Texas governor: 15 killed in school shooting; gunman dead

[Jingthing]

18 minutes ago, bendejo said:

Ah, Marsha Blackburn, the GOP senator from Tennessee who, during the grilling of SCOTUS candidate KBJ a few weeks ago, boldly declared "I care about children!"  Spoken with such bravado as if she was taking a stand in a contested controversy.  Would have liked to have heard someone ask her to double-down on that statement a few days ago. 

 

Amy Klobuchar is on there, hi Amy!  What, you grovel in the slop for a mere US$4k?  

Old joke time:

A man approaches a woman and asks "would you have sex with me for $10,000?"

The woman looks him up and down for a few seconds, then says "yeah, ok."

The man then asks "would you have sex with me for $10?"

She says "hey, what do you think I am?"

Man replies "we already established what you are, now we're just negotiating the price."

Great job being member of US Congress, you can not only enjoy the feeling of sitting with your thumb up your butt, you can accept bribes for doing so.

 

 

It's not like she's any kind of NRA shill and hunting is a big thing in Minnesota.

 

Senator Klobuchar’s Plan for Gun Violence Prevention | by Amy Klobuchar | Medium

[Jingthing]

The Onion's headline, the same one they use after EVERY mass shooting.

 

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens (theonion.com)

 

Quote

 

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

 

UVALDE, TX—In the hours following a violent rampage in Texas in which a lone attacker killed at least 21 individuals and injured several others, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Tuesday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said Idaho resident Kathy Miller, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? 

 

 

[morrobay]

58 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The Onion's headline, the same one they use after EVERY mass shooting.

 

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens (theonion.com)

 

 

And they also say so and so was on the radar. These days with all the red flags online there is a need for local,state ,federal task force to id these whackos, and prevent these tragidies before they happen. That can be done by detaining/ commiting these people to an observation camp/mental institution. I'm sure some of these military bases in the states could accommodate .

[Scott]

A slur against all Americans has been removed.  Continue and face a suspension.

 

11) You will not post slurs, degrading or overly negative comments directed towards Thailand, specific locations, Thai institutions such as the judicial or law enforcement system, Thai culture, Thai people or any other group on the basis of race, nationality, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

 

https://aseannow.com/terms/

[Berkshire]

4 hours ago, morrobay said:

And they also say so and so was on the radar. These days with all the red flags online there is a need for local,state ,federal task force to id these whackos, and prevent these tragidies before they happen. That can be done by detaining/ commiting these people to an observation camp/mental institution. I'm sure some of these military bases in the states could accommodate .

"Prevent tragedies before they happen"....??  Impossible.  There is no way to predict what people will do.  There are plenty of unstable folks who make threats all the time but never carry them out.  And even in cases where there was actually a detailed plan to kidnap/do harm to someone (e.g., Michigan governor case), the authorities are having a hard time making a case.  In just these two recent shootings (Buffalo and Texas), there was no way to predict the extent of what these 2 intended to do. 

 

A more realistic solution is to come up with the technology used in the Tom Cruise movie Minority Report....555

[morrobay]

53 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

.  In just these two recent shootings (Buffalo and Texas), there was no way to predict the extent of what these 2 intended to do. 

 

 

https://buffalonews.com/news/local/authorities-investigating-if-retired-federal-agent-knew-of-buffalo-mass-shooting-plans-in-advance/article_bd408f18-dd39-11ec-be53-df8fdd095d6f.html

Edited May 27, 2022 by morrobay

[Berkshire]

2 minutes ago, morrobay said:

https://buffalonews.com/news/local/authorities-investigating-if-retired-federal-agent-knew-of-buffalo-mass-shooting-plans-in-advance/article_bd408f18-dd39-11ec-be53-df8fdd095d6f.html

Come on.  No one has a crystal ball that could see into the future.  Sure there are possible carnage that authorities "may" have prevented....those that we never hear about.  And if the Buffalo murderer had been arrested prior, what would he have been charged with?  A good lawyer would certainly get him off with probation.  Trust me, these mass killings in the USA will never stop because there are plenty of crazy people armed to the hilt.

[Phoenix Rising]

8 hours ago, Scott said:

Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen.  He was born in Canada, but his mother was a US citizen.  

 

Let't agree to disagree on it being anything natural about Ted Cruz. Here he is fleeing inconvenient questions:

 

Ted Cruz Storms Out on British Interviewer When Asked Why School Shootings Only Happen in America

[Phoenix Rising]

16 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

I'll admit, that's a pretty glaring graphic; one I'll have to give some serious thought to, before responding...........

 

I will say this, though, even though it will likely open me up to considerable ridicule and disdain.......... 

