A cliché more worthless than ‘thoughts and prayers’
Nineteen children, little innocents ages 7 to 10 — many still believing in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy — gunned down 05-24-22 in Uvalde, Texas. And two adults. Dammit to hell!
UPDATE: The shooter targeted a fourth grade classroom.
The President says something must be done. We agree. But what? The right to bear arms is as much a right as the First Amendment that guarantees free speech. But crying fire in a crowded theater is not protected, nor is libel or lying on a FISA application (we think). Guns are regulated in the United States. Even in Texas. The question is to what degree.
Most of the school shooters are young
-
- The Uvalde shooter bought an AR-15 style firearm on or just after his 18th birthday.
- Earlier this May 2022, a 17-year-old killed 10 in a Houston TX area high school.
- The shooter at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas H.S. in Florida was 20 when he killed 14 students and three school staff.
- The Sandy Hook elementary school shooter was 19 when he killed 20 first graders and 6 educators in December 2012 in Connecticut.
- Columbine high school in April 1999 was the grandaddy of school shootings. The two shooters were aged 17 and 18.
Where and how, for that matter, did Khari Sanford — at age 18 — get the gun he used to kill Dr. Beth Potter and her husband Robin Carre, execution-style? That’s never been explored but how would you prevent it? The perp had no criminal record, was not adjudged mentally ill. Hell, he even served an internship with Mayor Satya Rhodes Conway.
Wisconsin already outlaws firearms on school grounds as a Class I felony. Must be 21 year old to carry a concealed firearm. But open carry is legal at age 18. Certainly, that could be increased to age 21. But does anyone really think those laws will stop the next school shooter?
Go ahead: require fingerprints, a background check (as is required by Wisconsin for concealed carry), hours of training, a written exam, a shooting proficiency test. Restore the five-day waiting period. (The Uvalde shooter waited until he was 18.) Throw in a mental health exam. Require liability insurance. (If only we could get automobile drivers to do the same!) To date, 76 people have been killed by gunfire in Milwaukee, alone. Six of them children. Anyone think the murderers would obey more gun laws?
Red flag laws might help but they require extensive court proceedings that put the burden of proof on the petitioner.
Cowards choose soft targets
Think the shooters don’t recognize that schools represent soft targets? Where most of the occupants, being children, are defenseless. Places where guns are banned. Does America suffer a plague of shootings at police stations? Gun shows? Cabela and Bass Pro shops?
The teen years are when mental health issues seem to manifest; perhaps we can do more. But the National Association of Mental Illness says, “Less than 10% of shootings nationwide involve people with mental illness.”
UPDATE: Robb elementary school had a school resource officer on site, thanks to state funding. That official “encountered” the killer, causing him to drop a bag of ammo. UPDATE #2: CNN Reports Nobody confronted the shooter from the time he left his grandmother’s house to the time he entered the school. The shooter, [authorities] said, “walked in unobstructed, initially.”
Yes, harden school buildings against unauthorized individuals. Much of that has already been done here in Madison. Restore school resource police officers to Madison’s high schools; add them to our middle schools, even if on a part-time basis. We repeat this bold proposal (Texas already does it):
Allow licensed school staff proving special competence
to carry weapons in all our schools.
Blaska’s Bottom Line: We do believe a good man with a gun is the surest protection against a bad man with a gun. That is how the shooting at Uvalde stopped — but not until those good guys arrived at the scene.
Education
Blaska Policy Werkes 
Where are all these “good guys?” The guns currently on the market can kill dozens in a matter of a minute. Military grade weapons need to be controlled. Anyone trying to buy body amour waits 5 days after being flagged and has a visit from law enforcement. If your buying body amour it’s an automatic red flag. The so-called good guys are outgunned. The cop in Buffalo hit the gunman but couldn’t bring him down. In Texas they needed to wait for a tactical unit to arrive to take him down. If you really believe in this “good guy” crap then put yourself in a cops place we running into a building. You guys have bought into this NRA s#$t just like you did with trump’s big lie.
LikeLike
Head shot Richie. Just like hitting the hole in a doughnut.
LikeLike
Then let’s see you do it. Idiot
LikeLike
richard lesiak wrote, “Idiot”
Our resident trolling alki-bopper, Richard, calling anyone on planet Earth an idiot is rich.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Our resident trolling alki-bopper, *******, calling anyone on planet Earth an idiot is rich.”
