Uvalde shooting investigation focuses on police response

So all they need to understand is that government actions are never and should never be taken to satisfy the desires of one group at the expense of everybody else. Especially when doing that means more people die.

Hmmm. Looks like they have a weaker case than even I thought.

 

See irrelevant argument 2 at http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/how-to-ban-guns-without-firing-a-single-shot.600040/

 

I have no idea what you're talking about. Who cares what he "planned" to do? If police acted valiantly, there would still be dead. Very likely some of them would be cops. On the other hand, no guns... no deaths. No need for police to act valiantly or cowardly. End of story!

Yeah.... this is where the right-winger runs out of arguments, so they stop even TRYING. And this is where I stop wasting my time.

Thanks for playing.

 

Therefore they didn't have a chance. For whatever reason. Be it bad orders from the top, poor planning, cowardice or.... whatever reason. Teachers are as much human beings as cops. There is ZERO reason to assume that they would do better. A more effective solution: make it very very hard for a shooter to obtain an assault weapon and 1600 rounds of ammunition. A potential shooter might try something else, but then the probability of getting caught and the difficulty of producing such a large number of victims both increase.

It's as simple as this: it's just TOO easy for a deranged 18 year-old to go to a gun shop, buy an assault weapon and 1600 rounds of ammunition, and pull a trigger. We need to make it harder.

 

Someone who actually cared about crafting policy to mitigate the ability to commit violent crime (rather than just making an expedient show of virtue) might give it a thought or two. It's clear which category you're in. Don't you think it's important to know what the plan was if you're going to craft some policy that disrupts the ability to make that plan in the future? You said, and I paraphrase (you know what that word means, right?): he accomplished what he was there to do. Do you know what that was? Or do you not care? Do you care if a gun purchased by a licensed manufacturer and sold by a regulated dealer are a necessary aspect of that premeditated goal? Or could he just go to a gunsmithing website, a library, or across the border in Mexico and get access to all sorts of easily producible weapons?

That's the trouble with life. It ends. Often unjustly. Please make a law against it.

Keep repeating yourself. A couple more times and it might just Thanos snap guns out of existence. Until you wipe them from memory, though, they do exist. You also have a problem with, sometimes guns, no deaths. Do you think every use of a firearm results in a death, or even injury? Oh that's right. You can't imagine any way a firearm can be used to improve the "save as many lives as possible" goal.

 

Life was so much less violent before guns existed. Let's definitely return to the times when people just hacked entire villages of children to death with swords.

Well, I guess that still happens now... But at least in those places, very few gun deaths. So there's that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mai...ssacre was,Ethiopia, near the Sudanese border.

 

Right. I'm not involved in crafting policy. I'm just defending reasonable suggestions that we should ALL advocate. Even gun owners. In the case of this thread (unlike the thread I mentioned before), not even that. Just to debunk the nonsensical "good guy with a gun" dogma.

And looks like I succeeded, seeing that you are not even attempting to respond to my arguments.

Yep! Kill as many kids as he could. He definitely "accomplished" that. You actually wanted to go into some rabbit hole about him planning some exact "number of people" (your words). That strawman is clear indication that you ran out of rational arguments.

So that means that would be the end of that.

Thanks for playing...



That's the trouble with life. It ends. Often unjustly. Please make a law against it.



Keep repeating yourself. A couple more times and it might just Thanos snap guns out of existence. Until you wipe them from memory, though, they do exist. You also have a problem with, sometimes guns, no deaths. Do you think every use of a firearm results in a death, or even injury? Oh that's right. You can't imagine any way a firearm can be used to improve the "save as many lives as possible" goal.[/QUOTE]

 

You have no idea what his goal was or whether he accomplished it. You also have no idea whether he could have accomplished that goal without a gun.

Thanks for losing.

 

Your argument is that guns don't stop violence. The violence stopped. You also argued his goal was to kill as many people as possible. Was 21 people as many as possible, or was he stopped before he could kill as many as possible?

"Nineteen well-trained good guys with a gun were not able to stop ONE bad guy with a gun."

It took one good guy to stop him. That good guy used a gun. You lose.

 

[/QUOTE]

Poof, you win. We have laws against murder, are you happy or just want to take more rights away from others?

 

Hah! What a ridiculous question. But I'll give you one last line, only because I have nothing better to do.

21 was DEFINITELY as many as possible. If it had been 50 THAT would have been as many as possible. If it had been 3, THAT would have been as many as possible. That's what "as many as possible" MEANS: killing all he could until it was NOT possible to kill anymore.

But without a gun, it would not have been possible for him to shoot ANYBODY.

 

So it wasn't possible for him to kill 50 people? Why not? Were there less than 50 people there, or did something else stop him?

 

Not having a chance and failing to take it are not the same thing.

Actually, there is. Because having a gun in a gunfight is no guarantee of winning, it might not so much as even the odds, but it does improve them, an idea that I find it difficult even for you to completely dismiss. At the ONE moment they were in need of a firearm for self-defense (not to mention defensive of a room full of 4th Graders), they didn't HAVE one, and you think their odds were no better off than if they did.

