Uvalde Shooting Report Undermines Calls To Ban Guns and 'Back the Blue'
Only you can be relied upon to protect you and your loved ones. Ignore anybody who claims otherwise.

If you really need further evidence of how foolish it is to surrender your right to protect yourself and defer to government employees who are supposed to assume that responsibility, the record of police non-response during the Uvalde mass murder should do the job. Those who, in the future, continue to insist that we disarm ourselves and venerate government enforcers who are tasked to protect us should be unceremoniously kicked to the curb.
"At Robb Elementary, law enforcement responders failed to adhere to their active shooter training, and they failed to prioritize saving the lives of innocent victims over their own safety," finds a devastating report published July 17 by the Texas House of Representatives Investigative Committee on the Robb Elementary Shooting. "The first wave of responders to arrive included the chief of the school district police and the commander of the Uvalde Police Department SWAT team. Despite the immediate presence of local law enforcement leaders, there was an unacceptably long period of time before officers breached the classroom, neutralized the attacker, and began rescue efforts.
That delay (73 minutes in the report, or 77 minutes according to news stories) was documented in excruciating detail in video of police response published last week in both edited and full form by the Austin American-Statesman and KVUE before it was formally screened by authorities.
"We know now…that some students quietly called 911 from inside the classrooms for help, a critically wounded teacher could hear officers just outside the classroom, and that 911 dispatchers were fielding their calls of desperation," Manny Garcia, executive editor, wrote for the Austin American-Statesman in explaining the decision to publish the video. "We also know that exasperated parents, family members and bystanders standing outside the school begged authorities to do something. After 77 minutes, the video shows the officers breach the classroom."
Before the release of the Texas lawmakers' report documenting failures not just by police, but by school officials who ignored their own security measures, some Uvalde families and government officials criticized the media for publishing the video before a carefully planned screening by Texas lawmakers.
"I am deeply disappointed this video was released before all of the families who were impacted that day and the community of Uvalde had the opportunity to view it as part of Chairman Dustin Burrows' plan," Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) Director Steven McCraw added, referencing the planned official release of the recording.
But, while the grief of Uvalde parents is understandable, the fact that politicians intended to stage-manage release of the video is exactly the problem. We already know that elected officials leaned on DPS "to publicly paint a more positive picture of the law enforcement response," as reported by ABC News. To his credit, McCraw hasn't done that; he says "the law enforcement response to the attack at Robb Elementary on May 24 was an abject failure." But the pressure to spin lethal dawdling demonstrates why officials shouldn't control how their betrayals of public trust are presented.
"Further obscuring the truth of what happened May 24, local, state and federal officials have denied requests to release documents that could shed light on the police response, including 911 call transcripts, body camera footage, communications among law enforcement officers and arrest records from that day," the Austin American-Statesman's Tony Plohetski reports.
As horrifying as it is to read the report's full admission of failure at the scene, it's a needed change from the ass-covering that prevailed after the crime.
"Uvalde CISD [Consolidated Independent School District] and its police department failed to implement their active shooter plan and failed to exercise command and control of law enforcement responding to the tragedy," the report notes. "But these local officials were not the only ones expected to supply the leadership needed during this tragedy. Hundreds of responders from numerous law enforcement agencies—many of whom were better trained and better equipped than the school district police—quickly arrived on the scene. Those other responders, who also had received training on active shooter response and the interrelation of law enforcement agencies, could have helped to address the unfolding chaos."
But the massive police presence, 376 officers in all, did not help address the unfolding chaos. That makes obvious the reason for officials' earlier foot-dragging; police conduct at Uvalde contradicts the stories authoritarians peddle about our relationship with the government. Mostly left-wing politicians tell us that regular people should be deprived of firearms and even of the right to self-defense while the government exercises it for us. Primarily right-wing politicians insist we should "back the blue" and venerate government-employed law enforcers who will protect us from threats so that we don't have to do it ourselves. These politicians nominally oppose one another, but they offer the same basic argument: We should trust the government and not take responsibility for our own safety.
The legislators' Robb report and video from the scene refute those arguments. They document police officers ineffectively milling around (while outside officers stopped parents who were rushing to their children's rescue) as a mass murder takes place just feet away. And this is not the first time that cops dithered rather than commit to protecting members of the public. Police at Columbine in 1999 delayed for 47 minutes, and for 58 minutes in Parkland, Florida, in 2018.
"Cops are civilians with guns who have had minimal training," Eugene O'Donnell, a law professor with John Jay College of Criminal Justice and former police officer told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel in May. "Some of them are heroic. But not all."
As Texas lawmakers point out: "law enforcement responders failed to adhere to their active shooter training, and they failed to prioritize saving the lives of innocent victims over their own safety."
Most police departments say officers are supposed to help people. Good cops get angry and embarrassed when colleagues drop the ball. But, beyond maybe losing a job (Uvalde's acting police chief on the day of the shooting is now suspended while the city investigates his inaction), there's little in the way of consequences for officers who choose lingering in a hallway over defending children.
"Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur," according to a 2018 assessment of legal obligations by Darren L. Hutchinson, professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law. "Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution."
But, if you listen to government officials, we should disarm ourselves and place our fates in the hands of government employees. Never mind that those tax-funded protectors have no legal obligation to exercise that responsibility and a long track record of freezing rather than running to the rescue.
Gun control? Back the blue? The people peddling those slogans have little to offer beyond empty promises and deserve nothing but contempt. Only you can be relied upon to protect you and your loved ones, and you should ignore anybody who claims otherwise.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
“Primarily right-wing politicians insist we should "back the blue" and venerate government-employed law enforcers who will protect us from threats so that we don't have to do it ourselves. These politicians nominally oppose one another, but they offer the same basic argument: We should trust the government and not take responsibility for our own safety.”
What a crock of shit.
Reason’s Law, the overwhelming imperative to shoehorn imaginary Both Sides false equivalence into every story has never been more blatantly ridiculous.
Absolutely zero.zero people on the right say any of that.
Back the Blue refers to situations like George Floyd and Ferguson, not “I dont need to protect myself”. Uvalde has done more damage to Back the Blue than anything. Because armed parents, including a cop, would have stormed that classroom if not stopped by armed cops
This place needs a good flushing
You are damned ignorant if you think there are no right wing politicians who want the public to trust and rely on cops for protection.
Your reading comprehension sucks.
Start now incomes each week extra than $7,000 to 8,000 through doing quite simple and smooth domestic primarily based totally task on-line. Last month I've made $32,735 through doing this on-line task simply in my component time for handiest 2 hrs. an afternoon the usage of my laptop. This task is simply wonderful and smooth to do in component time. Start incomes extra greenbacks on-line simply through follow:-
.
Commands here:☛☛☛ https://yourjobs85.blogspot.com/
And speaking of suck, Toosilly you suck as well, and this article is just another example of why people loathe the media like they loathe used car salesman.
Not true. I've never seen any evidence of the average used car salesman protecting child molesters for political gain. I loathe the media *much more* than I loathe used car salesmen.
Touche
I actually have made $18k within a calendar month via working easy jobs from a laptop. As I had lost my last business, I was so upset and thank God I searched this simple job (kzy-028) achieving this I'm ready to achieve thousand of dollars just from my home. All of you can certainly join this best job and could collect extra money on-line
visiting this site.
>>>>>>>>>> http://earncash91.tk
Yes there are. And the public should rely upon and trust the cops for their protection. If they can't, then society has a real problem. Just because you trust and rely on the cops for protection doesn't mean you ONLY trust and rely on the cops for protection. You always try and defend yourself as well if you can.
Understand something else, and this is the most shocking and horrifying thing that a libertarian can ever hear but like all truths it needs to be said. Not everyone is like you. Not everyone is healthy enough or strong enough to protect themselves. More importantly, you don't want to live in a world where every time you walk out the door you are worried about being attacked or harmed. That gets real old real quickly and it is also very bad for business.