 

I'm not a huge fan of making huge social and societal changes.............. to save the lives of 3.5 people per 100,000 (roughly the difference between their numbers and ours.) Because that's all it is on that graph........... a difference of about 3.5 per 100,000. The layout makes it look more dramatic than that, but that's all it is. That's just not that many! 

 

After all, we're talking about deaths. How much, then, may be related to access emergency medical care, rather than a consequence of the gun shot itself?

 

Is it possible there is such a big statistical discrepancy between them and us........... because access to emergency care is so much better in those other countries? Is that possible ........... RATHER THAN......... there being a dramatic difference in how many people get shot?

 

I dunno! 

 

But wouldn't that be really important to know............ BEFORE turning our whole society upside down? After all, it's only 3.5 people per 100,000. That small a number could  very well be a medical care difference........... rather than a getting-shot difference! 

 

And isn't the medical care in all those countries supposed to be so much better than ours? ????????????

 

.

 

Anyway....... as you can see......... I've got to do some serious pondering before I can properly address that graphic, somewhat shocking though it appears at first glance!

 

Cheers! 

 

 

"But wouldn't that be really important to know............ BEFORE turning our whole society upside down?"

 

Introducing sensible gun control legislation is "turning our whole society upside down"??

Have you ever heard the term "hyperbole"?

[JCauto]

On 5/25/2022 at 8:38 AM, SatEng said:

According to (Texas senator) Ted Cruz today gun control "doesn't work"

There are two answers to this

1) You have never tried it

2) Where they have tried it, it has worked - after the Dunblane school massacre 25 years ago the UK introduced very tough gun control laws and gun amnesties - not perfect but still quite effective - in 25 years there have only been 2 mass shootings (more than 4 people killed not including the perpetrator) - in Australia since the Port Arthur shootings in 1996 there have been zero mass killings (worth repeating - zero) - and after the mass shooting at a mosque in New Zealand similar new gun laws have been introduced

In the US by contrast there have been two mass shootings this week

So where is the proof that gun control "doesn't work"?

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/may/25/joe-biden/joe-biden-said-mass-shootings-tripled-when-assault/

Once the assault rifle ban between 1994-2004 ended, mass shootings more than tripled. While it is impossible to scientifically demonstrate the link, the evidence is overwhelming both within and outside of the USA. Access to more guns and more destructive guns leads to exponentially more deaths.

[KanchanaburiGuy]

8 hours ago, Scott said:

Not to belabor the point, but here is a list of the top donors from the gun lobby:

 

Y'know, there might be a case for the top six. Maybe. But the top six can't get anything passed by themselves. 

 

But!

 

Do you really think a Senator can be "bought" for a paltry $2,000? $3,000? $5,000? $15,000? (The bottom 20 on the list.) And those monies going to their campaigns, not the them, personally? 

 

Yikes! A Senate campaign in modern America probably spends more on paper clips and staples......... than some of these Senate candidates got in "gun donations!" 

 

But the top six? The ones who got more than $60,000, up to over $300,000? Yeah, they probably got a 15 minute or 30 minute sit-down with the candidate. And they'll almost certainly get some phone calls and additional meetings with higher level subordinates. 

 

The top two are certainly suspect, though. 

 

But if you can look at this list and think the NRA, et al., "owns" the Senate and "dictates policy"...............you're dreaming! 

 

All one need do is look at HOW MUCH candidates spend on Senate campaigns, these days........... to realize that MOST of these "contributions" would simply be considered puny and irrelevant. 

 

All but the top six would most likely consider the donations.......... just way too small........... to buy ANYTHING! 

 

????????????

 

Cheers! 

[SatEng]

7 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Y'know, there might be a case for the top six. Maybe. But the top six can't get anything passed by themselves. 

 

But!

 

Do you really think a Senator can be "bought" for a paltry $2,000? $3,000? $5,000? $15,000? (The bottom 20 on the list.) And those monies going to their campaigns, not the them, personally? 

 

Yikes! A Senate campaign in modern America probably spends more on paper clips and staples......... than some of these Senate candidates got in "gun donations!" 

 

But the top six? The ones who got more than $60,000, up to over $300,000? Yeah, they probably got a 15 minute or 30 minute sit-down with the candidate. And they'll almost certainly get some phone calls and additional meetings with higher level subordinates. 

 

The top two are certainly suspect, though. 

 

But if you can look at this list and think the NRA, et al., "owns" the Senate and "dictates policy"...............you're dreaming! 

 

All one need do is look at HOW MUCH candidates spend on Senate campaigns, these days........... to realize that MOST of these "contributions" would simply be considered puny and irrelevant. 

 

All but the top six would most likely consider the donations.......... just way too small........... to buy ANYTHING! 

 

????????????

 

Cheers! 

Even the smaller amounts gets the gun lobby "into the room" so they can lean on the senator and impress upon them how many voter they could turn out against them if they vote for any gun  control.

