School Shooting in Uvalde Texas

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
User avatar
ajax18
God
Posts: 1540
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 9:12 pm

Re: School Shooting in Uvalde Texas

Post by ajax18 »

Ben addresses the Uvalde school shooting in great detail here.

There's a lot of talk. Every time there is a horrible mass shooting, a school shooting, particularly about the kinds of laws that need to be on the books, the kind of protocols that need to be adopted the kind of black letter things that can be done to change the circumstances in which we live. There's only one problem with all of this. When it comes down to it, the law is only implemented by human behavior. And so we have a bunch of laws on the books all the time that are violated in every one of these shootings ranging from pure homicide laws to usually gun laws that are violated in the course of conduct. In this particular case, there is nothing in the state of Texas that allows a person under the age of 21 to, for example, carry a concealed handgun. You're not allowed to walk out of school premises with a gun, or these are things that the shooter just did not care about and walk down to school premises and started murdering children.

All of this sort of stuff happens all the time. And this is also true with regard to, for example, the Buffalo shooting, the Buffalo shooting, there were plenty of red flags nobody ever filed for an executive restraining order, no one ever filed for a, in an ERP restraining protective order that would have prevented this person from being able to purchase guns despite a long and lengthy history of mental issues, violence, mental issues. So when the laws were on the books, but then they don't actually properly get enforced. This becomes a question of human behavior, and this is particularly true when it comes to police procedure, we've seen over and over again, whether it is Parkland or whether as it now turns out it is you've already that the police in these cases, whether it is failures of training or failures of courage have not done their job to protect innocent people.
We saw this when it came to Parkland most prominently, when it turned out that Scott Israel, the sheriff in Parkland was completely incapable of either trending his officers or getting his officers to go in and do what they had to do in order to stop the Parkland shooter. And then he sat by grinning as various members of the media and some of the school children themselves attacked politicians for broad scale gun laws. Dana lash was attacked on CNN as sort of the progenitor of the Parkland attack. Meanwhile, Scott Israel, who's really responsible for the failures of security that led to the Parkland shooting and to the terrible response to the Parkland PD. He was sitting there, basically grinning it away on national TV. And we see this over and over and over again.

There's a great irony to the fact that the left's attitude toward the police generally is incredibly skeptical. The idea is that the police are the oppressive arm of the state. The police are systemically racist. The police are bad guys, but then when it comes to situations like this, we're not allowed to discuss whether the police actually did their jobs. And this is a bizarre circumstance. So yesterday for example, the white house was specifically asked about the behavior of the police involved. And as we will discuss in just one moment and now appears that there was basically no protection at the school that the police did not do their jobs. The police set up a perimeter, the police did not intervene to stop the murder of these children for at least 40 minutes. And the white house when asked about it, they said, we're not calling for an investigation. So every time a black person is shot under conflicting circumstances, the white house calls for an investigation and six to the DOJ and the police department.
But when the police department completely fails to prevent a mastered or going into murdering 19 school children, then the white house was like, well, we don't need an investigation. You know, we're going to wait for the facts. It's kind of incredible how this works.
Does the president believe that there should be an investigation into the police response to this school shooting
The president we've, we've been watching the reporting on this. The president has the utmost respect, as you all know for the men and women of, of law enforcement.

And it is incredible how, if this has been a case in which a police officer was in a dispute with a person who grabbed for his gun and he shot the person that person having to be black and police officer was white. You get the white house talking about how every one of these circumstances has to be investigated. We know that there's a problem of systemic racism and policing. They find the tape disturbing and all the rest of it. But when you actually have a case where everyone should be disturbed at the behavior of the local police department, then the white house is like, no, no, no, no. We have the utmost respect for it. It's kind of incredible. And the reason for that is very obvious. The white house wants to talk about broad scale, gun control. They don't actually want to talk about the things that would prevent or minimize the problem of school shootings. They do not actually want to do that because we all know what those solutions actually are. The solutions are things like lock doors, single points of entry, but multiple exits armed security guards who actually know what they are doing on premises. The police department, being able to respond quickly and effectively to school shooters. Those are the things that actually stop school shooters, not any of these proposed background checks for private sales of guns. And that's not, what's going to do it is not a ban on 18 year olds buying rifles that is not going to stop school shootings. What is going to stop or minimize the damage from school shootings is all of the stuff that we know will do that because these are the security measures that we take at every federal building. These are security measures that we take at every bank. There's a security measure. We take at every airport, but apparently they're not good enough for our school kids because we have to make political hay. Here are the new details and they're just unbelievably disturbing. According to the wall street journal, local residents voiced anger on Thursday about the time it took to end the mass shooting at an elementary school here, as police laid out a fresh timeline that showed the gunman entered the building unobstructed after lingering outside for 12 minutes, firing shots. You remember yesterday, and we talked about this. The best information available from the Uvalde police department was that there had been a person at the school was armed and got into a gun battle with the shooter who then took refuge in the building, ran into the building. And that was after several police officers had driven up and started firing on this person. And then he went into the building. Now we are finding out there was no school resource officer there, there was no armed guard there. Essentially. Victor Eschalon, a regional director for the Texas department of public safety gave a new timeline of how the now deceased gunman barricaded himself in a classroom and killed 19 children.

