Texas School Shooting

[rickyrick]

There’s always been murderers walking among us. That’s the entire reason most people here even own a gun, there’s murderers in our midsts.
Some
Want to do it in the shadows, some want the murders to be public and shocking. I agree that more of these events will happen, the frequency will increase and nothing will change that.

[5whiskey]

I do not believe these killers can be engineered as a conspiracy. That would be nuts.

Overall, I agree with your response taken in the context of the comment you responded to. I do not believe media is trying to idolize these kids intentionally, with the hopes of spurning more shooters, with the hopes of eventually enacting gun control. I do not agree with your comment in all contexts, however. We don't do conspiracy theories here, so I won't elaborate other than the Las Vegas shooting is VERY suspicious to me in the context of "engineered intent shootings."


I reject that we shouldn't discuss the "ills of society" in relation to this topic here. I believe this forum, being dedicated to the admiration of sporting and PEACEFUL use of firearms, should vehemently reject any GUN VIOLENCE (yes I said gun violence). It goes against our purpose, and what we enjoy. Shooting and working on firearms is a passion of mine, and I enjoy having the freedom to do that. The more murders there are that use firearms, the more likely that this freedom will eventually be restricted. Despite that, what is really more important? Should I be so selfish as to worry only about my freedom, or to sincerely desire for these tragic events to stop? If we could ban all firearms tomorrow, and I had a magical way to know that something like this would never happen again (or we wouldn't have a dictator rise and commit genocide because the citizenry is not armed) I would be the first to turn mine in! The simple fact remains... it won't work and we all know it won't. Even anti-gunners know it won't. Enacting gun bans now is like shutting the barn door after the livestock have already run out. It won't matter.

I don't just believe, I know the posters who point out that most school shooters are males, white, have some form of mental illness (either mild or extreme, diagnosed or not) and usually didn't have great moral compasses or disciplinarians in the home growing up... well you guys are on to something. Like it or not, I will tarry to say that this is where earnest discussion on the matter should lay. I'm sorry if some folks don't like the fact that there were, in fact, a "good old days" when compared to the modern rat race where kids can barely form a sentence without reverting to text speak... but it is what it is. Kids social and personal communication skills are declining fast. Even peer reviewed scientific research almost universally accepts this. In addition, there is an "at large" zero respect for elders, and the drive to become self-sufficient adults is waning fast. There are a lot of layers to this, and I don't believe society at large will be comfortable peeling them all off. There is much more to the story than guns, and anyone with any ability to reason understands this. The problem is, many do not want to blame declining social standards because they do not like being held accountable for their failure to live to any standards. Period.

[L2R]

I have read a few of Malcolm Gladwell's books. His research and neutrality to the issues before the data provides the answers is well documented and I highly respect him.

Thanks to Mainah for finding his work relative to the shooting we witness today.
The article is short and makes a lot of sense. It is worth 3 minutes to read the article he found. If only mainstream media would post this instead of jumping on the guns, the NRA and gun owners used as the problem.

Listed again for those who missed Mainah's post

https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...t-explanation/

[thallub]

Thanks to Mainah for finding his work relative to the shooting we witness today.

Times 2.

That article makes a lot of sense.

[Al Norris]

Originally Posted by rickyrick

From the USA Today. Apparently they are relieved that no AR15s were used... since all other guns are less lethal.

Yet the very last paragraph from that article gives lie to their premise.

Other shootings, including the deadly attack at Virginia Tech included less lethal weapons. Student Seung-Hui Cho used two pistols to kill 32 people in 2007.

So... A less lethal handgun was used to murder 32 and wound 17 people (Virginia Tech) as opposed to a more lethal rifle that was used to murder 17 and wound 17 (Parkland)?

The USA Today article is not the only one... Several of the major sources were timidly backing away from the "AR-15" scenario, they all first reported on.

Regardless, the only good that I see is that the calls for banning the AR-15 platform has fallen on its face.

[L2R]

Now it will be shown that even a lowly 38 is lethal and dangerous. It does not diminish the AR, it just moves revolvers into the group of items that must be banned as well and everything in between.

I wish some media outlets would show Gladwell's work. it is impressive and as I read it, made perfect sense.

[rickyrick]

Less-lethal gun is like saying some People in the cemetery are more-dead than others.

[HiBC]

Another non-gun elephant in the room:
Without a father or grandfather or other Patriarch in the home,where does a young man go for a sounding board and advice

When his hormones and body and heart and soul are confused ,in pain,and perhaps obsessed over some girl he probably doesn't even know very well.

The whole gap between genders and learning how to inter relate ....and for folks to deal with their own "internal weather" (that no one else can know,and few others care about)

These social forces are powerful,and we aren't addressing them well. They are often behind the "Why?" of irrational violent behavior.
Certainly our girls need to be treated with respect...I'm not sure the current model is helping anyone.

