One very tiny and rare subset of crimes can be used as an argument to strip rights away from law abiding citizens. The others demonstrate why those rights are essential. Not sure who you think you are fooling here.

You think that because they both kill a bunch of random people that therefore terrorists and school shooters are the same with the same solutions and same reasons they occur?

You can't just clump these two together to make school shooters look like a smaller problem. School shootings are horrific events that are happening way too often. Pointing out that gang violence takes way more lives does not make the problem smaller

BTW, terrorism caused deaths in the USA are also very rare, more rare than deaths by people who shoot up schools, churches, and workplaces.

Are you telling me that a terrorist (often teenagers) killing people (including children) in a public place is totally different than an evil, deranged teen killing people in a public place?

What planet are you from?  Dead is dead.  Evil is evil.  A mass shooting event is a mass shooting event.

You think the victims are going to care who killed them?  Their families?  Their friends?

If you implement armed security, you think they will only stop one kind of lethal threat over others?

Of course they are different, how can you not see it? They have entirely different motivations and causes and therefore different means of addressing the problem.

And the logic of dead is dead is so obviously flawed. Someone killed in a drunk driving accident is dead too, doesn't make drunk drivers the same as terrorists.

You think that because they both kill a bunch of random people that therefore terrorists and school shooters are the same with the same solutions and same reasons they occur?

Solutions are the same.
Good guy with a firearm neutralizes the threat. 

The faster a good guy with a firearm is on scene the sooner the threat gets neutralized

Solutions are the same.
Good guy with a firearm neutralizes the threat. 

The faster a good guy with a firearm is on scene the sooner the threat gets neutralized

Exactly.

There's no way to prevent mass shootings.  Motivation is irrelevant.  All that anyone can do is be ready to end the shooting with violence so the number of victims is not higher than it would have been.

Mental illness and radicalization are not problems that can be solved.  Pretending you can flies in the face of history.  With the hate and division in the US lately, one could argue that kids who shoot up their schools are being radicalized by the media to use mass murder to punish people they hate. 

Suicide by Cop or suicide by explosive vest -- you're not going to "solve" people who are committed to going out in a "blaze of glory."

In my opinion, Flapp's post above is unfortunately, very true.  There is no way to prevent mass shootings.

Unless technology leads way where at the moment of birth, we can know this individual is mentally flawed AND has the potential to do mass murder.

Might not be the best overall solution but meeting fire with fire seems the best way to go.

Try selling that common sense to these hand wringing, crybaby, "DO SOMETHING!!  WAH....WAH!!" anti-gun nuts.

In my opinion, Flapp's post above is unfortunately, very true.  There is no way to prevent mass shootings.

Unless technology leads way where at the moment of birth, we can know this individual is mentally flawed AND has the potential to do mass murder.

Might not be the best overall solution but meeting fire with fire seems the best way to go.

Try selling that common sense to these hand wringing, crybaby, "DO SOMETHING!!  WAH....WAH!!" anti-gun nuts.

Case in point.  Violent behavior among those diagnosed as mentally ill or "challenged" is about the same as the "normal" population.  So, either being mentally ill is not an indicator for future violence, or there are many, many people running around with mental illnesses that have not been diagnosed.

Whichever explanation you believe personally is irrelevant.  The point is, we prohibit anyone with a history of mental illness from owning guns, but we see time after time someone who either seemed okay or should have been diagnosed left alone.  When they commit violence, it's always about "keeping the guns out of the wrong hands."

The problem is not guns being in the wrong hands.  The problem is nobody can predict whose hands are the wrong ones until AFTER they commit violence.  The majority with mental problems are not violent, but we're stripping all of the ones we "catch" of their 2A rights.  That "solution" is not stopping mentally ill people from getting guns.  In fact, I bet there are many prescription drug addicts who can pass the background checks, because pain management isn't the same as an addiction -- or is it?

Solutions are the same.
Good guy with a firearm neutralizes the threat. 

The faster a good guy with a firearm is on scene the sooner the threat gets neutralized

But is that a solution to mass shootings? So imagine there are multiple armed teachers all well trained. In comes the crazy guy starting to shoot children. Teachers grab their guns and go face the threat and let's assume they stop him from doing any more damage. So instead of 20 dead kids, only 10 died.

