Author Topic: Open carry in Texas / Gun Violence  (Read 36981 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Open carry in Texas / Gun Violence
« Reply #600 on: May 26, 2022, 04:34:51 PM »

Offline angryguy77

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5669
  • Tommy Points: 458
So when a woman is raped with no means to defend herself, we can blame the dems for taking guns right?
When an illegal comes across and gets in a car accident and kills a family, we can blame the dems right?
When an elderly man is powerless to stop a burglar at 2 am, we can blame the left for disarming him right?
When a dangerous criminal is put back out on the street and commits another crime within 24 hours because bail is raaaaaaaaacist, we can blame the left right?

You guys want to take a victory lap in this way? I don't think you'll like the results.  Stop standing on the bodies of children to do what you have always wanted to do, shooting or no shootings.

Save the illegal immigration debate and bail reform arguments for another thread, please.

I wonder, how many rapes are stopped by women carrying firearms?  Could those rapes be stopped with knives or pepper spray?  And, if gun reform kept that rapist from owning a gun because he's subject to a permanent bail check because he has a violent criminal record, would that be a good thing?

As for the elderly man, in the new America where there are fewer guns and fewer abilities to carry / transport them in public, did he survive because the burglar didn't have a gun?  Did he die because, despite his feeble body, he felt empowered to confront the burglar because he had a gun and ended up dead in the process?  Should he have owned a security system?  (The Ted Cruz argument). 

I'm not against guns for home security, but the fact is that 20k - 40k people are being murdered every year, without some obvious and necessary reforms.

Why does the woman being raped need a 50-round magazine / drum?  Why shouldn't she have both a license and a registration?

Is the woman being attacked by a lone attacker? If we think we have the right to tell her how to defend herself, we must be able to dictate how she can be attacked, right? Like we control the level of the playing field. But if we could control those things, we could just prevent all attacks.

So, we allow 40k people to be murdered every year to prevent one woman from getting gang-raped?  Is that the suggestion?  Or are you just playing games?

What if Russia sends over a squadron of bombers to attack the Hobbs' household?  It's the government's fault for restricting my access to an F-16?  Or surface to air missiles?  Where are my anti-tank missiles, my drones, my fully automatic machine guns!  Where are MY RIGHTS?!?!?!

I mean, you suggested a woman use a knife or pepper spray for self-defense instead of a gun. I'm simply pointing out how flippant that is. To act like someone else's self-defense is a matter of your policy preference. But I agree. That woman should not kill 40K people with her gun. She should be raped to save lives. That's our right to decide.

Of course it's our right to decide.  Just like Elon Musk can't protect himself from the progs by buying a couple of stealth bombers, because we collectively have decided that people shouldn't have stealth bombers.

The best comparison to a woman choosing to own a firearm of her choice to prevent rape is Elon Musk owning and presumably employing a stealth bomber for self-defense? I didn't know that. I didn't even imagine that was a reasonable comparison that could be taken seriously. I guess I'll consider it now.

Add something of substance to the conversations instead of your regular nonsense, or bow out.

People don't have the right to defend themselves however they want.  I'm sorry your sick mind goes to images of women getting gang-raped while you stroke your gun.

I've been a member of this place for a long time Roy and always respected you(I still do). I've seen you say many sensible things.
That said, this is beneath you.

I don't care.  When somebody asks "might there be other ways to defend yourself?  Knives, pepper spray, keeping criminals from having guns" and the answer if "but what about gang rape", I think you have a warped mind.

It's not warped to ask what could happen, or to inject a variable into the answer. I mean it's not like people whether it be rape, a robbery or home invasion always deal with one assailant.

The problem with this debate is emotion is getting the best of people are they're asking for action without thinking of the fallout.

