In an ideal world you’d be trying to capture not kill, I wonder if any none lethal methods were tried, tasers (range 35ft) or mace for example.
I suspect "we have a gunman with an AR-15 who has already shot a bunch of children in a school that might still contain live children" will always take precedence over trying to preserve the gunman's life.
I meant the people responding before he entered the building, who appear to have shot at him, missed, and then sheltered waiting for backup.
The story seems to be that the shooter crashed his truck, then shot at some passers-by who stopped to help him, whereupon three cops (the school cop plus a couple of local cops in a car that happened to be there) fired at him (presumably with their sidearms from too far away, because that's what cops do) to no effect.
I'd guess that they weren't thinking at the time that there was a chance that he might break in to the school and shoot a class full of kids.
(And yes, the usual gun-happy politicians are lining up with proposals to arm teachers, "harden" schools to make them more like fortresses that are able to resist intrusion from marauding gunmen, and so on.)
I linked to this video before on another thread. This still happens today. Reports are the Texas shooter had been bullied. He was a high school drop out. He posted threats on social media
It is being reported the massacre lasted 40 minutes, whilst armed police (5 of whom were specifically the schools own armed dept) stood outside and prevented people from entering, whilst they waited for tactical support - even threatening to taser one of the parents. Meanwhile some law enforcement personnel are acknowledged to have entered the school to rescue their own children.
There is literally a six minute long video of parents yelling at law enforcement, who in body armour with rifles and tasers, to go into the school and rescue their children.
It is being reported the massacre lasted 40 minutes, whilst armed police (5 of whom were specifically the schools own armed dept) stood outside and prevented people from entering, whilst they waited for tactical support - even threatening to taser one of the parents.
I'm finding it hard to see that as a mark against the police. The first rule of rendering assistance to anybody is "don't put yourself at undue risk by doing so".
Imagine, for instance, it was a major fire with children stuck inside the building but the firefighters refused to go in (or let anyone else go in) until they had the right equipment and appropriately trained personnel to do so reasonably safely. Would that be wrong?
I mean, I can understand an attitude of "it's your job to go in there and end the threat, and if 30% of you get killed doing it then that's just the way it is" in a military context, but police aren't soldiers and their lives are no more or less dispensable than anyone else's*.
Meanwhile some law enforcement personnel are acknowledged to have entered the school to rescue their own children.
Well yes, people take crazy risks for the sake of their own children.
.
*= not that I think soldiers' lives are less important, of course, but they have at least signed up knowing and agreeing to the fact that that's how they will be treated if and when the situation demands it. The police haven't.
I haven't yet come around 100% to agreeing with full police abolition but I am moving more and more in that direction all the time and the argument that police should not have to risk their lives to prevent children from being murdered is pushing me a lot farther towards that position. What is the actual fucking point of police if they don't have to risk their own lives to protect the public?
I agree with the second bit* - but then I'm British - but the first bit not so much. While the thighs are reasonably effective you really want the face, neck, body or groin (or under the arms but you've got to be a shot and a half to manage that unless you're basically next to them).
And, presented with the thigh as a target from a fair distance, there's a good chance you'll miss. And that just invites a response from the person who's going to respond with a gun. Because that's what he's got.
Fundamentally I think if you're faced with someone in a school, with an assault rifle, then really it comes under the headline of 'play terrible games, win terrible prizes.'
*and that will only work if you've got someone halfway rational who wants a hostage situation - less so with someone just roaming a building firing at children and teachers. So in those two examples you cite, you've got one who barely even got going (awful situation though it must have been for Ms Tuff), and one where they knew what they were doing and had a pretty limited and specific objective. Neither were indiscriminate sprees - I genuinely don't know how you reason with someone mid-massacre.
It is being reported the massacre lasted 40 minutes, whilst armed police (5 of whom were specifically the schools own armed dept) stood outside and prevented people from entering, whilst they waited for tactical support - even threatening to taser one of the parents. Meanwhile some law enforcement personnel are acknowledged to have entered the school to rescue their own children.
That account can be found here, for those who are interested.
I'm finding it hard to see that as a mark against the police. The first rule of rendering assistance to anybody is "don't put yourself at undue risk by doing so".
