Today's mass shooting in the US

Roar87 said:
The NRA spent about 50x less money lobbying than the Pharmaceutical industry and wayyy less then Technology companies, they have relatively small amounts of money. I'm sure you did your research on that though before you posted more misinformation.
Click to expand...
I think this misses the point. Vested interests are high because spending on guns in the US is about $20bn per year. Whilst direct lobbying is in the $0.2bn range, the number of people who have made guns a foundation of their livelihood is high. From an economic perspective it's moot as the spending would transfer elsewhere if the industry mostly shut down tomorrow. However there remain a significant number of people who are happy for the industry continue and excert their influence to that end.
 
*Texas Department of Public Safety Official: School Gunman Fired at Two People Across the Street Before Firing Shots Toward School
*Texas Department of Public Safety Official: Gunman Discharged Multiple Rounds Inside the School
*Texas Department of Public Safety Official: Police Needed Time to Get Officers, Equipment in Place
*Texas Department of Public Safety Official: Police Began Evacuations While Assembling Personnel, Equipment
*Texas Public Safety Official: Gunman Was Not Confronted by Any Officer Before Entering School
*Texas Public Safety Official: An Hour After Gunman Entered School, Border Patrol Tactical Team Arrive and Kill Suspect
*Texas Public Safety Official: Majority of Gunfire Was in the Beginning
*Texas Public Safety Official: Initial Reports Were That Gunman Did Not Respond to Negotiators
*Texas Public Safety Official: More Than 25 Rounds Were Heard Soon After Gunman Entered School

*Biden and First Lady to Travel to Uvalde, Texas on Sunday — Statement
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure blame is the right word, though, yes, people will be using it.

Let's be fair, if you're a policeman faced with this over there, we're not talking a crack SWAT type response here, its going to be terrifying and confusing for the first responding police. This is actually 'Jeff', who has probably fired a few hundred shots in a range and done some online training course on hostage rescue.
 
wesimmo said:
I'm not sure blame is the right word, though, yes, people will be using it.

Let's be fair, if you're a policeman faced with this over there, we're not talking a crack SWAT type response here, its going to be terrifying and confusing for the first responding police. This is actually 'Jeff', who has probably fired a few hundred shots in a range and done some online training course on hostage rescue.
Click to expand...
I may be being overly harsh, but I thought the whole idea of police and having them armed was so they could at least attempt to protect people, and that's the reason why the US police constantly ask for and get ever increasing amounts of money even at the expense of other departments that have shown time and time again are far better at crime prevention (I noticed the Republicans were once again saying "it's just a mentally ill person, we must do more to stop them" months after the Texas governor gutted the mental health budget).

This is sounding more and more like Parkland, where the local officers largely stood around and only took action when officers from another area said "we're going in with or without you" (an exchange that I suspect may have involved some invectives).

I'm trying very hard not to break the forum rules and to put this in without swearing, but what is the point in having armed police at a school if they're not going to do anything to protect the children, what the hell is the point of "good guys with guns" as the NRA love to suggest is the solution to every mass shooting if the police who are armed not only don't do anything until after the killings have slowed, but also stop the local "good guys with guns" from at least trying to save their own children.
It's starting to sound like the teachers in America* are far more willing to risk injury and death to protect children than the people that are paid (usually quite well), trained, and equipped to do so.

Yes these officers weren't SWAT trained, but if the armed police aren't going to even attempt to prevent a gunman until SWAT trained people arrive from somewhere else, potentially an hour+ away, then what is the point in having every officer armed if they're not going to be willing to use them against actual armed suspects.


*A group that are routinely mocked by the gun friendly politicians, and are so underpaid and under provisioned that they routinely end up basically begging for standard school supplies, and yet it seems that apparently they've all got their own "how can I save the kids plans", and discussion groups where they try and share potential methods (be it how best to break a window to let the kids out, or what's best to block a door).
 
Werewolf said:
I may be being overly harsh, but I thought the whole idea of police and having them armed was so they could at least attempt to protect people, and that's the reason why the US police constantly ask for and get ever increasing amounts of money even at the expense of other departments that have shown time and time again are far better at crime prevention (I noticed the Republicans were once again saying "it's just a mentally ill person, we must do more to stop them" months after the Texas governor gutted the mental health budget).

This is sounding more and more like Parkland, where the local officers largely stood around and only took action when officers from another area said "we're going in with or without you" (an exchange that I suspect may have involved some invectives).

