Warbler

Yackwicks?

oh good grief

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

Anyway, Hispanic doesn’t necessarily mean non-white.

true, but how white Hispanics are members of white nationalist groups?

Why are you even still on this track? Why do these questions even matter if it’s been confirmed he’s a white nationalist?

I was not trying to argue that the nut is not a white nationalist.

Great. End of this discussion then because there’s no point.

TV’s Frink said:

Ok.

probably, but not certainly.

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

Today the FBI admits it failed to investigate after someone close to Cruz called the FBI about Cruz’s guns and desire to kill people. This appears to be on top of the reporting by the youtuber of Cruz’s comment online about wanting to shoot at a school.

If we want to talk about obvious non-controversial steps we can take to prevent mass shootings, how about figuring out how law enforcement can be more effective/competent?

We can do this and make it harder to get guns that can kill 50 people in one minute.

except with making law enforcement more effective/competent, we might get enough support from the other side of the aisle to get something done. Obviously this is unfortunately not true for making it harder to get guns that can kill 50 people in one minute.

SilverWook said:

In the 21st century, what sort of dire situation is going to allow time for mass quantities of civilians to be drafted and trained for combat? Short of World War 3, which would be over pretty quickly and badly for everyone involved.

Don’t know, but I think the option should be kept in place, just in case. But it should only be used in the most extreme cases where absolutely necessary to survival of the country.

Mrebo said:

Today the FBI admits it failed to investigate after someone close to Cruz called the FBI about Cruz’s guns and desire to kill people. This appears to be on top of the reporting by the youtuber of Cruz’s comment online about wanting to shoot at a school.

This quote from the movie Hopscotch comes to mind “Now I know what the FBI stands for. ‘Fucking, Ball-busting Imbeciles’!”

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

Anyway, Hispanic doesn’t necessarily mean non-white.

true, but how white Hispanics are members of white nationalist groups?

Why are you even still on this track? Why do these questions even matter if it’s been confirmed he’s a white nationalist?

I was not trying to argue that the nut is not a white nationalist.

Mrebo said:

NeverarGreat said:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/16/politics/mueller-russia-indictments-election-interference/index.html

And there it is. What’s Trump gonna do about Muller now?

Congratulate him?

Somehow I doubt that.

CatBus said:

chyron8472 said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

Maybe the focus on ineffective broad proposals is the problem. Raising the age to own a firearm to 21 would be more focused and I think legally defensible.

the inevitable argument would be “whoa, I’m old enough to be drafted to carry a weapon in a war, but not old enough to buy one myself???”

Raise the draft age. Or, even better, eliminate the draft.

We did that. The United States military is a 100% all-volunteer force. No one is drafted ever anymore because of the response by the anti-war movement during the Vietnam War.

Carter (no, not Carter USM – President Carter) resurrected the draft in 1980, one of his nastiest legacies. Nobody’s been drafted since due to lack of need, not lack of ability.

I think the draft is a necessary evil. It might be needed in dire situations.

TM2YC said:

Rask40 said:

removing guns (or certain type of guns) from millions of law abiding citizens… would be illegal.

Make it legal then. Laws are changeable, they aren’t “written in stone”, like commandments handed down from God. If the 2nd Amendment is an outdated and unhelpful piece of law, just get rid of it, or rewrite it to introduce an element of sanity and/or common sense.

passing an amendment is not exactly easy.

Mrebo said:

Anyway, Hispanic doesn’t necessarily mean non-white.

true, but how many white Hispanics are members of white nationalist groups?

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

I will say that Cruz isn’t white supremacist sounding name.

I guess that is a pic of the nut that did the shooting?

Yes. Do you get the point though? You said Cruz isn’t a name you’d associate with white supremacy. Is Cruz a name you’d associate with that face? Surnames don’t matter.

Surnames can be an indicator of place of origin. For example if you someone had the last O’Leary, and that was all you knew about the person wouldn’t you maybe think he could be Irish?

“Can be.”

Since they also may not be, there’s no point in using that logic. Does he look like a Cruz to you? No? So no point in worrying what his name is.

I never said someone with the last of Cruz couldn’t be white.

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

I will say that Cruz isn’t white supremacist sounding name.

I guess that is a pic of the nut that did the shooting?

Yes. Do you get the point though? You said Cruz isn’t a name you’d associate with white supremacy. Is Cruz a name you’d associate with that face? Surnames don’t matter.

Surnames can be an indicator of place of origin. For example if you someone had the last O’Leary, and that was all you knew about the person wouldn’t you maybe think he could be Irish?

Rask40 said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

Well, if we are not going to get rid of the guns, our schools need protection. Maybe not armed teachers, but armed trained police/security guards.

Schools already have police officers in the building. It isn’t working.

I don’t think removing guns (or certain type of guns) from millions of law abiding citizens will work either. Besides that would be illegal.

Depends on one’s interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Also an amendment could be passed to allow for the removing of guns. Of course I realize that would be extremely unlikely to happen.

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

I will say that Cruz isn’t white supremacist sounding name.

I guess that is a pic of the nut that did the shooting?

How is 4Chan able to do that and get it out there to the point it is believed to be serious news?

I will say that Cruz isn’t white supremacist sounding name.

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

Maybe the focus on ineffective broad proposals is the problem. Raising the age to own a firearm to 21 would be more focused and I think legally defensible.

the inevitable argument would be “whoa, I’m old enough to be drafted to carry a weapon in a war, but not old enough to buy one myself???”

Raise the draft age.

You’d have to do more than that, you’d also have raise the age at which one can willingly join the armed forces

Or, even better, eliminate the draft.

it is needed for emergencies.

