Shootings

[Isgrimnur]

Those are actually my responses.

That…surprises me.

Which one in particular surprises you the most? We can start there, and I can elaborate.

[Pyperkub]

Those are actually my responses.

That…surprises me.

Which one in particular surprises you the most? We can start there, and I can elaborate.

Red flag laws. Start there.

[Isgrimnur]

The highlights because of the late hour:

Depending on the wording, there’s the potential for the loss of due process.

There’s the unverifiability of surrendering all weapons without firearm registration.

Do these red flag laws tie into databases to prevent new purchases? We’ve seen people obtain weapons who should have been prohibited because of other jurisdictions including military discharges.

We’re pretty much all on board as seeing civil forfeiture as an abuse of power. To whom is the federal power going to be granted, and which federal law enforcement agency do you trust to administer this fairly?

At the state level, the laws contain a differing array of who can request an intervention. To whom do you grant this ability?

In conclusion, I’m willing to review and give feedback on any specific plan, but in the abstract bullet point sense, I doubt the motives and intent of those who would have control of the levers.

[Blackhawk]

I used to have a chicken coop. And a pigeon coop. And ducks. And, yes, I needed to get rid of certain predators that would come to visit them. And I used to hunt, quite a bit.

I can't think of any scenario where a bolt action rifle with five rounds wouldn't be 100% as effective at those tasks as an AR with 30 rounds. Worst case scenario? There are two animals and you miss a shot at each. Typical scenario? You need one shot, plus possibly a second 'mercy' shot.

What animal do you need 20 or 30 rounds faster than the one aimed shot every two or three seconds that a decent hunter can fire from a bolt action rifle? Maybe wild boar or kodiaks, but you'll be using specialized equipment for them anyway.

And for defense in the home, a pistol, revolver, or shotgun is going to be superior practically every time. Better maneuverability, faster, less likely to penetrate multiple walls, and better suited to short range. There are a few longer weapons that are very effective in small areas (the M4 and certain SMGs-style weapons), but when it comes to the civilian models, none are more effective than a handgun or shotgun.

The types of weapons were talking about are designed for one thing: combat at range. They have some real strengths compared to slower weapons or handguns - strengths that don't apply to home defense or hunting.

If you snapped your fingers now and every single semi automatic rifle in the world vanished, not one of those activities would be diminished. And if every magazine with more than seven rounds also disappeared, the number of home defense situations that would turn out differently (in a positive manner) would be so small as to be almost non-existent.

You would impact collectors, militias, fantasy soldiers, and murder rates.*

*Not to say that everyone who owns those weapons is one of those things, just that any other practical use would be minimally impacted, such as having to switch to different (but equally effective) weapon choice.

This is from the perspective of someone who has sold firearms (my first job out of high school), who has worked multiple armed positions, and who has been range and combat trained with revolver, pistol, shotgun, and rifle.

[dbt1949]

If I was going to shoot a big predator I have a couple of 45-70s. They'll take down a grizzly.
For home defense nothing beats a shotgun.
An assault rifle is for offense, it is not the best for defending you home nor hunting.
Unless you live in the Ukraine.

[malchior]

I argue again this time is different. It was like this incident finally ripped the blinders off some folks. Here is Peggy Noonan - as very serious a person who other 'very serious people' models themselves after having a full meltdown on the United States. She also went after some of the individuals involved to support the incompetence she is speaking to - some of the police in Uvalde and Greg Abbott in particular.

In any case, she speaks to a pattern she sees as a loss of professionalism and rigor. Welcome to reality Peggy. That is America under the watch of people she and her peers often lauded and excused as they tipped America into steep decline.

Though her last sentence is the problem we face. We are opening the door to a 'hero'. But it has an outsized chance it'll be a tyrant. Be careful what you wish for.

WSJ

The great sin in what happened in Texas is that an 18-year-old with murder in his heart walked into a public school and shot to death 19 kids and two teachers. The great shock is what the police did—their incompetence on the scene and apparent lies afterward. This aspect has rocked the American people.

Uvalde wasn’t an “apparent law-enforcement failure.” It is the biggest law-enforcement scandal since George Floyd, and therefore one of the biggest in U.S. history. Children, some already shot, some not, were trapped in adjoining classrooms. As many as 19 cops were gathered in the hall just outside. The Washington Post timeline has the killer roaming the classrooms: “The attack went for so long, witnesses said, that the gunman had time to taunt his victims before killing them, even putting on songs that one student described to CNN as ‘I-want-people-to-die music.’ ”

Students inside were calling 911 and begging for help. The officers failed to move for almost an hour.

Everyone in America knows the story. Finding out exactly how and why it happened is the urgent business of government. We can’t let it dribble away into the narrative void and settle for excuses. “People are still shaken up.” “Probes take time.” “We’re still burying the children.” We can’t let the idea settle in that this is how it is now, if bad trouble comes you’re on your own. It is too demoralizing.

