Just in, new mass shooting in another school today, 14 possibly dead 2 children confirmed dead... :(

[Nick Burkhardt]

Another School Shooting in a Place where teachers and staff were banned from carrying guns: Robb Elementary School in the Uvalde, Texas CISD

A shooting at a Texas elementary school left 14 children and one teacher murdered. While about 30% of school districts in Texas 2020 had armed teachers and staff, unfortunately, the Robb Elementary…

crimeresearch.org

 

[SonicBlue03]

I haven't been able to locate any reliable data that would indicate event like this increase relative to election cycles. If anyone has that info I would love to see it . . . assuming it's actual data and not just more of the "Oh, come on! Everyone knows it's true!" rhetoric

Anecdotally, I don't think it's a true statement. There's a wiki (yeah, I know, I know) that captures most of the known ones and the events look uniformly spread across years fairly evenly.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Anecdotally, I don't think it's a true statement. There's a wiki (yeah, I know, I know) that captures most of the known ones and the events look uniformly spread across years fairly evenly.

I would think it would be easy to search, using the date of the shooting and year/election cycles should yield the answers!
I don't think there is any correlation here between the two, but that's just my thinking on it!

Now, Politicians pandering for votes, THAT is 100% True!

 

[CamoDeafie]

I haven't been able to locate any reliable data that would indicate event like this increase relative to election cycles. If anyone has that info I would love to see it . . . assuming it's actual data and not just more of the "Oh, come on! Everyone knows it's true!" rhetoric

Anecdotally, I don't think it's a true statement. There's a wiki (yeah, I know, I know) that captures most of the known ones and the events look uniformly spread across years fairly evenly.

I would think it would be easy to search, using the date of the shooting and year/election cycles should yield the answers!
I don't think there is any correlation here between the two, but that's just my thinking on it!

Now, Politicians pandering for votes, THAT is 100% True!

The issue is the definition of "mass shooting", school shooting, and mass murder.
Some sources used by media defines them as
Mass shooting, anytime more than 3 persons are involved, regardless of injury/death

School shooting, anytime any shooting happens within 1,000 ft of a school, or on campus regardless of number of deaths/injured,targeted school,.or school timing (some suicides on campuses after hours, some just gang incidences)

Mass murder is defined by the FBI as 3 or 4 homicides or more

 

[nehalemguy]

I want to start by saying that the vast majority of posts on this thread have made me feel one of three emotions:

1. Horror & Disgust - Those who stated (or implied) that this atrocity was a hoax, a setup, or the result of some liberal conspiracy. This is a deeply disgusting and delusional denial of reality, and I won't waste a moment engaging with these folks (and neither should you).
   @Moderators Posts of this type are an obvious violation of Community Rule #3, and you are thus obligated to remove them immediately. Refusal to do so would put this forum in violation of its own Terms, and complicit in the dissemination & propagation of dangerous disinformation. Failure to take appropriate action would also put this forum in violation of the the terms of its platform provider.
2. Frustration - Those who immediately immediately jumped on the political defensive. Unlike the previous category, I can certainly relate to this response: After all, liberals and conservatives alike have learned this response both from political leadership, and from certain politically active, corporate-funded advocacy groups.
   However, I feel this is a knee-jerk reaction we should do our best to avoid. This "dig-your-heels-in" response (which is present on both sides of the isle) precludes meaningful discussion, and is also deeply disrespectful to those impacted by this tragedy.
3. Depression & Apathy - Those who accept the magnitude of these atrocities, but consider them to be unfortunate inevitabilities. Similar to the last category, I can identify with this reaction; However, it is a trained response that is demonstrably untrue.

Now I'll take a moment to describe my reaction to this atrocity:
I learned about this horrifying mass shooting in a particularly upsetting way: Yesterday, my 7-year-old, 2nd-grade daughter came home from school crying. She'd heard about the shooting from an older friend; she was terrified, upset, and she wanted answers.
Unfortunately, I'd been too wrapped up in my work to see the news, so I didn't have an age-appropriate narrative ready for her (if that's even a thing?!). Instead, I had no choice but to browse the news articles with my daughter on my lap, hugging me and sobbing. While I did my best to sanitize the story, I also felt a unique obligation to be honest: Unlike other atrocities, the victims of this atrocity were in her exact demographic, and were murdered in the exact setting in which she finds herself every day. Furthermore, I figured it was better that she learn these horrifying details from me, rather than from a friend at school who has access to a smartphone.
As our night progressed, my daughter would request updates whenever she caught me glancing at my phone. Interestingly enough, I found that the most effective form of reassurance I could provide was to translate each horrifying detail into something actionable; a means by which, in a similar situation, she could avoid the fate of the victims, and she would often prompt this advice by asking questions.
Here are some examples:

1. Run - If a bad guy points a gun at you: RUN. Do not cry, do not beg, just run. I explained that, as an experienced shooter, I can say with confidence that it's much more difficult to hit a moving target than a stationary target.
2. Hide - You can't shoot what you can't see; if possible, hide yourself.
3. Don't be a hero - One of the most heartbreaking details I learned was regarding Amerie Jo Garza, who was brutally executed while attempting to call the police (the shooter targeted her for this reason).
   While Amerie's actions were nothing short of heroic, my advice to my daughter was that, in a similar situation, she should prioritize her own safety over all else, because she is simply not equipped to do otherwise.

In addition to this sort of advice, I provided her with comfort by distancing her from this atrocity. I explained that this happened "Really far away...", which I demonstrated by checking the drive time from Portland to Uvalde, Texas (31 hours without traffic, if you're curious).
I also explained that, given the sheer magnitude of our national population, horrifying incidents like this remain statistically improbable, an argument which I attempted to support by looking up statistics on the leading causes of child death in our country. However, upon doing so, I was shocked to find that "Firearm-related injury" is #2 on that list, and so I quickly abandoned this argument.

In the end, I'm glad to say that I was able to sufficiently comfort my daughter: She slept through the night, woke up happy in the morning, and went to school without fear.
However, I was left with the grim realization that "Fear" was only half of the emotional cocktail my daughter was experiencing last night. The other half was "Horror".
Horror at the realization that "This is the type of world I live in...", and "This is something I need to be prepared for...". Horror that manifested itself in the "Why?!" questions ("WHY would someone do this?!", "WHY isn't anyone doing anything to stop this?!", etc.), and Horror that was amplified by my inability to answer these questions.
Now it goes without saying that I, like all of you, am familiar with this "Horror" to the point of tedium: At this point, it's like the deafening roar of some horrible white-noise machine that we all barely even notice.
However, as is often the case, re-experiencing the inception of this Horror through the tear-filled eyes of my daughter has re-awakened me to its nature. I DESPISE the fact that I was forced to have this conversation with my daughter; I DESPISE the fact that I will be forced to have this conversation again and again; and I DESPISE the fact that the answers to those "Why?!" questions often boil down to "Because this is the reality we have built for you."

Things brings me to my final point, which is also a summary of sorts:
It is my opinion that our broken political system has enabled both politicians, and specific political advocacy groups, to effectively suppress conversation around gun control among the EXACT group of people who should be leading this conversation! They have meticulously constructed a climate in which it is taboo for us to even MENTION the possibility of firearm restrictions, and where the only acceptable reaction to atrocities like this one is to preemptively deny the viability of any such restrictions.
I feel that, as responsible gun owners, we are the very exact people that should be leading these conversations. After all: We are the ones that purchase firearms, we are the ones that own firearms, and we are the ones that know how firearms should be used.

In that vein, I'm going to go out on a limb here and try to start a conversation, while fully realizing that what I'm about to say may constitute heresy in many of your minds, and may very well get me banned from this forum. However, I'm hoping beyond hope that there will be at least one or two folks who have the courage to echo my feelings, or to contribute their own ideas. I'm very interested to hear similar proposals from this highly knowledgable community of responsible gun owners; like I said, I feel that this is exactly where such conversations should start.

So here it is:
It is my feeling that semi-automatic, combat-style rifles with the ability to accommodate large ammunition capacities should not be readily available to the public. At the very least, these types of weapons should require additional licensing and training, analogous to the additional licensing required for operating semi-trucks. It is patently obvious that such restrictions would, at the very least, reduce the occurrence and magnitude of atrocities like these.

I will be taking a screenshot of this post immediately after I post it (just in case it is censored).

Never mind.

-E-

 

[VanceInWA]

No red flag laws are the best red flag laws.

Exactly. Some Karen you may not even know thinks you are a threat to yourself or society, triggers the red flag to law enforcement, and suddenly you have all your guns confiscated. Giving some Karen the ability to immediately cancel your constitutional rights is absolute bull$hit.

 

[Knobgoblin]

How I see politicians and media whores crying over someone else's very personal tragedy.