More importantly though, how, after Sandy Hook, Parkland and now Texas could any senator in good conscience accept money from the gun lobby - surely it would be best for them to refuse these donation and then if they want to vote against gun control they can do it without any accusation of being paid

[SatEng]

31 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

Let't agree to disagree on it being anything natural about Ted Cruz. Here he is fleeing inconvenient questions:

 

Ted Cruz Storms Out on British Interviewer When Asked Why School Shootings Only Happen in America

His latest suggestion is that the shooter got in through an unlocked door, so all schools should be barricaded, have bullet-proof glass and armed guards - basically turning every school into a super-max prison - but of course you would have to check everyone coming in for firearms, have metal detectors etc. - measures that he and his republican colleagues objected to on capitol hill because it "infringed their rights"

 

(Bullet-proof glass would also limit the police ability to use a sniper to take out the perpetrator, the only option left would be to storm the building and we all know what happened in Waco)

 

So where does America go from there - all schools now like prisons, but these are not the only places where mass shootings have occurred - how about universities and colleges aswell - they have to be "super-maxxed".

And also shootings have occurred in cinemas, shopping malls - make these "super-max" too

And any outdoor area like parks and recreation, cannot take the chance of a "Norway" style shooting

But you still have to travel between these places so all school buses have to be armored, possibly also private cars

Is this the sort of country you want to bring your children up in?

 

Welcome to the dystopia that is Ted Cruz's America, all to deflect from the culpability of the gun lobby which pays him over $300,000

 

 

 

 

[jvs]

9 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I don't agree with that.

The 2nd amendment isn't the problem per se.

It's the interpretation of that amendment and specific national and local laws.

The supreme court has already ruled that controls on guns are constitutional. 

So it's not necessary to abolish the 2nd (which will never happen) to legislate effective control laws.

Not saying those laws will happen (NRA, minority rule by republicans), but they could happen 2nd amendment or not. 

 

I understand what you are saying,i can see your point.

Being allowed to drive a car is a privilege that can be taken away ,imo owning a gun

should be the same.

We are not living in the 1800's anymore.

In a modern society to function laws need constantly  being changed,the 2nd amendment

is long overdue.

 

[Neeranam]

11 hours ago, candide said:

So it was not in the previous document you linked. And now you want me to lose again my time scrutinizing a scientific study in order to find out whether your assertion is in it or not? Really?

Cite what confirms your previous statement in this study or stop trolling!

It was in the title of the original document. 

I don't want you to do anything, stop wasting my time, I was only trying to help you. 

[candide]

41 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

It was in the title of the original document. 

I don't want you to do anything, stop wasting my time, I was only trying to help you. 

The title of the original document is "Medication Use in US Youth With Mental Disorders". It doesn't say that one quarter of teenagers are on psychotropic drugs. Nor does the rest of the document.

You are trolling.

[Neeranam]

8 minutes ago, candide said:

The title of the original document is "Medication Use in US Youth With Mental Disorders". It doesn't say that one quarter of teenagers are on psychotropic drugs. Nor does the rest of the document.

You are trolling.

I most certainly am not trolling. 

 

My point, backed by statistics, showed 25% of teenagers in the US were on psychoactive drugs. 

 

Also, 50% of school kids try illegal drugs in their school days. 

 

This is totally different from Thailand. 

 

Perhaps it's not the gun laws that need revised but the drug laws, 

[candide]

5 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

I most certainly am not trolling. 

 

My point, backed by statistics, showed 25% of teenagers in the US were on psychoactive drugs. 

 

Also, 50% of school kids try illegal drugs in their school days. 

 

This is totally different from Thailand. 

 

Perhaps it's not the gun laws that need revised but the drug laws, 

And all these assertions without any quote! ????

[Neeranam]

10 minutes ago, candide said:

And all these assertions without any quote! ????

Have you ever heard of Google?

 

https://drugabusestatistics.org/teen-drug-use/

[PoodThaiMaiDai]

23 hours ago, jvs said:

Start raising the age limit?Would be a great stride forward.

They tried this in liberal California and the courts struck it down as unconstitutional.

 

An 18 year old is an adult.  Old enough to vote, old enough for military.

[candide]

20 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

Have you ever heard of Google?

 

https://drugabusestatistics.org/teen-drug-use/

Ok, you should have linked it first, it would have saved time.

Your second assertion is confirmed by this source. About your first assertion, the only thing I found was "2.08 million or 8.33% of 12- to 17-year-olds nationwide report using drugs in the last month.".

[jvs]

32 minutes ago, PoodThaiMaiDai said:

They tried this in liberal California and the courts struck it down as unconstitutional.

 

An 18 year old is an adult.  Old enough to vote, old enough for military.

Not old enough to drink?

