Uvalde shooting investigation focuses on police response

Their concern is with the potential for abuse. I sympathize, but in making their argument their strategy is to completely ignore the potential for use. This renders their arguments absurd in my view.

 

When people start babbling about what I want or what I think, but don't quote me... that's when I know you're not here for a serious debate.

You asked a direct question. I have said MANY times that, if it were up to me, I'd ban ALL firearms from the public (with very limited very qualified exceptions.... MAYBE). So I can't think of a SINGLE benefit private ownership of firearms that would be preferable to just banning them all. I have also said I don't think that banning all firearms is possible in this country. Even most gun control advocates would disagree with me on this. So my posts are intended to find an intermediate solution. But what you asked is if I can think of any benefits. None I can think of.

 

More deflections running from you own post
4th time
What law against a manufacture will stop gun violence

 

One of the most proposed changes to regulation is expanded background checks. People feel that a system that investigates a potential gun owner prior to the sale creates some understanding of how the potential gun owner will use said firearm. I'm not sure I agree with that assumption, but let's take it on its face. What would a competent background check system require? It requires data to check. What data? Crime data, financial data, health care data, education data? How deep do we need to dive into a person to know how they will behave in the future? What's the right amount of data collection that doesn't create one of those systemic racism problems I keep hearing about?

How do we collect and maintain that data? Who gets access to it? Who protects it from unauthorized access? Wouldn't it be funny of a home mortgage lender cleared you by making you buy a gun before you could take out a home loan?

Right now background checks are in place, but the database we have is spotty. That's why people keep calling for universal background checks. States often don't update the database regularly, there are millions of undocumented people roaming around, criminals use aliases, people hide mental health issues, etc. What regulation would improve the quality of the database?

 

Those same regulations have not worked in other countries but you don't want to look at that because it doesn't fit within your magical universe. It's clear that you don't care about saving lives because you don't care about any possible actions that would save lives. Removing all the guns is not possible in this country. If you want to live in a country with those regulations, I suggest Mexico, El Salvador, or Honduras.

 

The lefts idiotic ideology has produced a generation of entitled brats who can't cope with the real world without safe spaces with puppies and coloring books.
Its the same lefty idiotic ideology that thinks after 22,000 gun laws, more gun laws will stop the problem.
They refuse to discipline their children
Instead of disciplining them for behavior problems, they put them on ADHD medications, which eventually, they will come off the meds
Schools can no longer use corporal punishment against these poor entitled babies
Which you now see in masses coming out for 576 riots last summer while the same leftist ideology governors refusing to stop it empowering them even more

You raised a bunch of entitled brats that don't knw how to cope in the real world by giving them trophies for failure and telling them how great they are all the time.
Now when they flip out in the real world because it isn't ponies and rainbows like mommy and daddy taught them, they attack the very idiotic system that produced them, then the lefty ideology kicks in again blaming guns.

 

You accused me of misquoting you, and then went on to validate my quote. Stange. It's almost as if you've said exactly that before, and that's what I was responding to, despite the lack of a direct quote.

1. You cannot imagine a private firearm use that achieves your stated goal of "saving as many lives as possible"
2. You want to regulate a system that you can't observe.

Firearm uses have saved lives. They have limited the potential for increased death. They have prevented death entirely. That you can't think of these instances means you cannot observe them, measure them, or analyze them. This precludes your ability to know what your affect on the system actually is.

 

I think there are people in this forum who can do better than the typical red-neck argument.

 

Care to explain? Those countries have the gun regulations that you want.

 

I didn't say you misquoted me. I said you didn't quote me... at all.

Do you know what the word "quote" means?

In any case, 19 armed armed trained cops in Uvalde couldn't stop ONE guy with a gun. That tells me that the benefit of more guns is, to say the least, very questionable.

NO guns, would have been preferable.

 

No, it's not. First, those cops plain and simple did not do their jobs. We don't know how quickly the students and teachers were dispatched in that classroom, because sadly (not sadly for the shooter) nobody came out alive. But change one of three elements, the first being the door left not only unlocked, but open by a teacher, the second being the fact that neither teacher in the classroom was armed, and the third being that the police waited around with their thumbs stuck up their asses for an hour or more, and the story would have ended differently, quite possibly with the only dead person being the shooter himself. That's not the only possibly alternative ending, but it is one.

How many threads do you intend to start about this incident anyway, with your hopeless desire to ban civilian ownership of firearms (which isn't going to happen), being the primary reason for them?

You're like a broken record.

 

I don't know the statistics about exactly which types of officers are quitting and retiring early, but I can't say I'm unhappy about it. If someone doesn't want to be scrutinized about their performance, they should quit. A great many low level/low paid jobs face scrutiny on a daily basis, and their responsibilities don't even compare to those of a police officer. The ones who remain, likely, are officers who encourage best practices and have no problem turning on a body camera.

