Shootings

[LawBeefaroni]

I saw part of the press conference while at the gym. Will try to comment later, can't really do it justice from a phone keyboard. But holy fuck, what a bunch of nonsense.



One detail he revealed, the resource officer "engaged" the shooter as he went to enter the school through a back door but there was no exchange of gunfire. Why on earth would a cop NOT start shooting someone armed with a rifle and several visible magazines trying to enter a school? Especially when the suspect was "engaged" but not cooperative? If it was a black kid in a hoodie who reached for a cell phone he'd have been shot for sure.

[malchior]

Possibly not armed? A lot of resource officers aren't at elementary schools.

Nope it seems he saw the car crash and followed him into the school and then exchanged fire with him. WTF? The good guy with the gun almost worked - guess we can scratch that off the right-wing fantasy defense check list.

[LawBeefaroni]

Possibly not armed? A lot of resource officers aren't at elementary schools.

Possible, but they said the SRO later joined the two local officers and exchanged gunfire with the suspect. Maybe they threw him a backup gun? It being Texas, I assume they're armed.

Edit: saw your edit. Yeah, WTF?

[Isgrimnur]

Steve Kerr's father was assassinated when he was president of the American University of Beirut. He might have some thoughts about people being killed in schools.

[Enough]

Steve Kerr's father was assassinated when he was president of the American University of Beirut. He might have some thoughts about people being killed in schools.

Wow, thanks for sharing.

[malchior]

Digging deeper would cost me ~$500 for an annual subscription.

Yeah I think the gist of things would be if I were to get a 80% accurate SWAG is most mass shootings are heat of the moment and the tool at hand is a handgun. They are going to be less deadly on average. When your intent is to kill as many folks as possible you get the tool of choice that mirrors your fellow sociopaths choices. That's going to be a light, powerful enough long rifle.

[LawBeefaroni]

Where does an 18 year old get the money for all this *and* body armor?

Can be done for under $2K. He was living at home since March so no rent.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476 ... ypes-used/

Here's thing. Most of the handgun "mass" shootings are gang related or domestics. Nearly all the rifle mass shootings are these school/church/public space mass murders.

We are more OK with gang shootings or drunk guy shooting up his family at a BBQ. I used to have a problem with this. I don't anymore. Take the AR15 and AK platform rifles. Lets see how it goes. Can't take them? Regulate them.

The Texas governor defended allowing 18 YOs to buy AR-15s because it's been legal for 60 years and these incidents "don't happen." Well, something changed and it's probably time to revisit this law. 18 YOs are fucking nuts and completely susceptible to social media influence and pressure. He's happy to overturn decades of case law to ban abortions.

[Enough]

Where does an 18 year old get the money for all this *and* body armor?

Can be done for under $2K. He was living at home since March so no rent.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476 ... ypes-used/

Here's thing. Most of the handgun "mass" shootings are gang related or domestics. Nearly all the rifle mass shootings are these school/church/public space mass murders.

We are more OK with gang shootings or drunk guy shooting up his family at a BBQ. I used to have a problem with this. I don't anymore. Take the AR15 and AK platform rifles. Lets see how it goes. Can't take them? Regulate them.

The Texas governor defended allowing 18 YOs to buy AR-15s because it's been legal for 60 years and these incidents "don't happen." Well, something changed and it's probably time to revisit this law. 18 YOs are fucking nuts and completely susceptible to social media influence and pressure. He's happy to overturn decades of case law to ban abortions.

Well said, but I wonder how tech advance plays here? I mean 3d printing a basic glockish handgun is pretty doable for a lot of people. I am going to guess 3d printing AR/AK stuff is not yet as easy or accessible but could see 3d designs with high bullet velocity that mimics the brutality of the assault rifles. And of course you will still have to buy some parts and ammunition.

But now that I am going down a dark cynical road, let me share some really darker fears of mine: homebrew armed drone swarms will be possible someday and the amount of carnage they could do is insanity. Also, we keep talking about how only America has mass shootings, another dark cynical fear of mine is that we have and will export this horrid reality to the rest of the world. Incel and similar online cultures are already doing this with kids talking about going for high scores and such. I genuinely fear there are enough fucked up sad kids/adults around the world to be radicalized via these communities. I pray I'm wrong, but I fear if we were to time-travel we would see increasing mass-shootings worldwide as tech provides weapons in countries with gun control and internet culture provides the radicalization. Yikes.