[DaveE13]

15 hours ago, Jingthing said:

He's universally hated by his senate colleagues including republicans.

 

Everybody Hates Ted | The New Republic

 

The klan mum loves him

[EVENKEEL]

6 hours ago, Phoenix Rising said:

"But wouldn't that be really important to know............ BEFORE turning our whole society upside down?"

 

Introducing sensible gun control legislation is "turning our whole society upside down"??

Have you ever heard the term "hyperbole"?

People throw the term "gun legislation" around, but what would that entail ? Are we going to ban AR-15s? And if so, why? Well maybe because they're scary looking, or because they carry the name assault weapon or maybe because they're semi-automatic.  And what about the millions already in the public hands? Now let's say we are able to ban AR15's what's next? 

 

Well regular hunting rifles uses the same ammo and come in semi-auto models and are just as deadly. Handguns are the weapon of choice for most mass shooters. What about them?

 

400 million guns already in use in the USA. That's a staggering amount, what kind of gun legislation would make them go away.

 

A term our VP likes to use is "root cause". What is the root cause of school shootings? 

 

 

 

[ozimoron]

7 hours ago, Berkshire said:

Come on.  No one has a crystal ball that could see into the future.  Sure there are possible carnage that authorities "may" have prevented....those that we never hear about.  And if the Buffalo murderer had been arrested prior, what would he have been charged with?  A good lawyer would certainly get him off with probation.  Trust me, these mass killings in the USA will never stop because there are plenty of crazy people armed to the hilt.

They didn't need certainty. Just a sniff of the possibility should have been enough to apprehend, interrogate and remove his weapons for at least a cooling off period. In the last mass shooting, that's exactly what occurred.

[ozimoron]

17 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

People throw the term "gun legislation" around, but what would that entail ? Are we going to ban AR-15s? And if so, why? Well maybe because they're scary looking, or because they carry the name assault weapon or maybe because they're semi-automatic.  And what about the millions already in the public hands? Now let's say we are able to ban AR15's what's next? 

 

Well regular hunting rifles uses the same ammo and come in semi-auto models and are just as deadly. Handguns are the weapon of choice for most mass shooters. What about them?

 

400 million guns already in use in the USA. That's a staggering amount, what kind of gun legislation would make them go away.

 

A term our VP likes to use is "root cause". What is the root cause of school shootings?

Why? Isn't it obvious?  In what universe are weapons with smaller calibres and smaller magazines "just as deadly"?

[Berkshire]

6 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

They didn't need certainty. Just a sniff of the possibility should have been enough to apprehend, interrogate and remove his weapons for at least a cooling off period. In the last mass shooting, that's exactly what occurred.

So you're saying you can stop the next mass shooting by....doing what exactly?  Going over social media posts?  Seriously? 

[Hummin]

26 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

People throw the term "gun legislation" around, but what would that entail ? Are we going to ban AR-15s? And if so, why? Well maybe because they're scary looking, or because they carry the name assault weapon or maybe because they're semi-automatic.  And what about the millions already in the public hands? Now let's say we are able to ban AR15's what's next? 

 

Well regular hunting rifles uses the same ammo and come in semi-auto models and are just as deadly. Handguns are the weapon of choice for most mass shooters. What about them?

 

400 million guns already in use in the USA. That's a staggering amount, what kind of gun legislation would make them go away.

 

A term our VP likes to use is "root cause". What is the root cause of school shootings? 

 

 

 

Guns is not the problem, the problem and the solution is to lock up more americans behind the bars! Then you solve the problem. Before than to late

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/prisons/html/nn2page1.stm
 

warning irony 

 

 

[EVENKEEL]

19 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Why? Isn't it obvious?  In what universe are weapons with smaller calibres and smaller magazines "just as deadly"?

The AR-15 .223  bullet is common size among hunting rifles. State laws regulate the magazine capacity for guns. Modified, custom high capacity magazines are available. Handguns use smaller bullet but is the weapon of choice used in a majority of mass shootings. 

 

So where do you start? And where does it end? Folks know if any one harsh gun law passes it's just the beginning. Again, there's 400 million guns out there.

Edited May 27, 2022 by EVENKEEL

[ozimoron]

10 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

So you're saying you can stop the next mass shooting by....doing what exactly?  Going over social media posts?  Seriously? 

You obviously didn't read the context. It seems that a retired Fed had forewarning. In the previous shooting, the perp answered "murder-suicide" in a questionnaire about what he wanted to do in retirement. What I am saying is that when the clues do present themselves they should be acted upon. Every single person who ever posted racial hatred posts on social media should be on a Federal watch list for at least 5 years. More often than not these massacres are preceded by actionable clues. Too often these sentiments are just glossed over as free speech instead of recognised for what it is, hate speech.