School shooting in Texas (shooter arrested)

[PocketZeven]

... just horrible..

It is not normal that a school would need metal detectors and armed guards. You might as well have children wear bulletproof vests at school.

 

[TexRex]

You might as well have children wear bulletproof vests at school.

Those offer minimal protection against trucks though.

 

[Dennisch]

Those offer minimal protection against trucks though.

Reassign the fatties as bollards.

 

[SestoScudo]

Clearly you're not an American.

Dont need to be an American to see the toxic gun culture of the USA.

 

[PocketZeven]

Those offer minimal protection against trucks though.

Have all schools build a moat? Build a Trump Wall around all schools and let mexico pay for them too?? Or better yet China and/or North Korea?

Dont need to be an American to see the toxic gun culture of the USA.

I agree... but the most evil thing is that the Americans allow an organisation that actively pursues dismantling existing gun laws, restrictions and future laws primarily for monetary gains, to have so much influence in its government. They have so much power... opposing them is considered political suicide...

 

[TexRex]

Reassign the fatties as bollards.

No use against machetes.

 

[TetsuKobura]

I agree... but the most evil thing is that the Americans allow an organisation that actively pursues dismantling existing gun laws, restrictions and future laws primarily for monetary gains, to have so much influence in its government. They have so much power... opposing them is considered political suicide...

Can you stop trying to frame the NRA as a terrorist organization when you don’t know a single damn thing about them? The NRA does not try actively to dismantle current gun laws, rather challenge laws that are clearly unconstitutional. Major difference. Also if you knew anything about them, they are for a federal database so crimes across multiple states can be linked together, but congress refuses to pass such a thing.

On the subject of political suicide, it’s only considered that because these control lobbyists are looking into one very specific thing, instead of looking at the bigger picture.

 

[SestoScudo]

Can you stop trying to frame the NRA as a terrorist organization when you don’t know a single damn thing about them? The NRA does not try actively to dismantle current gun laws, rather challenge laws that are clearly unconstitutional. Major difference. Also if you knew anything about them, they are for a federal database so crimes across multiple states can be linked together, but congress refuses to pass such a thing.

On the subject of political suicide, it’s only considered that because these control lobbyists are looking into one very specific thing, instead of looking at the bigger picture.

Ahh the NRA those guys who make stupid hilarious videos like these hahahhaa

 

[PocketZeven]

Can you stop trying to frame the NRA as a terrorist organization when you don’t know a single damn thing about them? The NRA does not try actively to dismantle current gun laws, rather challenge laws that are clearly unconstitutional. Major difference. Also if you knew anything about them, they are for a federal database so crimes across multiple states can be linked together, but congress refuses to pass such a thing.

On the subject of political suicide, it’s only considered that because these control lobbyists are looking into one very specific thing, instead of looking at the bigger picture.

Who mentioned the NRA?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Who mentioned the NRA?

Which organisation were you talking about? I'm confused.

 

[ryzno]

... just horrible..

It is not normal that a school would need metal detectors and armed guards. You might as well have children wear bulletproof vests at school.

I don't get where people say it's not normal.
In 2000 we had armed officers and metal detectors.
I didn't hear about people getting caught with guns/knives till they removed the officer and detectors to save money.

Obviously money is more important than our kids...

 

[PocketZeven]

I don't get where people say it's not normal.
In 2000 we had armed officers and metal detectors.
I didn't hear about people getting caught with guns/knives till they removed the officer and detectors to save money.

Obviously money is more important than our kids...

It isn't normal because in the rest of the western world it just isn't...

Which organisation were you talking about? I'm confused.

The lobbyists who want to dismantle gunlaws ofcourse

 

[SestoScudo]

Who mentioned the NRA?

The NRA says the School Shooter was backed by Iran. Ayatollahs want to take our Guns and Jobs.

 

[ryzno]

It isn't normal because in the rest of the western world it just isn't...

What does what the rest of the world do have to do with us? It WAS normal to us.
We didn't have these issues as frequently when we had metal detectors and armed officers. That was my point.

 

[PocketZeven]

The NRA says the School Shooter was backed by Iran. Ayatollahs want to take our Guns and Jobs.

The second amendment apparently is there to have the people organise militia and have the weapons against a tyrannical government... Which has approx 700B military budget... Clearly this amendment needs to be updated

 

[TetsuKobura]

Who mentioned the NRA?

