Another Mass Shooting in the US

[fundy]

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

 

[Imurg]

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

Makes buttered toast look intelligent...

 

[Swango1980]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

Bet you are great at Call of Duty?

 

[road2ruin]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.’

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]

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.’

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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

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]

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.

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]

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.