GW Hayduke

The “not prosecuting the president” norm is a political cultural issue mostly unique to the US. The idea was that we don’t want to be a banana republic like Venzelua or wherever where the current ruling party constantly jails the prior ruler. We wanted to be too good for all of that. It seems we aren’t.

Yep. That data indicates "the law (waiting periods) appears to reduce the outcomes (suicide/homicide)." Waiting periods obviously should be done - however, we would need a value system that values the lives of children and fellow citizens over the convenience of obtaining a firearm. We would need more folks to be less selfish - more folks to live by the bible and tenants of what it means to be Christian - or shit just be a normal good person. To address criminal access to guns from illicit sources we would need to IMO a licensing/registration system to curb the flow of new firearms into the population and give a means to remove a firearm once a person dies or allows the license to lapse - and actively remove firearms from the population through buyback programs. Again, we would need more folks willing to endure a tiny bit of sacrifice - more actual Christians (instead of fake ass hypocrites).

That is exactly what Australia did, but it requires a mature political environment to do common sense things like that. Thanks GOP and irresponsible gun owners who value their convivence over the lives of children and fellow citizens. https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/133198/Licence_Categories_and_Firearm_Types_FACT_Sheet.pdf

Restricting access to assault weapons (high velocity, high capacity semi auto rifles) would decrease the magnitude of mass shooter events. That seems rather obvious

A mature society would handle the hog vs. dead kids dilemma the way Australia reformed their gun laws. They would provide access to various types of firearms based on established need. A landowner or property manager or hog eradication business is able to establish the need for a semi auto, large capacity, high velocity rifle, etc. to manage certain wildlife, then they would get a license for it. Once that license expires, when that company goes out of business, or the property manager retires to an old persons home, the firearm is returned/sold back to a dealer. To do all that though we would need to have a mature and responsible political environment to make laws. Muh freedom and anti-gov jack offs having weight in the GOP prevents that

I've been talking about both. I don't think we should rely on small town cops to solve our mass shooter events problem - that is my entire point. I don't think refresher training will fix our small town cops. I also don't think major militarization reforms in small towns is the correct path either. Major militarization may have some effect at decreasing the magnitude of mass shooting events, but I don't believe that benefit would outweigh the other costs associated with a more militarized police state. Therefore, addressing your question of "how to reduce mass shooter events" is the appropriate one. IMO that answer obviously lies with gun reform and universal healthcare.

We disagree. I don't consider refresher training to be effective at implementing real change - and if it does implement some minor change that change doesn't last very long, and I don't believe Uvalde is an anomaly in terms of small town law enforcement ability. Ensuring quick, forceful responses in every small town (like Uvalde) against dudes with semi auto rifles and potentially body armor would require more structural changes - IMO - and we disagree on all of that.

Alright. Well I disagree with the idea that refresher training would result in any sort of actual change in how small towns across the US respond to mass shooter events. We can disagree on that point - and thus we likely also will disagree on my point that a reliance on police to decrease mass shooting events across the US, in every small town, would require major reforms in the direction of greater militarization of police - which I am against - and instead other solutions would be more appropriate and effective.

So your position is that nothing needs to change from a reform perspective - just that small town cops need to just follow their prior training. There seems to be an obvious disconnect here. Snapping fingers isn't a solution and isn't an effective method of change. Why would we think that any other small town in the US that has similar conditions as Uvalde (low population, potentially low-paid bored cops, maybe minimal training standards, maybe they haven't responded to an active shooter event for over a decade) would better respond to a mass shooter event? Is there reason to believe that Uvalde is an anomaly?

I agree. That is why I generally equate the gun-rights narrative of "good guys with guns" as a similar idea of "small town cops should get good" or that we need more militarized police. Relying on police as a solution to firearm violence and mass shootings is the same in my mind as the solution of "we just need more guns."

So your position is that cops should get good at neutralizing mass shooter events in small towns. Ok. How do we make that happen across the US in every small town?

I'm not intimate with the town of Uvalde, but I understand it is small, rural and potentially with a decreasing population. I imagine that a motivated cop that takes his job serious and everything and is in that town is looking elsewhere to work. I imagine highly effective cops would seek employment in a big city - San Antonio - or with the CBP. Paychecks may be a reason to leave and maybe even the idea that Uvalde is boring and real police work is limited (all assumptions on my part). My point is that Uvalde cops are potentially the bottom of the barrel - and there are lots of town like Uvalde. I have no reason to suspect that other similar small towns across the US would not respond in a similar way - in a way that potentially was ineffective to a mass shooting event. How do we address the mass shooting pandemic by making small towns across the US more effective at responding to mass shooter events? IMO that answer leans obviously into militarization reform - more warrior police in greater numbers, etc.

I get that you say you don't want more militarization, but "fixing cops," "getting them to do their jobs," "making them more effective," "getting them to drive into buildings," "being perfect 100% of the time every time," "getting them to ENGAGE, ENGAGE, ENGAGE," or whatever - on a large nationwide scale with short response times in every small community in the US would require reforms in the direction of more militarization. Your position is that we can do all of that without more militarization. Ok. How does that happen without more militarization? How does that happen across the US in every small town? The expectation that we have all the small towns across the US be able to breach against a guy with a semi auto rifle and potential body armor in a short amount of time would require more militarization - more "warrior" training, more armed police, etc.. Uvalde appears to be evidence of that. Decreasing our mass shooting problem through more effective police actions and faster swat response times, etc. - would require more militarization - more training - more armed police, etc. More militarization as a means of appreciably decreasing mass shooting events is the wrong direction IMO - the right direction lies elsewhere IMO - and that direction mostly lies with mostly with gun reform.

Even if your reporting is true, its rather clear IMO that 'good guys with guns' and a more militarized police force isn't going to decrease mass shootings - especially when compared to addressing the firearm saturation issue.

Ok. So like use it as a marketing campaign to rally turnout. Maybe. I wonder if that messaging would fire up the gun rights side more or the gun reform side more.

So how does this work in the context of Uvalde? Police reform is normally directed at the idea of demilitarization, decreasing the duties of police (not having armed police give out traffic citations, etc.), shifting certain domestic type calls to unarmed metal health responders, decriminalizing drugs, doing away with "warrior" training, etc. The end result of that would all normally decrease the numbers of armed first responders in a community and decrease the ability of a community to respond with a swat type force (increasing the response time for that level of force) - I imagine. Wouldn't we have to solve the issue with over saturation of firearms first - the firearms designed for mass murder? The evidence is clear IMO that more guns aren't going to prevent the next Uvalde - the MAGA buffalo shooter mowed down an armed security guard - the Uvalde guy apparently engaged and injured a couple police in the beginning - both of those events had a shooter with body armor and semi auto long rifles (I believe). I don't believe more guns or a more militarized police would decrease the frequency or magnitude of mass shooting events - especially when compared to something like assault weapons bans combined with registration and licensing requirements, robust background checks, and mandatory waiting periods.

It seems hard to amend the constitution. .https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/#:~:text=An amendment may be proposed,in each State for ratification. It seems an easier solution is to amend the SC's interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I may be wrong, but I think packing the SC can be completed with a simple majority of the Senate after doing away with the filibuster - or maybe they already did away with the filibuster when it comes adding SC justices.

If you don’t give a fuck about the key, then you shouldn’t argue about it. I get that you and brisket feel they should have shot their way in - or rammed through with a truck. I think a battering ram is probably safer and more effective. But in this case they used a key - I don’t think that is in dispute. We can talk about the 40 minutes to mobilize swat and get them to enter the locked and barricaded door. That is obviously too long considering the results, even for a town like Uvalde. But my original point is that it seems the first responders followed brisket’s source for engage-engage-engage. That resulted in a couple injuries and the barricade situation. I get that his feelings is that they should have kept engaging. I’m not arguing against that idea. Just stating facts, as I have read them. My other point is that good guys with guns isn’t the solution to mass shootings - this is further evidence of that. My point is that militarized police reform should be secondary to removing semi auto rifles from the equation

Here is a the source that they had to use a key because they couldn’t get the door open. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/texas-school-shooting-loved-ones-071441288.html

I read that they used a key. Your take and brisket’s take is that they should have shot through the door instead of used the key. Ok.

I agree. Without assault weapons the risks drop for everyone involved.

I assume the door was designed to prevent a mass shooter from entering getting since the swat guys used a key to enter the room.

I get that. But it seems some version of that was done by the first responders - the first couple cops on the scene. Which resulted in their injuries and the shooter barricading himself in a classroom - if reports are correct. Breaching a locked and barricaded door seems different than that. I understand the expectation is that the keys should have been quickly located and then the non-swat LEOs should have entered the room through the barricade and faced a shooter with a semi auto rifle and potentially body armor. That seems like the subject of an investigation

I agree solving mass shooting and our firearm violence pandemic will require a range of policy actions, but I don’t believe a more militarized police force should be part of that - or at least I would like to try the other solutions first.

Ok, but training is probably just as important as having gear - I imagine. Can any group of small town cops put on bullet proof vests and become a swat and charge a barricaded gunman with a semi auto and potential body armor? Obviously, less than 40 minutes should be expected, even for Uvalde. Everyone thinks it should be quicker. But if that quick swat mobilization is our ticket to the mass shooting pandemic, those times are going to need to real low - like under 5 minutes - I’m guessing. That seems like a huge task to implement nationwide