There are a percentage of supposedly mature and successful men that find their own downfall because their "juices" led to irrational and destructive choices.Their names have been in the news.

Being a jilted young man is not reason to kill but being a jilted young man can take over a mind.

It would be better to go fishing with Dad. Work with the dog.

Andy Griffith/Opie Taylor moments.

[tony pasley]

Just like the basic rules of gun safety people have to be taught there is right and wrong and you must abide in those boundaries. No it will not work 100% of the time but it does work most of the time.

[Double Naught Spy]

http://www.businessinsider.com/santa...minutes-2018-5

So it took the SROs 4 minutes to reach the shooter. FOUR MINUTES is a very long time when somebody is shooting. The shooter immediately felled one officer and it took another 25 before the shooter surrendered. So no buckling at the first sign of armed resistance and while the shooter did buckle, it took quite a while.

[Metal god]

I'd like to go back to my earlier question of are we headed to a secure your firearms or else national law ?

This is just one of many articles that bring up responsible firearm storage .
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...520-story.html

I don't know if the word conflicted is right in how I feel about this topic . My issue is mandating ( like I have to here in CA ) that my SD/HD gun be secured in a safe , certified container or other device that renders the firearm inoperable forcing there to be at least some time and effort to restore it to a in your hand ready to fire condition . The term when seconds count feel comfort in the fact that the police are only minutes away .

At the same time I believe if a firearm is used in a crime of any kind and that firearm was not secured in a way that at minimum the user could not just pick it up and walk off with it . Then you as the gun owner should face some sort of prosecution . I don't know all the legal definitions but if it was used in a robbery , maybe aiding and abetting the crime ??? If used to kill someone maybe aiding and abetting and what ever the charge is when a getaway driver can be charged with murder even though they stayed in the car while his friends did the killing . Meaning you know leaving your firearm unsecured has the potential of someone taking it and using it unlawfully . Just like the getaway driver did not think his driving his friends to the bank would result in a death . That might be a bad example but was the first that came to mind . The over all point is the same . If your unsecured firearm is used in a crime by another person regardless of family member through total stranger . You as that gun owner have some liability .

All that said , is it reasonable to have no laws requiring the safe storage of a firearm while at the same time having pretty harsh punishment for those who choose not to secure there firearms and they are then used in a crime ? I'm talking nationally here I'm sure there are some states that have something like that but my twist is NO mandatory "safe" storage required .

Example : for me I have multiple secure storage devices from a very large safe to trigger locks . I have one of those metal pistol boxes that use a code to get into . I've had that in a location I've felt adequate for a SD/HD purpose . It how ever started being glitch and would not always open . I concluded that if I can't rely on it to open 100% of the time there was no reason to keep a firearm in it do to it's relatively weakness in security compared to my large safe . So now my SD/HD weapon is in my safe which is not only time consuming to get into . It's nowhere close to me at most times when I'm home . I feel this pretty much leaves me defenseless at home to a sudden armed intruder .

Because of my specific situation , not only the law but having children around. Just sticking my SD/HD firearm in a drawer is not an option . How ever my situation is different then others and just because me needing to have my firearm locked up at all times does not mean everyone should be mandated to do the same , hence the conflict in my mind . I'd like everyone to keep there firearms locked up but I also know that is not always best for everyone in every situation . Which brings me to the idea of " you don't have to secure your firearm" BUT if you don't we the people insist it be easier to prosecute you if your unsecured firearm is used in any crime .

I don't know still ironing out my thoughts on this , what say you ?

[Metal god]

Double Naught Spy : Good article

It sure seems to confirm having armed officers in schools help . In the article I linked , one of the anti gun groups leader said if the Santa Fe shooter had an AR things would have been worse . Based on your article it would seem that is not the case . The RO confronted the shooter in about 4 min . How many students could have been saved in Florida if there RO had engaged the suspect in the 4th min of that 6min shooting ?

IMHO , my guess is this shooting will not get the coverage it needs because it appears to reinforce the pro gun side on every level . Any gun can be used to carry out these types of attacks , Armed personnel in schools will help defend and mitigate the damage , only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun . Like so often just about everything the anti's are proposing would not have stopped this attack . No way the media is going to cover this as honestly as it covered . When I say honestly I mean giving the same amount of coverage they gave the parkland shooting .

[Double Naught Spy]

only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun

Which is nothing but propaganda. Mass shooters and active shooters do get stopped by unarmed people with notable frequency. Having a gun on scene and put into use can be safe to stop a bad guy with a gun, but no way in hell is it the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun. To believe that only a gun can be used is a defeatest attitude, sort of like when people claim that being unarmed means being defenseless. A gun is a VERY GOOD tool, but if it is the only tool you know how to use, then you really are not prepared, are you?

