14 students, one teacher killed in Texas elementary school shooting

[gambit]

According to some accounts he was not bullied, but went to the park to pick fights and torture animals. The killer’s background needs to be throughly studied to find out if there is any merit to these allegations and what if anything could have been done if the authorities had been alerted sooner.

According to other accounts, he suffered from stuttering, of which he was picked upon.

If we can identify troubled individuals and treat them early...

That is true. In general, there are two ways...

1. Society would be self monitoring and report to the government of who seems to exhibit suspicious behaviors. Essentially, we would be all snitches.

2. The government would be all surveillance.

I know of at least one group in this forum who would support both. As far as this shooter is concerned, his father was gone, his mother a drug addict, and his grandfather a convicted felon, that leave his grandmother seemingly the only adult in his life. So just from this parental environment, any one would be ripe for a terrible childhood. Who is to be blamed now?

 

[gambit]

Try reading instead of bitching, it's obvious what my comment was in response to-"But it's been tried before and the two party system doesn't allow it to pass the House or the Senate because there are too many who don't want guns banned." Are you that cold blooded and emotionally deficient to not have any feelings for murdered children, do you have any parental feelings for children or do you have zombified attachments to human values? Can you not empathise or sympathise with the grieving mothers and fathers and siblings? How did you lose the attributes that make us humans through the millennium of love and affection passed down the generations? Being an "adult" doesn't mean you cast aside humanity and become a hollow man. Ban guns now and correct the society.

So your simplistic solution is to ban guns. Very well, let us take Pakistan as example.

Gun law in Pakistan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

An estimated 20 million firearms were owned by the public in 2012, of which 7 million were registered, among Pakistan's population of 200 million.​

​

According to the Small Arms Survey of 2017, an estimated 44 million firearms were owned by the public, of which 6 million were registered. The rate of private gun ownership is 22.3 firearms per 100 people.[9] In a comparison of the number of privately-owned guns in 230 countries, Pakistan ranks 24th in the world.​

Philosophically, why do Pakistanis like guns? Politically, how did Pakistan came to have 20 million guns? Realistically, how feasible is it to ban guns in Pakistan? In 2017, out of 44 million guns, only 6 mils were registered. Would the owners of all those non-registered guns peacefully and voluntarily give up their guns if ordered?

Am not bringing up Pakistan to sidetrack the discussion but to use a parallel and smaller example. I do not care about gun ownership in Pakistan, but if you are going to intrude into US social issues, Pakistan will be opened for the same. In the US, there are literally more guns and ammo than there are people. If gun owners are the problem, there would be much more shootings.

So instead of you treading into this, try research the issue first.

 

[Gomig-21]

Am USAF veteran. F-111 Cold War, then F-16 Desert Storm.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Gotta give you credit for the way you word that all the time, now. It gives you plausible deniability when readers who don't know any better assume you were a fighter pilot for those two platforms. And when they do, you don't make the effort to correct your position and tell them that you were a crewman or crew chief and not a pilot which I find quite disingenuous.

Do aircraft "CREWMAN" get issued sidearms or rifles? I know the answer to that question, and it wasn't the point, but you know what the point was, don't you? Frankly, I find your disingenuousness quite dishonorable for a former military personnel that you're not fully accurate & honest with that statement since you know quite well being the smart fella that you are and by making such a broad statement, it's much more likely that those reading it will assume you were a fighter pilot instead of what you really were, a crewman or even the crew chief for both those fighter jets which is just as honorable. It gives you plausible deniability for wording it that way and the ensuing result. Is it more prestigious for you to play that card and purposely deceive the readers? Shame.

Don't you remember telling me on Iran Defense Forum way back in 2009 about your role as a crewman for both those aircraft and how you were awarded that honorary ride in the backseat of an F-16 as a crewman, when we were discussing the sensitivity of the FBW side stick?

You really should be a lot more honest about your air force career since there is nothing to be ashamed of being a crewman and not a pilot. It's just as honorable.

 

[Cancerous Tumor]

Am USAF veteran. F-111 Cold War, then F-16 Desert Storm.

For us military people, we laugh at the phrase 'military grade' because we know there is no such thing. At best, to be 'military grade' is to be built by the lowest bidder, the insinnuendo here is that the item is less than ideal.

Anyway, the shooter did not used an automatic weapon. He used either a semi automatic AR-15 or a semi automatic pistol. The ballistic investigation is still going to determine exactly which, but from his purchase record, he did not purchase an automatic weapon.