No, it's not an emotional response, it's a rational one.  I'm not sure when it became acceptable to use gang rape as a rhetorical point in political debate, but let me ask you:  how prevalent is this?  What's the right level of protection to prevent gang rape?  Is it a revolver?  A shotgun?  An AR-15?  How large of a magazine?  50 round drum?  100?  Are machine guns justified in that situation?  Bazookas?  Attack helicopters?  If there such a thing as preemptive self-defense here?  If a man looks at a woman wrong, should she cut his testicles off?  What if he grabs her breast?  What if two men grab her breasts?  Should a woman allow herself to be raped to save one life?  What if it's her child's life?  A dozen lives? 20,000 lives?  Every life in America?  What if she hates America?  What if she loves America, but America doesn't love her?  Is it better or worse if the rapist is wearing a condom?  Death for unprotected rapists, just maiming for those who use the courtesy of protection?

Because, that's what the gang rape conversation on CelticsStrong is giving us.  It's not clever.  It's not intellectual.  It's a sick rape fantasy disguised packaged as rhetoric.

The whole point of rape being brought up was because you and others claimed blood is on the hand of republicans for not banning guns. In all honesty, that's sick to imply and as a conservative, I'm tired of the left throwing every evil on us because we hold different views. Demonizing the other side accomplishes nothing. To then sit there an accuse someone of having a sick fetish because you can't argue in the arena if ideas is not something I'd ever imagined you would do. It's a sleazy tactic and I know you are better than that. Now.......


 I simply asked if the opposite would be true if someone didn't have a gun to stop a would be rapist or assailant.

Gift brought up multiple assailants when Nick said use pepper spray. Now here we are.

There is one study

https://www.jstor.org/stable/800645

That shows a gun does help protect the woman.


Re: Open carry in Texas / Gun Violence
« Reply #601 on: May 26, 2022, 04:36:48 PM »

Offline Kernewek

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1101
  • Tommy Points: 93
  • International Superstar
Demonizing the other side accomplishes nothing.

And yet.
Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time.

But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.

Re: Open carry in Texas / Gun Violence
« Reply #602 on: May 26, 2022, 04:40:27 PM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7402
  • Tommy Points: 576
I have one daughter.  I am sure many have kids.  If I was in that situation, I would have rushed into the school.  They would have had to pin me down too.  And I can't imagine what they would have had to do to my wife to keep her out.

I am sure a lot more information is going to come out.  I will reserve judgement.  But it seems very strange.

Re: Open carry in Texas / Gun Violence
« Reply #603 on: May 26, 2022, 04:41:22 PM »

Offline angryguy77

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5669
  • Tommy Points: 458
I appreciated gifts' contributions to the CE forum, but I don't think he chose the best way to couch his point, and I don't think doubling down was the best idea.

But I'm not terribly sad that he's been NCE'd, and beyond it not being a free speech issue, it wasn't really a defensible argument to be making - "there are hypothetical situations wherein the law may cause harm so therefore laws must be seen as bad". Because that's the end route we're going down with that logic. It's pretty basic.


https://publish.twitter.com/?query=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FStefSimanowitz%2Fstatus%2F1529690631500611584&widget=Tweet

If this is true, these cops are basically accessories. They should be fired and have their pensions revoked.
Seems to be true - and I agree with you, AG.
No that's not what the argument was about. It's having to do if you blame republicans for the death of kids due to not banning guns, can you then blame the left for things that could've been prevented if the person had a gun.

Instead we got a "you must like rape" response.

Re: Open carry in Texas / Gun Violence
« Reply #604 on: May 26, 2022, 04:42:42 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 50400
  • Tommy Points: -26111
  • Once A CrotoNat, Always A CrotoNat
So when a woman is raped with no means to defend herself, we can blame the dems for taking guns right?
When an illegal comes across and gets in a car accident and kills a family, we can blame the dems right?
When an elderly man is powerless to stop a burglar at 2 am, we can blame the left for disarming him right?
When a dangerous criminal is put back out on the street and commits another crime within 24 hours because bail is raaaaaaaaacist, we can blame the left right?

You guys want to take a victory lap in this way? I don't think you'll like the results.  Stop standing on the bodies of children to do what you have always wanted to do, shooting or no shootings.

Save the illegal immigration debate and bail reform arguments for another thread, please.

I wonder, how many rapes are stopped by women carrying firearms?  Could those rapes be stopped with knives or pepper spray?  And, if gun reform kept that rapist from owning a gun because he's subject to a permanent bail check because he has a violent criminal record, would that be a good thing?