And two teachers, according to Victor Eschalon, he says that the shooter was not confronted by armed security. When he arrived at the school, he busted her fence and that he climbed apparently like an eight foot chain link fence. He jumped the fence and then he basically hung out inside the school for 12 minutes, engaging with officers as they arrived. And then he went inside the school. Here is the Texas police regional director who is talking about what exactly the shooter experienced when he arrived.

It was reported that a school district police officer confronted the suspect. They was making entry, not accurate. He walked in unobstructed initially. So from the grandmother's house to the bar beach to the school, into the school, he was not confronted by anybody to clear the record on that four minutes later, law enforcement are coming in to solve this problem.

Okay? So you have now the police department itself saying he went completely unobstructed into the school. As we will see Democrats had been lying and claiming that this is just proof that the armed guard wouldn't do anything. No, this is actually proof of the opposite. And when you have no armed guard, it makes it very, very easy for evil people to do really evil things. Especially in a case where we now know that he shot his grandmother, the grandmother then called the police on him. She's still in critical condition. And then he went to a funeral home and he started shooting at people there. And then he went to the school. So you think that a normal armed guard wouldn't have done anything right there? Do you think that locking the back door, would've helped? There are simple things that would have actually stopped something like this. It gets worse. According to the wall street journal, Mr. Eschalon said, he couldn't say why no one stopped the shooter from entering the school. During that time on Tuesday, most of the shots that the shooter fired came during the first several minutes after he entered the school. According to Eschalon people who arrived at the school while the shooter locked himself in a classroom or saw videos of police waiting outside were furious. The police were doing nothing according to Angela Rosa Gomez, who after learning about the shooting drove 40 miles Robb elementary, where her children are in second and third grade. The police were just standing outside the fence. They weren't going in there. They weren't running anywhere. As Glen said, the officers inside the school or evacuating students and instant school employees from the premises, as well as calling for backup. There's a lot going on. He said, department of public safety officials had previously said and armed school school officer confronted the shooter as he arrived at the school, as Juan said, and that information was incorrect.

There was not an officer readily available and armed again. Here is the timeline. The shooter shot his grandmother on Tuesday morning and then drove her truck to Robb elementary, crashing the vehicle into a ditch nearby and 11:28 AM. According to a timeline, laid out by eschalon. He then began shooting at people at a funeral home across the street, prompting a nine one one call reporting a gunman at the school at 1130. Then the shooter climbed a chain link fence about eight feet high onto the school grounds and began firing before walking inside unimpeded and 1140. So just to get this straight, he crashed his vehicle at 1128. He did not walk inside to the school until 1140 at no point was there anyone shooting at him here? In fact, the first shots fired at him came 1144, which is fully 16 minutes after he had crashed his vehicle into a ditch and fully 14 minutes after he had started shooting at people at this funeral home across the street, prompting that 911 call.

The first police arrived on the scene at 1144 and exchange gunfire with the shooter locked himself in a fourth grade classroom there, he killed the students and teachers. It took an hour for a border patrol tactical team to go into the school. 12:40 PM in our Caitlin Martinez in fourth quarter, Rob elementary was playing with other kids during recess. When the shooter first appeared on school grounds with the AR 15 style rifle quote, we all ran in and they told us to sit down and they turned off the lights and lock the door. The ten-year-old said Katelyn's had three police officers eventually came to the door of her room, which was near the one in which the shooter locked himself. They told us there was a gunman. So he had to evacuate. We all had to run to our parking spaces outside. She found her mother, Gladys Castilian had been pleading with the police to act more aggressively to end the standoff.

She waited Ms. Gomez, a farm supervisor was also waiting outside for her children. She said she was one of numerous parents who began encouraging first politely. And then with more urgency police and other law enforcement to enter the school sooner. After a few minutes, she said us marshals put her in handcuffs, telling her she was being arrested for intervening in an active investigation. So she is a mom where kids are inside the school. She's shouting at the cops to go in and do something and they have set up a perimeter and they are just sitting around, out there for an hour for a full hour. After this piece of human debris entered the school and began shooting children, Gomez had she convinced local Uvalde police officers whom she knew to persuade the marshals to set her free a spokesman for the us. Marshall service said deputy marshals never placed anyone in handcuffs while securing Robb elementary is perimeter.

Our deputy marshals maintained order and peace in the midst of the grief stricken community that was gathered around the school. He said, Gomez described the system, the scene as frantic. She said she saw a father tackled and thrown to the ground by police and a third pepper sprayed once freed from her cuffs, Ms. Gomez made her distance from the crowd, jumped the school fence herself and ran inside to grab her two kids. She sprinted out of the school with them. So does this sound like a case where everything that could have been done was done by the local PD? So this is either a failure of training or this is cowardice or both. That is all. This is. And listen, I understand the challenge. There is no one who is more pro-police than I am. That person does not exist in the United States. But if you sign up for this job, and there is a human piece of debris who is trying to enter an elementary school to murder kids, you go in, that is what you signed up to do.

This is why you took the job. As it turns out again, the police really botched this one, as far as we are aware, and it took police officers just going in on their own to stop this thing to actually stop. I'll get to that in just one minute.