 

[taters613]

I'll simply address this directly. You have always lived in this world. It's a pretty ugly place. Whether you were insulated from these realities as you grew up is something I can't know. I personally had enough exposure to the nastiness of humanity when I was a child that this isn't shocking to me. At all. The " somebody should write a law " response you are voicing only seems logical on the surface. In actuality, it's a shallow, emotionally motivated answer. The current new restrictions in Washington state on the specific types of firearms you mentioned won't change violent crime one tiny bit. This coming summer ( just around the corner) will see violent incidents up and down the I-5 corridor will soul-numbing regularity. I don't mean to insult you or your admirable efforts to be a great parent. In fact, I salute you for being an involved Dad. This country needs that way more than we need more laws.

Yea but unfortunately the 'additional licensing and training' for operating semi trucks only applies to those who are driving commercially - but Ma and Pa Kettle can go buy a 45' Class A Motorhome and drive it off the lot on their class 1 license.

'Additional licensing and training' (or ANY additional requirements) is a slippery slope that can be applied to a lot of things - with similar results and outcomes.

First off: I appreciate both of your responses, in that, at the very least, you are responding to the essence of my proposal (rather than demonizing or ostracizing me outright). I mean this very sincerely: I think the most important point I'm trying to make is that, as conservative gun owners, we should do what we can to foster a culture where productive conversations about firearm restrictions can actually occur, and both your responses reflect a willingness to do so.
However, I'll point out that, in this case, it has been established that the shooter legally purchased two semi-automatic rifles on his 18th birthday; soon after that, he legally purchased the ammunition used in the assault online. The story with the Buffalo Mass. shooter is similar: Both the ammunition and the firearm were purchased legally, soon before the shooting occurred.
Therefore, given that both these shootings exclusively involved guns and ammunition purchased legally, how can we not conclude that the current regulations are inadequate, and that additional restrictions could have helped avoid these horrific tragedies?
Now, it could be the case that you accept the inadequacies of our current regulations, but you object to my proposal. In that case, I'd ask you: What firearm restrictions might you propose?

How do you justify this belief? Curious, as the type and capacity, or even caliber make ZERO difference in any of these situations, a Firearm is a Firearm, and nothing about it matters, ALL firearms are meant to Kill! The Old Saw of "Nobody Needs Weapons of War" actually goes against the very founding of this nation and it's core tenants of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness! The Type of Weapon have zero difference, it's the intent in ones heart that matters!
If you double down and spout off about "Extra Deadly" or any of that rubbish, you prove yourself a true idiot! Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it place any restrictions on type, capacity, or anything else! Did you know, we can still to this day, purchase and own a modern Man-0-War, or modern Canon, or Tanks? YUP, Unrestricted! Did you know we can also obtain Letters of Marque from our Gov?

By your way of thinking, we should restrict the use of Social Media, no one under 21 should be able to share/post on FaceBook, Twitter, or Tik-Tok until after they come of age! Maybe folks should be censored on those platforms,, hate posts and such blocked and or members banned!

Seeings as how your all in on restriction God Given Rights, That right there would actually accomplish the goals of reducing violence and mass shooting events!

Ya see the path were taking here, if your so willing to surrender your rights, and take mine, we got a major problem Jack, one I cannot abide!

To be frank, I find it shocking that any knowledgable firearm owner could dispute the fact that these types of firearms would result in a higher casualty count. I'm even more blown away by your counter-assertion, which I highlighted above. The statement that "...type and capacity, or even caliber make ZERO difference, a Firearm is a Firearm..." is so wildly irrational and ridiculous that I'm not even sure how to respond to such a claim.
I'm curious to hear from other folks: Regardless of your thoughts and opinions regarding firearm laws & restrictions, can we all agree that certain firearms (specifically these types of rifles) are capable of generating significantly larger casualty numbers in the context of a mass shooting? Is that point really up for debate?!

 

[CamoDeafie]

Easy.
Stop glamorizing, stop giving infamy, stop videoing/plastering these events. Infamy, notoriety, the "outlaw thuggery" culture, and all that... if media would just shut up about these events, and never name the murderers.. then there'd be other ways for people seeking infamy and 15 minutes of terrible recognization.

Why is it the media conveniently ignore the massive numbers of gang related violence in Chicago?

How is it we have had very few mass murders, and then after 1934 with the media, all these gun laws and these increases of mass murders?
Didn't the Fed gun free laws start in 1990 after Columbine?

Wasn't the 1st AWB because of something similar, that of "violent crimes" and the North Hollywood bank robbery/shootout?

How about the attempted NY WTC attack in the 1990s in the basement by the same sort of copycats after the Oklahoma bombing?

