me he's a cunt, then fine, but I would like to see a little evidence.

[notfatcat]

I said he was full of shit and provided direct quotes showing that he's full of shit. He deliberately changed his position because he's running in Texas so apparently doesn't have the courage of his convictions.

[fishfoodie]

I said he was full of shit and provided direct quotes showing that he's full of shit. He deliberately changed his position because he's running in Texas so apparently doesn't have the courage of his convictions.

Quotes without context though !

[notfatcat]

The context is that when he was running for president he stated hell yeah we're gonna take (some of) your weapons, and when he was running for office in a pro-gun state he said nah we don't want to take anything. What's changed his mind do you think? My belief, and the obvious one I think, is that he knows he can't takje the same message to people in Texas who he wants to vote him into office. Typical politician - full of shit.

[Fonz]

For cunts like Cruz, it's all about the bucks.

It really isn't (and it must be noted how little 442k over the course of a political career is, especially for a Senator and presidential candidate who made it pretty far).

Blaming the gun lobby is a cop out, really. It's endemic to the culture, views like his are completely mainstream and commonplace. Groups like the NRA are a reflection of that, not the cause.

The issue is much, much deeper than some political backscratching.

[Line6 HXFX]

Yeah they can all sit around and get to the real cause ".ohhh it's a mental health issue..oh computer games...oh its the the America settler mentality, in a stolen land, we are on the frontier here folks" . Its all incredibly interesting insn't it, let's talk about it for another 25 years..

I had a perfectly reasonable conversation with a Kindly old gentleman on YouTube who runs a gun channel and asked him why not, you know not post anything this week, out of a mark of respect to the beautiful lovely children that perished... Stating I realise he may not ever come back if he were to do that for every mass shooting in the US, that seem to happen every three days, but this one is really touching nerve etc.

This Kindly old gentleman completely lost his perfectly cultivated kindly old gentleman routine, in a second and launched into just wild ad honomin attacks. It was like tucker carlson on crack..

They don't care, they love their guns far more than anything else on this rock.. and refuse to compromise anything.

This is why they should just make them illegal and remove their choice.

[Gumboot]

For cunts like Cruz, it's all about the bucks.

It really isn't (and it must be noted how little 442k over the course of a political career is, especially for a Senator and presidential candidate who made it pretty far).

Blaming the gun lobby is a cop out, really. It's endemic to the culture, views like his are completely mainstream and commonplace. Groups like the NRA are a reflection of that, not the cause.

The issue is much, much deeper than some political backscratching.

Well yeah, but the only realistic chance of any positive change is enacting stricter gun control legislation, and the gun lobby will do whatever it takes to ensure that doesn't happen (bang bang ka-ching!), hence all those GOP politicians stymying any attempt at real change. From the outside looking in, it seems to me that America's obscene gun fetish and reverence for the anachronistic 2nd amendment has led to an almost resigned acceptance that these sorts of mass shootings are now 'inevitable'. Because the "right" to bear weapons of war in a peaceful society trumps the right of that society's children to live without fear of imminent death... at school of all places. Talk about fubar...

[Rinkals]

The context is that when he was running for president he stated hell yeah we're gonna take (some of) your weapons, and when he was running for office in a pro-gun state he said nah we don't want to take anything. What's changed his mind do you think? My belief, and the obvious one I think, is that he knows he can't takje the same message to people in Texas who he wants to vote him into office. Typical politician - full of shit.

O'Rouke's position on guns is well known, and he probably won't win the race to become Governor because of it.

What you are saying makes absolutely no sense.

O'Rourke is probably one of the few politicians trying to do the right thing, but because he's not a Republican, he's a "piece of shit"?

[sockwithaticket]

Been reading some more details on the incident. The initial spin was that a team of Border Patrol came in and sorted things out, seems that it was actually an off duty Border Patrol spec ops guy who borrowed his barber's shotgun and drove 40 miles to take the shooter out because his daughter was at the school.

Uvalde PD apparently account for 40% of the town's budget. That's a staggering amount for them to sit around with thumbs up arses while kids are being killed.

