Mass Shooting at San Antonio Elementary School

[*Nately120*]

So legit question if anyone here can answer it or entertain it without being all in on it, but no guns being allowed at Trump's speech at the NRA convention...whats the logic there?

I assume they're letting mentally ill people in.


Oh, also there are criticisms that Abbot is calling this shooting a mental health issue, but also previously cut mental health funding, so if that's accurate then I guess politicians are even more full of crap than we thought.  Ah well.  If I were of sound mental health I'd stop talking politics on the internet. 

[Arturo Bandini]

It would be a fantastic idea to just play a record of a shooting with the sound of an AR15 spilling its guts and see how these tough men react.

Why no weapons ? They're not idiots, they know this is endangering their life.

[*Nately120*]

(05-26-2022, 01:45 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: It would be a fantastic idea to just play a record of a shooting with the sound of an AR15 spilling its guts and see how these tough men react.

Why no weapons ? They're not idiots, they know this is endangering their life.

I'm more amazed that Trump can convince people who are in Texas AND support the NRA that they should willingly leave their guns at home.  The guy really is a master negotiator.  

[Arturo Bandini]

Are tomatoes and pineapples allowed ? Those can be deadly.

[basballguy]

why do people think AR15 style weapons are used in every mass shooting?

[*Nately120*]

(05-26-2022, 02:44 PM)basballguy Wrote: why do people think AR15 style weapons are used in every mass shooting?

The same reason my parents referred to any video game as "Mario" I assume.

[Belsnickel]

(05-26-2022, 01:48 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm more amazed that Trump can convince people who are in Texas AND support the NRA that they should willingly leave their guns at home.  The guy really is a master negotiator.  

You usually can't carry at NRA conventions or at events like Shot Show. Trump really isn't a factor in the equation.

[*Nately120*]

(05-26-2022, 03:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You usually can't carry at NRA conventions or at events like Shot Show. Trump really isn't a factor in the equation.

Interesting.  Well, I guess we're getting into just generic gun culture discussion now.  

On topic, it seems the actions and/or inactions of the armed guards there is being called into question.

[samhain]

(05-26-2022, 07:16 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: What we really need is an effort to improve mental health care. We need to reduce the coverage these events have and stop making these shooters famous. We need to work on reducing our country's infatuation with violence that is due in part to the stranglehold the military industrial complex has on us.

What you propose solves nothing. It is just as bad as people clamoring for gun control in the wake of these shootings as it doesn't focus on the actual problems. The problem isn't security, the problem isn't access to firearms. The problem is that we have people that feel disconnected to society, feel they have nowhere else to turn, and feel like this is a valid solution to those feelings.

Since this shooting I have had a lot of folks my age talking about coming of age during the era of Columbine and the years following. How school shootings have increased in those years. They have, it isn't just the result of media coverage blowing it out of proportion or anything. But connect it to other things in this country. We talk about our political divisions. Also social groups have been on a huge decline since then. Our society is becoming disconnected from each other.

We all know I am involved in the Boy Scouts of America. I'm also a member of the Sons of the American Revolution and am currently working on joining the local Freemasons. I also chat with a lot of BPOE members as we use the local Elks lodge for Scout meetings. All of these organizations are dying because people don't value that in-person connection anymore. Houses of worship are in the same boat. Volunteerism is way down. All of these things are connected. We are losing a sense of community and that is increasing a mental health crisis because people feel more isolated. People in that situation are more likely to do this sort of thing. They don't have that sense of community. Would it stop them altogether? No, we had these before the decline of our communities. But they certainly weren't as frequent.

Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox.

I disagree.  Tighter and more aggressive security is a stopgap with a tangible and clear deterrent.  School shootings occur in part because the disconnected people you mention see schools as an easy target that will have a major impact on the community and even the country if they succeed.  Nobody will ignore the act, whether or not it causes a change on laws or debate.  

If a potential killer knows it's going to be harder to achieve his desired outcome, then they'll quite possibly, maybe even likely seek a different target.    Do they frequently target big banks, government buildings or police stations when they're trying to lash out?  I'm not saying it never happens, but the reasons are almost always different when it does.  Schools are still largely a soft target for people wanting to inflict terror.  They need to become a hard target.  

What you propose isn't a bad idea, but the toothpaste is a little far from the tube to put the brakes on our country's declining mental health.  I question it's effectiveness outright when it comes to severely damaged individuals.  Seeing a professional is voluntary either way, and a lot of the people doing the killing aren't from backgrounds that would even be considering sending their kids to a shrink if they weren't forced to.  Adam Lanza  was more than a bit off, likely schizophrenic and his parents never sought professional help.  The at-risk individuals have to utilize the resource before it can be effective.  

[GodFather]

(05-26-2022, 03:00 PM)Nately120 Wrote: The same reason my parents referred to any video game as "Mario" I assume.

wait what? You mean all video games aren't Mario?

