# Another Mass Shooting in the US



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 27, 2018)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46002549

It must be a sad state of affairs when itâ€™s not a surprise when it happens 

Hope the level of casualties isnâ€™t high


----------



## Hobbit (Oct 27, 2018)

Very sad indeed. 

Trump's words are disappointing, e.g. we need to beef up the laws on the death penalty. That's an after the fact thing. Take the bl00dy guns off the streets.


----------



## Del_Boy (Oct 27, 2018)

Sad indeed - unfortunately the septics just love their guns


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Oct 27, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			Very sad indeed.

Take the bl00dy guns off the streets.
		
Click to expand...

Far too sensible. Sadly will never happen so this will just go on and on happening


----------



## Don Barzini (Oct 27, 2018)

Another day, another crazy American goes crazy with a gun.


----------



## woofers (Oct 27, 2018)

Trump - "To see this happen again and again, for so many years, it's just a shame," he told reporters.

â€œAgain and again, for so many yearsâ€ youâ€™d think by now then that they should realise they have a problem, itâ€™s not getting any better is it ?

â€œItâ€™s just a shameâ€ - is that it ? A â€œshameâ€ ! Why not just add â€œToo badâ€, itâ€™s almost the same sentiment.


----------



## Crazyface (Oct 28, 2018)

The UK is having it's fair share of people being killed by guns and we have laws banning them. What difference is there?


----------



## Hobbit (Oct 28, 2018)

Crazyface said:



			The UK is having it's fair share of people being killed by guns and we have laws banning them. What difference is there?
		
Click to expand...

And the last mass shooting in the UK was??

The U.S. is getting them almost weekly. The U.K.'s last mass shooting was 22 years ago. There's your difference.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Oct 28, 2018)

Crazyface said:



			The UK is having it's fair share of people being killed by guns and we have laws banning them. *What difference is there?*

Click to expand...

If you really don't understand the difference there isn't an explanation that will help you.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Oct 28, 2018)

I'm looking for the stats now but at this point, 2015-2016, March to march for some reason, 26 deaths from guns in the UK. Just over 11,000 in the US. In 2017 the figures are about 15k in the US, I can't find the UK figures but we know they are not comparable. Wholly different by some degree.

Gun ownership, the ease of buying in the US, different entirely.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Oct 28, 2018)

Lord Tyrion said:



			I'm looking for the stats now but at this point, 2015-2016, March to march for some reason, 26 deaths from guns in the UK. Just over 11,000 in the US. In 2017 the figures are about 15k in the US, I can't find the UK figures but we know they are not comparable. Wholly different by some degree.

Gun ownership, the ease of buying in the US, different entirely.
		
Click to expand...

Was it this?

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/02/15/11004-gun-murders-us-vs-26-equiv-130-england-annually


----------



## Jacko_G (Oct 28, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			Very sad indeed.

Trump's words are disappointing, e.g. we need to beef up the laws on the death penalty. That's an after the fact thing. Take the bl00dy guns off the streets.
		
Click to expand...

Won't happen, can't happen. 

Way to many in circulation and readily available.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Oct 28, 2018)

Jacko_G said:



			Won't happen, can't happen.

Way to many in circulation and readily available.
		
Click to expand...

The bigger issue is the NRA having Congressmen on its side.  Nothing will ever change.


----------



## Jacko_G (Oct 28, 2018)

Well the fact that the 2nd amendment allows Americans to have the right to bear arms and won't be changed is probably the biggest issue.

However as I say there are too many in circulation and they are too readily available to now do anything effective about guns in circulation.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Oct 28, 2018)

Blue in Munich said:



			Was it this?

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/02/15/11004-gun-murders-us-vs-26-equiv-130-england-annually

Click to expand...

That was one page I clicked on. I did check another couple of sites just in case this person had manipulated the facts, he is anti gun, but the numbers quoted elsewhere were the same. Other sites had more complicated breakdowns and also included accidents involving guns that didn't lead to deaths but I thought the point was made purely with the fatality figures.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Oct 28, 2018)

Blue in Munich said:



			Was it this?

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/02/15/11004-gun-murders-us-vs-26-equiv-130-england-annually

Click to expand...

That was one page I clicked on. I did check another couple of sites just in case this person had manipulated the facts, he is anti gun, but the numbers quoted elsewhere were the same. Other sites had more complicated breakdowns and also included accidents involving guns that didn't lead to deaths but I thought the point was made purely with the fatality figures.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Oct 28, 2018)

Jacko_G said:



			Well the fact that the 2nd amendment allows Americans to have the right to bear arms and won't be changed is probably the biggest issue.

However as I say there are too many in circulation and they are too readily available to now do anything effective about guns in circulation.
		
Click to expand...

There can always be something done but the will has to be there. For whatever ingrained reason they would rather keep the guns and accept the deaths than try to improve the situation.


----------



## bobmac (Oct 28, 2018)

Jacko_G said:



			Well the fact that the 2nd amendment allows Americans to have the right to bear arms and won't be changed is probably the biggest issue.

However as I say there are too many in circulation and they are too readily available to now do anything effective about guns in circulation.
		
Click to expand...

Of course the 2nd amendment can be changed, the clue is in the name.
Australia changed their gun laws in 1996 and there hasn't been a mass killing since.


----------



## Jacko_G (Oct 28, 2018)

bobmac said:



			Of course the 2nd amendment can be changed, the clue is in the name.
Australia changed their gun laws in 1996 and there hasn't been a mass killing since.
		
Click to expand...

I never said that it can't be done.

The fact that despite all that has gone before it and it's still never been changed or challenged suggests that it's not going to happen.


----------



## bobmac (Oct 28, 2018)

Jacko_G said:



			I never said that it can't be done.

The fact that despite all that has gone before it and it's still never been changed or challenged suggests that it's not going to happen.
		
Click to expand...

Luckily, not everyone in America has that attitude.


----------



## Imurg (Oct 28, 2018)

Even if they ammended the constitution tomorrow it would takes decades to bring the numbers under control.
That's not to say they shouldn't do it, it's just they should have done it years ago.
And until they actually do something to prevent these attacks, I'm afraid America will get no sympathy from me.
The people involved - Yes
The Country - No.
What happened to the protest marches from earlier this year?
If Americans want to change things then those marches need to be bigger and happen every week in every city.
Until the "real" Americans get involved nothing can or will change.


----------



## Jacko_G (Oct 28, 2018)

bobmac said:



			Luckily, not everyone in America has that attitude.
		
Click to expand...

Not sure why I'm being vilified by you here. Never said I supported guns. I telling you that even if it is changed (which I don't think it will be) it won't work. Too many guns in circulation, too many unregistered guns, too many coming in from outside US via illegal means.

I also don't believe that the attitude or momentum is there for the second amendment to be challenged and changed. A large number of US citizens see atrocities like these as a reason to arm!


----------



## bobmac (Oct 28, 2018)

I didn't say you did support guns.


----------



## Wolf (Oct 28, 2018)

Sadly whenever I see these things all I hear in the US media is they need to beef up security in areas with more armed presence,.wasn't long ago Trump said about arming teachers in schools for such things to be avoided..  
The simplistic way they view it is more guns need in right hand a rather than  less guns everywhere. 

Even US soldiers I've served alongside not all but majority when spoken to talk about training more security to take these people out..  it's not so much just a law change they need but a whole social change in attitude towards guns and gun crime.  The whole spectrum need a addressing beginning with the 2nd Amendment and filtering down... Can't see it happening though..


----------



## Kellfire (Oct 28, 2018)

Jacko_G said:



			Well the fact that the 2nd amendment allows Americans to have the right to bear arms and won't be changed is probably the biggest issue.

However as I say there are too many in circulation and they are too readily available to now do anything effective about guns in circulation.
		
Click to expand...

The 2nd amendment argument is so bogus. Plus even if it did say they were all allowed guns all it takes is another amendment to remove that right again.


----------



## Jacko_G (Oct 28, 2018)

Kellfire said:



			The 2nd amendment argument is so bogus. Plus even if it did say they were all allowed guns all it takes is another amendment to remove that right again.
		
Click to expand...

Read on Sir ......


----------



## woofers (Oct 28, 2018)

In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[16] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual's right to keep a gun at home for self-defense.

So presumably, guns on the street are outlawed ?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 28, 2018)

A quick question - why donâ€™t the US call these people that carry out the mass shootings - Terroristâ€™s ? - if it was a Muslim who carried is it safe to say they would be called a Terrorist and be charged with Terrorism


----------



## Papas1982 (Oct 28, 2018)

Liverpoolphil said:



			A quick question - why donâ€™t the US call these people that carry out the mass shootings - Terroristâ€™s ? - if it was a Muslim who carried is it safe to say they would be called a Terrorist and be charged with Terrorism
		
Click to expand...

Arenâ€™t terrorists people who usually do it for a belief and to inspire followers. Thatâ€™s how Iâ€™d describe a terrorist. Be them, Muslim, Christian or of other beliefs. 

These guys want the infamy, but they donâ€™t do it for some greater cause or to inspire more kids to join a high school  kill cult (that Iâ€™m aware of).


----------



## Dan2501 (Nov 8, 2018)

Another day. Another mass shooting.


----------



## adam6177 (Nov 8, 2018)

Dan2501 said:



			Another day. Another mass shooting.
		
Click to expand...

Unclear on gunman so far isnt it?  All I've seen is "middle eastern, dressed in black with a beard", but thats not confirmed I believe.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Nov 8, 2018)

Thoughts and prayers, thoughts and prayers. This is going to be a rolling thread isn't it?


----------



## adam6177 (Nov 8, 2018)

Lord Tyrion said:



			This is going to be a rolling thread isn't it?
		
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, yes.


----------



## User 99 (Nov 8, 2018)

Genuine question....who cares ?


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Nov 8, 2018)

RandG said:



			Genuine question....who cares ?
		
Click to expand...

I'd normally avoid responding to a post like that, but really? No humanity? I can't impact on what happens in the US or any other country but it doesn't mean that I, or others, do not care about people dying needlessly around the world. This thread is about a shooting in the US, it could be about many other countries. It still matters.


----------



## adam6177 (Nov 8, 2018)

RandG said:



			Genuine question....who cares ?
		
Click to expand...

I do, from a common sense standpoint.  Now when I see that multiple people have been injured/killed they are now just numbers, there is no shock factor me at all as it is all too common.

The part that that makes me angry is the narrow mindedness of "the US" and their inability to wake up to their problem, rather than throwing irrational "solutions" at it, which they do each time.


**edit - assuming this isnt a terrorist incident


----------



## User 99 (Nov 8, 2018)

Lord Tyrion said:



			I'd normally avoid responding to a post like that, but really? No humanity? I can't impact on what happens in the US or any other country but it doesn't mean that I, or others, do not care about people dying needlessly around the world. This thread is about a shooting in the US, it could be about many other countries. It still matters.
		
Click to expand...

How come there hasn't been a single mention of the plane that crashed in Indonesia last week ? 188 dead, no great humanity on here about that.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 8, 2018)

RandG said:



			How come there hasn't been a single mention of the plane that crashed in Indonesia last week ? 188 dead, no great humanity on here about that.
		
Click to expand...

To comment on anything, do we have to comment on everything?
Or is it another thread youâ€™re trying to derail and inflame?


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Nov 8, 2018)

There are sad events happening every day. Some strike a chord, others become just another story. I saw the plane crash details on tv and felt very sorry for all involved but did not feel the need to start a thread. The US shootings are a recurring theme, many on here will have been to the US and can relate to the places where these things are happening. Most in Europe also struggle with the gun culture in the US where they are similar to us in so many other ways. Fewer will have links to the Philipinnes. It doesn't mean that people don't care.


----------



## User 99 (Nov 8, 2018)

It all just strikes me as hypocrisy to make out we care about certain tragic events yet seem, on the face of It, completely ignore other equally tragic events.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 8, 2018)

RandG said:



			It all just strikes me as hypocrisy to make out we care about certain tragic events yet seem, on the face of It, completely ignore other equally tragic events.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe equally tragic, but one is an accident and one isnâ€™t.
Life is full of tragedy and some are affected by some more than others, no one needs to justify how they feel.
You see it as hypocritical, fill yer boots, it doesnâ€™t mean others canâ€™t express their opinion.
If it bothers you so much, ignore these type of threads.


----------



## adam6177 (Nov 8, 2018)

pauldj42 said:



			If it bothers you so much, ignore these type of threads. 

Click to expand...

Or indeed make the thread yourself.


----------



## Crazyface (Nov 8, 2018)

I don't see the difference between "mass killings" and one person being shot. It's human life being extinguished by a nutter with the means to do so. The UK is smaller than the USA so will have less of it, but one person killed or 10 at once, as far as I'm concerned it's the same and equally dangerous. We have strict gun laws the USA doesn't. People still have guns and use them in the UK. How to stop it? God knows. The world is a dangerous place and will not get any safer in my life time.


----------



## User 99 (Nov 8, 2018)

pauldj42 said:



			Maybe equally tragic, but one is an accident and one isnâ€™t.
Life is full of tragedy and some are affected by some more than others, no one needs to justify how they feel.
You see it as hypocritical, fill yer boots, it doesnâ€™t mean others canâ€™t express their opinion.
If it bothers you so much, ignore these type of threads. 

Click to expand...

I will play devils advocate and question what some see as the norm


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 8, 2018)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46135459

It just seems a weekly occurrence now maybe even less and the rest of the world will continue to shake their head in disbelief that they refuse to attempt changes to their gun laws whilst they just blurt out about their right to bear arms as if itâ€™s some justification.

I wonder if there will ever be a limit when they realise it has to change - clearly itâ€™s not when kids or students or sports stars getting killed.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 8, 2018)

RandG said:



			I will play devils advocate and question what some see as the norm 

Click to expand...

No worries, careful your posts donâ€™t go from playing devilâ€™s advocate to drama queen.


----------



## bobmac (Nov 8, 2018)

RandG said:



			Genuine question....who cares ?
		
Click to expand...

Do you?


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Nov 8, 2018)

RandG said:



			I will play devils advocate and question what some see as the norm 

Click to expand...

Might I suggest then the trolling like that will leave you discussing your points with no-one....


----------



## User 99 (Nov 8, 2018)

Bunkermagnet said:



			Might I suggest then the trolling like that will leave you discussing your points with no-one....
		
Click to expand...

Ah the old trolling post, didn't take long did it 

Here's me thinking it was a forum for discussing opinions, my mistake.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 8, 2018)

RandG said:



			Ah the old trolling post, didn't take long did it 

Here's me thinking it was a forum for discussing opinions, my mistake.
		
Click to expand...

It is for discussion mate, but when are you playing devilâ€™s advocate and when are you not.

â€œIn Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the intent of provoking readers.â€

Is it possible any of the above happens when you decide to play devilâ€™s advocate?


----------



## Robster59 (Nov 8, 2018)

RandG said:



			Genuine question....who cares ?
		
Click to expand...

Not the US gun lobby, that's for sure.  Or Trump, unless he believes its politically expedient for him.

Let's not have internal bickering here.  People have lost their lives, again, sadly.


----------



## User 99 (Nov 8, 2018)

pauldj42 said:



			It is for discussion mate, but when are you playing devilâ€™s advocate and when are you not.

â€œIn Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the intent of provoking readers.â€

Is it possible any of the above happens when you decide to play devilâ€™s advocate?
		
Click to expand...

That's fair enough, but believe me, it is never my intention, it is and always has been in my life to question everything, to get answers to my questions, to offer an alternative to the norm, it's just the way I am and always have been.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Nov 8, 2018)

RandG said:



			That's fair enough, but believe me, it is never my intention, it is and always has been in my life to question everything, to get answers to my questions, to offer an alternative to the norm, it's just the way I am and always have been.
		
Click to expand...

Considering youâ€™ve been doing it for so long, itâ€™s dreadfully unfortunate that you havenâ€™t managed to find a style that promotes debate rather than coming across as a total wind up merchant.  

Unless of course itâ€™s by design. 

Iâ€™m pretty sure I know which one it is. ðŸ‘


----------



## patricks148 (Nov 8, 2018)

i often wonder if we had a completely uncontrolled gun culture in the UK would we have a similar problem???

Maybe not with the mass shootings but maybe every petty squabble and road rage incident ending up with people reaching for a gun.


----------



## DRW (Nov 8, 2018)

Blue in Munich said:



			Considering youâ€™ve been doing it for so long, itâ€™s dreadfully unfortunate that you havenâ€™t managed to find a style that promotes debate rather than coming across as a total wind up merchant.