Serious tip of the hat to one mother who was initially handcuffed by the police for trying to access the school, managed to persuade them to remove the cuffs and then ran straight in and got her kids out.

I understand not allowing the parents to all do that and perhaps make the situation worse, but when the cops are sat outside maintaining a cordon for nearly an hour and not ostensibly doing anything else you can appreciate why parents wanted to take things into their own hands.

[Gumboot]

Those cops are the good guys with guns?

[Raggs]

Those cops are the good guys with guns?

Good guys with guns can sit and wait until.... well, until someone else does their job for them, or the shooter blows their own brains out.

[notfatcat]

The context is that when he was running for president he stated hell yeah we're gonna take (some of) your weapons, and when he was running for office in a pro-gun state he said nah we don't want to take anything. What's changed his mind do you think? My belief, and the obvious one I think, is that he knows he can't takje the same message to people in Texas who he wants to vote him into office. Typical politician - full of shit.

O'Rouke's position on guns is well known, and he probably won't win the race to become Governor because of it.

What you are saying makes absolutely no sense.

O'Rourke is probably one of the few politicians trying to do the right thing, but because he's not a Republican, he's a "piece of shit"?

Please stop misquoting me.

[Wilson's Toffee]

For cunts like Cruz, it's all about the bucks.

It really isn't (and it must be noted how little 442k over the course of a political career is, especially for a Senator and presidential candidate who made it pretty far).

Blaming the gun lobby is a cop out, really. It's endemic to the culture, views like his are completely mainstream and commonplace. Groups like the NRA are a reflection of that, not the cause.

The issue is much, much deeper than some political backscratching.

Well yeah, but the only realistic chance of any positive change is enacting stricter gun control legislation, and the gun lobby will do whatever it takes to ensure that doesn't happen (bang bang ka-ching!), hence all those GOP politicians stymying any attempt at real change. From the outside looking in, it seems to me that America's obscene gun fetish and reverence for the anachronistic 2nd amendment has led to an almost resigned acceptance that these sorts of mass shootings are now 'inevitable'. Because the "right" to bear weapons of war in a peaceful society trumps the right of that society's children to live without fear of imminent death... at school of all places. Talk about fubar...

I tend to agree with Fonz. South Africa has much more stringent firearm control legislation than the USA, yet we are far more prone to experience "gun violence". Illegal firearms are here, in prolific numbers, and no amount of legislation will inhibit their number or use . Plus, our police and Defense Force (the biggest contributors to illegal firearms) are in no way willing, politically, to let legal firearms be and focus on illegal arms.

Seems to be a culture thing, where "might makes right", regardless of common sense . Violent societies ..

[Rhubarb & Custard]

I think you can reasonably cite no amount of legislation will remove all firearms and/or acts of violence. But the idea legislation and attendant actions cannot remove any of the firearms and associated violence seems nonsensical.

Also we don't need the first action to remove all the guns, it's a process, and given the numbers involved likely a really long and hard one. Just you don't start a journey of a thousand miles by refusing to take the first step

[Gumboot]

I think you can reasonably cite no amount of legislation will remove all firearms and/or acts of violence. But the idea legislation and attendant actions cannot remove any of the firearms and associated violence seems nonsensical.

Also we don't need the first action to remove all the guns, it's a process, and given the numbers involved likely a really long and hard one. Just you don't start a journey of a thousand miles by refusing to take the first step

They owe it to their defenseless kids to at least start trying.

[sockwithaticket]

I think you can reasonably cite no amount of legislation will remove all firearms and/or acts of violence. But the idea legislation and attendant actions cannot remove any of the firearms and associated violence seems nonsensical.

Also we don't need the first action to remove all the guns, it's a process, and given the numbers involved likely a really long and hard one. Just you don't start a journey of a thousand miles by refusing to take the first step

The first step for them needs to be nationwide standardisation of law. I mentioned elsewhere that Chicago, despite being in a state with fairly tight laws, has massive issues with gun violence due to the ease with which they're acquired from neighbouring states.

Then maybe they can move onto something like magazine capacity reduction, cost of ammo and amount of ammo any one person can have in their possession at any time. Ammo is probably the easier target than guns for the moment.

[Line6 HXFX]

It really isn't (and it must be noted how little 442k over the course of a political career is, especially for a Senator and presidential candidate who made it pretty far).

Blaming the gun lobby is a cop out, really. It's endemic to the culture, views like his are completely mainstream and commonplace. Groups like the NRA are a reflection of that, not the cause.

The issue is much, much deeper than some political backscratching.

Well yeah, but the only realistic chance of any positive change is enacting stricter gun control legislation, and the gun lobby will do whatever it takes to ensure that doesn't happen (bang bang ka-ching!), hence all those GOP politicians stymying any attempt at real change. From the outside looking in, it seems to me that America's obscene gun fetish and reverence for the anachronistic 2nd amendment has led to an almost resigned acceptance that these sorts of mass shootings are now 'inevitable'. Because the "right" to bear weapons of war in a peaceful society trumps the right of that society's children to live without fear of imminent death... at school of all places. Talk about fubar...

I tend to agree with Fonz. South Africa has much more stringent firearm control legislation than the USA, yet we are far more prone to experience "gun violence". Illegal firearms are here, in prolific numbers, and no amount of legislation will inhibit their number or use . Plus, our police and Defense Force (the biggest contributors to illegal firearms) are in no way willing, politically, to let legal firearms be and focus on illegal arms.

Seems to be a culture thing, where "might makes right", regardless of common sense . Violent societies ..

So we should give up as no amount if legislation and law will inhibit their use?
So what else do we say that about?

Do we say that about drugs,
Robbery?
Speeding?
Murder*
We can't do anything, as there will always be illegal firearms..

Lets give up on the lawbook, as there are and will always be law breakers?

F'king bizarre reasoning.

Giving up, even before we contracted the policing of it out to the private sector, for them to make a packet.
What's becoming of this planet.

[Wilson's Toffee]

Stop focusing on one sympton of a broken civilisation. Focus on the causes for such abberrant behaviour and go to some trouble to fix that.

That goes for ALL sick civilisations.....

[Hugo]

Well yeah, but the only realistic chance of any positive change is enacting stricter gun control legislation, and the gun lobby will do whatever it takes to ensure that doesn't happen (bang bang ka-ching!), hence all those GOP politicians stymying any attempt at real change. From the outside looking in, it seems to me that America's obscene gun fetish and reverence for the anachronistic 2nd amendment has led to an almost resigned acceptance that these sorts of mass shootings are now 'inevitable'. Because the "right" to bear weapons of war in a peaceful society trumps the right of that society's children to live without fear of imminent death... at school of all places. Talk about fubar...

I tend to agree with Fonz. South Africa has much more stringent firearm control legislation than the USA, yet we are far more prone to experience "gun violence". Illegal firearms are here, in prolific numbers, and no amount of legislation will inhibit their number or use . Plus, our police and Defense Force (the biggest contributors to illegal firearms) are in no way willing, politically, to let legal firearms be and focus on illegal arms.

Seems to be a culture thing, where "might makes right", regardless of common sense . Violent societies ..

So we should give up as no amount if legislation and law will inhibit their use?
So what else do we say that about?

Do we say that about drugs,
Robbery?
Speeding?
Murder*
We can't do anything, as there will always be illegal firearms..

Lets give up on the lawbook, as there are and will always be law breakers?

F'king bizarre reasoning.

Giving up, even before we contracted the policing of it out to the private sector, for them to make a packet.
What's becoming of this planet.

Yeah, its a stupid mindset - unless we can solve a problem entirely we won't even try to make inroads. Even in this instance where the shooter acquired his weapons legally you still have Republican senators who trot out the "nothing can be done, he would have done this no matter what" arguments.

It is incredibly difficult to make any dent on this problem when people with legislative power are so fundamentally dishonest

[Kawazaki]

The first step for them needs to be nationwide standardisation of law. I mentioned elsewhere that Chicago, despite being in a state with fairly tight laws, has massive issues with gun violence due to the ease with which they're acquired from neighbouring states.

