On the recent mass killing in Texas

[Lexicus]

Black people were also prevented from owning firearms, you know to defend themselves and all. During the abolition years and beyond they made good use of the right to bear arms.

You mean they joined the Union army?

 

[Angst]

great video by legaleagle

it's about police duty moreso than gun control

basically unless it's strictly outlined in state law, officers and other governmental branches can not be sued for lack of action. they are not liable for stuff like this. (meanwhile, teachers can often get fired if they fail to report bruises on kids)

even with gross negligence.

i'm questioning if the police can even be sued if they decided just not to do anything about massacres like this.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I think some of the families will try to file a civil suit against him for maybe wrongful death.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Ohio set to allow teachers, other staff to carry guns at school, after 24 hours of training
Proponents hope to reduce frequency, deadliness of school shootings

Ohio is set to enact a law that allows teachers and other staff to be armed with guns in schools once they have completed up to 24 hours of initial training.

Proponents hope armed teachers will reduce the frequency and deadliness of school shootings, which have become recurrent in the United States. The bill's opponents, including teachers' unions and the state's main police officer union, say it will only make schools more dangerous for children.

The bill was finalized 10 days after a teenager with an AR-15-style rifle attacked a school in Uvalde, Texas. Nineteen students and two teachers were killed in the massacre.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican, has said he will sign the bill into law.

The bill was passed by the Republican-controlled Ohio General Assembly this week. It was designed to defuse a ruling last year by the Ohio Supreme Court that said a longstanding state law required teachers to complete more than 700 hours in a peace-officer training program before they could be armed with a gun on school premises.

Proponents of the bill said it would allow school staff to confront an armed attacker before police entered.

"In emergency situations at our schools, seconds matter and tragedies can be prevented," Rep. Thomas Hall, the bill's sponsor, said in a statement.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ohio-teachers-schools-guns-1.6477068

 

[Angst]

I think some of the families will try to file a civil suit against him for maybe wrongful death.

apparently the only surefire way to sue officers is to demonstrate direct unjust harm done or complicity. the latter is the path here and the thing is... inaction leading to death does not make officers legally liable for these things. it's not complicity since it requires a "special relation" to be established by the cops, and the shooting did not infer that legally

it's infuriating

i'm butchering the video's legalese here btw. i suggest just watching it, since he's smarter than me and even if presenting it neutrally he's obviously sympathetic to how maddening this whole thing is

 

[Angst]

Ohio set to allow teachers, other staff to carry guns at school, after 24 hours of training
Proponents hope to reduce frequency, deadliness of school shootings

Ohio is set to enact a law that allows teachers and other staff to be armed with guns in schools once they have completed up to 24 hours of initial training.

Proponents hope armed teachers will reduce the frequency and deadliness of school shootings, which have become recurrent in the United States. The bill's opponents, including teachers' unions and the state's main police officer union, say it will only make schools more dangerous for children.

The bill was finalized 10 days after a teenager with an AR-15-style rifle attacked a school in Uvalde, Texas. Nineteen students and two teachers were killed in the massacre.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican, has said he will sign the bill into law.

The bill was passed by the Republican-controlled Ohio General Assembly this week. It was designed to defuse a ruling last year by the Ohio Supreme Court that said a longstanding state law required teachers to complete more than 700 hours in a peace-officer training program before they could be armed with a gun on school premises.

Proponents of the bill said it would allow school staff to confront an armed attacker before police entered.

"In emergency situations at our schools, seconds matter and tragedies can be prevented," Rep. Thomas Hall, the bill's sponsor, said in a statement.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ohio-teachers-schools-guns-1.6477068

*massages temples*

 

[Birdjaguar]

Also, it is Texas and that may be problematic.

 

[Angst]

Ohio set to allow teachers, other staff to carry guns at school, after 24 hours of training
Proponents hope to reduce frequency, deadliness of school shootings

Ohio is set to enact a law that allows teachers and other staff to be armed with guns in schools once they have completed up to 24 hours of initial training.

Proponents hope armed teachers will reduce the frequency and deadliness of school shootings, which have become recurrent in the United States. The bill's opponents, including teachers' unions and the state's main police officer union, say it will only make schools more dangerous for children.