Don't get me wrong, saving more lives is great but was that really a solution? It's like tacking drunk driving deaths by adding airbags to cars, sure it helps but it isn't a solution.

In my opinion, Flapp's post above is unfortunately, very true.  There is no way to prevent mass shootings.

Unless technology leads way where at the moment of birth, we can know this individual is mentally flawed AND has the potential to do mass murder.

Might not be the best overall solution but meeting fire with fire seems the best way to go.

Try selling that common sense to these hand wringing, crybaby, "DO SOMETHING!!  WAH....WAH!!" anti-gun nuts.

I think it depends on how we measure whether a mass shooting is prevented. Obviously a resolute person with time and a few resources is going to be able to commit a mass murder and since we can't mind read or precisely predict such an event will occur then yes that specific mass shooting could not be prevented.

However if we look at mass shootings as a whole then I would argue they could be prevented. Programs that tackle the problems that lead these people to kill a bunch of people could work to address the issue before it manifests itself. I have seen a number of accounts of individuals who had planned to commit some type of mass shooting type incident but ended up not doing it. One individual, a student, reported he was unable to find a firearm. Another individual read a book about problems facing boys these days and ended up seeking help from a mental health professional. So if we look at it in this light then yes mass shootings can be prevented.

Don't ya love it when people present the products of their imagination as factual evidence and proceed to invent a new world where everything conforms to their opinion?

Don't ya love it when people present the products of their imagination as factual evidence and proceed to invent a new world where everything conforms to their opinion?

Yep.  How many more kids have to die in their schools before the people opining for "prevention" realize there's only one measure that has a chance to work after all others fail?

Let's say 1,000 mass shooters are walking around in schools now. They won't all commit murder today.  Some will tomorrow, some in a year or more, and some will "read a book" and decide not to kill.

Let's say 500 events are "prevented" through proper psych meds, religion, getting a girl friend, finding a great after school job, or counseling.  That leaves another 500 kids planning and building up the desperation and hate to the point they finally take a gun to school and end their pain while making their mark on history.

That's 500 shootings that could happen over the next 1-5 years, and if we only focus on prevention, there won't be anyone at the schools the day of the event to stop the maniac.

There are preventatives for heart disease, like diet, exercise and medications.  But tens of thousands who did everything right still get the disease.  At that point, they need to TREAT the disease, because prevention failed.  They need rehab, different medications, and possibly a transplant.

Even if we could reduce the number or patients to 1% what it is now, you still have to continue producing and researching ways to CURE the remaining 1%.

Why not invest the time and resources NOW in "treating" school shootings, because we know already with 100% certainty it will happen again and again.  Without that, kids will die unnecessarily as those arguing against teachers carrying guns do absolutely nothing to stop them once they decide to kill.

No different that carrying a weapon for self-defense.  When the gov't can take every single gun, knife or other weapon from all the criminals, then MAYBE I'll stop believing firearms carried outside the home is a necessity.  Until then, it's MY CHOICE, not the government's, and not some gun control group's decision what I carry and how many rounds is "enough".  My life, my family's life -- my choice.  Same should apply to teachers and faculty.  Give them the CHOICE to be prepared.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/uvalde-texas-police-officer-rifle-gunman-sights-before-entered-school?fbclid=IwAR2BnTUpTowcyjDpQOHLSXO_VVqrMyugnMhWmI02XL3Vx70ZMakb8HYDb7U

About 150 yards away. Cop asked for permission to fire. No reply from command.  Shooter then went into the school and the rest is history.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/uvalde-texas-police-officer-rifle-gunman-sights-before-entered-school?fbclid=IwAR2BnTUpTowcyjDpQOHLSXO_VVqrMyugnMhWmI02XL3Vx70ZMakb8HYDb7U

About 150 yards away. Cop asked for permission to fire. No reply from command.  Shooter then went into the school and the rest is history.

Man, if you ask me, this will open the gates to countless lawsuits for the county.  And rightfully so.

I hope it comes to fruition.  It won't bring their beloved ones back but it is a form of justice deserved.

More video released.

