(05-21-2018, 01:50 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote:

(05-21-2018, 12:35 PM)Maggot Wrote: He didn't want to shoot a kid is my bet. Who would? Then he hesitated. When its all figured out we will know.

Are you implying tthat a better trained resource officer with more of Rambo-like demeanor would’ve taken this guy out and nobody would’ve been killed and we’d all be happy?

Wow! I hope that’s not what you’re insinuating.

To think, our children’s lives depend on a resource officer to come to the rescue and save their lives, when they clearly are at a disadvantage when they come on the scene.

Remember everybody, it’s not the easy accessibility to guns thst’s killing our kids and other innocent Americans, it’s poorly trained resource officers.

I would have a tough time shooting a kid, even if he had a gun, it just goes against most peoples grain. he may have hesitated or he was taken by surprise. I don't know.
I believe the best way to prevent these things is better security for schools it is the one thing that will help prevent future attacks.
I also believe that if adults have not secured their guns and some crazy kid takes them to kill they need to be held accountable also.
The reason this crazy crap happens is not the gun itself but the society the kids grow up in. It really is a reflection on everyone. Should gun laws be enforced better? Of coarse they should. But some genuine thought should go into why they do it.
I also believe that looking at social media and looking for signs of craziness is not one of the best ways to keep things in check. If every single sign of anti social behavior was checked on it would be a really overwhelming thing to put into practice.
Better security is the best way as far as I can see right now.

(05-21-2018, 01:50 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote:

(05-21-2018, 12:35 PM)Maggot Wrote: He didn't want to shoot a kid is my bet. Who would? Then he hesitated. When its all figured out we will know.

Are you implying tthat a better trained resource officer with more of Rambo-like demeanor would’ve taken this guy out and nobody would’ve been killed and we’d all be happy?

Wow! I hope that’s not what you’re insinuating.

To think, our children’s lives depend on a resource officer to come to the rescue and save their lives, when they clearly are at a disadvantage when they come on the scene.

Remember everybody, it’s not the easy accessibility to guns thst’s killing our kids and other innocent Americans, it’s poorly trained resource officers.

All of the weapons this kid possessed were illegal for him to possess so aren't there already laws in place to prevent this from happening?

(05-22-2018, 12:26 PM)Maggot Wrote: I would have a tough time shooting a kid, even if he had a gun, it just goes against most peoples grain. he may have hesitated or he was taken by surprise. I don't know.
I believe the best way to prevent these things is better security for schools it is the one thing that will help prevent future attacks.

Interesting.

You've made a number of posts strongly defending and justifying officers shooting certain unarmed kids or kids with toy guns when those kids weren't shooting anybody...you know, 'like anybody would'.

NOW you're claiming that an armed officer would be justified in hesitating to shoot this teen, a big kid who was actively slaughtering people at the time....because you know, 'it just goes against most peoples grains'.

I think you're way off base with your assertion that it goes against most people's grains. I'd definitely shoot the teen without hesitation if I had the chance to save a bunch of lives, including my own, in that situation. And, I'm not even trained to do so like officers are.

Oh cut it out, you argumentative dope. If I said the sky was blue you might say its not the right shade so I would be wrong.

Just telling it like it is Mags. And I’m not about to cut that out. That would go against my grain. I don’t know if it would go against most people’s grains though.

ETA: You give yourself way too much importance. My observations and opinions aren’t formed based on your observations and opinions. I just don’t happen to agree with you a lot of the time.

(05-22-2018, 12:30 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: All of the weapons this kid possessed were illegal for him to possess so aren't there already laws in place to prevent this from happening?

Unfortunately, not strong enough laws in Texas when it comes to accessibility.

If the teen's father was a responsible and law-abiding gun owner, those weapons wouldn't have been accessible to his son in several states.

But, in Texas, laws about securing weapons from children only apply to children under 17 years old. The Santa Fe HS mass shooter is 17.

Also, Texas laws are reactive rather than proactive, meaning nothing can be done if parents make their guns accessible to children under 17 unless the guns are loaded.

On the plus side, even the most conservative Republican lawmakers in Texas now appear more open to stricter gun security laws.

(continued)

Snip:
Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said at Friday's press conference: “What can we do now? One, if you’re a parent and you own guns, lock your guns safely away. Your children should not be able, or anyone else, to get your legally owned guns. ... This is one big step we can take.”