Imagine, for instance, it was a major fire with children stuck inside the building but the firefighters refused to go in (or let anyone else go in) until they had the right equipment and appropriately trained personnel to do so reasonably safely. Would that be wrong?
School officials in Uvalde, Texas, promised to do everything they could to protect students from a mass shooting.
Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District had doubled its security budget in recent years, according to public documents, in part to comply with state legislation passed in the wake of a 2018 school shooting in which eight students and two teachers were killed. The district adopted an array of security measures that included its own police force, threat assessment teams at each school, a threat reporting system, social media monitoring software, fences around schools and a requirement that teachers lock their classroom doors, according to the security plan posted on the district’s website.
It happened anyway.
Somehow — the account provided by authorities is not entirely clear — a high school dropout with no known criminal history was able to evade a district officer outside Robb Elementary School on Tuesday and enter a back door armed with a rifle. From there the gunman, 18, proceeded down a hallway and into a classroom, where he locked the door and opened fire, authorities said. Nineteen children were killed, along with two teachers.
That school security budget is considered to be spent to protect the school children from random evil shooters. In reality it's a cost on all taxpayers to protect the rights of those who want to own and use freely unjustifiably powerful weapons.
That school security budget is considered to be spent to protect the school children from random evil shooters. In reality it's a cost on all taxpayers to protect the rights of those who want to own and use freely unjustifiably powerful weapons.
In which case, why not move that from a cost on all taxpayers to just gun owners? Take the budgets spent on protecting schools, shopping malls, music venues and other potential locations for a mass shooting, and then add in costs to provide paramedic and hospital treatment for victims of gunshots and the police budget for SWAT teams to respond to mass shooting incidents. Estimate how many guns there are in a State (or city or other appropriate level of government) and impose a requirement that gun ownership incurs an annual fee that covers all of those costs.
The right to bear arms already has a cost, you can only own a gun that you can afford to buy, all this is doing is adding an additional cost and so therefore can't be considered an infringement of that constitutional right (otherwise, the lawyers would have already taken people to court for selling guns and ammunition rather than giving them away).
I think we expect the police to do dangerous things in certain limited situations. We do expect the police to put themselves in harms way if it is essential.
Imagine, for instance, it was a major fire with children stuck inside the building but the firefighters refused to go in (or let anyone else go in) until they had the right equipment and appropriately trained personnel to do so reasonably safely. Would that be wrong?
Well, there's different possibilities here.
If I, as a random passer-by, am next to a burning building with kids in it, my first instinct is going to be to try and get the kids out safely. This instinct is going to be tempered by the following:
1. If I get myself injured and fail to rescue any kids, I've caused more problems.
2. Perhaps me blundering about opening the wrong doors might increase airflow and make things worse.
But then, no fire department is going to stand around outside a burning building full of kids watching it for half an hour.
Imagine, for instance, it was a major fire with children stuck inside the building but the firefighters refused to go in (or let anyone else go in) until they had the right equipment and appropriately trained personnel to do so reasonably safely. Would that be wrong?
Well, there's different possibilities here.
If I, as a random passer-by, am next to a burning building with kids in it, my first instinct is going to be to try and get the kids out safely. This instinct is going to be tempered by the following:
1. If I get myself injured and fail to rescue any kids, I've caused more problems.
2. Perhaps me blundering about opening the wrong doors might increase airflow and make things worse.
But then, no fire department is going to stand around outside a burning building full of kids watching it for half an hour.
I completely agree, but I’ve actually had firefighting training drummed into me (and done it for real on various on fire warships). I’d like to think in that scenario I would just go for it, but every fibre of my being would in fact be screaming your 1 and 2….
You know what profession is NEVER told when you go into it that risking your life to save others is likely to be a part of your workday? Teachers. And every time one of these fuckers with their fucking guns shoots up a fucking school, you know who pretty much always dies protecting the kids? Teachers.
I went back to look at Biden's plan to end gun violence pledge in 2020. Many of these ideas are quite logical, One comment in the plan was: "Federal law prohibits more than three shells in a magazine while hunting ducks. We do more to protect ducks than our own children,"
It is hard, though, to get any of these ideas passed in a Senate that will likely have 52 votes against them.
