As Gun-Grabbers Decline to Criticize Police Response, Texas DPS Says Kids Called 911 Twelve Times, Could Hear "Shots Fired" Over Calls and Cops Inside

[Coyote]

My point is that we should because we protect full-grown adults with that same kind of fervor and zeal. Our money, our airports, our useless politicians.

If it was a pertinent solution for them, it is a natural solution for our children.

Period. Full stop.

Different situations. Kids should not have to go to schools worrying about mass shooters and full armed security. If you value a child’s innocence so much you oppose any discussion of gender, then what about the a child’s innocence is shattered by a school shooting, or gang gun violence, or a constant reminder danger that having an armed presence brings? It is as if the only solution that Republicans ever offer is “more guns”, they oppose any attempt at regulation, even raising tbe minimum age. And then they act like the individual right to own any firearms in any area was established when they wrote the Constitution, but it wasn’t. It established in 2008. That is one ruling I hope to see overturned in my life time.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Why should we blindly accept a world where schools must be hardened because some people love their guns more than their children?

It was a mentally ILL 18-year-old who shouldn't have passed the background check who shot the children while the police stood around outside.

 

[Coyote]

What else is there? You don't want teachers voluntarily armed.

The more armed people you have in a school the greater the chance someone will be careless and it isn’t necessarily going to reduce the carnage that a high powered high capacity weapon can do in a very short time. I‘m not so sure the killers even care since a number of them end up offing themselves. You want to have voluntarily armed people? As long as the school community, parents, teachers are ok with it, I have no problem with it. But why don’t take a more meaningful step to REDUCE the carnage in the first rather than constantly REACTING to it with “more guns”.

 

[Coyote]

It was a mentally ILL 18-year-old who shouldn't have passed the background check who shot the children while the police stood around outside.

What specifically would the standard background check have picked up?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Different situations

No, they're not. You're deceiving yourself.

Kids should not have to go to schools worrying about mass shooters and full armed security.

Kids should be able to go to school knowing they are safe. That requires armed security.

If you value a child’s innocence

It is because I wish for the child to continue experiencing that innocence rather than having it snuffed out because we failed to protect them that I wish for there to be a hardening of school campuses.

It is as if the only solution that Republicans ever offer is “more guns”

Did you see what "less guns" did to save the lives of those children? "Less guns" because the cops were too cowardly to use them to protect innocent life. "More guns" because a brave border agent decided to take the guy out. If the police fail in their duty, who else is there to stop the shooter? More gun laws? More fear? More rash emotional behavior? No. People with guns who know how to use them in the act of promoting safety and security.

they oppose any attempt at regulation, even raising tbe minimum age.

When there are 20,000 laws on the books already that failed to stop this monster from getting a gun, what faith can I have that law 20,001 or 20,002 will stop him? Laws are mere words on sheets of paper and are meaningless without diligent enforcement. The lack of enforcement creates this illusion that we need to pass more laws. Those laws will go on unenforced just like the rest. Democrats are fond of repeating the same futile action and expecting different results. When they come up with something meaningful that doesn't impede me from purchasing a weapon I feel is sufficient to defend my home and family, then I will gladly vote for it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And then they act like the individual right to own any firearms in any area was established when they wrote the Constitution, but it wasn’t. It established in 2008.

It's been established since its inception. Don't act like it wasn't. You act as if you can simply affix whatever definition to the Constitution you wish to it when the meaning is put forward clearly and succinctly.

Read well.

 

[Coyote]

No, they're not. You're deceiving yourself.

Kids should be able to go to school knowing they are safe. That requires armed security.


It is because I wish for the child to continue experiencing that innocence rather than having it snuffed out because we failed to protect them.


Did you see what "less guns" did to save the lives of those children? "Less guns" because the cops were too cowardly to use them to protect innocent life. If the police fail in their duty, who else is there to stop the shooter? More gun laws? More fear? More rash emotional behavior?



When there are 20,000 laws on the books already that failed to stop this monster from getting a gun, what faith can I have that law 20,001 or 20,002 will stop him? Laws are mere words on sheets of paper and are meaningless without diligent enforcement. The lack of enforcement creates this illusion that we need to pass more laws. Those laws will go on unenforced just like the rest. Democrats are fond of repeating the same futile action and expecting different results. When they come up with something meaningful that doesn't impede me from purchasing a weapon I feel is sufficient to defend my home and family, then I will gladly vote for it.

I am going to simplify my answer because I have to get off line in a bit. Over the past few decades we have seen a loosening of gun regulations and an increase in gun deaths. We have seen every attempt to tighten regulations blocked. Is correlation causation? Depends, it is a complex problem. But throwing more guns into the mix doesn’t seem to have solved anything.

 

[Sunsettommy]

What specifically would the standard background check have picked up?

Posted this almost a week ago which gets ignored which is why I don't think leftists wants this problem to get fixed.

It was the State and Federal governments who should have prevented the killer from passing his background check.