According to the Texas police spokesman and Lieutenant Christopher Alavarez. He says that the border police, the cops went in, he said they went on their own. He said that they weren't, they weren't told to go in. Eventually they said enough of this crap. And they went in,
We do know Vanessa right now that there was some police officers, families trying to get their children out of the school because it was a active shooter situation. Right now. It's a terrible situation right now. And of course, just as we mentioned, the loss of life, it's just terrible to terrible tragedy when all that took place. But again, we got to keep a knowledge and those brave men and women that actually were there on scene that met the suspect. And of course we know that they were met with gunfire. Some of them were shot, but at the end of this, the suspect was shot is now deceased. The threat is now neutralized.

Okay. Well, for his part, Eschalon, the police regional director, he had no answers for any tough questions. Yesterday. She was asked some of these tough questions at this press conference and he had nothing. He had nothing to say.

You guys have said that he was barricaded. Can you explain to how he was barricade and why you guys cannot breach that?
So I have taken all your questions to consideration. We will be doing updates. We will be doing that day. So I chose those questions.
Now, sir,
We will circle back with you. We want to answer all your questions. We want to keep you the why that's that's our job. So give us time. I'm taking all your questions. I'm taking them back to talk to the team and thank you for being here. Hubbard. We'll talk soon. We'll talk soon

And even worse clip for Lieutenant Alavarez. He appeared last night on national TV, where he openly said he's on CNN. And the reason that the cops didn't go in is they're afraid they're going to be shot, which I understand. Also there a bunch of fourth graders in there that this, this garbage human being a shooting in the head. So at that point, you know, he's a big tough guys who know how to use guns. What are you doing?
Officers are making entry into this building. They do not know where the government is. They're hearing gunshots. They are, they are receiving gunshots at that point. If they, if they proceeded any further, not knowing where the suspect was at, they could have been shot. They could have been killed. And at that point, dad, gunman would have the opportunity to kill other people inside that school. So they were able to contain that gunman inside that classroom so that he was not able to go to any other portions of the school to commit any other killings.

According to the wall street journal, Bob is Stratta lives directly across the street from the school, which his grandson attends the 77 year old said he and his wife walked outside when they heard gunshots and were confused. Why when the police arrived, they didn't immediately enter. They're trying to cover something up. His head of the information released Thursday. I think the cops were waiting for backup because they didn't want to go into the school.. Now I was talking to some former police officers. And what they said is that the old protocol before things like Sandy hook and Parkland was, this is what the cops would do. They would show up, they would create a perimeter. And then they'd wait for SWAT to show up to route out the person who was who's committing the crime. But that's changed since Sandy hook, since Parkland. Now, most police departments are trained. You go in, you do not wait around to, to see if the experts are going to show up, to handle the thing.
Because you get don't have time. Virtually all of the damage is going to be done in the first few minutes of confrontation between the shooter and the innocent victims. Again, eschalon was asked why the police didn't respond for 12 minutes. He said, our job is to report the facts and have answers. And we're not there yet. That's going to also said the cops are not sure how the shooter was able to enter the school building. He said, we will find out more about why it was unlocked or maybe it was locked. But right now it appears it was unlocked. This person went in through the back door. Okay. So what this suggests is that there are eminently obvious solutions that are actually available that were not taken here, armed people on campus to stop this stuff would have stopped this stuff, or at least could have stopped this stuff, locking the doors could've would've stopped this sort of stuff. But these precisely the sort of solutions that nobody in the media actually wants to talk about because it doesn't cut in favor of broad scale, social change that they wish to engineer based on whatever is the most convenient story at hand. It is very odd in the United States that the time when we tend to have the gun control conversation is when there is a school shooting, as opposed to, you know, the other 364 days of the year when lots and lots of people die from gun violence in the United States. And there's a reason for that. The reason for that is because the idea is when it comes to mass shootings, that it could be anyone, it could happen in your community. It could happen to anyone. The truth is the vast majority of places in the United States, where there is large-scale gun ownership do not have incidents like this.
And there are lots of places that have serious gun control, where there's a mass violence, Washington, DC, Chicago. We don't talk about gun control under those circumstances because the city just proves the case because the gun violence is utterly disconnected from the laws that are on the books. There are laws on the books, preventing people from doing these things, and then they go and they do them anyway. And you can see this by the way in full-scale in Chicago. Literally yesterday, there was a live report in Chicago from a local news team talking about the prevalence of guns in Chicago. And well, this reporter is on scene in Chicago, just down the street. A man walks into frame and points a gun at the camera. I promise you, this guy is violating a bevy of gun laws. Those laws exist in Chicago.
What's he doing? Why don't we have more gun laws? We never talk about gun control in the context of where the vast majority of actual gun violence takes place in the country. Because again, the case does not follow. The fact is in the United States every year, they're under 400 people are killed using rifles every year in the United States. There are tens of thousands of people who are killed using hand guns. But what do we always talk about when you talk about gun? We talk about banding rifles that were banning AR fifteens. We talked about making sure that 19 year olds can't buy an AR 15. Even though again, the vast majority of gun violence in the country is done using hand guns. There's a reason for that. It doesn't fit the political narrative. Here's this footage from Chicago. I mean, this is incredible stuff. This is a reporter on the street and a man literally just walks by and points a gun at the camera.