You do, however, want to live in a world where the cops do their jobs and the vast majority of the time you don't have to worry about defending yourself and you are able to do that in the rare instance it is necessary.
"And the public should rely upon and trust the cops for their protection."
Unless/until the law changes so that cops have a legally enforceable duty to put the safety of bystanders ahead of their own safety, people should not and can not rely upon or trust cops for their protection.
"If they can't, then society has a real problem."
If that's what you think, do something about it.
So you are telling me you don't rely on the cops for anything? You go out every day like the country is a jungle or the slums of Brazil? Maybe but I doubt it.
Moreover, the cops having some legal duty to save you and you having the ability to sue them if they don't is an entirely different question whether cops actually do their jobs and actually do protect the public. They do get paid and they do do their jobs more often than they do not. There is more to it than whatever legal obligation they may have or your remedies if they don't.
"So you are telling me you don't rely on the cops for anything?"
No, I'm not telling you that. Not relying on the cops for protection is not remotely the same as not relying on them for anything.
Cops are glorified janitors. Their job is to take out the trash after the party is over.
"Moreover, the cops having some legal duty to save you and you having the ability to sue them if they don't is an entirely different question whether cops actually do their jobs and actually do protect the public. They do get paid and they do do their jobs more often than they do not."
Nah, it is clear that police have a responsibility to enforce the law, not protect the public. That would be fine, except for the boosters and sycophants who repeatedly imply, if not insist that police are there for our protection.
"There is more to it than whatever legal obligation they may have or your remedies if they don't."
If they don't have a legal obligation, then it isn't their job. But if it is their job, then they ought to be legally obligated, including suffering torts if they fail to uphold that obligation. Just as Boeing is legally liable when it fails to uphold the terms of its service in airplanes.
Should probably revoke the cops' section 230 then
Cops have no legal duty to the public. They might have a legal duty to their employers. But that doesn't help anyone who expects their marketing of "to serve and protect".
Look, not everyone can keep a forensics lab in their bunker orctheir Ford F-150, so I'll grant you that.
But damnit, no police officer was there when I got bullied in the Gummint Skoolz I was forced to attend and in fact, they would have been there to arrest my parents and put me in foster care if I didn't attend.
No police officer was there when I got stalked and chased down on the roads, when someone attempted to steal my car stereo, when I was a victim of workplace violence twice as well as threatened multiple times by asshole customers, when I had my truck window smashed, or when someone most recently tried to saw off my catalytic converter.
Nor was any God there in any instance either.
So if the Law doesn't do justice and God doesn't do justice, I guess justice is a DIY proposition, right?
I “rely” on the cops, and the justice system, in the sense that their general presence probably creates a disincentive for potential criminals. That’s about all. Most of the time cops aren’t around to protect me.
I agree with you here. Any society including a libertarian society requires a minimum expectation of public safety in order to function effectively.
Organized police forces have only existed since the early 19th century.
Was everyone a caveman before then?
Organized police groups in America alone predate the Declaration of Independence.
You are referring to private defense agencies, NOT what people mean by "police", i.e., a govt. authority.
For example, the militia (Minute Men) were self-regulated, independent, voluntary, and the main reason for victory.
Another victim of 1619 idiocy
Why do you want to talk to prepubescent children about romantic love and/or mating, collectivistjeff?
You are a brainwashed imbecile if you think you can point to anyone who thinks “Back the Blue” means “give up your guns”.
“When seconds count, the police are just minutes away”. “I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6” etc etc
Tuccille is a consistent establishment leftist who sucks FBI dick
How exactly do you Back the blue in the George Floyd case? 4 cops killed a guy on video, they have been arrested, I believe at least the main perpetrator was found guilty, I don't know about the other 3 who did zero to stop a murder.
Floyd died of a fentanyl overdose.
Based
He died of stupidity.
more than one thing can be true at the same time - kneel on your wife's neck for 10 minutes and she'll die. If she had other medical complications won't change the fact that you killed her...
I don't believe Floyd and Chavin had a domestic relationship. I though he held him down because he would thrash about as he was before he held him down. Telling a cop you have covid while spittle is flying is probably a bad idea. Maybe he should have only held him down for a few minutes and then see if he is still combative and started over.
"...we should..." is dishonest phrasing for "you will when the consensus is...X". The political paradigm is authoritarian, not voluntary compliance based on your conscience, your situation. The law is initiated violence, threats, against all, EXCEPT the elite. They go ungoverned, free. Their exemption allows corruption, exploitation.
Meanwhile, their self-enslaved victims ignore their mistake or excuse it by claiming it is not "politics as usual".
The dissenters ask, "Why should I be forced to live like you?" The answer is, "That's the law", i.e., I'm not free, don't want to be, and so you can't be either. The sovereign citizen must not be silent anymore.
I am against the rioting of the past two years and the BLM/Antifa provocateurs and instigators, but 2Chilli was right here about police and their "Thin Blue Line" apologists.
Members of the "Thin Ble Line" crowd forget the valliant efforts of Korean businessmen to stave off rioters through rooftop sniping of rioters in the L.A. riots of 1992. Also, in the 1966 University of Texas tower shooting in Austin, law enforcement asked armed civilians to shoot at the bell tower to keep the mass shooter pinned in the tower.
Funny aside note: I seen a truck that had both the "Thin Blue Line" sticker and a Molon Labe sticker with the Spartan helmet.
The latter is funny enough, since many of the people sporting these stickers are anti-LGBTQ+ and don't know that Sparta's defenders encouraged homosexuality among the troops for group cohesion.
But the funniest part is this: Just who does this dumbass think is going to come and try to take the guns if not the police?
https://www.wnct.com/news/armed-good-samaritan-stopped-indiana-mall-shooting-broke-mall-rules/
Yep. Hundreds of cops in Uvalde afraid of a guy with an AR, and one armed citizen in Indiana takes one down instantly.
3 dead and 2 injured, so not exactly a full proof plan.
So, you're another one of those " If it isn't 100% perfect, it's shit" Bozo the Clown types.
Got it.
And your “solution” is…?
A cop on every corner?
Make guns disappear?
Get real.
No, guns will still be everywhere, except for a citizen's self-defense.
Criminals and LEOs (but I repeat myself) will be in charge.
Better than 20 killed and 30 wounded.
It's certainly better than the obvious alternative you fucker! Unless you believe the bad guy was already done and was ready to walk away... SMH - you're an idiot!
It wasn't the 21 slaughtered in Uvalde, Texas.
And never forget that those who are saved by armed civilians may have descendants whose lives are also saved by the bravery of armed civilians.
Tell that to the other dozen or so he would have taken out if not stopped.
And the cops are singing his praises. The mall officially banned guns on their premises but for once a corporation didn't act stupid and are also singing his praises. However, several proggies have criticized him for carrying that day. Go figure.
He should have accepted death
like a good slave.
The armed citizen was right at the scene, didn't need the courage to enter it, was stuck with it, and motivated to save his own life. Probably, also had the tactical advantage, knowing where and who the puke was; but likely, the puke didn't where or who the armed citizen was. Society is safer when the criminals don't know who's armed.
...didn't "know" where...
and why concealed carry is better than open carry...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61615236
I'd certainly rather have my own firearm handy rather they hope that 1) the police actually arrive, and 2) that when they arrive they are willing to do more than just wait until it's time to fill out their report regarding the number of dead bodies at the scene.
Also, conservatives don't say "Back the Blue" to discourage gun owners from defending themselves while waiting on the cops to arrive. I'm not sure where Tuccille got that idea. "Back the Blue" means to support your local law enforcement in arresting the criminals that make one wary of going anywhere without a firearm by their side.