Bravo Indigo November Golf Oscar!
The Gotch
LikeLike
richard lesiak wrote, “Military grade weapons need to be controlled.”
You wouldn’t know the difference between a military grade weapon and a kitchen utensil if it bit you in the arse.
richard lesiak wrote, “If you really believe in this “good guy” crap then put yourself in a cops place we running into a building.”
You’re psychologically projecting Richard.
To stop a school shooter, any day Richard, ANY… FREAKING…. DAY! In fact it’s been reported that there were courageous Texans outside the school while the shooting was in progress that tried to get in the building and the police physically stopped them. Not everyone in the world around you is a coward like you.
richard lesiak wrote, “You guys have bought into this NRA s#$t…”
You mean the NRA activist group who’s singular purpose is to protect the 2nd Amendment from fools like you that would like to see the government limitations enumerated in the 2nd Amendment stripped from the Constitution. You’re the fool, not the NRA or its supporters. For the record; I’m not a member of the NRA or any other political activist organization and I never will be.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Apropos, and as you’re fond of saying:
“THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GENIUS AND STUPIDITY IS THAT GENIUS HAS ITS LIMITS
The Gotch
LikeLike
How can you be so deficient with widely reported facts? An armed officer exchanged gunfire with the shooter BEFORE he got to the classroom! Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/us/texas-shooting-gun-details.html
This only happens in the U.S. So if you wonder what can be done, you can look at literally any other country. Every single one is better at protecting its people from getting killed by a gun. The 2nd Amendment certainly makes America exceptional in that an exceptional number of people (and kids) are senselessly killed by guns in this country.
Gee, how could we possibly prevent our people from getting their hands on killing machines? Golly, Dave, I wonder. Maybe by getting rid of the 2nd! But it’s as enshrined as the 1st, you lamely argue. Really? Tell that to Tom Cotton, who wants to round up those people peacefully protesting outside a Supreme Court justice’s house. Tell that to the gun-loving goons who swarmed the Capitol on Jan. 6. They’re the ones calling the shots in the Republican party, are they not? Why can’t we stand up to these people? Because people like you embolden them so they’ll vote for you.
Disgraceful, this business you chose.
LikeLike
“Maybe by getting rid of the 2nd!”
Golly gee, F.Y., with no 2A, how would MLK Jr., Condi Rice’s Father, et al, have been able to protect themselves from all them there murderin’/mauraudin’ RAYcist democrats?
The Gotch
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arguing for the abolishment of the Second Amendment is hands-down the most ridiculous idea proposed by those looking for a solution to gun violence. Telling the entire populace that they can’t stand on equal footing with criminals that have no regard for human lives is not going to fly with well over half the electorate. The lives lost in the ensuing civil war would easily eclipse those lost in mass shootings, and all but the most dimwitted (i.e. progressive) legislators realize this. There is literally no way to confiscate all the guns in the US without becoming the very thing that the Founders wanted the Second Amendment to protect us from.
LikeLike
Posts like this give interesting insight into how gun fanatics view the constitution. The constitution has processes for changing it peacefully and democratically built in. But the idea of doing so drives gun fanatics to violent threats. This illustrates a disrespect for democracy and the constitution and only makes me more sure that gun fanatics are a threat to democracy.
LikeLike
Rollie says wrote, “Posts like this give interesting insight into how gun fanatics view the constitution. The constitution has processes for changing it peacefully and democratically built in. But the idea of doing so drives gun fanatics to violent threats. This illustrates a disrespect for democracy and the constitution and only makes me more sure that gun fanatics are a threat to democracy.”
That’s pure bigotry as in an obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
You and many others don’t seem to give a crap that the 2nd Amendment is actually part of the constitution, you don’t like it so it should be changed, you’re an ignorant fool.
I read this elsewhere and it’s actually a reasonable argument…
What say you about that argument Rollie?
LikeLiked by 1 person
That rationale leads to absolutely zero infringement on the “right” thus allowing personal ownership of nuclear weapons. If that’s what you want go ahead and say it.
It’s like saying that the constitution can be amended, but not this particular amendment. That makes zero sense.
LikeLike
Rollie wrote, “That rationale leads to absolutely zero infringement on the “right” thus allowing personal ownership of nuclear weapons.”
That sir is an extrapolation to utter absurdity and it’s the kind of ridiculous hyper partisan emotional trolling crap that makes you fools look like blithering idiots. No dumbass it doesn’t allow personal ownership of nuclear weapons.