You rightly pointed to gun ownership in Pakistan.How they train kids and teenagers in countries like Pakistan are very different from US.

In it's own time gun laws and gun ownership was necessary and they were working fine for that society.In that time guns were pretty loud and had very limited mag and also it took so much time to reload.
In era of constitution if they heard a gun shoot they knew something in their community went wrong and collective intelligence would respond to it but today most of civilians wont even notice there was a gun shoot in their area.

There is something call the US Constitution, specifically, the Second Amendment. Have you tried researching it?

The best thing a civilian may buy today should be hand gun (noisy one) with limited ammo capacity and limited fire rate.and if you shoot even a single bullet most people in that area should be able to identify it from it's noise.

People should have access to other type of arms based on their job license such as farmers,body guards,security firms and ....

If people from a conservative, pro life and pro gun society are telling you "you are doing it wrong" it's time to think about what are you doing.

 

[gambit]

You rightly pointed to gun ownership in Pakistan.How they train kids and teenagers in countries like Pakistan are very different from US.

In it's own time gun laws and gun ownership was necessary and they were working fine for that society.In that time guns were pretty loud and had very limited mag and also it took so much time to reload.
In era of constitution if they heard a gun shoot they knew something in their community went wrong and collective intelligence would respond to it but today most of civilians wont even notice there was a gun shoot in their area.

That is not the point, which is that there is a notional demand to ban guns in the US. What I asked was not to criticize Pakistan, or any country where civilians can own guns, but that why were guns allowed in the first place in X country and how easy or difficult is it to remove guns from the population AFTER guns have been in the population for decades. And if you think it is difficult in X country, then what make anyone think it is easy in the US?

 

[gambit]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Gotta give you credit for the way you word that all the time, now. It gives you plausible deniability when readers who don't know any better assume you were a fighter pilot for those two platforms. And when they do, you don't make the effort to correct your position and tell them that you were a crewman or crew chief and not a pilot which I find quite disingenuous.

Do aircraft "CREWMAN" get issued sidearms or rifles? I know the answer to that question, and it wasn't the point, but you know what the point was, don't you? Frankly, I find your disingenuousness quite dishonorable for a former military personnel that you're not fully accurate & honest with that statement since you know quite well being the smart fella that you are and by making such a broad statement, it's much more likely that those reading it will assume you were a fighter pilot instead of what you really were, a crewman or even the crew chief for both those fighter jets which is just as honorable. It gives you plausible deniability for wording it that way and the ensuing result. Is it more prestigious for you to play that card and purposely deceive the readers? Shame.

Don't you remember telling me on Iran Defense Forum way back in 2009 about your role as a crewman for both those aircraft and how you were awarded that honorary ride in the backseat of an F-16 as a crewman, when we were discussing the sensitivity of the FBW side stick?

You really should be a lot more honest about your air force career since there is nothing to be ashamed of being a crewman and not a pilot. It's just as honorable.

Here is what I said about myself on this forum 10 yrs ago.

Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

Anyhow, that Indo kid has been busted so many times, but his comical response and comical effort to look smart I somehow find strangely amusing and entertaining. So do I. But you should understand that we Americans are guests here on this inherently anti-US playground. Anything that can be used...

defence.pk

You can believe anything you like.

 

[Corax]

That is not the point, which is that there is a notional demand to ban guns in the US. What I asked was not to criticize Pakistan, or any country where civilians can own guns, but that why were guns allowed in the first place in X country and how easy or difficult is it to remove guns from the population AFTER guns have been in the population for decades. And if you think it is difficult in X country, then what make anyone think it is easy in the US?

Pakistan is not the US, Austria, Switzerland, or any other developed (politically, economically, greater rule of law, etc) country with a high degree of gun ownership. There is lack of rule of law, the police is at often times corrupt, and a significant number of crimes go unpunished or unresolved. Not to mention the over 20 years of terrorism, sectarian violence, and religious extremism, as well as living next door to a neighbour seven times larger hell bent on invading and destroying the country. These aren't a list of excuses, but reason why there are so many guns in Pakistan.