From what I've seen "Back the Blue" usually means "Don't criticize the cops."
Those are the people who say "Who you going to call when your home is broken into, huh? The cops, that's who! So you can't say anything bad about them!"
That matches my observations.
People, politicians especially who use the "Back the Blue" slogan think cops, both as a group and individually, should be immune to any criticism even for the most blatant constitution violations and/or misconduct.
IDK. I, and I think we, have spent years around this forum watching Reason impugn every police action under the sun, even with blatanltly and unapologetically false reporting.
I think I, at least partially, straddle the fence between 'DtP' and 'BtB' and I would have trouble discerning who went insane first and who's just reacting to the insanity.
Most of the 'BtB' people I know would take offense to the notion of being equivocated with "Give up your guns and let the police defend you."
"Most of the 'BtB' people I know would take offense to the notion of being equivocated with "Give up your guns and let the police defend you.""
But equating "Back the Blue" with "Give up your guns and let the police defend you." not what either sarcasmic or I said.
You've already demonstrated that your understanding of "back the blue" is a cartoon strawman
It’s the premise of the article dumbfvck
"Back the Blue" means a police officer's guilt in a shooting isn't based solely on the ethnicity of the victim.
No "back the blue" supporters I've ever seen *defend* bad cops (Chauvin, for example), or want to take away your guns. BtB supporters tend to be republicans, who likely own a gun and are likely NRA members.
Toosilly "got the idea" by mutilating reality to serve his chosen 'boaf sides' narrative, ie. The Reason Way.
And a reminder that those who rewrite objective truth to serve a narrative do so in search of power.
Correct
“When seconds count, the police are minutes away” is the other popular saying among the Back the Blue folks
Apparently, loads of them aren't openly thumbing their noses at law enforcement and, instead, are just bragging about how reckless they are about storing firearms and bad they are at operating watercraft.
Cops literally leave their guns in restrooms and on top of their cars.
You missed the reference there.
Reason, and most of the other ACAB crowd, fully and enthusiastically support the cop who left his gun on the urinal because he's a fed guarding the establishment and shot an unarmed Trump supporter...
I understand that if you want the police to arrive quickly and ready you call it in as "policeman injured", then they come running.
And that "back the blue" enthusiasm really died down a bit after lockdowns, free range rioting, more lockdowns, January 6, more lockdowns, etc
It absolutely undermines the calls to ban guns pretty much anywhere. It, however, does not undermine the need to have and support police, any more than cases of medical malpractice undermines support for having trained medical doctors.
Yeah, these cops stood around and did nothing out of cowardice. There is no defending that. That, however, does not make supporting cops who do do their jobs any less appropriate. To say otherwise is to just engage in the common reason tactic of the strawman argument and claim backing the police means baking all police in every instance no matter how egregious their conduct.
"any more than cases of medical malpractice undermines support for having trained medical doctors."
Well put.
"That, however, does not make supporting cops who do do their jobs any less appropriate. "
I am not defending 2chili, but I do think this goes too far. The PRIME reason why we are told to "Back the blue" is that "These are the people who run toward danger and violence when the natural reaction for others is to run away from it."
https://www.thune.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2022/5/back-the-blue
But this episode makes clear that the police are NOT such people. The law very specifically says that such people are NOT obligated to do so.
I think it is fine to say "Back the Blue" because they are the guys who will detain and arrest your murderer; that they are the people who will chase down speeders that make your roads more dangerous; they will chase homeless people off your property. I think there is a role for such people in society (though their role would be much smaller in the society I prefer).
But they should not be venerated as "They who run towards danger." The evidence in Uvalde, Parkland, and Columbine says they will not do so. The fucking LAW, including statute, DAs and Judges says that they need not do so. So "Back the blue" type people should stop portraying them as such.
Look, I agree that cops have a difficult job. That's why I smile and say hello to them, and offer them my sympathy for having to deal with some real trash. But they also have enormous responsibility given their unique position as law enforcers. And that should bring skepticism. If they want more deference and respect than skepticism from me, then they ought to live up to the standard they are sold under, rather than the one they are legally obligated to do.
*shrug*
"If they want more deference and respect than skepticism from me, then they ought to live up to the standard they are sold under, rather than the one they are legally obligated to do."
Or put another way: they would receive a huge amount of respect and deference from me IF they were obligated to behave as many "Back the Blue" boosters portray them.
Many do. These didn't. Is it an aberration or a pattern. Tucille brings up three cases over three decades. That seems an extremely small sample size. I mean just last week we had a policeman run into a burning building and save a person. Made the national news. So, at least some are the ones running to danger.
Put it another way. A study conducted by the US Army during WW2 showed that during a firefight only on average half of all soldiers returned fire. This is a situation where they are trained to rush towards danger. Are under fire, and yet on average only 50% even bothered to fire their weapons at the people who were shooting at them. And of those 50%, they estimated only about half bothered to fire at the people shooting at them. Human nature is a such that even trained soldiers freeze in such a situation. We can't paint all cops by the bad actions of these cops (and at least some of those who showed up after the initial situation were ordered to stand down and were lied to, with the on scene cops saying it was no longer an active shooter but a barricaded hostage situation and that the on scene commander was negotiating, in which case their actions are the result of being lied to). How many of those 376 policeman actually knew the true situation? Had the correct information? It really seems the biggest culprit is the police chief who cut off communication by abandoning his radio. Ordered his officers to stand down, refused to give the go order when a police sniper had the suspect in his cross hairs before he entered the building. Refused to establish a chain of command, etc. The cops in the hall are also to blame for not even bothering to check the door or to ignore the chickenshit chief's orders. Maybe all 376 are to blame,but from the reporting I've read a good many got really bad information from the first on the scene.
Understand that I am not arguing what officers ought to our ought not do. I personally cannot imagine what it must be like in that situation. But I also don't expect people to describe me as "the guy" who will rush into danger. Politicians don't say "Overt there is the line between us and barbarism, and that is why we must fund and support him".
My point is that if the Back the Blue folk insist that I must fund the police, and respect the police BECAUSE THEY RUN TOWARDS DANGER, then they (the police) ought to be obligated to do so.
Soldiers are obligated to go into battle. They sign up, knowing that when push comes to shove, they will be fighting and risking their lives. And they are held to that standard- if they decline to follow orders and go into battle, they will pay a price. Might they choke in battle? Perhaps. But they are held to a standard that the police are not- a very strict, and perhaps brutal standard.
When you consider the alternative of not funding and supporting the police society begins to unravel. Police in the cities at least keep the criminals confined to high crime areas. Where they have weakened the police departments it is spreading out into the suburbs. When police are allowed to do their job crime falls. We seem to go into cycles of high crime spreading out into more well-off neighborhoods and a demand police become harder on crime and once contained we criticize their actions of being hard on criminals again, they back off and crime rises again.
"When you consider the alternative of not funding and supporting the police society begins to unravel. "
That is a valid reason to fund the police. We can parse a lot of data about police and lawbreaking. I would tend to agree with many. I am specifically partial to the notion that having a 3rd party to handle justice prevents individuals from doing it, and creates a more consistent and orderly society.
My critique, however, is with the Back the Blue Boosters who insist we not only fund police, but also venerate police because they stand on the thin blue line, and run towards danger when we do not. This is not true. In Columbine, Parkland and Uvalde we see that they do not do this. They are not legally OBLIGATED to do this, as we have been reminded repeatedly by DAs and Judges.
As soon as Police regularly run towards danger when it counts, and they are legally liable for failing to do so, Back the Blue people should stop using that rhetoric.
Society needs both.