Rollie wrote, “It’s like saying that the constitution can be amended, but not this particular amendment. That makes zero sense.”
“Shall not be infringed” has a very specific meaning and as such intrinsic moral value. The 2nd Amendment is an integral part of the Bill of Rights that specifically limits the power of government entities across the United States to infringe on the rights of we the people. What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand.
LikeLike
Jumping straight to name calling doesn’t make you look very cool yourself 🙂
Yes, so there must be a line somewhere between legal arms and illegal arms. That line is an infringement of that “right”. We can set that infringement wherever we want peacefully and democratically, ideally without threats of civil war. If people prefer violence to democracy just because they don’t get their way I’d call them terrorists.
We are allowed to change the constitution. We can remove amendments, rewrite them, we could even write a whole new document through peaceful democratic channels.
“Shall not be infringed” isn’t a gotcha set of magic words that protects that language from editing. It is contrary to the idea of the document to claim it can’t be changed. It’s a tool of a democracy, not a tool of authoritarianism. It is not written by God.
LikeLike
What is blowing completely over your head is the fact that “shall not be infringed” literally supersedes a change to the Constitutional that infringes on that right making any change that infringes on that right unconstitutional.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rollie wrote, “Jumping straight to name calling doesn’t make you look very cool yourself”
Let me get this straight, stating that someone is a dumbass immediately after they wrote something that was pure dumassery is name calling? Personally I thought it was just being brutally honest which is something I’ve been known for for my whole life, but what the heck, sobeit.
Spew out some more blathering idiotic trolling nonsense and I’ll do my best to accurately define that too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A threat to democracy…that’s funny. Tell me again who it was that firebombed a pro-life building because they didn’t like the opinion of a constitutionally-appointed Supreme Court. Tell me again who it is harassing Supreme Court justices in their homes for the same reason. Tell me again who it was that staged nightly assaults on government buildings in Portland because they didn’t like police. Tell me again who it was that firebombed an emergency response center, smashed businesses, and beat a state legislator because they didn’t like one of their henchman getting arrested when he clearly broke several laws.
It wasn’t Second Ammendment supporters.
You’re really good at interpreting someone’s comments to the most absurd lengths possible to try to make them look like nuts.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“What is blowing completely over your head is the fact that “shall not be infringed” literally supersedes a change to the Constitutional that infringes on that right making any change that infringes on that right unconstitutional.”
It’s really not blowing over my head, I promise. It’s simply such a vacuous premise that it actually does resemble wind blowing around my head. Please do continue to use that as the reason why the 2nd amendment can’t be changed. I’m sure it will be very convincing to the electorate, not that the American Right cares about the electorate anymore.
“You’re really good at interpreting someone’s comments to the most absurd lengths possible to try to make them look like nuts.”
I’ll refrain from the easy joke and just leave this alone 🙂
You know, I’m not even anti-gun. I just think the 2nd amendment is already neutered, so all this clinging to the particular styles of weapons that are currently allowed is stupid. We already have had the right so thoroughly diminished that there is absolutely zero possibility that it could be used to overthrow the government (which is my interpretation of the point of the amendment). All this talk of self-protection is meaningless in terms of the “right to bear arms”. We already have limits, so drawing the limits in slightly different places doesn’t make a lick of a difference to the right that is already infringed.
Couching this debate in terms of “rights” is a lie. This “right” has already been taken away.
LikeLike
Rollie wrote, “It’s really not blowing over my head, I promise. It’s simply such a vacuous premise that it actually does resemble wind blowing around my head. Please do continue to use that as the reason why the 2nd amendment can’t be changed. I’m sure it will be very convincing to the electorate, not that the American Right cares about the electorate anymore.”
It’s not too often that you can cast out a line and catch a such a whopper but it was my lucky day…
That comment from Rollie is such a typical progressive styled trolling response that it’s damned near comical. Let me break this down for everyone…
First we have the usual progressive it isn’t what it is rationalization lie when Rollie wrote “It’s really not blowing over my head, I promise”. Well you promised, then it’s settled.
Second we have the regular droning mantra that facts don’t mean anything when Rollie wrote “It’s simply such a vacuous premise that it actually does resemble wind blowing around my head”. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Third we have the typical implication that you’re a stupid oaf when Rollie wrote “Please do continue to use that as the reason why the 2nd amendment can’t be changed.”. A moronic attempt at pompous intellectualism from a damn fool trying to gaslight others.