Unless of course itâ€™s by design.
		
Click to expand...

R& G, I agree with BIM with this.

The reason for this post is really to say, sometimes I find myself really agreeing with your posts, but because of the way you post them, the style or something about them, I find I could not post that I agree or like the post (good example was your last post on the Grenfell case post 147). I would always keep to arguing what you truly believe in rather than just arguing the other side for the sake of it.

Anyway I expect you don't care if I or anyone else agrees with you. But wish you all the best.

Back to the topic, terrible for the people affect by it.


----------



## User 99 (Nov 8, 2018)

Blue in Munich said:



			Considering youâ€™ve been doing it for so long, itâ€™s dreadfully unfortunate that you havenâ€™t managed to find a style that promotes debate rather than coming across as a total wind up merchant.
		
Click to expand...

I will try and take this on board. I accept my mannerisms may not be to everyone's liking and how I put things across and will try and adjust accordingly.

fwiw, a post like yours to me is far better than just rolling out the old troll comment, yours was constructive.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 8, 2018)

RandG said:



			How come there hasn't been a single mention of the plane that crashed in Indonesia last week ? 188 dead, no great humanity on here about that.
		
Click to expand...

A plane crash due to what would appear to be a system or mechanical malfunction is rather different in nature to the murder of at least 12 people by an individual.  Though both tragic they are not otherwise comparable.


----------



## User 99 (Nov 8, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			A plane crash due to what would appear to be a system or mechanical malfunction is rather different in nature to the murder of at least 12 people by an individual.  Though both tragic they are not otherwise comparable.
		
Click to expand...

Nobody is disputing that


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 8, 2018)

RandG said:



			Nobody is disputing that 

Click to expand...

Every one of us who flies does so accepting that there is an inherent (albeit very low) risk in doing so.  Not one of us will go to a bar in the knowledge of, and accepting, such a risk.


----------



## User 99 (Nov 8, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Every one of us who flies does so accepting that there is an inherent (albeit very low) risk in doing so.  Not one of us will go to a bar in the knowledge of, and accepting, such a risk.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed.


----------



## 3offTheTee (Nov 8, 2018)

RandG said:



			Indeed.
		
Click to expand...

Not sure I like you keep agreeing with everybody bud.

When will you go back to The " real " R and G!!!


----------



## User 99 (Nov 8, 2018)

3offTheTee said:



			Not sure I like you keep agreeing with everybody bud.

When will you go back to The " real " R and G!!!
		
Click to expand...


He stated two facts, not opinions, hard to disagree with them I'm afraid.


----------



## Robster59 (Nov 8, 2018)

patricks148 said:



			i often wonder if we had a completely uncontrolled gun culture in the UK would we have a similar problem???

Maybe not with the mass shootings but maybe every petty squabble and road rage incident ending up with people reaching for a gun.
		
Click to expand...

I think it would be more likely that these levels would increase dramatically as the access to guns would be far easier.  People react badly now with fists, feet, clubs, knives or whatever else comes to hand when they lose it.  Our gun laws have been tightened since Hungerford and Dunblane.  The Australians did the same after the Port Arthur Massacre.  We learned and changed the laws. 

The Americans haven't and so it will continue.  Their response is to give more armed guards.  But where do you stop with that?  Armed guards everywhere?  Strengthening up the death penalty rules will just make the killers feel like they've nothing to lose.  They'll get executed for one as much as for one hundred. 
Until the gun lobby loses its influence then this will continue. 

A nephew of my partner put a video on Facebook from the NRA about how people wanted firearms in the UK.  It was a mixture of total fabrication, misrepresentation of the facts and outright lies and I told him so.  But he believed it till I put him straight as they think everyone else thinks like them. 
Obama tried to restrict gun sales but he was kicked back despite his best efforts.

Look at all the American films that glamorise the use of guns as the only way to resolve any situation. The ease of getting guns, and the sheer number currently in circulation now means that even if you did start restricting them, the problem won't go away.  

I wish there could be a change as too many poor innocent people are being killed, but if all these massacres don't make anyone change their mind, then nothing will. 

This recent BBC article makes interesting reading.


----------



## adam6177 (Nov 8, 2018)

being reported that the shooter is a US marine veteran......guess that throws water over their ideas of having armed veterans on the entrances to places of worship and other public gatherings.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 8, 2018)

adam6177 said:



			being reported that the shooter is a US marine veteran......guess that throws water over their ideas of having armed veterans on the entrances to places of worship and other public gatherings.
		
Click to expand...

Which is rather different to what I heard reported very early on - 'suspect bearded and of middle-eastern appearance' - no kidding.  Well that was LBC so what should I expect...


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Nov 8, 2018)

RandG said:



			I will try and take this on board. I accept my mannerisms may not be to everyone's liking and how I put things across and will try and adjust accordingly.

fwiw, a post like yours to me is far better than just rolling out the old troll comment, yours was constructive.
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps its starements like this one "I will play devils advocate " that brings out peoples impression of you.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Nov 8, 2018)

patricks148 said:



			i often wonder if we had a completely uncontrolled gun culture in the UK would we have a similar problem???

Maybe not with the mass shootings but maybe every petty squabble and road rage incident ending up with people reaching for a gun.
		
Click to expand...

I would say just as bad, if not worse as we are much more compact in our population density. 
Our issue with knives is bad enough, and even now we still have gang shootings mixed in. The more force you use to "defend" yourself, the more force is meted out against you.
I hope that we never routenely arm our police because of the message it gives to those ready to use or accept lethal force.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Nov 8, 2018)

RandG said:



			I will play devils advocate and question what some see as the norm 

Click to expand...




RandG said:



			Here's me thinking it was a forum for discussing opinions, my mistake.
		
Click to expand...


Fair enough and that is what the forum is for, but if a particular poster gets too argumentative and doesn't accept that others have different opinions, then that poster will find the mods taking an unhealthy interest

less is often more and knowing when to stop is an art form that should be practiced regularly


----------



## MadAdey (Nov 8, 2018)

patricks148 said:



			i often wonder if we had a completely uncontrolled gun culture in the UK would we have a similar problem???

Maybe not with the mass shootings but maybe every petty squabble and road rage incident ending up with people reaching for a gun.
		
Click to expand...

The sad thing is mass shootings probably would. Look at incidents with people running cars into crowds to kill people. Now give them access to military grade weapons, although not automatic. Would you mess around with using a car, or just pull up and open fire? Running a car into a crowd will injure some and maybe kill 1 or 2. Open up with an AR15 loaded with 30 rounds and a lot more people will die.


----------



## User 99 (Nov 8, 2018)

bobmac said:



			Do you?
		
Click to expand...

Missed this early so will give a reply, though you and most probably won't like it.

Do I feel compassion to those who are/were effected by such events, 100% definitely however, to contradict that, what has happened has absolutely no bearing on my life, I read it/see it, then move along with whatever is next in my day, be that the kettle boiling or the door bell going. 

So is real terms, in answer to your question, no, not really, that doesn't mean I have no humanity or compassion, for me it's just another event, sad and tragic but much like my local footballs teams result, a nano second later, I'm not really bothered. 

Quite frankly what troubles me more in this world is the treatment the human race dishes out to animals, not how the human race treats each other, and that is being said as a meat eater.


----------



## MadAdey (Nov 9, 2018)

RandG said:



			Missed this early so will give a reply, though you and most probably won't like it.

Do I feel compassion to those who are/were effected by such events, 100% definitely however, to contradict that, what has happened has absolutely no bearing on my life, I read it/see it, then move along with whatever is next in my day, be that the kettle boiling or the door bell going.

So is real terms, in answer to your question, no, not really, that doesn't mean I have no humanity or compassion, for me it's just another event, sad and tragic but much like my local footballs teams result, a nano second later, I'm not really bothered.

Quite frankly what troubles me more in this world is the treatment the human race dishes out to animals, not how the human race treats each other, and that is being said as a meat eater.
		
Click to expand...

You really are the biggest **** on here. You are comparing people dying with the result of your local footie team? Over here you have to be careful incase someone pulls a gun on you. BAck home you have to watch out for someone pulling a knife. The world is on a social decline, look at things that have happened in London regarding vehicles getting driven into crowds, or when that soldier got hacked to death in the street in broad daylight.

Put your blinkers on if you want but there is a problem everywhere in the western world and it is only going to get worse. When we going to see another Dunblane in the UK? The mass shooting thing in the US, is becoming a real problem. YEs it has always been there but not on a scale that it is now. Down the road from me a few days ago a kid took a gun to school and shot another kid just because they had an argument. Think about that over your next cup of tea, kids taking guns to schools to sort out someone they had an argument with.


----------



## Imurg (Nov 9, 2018)

RandG said:



			Genuine question....who cares ?
		
Click to expand...

If, as you've now said, you don't care...
Why did you bother?


----------



## Blue in Munich (Nov 10, 2018)

As if this wasn't dreadful enough, it now transpires that one of the victims of this survived the Las Vegas shooting incident.  To add to it the town of Thousand Oaks is apparently under an evacuation order for the wildfires currently raging in California.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 4, 2019)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49221936

Another mass shooting in the US ðŸ˜¢ 

Keep thinking that one day they wake up to reality of their gun laws 

Obviously Trump wonâ€™t call it terrorism even though it is


----------



## Wolf (Aug 4, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49221936

Another mass shooting in the US ðŸ˜¢

Keep thinking that one day they wake up to reality of their gun laws

Obviously Trump wonâ€™t call it terrorism even though it is
		
Click to expand...

Was just reading about this myself. 2nd mass shooting in a week what with the one in California. 

At time I've posted this there's been another reported shooting in Dayton Ohio, with a further 20 reportedly killed. 

They'll never get rid of the ridiculous 2nd Amendment that effectively makes this possible. Such an easy law to change and prevent these issues, yet they argue the solution is more people to carry guns. 

I'm 100% with you Phil it's terrorism pure and simple but it's not just Trump that won't say it is but the majority of the US,. 

https://heavy.com/news/2019/08/dayton-ohio-active-shooter-shooting/


----------



## Pathetic Shark (Aug 4, 2019)

I have a ton of American friends on social media and as usual the responses are 50-50.   Half think it's terrible and all guns should be banned.  The other half thinks it's terrible and every mall owner and teacher should be armed.

And so it goes on and on and on.


----------



## Imurg (Aug 4, 2019)

America will keep shooting itself until the end of time.
There are too many guns already in circulation
It can't be stopped, it's gone too far.
I hope America is proud.
And we're becoming sensitised to it.
It almost reads like there's been another crash on the M1...another everyday thing that gets a mention on the news and then gets forgotten about.


----------



## bobmac (Aug 4, 2019)

So another 20 innocent people die in America at the hands of a lone gunman.
The Texas state Attorney General  Ken Paxton said.......

_''gun control would probably not have stopped the attack.

He added that if a "crazy" gunman launched such an attack, there was no way that law enforcement officers could be there to stop it.

"The best way is to *be prepared to defend yourself,*"_

So, more guns needed then.

Trump sent his thoughts and prayers


(Mod note , merged as this was a duplicate thread )


----------



## Wolf (Aug 4, 2019)

bobmac said:



			So another 20 innocent people die in America at the hands of a lone gunman.
The Texas state Attorney General  Ken Paxton said.......

_''gun control would probably not have stopped the attack._

_He added that if a "crazy" gunman launched such an attack, there was no way that law enforcement officers could be there to stop it._

_"The best way is to *be prepared to defend yourself,*"_

So, more guns needed then.

Trump sent his thoughts and prayers


(Mod note , merged as this was a duplicate thread )
		
Click to expand...

Just saw that on the news myself absolutely ridiculous statement and the reason these crimes will never stop. 

Also saw the interview with the Marshall stating " they're treating it as a hate crime, because that's what it is without seeing the evidence, so we're trying to get ahead of the evidence" ðŸ™„


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 4, 2019)

Are there too many guns in circulation in the US now? Maybe there are but surely its worth doing something about the number out there. After Hungerford and Dunblane the restrictions in the UK meant lots of guns were banned, and the restrictions for owning others were very much tightened up - it worked. Why can't the US ban certain types of guns? That way they won't affect the 2nd Amendment. Why can't the US authorities issue an ammunition ration card? Only so many bullets issued against a ration card, and the card to be accompanied by the return of 95% used shell cases.

There's options to improve things but it needs the political will to do so - oh well, never mind.


----------



## adam6177 (Aug 4, 2019)

It's pretty much a pointless conversation to have with the US, as others have said it's gone too far and there's no way they'd get all the guns off the streets....plus the 2nd amendment n all that, it's ingrained.

I've just spent a few weeks at Disney Orlando, even walking around the kiddies theme park there were dad's with pro gun t shirts on "guns don't kill people, people do. Protect the 2nd amendment" for example.

How sad for all the families involved, such a senseless waste of life and devastation.


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Aug 4, 2019)

Bunkermagnet said:



			I would say just as bad, if not worse as we are much more compact in our population density.
Our issue with knives is bad enough, and even now we still have gang shootings mixed in. The more force you use to "defend" yourself, the more force is meted out against you.
I hope that we never routenely arm our police because of the message it gives to those ready to use or accept lethal force.
		
Click to expand...

Well, why don't you join the police then and be the one to walk towards the knife or gunman with your wooden stick.
How the hell people advocate sending others into certain serious injury or death, being unable to  protect themselves, in order to support  a half baked theory of "if we arm the police , the other side will arm themselves more"
Not only rubbish, but dangerous rubbish
If you had been on that London Bridge during the terrorist attack, looking for help, would you have wanted the police reinforcements which arrived to have been carrying guns( which they used) or wooden sticks?


----------



## Blue in Munich (Aug 4, 2019)

Swinglowandslow said:



			Well, why don't you join the police then and be the one to walk towards the knife or gunman with your wooden stick.
How the hell people advocate sending others into certain serious injury or death, being unable to  protect themselves, in order to support  a half baked theory of "if we arm the police , the other side will arm themselves more"
Not only rubbish, but dangerous rubbish
If you had been on that London Bridge during the terrorist attack, looking for help, would you have wanted the police reinforcements which arrived to have been carrying guns( which they used) or wooden sticks?
		
Click to expand...

All well and good until the first officer gets something wrong, shoots the wrong person and is consequently hung out to dry. No thanks, Iâ€™ll stick with the stick.


----------



## Imurg (Aug 4, 2019)

Thick end of 400 million guns in USA....4% of the World's population own 46% of the guns...
1.2 guns per person.....of every age.
Yes, something needs to be done but facing those numbers you've got more chance of the British agreeing on Brexit


----------



## bobmac (Aug 4, 2019)

Blue in Munich said:



			All well and good until the first officer gets something wrong, shoots the wrong person and is consequently hung out to dry. No thanks, Iâ€™ll stick with the stick.
		
Click to expand...

Or the rubber bullets, CS gas, water cannon or tazer


----------



## Kellfire (Aug 4, 2019)

And ANOTHER mass shooting on the same night. Nine dead, sixteen injured in Dayton.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Aug 4, 2019)

Swinglowandslow said:



			Well, why don't you join the police then and be the one to walk towards the knife or gunman with your wooden stick.
How the hell people advocate sending others into certain serious injury or death, being unable to  protect themselves, in order to support  a half baked theory of "if we arm the police , the other side will arm themselves more"
Not only rubbish, but dangerous rubbish
If you had been on that London Bridge during the terrorist attack, looking for help, would you have wanted the police reinforcements which arrived to have been carrying guns( which they used) or wooden sticks?
		
Click to expand...

The reinforcements were the specialist firearms teams. Last time I looked they were carrying Heckler and Kocks made of metal not mdf.
Strangely I haven't yet spoke to a firearms/diplomatic protection officer who has advocated arming every other officer as a routene.....strange that


----------



## woofers (Aug 4, 2019)

Why is it that we never hear of potential mass shootings being prevented by someone with a gun ? Or the perpetrator of a mass shooting being wounded or killed by someone on the site with a gun ?
If the statistics are correct then there must be a good percentage of the population carrying guns already, surely one of them would be on site and be able to prevent or lessen the consequences of these â€œmadmenâ€ - isnâ€™t this what the NRA and various political figures are advocating?


----------



## stefanovic (Aug 4, 2019)

It's sad but it doesn't shock me any more. 
Guns are part of American culture.
Guns + type of Christianity in US spells disaster.