Three are killed and two others including girl, 12, are injured after gunman opens fire at Indiana shopping mall food court before 'Good Samaritan', 22, armed with a handgun takes down the shooter
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11023227/Four-killed-including-shooter-three-injured-Indiana-mall-shooting.html
Now if only the mall had been a gun-free-zone. That would have kept the shooter away.
The mall was a gun-free zone. They don’t allow weapons but the good samaritan luckily ignored the policy and brought their weapon in anyway.
Was it a legal gun-free-zone or private property with a sign?
Big difference. One's a felony and the other is civil.
In my state, as long as it is a govt building, the sign doesn't mean much. You can still conceal / carry. It only becomes a problem if you are discovered to have a firearm by the property manager / owner and they ask you to leave. If you refuse to leave, it's trespass. Not sure if it's armed trespass or how that plays out.
But anyhow, a mall around here not allowing guns doesn't mean anything as far as concealed carry.
The policy has no legal force unless the armed person is asked to leave. If he/she refuses to do so, it isn't a weapons charge but trespass or disorderly conduct.
You're 100% correct.
"I am deeply disappointed this video was released before all of the families who were impacted that day and the community of Uvalde had the opportunity to view it as part of Chairman Dustin Burrows' plan," Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) Director Steven McCraw added
Maybe McCraw should resign in protest. Has anyone quit over this mess?
Accountability is extinct.
https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/man-who-took-out-church-gunman-to-receive-states-highest-civilian-honor/2290236/
Contrast all of the above with:
"But the massive police presence, 376 officers in all, did not help address the unfolding chaos."
Even if the cops do do their jobs and don't just sit around and wait for the guy to run out of bullets or kill himself, they still are not going to be able to help you in that situation. The cops can't be everywhere. As the saying goes, when seconds count, the cops are minutes away. If someone shows up at your church or local Target looking to kill a bunch of people, the only thing that is going to stop that person is someone there at the time with a gun. And that someone is unlikely to be a cop.
No but half as many would have been equally (in)effective but with the advantage of costing substantially less.
Okay, so I guess places like Minneapolis and Portland defunding their police had no effect on the crime rate. I mean, if half as many cops are just as ineffective as the original number, what is the difference?
It didn't quite work out that way. You need cops. You need law enforcement.
Right; somebody has to be delegated the responsibility of cleaning up the mess after the fact and going after known criminals.
No I do not want to venture forth on a daily basis strapped up and expecting a shoot out. But since I cannot carry a cop everywhere I do, I do accept the responsibility of being my own first line of defense.
Fact is guns exist in our society; and there are a percentage of bad actors, either engaged in a life of crime or teetering on the ledge and some will go off of it. Contrary to the political tropes of "we can do better than this" and believing that "if we can put a man on the moon....." guns are not going away. Nor or knives, clubs, fists, and feet [which kill more people every year than AR 15's, by the way]. I prefer to face that reality and assume the necessary responsibility for dealing with it than to engage in dreams of utopia where nobody engages in bad behavior.
A free society needs to be both armed and capable of defending itself and have an effective and just law enforcement apparatus that ensures society doesn't as a rule have to defend itself. Both things are essential.
agree
There are bad people with guns, but there are many more good people with guns.
Speaking of carrying, I just picked up a sweet Sig-Sauer P-320 M17. Never been a big fan of the 9 but this gun is sweet.
I prefer the .40, compromise between mass and speed. But with the new self defense rounds a 9 mm is fine.
Besides, I subscribe to the keep squeezing the trigger until they stop school.
Can't you just do headshots from 100 yards away while running?
And with the left hand and the gun held upside-down while pulling the trigger with the pinky finger?
Only amateurs aim for the head. Center mass, always.
I'm not disagreeing with you, just noting that there is a balance point, and while places like Minneapolis have gone too far in one direction, likewise South Texas appears to be too far in the other.
Either way, it's better to not pay for something that does not provide return value.
Police chief zap brannigan
He bravely sent wave after wave of his own town's students, until the assailant had run out of bullets.
Remember in the aftermath of 9/11 how people lauded the FDNY for charging into a burning building?
This is the counter example that shows why the kudos were well earned.
Brave brave Sir Robin - he bravely turned around instead, he bravely ran away and fled.
Brave brave Robin.
When danger reared its ugly head he quickly checked his phone and said brave brave brave sir robin
"Blimey, I soiled my Kevlar!" 🙂
376 officers standing around waiting is simply a mind blowing number.
Is there nobody who could have had the idea of putting donuts outside the windows of the classroom and telling the officers - Donuts are on the other side of the door. Go get em
As somebody pointed out over at Insty, that is the combat strength of an infantry light battalion minus the crew served weapons.
'....but they offer the same basic argument...' Not even close. One has passed 3rd grade English and understands what the 2A says and one side pretends it doesn't even exist or simply ignores it and insists on acting like a totalitarian government on every major issue or individual rights raised by the Constitution.
Sounds like Canada.
Or Australia. Has there ever been a nation whose reputation has fallen further and faster than Australia's since the pandemic? Before the pandemic everyone thought Australia was the freedom loving nation full of friendly people and beautiful women. Now, we know the truth and damn is it ugly.
Australia was the freedom loving nation full of friendly people and beautiful women.
Underselling it. A freedom-loving nation full of friendly, beautiful and hard women and men capable of subsisting on vegemite and death adder venom. You live in a country notorious for post-apocalyptic films and wild dogs stealing children from under their parents' noses and you start locking people up because they know somebody who knows somebody who tested positive for a disease that has a 99.5% survival rate? WTF is wrong with you?
So, does this report say why the Uvalde cops were told not to treat an active shooter situation like an active shooter situation?
That is what I want to know. There is more too this than cops being lazy coward. The cops didn't just stand there and do nothing, they actively prevented other people, including other cops from going in and trying to stop the guy. If they were just lazy cowards, they would have happily let someone else do their jobs for them. They didn't do that. They stuffed and cuffed anyone who did want to do something. I have yet to see an explanation for that. And that is in my opinion the most important question right now.
And we still have not had an accounting of the SROs actual whereabouts during all of this.
Multiple layers of covering up going on here.
They didn't let anyone in because that would be allowing people to cross police lines, but most importantly it would make them look bad.
I think they could be sued for aiding and abetting murder.
My theory is that there's mission confusion, coming from political optics. There was probably a big emphasis in the department about "don't go in guns blazing, we need to try to negotiate." Maybe someone there recently took his family hostage and police were overly aggressive and injured the family. Or maybe a suspect was shot when he wasn't necessarily armed and there were complaints that he didn't have a chance to surrender
So the most recent training they got was to back off in a potential hostage situation, or to defuse a situation. Because that's more fresh with them than their active shooter training, they fall into that and apply what the recent emphasis has been, instead of correctly viewing the situation.
I can also imagine a version of this story where the cops breach very quickly, but in an exchange of fire, a stray cop's bullet hits a kid. So in short, probably better if we just don't rely on cops coming in to the rescue.
I don’t think so. This was not a hostage situation. Shots were being fired. And after Columbine every law enforcement organization was taught to immediately engage an active shooter.
The official reason back in the day was they claimed it was a barricaded suspect and not an active shooter. The problem with that is that we KNOW they were right outside and could hear the shots still being fired. We KNOW there were still 911 calls coming from the classroom. The story does not add up.
It's weird though- all these videos where the shooting is supposedly going on say they've "edited out the sound of children screaming" but otherwise have sound.
I'm no expert, but can you really do that? Just edit out one specific sound while leaving the rest of the audio intact?
Because whether or not children could be heard to someone outside the room is probably a significant fact.
IIRC, the commander on the scene thought it was a 'barricaded gunman" situation and not an active shooter and supposedly, the cops acted correctly.
But once he actually started shooting, I don't know why the cops didn't change tactics and react.
Remember ehen the U.S. Army protected schools in the 1950's and 1960's?
