14 Children and Teacher Killed in Texas Elementary School Shooting

[Reiwa]

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

If we're talking about military effectiveness, its obvious that a semi automatic weapon is superior to a manually cycled weapon. I would note that a revolver does well against other handguns and is of little hindrance to a skilled operator.

But we are talking about public safety within the united states, and this is the area where there is a distinct lack of evidence.

Why wouldn't the logic apply to other settings?

[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.

[unsunghero]

Mexico is an example of a country with large amount of guns already floating around, and gun laws are working wonders for them

[unsunghero]

Gun laws in America COULD work, if there was a way to remove most of our guns before implementing them

And the best people to start removing the guns from, are the felons who shouldn’t have them legally to begin with

Bring back “stop and frisk”. Any felon with a record gets stopped and frisked. Set up checkpoints and have undercover cops on the streets

Start getting aggressive about grabbing guns, but do it from felons

[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.

[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.

[Gustoo]

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

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

Yeah, it doesn't matter how restrictive your gun laws are (how much of your own rights you give away to the government) you won't make yourself more safe from teenagers on killing spreeds (freedom for security trade off). Hoping that allowing the government to have MORE power will fix this problem is fruitless. The government is not interested in saving lives. They will jump at the opportunity to take away your rights, but truly are not concerned with your well being. If you want to talk about evidence, show me one instance where increasing the governments power has been of benefit to "the governed" aka to you an I. This is not a problem that we can solve by simply voting away our rights. Blaming our freedom for these deaths.

It is a problem of our diseased society. It is something we can solve, but not by spending time on divisive political strategies rather than effective community strategies. And to those who say that communities are not able or willing to solve these problems, I will say that you might be right. But it is the only way to be successful so it is worth your efforts and the efforts of everyone you know to try to create a culture where the health of all living things including humans and their mental health are a priority rather than corporate profits. What we are talking about is not some nebulous non human "corporate" greed. We are talking about actual human greed, the greed that is currently instrumentalized to drive people to work long hours for poorer and poorer pay for the hope that one day that can achieve a status of no longer having to work and sitting finally on their high horse or in their high castle where they too can be an exploiter of some kind. What a dream we have.

Right now $$ profits are the absolute reining monarchy in our government and in the hearts of most of out citizens. It is this erroneous priority that will certainly be our demise. It is the correction of this error by smallest incremental changes (by individuals like the EQ addicts on this forum) that is the only hope for actually making things better. Passing new laws whether it be in favor of guns or against guns or in favor of abortion of against abortion or in favor of immigration or against immigration or in favor of giving ukraine 40 billion +++ dollars in weapons or against giving ukraine 40 billion +++ dollars in weapons will have absolutely no bearing on the outcome of the demise of our country and our world and the degradation of the lives of our children and their posterity. "The powers that be" may or may not be pure evil, but they cannot commit evil acts without first convincing you and I to let them do so. You and I don't have to BELIEVE the right thing. We have to DO the right thing.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
The internet doesn't cause mental illness, no one giving a damn about eachother does. It might make it easier to see though, because there is so much written evidence now.