In the US, you have rule of law, effective policing, and greater application of justice. There are fewer reasons why private citizens would need guns. The only reason you want guns, is because of some outdated allegiance to an amendment to the constitution which was written hundreds of years ago when the US had just gained independence from the British after a war, and could have been threatened with invasion. The amendment not just refers to gun ownership, but the raising of militias to defend the country if it were to be invaded. Who is threatening to invade the US now? Mexico? The Canadians? Does the US really need that clause in its constitution to defend itself given it "superpower" military credentials? Do you really believe you so called "democracy" is that fragile that it can be protected with civilians with guns? lol

The only reason you have guns, is because you want them, and the odd occasional massacre at schools and violent gun crime is the price you're willing to pay to keep them. But it's better if you rednecks were open about it and simply said it like it is, rather than using the excuse of some outdated amendment that has no relevance today.

 

[gambit]

Pakistan is not the US, Austria, Switzerland, or any other developed (politically, economically, greater rule of law, etc) country with a high degree of gun ownership. There is lack of rule of law, the police is at often times corrupt, and a significant number of crimes go unpunished or unresolved. Not to mention the over 20 years of terrorism, sectarian violence, and religious extremism, as well as living next door to a neighbour seven times larger hell bent on invading and destroying the country. These aren't a list of excuses, but reason why there are so many guns in Pakistan.

In the US, you have rule of law, effective policing, and greater application of justice. There are fewer reasons why private citizens would need guns. The only reason you want guns, is because of some outdated allegiance to an amendment to the constitution which was written hundreds of years ago when the US had just gained independence from the British after a war, and could have been threatened with invasion. The amendment not just refers to gun ownership, but the raising of militias to defend the country if it were to be invaded. Who is threatening to invade the US now? Mexico? The Canadians? Does the US really need that clause in its constitution to defend itself given it "superpower" military credentials? Do you really believe you so called "democracy" is that fragile that it can be protected with civilians with guns? lol

The only reason you have guns, is because you want them, and the odd occasional massacre at schools and violent gun crime is the price you're willing to pay to keep them. But it's better if you rednecks were open about it and simply said it like it is, rather than using the excuse of some outdated amendment that has no relevance today.

The militia is not just for foreign invaders but actually to be used against a tyrannical government AFTER all other measures are exhausted. The armed citizenry is essentially when the citizenry and the government have reached an impasse and no compromises are possible. The citizenry must be immediately readied to defend themselves so weapons must be available to them at all time.

As far as democracy being fragile -- yes. Look at the US Congress today where Marxism is openly celebrated and the government, currently run by Democrats, is working to create a China model of governance. Neither Mexico nor Canada are threats. Maybe if either or both of them are powerful enough to threaten the US that maybe the US government would be more focused locally. Instead, whether it was Repugnicans or Democraps, the US government is no different than other governments in that governments always seeks to be dominant over the people enough that they can overrun the people with ease, like how easy it is in China or Russia. I have no problems calling US democracy fragile and fragile enough to warrant that last line of defense.

 

[Corax]

The militia is not just for foreign invaders but actually to be used against a tyrannical government AFTER all other measures are exhausted. The armed citizenry is essentially when the citizenry and the government have reached an impasse and no compromises are possible. The citizenry must be immediately readied to defend themselves so weapons must be available to them at all time.

As far as democracy being fragile -- yes. Look at the US Congress today where Marxism is openly celebrated and the government, currently run by Democrats, is working to create a China model of governance. Neither Mexico nor Canada are threats. Maybe if either or both of them are powerful enough to threaten the US that maybe the US government would be more focused locally. Instead, whether it was Repugnicans or Democraps, the US government is no different than other governments in that governments always seeks to be dominant over the people enough that they can overrun the people with ease, like how easy it is in China or Russia. I have no problems calling US democracy fragile and fragile enough to warrant that last line of defense.

Thanks, you've said all I need to know.

 

[gubbi]

Am USAF veteran. F-111 Cold War, then F-16 Desert Storm.

For us military people, we laugh at the phrase 'military grade' because we know there is no such thing. At best, to be 'military grade' is to be built by the lowest bidder, the insinnuendo here is that the item is less than ideal.

Anyway, the shooter did not used an automatic weapon. He used either a semi automatic AR-15 or a semi automatic pistol. The ballistic investigation is still going to determine exactly which, but from his purchase record, he did not purchase an automatic weapon.


There is something call the US Constitution, specifically, the Second Amendment. Have you tried researching it?