----------



## Dan2501 (Aug 4, 2019)

Truly dreadful stuff. Seems everyone can see that something drastic needs to be done, apart from the Americans. Too engrained in the culture and in the politics for anything to majorly change, more thoughts and prayers and move on. Rinse and repeat.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Aug 4, 2019)

Sadly the US are too enshrined in their right to bear arms. Add in the influence the NRA has and nothing will change and sadly these shootings will continue.


----------



## Duckster (Aug 4, 2019)

Didnâ€™t Australia have a mass shooting that made the government turn round and ban guns? None since then


----------



## bobmac (Aug 5, 2019)

Duckster said:



			Didnâ€™t Australia have a mass shooting that made the government turn round and ban guns? None since then
		
Click to expand...

Yes, the  Port Arthur massacre 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-35048251 

But Americans know all about it but still they want their guns.
I think their only hope is if a friend or family member of a senator or similar gets murdered, then maybe something might happen.


----------



## larmen (Aug 5, 2019)

I think that in theory the mass shootings could be stopped.

Granted, die hard criminals will get weapons. But they do so in the UK as well.

However, these shootings seem to be by opportunist. In the UK these angry people do not have easy access to guns and write hate messages on forums and play GTA or other shooter games. In the US they mail order guns and body armour. If you stop them you stop most of the shootings.

If you take away the freely available guns, will the gangs the take over the country because the citizens are unarmed? Thatâ€™s what the NRA would be saying then, I guess.


----------



## Dan2501 (Aug 5, 2019)

It's not even taking away all of the guns, just take away the access to semi-automatic assault rifles. Introduce proper licensing, vetting and gun control. Don't impeach on their constitutional rights by stopping them from having guns completely, but make it illegal to own an assault rifle without proper licensing. You do not need a gun like that for self defence.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Aug 5, 2019)

Dan2501 said:



			It's not even taking away all of the guns, just take away the access to semi-automatic assault rifles. Introduce proper licensing, vetting and gun control. Don't impeach on their constitutional rights by stopping them from having guns completely, but make it illegal to own an assault rifle without proper licensing. You do not need a gun like that for self defence.
		
Click to expand...

But sadly as the NRA seems to have its fingers in a lot of political pies nationally and at state level it's never going to happen and anything that would weaken their ability to be an influencer would be rejected. I totally agree why is there a need for assault weapons as a form of self-defence in what Trump calls " a safe secure society".


----------



## IanM (Aug 5, 2019)

We don't get their obsession with guns, just like they don't get our dislike of them.... 

But the news outlets  have started the NLP for this shocking new phenomenon!


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Aug 5, 2019)

Blue in Munich said:



			All well and good until the first officer gets something wrong, shoots the wrong person and is consequently hung out to dry. No thanks, Iâ€™ll stick with the stick.
		
Click to expand...

If I Understand your last sentence correctly then I wish you a safe career, with little need for your stick.
However, the possibility for the mistakes you fear does not these days outweigh the need for the ability of the police to protect the innocent public.
This is not Dixon of Dock Green Britain.
The Times today reports that the Ohio shooting was ended less than a minute after it started. Thanks to the presence of a police officer who shot the offender dead. 
Had he been less than armed, God knows what numbers would have died.
Less than a minute!..and look at the carnage.
I don't know what the response time is in your area to call out Firearms officers, but in the cities outside London, it will be approaching 20 minutes., certainly more in the Shires..
As Abraham Lincoln said, "As our case is new, so we must think anew"
And , BTW, most European countries' Police are armed, and there aren't many citizens complaining over there . The risks are considered acceptable


----------



## IainP (May 24, 2022)

So sad to resurrect this thread.
Awful events in Buffalo earlier this month, and today at a school of youngsters.
Humans are pretty rubbish.


----------



## SteveW86 (May 25, 2022)

I just don’t understand how anyone can go into a primary school and kill a group of kids.

Another stain on the world we live in.


----------



## Pathetic Shark (May 25, 2022)

Yet nothing will change.  Some of the right-wing Republican supporters I know are already posting comments about having more guns and armed police at all schools.


----------



## D-S (May 25, 2022)

Sadly this is the reason that things won't change

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1529289329671081984


----------



## D-S (May 25, 2022)

Imagine living in a society where this is an ok conversation to have with your child;-

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1529217711565250560


----------



## clubchamp98 (May 25, 2022)

The only person that needs a machine assault rifle is a soldier.
Until that changes nothing will.
You can’t buy a drink in the US until your 21.
But you can have a killing machine at 18.
Mass demos have failed and the NRA wield to much power.
80% of citizens want change according to ITV .
Until they change how politics is funded this will never change.
sad day for the families of all those kids and teachers but totally predictable it won’t be the last.


----------



## fundy (May 25, 2022)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1529246789290934272

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1529215874808197120


----------



## Bdill93 (May 25, 2022)

Cannot comprehend what the hell possesses someone to take an AR into a school and open fire on helpless children.

Cowardly behavior.

I also just dont understand Americans need for guns.. I accept some level of firearm may be needed for farmers etc and indeed police as they need the protection if the average joe could be carrying a weapon - but thats it. Why does anyone need an Assault rifle?


----------



## Swango1980 (May 25, 2022)

Would be interesting if, for all those parents who want tighter gun control, decided to take their kids out of school on mass, for their own safety. Would such a mass movement force the governments hand?

Sometimes feels to me that every school needs airport type security.


----------



## bobmac (May 25, 2022)

Jacinda Ardern had the right idea
''We don't want to take all your guns, just the ones that are designed to kill people on mass''.
The NRA are the problem. 
From above....
NRA Contributions to GOP Senators
Mitt Romney (UT) $13,647,676 
Richard Burr (NC) $6,987,380 
Roy Blunt (MO) $4,555,722 
Thom Tillis (NC) $4,421,333 
Cory Gardner (CO) $3,939,199 
Marco Rubio (FL)$3,303,355 
Joni Ernst (IA) $3,124,773 
Rob Portman (OH) $3,063,327

Why can't the US billionaires get together and outbid the NRA donations to the politicians?
Pay the politicians more to stop/limit the sale of guns, money talks.


----------



## road2ruin (May 25, 2022)

You can just cut and paste all of the comments from the US (and worldwide) commentators and save them for the next shooting that is almost certainly around the corner. The American's are so set on upholding the 2nd amendment that the lives of school children are a price worth paying. Sad state of affairs.


----------



## Bdill93 (May 25, 2022)

road2ruin said:



			You can just cut and paste all of the comments from the US (and worldwide) commentators and save them for the next shooting that is almost certainly around the corner. *The American's are so set on upholding the 2nd amendment that the lives of school children are a price worth paying*. Sad state of affairs.
		
Click to expand...

Ive just read that school shootings now account for more child deaths than car accidents in America...

But there isnt a problem!


----------



## road2ruin (May 25, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			Ive just read that school shootings now account for more child deaths than car accidents in America...

But there isnt a problem!
		
Click to expand...

Yep, sounds about right. Any (civilized) country that forces their school children to routinely rehearse what to do if a gunman enters their classroom really needs to take a look at themselves.


----------



## IanM (May 25, 2022)

Nothing changes unless something changes.

Biden said "When are we going to stand up against the gun lobby?"

Someone needs to remind him of his current occupation.  Not withstanding the make up of the Senate and Congress,  he needs to take a stronger stand. Oratory after a massacre is pointless.


----------



## Swango1980 (May 25, 2022)

IanM said:



			Nothing changes unless something changes.

*Biden said "When are we going to stand up against the gun lobby?"*

Someone needs to remind him of his current occupation.  Not withstanding the make up of the Senate and Congress,  he needs to take a stronger stand. Oratory after a massacre is pointless.
		
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure Biden is fully aware of the problem. I think his words were directed towards the American public and the supporters of the gun lobby. A rhetorical question, to try and make Americans question their own values and attitudes. I think if it was that easy for any American president to change gun laws in the US, it would have been done long ago? Surely there has been one president out there that has wanted change, and been in no worse position than Biden?

Question needs to be asked, what would happen if Biden DID implement changes (if that were even possible)? How would Americans react, especially those that love their guns? Would it cause unrest on the streets? Would the Democrats lose support? Would the next President reverse everything Biden changed? 

It is difficult to see how things can change, unless there is overwhelming support by the American people. Every time I see debates on it, it seems pretty divided. I always struggle to understand why this is the case. Can you imagine our government were to suddenly propose a law where we could all own guns, and make them widely available to the public. Personally, I would be shocked and would be straight down to the polling office to ensure that government is booted out of power.


----------



## road2ruin (May 25, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			It is difficult to see how things can change, *unless there is overwhelming support by the American people*. Every time I see debates on it, it seems pretty divided. I always struggle to understand why this is the case. Can you imagine our government were to suddenly propose a law where we could all own guns, and make them widely available to the public. Personally, I would be shocked and would be straight down to the polling office to ensure that government is booted out of power.
		
Click to expand...

I think this is probably the crux of it, I don't really see it as a political problem as much as a societal one. There have been 27 school shootings this year alone.....that's in just 5 months and yet that doesn't appear to be enough to get anything changed. It needs the people to do it yet as you point out, there seem to be just as many people who are keen to keep their guns as there are those who want to see them banned. 

What makes me laugh are all the comments saying that if guns were made illegal how would people protect their children from a school shooting if members of the public weren't armed yet how often have we read the headline "School shooter shot before they massacre a load of children". It's just never happened so having the general population armed just doesn't do anything to protect anyone in the main. I think the stat is that you're generally more likely to be shot by your own gun than you are by someone else.


----------



## Wabinez (May 25, 2022)

Think I saw something saying it was the 144th day in 2022…..and the 212th mass shooting.

just wrong on so many levels


----------



## Swango1980 (May 25, 2022)

Wabinez said:



			Think I saw something saying it was the 144th day in 2022…..and the 212th mass shooting.

just wrong on so many levels
		
Click to expand...

Yeah, the Senator who spoke out against it yesterday suggested there are more mass shootings in the US than there are days in the year. But, on the flip side, I am sure there are thousands of bad guys killed every year by gun wielding citizens. Well, that is if one believes it is safer to have guns than not have them.


----------



## Don Barzini (May 25, 2022)

Another day, another mass shooting in the good old US of A. The pro gun lobby will helpfully offer their "thoughts and prayers" to the families of the victims, but will continue to believe that regular mass shootings of children are a price worth paying for their "right to bear arms."

This is of course a country that went crazy when Janet Jackson flashed a nipple on TV a few years back and where it's illegal to sell Kinder Surprise Eggs but perfectly legal to sell semi-automatic guns. 

It appears that no tragedy is big enough to change things. 



Bdill93 said:



			Cannot comprehend what the hell possesses someone to take an AR into a school and open fire on helpless children.
		
Click to expand...

Mental illness surely? The difference is that in most countries, the worst that someone with mental illness can do is threaten to jump off a bridge over the motorway and hold up the traffic for a few hours. In America, they can spray bullets into a crowd of children.


----------



## Rooter (May 25, 2022)

I just can't get my head around it, and I have 3 nieces and nephews at elementary school in California. This might (read hope) be the straw that sees the family return to the UK. For all the positives of living in the US, the gun laws/culture in the US scares the bejeebus out of me.


----------



## GB72 (May 25, 2022)

The power of lobbiests in the US is scary. The NRA, Tobacco, Pharmaceuticals all paying to push through policies that are inherently worse for the population as a whole. Sadly nothing will change without wholsale reforms.


----------



## Oddsocks (May 25, 2022)

D-S said:



			Imagine living in a society where this is an ok conversation to have with your child;-

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1529217711565250560

Click to expand...

That’s a sad conversation to have and arguably people in the uk are already having this with knife crime, it won’t be long before this spreads to guns


----------



## Swango1980 (May 25, 2022)

Oddsocks said:



			That’s a sad conversation to have and arguably people in the uk are already having this with knife crime,* it won’t be long before this spreads to guns*

Click to expand...

I'm guessing there may be a few obstacles in the UK for us to have the same issue with guns. For obvious reasons, it isn't too hard for someone to get their hands on a knife. Little more difficult to get a gun in the UK.


----------



## Oddsocks (May 25, 2022)

@Swango1980  - it’s harder without a doubt but based on headlines and local news pop ups via media platforms it’s definitely getting easier.


----------



## Robster59 (May 25, 2022)

It's horrible, it's tragic, and something should be done about it.  But sadly, it won't.  It's been discussed on here before, but the problem is that guns are so entrenched in the American psyche that they will never disappear.  Obama tried to do it and couldn't succeed.  For those in the gun lobby, their only answer is "more guns".  They are more concerned about protecting the Second Amendment than about protecting peoples lives.  There is no reason for anybody to own AR15 style rifles, but they continue to do so.  
I have family in Texas who all own guns.  They can buy their bullets in Walmart.  They are too freely available, and those who have their own agenda block all efforts to put on any restrictions.  I am not sure if there will ever be an "enough is enough" situation in the USA.  The whole thing is just a mess.  
The sad thing that in other "civilised" countries where this happened, legislation was then put in place.  I actually think many Americans are now resigned to it.  
Countries That Have Banned Assault-Style Firearms


----------



## sweaty sock (May 25, 2022)

Absolute tragedy and thoughts go out to all those effected.  

And makes me very proud of the UK reaction to the Dunblane tragedy.


----------



## stefanovic (May 26, 2022)

Since Dunblane there have been a further 9 tragedies.

List of massacres in Great Britain - Wikipedia

Last one only 9 months ago.

Staggering list of casualties at Merthyr, Birmingham, London, Manchester.


----------



## IainP (May 26, 2022)

Know he can be an irritation to some, but interesting move from Corden  - guess he's communicated he's leaving


----------



## D-S (May 26, 2022)

stefanovic said:



			Since Dunblane there have been a further 9 tragedies.

List of massacres in Great Britain - Wikipedia

Last one only 9 months ago.

Staggering list of casualties at Merthyr, Birmingham, London, Manchester.
		
Click to expand...

Tragedy or terror attack appears to be a better description than ‘massacre’ for the appalling murder of 3 people.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 26, 2022)

stefanovic said:



			Since Dunblane there have been a further 9 tragedies.

List of massacres in Great Britain - Wikipedia

Last one only 9 months ago.

Staggering list of casualties at Merthyr, Birmingham, London, Manchester.
		
Click to expand...

What point are you trying to prove ? 

Can you confirm how many of them are school shootings by a mad man or terrorist attacks


----------



## stefanovic (May 26, 2022)

I remember Dunblane and Hungerford very well.
We are quick to pass judgement elsewhere, especially the USA.
Then it helps us forget our own problems.

We need to understand not just the how but the why.
The underlying insanity of religion, for example, has claimed the lives of millions.
As just one instance, how could up to 100 million lives have been lost in China (Taiping revolt) over some religious interpretation?
You have to get to the bottom of it all, so it's not all about guns.


----------



## SyR (May 26, 2022)

4% of UK homicides are gun related, 79% of the USA's homicides are gun related...yeah not all about guns.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41488081


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 26, 2022)

stefanovic said:



			I remember Dunblane and Hungerford very well.
We are quick to pass judgement elsewhere, especially the USA.
Then it helps us forget our own problems.

We need to understand not just the how but the why.
The underlying insanity of religion, for example, has claimed the lives of millions.
As just one instance, how could up to 100 million lives have been lost in China (Taiping revolt) over some religious interpretation?
You have to get to the bottom of it all, so it's not all about guns.
		
Click to expand...

What problems do the UK have in regards gun control ? 

Yes we have Hungerford and Dunblane - two incidents over 30 plus years 

The USA have had how many this year alone 

So yes it is ok to point fingers at the fact in the US when you’re 18 you can walk into a shop buy a gun , the next day buy a load of ammo and then go on a killing spree


----------



## JamesR (May 26, 2022)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1529641316275068929


----------



## road2ruin (May 26, 2022)

stefanovic said:



			I remember Dunblane and Hungerford very well.
We are quick to pass judgement elsewhere, especially the USA.
Then it helps us forget our own problems.

We need to understand not just the how but the why.
The underlying insanity of religion, for example, has claimed the lives of millions.
As just one instance, how could up to 100 million lives have been lost in China (Taiping revolt) over some religious interpretation?
You have to get to the bottom of it all, so it's not all about guns.
		
Click to expand...

The US has had 27 school shootings this year alone and done nothing about gun control. I think that's plenty reason to pass judgement.


----------



## JamesR (May 26, 2022)

road2ruin said:



			The US has had 27 school shootings this year alone and done nothing about gun control. I think that's plenty reason to pass judgement.
		
