Uvalde School Shooting Report

[retiredguy123]

They just issued a 77-page report on the Uvalde school shooting citing "systemic failures". I think it could have been a one-page report saying that the armed police officers on the scene didn't enter the classroom and shoot the suspect because they were afraid of getting shot themselves.

[Stu from NYC]

I do not know if the guy in charge of the police was afraid but disgraceful that they sat outside while children were murdered.

[Taltarzac725]

Nearly 400 officers were at Uvalde school as police waited to confront gunman, report says - OPB (https://www.opb.org/article/2022/07/17/systemic-failures-in-uvalde-school-massacre-report-finds/)

Very tragic all around. Probably not for Texas tort lawyers though. Maybe they will clean up their act though after this.

[jswirs]

They just issued a 77-page report on the Uvalde school shooting citing "systemic failures". I think it could have been a one-page report saying that the armed police officers on the scene didn't enter the classroom and shoot the suspect because they were afraid of getting shot themselves.

I truly do not know how those "trained" police can live with themselves. But I bet they can find some sort of an excuse for their lack of action.

[Stu from NYC]

I truly do not know how those "trained" police can live with themselves. But I bet they can find some sort of an excuse for their lack of action.

The bulk of the officers were waiting on their commanding officers so not sure that all share in the blame. However the leadership should be looking for new jobs where their cowardice would not be an issue

[RedChariot]

Each and every officer should be fired and lose their pensions. Those deemed in charge should face legal discipline. All should be open to a civil lawsuit. Babies are dead because they were cowards. They took an oath to keep the public safe. Dereliction of duty.

[Tvflguy]

I truly do not know how those "trained" police can live with themselves. But I bet they can find some sort of an excuse for their lack of action.

So agree. I am a law enforcement supporter but when they go wrong or as in this incident it’s horrendous.

So many of them simply cowered in that hallway. What was especially cowardice was some of them running back to THEIR safety after apparent gunfire by the bad guy out the rooms door. It is simply astounding how they did not try the classroom door. Reports show it was probably unlocked. Cowards. That one officer who ran back and asked “am I bleeding???” Please. Do your job.

But the worst of it all was holding the parents back outside showing no mercy. Then the lies to the TX governor. On and on…

Yes they will have to live with it. But those poor parents and friends…. My heart goes out. No words. Simply awful. And we in the USA had better learn something from this.

[Sarah_W]

ALERRT is the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training center in Texas. They provide various training to Law Enforcement personnel. Their report on the responding officers actions is very telling. The report can be downloaded here: Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training:
Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training (https://alerrt.org)

The most horrifying issue to me, is after Ramos crashed the pickup he was driving two employees from a Funeral Home began walking toward him to offer assistance. He began shooting at them and they fled. An officer witnessed this, stopped his vehicle and with his own AR had Ramos in his sights. The officer then called his supervisor for permission to take the shot. He knew Ramos was dangerous and he knew that Ramos was walking across a field toward the school carrying a rifle. He asked a second time for permission but Ramos reached the unlocked door of the school. That officer could have ended this tragic event at the beginning.

Officers entered the school within 3 minutes of Ramos entering the school and failed to press into the classroom and engage the shooter. Instead Ramos was left unchecked for 77 minutes. Precious time that would have saved many of the lives of those who bled out during that time, including the children who were still alive dialing 911 and the teacher who was wounded and dialed 911. Had medical help been available in those early minutes the death toll would have been much less.

The interim report from the Texas House of Representatives investigation can be found here: https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/d005cf551ad52eea13d8753ede93320c/Uvalde%20Robb%20Shooting%20Report%20-%20Texas%20House%20Committee.pdf

I'm a professional firearms instructor and teach people to be competent with their firearm, as in accurate and fast.

It is grossly apparent to me in watching the video of the conduct in the hallway that the responding officers were totally not trained for this. Anyone stepping into that hallway would be afraid. The brave person can push through the fear and with the confidence of their training, get the job done. The coward stays in the hallway while children bleed out.

There are practical solutions that will stop so many of these mass shootings if our society will just implement them. The same goes for the daily killings in cities like Chicago, St. Louis, Baltimore, etc.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Each and every officer should be fired and lose their pensions. Those deemed in charge should face legal discipline. All should be open to a civil lawsuit. Babies are dead because they were cowards. They took an oath to keep the public safe. Dereliction of duty.

So much for the whole Texas "right to life" agenda. One man shot many already-born children and 400 police officers didn't intervene. Maybe if it was a woman shooter it would've gone differently. Then again - when was the last time a woman committed a mass shooting at a school? Hm.

[Stu from NYC]

ALERRT is the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training center in Texas. They provide various training to Law Enforcement personnel. Their report on the responding officers actions is very telling. The report can be downloaded here: Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training:
Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training (https://alerrt.org)

The most horrifying issue to me, is after Ramos crashed the pickup he was driving two employees from a Funeral Home began walking toward him to offer assistance. He began shooting at them and they fled. An officer witnessed this, stopped his vehicle and with his own AR had Ramos in his sights. The officer then called his supervisor for permission to take the shot. He knew Ramos was dangerous and he knew that Ramos was walking across a field toward the school carrying a rifle. He asked a second time for permission but Ramos reached the unlocked door of the school. That officer could have ended this tragic event at the beginning.

Officers entered the school within 3 minutes of Ramos entering the school and failed to press into the classroom and engage the shooter. Instead Ramos was left unchecked for 77 minutes. Precious time that would have saved many of the lives of those who bled out during that time, including the children who were still alive dialing 911 and the teacher who was wounded and dialed 911. Had medical help been available in those early minutes the death toll would have been much less.

The interim report from the Texas House of Representatives investigation can be found here: https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/d005cf551ad52eea13d8753ede93320c/Uvalde%20Robb%20Shooting%20Report%20-%20Texas%20House%20Committee.pdf

I'm a professional firearms instructor and teach people to be competent with their firearm, as in accurate and fast.

It is grossly apparent to me in watching the video of the conduct in the hallway that the responding officers were totally not trained for this. Anyone stepping into that hallway would be afraid. The brave person can push through the fear and with the confidence of their training, get the job done. The coward stays in the hallway while children bleed out.

There are practical solutions that will stop so many of these mass shootings if our society will just implement them. The same goes for the daily killings in cities like Chicago, St. Louis, Baltimore, etc.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge

[John Mayes]

So much for the whole Texas "right to life" agenda. One man shot many already-born children and 400 police officers didn't intervene. Maybe if it was a woman shooter it would've gone differently. Then again - when was the last time a woman committed a mass shooting at a school? Hm.

The conflation and odd supposition is pretty sad.

[Michael G.]

Each and every officer should be fired and lose their pensions. Those deemed in charge should face legal discipline. All should be open to a civil lawsuit. Babies are dead because they were cowards. They took an oath to keep the public safe. Dereliction of duty.

My wife said the same thing.

Texas always does things in a big way.
400 officers standing around is doing nothing in a big way with their large fingers up their @ss.

I do respect the jobs they do BUT, 400 Officers?????

Nice going Tex-as.

What a black mark for the state and nation.

[MartinSE]

The conflation and odd supposition is pretty sad.

How is it a conflation? Either LIFE is precious or it isn't.

The supposition is a bit of a stretch I will agree.

[Kenswing]

Then you have a normal citizen that takes action. Maybe Uvalde PD should hire this guy.