As for the elderly man, in the new America where there are fewer guns and fewer abilities to carry / transport them in public, did he survive because the burglar didn't have a gun?  Did he die because, despite his feeble body, he felt empowered to confront the burglar because he had a gun and ended up dead in the process?  Should he have owned a security system?  (The Ted Cruz argument). 

I'm not against guns for home security, but the fact is that 20k - 40k people are being murdered every year, without some obvious and necessary reforms.

Why does the woman being raped need a 50-round magazine / drum?  Why shouldn't she have both a license and a registration?

Is the woman being attacked by a lone attacker? If we think we have the right to tell her how to defend herself, we must be able to dictate how she can be attacked, right? Like we control the level of the playing field. But if we could control those things, we could just prevent all attacks.

So, we allow 40k people to be murdered every year to prevent one woman from getting gang-raped?  Is that the suggestion?  Or are you just playing games?

What if Russia sends over a squadron of bombers to attack the Hobbs' household?  It's the government's fault for restricting my access to an F-16?  Or surface to air missiles?  Where are my anti-tank missiles, my drones, my fully automatic machine guns!  Where are MY RIGHTS?!?!?!

I mean, you suggested a woman use a knife or pepper spray for self-defense instead of a gun. I'm simply pointing out how flippant that is. To act like someone else's self-defense is a matter of your policy preference. But I agree. That woman should not kill 40K people with her gun. She should be raped to save lives. That's our right to decide.

Of course it's our right to decide.  Just like Elon Musk can't protect himself from the progs by buying a couple of stealth bombers, because we collectively have decided that people shouldn't have stealth bombers.

The best comparison to a woman choosing to own a firearm of her choice to prevent rape is Elon Musk owning and presumably employing a stealth bomber for self-defense? I didn't know that. I didn't even imagine that was a reasonable comparison that could be taken seriously. I guess I'll consider it now.

Add something of substance to the conversations instead of your regular nonsense, or bow out.

People don't have the right to defend themselves however they want.  I'm sorry your sick mind goes to images of women getting gang-raped while you stroke your gun.

I've been a member of this place for a long time Roy and always respected you(I still do). I've seen you say many sensible things.
That said, this is beneath you.

I don't care.  When somebody asks "might there be other ways to defend yourself?  Knives, pepper spray, keeping criminals from having guns" and the answer if "but what about gang rape", I think you have a warped mind.

It's not warped to ask what could happen, or to inject a variable into the answer. I mean it's not like people whether it be rape, a robbery or home invasion always deal with one assailant.

The problem with this debate is emotion is getting the best of people are they're asking for action without thinking of the fallout.

No, it's not an emotional response, it's a rational one.  I'm not sure when it became acceptable to use gang rape as a rhetorical point in political debate, but let me ask you:  how prevalent is this?  What's the right level of protection to prevent gang rape?  Is it a revolver?  A shotgun?  An AR-15?  How large of a magazine?  50 round drum?  100?  Are machine guns justified in that situation?  Bazookas?  Attack helicopters?  If there such a thing as preemptive self-defense here?  If a man looks at a woman wrong, should she cut his testicles off?  What if he grabs her breast?  What if two men grab her breasts?  Should a woman allow herself to be raped to save one life?  What if it's her child's life?  A dozen lives? 20,000 lives?  Every life in America?  What if she hates America?  What if she loves America, but America doesn't love her?  Is it better or worse if the rapist is wearing a condom?  Death for unprotected rapists, just maiming for those who use the courtesy of protection?

Because, that's what the gang rape conversation on CelticsStrong is giving us.  It's not clever.  It's not intellectual.  It's a sick rape fantasy disguised packaged as rhetoric.

The whole point of rape being brought up was because you and others claimed blood is on the hand of republicans for not banning guns. In all honesty, that's sick to imply and as a conservative, I'm tired of the left throwing every evil on us because we hold different views. Demonizing the other side accomplishes nothing. To then sit there an accuse someone of having a sick fetish because you can't argue in the arena if ideas is not something I'd ever imagined you would do. It's a sleazy tactic and I know you are better than that. Now.......