[geezer]

I'm far from a Second Amendment scholar or gun rights/control expert. That said, I think there is wiggle room within the text of the 2A to allow for more meaningful gun control. Eliminating the 2A is not happening - it's just not. With a friendly SCOTUS, however, we could hang on the "well regulated" portion of the 2A to justify more restrictions/regulations on gun ownership. It doesn't even have to go into whether there's a militia involved, but the plain text of the 2A contains "well regulated" as a table setter for the right to ownership. (By the way, it's really an awkwardly worded amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.")

It may not have been interpreted that way in the past, but precedent doesn't seem to have the same value today as it has in the past. It's still a long shot, as it would require both a friendly SCOTUS and likely some national legislation in a world where the filibuster kills most meaningful stuff, but it's a heck of a lot more plausible than eliminating or even amending the 2A.

I'm certainly not a lawyer, but I'm sort of well-educated in Constitutional history. There is a LOT of originalist interpretation AGAINST the idea of an unrestricted individual right, both it terms of foundational English common law, contemporaneous (to 1789) municipal gun laws, and, in terms of the just released Alito theory of originalism, "laws that have been around for a long time" . Frankly, from an originalist perspective, it's not even a hard argument to make, and there's a reason why up until Heller, courts generally found in favor of the Constitutionality of reasonable restrictions. (Which, as an aside, is why I find the "Constitutional Carry" marketing phrasing to be abhorrent, and those that use to be ignorant.)

But none of that matters - I think we all know that "originalism" is used when convenient, and tossed away equally capriciously when it serves a radical's purpose to do so.

[geezer]

I'm far from a Second Amendment scholar or gun rights/control expert. That said, I think there is wiggle room within the text of the 2A to allow for more meaningful gun control. Eliminating the 2A is not happening - it's just not. With a friendly SCOTUS, however, we could hang on the "well regulated" portion of the 2A to justify more restrictions/regulations on gun ownership. It doesn't even have to go into whether there's a militia involved, but the plain text of the 2A contains "well regulated" as a table setter for the right to ownership. (By the way, it's really an awkwardly worded amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.")

It may not have been interpreted that way in the past, but precedent doesn't seem to have the same value today as it has in the past. It's still a long shot, as it would require both a friendly SCOTUS and likely some national legislation in a world where the filibuster kills most meaningful stuff, but it's a heck of a lot more plausible than eliminating or even amending the 2A.

I'm certainly not a lawyer, but I'm sort of well-educated in Constitutional history. There is a LOT of originalist interpretation AGAINST the idea of an unrestricted individual right, both it terms of foundational English common law, contemporaneous (to 1789) municipal gun laws, and, in terms of the just released Alito theory of originalism, "laws that have been around for a long time" . Frankly, from an originalist perspective, it's not even a hard argument to make, and there's a reason why up until Heller, courts generally found in favor of the Constitutionality of reasonable restrictions. (Which, as an aside, is why I find the "Constitutional Carry" marketing phrasing to be abhorrent, and those that use to be ignorant.)

But none of that matters - I think we all know that "originalism" is used when convenient, and tossed away equally capriciously when it serves a radical's purpose to do so. I had this exact argument with someone a few weeks back. They were insisting (as usual) that the 2nd half of the 2nd Amendment was true on it's face - the right to keep and bear ams shall not be infringed. They had no interest in the first half, had no interest in the contemporary meaning of or purpose for a "well regulated militia" and didn't care that some of the same people who wrote the damn thing were leading citizens in places where carrying firearms was banned inside city limits. I even gave the guy some academic papers that catalogues contemporary gun restrictions. He said, basically, that he doesn't care about that academic stuff and knew what he knew.

[hepcat]

My god, listening to the wailing mothers as they're being told they've lost a child when they go to the community center where they're releasing the names to relatives, and that most newscasters are broadcasting from today, is just devastating.

[LordMortis]

The Texas governor defended allowing 18 YOs to buy AR-15s because it's been legal for 60 years and these incidents "don't happen." Well, something changed and it's probably time to revisit this law. 18 YOs are fucking nuts and completely susceptible to social media influence and pressure. He's happy to overturn decades of case law to ban abortions.

Those sorts of power problems don't happen in TX either... Abbott and Paxton are horrible people and they keep building more power. Listen to their (and Ted Cruz and Dan Patrick) system admonishing Beto for playing politics before removing him for demanding change.

[YellowKing]

And while I absolutely agree mental health is a serious issue in this country, it's also an extremely complex issue to solve and identify. Requiring a background check and a license to sell an 18-year old an AR-15 is an extremely easy issue to solve.

[hepcat]

I still believe that requiring training and licensing for all gun purchases/ownership, and then enforcing that requirement in much the same way we do driver's licenses, isn't asking too much. We have some of that, but it doesn't go far enough.

