Gunman kills 19 children in Texas school shooting - Page 8 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15229794
Here in America, free men will not give up their guns because of criminal acts by others.
Obviously criminals have guns. Look at the news. We have a 6% demographic here that commits half the gun crimes.
Taking guns from law abiding citizens would leave only the criminals with guns.
How stupid is that?
#15229795
wat0n wrote:It doesn't matter. Teachers shouldn't need to worry about the possibility, period.
:eh: You are manufacturing a fear where there is not. It's irrational.

wat0n wrote:So now we go from "Canada" to "Edmonton". Jeez.
I made an analogy. I said that to clarify it.

Edmonton is IN Canada. Canada is a VERY large country. It's the second largest in the world and it is 7,821 km from coast to coast. The problems of Vancouver, aren't the problems of the country at large.

You cherry-picked, in an attempt to make a valid argument. It isn't.

wat0n wrote:Closing schools to strangers isn't particularly expensive.
If it's a problem, then they will address it. It doesn't appear to BE a problem, so why do they need to address YOUR unreasonable and irrational fears???

They do not need to waste thought on it, let alone money.

wat0n wrote:And it's not just the US which does that, from what I can tell the UK does too.
So what? Have we been talking about the UK? If it was an issue then they likely dealt with it in an appropriate way.

Scamp wrote:Here in America, free men will not give up their guns because of criminal acts by others.
Obviously criminals have guns. Look at the news. We have a 6% demographic here that commits half the gun crimes.
Taking guns from law abiding citizens would leave only the criminals with guns.
Every shooter is a "law abiding citizen" until they are not.

Guns don't make you free. They do not protect you and in fact contribute to the very problem discussed in this thread.

If there are no guns, then the criminals cannot get them, either. Gun control WORKS. You can go back and read the link I gave earlier showing this.

Scamp wrote:How stupid is that?
The reasoning you are using is stupid.
#15229796
Scamp wrote:Here in America, free men will not give up their guns because of criminal acts by others.
Obviously criminals have guns. Look at the news. We have a 6% demographic here that commits half the gun crimes.
Taking guns from law abiding citizens would leave only the criminals with guns.
How stupid is that?


Would you be in favor or raising the rifle age minimum to 21?
#15229798
Godstud wrote::eh: You are manufacturing a fear where there is not. It's irrational.


No, it's not irrational to say there's no business for a stranger to be inside an elementary school :eh:

Godstud wrote:I made an analogy. I said that to clarify it.

Edmonton is IN Canada. Canada is a VERY large country. It's the second largest in the world and it is 7,821 km from coast to coast. The problems of Vancouver, aren't the problems of the country at large.

You cherry-picked, in an attempt to make a valid argument. It isn't.


The fact that Vancouver, a large city, does have that problem means you can't just liberally assume that what holds for Edmonton will hold for Canada at large. Furthermore, nothing guarantees major earthquakes can't happen in Edmonton or Alberta in general, just that they are less likely. Even more so with fracking.

Godstud wrote: If it's a problem, then they will address it. It doesn't appear to BE a problem, so why do they need to address YOUR unreasonable and irrational fears???

They do not need to waste thought on it, let alone money.


And yet it doesn't appear to be an expensive or insane measure to take. Besides, in the case of Thailand in particular, with its own history of terrorism (the insurgency in the south) I'd say the measure is not irrational either... Why wait for bad things to happen when it's not expensive to prevent them? I'm not talking about turning schools into bunkers.

If you want, just take your time in making schools safer. Maybe start from the south and go gradually up north.

Godstud wrote:So what? Have we been talking about the UK? If it was an issue then they likely dealt with it in an appropriate way.


Does the UK have the same school shooting problem the US has?

@Scamp yet you can't deny someone whose mental state makes allowing him own guns dangerous shouldn't have access to them. In this case, IIRC he was given the guns as a gift, which quite obviously makes gun regulations useless. There is no reason for making this type of gift legal.
#15229801
wat0n wrote:@Scamp yet you can't deny someone whose mental state makes allowing him own guns dangerous shouldn't have access to them. In this case, IIRC he was given the guns as a gift, which quite obviously makes gun regulations useless. There is no reason for making this type of gift legal.

The law already says psychos can not own guns. It's the law. Shows you just how effective gun laws are.
#15229807
wat0n wrote:Do you think gifting guns, without having the recipient go through the same checks as would be necessary if he bought it, should be a crime?

I see that you, @wat0n, claim to be from Chicago. How are the strict gun control laws working there?
Here are the year to date totals for Chicago...
Shot & Killed: 213
Shot & Wounded: 942
Total Shot: 1155
These are war zone numbers.
Why don't you tell us all just who is doing this gun cranage?
How can this be stopped?
#15229810
Scamp wrote:I see that you, @wat0n, claim to be from Chicago. How are the strict gun control laws working there?
Here are the year to date totals for Chicago...
Shot & Killed: 213
Shot & Wounded: 942
Total Shot: 1155
These are war zone numbers.
Why don't you tell us all just who is doing this gun cranage?
How can this be stopped?


