Gunman kills 19 children, 2 adults in Texas grade school

[Rockstar]

Making it harder for me to buy a firearm I don’t think will change the mind of someone who has no regard for human life. Since the early 1960s research evidence has been accumulating that suggests that exposure to violence in television, movies, video games, cell phones, and on the internet increases the risk of violent behavior. TAKE THAT AWAY. make that harder to access. Make better standards of living and health care MORE accessible. Take away the video games, cell phones and social media platforms.

The kids cellphone and social media platforms gave him instant access to fame and notoriety.

The number of firearms I own didn’t have jack squat to do with it.

[Ostfriese]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Making it harder for me to buy a firearm I don’t think will change the mind of someone who has no regard for human life. Since the early 1960s research evidence has been accumulating that suggests that exposure to violence in television, movies, video games, cell phones, and on the internet increases the risk of violent behavior. TAKE THAT AWAY. make that harder to access. Make better standards of living and health care MORE accessible. Take away the video games, cell phones and social media platforms.

If that were true then explain to me why this is a problem only in the US. TV, movies, video games, cell phones aren't exclusive to the US, but are also extremely common for people in Europe, in Japan, in South Korea, in Australia, in New Zealand and in other parts of the world, of which NONE suffers similar problems.



There have been 27 mass school shootings in the USA in 2022, and it's not even June. There hasn't been a mass shooting at a school anywhere else in the world this year, most countries in the world haven't experienced mass shootings for DECADES.


Firearms are the number one death cause for US American teenagers. Let that sink in. Not drugs, not alcohol, not car accidents nor other accidents.

[Rockstar]

I guess we could start with the number of hours per day children in each country spend on TV, social media, what is presented on TV, social media and amount of time spent playing violent video games.

I just can’t deny the studies that suggest all of the above DOES have an affect on children. Obviously access to firearms is also an issue which was why I also suggested maybe raising the age limit to 21 particularly for high capacity semi-automatics.

I’ll be the first to admit I do not have all the answers. I am very curious to know what motivated him because it wasn’t always like this, what changed? Was he on prescription meds? That seems to be very common theme for a lot kids these days too

[Ostfriese]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

I guess we could start with the number of hours per day children in each country spend on TV, social media, what is presented on TV, social media and amount of time spent playing violent video games.

I agree in principle - but shouldn't that be left to the parents rather than being regulated by the state? I may be wrong here, but isn't one of the conservative talking points in the US "less government!", yet this proposal would mean the opposite.

I just can’t deny the studies that suggest all of the above DOES have an affect on children. Obviously access to firearms is also an issue which was why I also suggested maybe raising the age limit to 21 particularly for high capacity semi-automatics.

Why not for any guns regardless of whatever limitation you can think of? You can't buy alcoholic drinks of any kind legally in the US if you are under 21. What would be so difficult to create a similar law in which the word "alcohol" is replaced by "gun"?

I’ll be the first to admit I do not have all the answers. I am very curious to know what motivated him because it wasn’t always like this, what changed?

When there's a person who you'd like to ask "what (has) changed" would you still want this very same person to be able to get a gun? Shouldn't the simple fact that you have doubts be enough to raise the red flags?

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Ostfriese

I agree in principle - but shouldn't that be left to the parents rather than being regulated by the state? I may be wrong here, but isn't one of the conservative talking points in the US "less government!", yet this proposal would mean the opposite.

I agree it should be regulated by parents but unfortunately the way our economy is set up. I think parents or most likely these days the parent is so harried trying to make ends meet there is little time to spend with and guide a child, the child is in my opinion left to his own device. His guide is social media, TV, games, media bombardments filled with violence.

Why not for any guns regardless of whatever limitation you can think of? You can't buy alcoholic drinks of any kind legally in the US if you are under 21. What would be so difficult to create a similar law in which the word "alcohol" is replaced by "gun"?