The bill was finalized 10 days after a teenager with an AR-15-style rifle attacked a school in Uvalde, Texas. Nineteen students and two teachers were killed in the massacre.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican, has said he will sign the bill into law.

The bill was passed by the Republican-controlled Ohio General Assembly this week. It was designed to defuse a ruling last year by the Ohio Supreme Court that said a longstanding state law required teachers to complete more than 700 hours in a peace-officer training program before they could be armed with a gun on school premises.

Proponents of the bill said it would allow school staff to confront an armed attacker before police entered.

"In emergency situations at our schools, seconds matter and tragedies can be prevented," Rep. Thomas Hall, the bill's sponsor, said in a statement.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ohio-teachers-schools-guns-1.6477068

ok this is my second response to this but can i just start at how absolute bonkers this is
- 24 hours of gun training is not enough to properly learn gun use
- there's absolutely no real training in threat assessment (which the police in the us does not have enough of either with their meagre sub-year training time)
- there's absolutely no real training in threat *containment* or deescalation either. more pow pow is *not* how to solve pow pow (police lacks this too)
- it's absurd that teachers are given this responsibility, even indirectly, with their crappy waged
- literally everyone in my class went through the teacher's stuff and desk at one time, due to being children, just looking at stuff. one firearm displacement and one stupid kid, and...
- like akfngn8wkfkoiinekvo

 

[Lexicus]

state's main police officer union

Them being on the right side of issues is rare

 

[stinkubus]

I look forward to the first Attica-like uprising at one of their schools.

 

[Berzerker]

And what would those be?

Can a woman sue bounty hunters in Texas for the lifetime cost of raising a child?

If that woman was raped by bounty hunters when she might have deterred the crime with a gun can she sue the people who took her gun away? Imagine if she was impregnated and the state that banned her gun also made her carry the baby to term.

If the victims of gun crimes get to sue gun stores/manufacturers or outright ban guns can they be sued by the victims of other crimes who were not allowed to defend themselves? Otoh are we morally complicit in gun crimes by virtue of legalized guns? If the answer is yes then why aren't we morally complicit by disarming victims?

 

[Samson]

What we need to counter school shooting is flying death robots

Rick Smith, founder and CEO of body camera and Taser maker Axon, believes he has a way to reduce the risk of school children being shot by people with guns.

Smith's proposal involves mounting his company's occasionally lethal Taser [PDF] on drones, based on the premise that remotely operated electric shock drones will do what Uvalde police did not – intervene to stop a gunman (and it's almost always men) from murdering minors with assault rifles and the like.
​

 

[Kyriakos]

"Occasionally lethal taser"

The only defense against a bad guy with a gun is the Enforcement Droid (ED) 209.

 

[RobAnybody]

Don't you think it would be great if Grand Papa Biden donates more weapons to the Taliban?

I've seen you raise this same point in multiple threads, & it remains stupid. It's the equivalent of the weapons we gave to Ukraine.
We gave them weapons, assuming they would use them to fight.

 

[Kaitzilla]

I had no idea what you classify as "good arguments" at the time. I'm still not entirely sure. Like, what would convincing look like to you for example? I'm going to take this next post below as the foundation of a good argument, and hopefully go from there:

So this seems like a relatively good read-up on the general situation around the 2nd Amendment: https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/2nd-amendment. It was a quick Google, and I don't assume it's perfect, but it seems rounded enough and touches on both the original history and the legal updates to the Amendment itself.

Because that's the problem, as well as it being embedded in modern US culture. The problem is the legal rulings that have in effect set precedent in a way that the Amendment doesn't explicitly lay out. And this happens in law, I get that. It's not a new thing. It's how the law is interpreted; how opinions are written. But this presents a problem in that it's not just about the wording of the Amendment and how people interpret it. It's about either advancing or rolling back the existing legal precedents written into existence that support 2A as the right to bear arms in a modern context, despite not being under duress or at risk from the government.

