[Discussion] Mass Shooting at Uvalde Elementary School

[B00M 6280]

14 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

@NotActuallyALonghorn, I am just quoting the below from your long post:

All this rubbish about digital ATF records and gun rights “fears” gets to the heart of the matter.  The gun lobby and their paranoid clientele invented something to get people angry about, then demanded that any background check legislation address their concerns—- concerns over something that doesn’t exist, is illegal, and was specifically prohibited by Manchin-Toomey.  (Also— the bill had a bipartisan sponsor and the D sponsor is the most conservative D in the Senate!) 

Perfectly illustrative of the debate— demands to compromise to allay conspiracy theory fears.  
 

For those interested, the truth about the ATF digital records:

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf-non-searchable-databases/ 

 

 

Gun Owners of America claims to have evidence of a searchable ATF database but they've got the report behind a paywall so... Yeah...

[aggie08 21414]

How many of the mass shootings have involved truly illegal guns? Having pretty much all of them been purchased legally, from a private seller, at a gun show, through a loophole, or stolen from a friend or family member who acquired them legally (but then failed in safe storage)?

It's almost like, now hear me out, most people--especially teenagers--don't have an arms dealer on speed dial.

The "criminals and/or crazy people will still find a way; you're only hurting responsible gun owners" argument is such unapologetic horseshit.

[B00M 6280]

15 minutes ago, Jshep34 said:

I just don't understand why people need 10 rifles, 8 pistols and hundreds rounds of ammo for each. 

Variety is the spice of life? Anyway, weird or not, collectors are not the problem.

[TwiceHorn 31240]

9 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

How many of the mass shootings have involved truly illegal guns? Having pretty much all of them been purchased legally, from a private seller, at a gun show, through a loophole, or stolen from a friend or family member who acquired them legally (but then failed in safe storage)?

It's almost like, now hear me out, most people--especially teenagers--don't have an arms dealer on speed dial.

The "criminals and/or crazy people will still find a way; you're only hurting responsible gun owners" argument is such unapologetic horseshit.

Yeah, I mean it is probably mostly true that if guns were confiscated only criminals (meaning hardcore with a record) would have guns.  But criminals tend to mostly use guns on each other.

Most of the mass shooters do not have sufficient criminal records to foreclose their purchase of firearms.  They *might* have sufficient mental health records to foreclose purchase of firearms, under a far more comprehensive mental health treatment regime and more comprehensive background checks than currently exist.

Responsible gun owners should not object to restrictions that tend to insure their responsibility.

I happen to own a surfeit of semi-automatic weapons, only one of which (M1A) is really a "military style" weapon (two .22s and a 12ga).  I wouldn't mind having to be licensed to own them.  No one seems to object to SOT/NFA licenses for full auto weapons and I would assume that the licensure requirements would be less onerous than that.

Edited May 28, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Dahobbs 17420]

1 hour ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

There are a few legitimate reasons. Like if you are out of town and happen to come across something rare that you've been looking for for a long time. I'm not sure if you can get something shipped directly to you from a FFL or not if you have already completed the transfer and are just waiting on a waiting period, but that would seem reasonable. But the other big one would be like when somebody posts bail and has made threats towards their victims. There could obviously be a system to grant exceptions for stuff like that.

This a stupid reason for an exception to a waiting period. If it is rare, you'll be fine purchasing and waiting 6 weeks to get it. The amount of people that actually need a gun to protect them from a recent, but not immediate threat is pretty close to 0

Edited May 28, 2022 by Dahobbs

[Js1 85085]

10 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

This a stupid reason for an exception to a waiting period. If it is rare, you'll be fine purchasing and waiting 6 weeks to get it. The amount of people that actually need a gun to protect them from a recent, but not immediate threat is pretty close to 0

Children require their toys now 

[Eskimohorn 5610]

In order to adequately safeguard elementary schools from suicidal gunmen with AR-15’s you need teams of combat veterans with reciprocal firepower at all times, at all entrances, all buses, and do this without any security lines.

You also now need to install bullet-proof glass or remove windows on 1st floors. Also, make sure all staff and students are empowered to subdue gunmen from just walking in. And if gunmen threaten staff or students to gain access, sometimes they’ll need to be expendable.