Because there are millions of 18 year old sportsmen who are of a sound mind, hunting wild game with a single fire bolt action should not be made hard to get. Whereas it’s illegal to hunt with a semi-automatic rifle anyway unless there is a permanent restrictor plate installed preventing more than 3 rounds in the magazine

When there's a person who you'd like to ask "what (has) changed" would you still want this very same person to be able to get a gun? Shouldn't the simple fact that you have doubts be enough to raise the red flags?

My hindsight is perfect. But the so called comprehensive background checks only reveal past records and convictions. Not the buyers current state of mind or future intentions. At the time of purchase there were absolutely no red flags presented to the seller or the manufacture of the firearms. I think the question were any red flags presented should be addressed to his parents, peers, and community.

But I’m thinking something in society has changed for better AND for worse. Hell, granted it was only a cursory review but it appears even South Korea has increasing crime and violence rates. We are just as much a part of nature as the law of causation is a part of nature. It’s cause and effect guns have been around a very long time but why are we in my opinion seeing an increase in violence and more people with so little regard for human life.

[Ostfriese]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

I agree it should be regulated by parents but unfortunately the way our economy is set up. I think parents or most likely these days the parent is so harried trying to make ends meet there is little time to spend with and guide a child. Therefore the child is in my opinion left his own devices. His guide is social media, TV, games, media bombardments filled with violence.

And again: children and teenagers all over the world consume the same media, yet mass shooting and gun violence commited by teens are only a problem in the US.

Because there are millions of 18 year old sportsmen who are of a sound mind, hunting wild game with a single fire bolt action should not be made hard to get. Whereas it’s illegal to hunt with a semi-automatic rifle anyway unless there is a permanent restrictor plate installed preventing more than 3 rounds in the magazine

Yet at the same time you want to restrict media for millions of teenagers who consume media without going on gun rampages.

My hindsight is perfect.

This is not about hindsight. If there is even the slightest doubt about a person's character and mental stability he or she should not be able to buy a gun.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Ostfriese

And again: children and teenagers all over the world consume the same media, yet mass shooting and gun violence commited by teens are only a problem in the US.

and again: there does appear to be an uptick in violence not just in the United States. Why? Some studies suggest media violence does have an affect on the population. Guns have been around a lot longer than the uptick in violence. The firearm is not the reason for the uptick in violence nor will removing them solve the problem of the growth of violent people.

Yet at the same time you want to restrict media for millions of teenagers who consume media without going on gun rampages.

I didn’t say I wanted too, I said: “I agree it should be regulated by parents” but then went on to say crap hours, minimum wage and scrambling to make ends meet can make that difficult to do which then leaves child to his own devices.

Furthermore we’re not zombies, not everyone is wired the same. Just look at Subsim, how many people tired of the things said here, got up and left never to be heard from again. Maybe they went hunting, started a garden, wrote a book, built a boat or went sailing, spent more time with family, got a better job, took up an outdoor hobby or travelled. There are other things to do besides counting how many thumbs up you get or gossip.

This is not about hindsight. If there is even the slightest doubt about a person's character and mental stability he or she should not be able to buy a gun.

I agree though I think it is about hindsight, because there is no law or background check in the world that can reveal the future. Even questions regarding red flags I think can only be addressed by those closest to the killer after the fact. Other than that what people want I think is akin to the movie ‘Minority Report’

[August]

Originally Posted by Ostfriese

There have been 27 mass school shootings in the USA in 2022,

Where did you get that crazy figure?

[Skybird]

Mass shootings have become so common in the US that we have developed a pathology for how to react. The aggrieved families who have lost someone they loved are the recipients of thoughts and prayers. Law enforcement is praised for keeping the tragedy from becoming even more horrific. Counseling is offered to survivors. Politicians come to town to express their sympathy and outrage, and vow that the latest community will recover and stand "Texas strong" or "Sandy Hook strong" or "Parkland strong."

But nothing happens to prevent another shooting.