It was implied by your original post. It doesn't take a genius to know that especially after the last couple of months. If you weren't talking about them however, then who were you talking about? GOA? Because I haven't heard anything negative about the more Libertarian and less gun control group.

 

[Joey D]

I hope this isn't another one of those 'I got girl problems' things. Sweet justice would be if he gets his arms ripped out of his sockets in prison so he can't masturbate.

I'll be damned, you're right - at least to an extent: https://www.yahoo.com/news/police-search-motive-texas-school-035243644.html

Apparently, he got rejected, got super aggressive, and finally the girl embarrassed him (whatever that means).

So since he was a minor, some of this blame now shifts to the parents. They either 1.) didn't realize their son was having mental health issues or 2.) knew and didn't care. I have to wonder if the parent's had been more involved with the shooter's life and recognized he was having issues, would getting him mental health treatment have prevented this? I'd think so.

====

On the NRA, it simply exists to serve itself and gun makers. It attempts to create artificial fear among its members that the government is going to take their guns. The government can't take your guns, it's illegal for them to do that. But by creating a false sense of fear, it drives people out to buy more and more guns and ammunition, which means more money for gun makers.

I mean don't get me wrong, I support a company who wants to increase its profits. I just wish people understood that guns can't be legally taken away and banned in the US.

 

[TexRex]

The government can't take your guns, it's illegal for them to do that.

 

[PocketZeven]

It was implied by your original post. It doesn't take a genius to know that especially after the last couple of months. If you weren't talking about them however, then who were you talking about? GOA? Because I haven't heard anything negative about the more Libertarian and less gun control group.

Remember it were your own US highschool kids who called out the NRA for immoral practices. I was blaming the lobbyists who are working for the gun manufacturers. I don't know the NRA well enough to know what role it plays.

I'll be damned, you're right - at least to an extent: https://www.yahoo.com/news/police-search-motive-texas-school-035243644.html

Apparently, he got rejected, got super aggressive, and finally the girl embarrassed him (whatever that means).

So since he was a minor, some of this blame now shifts to the parents. They either 1.) didn't realize their son was having mental health issues or 2.) knew and didn't care. I have to wonder if the parent's had been more involved with the shooter's life and recognized he was having issues, would getting him mental health treatment have prevented this? I'd think so.

====

On the NRA, it simply exists to serve itself and gun makers. It attempts to create artificial fear among its members that the government is going to take their guns. The government can't take your guns, it's illegal for them to do that. But by creating a false sense of fear, it drives people out to buy more and more guns and ammunition, which means more money for gun makers.

I mean don't get me wrong, I support a company who wants to increase its profits. I just wish people understood that guns can't be legally taken away and banned in the US.

Don't know how "amendments" work, but wasn't the 2nd amendment added later to the constitution? So theoretically couldn't it be "amended" again? Like how womens voting rights were amended? I mean Gun regulation does not mean a violation of the right to bear arms? I cannot find any explicit text that defines "arms"... When it was written there were no automatic weapons, tanks, nuclear weapons etc. So an amendment defining "arms" would clear up a lot of conflict. People should not have the right to have nuclear weapons F16's or any WMD's...

 

[Joey D]

Don't know how "amendments" work, but wasn't the 2nd amendment added later to the constitution? So theoretically couldn't it be "amended" again? Like how womens voting rights were amended? I mean Gun regulation does not mean a violation of the right to bear arms? I cannot find any explicit text that defines "arms"... When it was written there were no automatic weapons, tanks, nuclear weapons etc. So an amendment defining "arms" would clear up a lot of conflict. People should not have the right to have nuclear weapons F16's or any WMD's...

The first ten amendments are the Bill of Rights. They were ratified shortly after the Constitution was ratified.

Yes, it's technically possible to change things in the Constitution, but it requires a vast majority to be on board with it. The likelihood of that happening is very slim and when it comes to gun rights it's even slimmer.

And the definition of "arms" is left up to interpretation. The Founding Fathers couldn't know what the future would be like, but when they wrote it, I assume it means that every citizen has the right to keep a firearm in their house (which at the time meant a musket of some sort). Fast forward today, and that still holds true. If you want a firearm in your home then you should be legally allowed too. Whether it's for the defense of your property or merely for sport.