Students also have to one by one enter and exit the building like in war zones to prevent snipers from getting a target-rich environment. Recess and other grounds will look like the yard in your avg max security prison.

It’s all mental gymnastics and security theater so weapons manufacturers can move product.

[Jshep34 2303]

Think only a compromise of a longer waiting period, true, honest mental health evaluation, raise age limit and also a limit on ammo/firearm owned is what id like to see. But thatll never happen.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

On 5/27/2022 at 9:20 AM, Ghost of LL said:

It's clear that the American people want real, effective gun control.  Background checks have >80% approval in virtually every poll.  And assault-weapons ban gets about 3-1 approval.  But Congress won't act to accomplish that, because our democracy is broken.  Perhaps irretrievably so.  

So when your government doesn't work, there's only one option for the people to take: direct action.

On this issue, that means burning down gun stores.  Go in the middle of the night with a few molotov cocktails, and burn them the fuck down.  Fuck--with all the ammunition and shit inside, they'll go up with quite a lot of drama long before the fire fighters can do anything about it.  

And what?  Are you going to be morally troubled because Handcruiser just lost his business?  Fuck no.  Fuck him.  He profited off human misery for long enough.

And anyways, his losses are insured.  But that's really the point, isn't it?  You don't have to burn down every gun store.  You just have to burn down enough to make them uninsurable.

If we want change in this country, our course is clear.

Were you drunk when you posted this?

[burntorangebongos 10681]

As if you are the reasonable one, what with your continual backing of the GOP no matter how much they obstruct common sense gun legislation. Go suck Gregg Abbott's shriveled dick, Johnny.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

As if you are the reasonable one, what with your continual backing of the GOP no matter how much they obstruct common sense gun legislation. Go suck Gregg Abbott's shriveled dick, Johnny.

Yes, I do not advocate burning down gun stores.

I am sure GOLL will get right after that. 

[burntorangebongos 10681]

Gregg Abbott would advocate for the same if it helped keep him in power because he is a soulless whore who has proven he will do what it takes to keep the votes. And you are either a sick shit who condones it or a duped chucklehead to keep him there. 

[Michael Knight 12878]

4 hours ago, Jshep34 said:

Honest question to any gun owners on here, what/why is the need for a common citizen to own a high capacity long rifle? Any style weapon that can fire 10 plus rounds in a single clip while firing on 1 squeeze of the trigger?


 

My dick is small and this makes it feel bigger

[Michael Knight 12878]

48 minutes ago, Jshep34 said:

Think only a compromise of a longer waiting period, true, honest mental health evaluation, raise age limit and also a limit on ammo/firearm owned is what id like to see. But thatll never happen.


 

The time for compromise is over, the only way to solve this is with a violent insurrection. Fortunately we all have so many guns

[Michael Knight 12878]

1 hour ago, B00M said:

Variety is the spice of life? Anyway, weird or not, collectors are not the problem.

Except it's those very collectors that are the problem. You think the dude killing kids is voting?

[Captainant 27403]

4 hours ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:

Those who can pass a background check for a gun purchase tomorrow should have no problem with this. Those who can’t probably have no business getting a gun without the right screenings

For the millionth time: the Uvalde shooter acquired his rifles via an FFL, fully legally, with background check and all.

[Archer 474]

4 hours ago, immamac said:

Just in case people want to compare the 2.

14 dead in 96 minutes (UT Tower)

63 dead and 481 injured with over 1000 rounds fired (Las Vegas) guy was dead sometime less than 80 minutes from start. 
 

Im thinking about not banning people, but giving them flair and shaming them for such incredibly stupid takes. 

And there were 21 people killed in ~90 minutes in Uvalde using an AR. 
 

My post wasn’t to compare any of the events it was to respond to the comment that there was no need for regulations on bolt action rifles because they aren’t used in mass shooting events except for the one time where one was used for a mass shooting on the UT campus. 

[DDD Dad 14243]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

Were you drunk when you posted this?

I was drunk when I read it.  Does that count?

[immamac 42513]

16 minutes ago, Archer said:

And there were 21 people killed in ~90 minutes in Uvalde using an AR. 
 