We pray. But don't legislate. And prayer clearly is not stopping the slaughter. In all the statements to come from conservative politicians following up Tuesday's deadly shooting in Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, where 19 children and two adults were killed, do not expect to hear even a solitary voice suggest gun reform. The Second Amendment is always treated as more important than the lives of children. Words like "evil" and "incomprehensible" and "horrific" will be thrown around and, as Republican US Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas urged us, we will be encouraged to "come together as a nation." But I suspect we -- or some of us -- already have. Some of us came together and decided that no horror caused by guns can be worse than restricting access to guns.

The governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, a very conservative Republican, went before television cameras Tuesday and said, "When parents drop their kids off at school, they have every expectation to know they will be able to pick that child up when that school day ends." The governor ought to be asked how a parent can have that assurance when he said he was upset his constituents weren't buying enough guns.

"I'm EMBARRASSED," Abbott tweeted in 2015. "Texas #2 in nation for new gun purchases, behind CALIFORNIA. Let's pick up the pace Texans."
He helped his state compete in that gun-buying contest with California. Just last year, Abbott proudly signed into law what he called a "constitutional carry" bill, which allowed anyone over 21 to carry a gun without getting a permit, and he did it after the El Paso mass killing in 2019. There is always the flawed premise that more guns will make it likely a murderer will be stopped by one. Prior to Abbott's signing of the measure, a license to carry required fingerprints, four to six hours of training, a written exam and a shooting proficiency test.

But that's over. Guns in Texas won. Regulations and reform lost. Wasn't even a real contest. Gov. Abbott is quick, however, to ban books that offend his political sensibilities, but gun ownership cannot be constrained.

When President Joe Biden, however, spoke in the hours after the Uvalde tragedy, his words were angry, though mostly aspirational because he knows the political reality confronting gun reform proponents. All he has right now is words, and his opponents have the votes. A bill to expand background checks on gun buyers passed the US House of Representatives two years ago but there is nowhere near the number of yeses in the Senate to get it to the president's desk.

"As a nation," President Biden said. "We have to ask, when in God's name will we stand up to the gun lobby. When in God's name will we do what we know what has to be done ... I am sick and tired of it. We have to act and don't tell me we can't have an impact on this carnage."

Biden pointed out that the previous ban on assault weapons reduced mass killings but when it was repealed, he said, they tripled. He said the public and politicians have to be encouraged to stand up to the gun industry and he wondered while on his 17-hour flight home from Asia why the US is the only nation in the world that deals with recurrent mass shooting incidents.
"These kinds of mass shootings rarely happen in other parts of the world," he said. "But they have mental health problems. They have people who are lost ... Why are we willing to let this happen? Where, in God's name, is our backbone? It's time to turn this pain into action."

Those other nations don't have gun lobbies?

Gun rights advocates seem to have plans while reformers struggle against a powerful manufacturers' lobby, the National Rifle Association and with how much regulation is too much.

The Second Amendment doesn't have to be destroyed to save our country. The Constitution is a living document. Maybe it needs to be tempered for the times and adjusted from a 1776 context to an era when there are computers that can talk to each other, and guns that can fire an astonishing number of rounds. Isn't there a law that can be written to order state and federal databases for mental health and criminal records and gun purchases to all interact and share information? Aren't we smart enough as a culture to find language to protect our fundamental rights and our children?

The era of mass shootings in which we live probably began in Texas on August 1, 1966, when a gunman climbed the University of Texas tower with a high-powered rifle and began shooting people walking on campus. Charles Whitman killed 16 people that bright summer day after he had already murdered his wife and mother. The incident was the first to transpire live and was broadcast to a horrified city of Austin. Since then, Texans have watched certain towns gain notoriety for dark reasons. Mass killings in Sutherland Springs and El Paso and Santa Fe and Midland-Odessa and Dallas and the cafeteria shooting in Killeen and a Fort Hood mass slaying. The full list is even longer.