Indiana mall shooting: Live updates | AP News (https://apnews.com/article/01ae7fb09e48aebf0058a90907c0c26d)

[MartinSE]

My wife just pointed out that Beau of the 5th Column, on Youtube, did a piece this, and pointed out that the Supreme Court has as far back as 1981 ruled that the police have no obligation or legal responsibility to PROTECT people. The only legal obligation is to arrest them. If this is true, then the chances are that nothing can be done (like suing the officers). They according to this are not required to do anything to protect people. So much for the Protect and Defend on police cars.

[John Mayes]

How is it a conflation? Either LIFE is precious or it isn't.

The supposition is a bit of a stretch I will agree.

The conflation is trying to awkwardly combine two completely different issues. One very political and the other very sad. I agree 100% that LIFE is very precious. The action, or lack thereof, by the police in Uvalde is completely unacceptable and embarrassing.

[Michael G.]

My wife just pointed out that Beau of the 5th Column, on Youtube, did a piece this, and pointed out that the Supreme Court has as far back as 1981 ruled that the police have no obligation or legal responsibility to PROTECT people. The only legal obligation is to arrest them. If this is true, then the chances are that nothing can be done (like suing the officers). They according to this are not required to do anything to protect people. So much for the Protect and Defend on police cars.

Police are working under a term I heard some time ago called "common law."

True story:

I friend of mine went to (Of all places) a outdoor church picnic. He was in a group of 4 friends and were being harassed by a gang of troublemakers in the parking lot for parking to close.

One of my friend's buddies was told by the troublemakers they were going to kill him that night

My friend approached a police officer on the grounds and said they were being threaten. The officer said until he sees someone doing harm, he cannot do anything.

The next morning my friend got the terrible news they did indeed kill his good friend, and the killer was awaiting trial.

The family sue the officer that was working that night, went to court and LOST the case.

Reason, the officer was there to protect all people not just one person or persons under "common law."

Sad world we live in.

[Sarah_W]

Police are working under a term I heard some time ago called "common law."

True story:

I friend of mine went to (Of all places) a outdoor church picnic. He was in a group of 4 friends and were being harassed by a gang of troublemakers in the parking lot for parking to close.

One of my friend's buddies was told by the troublemakers they were going to kill him that night

My friend approached a police officer on the grounds and said they were being threaten. The officer said until he sees someone doing harm, he cannot do anything.

The next morning my friend got the terrible news they did indeed kill his good friend, and the killer was awaiting trial.

The family sue the officer that was working that night, went to court and LOST the case.

Reason, the officer was there to protect all people not just one person or persons under "common law."

Sad world we live in.

That is a horrible story. We all need to realize our safety and our security is our own responsibility. If we don't or can't defend ourselves and choose to outsource our security we will be disappointed in the result in the best case and not survive in the worst case.

[jswirs]

That is a horrible story. We all need to realize our safety and our security is our own responsibility. If we don't or can't defend ourselves and choose to outsource our security we will be disappointed in the result in the best case and not survive in the worst case.

If someone threatens your life, here in Fl. , the police can do nothing. Unless there is direct physical harm or a weapon is pointed at you, the police can only be reactive, not proactive.

[SilverRose]

They just issued a 77-page report on the Uvalde school shooting citing "systemic failures". I think it could have been a one-page report saying that the armed police officers on the scene didn't enter the classroom and shoot the suspect because they were afraid of getting shot themselves.
It turns out that police have no obligation to protect the public. This has been ruled in numerous court cases, from state courts to the Supreme Court. The latest was in the Parkland School shooting. The court ruled that the police had no obligation to attempt to save the lives of the students.
The police have no legal liability for the dead students and teachers at Uvalde.
Do the Police Have an Obligation to Protect You? - FindLaw (https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/do-the-police-have-an-obligation-to-protect-you/)

[Blackbird45]

You have to face reality, to blame the police for not doing what was expected of them is understandable, but they also want to go home at the end of their shift and see their families. The shooting at the Tops Supermarket in Buffalo, the guard did what was expected of him and died, and the shooter kept killing people. Yesterday a good guy with a gun did stop a shooter in a food court, but that is rare. There is a problem in this country, and it cannot be solved with a good guy with a gun or trying to figure out who is mentally unfit to own a firearm. It might not be what people want to hear and I'm sure it will not eliminate all mass shooting, but there has to be more control over the firearms. It could be restricting what type firearms can be sold or making the owners financially responsible for the weapon in their possession. I'm not sure exactly what, but whatever we are doing at the moment is not working.

[mydavid]

ALERRT is the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training center in Texas. They provide various training to Law Enforcement personnel. Their report on the responding officers actions is very telling. The report can be downloaded here: Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training:
Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training (https://alerrt.org)

The most horrifying issue to me, is after Ramos crashed the pickup he was driving two employees from a Funeral Home began walking toward him to offer assistance. He began shooting at them and they fled. An officer witnessed this, stopped his vehicle and with his own AR had Ramos in his sights. The officer then called his supervisor for permission to take the shot. He knew Ramos was dangerous and he knew that Ramos was walking across a field toward the school carrying a rifle. He asked a second time for permission but Ramos reached the unlocked door of the school. That officer could have ended this tragic event at the beginning.

Officers entered the school within 3 minutes of Ramos entering the school and failed to press into the classroom and engage the shooter. Instead Ramos was left unchecked for 77 minutes. Precious time that would have saved many of the lives of those who bled out during that time, including the children who were still alive dialing 911 and the teacher who was wounded and dialed 911. Had medical help been available in those early minutes the death toll would have been much less.

The interim report from the Texas House of Representatives investigation can be found here: https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/d005cf551ad52eea13d8753ede93320c/Uvalde%20Robb%20Shooting%20Report%20-%20Texas%20House%20Committee.pdf

I'm a professional firearms instructor and teach people to be competent with their firearm, as in accurate and fast.

It is grossly apparent to me in watching the video of the conduct in the hallway that the responding officers were totally not trained for this. Anyone stepping into that hallway would be afraid. The brave person can push through the fear and with the confidence of their training, get the job done. The coward stays in the hallway while children bleed out.

There are practical solutions that will stop so many of these mass shootings if our society will just implement them. The same goes for the daily killings in cities like Chicago, St. Louis, Baltimore, etc. So much for a good guy with a gun, a lot of guys with guns but none with balls.

[Dot Rheinhardt]

One word:cowards.

[Byte1]

Schools' physical security needs to be hardened, meaning making it more difficult for the bad guy to get to the children. Police forces should have better training. Example would be to hire former Seal Team members as training consultants. Seals train constantly for hostage situations and rescue. The SWAT team where I used to live had a training day EVERY week. Barricade and hostage situations were always addressed. Our snipers were trained by experts in the military and trained at the FBI academy when available. Gun control should be at the bottom of the list, as a bad guy can always obtain a gun, make a bomb, or find other innovative means to murder.
1. Physical security/hardening targets
2. Specialized training

[oneclickplus]

They just issued a 77-page report on the Uvalde school shooting citing "systemic failures". I think it could have been a one-page report saying that the armed police officers on the scene didn't enter the classroom and shoot the suspect because they were afraid of getting shot themselves.

And, compare that to a 22-year-old armed citizen (not military or police) who just used his hand gun to stop a mall shooting in seconds.

Simple solution to attempted mass shootings? Someone shooting back QUICKLY. I mean, we call 911 expecting an armed response (one that Uvalde didn't get). The sooner, the better, right? These criminals assume no opposition; at least not quickly. Bet that recent mall shooter was surprised at the bullets flying in his direction ... for the few seconds he was alive to ponder that mystery. No arrest, no trial, no prison expenses.

Sorry for those injured / killed. Happy and thankful for so many more (he had hundreds of rounds of ammunition on him) that didn't have that fate as a result of a quick, armed response.