 I simply asked if the opposite would be true if someone didn't have a gun to stop a would be rapist or assailant.

Gift brought up multiple assailants when Nick said use pepper spray. Now here we are.

There is one study

https://www.jstor.org/stable/800645

That shows a gun does help protect the woman.

I've never said guns should be banned.  I've said they should be banned in public. 

And, yeah, I'm going to stick with the sick fetish thing, because I just don't think the reason that so many conservatives love guns is because they can't bear to see even one more woman raped.

But, if rape prevention was as easy as being armed, you'd expect the United States to be near the bottom of the list, rather than having the 14th highest rape rate in the world.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Open carry in Texas / Gun Violence
« Reply #605 on: May 26, 2022, 04:43:06 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 46826
  • Tommy Points: 8676
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
So when a woman is raped with no means to defend herself, we can blame the dems for taking guns right?
When an illegal comes across and gets in a car accident and kills a family, we can blame the dems right?
When an elderly man is powerless to stop a burglar at 2 am, we can blame the left for disarming him right?
When a dangerous criminal is put back out on the street and commits another crime within 24 hours because bail is raaaaaaaaacist, we can blame the left right?

You guys want to take a victory lap in this way? I don't think you'll like the results.  Stop standing on the bodies of children to do what you have always wanted to do, shooting or no shootings.

Save the illegal immigration debate and bail reform arguments for another thread, please.

I wonder, how many rapes are stopped by women carrying firearms?  Could those rapes be stopped with knives or pepper spray?  And, if gun reform kept that rapist from owning a gun because he's subject to a permanent bail check because he has a violent criminal record, would that be a good thing?

As for the elderly man, in the new America where there are fewer guns and fewer abilities to carry / transport them in public, did he survive because the burglar didn't have a gun?  Did he die because, despite his feeble body, he felt empowered to confront the burglar because he had a gun and ended up dead in the process?  Should he have owned a security system?  (The Ted Cruz argument). 

I'm not against guns for home security, but the fact is that 20k - 40k people are being murdered every year, without some obvious and necessary reforms.

Why does the woman being raped need a 50-round magazine / drum?  Why shouldn't she have both a license and a registration?

Is the woman being attacked by a lone attacker? If we think we have the right to tell her how to defend herself, we must be able to dictate how she can be attacked, right? Like we control the level of the playing field. But if we could control those things, we could just prevent all attacks.

So, we allow 40k people to be murdered every year to prevent one woman from getting gang-raped?  Is that the suggestion?  Or are you just playing games?

What if Russia sends over a squadron of bombers to attack the Hobbs' household?  It's the government's fault for restricting my access to an F-16?  Or surface to air missiles?  Where are my anti-tank missiles, my drones, my fully automatic machine guns!  Where are MY RIGHTS?!?!?!

I mean, you suggested a woman use a knife or pepper spray for self-defense instead of a gun. I'm simply pointing out how flippant that is. To act like someone else's self-defense is a matter of your policy preference. But I agree. That woman should not kill 40K people with her gun. She should be raped to save lives. That's our right to decide.

Of course it's our right to decide.  Just like Elon Musk can't protect himself from the progs by buying a couple of stealth bombers, because we collectively have decided that people shouldn't have stealth bombers.

The best comparison to a woman choosing to own a firearm of her choice to prevent rape is Elon Musk owning and presumably employing a stealth bomber for self-defense? I didn't know that. I didn't even imagine that was a reasonable comparison that could be taken seriously. I guess I'll consider it now.

Add something of substance to the conversations instead of your regular nonsense, or bow out.

People don't have the right to defend themselves however they want.  I'm sorry your sick mind goes to images of women getting gang-raped while you stroke your gun.

I've been a member of this place for a long time Roy and always respected you(I still do). I've seen you say many sensible things.
That said, this is beneath you.

I don't care.  When somebody asks "might there be other ways to defend yourself?  Knives, pepper spray, keeping criminals from having guns" and the answer if "but what about gang rape", I think you have a warped mind.

It's not warped to ask what could happen, or to inject a variable into the answer. I mean it's not like people whether it be rape, a robbery or home invasion always deal with one assailant.