Hard to deny that the horrors started here. Now let this be the time and place that creates the political will to let Texas be the place where it comes to an end.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/25/o...ore/index.html

---------------------------

And this statistics display. It puts America to shame. Amok runs you have in other countries, too. But not at this number, it just does not compare. Never. Nowhere. In no way.

https://www.nationalworld.com/news/w...attack-3708741

---------------------

Bowling for Columbine hinted at the root problem, and that is the cultivation of the violence cult in American culture. Where violence gets glorified in a culture from top to bottom, the fruits harvested are according to the seeds that had been sown. There is no surprise in the results.

Be that as it may, the uSA is not the first civilization in history to hold regular human sacrifice in high esteem, though this is additionally reinforced here by profit motive.

[Rockstar]

The cnn article is purely political kabuki. It solves nothing, offers no solutions it just simply perpetuates further political divide into team D and team R.

What I want to know is did France, Germany and Italy conduct any background checks on Putin before they sold him weapons?

France and Germany 'sold £230,000,000 of weapons to Russia before invasion'
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world...ion/ar-AAWvzrh

As a result of aggression of the Russian Federation in Ukraine 240 children were lost, more than 436 - are wounded, - Office of the Prosecutor General Джерело: https://censor.net/ua/n3343936


No red flags?

[Skybird]

^ Distraction. Russia is not responsible for school schootings en masse in the US, nor is Germany or France.



I could now ask some questions about the NRA, but I am not in the mood to stirr concrete that has long since dried and hardened.

[mapuc]

Maybe the American should think twice before putting their vote on the beloved/Trusted politician.

What does it help when the American is yelling WHY and when will it stop, when they vote on a politician who are against any weapon regulation.

Markus

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Skybird

^ Distraction. Russia is not responsible for school schootings en masse in the US, nor is Germany or France.



I could now ask some questions about the NRA, but I am not in the mood to stirr concrete that has long since dried and hardened.

I didn’t say Russia was responsible for school shooting’s in the U.S. What I’m saying is Putin is responsible for the murder of children in Ukraine and all of Europe is responsible for selling him the dual-purpose and weapon systems that helped him do it.

No background checks no red flags?

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Maybe the American should think twice before putting their vote on the beloved/Trusted politician.

What does it help when the American is yelling WHY and when will it stop, when they vote on a politician who are against any weapon regulation.

Markus

It isn’t always more regulations, government control, and laws. IMO it’s pretty obvious we have enough of them already. If people are having trouble discerning between right and wrong and have a complete disregard for human life. Then I think something else is seriously amiss.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by mapuc

This what one of my American friend wrote in an answer to a common friend

"With the Republican party it goes in one ear and out the other , they are in bed with the NRA who pays them off from passing gun laws."

I'm not much into American politics I hope that both side is interested in some kind of regulation.

Markus

Please note that NRA membership represents about 5-10% of gun owners in the US.



I have been a gun owner since Carter's administration and used to shoot in competitions -- never joined the NRA.



Second, in the 2016 election (last report I read), the total amount of political donations to ANY candidate,m from the NRA, did not make the top 50 sources of donations. Pharma donations dwarf what the NRA donates.


If you want to talk about bribing congress not to pass laws, the NRA is strictly minor league



The NRA is politically important only because people think they are politically important.



The sad news is that neither side really wants to do anything about it. They want to talk about doing something in order to garner votes, but if you read the actual texts of "gun control" legislation, you will see a whole lot of extra stuff that has nothing to do with public safety added because of political party agendas.


I will believe that a politician is truly interested in addressing this issue when they propose and pass simple legislation that only focuses on one issue. Find something that both sides can agree on (and there is a lot) and pass just that. That is the only way things will change.



I am sure that US politicians are not that much different from other piece of crap politicians around the world. They all have the same priorities


1. Get elected/reelected
2. Prevent the other party candidate from being elected/reelected
3. Help others in their party get elected/reelected
4. Prevent candidates in the opposing political party from getting elected/reelected


Doing the right thing for the people? A bit lower on the list.



I have more respect for a whore working the streets than I do for a politician.