While I fully support the right for people to own guns, I do think more needs to be done to keep firearms out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them. While gun control wouldn't have prevented this incident in Texas, it could've prevented the incident in Florida. Extensive background check can go along way into making it more difficult for criminals to get their hands on guns. Also when it comes to concealed carry permits, more in-depth training would help as well.

And no, I don't believe people should own operational tanks or nuclear weapons. However, if someone wants to own an automatic firearm, I see no issue with it as long as they can pass a rigorous background check. Also, I don't personally want to be around people who own a ton of guns (especially people who think they need fully automatic weapons), but I still support their right to have them barring they are law abiding citizens.

 

[Danoff]

Dont need to be an American to see the toxic gun culture of the USA.

Of course the US has had "gun culture" since forever. School shootings seem to be a more recent epidemic.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

What does what the rest of the world do have to do with us? It WAS normal to us.

At one point so was committing genocide against Native Americans, or sending Japanese immigrants to internment camps, or prosecuting people for interracial marriage. Normal doesn't justify anything, and to think that it does is exactly why fundamental problems persist in societies for so long.

 

[TetsuKobura]

Remember it were your own US highschool kids who called out the NRA for immoral practices. I was blaming the lobbyists who are working for the gun manufacturers. I don't know the NRA well enough to know what role it plays.

You mean the same ones spewing false information about the number of deaths certain types of weapons kill per year, or how they function? I'm aware of those that prefer their feelings to facts. If you're going to use those rallying against the NRA, then you can't leave out those for the NRA, especially since one of them actually met with members of congress for change instead of whining "the NRA is a terrorist organization" or hanging up on the president of the USA and bragging about it on TV.

"when it was written there were no automatic weapons, tanks, nuclear weapons, etc."
And when the 1st amendment was written there were no computers, social media sites, or television / news networks. Also it's pretty much impossible to get your hands on a WMD or a fighter jet, so I'm not sure what you're trying to portray with that.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Can you stop trying to frame the NRA as a terrorist organization when you don’t know a single damn thing about them?

Isn't a terrorist organisation one that uses a fear of violence to achieve political goals?

I understand what the NRA stand for and I understand how complex a Consitutional issue it is... but the NRA somehow never seem to come across as the good guys.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

If you're asking us to ignore the type of venue chosen or the method used to kill people then I'm not the only one selectively looking at part of the truth. The fact is that people will continue to list schools separately from wide open public venues and shootings differently from cars, possibly because they don't want to group armed loners with terrorism. Perhaps they have an agenda of their own. If there's a good reason to redefine these attacks as mass killings and not school shootings, or to change the title of this thread accordingly, then perhaps we should hear it.

No one said you're the only one, so not sure why that matters. I responded to you because you were that person in that moment. Is there a good reason to pretend one is more important than the other? They all seem pretty equal in tragedy, despite it being a 16 year old or a 26-56 year old.

In the meantime I don't think the copycat spree killers who commit the kind of crime under discussion in this thread are going to read about nine people being killed in a crowded school in India and leave their guns at home. I think they're aiming for Parkland or Santa Fé numbers and find concealed weapons better at carrying these out.

Again, if you think the tool removal is the solution and not people being warped then by all means keep pressing on for that.

As such, I don't think incidents like that are going to lead to those places installing the kind of bollards and traffic calming measures outside the venues that have been introduced at scenes of mass vehicular homicide in the past. By concentrating on metal detectors and bag searches instead I don't think they're cherrypicking or ignoring the problem.

Yet hardly many suggest that, nor did anyone claim that there was some cherrypicking going about. I think preventing situations of any sort at all levels is better. Yet the main argument I hear to this, is that others don't want to be subjected to a society where they are witness to these daily measures. In short, there are a large quantity of people who don't want to face reality that the world is dangerous it will always be so, and there will always be people about wanting to cause destruction and chaos.

Dont need to be an American to see the toxic gun culture of the USA.

Why is it toxic?

 

[TexRex]

They all seem pretty equal in tragedy

While I get what you're saying, I'm compelled to nitpick somewhat.

All other things being equal to the incident taking place in a school, which is to say ruling out the open environment assaulted from above as in Las Vegas or the aforementioned truck-plowing-through-a-crowd possibility, I think the fact that it happens in these places specifically is particularly horrendous because the overwhelming majority of lives being snuffed out are those that have essentially just begun.