My post wasn’t to compare any of the events it was to respond to the comment that there was no need for regulations on bolt action rifles because they aren’t used in mass shooting events except for the one time where one was used for a mass shooting on the UT campus. 

The ban part wasnt directed at you or the quoted post. It was a general warning to the community. 

I understood what you were doing, which is why I posted the cliffs for people who weren't going to click. 

[aggie08 21414]

34 minutes ago, Captainant said:

For the millionth time: the Uvalde shooter acquired his rifles via an FFL, fully legally, with background check and all.

Yep. "Focusing on mental health" wouldn't have detected him either. As posted on another thread, people with true, diagnosable mental health ailments don't tend to be violent towards others. Most of the shooters are just angry kids who think they have nothing to live for, and, in their minds, killing other people is the only thing that will ever garner them attention. Short of killing neighborhood cats as a precursor, most of their anti-social behaviors aren't going to put them in front of a qualified psychiatrist to give them a lasting diagnosis before they snap. They need to not have access to guns while their brains are still undeveloped and their hormones a roller coaster. It really is that easy.

Owning a gun should be a combination of obtaining a driver's license and, like someone mentioned earlier, applying for Global Entry. Age requirements, safety and proficiency tests (more elaborate depending on what kind of license), an in-person interview, proof of insurance (gun safe), registration, clean background check and driving record.

None of that is particularly difficult, but it would weed out 90% of these perpetrators. 

[Fondren & Main 6665]

48 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

I was drunk when I read it.  Does that count?

I’m drunk now.

[Js1 85085]

18 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Yep. "Focusing on mental health" wouldn't have detected him either. As posted on another thread, people with true, diagnosable mental health ailments don't tend to be violent towards others. Most of the shooters are just angry kids who think they have nothing to live for, and, in their minds, killing other people is the only thing that will ever garner them attention. Short of killing neighborhood cats as a precursor, most of their anti-social behaviors aren't going to put them in front of a qualified psychiatrist to give them a lasting diagnosis before they snap. They need to not have access to guns while their brains are still undeveloped and their hormones a roller coaster. It really is that easy.

Owning a gun should be a combination of obtaining a driver's license and, like someone mentioned earlier, applying for Global Entry. Age requirements, safety and proficiency tests (more elaborate depending on what kind of license), an in-person interview, proof of insurance (gun safe), registration, clean background check and driving record.

None of that is particularly difficult, but it would weed out 90% of these perpetrators. 

Check their social media, hard. 

[Pods 7525]

10 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Check their social media, hard. 

They were, but he slipped through the cracks. As long as the shooters can get these guns so easily, you are playing Whack-A-Mole and this will happen regularly.  

https://gizmodo.com/surveillance-tech-uvalde-robb-elementary-school-shootin-1848977283

Quote

According to UCISD’s security page, the district employed a safety management system from security vendor Raptor Technologies, designed to monitor school visitors and screen for dangerous individuals. It also used a social media monitoring solution, Social Sentinel, that sifted through children’s online lives to scan for signs of violent or suicidal ideation. Students could download an anti-bullying app (the STOP!T app) to report abusive peers, and an online portal at ucisd.net allowed parents and community members to submit reports of troubling behavior to administrators for further investigation.

Spoiler

Surveillance Tech Didn't Stop the Uvalde Massacre

Robb Elementary's school district implemented state-of-the-art surveillance that was in line with the governor's recommendations to little avail.

Photo: Jordan Vonderhaar (Getty Images)

On Tuesday, a horrific but familiar story unfolded: a disturbed 18-year-old had traveled to Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, where he used a legally purchased assault rifle to murder 21 people: 19 children and two teachers. Before the dust had settled over the Texas border town, the conversation turned to the prevention of future shootings. Schools across Texas quickly promised increased security and new protective measures.

But how do you protect against something that often seems as pitiless and arbitrary as a bolt of lightning? For years, some have insisted that the 
best strategy is to adopt new security measures and invest in emergent surveillance technologies—the hope being that new products paired with hyper-vigilance will identify and stop the next shooter before he pulls the trigger.

The Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District, of which Robb is a member, followed this conventional wisdom and embraced modern security solutions at its schools. Indeed, the district had actually doubled its security budget over the past several years to invest in a variety of recommended precautions.