As for firearms that can kill hundreds of people within minutes? I'm not against outlawing them entirely. Hunting and self defense should be the only use for firearms. If you want to use bigger guns for fun, go to a shooting range for supervised usage.

However, I know that my opinion is probably not going to be popular with some folks.

[Enough]

I still believe that requiring training and licensing for all gun purchases/ownership, and then enforcing that requirement in much the same way we do driver's licenses, isn't asking too much. We have some of that, but it doesn't go far enough.

However, I know that my opinion is probably not going to be popular with some folks.

I got gun safety training and marksmanship in the scouts and it really taught me to be safe with guns and respect what they can do. Perhaps I can compromise with the gun nuts to get these no-brainers done (plus require insurance like we do for driving a car). Give us the checks, licensing and training and we will help fund gun safety training with funds going to private entities. Let's look at other public health crisis like drinking and driving and learn how we pulled off the success there and let's emulate.

[Unagi]

And while I absolutely agree mental health is a serious issue in this country, it's also an extremely complex issue to solve and identify. Requiring a background check and a license to sell an 18-year old an AR-15 is an extremely easy issue to solve.

Made entirely impossible by people that blindly vote R

[Smoove_B]

Some older studies getting more daylight today and older news articles being re-shared on social media - focused on the connection between mass shootings and misogyny:

A Bloomberg analysis of 749 mass shootings from 2014 to 2019 — incidents in which four or more people were shot and which weren't identified as gang-related, drug-related, or robberies — found that 60 percent of the attacks were either acts of domestic violence or committed by men with a record of domestic violence.

....

The Lautenberg Amendment, a 1996 amendment to an existing federal gun law, bans the possession of firearms by people convicted of certain domestic violence-related misdemeanors. Since its enactment, nearly 195,000 people have been stopped from buying guns; a 2017 study found that the amendment reduced gun murders of female intimate partners by 17 percent. But enforcement is patchy, and the law does not cover abuse by nonmarried partners without children — the "boyfriend loophole" — or alleged stalkers. There's also little to stop abusers from buying guns from private dealers online. Jody Lee Hunt of Westover, West Virginia, was officially barred from purchasing a gun, but he bought one on Facebook and used it to kill four people before turning it on himself. One of his victims, ex-girlfriend Sharon Kay Berkshire, had filed multiple restraining orders against him.

...

For many men, gun ownership has become a way to reassert traditional masculine roles. "Being a provider is actually far more difficult than it was in my father's generation," said sociologist Michael Kimmel. "As the ability to be a provider has become more and more unstable, more and more threatened, men have been buying guns." Changing how we think about masculinity, said Watts, is essential to curbing mass shootings. "It's really toxic masculinity that's at the root of domestic violence and mass shootings — misogyny and easy access to guns."

While I'm not elegant enough to connect this to the current situation regarding the pending SCOTUS Roe V. Wade decision and the baby formula crisis, it seems like it could be getting harder and harder to argue that a good portion of America isn't actively engaged in a war on women.

[coopasonic]

Liability insurance for guns is a very capitalist way of addressing this. Let experts at risk assessment make the determination. Of course, one challenge would be people with limited resources may have legitimate needs like victims of domestic violence. Another would be how that squares with 2A.

[LawBeefaroni]

Well said, but I wonder how tech advance plays here? I mean 3d printing a basic glockish handgun is pretty doable for a lot of people. I am going to guess 3d printing AR/AK stuff is not yet as easy or accessible but could see 3d designs with high bullet velocity that mimics the brutality of the assault rifles. And of course you will still have to buy some parts and ammunition.

But now that I am going down a dark cynical road, let me share some really darker fears of mine: homebrew armed drone swarms will be possible someday and the amount of carnage they could do is insanity. Also, we keep talking about how only America has mass shootings, another dark cynical fear of mine is that we have and will export this horrid reality to the rest of the world. Incel and similar online cultures are already doing this with kids talking about going for high scores and such. I genuinely fear there are enough fucked up sad kids/adults around the world to be radicalized via these communities. I pray I'm wrong, but I fear if we were to time-travel we would see increasing mass-shootings worldwide as tech provides weapons in countries with gun control and internet culture provides the radicalization. Yikes.

I wouldn't want to shoot a 3D printed rifle. I value my face. Handguns general operate under much less pressure. 3D printing a 9mm glock clone is not the same as printing an AR pattern receiver. Sure, the tech may get there eventually and it's a issue but not a reason not to try to stop them.

3D printed guns can be regulated. Illinois just banned "ghost guns" which includes 3d printed guns. Two kids in Champaign were just arrested for possession of ghost guns, though I don't think under the new law yet.

