14 Children and Teacher Killed in Texas Elementary School Shooting

[Mblake1981]

Originally Posted by Reiwa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That must be why the US army exclusively uses bolt-action rifles.

Thanks for teaching me that.

If it isn't documented it isn't true and facts do not care about your unverifiable fee-fees.

[Gustoo]

Originally Posted by Reiwa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Why wouldn't the logic apply to other settings?

No logic is necessary. Evidence abounds. See Mexico, See 1994-2004 USA (assault weapons ban era), real life evidence that indicates that strict weapons restrictions do not increase public safety.

To indulge in the divergence of the military versus school shooter scenario, in the military an auto loading weapon serves as a "force multiplier" where through sheer volume of fire a force of a given size is able to have a higher % of success. In the modern setting a sophisticated optic is a "force multiplier" because of the same small % increase of success. The auto loading weapon in a military setting is also supported by supply chains.

Children don't shoot back and there are no supply chains. The % increase in murder effectiveness in this scenario would be statistically insignificant. There is no evidence available anywhere that indicates that 14 kids and 1 teacher would not be dead today if the shooter was using a pump action shotgun and a revolver.

Ceding power to an authoritarian government based on a mere idea is foolhardy at best. Logical approaches to increasing safety should be the prominent point of discussion. The fact that evidence based approaches to reducing mental health crisis that result in mass murder are not at the forefront of discussion is indication that these shootings are used to further an authoritarian agenda with no concern for public safety. Senators kids don't go to public schools. They give no fucks.

[unsunghero]

Originally Posted by Gustoo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No logic is necessary. Evidence abounds. See Mexico, See 1994-2004 USA (assault weapons ban era), real life evidence that indicates that strict weapons restrictions do not increase public safety.

To indulge in the divergence of the military versus school shooter scenario, in the military an auto loading weapon serves as a "force multiplier" where through sheer volume of fire a force of a given size is able to have a higher % of success. In the modern setting a sophisticated optic is a "force multiplier" because of the same small % increase of success. The auto loading weapon in a military setting is also supported by supply chains.

Children don't shoot back and there are no supply chains. The % increase in murder effectiveness in this scenario would be statistically insignificant. There is no evidence available anywhere that indicates that 14 kids and 1 teacher would not be dead today if the shooter was using a pump action shotgun and a revolver.

Yeah the reason the body count was so high wasn’t the style of gun, it was the fact police hid outside for a full hour while he killed

How any kid survived from that classroom is beyond me. If your shooter is getting bored and running out of targets in a contained setting, your police sucks

But let’s rely on only police to save us though

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by Gustoo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No logic is necessary. Evidence abounds. See Mexico, See 1994-2004 USA (assault weapons ban era), real life evidence that indicates that strict weapons restrictions do not increase public safety.

To indulge in the divergence of the military versus school shooter scenario, in the military an auto loading weapon serves as a "force multiplier" where through sheer volume of fire a force of a given size is able to have a higher % of success. In the modern setting a sophisticated optic is a "force multiplier" because of the same small % increase of success. The auto loading weapon in a military setting is also supported by supply chains.

Children don't shoot back and there are no supply chains. The % increase in murder effectiveness in this scenario would be statistically insignificant. There is no evidence available anywhere that indicates that 14 kids and 1 teacher would not be dead today if the shooter was using a pump action shotgun and a revolver.

Ceding power to an authoritarian government based on a mere idea is foolhardy at best. Logical approaches to increasing safety should be the prominent point of discussion. The fact that evidence based approaches to reducing mental health crisis that result in mass murder is indication that these shootings are used to further an authoritarian agenda.

Is there evidence it wouldn't have? Why isn't there any evidence either way?

Or is logic enough for thee but not for me? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And you wouldn't be getting in firefights with a superior enemy that has fucking tanks dude. You'd be fragging officer heads into pink mist from a distance and retreating. Don't need autoloader for that.

[Gustoo]

I would also note that this would be a really great area for biden to push hard on (being anti 2nd ammendment) to ensure victory for whoever his opponent in the next election.

[Gustoo]

Reiwa - There is evidence that gun violence abounds despite highly restrictive gun laws, as mentioned. There is evidence of the effectiveness of the weapons you graciously decided would be allowed in your ban, assuming the shooter chose only to use legal weapons in his criminal act.

And we were talking about the military, who has to shoot at whoever they are told to, and both sides would have tanks, supported by infantry troops, as always.

[unsunghero]

I’ve noticed a cultural shift with police in my job in regards to firearm suicide threats. I mentioned it to the Department of Justice lawyers that interviewed me a few weeks ago. I described it in a neutral, non-accusatory way

Years ago, if someone was barricaded in their home with a gun making suicidal statements, police might not always force entry but they would have a negotiator and their mental health officers remain on that scene until it was resolved as safely as they could

Nowadays, I have been in multiple similar situations with cops around where they will devote a few hours to trying to talk the person down, and then they bail. I’ve had multiple cops now say to us mental health workers still on scene “whatever happens, happens”, as they were leaving

I don’t completely fault the officers for not wanting to risk their life to stop a suicidal person. I only mentioned that years ago they would, or at least wouldn’t just leave them, pack their shit up and go. Maybe it’s a resource issue or a protocol change

But I bet there are much fewer cops who want to be a hero nowadays in regards to saving non-suicidal people, and I think our media’s demonization of them played a role in that. You can tell when you see cops retiring earlier or just quitting

[Gustoo]

Reiwa - to bolster your argument it is possible that if the cops were as cowardly as they seem to have behaved, its possible they would have been less afraid of the shooter if they somehow knew for a fact that the shooter had less effective weapons than they did so the shooter would have had less than a full hour to take 15 lives.

Unsunghero - I agree. The liability on a cop running into a school guns blazing potentially accidentally shooting a kid or something makes them much more risk averse in these situations. When they can cede their responsibility to the "proper authority" in this case a SWAT officer, they seem more likely to do so.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Gustoo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah that is what I am saying. A reduction in gun violence due to the decrease in number of existing guns (most significantly suicides) is not an indication of an increase in public safety.

An exactly analogous situation would be if hammers were banned and the government went door to door collecting hammers. We would see a significant reduction in thumb injuries and blunt trauma caused by hammers. But that does not indicate that public safety has been increased.

Yes, it does! Less people dying means society is safer, even suicides.

And there's a critical difference with your hammer analogy: we need hammers to build things. We don't need guns, or at least not beyond basic rifles for hunting and guns for jobs like security. Beyond those functions guns do society zero good.

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by Gustoo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Reiwa - There is evidence that gun violence abounds despite highly restrictive gun laws, as mentioned. There is evidence of the effectiveness of the weapons you graciously decided would be allowed in your ban, assuming the shooter chose only to use legal weapons in his criminal act.

And we were talking about the military, who has to shoot at whoever they are told to, and both sides would have tanks, supported by infantry troops, as always.

Highly restrictive gun laws that do nothing to prevent teenage dumdums from going on killing sprees on the regular.

Adding more tanks only makes your autoloading weapon less useful btw.