‘America is killing itself’: world reacts with horror and incomprehension to Texas shooting

[SatEng]

The stalemate in gun-related issues in the US basically breaks down into 3 groups

1) NRA and hunting supporters - mostly older, white, rural communities - majority male but not predominantly - have an idealized and romanticized view of the US as the "greatest nation on earth" - Frontier spirit, John Wayne films and Louis L'amour books - do not accept that this is a myth created mostly in Hollywood and the truth of the "cowboys and indians" was really a state-sponsored genocide and land-grab. Hold the constitution including 2nd amendment as sacrosanct (1st amendment not so much), and the declaration of independence - dismiss the connections to slavery and genocide. 

2) Politicians and right-wing populists - feed on the above as a core base - want to limit any discussions or education on "difficult" parts of US history (see above) - conflate 2nd amendment with anti-abortion, anti-homosexuality, anti-immigration, anti-government to build core base - advocate for major donors such as NRA and fossil-fuel companies 

3) Disaffected and criminals - Majority of school shootings by disaffected or sexually rebuffed young males with easy access to legal guns - either bought or borrowed from members of the family - disaffected "loners", groups or cults who use easily purchasable weapons for perceived grievances against local and national governments - criminals who exploit the easy and cheap availability of black market weapons which usually originate as legally bought guns - gang-wars etc. Criminal activity feeds fear into homeowners to also buy guns for protection - some of which end up with criminals and continues the vicious spiral 

 

What connects all three is the amount of guns in circulation - Group 1) puts the guns into circulation, Group 2) keeps them in circulation and Group 3) exploits the fact that they are in circulation to violent effect  

Edited May 28, 2022 by SatEng

[SatEng]

38 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

well, look here. I don't know who it was who questioned whether the shooter should have failed a background check but here it is.

 

Yet another mass killer reportedly threatened misogynistic violence after being sexually rebuffed, according to a Friday evening report by CNN on the Uvalde school shooting massacre.

"Salvador Ramos told girls he would rape them, showed off a rifle he bought, and threatened to shoot up schools in livestreams on the social media app Yubo, according to several users who witnessed the threats in recent weeks," CNN reported.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/27/us/yubo-app-salvador-ramos-threats-invs/index.html

But as the others on the platform only reported this to the platform and not the authorities, and as the platform itself did not inform the authorities, then there would be no "red-flag" against the shooter at the time he bought the weapons - all of these things only come to light after the tragedy

Similar with some of the recent convictions for Jan 6 (not wanting to divert from the topic but this is relevant), some of the armed people were either reported by their families or after arrest the authorities investigate their social media and find definite threats for which they have now been convicted.

Pro-actively trying to put everyone on a red-flag list for online comments may be too difficult in the US - many people say things online just to troll and get a rise out of other users, and it takes time to trace the identities - also there would be a lot of pushback from the gun advocacy groups and right-wing politicians as to what constitutes a direct threat or incitement.

The recent case against the insurrectionists threatening the Michigan governor is a case in point 

 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, SatEng said:

But as the others on the platform only reported this to the platform and not the authorities, and as the platform itself did not inform the authorities, then there would be no "red-flag" against the shooter at the time he bought the weapons - all of these things only come to light after the tragedy

Similar with some of the recent convictions for Jan 6 (not wanting to divert from the topic but this is relevant), some of the armed people were either reported by their families or after arrest the authorities investigate their social media and find definite threats for which they have now been convicted.

Pro-actively trying to put everyone on a red-flag list for online comments may be too difficult in the US - many people say things online just to troll and get a rise out of other users, and it takes time to trace the identities - also there would be a lot of pushback from the gun advocacy groups and right-wing politicians as to what constitutes a direct threat or incitement.