We can’t let it settle in that the police can’t be relied on to be physically braver than other people. An implicit agreement in going into the profession is that you’re physically brave. I don’t understand those saying with nonjudgmental empathy, “I’m not sure I would have gone in.” It was their job to go in. If you can’t cut it, then don’t join and get the badge, the gun and the pension.

The most focused and intense investigating has to be done now, when it’s still fresh and raw—before the 19 cops and their commanders fully close ranks, if they haven’t already, and lawyer up.

Those officers—they know everything that happened while nothing was done for an hour. A lot of them would have had to override their own common sense to stand down under orders; most would have had to override a natural impulse toward compassion. Many would be angry now, or full of reproach or a need to explain.

Get them now.

Within moments of the massacre’s ending, the police were issuing strange claims. They said the shooter was confronted by a school guard and shots were exchanged. Not true. They said the shooter was wearing body armor. He wasn’t. They said he was “barricaded” inside the classroom. Is that the right word for a guy behind a single locked door? They said a teacher left open the door the shooter used to enter. Videotape showed otherwise. They didn’t admit what happened outside the school as parents pleaded with the police to do something and tried to fight past the cordon so at least they could do something. The Washington Post had a witness who heard parents tell the police, “Do your f— job!” The police said they were. A man yelled, “Get your f— rifles and handle business!” Those parents were patronized and pushed around.

Even accounting for the fog of war there’s something next-level about the spin and falsehoods that occurred in Uvalde.

...

I close with a thought tugging around my brain. I think I am seeing a broad and general decline in professionalism in America, a deterioration of our pride in concepts like rigor and excellence. Jan. 6 comes and law enforcement agencies are weak and unprepared and the U.S. Capitol falls to a small army of mooks. Afghanistan and the departure that was really a collapse, all traceable to the incompetence of diplomatic and military leadership. It’s like everyone’s forgotten the mission.

I’m not saying, “Oh, America was once so wonderful and now it’s not.” I’m saying we are losing old habits of discipline and pride in expertise—of peerlessness. There was a kind of American gleam. If the world called on us—in business, the arts, the military, diplomacy, science—they knew they were going to get help. The grown-ups had arrived, with their deep competence.

America now feels more like people who took the Expedited Three Month Training Course and got the security badge and went to work and formed an affinity group to advocate for change. A people who love to talk, endlessly, about sensitivity, yet aren’t sensitive enough to save the children bleeding out on the other side of the door.

I fear that as a people we’re becoming not only increasingly unimpressive but increasingly unlovable.

My God, I’ve never seen a country so in need of a hero.

[malchior]

Meanwhile at very serious central. A pitch bot Tweet on the front page.

Voters Say They Want Gun Control. Their Votes Say Something Different.

Here is the blurb.

Broad public support on the issue may not be as broad as polling shows or as Democrats hope.

Enough with this horse race horseshit. How about the kids @NYTimes? Maybe the kids hope we'll do something. I can't shake the feeling the NY Times is edited by psychopaths.

Edit: And then I turn to my email newsletters and this is the story from the NY Times.

NY Times

Again and again and again

In the early hours after the shooting at a Tulsa medical center on Wednesday, the details were murky. Soon, it became clear that the death toll there was not going to be as nearly as high as the tolls from the recent shootings in Uvalde and Buffalo.

Four people were killed in Tulsa (in addition to the gunman), compared with 21 in Uvalde and 10 in Buffalo. But the Tulsa shooting is nonetheless horrific in its own way — not only for its victims and their families but also for what it says about gun violence in the United States.

Hell of an opening. Phew. Only 3 random people snuffed out because of the 4th dead person's grudge about...checks notes...back pain. Thanks for pointing out it is horrific in its own way. But still what a relief - only 3 - amirite?!? Seriously though how do you type that, pass it by multiple people, and send it out to the world from the 'elite' paper of record? It's beneath the dignity we expect from them. It gets better from there but good lord. I'm fairly disgusted by these people.

[pr0ner]

• No, we don't, and maybe we should
• No, we don't
• Sure
• No, we don't
• No, we don't

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment, technically, is to provide for a "well regulated militia". Unfettered access to guns, which is what a lot of people take the 2nd Amendment to mean these days, is not that.

[LawBeefaroni]

I used to have a chicken coop. And a pigeon coop. And ducks. And, yes, I needed to get rid of certain predators that would come to visit them. And I used to hunt, quite a bit.

I can't think of any scenario where a bolt action rifle with five rounds wouldn't be 100% as effective at those tasks as an AR with 30 rounds. Worst case scenario? There are two animals and you miss a shot at each. Typical scenario? You need one shot, plus possibly a second 'mercy' shot.

What animal do you need 20 or 30 rounds faster than the one aimed shot every two or three seconds that a decent hunter can fire from a bolt action rifle? Maybe wild boar or kodiaks, but you'll be using specialized equipment for them anyway.