[basballguy]

(05-26-2022, 06:51 PM)GodFather Wrote: wait what? You mean all video games aren't Mario?

zelda is the guy with the sword, right?

[Sled21]

This idiot made a statement when he was a freshman that when he was a senior he was going to shoot up a school. Evidently nobody remembered this. He also walked into the school through an unlocked door. But let's just blame the gun.

[basballguy]

(05-27-2022, 09:26 AM)Sled21 Wrote: This idiot made a statement when he was a freshman that when he was a senior he was going to shoot up a school. Evidently nobody remembered this. He also walked into the school through an unlocked door. But let's just blame the gun.

To be fair, everything every 15 year old boy says is stupid and there’s no way anyone could police all the stupid things they say.

[Sled21]

(05-27-2022, 09:30 AM)basballguy Wrote: To be fair, everything every 15 year old boy says is stupid and there’s no way anyone could police all the stupid things they say.

That's true, but here is a classic case of a loner with apparently no friends on his social media or at school, who made threats, which should have demanded some type of psychological intervention. Of course, hindsight is always 20/20 and I'm not placing blame until the facts are known. What I find troubling, is this. Way back when, when we trained for active shooter responses, we were trained as patrol officers to set the perimeter and call for Special Tactics Units. Columbine changed all that. From that day, until the day I retired from police work, our training regarding active shooters was as soon as 3 or 4 units arrived, that forms a tactical team and you make entry to dissolve the threat. They are now reporting the shooter was inside shooting for close to an hour before anyone made entry. IF that's true, then that is a problem.

[*Nately120*]

(05-27-2022, 10:07 AM)Sled21 Wrote: That's true, but here is a classic case of a loner with apparently no friends on his social media or at school, who made threats, which should have demanded some type of psychological intervention.

I must have missed the part of the 2A when it says the right to bear arms is contingent upon how popular you are.

On a more serious note, expecting government-funded psychological evaluation to occur any time some one, especially teen boys, says or posts something threatening or violent is a bit of a pipe dream.  Also, we as a society don't exactly hold the opinion of "experts" very highly these days.  A psychologist says I'm dangerous because I made a few free speech posts online? Yeah, not giving up my rights because of that, snowflakes. Sorry not sorry.

Also, aren't liberals the ones who are supposedly combing through people's history and social media in order to get them in trouble?

[Vas Deferens]

(05-27-2022, 11:58 AM)Nately120 Wrote: I must have missed the part of the 2A when it says the right to bear arms is contingent upon how popular you are.

Convenient interpretation is crucial.

[Lucidus]

I feel we should treat the ownership of guns in much the same way we treat ownership of vehicles.

If you wish to own a gun:

You must take a written and performance test.
You must possess a legally issued license.
You must have and maintain gun owner's insurance.
You must legally register and possess documentation on your guns.
You can only own a certain number of guns (unless an authorized dealer).
You can be fined and / or imprisoned if using your gun while impaired, in reckless manner, etc.
Your license (ownership qualification) can be suspended or revoked for lack of legal compliance.

This, in my opinion, should be a rather simple endeavor to undertake and establish with a comparable, long-standing and easily replicable model already in place. I would offer that it helps to address and regulate a very real problem without infringing on any individual's rights or freedoms.

I simply feel this is the most rational and easily implemented approach, for which the time has come.

[CKwi88]

(05-27-2022, 08:36 PM)Lucidus Wrote: I feel we should treat the ownership of guns in much the same way we treat ownership of vehicles.

If you wish to own a gun:

You must take a written and performance test.
You must possess a legally issued license.
You must have and maintain gun owner's insurance.
You must legally register and possess documentation on your guns.
You can only own a certain number of guns (unless an authorized dealer).
You can be fined and / or imprisoned if using your gun while impaired, in reckless manner, etc.
Your license (ownership qualification) can be suspended or revoked for lack of legal compliance.

This, in my opinion, should be a rather simple endeavor to undertake and establish with a comparable, long-standing and easily replicable model already in place. I would offer that it helps to address and regulate a very real problem without infringing on any individual's rights or freedoms.

I simply feel this is the most rational and easily implemented approach, for which the time has come.

Somethingsomething constitutional somethingsomething right etc. 

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(05-25-2022, 08:17 AM)michaelsean Wrote: How does liability insurance change any of this? Do you think the psychopath cares about that? And gun ownership and car ownership can’t be compared. One is a constitutional right.

The “constitutional right” argument is the cheapest one there is. We’re taking a document that was written just after electricity was discovered and black people were still being bought and sold into slavery and looking at it as if it’s infallible. The constitution needs to be treated as a living document much more than it is…things that made sense then, just don’t make sense anymore.

[Lucidus]

(05-25-2022, 08:17 AM)michaelsean Wrote: How does liability insurance change any of this?  Do you think the psychopath cares about that? And gun ownership and car ownership can’t be compared. One is a constitutional right.

Even if your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment were correct, which I would respectfully disagree with, the Constitution is a living, evolving document; not a stagnant, unchangeable dogma.