The recent case against the insurrectionists threatening the Michigan governor is a case in point 

 

A  proper background check should uncover that. The police routinely ask social media platforms to cough up on suspected persons and their TOC reflects this in their disclosure statement. Furthermore, the police can demand access as part of the conditions for a background check just like employers do.,

[SatEng]

7 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

A  proper background check should uncover that. The police routinely ask social media platforms to cough up on suspected persons and their TOC reflects this in their disclosure statement. Furthermore, the police can demand access as part of the conditions for a background check just like employers do.,

But as the CNN article states the shooter bought a gun online from a firearms manufacturer in Georgia - who you would have thought would be well embedded with the police and FBI databases - so obviously the background checks you are talking about did not work as he had been making threats on the social platform to girls for some weeks prior to the event

Edited May 28, 2022 by SatEng

[SatEng]

10 hours ago, KhunLA said:

A few thoughts from my firearm experience & knowledge.

 

A well placed .223 round is excellent ammo for deer hunting, especially in open area.  High capacity mag for hunting, need, maybe not, unless you come across a bear or wild boar with an attitude.  You'll want and maybe need 15 or 30 rounds, as it is still a 22, and why some states don't allow it for larger game hunting.

 

Before last week, there were 6 people killed in what is classified as school shooting, as near a school.  Not sure, but don't think any were actually 'in' the school. .... 6 ...

 

Mass shootings are mostly gang bangers & drug/turf wars, and with handguns (6568) not rifles (364) - 2019 FBI stats.  Link provided earlier.  Most murders, if not gang bangers, knew their victims, personally.

 

Some, most of your replies simply show lack of knowledge of firearms & crimes committed by, in the USA.  Hope this helps.

And this is where the difference in  mentality occurs

I would have instances where I think hunting is justified -  If you are part of a native background where hunting is the culture or where you are "off-grid" in Alaska or elsewhere and therefore the necessity is to hunt for food - or secondly if you were by necessity rather than choice in an area where you could be attacked by bears or mountain lions and then having a gun is maybe justifiable protection

Where I cannot morally justify is hunting for pleasure or sport - my morals - I see no "pleasure" in shooting a defenceless animal such as a deer as in your example. The deer is not threatening your life and you do not need it for food when you probably live normally a 10-minute drive from a supermarket.

The shooter, on the other hand. has even less moral limits than you, and sees no difference in taking pleasure from shooting a defenceless deer to shooting a defenceless child in a classroom - it is a big leap from one to the other but you can see the "gateway" that hunting for pleasure can provide

Edited May 28, 2022 by SatEng

[KhunLA]

29 minutes ago, SatEng said:

And this is where the difference in  mentality occurs

I would have instances where I think hunting is justified -  If you are part of a native background where hunting is the culture or where you are "off-grid" in Alaska or elsewhere and therefore the necessity is to hunt for food - or secondly if you were by necessity rather than choice in an area where you could be attacked by bears or mountain lions and then having a gun is maybe justifiable protection

Where I cannot morally justify is hunting for pleasure or sport - my morals - I see no "pleasure" in shooting a defenceless animal such as a deer as in your example. The deer is not threatening your life and you do not need it for food when you probably live normally a 10-minute drive from a supermarket.

The shooter, on the other hand. has even less moral limits than you, and sees no difference in taking pleasure from shooting a defenceless deer to shooting a defenceless child in a classroom - it is a big leap from one to the other but you can see the "gateway" that hunting for pleasure can provide

Most hunt to fill up their freezer with venison.  I don't know any 'trophy' hunters.

[Neeranam]

12 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Before last week, there were 6 people killed in what is classified as school shooting, as near a school.  Not sure, but don't think any were actually 'in' the school. .... 6 ...

 

Mass shootings are mostly gang bangers & drug/turf wars, and with handguns (6568) not rifles (364) - 2019 FBI stats.  Link provided earlier.  Most murders, if not gang bangers, knew their victims, personally.

Your thoughts here are not welcome. 

Many children have died and many more will be suffering for life, after selfish idiots that like hunting allow kids that can't even buy beer, to go into a shop, buy a machine gun and slaughter innocent young people. 

Trying to justify your perverse sporting needs on this thread is insensitive, if not idiotic.