Of course this isn't an "if you're going to do this terrible thing, at least do it this way" argument, but yeah, I think schools can be looked at as sacred.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

While I get what you're saying, I'm compelled to nitpick somewhat.

All other things being equal to the incident taking place in a school, which is to say ruling out the open environment assaulted from above as in Las Vegas or the aforementioned truck-plowing-through-a-crowd possibility, I think the fact that it happens in these places specifically is particularly horrendous because the overwhelming majority of lives being snuffed out are those that have essentially just begun.

Of course this isn't an "if you're going to do this terrible thing, at least do it this way" argument, but yeah, I think schools can be looked at as sacred.

I don't because that is essentially picking and choosing what holds a higher standard of life than other places. The same equal measure of "life just started" could be even more greatly seen in events like that of the Cascade Mall Shooting, Oklahoma City Bombing, the Melbourne ramming attack, Nice Ramming attack. Which saw babies/toddlers and children be among the dead. The point is that all life no matter where tragedy happens, is sacred and age shouldn't be a determining factor. Loss is still loss, as I said, be it the 16 year old cancer survivor out at a mall, 10 year old walking down a side walk, or 15 year old in a school hall.

 

[UKMikey]

Yet hardly many suggest that

No, just the guy I was responding to. It seemed to me that he thought that people could switch to trucks at any time and then the non gun advocates wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

nor did anyone claim that there was some cherrypicking going about

I must be missing something here.

People have, will and can perpetrate mass killing with various tools. The fact people are willing to cherry pick that to fit their narrative is concerning

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

No, just the guy I was responding to. It seemed to me that he thought that people could switch to trucks at any time and then the non gun advocates wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

I mean they'll always have a leg to stand on, because you're right. In the same way I've argued at you with the idea that all crimes no matter the tool that results in death on mass or violence, is categorically the same so is what you've said.

In other words, if people tomorrow let's say all of sudden decided to switch to U Hauls and Ryder trucks to mow down teachers and students, and yet inner cities and metro areas still saw gun death...there is still an obvious gun issue. Thus I can now see your point in that being a cherry picked situation in both ways. So thanks for that. 👍

I must be missing something here.

Sorry wasn't clear, because I didn't realize you were trying to make that comment to the bit you just quoted.

What I'm saying is people seem to want to start this debate only pick the local, and tool of means, yet we've seen a massive issue that people from society are perpetrating. The cherry picking I was talking about is that people, use that focus and seemingly ignore other connected issues be it non-school locations, non-gun use and so on. That's an issue, mass killing, violent crime and so on is what all of this ends up being to some degree and should all be looked at in the same scope.

The cherry picking I thought you were talking about was something else, which I hadn't seen other so far hit at and that seemed to be parameters that are used to prevent such things. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[DDastardly00]

I'll be damned, you're right - at least to an extent: https://www.yahoo.com/news/police-search-motive-texas-school-035243644.html

Apparently, he got rejected, got super aggressive, and finally the girl embarrassed him (whatever that means).

So since he was a minor, some of this blame now shifts to the parents. They either 1.) didn't realize their son was having mental health issues or 2.) knew and didn't care. I have to wonder if the parent's had been more involved with the shooter's life and recognized he was having issues, would getting him mental health treatment have prevented this? I'd think so.

====

On the NRA, it simply exists to serve itself and gun makers. It attempts to create artificial fear among its members that the government is going to take their guns. The government can't take your guns, it's illegal for them to do that. But by creating a false sense of fear, it drives people out to buy more and more guns and ammunition, which means more money for gun makers.

I mean don't get me wrong, I support a company who wants to increase its profits. I just wish people understood that guns can't be legally taken away and banned in the US.

I truly, honestly hate that I was right, I would love nothing more to be wrong about something like that.

I don't know his parents, but it doesn't sound like a healthy household environment when racist views are most likely being espoused and minors are soaking it all in. The German Nazi war paraphernalia thing that his dad was into is very questionable, from a glance that just doesn't sound normal. Maybe his dad was a neo-Nazi or shared some of their views, maybe not. It would be interesting to find out. How much any of that had to do with his actions on Friday, I do not know, but I think the father does share some responsibility since the firearms use in the attack were his.