Jump to content

Shooter reported at Santa Fe, Texas school


South Austin

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

So apparently the kid got the guns from his dad's legally purchased stash.  I think that the parents need to face charges in these cases. One of the legal beagles can point me in teh right direction, but somethign like accessory to murder.  Or create a new law. Punishment to be severed. Sooner or later after locking up a few parentsup for 20 years, people will get the picture.  

Yep, there needs to be a law in place where dad gets 20 years.  Gun safes should practically be a requirement. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Murfdogg21 said:

Whoever said the end goal of reduction is elimination is right, whether people on the left side of this issue will admit it or consciously realize it themselves. 

They were saying the end goal of FATALITY reduction is elimination.

You & I aren't exactly on the same side of this argument, but I know you to be a pretty rational, thoughtful person.  Please don't presume to speak for those with whom you don't completely agree.  You are assuming that I and others like myself all want total elimination of guns, and that's just not true.  Saying that we just don't realize it yet is insulting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I think something will eventually be done but it’s going to take a while because most people don’t even acknowledge the problem and the people currently in position to do something are fucking cowards.

As far as solutions go, we need more preemptive mental health counseling in our schools, we need to increase awareness of the early warning signs of violent extremism, we need to talk to each more in general about topics that make us uncomfortable.

A lot of people try to engage in conversations where they disagree with someone on a topic, then they called a racist/blahblahphobe/nazi by fucksticks like you.  The increase in the pace of 'information' availability has also resulted in an equally rapid decrease in our ability to functionally debate.  It's fucking mind-numbing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Big_kat said:

From Merriam-Webster:

any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also: a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire
 
 
How is that much different from what I said?  Sorry you got your panties in a wad because I insulted your shooting/ hunting skills.

 

 

Its night and day different, none my ARs that you want to ban are select fire, as for your insults, have it you're anonymous nobody on the internet nothing you say to me has any meaningful impact

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

They were saying the end goal of FATALITY reduction is elimination.

You & I aren't exactly on the same side of this argument, but I know you to be a pretty rational, thoughtful person.  Please don't presume to speak for those with whom you don't completely agree.  You are assuming that I and others like myself all want total elimination of guns, and that's just not true.  Saying that we just don't realize it yet is insulting.

So the assault rifle and high capacity ban goes into place tomorrow.  Stricter background checks go into place with waiting periods and all of that.  What is your plan when some kid gets a couple of pistols and shoots up a school after these bans and policies have been put into place?

Edited by Hate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, BigHorn'13 said:

Not really related but recently I purchased a gun and found out that because I have a LTC, I do not have to fill out the paperwork or have a background check ran. It's a little disturbing that I am able to purchase guns like alcohol (literally handing over my id is all that's required.) Not that filling out a piece of paper is some great barrier but it felt a little too easy.

And you had to go through a lot more scrutiny to get your CHL (LTC). That alone puts you in the category of not likely to do a Santa Fe/Parkland/Vegas and probably more likely to secure your weapons away from those who might. At least that's the training I received and it was a good experience even though I was raised around many types of guns and taught the incredible responsibility they demand.

I would be for mandatory training and licensing before you can own guns with certain calibers, capacities and firing capabilities. As long as there were appropriate protections from over reaching state and federal government entities.  Criminal punishment for reckless storage and security of your firearms would be a great way to start as well.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hate said:

So the assault rifle and high capacity ban goes into place tomorrow.  Stricter background checks go into place with waiting periods and all of that.  What is your plan when some kid gets a couple of pistols and shoots up a school? 

My plan is to be as sad about that shooting as I am this shooting.

What is your plan when the school shooting fatality rate drops by 70%?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, we better not do anything because with every plan there is a scenario in which it will fail.  We'll just pretend like there's not a problem and wait for this to die down until the next group of kids get slaughtered.

Edited by kevwun
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Every gun owner is a law abiding gun owner, until they shoot up a school.

What you are really saying is "Anything you propose, I'm not going to support."