Police have two jobs:
1 - Go home safe.
2 - Zero tolerance for noncompliance.
Serving and protecting violates rule number one. Allowing people to cross police lines violates rule number two.
They did their job. Why are people so shocked? I don't get it.
Heroes don't get pensions.
"Back the blue" is too often just plain copsucking. Anyone who says that most conservatives don't embrace the idea that to all intents and purposes, cops can do no wrong, is being blind.
There's a lot of "back the blue" coming from the left too. You know, the ones who feel that only cops should have guns, and who insist that bad cops are racist. That way police reform is limited to rooting out racism while ignoring the real problem which is police culture.
I guess if you're a leftist idiot, sure.
You faggots are delusional.
"Texas lawmakers say Uvalde response was result of "systemic failures and egregious poor decision making"
[...]
The failure of police to go into the Uvalde classroom while a gunman killed children inside was the result of "systemic failures and egregious poor decision making"..."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/uvalde-report-texas-house-school-shooting-today-2022-07-17/
The "system" in question is commonly known as "balls".
Well, if it's THE SYSTEM to blame, nobody can be held accountable! Oh well!
"...Police at Columbine in 1999 delayed for 47 minutes, and for 58 minutes in Parkland, Florida, in 2018..."
And the video of Las Vegas cops trying to work up some nerve to break down the hotel room door is downright embarrassing
Been waiting for Joe Fuck Face Friday to show up with his usual Act Blue palaver but I just remembered that he doesn't work on Mondays.
I wonder why it is so hard to replace them with the United States Army.
I mean thirty years ago, I knew they needed to be deployed to the inner city to quell the violence at any and all costs!
Saw some crazy recent dash cam footage of a car chase/ firefight where the cops and baddies were like 5 feet away from each other unloading automatics. They weren’t going out like those Uvalde guys, apparently.
another big point not brought up enough..... all those "gun free zone" signs hanging everywhere. and how stupid you have to be to think they do anything to deter a would be mass shooter.
not a whole not of mass shootings before we started creating these places where nobody will be able to shoot back.
Right; I've observed how they don't seem to be going after churches any more. Not a good way to go down in infamy if an old guy puts your lights out before you can get off more than a couple of shots.
For this reason schools as the most assuredly "gun free zone" remain their favorite target.
Not sure which is worse, 300+ militarized police doing nothing or there are 300+ militarized police less than an hour from the middle of no where Texas.
If you know they are not close enough to help you, then at least you are not likely to live under the delusion that they will protect you.
The obvious rejoinder to this sentiment, at least from the left, is that banning guns* would greatly decrease the chances that you would find yourself in a situation where you would either need a gun to protect yourself or else need to rely on cops for protections. But the cost/benefit there is an empirical question that I don't have sufficient knowledge to comment on.
*I have personally seen very few politicians who want to "ban guns" generally as opposed to banning a limited subset of guns or otherwise strengthening gun control laws without banning guns. Referring to a proposed ban on "assault weapons" (yes, I'm aware of the definitional problems) or AR-15s as a general "gun ban" is disingenuous and implies that the proposed policy would leave the population otherwise defenseless even though hundreds of other firearms would still be generally available.
How many people are killed with AR 15s or similar weapons every year?
Now honestly answer that question and tell me how magically eliminating the 44 million of them in circulation is going to make anyone safer.
they do want to ban all guns.... they just limit themselves to what they think they can get away with. the more time goes on, the more restrictions they put in place. people get comfortable with those restrictions, then they can push for more. people get comfortable with those... and then they push for more. lather, rinse, repeat.... until people don't have much in the way of gun rights and it does not seem like a big change to take the last little bit away.
Or as Biden invariably prefaces gun control initiative, "This is just the beginning, we have to do more!"
"The obvious rejoinder to this sentiment, at least from the left, is that banning guns* would greatly decrease the chances that you would find yourself in a situation where you would either need a gun to protect yourself or else need to rely on cops for protections..."
Which, by all evidence, is total and complete bullshit; a wish, not an argument.
Another thing to add is that the gun bans will be enforced by...
...the police.
Who could honestly say that police officers will be willing to risk getting shot to disarm MS-13?
Don't even think "police officers" would be willing to risk getting shot to disarm their fellow Americans.
*I have personally seen very few politicians who want to "ban guns" generally as opposed to banning a limited subset of guns or otherwise strengthening gun control laws without banning guns."
Back in 1988 Josh Sugarmann wanted to ban so-called "assault weapons" because he knew it would be the beginning of a slippery slope and that banning handguns first would be a non starter. His goal, like many (most? nearly all?) Democrats since then has been to ban guns period.
Covered often above, but my synopsis:
"Back the Blue" means in the ongoing conflict between Team Cop and Team Criminal, I root for Team Cop. When a cop crosses over to Team Criminal, I still root for Team Cop -- the non-criminal ones. Because it's that dude that changed teams, but he didn't change the teams.
"Back the Blue" does NOT mean "the cops will protect me instead of me protecting myself." Never has.
"Back the Blue" means in the ongoing conflict between Team Cop and Team Criminal, I root for Team Cop. When a cop crosses over to Team Criminal, I still root for Team Cop -- the non-criminal ones. Because it's that dude that changed teams, but he didn't change the teams.
Well said. And no one should kid themselves, a large portion of the left is straight up team criminal.
The problem with that is that 90% of cops give the rest a bad name. Show me a good cop and I'll show you someone who hasn't been forced out of the job yet.
90% of your posts give you a bad name
That was soooo clever. Golly. I'll bet you impressed the trolls with that one.
Now you're supposed to call me an alcoholic child molester whose wife is fucking a cop. That will really make you popular.
beat me to it!
""Back the Blue" does NOT mean "the cops will protect me instead of me protecting myself." Never has."
Then go talk to the Back the Blue boosters who say, "These are the people who run toward danger and violence when the natural reaction for others is to run away from it. They have dedicated their lives to protecting our communities and keeping our friends, families, and neighbors safe."
The clear implication is that they will protect your kids so you don't have to.
I think "so you don't have to" is more your inference than an implication. I certainly don't have that take-away from what you say.
The Uvalde folks certainly failed the "run towards danger" test though. They literally ran AWAY from the classroom and hallway when they heard gunfire from inside. Unbelievable.
Well to me, that is what they mean when they say, "when the natural reaction for others is to run away from it."
The whole metaphor of the "Thin Blue Line" is based on the notion that the cops are there protecting society from the barbarians. Like the Scottish Highlanders that formed the Thin Red Line back in the Crimean War, the Police are there holding the line between us and the baddies.
But they aren't, and these Back the Blue boosters should stop trying to steal a base. Cops have a good function in society, but it is not standing on the wall, or walking the line, or protecting anyone. It is enforcing the law. And sometimes that is dangerous, though usually it is not. As soon as I can sue them for failing to be the Thin Blue Line, I will happily praise them for it.
You're really fixated on this interpretation.
Good points in general. But while most cops aren’t Team Criminal, most go into the gray area when it’s time to call out a fellow cop.
My wife has gone full "DEFUND THE POLICE" after reading the report of almost 400 cops standing around while kids died.
We'd be objectively better off by letting the parents respond with their own guns.
Absence the false sense of security school officials might have even kept the fucking doors locked.
Principal and Superintendent both need to be shitcanned immediately.
Absent
Sure, defund the police if you like, but who steps in to fill the void? Motivated, armed citizens or will "the bad guys" simply take over?
We know the vast majority of teachers/administrators won't carry a weapon, you certainly won't arm the students, and you've defunded the police - will a few parents sign up for "Volunteer Law Enforcement" and wait for the siren on city hall to go off, so they can all meet up at the armory and then head to the school?
"Sure, defund the police if you like, but who steps in to fill the void? Motivated, armed citizens or will "the bad guys" simply take over?"
