School shooting at Texas Elementary school, several children reported dead

[Elijin]

So what I'm overwhelmingly hearing here is that it's a deep rooted problem that will require long term changes to cultural views, behaviour and laws. As such, since we can't fix it within a fiscal year, why bother at all???

America, treating mass shootings and climate change the same.

 

[Agema]

So what I'm overwhelmingly hearing here is that it's a deep rooted problem that will require long term changes to cultural views, behaviour and laws. As such, since we can't fix it within a fiscal year, why bother at all???

America, treating mass shootings and climate change the same.

Lots of shootings isn't a bug in US culture, it's a feature.

I know everyone thinks shooting are awful, and they are awful, but we really have to stop believing that the gun lobby are against them. They'll say the usual sad face platitudes and a few might even mean it, but when their answer to shootings is for more people to own and bear arms (gun sales in practice go up after them), we know what they're really looking at.

 

[SilentPony]

As a firearms enthusiast (not to be confused with gun nut), I have perused a small selection of firearms-oriented forums. To a one, they had posts containing gems such as "I can't wait to see the look in the perp's eyes before I put a bullet between them!".

These are just psychopaths waiting for an excuse to kill another human being without being punished for it.

As part of my Krav Maga training I took the conceal/carry course the studio taught. The instructor was a police officer, I think he was like a SWAT armory supervisor with lots of experience.
At the start of the class we went around the room talking about why we want the license. Most was for the training, some protection, others work security, etc...but there was one old white guy, nice twang to his voice. He said he wanted to carry a gun into his church because he was worried Muslims would try to storm the church and he'd be at the door ready to kill the "towel heads". His words. The instructor nodded, said it was a noble reason to get a gun, to protect one's church. And the class just moved on.
I was the only one who seemed horrified.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

He said he wanted to carry a gun into his church because he was worried Muslims would try to storm the church and he'd be at the door ready to kill the "towel heads".

Well, I feel sorry for any Sikh Indian who might've stopped by for directions, since they're the ones who traditionally wear turbans. But I guess that's more nuance than some numbnuts racist is capable of.

The instructor nodded, said it was a noble reason to get a gun, to protect one's church. And the class just moved on.
I was the only one who seemed horrified.

This guy and the old man both need to be on a watchlist.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I don't think it was ever imagined that random civilians with hunting equipment would be able to defeat an organized military in direct combat. It's meant to prevent subjugation. If the goal is to subjugate people, carpet bombing and nukes aren't particularly useful. A military trying to control a population vs apopulation trying to kill that military is a different kind of asymmetry. Having a gun doesn't stop soldiers from killing you, but it certainly can stop them from ordering you around without threat of repercussion, which is ultimately what we're trying to avoid.

Add to that, no government is likely to carpet bomb and nuke their own soil to subjugate their own civilian population. It would cost a shitload to rebuild in infrastructure it would destroy.

Other countries are fair game because you can always pull out and leave the people their to rot in the hellscape you've created. It's easier to bomb when you don't have to directly deal with the consequences of those bombings.

I would also like to point out, the civilian population of the US is significantly better armed than most rebel forces (though I'm also pretty sure we're a lot less willing to fight to the bitter end for prinicples we believe in, we just like whining a lot).

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I don't think you understand the sheer orders of magnitude more capable of death and destruction the government of the USA is compared to "We the People". The threat of repercussion doesn't exist when you can carpet bomb or nuke anybody who decides to oppose you with an order or a push of a button. In this day and age it's entirely possible to murder individuals with orbital satellites and drones from half the planet away. If the American people decided to rebel against a unified government that wanted to oppress them, the rebels would never even see a government soldier until the rebels were already so beaten down by the bombings they'd rebels would be begging for the government to stop. It would go something like this:

US Government: Hi! We've decide we're going to burn the entire US Constitution on live television! There are no rights and you exist only at our whims and die at our whims.
Texas: Oh yeah? Come on guys! Now we justify all those guns we bought. We're rebelling!
US Government: Oh, okay. Pushes button and Houston is obliterated.
Texas: PLEASE STOP! We'll stop rebelling and do whatever you say!
US Government: Should've done that in the first place.

Florida: Those pathetic Texans might have given up, but we won't! We're rebelling.
US Government: Oh, okay Pushes button and Miami is obliterated.
Florida: PLEASE STOP! We'll stop rebelling and do whatever you say!