[Enough]

One of my other best friends growing up is running for gov of CA under a law and order platform to deal with homelessness and fentanyl addiction and is getting a ton of press and booked on shows like Rogan. He was also very tight with my friend that was murdered and strongly and emphatically supported gun control in our talks at that time. I wonder if I should raz him publicly to take a stance knowing that his IDW friends probably would object?

[Alefroth]

There are ways to restrict gun ownership and gun use that don't rely on a constitutional amendment.

On the other hand, there are ways to provide gun ownership without enshrining it in the Constitution.

[malchior]

Possibly not armed? A lot of resource officers aren't at elementary schools.

Possible, but they said the SRO later joined the two local officers and exchanged gunfire with the suspect. Maybe they threw him a backup gun? It being Texas, I assume they're armed.

Edit: saw your edit. Yeah, WTF?

This story is getting worse for the cops. First off in the quote below the tone is set. "Brave resource officer"...tells you how this narrative is going to go. Total cop bullshit from top to bottom. And when you dig in there is a lot of WTF going on here.

After exiting his vehicle, the gunman was approached by an Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District resource officer, McCraw said.

"He went towards the west side of the campus, which has a back door, but as he was approaching…there was a brave resource officer that approached him, engaged him, and at that time, gunfire was not exchanged," McCraw said. "But the subject was able to make it into the school."

So lockdown protocols...did they work or not? It seems like not.

"Please know at this time Robb Elementary is under a Lockdown Status due to gunshots in the area. The students and staff are safe in the building. The building is secure in a Lockdown Status," read a notice posted on the school's Facebook page.

Shortly after came another post: "There is an active shooter at Robb Elementary." The school said law enforcement was "on site."

They claim they responded in "a moment's notice" but there is a lot of daylight between 11:43 and 1:06. 11:43 is when the lockdown notice went out - not when the incident began. 1:06 is also the time the post was made not when he was actually killed. Still there is about an hour where despite there being armed response this guy might have been killing kids.

Insider has not yet verified how quickly law enforcement arrived at the scene immediately, but Olivarez told NBC News authorities responded "in a moment's notice."

...

"They breached the classroom door. They went in, engaged (the shooter), and killed him at the scene," McCraw said.

A Uvalde Police Facebook bulletin previously said the shooter was "in police custody" as of 1:06 p.m. According to Olivarez, police "were able to shoot and kill that suspect," he told NBC News.

[hitbyambulance]

Some older studies getting more daylight today and older news articles being re-shared on social media - focused on the connection between mass shootings and misogyny:

i would argue at least 60% of the world's problems can be attributed to 'toxic masculinity' - it's a pretty broad category of behaviors

[malchior]

As an aside, why is Sinema a Senator? "I don't think DC solutions are realistic..."?! How do people not just scream in her face all day that she is in fact by definition a part of DC. I don't understand how we ended up where we are but good lord is this a dumb time to be alive.

https://twitter.com/Kate_Riga24/status/ ... 0510765062

[Isgrimnur]

Mark Kelly, spouse of Gabrielle Giffords.

[Smoove_B]

Everything is working exactly as expected:

I too am angry and heartbroken. But I am not stunned, and I don’t believe anything is broken. The truth is that Americans now live within an escalating system of radicalized gun tragedy that is working exactly as expected.

I know. For more than two decades, I worked in the highest levels of the firearms industry. I spent my career working to hold on to the principles of responsible gun ownership and fighting against the very predictable results of increasing extremism and the pursuit of profit above all else.

...

For the first few years of my career, which started in 1995, the industry adhered to self-imposed rules and norms – such as restricting tactical gear like that worn by the Buffalo and Uvalde shooters to the law enforcement and military sections of trade shows. Even up until about 15 years ago, self-imposed policies like this were strictly enforced by the industry’s own trade association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF). Industry norms prohibited displaying tactical gear, certain marketing campaigns or incendiary firearms names, for fear of what might spread throughout the country.

But as the increasing vitriol of the National Rifle Association (NRA) proved politically effective, some in the gun business realized this messaging could be adopted by the firearms industry to sell more guns. All that was required for success was a dedication to frighteningly dangerous rhetoric and increasingly powerful weaponry. Cultural norms and responsibility would have to go.

...

The NSSF helped craft a new world of gun lobby extremism in which profits are all that matter. With the election of America’s first Black president, the lobby embraced conspiracy-mongering, racism and fear campaigns. Gun sales soared from less than 8m guns in 2008 to more than 16m in 2016.

