Another Mass Shooting in the US

[Swinglowandslow]

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.

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]

As for the Piers Morgan comment, grow up you pathetic prick

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

 

[cliveb]

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

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]

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.

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]

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

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]

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 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]

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???

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]

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???

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]

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???

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

https://twitter.com/x/status/1530728636164321281

 

[clubchamp98]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

^^^^ 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.

 

[PJ87]

^^^^ 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.

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