Ten years ago, I felt different. Now, I'm pretty much in the "ban em all" camp. And its assholes like you and pilot and smax that have pushed me there.

Keep it up bro. In two or four years, you are going to have a Dem president, Dem House, and Dem Senate. I suggest you make some proposals now, push your reps to implement them, while you still can. Because in two or four years, you law abiding gun owners are going to get bent the fuck over. And I'm not going to give a shit. 

 

Assholes like me?

LOL ok I am an asshole and wear it with pride but if my 4-5 post on this thread asking for clarification on what a posters definition of Ar is not whats going on in society makes your life long feelings on guns change thats on you not me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

My plan is to be as sad about that shooting as I am this shooting.

What is your plan when the school shooting fatality rate drops by 70%?

To try to figure out why there are still people of any age wanting to kill other people of any age randomly.    

Edited by Hate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, kevwun said:

Nah, we better not do anything because with every plan there is a scenario in which it will fail.

I am all for doing something.

I am against doing something for the sake of just being able to say we did something if that something won't help a bit.

I support certain restrictions that likely would incrementally help the issue.  I don't support ones that won't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

They were saying the end goal of FATALITY reduction is elimination.

You & I aren't exactly on the same side of this argument, but I know you to be a pretty rational, thoughtful person.  Please don't presume to speak for those with whom you don't completely agree.  You are assuming that I and others like myself all want total elimination of guns, and that's just not true.  Saying that we just don't realize it yet is insulting.

I apologize to you and people like you. I do believe there are many sociopolitical agendas always being pursued by both parties, and some of the most devious may be supported in cloak rooms by elders of both parties. It is easy for powers that be to inch towards their ultimate goal by convincing rational but issue-indifferent people to support moves without realizing the ramifications thereof, in this situation the preservation of a free state nearly immune from tyrnnncial takeover after unpredictable world, war, economic, etc. events. 

 

I never buy into rational arguments that go like: “We want to ban AR-15s but you can keep your hand guns! We will ban 15+ round magazines but you can keep your 10-12 round mags!” and then 5-10 years from now there is a string of shootings with pistols or shotguns, and then comes the next phase of rational liberty grabbing. I’m open minded enough to listen to all ideas and consider the reasonable ones that may actually affect these kinds of events and don’t threaten the free state. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hate said:

To try to figure out why there are still people of any age wanting to kill other people of any age randomly.    

And you won't just sit back and be happy that fewer people were killed in these mass shootings.  You'll be here announce how tired you are of this and we must do something.  Like I said, go ahead and implement the bans that have been suggested as they won't affect me in the slightest.  Personally, I don't think that we as a society have the stomach to do what is necessary to try to solve the issue as it would require giving up too much personal freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

11 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I am all for doing something.

I am against doing something for the sake of just being able to say we did something if that something won't help a bit.

I support certain restrictions that likely would incrementally help the issue.  I don't support ones that won't.

 

I'll give you a list.

No one under 21 can legally purchase or own a semi-automatic centerfire rifle.  And if someone gets cute and starts making a powerful rim fire round as a replacement for the 5.56, that will get banned too.
Person to person sales of said rifles will be prohibited.
Magazine capacity for said rifles will be limited to 10 rounds or less.  Existing high capacity mags will be grandfathered.  A buyback program would also help.
And because I like Anastasis' idea, there will be serious jail time for the parents of kids who take their guns and use them in a mass shooting.
 

Edited by kevwun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Captainant said:

I'm not a trumper or a fake news person. Honestly. Please don't confuse my frustration with coverage of gun violence with thinking that all news (or news that I don't like) is fake. I fucked up in making the posts that I did and I deserve to get shit on for it, but please don't let that post be the only thing you base your opinion of me off of.