While our reporter was in the middle of a live report about gun violence in Chicago, a man walked up and pointed what appeared to be a firearm at our crew right now, police are calling this man a person of interest accused of aggravated assault with a firearm. If you have any information regarding who he is or where he is, please contact Chicago police. I have a question. Does that look like a law abiding citizen to a law abiding citizen probably will abide by all available gun regulations and laws is what that looks like to you. So when we talk about gun control, again, it is important to recognize. The only time we have a mass media conversation on gun control is not when there's a normal weekend in Chicago. It is when there is a mass school shooting, which is a statistical outlier, both in terms of how many school shootings happen in the United States every year, every one of them in active, horrific, evil, and also how many people die in such incidents versus how many people die using other weapons across the United States and where they die in the United States using those weapons, which suggests that a lot of this is politically driven because when it comes to the actual solutions to school shootings, they actually are quite different from the solutions that would attend to, for example, gun violence, between gangs in major American cities.
I mean, you don't want to talk about all that. So they sort of use the, these school shootings as a hook. If you talk about gun control and then they propose a bunch of stuff that wouldn't have actually stopped the school shooting from happening in the first place, there is another, and just, there's so much tragedy upon tragedy happening in Uvalde. This story is horrific. The husband of one of the teachers killed in the shooting at Robb elementary school and involved. They actually died on Thursday of a heart attack. Joe Garcia lost his wife, Irma Garcia, 46. And the shooting is according to media. And, and apparently his nephew announced his uncle's death on Twitter saying that he passed away due to grief. He said, essentially that he had a heart attack after finding out that his wife was dead. The Garcia's were married for 24 years and had four children who are left without either a parent.
And these sorts of incidents obviously have tremendous collateral damage families that are broken people who will never recover. It's just awful, which would behoove us to actually discuss some, some actual solutions. Well, these are difficult times, obviously that means that sometimes you need a distraction from the cares of the day. And one way that you can be distracted from the cares of the day is by getting more information by learning a new thing. This is where the Jordan harbinger show comes in. We are fans here at the daily wire. The Jordan harbinger show features in-depth interviews with some of the world's most fascinating minds ranging from Charles Koch to Colonel Oliver, north to Kobe Bryant or Dan Carlin. He has really deep. A lot of his interviews are just spectacular. It's clear that Jordan really goes in the weeds preparing for these interviews. He really kind of asked very detailed questions.

But as we've been saying for a lot of people, it's not about the solution. It's about the political pandering and some of them are making it perfectly obvious. So for example, Senator Richard Blumenthal from, from Connecticut, he says that gun violence is going to be on the ballot, right? And this is what they want. They didn't bring up any votes. They didn't bring up any votes on, on gun action. In the last couple of days, Chuck Schumer said, he's not going to because they internationally want to vote because it turns out a lot of the stuff they're proposing is unpopular. The idea here is if you don't like gun violence, you should vote for us. We don't have solutions, but the other guys love gun violence. So you should vote for us. It'll be on the ballot. Here's Richard Blumenthal.

Let me be very blunt. Gun violence is going to be on the ballot. This November. It will be on the ballot this November, and we need to make it a decisive issue. And we will vote them out. If they failed to vote the right way; Vote the right way on what? What is the proposal that you have made that would have stopped the school shooting like this? No one can answer that very simple question. I have made multiple proposals on this program. And for years about how you stop school shootings, like this ranging from the societal, you need to create social institutions that prevent family breakdown you'd have stronger communities where people are actually aware of the red flags in their communities and are taking advantage of the existing laws like red flag laws. In order to inform the police. When there is a dangerous person in the community and giving the police have the power to actually do something about that, changing the mental health statute so that people who are a danger to themselves and others can be in voluntarily committed for longer than 48 hours before you just release them back onto the street to murder people. And these are all things we can do. Hardening schools, making sure that there's the proper fencing, making sure that there are armed guards on, on premises, making sure that there's one point of entry and multiple points of exit, making sure that the doors inside the buildings automatically lock when teachers enter and exit rooms so that if somebody gets into the hallway, they can't just go room to room and shooting people. All of these are things that, by the way, I recommended by security professionals, right? Left and center, nothing I'm saying here is outside the mainstream. And all of it is very doable, but we don't have any of those conversations. Instead. It's about demonization of people who will believe in school shootings. I don't believe that Democrats believe in school shootings. I believe that politically pandering right now, but I certainly don't believe that they are in league with school shooters, but they seem to believe that everybody who disagrees with them isn't league with school shooters, Joe Biden yesterday, he said the only reason to own an AR 15 is because basically you're a sicko.

Here's the president of the United States yesterday.
What in God's name do you need to solve it for except to kill someone there? Aren't running through the forest with Kevlar vests on for God's sake, it's just sick. And the gun manufacturers has spent two decades, aggressively marketing assault weapons, which make them the most and largest profit for God's sake. We have to have the courage to stand up to the industry.

Yeah, it's not the gun industry that is making this happen. The reason that I own a rifle is to shoot bad people who try to threaten my family. That is why I own a rifle. That's why I think the vast majority of Americans own a rifle. It's why you have people who are on campus, carrying AR fifteens, depending on which campus you are on. It's why you have armed security guards to act as both a deterrent. And actually as a first line of defense, if somebody decides to do something like this, but the white house has ideas, always gun control and gun control only. It's not just that. This is one of their myriad proposals. It's their only proposal. It's the only thing we are allowed to discuss. If you discuss anything else, you are eliciting the problem. What about the fact that nothing you, I keep coming back to this cause it's, it's true. And it's just mind-boggling but will during not a thing that you have proposed shops, these school shootings, it does not stop the school shootings.