People come up with these cutesy mantras that are really catchy and meant to be beneficial to the cause and the scary thing is that people start to believe them as factual when they are not.

I guess the slogan makers were afraid to say "The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" because it opens the door to the fact that there are MANY ways to stop a bad guy with a gun, so they came up with what you repeated, which is just isn't realistic.

[Metal god]

Well I was about to challenge you on that but thought it may derail the thread . Lets just say while what you say is not untrue , I disagree with most of it . Like the nuances you used I can show the same thing backing my points . Of course it's not the only thing . I believe a teacher or law maker in Pennsylvania recommended having a bucket of rocks in each class room .

I stand by my over all point as to why this wont get the coverage it should .

[thallub]

Which is nothing but propaganda.

Pretty much.

Recently James Shaw disarmed the TN Waffle House shooter.

https://www.ajc.com/news/who-james-s...pF5kQmsEIyz4O/

[Mainah]

A good guy with a gun and a uniform folded at the Parkland shooting. As pointed out an unarmed civilian stopped the Waffle House shooting. Talking points won’t fix this.

[rickyrick]

A good guy with a gun has another choice. A good guy without a gun, doesn’t the options that the guy with the gun has.

I guess we could trim lots of money from the defense budget... being that guns on the good guys’ is only propaganda. We could also relieve many municipal police from their guns as well... seeing that it is pure propaganda.

I’d rather have a gun when dealing with murderers... not saying that the all situations need a gun. Many situations could be handled without a gun.

Here’s some propaganda: “when seconds count, the police are minutes away” that’s propaganda, but has been proven to be true a whole bunch of times.

[Double Naught Spy]

Well I was about to challenge you on that but thought it may derail the thread . Lets just say while what you say is not untrue , I disagree with most of it . Like the nuances you used I can show the same thing backing my points . Of course it's not the only thing . I believe a teacher or law maker in Pennsylvania recommended having a bucket of rocks in each class room .

If it isn't the only thing and you admit it isn't the ONLY thing, then why would you repeat a self defeatest mantra that says it is the only thing?

A good guy with a gun has another choice. A good guy without a gun, doesn’t the options that the guy with the gun has.

True, but good guys with guns aren't always around and even when they are, such a Parkland, fat lot of good they did.

Hell, even unarmed folks stop these shooters. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jason-s...ay-2018-05-25/ It is dangerous and they sometimes get hurt, but they sometimes get hurt when they are armed as well, such as Austin, Houston, Tyler, Santa Fe, etc.

Response time by the above teacher was a helluva lot quicker than waiting on a couple armed SROs who were apparently nowhere in the immediate (4 minute response in Santa Fe) area or SROs who don't do their job (Parkland). Not knocking all SROs, but they can't be everywhere and nobody is funding putting them in every hallway.

Tackling has worked in several school shootings, it isn't ideal, but people need to learn to take action. An active shooter unabated, while you are waiting on a good guy with a gun, is still an active shooter unabated.

Having a gun is a great option, but we really have to get rid of this stupid mindset that a gun is the ONLY option and that without a gun we are defenseless. As far as I am concerned, if you are a normally ambulatory person and consider yourself defenseless without a gun, you are probably not much better off with a gun because you haven't taken the time to actually prepare. "Defenseless without a gun" and "gun only" mantras are mindset problems and it they get repeated and reinforced over and over on gun forums like this one. They are a bad way to be thinking about self defense.

[Metal god]

Having a gun is a great option, but we really have to get rid of this stupid mindset that a gun is the ONLY option and that without a gun we are defenseless. As far as I am concerned, if you are a normally ambulatory person and consider yourself defenseless without a gun, you are probably not much better off with a gun because you haven't taken the time to actually prepare. "Defenseless without a gun" and "gun only" mantras are mindset problems and it they get repeated and reinforced over and over on gun forums like this one. They are a bad way to be thinking about self defense.

Nobody said that's are mind set . In todays polarized political environment you cant say anything that will allow the other side to play back your statement to promote there cause .Like a so called supporter of the second challenging the statement ( the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun in a good guy with a gun ) with nuanced technical babble which the anti's don't care about . All they'll hear is a pro gun guy saying a law abiding Americans don't "need" a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun and play that back every time they can . How many times have you heard Diane Feinstein's statement of 20+ years ago

if I could have got 51 votes in the senate of the united states for an OUT RIGHT BAN picking up every one of them . Mr & Mrs America , turn them ALL in , I WOULD HAVE DONE IT

. Some still try to claim she never said it, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj4AcjyuV38

That was my point that you clearly missed , the media is not going to talk about the Santa Fe shooting because it does not play into the anti's talking points , it plays into what pro gun advocates have been saying .