It is being reported that officers entered the building, having arrived 4 minutes after the shooter - they were shot at and retreated and waited for a tactical team. There were also 150 police outside the school by the time parents were urging them to enter.
That school security budget is considered to be spent to protect the school children from random evil shooters. In reality it's a cost on all taxpayers to protect the rights of those who want to own and use freely unjustifiably powerful weapons.
In which case, why not move that from a cost on all taxpayers to just gun owners? Take the budgets spent on protecting schools, shopping malls, music venues and other potential locations for a mass shooting, and then add in costs to provide paramedic and hospital treatment for victims of gunshots and the police budget for SWAT teams to respond to mass shooting incidents. Estimate how many guns there are in a State (or city or other appropriate level of government) and impose a requirement that gun ownership incurs an annual fee that covers all of those costs.
The right to bear arms already has a cost, you can only own a gun that you can afford to buy, all this is doing is adding an additional cost and so therefore can't be considered an infringement of that constitutional right (otherwise, the lawyers would have already taken people to court for selling guns and ammunition rather than giving them away).
Yep, I'd support that. It makes no sense that the financial cost (yeah, I know focussing on a small issue here) of letting lone losers buy powerful weapons and kill school kids when the security cost should be borne by people who are really keen on having the unfetterd right to do that sort of thing.
Also, under Abbott's administration in very recent times, I believe he signed through a cut of something like $200 million on spending for the department dealing with mental health provision; as well as being a long time opponent of the Obama health care bill.
* His evidence is apparently encapsulated by his belief that 'anybody who shoots somebody else has a mental health challenge.'
I think we need to avoid this talk about "losers". It feeds the cycle of self-loathing that produces shooters.
Speaking as someone who was consistently told what a loser they were by peers at school.
OK another term; would misunderstood, disengaged or solitary be any better ?
@Anselmina Abbot claims they all have a "mental health challenge" - do we know if this is true? Psychologically damaged, perhaps? I assume socially isolated and probably not doing well with schoolwork. The thing which definitely links them all is having access to absurdly powerful weapons in a culture where this is not unusual and lots of people take out their anger on others.
The image that shocked me most was of lots of police running down the road carrying large weapons that they were waving around. I'm just not used to seeing police with guns and particularly the mayhem they created. There seemed to be a lack of people in charge who knew what they were doing.
I think we need to avoid this talk about "losers". It feeds the cycle of self-loathing that produces shooters.
Speaking as someone who was consistently told what a loser they were by peers at school.
OK another term; would misunderstood, disengaged or solitary be any better ?
@Anselmina Abbot claims they all have a "mental health challenge" - do we know if this is true? Psychologically damaged, perhaps? I assume socially isolated and probably not doing well with schoolwork. The thing which definitely links them all is having access to absurdly powerful weapons in a culture where this is not unusual and lots of people take out their anger on others.
I think we need to address the human tendancy to marginalise, mock and isolate people who don't "fit in". It starts in the schools; it's no coincidence that it's there it so often ends.
A good point by Karl. Schools can produce massive amounts of rage and personal dislocation, of course, add guns to such trauma, and a very bad mix. The UK massacre that everyone remembers is Dunblane, a school massacre. It led to anti-gun legislation, voted for in parliament, although a sizeable gun lobby protested, and right wing MPs voted against. It's said that Boris attacked the ban on guns, can't find the quote.
Also, under Abbott's administration in very recent times, I believe he signed through a cut of something like $200 million on spending for the department dealing with mental health provision; as well as being a long time opponent of the Obama health care bill.
* His evidence is apparently encapsulated by his belief that 'anybody who shoots somebody else has a mental health challenge.'
For the record, right up until the moment he opened fire, the Robb Elementary shooter was the "law-abiding gun owner" Greg Abbott, Ted Cruz, and all the folks at the NRA love to valorize. He had no criminal convictions and, as things stand, likely never will.