According to UCISD’s security page, the district employed a safety management system from security vendor Raptor Technologies, designed to monitor school visitors and screen for dangerous individuals. It also used a social media monitoring solution, Social Sentinel, that sifted through children’s online lives to scan for signs of violent or suicidal ideation. Students could download an anti-bullying app (the STOP!T app) to report abusive peers, and an online portal at ucisd.net allowed parents and community members to submit reports of troubling behavior to administrators for further investigation. As has been noted, UCISD also had its own police force, developed significant ties to the local police department, and had an emergency response plan. It even deployed “Threat Assessment Teams” that were scheduled to meet regularly to “identify, evaluate, classify and address threats or potential threats to school security.”

And yet, none of the new security measures seemed to matter much when a disturbed young man brought a legally purchased weapon to Robb and committed the deadliest school shooting in the state’s history. The perpetrator wasn’t a student and therefore couldn’t be monitored by its security systems.

UCISD didn’t adopt its new measures in a vacuum. The district implemented them not long after a 2018 shooting in Santa Fe, Texas that killed eight high school students and two teachers. In the wake of the massacre, Gov. Greg Abbott passed new legislationand published a 40-page list of recommendations to enhance school safety. The list, among other things, included using technology to “prevent attacks.” The governor also recommended increasing the number of police officers at schools, deepening ties between local law enforcement and school districts, and providing better mental health resources for students.

But during a press conference Wednesday, Steve McGraw, director of the Texas Department of Public Safety admitted that security measures had failed to offer the protections they were supposed to: “Obviously, this is a situation where we failed in the sense that we didn’t prevent this mass attack,” he said. 

Turning to Emergent Technologies

Whether outfitting America’s schools like miniature fortresses actually helps to stop shootings is anything but clear. One thing’s for sure, though: there’s no shortage of companies out there that believe their products will make the world a safer place.

Of the many solutions that have been sold to schools as risk mitigators, social media monitoring has become one of the most common. Trolling through students’ online lives to look for signs of danger is now a routine procedure in many districts. In fact, legislators have discussed mandating such surveillance features for schools across the country. UCISD employed one such company, but Gov. Abbott said Wednesday that “there was no meaningful forewarning of this crime.” The shooter sent private messages threatening the attack via Facebook Messenger half an hour before it occurred, but they were private and therefore would have been invisible to outside observers.

Facial recognition is another technology that has been offered to schools as a basic safety mechanism. The number of schools that have adopted face recording solutions has risen precipitously in recent years (Clearview AI announced this week that it has its sights on cracking into the market). However, despite their growing popularity, there is little evidence that these security apparatuses actually do anything to stop school shootings. Even supporters of facial recognition admit that the systems probably won’t do much once a shooter’s on school property.

Covert weapons scanners are also on the rise. Such devices can be quietly installed on campuses to scan entire crowds for signs of firearms or weaponry, according to the companies that make them. These businesses have explicitly courted schools and promised that their products can identify weapons before they become active threats. Whether they’re correct—and what the privacy tradeoffs of surreptitious scans are—remains to be seen. In the case of the Uvalde shooting, it’s hard to see how a weapons scanner would’ve actually prevented anything.

If security buffs are keen on all of this stuff, privacy advocates look at the current trends as well-intentioned if ultimately misguided attempts to solve a much more complicated problem.

“Whether it’s facial recognition, monitoring software on school devices, cameras—all these types of surveillance have become extremely ubiquitous,” said Jason Kelley, digital strategist with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, in an interview with Gizmodo. “The companies that sell these tools are trying to do something positive—they’re trying to minimize tragedy,” he said. Yet not only can these products ultimately be ineffective, they can also end up having negative side-effects on the children they’re meant to protect, Kelley offered. The intrusiveness of the tools are such that students may grow up feeling as if they have to be surveilled to be safe—even if the surveillance isn’t actually keeping them safe.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Give us your email address or the robot gets it.

Some studies suggest that what surveillance actually provides is punishment rather than protection. The cameras and software can turn schools into little panopticons, where student behavior is constantly analyzed and assessed, and where minor infractions can be spotted and disciplined. But if the systems are good at providing internal regulation to the institutions that deploy them, the question remains: are they also good at keeping kids safe? And can an algorithm or a new scanner really see something that often feels totally invisible to the naked eye?