 

[Will_White]

First off: I appreciate both of your responses, in that, at the very least, you are responding to the essence of my proposal (rather than demonizing or ostracizing me outright). I mean this very sincerely: I think the most important point I'm trying to make is that, as conservative gun owners, we should do what we can to foster a culture where productive conversations about firearm restrictions can actually occur, and both your responses reflect a willingness to do so.
However, I'll point out that, in this case, it has been established that the shooter legally purchased two semi-automatic rifles on his 18th birthday; soon after that, he legally purchased the ammunition used in the assault online. The story with the Buffalo Mass. shooter is similar: Both the ammunition and the firearm were purchased legally, soon before the shooting occurred.
Therefore, given that both these shootings exclusively involved guns and ammunition purchased legally, how can we not conclude that the current regulations are inadequate, and that additional restrictions could have helped avoid these horrific tragedies?
Now, it could be the case that you accept the inadequacies of our current regulations, but you object to my proposal. In that case, I'd ask you: What firearm restrictions might you propose?

To be frank, I find it shocking that any knowledgable firearm owner could dispute the fact that these types of firearms would result in a higher casualty count. I'm even more blown away by your counter-assertion, which I highlighted above. The statement that "...type and capacity, or even caliber make ZERO difference, a Firearm is a Firearm..." is so wildly irrational and ridiculous that I'm not even sure how to respond to such a claim.
I'm curious to hear from other folks: Regardless of your thoughts and opinions regarding firearm laws & restrictions, can we all agree that certain firearms (specifically these types of rifles) are capable of generating significantly larger casualty numbers in the context of a mass shooting? Is that point really up for debate?

To be callous Use of firearms has likely reduced deaths vs other means, the deadliest mass killings are still with bombs.

 

[VanceInWA]

"...given that both these shootings exclusively involved guns and ammunition purchased legally, how can we not conclude that the current regulations are inadequate, and that additional restrictions could have helped avoid these horrific tragedies?"

So apparently you expect perfection out of humans engaged with human-designed systems? Really? Consider how many thousands of people die each year from automobile accidents, far more than those killed with guns. Consider that the vast majority of those car accidents involve people who were legally licensed to drive, who had their cars legally registered. So do all those accidents represent a system failure? All the current regulations are inadequate? To achieve perfection we need ever more automobile licensing and vehicle regulation laws? That will solve the problem?

Breaking news: It is impossible to achieve perfection in human-designed systems. You're just going to have to deal with that...

 

[slimmer13]

To be frank, I find it shocking that any knowledgable firearm owner could dispute the fact that these types of firearms would result in a higher casualty count. I'm even more blown away by your counter-assertion, which I highlighted above. The statement that "...type and capacity, or even caliber make ZERO difference, a Firearm is a Firearm..." is so wildly irrational and ridiculous that I'm not even sure how to respond to such a claim.
I'm curious to hear from other folks: Regardless of your thoughts and opinions regarding firearm laws & restrictions, can we all agree that certain firearms (specifically these types of rifles) are capable of generating significantly larger casualty numbers in the context of a mass shooting? Is that point really up for debate?!

VT shooter used a pistol, Texas tower shooter in the 60s used a bolt gun, the guy in France used a box truck, the guy in Michigan in the 20s used dynamite. There is no legislating the evil out of someone.

 

[EHJ]

Therefore, given that both these shootings exclusively involved guns and ammunition purchased legally, how can we not conclude that the current regulations are inadequate, and that additional restrictions could have helped avoid these horrific tragedies?

Nerfing the world is not a viable option.

 

[3MTA3]

Focusing on an inanimate tool as the source of the problem is insanity. The root cause of unjustified killings are people. Period.

To stop this we need to know how to stop people from wanting to kill other people. Until you do that mass killings will still happen, even if you ban and confiscate guns. They will be done with knives (see china), poisonous gas (see Japan) or explosives made from fertilizer (see Kansas City) and any number of other methods.

This is a cultural/social problem and until you address that it will keep happening no matter what you ban and how effectively you ban it.

 

[taters613]

So apparently you expect perfection out of humans engaged with human-designed systems? Really? Consider how many thousands of people die each year from automobile accidents, far more than those killed with guns. Consider that the vast majority of those car accidents involve people who were legally licensed to drive, who had their cars legally registered. So do all those accidents represent a system failure? All the current regulations are inadequate? To achieve perfection we need ever more automobile licensing and vehicle regulation laws? That will solve the problem?

Breaking news: It is impossible to achieve perfection in human-designed systems. You're just going to have to deal with that...