My argument is simple: if the 2nd Amendment is intended to defend someone's right to own a gun, and that gun ends up killing people, it's a cost / benefit analysis (in cold terms). I prefer "harm reduction" myself. You weight the benefit granted by people owning these weapons to the extent that they do, against the harm done by them. This is a subject of debate in Canada, for example, because the nature of firearm violence is different vs. even the US (and the US itself and stuff crossing the border are both actual factors to consider, that the US doesn't need to the other way around so much).

What do you think?

More thoughts about the 2nd Amendment? Sure

My bottom line is that people ought to be able to own a gun to defend themselves if they think they really need it.
I am more wobbly on defending against "tyranny" since that mostly shows up in foreign countries and foreign cultures.


I enjoyed the traditional system where the federal government could not take away the guns, but the local governments had much more power.

Two years later, in McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court struck down (also in a 5-4 decision) a similar citywide handgun ban, ruling that the Second Amendment applies to the states as well as to the federal government.

I think this is wrong.
If a super-dense city that hasn't seen a bear or coyote in decades yet is drowning in gang violence wants to make getting a gun almost impossible, people can move to the next city over if they don't like it.
That's the whole point of a federal system with 50 states.


A country-wide gun ban is also a bad idea in my opinion.
I won't pick up a "Down with the guns" sign if I'm holding an "All cops are bastards" sign.

Victims of crime are safer owning a gun.
Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence |The National Academies Press

A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim.
Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual

Page 16 (of 110)

defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004).
Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.

Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury.
For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995).
Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration.

Also, on the subject of school shootings, a lot of statistics get thrown around.
I hope people embrace the most accurate possible picture, because we won't get anywhere if we can't agree what is actually happening.
The School Shootings That Weren't : NPR (from 2018)

For a cost / benefit analysis in cold terms, there are plenty of ways to make assessments.
For the American public, as of 2018 58% say gun ownership increases safety regardless of what the research says.
Poll: most Americans say gun ownership increases safety. Research: no. - Vox


Any argument that topples my support for regular people owning guns for self-defense would have to involve the police become great and competent protectors somehow.
Raising the age limit to 21 seems fine for now.

I hope the democrats stop trying to pass some 1000 page anti-gun monster and just try to pass all the ideas 1 at a time.
It is awful easy to nitpick 1000 pages.

 

[Kaitzilla]

11:27 a.m. — Video shows a teacher, whom authorities haven’t publicly identified, propping open an exterior door of the school, McCraw said.

11:28 a.m. — The teacher exits to retrieve a phone and then returns through the exit door, which remains propped open, McCraw said. It’s not clear why the teacher was retrieving a phone. Department of Public Safety spokesman Travis Considine said Thursday that investigators hadn’t determined why the door was propped open.

A quick update on this.
The teacher did in fact close the door when she saw the shooter, but for some reason it did not autolock like it was supposed to.

Texas authorities say a teacher closed a propped-open door before the attack : NPR

An exterior door at Robb Elementary School did not lock when it was closed by a teacher shortly before a gunman used it to get inside and kill 19 students and two teachers, leaving investigators searching to determine why, state police said Tuesday.

State police initially said a teacher had propped the door open shortly before Salvador Ramos, 18, entered the school in Uvalde, Texas, on May 24.

They have now determined that the teacher, who has not been identified, propped the door open with a rock, but then removed the rock and closed the door when she realized there was a shooter on campus, said Travis Considine, chief communications officer for the Texas Department of Public Safety. But, Considine said, the door did not lock.

"We did verify she closed the door. The door did not lock. We know that much and now investigators are looking into why it did not lock," Considine said.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Yes, the story has been a moving target since the events.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Yes, the story has been a moving target since the events.

Often correlated with whoever is the current scapegoat du jour...

 

[Kyriakos]

Teachers carrying guns may itself lead to tragedy. Apart from the fact that most teachers likely aren't the gun-totting type, who is to say you won't get the one who is about as frustrated as a bullied teen?

 

[Angst]

Teachers carrying guns may itself lead to tragedy. Apart from the fact that most teachers likely aren't the gun-totting type, who is to say you won't get the one who is about as frustrated as a bullied teen?

the solution to lack of safety and rigidity in gun distribition: 24h speedruns