And yet you keep proposing these things as though, would you so Corinne Sean PR? She says, well, you know, the, the answer is to take away guns. So first of all, unless you're talking about a mass gun confiscation, I don't know what policy you are proposing. Are you proposing a mass gun, confiscation of hundreds, of millions of guns in the United States. Let's try to put that on the ballot, really run on that. See how that goes for you. So you have the American people are willing to do this, by the way, even when they had a mass gun confiscation and buyback in Australia, one only one third of people who actually own guns turned in their guns. The rates of gun violence in Australia were already quite low before they had that mass gun confiscation and gun buyback Korean on PRS suggests, well, you know, if more guns were the solution, we'd be the safest country, which is just, there are many holes in this logic. We'll break it down in a moment.
America has more guns than people in this country. If more guns were indeed the solution, we would be the safest country in the world, but we are not. And so the president has been very clear. He wants action. He wants to Congress to take action. He wants to turn this pain into action.
I mean, if more guns were, the solution would be the safest country. Well, more guns in the hands of people who are responsible is a solution, more guns in the hands of people who are irresponsible and evil is not a solution. We all know this. So instead of trying to target the people who are irresponsible or mentally ill or sick or evil, instead of trying to target that your solution is to try to take the guns away from law abiding people. I have a counter to, if more guns were, the solution would be the safest country. If more gun laws were the solution, Chicago would be the safest city. If more gun laws were the solution, Washington DC would be the safest city, all of this Springs from a deeper notion, which that the government can solve. Every problem I passing a law, which just isn't, it's never true. Government can not solve every problem.