Going back to one of my earlier posts, the police seem to have come up with yet another version of events in Uvalde. You may remember the earlier account of the shooter in body armor exchanging fire with three cops while he indestructibly strode into Robb Elementary like the Terminator wearing mithril mail. Then it turned out he didn't have any body armor and the police said they "engaged" him in some non-specific way. Now:
The 18-year-old gunman who killed 21 people at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, was not confronted by police before he entered the school, a Texas law enforcement official said Thursday, contradicting earlier comments from authorities and raising further questions about the police response to the massacre.
"He walked in unobstructed initially," Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) Regional Director Victor Escalon said. "So from the grandmother's house, to the (ditch), to the school, into the school, he was not confronted by anybody."
A DPS representative on Wednesday said a school resource officer had "engaged" with the suspect before he went in the school.
At a certain point you have to conclude that the police are just saying whatever they think will cast them in the best light.
I haven't yet come around 100% to agreeing with full police abolition but I am moving more and more in that direction all the time and the argument that police should not have to risk their lives to prevent children from being murdered is pushing me a lot farther towards that position. What is the actual fucking point of police if they don't have to risk their own lives to protect the public?
Unless you are in favour of a totally lawless society, why would you want full police abolition ?
What it needs is for officers to do a lot better and on this occasion, they were woefully inadequate.
Police slow to engage with gunman because ‘they could’ve been shot,’ official says.
It's easy to accuse someone else of cowardice, of course. But could they not have done better than this? The parents were pleading with them to go in and were threatened when they tried to go in themselves. As someone pointed out there, in Texas, the law protects you until you are born, but after that, you're on your own.
Police slow to engage with gunman because ‘they could’ve been shot,’ official says.
Apparently the police have been abolished anywhere anyone has an AR-15.
One of the major downsides of cities, or even small towns, having dedicated S.W.A.T. teams or other highly militarized specialty units is that it seems to inculcate a "not my job" mentality among other police when confronted with anything more deadly than a paring knife. American police are given qualified immunity and a host of other legal privileges on the basis of the risks supposedly inherent in their jobs. Since that's the case it's pretty galling to have them explain that such risks are better borne by untrained ten year olds.
There have been some accounts that police didn't storm the classroom immediately because they thought the shooter had already killed everyone. We now know that is a lie.
Here's the timeline from [ Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steven McCraw ]:
A 911 call came in from a girl in room 112 at 12:03 p.m. local time.
The call lasted one minute, 23 seconds. She identified herself and her location in a whisper.
At 12:10 p.m. local time she called back and said there were multiple dead.
She called back at 12:13 p.m. local time and again at 12:16 p.m. local time to say there were “eight to nine students alive,” McCraw laid out.
At 12:36 p.m. local time, McCraw said that on a 911 call, two or three shots could be heard.
The student called back “and was told to stay on the line and be very quiet,” McCraw said.
At one point, the girl said she could hear police nearby.
At 12:51 p.m. local time, McCraw said the call got “very loud” and sounded like officers were moving children out of the room.
I suppose a case could be argued that they weren't lying but rather there was a catastrophically bad breakdown in relaying 911 information to officers on the scene, but that actually seems worse (and like blame shifting).
Lauren Boebert claims "when 9/11 happened, we didn't ban planes".
No, but she must have missed the significant changes in airport security that have happened since - locked cabin doors on planes, a whole bunch of picky rules about liquids, and so on.
Lauren Boebert claims "when 9/11 happened, we didn't ban planes".
No, but she must have missed the significant changes in airport security that have happened since - locked cabin doors on planes, a whole bunch of picky rules about liquids, and so on.
And the fact that all non-government air travel was banned in the U.S. for forty-eight hours.
At a certain point you have to conclude that the police are just saying whatever they think will cast them in the best light.
If what they’re doing now is an attempt to cast things in the best light, the mind staggers at the thought of what could be worse than what they’re now saying.
... The UK massacre that everyone remembers is Dunblane, a school massacre. It led to anti-gun legislation, voted for in parliament, although a sizeable gun lobby protested, and right wing MPs voted against. It's said that Boris attacked the ban on guns, can't find the quote.
(my italics)
That's the point: it took one (admittedly horrific, but they all are) mass shooting for legislation against handguns to be passed.
And that even though we had a Tory government at the time.
Lauren Boebert claims "when 9/11 happened, we didn't ban planes".