And for defense in the home, a pistol, revolver, or shotgun is going to be superior practically every time. Better maneuverability, faster, less likely to penetrate multiple walls, and better suited to short range. There are a few longer weapons that are very effective in small areas (the M4 and certain SMGs-style weapons), but when it comes to the civilian models, none are more effective than a handgun or shotgun.

The types of weapons were talking about are designed for one thing: combat at range. They have some real strengths compared to slower weapons or handguns - strengths that don't apply to home defense or hunting.

If you snapped your fingers now and every single semi automatic rifle in the world vanished, not one of those activities would be diminished. And if every magazine with more than seven rounds also disappeared, the number of home defense situations that would turn out differently (in a positive manner) would be so small as to be almost non-existent.

You would impact collectors, militias, fantasy soldiers, and murder rates.*

*Not to say that everyone who owns those weapons is one of those things, just that any other practical use would be minimally impacted, such as having to switch to different (but equally effective) weapon choice.

This is from the perspective of someone who has sold firearms (my first job out of high school), who has worked multiple armed positions, and who has been range and combat trained with revolver, pistol, shotgun, and rifle.

I don't think this is the best approach. All it ends with is endless debate about terminal ballistics and room clearing tactics, which is the 2A playbook. Combat rifles are very good for home defense. But so are a myriad of other firearms.

Why does every cop have a patrol rifle in the trunk? Why did SWAT teams, SEALs, etc switch to combat carbines from subguns, even for CQC? Because they are extremely effective at just about any range up to a few hundred yards. Don't fall into the 2A trap. Ultimately the question is, "Are you willing to give one non-essential class of firearms for the greater good? " This has always been the ask and it is gaining traction. You'll never convince those who don't want to be convinced so getting into the weeds on combat tactics is a waste of time. There's always some gun counter prophet ready to take up the fight.

[Isgrimnur]

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment, technically, is to provide for a "well regulated militia". Unfettered access to guns, which is what a lot of people take the 2nd Amendment to mean these days, is not that.

It's a good thing that's not my position, then.

[pr0ner]

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment, technically, is to provide for a "well regulated militia". Unfettered access to guns, which is what a lot of people take the 2nd Amendment to mean these days, is not that.

It's a good thing that's not my position, then.

What, exactly is your position then? Because in this thread you've said assault rifles shouldn't be banned (with a caveat) and high-capacity magazines shouldn't be banned.

[Blackhawk]

I agree, and I touched on that. Combat rifles are good for home defense, but their strengths don't outweigh their hindrances in those situations, making other weapons superior choices. When people say they need them for home defense, it's an excuse. They're an inferior (although still good) choice. It's like choosing a Hummer for cruising on a cool evening, listening to the radio - it'll work, and it'll work just fine, but there are better options.

I don't think this is the best approach. All it ends with is endless debate about terminal ballistics and room clearing tactics, which is the 2A playbook. Combat rifles are very good for home defense. But so are a myriad of other firearms.

Why does every cop have a patrol rifle in the trunk? Why did SWAT teams, SEALs, etc switch to combat carbines from subguns, even for CQC? Because they are extremely effective at just about any range up to a few hundred yards. Don't fall into the 2A trap. Ultimately the question is, "Are you willing to give one non-essential class of firearms for the greater good? " This has always been the ask and it is gaining traction. You'll never convince those who don't want to be convinced so getting into the weeds on combat tactics is a waste of time. There's always some gun counter prophet ready to take up the fight.

To be clear, I was talking about the excuses for retaining them, not suggesting that it was what we should be looking at for legislation. Banning all semi-automatic rifles would never happen. Why does every cop have a rifle instead of sidearms? Because they are called on to react to a variety of tactical situations, including those at longer ranges, and because of events like the North Hollywood Shootout took 'policing' from facing a guy with a Saturday night special to cops facing battlefield equipped combatants.

So, no. My post isn't the solution. It's just a counter-argument to a counter-argument.

[Isgrimnur]

Background checks for everyone, I'm fine raising the age to 21 for all weapons, close the gun show loopholes, increase penalties for prohibited persons and facilitators (both suppliers and straw purchasers), regulate marketing,...

[Blackhawk]

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment, technically, is to provide for a "well regulated militia". Unfettered access to guns, which is what a lot of people take the 2nd Amendment to mean these days, is not that.

It's a good thing that's not my position, then.

What, exactly is your position then? Because in this thread you've said assault rifles shouldn't be banned (with a caveat) and high-capacity magazines shouldn't be banned.

Careful, you'll break his text parser! But yeah, one-line comments and single images only go so far, and then people start making (probably wrong) assumptions.

[Isgrimnur]

[LawBeefaroni]

Why does every cop have a rifle instead of sidearms? Because they are called on to react to a variety of tactical situations, including those at longer ranges, and because of events like the North Hollywood Shootout took 'policing' from facing a guy with a Saturday night special to cops facing battlefield equipped combatants.

