19 children and 2 teachers killed in Texas school shooting (24 May 2022)

Mike Smalling said:
Why are some Americans so tied to a stupid document that was written by +200 years ago? I mean, what good is the constitution, when it serves to maintain the status quo and produce results like Sandy Hook and Uvalde?

I can't think of any other population that are so heavily invested in their constitution. Here, we have an annual Constitution Day as well, but it's mostly remembered for being on the same day as Father's Day.
Click to expand...

The right wing in America has, for decades, introduced a mentality that essentially treats the US Constitution like an infallible religious text. Of course, that depends on their interpretation, but they spin it like their interpretation is "originalism" and that is the only valid view.
 
calodo2003 said:
Click to expand...


Even if that's true, even if say, ranchers use the to chase off predators attacking their livestock, couldn't he say "there are use cases for weapons like that for ranchers and we should look into having specialty licenses for ranchers with a work need for them that includes proper training and accountability for the weapon." Instead, he goes to the "rights" trope. What a feck head.
 
calodo2003 said:
Click to expand...

MarylandMUFan said:
Even if that's true, even if say, ranchers use the to chase off predators attacking their livestock, couldn't he say "there are use cases for weapons like that for ranchers and we should look into having specialty licenses for ranchers with a work need for them that includes proper training and accountability for the weapon." Instead, he goes to the "rights" trope. What a feck head.
Click to expand...
Not to mention, the type of AR constantly used in these shootings is the one chambered in the barely recoiling 5.56 NATO (.223 caliber) round.

AR platforms for feral hogs are firing .30 and .40 caliber rounds and hold 10 bullets per magazine. It’s apples to oranges but he knows the average reporter won’t know that.

Edit - not to mention, you don’t “need” an AR for feral hogs. I’ve hunted them with lever and bolt action rifles and have done just fine.
 
AaronRedDevil said:
One thing I don't get is that banning ARs won't stop anything. If it's not that, it's a shotgun, rifle or a pistol. And I think it's too late for psych evaluation since all the psychopaths own guns already. Even just normal people own them. They can't stop the son from picking a gun out of the safe and start shooting randomly. Yeah you can prevent future gun owners to an extent but I feel nearly everyone and there uncle already have guns.
Click to expand...

MarylandMUFan said:
I disagree. That's like saying it's no different getting stabbed with a pocket knife or getting stabbed with a sword. The amount of damage an AR-15 can do is far greater than a hand gun. The Las Vegas shooting would not have been nearly as bad if all he had was a regular rifle (he got off over 1,000 rounds).
Click to expand...

calodo2003 said:
Ridiculous post. The force projection of a rifle, a shotgun, & a pistol would end up being magnitudes of order less than an AR platform. Limiting their availability might not stop mass shootings, but it would lessen the body count.

Isn’t that reason enough?
Click to expand...

The AR is a rifle. Quite a lot like other gas operated semi-automatic rifles out there as far as function goes. The destructive power of a firearm is generally down to the cartridge. The average AR round doesn't rank that high. It produces very high muzzle velocity but the projectile is on the lighter side meaning its muzzle energy is on the lower end of things. At short range the energy generated is relatively redundant and the more important factor in destructiveness for the AR platform becomes the 30 round magazine.
 
From a couple of years ago. Sammy J is a comedian who uses this character for comedy (normally) but made this in response to a terrorist attack a couple of years ago. Nothing about gun control but worth a watch imo.
 
Scarlett Dracarys said:
They want freedom to bear arms but when it was time to use it to defend the innocent they became a bunch of pussies.
Click to expand...
Oh, and it gets even better (sarcasm intended).



That is ABYSMAL. It's worse than the entire Manchester United team this season when it comes to downing tools. Sack the whole lot.
 
Last edited:
RedDevilQuebecois said:
Oh, and it gets even better (sarcasm intended).



That is ABYSMAL. It's worse than the entire Manchester United team this season when it comes to downing tools. Sack the whole lot.
Click to expand...

I don't think sacking is any kind of justice. They should be prosecuted. The policemen, by refusing to perform their primary duty, have become accomplices in the mass murder.
 
RedDevil@84 said:
I don't think sacking is any kind of justice. They should be prosecuted. The policemen, by refusing to perform their primary duty, have become accomplices in the mass murder.
Click to expand...
I'm sure the victims' relatives will take those policemen to court. But all identifiable officers who did nothing should be immediately sacked from the police department before they get struck by further prosecutions on charges of being accomplices to mass murder.
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
Oh, and it gets even better (sarcasm intended).



That is ABYSMAL. It's worse than the entire Manchester United team this season when it comes to downing tools. Sack the whole lot.
Click to expand...

It's human nature to want to protect the weak and vulnerable. It's inexcusable when your job description is to built on protecting and yet you do nothing. That 40 minutes must have felt like an eternity for those children. That was pure undeserving hell and nobody especially children, should ever have to endure that.
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
I'm sure the victims' relatives will take those policemen to court. But all identifiable officers who did nothing should be immediately sacked from the police department before they get struck by further prosecutions on charges of being accomplices to mass murder.
Click to expand...
The unions and their lawyers will already be working overtime to remove key evidence and ensure than none of them get any kind of punishment. Some of them maybe awarded for what they did as well
 
RedDevil@84 said:
I don't think sacking is any kind of justice. They should be prosecuted. The policemen, by refusing to perform their primary duty, have become accomplices in the mass murder.
Click to expand...


In 2005, Jessica Gonzales sued Castle Rock, Colorado police for failing to arrest her husband, who had violated a protective order, resulting in the murder of her three children. Her case went to the U.S. Supreme Court in The Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, where she lost because even though the order required arresting her husband upon violation, then-Justice Antonin Scalia successfully argued that “a well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes.”


This case builds upon Supreme Court precedent in Deshaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (1989). In that case, a young boy was repeatedly abused at the hands of his father, something that county Social Services was aware of, but made no effort to remove the child. His mother sued once the four-year old entered a vegetative state, and the Court ruled that that the state did not have a special obligation to protect a citizen against harms it did not create.

Based on these precedents, Lozito was told in the New York City case that “no direct promises of protection were made” to him, and therefore he could not sue the police for failing to come to his aid. In other words, the police do not have to act if someone is actively being harmed, they do not have to arrest someone who has violated orders, and they do not have any obligation to protect you from others.

People are still expected to call the police, and many still do, especially given the lack of alternatives. But to criticize their effectiveness in solving crimes in the aftermath furthers the propaganda: It assumes that the police are acting in the interest of the public, when there is no precedent that says that they have to.


https://prospect.org/justice/police-have-no-duty-to-protect-the-public/
 
berbatrick said:
In 2005, Jessica Gonzales sued Castle Rock, Colorado police for failing to arrest her husband, who had violated a protective order, resulting in the murder of her three children. Her case went to the U.S. Supreme Court in The Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, where she lost because even though the order required arresting her husband upon violation, then-Justice Antonin Scalia successfully argued that “a well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes.”


This case builds upon Supreme Court precedent in Deshaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (1989). In that case, a young boy was repeatedly abused at the hands of his father, something that county Social Services was aware of, but made no effort to remove the child. His mother sued once the four-year old entered a vegetative state, and the Court ruled that that the state did not have a special obligation to protect a citizen against harms it did not create.

Based on these precedents, Lozito was told in the New York City case that “no direct promises of protection were made” to him, and therefore he could not sue the police for failing to come to his aid. In other words, the police do not have to act if someone is actively being harmed, they do not have to arrest someone who has violated orders, and they do not have any obligation to protect you from others.

People are still expected to call the police, and many still do, especially given the lack of alternatives. But to criticize their effectiveness in solving crimes in the aftermath furthers the propaganda: It assumes that the police are acting in the interest of the public, when there is no precedent that says that they have to.


https://prospect.org/justice/police-have-no-duty-to-protect-the-public/
Click to expand...
Great!!!
 
WPMUFC said:
The picture is starting to come together. They rescued their own kids first as they knew what was the likely scenario, didn't want to risk their lives, so it became an "active investigation scene" where they could justify standing around and not risking themselves.

"feck you i've got mine" seems to be the takeaway from this.
Click to expand...

I'm alright Jack, feck everyone else.... The exact same line of thinking that goes against social benefit systems and Universal Healthcare ...

It's the American way.
 
berbatrick said:
In 2005, Jessica Gonzales sued Castle Rock, Colorado police for failing to arrest her husband, who had violated a protective order, resulting in the murder of her three children. Her case went to the U.S. Supreme Court in The Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, where she lost because even though the order required arresting her husband upon violation, then-Justice Antonin Scalia successfully argued that “a well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes.”


This case builds upon Supreme Court precedent in Deshaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (1989). In that case, a young boy was repeatedly abused at the hands of his father, something that county Social Services was aware of, but made no effort to remove the child. His mother sued once the four-year old entered a vegetative state, and the Court ruled that that the state did not have a special obligation to protect a citizen against harms it did not create.

Based on these precedents, Lozito was told in the New York City case that “no direct promises of protection were made” to him, and therefore he could not sue the police for failing to come to his aid. In other words, the police do not have to act if someone is actively being harmed, they do not have to arrest someone who has violated orders, and they do not have any obligation to protect you from others.