No, but she must have missed the significant changes in airport security that have happened since - locked cabin doors on planes, a whole bunch of picky rules about liquids, and so on.
And the fact that all non-government air travel was banned in the U.S. for forty-eight hours.
And the fact that we don't just let anyone who feels like it fly a plane as of right.
BJ (Before Johnson) the Conservatives would have been much closer to Democrats than Republicans ... so it's not quite so surprising that Conservative governments in the UK had a more sensible response to mass murder by increasing restrictions on gun ownership.
And the NRA merrily continue with their convention in the same state. At least the manufacturers of the gun the latest shooter used have apparently pulled out of having a presence there.
Do you remember Hungerford ? I have a relative who was driving through at the time and the man she was with was shot in the arm.
Also a Tory government, and also resulted in increased gun control.
Fair point (yes - I do remember it). I think what was so particularly horrifying about Dunblane - and the one in Texas the other day - was the extreme youth of most of the victims (infant school age IIRC).
I think we need to avoid this talk about "losers". It feeds the cycle of self-loathing that produces shooters.
Speaking as someone who was consistently told what a loser they were by peers at school.
OK another term; would misunderstood, disengaged or solitary be any better ?
@Anselmina Abbot claims they all have a "mental health challenge" - do we know if this is true?
Do you mean is it true that the Governor said this, or is it true that all people who kill others have mental health problems? I believe, Abbott was speculating that the problem with Ramos was not that he had access to guns, but that he had mental health problems. So far as I know he wasn't diagnosed with any mental illness. I presume Abbott was merely deflecting criticism away from his pro-gun stance. Though it also seemed ironic that for someone who suddenly seems so ready and able to identify and label mental health illness, he should also be so instrumental in retarding its treatment in his own state.
The biographical details being published on various websites, including the BBC, would suggest he grew up in an unstable family witnessing domestic violence and addiction - and was bullied at school. He was therefore at least subject to emotional neglect if not material neglect too, as well, as having violence modelled to him by important figures in his life.
Not everyone who suffers abuse or extreme adversity, grows up to be abusive or violent themselves - indeed most don’t - but allow this to happen to enough people and eventually someone does. Serial killers are made not born, Whether you call that a form personality disorder, or emotion disregulation; whether you define it as a mental health condition or not doesn’t really change the process by which happened - and doesn’t necessarily effect culpability.
There is little chance he could have killed so many people if he hadn’t had access to those weapons. It is certainly possible to kill unarmed, or with knives or improvised weapons, but it is more difficult, takes longer and gives more opportunity for someone to stop you.
Someone in the UK should pehaps be very circumspect commenting on this thread (and I apologise for my previous posting which I now see as ignorant and insensitive). However, this, from the splendid 'Scientific American' is apposite:
“The science is abundantly clear,” write the editors of Scientific American. “More guns do not stop crime. Guns kill more children each year than auto accidents. More children die by gunfire in a year than on-duty police officers and active military members. Guns are a public health crisis, just like COVID, and in this, we are failing our children, over and over again.”
“Scientists should not sit on the sidelines and watch others fight this out,” argues Science editor-in-chief H. Holder Thorp. “If children do not feel safe, they cannot learn. And a country that cannot learn cannot thrive. A nation of children threatened by gun violence does not have a future.”
But this will not, I fear have any traction with the NRA.
Comments
The story seems to be that the shooter crashed his truck, then shot at some passers-by who stopped to help him, whereupon three cops (the school cop plus a couple of local cops in a car that happened to be there) fired at him (presumably with their sidearms from too far away, because that's what cops do) to no effect.
I'd guess that they weren't thinking at the time that there was a chance that he might break in to the school and shoot a class full of kids.
(And yes, the usual gun-happy politicians are lining up with proposals to arm teachers, "harden" schools to make them more like fortresses that are able to resist intrusion from marauding gunmen, and so on.)
Non-chemical viagra.
Words fail me,
I'm finding it hard to see that as a mark against the police. The first rule of rendering assistance to anybody is "don't put yourself at undue risk by doing so".
Imagine, for instance, it was a major fire with children stuck inside the building but the firefighters refused to go in (or let anyone else go in) until they had the right equipment and appropriately trained personnel to do so reasonably safely. Would that be wrong?