 

[Sawbonz 27392]

3 hours ago, aggie08 said:

How many of the mass shootings have involved truly illegal guns? Having pretty much all of them been purchased legally, from a private seller, at a gun show, through a loophole, or stolen from a friend or family member who acquired them legally (but then failed in safe storage)?

It's almost like, now hear me out, most people--especially teenagers--don't have an arms dealer on speed dial.

The "criminals and/or crazy people will still find a way; you're only hurting responsible gun owners" argument is such unapologetic horseshit.

The only one I can think of is the Sutherland Springs shooter. He should have been flagged on background check but AF didn’t submit records to the database 

 

 

[Dahobbs 17420]

51 minutes ago, Pods said:

They were, but he slipped through the cracks. As long as the shooters can get these guns so easily, you are playing Whack-A-Mole and this will happen regularly.  

https://gizmodo.com/surveillance-tech-uvalde-robb-elementary-school-shootin-1848977283

  Hide contents

Surveillance Tech Didn't Stop the Uvalde Massacre

Robb Elementary's school district implemented state-of-the-art surveillance that was in line with the governor's recommendations to little avail.

Photo: Jordan Vonderhaar (Getty Images)

On Tuesday, a horrific but familiar story unfolded: a disturbed 18-year-old had traveled to Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, where he used a legally purchased assault rifle to murder 21 people: 19 children and two teachers. Before the dust had settled over the Texas border town, the conversation turned to the prevention of future shootings. Schools across Texas quickly promised increased security and new protective measures.

But how do you protect against something that often seems as pitiless and arbitrary as a bolt of lightning? For years, some have insisted that the 
best strategy is to adopt new security measures and invest in emergent surveillance technologies—the hope being that new products paired with hyper-vigilance will identify and stop the next shooter before he pulls the trigger.

The Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District, of which Robb is a member, followed this conventional wisdom and embraced modern security solutions at its schools. Indeed, the district had actually doubled its security budget over the past several years to invest in a variety of recommended precautions.

According to UCISD’s security page, the district employed a safety management system from security vendor Raptor Technologies, designed to monitor school visitors and screen for dangerous individuals. It also used a social media monitoring solution, Social Sentinel, that sifted through children’s online lives to scan for signs of violent or suicidal ideation. Students could download an anti-bullying app (the STOP!T app) to report abusive peers, and an online portal at ucisd.net allowed parents and community members to submit reports of troubling behavior to administrators for further investigation. As has been noted, UCISD also had its own police force, developed significant ties to the local police department, and had an emergency response plan. It even deployed “Threat Assessment Teams” that were scheduled to meet regularly to “identify, evaluate, classify and address threats or potential threats to school security.”

And yet, none of the new security measures seemed to matter much when a disturbed young man brought a legally purchased weapon to Robb and committed the deadliest school shooting in the state’s history. The perpetrator wasn’t a student and therefore couldn’t be monitored by its security systems.

UCISD didn’t adopt its new measures in a vacuum. The district implemented them not long after a 2018 shooting in Santa Fe, Texas that killed eight high school students and two teachers. In the wake of the massacre, Gov. Greg Abbott passed new legislationand published a 40-page list of recommendations to enhance school safety. The list, among other things, included using technology to “prevent attacks.” The governor also recommended increasing the number of police officers at schools, deepening ties between local law enforcement and school districts, and providing better mental health resources for students.

But during a press conference Wednesday, Steve McGraw, director of the Texas Department of Public Safety admitted that security measures had failed to offer the protections they were supposed to: “Obviously, this is a situation where we failed in the sense that we didn’t prevent this mass attack,” he said. 

Turning to Emergent Technologies

Whether outfitting America’s schools like miniature fortresses actually helps to stop shootings is anything but clear. One thing’s for sure, though: there’s no shortage of companies out there that believe their products will make the world a safer place.

Of the many solutions that have been sold to schools as risk mitigators, social media monitoring has become one of the most common. Trolling through students’ online lives to look for signs of danger is now a routine procedure in many districts. In fact, legislators have discussed mandating such surveillance features for schools across the country. UCISD employed one such company, but Gov. Abbott said Wednesday that “there was no meaningful forewarning of this crime.” The shooter sent private messages threatening the attack via Facebook Messenger half an hour before it occurred, but they were private and therefore would have been invisible to outside observers.