How does this explain that nothing should be done with respect to mass shootings?
#15229811
@Scamp

Let's take a look at the facts, just the facts when talking about Chicago.

Danielle Kurtzleben of NPR wrote:But it's not true that Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the country, as other fact checkers have also repeatedly found.

It is true that Illinois has tougher gun laws than many other states. The state is one of seven that requires licenses or permits to buy any firearm, and it's one of five that requires waiting periods for buying any firearm.

Chicago itself has some tough laws — there is an assault-weapons ban in Cook County, for example. But it's not true that Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country. At one point, it did have much tougher laws — it had banned handguns in the city limits, but a 2008 Supreme Court ruling declared that ban unconstitutional, and a 2010 ruling reaffirmed that. The city also had had a gun registry program since 1968, but ended it in 2013 when the state passed a law allowing the concealed carry of weapons.


"We generally think of California as having the strongest gun laws in the country," said Hannah Shearer, a staff attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. "The whole state's laws are pretty strong."

The center has given California an A rating and ranks it No. 1 in terms of the tightness of its gun laws. California bans the open carry of guns and requires background checks on private firearm sales, among other things.

"Some cities go even beyond that," Shearer added. "San Francisco has a safe storage law, requiring that guns kept in the home are kept locked."

That's a regulation that Chicago, for example, does not have.


Quibbling over exactly what part of the U.S. is No. 1 in terms of gun-law strictness, however, isn't the most compelling part of Sanders' statement. She also said that having gun regulations "certainly hasn't helped" in Chicago.

That's a much more controversial claim — and it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

It's important to remember here that Chicago is very close to two states that have relatively weak gun laws: Wisconsin and Indiana. So while it's easy to pick on Chicago (or any other high-crime city) for its ugly statistics, says one expert, taking bordering states into account weakens this gun-advocacy talking point.

"It's not a scientific study. It's an anecdote," said Philip Cook, a professor of public policy studies at Duke University. "They might have pointed to Washington, D.C., back in the days when D.C. banned handguns and yet had high gun-violence rates. Those bans are only at best partially effective, because the borders are permeable."

D.C. borders Virginia, which does not have strong gun laws. (It gets a D from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.)

Neither Wisconsin nor Indiana requires licenses or permits to purchase a gun, for example, nor do they require waiting periods. While Illinois has that B+ rating from the law center, Wisconsin has a C- and Indiana a D-.

And there's good evidence that being next-door to those states keeps Chicago criminals well-supplied with guns.
A 2015 study of guns in Chicago, co-authored by Cook, found that more than 60 percent of new guns used in Chicago gang-related crimes and 31.6 percent used in non-gang-related crimes between 2009 and 2013 were bought in other states. Indiana was a particularly heavy supplier, providing nearly one-third of the gang guns and nearly one-fifth of the non-gang guns.


https://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/55558059 ... don-t-work
#15229814
wat0n wrote:How could have the gunner entered the school quickly if the gate had been closed? He'd have needed to at least ram it, which takes valuable time.


I have no idea which gate you are discussing.

He was inside the school ~2 minutes after shooting the cop guarding the entrance. Had he been delayed for 10-15 minutes, the school would have had enough time to go into lockdown (it did ~13 minutes after the incident began).

Any delays make it more likely backup will be able to show up and stop the attacker before he's able to storm into the building and shoot people. That's what one can expect from closing physical access to the school, delaying an attacker. It doesn't really substitute for the work of law enforcement. In the case of a breach, law enforcement obviously needs to be able to open all access whenever it wants, which can be done remotely, so the attacker has it harder to barricade in (as this guy also did, after killing the victims).


I have no idea what sort of gate you think will slow a determined and violent attacker for fifteen minutes.
#15229816
Scamp wrote:I see that you, @wat0n, claim to be from Chicago. How are the strict gun control laws working there?
Here are the year to date totals for Chicago...
Shot & Killed: 213
Shot & Wounded: 942
Total Shot: 1155
These are war zone numbers.
Why don't you tell us all just who is doing this gun cranage?
How can this be stopped?


Not well, but as @Politics_Observer said you do realize most guns come from Indiana and Wisconsin, right? Under the Constitution, Illinois can't do anything to stop the flow of guns into its territory. Only Congress can.

I don't get it. I'm actually fine with the 2nd Amendment, I even see it as useful, but it never says guns cannot be regulated. In fact I think it says quite the opposite by referring to how a "well-regulated militia" is necessary for the security of the state, implying the right to own and bear arms can in fact be subject to regulation. Americans are not meant to own guns "just because", or even to resist or rebel against the government, they are meant to own guns because it enhances the security of the state under some key circumstances. I'm pretty sure that's how the Founding Fathers saw it, too, given why the Constitution was written and the federal government established to begin with.