Later that afternoon, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn seemed to go even further. It’s “only prudent,” he said, that parents keep their firearms under lock and key; it’s an “open issue” whether parents should be legally required to do so.

Texas already has a law aimed at keeping parents’ legally owned guns out of the hands of their children, but it failed to prevent Friday’s shooting for several reasons — the most important of which, said state Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford, is that it’s “reactive, not proactive.” https://www.texastribune.org/2018/05/21/...eactive-n/
--------------------------

I won't hold my breath waiting for these Texas lawmakers to push for legislation, but I hope they do.

It would be even better if consistent and logical storage/security laws were enacted at the federal level.

(05-22-2018, 01:34 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I just don’t happen to agree with you a lot of the time.

I don't ever agree with him politically, not ever. We're so far apart we're barely on the same continent. I'll never be able to marry him, it's a deal breaker.

(05-22-2018, 02:25 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: if you’re a parent and you own guns, lock your guns safely away. Your children should not be able, or anyone else, to get your legally owned guns. ... This is one big step we can take.”

All I hear is blahblahblah. Their words are worthless. Take some fuckin' action.

I used to think if one of their own were murdered it would change their tune, force them into action to work for a solution that everyone could find a way to live with but I've come to see that even that wouldn't move them. I realized that after Steve Scalise was shot.

The Santa Fe HS shooter's dad is working my nerves.



Unless dad's a monster himself, I feel very sad for his situation. But, claiming his son is a victim and not a criminal is fucking bullshit.

His son is undoubtedly a mass murderer. He plotted, executed and confessed to his horrendous crimes.

Dad says his son was always a good boy and people at the school had to have hurt him and made him do what he did.

His son was on the football team, had friends, and probably did have his feelings hurt some in high school, like virtually all of us do. It does not make him a victim or excuse his violent criminality.

Dad says he owned guns, but his son did not own guns. That's fine. But, dad's guns were accessible to his son and I wish dad would tell us why that was and the police would tell us whether they plan to charge dad with endangerment or something else that would stick.

I'm not blaming dad for his son's actions; I want to hear dad answer for his his own actions or inaction instead of hearing him blame his son's victims.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...llied.html

(05-22-2018, 04:04 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: The Santa Fe HS shooter's dad is working my nerves.

Wooo. It takes a lot to do that!

(05-22-2018, 04:10 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(05-22-2018, 04:04 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: The Santa Fe HS shooter's dad is working my nerves.

Wooo. It takes a lot to do that!

This is the exact scenario I’ve imagined when I say that the legal owner of the weapon should be equally responsible for the crime(s) committed:

Lackadaisical parent, apparently without a clue (I hope), has legally acquired guns available essentially to anyone in the household.

If this kid would not have had access to these guns, this mass murder probably would not have occurred. Sure, he could have tried to get one illegally by theft or purchase, but for a 17 year old with no prior criminal history, would’ve been very, very doubtful.

In my world, you can legally purchase as many guns as you like, but if you are negligent and the guns end up with someone that commits a crime (like this scenario) you will do major time.

And the onus to prove one’s innocence will be on the gun owner. Better be able to prove that your guns were stolen, and that’ll be hard to do when a family member uses them.

I understand where you're coming from MS. I don't think the U.S. should change any laws to "guilty until proven innocent", but something major definitely needs to be done about parents who make/leave their guns accessible to their children and others.

Just the fact that anyone but the legal owner used the gun to commit a crime would constitute immediate probable cause to at least make an arrest IF a safe storage law was enacted nationally.

All of the most recent school shootings we've covered involved teens using their parents' guns, but I don't see jack shit happening to the parents anywhere in the news.

--Milby, the Illinois teen who took a rifle to school and fired off a round before he was stopped..............used his mom's rifle. Mom, a convicted felon, originally told reporters she had no idea where her son got the gun.

--Rollins, the Maryland teen who killed his ex-girlfriend and wounded a male student at their high school before killing himself..............used his dad's handgun.

--Pagourtzis, the teen responsible for the death of 8 students and 2 teachers in Santa Fe, Texas..........used his dad's shotgun and revolver.

And the other recent public shooters did not get their guns from criminals in some dark alley either.

-- Bouche, the troubled teen who fired off a round from a sawed-off shotgun at his high school in Ocala, Florida, bought the shotgun on the internet to avoid background check and age requirements.