Facial recognition is another technology that has been offered to schools as a basic safety mechanism. The number of schools that have adopted face recording solutions has risen precipitously in recent years (Clearview AI announced this week that it has its sights on cracking into the market). However, despite their growing popularity, there is little evidence that these security apparatuses actually do anything to stop school shootings. Even supporters of facial recognition admit that the systems probably won’t do much once a shooter’s on school property.

Covert weapons scanners are also on the rise. Such devices can be quietly installed on campuses to scan entire crowds for signs of firearms or weaponry, according to the companies that make them. These businesses have explicitly courted schools and promised that their products can identify weapons before they become active threats. Whether they’re correct—and what the privacy tradeoffs of surreptitious scans are—remains to be seen. In the case of the Uvalde shooting, it’s hard to see how a weapons scanner would’ve actually prevented anything.

If security buffs are keen on all of this stuff, privacy advocates look at the current trends as well-intentioned if ultimately misguided attempts to solve a much more complicated problem.

“Whether it’s facial recognition, monitoring software on school devices, cameras—all these types of surveillance have become extremely ubiquitous,” said Jason Kelley, digital strategist with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, in an interview with Gizmodo. “The companies that sell these tools are trying to do something positive—they’re trying to minimize tragedy,” he said. Yet not only can these products ultimately be ineffective, they can also end up having negative side-effects on the children they’re meant to protect, Kelley offered. The intrusiveness of the tools are such that students may grow up feeling as if they have to be surveilled to be safe—even if the surveillance isn’t actually keeping them safe.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Give us your email address or the robot gets it.

Some studies suggest that what surveillance actually provides is punishment rather than protection. The cameras and software can turn schools into little panopticons, where student behavior is constantly analyzed and assessed, and where minor infractions can be spotted and disciplined. But if the systems are good at providing internal regulation to the institutions that deploy them, the question remains: are they also good at keeping kids safe? And can an algorithm or a new scanner really see something that often feels totally invisible to the naked eye?

 

Picking the hardest possible strategies is stupid. Delay purchasing until 25 and make folks wait 6 weeks for any purchase. 

[gmr548 16481]

Hawkins: Practical Steps to Keep Schools, Students Safe (breitbart.com)
pretty good article with much needed common sense approach

This is a perfect example of why nothing will ever get fixed. The Overton Window has moved so far and hard to the right, and the naked partisanship is so deeply entrenched, that 40% of the country will nod their heads in approval at absolute garbage like this; because even if it’s a completely indefensible, bad faith argument coming from a publication that openly pines for authoritarian white nationalism with zero interest in any kind of integrity, it’s still better than letting them communists take the sick boom boom toys.

Unbelievable - well, I wish so could say that anyway. Because it’s really not surprising at all.

On tapa but definitely bookmarking this for a neg. I rarely do that so bravo!

[Bevo 13516]

46 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Picking the hardest possible strategies is stupid. Delay purchasing until 25 and make folks wait 6 weeks for any purchase. 

 

How old do you have to be to hunt? I'd prefer hunting with my kids than with most adults. Same with fishing.

Edited May 29, 2022 by Bevo

[gmr548 16481]

If you think arming teachers is the solution, you’re a fucking moron.

“We should absolutely arm teachers, who are also agents of a leftist cabal working to indoctrinate children and corrupt their morals and sexuality” - things actual adults who vote think.

We’re straight fucked.

[Goredho 17341]

6 hours ago, Not that Bob said:

Age to obtain firearms should be raised to, at least 25. Below from Nature.com Most, if not all of these shooters are young men in the below age range. Not the solution but a part of the solution.

This is the first large-scale epidemiological meta-analysis that includes all available general population birth, cross-sectional and incidence studies investigating the age at onset of any ICD/DSM-mental disorders. Overall, the global onset of the first mental disorder occurs before age 14 in one-third of individuals, age 18 in almost half (48.4%), and before age 25 in half (62.5%), with a peak/median age at onset of 14.5/18 years across all mental disorders.