That amendment has to go. IMHO, it's the stupidest thing ever! Like they banned alcohol with an amendment (XVIII), and then reversed it (XXI)? Likewise, there is no place for that stupid amendment. Period. Nowhere in the preamble of the US constitution does it justify possession of firearms as a right for a human being!
Section 8 of the preamble!
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION WHATSOEVER FOR LAY PEOPLE- majority of them - idiots - TO POSSESS/OWN ADVANCED FIREARMS.

How are they going to fight a "tyrannical" govt? With AR-15s? Javelins are wrecking havoc for the BTRs and T72s and T90s in Ukraine. And a bunch of rednecks in backwoods are going to fight the Govt with AR-15s??
Waco TX 1993!


How is that "right" more important than the lives of little kids? I am sorry, but this is mind-bogglingly insane.

 

[MultaniGuy]

The militia is not just for foreign invaders but actually to be used against a tyrannical government AFTER all other measures are exhausted. The armed citizenry is essentially when the citizenry and the government have reached an impasse and no compromises are possible. The citizenry must be immediately readied to defend themselves so weapons must be available to them at all time.

As far as democracy being fragile -- yes. Look at the US Congress today where Marxism is openly celebrated and the government, currently run by Democrats, is working to create a China model of governance. Neither Mexico nor Canada are threats. Maybe if either or both of them are powerful enough to threaten the US that maybe the US government would be more focused locally. Instead, whether it was Repugnicans or Democraps, the US government is no different than other governments in that governments always seeks to be dominant over the people enough that they can overrun the people with ease, like how easy it is in China or Russia. I have no problems calling US democracy fragile and fragile enough to warrant that last line of defense.

Haha, you dishonest rednecks.

School shootings should be enough justification to ban civilian usage of firearms. As another Pakistani member said on this forum. Instead of being honest about it that you guys just want to keep guns, when that centuries-old amendment is outdated. lol.

Thanks, you've said all I need to know.

Haha, the funny part is that you don't hear about school shootings like in Saudi Arabia, China or Japan, or in Egypt. lol.

 

[MultaniGuy]

Pakistan is not the US, Austria, Switzerland, or any other developed (politically, economically, greater rule of law, etc) country with a high degree of gun ownership. There is lack of rule of law, the police is at often times corrupt, and a significant number of crimes go unpunished or unresolved. Not to mention the over 20 years of terrorism, sectarian violence, and religious extremism, as well as living next door to a neighbour seven times larger hell bent on invading and destroying the country. These aren't a list of excuses, but reason why there are so many guns in Pakistan.

In the US, you have rule of law, effective policing, and greater application of justice. There are fewer reasons why private citizens would need guns. The only reason you want guns, is because of some outdated allegiance to an amendment to the constitution which was written hundreds of years ago when the US had just gained independence from the British after a war, and could have been threatened with invasion. The amendment not just refers to gun ownership, but the raising of militias to defend the country if it were to be invaded. Who is threatening to invade the US now? Mexico? The Canadians? Does the US really need that clause in its constitution to defend itself given it "superpower" military credentials? Do you really believe you so called "democracy" is that fragile that it can be protected with civilians with guns? lol

The only reason you have guns, is because you want them, and the odd occasional massacre at schools and violent gun crime is the price you're willing to pay to keep them. But it's better if you rednecks were open about it and simply said it like it is, rather than using the excuse of some outdated amendment that has no relevance today.

Haha, those fucking rednecks won't admit it, but there is another social problem in their society which is alcoholism.

There are a lot of alcohol-related deaths and diseases in USA. Or they try to mislead the people by saying there are health benefits of red wine and all that bullshit when its all wrong.

Yet, alcohol is legal in their societies. lol.

Like drunk driving, and rapes that happened because of alcohol consumption.

 

[gambit]

Like they banned alcohol with an amendment (XVIII), and then reversed it (XXI)?

The Prohibition Amendments were stupid. But if the US government could not ban alcohol, which is an ingested substance, what make you or anyone think the US government could ban guns, which are weapons and could, in a manner of speaking, fight back?

Likewise, there is no place for that stupid amendment. Period. Nowhere in the preamble of the US constitution does it justify possession of firearms as a right for a human being!

We can say an idea is 'universal' but we can only enforce 'local'. The American people can say that the right to rebellion against a tyrannical government is 'universal', but since different nations have different local beliefs, the laws, ie Second Amendment or background checks or age restriction, must be 'local'.

So I will ask you and everyone else this...