I mean, I can understand an attitude of "it's your job to go in there and end the threat, and if 30% of you get killed doing it then that's just the way it is" in a military context, but police aren't soldiers and their lives are no more or less dispensable than anyone else's*.
Well yes, people take crazy risks for the sake of their own children.
.
*= not that I think soldiers' lives are less important, of course, but they have at least signed up knowing and agreeing to the fact that that's how they will be treated if and when the situation demands it. The police haven't.
I agree with the second bit* - but then I'm British - but the first bit not so much. While the thighs are reasonably effective you really want the face, neck, body or groin (or under the arms but you've got to be a shot and a half to manage that unless you're basically next to them).
And, presented with the thigh as a target from a fair distance, there's a good chance you'll miss. And that just invites a response from the person who's going to respond with a gun. Because that's what he's got.
Fundamentally I think if you're faced with someone in a school, with an assault rifle, then really it comes under the headline of 'play terrible games, win terrible prizes.'
*and that will only work if you've got someone halfway rational who wants a hostage situation - less so with someone just roaming a building firing at children and teachers. So in those two examples you cite, you've got one who barely even got going (awful situation though it must have been for Ms Tuff), and one where they knew what they were doing and had a pretty limited and specific objective. Neither were indiscriminate sprees - I genuinely don't know how you reason with someone mid-massacre.
That account can be found here, for those who are interested.
That's one way of looking at it. Another is that if you've been specifically and recently given this exact task and you fail at it, people are going to ask questions.
People might start wondering if they're getting good value for their tax dollars.
Go ahead and look at the picture in that tweet and tell me again how easy it is to distinguish between police and soldiers.
The right to bear arms already has a cost, you can only own a gun that you can afford to buy, all this is doing is adding an additional cost and so therefore can't be considered an infringement of that constitutional right (otherwise, the lawyers would have already taken people to court for selling guns and ammunition rather than giving them away).
I think we expect the police to do dangerous things in certain limited situations. We do expect the police to put themselves in harms way if it is essential.
Well, there's different possibilities here.
If I, as a random passer-by, am next to a burning building with kids in it, my first instinct is going to be to try and get the kids out safely. This instinct is going to be tempered by the following:
1. If I get myself injured and fail to rescue any kids, I've caused more problems.
2. Perhaps me blundering about opening the wrong doors might increase airflow and make things worse.
But then, no fire department is going to stand around outside a burning building full of kids watching it for half an hour.
I completely agree, but I’ve actually had firefighting training drummed into me (and done it for real on various on fire warships). I’d like to think in that scenario I would just go for it, but every fibre of my being would in fact be screaming your 1 and 2….
It is hard, though, to get any of these ideas passed in a Senate that will likely have 52 votes against them.
This may shape up to be a campaign issue. No?
It would appear good guys with guns don’t work.
Yep, I'd support that. It makes no sense that the financial cost (yeah, I know focussing on a small issue here) of letting lone losers buy powerful weapons and kill school kids when the security cost should be borne by people who are really keen on having the unfetterd right to do that sort of thing.
Speaking as someone who was consistently told what a loser they were by peers at school.
Also, under Abbott's administration in very recent times, I believe he signed through a cut of something like $200 million on spending for the department dealing with mental health provision; as well as being a long time opponent of the Obama health care bill.
* His evidence is apparently encapsulated by his belief that 'anybody who shoots somebody else has a mental health challenge.'
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/27/jacinda-ardern-wows-harvard-with-new-zealands-lesson-on-gun-control-and-democracy
OK another term; would misunderstood, disengaged or solitary be any better ?
@Anselmina Abbot claims they all have a "mental health challenge" - do we know if this is true? Psychologically damaged, perhaps? I assume socially isolated and probably not doing well with schoolwork. The thing which definitely links them all is having access to absurdly powerful weapons in a culture where this is not unusual and lots of people take out their anger on others.
I think we need to address the human tendancy to marginalise, mock and isolate people who don't "fit in". It starts in the schools; it's no coincidence that it's there it so often ends.
