14 students killed, 1 teacher dead in elementary school shooting

As I understand it, the 18-year-old killer shot his own Grandmother. I don't know whether he killed her or what and this was before he went to Rose elementary school and continued his shooting rampage resulting of killing 20 school children and this time 2 adults. Then the gunman was shot to death by law enforcement. The killer acted alone and got what he deserved in the end.

 

I asked you a question:
I am not OK with unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.
Why are you?
Well?

I asked you a question:
Tell us, with specificity - what is NOT a "rapid killing weapon", and why do you think so?
Well?

 

record for what?!? Gun violence? Violence in general? Spree shootings? Spree shootings that happen in schools? Spree shootings that happen in elementary schools? In Texas? On Tuesdays? Where are you comparing "records" and what records are you comparing?

And after you've explained that, maybe you want to list all the countries you consider "in the West" and all the ones that you don't consider "in the West", for clarity's sake. Is Honduras "in the West"? Mexico? Or are you just talking about Canada, Australia, and the UK?

 

I hope so. They might need another half a billion, but that's TX taxpayer money, so not my concern. IMO it would be money well spent. Keeping kids safe is one of those things where you don't want to get cheap. One can only wonder what happened with the first half a billion, since it looks like nothing got done.

As of this morning the grandmother was shot in the face, but still alive.

 

Because it's NOT 100 percent ineffective, and I don't consider 100 percent freedom a good thing.

A non rapid killing weapon? I would consider it a weapon where you cannot kill more than a few people in a minute. That's just my opinion, I am sure others will disagree.

Why are you okay with doing NOTHING?

Why are you okay accepting the ever increasing loss of life that will ensue?

 

Ok, well, let's start taking criminals off the street. Most "mass shootings" are done ex-cons, some are done by people who were out on bale instead of being locked up.

This mass shooter was let out on bale...lol

https://www.montgomeryadvertiser.co...johnson-bonds-out-montgomery-jail/9159430002/

 

That's why there needed to be 5 armed good guys.

 

Perfectly okay with all mass killers serving life in prison without perole, at the least. No argument there.

So, you know a legal way it can be done, that won't be blocked by politics?

 

Unnecessary and ineffective laws are, by definition, 100% ineffective.
And yet, you support them.

A pump-action shotgun can be used kill dozens of people in a minute.
Is that "rapid killing"?

I am against unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the law abiding.
You... aren't.

Freedom is dangerous; i do not want to live in a place where school shootings cannot happen.
Neither do you .

 

You see! This is what happens when people don't take their 2nd. amendment responsibilities seriously. If every one of those children had a gun it never would have happened!!!

American children are weak! When the shooting starts instead of protecting themselves they just duck for cover.

 

We don't have anywhere near 100% freedom, so there's no real danger in that, if that's what concerns you.

But your post brings up an interesting dichotomy of sorts. How much freedom would you give up for how much effectiveness?

Imagine we had a crystal ball and could see the effects of various policy options. How would you trade your freedom for security?

Would you give up 90% of your freedom if it reduced homicides by 10%? What if it only reduced homicides by 1%?

Would you give up 40% of your freedom if homicides were reduced by a corresponding 40%?

How would you balance those two interests, if it were up to you?

 

What about any other murderer?

 

Easy…

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/16/us/politics/legal-gun-purchase-mass-shooting.html

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476461/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-legality-of-shooters-weapons/

 

Again, professional police anybody guards are always at a disadvantage in a gun fight with an armed criminal.

 

Most mass shootings are done by people with prior convictions, so that horseshit.

 

Yes, Beto is a Beta.

 

There is a lot of things related to freedom (freedom of speech, movement, press, religion, expression, assembly, voice grievances, run for office, open a business, marry who you want etc, etc..), but you make it sound like freedom is limited to having 100% unrestricted right to carry guns.

Would you agree to mental health evaluation for first time gun buyers if it reduced gun violence by 20% (or 6000 Americans per year)?

 

The solution to all this is easy enough.

1. Just set up card tables at the end of every hallway and ask armed volunteers to amuse themselves with free coffee and donuts until the children are out of the school.
2. Entry restricted to the monitored front locked door until buzzed to enter.

Why hasn't that happened?
Politics is not about finding real solutions.

 

There is no evidence that this would reduce gun violence at all.

 

It's not only ineffective it's pointless and invasive. The last thing we need is useless laws on the books, why not enforce the good ones we already have?

 

You are entitled to your opinions, as am I.

I do not consider the laws 100 percent unnecessary or ineffective.

Yes, if a shotgun can kill multiple people in a minute, I would consider it a rapid fire killing weapon that might need some restrictions and regulations placed on it.

Freedom is dangerous, no argument there

Tell me, do you want to live in a place where no restrictions or regulations are placed on the people?

Where they can do literally any evil, selfish thing they want?

If the answer is no, then you agree SOME restrictions on freedom are required. We are just arguing about where the line is drawn.

I suspect we WON'T be putting in laws saying you have to raise your kids a certain way, or that every household has to have a mother and father, with the mother being a housewife.

We also won't enact laws that would lower the gap betweenrich and poor, or would improve the lives of the poor, or would get rid of government assistance and FORCE the poor back to work.

In short, we will do NOTHING while more and more people needlessly die. While anger and tensions flare hotter. Until this country rips itself apart.

That is what WILL happen, IMO. I can only hope I can get my family out before it does.

Good luck to you.

 

Which is not only illogical, it will never happen. You've apparently missed where disarming the people does not make anything safer for them, only safer for the bad guys.

Again, why would you not start with disarming the bad guys?

 

The question at issue was the legality of the purchase, not criminal records. Three quarters of the guns used in mass shootings were legally obtained. It’s too easy in your country to get a gun…

 

What did he buy and where did he buy it? Was there a BG check?

 

For a person killing single person?

Life with possibility of perole after 5 to 10 years would be okay with me.

Yes, there is a difference between the two. The world is not black and white.