[PugMom]

Then you have a normal citizen that takes action. Maybe Uvalde PD should hire this guy.

Indiana mall shooting: Live updates | AP News (https://apnews.com/article/01ae7fb09e48aebf0058a90907c0c26d)

Thank God for good guys with guns. HE is the hero.

[PugMom]

Schools' physical security needs to be hardened, meaning making it more difficult for the bad guy to get to the children. Police forces should have better training. Example would be to hire former Seal Team members as training consultants. Seals train constantly for hostage situations and rescue. The SWAT team where I used to live had a training day EVERY week. Barricade and hostage situations were always addressed. Our snipers were trained by experts in the military and trained at the FBI academy when available. Gun control should be at the bottom of the list, as a bad guy can always obtain a gun, make a bomb, or find other innovative means to murder.
1. Physical security/hardening targets
2. Specialized training

i couldn't have said it better! i repeat: we have more police &/or guards @ a BANK than we do protecting schools. :Screen_of_Death:

[Blackbird45]

Schools' physical security needs to be hardened, meaning making it more difficult for the bad guy to get to the children. Police forces should have better training. Example would be to hire former Seal Team members as training consultants. Seals train constantly for hostage situations and rescue. The SWAT team where I used to live had a training day EVERY week. Barricade and hostage situations were always addressed. Our snipers were trained by experts in the military and trained at the FBI academy when available. Gun control should be at the bottom of the list, as a bad guy can always obtain a gun, make a bomb, or find other innovative means to murder.
1. Physical security/hardening targets
2. Specialized training

What would be a perfect solution instead of spending all that money fortifying schools and hiring armed ex-military. Teach our children in prisons, we have enough of them, there hard to get into and there are armed guards there 24/7.

[Sarah_W]

You have to face reality, to blame the police for not doing what was expected of them is understandable, but they also want to go home at the end of their shift and see their families. The shooting at the Tops Supermarket in Buffalo, the guard did what was expected of him and died, and the shooter kept killing people. Yesterday a good guy with a gun did stop a shooter in a food court, but that is rare. There is a problem in this country, and it cannot be solved with a good guy with a gun or trying to figure out who is mentally unfit to own a firearm. It might not be what people want to hear and I'm sure it will not eliminate all mass shooting, but there has to be more control over the firearms. It could be restricting what type firearms can be sold or making the owners financially responsible for the weapon in their possession. I'm not sure exactly what, but whatever we are doing at the moment is not working.

There are other solutions to greatly reduce mass shootings and yet people don't want to consider them as well.

Motive

What is the motive to enter a school, grocery store, or mall and shoot people that the Shooter doesn't even know? We see time and time again that they were fascinated with previous mass shootings. Are they trying to "beat the score", like a video game? Are they seeking fame? I can imagine in their mind that fame and infamy are one and the same. That motive can be removed by never mentioning their name to the public. Keep it in official reports only. The media can stop sensationalizing these horrific stories.

Security

I hear time and time again that people don't want to turn schools into prisons. A person can't walk into a Federal building, a County Court house, an airport, etc. with a gun. Why is that? What does a federal building have that is more important to protect than children? This short video on YouTube illustrates the safest school in America. For the cost of the upgrades they implemented, it could be done nation wide for much less than we send to other countries for their security. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcpsnrxHdCc

Defense

I understand that people are uncomfortable with teachers being armed. I understand that many teachers would not want to be armed. There are other options.

1). Florida implemented, by statute, the Guardian Program named for Coach Aaron Feis from the Parkland shooting. You can read the statute here: Statutes & Constitution
:View Statutes
:

Online Sunshine (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0000-0099/0030/Sections/0030.15.html)

The requirements to be a school guardian are significant. I believe the number of Florida schools that have a guardian is over 80%.

2) Every classroom should have an alarm, similar to a fire alarm, that when pulled emits a different tone so every person knows there is a shooter. That alarm should also alert authorities at their precinct as well as mobile units. There could be a "Black Alert" similar to Blue Alerts or Silver Alerts. The sooner someone engages the shooter the more lives will be saved. For teachers who are willing to be armed (with required training) a handgun can easily be stored in a biometric safe that only the teachers finger prints can open. Children could never access it.

3) A gun safe could be installed in every principals office with appropriate gear and weapons.

4) Non-lethal response options. The Byrna pepper launcher uses CO2 to launch proprietary pepper rounds much like aiming a pistol. There are currently over 200 Police departments evaluating it as an alternative to tasers. The pepper round is a mix of tear gas and capsaicin. It stops an assailant in their tracks without killing them. If a child happened to get a hold of the Byrna it won't kill anybody. Here are a couple of videos demonstrating it's effectivity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04neU4UU974

Police officer giving it a try

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5db0qRMJSfs

Galveston Texas Police used one against an aggressive Felon. They stopped a dangerous situation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkQWv03aHkU

There are a lot of options that should be considered. People a lot smarter than me can come up with other solutions. We can greatly reduce mass shootings without infringing on the Rights of law abiding citizens.

Incidentally, I am a dealer for Byrna if anyone is interested. A great solution for home, auto, and personal defense when you want a non-lethal option.

[Blackbird45]

Though many people believe that arming teachers is a good idea. It's a great idea until a teacher flips out and starts shooting their students and no one can bring a person to that point more than children. There has been more than one incident of a teacher physically attacking a student. As far as fortifying the school, if the gunman really wants to kill children they'll wait until they're coming out at the end of the day or in the school yard. There are many countries where you will see arm guards with automatic weapons on their shoulder everywhere. Is that how you really want to live.

[kkingston57]

My wife just pointed out that Beau of the 5th Column, on Youtube, did a piece this, and pointed out that the Supreme Court has as far back as 1981 ruled that the police have no obligation or legal responsibility to PROTECT people. The only legal obligation is to arrest them. If this is true, then the chances are that nothing can be done (like suing the officers). They according to this are not required to do anything to protect people. So much for the Protect and Defend on police cars.

I understand what she said about Protect, but do beleive that this is for a situation when a crime has not occurred, such as a situation when a person is threatened. On this case there was an active shooter, when they came out. 376 police arrived in a town which had 20,000+/- residents.

[mikemalloy]

ALERRT is the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training center in Texas. They provide various training to Law Enforcement personnel. Their report on the responding officers actions is very telling. The report can be downloaded here: Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training:
Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training (https://alerrt.org)

The most horrifying issue to me, is after Ramos crashed the pickup he was driving two employees from a Funeral Home began walking toward him to offer assistance. He began shooting at them and they fled. An officer witnessed this, stopped his vehicle and with his own AR had Ramos in his sights. The officer then called his supervisor for permission to take the shot. He knew Ramos was dangerous and he knew that Ramos was walking across a field toward the school carrying a rifle. He asked a second time for permission but Ramos reached the unlocked door of the school. That officer could have ended this tragic event at the beginning.

Officers entered the school within 3 minutes of Ramos entering the school and failed to press into the classroom and engage the shooter. Instead Ramos was left unchecked for 77 minutes. Precious time that would have saved many of the lives of those who bled out during that time, including the children who were still alive dialing 911 and the teacher who was wounded and dialed 911. Had medical help been available in those early minutes the death toll would have been much less.

The interim report from the Texas House of Representatives investigation can be found here: https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/d005cf551ad52eea13d8753ede93320c/Uvalde%20Robb%20Shooting%20Report%20-%20Texas%20House%20Committee.pdf

I'm a professional firearms instructor and teach people to be competent with their firearm, as in accurate and fast.