The bad guys have already taken over.
This is what I say to all the "WHERE ARE THE GOOD GUYS WITH A GUN?"
They were being held back by police, and parents wouldn't need guns to rush that room (though they surely had them).
Well you're going to get a federal party controlled police force like the SS, which is what the whole ACAB/defund push is about.
Leftists LOVE law enforcement officers when they're political tools to be wielded against enemies and dissidents
Think about this, also: People laugh at the idea that an armed populace is a deterrent against the state. They jokingly say that armed civilians can't do anything about the power of the US Government.
One active shooter had 400 police officers completely stunlocked. They couldn't do anything to stop him.
An armed populace is extremely effective against the force of government.
"An armed populace is extremely effective against the force of government."
It's only effective if the populace is organized and willing to use those weapons. Simply having a gun in your possession is no guarantee of protection from government force or any other kind of force. It can even lead to greater danger.
And yet every authoritarian government bans guns.
The Bundy standoff was a good demonstration of deterrence via arms.
Sure, the feds could've stormed the cabin and taken everyone out day one. The left would've cheered and the press would've covered for them.
But they would've likely taken casualties. They're a lot more cautious about frontal assault since Waco.
It doesn't necessarily matter if you're armed enough to win - being armed enough to inflict significant damage can in some cases be sufficient.
You see this in the animal kingdom all the time- would be prey have evolved defenses that aren't going to kill the predator, but will inflict damage. A predator who sustains significant injury has his survival threatened from that point forward. A predator with options is going to take the safe route. If attacked by a wild animal and forced to defend yourself, go for the eyes because the animal knows surviving is going to get tough if blinded.
Of course, a predator who's starving is going to attacked the dangerous prey even if there's greater risk because of necessity. And there are predators who are irrational or overconfident. Which is why we Americans have the right to bear arms. Our founders expected us to be able to successfully defend ourselves from a tyrannical State. Successful defense very much includes the capacity to overthrow that government.
"Only you can be relied upon to protect you and your loved ones"
Not necessarily true. Brandishing a gun is not the same as having the resolve to use it to take the life of another. One without the other is a surefire way to increase danger to yourself and your loved ones.
Yeah, just wait for the hero cops to save you.
This is a genuine serious question:
In a place where a bunch of people have guns and someone starts killing bystanders, how would someone know which person to shoot unless they were near the shooter at the very beginning of the incident? It's pretty easy in this instance -- elementary school students don't do mass murder -- but what about at a concert or sports event? How do you avoid shooting another person trying to stop the shooter?
Again, I'm really interested in seeing what strategies exist? This one question -- how do you know you're shooting the murderer? -- is my biggest problem with all open carry laws. I assume someone has answered this before?
The one that it shooting at random people is the bad guy. The people hiding and waiting for a clear shot are the good guys.
And the ones shouting "On your knees! On the ground! Hands up!
Hands on your head!" while blasting away at anyone with something in their hands, with no regard as to what is beyond their targets, are the cops.
How do you avoid shooting another person trying to stop the shooter?
Don't go to the concert or sporting event. Use a knife or a folding chair, etc.
I assume someone has answered this before?
Rule #4—Be sure of your target: Always positively identify your target, know what it’s in line with and what is behind it. Be aware of your surroundings, and don’t assume anything, whether you’re on the range or in a fight. - Jeff Cooper
I’m sure it’ll be easy to remember with gunshots and people stampeding and all.
open carry, conceal carry, what's the difference in this situation?
Theoretical:
A psycho with a gun starts opening fire at a gathering where you are present.
Do you prefer the situation to be:
1. No one else in the room has a gun.
2. A couple of law-abiding open-carry cowboys happen to be in the room with you.
If I am in a setting where such happens, it is on me to be certain who I shoot at is actually the malefactor; once I determine such [yes, in the midst of chaos, terror, and adrenaline] is the point that what training I have had kicks in. There are several instances where police have shown up at a scene only to shoot the "good guy" who had taken the "bad guy" out of the fight. It is not something I hope to ever encounter, but if I do I can only hope that I make the right call. If I cannot then at first I must do no harm until I know with a damned high degree of certainty who the shooter is. What if a shooting starts and another good guy draws their weapon? I would only know if I see the person actually shoot someone, presuming their victim is innocent.
Nothing about this is easy, but I much prefer to be able to take action vs. being a bystander and an inevitable victim.
This is part of what makes Kyle's situation so disgusting. People watched that video and thought not only "Do I shoot the kid who shot someone and is getting attacked by a skateboarder and a gunman?" but thought "I should shoot the kid who shot a rioter.", sometimes days and multiple viewings later. Proving that they don't really care about prejudice, deescelation, or restoring order, they just want to LARP under a DtP banner.
Don't worry about it, because it sounds like you personally should go about unarmed, then try to run or hide if needed.
Tough guy, huh?
So easy from behind a keyboard, isn't it?
Disaffected, antisocial, faux libertarian gun nuts are among my favorite culture war casualties.
I dont know if you've been paying attention pal but you just got your asses kicked.
I bet you glory in real world casualties too if it gives your gun control freakery a fig leaf of justification.
Carry On and Fuck Off, Blanket Clinger!
No one is coming to save you.
Arm yourself accordingly.
"No deity can save us. We must save ourselves."
--The Humanist Manifesto II
I was not aware of these similarities in the Police responses to these shootings:
"Police at Columbine in 1999 delayed for 47 minutes, and for 58 minutes in Parkland, Florida, in 2018."
I had thought they changed procedure
after Columbine.
How much did this 376 LEO response cost? We see this constantly- be it a traffic accident, shooting, cat in a tree, etc. An overabundence of officers standing around, contributing nothing.
Almost certainly all overtime.
and "hazard pay" lol
Everywhere I see a traffic citation, there are always at least two cop cars. Couldn't this be done with just one cop car with a team of 2 like on Adam-12?
This is going to sound crazy, but what if 18 year olds with mental problems, and other people prone to violence like the Parkland shooter, weren't allowed to buy guns at all? What if there was a mental well being check or a more in depth background check? What if we charged the father in Parkland for arming his psycho kid who just threatened to kill everyone at Christmas and had his knives taken by the police?
Do a background check harder? That's your solution?
Punish the Father for the sins of the Son? That's your solution?
You suck.
In a comment above he blamed the citizen who shot the killer for not acting soon enough.
It is good that Taito7 has volunteered to give us his name and address so that we can start with him/her for a psychological investigation, since he/she may one day buy a firearm
Will be interesting to see how they respond to the report of one officer going in to take on the gunman, being stopped by the officers in there, disarmed, and removed from the building.
I must observe, amongst all the cop-bashing, that the first officer down the hall met a hail of bullets from a better-armed attacker with a superior vantage point. (i.e. - officers trying to isolate the shooter had to scan the whole classroom and check background for friendlies before opening fire; the shooter had only a narrow doorway to cover, and had only to shoot anything that appeared from any side.
Yeah, they screwed up,]eeeeeeebadly. The shields arrived and... they all stayed in the hall, hmming and hawing. My point is, until the shields arrived, there was no way but suicide to try breeching the doorway, so, likely none of our ubiquitous gun-slinging, cop-bashing yahoo friends would have gained entry, either.
The shields were on-site in like 20 minutes.
Apparently the cops don't always "check background for friendlies." https://www.denverpost.com/2022/07/17/20th-larimer-police-shooting/
You don't stand in the doorway you lean around the corner. My dad was in Vietnam and had thousands of bullets shot at him and hundreds of mortars and artillery and didn't get a scratch. It's not as easy to shoot someone as people think.
You mean he didn't stand against conscription and an unjust war in Southeast Asia and give his life fighting the U.S.Government, as you expect Holocaust victims to do when forced to build bombs and rockets for the Nazis?