The problem with this debate is emotion is getting the best of people are they're asking for action without thinking of the fallout.

No, it's not an emotional response, it's a rational one.  I'm not sure when it became acceptable to use gang rape as a rhetorical point in political debate, but let me ask you:  how prevalent is this?  What's the right level of protection to prevent gang rape?  Is it a revolver?  A shotgun?  An AR-15?  How large of a magazine?  50 round drum?  100?  Are machine guns justified in that situation?  Bazookas?  Attack helicopters?  If there such a thing as preemptive self-defense here?  If a man looks at a woman wrong, should she cut his testicles off?  What if he grabs her breast?  What if two men grab her breasts?  Should a woman allow herself to be raped to save one life?  What if it's her child's life?  A dozen lives? 20,000 lives?  Every life in America?  What if she hates America?  What if she loves America, but America doesn't love her?  Is it better or worse if the rapist is wearing a condom?  Death for unprotected rapists, just maiming for those who use the courtesy of protection?

Because, that's what the gang rape conversation on CelticsStrong is giving us.  It's not clever.  It's not intellectual.  It's a sick rape fantasy disguised packaged as rhetoric.

The whole point of rape being brought up was because you and others claimed blood is on the hand of republicans for not banning guns. In all honesty, that's sick to imply and as a conservative, I'm tired of the left throwing every evil on us because we hold different views. Demonizing the other side accomplishes nothing. To then sit there an accuse someone of having a sick fetish because you can't argue in the arena if ideas is not something I'd ever imagined you would do. It's a sleazy tactic and I know you are better than that. Now.......


 I simply asked if the opposite would be true if someone didn't have a gun to stop a would be rapist or assailant.

Gift brought up multiple assailants when Nick said use pepper spray. Now here we are.

There is one study

https://www.jstor.org/stable/800645

That shows a gun does help protect the woman.
I'm really not happy or comfortable with this whole raped women interjection into this conversation. As I said to someone in a PM:

I feel, its pathetic, awful, terrible, ________(fill in blank of preferred adjective) in bringing raped women into a gun control debate for whataboutism purposes on decreasing gun access. There's no need to bring victims of a horrific crime(rape) into the conversation to deflect a certain way to control guns to help prevent creating more victims of a different horrific crime(murder of 10 year old children in schools).

So given that, maybe you should check before stating I said something on the subject. I never said a word about pepper spray

Re: Open carry in Texas / Gun Violence
« Reply #606 on: May 26, 2022, 04:50:12 PM »

Offline Kernewek

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1101
  • Tommy Points: 93
  • International Superstar
I appreciated gifts' contributions to the CE forum, but I don't think he chose the best way to couch his point, and I don't think doubling down was the best idea.

But I'm not terribly sad that he's been NCE'd, and beyond it not being a free speech issue, it wasn't really a defensible argument to be making - "there are hypothetical situations wherein the law may cause harm so therefore laws must be seen as bad". Because that's the end route we're going down with that logic. It's pretty basic.


https://publish.twitter.com/?query=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FStefSimanowitz%2Fstatus%2F1529690631500611584&widget=Tweet

If this is true, these cops are basically accessories. They should be fired and have their pensions revoked.
Seems to be true - and I agree with you, AG.
No that's not what the argument was about. It's having to do if you blame republicans for the death of kids due to not banning guns, can you then blame the left for things that could've been prevented if the person had a gun.

Instead we got a "you must like rape" response.

Respectfully, I think you should have read the sentence after the bolded one more time.
Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time.

But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.

Re: Open carry in Texas / Gun Violence
« Reply #607 on: May 26, 2022, 05:21:58 PM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7402
  • Tommy Points: 576
My personal feeling is that if a women wants a hand gun for personal safety, gun regulations should have a mechanism for that.  A background check, training, license, and so on is reasonable.  I think the vast majority of Americans would agree.  I don't think there are that many woman who want to or feel the need to have a gun.  But for those who do, and are willing to comply with a reasonable vetting process sure, I have no problem with that.  And that doesn't mean she can take the gun anywhere she wants.  For example, I don't think she should be able to bring a gun into a bar or night club.  I don't think woman should be able to carry guns around on a college campus say to a frat party or whatever.  A single woman in her home is an entirely different thing.

