The Texas shooting shows the futility of arming teachers

It will come to that.

In the meantime:

Bulletproof backpacks for children reflect a new reality in America

 

A whole new market for the gun manufacturers who are the ones really behind all of this.

Bring back the Tommy Gun
Add the Billy Gun, The Suzy Gun, The Amber Gun...

You could even color coordinate with the bullet-proof backpacks. It would be so cute!

 

I would put the date back a bit to 2012. (12 events, 86 dead)
Year Events Deaths
2012 .. 12 .. 86
2013 .. 7 .. 40
2014 .. 6 .. 28
2015 .. 12 .. 89
2016 ..14 .. 111
2017 .. 22 .. 162
2018 .. 19 .. 101
2019 .. 18 .. 110
2020 .. 6 .. 16
2021 10 63
I suspect it mimics the growth in personal ownership of assault rifles.

I do agree though that America is woeful at dealing with those having mental issues. You'd think if you want everyone to be able to have an assault rifle without checks, the least you would do is have good mental health cover.

 

I do want that, and am open to suggestions. The only thing people like me can think is to press charismatic role models into government service to lead young angry males out of their bedrooms and onto a softball or soccer field, or a chess club, and/or to some kind of social circle with ethical standards that can be defended. An thing but a world of video games and places like this where all we are engaged in is bragging about how big our penises are. I know there are some women here, but the predominant hormone is testosterone.

Ideally I'd say go to church, but Darwinism has made it a ridiculous institutional alternative for a growing number of people.

 

But before we formally entered the war, we were sending ships with all kinds of supplies including military to Britain. If we had not done that, Britain likely would have been occupied by the Germans by the time we formally entered. $31 billion dollars worth in military aid alone- in 1941 dollars, the equivalent of $600 billion today.

And you should know that those citizens of the new America who had slaves.... were mostly British or of British descent, and certainly under the rule of the British Crown until the revolutionary war. So those slaves- came here with the consent of the British government. The first slaves didn't arrive in 1619, but actually in the 1500's, and it was British and Spaniards that were the slavers. In Europe, the Dutch had overtaken the preeminent slave trade by 1650, until they were usurped by the British in 1700. Britain played a prominent role in the Atlantic slave trade, especially after 1600, and slavery was a legal institution in all thirteen of the American colonies and Canada (which had been acquired by Britain in 1763). The Slave Trade Act of 1807 and the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 by British Parliament effectively ended slavery in Britain. That took place ahead of the American emancipation... but their role in slavery preceded ours too.

At the time slaves were being brought to the new world (of which less than 4% ever came to America) nearly all African countries had large numbers of slave typically about 1/3 their total population. Most who came here were not free men captured to become slaves- they already were slaves. That history of black slavery by black slave owners and traders goes back over a thousand years before white men ever set foot in Africa. As wrongful as all slavery is- those brought to America have descendants today with a standard of living vastly better than they would have had if their ancestors had not become slaves at all. The would be living in Angola, most in huts with dirt floors, lucky to have a 4th grade education, about a 50% chance of having potable water- and ruled by a government which allows people with money to buy themselves out of prosecution for any level of crime.

As with most things- half a story is a lie. No country is without sin, except in their own minds and arguments. No problems are solved, no solutions created by doing old dirty laundry over and over while ignoring the future and denying the obvious.

 

I understand the inhibitor (sodium sulfate) reduces, but not fully eliminates the explosive potential. I'm at best a lay chemist, not qualified to know for sure.
To my knowledge, I don't know of that being used in the US market. I have a relative that drills and fills blast holes for a quarry; I'll ask next time I see him.

 

You have a problem I can't solve; sounds a lot like the kind of problems that cause the incidents you are ranting about. Stay home.

 

I don't think you can wind back the clock, but with the growth of multiplayer gaming how about using the platform to help teenagers come to terms with their anger and worry. What if games producers like Fortnite were forced to add mentors to their games.
Strangely if you asked me about sport I would say the vast majority of angry young men (The would be shooters) of my day (I'm 63) were those who were no good at sport and faced ridicule for their size, looks and lack of ability, so putting them on the soccer field would be counter productive.
My concern with the internet in the bedroom is a little different. The internet (Including games) allows people to build the prejudices for it is natural to navigate to those sharing your views and the internet allows you to do this unchallenged by mature folks in your every day life.
Hence my suggestion of mentors on these sites.