Then maybe they can move onto something like magazine capacity reduction, cost of ammo and amount of ammo any one person can have in their possession at any time. Ammo is probably the easier target than guns for the moment.

Chicago has a crime problem, it's easy for the pro-gun lobby to point at it and say there's your proof that gun control doesn't work but they're morons with all kinds of cognitive biases kicking off.

I actually think the only way they will stand any chance of getting control of guns is to do it in small chunks incrementally. Then those states with strict gun control must use all incentives to get people to hand in their guns, they just have to take them out of circulation and denormalise them. One state at a time. It won't be easy of course but eventually those states with less guns will have less gun crime, less gun suicides and less gun homicides. That will start to happen.

[sockwithaticket]

The first step for them needs to be nationwide standardisation of law. I mentioned elsewhere that Chicago, despite being in a state with fairly tight laws, has massive issues with gun violence due to the ease with which they're acquired from neighbouring states.

Then maybe they can move onto something like magazine capacity reduction, cost of ammo and amount of ammo any one person can have in their possession at any time. Ammo is probably the easier target than guns for the moment.

Chicago has a crime problem, it's easy for the pro-gun lobby to point at it and say there's your proof that gun control doesn't work but they're morons with all kinds of cognitive biases kicking off.

I actually think the only way they will stand any chance of getting control of guns is to do it in small chunks incrementally. Then those states with strict gun control must use all incentives to get people to hand in their guns, they just have to take them out of circulation and denormalise them. One state at a time. It won't be easy of course but eventually those states with less guns will have less gun crime, less gun suicides and less gun homicides. That will start to happen.

There's already a pronounced difference between somewhere like California and Texas on all sorts of crime metrics and that's even with the former having a solid chunk of rural conservative types outside of the likes of Los Angeles and San Francisco.

I would wonder how much further the already (relatively) tightly legislated states are willing to go without the more problematic ones at least somewhat following suit. Apparently liberal/lefty gun ownership has gone up quite a lot in recent years because they're becoming more scared of the other side. With that as a motivator, can they be persuaded to part with their weapons without evidence of reciprocity elsewhere? A pure hypothetical of course.

[Hugo]

The first step for them needs to be nationwide standardisation of law. I mentioned elsewhere that Chicago, despite being in a state with fairly tight laws, has massive issues with gun violence due to the ease with which they're acquired from neighbouring states.

Then maybe they can move onto something like magazine capacity reduction, cost of ammo and amount of ammo any one person can have in their possession at any time. Ammo is probably the easier target than guns for the moment.

Chicago has a crime problem, it's easy for the pro-gun lobby to point at it and say there's your proof that gun control doesn't work but they're morons with all kinds of cognitive biases kicking off.

Yeah, I saw the Governor was in quick with the "Whatabout Chicago" defence.

Its just another element of the fundamental dishonesty you are dealing with. They know that no matter how restrictive the laws are in any region guns can quite easily be obtained elsewhere and brought in.

[inactionman]

They should release the crime scene photos. Those poor kids can't be identified by sight because of what an AR15 does to someone. Release the pictures, even the nutjobs can't see something like that and stay the course of the guns aren't the problem.

A leading trauma surgeon in Philadelphia - sadly no strangers to gun violence - agrees with you:

https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/art ... cf48d52cd9

[Biffer]

Meanwhile, in a normal country

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... SApp_Other

[notfatcat]

Meanwhile, in a normal country

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... SApp_Other

I notice the race of the victim wasn't mentioned in the headline so I guess it was probably a white, Asian or Hispanic guy. Phew. Good police work.

[Enzedder]

I think we're wrong in blaming the politicians. How many of those do you know take the "unpopular" road and stay in power?

The laws reflect what the people want or they wouldn't stay in place.

[fishfoodie]

I think we're wrong in blaming the politicians. How many of those do you know take the "unpopular" road and stay in power?

The laws reflect what the people want or they wouldn't stay in place.