Aw, yeah, I get where you're coming from. Well, at least for me, I despise the fact that any asshole/incel/cultist/dumbfuck who decides he wants to go out in a blaze of glory knows that the press will be all too willing to grant him his fondest desire. The press wants to ask "Why did this person do this" and invariably gives the deceased fuckhead all the glory he could dream of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Fucking sad you can’t tell much difference between our public schools and our prisons.

Don't be obtuse. You can walk OUT of a school any time you feel like. Those doors lock from the inside and are easily used in an emergency situation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Murfdogg21 said:

never buy into rational arguments that go like: “We want to ban AR-15s but you can keep your hand guns! We will ban 15+ round magazines but you can keep your 10-12 round mags!” and then 5-10 years from now there is a string of shootings with pistols or shotguns, and then comes the next phase of rational liberty grabbing. 

This is how the debate must have gone when fully automatic weapons were still street legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hate said:

And you won't just sit back and be happy that fewer people were killed in these mass shootings.  You'll be here announce how tired you are of this and we must do something.  Like I said, go ahead and implement the bans that have been suggested as they won't affect me in the slightest.  Personally, I don't think that we as a society have the stomach to do what is necessary to try to solve the issue as it would require giving up too much personal freedom.

Uhhh . . . did you forget to change your sock?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Murfdogg21 said:

I assume both are incredibly small. I am certainly of the opinion that every child’s death is horrific and should be prevented where possible, short of permanently eliminating facets of Liberty that are in place to keep this country free in perpetuity, particular when/if an alternative action may bring about similar reductions in killings without banning guns or putting everyone on a registry. 

"I support anything that can be done to help unless it may affect me."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, C-Man said:

Don't be obtuse. You can walk OUT of a school any time you feel like. Those doors lock from the inside and are easily used in an emergency situation.

Okay, arming teachers and increasing armed security are all legitimately on the table. 

Don’t act like these institutions of education aren’t becoming more like prisons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Uhhh . . . did you forget to change your sock?

No, it was a weird quirk where I edited my post but it ended up just posting my initial reply instead of your reply.  Weird.  I do not have a sock account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, kevwun said:

 

 

I'll give you a list.

No one under 21 can legally purchase or own a semi-automatic centerfire rifle.
Person to person sales of said rifles will be prohibited.
Magazine capacity for said rifles will be limited to 10 rounds or less.  Existing high capacity mags will be grandfathered.  A buyback program would also help.
And because I like Anastasis' idea, there will be serious jail time for the parents of kids who take their guns and use them in a mass shooting.
 

Signed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Yep, there needs to be a law in place where dad gets 20 years.  Gun safes should practically be a requirement. 

 

 

Yep. It’s the same as the getaway driver, or alcohol purchaser catching the murder charge. I said it on one of the previous pages my dad used a gun safe and I sure as hell didn’t have a key growing up..  the parents are just as guilty imho.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I really hate the idea of making schools more like prisons, which I hear pitched a lot.

Seems like such a shitty childhood to put your kids through and they still may get shot.

I hate it too. My kids shouldn't go to school in a prison. And I would feel very very uncomfortable if teachers are armed, even if they are licensed to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GringoSalado said:

I don't understand this mentality. So what if they take the NRA's money, they are still free to enact gun control legislation. The Leg. doesn't want to pass gun control, not because they are afraid of the NRA, but because they are afraid their constituents will vote them out of office like the last time they tried this (and that law didn't do any good so it looks like a lose/lose situation from their perspective).

How about we start getting politicians who don't make politics their career? Term limits and so on. Elect these people and let them vote with clear consciences. Because this shit we got now, that shit doesn't seem to work.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, C-Man said:

How about we start getting politicians who don't make politics their career? Term limits and so on. Elect these people and let them vote with clear consciences. Because this shit we got now, that shit doesn't seem to work.

This presumes they have consciences, which I think is currently a stretch in many cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

"I support anything that can be done to help unless it may affect me."

Requiring background checks at gun shows or eliminating gun show transactions altogether would affect my ability or ease to purchase.