Yes I'm afraid god is history for most folks today. Too much evil has been carried out in his name.

 

Good to see you running out of steam to cook your tripe.

 

All that is good, and I do like your suggestions, except, and just fyi, "most" Texans believe in God. 42% even attend church regularly. And the current crop of recent shooters are not religious zealots. But even if 90% attended regularly and if all of that 90% were committed to the Golden Rule, this shooter would likely have been among the 10% who do not attend, and/or considered it a dumb rule.

And yes, even a church member can decide to shoot up his church, or that of someone who belongs to the "wrong" religion. We had a targeting last year of a synagogue not far from my home. In Texas, naturally. It was a Muslim, though he "only" took hostages, and the situation was defused by negotiators with no loss of life.

I am suddenly reminded of the Bulgarian couple imploring Humphrey Bogart, in the movie "Casablanca", to help them immigrate to America. He advises them to go back to Bulgaria, and the wife says, "the Devil has got the people by the throat there."

That's how I feel about America right now: the devil is afoot, though statistics don't really support my feeling. There are 130,000 schools (K-12) in the USA, and so school shootings are extremely rare, but that doesn't help if your child is in one of the schools that is attacked.

We had two more near-misses just last week, also in Texas!

 

He did not have body armor.

 

I wouldn't exactly call it 'formally entering the war' so much as dealing with the fact that war had been declared on America which was a stark reality.
I think you will find that the supplies sent by the USA to the UK prior to December 1941 were not free gifts, but supplies that I wouldn't be surprised that the UK is still paying for even now.
Your summary of the timelines and dates related to slavery I certainly don't dispute, and most certainly the UK was massively enriched by that barbaric trade, however I have suggested above that the American War of Independence was much less to do with 'no taxation without representation' and more to do with fearing the abolition of slavery that was most certainly looming.
I do find it odd that you want to suggest that enslavement in the past was somehow doing people a favour, because had they been left alone the descendents of the 'captured' would be less materially well off.
If you made that offer now 'be my slave because in 20 generations your bloodline will be better off than it would be otherwise' do you think you will have many takers?

 

Which has already been proven to not be true, as Japanese/Americans can testify to.

 

You're going to have to flesh this out a lot more than that. If memory serves, none of the Intolerable Acts impinged slavery in the slightest. The colonists weren't shy about articulating their grievances and concerns. How many of them raised this particular concern? Why not?

And the Deep South -- other than Georgia -- wasn't even represented among the signatories.

And George Washington freed his slavess in 1791!

I sense that you are echoing revisionist history popular among a minority of American historians who view everything through a prism of race.

 

It actually shows the error in strict gun control. If you're dependant on incompetent professionals than you have no right to life. You must simply let someone slaughter you if they wish.

 

I'm not going to edit out your entire post so just assume I'm referring to your paragraph where you replied to me.

My point is this. You are welcome to your opinion just as well as I am welcome to mine.

There's enough people in this country that have their own opinions without considering the opinions of people who do not even live here.

The moment that I start preaching at you about your rights as a British citizen and what I think you shouldn't should not have is the moment I'll give your argument a shred of credibility.

Until then I have the right to completely dismiss your opinion.

 

One authoritarian action or even 50 don't describe an authoritarian government. You can look up the definition for yourself.

 

What stupid reasoning.

19 children have just been shot.

 

Were either of the murdered teachers equipped with firearms? Both were in the same classroom. Just asking....

 

you're just saying this because it goes against your anti-gun religion.

Because of gun control. Gun control is why the school was picked.

And what stopped the shooter was a good guy with a gun shooter just got to kill more people because of idiotic gun control your religion is bogus and costs lives.

 

First, the school wasn't picked.

The shooter chose this school at random.

Secondly, it is the lack of gun control that allows these madmen to be better armed than the police.

 

Mass shooting statistics have been compiled for over 40 years.

In spite of the huge amount of guns that circulate in this country, only 0.8% of mass shootings are stopped by armed civilians.

Running away is the first reflex of someone who is shot.

With good reason.