And they've become comfortable enough with them that as soon as there's a potential shooter involved, they grab the carbine.

I'm well aware of the North Hollywood Shootout and the FBI Miami Shootout. In fact, they will inevitably come up when people are defending ownership of combat rifles.

[Blackhawk]

Why does every cop have a rifle instead of sidearms? Because they are called on to react to a variety of tactical situations, including those at longer ranges, and because of events like the North Hollywood Shootout took 'policing' from facing a guy with a Saturday night special to cops facing battlefield equipped combatants.

And they've become comfortable enough with them that as soon as there's a potential shooter involved, they grab the carbine.

I'm well aware of the North Hollywood Shootout and the FBI Miami Shootout. In fact, they will inevitably come up when people are defending ownership of combat rifles.

Both true. The prior is, in my opinion, a problem. While I accept that there are currently scenarios when they're appropriate, they're too quick to go to the Big Guns (TM) when not warranted. And the latter goes both ways, (it's cops, not private ownership, and it is because of private ownership of military equipment that it's even remotely necessary for cops.)

[Kraken]

Why Canada runs circles around the US on gun policy. In a word: parliamentary government. OK, two words.

Differences in national culture and issues, while meaningful, do not on their own explain things. After all, Canada also has two parties that mostly dominate national politics, an urban-rural divide, deepening culture wars, and a rising far-right. And guns have been a contentious issue there for decades, one long contested by activist groups.

Rather, much of the gap in how these two countries handle contentious policy questions comes down to something that can feel invisible amid day-to-day politicking but may be just as important as the issues themselves: the structures of their political systems.

Canada’s is a parliamentary system. Its head of government, Justin Trudeau, is elevated to that job by the legislature, of which he is also a member, and which his party, in collaboration with another, controls.

If Trudeau wants to pass a new law, he must merely ask his subordinates in his party and their allies to do it. There is no such thing as divided government and less cross-party horse-trading and legislative gridlock.

Canada is similar to what the United States would be if it had only a House of Representatives, whose speaker also oversaw federal agencies and foreign policy.

What the United States has instead is a system whose structure simultaneously requires cooperation across competing parties and discourages them from working together.

The result is a US system that not only moves slower and passes fewer laws than those of parliamentary models like Canada’s, research has found, but also stalls for years even on measures that enjoy widespread support among voters in both parties, such as universal background checks for gun purchases.
...
“The vast majority of the stable democracies in the world today are parliamentary regimes,” Linz wrote.

Presidential systems, on the other hand, tended to collapse in coups or other violence, with only the United States having persisted since its origin.

It’s telling that when American diplomats and technocrats help to set up new democracies abroad, they almost always model them on European-style parliaments.

It's our whole pesky Constitution, not just the 2A.

[Blackhawk]

Checks and balances was designed as tool, but has become a weapon.

[Pyperkub]

Horrifying. That song will be in kids' heads forever...

https://twitter.com/davidhogg111/status ... 5829258241

[Pyperkub]

The highlights because of the late hour:

Depending on the wording, there’s the potential for the loss of due process.

There’s the unverifiability of surrendering all weapons without firearm registration.

Do these red flag laws tie into databases to prevent new purchases? We’ve seen people obtain weapons who should have been prohibited because of other jurisdictions including military discharges.

We’re pretty much all on board as seeing civil forfeiture as an abuse of power. To whom is the federal power going to be granted, and which federal law enforcement agency do you trust to administer this fairly?

At the state level, the laws contain a differing array of who can request an intervention. To whom do you grant this ability?

In conclusion, I’m willing to review and give feedback on any specific plan, but in the abstract bullet point sense, I doubt the motives and intent of those who would have control of the levers.

Here's David French on Red Flag laws.

I know the objections. I know that red flag laws implicate a core constitutional right. I also know that poorly drafted laws are subject to abuse. But our constitutional structure permits emergency and temporary deprivations of even core liberty interests upon sufficient showing of need, with sufficient due process. Restraining orders and other forms of domestic violence prevention orders can often block parents and spouses even from their own families upon a showing of imminent threat.

The thing is that you are essentially arguing that because it is hard and we might get it wrong, we should do nothing.

Paralysis through analysis.

If we get it wrong, we can iterate to make it better (yes, even in our broken system now).

If we don't, the problem will definitely get worse, as it has been for decades (essentially since the initial Assault Weapons Ban expired). And eventually the Dam breaks and we will do something that is even worse than what is proposed now.

[LawBeefaroni]

Horrifying. That song will be in kids' heads forever...

https://twitter.com/davidhogg111/status ... 5829258241

This was in another thread and I'll say it again. This is good for preaching to the choir, in this case for Hogg to drum up support for MFOL. It's does nothing to convert or stimulate conversation and probably drives some people to dig in deeper.