-- Reinking, the naked 29-year-old responsible for mass murder at the Nashville Waffle House, had his semi-automatic rifle handed to him by his father, despite dad knowing that his son was mentally ill and posed a grave danger to himself and others.

National safe storage laws and universal background checks would automatically make all the people who put the guns in these shooter's hands liable and very likely encourage more responsible gun ownership.

Both laws would be fairly easy to enact and wouldn't involve taking away guns from any responsible and law abiding gun owners. Yet, we don't have those laws because the NRA, its most extreme followers, and beholdened politicians put money and guns before people's lives. That's what it boils down to, in my opinion. It's disgraceful.

(05-22-2018, 12:43 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(05-22-2018, 12:26 PM)Maggot Wrote: I would have a tough time shooting a kid, even if he had a gun, it just goes against most peoples grain. he may have hesitated or he was taken by surprise. I don't know.
I believe the best way to prevent these things is better security for schools it is the one thing that will help prevent future attacks.

Interesting.

You've made a number of posts strongly defending and justifying officers shooting certain unarmed kids or kids with toy guns when those kids weren't shooting anybody...you know, 'like anybody would'.

NOW you're claiming that an armed officer would be justified in hesitating to shoot this teen, a big kid who was actively slaughtering people at the time....because you know, 'it just goes against most peoples grains'.

I think you're way off base with your assertion that it goes against most people's grains. I'd definitely shoot the teen without hesitation if I had the chance to save a bunch of lives, including my own, in that situation. And, I'm not even trained to do so like officers are.

The resource officers in this school were still training for student shooting encounters many schools in Texas already have trained resource officers in place. I was not an actual witness to what happened and neither are you.
I also believe that I have never endorsed officers shooting kids with toy guns and would never believe that they would willingly shoot a child for no particular reason.
I do still believe that increased security in schools would be the fastest way to prevent more attacks, I also agree that diligent scrutiny towards gun laws and culpability towards gun owners to be responsible with their weapons that end up in the wrong hands should become a common theme.

I also believe you would hesitate when given the decision to kill a child and fully believe they will do the same to you ever heaven forbid happens. I myself would hesitate on a first time surprise encounter. If not for any reason but because I'm not a fully trained resource officer. Now a full grown man attempting to mug me.........I'll blow his head clean off his shoulders without remorse.

To me a child is different and maybe that's why I find all this shit really stupid.
I'm sure you have something substantial and metallic to say about all this but the sky really is blue.

Mags, what I posted about your previous and repeated claims regarding officers being justified in shooting some unarmed and toy-armed kids (way younger than 17) is true. Those previous comments about "fight or flight instinct" justifying shooting, even when there was only a fear that the kid might shoot, contradict what you're saying now. That's just reality.

If I had the opportunity, and certainly if I was an armed officer with decades of experience and training, I believe I would not hesitate to shoot at a teen who was shooting at me and who I knew was in the midst of a mass murder (even if it wasn't my job). That too is just reality and survival instinct. I don't know why you feel compelled to tell me I'd hesitate because you now think it goes against most people's grains. But, that's fine -- it doesn't compel me to claim that you would react the same as I. You say you would hesitate -- I accept that.

I too still believe that enhanced school security is necessary, sadly........in addition to other gun safety and control measures/laws which I've outlined previously. They're not mutually exclusive and I don't think there's one solution to a multi-layered problem. I also support increased focus on mental health and counseling.

I don't agree with the following: (1) mandatory arming of teachers, (2) attributing the problem to insufficient training when the resource/police officers reportedly followed all training protocols but were unable to immediately stop the shooter, (3) limiting points of entry and exit to one or two at schools (too dangerous when quick evacuation is necessary), (4) blaming mass shootings on Ritalin when there's no evidence whatsoever that Ritalin has played any part in mass shootings, (5) blaming dead victims when someone claims the mass murderer was bullied (regardless as to whether there's any truth to the bullying claim), (6) giving a pass to parents who allow their children access to their guns (whether the parent legally owned the guns or not)...... All of which I consider illogical and diversionary.

And, I didn't say I was at the school or suggest that I had any first hand knowledge. I didn't presume to know what was in Barnes' head. YOU said that you bet he hesitated because he didn't want to shoot a kid and it goes against most people's grains. I thought that was unlikely and still do, that's all. I'd be surprised if a resource officer who had 23 years of police service and training would hesitate to shoot at a young man who was in the midst of a mass shooting and was also shooting at the officer himself. I think it's more likely Barnes was either unarmed or that the shooter shot Barnes before Barnes had an opportunity to shoot him. But, maybe you're right. We'll probably find out more relatively soon.