Click to expand...

That's more than 1 per week 

But, apparently, their problems have nothing on ours


----------



## Beezerk (May 26, 2022)

JamesR said:



			That's more than 1 per week 

But, apparently, their problems have nothing on ours 

Click to expand...

It’s the person that kills, not the gun 🙈


----------



## D-S (May 26, 2022)

Beezerk said:



			It’s the person that kills, not the gun 🙈
		
Click to expand...

As Rob Delaney memorably said:-

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/226393467293671424


----------



## Swango1980 (May 26, 2022)

stefanovic said:



			I remember Dunblane and Hungerford very well.
We are quick to pass judgement elsewhere, especially the USA.
Then it helps us forget our own problems.

We need to understand not just the how but the why.
The underlying insanity of religion, for example, has claimed the lives of millions.
As just one instance, how could up to 100 million lives have been lost in China (Taiping revolt) over some religious interpretation?
You have to get to the bottom of it all, so it's not all about guns.
		
Click to expand...

You need to get off your high horse, and understand the context of the point that was made regarding Dunblane. At no point did anyone mention that we live in some sort of Utopia in the UK. Of course there are a million of one problems in the world outside mass shootings.

However, this is a thread about mass shootings. Now, since Dunblane, compare the number of mass shootings that have occurred in the UK and then compare that to the USA. You can even scale the numbers to deal with the population size difference to both countries. Once you do that, perhaps it might show that USA has a bigger problem with mass shootings than the UK.


----------



## Golfmmad (May 26, 2022)

IainP said:



			Know he can be an irritation to some, but interesting move from Corden  - guess he's communicated he's leaving







Click to expand...

Very well said from James Corden, spoken from his heart through and through.
I, and expect many people agree with every single word.


----------



## stefanovic (May 26, 2022)

You have to point the finger at the people who make the laws and they are very likely to be influenced by outside political and religious views.

It seems incredible to us that US presidents have taken advice from astrologers and evangelists.
It seems absurd that many Americans feel the need to carry guns but it's part of their constitution and culture.
A gun is a present that may be given on a teenager's 18th birthday, so you have to blame the parents as well.


----------



## road2ruin (May 26, 2022)

stefanovic said:



			You have to point the finger at the people who make the laws and they are very likely to be influenced by outside political and religious views.

It seems incredible to us that US presidents have taken advice from astrologers and evangelists.
It seems absurd that many Americans feel the need to carry guns but it's part of their constitution and culture.
A gun is a present that may be given on a teenager's 18th birthday, so you have to blame the parents as well.
		
Click to expand...

I must admit I am not sure what point you are trying to make but that might just be me. 

I would personally point fingers at both the law makers but also the huge number of American's who value the freedom to carry arms above the lives of their children. 

The argument at the moment is that they would rather keep archaic parts of their constitution and culture than save the lives of 6, 7 and 8 year old children. This seems very odd as to why any supposedly civilised country would value a gun over a child's life. Also, how often has a gun carrying member of the public stopped a school shooting? I can't think of any. 

Anyway, here's a controversial idea for the Americans.....

Have a public vote as to whether the gun laws should be tightened. For those who vote yes they have the option of sending their children to a school with a decent amount of armed security based there. Those who vote no send their children to a standard school with no protection. Anyone keen to be school shooter is directed to the latter schools as they're a softer target. Maybe a few shootings in these schools would change some minds. That said it hasn't over the last 27 shootings this year so it probably wouldn't.


----------



## Robster59 (May 26, 2022)

Not trying to trivialise a very serious subject, but this does seem to be the mindset of far too many Americans.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 26, 2022)

stefanovic said:



			You have to point the finger at the people who make the laws and they are very likely to be influenced by outside political and religious views.

It seems incredible to us that US presidents have taken advice from astrologers and evangelists.
It seems absurd that many Americans feel the need to carry guns but it's part of their constitution and culture.
A gun is a present that may be given on a teenager's 18th birthday, so you have to blame the parents as well.
		
Click to expand...

What exactly is the point you are making ? 

Is there a point or just on a stir


----------



## stefanovic (May 26, 2022)

We are told by the NRA that the answer to gun crime in the US is more guns including armed guards in every school.

"The Memorial Day weekend event is being billed by the National Rifle Association as a showcase of more than 14 acres of “the latest guns and gear,” with a “powerhouse lineup of political speakers.” On his social media platform, Truth Social, Trump confirmed on Wednesday he will appear."

Chilling.


----------



## clubchamp98 (May 26, 2022)

If reports on the news that the Police took 90 mins to go into the school is correct.
They need to change this policy.
Parents asking for vests and guns to enter themselves.
That’s shocking, it’s their job to protect and serve.


----------



## Blue in Munich (May 26, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			If reports on the news that the Police took 90 mins to go into the school is correct.
They need to change this policy.
Parents asking for vests and guns to enter themselves.
That’s shocking, it’s their job to protect and serve.
		
Click to expand...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61600914

He said officers entered the school* four minutes* after the gunman.
"They [didn't] make entry immediately because of the gunfire they were receiving," Mr Escalon told reporters.
*But an hour lapsed before the gunman was killed in a shootout after US Border Patrol tactical teams arrived*.


----------



## RRidges (May 26, 2022)

I'm never quite sure whether I'm more shocked seeing cops with guns in US (I'm working in Missouri, which is one of the worst states for gun deaths), London where I have a base, or Australa which is home.
As for repealing the 2nd Amendment, that would be pointless. That Genie has been out of the bottle for a long time - and the gun lobby is simply too powerful anyway. Gun ranges are about as popular as Golf ranges!


----------



## clubchamp98 (May 27, 2022)

Blue in Munich said:



https://www.bbc.co.wasuk/news/world-us-canada-61600914

He said officers entered the school* four minutes* after the gunman.
"They [didn't] make entry immediately because of the gunfire they were receiving," Mr Escalon told reporters.
*But an hour lapsed before the gunman was killed in a shootout after US Border Patrol tactical teams arrived*.
		
Click to expand...

Yes I thought they would not wait that long.
I take what I hear on the news with a pinch of salt now.
Thanks for clearing that up


----------



## greenone (May 27, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			If reports on the news that the Police took 90 mins to go into the school is correct.
They need to change this policy.
Parents asking for vests and guns to enter themselves.
That’s shocking, it’s their job to protect and serve.
		
Click to expand...

There is a reason why they have SWAT teams, your average American cop is not going to have the training, weapons, tactics or backup to enter a large building and deal with a shooter.


----------



## Mudball (May 27, 2022)

Not sure if US politics is allowed here > 

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1529837826589589504


----------



## Blue in Munich (May 27, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			Yes I thought they would not wait that long.
I take what I hear on the news with a pinch of salt now.
Thanks for clearing that up
		
Click to expand...

I’m personally aware that officers who are not firearms trained are instructed to go to an RVP away from the scene to await further instructions until the specialist units have arrived. 

That did of course rely on you hearing the message sending you to the RVP rather than responding to the scene…


----------



## Tashyboy (May 27, 2022)

I mentioned to Missis T this morning when I dropped the grandsproggs off at primary school. We drop them off knowing they will be safe, unlike the USA alla this

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...nited_States&usg=AOvVaw2yka4Tk83ba2sg4gsPrNs-

shocking


----------



## stefanovic (May 27, 2022)

Stats suggest that school shootings in the US are over 50 times more common than elsewhere in the world.
Britain has had just the one.
What is awkward about this is the biological concept of the IN group and the OUT group.
Both consider themselves to be the good guys and that is either the NRA or those proposing strict controls.


----------



## JamesR (May 27, 2022)

stefanovic said:



			Stats suggest that *school shootings in the US are over 50 times more common than elsewhere in the world*.
Britain has had just the one.
What is awkward about this is the biological concept of the IN group and the OUT group.
Both consider themselves to be the good guys and that is either the NRA or those proposing strict controls.
		
Click to expand...

I thought you said we were worse than the Septics


----------



## clubchamp98 (May 27, 2022)

Blue in Munich said:



			I’m personally aware that officers who are not firearms trained are instructed to go to an RVP away from the scene to await further instructions until the specialist units have arrived.

That did of course rely on you hearing the message sending you to the RVP rather than responding to the scene…
		
Click to expand...

I would have thought they are all firearms trained as they all carry guns!
At the very least they would contain a shooter and not let him roam around the school.
It might be tactical to do this but can understand the parents not understanding why they are doing it.
How many kids can he kill while waiting for the swat team?

But it’s totally down to the lunatic doing the shooting.
But the ease of getting an AR needs addressing.


----------



## clubchamp98 (May 27, 2022)

greenone said:



			There is a reason why they have SWAT teams, your average American cop is not going to have the training, weapons, tactics or backup to enter a large building and deal with a shooter.
		
Click to expand...

Considering how often this happens I would be asking “ why they  have not had the training”
What’s the difference between a shooter in a liquor store and one in a school ?
But they want teachers to have guns in their desk to take him on.


----------



## Fade and Die (May 27, 2022)

Mudball said:



			Not sure if US politics is allowed here >

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1529837826589589504

Click to expand...

It’s all the fault of Transgender, immigrants and the victims parents apparently…….😱

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news...alde-shooting-transsexuals-immigrants-parents


----------



## Robster59 (May 27, 2022)

Fade and Die said:



			It’s all the fault of Transgender, immigrants and the victims parents apparently…….😱

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news...alde-shooting-transsexuals-immigrants-parents

Click to expand...

Until something is done to silence the gun lobby, or at least reduce it from the massive influence it has in the USA, nothing will change.


----------



## Mudball (May 27, 2022)

Robster59 said:



			Until something is done to silence the gun lobby, or at least reduce it from the massive influence it has in the USA, nothing will change.
		
Click to expand...

Here comes another propaganda peddler who wants to take your 2A rights…. Get the pitchforks


----------



## Blue in Munich (May 27, 2022)

Blue in Munich said:



			I’m personally aware that officers who are not firearms trained are instructed to go to an RVP away from the scene to await further instructions until the specialist units have arrived.

That did of course rely on you hearing the message sending you to the RVP rather than responding to the scene…
		
Click to expand...




clubchamp98 said:



			I would have thought they are all firearms trained as they all carry guns!
At the very least they would contain a shooter and not let him roam around the school.
It might be tactical to do this but can understand the parents not understanding why they are doing it.
How many kids can he kill while waiting for the swat team?

But it’s totally down to the lunatic doing the shooting.
But the ease of getting an AR needs addressing.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, I wasn't clear, I meant over here.  Knowing that we do that over here, it wouldn't surprise me that they would hold position rather than go in; a sidearm versus an AR isn't a fair fight.


----------



## clubchamp98 (May 27, 2022)

Blue in Munich said:



			Sorry, I wasn't clear, I meant over here.  Knowing that we do that over here, it wouldn't surprise me that they would hold position rather than go in; a sidearm versus an AR isn't a fair fight.
		
Click to expand...

The police stopping the parents are well armed with rifles strapped to their chests.
Not trying to blame anyone I am just struggling to see the logic of not going in asap.
I appreciate your not a US Cop.
But you have more knowledge of this than most of us.


----------



## Swango1980 (May 27, 2022)

I don't understand. As the gun supporters like to have us believe, if more citizens have guns, then they will shoot the bad guys. Problem solved.

However, it clearly took ages for anyone to confront the gunman in this case. Surely a citizen somewhere had a gun, and they could have gone in with 10, 20, 30 minutes or so? Not only that, it now seems even the police didn't go in.

Of course, the answer is obvious. I would never expect any citizen to put themselves in that situation when a crazy person is only to happy to kill them. And even the police will feel the same, unless they are a highly trained armed unit.

So, can we please use this as a prime example that good people with guns are not the answer in stopping bad guys with guns, especially ones with assault rifles?


----------



## clubchamp98 (May 27, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			I don't understand. As the gun supporters like to have us believe, if more citizens have guns, then they will shoot the bad guys. Problem solved.

However, it clearly took ages for anyone to confront the gunman in this case. Surely a citizen somewhere had a gun, and they could have gone in with 10, 20, 30 minutes or so? Not only that, it now seems even the police didn't go in.

Of course, the answer is obvious. I would never expect any citizen to put themselves in that situation when a crazy person is only to happy to kill them. And even the police will feel the same, unless they are a highly trained armed unit.

So, can we please use this as a prime example that good people with guns are not the answer in stopping bad guys with guns, especially ones with assault rifles?
		
Click to expand...

Spot on.
We only have to convince the NRA now
How insulting to have their conference today. Couldn’t make it up.


----------



## Blue in Munich (May 27, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			The police stopping the parents are well armed with rifles strapped to their chests.
Not trying to blame anyone I am just struggling to see the logic of not going in asap.
I appreciate your not a US Cop.
But you have more knowledge of this than most of us.
		
Click to expand...

I've not seen the footage of the police stopping the parents, but the first thing that comes to mind there is that they are trying to save the parents from themselves; in situations like that, those who are emotionally invested don't necessarily make the wisest decisions, and the police would get royally criticised afterwards if a few parents went in & got killed.  I'd also wonder if in having to keep the parents out, the parents effectively made the decision not to go in for the police; if I was a trained professional going in to take on the gunman, the last thing I'd want would to be the meat in the sandwich between the gunman and the well-intentioned amateurs who wouldn't keep out.    Been in a few like that without the firearms and they were bad enough.


----------



## Swinglowandslow (May 27, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			I don't understand. As the gun supporters like to have us believe, if more citizens have guns, then they will shoot the bad guys. Problem solved.

However, it clearly took ages for anyone to confront the gunman in this case. Surely a citizen somewhere had a gun, and they could have gone in with 10, 20, 30 minutes or so? Not only that, it now seems even the police didn't go in.

Of course, the answer is obvious. I would never expect any citizen to put themselves in that situation when a crazy person is only to happy to kill them. And even the police will feel the same, unless they are a highly trained armed unit.

So, can we please use this as a prime example that good people with guns are not the answer in stopping bad guys with guns, especially ones with assault rifles?
		
Click to expand...

Which begs a couple of questions- if you are correct.
1. Bad guys get guns illegally, regardless of whatever law the Country has in controlling them - so , people are at the whim of the bad guys, cos nobody can do anything about them?
2. THe USA gun laws are in dire need of amendment. Assault rifles should be banned -period. Applications for firearms, - side arms- need to show proper cause and strict control of storing, access etc. But, do you stop the decent guys having a gun in the house?  Back to the bad guys at 1. above..?
He comes in your house with a gun- you, being a good guy is not allowed to have one- what do you do? 
That's a fair question to put to those who wish to ban all good citizens from owning any sort of gun.
As with s lot of questions, too much polarising goes on. Each side thinks the other is totally wrong, and until that changes there won't be any progress.

Last point- there are more guns in US than there are people , apparently.
How high are the chances of bad guys resorting to using guns?


----------



## Pants (May 27, 2022)

Apparently Trump will be/is giving a speech at the NRA meeting in Houston supporting 2nd Ammendment.  Some reports are saying that everyone will be screened and no-one will be allowed in with a firearm, knife, spray, tazer etc.  You couldn't make it up.


----------



## clubchamp98 (May 27, 2022)

Swinglowandslow said:



			Which begs a couple of questions- if you are correct.
1. Bad guys get guns illegally, regardless of whatever law the Country has in controlling them - so , people are at the whim of the bad guys, cos nobody can do anything about them?
2. THe USA gun laws are in dire need of amendment. Assault rifles should be banned -period. Applications for firearms, - side arms- need to show proper cause and strict control of storing, access etc. But, do you stop the decent guys having a gun in the house?  Back to the bad guys at 1. above..?
He comes in your house with a gun- you, being a good guy is not allowed to have one- what do you do?
That's a fair question to put to those who wish to ban all good citizens from owning any sort of gun.
As with s lot of questions, too much polarising goes on. Each side thinks the other is totally wrong, and until that changes there won't be any progress.

Last point- there are more guns in US than there are people , apparently.
How high are the chances of bad guys resorting to using guns?
		
Click to expand...

The 2nd amendment give all Americans the right to bear arms.
But your spot on that dosnt mean they can have assault rifles.
The biggest excuse given is to defend your self, but an AR is a weapon of assault not a defensive one
It would go a long way to ban the manufacture / ownership and sale of these mass killing machines.