Creating an “approved buyer” list or “licenses to buy” for non-felons/violence/stalkers/etc. who have passed a psychological test would affect me and put more burden on my right to purchase. 

Neither of those likely would have helped today, but neither would an AR ban, high capacity mag ban, or certain ammo ban. The latest I heard was that the people shot were hit with a shotgun and .38 revolver. But banning AR’s tomorrow would tickle the left pink faster they can dry their tears about the murders of today that would be prevented by such a law. 

Another option as people have suggested is putting criminal liability on anyone who allows access to weapons by an unqualified or unauthorized user. That may have helped today. My other suggestions may have helped in other “mass shooting” scenarios of the past and to come. 

Two extreme social issues within schools are addressing and minimizing bullying (anti-right?) and not being afraid to call out weird kids with obvious social/ psychological issues (anti-left?). Both of which need more serious discussion than the thoughts and prayers lip service. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Okay, arming teachers and increasing armed security are all legitimately on the table. 

Don’t act like these institutions of education aren’t becoming more like prisons.

The school district where I live voted last month to allow teachers to carry in class. Exact details of training and other requirements have not been worked out, or at least released publicly, but next school year some of the teachers in park county #6 will be packing heat to protect our precious babies. 

I wouldn’t expect anything less from a town founded by buffalo bill Cody whose current high school principal is named Jeremiah Johnson. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, SDG said:

Yep. It’s the same as the getaway driver, or alcohol purchaser catching the murder charge. I said it on one of the previous pages my dad used a gun safe and I sure as hell didn’t have a key growing up..  the parents are just as guilty imho.  

It would be nice if we had some laws MAKING the parents just as guilty.

But we don't.

Think the NRA will let us pass such a law?

Yeah, me neither.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, kevwun said:

 

 

I'll give you a list.

No one under 21 can legally purchase or own a semi-automatic centerfire rifle.  And if someone gets cute and starts making a powerful rim fire round as a replacement for the 5.56, that will get banned too.
Person to person sales of said rifles will be prohibited.
Magazine capacity for said rifles will be limited to 10 rounds or less.  Existing high capacity mags will be grandfathered.  A buyback program would also help.
And because I like Anastasis' idea, there will be serious jail time for the parents of kids who take their guns and use them in a mass shooting.
 

I could absolutely agree with all of these.  What will you suggest when all of these have been implemented and someone 22 years old buys 2 pistols and a few 10 round magazines from a licensed firearm dealer and then goes and shoots up a school or concert or movie theater?  Will that be just the cost of freedom?  Or will you be back here calling for the ban of pistols and 10 round magazines?  I have yet to see anyone actually suggest a way to stop these things. Maybe because there is no way to stop these things from happening short of instituting some extremely Orwellian measures.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The length of service is not a big as problem as the money.  Using the NRA as

5 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

We've found the solution to school shootings... fewer doors 

We should just ban schools or maybe even children.

Edited by kevwun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hate said:

I could absolutely agree with all of these.  What will you suggest when all of these have been implemented and someone 22 years old buys 2 pistols and a few 10 round magazines from a licensed firearm dealer and then goes and shoots up a school or concert or movie theater?  Will that be just the cost of freedom?  Or will you be back here calling for the ban of pistols and 10 round magazines?  I have yet to see anyone actually suggest a way to stop these things. Maybe because there is no way to stop these things from happening short of instituting some extremely Orwellian measures.  

Logical fallacies abound.

We require seatbelts in new cars, and have for decades.

1 -- they haven't STOPPED auto fatalities per mile driven.

2 -- but they sure have REDUCED them.

3 -- there is no real movement to "ban all cars" even though we have only REDUCED and not ELIMINATED auto deaths.