Yeah, we’ve got a large enough sample size to make data-driven decisions on guns that will not limit law abiding gun owners from having the opportunity to own them.

We just don’t have the intelligence and balls to make it happen.

[Dahobbs 17420]

20 minutes ago, Bevo said:

 

How old do you have to be to hunt? I'd prefer hunting with my kids than with most adults. Same with fishing.

What the fuck does that have to do with it? I said purchase, not possess. I don't care if you hunt with your 18 year old. But he shouldn't be able to buy a gun anymore than a 9 year old should. 

Edited May 29, 2022 by Dahobbs

[Bevo 13516]

8 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

What the fuck does that have to do with it? I said purchase, not possess. I don't care if you hunt with your 18 year old. But he shouldn't be able to buy a gun anymore than a 9 year old should. 

Are you a chihuahua? Your yapping and snarling deserves a good newspaper to the nose.

[Dahobbs 17420]

Just now, Bevo said:

Are you a chihuahua? Your yapping and snarling deserves a good newspaper to the nose.

Clearly you're a moron. Again, what does hunting with your kids have to do with regulating the age of purchase? Can you answer that question? Do you expect the 12 year old to buy the gun by himself? 

[freyguy 4245]

1 hour ago, Bevo said:

 

How old do you have to be to hunt? I'd prefer hunting with my kids than with most adults. Same with fishing.

 

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

Are you a chihuahua? Your yapping and snarling deserves a good newspaper to the nose.

I bet you are a fucking pussy away from the keyboard.

[Pato del Muerto 52336]

2 hours ago, Bevo said:

 

How old do you have to be to hunt? I'd prefer hunting with my kids than with most adults. Same with fishing.

To further belabor the idiocy of this, friendly reminder that minors in Texas can consume alcohol given to them by their parent/guardian. But they can’t buy it themselves until 21.  
 

 

[Bevo 13516]

8 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

friendly reminder that minors in Texas can consume alcohol given to them by their parent/guardian. But they can’t buy it themselves until 21. 

Is a minor in possession no longer a thing? Back in the day I saw lots of people arrested for it. But, your response is most definitely valid. And that would have to be the thing lawmakers would have to write into any law. Minors would still be able to get hunting licenses. Minors would still be able to possess guns. They just couldn't purchase.

It would be just a little odd that law enforcement and most soldiers who are much better trained and much more capable than most everyone in handling firearms couldn't go buy one without a carve-out. Maybe lawmakers would have another carve out so law enforcement and military and young teachers could buy guns or maybe do away with any age restriction for most guns but require gun safety training and have age restrictions and gun safety requirements on pistols and semi-automatics.

[BurntOrange&White 39567]

Everyone is a law abiding citizen when they legally purchase firearms until their not. 

[Sawbonz 27392]

11 hours ago, Bevo said:

 

How old do you have to be to hunt? I'd prefer hunting with my kids than with most adults. Same with fishing.

Did you send your kids to academy to buy their own guns before the hunt?

[Dahobbs 17420]

1 hour ago, Bevo said:

Is a minor in possession no longer a thing? Back in the day I saw lots of people arrested for it. But, your response is most definitely valid. And that would have to be the thing lawmakers would have to write into any law. Minors would still be able to get hunting licenses. Minors would still be able to possess guns. They just couldn't purchase.

It would be just a little odd that law enforcement and most soldiers who are much better trained and much more capable than most everyone in handling firearms couldn't go buy one without a carve-out. Maybe lawmakers would have another carve out so law enforcement and military and young teachers could buy guns or maybe do away with any age restriction for most guns but require gun safety training and have age restrictions and gun safety requirements on pistols and semi-automatics.

Or, and hear me out, just have an age restriction on the purchase of firearms until 25. It is easy to enforce through the seller. It would prevent the individuals who are most responsible for school shootings from purchasing guns. Who gives a shit if "it is a little strange" in some circumstances? Soldiers have their weapons provided by the military and tightly controlled. And cops have proven time and time again that they shouldn't have guns (and in this case wouldn't even use them to protect kids). I also question whether anyone under the age of 25 should be a cop anyway. 