Do you believe that a citizenry have the inherent right to rebel against a government that they deemed to be tyrannical? The government is tyrannical by their own perception, not by external standards, but by the people as they live under that government. Self defense is individual and no one can credibly argue that there is no intrinsic right to self defense. But when we use words like 'the people' or 'citizenry' we moved into the political realm. Those words, especially 'citizenry', are %100 political in context. So do you believe that a citizenry have the inherent/intrinsic/innate right to rebel against a tyrannical government?

If your answer is 'Yes', then why do you not support your people's version of our Second Amendment? If your answer is 'No', then be satisfy with forever being slaves. The problem with the 'No' answer is that no government ever believe in 'No'. In history, every society that had a slave class worried about slaves not being compliant and obedient, and had provisions to militarily deal with the potential of a rebellion by slaves. One such famous rebellion was Spartacus, remember?

So do you believe that a citizenry have the inherent/intrinsic/innate right to rebel against a tyrannical government?

THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION WHATSOEVER FOR LAY PEOPLE- majority of them - idiots - TO POSSESS/OWN ADVANCED FIREARMS.

There is nothing 'advanced' about the AR-15 or its military equivalent, the M-4, and I shot both. I own a Noveske-built AR-15. Noveske rifles are not cheap but as the old saying go: You get what you paid for.

Which lead up to the next question: What are you willing to pay for the rights and freedoms that Americans said to be 'universal' ?

How are they going to fight a "tyrannical" govt? With AR-15s? Javelins are wrecking havoc for the BTRs and T72s and T90s in Ukraine. And a bunch of rednecks in backwoods are going to fight the Govt with AR-15s??

By such time, the US would be in full civil war. Look at the Vietnam War, for example. Why do you praise the armed Viet Cong guerrilla fighters but not the average Americans who are similarly armed? Rednecks in the backwoods? You been watching too many bad B movies about the US. Of the average Americans, many of them are veterans and some even combat veterans. Twenty millions AR-15s in urban and wild outdoors environment will give the US government pause.

Why the U.S. Military Isn’t Ready for Civil War

A significant portion of Americans seek the destruction of political authority. What if they succeed?

foreignpolicy.com

The U.S. military isn’t culturally or institutionally designed to be an adequate domestic actor—rather, the opposite. Its role in American life has been specifically designed to make it ineffective in domestic operations. The use of the military would not be, in itself, a constitutional crisis; there are legal precedents and explicit executive orders governing the use of military force on U.S. soil. But any military response to civil unrest is highly likely to spin out of control into extended insurgency. And for all the U.S. military’s prowess, the outcome would be entirely uncertain.​

​

Would a U.S. force on U.S. soil face the same fundamental resistance? American forces would, after all, be American. But the United States is not like other countries. It was born in resistance to government. Its history has been filled with state resistance to federal authority. And it has experienced resistance to occupation by its own forces before.​

Of the military, many personnel, perhaps as much as 1/2, will leave the military rather than fight their fellow Americans, and they will leave even before the fighting start. The ideological and political signs of such a civil war will already be evident. So by the time this tyrannical US government is readied to give deployment orders against Americans, possibly 1/2 of the US military will ALREADY be gone and joined the rebellion.

Haha, you dishonest rednecks.

School shootings should be enough justification to ban civilian usage of firearms. As another Pakistani member said on this forum. Instead of being honest about it that you guys just want to keep guns, when that centuries-old amendment is outdated. lol.


Haha, the funny part is that you don't hear about school shootings like in Saudi Arabia, China or Japan, or in Egypt. lol.

Have China approved your application into their country yet? Surely all your sucking up to them and criticisms of US are enough, no?

 

[Faqirze]

Haha, you dishonest rednecks.

School shootings should be enough justification to ban civilian usage of firearms. As another Pakistani member said on this forum. Instead of being honest about it that you guys just want to keep guns, when that centuries-old amendment is outdated. lol.


Haha, the funny part is that you don't hear about school shootings like in Saudi Arabia, China or Japan, or in Egypt. lol.

School shootings are an FBI/CIA trademark. Plus there have been school shootings/attacks in those countries you mentioned, they just don't get as much attention and coverage in the international media.

 

[MultaniGuy]

School shootings are an FBI/CIA trademark. Plus there have been school shootings/attacks in those countries you mentioned, they just don't get as much attention and coverage in the international media.

Because it is not as common in the countries I mentioned as it is USA.