I don't think that will reduce rape all that much though, if at all.  That was just an argument being made to argue.

One thing with responsible gun ownership that I have trouble reconciling is how do you make sure guns and alcohol don't mix?  Maybe there are already laws that I am not aware of but are there any rules against carrying a gun in public and drinking?  Like a legal limit for driving a car.  As I think about this hypothetical woman who is a responsible gun owner when sober, is she still a responsible gun owner after a couple of drinks?  After more than a couple?  After a whole night of drinking?  I am using the woman only as an example, the drunk man with a gun to me is even more potentially dangerous or maybe I should say far less responsible.  Far more prone to escalation.

Re: Open carry in Texas / Gun Violence
« Reply #608 on: May 26, 2022, 06:19:48 PM »

Offline gouki88

  • Global Moderator
  • Paul Pierce
  • ***************************
  • Posts: 27317
  • Tommy Points: 1415
  • 2019 & 2021 CS Historical Draft Champion
I'll tell you guys...  I've been trying to not read details about the kids involved in this massacre.  I don't need it in my life.  19 innocents, and two attempted hero teachers.  But I was just on Yahoo, reading something completely mundane, and a stupid pop-up appeared in the lower right corner.  Like those stupid freakin' pop-ups we have on CelticsStrong.

And that pop-up was a slideshow of the victims.  And I made myself watch, because in the moment I decided not to turn my head away from reality.  And yep, I teared up, because I see my daughter's face reflected in the face of those fourth graders.  And I'm not going to let myself get complacent, and I hope none of you -- even the gun fans -- will, either.  If you find yourself starting to gloss over these things, try to really let the scene play out in your heads.  The brain of a 4th grader, watching their teacher and their classmates blown away.  And then, eventually the gun is pointed at them, and they plead for a teacher, a parent, a sibling, a God that isn't there.
Yeah, I watched that video of a father being interviewed by Anderson Cooper and it was incredibly painful. Finding out about your kid that way is very hard to comprehend.

Further, the husband of the teacher who died also just died of a heart attack (aged 48) two days after the event. 4 children are now orphaned too, alongside the already horrendous damage. This poor community...

Re: Open carry in Texas / Gun Violence
« Reply #609 on: May 26, 2022, 09:19:37 PM »

Offline jpotter33

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 40746
  • Tommy Points: 961
https://apple.news/A3H349XC8TXOE8t62H7suOg

Wow. Reports are that the shooter was outside shooting for 12 minutes before entering the school without resistance. Apparently the report about him being engaged by an armed school security officer before entering was false, and he walked inside “unimpeded” with what appears to be an unlocked front door. There also seems to be questions about the police response once they showed up.

Sounds like a major failure of basic safety precautions for an elementary school. A school security officer would be nice, but not having security protocols at the front door for visitors is inexcusable.

The blame is completely on the shooter himself, but it also sounds like there were pretty significant screw-ups by the school and potentially the responding police.
Quote from: Larry Bird
I hate to lose more than I like to win.


Re: Open carry in Texas / Gun Violence
« Reply #610 on: May 26, 2022, 09:55:36 PM »

Offline Goldstar88

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • Tommy Points: 495
https://apple.news/A3H349XC8TXOE8t62H7suOg

Wow. Reports are that the shooter was outside shooting for 12 minutes before entering the school without resistance. Apparently the report about him being engaged by an armed school security officer before entering was false, and he walked inside “unimpeded” with what appears to be an unlocked front door. There also seems to be questions about the police response once they showed up.

Sounds like a major failure of basic safety precautions for an elementary school. A school security officer would be nice, but not having security protocols at the front door for visitors is inexcusable.

The blame is completely on the shooter himself, but it also sounds like there were pretty significant screw-ups by the school and potentially the responding police.