[Atlantis]

Whoops. This is slightly inconvenient for many: a female by-stander with a legal firearm just prevented another mass shooting:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61615236
 

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Atlantis said:

Whoops. This is slightly inconvenient for many: a female by-stander with a legal firearm just prevented another mass shooting:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61615236
 

rare as rocking horse poo. does not statistically come close to the actual number of mass shooting per 100,000 population in the US compared to any other developed nation.

[KhunLA]

7 minutes ago, Atlantis said:

Whoops. This is slightly inconvenient for many: a female by-stander with a legal firearm just prevented another mass shooting:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61615236
 

I would think that, crimes prevented, happens more often than reported.  IMHO

 

Meaning crimes prevented by armed citizens.  On rare occasions, it actually makes the news.  

Edited May 28, 2022 by KhunLA

[heybruce]

12 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Reading comprehension ... "unless you come across a bear or wild boar with an attitude.  You'll want and maybe need 15 or 30 rounds"

 

If you need more than 1 round for deer, you probably shouldn't be hunting.

I see.  You need one round to kill a deer, but you need a banana clip in case you need to go full Rambo on a bear or boar.

 

Why not get a proper hunting rifle that can kill a deer, bear or boar with one shot?  Perhaps a Remington bolt action; simple, rugged, reliable, accurate, hard hitting, and less expensive than a civilianized assault rifle.

 

Any hunting you can do with an assault rifle can be done better and cheaper with a real hunting rifle.

[heybruce]

24 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

I would think that, crimes prevented, happens more often than reported.  IMHO

 

Meaning crimes prevented by armed citizens.  On rare occasions, it actually makes the news.  

I disagree.  I think the pro-gun crowd is always on the lookout for crimes prevented by a "good guy with a gun", and will advertise the heck out of them when they happen.  However they don't happen very often. 

 

On the other hand,accidental shootings happen so often that most don't make the news.  https://www.aftermath.com/content/accidental-shooting-deaths-statistics/

 

Many or most of the accidental shootings involve children.  https://www.npr.org/2021/08/31/1032725392/guns-death-children

 

I'm not anti-gun, but would like to see laws clearly making it illegal to handle or store a weapon in an irresponsible manner, and have these laws aggressively enforced.

 

Edited May 28, 2022 by heybruce

[KhunLA]

12 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I see.  You need one round to kill a deer, but you need a banana clip in case you need to go full Rambo on a bear or boar.

 

Why not get a proper hunting rifle that can kill a deer, bear or boar with one shot?  Perhaps a Remington bolt action; simple, rugged, reliable, accurate, hard hitting, and less expensive than a civilianized assault rifle.

 

Any hunting you can do with an assault rifle can be done better and cheaper with a real hunting rifle.

Probably because if you felt the need to actually shoot a bear or boar, it would probably be charging towards you, and they don't exactly go down easy.  And if you're being 'conservative', with fire power & weight of you rifle, you'll probably need a few more shots than 1, with that .223.

 

My 8mm FN 49 was one rifle you really wouldn't want to carry around for any long period time.  Why the AR 15 is possibly a favorite.  Light, easily modified to make lighter if wanting, no real kick when shooting, and decent stopping power with well place round.  Same with the Ruger Mini 14, as lots of aftermarket mods; folding stocks, tripods.  I personally don't care for the military look of the AR 15, but see the practicality of it.  Why I had the Mini 14.

[billd766]

14 hours ago, Hanuman2547 said:

Just for clarification, automatic weapons are still prohibited in he USA.  The deceased suspect in the Texas school shooting was using a legally purchased semi-automatic weapon with a high capacity magazine.  

I am sure that is a great comfort to the relatives of the  teachers and 19 children who were murdered by a numbnut who bought the weapon/weapons legally.

[heybruce]

21 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Probably because if you felt the need to actually shoot a bear or boar, it would probably be charging towards you, and they don't exactly go down easy.  And if you're being 'conservative', with fire power & weight of you rifle, you'll probably need a few more shots than 1, with that .223.