Simply by passing a law, it requires human beings to implement that law. It requires people to comply with the law. It requires people to trust the law. It requires a bunch of things to happen. Even if you were to pass a law, confiscating all guns in the country, you'd actually have to effectuate that how many people would die in the effectuation of such a policy. So all of this is nonsense, but again, they have to come up with some bad guy and then target the bad guy as political oppositions, green jump here. She says the NRA is contributing to gun violence. And this is coming from the party that has ripped on the police. So routinely that the murder rates have spiked by a huge percentage over the last few years in every major American city. And they're saying it's the NRA contributing to gun violence? The NRA is basically a defunct organization.
At this point, the NRA does not have anything close to the kind of power that it had 20 years ago. The NRA has been having all sorts of internal corruption issues. It's been having all sorts of internal financial issues. It doesn't have the kind of sway and pull that it used to have that the truth is that the gun lobby in the United States is just people who like the second amendment. The vast majority of people I know who own guns are not members of the NRA and the vast, vast, vast majority of people I know who are advocates of second amendment rights are not members of the NRA. It's not anti NRA. They're just pointing out NRAS way weaker than it once was. And not only that, even when the NRA was strong, that was not the reason why people like the second amendment in the United States is a lobbying group is like saying that planned parenthood is solely responsible for abortion law in the United States. That's not right.
Abortion law in California, planned Parenthood's prevalence in California is reflective of the fact that there are a lot of people who love abortion in California, but here's a screenshot, pure suggesting. It's the NRA contributing to gun violence, not for example, allowing the mentally ill to be out on the streets, able to do whatever they want without involuntary commitment laws on the books. It's not a question of police procedures. It's not a question of yelling at the police every five minutes and sticking the DOJ on them. It's not a problem of family breakdown. None of those it's the NRA nailed it.
What is inappropriate is that the leadership of the national rifle association has proven time and time again, that they are contributing to the problem of gun violence and not trying to solve it. And it's shameful that the NRA and their allies have stood in the way of every attempt to advance measures that will, that will, that we all know will save lives from gun violence.
No, you don't. You don't. And so, again, it's all about the gun lobby. If you're corrupt, if you oppose them, you corrupt. Okay. So here at Richard, Blumenfeld doing the same thing. It's the gun lobby, the gun lobby days, our number, you know what? You could abolish the NRA tomorrow. It wouldn't do a damn bit of difference because a huge number of marathons just disagree with you.
I want to say a word to the gun lobby. Your days are numbered. You are a danger to society and to America, if you continue to oppose these common sense measures,
Oh, you're a danger to America. If you oppose me. And some of the other ridiculous proposals that have been made, so Democrats have a variety of proposals that they are making right now, not before, of course, suggesting that they are the, the solution, they themselves are the solution to school shootings. Even when they're mass shootings that take place fairly routinely in their states, Gavin Newsome doing this. So this the governor of California, who was subjected to a recall by his own citizens, he survived the recall, but he is certainly not any great shakes as a governor. And there's a reason people are leaving California and drugs. He was ripping on the state of Texas and suggesting that Texas is really, really bad because you have the freedom to, to keep and bear arms in the state of Texas,
Do not give in to the cynicism and all the crap that you heard today in that press conference, around evil and mental health. That completely belies the fact that there's only one nation on planet earth that separates itself from all other nations. And that's the United States of America and the perversion of a second amendment that begins around well regulated.
Okay. That is it. First of all, he doesn't understand the second amendment at all. Well-regulated does not mean regulations as in like law, a well-regulated militia being necessary to the preservation of a restate, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That phrasiology means a militia that regulates meaning that they were called regulars. That actually goes out and practices being necessary to the preservation of a free state from the federal government and foreign invaders, the right to keep and bear arms on an individual level shall not be infringed because you know who constituted the military. It wasn't just like there was a shack there with all the guns and the head of the militia would call everybody up on the phone and be like, Hey, go get your gun from the shack over there. Everybody had their gun at their house. Historically speaking like these people are just deliberately misrepresenting what the constitution says in order to achieve their desired effects.
Of course. And then the suggestion that it's cynicism to print to point out that mass shootings happened in California. It's not cynicism. That's a fact mass shootings do happen in California. Of course, despite UMass gun laws, murder rates in LA are high our gun laws in Los Angeles. And as far as the idea is the only country in the world. This is such a trite nonsensical line from Gavin Newsome. As John Lott points out since 1998, there'd been a total of nine attacks at similar to the rock elementary school shooting nine is nine too many. Once you adjust for population, there are many other countries from Germany to Russia, to Finland that have comparable rates of school shooting. Of course, it's true. People tend to ignore the fact that the United States is a very, very populous and large country.
The United States population at this point is 330 million people as of 2020 330 million people. That the entirety of Europe is only about twice that of the United States, a little over twice, that of the United States, we're a very large country, which means that there are a lot of varieties and laws. There are a lot, there are a lot of evil people out there. And so then we get to the actual proposals and the proposals are increasingly stupid. We'll get to those in just one second. First, it only took a few hours after Ricky Jarvis, his new standup special before the cancel culture mob came out with torches and pitchforks demanding his head on a silver platter because he pointed out that men are not women and women are not men.
This happens over and over and over again. The cancel culture. Mob is insatiable. They always need new bodies. You trot around new heads on spikes when they come for you, you're on your own, unless you have strong support from people who back you up.
Well, when Disney fired Gina Carano from the Mandalorian because of wrong thing, we hear the daily wire. So huge opportunity to both right that wrong end, grab somebody talented to make awesome content. So we signed her. She's now making our upcoming movie terror on the Prairie. If Holly wants to keep canceling the smartest and most talented people out there, well, we are happy to hire them and take advantage of Hollywood's loss set on the Plains. Montana. This gritty thriller follows a family of pioneers as they defend themselves from a vicious gang of Outlaws. Hell bent on revenge on June 14th, the film is premiering exclusively at the daily where I cannot wait for this one. It is so good guys. Don't worry. We're giving you a sneak peek next week. When the trailer drops it June 1st to top it all off, the official terror on the Prairie movie poster is in our shop right now. You can buy it at daily wire.com/shop from special guests on our podcast on unflinching films and documentaries that aren't afraid to confront the truth. Everything we do at daily wire is built around fearlessness. This is our invitation for you to come be fearless with us. Join us, be part of the mission because here's the thing. When you support us, you support the fight, become a member@dailywire.com slash at Gina that's daily wear.com/unit. And keep a look out for the new trailer for Tara on the period. It's going to be just awesome. Can't wait to bring that to you. Become subscribers can watch it when it comes out daily wire.com/gina. You're listening to the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
So then there are a bunch of solutions that are being proposed by the left. So I've already proposed you a bevy of solutions that apparently are not worthy of consideration ranging from, you know, lock the doors to change the protocols for the police to train the police better, to make sure the police actually go in and stop bad guys, to making sure that our armed guards on school premises, that people can just walk into a school and spend 12 minutes hanging out outside of the school before they're confronted by anybody who could actually stop them Democrats, however, have different solutions. So for example, representative Abigail span burger, I suppose in moderate from the state of Virginia, she suggests that we really need here is we need to change the ability to reload on guns. Quote. When I began as a federal agent, I carried a gun in two extra mags every day. My mags were marked for law enforcement use only because they held more than 10 rounds.
At that time, federal law limited magazine capacity to 10 rounds outside of law enforcement use that provision was part of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004 large capacity magazines equate to more fatalities when it would be shooter can fire shot after shot research confirms that limiting magazine capacity saves lodge does not cite the research that demonstrates this. The sad reality is that requiring would be mass murderers to reload, saves lives, permitting people, escape time in law enforcement response time. That is why I support legislation to limit magazine capacity. So again, they've done this in California. There's only one problem with this sort of logic. And that is that it is stupid. The reality is that if you are a person who is dedicated to committing a mass shooting, you will simply modify you're done. The reason that I point this out is because this is precisely what the Buffalo shooter did.
Quote, massacre suspect said he modified Bushmaster rifle to hold more ammunition. According to the Washington post May 15th, 2022, the suspect in the Buffalo supermarket mask were purchased. The primary weapon allegedly used in the shooting. It used Bushmaster X, M 15 semiautomatic rifle from a licensed dealer near his hometown, but said he then illegally modified the gun. So he could use a high capacity magazine. He said he bought the Bushmaster in January from vintage firearms, a small gun store, about 15 miles from his home in Conklin, New York paying 960 bucks for the rifle, a sling to carry it. And some ammo. He also recounted how he acquired it to backup weapons and offspring 500 shotgun and a Savage access XP bolt action rifle. He received from his father as a Christmas present when he was 16 years old.
And again, he suggested that he modified the gun itself so that it would actually hold more ammunition. So good luck with this being your, so your solution is not more armed guards in schools or hardening the security perimeter or making sure that the police actually know how to deal with this sort of stuff or punishing the police for not dealing with this sort of stuff. No, your solution is he's going to have to take the one and a half seconds to pop out a mag and pop in a new bag. That's that? That is going to be brilliant, brilliant stuff. Meanwhile, even dumber solutions, a reporter yesterday suggested to the white house and the white house took it under advisement that perhaps what we need to do here is punish gun companies by removing from them, the PPP loans that were available to businesses that were shut down during COVID and the white house is like, well, maybe, maybe, maybe.
And when the Confederates saw Jackson standing fearless like a stonewall, the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
Chap
God
Posts: 1840
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:42 am
Location: On the imaginary axis

Re: School Shooting in Uvalde Texas

Post by Chap »

Morley asked ajax:
What were the "many red flags that were up" with the Uvalde shooter?