As far as feeling defenseless because by law I can't have a firearm at the ready in my home . I'll agree that may have been a bit over stated and I do in fact have other things around at the ready for SD/HD . The second we start conceding the linguistic territory as you are so willing to do is when we no longer will be able to help sway the people on the fence . Like excepting you don't need an AR-15 to defend your home . Just ask Joe Bidden , you only need a shotgun and shoot it a couple times in the air and all your home invasion troubles will go away . See what I mean about are statements can come back to bite us . There's two perfect examples of anti statements that will live forever in the pro gun community .

How much are "YOU" willing to concede on what "I" do and don't "need" for self defense either at home or when I'm picking my grand kids up from school ?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by DNS

True, but good guys with guns aren't always around and even when they are, such a Parkland, fat lot of good they did.

I understand and agree with your statement ... to a point. However, the rebel in me wants to question whether or not a sworn police officer who hides instead of doing his duty rightly qualifies as a "good guy." Further, although he was on the campus, he quite obviously was not on the scene of the shooting. He was in a different building (before he was in the parking lot).

[HiBC]

Yes,that SRO who remained disengaged at Parkland just retired.

He will draw over $8000 a month pension for the rest of his life.

[JohnKSa]

In todays polarized political environment you cant say anything that will allow the other side to play back your statement to promote there cause .

Looking at this from a slightly different perspective, I would say that: "In today's polarized political environment you can't say anything that can be proven to be false if you want to be taken seriously."

Clearly mass shootings/school shootings can be (have been on multiple occasions) stopped by unarmed defenders, so it's problematic (assuming we care about telling the truth) to claim that only armed defenders can stop a school shooting/mass shooting.

We make a big deal of picking the anti-gunner nonsense apart when they say something that is obviously false. If we don't care about the truth then we at least need to be equitable and let the anti-gunners get away with their lies too.

[Metal god]

I'm not sure how my original point

IMHO , my guess is this shooting will not get the coverage it needs because it appears to reinforce the pro gun side on every level . Any gun can be used to carry out these types of attacks , Armed personnel in schools will help defend and mitigate the damage , only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun . Like so often just about everything the anti's are proposing would not have stopped this attack . No way the media is going to cover this as honestly as it covered (EDIT the Florida shooting ) . When I say honestly I mean giving the same amount of coverage they gave the parkland shooting .

Turned in to me trying to defend a statement the NRA likes to use in pro gun speeches . I guess it goes to the last point I was trying to make . They'll do anything to parse your words and change the subject in order to avoid the over all point and message .

I again still stand by my original point and IMHO it has been proven true in at least as so much that I'm not hearing anything like the noise I heard after the Florida shooting . Maybe Trump tweeted something so the media has more important things to cover right now then children dying in are schools .

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Clearly mass shootings/school shootings can be (have been on multiple occasions) stopped by unarmed defenders, so it's problematic (assuming we care about telling the truth) to claim that only armed defenders can stop a school shooting/mass shooting.

Yes, they can be stopped by unarmed intervenors, but the odds are against the unarmed intervenor. The teacher at the Indiana school stopped the shooter, but he (the teacher) took three hits in the process and is still in guarded condition in the hospital.

And, of course, the opposite is also true -- an armed intervenor could also be shot by the shooter.

Ain't nuthin' certain 'cept death and taxes.

[JohnKSa]

I'm not sure how my original point:

Turned in to me trying to defend a statement the NRA likes to use in pro gun speeches . I guess it goes to the last point I was trying to make . They'll do anything to parse your words and change the subject in order to avoid the over all point and message .

Your original point contained a claim that was false. Since WE are the side that CLAIMS to care about the truth and about being accurate, it's important that we prove that we care about the truth and about being accurate by actually taking care to be accurate. Clearly "a good guy with a gun" is NOT the "only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun".

As far as "THEY" doing anything to parse words and change the subject, reality is that WE make it easy for them when WE make claims that are demonstrably false.

The implication that anyone who points out a problem with a pro-gun argument must be anti-gun is disappointing. By self-policing, we make our arguments more effective and strengthen our cause. The idea that anyone who is pro-gun should keep their mouth shut when other pro-gunners spout nonsense is equivalent to claiming that someone who points out that a speaker's pants are unzipped before the speaker ascends a stage to make a speech must hate the speaker. In reality, the opposite is true.

...but the odds are against the unarmed intervenor.

There is certainly data that indicates being armed with a firearm offers the best chance of effective resistance and the least chance of being injured. However, neither of those two facts actually affects the validity of the comments pointing out the error in the original claim.