Your sarcasm is not appreciated.
And no: as an engineer, I don't expect "perfection" out of any system.
However, to take your automotive analogy one step further: I do support laws requiring that automotive manufacturers include certain pieces of safety equipment to help mitigate risks. A little thing called "the Seatbelt", for instance. I also support a controversial concept called the "drivers license", which is meant to ensure that only responsible and capable individuals end out behind the wheel of a car. Having an analogous system of licensing around firearm ownership seems like such an obvious necessity that, if we hadn't been marinating in politically divisive rhetoric for the past few decades, I doubt that such a proposal would even be a divisive issue!
Are these types of systems "perfect"?! Absolutely not! But I would be the last person in the world to be rallying against either the seatbelt or the drivers license.

 

[Krinkov]

IN!

 

[Knobgoblin]

@taters613 , it's far more plausible that the speed and universal access to social media has made these very specific types of events proliferate. Moving to legally restrict a fairly narrow type of tool really won't change the motivation to commit these acts.
Once again, the appeal of this legal restriction is that it's easy.
Easy rarely makes a difference in complex, long standing issues.

 

[Ura-Ki]

First off: I appreciate both of your responses, in that, at the very least, you are responding to the essence of my proposal (rather than demonizing or ostracizing me outright). I mean this very sincerely: I think the most important point I'm trying to make is that, as conservative gun owners, we should do what we can to foster a culture where productive conversations about firearm restrictions can actually occur, and both your responses reflect a willingness to do so.
However, I'll point out that, in this case, it has been established that the shooter legally purchased two semi-automatic rifles on his 18th birthday; soon after that, he legally purchased the ammunition used in the assault online. The story with the Buffalo Mass. shooter is similar: Both the ammunition and the firearm were purchased legally, soon before the shooting occurred.
Therefore, given that both these shootings exclusively involved guns and ammunition purchased legally, how can we not conclude that the current regulations are inadequate, and that additional restrictions could have helped avoid these horrific tragedies?
Now, it could be the case that you accept the inadequacies of our current regulations, but you object to my proposal. In that case, I'd ask you: What firearm restrictions might you propose?

To be frank, I find it shocking that any knowledgable firearm owner could dispute the fact that these types of firearms would result in a higher casualty count. I'm even more blown away by your counter-assertion, which I highlighted above. The statement that "...type and capacity, or even caliber make ZERO difference, a Firearm is a Firearm..." is so wildly irrational and ridiculous that I'm not even sure how to respond to such a claim.
I'm curious to hear from other folks: Regardless of your thoughts and opinions regarding firearm laws & restrictions, can we all agree that certain firearms (specifically these types of rifles) are capable of generating significantly larger casualty numbers in the context of a mass shooting? Is that point really up for debate?!

Your Arrogance and Obtuse reply highlights THE reason we do not and will not have conversations about restrictions and such, there can be none, Hard Stop!

Thank God these mass shooters have decided to use the AR-15 and not something even more deadly, like say, Great Grand-daddy's 1894 Lever action or Grand Dads Remington Mod-8! Good Lawdy could you imagine the shear death and destruction one of those would cause? One of the most deadly mass shooting's in history was the Texas Tower shooter, ya know what rifle he used, t'wasnt the AR!

Again, your obfuscation that banning or severely restricting these so called "High Capacity Assault Rifles" doesn't even begin to address the core issues, such issues of access to un restricted Mass Media, Mental Health issues, and all the other problems we as a society choose to ignore, instead, people like you choose to blame the gun!


As one of the most famous quotes in Firearms History clearly articulates, "The Gun is Just a tool, no better or worse then the man who uses it!" This is an absolute truth that cannot be contested by any rational argument! To understand the gun and all that goes with it is to understand the Human condition and that which is Uniquely American!

 

[slimmer13]

However, to take your automotive analogy one step further: I do support laws requiring that automotive manufacturers include certain pieces of safety equipment to help mitigate risks. A little thing called "the Seatbelt", for instance. I also support a controversial concept called the "drivers license", which is meant to ensure that only responsible and capable individuals end out behind the wheel of a car.
Are these systems "perfect"? Absolutely not! But I would be the last person in the world to be rallying against either the seatbelt or the drivers license.

Let's say you're right and you could prevent these types of tragedies by banning these rifles, you forget that they are precisely the types of rifles that the 2A was written to protect. You would have to remove or rewrite the 2A in order to do it constitutionally. However much I may disagree, I can respect that route somewhat. I don't have respect for those who attempt an end around and try to make the Constitution say what they want it to say.

 

[Ura-Ki]

The Right of the People to keep and Bear Arms, Shall Not Be Infringed,.....................Except!

This is an absolute, nowhere does it imply or include any language allowing any body to impose any Restriction Tax, or Regulation upon this RIGHT!
The intent of our founding fathers was absolute and all encompassing, of that, there can be no challenge!