Fourth we have the worn out ad hominem attacks the entire political right when Rollie wrote “I’m sure it will be very convincing to the electorate, not that the American Right cares about the electorate anymore”. Start with insulting sarcasm and end with another insulting false narrative
Surprise, surprise folks, none of Rollie’s comment actually addresses the argument presented.
That folks is what you get when you have an unintelligent progressive drone trolling what’s perceived as a Conservative blog, they simply cannot address an argument in debate if that argument counters their hive minded narrative. These trolling drones resort to some version of this kind of nonsensical blathering every single time they’re backed into a rhetorical corner, their brain farts and they can’t come up with anything intelligent to rebut the self-evident arguments presented to them and on top of all that they simply don’t know when to keep their ignorant traps shut; so what do they do, they blather on with some unintelligent BS to stir up emotions, flush logic and critical thinking, and proclaim themselves immune to reality…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Keep thinking that a civil war over the Second Amendment is ludicrous Rollie. Since you obviously don’t have clue one about how many gun owners think, let’s see you put it in a different perspective. Think about some right you have that you would risk your life to preserve. Maybe that’s voting, or free speech, or to keep your 401k. For some, it’s being armed against whoever might threaten your life, family, or property. Now, think about what mechanism the government could successfully employ to round up nearly 400 million guns in circulation today. There isn’t one.
If you’re not anti-gun, then I have no idea why you would give any credence to a move to shred the Second Amendment. Which anyone who thinks about it for a minute realizes is a fool’s errand.
LikeLike
“Think about some right you have that you would risk your life to preserve.”
For Rollie, that would be the Right to slobber “but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but Truuuuuuuuuump” in response to damn near anything.
The Gotch
LikeLike
“These trolling drones resort to some version of this kind of nonsensical blathering every single time they’re backed into a rhetorical corner”
waaaaaah Waaaaaaaaaah WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH. Make those real REAL mean Precision Police go away…JUST_GO_AWAY!!!
The Gotch
LikeLike
Then these heathens will find another way kill people. Like firebombing the building and chaining exits. Expect the unexpected when it comes to the depravity for humans to devise ways to inflict pain and suffering on each other.
Sad but true
LikeLike
Balboa – so lets make it a little harder on these heathens to take more lives. I’m as conservative as they come and a hunter – but I have to deviate from my tribe on this one. There is no good reason for anyone to own an AR-15. Give it up for the greater cause.
Dan B.
LikeLike
How about a .22 rifle with a 10 round (long) magazine. Cost you about a hundred bucks.
LikeLike
I’ve seen and read about so many accounts of people defending their homes, families, businesses, and property with AR-15s that I can safely say that you’re wrong. Four thugs armed with pistols invade a home in the middle of the night, parents sleeping in one room, children in the next. Dad wakes up, opens fire with an AR-15 and sends the cockroaches scurrying. I’ve watched videos of incidents like this. A different one closer to home for me is the possibility of local police shooting a black man, justified or not, the rioters storm the village and decide to set houses ablaze. Until we make it clear that harassing people in their homes is not acceptable and provide a meaningful deterrent, that situation remains a very real concern for me and others I’ve talked to.
LikeLike
There is nothing inherently wrong with an AR15-style rifle. In general terms they operate like any other semi-automatic rifle including hunting rifles made by Browning and Remington, among others. The end user is the problem, not the weapon.
LikeLike
I have seen and read about so many accounts of people defending their homes, families, businesses, and property with AR-15s that I can safely say you’re wrong. When four thugs armed with pistols invade your home in the middle of the night with your children present, an AR-15 is a very sure way to send them off—I’ve watched videos of several incidents like this. One that’s closer to home is the possibility of my local police department shooting a black man, justified or not, the savages storm the village and start setting homes ablaze. Occupied businesses and government buildings have already been targets of this, and until a clear message is sent to these morons that this will not be tolerated, private residences will be next.
LikeLike
Comparing The Global Rate of MASS PUBLIC SHOOTINGS To The U.S.’s Rate And Comparing Their Changes Over Time John R. Lott
From the abstract: “Out of the 97 countries where we have identified mass public shootings occurring, the United States ranks 64th in the per capita frequency of these attacks and 65th in the murder rate.”
But, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, that’s the bottom third, am I right? Yet despicable Lefty keeps telling us the U.S. Leads_The_League, don’t they?
“To Ban Guns Because Criminals Use Them Is To Tell The Law Abiding That Their Rights And Liberties Depend Not On Their Own Conduct, But On The Conduct Of The Guilty And The Lawless.” — Lysander Spooner.
This makes perfect sense….in LaLaLoopyLoonyLeftyLand!
The Gotch
LikeLiked by 1 person
If I recall correctly Spooner’s philosophy also called for legalizing all drugs. Are you saying we should all follow their philosophy?
LikeLike
Rollie wrote, “If I recall correctly Spooner’s philosophy also called for legalizing all drugs. Are you saying we should all follow their philosophy?”
That’s a rather foolish attacking the messenger (Spooner) with a completely irrelevant false equivalency. Linking the two completely unrelated ideas is unethical political hackery. It appears that since you couldn’t come up with an intelligent argument to counter what the Gotch wrote, this is the magical thinking you spew.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can’t put my finger on it yet, but Rollie’s style of commentary seems quite familiar. I’m guessing that the commenter is either a previously banned commenter here on Blaska’s blog or one of the rather “out there” commenters from the now defunct madison dot com.
LikeLike
“That’s a rather foolish attacking the messenger (Spooner) with a completely irrelevant false equivalency.”
Desperate times call for desperate measures…especially after the narrative you’ve held dear (fact-based Reality be damned!) gets blasted out of the water and goes KERSPLOOOOOOEY.
“one of the rather ‘out there’ commenters from the now defunct madison dot com.”
Any one in particular?
The Gotch
LikeLike
It’s not a false equivalency. The poster quoted Spooner saying something not dissimilar to what most gun fanatics usually say. The only reason that comes to mind to tie the idea to Spooner is to lend it credence: a great mind said this, so it should be heeded. I reminded that Spooner had lots of ideas, and if we’re to take Spooner as some sort of intellectual authority we’d have to take all their ideas seriously, not just the convenient ones.
I wouldn’t have had the quote been unusually insightful. In that case I can understand separating one idea from the rest of the philosophy simply to gain that unusual insight.
I’d respect anyone who aligns with Spooner’s philosophy, but I don’t respect cherry picking from it. Spooner’s fundamental convictions lead to conclusions that I may not always agree with, but I respect. If the majority of Americans wanted to live in a society modeled after Spooner’s philosophy I would peacefully accept that decision.
But it’s kind of an all-or-nothing philosophy to me. As far as I know Spooner was not a hypocrite. Believing in freedom and individual autonomy extends way beyond just guns, even to the use of our own bodies. If we’re not free to decide what we can do with our own bodies, are we free? Freedom lovers would fight as hard for that as they would for guns, unless of course, it’s not really *everyone’s* freedom they’re interested in.
LikeLike
“but I don’t respect cherry picking from it”
Mercy, mercy me! The deeply viscid irony through which you had to slog to type that!
The Gotch
LikeLike
Hopeless Changey GETS CLOBBERED For Linking Uvalde Massacre To Two-Year Mark Of George Floyd’s death due to overdose, a bad heart, and even worse choices.
Good Gawd, Lefties are despicably vile creatures!
The Gotch
LikeLike
Funny how being precise about one’s comments is now bad: “precision police”. I guess the old debate trick of “speed and spread” is alive and well!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kooter wrote, “Funny how being precise about one’s comments is now bad: “precision police”.”
It’s unethical attacking the messenger and done by intellectually deficient hacks, to these immoral people the ends justify the means.
LikeLike
I was referencing Rollie’s comment earlier in this thread.
LikeLike
Yup I knew that and Rollie was the unethical hack I was talking about.
LikeLike
I think the question posed was what would prevent (or at least reduce the toll of) these horrific shootings.
My suggestion: Implement something like the Federal Flight Deck Officer program for schools. Those that volunteer would be subjected to a rigorous background check, then undergo initial training and periodic requalification. They would concealed carry 9mm pistols. Only school administration and local law enforcement would know who these people are.
Which means shooters would have no idea who, or how many, armed opponents they would face. As opposed to now, which is no one and none.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Excellent!
LikeLiked by 1 person
That could very well be a part of changing school status from easy soft targets and it would go a long way of preventing these kind of shootings.
LikeLike
Pingback: Our schools are unarmed and dangerous | Blaska Policy Werkes