US Government: Anybody else? Hovers finger over button.
Other 47 states: Uh... no we're good.
Tennessee: Actually I...
Other 47 states: SHUT UP AND BOW TO OUR LORD AND MASTER!!!
Tennessee: Okay...

A military doesn't need boots on the ground to control the populace when they have such overwhelming power they can just make a few shows of force and then not only will the populace be controlled, the populace will control any dissenters that do appear for the military because of the fear of repercussions.

What would stop the government and the military is the rest of the government and military, and if whoever it was that decided to actually declare themselves absolute dictator chances are they would already have the government and military in their pocket anyway. Otherwise the senators, generals, mayors, etc. who want to keep their power would defy them and stop them. Let's be frank here, the only reason that this hasn't happened already is that everybody in the government and military is constantly working to keep and increase their own power at the expense of the rest of the government and military. The only thing holding this country together is that everybody is so selfish and power hungry they can't possibly work together to oppress the people... that much.

And yet the US couldn't destroy the Taliban in 20 years of fighting and the Russian army is getting their tanks stolen by farmers with tractors in Ukraine.

 

[tippy2k2]

 

[Trunkage]

Lots of shootings isn't a bug in US culture, it's a feature.

If you know anything about Operations Gladio and the Strategy of Tension, you know this is the desired outcome

 

[Seanchaidh]

Add to that, no government is likely to carpet bomb and nuke their own soil to subjugate their own civilian population. It would cost a shitload to rebuild in infrastructure it would destroy.

depends how close they are to losing

 

[SilentPony]

If you know anything about Operations Gladio and the Strategy of Tension, you know this is the desired outcome

 

[tstorm823]

They're not supposed to be random civilians, though. They're supposed to be a militia.

That's not what the 2nd amendment says. It says specifically the people have the right to bear arms. Not the states or militias, but the people have that right.The militias are the reason the people need the right to bear arms. To paraphrase: "since the government is going to be armed by necessity, the people must also be allowed to arm themselves."

 

[SilentPony]

That's not what the 2nd amendment says. It says specifically the people have the right to bear arms. Not the states or militias, but the people have that right.The militias are the reason the people need the right to bear arms. To paraphrase: "since the government is going to be armed by necessity, the people must also be allowed to arm themselves."

Uh no, no it doesn't. That interpretation was made in 2008 by Justice Scalia.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
At the time of writing it was meant to allow slave owning Southerners to arm the local townsfolk during slave uprisings, and create militias and to store militia weapons.
Pretending like it was always understood to mean civilian gun ownership is a factual error. Its a misunderstanding of history.

 

[tstorm823]

I don't think you understand the sheer orders of magnitude more capable of death and destruction the government of the USA is compared to "We the People".

I don't think you understand that's a moot point. Nobody wants to be the king of a barren wasteland, carpet bombing your own nation isn't a winning play.

 

[tstorm823]

Uh no, no it doesn't. That interpretation was made in 2008 by Justice Scalia.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
At the time of writing it was meant to allow slave owning Southerners to arm the local townsfolk during slave uprisings, and create militias and to store militia weapons.
Pretending like it was always understood to mean civilian gun ownership is a factual error. Its a misunderstanding of history.

Your argument is shaky at best. Do you seriously think they enumerated rights for the people intending to apply them to regular citizens for 8 of the first 9 amendments with one exception? That's how you read the bill of rights? Nevermind that there are volumes of things written at the time debating the amendments, talking specifically about how an armed populace might deter a standing federal army without state-specific militias involved.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

 

[SilentPony]

Your argument is shaky at best. Do you seriously think they enumerated rights for the people intending to apply them to regular citizens for 8 of the first 9 amendments with one exception? That's how you read the bill of rights? Nevermind that there are volumes of things written at the time debating the amendments, talking specifically about how an armed populace might deter a standing federal army without state-specific militias involved.

I mean you say shaky. There was an actual court case about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
This really was decided in 2008. The 2nd Amendment really wasn't understood to mean citizens get guns until them. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or if the right was intended for state militias. This is pretty recent history.

 

[Worgen]

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Cops are scum, there is literally nothing that could be done for me to respect pigs anymore. If I see a thin blue line sticker, I'd think less of the person who has it.

 

[thebobmaster]

Say what you will about Beto O'Rourke, he pulled a pretty good move here.

 

[BrawlMan]

Say what you will about Beto O'Rourke, he pulled a pretty good move here.

"Now's not the time to talk about this!". It's never a good time to talk about any of this, cuz you don't want to face it head on! Cowards and sycophants!