 

Hell, it applies to firearms, too.  Remember, we severely restricted the ability to acquire and own a fully auto weapon.  Yet, there are still lots of guns.  So, we have PROOF that we can (1) restrict the ability to obtain certain weapons, yet (2) not "grab all our guns!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hate said:

I could absolutely agree with all of these.  What will you suggest when all of these have been implemented and someone 22 years old buys 2 pistols and a few 10 round magazines from a licensed firearm dealer and then goes and shoots up a school or concert or movie theater?  Will that be just the cost of freedom?  Or will you be back here calling for the ban of pistols and 10 round magazines?  I have yet to see anyone actually suggest a way to stop these things. Maybe because there is no way to stop these things from happening short of instituting some extremely Orwellian measures.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hate said:

I could absolutely agree with all of these.  What will you suggest when all of these have been implemented and someone 22 years old buys 2 pistols and a few 10 round magazines from a licensed firearm dealer and then goes and shoots up a school or concert or movie theater?  Will that be just the cost of freedom?  Or will you be back here calling for the ban of pistols and 10 round magazines?  I have yet to see anyone actually suggest a way to stop these things. Maybe because there is no way to stop these things from happening short of instituting some extremely Orwellian measures.  

I've said it several times -- liberty comes at a price.  Right now we are arguing about what that price should be, but by no means does that imply the price should be "loss of all liberty".

We're sentient beings.  We can think.  We can reason.  We do it all the time.  We have non-zero speed limits.  We (theoretically) allow people to drink a moderate level of alcohol and drive.  We allow people to own AR-15 firearms but not full auto machine guns (in most cases).

There may come a day when we change the maximum allowable speed limit.  There are currently efforts to further reduce legal BAC while driving.  We are discussing firearm ownership on this thread.  All different flavors of the same discussion:  individual liberty VS public safety.

The "slippery slope" hysteria is just that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Logical fallacies abound.

We require seatbelts in new cars, and have for decades.

1 -- they haven't STOPPED auto fatalities per mile driven.

2 -- but they sure have REDUCED them.

3 -- there is no real movement to "ban all cars" even though we have only REDUCED and not ELIMINATED auto deaths.

 

Hell, it applies to firearms, too.  Remember, we severely restricted the ability to acquire and own a fully auto weapon.  Yet, there are still lots of guns.  So, we have PROOF that we can (1) restrict the ability to obtain certain weapons, yet (2) not "grab all our guns!"

Yes, auto accidents and mass shootings are the same.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kevwun said:

Congrats, you found 2.  Refuse to give an inch on new gun laws.  Don't be surprised when one day in the future the Democrats take a mile and you'll have no say in the matter.  We'll be lucky to still be able to go deer hunting in 20 years thanks to the NRA.

this is the state of affairs. my 11 year old fifth grader's class was tasked with championing a cause at school. my son's group chose gun violence. they were advocating for responsible gun ownership, the banning of high capacity magazines, gun registration, background checks, among other things.

my son had a drawing of a handgun under which it says "you can own this!" and then a drawing of an AR under which it said "but you don't need THIS!"

the kids presented in a free form sort of conference style way, in which us parents could go from table to table and listen to their presentations. it was all remarkably adult. we did this today. 

part of the presentation, one of the kids (not my son), stated "we chose this topic because we don't want to be afraid of our school getting shot up." i got a bit of a lump in my throat. this is on the minds of elementary school kids, yall. they did up an amazing video presenting their solutions.

and the thing is, my son loves guns and the idea of guns, to the point where i've been concerned in the past that i'm being too permissive with the airsoft guns, etc.

but at the end of the presentation, there was an ominous line for gun owners. "because this keeps happening we need sensible solutions now. because otherwise, then we'll have to think about banning all guns."

out of the mouths of fifth graders, dude. they get it.

and they are a mere 7 years away from voting. that should scare the shit out of gun proponents and NRA supporters. 

@Johnny Sack is doing it right, by soliciting ideas and being part of the discussion. use your current seat at the table to try and effect change, or else you won't have a seat at the table at all.

for me, i find it curious that my right to drive my car is far more onerous an an annual basis than my right to own a handgun and a shotgun. just because a right is enshrined in the constitution does not mean it is required to be free of regulation.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...