Abbott calls Texas school shooting a mental health issue but cut state spending for it

[Slade3200]

Then get the economy going and stop killing the dollar.............those who live in poverty turn to drugs and crime..........

And lose it too.

Unrelated issue. Why don’t you stay on topic?

 

[Mashmont]

You're the governor. Doesn't the buck stop here??

Kinda like the national Democrats with gun control, isn't it? They control all three chambers. Yet all they can do is gripe about Republicans.

 

[eagle1462010]

Unrelated issue. Why don’t you stay on topic?

BS. It is a related issue. That causes CRIME AND DRUG USE.

Mental illness has increased since the BS of Covid........and in this case it's a boy wearing skirts..........who was like most of them.........MENTALLY ILL. A fact the left pushes as normal.

It is not normal.

 

[1srelluc]

In this case, it absolutely does. Decades ago we stopped forcibly institutionalizing people in most cases and look where we are now. There are nowhere near the amount of mental health hospitals available for people to get treatment. The funding doesn't exist. The infrastructure doesn't exist. Many of the homeless people you see on the streets out here on the west coast are suffering with addiction and/or mental illness. The problem has slowly gotten worse over the years.

We never had all of these school shootings before. I was in high school when Columbine happened. That was the first one I ever heard of and from there they slowly got more and more common.

Damn straight.....In my AO the mere threat of being sent to Virginia's Western State Mental Hospital was enough to make the off-kilter calm down. Of course they closed it down in the late 70s.

 

[Slade3200]

BS. It is a related issue. That causes CRIME AND DRUG USE.

Mental illness has increased since the BS of Covid........and in this case it's a boy wearing skirts..........who was like most of them.........MENTALLY ILL. A fact the left pushes as normal.

It is not normal.

The left pushes for acceptance and aims to protect against haters like yourself.

But back to the topic. You want to fix the economy to help mental health issues for kids instead of investing in schools to help kids directly. Ok, what kind of magic do you want to use to do that?

 

[eagle1462010]

The left pushes for acceptance and aims to protect against haters like yourself.

But back to the topic. You want to fix the economy to help mental health issues for kids instead of investing in schools to help kids directly. Ok, what kind of magic do you want to use to do that?

Fire all you socialist fuckers and drain the swamp

 

[BackAgain]

Libtards are endlessly focused on Abbott. Why not focus on Costello?

 

[Slade3200]

Fire all you socialist fuckers and drain the swamp

Great idea!!! And totally realistic!! You should probably spend your time on something other than politics you don’t have a very good mind for it.

 

[struth]

Red herring.

If the old "2nd amendment supporter" adage of "only honest people obey the law relative to illegal weapons, gun laws, etc... were true, that would apply over there too. I'm sure in a nation of over a billion, there are some dishonest people. So why aren't they having these massacres?

Do you think that maybe it might be because they don't have the availability of firearms that we have over here?

yes i think that’s what he is saying. Tin have no freedom in leftist china, there aq soldiers with guns on the corners. it’s an oppressor leftist regime. How did that go over your head?

 

[struth]

Damn straight.....In my AO the mere threat of being sent to Virginia's Western State Mental Hospital was enough to make the off-kilter calm down. Of course they closed it down in the late 70s.

Virginia Western State hospital is still up and running

 

[surada]

You're the governor. Doesn't the buck stop here??

Texas has a grim history of mass shootings.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2022-05-25/school-massacre-continues-texas-grim-run-of-mass-shootings

 

[candycorn]

yes i think that’s what he is saying. Tin have no freedom in leftist china, there aq soldiers with guns on the corners. it’s an oppressor leftist regime. How did that go over your head?

I'm certain as soon as tin gets freedom the aq soldiers will take care of it.

what?

 

[struth]

I'm certain as soon as tin gets freedom the aq soldiers will take care of it.

what?

they*

 

[SavannahMann]

IMO..... first put armed guards in every school.

All the rest....all mental issues come after.

Protect the children in the school first.

They had cops at the school. Reportedly two of them. They are the ones who were shot at. This frightened the rest of the armed security so they stood around for 40 minutes. Because they were afraid that they would die.

