Uvalde shooting investigation focuses on police response

Give up.
You want to argue details.
A big person hitting a little person is wrong.
Any law that allows it is wrong.
End of.

 

DETAILS, lol Like showing how uninformed your post are to the point you accuse me of making YOUR post.
Yeah, lets not look at the details. lol

But teachers living in fear of their own students is acceptable because their students have no fear of being punished.
Entitled brats who confront cops to the point of physical confrontation is the cops fault
Entitled brats who destroy public property, burn businesses, and riot freely is them showing their respect for others
Which are all products of undisciplined children due to the fact the parents were too cowardly to institute any behavior control.

Then when these mental morons enter society, they never heard the word no before, have been told how great they are making sure they never fail at anything, or were ever held accountable for their actions and they have this idea that society owes them, and when they don't get what they want, they destroy property and gun down the very institutions that produced them.

Of course all this is much better than being a responsible adult and holding your child accountable. God forbid little johnny gets a spanking or gets paddled in school.
OH THE HUMANITY

Of course those same parents can't figure out why the monumental increase in crime, mass shootings, robbery, officer confrontations, and total lack of respect for others or their property comes from. So like you they make extreme comments like beating a newborn because they can't actually defend what they are dishing out.
Oh, I'm sorry, they do. WE NEED MORE GUN LAWS. Yeah, that will fix it. lol

We have a major intellectual deficiency in this country and its call liberalism. Which has failed at every turn through history.
But the left does what the left does. They will repeat the same things over and over expecting different results.
Ignorance is bliss

 

Have you studied the psychology of mass shooters? They very much are seeking attention; convinced they aren't getting the recognition and attention they deserve. Mass shooting is a last ditch attempt for the perpetuator to award themselves with fame and notoriety.

It's all about recognition, which is what a trophy is.

 

But after 22,000 gun laws, more gun laws will fix the problem.
You didn't get the memo?

Until they decide to address the problem with this hands up don't spank ideology, they will continue to fill the world with their entitled brats that have no fear of anything because they are always right and its the entire world that is wrong.

 

It's not just about parenting.

This is a terribly complex problem. It doesn't have one solution. We are in the information age. One of the main problems as I see it is that prior to the Internet problems, for the most part, were local. People compared themselves to their neighbors. Now people compare themselves to the skewed reality of social media.

Another side effect is that what we're really arguing about banning here is just information. We can't effectively ban the information necessary to produce weapons of mass destruction. I can go on YouTube and learn how to make all sorts of terribly destructive things out of commonly available materials. I could make a weapons factory in my garage for a few thousand dollars and no one would know.


The solution to this problem is not a tyrannical surveillance society.

That will just make things worse.

 

While we watch people being run over by a city bus or walk into walls while so enthralled in their cell phones, it has become easy for these morons to make accusations against people with no response what so ever. It used to be, if you were going to accuse someone it was public knowledge and you made it to their face.

Of course that cut out most of the false claims because you would get you ass beat for doing such. Cell phones and the internet has consumed these kids so bad, they don't even have a clue about the realities around them. That one piece of technology has encapsulated entire generations to the point, if you take their cell phone away, they can't function.

 

Also I have to disagree strongly about corporal punishment. The idea that pain is an incentive for good behavior is wrong. Don't beat your children. What they need is responsibility.

Real accomplishment is a much better incentive than shame and pain.

 

I disagree whole heartedly. Corporal punishment in schools is necessary for those who continue to abuse others as well as teachers.
There are those who only learn from getting what they dish out. Not getting treated the same only emboldens them.
Just like confronting a bully. Give him a bloody nose and for some odd reason he quits picking on you.
Go figure

I have 3 kids. 1 daughter and 2 boys. My daughter never received a spanking in her life.
My two boys maybe had 3 spankings in their life and they deserved to know what the cost of that particular behavior was.

If they screw up and are honest about it or just do something stupid and realize it, thats not what corporal punishment is for.

When they know better and do something out of spite like take my car at 13 years old and go joy riding putting others in danger, you can GUARANTEE I whooped that ass.
Being a bully to another child, disrespecting their teacher, destroying property.

I am not advocating on beating children every time they screw up. I am advocating corporal punishment in those times serious enough to warrant such.

 

All I'm saying is we didn't have a mass shooting epidemic when corporal punishment was a thing. And students had guns IN their cars in the parking lot then.
Just as soon as the don't spank and don't discipline your child movement starts, magically so does the school shooter epidemic.
They're correlated.

 

The ONLY thing that can be drawn from that logic is that "a good guy with a gun is not enough to stop a bad guy with a gun". Which implies that less guns would probably be a better solution.

 

Clearly you expect WRONG, if 19 trained, armed professional cops didn't have such a chance.

If we are talking about "chances", an unarmed criminal would have LESS chance of killing 19 kids and 2 teachers while 19 trained, armed professional cops are standing outside.

You consider that a possibility? I don't!

 

Yes!!!!

I don't actually know if it "only" works in a developed country. But I'm only interested in it working in MY country... which IS developed country.

 

The entire point of the comment you responded to was that the logic was constructed on fallacy. There's not one thing you can draw from false logic. There's myriad. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but there's not currently a deranged shooter in a school presently. The one that was there previously was stopped. With a gun. He wasn't stopped with hugs and kisses. He wasn't stopped with good guidance counselling. He was stopped when someone used force to stop him.