----------



## clubchamp98 (May 27, 2022)

Blue in Munich said:



			I've not seen the footage of the police stopping the parents, but the first thing that comes to mind there is that they are trying to save the parents from themselves; in situations like that, those who are emotionally invested don't necessarily make the wisest decisions, and the police would get royally criticised afterwards if a few parents went in & got killed.  I'd also wonder if in having to keep the parents out, the parents effectively made the decision not to go in for the police; if I was a trained professional going in to take on the gunman, the last thing I'd want would to be the meat in the sandwich between the gunman and the well-intentioned amateurs who wouldn't keep out.    Been in a few like that without the firearms and they were bad enough.
		
Click to expand...

Yes I agree. You don’t want a bunch of parents getting killed as well.
But the parents need to know the Police are taking action to stop the shooter.
Sadly that does not seem what happened here ,they delayed to long with a catastrophic outcome.
The head of safety admitted they got it wrong 
Said on the news that “he just walked through the door.”
If that’s true all the security in the world won’t help if you leave the door open.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (May 27, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



*The 2nd amendment give all Americans the right to bear arms.*
But your spot on that dosnt mean they can have assault rifles.
The biggest excuse given is to defend your self, but an AR is a weapon of assault not a defensive one
It would go a long way to ban the manufacture / ownership and sale of these mass killing machines.
		
Click to expand...

Bear arms for the purpose of partaking in a well regulated Militia.

How the current situation can be justified against that intent stretches credibility so far that credibility is broke. That is where many little changes introduced and allowed over many years have an eventual cumulative effect way beyond the original intention.  But with 350m weapons in public possession things are way past logical debate over the meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## clubchamp98 (May 27, 2022)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Bear arms for the purpose of partaking in a well regulated Militia.

How the current situation can be justified against that intent stretches credibility so far that credibility is broke. That is where many little changes introduced and allowed over many years have an eventual cumulative effect way beyond the original intention.  But with 350m weapons in public possession things are way past logical debate over the meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment.
		
Click to expand...

Spot on.
But how many laws do we have still on the book, from when Dick Turpin was robbing people.
Money justifies a lot sadly.


----------



## RRidges (May 28, 2022)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Bear arms for the purpose of partaking in a well regulated Militia.

How the current situation can be justified against that intent stretches credibility so far that credibility is broke. That is where many little changes introduced and allowed over many years have an eventual cumulative effect way beyond the original intention.  But with 350m weapons in public possession things are way past logical debate over the meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment.
		
Click to expand...

That's, unforunately, neither how it's worded, nor, mainly, how courts have ruled.
See this link for info https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment


----------



## Lord Tyrion (May 28, 2022)

Swinglowandslow said:



			Which begs a couple of questions- if you are correct.
1. Bad guys get guns illegally, regardless of whatever law the Country has in controlling them - so , people are at the whim of the bad guys, cos nobody can do anything about them?
2. THe USA gun laws are in dire need of amendment. Assault rifles should be banned -period. Applications for firearms, - side arms- need to show proper cause and strict control of storing, access etc. But, do you stop the decent guys having a gun in the house?  Back to the bad guys at 1. above..?
He comes in your house with a gun- you, being a good guy is not allowed to have one- what do you do?
That's a fair question to put to those who wish to ban all good citizens from owning any sort of gun.
As with s lot of questions, too much polarising goes on. Each side thinks the other is totally wrong, and until that changes there won't be any progress.

Last point- there are more guns in US than there are people , apparently.
How high are the chances of bad guys resorting to using guns?
		
Click to expand...

The bad guys have guns concept is an interesting one but it doesn't stand up to too much scrutiny. If all bad guys have them then why do we and other countries not have more shootings? Everything is loaded in their favour isn't it?

Someone comes into your house with a gun in the UK, let them have whatever possessions you have, they can be replaced. Enter a house with a gun in the US and someone might die, maybe the homeowner. How is that better? They need to stop thinking that guns protect them. They don't, they put them in greater risk.

How many people who aren't career bad guys would be prevented from spontaneous shootings by better regulations? The person who has been sacked, the teenager dropped by his high school football coach etc. Everyone else kicks a box, swears under their breath. Americans on the edge go on a spree. 

I don't expect anything to change, sadly, but 'every journey starts with a first step ' 😁


----------



## Mudball (May 28, 2022)

If you believe in something, then you will find a way to justify it… this was the case 25 years ago too, but now social media gives you the soapbox to amplify it. Does not matter if it is leave, stay, Covid, party, guns, Russia ….  


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1530058922777661440


----------



## Ethan (May 28, 2022)

I grew up in NI in the Troubles. Seeing soldiers and police with guns was normal, and hearing bombs and shootings was pretty common. I remember a school playground battle with rubber bullets brought by one kid after he found them in town after a previous nights battle. I have been to the US many many times, although mostly to relatively civilised parts, so have seen many cops, security guards and others with weapons. 

It should be obvious that fewer guns means fewer shootings. Gun checks and mental health surveillance is laughable in a system so fragmented as the US. Most average people can't get basic healthcare let alone be monitored for developing mental health problems when they go postal. And the idea that morons like Trump perpetuate that the cure for a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun is nauseating.

Active shooter drills at school fills me with horror. The NRA and hard core federalists who read The Constitution as a sacred text are willing to see kids killed as the acceptable price for their way of life. Simple as that. Many senators are bought and paid for, so nothing will ever happen to revoke the second amendment.


----------



## stefanovic (May 28, 2022)

There is always a price to be paid, and in the case of the USA having the most freedoms it's gun ownership.
They have dug quite a hole for themselves from which there is no escape unless they are prepared to surrender their freedoms.


----------



## Ethan (May 28, 2022)

stefanovic said:



			There is always a price to be paid, and in the case of the USA having the most freedoms it's gun ownership.
They have dug quite a hole for themselves from which there is no escape unless they are prepared to surrender their freedoms.
		
Click to expand...

I don't agree with that proposition. I think the freedom to go to school and not get shot is quite important, and should be more important than the freedom to use a lethal military grade weapon for fun. None of these guys is part of a well organised militia defending their country from an oppressive Government. 

And the US really doesn't have the most freedoms.


----------



## bobmac (May 28, 2022)

_''In the 2008 landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the Second Amendment includes the right of individuals to *bear arms for self-defense.''*_

_https://www.britannica.com/topic/Second-Amendment_


----------



## Blue in Munich (May 28, 2022)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61615236

Doubtless the NRA will be jumping on this to justify their position.


----------



## Ethan (May 28, 2022)

Blue in Munich said:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61615236

Doubtless the NRA will be jumping on this to justify their position.
		
Click to expand...

Looks more like a further indictment of letting random members of the public carry assault weapons.


----------



## Hobbit (May 28, 2022)

Here’s a thought, though purely from a devil’s advocate point of view. Imagine if one of those well armed parents had gone in before 19 kids had been shot. Imagine if several police had gone in sooner - maybe one had been shot but the others nailed the killer…

All what if’s, but if the police have been taking the dollar why didn’t they show some BALLS? Truthfully, I can understand the reluctance from a procedural point of view but I feel the “Protect and Serve” was sadly lacking.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (May 28, 2022)

Hobbit said:



			Here’s a thought, though purely from a devil’s advocate point of view. Imagine if one of those well armed parents had gone in before 19 kids had been shot. Imagine if several police had gone in sooner - maybe one had been shot but the others nailed the killer…
		
Click to expand...

What if the 18yr old couldn't have got a gun / rifle in the first place? Nothing else comes in to play if that doesn't happen.

In terms of an armed parent going in, the thinking is that they are likely to cause more damage/death than good. Perhaps in this instance that would not have been the case but you don't get hindsight when these things happen. After all, who could see why so many young children would have been shot. There is no sense to it.


----------



## fundy (May 28, 2022)

Youre all way off the mark, according to one American interviewed today, it was the schools fault for not shutting the door!!!!!


----------



## Imurg (May 28, 2022)

fundy said:



			Youre all way off the mark, according to one American interviewed today, it was the schools fault for not shutting the door!!!!!
		
Click to expand...

Makes buttered toast look intelligent...


----------



## Swango1980 (May 28, 2022)

Hobbit said:



			Here’s a thought, though purely from a devil’s advocate point of view. Imagine if one of those well armed parents had gone in before 19 kids had been shot. Imagine if several police had gone in sooner - maybe one had been shot but the others nailed the killer…

All what if’s, but if the police have been taking the dollar why didn’t they show some BALLS? Truthfully, I can understand the reluctance from a procedural point of view but I feel the “Protect and Serve” was sadly lacking.
		
Click to expand...

Show some balls because they get paid? How much do they get paid compared to most regular jobs, and how well are they trained to use firearms? Probably not trained as much as an officer in SWAT. I'd never accuse anyone of not having the balls to put themselves in the firing line of a mad person with an assault rifle, whilst typing away on social media from comfort of my own home. Maybe I can make a better judgement if I was ever put in the same situation.


----------



## Hobbit (May 28, 2022)

Lord Tyrion said:



			What if the 18yr old couldn't have got a gun / rifle in the first place? Nothing else comes in to play if that doesn't happen.

In terms of an armed parent going in, the thinking is that they are likely to cause more damage/death than good. Perhaps in this instance that would not have been the case but you don't get hindsight when these things happen. After all, who could see why so many young children would have been shot. There is no sense to it.
		
Click to expand...

My “what if” starts with he got a gun and he’s already shooting kids. I agree that in an ideal world gun access wouldn’t happen, but that isn’t the reality. And in terms of a parent going in, the equation is less kids killed by the shooter ‘v’ same ‘v’ same + parent ‘v’ more killed by parent… we’re guessing but also balancing a probability of a negative ‘v’ a positive outcome. Taking the parent out of that equation and it’s 100% negative.

A potential better outcome is to have professionals going in. We don’t know the competency of the first responders, or even if they were armed. However, if they were armed, which the photos/newsreels suggest they were, why arm them if they’re not ’going in?’

My own gut feel, being ignorant and blunt, is x armed cops going in would have achieved a more positive outcome than what we’ve currently seen - but that’s an ignorant guess.


----------



## Hobbit (May 28, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			Show some balls because they get paid? How much do they get paid compared to most regular jobs, and how well are they trained to use firearms? Probably not trained as much as an officer in SWAT. I'd never accuse anyone of not having the balls to put themselves in the firing line of a mad person with an assault rifle, whilst typing away on social media from comfort of my own home. Maybe I can make a better judgement if I was ever put in the same situation.
		
Click to expand...

I’ll finish your first sentence, “because they get paid…….. to do a job, i.e. Protect and serve.” You can waffle as much as you like after that about who should/shouldn’t, and split as many hairs as you like. I’m of the opinion, ignorantly, is they bottled it.


----------



## Swango1980 (May 28, 2022)

Hobbit said:



			My “what if” starts with he got a gun and he’s already shooting kids. I agree that in an ideal world gun access wouldn’t happen, but that isn’t the reality. And in terms of a parent going in, the equation is less kids killed by the shooter ‘v’ same ‘v’ same + parent ‘v’ more killed by parent… we’re guessing but also balancing a probability of a negative ‘v’ a positive outcome. Taking the parent out of that equation and it’s 100% negative.

A potential better outcome is to have professionals going in. We don’t know the competency of the first responders, or even if they were armed. However, if they were armed, which the photos/newsreels suggest they were, why arm them if they’re not ’going in?’

My own gut feel, being ignorant and blunt, is x armed cops going in would have achieved a more positive outcome than what we’ve currently seen - but that’s an ignorant guess.
		
Click to expand...

You might also want to factor in the fact 209 children have been killed so far this year in accidental shootings, and 500 injured. We are still in May.

So, how many mass shootings have parents stopped so far, and is it worth the hundreds of deaths and injuries already caused to kids, many likely caused because someones parent had a gun in the first place?


----------



## Swango1980 (May 28, 2022)

Hobbit said:



			I’ll finish your first sentence, “because they get paid…….. to do a job, i.e. Protect and serve.” You can waffle as much as you like after that about who should/shouldn’t, and split as many hairs as you like. I’m of the opinion, ignorantly, is they bottled it.
		
Click to expand...

Bet you are great at Call of Duty?


----------



## road2ruin (May 28, 2022)

Hobbit said:



			I’ll finish your first sentence, “because they get paid…….. to do a job, i.e. Protect and serve.” You can waffle as much as you like after that about who should/shouldn’t, and split as many hairs as you like. I’m of the opinion, ignorantly, is they bottled it.
		
Click to expand...

Very easy for people to say sitting on the sidelines, sure you and Piers Morgan would get on like a house on fire. Ultimately the (standard) police officer gets paid to do a job but not commit suicide which is what charging into that school against a guy armed with a semi-automatic weapon would have been. 

It amazes me how many arm chair hero’s there are online however I’d be interested to see how many would actually rush in when completely outgunned and facing an almost certain chance of death themselves.


----------



## Billysboots (May 28, 2022)

Hobbit said:



			I’ll finish your first sentence, “because they get paid…….. to do a job, i.e. Protect and serve.” You can waffle as much as you like after that about who should/shouldn’t, and split as many hairs as you like. I’m of the opinion, ignorantly, is they bottled it.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, Brian, but no cop anywhere in the world is paid to take risks so great that they face a better than even chance of winding up dead themselves. To protect and serve is their duty, you are absolutely right. But whether you agree with this or not their first duty is actually to themselves. They are no use to anyone dead, and as I’m sure has already been said (I haven’t followed this thread in it’s entirety) a sidearm against an automatic rifle is akin to taking on a knife with a stick of celery.

I’ve been party to a number of briefings over the years, including the 2012 Olympic Games, when the terror threat to the UK was far more real and imminent than most will ever know. I was amazed we escaped unscathed. And at no point during any of those briefings was I ever told there would be an expectation that I would sacrifice myself to protect the public. That’s just not how it works.

I don’t know the full details of the awful events in the USA a few days ago. Neither am I party to the decision making process applied by the police. It’s entirely possible that the inevitable review will find mistakes were made. But I assure you these incidents are nowhere near as easy to resolve as many seem to think, and they certainly don’t unfold in ways portrayed on the big screen.


----------



## Hobbit (May 28, 2022)

road2ruin said:



			Very easy for people to say sitting on the sidelines, sure you and Piers Morgan would get on like a house on fire. Ultimately the (standard) police officer gets paid to do a job but not commit suicide which is what charging into that school against a guy armed with a semi-automatic weapon would have been.

It amazes me how many arm chair hero’s there are online however I’d be interested to see how many would actually rush in when completely outgunned and facing an almost certain chance of death themselves.
		
Click to expand...




Billysboots said:



			Sorry, Brian, but no cop anywhere in the world is paid to take risks so great that they face a better than even chance of winding up dead themselves. To protect and serve is their duty, you are absolutely right. But whether you agree with this or not their first duty is actually to themselves. They are no use to anyone dead, and as I’m sure has already been said (I haven’t followed this thread in it’s entirety) a sidearm against an automatic rifle is akin to taking on a knife with a stick of celery.

I’ve been party to a number of briefings over the years, including the 2012 Olympic Games, when the terror threat to the UK was far more real and imminent than most will ever know. I was amazed we escaped unscathed. And at no point during any of those briefings was I ever told there would be an expectation that I would sacrifice myself to protect the public. That’s just not how it works.

I don’t know the full details of the awful events in the USA a few days ago. Neither am I party to the decision making process applied by the police. It’s entirely possible that the inevitable review will find mistakes were made. But I assure you these incidents are nowhere near as easy to resolve as many seem to think, and they certainly don’t unfold in ways portrayed on the big screen.
		
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t expect a beat Bobby to step into harms way, nor am I advocating an armed US Police officer to walk blithely in as though walking through a field of blue bells. However, I would expect an armed US Police officer to do more than stand outside the gates.

I accept that someone armed with an AR-15, however inexperienced with it, is a dangerous prospect but I reiterate that why arm a Police officer, and no doubt train them in its use, if they aren’t going to at least make a guarded effort to gain access and potentially ‘make a difference.’


----------



## Mel Smooth (May 28, 2022)

I've seen this statement elsewhere in the last few days, apologies if I'm repeating someting posted on here, but this is so true.

Guns don't kill people, people that say "Guns don't kill people", kill people.


----------



## D-S (May 28, 2022)

Mel Smooth said:



			I've seen this statement elsewhere in the last few days, apologies if I'm repeating someting posted on here, but this is so true.

Guns don't kill people, people that say "Guns don't kill people", kill people.
		
Click to expand...

That’s a Rob Delaney tweet posted earlier in the thread but for completeness is is:-

Guns don't kill people, people that say "Guns don't kill people", kill people with guns.