Mrebo said:

Maybe the focus on ineffective broad proposals is the problem. Raising the age to own a firearm to 21 would be more focused and I think legally defensible.

the inevitable argument would be “whoa, I’m old enough to be drafted to carry a weapon in a war, but not old enough to buy one myself???”

Collipso said:

People acquire pot even if it’s illegal because it being illegal is nonsense.

actually, I think people acquire even if it’s illegal cause they like to do pot.

suspiciouscoffee said:

Warbler said:

Also do all schools have police officers? Do all schools have armed police officers? Do all schools have enough armed police officers for the size of the school?

My small-town southern Arkansas high school has one, and so does the middle school, but none of the lower schools do AFAIK.

I don’t think one is enough for a normal size high school.

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

There’s also the inherent problem of solving the problems of guns in schools by intentionally putting more guns in the schools. Basically the same thing as with homes: we know that having a gun in your home makes your family less safe, is that also true for schools?

look all I know is

A: nut comes into school, no one there has a gun: nut kills a lot of kids and teachers

B: nut comes into school with armed guards: nut tries to kill a lot kids and teachers and gets killed in the process. less kids and teachers are dead than would have been.

Also most of people who have guns in their homes aren’t trained police officers.

C: Nut comes into the school unarmed, gets weapons from guards. Goes on killing spree he wouldn’t have even considered before he grabbed the gun.

Well in order for that happen via a scenario like what you linked too, a nut would just happen to have to come in right when a dumb security guard leaves his gun in the bathroom.

Obviously the guards would need to be better trained than the idiots that left their guns in the bathroom.

Did you follow those links? Trained can be a generous term. Here’s how you do the risk assessment. Scenario A: a gun is in place to prevent crime. Scenario B: No gun is in place to prevent crime. Bad things can happen due to both the gun AND the lack of a gun. With homes, we’ve done the research, and the verdict is in. The bad things due to a gun in scenario A are over 40 times more likely than the bad things due to lack of a gun from scenario B. Therefore, don’t bring a gun into your home if you like your family. Easy so far.

the pro gun people would probably argue that the stats are off. For example, does it track the various scenarios in Scenario A when the gun owner is practicing all safety rules like

. never point a gun at anything you don’t intend to shoot
. always assume the gun is loaded.
. check and make sure the gun is not loaded, no matter who has told it isn’t
. never put your finger on the trigger until and unless you intend to shoot.

See, I wonder if among people that follow such rules and other rule like them when it is really 40% more likely that bad things will happen as compared to scenario B.

Now I’m not saying schools are the same as homes, or security guards are the same as private citizens, or even that all security guards have lapses like the ones in those articles (but some percentage inevitably will). But presumably the data is already available to research.

I have no objection to doing research as long as it is legitimate honest non-biased research.

It would be a shame to spend 40 billion dollars to make our kids more likely to get shot, don’t you think?

it would also be a shame to overlook a way to prevent these mass shooting because of anti-gun politics, don’t you think?

By all means, do legitimate honest non-biased research and see in schools what the percentages are in your scenarios A and B, before we spend 40 billion dollars.

EDIT: Why research when my guts says it’s right and it’s an emergency?

One could also argue why research when my gut says guns are bad, right? See, I think a lot of people are against armed police in schools to prevent mass shoots due to their gut saying more guns are bad and due to anti-gun politics on the left.

TM2YC said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

There’s also the inherent problem of solving the problems of guns in schools by intentionally putting more guns in the schools. Basically the same thing as with homes: we know that having a gun in your home makes your family less safe, is that also true for schools?

look all I know is

A: nut comes into school, no one there has a gun: nut kills a lot of kids and teachers

B: nut comes into school with armed guards: nut tries to kill a lot kids and teachers and gets killed in the process. less kids and teachers are dead than would have been.

Also most of people who have guns in their homes aren’t trained police officers.

C: nut doesn’t have a gun, therefore he doesn’t come into school (and probably just trolls people on the internet to get his “vengeance on society”)

I’d much rather have C, unfortunately its more and more that nuts are doing more than C.

CatBus said:

There’s also the inherent problem of solving the problems of guns in schools by intentionally putting more guns in the schools. Basically the same thing as with homes: we know that having a gun in your home makes your family less safe, is that also true for schools?

look all I know is

A: nut comes into school, no one there has a gun: nut kills a lot of kids and teachers

B: nut comes into school with armed guards: nut tries to kill a lot kids and teachers and gets killed in the process. less kids and teachers are dead than would have been.

Also most of people who have guns in their homes aren’t trained police officers.

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

considering the size of the campus, normal noise levels, communication, etc.

um, gun fire (unless you are using a silencer and I haven’t heard the nut was) is very, VERY LOUD. It would easily rise above normal noise level. I realize kids are loud, but kids being kids is not the same sound as gunfire and screaming.

No, but it does prevent you from hearing reports over the walkie-talkie WHERE the echoing gunfire is actually coming from.

I am talking about having enough police so that at least one would heard the gunfire with his own two ears, not through a walkie-talkie. Even with echos, I don’t think it would take too long for trained police officers that are sufficiently spread throughout the school(in sufficient numbers for the size school) to find where the repeated gunfire and screams are coming from.

AFAIK there was one guard.

one guard for the whole school? I am pretty sure the school in question was a pretty large school with multiple buildings. One guard is not enough for such a school.

Tracking the source of gunfire in a semi-enclosed concrete echo chamber is a tough enough problem that we build and distribute these to law enforcement. You can’t necessarily follow the screams because people fleeing the scene also scream. It’s really not as easy as you think. A walkie-talkie confirmed location and status would be very helpful.

maybe not, but the REPEATED gunfire and screams would give trained officers a general area(and this gunfire_locator would help). Also I would think the screams of people fleeing would sound different from the screams of those getting shot.