In his two 'wall of text' posts, did ajax answer that specific question about the case of the Uvalde shooter?

If so, what was his answer?

(Perhaps ajax might have the courtesy to tell us himself?)
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
honorentheos
God
Posts: 1880
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: School Shooting in Uvalde Texas

Post by honorentheos »

According to the Washington post May 15th, 2022, the suspect in the Buffalo supermarket mask were purchased. The primary weapon allegedly used in the shooting. It used Bushmaster X, M 15 semiautomatic rifle from a licensed dealer near his hometown, but said he then illegally modified the gun. So he could use a high capacity magazine. He said he bought the Bushmaster in January from vintage firearms, a small gun store, about 15 miles from his home in Conklin, New York paying 960 bucks for the rifle, a sling to carry it. And some ammo. He also recounted how he acquired it to backup weapons and offspring 500 shotgun
The Bushmaster XM-15 is the firearm used in multiple mass shootings including the Sandy Hook school massacre.

I'd argue this is exactly the kind of situation where a firearm liability insurance requirement would have prevented the purchase because the red flags and type of purchase would almost certainly prevent the shooter from being able to obtain the policy to cover the firearm even before the illegal modification.
User avatar
Morley
First Presidency
Posts: 822
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:17 pm
Location: detail from Jan van Eyck's Arnolfini Portrait (1434)

Re: School Shooting in Uvalde Texas

Post by Morley »

Chap wrote:
Sun May 29, 2022 4:56 pm
Morley asked ajax:
What were the "many red flags that were up" with the Uvalde shooter?


In his two 'wall of text' posts, did ajax answer that specific question about the case of the Uvalde shooter?

If so, what was his answer?

(Perhaps ajax might have the courtesy to tell us himself?)

Having no answer, I think he resorted to a Gish gallop.
User avatar
Morley
First Presidency
Posts: 822
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:17 pm
Location: detail from Jan van Eyck's Arnolfini Portrait (1434)

Re: School Shooting in Uvalde Texas

Post by Morley »

honorentheos wrote:
Sun May 29, 2022 5:38 pm
The Bushmaster XM-15 is the firearm used in multiple mass shootings including the Sandy Hook school massacre.

I'd argue this is exactly the kind of situation where a firearm liability insurance requirement would have prevented the purchase because the red flags and type of purchase would almost certainly prevent the shooter from being able to obtain the policy to cover the firearm even before the illegal modification.
The more I read about this strategy, the more I'm intrigued.
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 5846
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: School Shooting in Uvalde Texas

Post by Res Ipsa »

honorentheos wrote:
Sun May 29, 2022 5:38 pm
According to the Washington post May 15th, 2022, the suspect in the Buffalo supermarket mask were purchased. The primary weapon allegedly used in the shooting. It used Bushmaster X, M 15 semiautomatic rifle from a licensed dealer near his hometown, but said he then illegally modified the gun. So he could use a high capacity magazine. He said he bought the Bushmaster in January from vintage firearms, a small gun store, about 15 miles from his home in Conklin, New York paying 960 bucks for the rifle, a sling to carry it. And some ammo. He also recounted how he acquired it to backup weapons and offspring 500 shotgun
The Bushmaster XM-15 is the firearm used in multiple mass shootings including the Sandy Hook school massacre.

I'd argue this is exactly the kind of situation where a firearm liability insurance requirement would have prevented the purchase because the red flags and type of purchase would almost certainly prevent the shooter from being able to obtain the policy to cover the firearm even before the illegal modification.
What red flags and type of purchase would have prevented him from getting a policy? Almost everyone has firearm insurance under their homeowners or renters insurance policies. As intentional acts and injuries, as well as criminal acts, are almost universally excluded from coverage, purchasing a firearm to carry out an intentional mass murder presents no risk for the insurer. In fact, in many states, it would be against public policy to insure intentional shootings.

I don't think that spree killers who intend to die as part of the spree are likely to be affected by insurance requirements.
he/him
"Everything we see hides another thing, we always want to see what is hidden by what we see."
– Rene Magritte
User avatar
Morley
First Presidency
Posts: 822
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:17 pm
Location: detail from Jan van Eyck's Arnolfini Portrait (1434)

Re: School Shooting in Uvalde Texas

Post by Morley »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Sun May 29, 2022 6:21 pm
honorentheos wrote:
Sun May 29, 2022 5:38 pm

The Bushmaster XM-15 is the firearm used in multiple mass shootings including the Sandy Hook school massacre.