----------



## BiMGuy (May 28, 2022)

Hobbit said:



			I wouldn’t expect a beat Bobby to step into harms way, nor am I advocating an armed US Police officer to walk blithely in as though walking through a field of blue bells. However, I would expect an armed US Police officer to do more than stand outside the gates.

I accept that someone armed with an AR-15, however inexperienced with it, is a dangerous prospect but I reiterate that why arm a Police officer, and no doubt train them in its use, if they aren’t going to at least make a guarded effort to gain access and potentially ‘make a difference.’
		
Click to expand...

I think you are talking complete and utter nonsense. It’s easy to say sitting at your keyboard, but a normal cop with a 9mm? Sidearm against a lunatic with an AR 15 isn’t going to be much good.

It’s not like it is on the telly.


----------



## Billysboots (May 28, 2022)

Hobbit said:



			I wouldn’t expect a beat Bobby to step into harms way, nor am I advocating an armed US Police officer to walk blithely in as though walking through a field of blue bells. However, I would expect an armed US Police officer to do more than stand outside the gates.

I accept that someone armed with an AR-15, however inexperienced with it, is a dangerous prospect but I reiterate that why arm a Police officer, and no doubt train them in its use, if they aren’t going to at least make a guarded effort to gain access and potentially ‘make a difference.’
		
Click to expand...

I don’t have a background in firearms, but have seen our own police firearms teams in action, sadly, too many times. I think there is a fundamental difference between highly trained UK firearms teams and the police in the US, who as we know are routinely armed.

I suspect the average US officer merely learns to shoot straight, and is not proficient in the entry and containment tactics we see tactical firearms teams deploy in this country.

So, whilst there may appear to the layman to be some merit in suggesting that the police acted more swiftly to resolve this awful incident, the harsh reality is that, had they done so, they would likely have been lambs to the slaughter.

That is not what they are paid for, and it is unrealistic to expect it.


----------



## IanM (May 28, 2022)

A society with more guns in circulation,  has miles more gun deaths than those that have fewer guns in circulation. 

It's that simple.   But that's not simple enough for some.   Actually,  they know this.  What we have is not a lack of intelligence,  it's a lack of honesty.


----------



## Swango1980 (May 28, 2022)

Billysboots said:



			I don’t have a background in firearms, but have seen our own police firearms teams in action, sadly, too many times. I think there is a fundamental difference between highly trained UK firearms teams and the police in the US, who as we know are routinely armed.

I suspect the average US officer merely learns to shoot straight, and is not proficient in the entry and containment tactics we see tactical firearms teams deploy in this country.

So, whilst there may appear to the layman to be some merit in suggesting that the police acted more swiftly to resolve this awful incident, the harsh reality is that, had they done so, they would likely have been lambs to the slaughter.

That is not what they are paid for, and it is unrealistic to expect it.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed. The police in Northern Ireland are armed, but I know for a fact they wouldn't be trained to take on someone with a semi automatic weapon. If they did, they'd be playing Russian Roulette, with 5 chambers loaded, not one.

As far as I was aware, their guns were for personal protection, to only be used as a last resort when their life was in danger. I'd assume the US police were the same. It is the highly (specially) trained armed units that are used to confront armed criminals. That is what they are paid for.


----------



## greenone (May 28, 2022)

Hobbit said:



			Here’s a thought, though purely from a devil’s advocate point of view. Imagine if one of those well armed parents had gone in before 19 kids had been shot. Imagine if several police had gone in sooner - maybe one had been shot but the others nailed the killer…

All what if’s, but if the police have been taking the dollar why didn’t they show some BALLS? Truthfully, I can understand the reluctance from a procedural point of view but I feel the “Protect and Serve” was sadly lacking.
		
Click to expand...

Because going into a building you don't know the layout of trying to find a gunman without sufficient backup is asking for trouble. You need to sweep the building in a controlled manner.
If it goes wrong you end up with another Waco.


----------



## Billysboots (May 28, 2022)

Hobbit said:



			All what if’s, but if the police have been taking the dollar why didn’t they show some BALLS?
		
Click to expand...

I missed this post, Brian, and as a retired police officer I’m sure you’ll forgive me for saying I find your comment grossly offensive. My reasons are detailed in my other responses.

To suggest the officers at that scene acted in a cowardly manner is totally out of line, but I’ll leave it there because it is quite clear that, on this matter, your observations are bourn not out of malice, but ignorance.


----------



## Fade and Die (May 28, 2022)

Billysboots said:



			I missed this post, Brian, and as a retired police officer I’m sure you’ll forgive me for saying I find your comment grossly offensive. My reasons are detailed in my other responses.

To suggest the officers at that scene acted in a cowardly manner is totally out of line, but I’ll leave it there because it is quite clear that, on this matter, your observations are bourn not out of malice, but ignorance.
		
Click to expand...

I think they are more bourn out of Day drinking  (Many ex-pats turn into alcoholics because there is nothing else to do.)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/boredom-expat-life-spain-drove-alcoholism/


----------



## pauljames87 (May 28, 2022)

Trump now saying fund school security in the us before funding aid to Ukraine

Seriously. change gun laws...schools instantly safer ... Or is that too costly for their pockets.


----------



## Swinglowandslow (May 28, 2022)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Bear arms for the purpose of partaking in a well regulated Militia.

How the current situation can be justified against that intent stretches credibility so far that credibility is broke. That is where many little changes introduced and allowed over many years have an eventual cumulative effect way beyond the original intention.  But with 350m weapons in public possession things are way past logical debate over the meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment.
		
Click to expand...


 Correct... used as an excuse far too long.
There's a lot of Hoo-Har about the Second amendment being a stumbling block to any sort of change.

A quick, off -the-top-my-head suggestion 

It could be decided ,complying  with the second amendment, to have a State administered, controlled and regulated, body of citizens- call them what you will;
Militia, territorial units, State Guard, to be called upon by the State ( "State" meaning as in Arizona, or California etc) if such a State felt itself to be threatened etc.
Members recruited into its ranks would be vetted and trained etc.

Other citizens of the State would not be considered to be able to hold firearms on the basis of exercising their rights under the second amendment.
There would be National / State laws ( on the principle of the Firearms Act in this Country-UK) governing who and how firearms could be possessed and used by such citizens.
Perhaps reasonable men on each side of the Question in the USA could get around a table  and start talking with something such as above as a starting point.

Sure as hell, there needs to be change of some sort.


----------



## road2ruin (May 28, 2022)

Hobbit said:



			As for the Piers Morgan comment, grow up you pathetic prick
		
Click to expand...

Read his comments on Twitter, you’re two pea’s in a pod.


----------



## cliveb (May 28, 2022)

pauljames87 said:



			Seriously. change gun laws...schools instantly safer ... Or is that too costly for their pockets.
		
Click to expand...

If you change the gun laws, presumably you're talking about legally held guns. Laws don't affect illegally held guns.

And here's the issue. Estimates of the number of firearms in civilian possession in the US is about 393 million. Of which about 1 million are registered. Leaving 392 million unregistered. How is changing the law going to fix that?

Or maybe I've misunderstood the meaning of registered. Can someone in the US legally buy a gun without needing to register it? Sounds crazy if they can.


----------



## Swango1980 (May 28, 2022)

cliveb said:



			If you change the gun laws, presumably you're talking about legally held guns. Laws don't affect illegally held guns.

And here's the issue. Estimates of the number of firearms in civilian possession in the US is about 393 million. Of which about 1 million are registered. Leaving 392 million unregistered. How is changing the law going to fix that?

Or maybe I've misunderstood the meaning of registered. Can someone in the US legally buy a gun without needing to register it? Sounds crazy if they can.
		
Click to expand...

Here is a question, if 392 million guns are held illegally (and only 1 million legally), how does that happen? How is it that it is so easy to get your hands on a gun illegally, 99.7% of guns are illegal!?

Either that stat is wrong, or it highlights even more strongly that gun laws need to be tightened


----------



## RRidges (May 28, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			Here is a question, if 392 million guns are held illegally (and only 1 million legally), how does that happen? How is it that it is so easy to get your hands on a gun illegally, 99.7% of guns are illegal!?

Either that stat is wrong, or it highlights even more strongly that gun laws need to be tightened
		
Click to expand...

I believe that 392M guns is 329M unregistered guns. Just because they are not registered doesn't mean they are held illegally!
Registration requirements vary across states. Missouri, where I work, is, unfortunately, one of the slackest and the gun lobby is very powerful. It was scary when I arrived to see so many folk on the street demonstrating 'open carry' ability of pistols - which don't need to be regstered - though there are worse views in some parts of the supposedly civilised areas of cities.
I still can't understand the legitimacy of allowing civilian purchase of assault rifles though!


----------



## Swinglowandslow (May 28, 2022)

Billysboots said:



			I missed this post, Brian, and as a retired police officer I’m sure you’ll forgive me for saying I find your comment grossly offensive. My reasons are detailed in my other responses.

To suggest the officers at that scene acted in a cowardly manner is totally out of line, but I’ll leave it there because it is quite clear that, on this matter, your observations are bourn not out of malice, but ignorance.
		
Click to expand...

I have read the posts of BB and H and others on this question of "go in or not".
In the cold light of day, as in training manuals etc, awaiting the arrival of sufficient fire power to go in with an excellent chance of "winning the day" ,is
the obvious right thing to do.
But, oh what a but, in this school scenario, in this reality, it means that
Police with guns would be standing there, hearing a bastard lunatic inside the building, shooting and shooting and shooting, and each shot is likely to be a dead child!

Really?  Standing there, safe in the knowledge that you are doing the right thing, as per the book.
The minutes go on, awaiting the Swat, and the shooting goes on, and on.

I "see "the thinking of sidearm versus automatic rifle, I do.

But if I can see that, and I can "see" the killing going on in the school, why haven't the Police leaders and Police policy makers, in the days, months and years before, seen the (strong, bearing mind the previous instances) possibility of this happening and trained their first responders up to deal. ?Why are not the patrol officers routinely trained in the use of assault rifles and have them carried in their vehicles?
So that when they are first on the scene such as this, they are "on a level playing field" and can go in and attempt to deal.?
How often do they think that ( in the U.S.) a police officer with just a  9mm Sidearm is going to be called on to deal with a villain who is outgunning him?
It's not as if it's a rarity, is it?
Again, My overwhelming thought reading these posts is......How many children could/ did he shoot in a few minutes.....and how many minutes would it take to get a Swat team there???


----------



## Blue in Munich (May 29, 2022)

Swinglowandslow said:



			I have read the posts of BB and H and others on this question of "go in or not".
In the cold light of day, as in training manuals etc, awaiting the arrival of sufficient fire power to go in with an excellent chance of "winning the day" ,is
the obvious right thing to do.
But, oh what a but, in this school scenario, in this reality, it means that
Police with guns would be standing there, hearing a bastard lunatic inside the building, shooting and shooting and shooting, and each shot is likely to be a dead child!

Really?  Standing there, safe in the knowledge that you are doing the right thing, as per the book.
The minutes go on, awaiting the Swat, and the shooting goes on, and on.

I "see "the thinking of sidearm versus automatic rifle, I do.

But if I can see that, and I can "see" the killing going on in the school, why haven't the Police leaders and Police policy makers, in the days, months and years before, seen the (strong, bearing mind the previous instances) possibility of this happening and trained their first responders up to deal. ?Why are not the patrol officers routinely trained in the use of assault rifles and have them carried in their vehicles?
So that when they are first on the scene such as this, they are "on a level playing field" and can go in and attempt to deal.?
How often do they think that ( in the U.S.) a police officer with just a  9mm Sidearm is going to be called on to deal with a villain who is outgunning him?
It's not as if it's a rarity, is it?
Again, My overwhelming thought reading these posts is......How many children could/ did he shoot in a few minutes.....and how many minutes would it take to get a Swat team there???
		
Click to expand...

To answer your question as to why they aren’t trained to a higher standard, it’s quite simple; time and money. The abstraction from active duty means they have to find another officer to cover, and training costs money.


----------



## Swango1980 (May 29, 2022)

Swinglowandslow said:



			I have read the posts of BB and H and others on this question of "go in or not".
In the cold light of day, as in training manuals etc, awaiting the arrival of sufficient fire power to go in with an excellent chance of "winning the day" ,is
the obvious right thing to do.
But, oh what a but, in this school scenario, in this reality, it means that
Police with guns would be standing there, hearing a bastard lunatic inside the building, shooting and shooting and shooting, and each shot is likely to be a dead child!

Really?  Standing there, safe in the knowledge that you are doing the right thing, as per the book.
The minutes go on, awaiting the Swat, and the shooting goes on, and on.

I "see "the thinking of sidearm versus automatic rifle, I do.

But if I can see that, and I can "see" the killing going on in the school, why haven't the Police leaders and Police policy makers, in the days, months and years before, seen the (strong, bearing mind the previous instances) possibility of this happening and trained their first responders up to deal. ?Why are not the patrol officers routinely trained in the use of assault rifles and have them carried in their vehicles?
So that when they are first on the scene such as this, they are "on a level playing field" and can go in and attempt to deal.?
How often do they think that ( in the U.S.) a police officer with just a  9mm Sidearm is going to be called on to deal with a villain who is outgunning him?
It's not as if it's a rarity, is it?
Again, My overwhelming thought reading these posts is......How many children could/ did he shoot in a few minutes.....and how many minutes would it take to get a Swat team there???
		
Click to expand...

Sure, why have SWAT teams when all patrol officers are trained and armed with assault rifles? 

If you were the leader of those patrol officers, would you get them to draw straws, and one with shortest straw goes into the school?


----------



## Billysboots (May 29, 2022)

Swinglowandslow said:



			I have read the posts of BB and H and others on this question of "go in or not".
In the cold light of day, as in training manuals etc, awaiting the arrival of sufficient fire power to go in with an excellent chance of "winning the day" ,is
the obvious right thing to do.
But, oh what a but, in this school scenario, in this reality, it means that
Police with guns would be standing there, hearing a bastard lunatic inside the building, shooting and shooting and shooting, and each shot is likely to be a dead child!

Really?  Standing there, safe in the knowledge that you are doing the right thing, as per the book.
The minutes go on, awaiting the Swat, and the shooting goes on, and on.

I "see "the thinking of sidearm versus automatic rifle, I do.

But if I can see that, and I can "see" the killing going on in the school, why haven't the Police leaders and Police policy makers, in the days, months and years before, seen the (strong, bearing mind the previous instances) possibility of this happening and trained their first responders up to deal. ?Why are not the patrol officers routinely trained in the use of assault rifles and have them carried in their vehicles?
So that when they are first on the scene such as this, they are "on a level playing field" and can go in and attempt to deal.?
How often do they think that ( in the U.S.) a police officer with just a  9mm Sidearm is going to be called on to deal with a villain who is outgunning him?
It's not as if it's a rarity, is it?
Again, My overwhelming thought reading these posts is......How many children could/ did he shoot in a few minutes.....and how many minutes would it take to get a Swat team there???
		
Click to expand...

BIM has answered this to a large extent when he refers to time and money.

The other point I would make is aptitude. Quite simply, the vast majority of “ordinary” officers simply do not have what it takes to be trained to an elite level, which is what you are suggesting.

A team is only as strong as it’s weakest member, so training courses in the UK for firearms officers are extremely tough. I know I could never have done it. So there is absolutely no way every firearm carrying patrol officer across the pond could ever be trained to the level you suggest.


----------



## Mudball (May 29, 2022)

A few years ago, we were at Times Square and saw some coppers who were fully armed.. automatic weapons on slings, revolvers on their thighs, clips all around them.  My son asked, why are the US Marines patrolling Times Square.  Little did he know that they were not marines, but coppers on the beat.


----------



## cliveb (May 29, 2022)

RRidges said:



			I believe that 392M guns is 329M unregistered guns. Just because they are not registered doesn't mean they are held illegally!
Registration requirements vary across states.
		
Click to expand...

Ok thanks for clarifying that.
Seems to me the first step that needs to be taken in the US is that guns must be registered. I can't see how that would be against the 2nd amendment, so the NRA couldn't object. Then introduce severe penalties for anyone found in possession of an unregistered weapon, plus an amnesty to hand them in.


----------



## D-S (May 29, 2022)

Here is a link to a minute by minute description of exactly when various events happened, you need to keep scrolling down to see the events. Absolutely chilling.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/05/28/us/school-shooting-timeline-uvalde-texas.html


----------



## D-S (May 29, 2022)

Just for some context, these mass shootings have happened since the Texas tragedy.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1530728636164321281


----------



## clubchamp98 (May 29, 2022)

Billysboots said:



			BIM has answered this to a large extent when he refers to time and money.