"...My point is, until the shields arrived, there was no way but suicide to try breeching the doorway, so, likely none of our ubiquitous gun-slinging, cop-bashing yahoo friends would have gained entry, either."
You're full of shit.
thousands thousands of murderers in the family circle each year,
This is why it is dangerously foolish to dismiss banning guns (and red flag laws, etc) when in fact, the major threat to families is a husband with a gun, a teenager who gets the family gun to kill himself. This is the threat, and arming yourself is not the solution: it is the problem.
Susan Smith says hi.
You're not part of any family I would claim.
Fuck Off, Hoplophobe!
This is a misleading word salad, directing people away from the only solution. Australia and New Zealand both had a mass shooting about 30 years ago. -- They immediately banned assault-style rifles and semi-automatic guns. That prevented any more. That's what the U.S. needs to do. --- Nothing less.
And now they live in a totalitarian state. Australia literally put people into concentration camps for COVID. America love it or leave it.
A lot of people just want to be slaves.
What nonsense. - Social distancing has LONG been an effective way to fight epidemics and pandemics. - Stop being such a baby.
Stop being a nazi faggot.
If you call a million dead Americans effective.
Since the new gun laws in Australia, gun murders are down 60%(they were very slowly declining before but then they jumped down) and overall murders are down 50%. In JAPAN, awash in illegal guns after WWII, with a gun murder rate nearly the same as the US, over 50 years with restrictive guns laws, at about 2% a year (hardly noticable), they had reduced illegal guns and gun murders by 99.9% by 2000. LAST YEAR, there was just one gun death (the US had over 45,000, the UK (also with few guns) about 35). Gun laws have proven to work very well over the last half century in all advanced nations, and in the US, states with loose gun laws have the highest murder rates.
I don’t give a shit you nazi bastard.
It's clear you don't care about anyone but yourself. - That makes you the fascist, of course.
Fascists care a great deal about people, otherwise why push them into boxcars?
Every fascist/communist country disarms its citizens.
Which is your preferred pronoun?
Why should was/were get the choice?
30,000 of those are suicides and another 10,000 are blacks killing each other over drugs. How many blacks live in in Japan? How many knife murders in UK?
No thanks to your racism. - Go crawl back under your rock with it.
Reality can’t be racist.
Your attribution of murder to skin color shows just how loyal you are to the NAP!
You are also preemptively barred from The Knights, Ladies, and Trans-Jesters Who Say "NIFF!"
Fuck Off, Jim Crow Nazi!
Exactly right. - Thanks.
You can get hacked up by a machete just as easy as you can get shot.
If you're lucky, you'll learn that soon.
Doesn't say anything about other non-gun murders or suicides.
Fuck Off, Hoplophobe!
Iceland must have a lot of murders with all those guns. Everyone is armed and no murders since 2007? That can't be right. It is almost as if it is the people responsible for gun violence. When you figure out who they are maybe we could ban them and everyone else could safely have guns.
Then move there, totalitarian asshole.
Probably true we have to defend ourselves now that gun queers like you have fucked up the country and have us armed to the teeth. How is that working out by the way? What's the score between the murderers and the "one good guy with a gun"?
Shut up faggot.
You can't carry a gun in NY or California or Chicago. Well if you're a violent criminal you can.
He’d just say that’s justification for even more gun control.
Of the ten states with the worst per capita murder rates, 8 are Trump states and of the other 2, one is Georgia - the other New Mexico. SF and Jacksonville have the same population and Jax has republican mayor. They also has 128 more murders last year than SF.
Goddamn, do you ever stop lying you miserable commie faggot?
The main producers of “gun deaths” by far are deep blue cities in red states. The majority of those “gun deaths” are suicides and gang violence. You get what you sign up for.
I feel your pain, loser.
I would be willing to wager if the population that is doing the murders was sent to SF they would also have more murders. Are there demographic differences in these particular locations? Those are mostly Democrats in those states responsible for the high rate of crime. Biden cities and voters are responsible for most of the crime in the country regardless of what state they reside in.
I feel your pain, loser.
Red stars are the deadliest you stupid fuck.
Do you admit you’re a commie now?
I’ve grown weary of your boorish obtuseness.
Muted. You are now nothing more to me than a little grey box you stupid 50 cent troll.
Translation: "I've got nothing and tired of getting my ass kicked trying. "
To the interested reader: The above is a translation form standard English into Libish. It is a widely accepted, linguistic fact that when trying to translate from English to Libish, large chunks of relevant information are frequently lost in translation. Libish is mainly spoken in so-called blue "stars" and has a starkly reduced range of expressible thought when compared to English. It is therefore recommended to never use Libish if the speaker is in possession of standard English.
If you do speak standard English, take the above translation by Joe Friedbrain as a strong example of the excessive margin of communication error embedded in every exchange where Libish is involved. Thank you.
Its always the bluest cities with the tightest gun controls in those red “stars” that are deadly. Check out New Orleans for peak democratic degeneration. And Chicago is blue in blue and still deadly as hell.
I take an oh so deadly red “star” over a blue, centrally planned, unfree “star” every day. More people getting killed by guns is just plausible when there’s more guns around. Not everyone is mature enough to handle their freedom. They are allowed to move to CA. If you want no car accidents, ban cars. And so on.
Again, important message to the blue “star” dweller:
I feel your pain, loser.
The fact remains the more diverse a state or city the higher the crime. In the red states that have high crime they also have high populations of blue voters especially in the cities. The more Democrats the more crime.
Fuxk Off, You Hoplophobic Homophobe!
Fuck the cops and the gun banners.
Neither nor…
Roger Ebert was the world's most respected and loved movie reviewer. His powers of observation made him very wise. When reviewing the excellent movie, "Men With Guns," Ebert observed: "I understand guns in war, in hunting, in sport. But when a man feels he needs a gun to leave his house in the morning, I fear that man. I fear his fear. He believes that the only man more powerless than himself is a dead man."
In other words, only cowards think they need to carry guns.
Cowards leave the safety of their families up to others.
Gene Siskel was better.
Protection of your family is just the lousy excuse that gun lovers and cowards use to build insane arsenals in their homes.
Guess what? - The vast majority of parents do a great job of protecting their families without guns. In fact, it is clearly the gun lovers that are putting families in danger. -- That's what happened in Uvalde and so many other places. -- New Zealand and Australia took the right path and had no more mass shootings after they banned assault style rifles and semi-automatic guns.
Don't think you have anyone fooled. You violence junkies want lots of guns because you're preparing for your hoped for civil war where you can shoot all the Democrats. That desire has leaked out many times. That's because you don't have what it takes to actually lead America. So you want to destroy our precious democracy and replace it with a fascist dictatorship.
As the country's greatest intellectual and dissident, Professor Noam Chomsky said, "The current Republican party is the most dangerous organization in American history.
Wow.
Just wow. You are actually serious.
Now fuck off and die.
"Protection of your family is just the lousy excuse that gun lovers and cowards use to build insane arsenals in their homes..."
Fuck off and die, shitpile; A2.
Looks like Joe Fuckface got himself a sock.
ahahahahahhhhahaha
ok this guy is just a troll best to ignore him. he's not genuine.
When you can't respond to points, toss lame insults.
When you can't understand the points, deflect, asshole.
God made men, Sam Colt made them equal.
Another person who can't respond to points, so drools out a tired old nonsensical saying.
Then try making some points; you are trolling and spewing out garbage, not "points." Joe Fuckface.
No thanks to the Republican projection. Think of a new way to lie.
Eat shit and die, slaver.
God does not exist, M'Fraulein, but Samuel Colt and his creation did.
And a good thing too, with Nazi and Jim Crow apologists like yourself in the world.
