Also, in the Texas case it appears that the police who were outside took 1 1/2 hrs to kill the gunman and it wasn't the local police, it was a nearby Border Patrol Agent. I believe there needs to be an investigation on why from what reports said, "they were waiting for a key to the classroom". They did not engage the perp at all. Going forward I believe the best course of action is to have armed guards in schools. I would also like to have some of the teachers/staff etc trained to act as minutemen in case situations like this come up again. In both the Buffalo and Texas situations you have young men who are at least smart enough to enter places where they know there are no guns. In my view the bottom line is evil has to be fought. There are evil people out there who want to do people harm. I don't even care why they want to do it at this point. The issue right now is protecting citizens. And the answer is not to disarm the law abiding. It is meeting force with force.
Van do you not understand that there was an ARMED security guard in the Topps store in Buffalo and an ARMED School Resource Officer at the school in Uvalde? Why do keep repeating that we need armed guards in schools? Do you not know that many school shootings occur in schools where there are already ARMED personnel on duty? That was true of the Stoneman school in FL as well as here in Uvalde...The first person the kid in Buffalo killed was the ARMED security guard, who himself fired at least two rounds, but they did not penetrate the TEENAGED gunman's body armor...
Do you understand that these security guards are usually off duty or former LEOs that have undergone extensive weapons training and are trained and experienced in catching bad guys? But doesn't it strike you as strange that a TEENAGED gunman can have at his disposal more firepower and lethal weaponry than the cop tasked with protecting a school or grocery store?
We are talking attempts to institute reasonable measures like background checks, waiting periods and limits on who is able to purchase assault weapons. There is a reason law enforcement agencies support those types of measures, and also why the NRA and it's clients in the gun industry are opposed.
Nobody is trying to take weapons from people who are law abiding and should have the right to own them. But the line between who are and are not "law abiding citizens" has been deliberately muddled, because the NRA refuses to allow any time of protective measures like "red flag laws" or waiting periods to be universally applied. Consequently 3 people who never should have been allowed to possess weapons were allowed to purchase them (or in the MI case get them as a present from their parents) and use them to kill innocent people.
In all 3 cases, the people who engaged in mass murder all essentially met the NRA's definition of "law abiding citizen", until they didn't. Essentially they turned into mass murders in a micro second. And in an open carry/no restriction state like Texas, the Ramos kid (aside from his unknown crime spree) is basically allowed by law to walk down public streets carrying his AR-15. He didn't violate open carry provisions until he entered school grounds, and by law no LEO would be able to engage him unless they actually had knowledge of his prior criminal act of shooting his Granma. Anyone who can buy a gun is allowed to carry it openly, with no license or training- that's what open carry means...
There are guys who have you tube channels dedicated to open carrying weapons and basically taunting the inability of police officers to even question them...This guy does it on bridges and along fishing spots in FL and claims he's "fishing"...Really the only difference between him and people who kill others, is for the time being he is not interested in killing anyone. Unless they try to get him not to provoke people needlessly by walking around with an assault weapon. But the reality is, he could just as easily get upset and decide to turn mass killer...
But an extensive background check and extended waiting period including interviews with friends, parents etc... likely would have resulted in all Ramos and the other 2 killers being denied access to that sort of weapon...In most states an 18 yr old has to present some sort of fake id to but beer, but in many that same 18 yr old can purchase an AR-15 on his 18th birthday and not have to fake any documents. The Ramos kid bought two, but if anyone had asked the grandparents he lived with if he should have access to a gun they'd have been horrified...
You're quibbling with me? I posted the local news account compiled by a station in Richardson Texas, based off of what the RICHARDSON POLICE told them. This wasn't a reporter's characterization- there were no reporters on the scene. This is what their staff was told by the RICHARDSON POLICE, and you're arguing semantics with me for reposting what the police said?
Anyway, I could have easily said AR-15, when I questioned DANC about his ridiculous characterization of the weaponry available to kids in the 1970s. I was cross posting and meant to say AR-15, since both Buffalo and Uvalde killers had those. And if you actually read the story I posted from Richardson, in addition to the AK-47 type pistol (which for some unknown reason you joined in with DANCs stupid semantic game), you'd notice that the kid in Richardson had an AR-15 as well...
The point is kids driving their pickups to school in the 1970s didn't have assault weapons in their gun racks... DANC tried to pass off some false equivalency, and even though you should be better that that, you decided to jump in as well... But hey you got an approval emoji from DANC. Congrats?