I'm for limiting points of entry and exits at schools along with metal detectors at entry and security at both entry and exit. Instead of letting the entire school out at once they're going to have to let out each grade in intervals and keep it under complete control. It's going to have to be a real pain in the ass in order to prevent it. It's not going to stop otherwise. Everyone has gone fucking mad and the next crazy kid will be along soon to take his turn.

Kids would need to get to school even earlier if a single point of entry with metal detectors was put into effect, but that's a small price to pay. I do think it's very sad and unfair that schools need to become more like prisons when there are other measures that could be taken to help minimize the risk.

Since those measures are not being taken, however, my only real objection to the single point of entry is that it could lead to deaths in the the case of a fire or explosion or if there was another reason the school needed to be evacuated quickly.

Also, originally in the Santa Fe HS case, it was believed that the shooter or a student pulled the fire alarm early on. Now it's being reported that it was a teacher and it may have ended up saving lives because so many students got out of the buildings quickly and were able to run off campus when it became clear there was an active shooter(s) on campus.

I'd just hate to see something implemented to reduce shooting risk which would in turn introduce other possible risks. But, judging by the increase in scale and frequency of mass shootings, I doubt the other risks to students, teachers and staff even compare these days.

Since so many schools struggle to get enough budget to pay teachers and buy books, it would be interesting to see whether government would quickly commit to all the necessary funding and logistics to limit entry points and put metal detectors in place.

According to this article published today, Officer Barnes was armed and engaged in gunfire with the teen shooter. But, the shooter shot and incapacitated Barnes.

Snip:

A Texas police officer who engaged in a gunfight with a school shooter and urged colleagues to help wounded students even as he suffered massive blood loss is being hailed as a hero.

School district policeman John Barnes was seriously injured by a shotgun blast as he confronted the attacker.

He and another officer tackled the shooter within four minutes, saving many lives, a sheriff says.

Galveston County Sheriff Henry Trochesset said at a Monday news conference the officers had rushed towards the sound of gunshots, just as they rehearsed during active shooter training.

"Every door they opened," he said, "they weren't sure what was on the other side of it, but they opened those doors continuously - time after time - until that school was cleared.

"That's what you call a hero. They didn't run from it, they ran to it."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44213620

Many teachers could and would prefer to be armed making it voluntary is the way to go. Involuntarily arming teachers would not work. Yesterday I went to pu my son at school and had to be buzzed in all the doors were locked and there was a resource officers car parked in the front, he was in the building. I liked that and I would also like metal detectors in the doorways. I really do not care how "inconvenient" it is.
I agree that holding parents responsible for securing their weapons should become a law. I know that they are legally bound to secure them but they should also be to blame if they are used by their children to kill. Much like insurance rates go up when a kid becomes 16 and is using any car in the driveway. All these things should have been put into play years ago.

A single point of entry with metal detectors could work efficiently in smaller schools, but not for the thousands of schools with large student bodies.

At Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, for example, it would take over 5 hours to screen all students before they entered the building if there was only one entry, one walk through metal detector (fastest and least invasive mode), one security staffer manning the walk through detector, and one security staffer using a wand to check students who set the walk through detector off. That assumes only 6 seconds per scan with an enrollment of 3,100.

But, the entry/scan process could be made more efficient for larger schools if there was space and funding for multiple detectors and security staff at a single point of entry, or if there were multiple points of entry with separate detectors and security staff.

That would be expensive and would in no way replace the need for more gun safety/control legislation. A lot of the citizens who object to increased taxes are also the ones who object to gun safety/control laws, in my observation. But, the funding would need to come from somewhere (which should not include reallocation of education budget).

Perhaps the funding could come out of existing Homeland Security or Defense budget; that seems appropriate and would require those agencies to prioritize and cut back somewhere else. Or, maybe a school safety tax could be applied to all new gun purchases to create the additional funding. The NRA, in my opinion, should not be permitted to play a role in any of it -- which I think they might suggest in order to create a new profit center and further embed themselves. If conservative politicians entertained NRA involvement, I could easily see that motivating a whole lot of voters to get to the polls in protest.