Shooter crashes his truck in a ditch outside the school. 2 people approach to help and he shoots at them. 911 was called at this point. He then walks toward the school that is about 60 yards away and shooting randomly at it.

He enters the school and is seen going into a classroom at 11:33am. he fires about 100rds. So lets assume at this point, all the people in there are shot/dead/dying (important later). At 11:36, the first cops arrive inside the hallway and know exactly where the shooter is. They do not sweep corners or the rest of the rooms in the hallway. Also gun shots can still be head at this moment.  The cops are about 30 yards away from the classroom door where the shooter is and have a perfect line of sight to this door.

Cops then approach the door and wait outside as the gun fire has stopped. They have no way of knowing that the kids were already killed. They hold and more hold in the hallway until ballistic shields show up like 25 mins later. Cops then shot at thru the door and they retreat. No one showed up with keys to open what was stated is a locked door by the chief. More holding until later. Then a few more shots are popped off. Still holding by the cops in the hallway.

Then they decide to breach 50 mins later, the 2 shields are not in front of the group as they walk toward the classroom that is 30 yards away. At this point, 1 cop decides his hands are dirty and uses the hand sanitizer dispenser that is in line of sight of the door 30 yards away attached to the wall.  Then they breach.

My #1 question -- out of a bunch of sub-#1 questions -- is:

Who the hell calls for permission to shoot when they have the suspect in sight and entering a school full of kids?

This is why government is not the solution.  Government is the PROBLEM.  Whoever decided this was the policy and that Cops in the field can't shoot unless shot at (I assume) is total insanity.

Yeah, he might have missed, but if there's no one else in the line of fire, empty the damn mag!!  Don't wait for permission to save kids' lives!

My #1 question -- out of a bunch of sub-#1 questions -- is:

Who the hell calls for permission to shoot when they have the suspect in sight and entering a school full of kids?

This is why government is not the solution.  Government is the PROBLEM.  Whoever decided this was the policy and that Cops in the field can't shoot unless shot at (I assume) is total insanity.

Yeah, he might have missed, but if there's no one else in the line of fire, empty the damn mag!!  Don't wait for permission to save kids' lives!

He stated that there might be someone behind the shooter.  I call BS from the distance where the car crashed and to the room, looked like empty cars and buildings. Not like there was a farmers market.  Sounds like he is using that excuse to justify not taking the shot.

He stated that there might be someone behind the shooter.  I call BS from the distance where the car crashed and to the room, looked like empty cars and buildings. Not like there was a farmers market.  Sounds like he is using that excuse to justify not taking the shot.

The Cop's duty is to protect the public at large, not avoid shooting a bystander if there's a shooter with a rifle entering a school.

The info quoted said he either didn't hear his supervisor give permission, or permission was given too late, allowing the shooter to go inside. 

Sounds like a shift in the narrative to cover a few butts.

New Video From Uvalde School Shooting Shows Chaos Unfolding

https://conservativebrief.com/new-video-64461/

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

My #1 question -- out of a bunch of sub-#1 questions -- is:

Who the hell calls for permission to shoot when they have the suspect in sight and entering a school full of kids?

In the vast majority of cases it is going to be the individual officer's call. Even if the supervisor told him over the radio specifically to take the shot the officer is the one who has to justify the shot. "I shot because he told me to shoot" would not suffice in most cases.

Unless there is some stupid local law or policy that says permission needs to be obtained first which really doesn't seem plausible since most police shootings don't have time to call.

Maybe he was looking for hand sanitizer, like that officer who was in the hallway.

In the vast majority of cases it is going to be the individual officer's call. Even if the supervisor told him over the radio specifically to take the shot the officer is the one who has to justify the shot. "I shot because he told me to shoot" would not suffice in most cases.

Unless there is some stupid local law or policy that says permission needs to be obtained first which really doesn't seem plausible since most police shootings don't have time to call.

At first I was thinking (being objective), maybe the cop thought it was someone who was just open carrying and walking down the street (IDK if legal in this county, but lets assume it is).  But then after seeing the video and how soon the good samaritins were shot at and the 911 call and him shooting at the building randomly,  there is no way the cop could have assumed this.