I'd argue this is exactly the kind of situation where a firearm liability insurance requirement would have prevented the purchase because the red flags and type of purchase would almost certainly prevent the shooter from being able to obtain the policy to cover the firearm even before the illegal modification.
What red flags and type of purchase would have prevented him from getting a policy? Almost everyone has firearm insurance under their homeowners or renters insurance policies. As intentional acts and injuries, as well as criminal acts, are almost universally excluded from coverage, purchasing a firearm to carry out an intentional mass murder presents no risk for the insurer. In fact, in many states, it would be against public policy to insure intentional shootings.

I don't think that spree killers who intend to die as part of the spree are likely to be affected by insurance requirements.
I believe one plan is for the insurance to be purchased by the seller and/or manufacturer and factored into the selling price of the weapon.
honorentheos
God
Posts: 1880
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: School Shooting in Uvalde Texas

Post by honorentheos »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Sun May 29, 2022 6:21 pm
As intentional acts and injuries, as well as criminal acts, are almost universally excluded from coverage, purchasing a firearm to carry out an intentional mass murder presents no risk for the insurer. In fact, in many states, it would be against public policy to insure intentional shootings.

I don't think that spree killers who intend to die as part of the spree are likely to be affected by insurance requirements.
You've brought this up before, but I'm talking about a new type of insurance for liability that is specific to damages caused in criminal or negligent acts. That they are excluded is exactly why liability insurance - a new kind of insurance - is the topic, not existing damage coverage.

If an insurance company issues a liability policy to someone who then uses the firearm in a crime, even if they are killed, then this NEW kind of policy would leave the insurers liable for the damages caused by the crime committed. Suddenly high risk individuals and red flag activities like a teen with a presence on 4chan buying an assault rifle and almost 1,000 rounds of ammo become uninsurable. With a law in place that requires proof of insurance before a purchase can take place, the Buffalo shooter wouldn't be likely to have been able to legally buy that firearm. Companies willing to issue policies to high risk buyers would eventually run out of money and the market would stabilize around a reasonable, depoliticized assessment of the risk of firearm ownership. Uninsured weapons used at all would be subject to confiscation and removal from the ecosystem, and the user losing existing coverage or the cost escalating due to their risky decision making them attractive as a low cost insured customer. I think it isn't a silver bullet but over time it would have a very positive effect on reducing gun violence.
Last edited by honorentheos on Sun May 29, 2022 7:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 5846
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: School Shooting in Uvalde Texas

Post by Res Ipsa »

Morley wrote:
Sun May 29, 2022 6:26 pm
Res Ipsa wrote:
Sun May 29, 2022 6:21 pm


What red flags and type of purchase would have prevented him from getting a policy? Almost everyone has firearm insurance under their homeowners or renters insurance policies. As intentional acts and injuries, as well as criminal acts, are almost universally excluded from coverage, purchasing a firearm to carry out an intentional mass murder presents no risk for the insurer. In fact, in many states, it would be against public policy to insure intentional shootings.

I don't think that spree killers who intend to die as part of the spree are likely to be affected by insurance requirements.
I believe one plan is for the insurance to be purchased by the seller and/or manufacturer and factored into the selling price of the weapon.
Yes. To use the insurance as an effective cost shifting device would require legislation making gun manufactures and sellers absolutely liable for firearm damage and injuries, on the theory that firearms are an inherently dangerous product that cannot be made safe by changing design of the product or through warnings. Then, the manufactures and sellers would be required to purchase insurance that covers their liability. That avoids the problem of insuring intentionally injurious conduct. To be effective, the insurance would also have to be required to pay before any other potentially applicable liability insurance, such as personal liability policies of the gun owner or user.

The intent would not be to stop people who exhibit "red flags" from buying firearms. It would be to shift the cost of the harm caused by firearms onto those who choose to own and use them. U.S. citizens have a right to own firearms, but that doesn't entail firearms owners making me pay for the cost.
he/him
"Everything we see hides another thing, we always want to see what is hidden by what we see."
– Rene Magritte
User avatar
Binger
God
Posts: 3013
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am

Re: School Shooting in Uvalde Texas

Post by Binger »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Sun May 29, 2022 7:03 pm
Morley wrote:
Sun May 29, 2022 6:26 pm


I believe one plan is for the insurance to be purchased by the seller and/or manufacturer and factored into the selling price of the weapon.
Yes. To use the insurance as an effective cost shifting device would require legislation making gun manufactures and sellers absolutely liable for firearm damage and injuries, on the theory that firearms are an inherently dangerous product that cannot be made safe by changing design of the product or through warnings. Then, the manufactures and sellers would be required to purchase insurance that covers their liability. That avoids the problem of insuring intentionally injurious conduct. To be effective, the insurance would also have to be required to pay before any other potentially applicable liability insurance, such as personal liability policies of the gun owner or user.

The intent would not be to stop people who exhibit "red flags" from buying firearms. It would be to shift the cost of the harm caused by firearms onto those who choose to own and use them. U.S. citizens have a right to own firearms, but that doesn't entail firearms owners making me pay for the cost.
Applied practically, all gun owners would share the liability of what happens tonight in Chicago. If Jersey Girl wants to keep a firearm on her property, she must pay for insurance and the proceeds of that insurance would be used to cover the expenses/benefits related to the 23 shooting victims in Chicago, per day.

Am I understanding this correctly?
Post Reply