People are still expected to call the police, and many still do, especially given the lack of alternatives. But to criticize their effectiveness in solving crimes in the aftermath furthers the propaganda: It assumes that the police are acting in the interest of the public, when there is no precedent that says that they have to.


https://prospect.org/justice/police-have-no-duty-to-protect-the-public/
Click to expand...
Absolutely disgusting. Then cops should simply not take the oath of service unless (and until) they understand what it actually means.
 
Last edited:
RedDevilQuebecois said:
Absolutely disgusting. Then cops should simply not take the oath of service unless they understand what it actually means.
Click to expand...
The highest court in the land thought they are doing marvelously.

America is fecked. It will devolve into a fascistic theocracy, or a barren wasteland in perpetual civil war, there’s no fixing this.
 
adexkola said:
So something like gun liability insurance. With every AR-15 is the risk of it being used to commit a mass murder. Paired to that weapon is a human being who can be placed on a risk scale based on certain factors deemed more significant in predicting risk liability with regards to these things. Based on that a risk pool and associated premiums can be drawn up.

If you are 18, maybe it would cost you $12,000 per month (example) to have gun liability insurance related to a AR-15. That alone would deter a lot of people. Make it mandatory to have gun insurance for every weapon you own. Offer discounts for gun safe purchases, or storing it in an armory, or psych evals, or whatever.

Then when these events happen, insurance companies can then pay out to victims, municipalities impacted by gun violence.

This country has decided it loves gun money. Why not give Geico and The Hartford and others a piece of the action?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't making it cost deterrent be against the 2nd amendment?
 
harshad said:
Wouldn't making it cost deterrent be against the 2nd amendment?
Click to expand...
Not really as the are lots of weapons that cost more and it wouldn't effect the sales of other firearms but it would be labelled as that by the nra and politicians so would never happen.
 
Last edited:
DomesticTadpole said:
That would be madness. One teacher on the point of a nervous breakdown, with a gun, in a classroom full of kids/students. The only people who should have guns are the ones who need them in their work, armed forces, police and the like of park rangers for peoples safety.
Click to expand...

One of our teachers at school punched someone once cause she couldn’t control the class at all. Felt sorry for her but thinking of her having a gun terrifies me.
 
SilentWitness said:
One of our teachers at school punched someone once cause she couldn’t control the class at all. Felt sorry for her but thinking of her having a gun terrifies me.
Click to expand...
Teachers have to deal with some pretty obnoxious kids. Giving your teacher a gun doesn't sound like a good idea.
 
The idea of arming teachers is ludicrous for so many reasons, but I’ll just pick one. If the whole idea is to prevent school shootings, do we really want teenagers having access to dozens of guns on campus every day? Hell, I know 15 year old me was not a rational thinker.
 
AaronRedDevil said:
One thing I don't get is that banning ARs won't stop anything. If it's not that, it's a shotgun, rifle or a pistol. And I think it's too late for psych evaluation since all the psychopaths own guns already. Even just normal people own them. They can't stop the son from picking a gun out of the safe and start shooting randomly. Yeah you can prevent future gun owners to an extent but I feel nearly everyone and there uncle already have guns.
Click to expand...

From what I gather (some gun nut here might correct me), an AR-15 is a semi-auto rifle not too disimmilar from some hunting rifles, although more moddable, easier to use, etc. So they could ban whatever they count as an "assault rifle" and there would still be similar stuff out there.

It wont' stop everything, but it would still stop something. Its a step forward to at least adressing the gun culture kids fall into. They are much less likely to out and buy a Ruger Mini-14 when they turn 18 because it doens't look anywhere near as cool as an AR-15, despite being pretty much just as capable.

I don't think anyone is talking about banning AR's as if that will solve this problem, it it just one of many suggestions alongside background checks, waiting periods, licences, etc.
 
MUW4Eva said:
Someone please remind me, just why America is considering a first World developed country?
Click to expand...
Probably because it is the richest country in Earth, home to the biggest companies, it is the forefront of the research (does more research than the rest of the world combined), the most technologically advanced country, has by far the best universities in the world, and by far the best hospitals. And a few other things that I forgot.
 
Revan said:
Probably because it is the richest country in Earth, home to the biggest companies, it is the forefront of the research (does more research than the rest of the world combined), the most technologically advanced country, has by far the best universities in the world, and by far the best hospitals. And a few other things that I forgot.
Click to expand...

I thought that wasn't the case anymore?
 
Revan said:
Probably because it is the richest country in Earth, home to the biggest companies, it is the forefront of the research (does more research than the rest of the world combined), the most technologically advanced country, has by far the best universities in the world, and by far the best hospitals. And a few other things that I forgot.
Click to expand...
You must be a huge fan of China as well (or will be in some time).

Who gives a feck if people cannot be safe in their schools or supermarkets, at least our billionaires are making more billions. That's what matters!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.