 

My 8mm FN 49 was one rifle you really wouldn't want to carry around for any long period time.  Why the AR 15 is possibly a favorite.  Light, easily modified to make lighter if wanting, no real kick when shooting, and decent stopping power with well place round.  Same with the Ruger Mini 14, as lots of aftermarket mods; folding stocks, tripods.  I personally don't care for the military look of the AR 15, but see the practicality of it.  Why I had the Mini 14.

How many of those .223 round would you have to use to equal the stopping power of a single hit with a 30-30, 30-06, .308, or similar caliber with a hollow point hunting bullet?

 

I have many friends and family who shoot wild boar whenever possible.  I have never heard of any of them speak of a boar charging them.  I did have one friend who had to climb a tree to escape an aggressive bear when he was hiking.  He assumed he came between her and an unseen cub or cubs.

 

BTW:  A basic Remington bolt action weighs slightly more than a basic AR15, but is more rugged, reliable, accurate, easy to maintain and hard hitting.  It also costs a fraction of the price of an AR15.

Edited May 28, 2022 by heybruce

[JCauto]

1 hour ago, Atlantis said:

Whoops. This is slightly inconvenient for many: a female by-stander with a legal firearm just prevented another mass shooting:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61615236
 

Yeah, a mass shooting... with a ducking BB gun. THIS is much closer to what the founding fathers intended by several quantum levels than your stupid AR-15. I'm fully in favor of Americans carrying muzzle loaded muskets or BB guns around, have at it! 

[JCauto]

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

I would think that, crimes prevented, happens more often than reported.  IMHO

 

Meaning crimes prevented by armed citizens.  On rare occasions, it actually makes the news.  

LOL. Complete fabrication by another person whose fun with guns supercedes children's right to life. I'd tell you where to go, but you already know. Sociopath.

[KhunLA]

1 hour ago, JCauto said:

LOL. Complete fabrication by another person whose fun with guns supercedes children's right to life. I'd tell you where to go, but you already know. Sociopath.

So in your mind, simply having an interest or hobby involving firearms, means you don't care about children or their right to a better quality or any life.  Mind boggling.  

 

I guess I should have kicked that 2 yr old village orphan to the curb, that I raised and put through Uni.  Us selfish, uncaring sociopaths are the downfall of society. ????

 

Have a nice day ... 

Edited May 28, 2022 by KhunLA

[JCauto]

Just now, KhunLA said:

So in your mind, simply having an interest or hobby involving firearms, means your don't care about children or their right to a better quality or any life.  Mind boggling.  

 

I guess I should have kicked that 2 yr old village orphan to the curb, that I raised and put through Uni.  Us selfish, uncaring sociopaths are the downfall of society. ????

 

Have a nice day ... 

You know perfectly well that ANY incident of a "good guy with a gun" will be broadcast repeatedly by Faux News and the other NRA media. That was your latest blatant lie. Tell you what, liar, disprove me. Find one. Just one. That's all you need. One incident not covered by the media. You can't and you won't. You'll just spew more nonsense like the above. 

 

Yes, you put your love of guns and having fun above the lives of children. It's clearly more important to you. What you wrote is just another non-sequiter. You can expire in a conflagration and I would not urinate on you. 

 

 

[mikeymike100]

2 hours ago, Neeranam said:

Your thoughts here are not welcome. 

Many children have died and many more will be suffering for life, after selfish idiots that like hunting allow kids that can't even buy beer, to go into a shop, buy a machine gun and slaughter innocent young people. 

Trying to justify your perverse sporting needs on this thread is insensitive, if not idiotic.

Who are you to say: "Your thoughts here are not welcome."

The forum is for everyone, whether you agree with a post or not!!

This is not China or North Korea.

Edited May 28, 2022 by mikeymike100
spelling

[Excel]

1 minute ago, JCauto said:

You can expire in a conflagration and I would not urinate on you.

What a quaint turn of phrase ????

[KhunLA]

Misquotes & apple/oranges comparisons, makes any further discussion fruitless ...

... Have a nice day

[KhunLA]

23 minutes ago, JCauto said:

You know perfectly well that ANY incident of a "good guy with a gun" will be broadcast repeatedly by Faux News and the other NRA media. That was your latest blatant lie. Tell you what, liar, disprove me. Find one. Just one. That's all you need. One incident not covered by the media. You can't and you won't. You'll just spew more nonsense like the above. 