 

[candycorn]

they*

Again, it's a red herring.... why? Because whenever gun laws are talked about here in a way to limit how many guns a psychopath can buy, we get the boilerplate right wing gun nut response of "only honest people obey laws".

Besides, criminals aren't going to start obeying new gun laws.

The gun laws aren't the problem, it's the people who don't obey or enforce them.

do you think criminals will obey said laws ?

Criminals refuse to obey gun control laws.

To put it another way, would you list all/any of the laws, statutes, regulations, or executive orders that criminals obey????

So that either means that Europe, China, India etc.... (all of which have 2-4 times as many citizens as the US) have completely obedient societies with no criminals or the gun supply in the US is the cause of gun crime.

 

[candycorn]

They had cops at the school. Reportedly two of them. They are the ones who were shot at. This frightened the rest of the armed security so they stood around for 40 minutes. Because they were afraid that they would die.

That is a failure. No doubt. Lets say the same situation happened 100 times. How often do you think the police would not go in? If you say 50/50...that is still 50 shootings that would potentially--stress potentially--would have less body count. This doesn't count any deterrent that having a police presence would provide.

Also...shit...nothing else we've tried in the last 20 years has worked. To quote the blob...what do you have to lose?

 

[SavannahMann]

That is a failure. No doubt. Lets say the same situation happened 100 times. How often do you think the police would not go in? If you say 50/50...that is still 50 shootings that would potentially--stress potentially--would have less body count. This doesn't count any deterrent that having a police presence would provide.

Also...shit...nothing else we've tried in the last 20 years has worked. To quote the blob...what do you have to lose?

Doubling down on a bad hand is never a good idea. Not if you want to keep your cash.

Socialism is a failure every time it is tried. Government ownership of the means of production just doesn’t work. The argument by those who advocate for it is that the right people were not in charge. If it has never worked, how many times will we try it with the wrong people in charge, discovered only after the fact? It is just a bad idea.

Now, you say that cops on campus, even though they didn’t work this time, or in Parkland, or whatever. Well it might work, perhaps if we are really lucky, half the time. Doubling down on the bad idea that the answer is a guy with guns and authority to somehow stop the threat.

The President is surrounded by guys with guns, and authority, a lot more than the local cops, and the threat to him still exists. So much so that even good Right Wing members of the NRA are required to put their guns somewhere else when the Former President attends the convention. No guns, no knives, no nothing. Wouldn’t the guys with guns and authority be enough? At least half the time according to you? And there is the intimidation factor, which should dissuade most of the threats right?

One of the things I found troubling when I looked at getting my own Concealed Weapons Permit was the lack of a training requirement in Georgia. I didn’t like that. Training not only covers the basics of safe handling of the weapon, but legal responsibilities and advice. I signed up for a voluntary class, and attended it. I found out that the laws in Georgia say something that I didn’t know about. This was applicable when I heard of the Brunswick shooting of Ahmad Arbury. I knew shortly after the story broke and the details started coming out that the three men were screwed. Because I knew what the law said, and they had broken it.

You have to have training before you can drive, you have to take a test. You have to have training and testing before you can do most anything in this life. In Georgia Cops go through weeks of training, sometimes as much as six months and are tested before they are awarded their State Certification to be Police.

But for the average citizen, a training or testing requirement for ownership of a firearm is somehow the worst thing ever. Just awful. Totally akin to taking of weapons or something from the general population.

The Military trains and tests their recruits before turning them loose with live ammo. And the Military locks up the weapons when they are not in use, or required. The weapons are counted before anyone is allowed to leave and insured that all weapons are accounted for. We want to make sure we know where they all are.

Training and testing requirements are the opposite of Constitutional Carry. And yet wouldn’t training and testing eliminate just as many potential shootings as you hope would be done by the intimidation factor of cops? Wouldn’t it reduce the number of events where the presence of cops actually does something besides establish a perimeter?

Would it stop all of the madmen? No. Would it stop some of them? Sure. Probably as many as your intimidation factor of the cops just being there.

There is no single answer to this problem. That’s the real thing we need to agree on. There isn’t a simple fix. There isn’t a way to make it all better with one simple thing.