[Unagi]

Horrifying. That song will be in kids' heads forever...

https://twitter.com/davidhogg111/status ... 5829258241

This was in another thread and I'll say it again. This is good for preaching to the choir, in this case for Hogg to drum up support for MFOL. It's does nothing to convert or stimulate conversation and probably drives some people to dig in deeper.

This thread, one page back.
http://www.octopusoverlords.com/forum/v ... 2#p2905652

and I'll also say again, that song is so haunting I honestly can't believe a teacher would have kids sing it.

[Kurth]

I argue again this time is different. It was like this incident finally ripped the blinders off some folks. Here is Peggy Noonan - as very serious a person who other 'very serious people' models themselves after having a full meltdown on the United States. She also went after some of the individuals involved to support the incompetence she is speaking to - some of the police in Uvalde and Greg Abbott in particular.

In any case, she speaks to a pattern she sees as a loss of professionalism and rigor. Welcome to reality Peggy. That is America under the watch of people she and her peers often lauded and excused as they tipped America into steep decline.

Though her last sentence is the problem we face. We are opening the door to a 'hero'. But it has an outsized chance it'll be a tyrant. Be careful what you wish for.

WSJ

The great sin in what happened in Texas is that an 18-year-old with murder in his heart walked into a public school and shot to death 19 kids and two teachers. The great shock is what the police did—their incompetence on the scene and apparent lies afterward. This aspect has rocked the American people.

Uvalde wasn’t an “apparent law-enforcement failure.” It is the biggest law-enforcement scandal since George Floyd, and therefore one of the biggest in U.S. history. Children, some already shot, some not, were trapped in adjoining classrooms. As many as 19 cops were gathered in the hall just outside. The Washington Post timeline has the killer roaming the classrooms: “The attack went for so long, witnesses said, that the gunman had time to taunt his victims before killing them, even putting on songs that one student described to CNN as ‘I-want-people-to-die music.’ ”

Students inside were calling 911 and begging for help. The officers failed to move for almost an hour.

Everyone in America knows the story. Finding out exactly how and why it happened is the urgent business of government. We can’t let it dribble away into the narrative void and settle for excuses. “People are still shaken up.” “Probes take time.” “We’re still burying the children.” We can’t let the idea settle in that this is how it is now, if bad trouble comes you’re on your own. It is too demoralizing.

We can’t let it settle in that the police can’t be relied on to be physically braver than other people. An implicit agreement in going into the profession is that you’re physically brave. I don’t understand those saying with nonjudgmental empathy, “I’m not sure I would have gone in.” It was their job to go in. If you can’t cut it, then don’t join and get the badge, the gun and the pension.

The most focused and intense investigating has to be done now, when it’s still fresh and raw—before the 19 cops and their commanders fully close ranks, if they haven’t already, and lawyer up.

Those officers—they know everything that happened while nothing was done for an hour. A lot of them would have had to override their own common sense to stand down under orders; most would have had to override a natural impulse toward compassion. Many would be angry now, or full of reproach or a need to explain.

Get them now.

Within moments of the massacre’s ending, the police were issuing strange claims. They said the shooter was confronted by a school guard and shots were exchanged. Not true. They said the shooter was wearing body armor. He wasn’t. They said he was “barricaded” inside the classroom. Is that the right word for a guy behind a single locked door? They said a teacher left open the door the shooter used to enter. Videotape showed otherwise. They didn’t admit what happened outside the school as parents pleaded with the police to do something and tried to fight past the cordon so at least they could do something. The Washington Post had a witness who heard parents tell the police, “Do your f— job!” The police said they were. A man yelled, “Get your f— rifles and handle business!” Those parents were patronized and pushed around.

Even accounting for the fog of war there’s something next-level about the spin and falsehoods that occurred in Uvalde.

...

I close with a thought tugging around my brain. I think I am seeing a broad and general decline in professionalism in America, a deterioration of our pride in concepts like rigor and excellence. Jan. 6 comes and law enforcement agencies are weak and unprepared and the U.S. Capitol falls to a small army of mooks. Afghanistan and the departure that was really a collapse, all traceable to the incompetence of diplomatic and military leadership. It’s like everyone’s forgotten the mission.

I’m not saying, “Oh, America was once so wonderful and now it’s not.” I’m saying we are losing old habits of discipline and pride in expertise—of peerlessness. There was a kind of American gleam. If the world called on us—in business, the arts, the military, diplomacy, science—they knew they were going to get help. The grown-ups had arrived, with their deep competence.

America now feels more like people who took the Expedited Three Month Training Course and got the security badge and went to work and formed an affinity group to advocate for change. A people who love to talk, endlessly, about sensitivity, yet aren’t sensitive enough to save the children bleeding out on the other side of the door.

I fear that as a people we’re becoming not only increasingly unimpressive but increasingly unlovable.

My God, I’ve never seen a country so in need of a hero.