 

And the shooter got to kill 19 people without being stopped and that is precisely because of gun control.

There wasn't a lack of gun control there was the most strict gun control that's why nobody could stop the shooter.

Gun control only disarmed the victims.

You're religious belief is cruel and insidious.

 

And foolish insults solve so many problems. I used to think Brits were pretty smart, but you're shifting my opinion on that. Nothing else, but for sure on that.

American enslavement was not any favor- but neither was it the sole cause of the situation. Had the black supremacy of government in Angola been anywhere near as good as the white supremacy of America, Angola would not be, like so many similar African nations- still a 3rd world shithole. Point was, by accident for those who wound up here- their descendants are better off than most others. Not something to be applauded, but something that points out that of all the ways things might have went for those people, the best standard of living today is for the descendants here- who are none the less, behaving badly.
It's also true that the economy of much of the nation, especially the south, was dependent on the use of slaves. Now it's comfortable to sit back today and call the tolerance of slavery some kind of love of evil, but that of course was not the case. IF you grew up in a situation, you accept it as normal. Most catholics believe what they were told and were common in their community- same is true with muslims, and most every other group. Obviously there was a time when most Brits went along with the idea that the British Empire should rule the world. Things like them starving 30,000 people to death in India during it's control and destroying their economy didn't seem to disturb the British people.

I don't know of any repayment of military aid, but in 2006, Britian made the last payment on a multi-billion dollar loan made to them after the war, to rebuild. 61 years to get it done, but they did.
England however declared bankruptcy in 1940, and a lot of debts went down the tube.

I believe an honest person looks at the entire picture to keep things in proper perspective. Most of the whiners here want to pick a single element out of an entire history and label an entire people or country with it.
Regardless; it's the future that matters- not past recriminations.

Here's an article with more details: https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=27548

"England went bankrupt in 1940. The United States then paid for the rest of WW2. The specific date on which this probably occurred was 23 December 1940 when a US warship carried off £50 million worth of gold from Cape Town. A slight delay was then provided by pressuring the governments in exile into "loaning" their gold stockpiles to England (although England knew this could never be repaid). A Belgian "loan" of £60 million was crucial to avoid open default before the US Congress passed the Lend Lease Act on 1 March 1941.

So 12 months before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor US taxpayers were paying for Englishmen to kill Germans. That is, the US was not simply acting as a source for a few extra rifles and shells, the US was paying all of the expenses necessary for England to fight the war while the Battle of Britain was still going on. England clearly continued to pay something towards the cost of the war, since they continued to collect taxes in England, but the vast bulk of payments for war materiel was covered by the US.

Only because Roosevelt and Morgenthau, the Secretary of the Treasury and a bitter enemy of Germany, were personally interested in keeping WW2 going at a time when there was no legitimate hope of English victory was the money made available.

Because the American public would never have agreed to fund an ongoing war by a foreign country at a time when the US was a neutral, the US Government lied about English finances and talked in terms of loans and bartering. The general impression being that England was paying 90% or more of its needs and the US was simply filling a few gaps while England completed mobilization or something.

If Roosevelt had not won re-election in November, 1940, England would have asked Germany for terms to end the war in the West by January 1941 because there was simply no money left in England to pay for a continuation of the fighting.

There was serious discussion in the English cabinet throughout the Summer of 1940 of the need to end the war because of the impending bankruptcy. By 22 August, 1940, the decision was made to continue placing orders with the United States although there was no hope of ever paying for the materiel. The logic at the time was that England should run up as large a debt as possible and then argue that the only way for the Americans to ever see any repayment was to fund a continuation of England's war."

 

that's not an answer to the question it's a Dodge because the question proves you wrong.

that's because math shooter pick places where citizens are not allowed to be armed.

Because of this is gun control not lack thereof

in a classroom with one door?

That you so desperately want to govern you harder ****ed it up when they built the damn classroom.

These people dropped the ball at every single opportunity and you want them to be in charge of more they fail at everything.

Unless you're trapped in a meat grinder by stupid government screwing you over. The only means to survival at that point is fighting back. And you can't do that with dictators like you I'm trying to make sure everybody dies when someone has a gun.

I know this may be a shock to you but it was indeed a good guy with a gun that stopped this year all day it was the only thing that could