 

It appears your ability to detect the quote section of a post is right in line with your ability to detect legitimate gun use.

It's okay. I'm am educator. I'll help you. It's on the shaded area of the post right after the words "Golem said"

 

No, thank you. I have no interest in explaining to you the difference between a developed and an underdeveloped nation. If you don't know that.... you don't travel much, do you?

 

So 19 cops didn't do their job, but you expect that people whose job IS NOT to stop shooters will.

Are you saying we should defund the police?

 

I have stopped many more than 3 crimes just by shouting "oi". I have stopped a mugger from mugging me by just shouting "F*** off". I have stopped a group of guys trying to steal my car in the middle of the night just by making a lot of noise so that the whole neighbourhood could hear while running down the stairs to confront them, they all ran. And, no, I'm not brave or have a death wish. Making a lot of noise is the best defence. Criminals do not want to be caught, they are only interested in stealing. No gun needed

 

I have never seen anyone run from their own post with excuses as much as in this thread.
If you can't support your OP instead of name calling those who ask questions with deflections at every request, it only means you didn't believe it when you posted it.
And you can't back up what you stated. (No surprise there)
Pretty simple

You claimed we need laws against manufactures.
So I will ask you a simple question from your own claim for a 5th time.
What law against a manufacture will stop gun violence

Or were you just going to continue with the snarky comments to hide the fact you can't answer the question?

 

So you don't think the defunding police leftist policies, BLM marching chanting fry pigs like bacon, making them stand in front of mobs who are attacking them while refusing to allow them to fight back, story after story about how racist cops are, with the lefts made up institutional racism claims, and cops being blamed on every leftist news site every time they encounter someone who refuses to obey simple commands turns into a fight, has anything to do with it.

They are just not able to deal with scrutiny. Is that your claim?

Seems that police quitting their jobs in monumental historical numbers nationally over recent events in the last 2 years might produce a little more logic to anyone with the least bit of critical thinking skills.

 

Golem said I didn't quote him at all. Clearly, that's incorrect. What am I supposed to do, infer his meaning from the context of his post like I did in the post he took issue with? Seems like that's the easiest thing to do since he followed up by confirming I was spot on. I mean, if I have to wait around until he says what he means in a debate about a system he can't articulate the factors of we could be here for years.

Just for the record

1. Golem can think of zero ways to improve the "save as many lives as possible" goal through the use of a firearm.
2. Golem wants to regulate firearm use.

If you'd like to find evidentiary support for these two objective facts, then I suggest rereading what he has written.

People who can't articulate the function, purpose, use, and misuse of a thing shouldn't play a role in the regulation of that thing. Don't know about trains? Don't regulate them. Don't know about health care? Don't regulate it.

People need to stop trying to control of things they don't understand. It just makes the system worse in ways they never anticipated.

 

It must have put a burden on the surviving students at Robb Elementary School learning that the 19 students and 2 teachers won't be coming back for the fall semester. It is a shame for them to pass away the way they did. Those students and teachers did not deserve to die the way they did and it was wrong for the 18-year-old mentally disturbed boy to do what he did. I don't know what effect the surviving students and teachers will face in the months to come.

 

Do you think things might be different if they knew you didn't have one? What do girls shout? Hey come get me?

 

The same would apply to making a thread.
If you can't answer the questions without deflecting every time someone ask a question about what you stated, you shouldn't be allowed to even open a thread.

I have asked 5 times now, What law against a manufacture will stop gun violence based on Golems claim that we need more laws against gun manufactures.
And as you can read for yourself in his thread, he can't answer the question.

And this is the type of person anyone would want making any kind of decisions on US policy?
I think that speaks for itself

 

I'm in the UK so they would have known I would not have a gun. I would not know if they had a knife but they did not threaten me at all, they all just ran or walked away

 

Fair enough. Criminals typically are opportunists. Not sure I'd stake my life or the life of my family on their ability to behave rationally, however.

Just takes that one time...

 

So I have no critical thinking skills. Got it. Thanks for the assessment.

As for the rest - I am fully aware that cops' jobs got a whole lot harder over the last couple of years. I know they aren't used to taking verbal (and sometimes physical) abuse from the public and not reacting. I can't imagine how hard that was. And yes, I'm sure many of them 'retired' as a result. They didn't like the way 'policing' was headed. But that is where society is headed. We have become a nation of protests - from both sides. Its our constitutional right. Does that mean they can be violent without repercussion? No, they certainly shouldn't be. But I also don't relish the idea of protesters getting irate and a squad of police officers going in and beating the crap out of people. That isn't what we want our society to be.

So, maybe, policing going forward is going to be very different. And I maintain my original thoughts - if any of the old guard don't think they can do that, they are better off leaving. And maybe recruiting is going to look very different in the future. Maybe they will be looking for cooler heads who can prevail in the face of hatred and verbal/physical abuse.