All the shooter would have done is discount their abilities as much as you apparently have, and either assumed they weren't armed, or if the were, the concept of "point-and-shoot" was a concept to foreign for their feeble minds, turned their back for just a few seconds, and BOOM... no more bad guy.

What you need to get through your thick skull is that what you propose will require an overhaul to the US Constitution that, as a practical matter if nothing else, is impossible? You will never get enough support to repeal the 2A, and given the precents that have been decided about what it is and what it means, the best case you could possibly hope for is after many decades from now that a case might come along that it so perfectly on-point, with defendants (or appellants) willing and able to fund it, and willing to take the additional decade or two it will take to wind itself to even a hypothetical point that a future Supreme Court might just decide that centuries of past stare decisis is wrong, then perhaps you might (for the first time in US History) get a decision friendly to your side that will take another decade or two of legal wrangling to finally become effective maybe a century from now, after all but a small handful of present newborns are long since deceased.

Even after all of that, I highly doubt you'll be victorious.

 

Complete nonsense. If trained cops couldn't stop it, untrained teachers even less. Even armed GUARDS (as another poster pointed out) have not been able to prevent mass shootings. Only excuses to use the one and ONLY rational thing that can be done and which I listed in the corresponding thread.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/how-to-ban-guns-without-firing-a-single-shot.600040/

 

They did stop it, but you’ve just been making things up this entire thread.

 

So train the teachers..

Trained teachers that are armed have a much better chance then unarmed teachers.

 

You must finally be starting to catch on to the fact that you're wrong, because even when your point has been shown to be wrong, several times, you have now just begun repeating yourself over and over again, as though you somehow think myself and others are just too stupid to notice.

Trained cops could have stopped it, and frequently have in similar or even not-so-similar events. This time, they didn't, until they tried. Waiting was unforgiveable, but what's done is done. One thing I can assure you is that if no effort is made to stop, capture, or kill the badguy, he's likely not going to turn himself in. Even those who intend to off themselves generally wait for the trained cops, or not-quite-as-trained civilians, to at least do something, aside from standing around with their thumbs stuck up their asses.

It simply boggles my mind that you somehow think that an entire platoon full of trained LEOs are so incompetent that they can't stop some dumbass teenager who probably doesn't even know how to take his weapon apart.

They have, however, in the past. Not this time, but the last I heard is that there weren't any available to try. Probably way more often than we even know about, because when it happens, it doesn't make headlines.

Yes, yes, we all know this is your obsession, and that every time an event like this happens, you make thread after thread after thread after thread about it, but I have no idea what it is you're trying to accomplish.

Those "excuses" you mentioned are called the Constitution and Laws of our Country and States that, when combined with precedents and arguments, present a case for consideration of the final arbiter of what is and is not the ultimate answer to what the laws say, and how they are to be applied. As I've explained to you more times than I care to think about, the only way for your wet dream to come through is to repeal the 2A, which requires a 2/3rds "Yay" vote in the House and Senate, and for 38 out of the 50 States to concur. That's your only chance, and while you have every right to try, the chances of success are probably along the lines of 1*10^-15th. Which is about a 0.0000000000000001% chance.

Good luck. I'm not worried.

 

Yeah,.... Maybe those 19 cops can train them...

 

Well.... these couldn't. And this is proven by the fact that they didn't.

Be it because of incompetence, bad training, poor orders from above, lack of information... now we know that it's NOT just a matter of arming people. We DO know that if we make it harder for people to get guns, we can reduce the number of mass shootings and/or the number of dead per instance. And this applies to similar and not-so-similar events too. So we COULD rely on cops to stop AFTER there are already people dead. Or we can just rely on guns not being available to keep most of them from happening in the first place with NO people dead... regardless of whether the cops are competent or not.

Your attempts to deny reality and obvious facts only strengthens my case.

 

What is the ratio of death prevented by gun use to murders caused by gun use?

 

A Republican Christmas

I can't imagine why we have a gun problem. That kid stage left in the green sweatshirt looks like he's ready to start shooting.

 

Tell you what... you give me the number of deaths prevented (with verifiable references) and I'll give you the ratio....

You've been aiming for the "dumbest question of the week" award, haven't you? Still a couple of days to go, but I think this one is a strong contender.

 

If the bad guys didn't have guns, the good guys wouldn't need them. Almost any life saved would have been saved from being killed by a gun!

So how many deaths by guns were prevent by guns? That is not an argument for more guns.

 

No thanks. Instead you can justify the claim you made.

If the availability of guns has never prevented death, as you assume, then it should be easy for you to justify your argument. If death prevention by gun is greater than zero, we really need to know the ratio for your argument to be valid. Ball's in your court.

 

How many deaths could have been prevented if the villagers in Ethiopia could have defended themselves against their machete weilding Tigrayan attackers?