Focus on the police response is a distraction. Could the police have possibly saved some lives if they had done their job in a competent manner? Probably. Could they have averted this tragedy? Most likely not. Readily available assault rifles should be the focus.

But that’s also a distraction. A miracle could happen (it won’t), and we could successfully implement every one of the measures proposed in Joe Biden’s tweet, and that still wouldn’t make a significant impact in the gun violence that’s a scourge on our society.

The vase majority of gun violence does not involve assault weapons. The number of people killed in mass shootings is de minimis. Yet this is where we focus our attention because we have short attention spans and are absolutely terrible at weighing risk.

[Kurth]

I argue again this time is different. It was like this incident finally ripped the blinders off some folks. Here is Peggy Noonan - as very serious a person who other 'very serious people' models themselves after having a full meltdown on the United States. She also went after some of the individuals involved to support the incompetence she is speaking to - some of the police in Uvalde and Greg Abbott in particular.

In any case, she speaks to a pattern she sees as a loss of professionalism and rigor. Welcome to reality Peggy. That is America under the watch of people she and her peers often lauded and excused as they tipped America into steep decline.

Though her last sentence is the problem we face. We are opening the door to a 'hero'. But it has an outsized chance it'll be a tyrant. Be careful what you wish for.

WSJ

The great sin in what happened in Texas is that an 18-year-old with murder in his heart walked into a public school and shot to death 19 kids and two teachers. The great shock is what the police did—their incompetence on the scene and apparent lies afterward. This aspect has rocked the American people.

Uvalde wasn’t an “apparent law-enforcement failure.” It is the biggest law-enforcement scandal since George Floyd, and therefore one of the biggest in U.S. history. Children, some already shot, some not, were trapped in adjoining classrooms. As many as 19 cops were gathered in the hall just outside. The Washington Post timeline has the killer roaming the classrooms: “The attack went for so long, witnesses said, that the gunman had time to taunt his victims before killing them, even putting on songs that one student described to CNN as ‘I-want-people-to-die music.’ ”

Students inside were calling 911 and begging for help. The officers failed to move for almost an hour.

Everyone in America knows the story. Finding out exactly how and why it happened is the urgent business of government. We can’t let it dribble away into the narrative void and settle for excuses. “People are still shaken up.” “Probes take time.” “We’re still burying the children.” We can’t let the idea settle in that this is how it is now, if bad trouble comes you’re on your own. It is too demoralizing.

We can’t let it settle in that the police can’t be relied on to be physically braver than other people. An implicit agreement in going into the profession is that you’re physically brave. I don’t understand those saying with nonjudgmental empathy, “I’m not sure I would have gone in.” It was their job to go in. If you can’t cut it, then don’t join and get the badge, the gun and the pension.

The most focused and intense investigating has to be done now, when it’s still fresh and raw—before the 19 cops and their commanders fully close ranks, if they haven’t already, and lawyer up.

Those officers—they know everything that happened while nothing was done for an hour. A lot of them would have had to override their own common sense to stand down under orders; most would have had to override a natural impulse toward compassion. Many would be angry now, or full of reproach or a need to explain.

Get them now.

Within moments of the massacre’s ending, the police were issuing strange claims. They said the shooter was confronted by a school guard and shots were exchanged. Not true. They said the shooter was wearing body armor. He wasn’t. They said he was “barricaded” inside the classroom. Is that the right word for a guy behind a single locked door? They said a teacher left open the door the shooter used to enter. Videotape showed otherwise. They didn’t admit what happened outside the school as parents pleaded with the police to do something and tried to fight past the cordon so at least they could do something. The Washington Post had a witness who heard parents tell the police, “Do your f— job!” The police said they were. A man yelled, “Get your f— rifles and handle business!” Those parents were patronized and pushed around.

Even accounting for the fog of war there’s something next-level about the spin and falsehoods that occurred in Uvalde.

...

I close with a thought tugging around my brain. I think I am seeing a broad and general decline in professionalism in America, a deterioration of our pride in concepts like rigor and excellence. Jan. 6 comes and law enforcement agencies are weak and unprepared and the U.S. Capitol falls to a small army of mooks. Afghanistan and the departure that was really a collapse, all traceable to the incompetence of diplomatic and military leadership. It’s like everyone’s forgotten the mission.

I’m not saying, “Oh, America was once so wonderful and now it’s not.” I’m saying we are losing old habits of discipline and pride in expertise—of peerlessness. There was a kind of American gleam. If the world called on us—in business, the arts, the military, diplomacy, science—they knew they were going to get help. The grown-ups had arrived, with their deep competence.

America now feels more like people who took the Expedited Three Month Training Course and got the security badge and went to work and formed an affinity group to advocate for change. A people who love to talk, endlessly, about sensitivity, yet aren’t sensitive enough to save the children bleeding out on the other side of the door.