The other point I would make is aptitude. Quite simply, the vast majority of “ordinary” officers simply do not have what it takes to be trained to an elite level, which is what you are suggesting.

A team is only as strong as it’s weakest member, so training courses in the UK for firearms officers are extremely tough. I know I could never have done it. So there is absolutely no way every firearm carrying patrol officer across the pond could ever be trained to the level you suggest.
		
Click to expand...

Just one thing that I was wondering.
How do the Police know what sort of weapons the shooter has ?
I understand the protocol for not sending beat officers in against AR lunatics.
Is the easy availability of these things the default weapon of choice and they assume he has one.

Also if the protocol was followed why did the police chief say “ they got it badly wrong”?
I know your not a US cop but we value your insight.
It seems they are dammed if they do and dammed if they don’t.
But good guys with guns won’t solve this.


----------



## sweaty sock (May 29, 2022)

Imagine there was a breed of dog, so vicious that already this year had killed 209 children.  Imagine over 20 times this year the dog had gotten off the lead and headed to schools where they had killed kids in class.

Would the argument, from dog salesman,  "to stop dog attacks, more people need dogs and dogs should be kept in schools" be met with wide spread support?


----------



## Swinglowandslow (May 29, 2022)

Billysboots said:



			BIM has answered this to a large extent when he refers to time and money.

The other point I would make is aptitude. Quite simply, the vast majority of “ordinary” officers simply do not have what it takes to be trained to an elite level, which is what you are suggesting.

A team is only as strong as it’s weakest member, so training courses in the UK for firearms officers are extremely tough. I know I could never have done it. So there is absolutely no way every firearm carrying patrol officer across the pond could ever be trained to the level you suggest.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting that they need to be trained to an elite Swat type level, they need to be able to be trained to use an assault rifle ( so that they are on a level playing field ) with the villain.
I think that BIM and yourself are making an apples and oranges comparison.
In UK , most firearms incidents , planned raids, hostage or stand off situations are to sorted using Swat teams highly trained in team tactics etc. And officers used in those Firearms units are a "drain"( for want of a better word) and expense on Police resources. More so, because no police officer recruit is trained in firearms.
But in the States, I understand all police basic training has a built in firearms training part to it. If it is restricted to sidearms now, it wouldn't be too difficult to expand it to include rifle and assault rifle training, so that when deployed to their units, they can be as efficient if not more so than any civilian may be.
So, I don't accept this need for their to be an "elite" , rare, unit that only they can deal with any firearms incident.
For what it's worth, I am aware of the reaction of a Chief Constable at the time  of Hungerford, who said" We must never be in this position again" ( OWTTE),
and who examined changes of policy to offer more protection.
As a result there was later ( and I believe there still is ) a Police mobile 24 hrs a day crewed by two officers, firearms trained and the car carrying sufficient weapons to be an adequate first response to a firearms incident.
And this School tragedy is exactly the sort of incident it was created for.

That would/could be the case in the States, except that every police mobile would have an officer capable of using a weapon which he would have at hand and be able and expected to use against lunatics such as in this case.


If any of us were one of the  officers called to that school, and your car was equipped with an assault rifle that you knew how to use, ( and had been passed as qualified to use , on completion of your basic training, ,) I ask
-  would you have gone in?
Of course you would.
Do you think you could have justified not going in?
No!

If a parent of one of these children were to demand of me, as a police leader, why that wasn't the case, ( that police were available, armed and trained) I would not want to put your argument of "time and money" to him, to justify no action by my men.


----------



## RichA (May 29, 2022)

Swinglowandslow said:



			I'm not suggesting that they need to be trained to an elite Swat type level, they need to be able to be trained to use an assault rifle ( so that they are on a level playing field ) with the villain.
I think that BIM and yourself are making an apples and oranges comparison.
In UK , most firearms incidents , planned raids, hostage or stand off situations are to sorted using Swat teams highly trained in team tactics etc. And officers used in those Firearms units are a "drain"( for want of a better word) and expense on Police resources. More so, because no police officer recruit is trained in firearms.
But in the States, I understand all police basic training has a built in firearms training part to it. If it is restricted to sidearms now, it wouldn't be too difficult to expand it to include rifle and assault rifle training, so that when deployed to their units, they can be as efficient if not more so than any civilian may be.
So, I don't accept this need for their to be an "elite" , rare, unit that only they can deal with any firearms incident.
For what it's worth, I am aware of the reaction of a Chief Constable at the time  of Hungerford, who said" We must never be in this position again" ( OWTTE),
and who examined changes of policy to offer more protection.
As a result there was later ( and I believe there still is ) a Police mobile 24 hrs a day crewed by two officers, firearms trained and the car carrying sufficient weapons to be an adequate first response to a firearms incident.
And this School tragedy is exactly the sort of incident it was created for.

That would/could be the case in the States, except that every police mobile would have an officer capable of using a weapon which he would have at hand and be able and expected to use against lunatics such as in this case.


If any of us were one of the  officers called to that school, and your car was equipped with an assault rifle that you knew how to use, ( and had been passed as qualified to use , on completion of your basic training, ,) I ask
-  would you have gone in?
Of course you would.
Do you think you could have justified not going in?
No!

If a parent of one of these children were to demand of me, as a police leader, why that wasn't the case, ( that police were available, armed and trained) I would not want to put your argument of "time and money" to him, to justify no action by my men.
		
Click to expand...

In the USA, handgun use and training for police is about on a par with driving a car. How to do the basics safely. An untrained cop taking on a crazed gunman with an assault rifle who has cover would be suicide and just endanger more people. It's a difficult read, but for all they knew the shooter could've had hostages. Can you imagine the fallout now if a hasty, untrained cop had actually caused the shooter to kill more innocents?
Maybe their inaction didn't save lives, but the wrong action could have cost more.
Nobody wins this argument.


----------



## Swinglowandslow (May 29, 2022)

RichA said:



			In the USA, handgun use and training for police is about on a par with driving a car. How to do the basics safely. An untrained cop taking on a crazed gunman with an assault rifle who has cover would be suicide and just endanger more people. It's a difficult read, but for all they knew the shooter could've had hostages. Can you imagine the fallout now if a hasty, untrained cop had actually caused the shooter to kill more innocents?
Maybe their inaction didn't save lives, but the wrong action could have cost more.
Nobody wins this argument.
		
Click to expand...

Already answered your main points, but this wasn't a hostage situation.So your sentence ..."Can you imagine....."... isn't what was going on here.
The man was going round shooting anyone he found. On and on...
No question of anyone "causing him to kill more innocents."

Is your first sentence a fact, or an understanding?  I might have it wrong, but I'm assuming they get regular refresher assessments/training/practice.
I've already said it should include for assault rifle, they've had many years of realising the need for it.
If an army recruit less than 20 years old can be trained to use an army rifle, then so can a police recruit.


----------



## Billysboots (May 29, 2022)

RichA said:



			In the USA, handgun use and training for police is about on a par with driving a car. How to do the basics safely. An untrained cop taking on a crazed gunman with an assault rifle who has cover would be suicide and just endanger more people. It's a difficult read, but for all they knew the shooter could've had hostages. Can you imagine the fallout now if a hasty, untrained cop had actually caused the shooter to kill more innocents?
Maybe their inaction didn't save lives, but the wrong action could have cost more.
Nobody wins this argument.
		
Click to expand...

^^^^ This. With bells on.

It’s all well and good saying officers “only” need to be trained to use an assault rifle, but whilst the dream sounds achievable the simple reality is that it’s not.

I’m sure BIM will agree that, when the carrying of CS spray became the norm in the UK many officers, myself included, looked around at our shift colleagues and identified at least one person we wouldn’t trust with a biro, never mind an incapacitant spray.

And yet on this thread we have contributors who think it is achievable to train people who are essentially equivalent to panda drivers in this country to storm premises with assault rifles? Really? Have a word, people!

I used the word elite because that is precisely what Tactical Firearms Units in the UK (SWAT in the US) are. They are the best of the best. The majority never achieve that level. And if you have a lunatic running amok with an automatic weapon in an enclosed premises, anything less than the best of the best will not work. You cannot send in second rate firearms officers and hope for anything less than carnage.

Sometimes it’s perhaps best for the armchair experts to concede that they really do not know better after all, and that real life, more often than not, does not bear any more than a passing resemblance to the movies.


----------



## pauljames87 (May 29, 2022)

Billysboots said:



			^^^^ This. With bells on.

It’s all well and good saying officers “only” need to be trained to use an assault rifle, but whilst the dream sounds achievable the simple reality is that it’s not.

I’m sure BIM will agree that, when the carrying of CS spray became the norm in the UK many officers, myself included, looked around at our shift colleagues and identified at least one person we wouldn’t trust with a biro, never mind an incapacitant spray.

And yet on this thread we have contributors who think it is achievable to train people who are essentially equivalent to panda drivers in this country to storm premises with assault rifles? Really? Have a word, people!

I used the word elite because that is precisely what Tactical Firearms Units in the UK (SWAT in the US) are. They are the best of the best. The majority never achieve that level. And if you have a lunatic running amok with an automatic weapon in an enclosed premises, anything less than the best of the best will not work. You cannot send in second rate firearms officers and hope for anything less than carnage.

Sometimes it’s perhaps best for the armchair experts to concede that they really do not know better after all, and that real life, more often than not, does not bear any more than a passing resemblance to the movies.
		
Click to expand...

Isn't one of the main skills of our elite armed police is not when to shoot but when not to ..

Unlike the USA which has how many officers shooting first? 

Countries a mess gun wise


----------



## Blue in Munich (May 29, 2022)

Billysboots said:



			^^^^ This. With bells on.

It’s all well and good saying officers “only” need to be trained to use an assault rifle, but whilst the dream sounds achievable the simple reality is that it’s not.

*I’m sure BIM will agree that, when the carrying of CS spray became the norm in the UK many officers, myself included, looked around at our shift colleagues and identified at least one person we wouldn’t trust with a biro, never mind an incapacitant spray.*

And yet on this thread we have contributors who think it is achievable to train people who are essentially equivalent to panda drivers in this country to storm premises with assault rifles? Really? Have a word, people!

I used the word elite because that is precisely what Tactical Firearms Units in the UK (SWAT in the US) are. They are the best of the best. The majority never achieve that level. And if you have a lunatic running amok with an automatic weapon in an enclosed premises, anything less than the best of the best will not work. You cannot send in second rate firearms officers and hope for anything less than carnage.

Sometimes it’s perhaps best for the armchair experts to concede that they really do not know better after all, and that real life, more often than not, does not bear any more than a passing resemblance to the movies.
		
Click to expand...

Do you mean the sort that when it didn't spray would turn it towards themselves to look at the nozzle whilst still having their finger on the trigger... 

I'm reminded of an incident when we were first issued ASP's (extending batons).  The first recipient of an ASP came on duty the day following his training, and his colleagues were keen to see how it worked.  The baton holder gave an impromptu demonstration whereby he drew the baton in a low profile stance and then moved to a high profile stance, racking the ASP out, shouting the necessary warning and then returning the baton to the defensive position, pointing behind him over his right shoulder.  Everyone was very impressed, except for the Sergeant who had decided the best place to watch was over the officer's right shoulder; the very place to which the ball end of the baton was returned, quite painfully for the skipper, who was known by a nickname relating to the incident for the rest of his service.


----------



## Billysboots (May 29, 2022)

Blue in Munich said:



			Do you mean the sort that when it didn't spray would turn it towards themselves to look at the nozzle whilst still having their finger on the trigger... 

Click to expand...

The very same. And their equivalent in the USA should be trained to carry an assault rifle? Truly frightening 😳


----------



## DaveR (May 29, 2022)

I feel for the victims families but it is hard to sympathise when they won't give up their guns.


----------



## Swinglowandslow (May 29, 2022)

Billysboots said:



			^^^^ This. With bells on.

It’s all well and good saying officers “only” need to be trained to use an assault rifle, but whilst the dream sounds achievable the simple reality is that it’s not.

I’m sure BIM will agree that, when the carrying of CS spray became the norm in the UK many officers, myself included, looked around at our shift colleagues and identified at least one person we wouldn’t trust with a biro, never mind an incapacitant spray.

And yet on this thread we have contributors who think it is achievable to train people who are essentially equivalent to panda drivers in this country to storm premises with assault rifles? Really? Have a word, people!

I used the word elite because that is precisely what Tactical Firearms Units in the UK (SWAT in the US) are. They are the best of the best. The majority never achieve that level. And if you have a lunatic running amok with an automatic weapon in an enclosed premises, anything less than the best of the best will not work. You cannot send in second rate firearms officers and hope for anything less than carnage.

Sometimes it’s perhaps best for the armchair experts to concede that they really do not know better after all, and that real life, more often than not, does not bear any more than a passing resemblance to the movies.
		
Click to expand...

Really Billy, you are prone to exaggeration.
I don't think you would like to be referred to in disparaging terms like "panda driver" when in fact  you are a Police officer.
The army take young men and make them capable of being able to handle and fire assault rifles. It's done as a matter of course, almost.
It certainly isn't given a mystique type elitism.
Why do you not give the Police training officers of U.S. Police Forces the same respect you give ours? Have you knowledge of their methods etc.
I haven't .But I have no reason to believe they are as incompetent as you make out.
As for your sentence beginning, "You cannot send.........." - what the hell do you think was going on in that school from the moment that lunatic walked in.?
Please sit and with your watch time out 5 minutes - and see what a hell of along time that is in context of someone striding through a school shooting anyone he meets! Jesus, you seem to have completely lost sight of that scenario. 
There are firearms incidents and there are firearms incidents, and a hostage or standoff is one for Swat. This is not one for Swat, because their arrival time cannot be tolerated. 
Perhaps you could give us some idea how long it would take to gather and deploy to the scene such a team. I'll bet it's not like in the movies, jusrva matter of minutes!
To get back to your view of P.c U.S plod being incapable of being adequately trained ( really, that's not fair), here is an extract from Bureau of Justice of US figures as to amount of time on firearms training.






 Major training areas included operations
(an average of 213 hours per recruit);  rearms, self-defense, and use of force (168 hours); self-improvement (89 hours); and legal education (86 hours). 

That's all I'm intending to say about this, because I don't think there's any more I can add to my posts, except do not assume that you and BIM have exclusive knowledge of Police matters...😀


----------



## Hobbit (May 29, 2022)

Seems a bit odd the there are so many senior officials in Texas, and elsewhere in the US, now saying the response was seriously flawed… just saying… for a friend…


----------



## Billysboots (May 29, 2022)

Swinglowandslow said:



			Really Billy, you are prone to exaggeration.
I don't think you would like to be referred to in disparaging terms like "panda driver" when in fact  you are a Police officer.
The army take young men and make them capable of being able to handle and fire assault rifles. It's done as a matter of course, almost.
It certainly isn't given a mystique type elitism.
Why do you not give the Police training officers of U.S. Police Forces the same respect you give ours? Have you knowledge of their methods etc.
I haven't .But I have no reason to believe they are as incompetent as you make out.
As for your sentence beginning, "You cannot send.........." - what the hell do you think was going on in that school from the moment that lunatic walked in.?
Please sit and with your watch time out 5 minutes - and see what a hell of along time that is in context of someone striding through a school shooting anyone he meets! Jesus, you seem to have completely lost sight of that scenario.
There are firearms incidents and there are firearms incidents, and a hostage or standoff is one for Swat. This is not one for Swat, because their arrival time cannot be tolerated.
Perhaps you could give us some idea how long it would take to gather and deploy to the scene such a team. I'll bet it's not like in the movies, jusrva matter of minutes!
To get back to your view of P.c U.S plod being incapable of being adequately trained ( really, that's not fair), here is an extract from Bureau of Justice of US figures as to amount of time on firearms training.






Major training areas included operations
(an average of 213 hours per recruit);  rearms, self-defense, and use of force (168 hours); self-improvement (89 hours); and legal education (86 hours).

That's all I'm intending to say about this, because I don't think there's any more I can add to my posts, except do not assume that you and BIM have exclusive knowledge of Police matters...😀
		
Click to expand...

We may not have exclusive knowledge of police matters but I’d ask you please to concede that we perhaps know more than most on this thread.