It is grossly apparent to me in watching the video of the conduct in the hallway that the responding officers were totally not trained for this. Anyone stepping into that hallway would be afraid. The brave person can push through the fear and with the confidence of their training, get the job done. The coward stays in the hallway while children bleed out.

There are practical solutions that will stop so many of these mass shootings if our society will just implement them. The same goes for the daily killings in cities like Chicago, St. Louis, Baltimore, etc.

You have to wonder if the delay in response by the supervisor was because of recent riots after the use of deadly force by police. We've seem demonstrations and riots after police have legally stopped an innocent woman from being stabbed. We've seen deaths that resulted after police were first fired upon. We've seen the town of Ferguson racked by riots after an officer killed a thug who tried to take his gun. The list goes on and on and the resulting impact on life and death decisions by police has been tragic.

[ElDiabloJoe]

Ahhh, law enforcement. The job everyone thinks they can do better than the people that actually do it. Master's degrees from television shows, apparently.

I normally just tune out all law enforcement critics. People who have not experienced (first hand) the job really do not understand what it takes. They do not understand decades of living at tactical alert, at being privy to the goings-on of people and the true nature of dangers in the world and how quickly and unexpectedly they appear. People are more concerned about getting tickets or calling on cops because they don't like the neighbor's wind chimes. They do not know of 90% of the dangers and encounters that occur, only the ones the news picks up and publicizes.

All that being said, there were two large failures, in my estimation. Primarily, those in charge were cowards - political cowards. Paralysis by analysis. Too afraid to make a mistake, better to do nothing at all mentality. Have you ever seen the old T-shirt from the L.A. riots? Sure wish I still had one: a waffle pattern boot print real big across the back, and the words, "Footprint of a coward." The twist is that the waffle pattern was made up of rank insignias. Clever shirt.

Secondarily, the line level offices that were too afraid, (whether personal safety or career safety) or too morally bankrupt (thank you modern society) to step up and override the primary causation factor, the leadership.

Fear of being dragged into Federal court to be charged criminally or civil court to be charged personally and the media fanning of flames has taken its drastic toll on law enforcers and their actions or lack thereof.

Do not underestimate the daily attacks they undergo - the outright disrespect, hatred, and assaults that no other profession endures. No one routinely shoots at lawyers, as much as people don't like them, they just make jokes at their expense. Law enforcement endures exponentially more dangers than ANY other profession, and they are constantly second-guessed by every TV watcher in America (and abroad apparently since Prince Harry has opted to weigh-in now). Even here, in this thread of supposed law enforcement supporters, the armchair criticism is unmistakable - and amateur.

I find the individual officer's response disgusting, but understandable.

I find the weasel-like response by the leadership to be treasonous to their oath - but it is neither unprecedented (Talking to you, 1992 LAPD) nor uncommon (every city, big and small, pandering to politicians to maintain their careers). Even the L.A. County Board of Supervisors last week voted 4-1 to give themselves the unconstitutional authority to fire the County Sheriff. The lawfully elected by the people County Sheriff. So much for an independent law enforcement leader who answered only to the electorate.

I suppose this is Progressivism. Defund the police (training), etc. If so - the USA is damned to further decay, and eventual failure. Tragic.

[Michael G.]

I ask a guy years back: Why he felt he needed to carry a gun."

His reply was:
"I would rather have that choice to protect my family, myself or other citizens then to
stand by and see them being shot then living with the thought of doing nothing."

[Blackbird45]

No matter what the issue people will have strong opinions. The day it affects them or their children directly their opinions change.

[LianneMigiano]

That report TOTALLY DISPROVES the often-quoted excuse that "a good guy with a gun" is the solution to protecting us all from the bad guy with a gun! There were more than 350 law enforcement officers at that site and some of those children were more than likely murdered AFTER their arrival on-scene.....

[Geodyssey]

I truly do not know how those "trained" police can live with themselves.


They are in line for excellent pensions, much better than 95% of people in the private sector.

That's how.

[Vikingjunior]

you have to wonder if the delay in response by the supervisor was because of recent riots after the use of deadly force by police. We've seem demonstrations and riots after police have legally stopped an innocent woman from being stabbed. We've seen deaths that resulted after police were first fired upon. We've seen the town of ferguson racked by riots after an officer killed a thug who tried to take his gun. The list goes on and on and the resulting impact on life and death decisions by police has been tragic.
bingo! You win the internet award for today.

[babcab22]

I agree.

[Sarah_W]

You have to wonder if the delay in response by the supervisor was because of recent riots after the use of deadly force by police. We've seem demonstrations and riots after police have legally stopped an innocent woman from being stabbed. We've seen deaths that resulted after police were first fired upon. We've seen the town of Ferguson racked by riots after an officer killed a thug who tried to take his gun. The list goes on and on and the resulting impact on life and death decisions by police has been tragic.

I think the initial delay from the officer that had the shooter in his sights while he was still outside is due to the media treatment of Law Enforcement and lack of support from politicians. It may also be a flaw in that departments protocols. The officer already knew the Shooter had taken shots at the two men who were walking toward the crashed pickup, so the question of armed and dangerous was readily apparent.

Everything that occurred in the hallway is a flaw in response protocols, in my opinion. Also many did not have the courage to engage the shooter. From viewing the video, of those in the hallway the only ones who acted appropriately were older men. The officer who caught shrapnel in his head (from concrete being hit) was the first to engage within 3 minutes of the Shooter entering the building. The officer engaged but had nobody to back him up. The paramedic on the scene later on was also older and immediately began directing people. He was the only one in view of cameras that took up a leadership role.

I don't know the answer in addressing the media who demonizes Law Enforcement and makes heroes and martyrs of criminals. There should be some way to have truth in reporting and accountability on media for their role is social discourse.

[Sarah_W]

That report TOTALLY DISPROVES the often-quoted excuse that "a good guy with a gun" is the solution to protecting us all from the bad guy with a gun! There were more than 350 law enforcement officers at that site and some of those children were more than likely murdered AFTER their arrival on-scene.....

I respectfully disagree. You can have all the good guys with guns but if they do not engage it is for nothing. We can see how a good guy able to respond almost immediately at the Greenwood Mall shooting was able to stop a mass shooter. The shooter had a rifle and several magazines, apparently intent on doing much harm. The good guy had a handgun. Even though he was outgunned, the good guy engaged and stopped the bad guy from killing many more. He had the solution and used it.

[Wyseguy]

So much for the whole Texas "right to life" agenda. One man shot many already-born children and 400 police officers didn't intervene. Maybe if it was a woman shooter it would've gone differently. Then again - when was the last time a woman committed a mass shooting at a school? Hm.

Ahhh one of those. Horrible when people stand on the bodies of children to push their agenda.

[Wyseguy]

You have to face reality, to blame the police for not doing what was expected of them is understandable, but they also want to go home at the end of their shift and see their families. The shooting at the Tops Supermarket in Buffalo, the guard did what was expected of him and died, and the shooter kept killing people. Yesterday a good guy with a gun did stop a shooter in a food court, but that is rare. There is a problem in this country, and it cannot be solved with a good guy with a gun or trying to figure out who is mentally unfit to own a firearm. It might not be what people want to hear and I'm sure it will not eliminate all mass shooting, but there has to be more control over the firearms. It could be restricting what type firearms can be sold or making the owners financially responsible for the weapon in their possession. I'm not sure exactly what, but whatever we are doing at the moment is not working.

the Center for Disease Control, in a report ordered by President Obama in 2012 following the Sandy Hook Massacre, estimated that the number of crimes prevented by guns could be even higher—as many as 3 million annually, or some 8,200 every day.

[Scorpyo]

Ahhh, law enforcement. The job everyone thinks they can do better than the people that actually do it. Master's degrees from television shows, apparently.

I normally just tune out all law enforcement critics. People who have not experienced (first hand) the job really do not understand what it takes. They do not understand decades of living at tactical alert, at being privy to the goings-on of people and the true nature of dangers in the world and how quickly and unexpectedly they appear. People are more concerned about getting tickets or calling on cops because they don't like the neighbor's wind chimes. They do not know of 90% of the dangers and encounters that occur, only the ones the news picks up and publicizes.

All that being said, there were two large failures, in my estimation. Primarily, those in charge were cowards - political cowards. Paralysis by analysis. Too afraid to make a mistake, better to do nothing at all mentality. Have you ever seen the old T-shirt from the L.A. riots? Sure wish I still had one: a waffle pattern boot print real big across the back, and the words, "Footprint of a coward." The twist is that the waffle pattern was made up of rank insignias. Clever shirt.

Secondarily, the line level offices that were too afraid, (whether personal safety or career safety) or too morally bankrupt (thank you modern society) to step up and override the primary causation factor, the leadership.

Fear of being dragged into Federal court to be charged criminally or civil court to be charged personally and the media fanning of flames has taken its drastic toll on law enforcers and their actions or lack thereof.

Do not underestimate the daily attacks they undergo - the outright disrespect, hatred, and assaults that no other profession endures. No one routinely shoots at lawyers, as much as people don't like them, they just make jokes at their expense. Law enforcement endures exponentially more dangers than ANY other profession, and they are constantly second-guessed by every TV watcher in America (and abroad apparently since Prince Harry has opted to weigh-in now). Even here, in this thread of supposed law enforcement supporters, the armchair criticism is unmistakable - and amateur.

I find the individual officer's response disgusting, but understandable.

I find the weasel-like response by the leadership to be treasonous to their oath - but it is neither unprecedented (Talking to you, 1992 LAPD) nor uncommon (every city, big and small, pandering to politicians to maintain their careers). Even the L.A. County Board of Supervisors last week voted 4-1 to give themselves the unconstitutional authority to fire the County Sheriff. The lawfully elected by the people County Sheriff. So much for an independent law enforcement leader who answered only to the electorate.

I suppose this is Progressivism. Defund the police (training), etc. If so - the USA is damned to further decay, and eventual failure. Tragic.
What a horrible response. No one wants to hear truth, experience, logic and reasoning. I do, so I agree with you 110%. My son retired from NYPD. He used to share experiences with me. One comes to mind. 2 officers were in a shootout with a perp in Manhattan. The cops shot dozens of rounds. Only one round hit and wounded the perp but in the process a few bystanders were hit by bullets from the police. So, what guarantee is there that the police would not have shot some children in the shootout? Maybe some would have been shot so, yes, political cowardice and analysis paralysis by the leadership probably was the main ingredient to this disaster. Would they (the police) have stormed into the classroom if instructed to do so? I would like to believe most would have done so. We'll never know but it was a no-win situation the minute that low-life creep got into the classroom.

[YeOldeCurmudgeon]

They just issued a 77-page report on the Uvalde school shooting citing "systemic failures". I think it could have been a one-page report saying that the armed police officers on the scene didn't enter the classroom and shoot the suspect because they were afraid of getting shot themselves.

OP is a truthteller

[slg0921]

That report TOTALLY DISPROVES the often-quoted excuse that "a good guy with a gun" is the solution to protecting us all from the bad guy with a gun! There were more than 350 law enforcement officers at that site and some of those children were more than likely murdered AFTER their arrival on-scene.....

Indiana mall shooting: Live updates | AP News (https://apnews.com/article/greenwood-indiana-mall-shooting-updates-01ae7fb09e48aebf0058a90907c0c26d)

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I prefer the right to not NEED a gun, over the right to have one. Adding more guns to the world doesn't reduce the number of shootings. If it did, we'd have no shootings. The more guns out there, the more guns are used.

Should we get rid of guns? Nah - the ship sailed on that over a hundred years ago.

Should we require more accountability AND consequences for people who choose to disobey the law? Absolutely. Should we have more enforceable controls over who gets to have a gun legally, and who doesn't? Yup.

Why, when criminals will just get guns anyway?

Here's why. If a criminal shoots someone with a gun they were authorized to have, then the criminal is subject to X, Y, and Z penalties.

If he shot someone with a gun he was NOT authorized to have, then the criminal is subject to X, Y, and Z penalties AND subject to A, B, and C penalties for having a gun they were not authorized to have.

The rest of everything SaraW posts can be summed up in this latest line in her post:


Incidentally, I am a dealer for Byrna if anyone is interested. A great solution for home, auto, and personal defense when you want a non-lethal option.

In other words - she profits off of people who are afraid, and off people who prey on people who are afraid.

[Stu from NYC]

I prefer the right to not NEED a gun, over the right to have one. Adding more guns to the world doesn't reduce the number of shootings. If it did, we'd have no shootings. The more guns out there, the more guns are used.

Should we get rid of guns? Nah - the ship sailed on that over a hundred years ago.

Should we require more accountability AND consequences for people who choose to disobey the law? Absolutely. Should we have more enforceable controls over who gets to have a gun legally, and who doesn't? Yup.

Why, when criminals will just get guns anyway?

Here's why. If a criminal shoots someone with a gun they were authorized to have, then the criminal is subject to X, Y, and Z penalties.

If he shot someone with a gun he was NOT authorized to have, then the criminal is subject to X, Y, and Z penalties AND subject to A, B, and C penalties for having a gun they were not authorized to have.

The rest of everything SaraW posts can be summed up in this latest line in her post:



In other words - she profits off of people who are afraid, and off people who prey on people who are afraid.

Or people who just want to protect their family. Why is that a bad thing if they are responsible people?

[Sarah_W]

I prefer the right to not NEED a gun, over the right to have one. Adding more guns to the world doesn't reduce the number of shootings. If it did, we'd have no shootings. The more guns out there, the more guns are used.

Should we get rid of guns? Nah - the ship sailed on that over a hundred years ago.

Should we require more accountability AND consequences for people who choose to disobey the law? Absolutely. Should we have more enforceable controls over who gets to have a gun legally, and who doesn't? Yup.

Why, when criminals will just get guns anyway?

Here's why. If a criminal shoots someone with a gun they were authorized to have, then the criminal is subject to X, Y, and Z penalties.

If he shot someone with a gun he was NOT authorized to have, then the criminal is subject to X, Y, and Z penalties AND subject to A, B, and C penalties for having a gun they were not authorized to have.

The rest of everything SaraW posts can be summed up in this latest line in her post:



In other words - she profits off of people who are afraid, and off people who prey on people who are afraid.

Interesting choice of words. Why are you afraid of law abiding citizens? I teach responsible gun owners who want to be safe and proficient. That seems to intimidate you. Those who opt for the non-lethal product are still motivated by self defense. It is also an excellent choice for those who have arthritic hands and can't manipulate a firearm.

The first step might be to enforce the laws we already have in place and prosecute those who violate our laws. We should each write our representatives to remind them of that.

[YeOldeCurmudgeon]

This is an ultra political topic but for some reason TOV has allowed it to continue.

Because of this I am going to post some facts that should make you all realize that the right to bear arms was created during a much different time than the present.

When the second amendment was passed, the U.S. had no standing army and needed private citizens to join a militia to defend the country. Not only this, but pioneers had to deal with the hazards of hostile Natives, wild animals, and unknown threats in the wilderness.

Today we not only have a huge standing army but a well-funded and organized police force.

The facts are that there are 100 million more guns in the U.S. than people and that's a dated statistic and I suspect the number today is even greater. Just based on those stats, we have by far more guns in our nation than any other in the world. We also have, as of 5 years ago, second highest number of firearms-related deaths of any nation, only Brazil topping us. The only other nations with a greater percentage of firearms-related deaths are all in Central or South America, and it would not surprise me if we have climbed in the rankings. No other nation has so many mass murder shootings.

Also, if you review the numbers of comparable nations in Europe or Asia with strict gun control like England or Japan, the number of firearms-related deaths are shockingly low. Australia, for example, had a rash of mass shootings in the 1990s and implemented strict gun control and the mass shootings virtually stopped.

For instance in the UK, the majority of police don't even carry a firearm; they carry those bobby sticks. And in the UK, shooting deaths by police average between 50-60 / year. In the U.S., the number is more than a 1,000. With all those guns out there, the police are going to reach for their guns often and quickly, and often shooting rashly for fear of their lives. So, it is more likely that in most circumstances, having a gun puts your life in greater danger, especially if you interact with police. How many times have you heard of people telling police they had a gun and reach to get their ID or registration and get shot?

The facts are blatantly obvious and to say that more guns are needed is patently insane. The only people who sell guns to people for protection are only fooling themselves and their customers.

Sure, there are some people who do need guns for their profession or some legitimate purpose, but those are people who are trained and licensed to use them.

Did you hear about the man in Utah who was being arrested and while the police were doing so, his four-year-old took the gun that was in the car and started shooting at the police? He said he did it, so his Dad could get away and do what he wanted to do.

Wake up, people, we don't need guns to protect us; they're killing machines not life protectors.

[MartinSE]

This is an ultra political topic but for some reason TOV has allowed it to continue.

Because of this I am going to post some facts that should make you all realize that the right to bear arms was created during a much different time than the present.

When the second amendment was passed, the U.S. had no standing army and needed private citizens to join a militia to defend the country. Not only this, but pioneers had to deal with the hazards of hostile Natives, wild animals, and unknown threats in the wilderness.

Today we not only have a huge standing army but a well-funded and organized police force.

The facts are that there are 100 million more guns in the U.S. than people and that's a dated statistic and I suspect the number today is even greater. Just based on those stats, we have by far more guns in our nation than any other in the world. We also have, as of 5 years ago, second highest number of firearms-related deaths of any nation, only Brazil topping us. The only other nations with a greater percentage of firearms-related deaths are all in Central or South America, and it would not surprise me if we have climbed in the rankings. No other nation has so many mass murder shootings.

Also, if you review the numbers of comparable nations in Europe or Asia with strict gun control like England or Japan, the number of firearms-related deaths are shockingly low. Australia, for example, had a rash of mass shootings in the 1990s and implemented strict gun control and the mass shootings virtually stopped.

For instance in the UK, the majority of police don't even carry a firearm; they carry those bobby sticks. And in the UK, shooting deaths by police average between 50-60 / year. In the U.S., the number is more than a 1,000. With all those guns out there, the police are going to reach for their guns often and quickly, and often shooting rashly for fear of their lives. So, it is more likely that in most circumstances, having a gun puts your life in greater danger, especially if you interact with police. How many times have you heard of people telling police they had a gun and reach to get their ID or registration and get shot?

The facts are blatantly obvious and to say that more guns are needed is patently insane. The only people who sell guns to people for protection are only fooling themselves and their customers.

Sure, there are some people who do need guns for their profession or some legitimate purpose, but those are people who are trained and licensed to use them.

Did you hear about the man in Utah who was being arrested and while the police were doing so, his four-year-old took the gun that was in the car and started shooting at the police? He said he did it, so his Dad could get away and do what he wanted to do.

Wake up, people, we don't need guns to protect us; they're killing machines not life protectors.

I agree with everything you said, and you left out that when the constitution was written we had just finished a brutal war with a tyrant. And there were still a LOT of "loyalists" that didn't like that we left England. The new government needed to be sure it would not loose to local loyalists the fight it just won again England. That plus your point they didn't have (and didn't want to pay for) a standing army.

BUT.

There ARE over 400 million guns in circulation. Those will not magically disappear.

So, rather that repeat over and over that guns are the problem and not the solution, we need instead to find common ground for a way to solve our problem - mass shootings, school shootings, etc, etc, etc.

If we can't need to find a way to LIVE with them.

Most people posting here, don't offer solutions, just "justifications" for wanting or not wanting guns. A few have posted suggestions. Most ignore that and just continue to repeat the dog whistles that just lead to arguments.

I have posted many times my proposed solutions. I don't want to post them again since so many complain that I repeat myself too much.

[Sarah_W]

This is an ultra political topic but for some reason TOV has allowed it to continue.



This topic was not political until your post so kindly don't do that again and stay on topic. If you didn't take the time to read the report, now two of them, on the Uvalde response, you don't have anything to contribute.

[Byte1]

Please don't pervert the Constitution to your agenda. There are so many gun related quotes from the Founders of this country that simply refute your suggestions that this is a different world then "before."
When you have studies completed that dispute the anti-gun rhetoric, it's obvious that if we are to have a safe and free environment, then the threat of citizens, good citizens owning firearms should always be a deterrent to those wishing lethal mischief. Over a million deaths are prevented every year by "good guys" with guns. If that is not enough to convince, then facts and reality are just not considered in the gun ownership debate. I wonder how it feels to see your family slain as you helplessly stare in fear, wishing you had some means to stop the horror. Don't worry, because more and more folks are taking gun safety courses so that they can protect their own AND YOURS in such a situation. Remember, when seconds count a police officer is only minutes away. That said, if they have to worry about what you will say to the media and in court about their actions, they may hesitate when a decent, law abiding citizen might act in your behalf.
These are two totally different scenarios. One is protecting school children and the other is a good Samaritan being there(shopping mall) at the right time to protect YOU.
One requires a defense for the children and the other requires a hero to stand up against an immediate and terrible threat that would scare any logical/reasonable person.
You are NOT going to get rid of the guns in this country, so get over it and move on. There has ALWAYS been evil people in this world and always will. You can't stop it. All you can do is protect against mass damage and you cannot do that by restricting the freedoms of good citizens. You NEED good citizens to protect you from the evil doers.

[MartinSE]

You are NOT going to get rid of the guns in this country, so get over it and move on. There has ALWAYS been evil people in this world and always will. You can't stop it. All you can do is protect against mass damage and you cannot do that by restricting the freedoms of good citizens. You NEED good citizens to protect you from the evil doers.

I agree with you about never getting rid of guns - at least in our life time.

But, just because there have always been evil people, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to to alleviate the problem. There have always been bank robbers, but we found ways to reduce it.

And I disagree, rights of good citizens almost always take second place to rights of most citizens. We have stop signs, we have speed limits, we have no outdoor latrines, we pay taxes, and on and on. Absolute freedom is absolute anarchy. The US was a shining example of a system designed to protect the rights of the masses, while protecting the minority from the abuse of the majority. We glorified our diversity, and grew from a trivial nothing to the world power, based on our system.

Now we are witnessing our decline. Each of us has our own explanations. History will say why when we are gone.

[YeOldeCurmudgeon]

Please don't pervert the Constitution to your agenda. There are so many gun related quotes from the Founders of this country that simply refute your suggestions that this is a different world then "before."
When you have studies completed that dispute the anti-gun rhetoric, it's obvious that if we are to have a safe and free environment, then the threat of citizens, good citizens owning firearms should always be a deterrent to those wishing lethal mischief. Over a million deaths are prevented every year by "good guys" with guns. If that is not enough to convince, then facts and reality are just not considered in the gun ownership debate. I wonder how it feels to see your family slain as you helplessly stare in fear, wishing you had some means to stop the horror. Don't worry, because more and more folks are taking gun safety courses so that they can protect their own AND YOURS in such a situation. Remember, when seconds count a police officer is only minutes away. That said, if they have to worry about what you will say to the media and in court about their actions, they may hesitate when a decent, law abiding citizen might act in your behalf.
These are two totally different scenarios. One is protecting school children and the other is a good Samaritan being there(shopping mall) at the right time to protect YOU.
One requires a defense for the children and the other requires a hero to stand up against an immediate and terrible threat that would scare any logical/reasonable person.
You are NOT going to get rid of the guns in this country, so get over it and move on. There has ALWAYS been evil people in this world and always will. You can't stop it. All you can do is protect against mass damage and you cannot do that by restricting the freedoms of good citizens. You NEED good citizens to protect you from the evil doers.

What you say is refuted by the statistics showing the huge difference in the lack of deaths in countries with strict gun control laws and countries like the U.S. where there is a permissive attitude about gun ownership.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Or people who just want to protect their family. Why is that a bad thing if they are responsible people?

Because "they" (as a singular whole) are not responsible people. If "they" were responsible people, "they" would not be committing murders, mass shootings, and gun crime would not exist at all.

They - are the collective singular category of "people who possess firearms."

Within that singular category there are many sub-categories. Most folks fall into the subcategory of "responsible people." But even "responsible people" have accidents, make mistakes, have momentary lapses of judgment.

"Here lies Mary. Accidently shot to death by her husband, a responsible gun-owner. Woops."

You can't legislate common sense. But you can legislate common-sense laws that exist to protect the "responsible people" while giving punishment to "irresponsible people" more bite. Right now all that's happening is that people are being incentivized to buy guns. There is no nationwide mandatory licensing required - there isn't even required licensing in every state. You need a license to drive a car. You need a license to perform surgery. You need a license to give someone an eye exam. But in some states, you don't need a license to have a firearm.

There are no checks and balances, accepted nationally, on qualifications to own a device that was created to kill. That is its PRIMARY function: to kill. Kill bears, kill elephants, kill geese, kill burglars, kill criminals, kill victims - it's the "kill" that is the operative word here.

There should be nationwide checks and balances. If you don't qualify, then you can't legally possess a firearm. If you get caught using one illegally, then that charge gets tacked on to whatever crime you committed with the gun in the first place. Incentivize people to LEGALLY possess firearms, by giving more sting to punishments for people who do not.

[retiredguy123]

Because "they" (as a singular whole) are not responsible people. If "they" were responsible people, "they" would not be committing murders, mass shootings, and gun crime would not exist at all.

They - are the collective singular category of "people who possess firearms."

Within that singular category there are many sub-categories. Most folks fall into the subcategory of "responsible people." But even "responsible people" have accidents, make mistakes, have momentary lapses of judgment.

"Here lies Mary. Accidently shot to death by her husband, a responsible gun-owner. Woops."

You can't legislate common sense. But you can legislate common-sense laws that exist to protect the "responsible people" while giving punishment to "irresponsible people" more bite. Right now all that's happening is that people are being incentivized to buy guns. There is no nationwide mandatory licensing required - there isn't even required licensing in every state. You need a license to drive a car. You need a license to perform surgery. You need a license to give someone an eye exam. But in some states, you don't need a license to have a firearm.

There are no checks and balances, accepted nationally, on qualifications to own a device that was created to kill. That is its PRIMARY function: to kill. Kill bears, kill elephants, kill geese, kill burglars, kill criminals, kill victims - it's the "kill" that is the operative word here.

There should be nationwide checks and balances. If you don't qualify, then you can't legally possess a firearm. If you get caught using one illegally, then that charge gets tacked on to whatever crime you committed with the gun in the first place. Incentivize people to LEGALLY possess firearms, by giving more sting to punishments for people who do not.
I don't disagree with much of what you said, but, according to Politifact:

"The vast majority of crime that is gun related is committed by people who illegally are possessing that firearm."

I don't think that any law is going to eliminate accidents, mistakes, or momentary lapses in judgement. Also, if you accept that most people have a basic right to own a firearm, then any law you make needs to allow for reasonable accessibility to a firearm to maintain that right.

[MartinSE]

I don't think that any law is going to eliminate accidents, mistakes, or momentary lapses in judgement. Also, if you accept that most people have a basic right to own a firearm, then any law you make needs to allow for reasonable accessibility to a firearm to maintain that right.

How about a law that holds the seller legally responsible for the use of a gun that is sold illegally. Combine that with mandatory universal background checks and you have a first step.

Gun shows, private sales, "buying for a friend" all contribute to people having guns that shouldn't. It will NOT stop all of them, it will NOT solve the problem, but maybe if we stopped arguing over the perfect solution and started taking steps in a direction to slow the problem we might make more progress than have been accomplished in decades of arguing over perfection.

[Sarah_W]

How about we stay on the topic of this thread instead of derailing it. Consider starting another thread to continue your debate on the Second Amendment.

[YeOldeCurmudgeon]

When people have a biased view like the gun seller, there is nothing that will change their mind. Common sense, statistics, even when 4-year-old start using guns -- having guns is the occasion for killing someone, whether it's stupidity or carelessness. The stats bear this out.

[YeOldeCurmudgeon]

How about we stay on the topic of this thread instead of derailing it. Consider starting another thread to continue your debate on the Second Amendment.

The second amendment is the justification for this permissive attitude towards guns in the U.S., so directly relates to this issue. Did you hear yesterday they appointed a new director to ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) who cited the highest rate of gun violence in our history and why Biden needed to make this appointment.

[OhioBuckeye]

Bingo, that’s exactly what I thought but what about these poor little kids. The thing is why did they respond to the call. I feel worse for these little kids. But they have to hurt for the parents than the chicken S _ _ _ police but this is exactly what the police are getting pick on for, some politicians are wanting to make guns outlawed instead where the issue lies. It really isn’t the gun, it’s the mentally insane human that needs control not the gun. Remember guns are the tools of the trade for criminals not guns. Poor little innocent children!

[MartinSE]

It really isn’t the gun, it’s the mentally insane human that needs control not the gun. Remember guns are the tools of the trade for criminals not guns. Poor little innocent children!

Okay, so if I accept that, then why is it ONLY the US has mentally ill people?

[Jotom]

My wife just pointed out that Beau of the 5th Column, on Youtube, did a piece this, and pointed out that the Supreme Court has as far back as 1981 ruled that the police have no obligation or legal responsibility to PROTECT people. The only legal obligation is to arrest them. If this is true, then the chances are that nothing can be done (like suing the officers). They according to this are not required to do anything to protect people. So much for the Protect and Defend on police cars.

Honestly, for some reason, I am no longer comfortable with the SCOTUS as the authority that is actually attempting to protect anyone’s right. They seem to have lost their concern for protecting individual rights. Regardless of the SCOTUS’s thought of any one else’s responsibility, they have just shrugged off their own responsibilities. Do police officers still take an oath to “protect and serve”….. Not one of those cowardice little boys needed permission from the SCOTUS (or their bleeping chief) to do their job and protect those children. I do not know how they can live with themselves after such a disgraceful display of self protection. Do any one of those toy cops have children of their own? Wow, imagine what that father might have done to save his baby? Image how that might have changed the outcome….. Every man in that corridor should be held responsible for their unbelievable cowardice. 🤬 The horror and grief of it all is so incomprehensible and inconceivable, It just blows my mind 🤯

[Byte1]

If you don't like guns, don't own one. IF you don't like me owning a gun, then find some counseling that will assist you to adapt to reality. The law says I can own as many firearms as I wish. When the stats suggest that more folks are murdered by guns than are saved by guns, then we can have a legitimate discussion not based on the ignorance of non-gun owners.
I don't know that truth about how the school murders took place and the police response, but I will bet you that there were dozens if not all of the police on site that wanted to rush to the rescue. Based on experience, my thought is that they were ordered to stand down and stand by until the "bosses" made a decision. I would like to believe that everyone one of those police would be or are potential heroes but were ordered to hold.
A possible scenario; one or some of the Cops disobeys orders to stand down and rushes into the classroom. He snaps off a shot and kills a child. Think of the repercussions. Second: he rushes in and gets shot and killed. Ok, so that's his job except he was ordered not to rush in. In the first scene, he kills a child and gets fired and charged with manslaughter, subsequently going to jail. The county gets sued, not that it would be the first time a county is sued. But, what protection does a Cop have if he disobeys orders which then results in his making a deadly mistake?
I have seen very few cowardly law enforcement officers, but many heroes. I personally believe they were held in abeyance by orders from their superiors. That's just my opinion.
As a civilian, we do not have the restrictions that officials are held to. Sometimes that works to our advantage, but it can sometimes result in careless actions and harm.

[Topspinmo]

They just issued a 77-page report on the Uvalde school shooting citing "systemic failures". I think it could have been a one-page report saying that the armed police officers on the scene didn't enter the classroom and shoot the suspect because they were afraid of getting shot themselves.

One line report.

Dammed it they do and damned if they don’t. Sad, but that’s way it is now days.

[Byte1]

What would be a perfect solution instead of spending all that money fortifying schools and hiring armed ex-military. Teach our children in prisons, we have enough of them, there hard to get into and there are armed guards there 24/7.

I know you are being facetious, BUT the answer is that the prisons are already full. Hardening public schools is not expensive at all. Some state lotteries are dedicated to providing additional funding for public school property.

[Byte1]

What you say is refuted by the statistics showing the huge difference in the lack of deaths in countries with strict gun control laws and countries like the U.S. where there is a permissive attitude about gun ownership.

And yet, our cities with gun bans have the highest rates of gun related deaths in the country. Sorry, but there are too many variables when comparing our country to other countries. Too many differences. America loves it's freedom regardless of hazards.

[MartinSE]

And yet, our cities with gun bans have the highest rates of gun related deaths in the country. Sorry, but there are too many variables when comparing our country to other countries. Too many differences. America loves it's freedom regardless of hazards.

And yet, our states with gun controls (blue) are not well represented in the gun deaths per capita. Red states take 8 (9) of the top ten places.

Statistics can prove anything. just different ways to look at the same stuff.

[Byte1]

And yet, our states with gun controls (blue) are not well represented in the gun deaths per capita. Red states take 8 (9) of the top ten places.

Statistics can prove anything. just different ways to look at the same stuff.

Thank you for proving my point, as it would pertain to comparing us to other countries also. :clap2:

[MartinSE]

Thank you for proving my point, as it would pertain to comparing us to other countries also. :clap2:

Yes, in some ways it does. I don't know why cities have higher death rates. Possibly the higher population density which could be related to being more likely a place gangs go to sell drugs. If so, then making drugs legal (to take the profit out of them) would be a good first step.

But, There are other countries that have higher population density than our cities - Japan comes to mind.

[Sarah_W]

This is an ultra political topic but for some reason TOV has allowed it to continue.

Because of this I am going to post some facts that should make you all realize that the right to bear arms was created during a much different time than the present.

When the second amendment was passed, the U.S. had no standing army and needed private citizens to join a militia to defend the country. Not only this, but pioneers had to deal with the hazards of hostile Natives, wild animals, and unknown threats in the wilderness.

Today we not only have a huge standing army but a well-funded and organized police force.

The facts are that there are 100 million more guns in the U.S. than people and that's a dated statistic and I suspect the number today is even greater. Just based on those stats, we have by far more guns in our nation than any other in the world. We also have, as of 5 years ago, second highest number of firearms-related deaths of any nation, only Brazil topping us. The only other nations with a greater percentage of firearms-related deaths are all in Central or South America, and it would not surprise me if we have climbed in the rankings. No other nation has so many mass murder shootings.

Also, if you review the numbers of comparable nations in Europe or Asia with strict gun control like England or Japan, the number of firearms-related deaths are shockingly low. Australia, for example, had a rash of mass shootings in the 1990s and implemented strict gun control and the mass shootings virtually stopped.

For instance in the UK, the majority of police don't even carry a firearm; they carry those bobby sticks. And in the UK, shooting deaths by police average between 50-60 / year. In the U.S., the number is more than a 1,000. With all those guns out there, the police are going to reach for their guns often and quickly, and often shooting rashly for fear of their lives. So, it is more likely that in most circumstances, having a gun puts your life in greater danger, especially if you interact with police. How many times have you heard of people telling police they had a gun and reach to get their ID or registration and get shot?

The facts are blatantly obvious and to say that more guns are needed is patently insane. The only people who sell guns to people for protection are only fooling themselves and their customers.

Sure, there are some people who do need guns for their profession or some legitimate purpose, but those are people who are trained and licensed to use them.

Did you hear about the man in Utah who was being arrested and while the police were doing so, his four-year-old took the gun that was in the car and started shooting at the police? He said he did it, so his Dad could get away and do what he wanted to do.

Wake up, people, we don't need guns to protect us; they're killing machines not life protectors.

Different times indeed, however, some corrections to your interpretation of facts in necessary. It is very important to understand the Founding Fathers view of a standing army. At the time of our War For Independence, 1776-1783, there was a standing army in our country. It was the British Army. That standing army was the primary enforcement arm of the oppressive government that Americans faced at that time. That standing army is why we have the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Amendments. That standing army was first confronted with the militias and then the Continental Army. James Madison typifies our Founding Fathers in a speech he delivered in June of 1787 at the Constitutional Convention. He said, " A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to Liberty.".

In your post above, you stated that when the 2nd Amendment was passed there was no standing Army. That is not correct. The US Army was born June 14, 1775, the US Navy was born on October 13, 1775, the US Marines were born November 10, 1775. Congress created the US Military under the Constitution on September 29, 1787. The 2nd Amendment was passed on December 15, 1791. Four years later.

Fact: Over 54% of firearms deaths in our country are suicide. Someone committed to ending their life will use whatever means they have available. We don't even land in the top 10 countries in the world on suicide rate. 1. Guyana, 2. Japan, 3. South Korea, 4. Sri Lanka, 5. Lithuania, 6. Suriname, 7. Mozambique, 8. Tanzania, 9. Nepal, 10. Kazakhstan.

You try to paint us as a murdering country, however, the murder rate in our country is in the middle of the pack. Eighty-eight countries have a higher murder rate than we do. For example, El Salvador has a murder rate of 61.8 per 100,000 people while the U.S. is 5.3 per 100,000.

Anti-gun radicals conveniently leave out a very important fact. Every year armed Americans defend themselves 2,500,000 times against criminals. Wouldn't it be great if we consider banning criminals?

I am quite certain you have no idea what goes through the mind of our Law Enforcement Officers, but you do have quite an imagination.

The rest of your rant is bloviation. We could have a billion firearms in our country and that would not have an effect on the number nor frequency of mass shootings. The number of citizens in our country and the number of firearms are irrelevant. Bad people can't be legislated nor banned.

The fact is you have no understanding of the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, our history, nor our form of governance.