@Pants-of-dog a fairly sturdy one can perfectly stop an attacker for long enough so law enforcement can arrive. How long would you take to pass a 10 ft tall closed gate?
#15229818
wat0n wrote:Not well, but as @Politics_Observer said you do realize most guns come from Indiana and Wisconsin, right? Under the Constitution, Illinois can't do anything to stop the flow of guns into its territory. Only Congress can.

I don't get it. I'm actually fine with the 2nd Amendment, I even see it as useful, but it never says guns cannot be regulated. In fact I think it says quite the opposite by referring to how a "well-regulated militia" is necessary for the security of the state, implying the right to own and bear arms can in fact be subject to regulation. Americans are not meant to own guns "just because", or even to resist or rebel against the government, they are meant to own guns because it enhances the security of the state under some key circumstances. I'm pretty sure that's how the Founding Fathers saw it, too, given why the Constitution was written and the federal government established to begin with.

@Pants-of-dog a fairly sturdy one can perfectly stop an attacker for long enough so law enforcement can arrive. How long would you take to pass a 10 ft tall closed gate?


Considering the fact that the fence in which the gate would be placed is an eight foot (243 cm) chain link fence (i.e. the current fence around Robb Elementary), and it would take me less than a minute to climb such a fence with a rifle on my back, the gate would be an avoidable obstacle.

The construction of schools in small town Texas is very different from the construction of schools in the more expensive neighbourhoods of Santiago.
#15229819
wat0n wrote:Not well, but as @Politics_Observer said you do realize most guns come from Indiana and Wisconsin, right? Under the Constitution, Illinois can't do anything to stop the flow of guns into its territory. Only Congress can.

I don't get it. I'm actually fine with the 2nd Amendment, I even see it as useful, but it never says guns cannot be regulated. In fact I think it says quite the opposite by referring to how a "well-regulated militia" is necessary for the security of the state, implying the right to own and bear arms can in fact be subject to regulation. Americans are not meant to own guns "just because", or even to resist or rebel against the government, they are meant to own guns because it enhances the security of the state under some key circumstances. I'm pretty sure that's how the Founding Fathers saw it, too, given why the Constitution was written and the federal government established to begin with.

Firearms ownership is "regulated" by thousands of gun laws at the federal, state, and local levels in the USA.
#15229821
Pants-of-dog wrote:Considering the fact that the fence in which the gate would be placed is an eight foot (243 cm) chain link fence (i.e. the current fence around Robb Elementary), and it would take me less than a minute to climb such a fence with a rifle on my back, the gate would be an avoidable obstacle.

The construction of schools in small town Texas is very different from the construction of schools in the more expensive neighbourhoods of Santiago.


No one said they are the same :roll:

No, you are not taking 1 minute climbing a 2.5 meters tall fence with a rifle on your back. Especially not if you are limp like this gunner was, but an untrained individual would not. Not that doing so wouldn't leave you vulnerable to other cops, too.

And more importantly, what makes you believe these fences are 8 ft tall?

https://www.google.com/maps/uv?pb=!1s0x ... x96BAhAEAM

Compare it with this Chilean primary school near Vicuña, a small rural town like 45 minutes away from La Serena (itself 500 km away from Santiago), just like Uvalde is a small rural time like 45 minutes away from San Antonio:

https://www.google.com/maps/uv?pb=!1s0x ... o8VA&hl=en

Note that not only it has a wall (not a fence) but it's a lot taller than the fence at the Robb Elementary School. And no, school shootings are not a problem in Chile (for now).

Scamp wrote:Firearms ownership is "regulated" by thousands of gun laws at the federal, state, and local levels in the USA.


Yes, and clearly something isn't working if Chicago is basically bound to the gun regulations of Indiana and Wisconsin.

@Saeko that's fucked up if the allegation is confirmed.
#15229824
Saeko wrote:UN-FUCKING-BELIEVABLE



Cops engaged the gunman when he arrived, but failed to kill him. Cops then entered the school to get THEIR OWN kids out, and then ran the fuck away! Then they went out and set up a perimeter while the gunman was still alive in the school for an ENTIRE HOUR! >:

https://nypost.com/2022/05/26/videos-sh ... -shooting/

But isn't the main liberal cry that citizens don't need guns because the police will protect everyone?
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 33
January 6 Hearings LIVE

No one's making anything up, BS -- it's *you* who[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

@Igor Antunov let me guess. That shopping mall t[…]

If you’ve got guns in bakery’s you’re a pretty mil[…]

@BlutoSays You didn't read it, so you can't comm[…]