Sounds like the inaction of law enforcement cost many to lose their lives. Awful.

https://nypost.com/2022/05/26/texas-school-shooting-cops-handcuffed-mom-before-she-ran-in-to-get-her-kids/amp/

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/05/26/us/texas-elementary-school-shooting


Re: Open carry in Texas / Gun Violence
« Reply #611 on: May 26, 2022, 10:14:42 PM »

Offline gouki88

  • Global Moderator
  • Paul Pierce
  • ***************************
  • Posts: 27317
  • Tommy Points: 1415
  • 2019 & 2021 CS Historical Draft Champion
https://apple.news/A3H349XC8TXOE8t62H7suOg

Wow. Reports are that the shooter was outside shooting for 12 minutes before entering the school without resistance. Apparently the report about him being engaged by an armed school security officer before entering was false, and he walked inside “unimpeded” with what appears to be an unlocked front door. There also seems to be questions about the police response once they showed up.

Sounds like a major failure of basic safety precautions for an elementary school. A school security officer would be nice, but not having security protocols at the front door for visitors is inexcusable.

The blame is completely on the shooter himself, but it also sounds like there were pretty significant screw-ups by the school and potentially the responding police.


Sounds like the inaction of law enforcement cost many to lose their lives. Awful.

https://nypost.com/2022/05/26/texas-school-shooting-cops-handcuffed-mom-before-she-ran-in-to-get-her-kids/amp/

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/05/26/us/texas-elementary-school-shooting
Pretty sure several pieces of litigation have found that police have no actual duty to protect from harm in the US

Re: Open carry in Texas / Gun Violence
« Reply #612 on: May 26, 2022, 10:41:01 PM »

Offline Goldstar88

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • Tommy Points: 495
https://apple.news/A3H349XC8TXOE8t62H7suOg

Wow. Reports are that the shooter was outside shooting for 12 minutes before entering the school without resistance. Apparently the report about him being engaged by an armed school security officer before entering was false, and he walked inside “unimpeded” with what appears to be an unlocked front door. There also seems to be questions about the police response once they showed up.

Sounds like a major failure of basic safety precautions for an elementary school. A school security officer would be nice, but not having security protocols at the front door for visitors is inexcusable.

The blame is completely on the shooter himself, but it also sounds like there were pretty significant screw-ups by the school and potentially the responding police.


Sounds like the inaction of law enforcement cost many to lose their lives. Awful.

https://nypost.com/2022/05/26/texas-school-shooting-cops-handcuffed-mom-before-she-ran-in-to-get-her-kids/amp/

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/05/26/us/texas-elementary-school-shooting
Pretty sure several pieces of litigation have found that police have no actual duty to protect from harm in the US


Does the below only apply to law enforcement in the city of Austin, Texas? If what you are saying is true, that’s just despicable.


Austin Police Department General Orders
LAW ENFORCEMENT CODE OF ETHICS
As a law enforcement officer, my fundamental duty is to serve the community; to safeguard lives and property; to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect the constitutional rights of all to liberty, equality and justice.


https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/General%20Orders.pdf

Re: Open carry in Texas / Gun Violence
« Reply #613 on: May 27, 2022, 05:15:00 AM »

Offline zeitgeist49

  • Aaron Nesmith
  • Posts: 101
  • Tommy Points: 19
ONLY IN AMERICA :
MASS SHOOTING CYCLE :
1. A crazed gunman, sometimes as young as 14, opens fire, slaughtering innocent individuals in a supermarket, school, church, workplace or at a concert. A community is devastated.
2. Politicians immediately line up along partisan lines. Republicans quickly defend gun ownership rights and claim guns are not the problem. Democrats weakly offer compromised and ineffective solutions to the senseless violence. All offer their "thoughts and prayers."
3. When the story breaks, MSM immediately focuses on the profile of the shooter, a possible motive, the number of fatalities and how the massacre unfolded. MSM is careful to avoid any meaningful discussion which focuses on the root(s) of the problem.
4. The news of the mass shooting catches the attention of the American public for three days. By the fourth day, the massacre slowly starts to fade from public memory. The general public doesn't like the frequent, senseless violence, but it's no big deal because they haven't lost a loved one to the violence epidemic in America.
5. The next mass shooting happens 4 days, 2 weeks or a month later and the entire insane cycle repeats itself.
 