I'm trying very hard not to break the forum rules and to put this in without swearing, but what is the point in having armed police at a school if they're not going to do anything to protect the children, what the hell is the point of "good guys with guns" as the NRA love to suggest is the solution to every mass shooting if the police who are armed not only don't do anything until after the killings have slowed, but also stop the local "good guys with guns" from at least trying to save their own children.
It's starting to sound like the teachers in America* are far more willing to risk injury and death to protect children than the people that are paid (usually quite well), trained, and equipped to do so.

Yes these officers weren't SWAT trained, but if the armed police aren't going to even attempt to prevent a gunman until SWAT trained people arrive from somewhere else, potentially an hour+ away, then what is the point in having every officer armed if they're not going to be willing to use them against actual armed suspects.


*A group that are routinely mocked by the gun friendly politicians, and are so underpaid and under provisioned that they routinely end up basically begging for standard school supplies, and yet it seems that apparently they've all got their own "how can I save the kids plans", and discussion groups where they try and share potential methods (be it how best to break a window to let the kids out, or what's best to block a door).
Click to expand...

You're right, if they're going to have defensive armed response then yes they should be well trained but again Jim Jeffries

And then they go, “Oh, well, answer to that, we’ll just add more guns.” They go, “We’ll put an armed security guard at every school across America.” Yeah, that’ll work out. The average security guard in America earns $16 an hour. Not a lot of wiggle room to be a ******* hero! Someone comes onto the school and… [Mimicking machine gun] And you’ve got Kevin. Now, I’m sure Kevin’s ****-hot at Call of Duty, but it might not ****ing cut it, ladies and gentlemen.
Click to expand...
 
Roar87 said:
You have to cherry pick though, Mitch McConnel has been in office since 1985 and is 80 years old, that money is over his entire career. The NRA isn't some vastly funded organisation swaying opinion anymore, there simply isn't public support for mass gun control laws
Click to expand...

Nah, you are the one cherry-picking.

Marsha Blackburn has only been in the senate 3 years. Mike Braun the same and Ron Johnson 11 years.

You specifically picked the longest-serving one to suit your narrative.
 
The police on scene may well not have been the SWAT team, but if they weren't (and maybe the fact it was a border patrol guy rather than a SWAT team member that actually killed the gunman) then that raises other questions about why SWAT team members weren't there sooner. I'm sure they're not as well trained as teams in major cities but this is the kind of thing they would be expected to deploy to.
 
GreatAuk said:
The police on scene may well not have been the SWAT team, but if they weren't (and maybe the fact it was a border patrol guy rather than a SWAT team member that actually killed the gunman) then that raises other questions about why SWAT team members weren't there sooner. I'm sure they're not as well trained as teams in major cities but this is the kind of thing they would be expected to deploy to.
Click to expand...

But again, how many 'Premiership' level SWAT teams are out there? By the time a small town is recruiting SWAT teams they're plucking from the 'Sunday League have a puke and smoke at half time Sunday League' SWAT players.
 
wesimmo said:
But again, how many 'Premiership' level SWAT teams are out there? By the time a small town is recruiting SWAT teams they're plucking from the 'Sunday League have a puke and smoke at half time Sunday League' SWAT players.
Click to expand...
From what I've read the town of Uvalde has a population of 30,000. A moderate town in the UK yet they have a 9 strong SWAT team. Makes me wonder what sort of things go down in a town like that.
 
On the basis that "how many infants need to be shot before the problem gets solved" is a question we're allowed to ask, how many rightwingers need to be shot before the problem is solved?
 
MissChief said:
From what I've read the town of Uvalde has a population of 30,000. A moderate town in the UK yet they have a 9 strong SWAT team. Makes me wonder what sort of things go down in a town like that.
Click to expand...
Apparently something like 40% of the towns budget goes to the police force.
 
Never ever ever gonna de arm America.
It'll be civil war 2.0.
If that happens then China will take over.
I'm afraid a few hundred kids getting shot ever year is just part of the price of freedom.
 
I think it's about time the "gods" give americans what they've been preparing and hanker for - zombie apocalypse, WWIII, civil war 2.0, Chinese/Russian invasion, communism, The Purge.

These are all about as unlikely as them ever giving up their boomsticks regardless of how many innocent children are slaughtered for the price notion of freedom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom