Shooter reported at Santa Fe, Texas school

[Murfdogg21 4413]

If some smart politicians can create a way to do stronger background checks and prevent nutjobs and minors from getting certain weapons while convincing us that there is not and will not be a gun owner registry, I would be all ears. 

[Hate 20122]

5 minutes ago, PW119 said:

WTF?

OK, the ban wouldn't have effected today's events.  So?  Wait until a kid uses a high capacity magazine, then ban?

I'm saying we need to work to identify the underlying issue. Go ahead and ban guns and high capacity magazines.  It does nothing to remove the need for some "nut" to "settle a score" with society.  

[Mole 4333]

8 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I graduated a few years before that.  There were a lot of fights between students off school grounds, but not too many at school itself, mostly just to avoid the repercussions of fighting at school.  However, from middle school up, most kids of all ages and social statuses would be outside after school instead of going straight home.  Kids now never seem to do anything outside of home or school unsupervised.  Where would they even have a fight to resolve that type of tension anymore?  

2

So when did "free range parenting" become the exception rather than the rule? I didn't really get into school fights, but I fought with the older neighborhood kids from time to time. They'd pick on me too much; I'd come at them; we'd cool off and go back to being friends. 

Most of the time it seems like it's a kid we'd identify as white. What's different about these communities?

[Hate 20122]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'll suggest that the billionaire club, a not-tiny percentage of which seems to be of the opinion that it is their duty to spend most of their fortunes on philanthropy, could focus on buying up those magazines.  There's your philanthropy.

How much of the current float could be bought with $10B?

I would sell my entire arsenal for $10 billion.  Done!

[Helobious 9463]

Just now, Murfdogg21 said:

If some smart politicians can create a way to do stronger background checks and prevent nutjobs and minors from getting certain weapons while convincing us that there is not and will not be a gun owner registry, I would be all ears. 

You get put on all sorts of registries for all sorts of things starting from birth. I have no idea why people think gun ownership should be exempt. 

[Capn81 373]

It's a great question. The hell of it that Congress has effectively limited the ability to research these questions by the CDC. Declare this a public health crisis, get the research started and see how we might impact this beyond just gun control (insights into teen social media, access to mental health and counseling, etc.). 

I do not have kids, but my siblings are 10-15 years younger than I am. I just noticed how much the “like” culture impacted them day-to-day. Thankfully, I did not grow up with social media. It is upping the maturation issues of kids. We all know that girls tend to develops faster than boys at younger ages. I truly think that most kids are not able to full reconcile the impacts that a seemingly harmless post can cause.

I hate harping on social media, but there was a great discussion on the FB thread about letting your kids play football. I think the same should be asked of social media. Obviously, different reasons for saying no, or yes.

This issue has so many levels, and no, not all/half of it is social media. Something needs to be done even if it only solves 10% of the issue. We are all too caught up in absolutes. Never will there be a 100% resolution, but the things that can prevent small pieces are the critical steps in 2018.

[jimmyjazz 45992]

17 minutes ago, Hate said:

Go ahead and ban assault rifles and high capacity magazines.  How would that have helped today if the early reports that he used a shotgun are accurate?  

Yay!  It's the "it won't stop every event so let's do nothing" argument!

[Mole 4333]

8 minutes ago, Txzen said:

It's a great question. The hell of it that Congress has effectively limited the ability to research these questions by the CDC. Declare this a public health crisis, get the research started and see how we might impact this beyond just gun control (insights into teen social media, access to mental health and counseling, etc.). 

That some sacred cow (and I'm generally pro-gun rights) keeps us from understanding the issue is upsetting. We're left flailing and offering guesses and empty words. It's no doubt a complex issue, so study it and understand it. It'll be messy, but that's to be expected.

[Pancho 44861]

Not sure if it's been mentioned in this thread, but in his facebook photo, he's wearing a bisexual pride heart pin.  Bullied a lot, I wonder...

Edited May 18, 2018 by Pancho Negro

[David Dennison 18938]

3 minutes ago, Helobious said:

You get put on all sorts of registries for all sorts of things starting from birth. I have no idea why people think gun ownership should be exempt. 

This.

[Tylerocks 2553]

6 minutes ago, Murfdogg21 said:

If some smart politicians can create a way to do stronger background checks and prevent nutjobs and minors from getting certain weapons while convincing us that there is not and will not be a gun owner registry, I would be all ears. 

Curious why a registry would be an issue?  Assuming you're a law abiding, responsible "good guy"?

 

Are you against auto registration too?

[BigHorn'13 3378]

Okay so a law is passed and manufacturers are not allowed to make magazines with a higher capacity of 15 bullets(for argument's sake.) What about the ones already out? Just because accessibility tightens as the years go by doesn't mean they're not out there. Again, just wondering about the logistics and compliance of such a law.

5 minutes ago, huge said:

 

Count me in the “multiple gun owner just fine with more regulations” camp

I'd be in that camp too if I knew the regulations are going to have the desired effect many want. Johnny Sack has a good outline but anytime I hear about high capacity bans, I think about if it's realistic or not.

[Pancho 44861]

 

[Hate 20122]

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Yay!  It's the "it won't stop every event so let's do nothing" argument!

Nowhere have I suggested this, and in fact said on Shaggy that I couldn't possibly care less if there was an immediate ban on AR's and high capacity magazines.  I'm just not in favor of making a stupid and futile gesture so that we can say "we did something".  What will the next step be when a kids shoots up a school with a pistol that only has a 9 round magazine?  People like you will be here screaming for bans on pistols with 9 round magazines, meanwhile the next "mass killer" is renting a big truck or researching how to make a bomb.

Edited May 18, 2018 by Hate

[MoJames 8244]

1 minute ago, Hate said:

Nowhere have I suggested this, and in fact said on Shaggy that I couldn't possibly care less if there was an immediate ban on AR's and high capacity magazines.  I'm just not in favor of making a stupid and futile gesture so that we can say "we did something".  What will the next step be when a kids shoots up a school with a pistol that only has a round magazine?  

Ok for argument sake, provide one argument for not banning AR's and high capacity magazines?

[jimmyjazz 45992]

2 minutes ago, Hate said:

Nowhere have I suggested this, and in fact said on Shaggy that I couldn't possibly care less if there was an immediate ban on AR's and high capacity magazines.  I'm just not in favor of making a stupid and futile gesture so that we can say "we did something".  What will the next step be when a kids shoots up a school with a pistol that only has a round magazine?  

Reducing death tolls equals "stupid and futile".  Got it.

[kevwun 15807]

7 minutes ago, Tylerocks said:

Curious why a registry would be an issue?  Assuming you're a law abiding, responsible "good guy"?

 

Are you against auto registration too?

It's so the Gubmint can't come in the middle of the night and steal all our guns.  That's what the NRA has been telling gun owners for a couple of decades at least.

 

Go ahead and neg this one too, PilotsError.  I know how you can't stand any unkind words about the NRA.

Edited May 18, 2018 by kevwun

[Moby Ric 2058]

Oh man,  Abc in Houston reporting that the FBI has searched this kids house in the past.  If true, holy crap.

[DDD Dad 14344]

Let's do nothing since we can't be sure that doing something might be helpful.

[Pato del Muerto 52531]

10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'll suggest that the billionaire club, a not-tiny percentage of which seems to be of the opinion that it is their duty to spend most of their fortunes on philanthropy, could focus on buying up those magazines.  There's your philanthropy.

How much of the current float could be bought with $10B?

You might also be able to have gun manufacturers alter their new guns and mags so that older mags aren’t compatible,  so that if I go buy a new glock 17 tomorrow, none of the mags floating around would fit it. 

So, don’t make new mags, and have the ones that already exist be useable on fewer and fewer % of guns in the market going forward. 

Offer to swap older models for newer to get even more compatibility out of the market. 

You don’t have to get to the ideal situation in one step, but let’s start moving in that direction. 

[Hate 20122]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Reducing death tolls equals "stupid and futile".  Got it.

Why is your goal to reduce?  Why is it not to eliminate?

[Capn81 373]

Oh man,  Abc in Houston reporting that the FBI has searched this kids house in the past.  If true, holy crap.

Not trying to flame anything, but how many times have heard this recently? We did with Parkland if I am not mistaken.

[Pato del Muerto 52531]

2 minutes ago, Hate said:

Why is your goal to reduce?  Why is it not to eliminate?

The natural end of reduction is elimination. 

[PhillyD 1257]

41 minutes ago, Mole said:

I graduated the year before Columbine. I remember some fights in schools with relatively minor consequences (detention, maybe ISS). I really wonder if we need more minor violence such as fights in schools to let off some of the steam. I remember in middle school the bullied kids eventually getting fed up and fighting their bullies. It seemed to resolve most of the frustration. Does that happen anymore?

I've wondered this for some time myself.  At my school, there were two boys determined to fight and the coaching staff actually got permission from their parents and set up a boxing match in the field house with no spectators.  I never heard the official results, but I heard rumors that by the end, they were both too tired to move.  This obviously is never coming back.

Back then, there were also gun racks in pick-up so kids could shoot doves after school and that's obviously not coming back either.

[BigHorn'13 3378]

2 minutes ago, Capn81 said:

 

Not trying to flame anything, but how many times have heard this recently? We did with Parkland if I am not mistaken.

 

I always wondered why the Sutherland Springs shooter was denied his LTC but allowed to buy the AR.

[jimmyjazz 45992]

3 minutes ago, Hate said:

Why is your goal to reduce?  Why is it not to eliminate?

Because a few gun deaths are good for society.

WTF kind of stupid question was that?

My BETTER answer would be that I understand the tug of war between liberty and societal effect and, for the most part, I would like to try to find some kind of middle ground where we don't destroy all 2A liberties yet also effect positive change.  It is a common struggle in a society that puts so much value on individual freedoms.

[Seasick Sailor 3747]

21 minutes ago, Txzen said:

It's a great question. The hell of it that Congress has effectively limited the ability to research these questions by the CDC. Declare this a public health crisis, get the research started and see how we might impact this beyond just gun control (insights into teen social media, access to mental health and counseling, etc.). 

The complexity of this issue is what makes the ban on the CDC researching this issue so misguided from a pro-gun rights perspective.

This is a complicated issue with many contributing factors. The pro-gun crowd is so terrified that the CDC will apportion some of the blame on easy access to guns that they fail to realize the research will almost certainly also point to several other contributing factors.

You then tie support for any regulations on firearms to laws addressing the other issues the research identifies. Essentially, no new gun regulations without corresponding regulations, etc. of the other issues whether it be mental health, social media use, etc.  

Right now, it's too easy for people to lay the entirety of the blame on guns. Allow the research to take place. It will show that guns aren't the only contributing factor. Asking that the other side address those issues as well as the gun issue is a much more reasonable position than simply being against any regulation of guns at all.

Eventually, the no regulation approach will result in a full on ban on guns. And while that may save many lives, it will not end all killings at schools and won't actually solve the issue of why children want to murder other children in the first place. Isn't that really the goal here?

[Murfdogg21 4413]

7 minutes ago, kevwun said:

It's so the Gubmint can't come in the middle of the night and steal all our guns.  That's what the NRA has been telling gun owners for a couple of decades at least.

 

Go ahead and neg this one too, PilotsError.  I know how you can't stand any unkind words about the NRA.

Mock all you like. People seem to ignore the history of firearm registration, usually followed by confiscation, when tyrannically parties come to political power. 

Similar argument to “why do regular people need 30 round magazines and sports rifles? Are you going to take on the army?” In the however unlikely event of a revolution or foreign invasion, it won’t  be the US Army or USMC, etc. firing on average citizens. And second, I personally would like whatever slim odds I or my family have to be maximized in such a scenario. 

Whoever said the end goal of reduction is elimination is right, whether people on the left side of this issue will admit it or consciously realize it themselves. 

[Capn81 373]

I always wondered why the Sutherland Springs shooter was denied his LTC but allowed to buy the AR.

I almost hate asking, but I am not ignorant to most gun talk! What is an LTC?

[MoJames 8244]

Just now, Murfdogg21 said:

Mock all you like. People seem to ignore the history of firearm registration, usually followed by confiscation, when tyrannically parties come to political power. 

Similar argument to “why do regular people need 30 round magazines and sports rifles? Are you going to take on the army?” In the however unlikely event of a revolution or foreign invasion, it won’t  be the US Army or USMC, etc. firing on average citizens. And second, I personally would like whatever slim odds I or my family have to be maximized in such a scenario. 

Whoever said the end goal of reduction is elimination is right, whether people on the left side of this issue will admit it or consciously realize it themselves. 

Wonder what the odds are of you having to fight off the Chinese Invasion versus losing one of your children to a school shooting is.

[BigHorn'13 3378]

1 minute ago, Capn81 said:

 

I almost hate asking, but I am not ignorant to most gun talk! What is an LTC?

 

license to carry

[Apep 645]

11 minutes ago, Murfdogg21 said:

If some smart politicians can create a way to do stronger background checks and prevent nutjobs and minors from getting certain weapons while convincing us that there is not and will not be a gun owner registry, I would be all ears. 

This would need a constitutional amendment, but private gun clubs could be an answer. This is just a rough sketch.

Any adult citizen could keep a single pistol and one single shot rifle at home (or at work or on their person). Anything in excess of that must be stored in the secure depository of a private gun club except when in use. Anyone that owns a gun, whether at home or elsewhere, must be a member of a private gun club. The clubs maintain private registries and the members are jointly and severally liable for the gun-related actions of their members. There would need to be appropriate legislation that limits liability in rare cases, e.g. hunting accidents or sudden, unpredictable psychosis. (An incel committing violence is not unpredictable. A guy that just lost his job and was recently cuckolded committing violence is not unpredictable.) The main idea would be to incorporate all gun owners in non-governmental societies that look out for the members' welfare. The legislation would also need draconian provisions for avoiding membership. It would also need substantial first amendment protections built in. If the Klan and the Black Panthers both want their own clubs, let them have them.

[Anastasis 23479]

So apparently the kid got the guns from his dad's legally purchased stash.  I think that the parents need to face charges in these cases. One of the legal beagles can point me in teh right direction, but somethign like accessory to murder.  Or create a new law. Punishment to be severed. Sooner or later after locking up a few parentsup for 20 years, people will get the picture.  

Edited May 18, 2018 by Anastasis

[DigDug 1672]

2 minutes ago, Capn81 said:

 

I almost hate asking, but I am not ignorant to most gun talk! What is an LTC?

 

I believe that is right below a full bird.

[Moby Ric 2058]

Go ahead and add Dan Patrick to the most punchable faces list if he is not already on it.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 hour ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Every gun owner is a law abiding gun owner, until they shoot up a school.

What you are really saying is "Anything you propose, I'm not going to support."

Ten years ago, I felt different. Now, I'm pretty much in the "ban em all" camp. And its assholes like you and pilot and smax that have pushed me there.

Keep it up bro. In two or four years, you are going to have a Dem president, Dem House, and Dem Senate. I suggest you make some proposals now, push your reps to implement them, while you still can. Because in two or four years, you law abiding gun owners are going to get bent the fuck over. And I'm not going to give a shit. 

Dickhead, I posted gun restrictions I would support in this very thread.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 hour ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Every gun owner is a law abiding gun owner, until they shoot up a school.

What you are really saying is "Anything you propose, I'm not going to support."

Ten years ago, I felt different. Now, I'm pretty much in the "ban em all" camp. And its assholes like you and pilot and smax that have pushed me there.

Keep it up bro. In two or four years, you are going to have a Dem president, Dem House, and Dem Senate. I suggest you make some proposals now, push your reps to implement them, while you still can. Because in two or four years, you law abiding gun owners are going to get bent the fuck over. And I'm not going to give a shit. 

Dickhead, I posted gun restrictions I would support in this very thread.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 hour ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Every gun owner is a law abiding gun owner, until they shoot up a school.

What you are really saying is "Anything you propose, I'm not going to support."

Ten years ago, I felt different. Now, I'm pretty much in the "ban em all" camp. And its assholes like you and pilot and smax that have pushed me there.

Keep it up bro. In two or four years, you are going to have a Dem president, Dem House, and Dem Senate. I suggest you make some proposals now, push your reps to implement them, while you still can. Because in two or four years, you law abiding gun owners are going to get bent the fuck over. And I'm not going to give a shit. 

Dickhead, I posted gun restrictions I would support in this very thread.

[TornACL 7721]

Just now, Anastasis said:

So apparently the kid got the guns from his dad's legally purchased stash.  I think that the parents need to face charges in these cases. 

Anything would be a step forward from what we're doing today. Which is literally nothing.

[jimmyjazz 45992]

You can say that again.  And again.

[Murfdogg21 4413]

1 minute ago, MoJames said:

Wonder what the odds are of you having to fight off the Chinese Invasion versus losing one of your children to a school shooting is.

I assume both are incredibly small. I am certainly of the opinion that every child’s death is horrific and should be prevented where possible, short of permanently eliminating facets of Liberty that are in place to keep this country free in perpetuity, particular when/if an alternative action may bring about similar reductions in killings without banning guns or putting everyone on a registry. 

[Capn81 373]

license to carry

Ah, thanks.

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

10 minutes ago, Murfdogg21 said:

Mock all you like. People seem to ignore the history of firearm registration, usually followed by confiscation, when tyrannically parties come to political power. 

Similar argument to “why do regular people need 30 round magazines and sports rifles? Are you going to take on the army?” In the however unlikely event of a revolution or foreign invasion, it won’t  be the US Army or USMC, etc. firing on average citizens. And second, I personally would like whatever slim odds I or my family have to be maximized in such a scenario. 

Whoever said the end goal of reduction is elimination is right, whether people on the left side of this issue will admit it or consciously realize it themselves. 

 

[Hank Kingsley 20988]

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The problem is what would make someone want to shoot up a school?  

Even if you removed all guns, these highly disturbed individuals would be in the population going untreated.

I’m for some gun legislation to reduce body counts but that’s still largely ignoring the underlying problem.

Agreed that mental illness is the underlying problem, but we are decades - if not centuries - away from a general acceptance of these issues from society.  It's one thing for Person A to study Person B and say that Person B has a particular mental issue. The difficult part will be for Person B to identify, accept, and treat their OWN mental issues. 

Right now there are people that don't believe in depression. They think it can be easily "fixed".  The mind is a wonderful, powerful, and frightening thing. We are only at the beginning of understanding the ins and outs of how the brain works. 

We don't have time to figure out mental illness right now. We need strict gun control laws: required licenses, extensive background checks, magazine limits, age restrictions, stiff penalties for irresponsible gun owners. Society has failed with current laws. Time to adapt. 

 

Edited May 18, 2018 by Hank Kingsley

[MoJames 8244]

8 minutes ago, Murfdogg21 said:

I assume both are incredibly small. I am certainly of the opinion that every child’s death is horrific and should be prevented where possible, short of permanently eliminating facets of Liberty that are in place to keep this country free in perpetuity, particular when/if an alternative action may bring about similar reductions in killings without banning guns or putting everyone on a registry. 

I always enjoy assuming things when it comes to the potential of kids dying.

[C-Man 27235]

3 hours ago, South Austin said:

Not to belabor the point, but the data in the article isn't "between" 1992 and 2015.  It's just two years, 1992-93 and 2014-15.  Maybe there's an article that uses data in every year from 1992 to 2015, but I haven't seen it.  I'm not saying the ultimate conclusion is wrong, but the data used raises questions.

US Population in 1992: 265,000,000

US Population in 2014: 318,600,000

Edited May 18, 2018 by C-Man

[MoJames 8244]

3 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Agreed that mental illness is the underlying problem, but we are decades - if not centuries - away from a general acceptance of these issues from society.  It's one thing for Person A to study Person B and say that Person B has a particular mental issue. The difficult part will be for Person B to accept, identify, and treat their OWN mental issues. 

Right now there are people that don't believe in depression. They think it can be easily "fixed".  The mind is a wonderful, powerful, and frightening thing. We are only at the beginning of understanding the ins and outs of how the brain works. 

We don't have time to figure out mental illness right now. We need strict gun control laws: required licenses, extensive background checks, magazine limits, age restrictions, stiff penalties for irresponsible gun owners. Society has failed with current laws. Time to adapt. 

 

The tools currently available in the medical field are no where near effective in treating these ailments.  Add on to that the unbelievable shortage on mental health providers and the fact that a significant amount of them do not accept medicare or medicaid and you have a feel for how close we are to providing any sort of assistance on identifying and treating those with mental health ailments.

[BigHorn'13 3378]

3 minutes ago, Capn81 said:

Ah, thanks.

Not really related but recently I purchased a gun and found out that because I have a LTC, I do not have to fill out the paperwork or have a background check ran. It's a little disturbing that I am able to purchase guns like alcohol (literally handing over my id is all that's required.) Not that filling out a piece of paper is some great barrier but it felt a little too easy.

[phdhorn 6224]

This thing is 4 miles from my daughter (Texas City, pretty much just across 45 from Santa Fe).  She says it's been crazy with all the police cars etc. running up 45 and 6, as you can easily imagine.

[Tylerocks 2553]