I fear that as a people we’re becoming not only increasingly unimpressive but increasingly unlovable.

My God, I’ve never seen a country so in need of a hero.

Focus on the police response is a distraction. Could the police have possibly saved some lives if they had done their job in a competent manner? Probably. Could they have averted this tragedy? Most likely not. Readily available assault rifles should be the focus.

But that’s also a distraction. A miracle could happen (it won’t), and we could successfully implement every one of the measures proposed in Joe Biden’s tweet, and that still wouldn’t make a significant impact in the gun violence that’s a scourge on our society.

The vase majority of gun violence does not involve assault weapons. The number of people killed in mass shootings is de minimis. Yet this is where we focus our attention because we have short attention spans and are absolutely terrible at weighing risk.

[malchior]

Checks and balances was designed as tool, but has become a weapon.

It is mostly late-18th century legal thinking that hasn't adjusted for all the horrors we saw in the 20th century. There are some big D democratic tweaks to be sure but mostly it was housekeeping clarification. But we should also recognize even though parliamentary governments are more responsive they are also subject to anti-democratic attacks at the moment.

[Unagi]

I don't think it's entirely a distraction, in that I think it helps people put aside/disavow one of the things they think would help them; some hero with a gun.

[Isgrimnur]

The thing is that you are essentially arguing that because it is hard and we might get it wrong, we should do nothing.

In conclusion, I’m willing to review and give feedback on any specific plan, but in the abstract bullet point sense, I doubt the motives and intent of those who would have control of the levers.

We have 19 different state laws. We can start there.

[Pyperkub]

Horrifying. That song will be in kids' heads forever...

https://twitter.com/davidhogg111/status ... 5829258241

This was in another thread and I'll say it again. This is good for preaching to the choir, in this case for Hogg to drum up support for MFOL. It's does nothing to convert or stimulate conversation and probably drives some people to dig in deeper.

Eh, IMHO, it can be an eye opener to those who aren't in the choir. Those who will dig in deeper will never be in the choir. Growing the choir is what is happening tho, to a staccato of gunfire...

[Isgrimnur]

The number of people killed in mass shootings is de minimis. Yet this is where we focus our attention because we have short attention spans and are absolutely terrible at weighing risk.

We focus on these because of the mass nature is shocking and, in school shootings, the victims are those that should be protected the most.

[hepcat]

Those are actually my responses.

That…surprises me.

Which one in particular surprises you the most? We can start there, and I can elaborate.

Your follow up email cleared things up for me. While still surprised, at least I better understand where you're coming from.

[malchior]

Focus on the police response is a distraction. Could the police have possibly saved some lives if they had done their job in a competent manner? Probably. Could they have averted this tragedy? Most likely not. Readily available assault rifles should be the focus.

Sure but that focus while worthwhile is trying to pick up pine needles when the forest is on fire. The real distraction is focusing on this solely as a gun issue. The gun issue is exposing the deep fatal rot in our system. Peggy at the very least gets it right that what we are facing is a crisis of competence everywhere.

As she frames it - I snipped most of it out but I'm summarizing it - is that the police aren't very competent in these and other situations while demanding special privileges. She is arguing that inability to even address it directly as a sign of decay. And she's right. She worries that we'll get some toothless report in 12 months and she is probably right there too. And we all know it. It is so incredibly corrosive.

Especially compounded when you watch what is happening at the federal level. Biden is demanding things that he absolutely can't deliver. Worse he is forced to somewhat pander to the police (at large) while fending off rationale criticism that they aren't providing enough oversight of the police. In any case, she is using this issue as a gateway into the existential crisis we are in the middle of.

The vase majority of gun violence does not involve assault weapons. The number of people killed in mass shootings is de minimis. Yet this is where we focus our attention because we have short attention spans and are absolutely terrible at weighing risk.

I sort of agree. I totally agree that we are terrible at risk. Where I greatly and profoundly disagree is the framing of the risks we face. We absolutely shouldn't be worried about individual risk. We should be focusing on the societal risk. No decent society that deserves to continue should tolerate people randomly storming into buildings and shooting them up. Regularly. There is something wrong here. I don't know how this is going to play out but I sense chaos.

That is why I'm sort of peppering the discussion here with the big picture stuff because I think the discussion of that stuff is important but also the big picture is important. We are in the middle of a much wider crisis than just democracy failing here. We are watching a society destroying itself. And frankly there is no model for this right now in modern history to even get a glimpse of it. It should be terrifying us because it is really the sort of unknown/unknown risk you can't plan for.

[LawBeefaroni]

The vase majority of gun violence does not involve assault weapons. The number of people killed in mass shootings is de minimis. Yet this is where we focus our attention because we have short attention spans and are absolutely terrible at weighing risk.