Yes, asking Abbott about his continuing opposition to Medicaid expansion in his state, something which would (among other things) cover mental healthcare, might also be worthwhile.
For the record, right up until the moment he opened fire, the Robb Elementary shooter was the "law-abiding gun owner" Greg Abbott, Ted Cruz, and all the folks at the NRA love to valorize. He had no criminal convictions and, as things stand, likely never will.
Going back to one of my earlier posts, the police seem to have come up with yet another version of events in Uvalde. You may remember the earlier account of the shooter in body armor exchanging fire with three cops while he indestructibly strode into Robb Elementary like the Terminator wearing mithril mail. Then it turned out he didn't have any body armor and the police said they "engaged" him in some non-specific way. Now:
At a certain point you have to conclude that the police are just saying whatever they think will cast them in the best light.
Unless you are in favour of a totally lawless society, why would you want full police abolition ?
What it needs is for officers to do a lot better and on this occasion, they were woefully inadequate.
Surprise, surprise.
Police slow to engage with gunman because ‘they could’ve been shot,’ official says.
It's easy to accuse someone else of cowardice, of course. But could they not have done better than this? The parents were pleading with them to go in and were threatened when they tried to go in themselves. As someone pointed out there, in Texas, the law protects you until you are born, but after that, you're on your own.
Apparently the police have been abolished anywhere anyone has an AR-15.
One of the major downsides of cities, or even small towns, having dedicated S.W.A.T. teams or other highly militarized specialty units is that it seems to inculcate a "not my job" mentality among other police when confronted with anything more deadly than a paring knife. American police are given qualified immunity and a host of other legal privileges on the basis of the risks supposedly inherent in their jobs. Since that's the case it's pretty galling to have them explain that such risks are better borne by untrained ten year olds.
There have been some accounts that police didn't storm the classroom immediately because they thought the shooter had already killed everyone. We now know that is a lie.
I suppose a case could be argued that they weren't lying but rather there was a catastrophically bad breakdown in relaying 911 information to officers on the scene, but that actually seems worse (and like blame shifting).
Telford knows nothing about American policing. He'll tell you so himself. He even goes so far as to say he knows nothing about this "America" place you speak of.
Poor old George got himself killed but to be fair to him, he was unarmed
Telford recognises neglect of duty when he sees it and knows that America is actually 2 continents
No, but she must have missed the significant changes in airport security that have happened since - locked cabin doors on planes, a whole bunch of picky rules about liquids, and so on.
And the fact that all non-government air travel was banned in the U.S. for forty-eight hours.
That's the point: it took one (admittedly horrific, but they all are) mass shooting for legislation against handguns to be passed.
And that even though we had a Tory government at the time.
Also a Tory government, and also resulted in increased gun control.
And the fact that we don't just let anyone who feels like it fly a plane as of right.
Weirdly, given how rare these events are in the U.K., my sister’s best friend had met and visited the home of the Cumbrian spree shooter.
Fair point (yes - I do remember it). I think what was so particularly horrifying about Dunblane - and the one in Texas the other day - was the extreme youth of most of the victims (infant school age IIRC).
Not everyone who suffers abuse or extreme adversity, grows up to be abusive or violent themselves - indeed most don’t - but allow this to happen to enough people and eventually someone does. Serial killers are made not born, Whether you call that a form personality disorder, or emotion disregulation; whether you define it as a mental health condition or not doesn’t really change the process by which happened - and doesn’t necessarily effect culpability.
There is little chance he could have killed so many people if he hadn’t had access to those weapons. It is certainly possible to kill unarmed, or with knives or improvised weapons, but it is more difficult, takes longer and gives more opportunity for someone to stop you.
“The science is abundantly clear,” write the editors of Scientific American. “More guns do not stop crime. Guns kill more children each year than auto accidents. More children die by gunfire in a year than on-duty police officers and active military members. Guns are a public health crisis, just like COVID, and in this, we are failing our children, over and over again.”
“Scientists should not sit on the sidelines and watch others fight this out,” argues Science editor-in-chief H. Holder Thorp. “If children do not feel safe, they cannot learn. And a country that cannot learn cannot thrive. A nation of children threatened by gun violence does not have a future.”
But this will not, I fear have any traction with the NRA.