 

Yes, you put your love of guns and having fun above the lives of children. It's clearly more important to you. What you wrote is just another non-sequiter. You can expire in a conflagration and I would not urinate on you. 

 

 

Wow ... that is one hell of a reply.

 

And you are implying that " I " have issues ... I'm actually speechless

 

THANKS ... that made my day ????

[KhunLA]

25 minutes ago, Excel said:

What a quaint turn of phrase ????

I would have went with 'spontaneous combustion' as conflagration isn't usually associated with people.

[Neeranam]

1 hour ago, mikeymike100 said:

Who are you to say: "Your thoughts here are not welcome."

The forum is for everyone, whether you agree with a post or not!!

This is not China or North Korea.

it's common decency -  many have died, so it's inappropriate to go on about shooting animals and the benefits of gun laws, when obviously there are none.

[metisdead]

An inflammatory post and the replies about bee stings have been removed.

[Atlantis]

6 hours ago, JCauto said:

You know perfectly well that ANY incident of a "good guy with a gun" will be broadcast repeatedly by Faux News and the other NRA media. That was your latest blatant lie. Tell you what, liar, disprove me. Find one. Just one. That's all you need. One incident not covered by the media. You can't and you won't. You'll just spew more nonsense like the above. 

 

Yes, you put your love of guns and having fun above the lives of children. It's clearly more important to you. What you wrote is just another non-sequiter. You can expire in a conflagration and I would not urinate on you. 

 

 

Whatever toxic echo-chamber you get your news from, I suggest you break out of it pronto.

Find one, just one right?

“Armed female bystander kills man firing at party in West Virginia”

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61615236

 

Try the left-leaning BBC for an example. Try and find it on MSNBC, CNN, ABC News. Is it even on Foxnews main page yet? Wasn’t to be found a few hours ago.

 

Save your apology, just learn to control yourself.

[PoodThaiMaiDai]

On 5/27/2022 at 6:13 PM, ozimoron said:

I think it's become very obvious that police stationed at schools will be worse than useless. A total waste of money compared to social programs. Those police would be mostly retirees or very close to it and not willing to risk their lives before being pensioned off. Unless they put them in full SWAT gear and armed to the teeth, not just with a 9mm pistol they will not stop anybody. The quick response team with the right equipment at the nearest police station would have the most effect. Moreover, will we stop at schools, what about churches and shopping centers? We can't put police in battle gear at every soft target.

I agree with a lot of your thoughts.

 

You definitely cannot put cops at all the possible targets.

 

However, the "school resource officers" in my city are aged 26-34.

 

The older officers are detectives or supervisors (Sergeants and above) because they get paid more.

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, Atlantis said:

Whatever toxic echo-chamber you get your news from, I suggest you break out of it pronto.

Find one, just one right?

“Armed female bystander kills man firing at party in West Virginia”

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61615236

 

Try the left-leaning BBC for an example. Try and find it on MSNBC, CNN, ABC News. Is it even on Foxnews main page yet? Wasn’t to be found a few hours ago.

 

Save your apology, just learn to control yourself.

The link you provided is from BBC news.  A quick check also found stories on USA Today and CBS via MSN.  Probably many more out there for those who look. 

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/05/28/armed-woman-kills-man-firing-rifle-party/9975381002/

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/police-woman-killed-man-who-fired-rifle-into-party-crowd-in-west-virginia/ar-AAXNupB

[Jingthing]

59 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The link you provided is from BBC news.  A quick check also found stories on USA Today and CBS via MSN.  Probably many more out there for those who look. 

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/05/28/armed-woman-kills-man-firing-rifle-party/9975381002/

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/police-woman-killed-man-who-fired-rifle-into-party-crowd-in-west-virginia/ar-AAXNupB

Fox.

Woman killed man who fired rifle into party crowd, police say (fox5atlanta.com)

Washington Post

Police: Woman killed man who fired rifle into party crowd - The Washington Post