The Problem is that poll, after poll, has shown that the majority are in favor of stricter legislation, but Politicians prefer to take the money form the NRA & the Gun manufacturers, & pretend that this isn't the case.

The Laws reflect what Politicians can get away with & still get elected, in the rigged game that is American Politics.

[Rinkals]

The context is that when he was running for president he stated hell yeah we're gonna take (some of) your weapons, and when he was running for office in a pro-gun state he said nah we don't want to take anything. What's changed his mind do you think? My belief, and the obvious one I think, is that he knows he can't takje the same message to people in Texas who he wants to vote him into office. Typical politician - full of shit.

O'Rouke's position on guns is well known, and he probably won't win the race to become Governor because of it.

What you are saying makes absolutely no sense.

O'Rourke is probably one of the few politicians trying to do the right thing, but because he's not a Republican, he's a "piece of shit"?

Please stop misquoting me.

Alright, "full of shit", then.

Minor semantics, which don't actually alter the point.

What is so important about the race of the shooter (or the victims, for that matter)?

[Hugo]

I think we're wrong in blaming the politicians. How many of those do you know take the "unpopular" road and stay in power?

The laws reflect what the people want or they wouldn't stay in place.

Thats the thing though the way the Senate is configured - to give small states equal representation to heavily populated states - means that the democratic will of the people is not done. The argument that the senators are only representing their constituents is a solid one but the problem is their views are over represented in the Senate. Essentially, senators from Wyoming and Montana have far too much influence in the system given how sparsely populated their states are.

[fishfoodie]

I think we're wrong in blaming the politicians. How many of those do you know take the "unpopular" road and stay in power?

The laws reflect what the people want or they wouldn't stay in place.

Thats the thing though the way the Senate is configured - to give small states equal representation to heavily populated states - means that the democratic will of the people is not done. The argument that the senators are only representing their constituents is a solid one but the problem is their views are over represented in the Senate. Essentially, senators from Wyoming and Montana have far too much influence in the system given how sparsely populated their states are.

Not just States, but within States to give rural Conservative voters an influence higher than liberal urban voters; Colorado, & Georgia being examples.

[Fonz]

I think we're wrong in blaming the politicians. How many of those do you know take the "unpopular" road and stay in power?

The laws reflect what the people want or they wouldn't stay in place.

The Problem is that poll, after poll, has shown that the majority are in favor of stricter legislation, but Politicians prefer to take the money form the NRA & the Gun manufacturers, & pretend that this isn't the case.

The Laws reflect what Politicians can get away with & still get elected, in the rigged game that is American Politics.

This is a good example of why polls don't mean shit. You can't pass a bill that says "we're going to be stricter on guns" -- it has to be one thing or another, a specific measure. And specificity makes things considerably more difficult than just some vague policy preference...what is even meant exactly by "stricter"? Hell, what does "tougher background checks mean"? It can mean 10 things to 10 different people who might all have answered in the affirmative. By being specific, invariably you're no longer going to please all 10 of those people.

Money and lobbying has its place in the discussion of what's wrong with the country, but not with regard to a highly visible issue like guns -- more for things that are more complex, nuanced, and subject to bureaucratic oversight, like the dark crannies of finance and medicine and so on.

[notfatcat]

O'Rouke's position on guns is well known, and he probably won't win the race to become Governor because of it.

What you are saying makes absolutely no sense.

O'Rourke is probably one of the few politicians trying to do the right thing, but because he's not a Republican, he's a "piece of shit"?

Please stop misquoting me.

Alright, "full of shit", then.

Minor semantics, which don't actually alter the point.

What is so important about the race of the shooter (or the victims, for that matter)?

Rinkals, there's not much point. You either don't read what I write or you just make stuff up.

[Gumboot]

[Tilly Orifice]

Meanwhile, in a normal country

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... SApp_Other

I notice the race of the victim wasn't mentioned in the headline so I guess it was probably a white, Asian or Hispanic guy. Phew. Good police work.

You're saying that if the guy found walking near a school with a gun had been black, the press would have been sure to mention it? Hmm, could be right.

[Enzedder]

I have a solution - but it's gender based.