I’m in no way disparaging of cops in the States. I wouldn’t want their job, thanks very much. But do you really, genuinely think that every frontline, sidearm carrying officer in the States is capable of being trained to the level required to use an assault rifle safely? Really? If so, with respect, you are breathtakingly naive.

Cops in all countries are merely members of the public, but they choose to be cops. It doesn’t turn them into robots capable of doing anything there happens to be a training course available for. Are all cops in the UK capable of driving to advanced level? No. Can they all reach the fitness level required to work in Tactical Support Teams? No. And trained to the level where they can safely carry firearms? No. 

What I am trying to explain to you, and failing miserably it seems, is that your halcyon view that the police in the States can be routinely trained to deploy with assault rifles is totally unrealistic.

I know and understand the UK police. You, by your own admission, do not. And whilst you consider me to be someone who exaggerates, has it not maybe occurred to you that some of your responses are extremely patronising of someone who has spent 30 years gaining first hand experience of a job you appear to think I actually know nothing about? And when it comes to exaggeration, perhaps you’d do well to look closer to home, because your post is laced with it. For example, where have I said, or suggested, even once, that the police in the States are incompetent? Nowhere.

I have not worked in the States, but I know enough about people who work within the law enforcement community to understand that not everyone who puts on a uniform is capable of being trained to the level to carry out every conceivable operational duty. Far from it, in fact. And certainly not when it comes to high risk activities such as firearms deployment.

Your extract detailing training requirements is interesting. But where in there does it suggest everyone is capable of attaining the standard required? Nowhere, that’s where, because they’re not.

My final point on this is that there are always going to be times, regrettably, where police officers have to accept that they are simply not equipped to intervene, the direct consequence being that there will be collateral losses, very often loss of life. What they will not do is cast aside their responsibility to their own safety, and that of their colleagues, to prevent those collateral losses. Moreover, I have first hand knowledge and experience of times when very explicit orders have been given not to intervene in life threatening incidents at a cost to police officers’ lives. 

That’s the reality.


----------



## Billysboots (May 29, 2022)

Hobbit said:



			Seems a bit odd the there are so many senior officials in Texas, and elsewhere in the US, now saying the response was seriously flawed… just saying… for a friend…
		
Click to expand...

And you’ll note, Brian, from one of my earlier responses, that I accepted that such findings were entirely possible.


----------



## Swango1980 (May 29, 2022)

Got to feel a little sorry for police, when some members of the public have an expectation that they should put their lives on the line for a situation they are very likely to he the underdog.

I've not served in the police, but I am sure they have many roles to undergo on a daily basis. They are always in more danger than your average job (and their salary may not reflect that), but are trained sufficiently to keep themselves as safe as they can. 

However, going into a building to face a crazy person with an assault rifle is just mental. Firstly, the gunman is crazy, so probably not so fearful of getting killed, which could well give him an advantage straight off the bat. Secondly, the police officer probably doesn't know who the gun man is. They could be ex military, and had extensive training in firearms. Good luck if you are asked to go in with your handgun to face that nutter.

Surely it is easy to understand why such actions are left to highly trained specialist armed officers? Officers who extensively focus their training for these very type of situations, rather than having to put up with all the regular nonsense a regular officer needs to deal with?


----------



## RRidges (May 29, 2022)

cliveb said:



			Ok thanks for clarifying that.
Seems to me the first step that needs to be taken in the US is that guns must be registered. I can't see how that would be against the 2nd amendment, so the NRA couldn't object. Then introduce severe penalties for anyone found in possession of an unregistered weapon, plus an amnesty to hand them in.
		
Click to expand...

You obviously don't understand the nature of the attitude of many americans, especially those south of the line, to either guns or decrees from Washington!
Missouri, where I work, actually recently passed a law that allows citizens to sue law enforcement agencies and officers for $50,000 if they can show their state gun rights are infringed upon - by federal ones. That law is being disputed in Missouri Federal Court, but demonstrates the attitudes of many states! 
The NRA is against ANY restriction on ANY firearms!


----------



## theoneandonly (May 29, 2022)

Hobbit said:



			Seems a bit odd the there are so many senior officials in Texas, and elsewhere in the US, now saying the response was seriously flawed… just saying… for a friend…
		
Click to expand...

Nice bit of gloating. Stay classy.


----------



## bobmac (May 30, 2022)

While we continue to discuss what happened 6 days ago in Texas, there have been 12 more mass shootings in the states with over 50 people killed or injured.


----------



## IanM (May 30, 2022)

bobmac said:



			While we continue to discuss what happened 6 days ago in Texas, there have been 12 more mass shootings in the states with over 50 people killed or injured.
		
Click to expand...

At least folk are exercising their 2nd Ammendment rights... bloody madness


----------



## bobmac (May 30, 2022)

IanM said:



			At least folk are exercising their 2nd Ammendment rights... bloody madness
		
Click to expand...

Yeup, the right to bear arms and bury their children


----------



## JamesR (May 30, 2022)

bobmac said:



			Yeup, the right to bear arms and bury their children
		
Click to expand...


----------



## ColchesterFC (May 30, 2022)

bobmac said:



			Yeup, the right to bear arms and bury their children
		
Click to expand...

Yep, Texas, the state where they don't want women to get an abortion because they want the children to be born and grow up so that they can be murdered by a crazed gunman in a school instead.


----------



## SocketRocket (May 31, 2022)

I'm no expert but have been trained in the military to use firearms. To me a semi-automatic pistol is a preferential weapon to use inside a building to a semi-automatic rifle, it's easier to operate at short range. 

The shooter in this case had barricaded himself in the classroom and was systematically killing the young children, I appreciate the Police may not have known this but I find it difficult to agree they should not have made any attempt to stop the killing, why do you arm Police if not to use their weapons to protect the Public.  Yes, there is a big risk that you would be injured or killed yourself but if a terrorist is running around stabbing people to death then there's also a chance of a Police Officer being wounded or killed but some took that risk in the UK who were armed only with a baton, some civilians with a fire extinguisher and a chair.

The Police admit they made a mistake holding back so long.


----------



## RichA (May 31, 2022)

SocketRocket said:



			I'm no expert but have been trained in the military to use firearms. To me a semi-automatic pistol is a preferential weapon to use inside a building to a semi-automatic rifle, it's easier to operate at short range. 

The shooter in this case had barricaded himself in the classroom and was systematically killing the young children, I appreciate the Police may not have known this but I find it difficult to agree they should not have made any attempt to stop the killing, why do you arm Police if not to use their weapons to protect the Public.  Yes, there is a big risk that you would be injured or killed yourself but if a terrorist is running around stabbing people to death then there's also a chance of a Police Officer being wounded or killed but some took that risk in the UK who were armed only with a baton, some civilians with a fire extinguisher and a chair.

The Police admit they made a mistake holding back so long.
		
Click to expand...

Did the police know for definite that he wasn't holed up in a classroom that had 30 kids in it?
This makes a hell of a difference.


----------



## Swinglowandslow (May 31, 2022)

RichA said:



			Did the police know for definite that he wasn't holed up in a classroom that had 30 kids in it?
This makes a hell of a difference.
		
Click to expand...

Know I said I'd finished my bit, but need to reply.Reports indicate that police and parents are outside a school from which have fled kids  saying there's someone shooting .
Those outside the school can hear gunshots at frequent intervals! (God, isn't that enough to tell you what's going on?)
Calls are being received from kids inside the school reporting shooting and asking desperately for police help.
This was not a hostage or standoff situation.


----------



## SocketRocket (May 31, 2022)

RichA said:



			Did the police know for definite that he wasn't holed up in a classroom that had 30 kids in it?
This makes a hell of a difference.
		
Click to expand...

It seems that they did.


----------



## Swango1980 (May 31, 2022)

SocketRocket said:



			I'm no expert but have been trained in the military to use firearms. To me a semi-automatic pistol is a preferential weapon to use inside a building to a semi-automatic rifle, it's easier to operate at short range.

The shooter in this case had barricaded himself in the classroom and was systematically killing the young children, I appreciate the Police may not have known this but I find it difficult to agree they should not have made any attempt to stop the killing, why do you arm Police if not to use their weapons to protect the Public.  Yes, there is a big risk that you would be injured or killed yourself but if a terrorist is running around stabbing people to death then there's also a chance of a Police Officer being wounded or killed but some took that risk in the UK who were armed only with a baton, some civilians with a fire extinguisher and a chair.

The Police admit they made a mistake holding back so long.
		
Click to expand...

Is there a misunderstanding that the police did nothing at all?

According to reports, police did actually enter the school only 4 minutes after the gunman. One officer called out "yell if you need help". A girl said help, the gunman entered the classroom and shot her. An officer barged into the room (there were 3 in total at this point), but retreated as soon as the gunman started firing back, injuring 2 of them. Another 4 officers had entered behind them. Meanwhile, officers were busy stopping many parents from rushing into the school. Completely understandable why parents would, but they would have been sitting ducks.

It is clear that the responding officers simply did not have the training or equipment to adequately deal with a gunman wearing tactical armour and an assault rifle. Hence, 7 officers entered the school and then had to retreat. They needed to wait for a Border Patrol Tactical Unit to arrive.

I'm sure mistakes were made, is any operation perfect, especially when lives are lost? There will always be "what if" questions. I can sort of see why someone may feel it had become a hostage situation / gunman barricaded away. After the initial rampage, if he had been stuck in the same classroom with other students, I would have though the assumption would be he'd have killed them immediately, and if he didn't then he'd be keeping them alive for a reason? So, maybe there was a genuine hope that they'd have enough time to get the tactical unit onsite within the next 30-60 minutes, and then make their move, rather than have poorly trained officers barge in again and just have the gunman open fire on them and the remaining students?

It is easy for us to sit at home and speculate, especially with hindsight, what should have been done. Truth is, most of us (if not all) have not been in that situation, and were definitely not in that specific situation. I'm sure it is an extremely stressful event in which the person in charge can see the pros and cons of any such decision. And, it cannot be a good feeling as a regular officer if you are expected to go in and confront this individual, especially when the odds are that you will be the one that gets killed. As I said, the police did respond immediately after the gunman entered the school, at which point they quickly realised they were biting off more than they could chew.


----------



## SocketRocket (May 31, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			Is there a misunderstanding that the police did nothing at all?

According to reports, police did actually enter the school only 4 minutes after the gunman. One officer called out "yell if you need help". A girl said help, the gunman entered the classroom and shot her. An officer barged into the room (there were 3 in total at this point), but retreated as soon as the gunman started firing back, injuring 2 of them. Another 4 officers had entered behind them. Meanwhile, officers were busy stopping many parents from rushing into the school. Completely understandable why parents would, but they would have been sitting ducks.

It is clear that the responding officers simply did not have the training or equipment to adequately deal with a gunman wearing tactical armour and an assault rifle. Hence, 7 officers entered the school and then had to retreat. They needed to wait for a Border Patrol Tactical Unit to arrive.

I'm sure mistakes were made, is any operation perfect, especially when lives are lost? There will always be "what if" questions. I can sort of see why someone may feel it had become a hostage situation / gunman barricaded away. After the initial rampage, if he had been stuck in the same classroom with other students, I would have though the assumption would be he'd have killed them immediately, and if he didn't then he'd be keeping them alive for a reason? So, maybe there was a genuine hope that they'd have enough time to get the tactical unit onsite within the next 30-60 minutes, and then make their move, rather than have poorly trained officers barge in again and just have the gunman open fire on them and the remaining students?

It is easy for us to sit at home and speculate, especially with hindsight, what should have been done. Truth is, most of us (if not all) have not been in that situation, and were definitely not in that specific situation. I'm sure it is an extremely stressful event in which the person in charge can see the pros and cons of any such decision. And, it cannot be a good feeling as a regular officer if you are expected to go in and confront this individual, especially when the odds are that you will be the one that gets killed. As I said, the police did respond immediately after the gunman entered the school, at which point they quickly realised they were biting off more than they could chew.
		
Click to expand...

Can you show a link from where you got your info please, I can't find anything regarding the police entering the classroom previously, rather that the police waited for the Janitor to arrive with the keys and then a tactical unit went in.

Here's the BBC story:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61613177


----------



## Swango1980 (May 31, 2022)

SocketRocket said:



			Can you show a link from where you got your info please, I can't find anything regarding the police entering the classroom previously, rather that the police waited for the Janitor to arrive with the keys and then a tactical unit went in.

Here's the BBC story:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61613177

Click to expand...

I googled the incident, including police reaction, and several articles came up about police entering the building, getting wounded and retreating. I then went onto the Wiki page for it. Again, I appreciate this is not necessarily 100% factual, but thew timeline was:

11:31am - Ramos arrives at the school and begins shooting
11:33am - Ramos enters the school
11:35am - 3 police officers enter the school, Ramos fires at them injuring two. Four more officers enter school

It doesn't say exactly when they retreat

12:15pm - Border Patrol Tactical Unit arrive with tactical shields
12:50pm - Border Patrol use janitors key to unlock door, kill Ramos

So, up until 12:15pm, I can understand the police actions. Imagine someone locked in a classroom with an assault rifle. Presumably, that person will have their weapon focused on the only entry into the room. Would you like to be the officer who opens the door with your pistol? Even if they had an assault rifle, Ramos would have a significant advantage as all he needs to do is point his weapon at the door and shoot at any sign of movement. I doubt many regular police officers are like John McClain from Die Hard. Waiting for the necessary equipment would seem absolutely necessary, unless the officer in charge decided to send his officers in like lambs to the slaughter.

From 12:15 to 12:50, I'm unsure what happened in that 35 minutes. Presumably it takes time to organise an assault into the classroom. I think I read somewhere that there was also an issue about getting into the classroom after Ramos locked the door, as they didn't have the equipment for that (I guess why they needed the key)


----------



## D-S (May 31, 2022)

SocketRocket said:



			Can you show a link from where you got your info please, I can't find anything regarding the police entering the classroom previously, rather that the police waited for the Janitor to arrive with the keys and then a tactical unit went in.

Here's the BBC story:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61613177

Click to expand...

Here is the link from the New York Times which I posted (#212 in this thread) which gives you a minute by minute description of the events.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/05/28/us/school-shooting-timeline-uvalde-texas.html


----------



## Swango1980 (May 31, 2022)

D-S said:



			Here is the link from the New York Times which I posted (#212 in this thread) which gives you a minute by minute description of the events.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/05/28/us/school-shooting-timeline-uvalde-texas.html

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone can read that unless they register an account with the NY Times? I appreciate it is a free account, but I'm guessing some don't bother taking that step when clicking on the link. I'm personally always reluctant to create yet another account for something.


----------



## D-S (May 31, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			I don't think anyone can read that unless they register an account with the NY Times? I appreciate it is a free account, but I'm guessing some don't bother taking that step when clicking on the link. I'm personally always reluctant to create yet another account for something.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, I read it via a Twitter link and it wasn’t hidden behind a paywall. Here is a link to the tweet, you might be able to see it via this

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1530715391533588481


----------



## Mudball (May 31, 2022)

Only in America…


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1531264007142875139


----------



## Mel Smooth (Jun 2, 2022)

And another one.
5 dead in Tulsa.


----------



## D-S (Jun 5, 2022)

By the look of it the ‘killing fields’ of the USA aren’t going away soon.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1533419420059586562


----------



## bobmac (Jun 5, 2022)

If a mob of people attack your home, you need an AR 15.
Nuts


----------



## patricks148 (Jun 6, 2022)

I caddied for an American couple on Sunday, on the face of it they seemed like normal people, but we got on the subject of guns and mass shootings in the U S. Tbh the excuses he came up with to justify unlimited gun ownership in the states was laughable and even the wife made some pretty remarkable reasons to have as many guns as they could.


----------



## Robster59 (Jun 6, 2022)

patricks148 said:



			I caddied for an American couple on Sunday, on the face of it they seemed like normal people, but we got on the subject of guns and mass shootings in the U S. Tbh the excuses he came up with to justify unlimited gun ownership in the states was laughable and even the wife made some pretty remarkable reasons to have as many guns as they could.
		
Click to expand...

And I bet they couldn't understand the fact we don't own guns in this country.  
As I say, it's not going to change.  People will spout whatever bull they want to stay as they are.


----------



## D-S (Jun 7, 2022)

The casual acceptance that the regular slaughter of young children (and many, many others) is an acceptable price to pay for their ‘freedoms’, is both horrific and staggering.


----------



## bobmac (Jun 7, 2022)

Mudball said:



			Only in America…


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1531264007142875139

Click to expand...

The other gun is probably his little sisters


----------