In 2016, the firearms industry was all-in on Donald Trump and even piped his 2017 American Carnage inauguration speech throughout the industry trade show like a religious ceremony. The industry celebrated because Trump was the perfect salesman for more guns. This system was simply being pushed to its next stage.

...

There is a reason why troubled 18-year-olds can buy assault rifles, body armor and high-capacity magazines. There is a reason why racism, conspiracies and increasingly dangerous idolatry infect parts of our country, and federal gun legislation has stalled time and time again. It’s the gun lobby – the NRA, the NSSF and the politicians who are frightened of them.

[Blackhawk]

Another tragedy, another round of "we oughtas." Talking about issues is important, but they're about as effective as "thoughts and prayers."

The answer is the same as to most of the other social issues right now: If we want sensible gun control, if we want sensible public health, if we want... then the answer isn't to pursue those things, it's to put that energy into reforming the system, including election reform and closing loopholes. If we don't, none of those things will happen. Everything else we can at least fight for depends on having a functional political system first.

And until we do, anything else is just us flapping our gums to feel less helpless.

[LawBeefaroni]

There are ways to restrict gun ownership and gun use that don't rely on a constitutional amendment.

On the other hand, there are ways to provide gun ownership without enshrining it in the Constitution.

Sure but constitutional amendments are a pretty big lift.

[malchior]

We're now at school's have too many doors. Funnel all the soft targets in one door. What can go wrong?

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1529604286266560512

[Unagi]

A short wall of sandbags at the entrance would also help. Maybe a pair of machine guns.

[Holman]

We're now at school's have too many doors. Funnel all the soft targets in one door. What can go wrong?

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1529604286266560512

I can't get over Ted Cruz. He's a year younger than me, so we were at college at the same time, and we were both (apparently) good students.

That he has followed the road he has followed is astonishing. No one of our generation with any brains would have done so unless in the service of pure power acquisition.

Older and younger people might see him as a mystery. I can't. If I came across him in an airport I would kick him in the nuts.

[Victoria Raverna]

Maybe to change thing, someone crazy need to organize a team of killers to target pro-gun senators' families. Maybe when it is their own families are in danger then they'll agree to make it harder to get guns.

[Kraken]

(Via Snopes)



Yes, you read that correctly. Guns are banned at the NRA's conference.

[Zarathud]

But what if those kids suddenly had to take a trip to Cancun?

What an asshole.

[Blackhawk]

So much better. Instead of removing the cause, barricade the kids inside the school with "Checkpoint Charlie" at the front door.

Oh, and fire drills will be so much more interesting when they involve diving out the windows.

[Little Raven]

Support for gun control craters among young people.

A new poll from ABC and the Washington Post published on Wednesday found a significant drop in support for new gun-control laws, especially among young people.

The number of Americans supporting enacting new gun laws over protecting gun rights fell from 57 percent to 50 percent, a seven-point drop from when the poll was last conducted in 2018. The number of Americans favoring gun rights jumped from 34 to 43 percent, a nine-point jump. The difference between the two positions narrowed by 16 points overall.

The sharpest decline in support for new gun-control measures came among 18 to 29-year-olds and Hispanics. Both groups saw a 20 percent drop. Rural Americans and strong conservatives saw a 17-point drop.

The downturn in gun-control support comes even after multiple high-profile mass shootings in Colorado, Indiana, and Georgia. The ABC/Washington Post poll is the second in as many weeks to show support for gun control waning. A Pew Research poll released on April 21 found the same seven-point drop in support for stricter gun laws.

The polling trend lends support to the idea new gun owners are beginning to change their attitudes on guns. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, which represents gun makers and dealers, estimated there were 8.4 million new gun owners in 2020. Since gun owners tend to oppose new gun-control measures at a higher rate than non-gun owners, the drop in polling support for new gun laws may be a result of those new gun owners changing their minds.

If the changing attitudes of new gun owners result in a lower baseline of support for new gun-control measures, it could have a significant impact on gun politics in America.

[Kurth]

Or it could have absolute no impact. Nothing is going to happen. Polls on this don’t mean much.

[Little Raven]

Or it could have absolute no impact. Nothing is going to happen. Polls on this don’t mean much.

Yeah, when I read that last line I was like - "What, we'll do MORE nothing?!?"

[Unagi]

Or it could have absolute no impact. Nothing is going to happen. Polls on this don’t mean much.

Yeah, when I read that last line I was like - "What, we'll do MORE nothing?!?"

That was literally what I was going to say... Well - I think I was about to frame it as "OMG, so they may do nothing about it too!?"

[UsulofDoom]

(Via Snopes)



Yes, you read that correctly. Guns are banned at the NRA's conference.

It seems redundant when they say, "weapons of any kind".