[Dahobbs 17420]

1 hour ago, Bevo said:

Is a minor in possession no longer a thing? Back in the day I saw lots of people arrested for it. But, your response is most definitely valid. And that would have to be the thing lawmakers would have to write into any law. Minors would still be able to get hunting licenses. Minors would still be able to possess guns. They just couldn't purchase.

Because you're very confused about this: the regulation of purchase, possession, and consumption of alcohol are all separate provisions in the Texas penal code. A law that banned that purchasing of guns wouldn't necessarily ban the possession of them. And yes, in Texas, there is a carve out for the possession and consumption of alcohol by a minor in the presence of their parent or guardian. 

Feel free to read;

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs/AL/htm/AL.106.htm

[TXSG8R 3360]

14 hours ago, Js1 said:

Check their social media, hard. 

TIL there are people that think social media accounts can be traced to people with any serious accuracy. 

[Pato del Muerto 52336]

1 hour ago, Bevo said:

Is a minor in possession no longer a thing? Back in the day I saw lots of people arrested for it. But, your response is most definitely valid. And that would have to be the thing lawmakers would have to write into any law. Minors would still be able to get hunting licenses. Minors would still be able to possess guns. They just couldn't purchase.

It would be just a little odd that law enforcement and most soldiers who are much better trained and much more capable than most everyone in handling firearms couldn't go buy one without a carve-out. Maybe lawmakers would have another carve out so law enforcement and military and young teachers could buy guns or maybe do away with any age restriction for most guns but require gun safety training and have age restrictions and gun safety requirements on pistols and semi-automatics.

My post wasn’t specific enough provided by parents and consumed in their presence. 

[956 Worldwide 34411]

15 hours ago, Captainant said:

For the millionth time: the Uvalde shooter acquired his rifles via an FFL, fully legally, with background check and all.

The laws worked exactly as intended.  An 18 year old is supposed to be able to buy as many semi-automatic rifles as he wants on his 18th birthday. No one is supposed to ask or check on his mental health, how he’s doing at school, if anything is going on.   If he’s not got a felony or a small set of special misdemeanors on his record, he gets his guns and ammo, no questions. 

[Brisketexan 104537]

The laws worked exactly as intended.  An 18 year old is supposed to be able to buy as many semi-automatic rifles as he wants on his 18th birthday. No one is supposed to ask or check on his mental health, how he’s doing at school, if anything is going on.   If he’s not got a felony or a small set of special misdemeanors on his record, he gets his guns and ammo, no questions. 

Exactly. This massacre wasn’t a result of our system failing. It was a result of it performing exactly as designed, by a ruling party we’ve kept in power for three decades. This happened because we wanted it to happen - we’ve spent thirty years doing all we could to ensure that it would happen.
If we want it to stop, we should stop doing the shit we’ve been doing for thirty years: keeping republicans in office while also demanding zero accountability from them.

[CooterBrown 17901]

We must verify age and school enrollment (signed off by a school counselor) before a kid can take driver’s ed but only verify age before buying high power weapons. Make sense.

[Bevo 13516]

10 hours ago, Patricio Swayze said:

I bet you are a fucking pussy away from the keyboard.

I called out dahobbs for acting emotionally and cussing unnecessarily instead of addressing the topic. dahobbs in his way stated that my post wasn't relevant. Congratulations, you encapsulated both dahobbs' point and my point in a single post: Not only did you not address the topic, you acted emotionally, cussed, and in your attempted personal attack went on to something totally irrelevant to the subject. What exactly are you doing, trying to pick a fight? LOL. Anyway, since this thread is cloak disguised as daily news and any post that is perceived contradictory to the circle jerk is stifled and the poster personally attacked, I think I'll step back and enjoy this vacation Monday.

[Capt. Squints 176]

32 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Exactly. This massacre wasn’t a result of our system failing. It was a result of it performing exactly as designed, by a ruling party we’ve kept in power for three decades. This happened because we wanted it to happen - we’ve spent thirty years doing all we could to ensure that it would happen.
If we want it to stop, we should stop doing the shit we’ve been doing for thirty years: keeping republicans in office while also demanding zero accountability from them.

You're killing your father, Larry.

[Captainant 27403]

 

[Celery Man 20881]

Wait is this a non cussing board

[hobbes2702 12791]

Just now, Celery Man said:

Wait is this a non cussing board