Now that did not happen nearly as rapidly as we would like, but the problem there wasn't that the guns were slow to respond. The problem rest in the behavior of the people holding them. Your logic here is assuming the "good guy" part of the equation. Are we to assume that the cops here are good guys that were somehow unable to stop him with their guns? That doesn't seem to be the case. Instead it appears that they were unwilling to stop him with their guns. That's a different situation entirely. I don't see anyone suggesting that everyone is a good guy, or that everyone with a gun is one. But that's certainly the fastest way to stop a bad guy with bad intent regardless of whether the bad guy has a gun or not.

 

At the same time most men wore fedoras. They're correlated. I guess we should all go back to wearing hats. If you're against wearing hats, you're clearly against protecting children!

 

Eh men stopped wearing hats as a cultural imperative in the US when Kennedy first appeared outdoors for a public event without a hat.
It caused quite a stir.

They were still doing corporal punishment in the 80's

 

Good thing you cleared that up. I wasn't being serious about my false cause, however. Just because a behavior happened when another didn't, does not mean stopping that behavior is the cause of the one you want to avoid. It's the ice cream cones cause shark attacks fallacy.

 

You already demonstrated you don't know what the word "quote" means. I doubt you'll do any better with a longer word like "fallacy".

After accomplishing what he was there to do... with a gun.

But there is actually an important underlying point in what you say (which you likely don't realize). EVEN if a good guy with a gun COULD stop a bad guy with a gun, they would most likely do that AFTER people are already dead.

No guns... less people killed. And if we only ban SOME guns... or at least make it more difficult to obtain them... lives are being saved even BEFORE anybody had to stop anybody.

I DID make this point in a separate thread (titled something like "How to ban guns without firing a single bullet"). But in THIS thread, the point is that we have at least one avoidable tragedy that proves that the gun lobbyist mantra is garbage.

It IS the case as proven by the fact that it WAS the case.

I have no idea why you would assume that they were "unwilling". That's an absolutely baseless assumption. But if cops were somehow part of some "conspiracy", which you appear to be making up as you go, to allow shooters to gun down children, the fact remains that they DIDN'T. And that is a fact that cannot be changed.

If we restrict who has access with a gun, and if we restrict the types of guns that kill more children, even if your conspiracy theory (or whatever that's supposed to be) were accurate, there would be LESS bad guys with guns, less instances in which cops are "unwilling" to stop the shooter and, .... if in the cases where they were this unwilling, the number of victims would likely be less because they would have to use a less lethal weapon.

 

Yes, ultimately the pro 2nd amendment people typically want to take their own protection into their own hands. By you pointing out that the 19 cops failed to do their jobs you have strengthened the argument that we need guns to protect ourselves. You have a big dilemma on your hands here, with pointing out the failure of the government to protect us. Getting rid of the 2nd amendment (something you want to happen) means we are now relying 100% on the government for protection.. something you have proven with this thread is a very bad idea. You didnt realize it when you started this thread but you have made a VERY pro gun thread here.

 

Which is why I pointed out they were correlated and did not claim causation and also offered it as an "im just saying" IE I'm simply pointing out this limited bit only and making an observation.

Its the "That's the Joke" fallacy.

 

and what happens if he couldnt get a gun and made bombs or gallons of gas and burned the whole place down? The problem here is that he was a very evil person wanting to kill children, the gun didnt make him do it. no gun just means he tries another way.

would you be willing to be shot by any of the remaining guns not banned? See the flaw in your idea? It would be like banning bud light and thinking that would cut down on drunk driving.. very illogical

 

Oh my god, what a great point. You're totally winning.

Yeah, he totally planned on not using all his ammo, only ending the lives of exactly the number of people he killed. Another winning point. Phew I'm really taking a beating here.

Yeah, if only we could kill bad guys before they do something bad. So much winning.

Why don't we just weld everyone into their homes. Super safety for the WIN.

Did your plan include mind erasers that eliminated the knowledge of guns? They're super easy to build. The industrial lego needed to build them is super cheap, and readily available. Might as well ban the wheel to prevent car accidents.

Might have something to do with the fact that they stayed outside, prevented people from entering, and didn't engage with the shooter for over an hour.

How do you restrict access to information in the age of information? The same way we restrict access to the ability to produce methamphentamine, maybe?

Ps I forget, win means super stupid, right?

 

They absolutely did have such a chance, they just didn't take it. And when one of the feds told the locals to f-off, he had the guy dead within a few seconds.

Since we now know that he didn't kill everyone in that room when he first got there, even if the first cop to show up went in all by himself, many children could have still been alive.

 

Your fantasy of a gun-free USA is never going to happen. Not now, and not in 500 years, even if by some miracle in that half millennium, someone manages to get the 2A repealed.

You haven't figured that out yet??

 

That’s illogical. More good guys than bad guys, more good guys with guns means bad guys are outnumbered.
That’s called math.

 

https://www.khou.com/article/news/c...home/285-48082e85-a854-4750-bd72-1eba99c7d64d

Well, this looks like a pretty good reason to turn your guns in and hope the cops come by one day. Right? This is how safe you will feel with no protection from criminals! I mean, why NOT ban guns look how safe the criminals are with no guns, and how safe that poor family was.

this is where anti-2A people want us.