Like it or not, true or not, we don't focus on all the other shootings because they have an element of "deserve it." Even bystander shootings are easier to bear, slightly, because innocents weren't specifically targeted. Not saying it's right but it is human nature. We turned the world upside down after 9/11 on poor risk analysis. Because mass murder of people in public spaces shocks our sensibilities. They feel like they could happen to us. Some guy killing this family in a murder/suicide doesn't. A gangbanger shootout doesn't (except maybe if you live in the Loop). Odds be damned because we are humans and terrible at odds-based risk analysis.

[Isgrimnur]

With the First Amendment, prior restraint is subject to a high burden of proof. Why can we not expect any burden of proof for gun laws?

Oh, and kill the Dickey Amendment.

[Pyperkub]

The thing is that you are essentially arguing that because it is hard and we might get it wrong, we should do nothing.

In conclusion, I’m willing to review and give feedback on any specific plan, but in the abstract bullet point sense, I doubt the motives and intent of those who would have control of the levers.

We have 19 different state laws. We can start there.

Hence the call for Federal Guidelines/minimum standards for Red Flag laws.

The Data is spotty, but the primary benefit of CA's Red Flag Law (and mandatory waiting period, which may be more important) has been to decrease Suicides which are still #1 on the list of Gun deaths:

Kivisto and Phalen find that Indiana’s law was associated with a 7.5% drop in firearm suicides in the decade after its passage. Connecticut’s law, they find, was associated with a 1.6% reduction in firearm suicides after it was passed — that jumped to 13.7% after the state started enforcing the law in earnest eight years later.

“Even though risk-based firearm seizure laws have typically been enacted in response to mass homicides, the laws have functioned primarily as a means of seizing firearms from suicidal individuals,” Kivisto and Phalen write.

But, from a click-through, there is some analysis of CA's Red Flat on mass shootings:

Most subjects made explicit threats and owned firearms (Table 1). Four cases arose primarily in relation to medical or mental health conditions, and such conditions were noted in 4 others. In 14 cases, petitions were filed by law enforcement officers acting on information provided by members of the public. Fifty-two firearms were recovered, 26 of them in 1 case. In 3 cases, subjects had very recently purchased firearms but, as a result of California's 10-day waiting period, had not yet acquired them. These acquisitions were blocked by GVROs; according to California Department of Justice records, these subjects did not own other firearms...

...The seemingly high proportion of threatened mass shootings among GVRO cases (13% in this study) may also not be representative. The higher mean age for all 414 cases is expected if, in California as elsewhere, most ERPOs are issued in response to concerns about suicide; risk for suicide among non-Hispanic white men increases with age (25).

The limitations notwithstanding, these cases suggest that this urgent, individualized intervention can play a role in efforts to prevent mass shootings, in health care settings and elsewhere. In their demographic characteristics, frequent declarations of intent, declarations of animosity toward targeted populations, and access to firearms, these individuals resemble persons who have committed mass violence

[Isgrimnur]

But yeah, one-line comments and single images only go so far, and then people start making (probably wrong) assumptions.

What is presented without nuance can be dismissed without nuance.

[ImLawBoy]

But yeah, one-line comments and single images only go so far, and then people start making (probably wrong) assumptions.

What is presented without nuance can be dismissed without nuance.

Seems like one can choose ignore the context and thus dismiss the nuance that is a necessary part of the discussion. The POTUS tweet was a summary of a speech that outlined plans that would need to be hashed out in more detail. Just saying "No" to each of a summary point seems to either indicate an unwillingness to engage on the issues or a lack of understanding of the context in which the tweet was made. I mean, you don't really think they were planning on passing a law that said "Enact safe storage and red flags," do you?

[Isgrimnur]

But yeah, one-line comments and single images only go so far, and then people start making (probably wrong) assumptions.

What is presented without nuance can be dismissed without nuance.

Seems like one can choose ignore the context and thus dismiss the nuance that is a necessary part of the discussion. The POTUS tweet was a summary of a speech that outlined plans that would need to be hashed out in more detail. Just saying "No" to each of a summary point seems to either indicate an unwillingness to engage on the issues or a lack of understanding of the context in which the tweet was made. I mean, you don't really think they were planning on passing a law that said "Enact safe storage and red flags," do you?

If the speech or details had been presented, I would have happily responded to those. I was unaware of the speech or any specific proposals.

[Smoove_B]

If the speech or details had been presented, I would have happily responded to those. I was unaware of the speech or any specific proposals.

There's also the actual federal legislation that was proposed last night that I shared but was lost in the mix.

[ImLawBoy]

That's a bit glib, I think. I suspect you're willing to discuss many of the issues in more detail (as you've certainly indicated) and I suspect you know that there's a lot more nuance out there on the topics than pretending that the tweet was presented in a vacuum. Even if you were unaware of Biden's speech yesterday, I know you are certainly well educated enough on the topics of both gun control and social media to have provided an answer that was both more substantive and understanding of the nuance of the situation. (Not that you're obligated to do so. You do you. I think it would have better served the topic, however.)