Re: Open carry in Texas / Gun Violence
« Reply #614 on: May 27, 2022, 05:51:54 AM »

Offline Kernewek

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1101
  • Tommy Points: 93
  • International Superstar
https://apple.news/A3H349XC8TXOE8t62H7suOg

Wow. Reports are that the shooter was outside shooting for 12 minutes before entering the school without resistance. Apparently the report about him being engaged by an armed school security officer before entering was false, and he walked inside “unimpeded” with what appears to be an unlocked front door. There also seems to be questions about the police response once they showed up.

Sounds like a major failure of basic safety precautions for an elementary school. A school security officer would be nice, but not having security protocols at the front door for visitors is inexcusable.

The blame is completely on the shooter himself, but it also sounds like there were pretty significant screw-ups by the school and potentially the responding police.


Sounds like the inaction of law enforcement cost many to lose their lives. Awful.

https://nypost.com/2022/05/26/texas-school-shooting-cops-handcuffed-mom-before-she-ran-in-to-get-her-kids/amp/

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/05/26/us/texas-elementary-school-shooting
Pretty sure several pieces of litigation have found that police have no actual duty to protect from harm in the US


Does the below only apply to law enforcement in the city of Austin, Texas? If what you are saying is true, that’s just despicable.


Austin Police Department General Orders
LAW ENFORCEMENT CODE OF ETHICS
As a law enforcement officer, my fundamental duty is to serve the community; to safeguard lives and property; to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect the constitutional rights of all to liberty, equality and justice.


https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/General%20Orders.pdf

A code of ethics sounds nice, but it's hardly binding. And Gouki is right - cops don't have to help you (there's a whole other topic of conversation there):
DeShaney v. Winnebago, 1989:
Q: Does a state's failure to protect an individual against private violence constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Quote
No. The Due Process Clause does not impose a special duty on the State to provide services to the public for protection against private actors if the State did not create those harms. "The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security; while it forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, its language cannot fairly be read to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means."
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1988/87-154

Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 2005:

Q: Can the holder of a restraining order bring a procedural due process claim against a local government for its failure to actively enforce the order and protect the holder from violence?

Quote
No. In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled that Gonzales had no constitutionally-protected property interest in the enforcement of the restraining order, and therefore could not claim that the police had violated her right to due process. In order to have a "property interest" in a benefit as abstract as enforcement of a restraining order, the Court ruled, Gonzales would have needed a "legitimate claim of entitlement" to the benefit. The opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia found that state law did not entitle the holder of a restraining order to any specific mandatory action by the police. Instead, restraining orders only provide grounds for arresting the subject of the order. The specific action to be taken is up to the discretion of the police. The Court stated that "This is not the sort of 'entitlement' out of which a property interest is created." The Court concluded that since "Colorado has not created such an entitlement," Gonzales had no property interest and the Due Process Clause was therefore inapplicable. Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissented.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1988/87-154

There are some others, but you get the gist. And, I think, this is where the right to self defense discussion has some merit - beyond whether or not that's appropriate for schools in particular, and as such maybe not pertinent to this thread at the 'mo.

There was a suit filed in the wake of Parkland, as well, that didn't make it to the Supreme Court but was thrown out for similar reasons:
Quote
U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom dismissed a suit filed by 15 students who claimed they were traumatized by the crisis in February. The suit named six defendants, including the Broward school district and the Broward Sheriff's Office, as well as school deputy Scot Peterson and campus monitor Andrew Medina.

Bloom ruled that the two agencies had no constitutional duty to protect students who were not in custody.

"The claim arises from the actions of [shooter Nikolas] Cruz, a third party, and not a state actor," she wrote in a ruling Dec. 12. "Thus, the critical question the Court analyzes is whether defendants had a constitutional duty to protect plaintiffs from the actions of Cruz.

"As previously stated, for such a duty to exist on the part of defendants, plaintiffs would have to be considered to be in custody" -- for example, as prisoners or patients of a mental hospital, she wrote.
https://www.governing.com/archive/tns-parkland-lawsuit-school.html
Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time.

But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.