As we have seen, just having cops around isn’t enough. Doubling down on it isn’t going to work any better. It isn’t a single answer problem. There are a lot of things that we can roll into it, but most people won’t consider anything but their single answer.

So we will do nothing. And we will be doomed to watch these things unfold time and time again. And eventually the civil war will start because single answer solutions never work.

 

[struth]

Again, it's a red herring.... why? Because whenever gun laws are talked about here in a way to limit how many guns a psychopath can buy, we get the boilerplate right wing gun nut response of "only honest people obey laws".












So that either means that Europe, China, India etc.... (all of which have 2-4 times as many citizens as the US) have completely obedient societies with no criminals or the gun supply in the US is the cause of gun crime.

you’re right….clearly you want our govt to be more like china.

 

[candycorn]

Doubling down on a bad hand is never a good idea. Not if you want to keep your cash.

Socialism is a failure every time it is tried. Government ownership of the means of production just doesn’t work. The argument by those who advocate for it is that the right people were not in charge. If it has never worked, how many times will we try it with the wrong people in charge, discovered only after the fact? It is just a bad idea.

Now, you say that cops on campus, even though they didn’t work this time, or in Parkland, or whatever. Well it might work, perhaps if we are really lucky, half the time. Doubling down on the bad idea that the answer is a guy with guns and authority to somehow stop the threat.

The President is surrounded by guys with guns, and authority, a lot more than the local cops, and the threat to him still exists. So much so that even good Right Wing members of the NRA are required to put their guns somewhere else when the Former President attends the convention. No guns, no knives, no nothing. Wouldn’t the guys with guns and authority be enough? At least half the time according to you? And there is the intimidation factor, which should dissuade most of the threats right?

One of the things I found troubling when I looked at getting my own Concealed Weapons Permit was the lack of a training requirement in Georgia. I didn’t like that. Training not only covers the basics of safe handling of the weapon, but legal responsibilities and advice. I signed up for a voluntary class, and attended it. I found out that the laws in Georgia say something that I didn’t know about. This was applicable when I heard of the Brunswick shooting of Ahmad Arbury. I knew shortly after the story broke and the details started coming out that the three men were screwed. Because I knew what the law said, and they had broken it.

You have to have training before you can drive, you have to take a test. You have to have training and testing before you can do most anything in this life. In Georgia Cops go through weeks of training, sometimes as much as six months and are tested before they are awarded their State Certification to be Police.

But for the average citizen, a training or testing requirement for ownership of a firearm is somehow the worst thing ever. Just awful. Totally akin to taking of weapons or something from the general population.

The Military trains and tests their recruits before turning them loose with live ammo. And the Military locks up the weapons when they are not in use, or required. The weapons are counted before anyone is allowed to leave and insured that all weapons are accounted for. We want to make sure we know where they all are.

Training and testing requirements are the opposite of Constitutional Carry. And yet wouldn’t training and testing eliminate just as many potential shootings as you hope would be done by the intimidation factor of cops? Wouldn’t it reduce the number of events where the presence of cops actually does something besides establish a perimeter?

Would it stop all of the madmen? No. Would it stop some of them? Sure. Probably as many as your intimidation factor of the cops just being there.

There is no single answer to this problem. That’s the real thing we need to agree on. There isn’t a simple fix. There isn’t a way to make it all better with one simple thing.

As we have seen, just having cops around isn’t enough. Doubling down on it isn’t going to work any better. It isn’t a single answer problem. There are a lot of things that we can roll into it, but most people won’t consider anything but their single answer.

So we will do nothing. And we will be doomed to watch these things unfold time and time again. And eventually the civil war will start because single answer solutions never work.

Are you sure that it has "never" worked? Also...define "never worked". If you're the 27th potential victim and the guard kills the gunman after he just killed the 26th victim...I think you may define it differently.

Is it a the best idea? Nope. But guns will never go anywhere because we're too idiotic as a nation to address the problem that every other developed nation on earth has solved decades ago.


So the alternative is what?

 

[candycorn]

you’re right….clearly you want our govt to be more like china.

clearly you have nothing more to say on the topic that would resemble an intelligent comment. We're used to that.