Flopping Aces

The signs were there. They’re almost always there. No one was paying attention.​

Posted by DrJohn on 27 May, 2022

Excerpt:

Tucson. Parkland. Buffalo. Uvalde.

Jared Loughner. Nikolas Cruz. Peyton Gendron. Salvador Ramos.

Their stories are all the same.

They committed terrible crimes exacting unimaginable pain and loss. All were preventable had someone taken their job seriously.

Jared Loughner, who shot Gabby Giffords, was well known to Tucson police. He made numerous death threats. The cops were called to his house numerous times. He purchased a Glock after he made several death threats. They let him keep the weapon.

Nikolas Cruz posted “Im going to be a professional school shooter” on YouTube. The FBI was tipped off.

A person close to Cruz warned the FBI last month that he had a “desire to kill people” and could carry out a school shooting, the FBI admitted on Friday. The agency failed to act on the tip.

The FBI was also warned about Cruz after he posted on YouTube saying he was going to become a “professional school shooter.” The agency said they couldn’t identify the user who made the threat, despite Cruz posting under his own name.

LINK for the rest

 

[TemplarKormac]

Over the past few decades we have seen a loosening of gun regulations and an increase in gun deaths.

There is also an axiom that I came up with a while back: "the tighter the grip, the lesser the hold." You can tighten them as much as you wish, but more and more, the people will find ways to circumvent them. I have seen more gun regulations do nothing to stop gun deaths than anything else. I have seen more successful defenses of life take place because someone was armed and chose to use lethal force in the action.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I am going to simplify my answer because I have to get off line in a bit. Over the past few decades we have seen a loosening of gun regulations and an increase in gun deaths. We have seen every attempt to tighten regulations blocked. Is correlation causation? Depends, it is a complex problem. But throwing more guns into the mix doesn’t seem to have solved anything.

Actually the murder rate is over 45% LOWER today than it was in 1980

 

[TemplarKormac]

Over the past few decades we have seen a loosening of gun regulations and an increase in gun deaths.

My counter, as always, like a broken record, are cities with liberal mayors and overtly liberal gun regulation. Chicago, New York City, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and San Francisco.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

We have random shootings because we have evil and self centered people. We have evil and self centered people because the greater society created them. More regulation, more social programs, more money, less effort, less responsibility. Be crazy and we will give you more social benefits. More than that, we will pass laws preventing defense and interference in your particular kind of crazy. That will fix it. Coyote, bless your heart, you are a prime example of why the crazy is growing.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Looking at tbe Republican party, which consistently defunds programs for single mothers, poor families, affordable childcare, safer communities and healthcare, I have little doubt who values kids less than guns and money.

Got a link for your claims?
You kill children in your abortion factories so dont even try to pretend you care about children.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I am going to simplify my answer because I have to get off line in a bit.

Don't rush yourself.

 

[daveman]

Sorry if I'm using big words, I can dumb it down to your level, I'll get my Jack Russell to translate it for you.

You suck at condescension. Stop trying.

You said: "...and bought a type of gun that's not suitable in a society."

Clarify your sociology-babble, if you can. Please note that anyplace two or more people live is a society.

 

[daveman]

Looking at tbe Republican party, which consistently defunds programs for single mothers, poor families, affordable childcare, safer communities and healthcare, I have little doubt who values kids less than guns and money.

Remember, kids, Democrats insist taxpayers pay for abortions because they care.

 

[daveman]

Different situations. Kids should not have to go to schools worrying about mass shooters and full armed security. If you value a child’s innocence so much you oppose any discussion of gender, then what about the a child’s innocence is shattered by a school shooting, or gang gun violence, or a constant reminder danger that having an armed presence brings? It is as if the only solution that Republicans ever offer is “more guns”, they oppose any attempt at regulation, even raising tbe minimum age. And then they act like the individual right to own any firearms in any area was established when they wrote the Constitution, but it wasn’t. It established in 2008. That is one ruling I hope to see overturned in my life time.

So you want all guns banned.

How are you going to get criminals to obey that law?

 

[daveman]

The more armed people you have in a school the greater the chance someone will be careless and it isn’t necessarily going to reduce the carnage that a high powered high capacity weapon can do in a very short time. I‘m not so sure the killers even care since a number of them end up offing themselves. You want to have voluntarily armed people? As long as the school community, parents, teachers are ok with it, I have no problem with it. But why don’t take a more meaningful step to REDUCE the carnage in the first rather than constantly REACTING to it with “more guns”.

So you DO know how to get criminals to obey the law.

It's irresponsible of you to keep that to yourself.

 

[Coyote]

It's been established since its inception. Don't act like it wasn't. You act as if you can simply affix whatever definition to the Constitution you wish to it when the meaning is put forward clearly and succinctly.

Read well.

View attachment 654372

Nope.

The U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Learn about the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution from leading scholars of diverse legal and philosophical perspectives.

constitutioncenter.org

 

[Coyote]

So you want all guns banned.

Where did you get that idea?

How are you going to get criminals to obey that law?

So why do we have ANY laws then?