Fuck Roger Ebert! Let him get out his two-man movie theatre and live like the rest of us! I give him Two Tumbs Down and a boot up his ass if he wants to take the Individual Right to self-defense!
By the bye, you know that John Thomas is British slang for "Dick," right?
Such hysteria. - When you don't like the message (truth), attack the messenger.
Such a lying pile of lefty shit.
When the message isstupid and brazenly irrational as yours, yes!
Fuck Off, Brit Dick!
"Roger Ebert was the world's most respected and loved movie reviewer..."
Not only an appeal-to-authority, but a REALLY lame one; from whom should we take advice regarding our personal choices?
Why a "movie reviewer"!
Eat shit and die, slaver.
That coward in the recent mall shooting was really a coward. Right?
Meanwhile in Chinada...
https://thepostmillennial.com/watch-trudeau-says-using-a-gun-for-self-defence-is-not-a-right-that-you-have-in-canada
"Only you can take a bite out of authority." Do not comply! Resist! We will prevail, one sovereign at a time, over time. Be an example for the future you want to see everyone enjoy.
Less than 3% of mass shooter attacks are stopped by "one good guy with a gun"
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/06/22/us/shootings-police-response-uvalde-buffalo.html
If it saves just one life...
smh - That's clearly not enough, when we can stop ALL mass shootings, like New Zealand and Australia did.
"smh - That's clearly not enough"
You are clearly not self-aware enough to know that "if it saves one life" is a shibboleth of Anti-Constitutionalists when it comes to gun control - any gun control.
You just "shook your head" at your own idiotic flaccid rhetoric.
Except less guns would mean that mythical "good guy with a gun" is even less needed.
Thanks for playing though dumbass.
Weird, I never mentioned a "good guy with a gun."
Are you lost? Where's your Mommy?
I suppose somewhere in that empty cavern you call a brain, you believe you made a point. Sorry to break the bad news.
If you had anything approximating a brain-cell, you would have gotten the point, asshole.
Fuck off and die, slaver.
My first comment was sardonic irony. My second comment contained no point, it was an exasperated explanation of the first comment. Like you would explain something to an obdurate, incurious, child.
Being forced to explain irony is a sad affair.
The advocacy for more guns easily purchased- or stolen - ýields more death, not less. We've gone in your direction now for decades with ever greater numbers of guns in homes and on the street and the data just gets worse and worse. If only we had Australian numbers. Texas is as gun awash as anyplace in the world with republican leadership for ever, and 19 good guys with a gun let a nut with an AR-15 kill 19 kids.
Your plan is obvious bull shit.
Yep.
More and more guns to the tune of more than 1 for every single man, woman, child in this country and yet the answer is more, more, more.
No, no it's not. It's bullshit and society is only having more shootings. Only an absolute idiot or selfish asshole thinks we need yet more guns.
Joe Asshole lies. It's what Joe Asshole does.
Eat shit and die, Asshole.
Less then 10% of the population have CCW. If we increased the numbers more murders would be prevented. Your statistic implies a need for more people carrying.
This is how Texas police officers used to respond to mass shooters
https://thedailytexan.com/2016/08/01/austin-police-officer-ramiro-martinez-remembers-feeling-sense-of-duty-to-stop-whitman/
I misread that as Whitmer.
. . . Turns out this dude wasn't FBI material.
People who are very fearful of fire don’t become firefighters. If you are fearful of violent criminals, you don’t become a cop. There is zero excuse for Uvalde or the nearly as long delays in Columbine or Parkland. So Fuck the police along with those who insist that government must be trusted to do its job.
And also fuck those who say you have no right to self-defense.
"Man Pulls A Gun On Two Women Who Didn't Thank Him For Holding The Door"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYCc-oK_Bc4
Sounds like the "Nice Guy" Male Feminist you and your ilk claim to be.
Me, I say let the bitches get their own damn door. I have a life to live that is not theirs!
No scenario is too impossibly far-fetched for right wingers. You try to make it sound like a gun-crazed fool is probably a Democrat.
Of course he is your brother. - Trump has pushed the Republican party into one big deplorable competition. As the related TV show will be called, "Who Can Tell The Biggest Lie?"
No stupidity is beyond the ability of brain-dead lefty shits to accomplish.
Fuck off and die, slaver.
You obviously don't know me. I haven't voted since 2004 and don't regret it.
The Black man that pulled the gun on the two women is almost certainly by over 90% certain a Democrat and voted for Biden. How did Trump get involved in the uncivil and criminal acts of a Democrat Biden voter? It seems you would be the star of "Who Can Tell the Biggest Lie." Lefties could star in "Who Can Believe the Biggest Lie."
Unless there is imminent need my first call will always be the police (due diligence). After that call I have no problem taking action to put down the threat. - The police are usually great at their job but they have to get there first, until then it's up to you to protect your family, yourself, your home and your possessions.
Please give an example of some family living near you whose home had be defended with guns. - Apparently, you live on Bizarro World.
And you really think it takes 20 or 30 guns with thousands of rounds of ammunition to fend off that imaginary attack?
We know what all the personal arsenals are for - to shoot Democrats when Trump gives the word.
Mostly, we think you are fucking lefty ignoramus who should eat shit and die.
Fuck off, slaver.
Good idea. That would go a long way toward Making America Great Again.
What have we done to make police afraid to use their guns? The first cop outside saw the killer going into the school and radioed his supervisor for permission to shoot. In the past there would have been an instant "stop or I'll shoot" order.
Definitely some more people who want to defund the police now I bet.
That said, not ban guns? This kid got it legally no? Just like the asshole in Chicago?
Sure....let's not do ANYTHING about that. Surely the best response is to be reactive to someone who decides to shoot up the place and not make sure they don't get a gun in the first place.
If cops are not supposed to protect us then they are just masters of paperwork. They write up citations and reports and not much else. Okay, then pay them like low-skilled bureaucrats that this entails. So long to the big pensions and public adoration.
But seriously, the police will not tolerate that. And giving up on them and saying more of us should have guns is the answer? We really are a stupid country. Thanks Reason for pointing this out.
"...And giving up on them and saying more of us should have guns is the answer? We really are a stupid country..."
Not in general, only lefty shits dragging around strawmen like you.
If all Democrats were disarmed in the US crime and gun violence would decline by 90%. That is an irrefutable fact.
I think as soon as they found out he was pinned down in a room that they simply waited hoping he would shoot himself and the only thing they'd have to do would be to send in forensics and janitors to clean up the mess and scrape the brains and splattered blood off the floors.
"Texas state police launch Uvalde response review"
[...]
"UVALDE, Texas – Two months after the Uvalde school massacre, Texas state police on Monday announced an internal review into the actions of dozens of troopers who were at Robb Elementary during 73 minutes of bewildering inaction by law enforcement as a gunman slaughtered 19 children and two teachers.
The announcement appeared to widen the fallout of a damning 80page report released over the weekend by the Texas House that revealed failures at all levels of law enforcement and identified 91 state troopers at the scene – more than all Uvalde officers combined. It also amounted to a public shift by the Texas Department of Public Safety, which until now has largely criticized local authorities for failing to confront the gunman sooner.
[...]
The findings that Border Patrol agents and state troopers made up more than half of the 376 law enforcement officials who rushed to the South Texas school on May 24 spread the responsibility for a slow and bungled response far wider than previous accounts that emphasized mistakes by Uvalde officers..."
https://buffalonews.com/texas-state-police-launch-uvalde-response-review/article_145b1726-6695-54e2-bbbf-0f048dd67dbe.html
Nearly 400 LEOs and not a single one of them said: "I'm going in there, give me some backup!"?
Any of you who have been in the service know full well that if the OIC fails for injury, nerve or intelligence, it is up to YOU to take charge and not a single one of these cowards did so.