Thin blue line outside the school
More like thin yellow line
Defund the police and regulate guns
Absolutely. Or maybe not defund the police, but train them to actually do their job.
This reminds me of the over 200 Seattle Washington police officers who quit after the George Floyd protests as a response to calls to “de-fund the police” and the city actually considering it.
“police officers are cowards”
ACAC?
POAC
Shorten it to POC to really piss them off.
Sorry that acronym is already in use.
Pig Officers Are Corrupt
Sounds like the guns weren’t in the schools. They were out. Your implying that had they been in the school, we wouldn’t have had the same level of tragedy.
Name those officers.
We need more guns in schools and less cops. An armed teacher would at least try.
Teachers are already underpaid and overworked.
Addressing the fact that the US have a worrying fetish for firearms isn’t on the agenda, is it? No, let’s give guns to teachers.
Great idea. The school can set up a firing range with tiny silhouettes in the gym for teachers to practice putting down a little child. We’ll just add “marksman” on top of the other responsibilities they’re already underpaid for.
You jest but schools here used to have shooting teams back before the school shootings started. Once they started the teams quickly got disbanded.
Rifles with live ammunition? Yeah that does seem misguided in retrospect. Not as misguided as handguns in the classrooms IMO, but yeah, definitely not going to fly in these troubled times.
An armed teacher would be the first target.
If they’re carrying handguns eventually there will be a school shooting that starts by a child grabbing one of those.
Okay setting aside whether there should be guns in schools, this argument doesn’t make sense. There were, in fact, good guys with guns on the scene. The police prevented them from intervening.
As they should. You don’t want to add random gun owners adding chaos to such a scene.
But this could have been prevented by police actually doing the job they were paid for. If they had taken care of the shooter like they should have, the question of other people wanting to enter to do the police’ job would never have arisen.
As they should.
Huh? I mean if they did their job there would be no need for that, but if not the least they could’ve done is not to stop people who wanna do something.
Huh? I mean if they did their job there would be no need for that
That is one part. They should have done their job and taken care of the shooter. Here, they were an unexcusable failure.
But they also should keep anyone else out of this. That was my point.
If they had ONE more gun or ONE more officer they could have saved ALL those kids! Which is why we need to take MORE money out of Education and INTO Police Officers Bank Accounts!
Did they still not burn down that police station?
Want to?
More than anything.
No, they reelected the sheriff of course.
Please tell me you’re joking!
Seventy-three votes separated Uvalde County Sheriff Ruben Nolasco and challenger Otto Arnim in the Republican Party primary runoff on May 28, 2024. Voters chose the incumbent sheriff for a likely second term with 1,241 votes compared to Arnim’s 1,168. Nolasco won 51.52 percent of the vote, with 2,729 of the more than 17,000 registered voters casting a ballot.
The Uvalde County Democratic Party did not field a candidate for sheriff, unless a write-in candidate files for the post this summer, Nolasco does not have a challenger en route to reelection in November.
Apparently guns don’t fix the fact that you’re basically a fucking coward.
I prefer LARPers with guns, myself. Coward is too good for these roleplayers who couldn’t be bothered to use their 6-weeks of training in how to beat black citizens and plant evidence, to take out an active shooter in an elementary school.
We are a people with sociopaths in positions of power, with a license to kill, who feel no empathy toward others enough to ask why they weren’t acting to save these kids and teachers. Then to hear that parents were threatened with arrest (maybe actually arrested the mother who jumped a fence and managed to save her son when the cops would do nothing) if they tried to enter and do anything to help those inside.
As a new parent to a kid that will be 5 this year, this shit is my nightmare. When the footage came out showing those scummy wannabes standing around hearing round after round of shots, knowing they were coming from classrooms of children and teachers, who likely were dying with every pop, made me so angry I was practically shaking and weeping. I’ve never felt that much utter contempt for police in my life. They’d have had to shoot me to keep me out of that school. I can’t imagine a more dystopian world than one where the parents were threatened while a gunman mowed down their children for over an hour.
I’m so sorry for the families. They had to bury their children or loved one and live with the image of indifferent cops standing around in the school doing nothing. I would be left wondering which order my kid was shot and could they have been saved with the initial responding officers, or any other fucking one of the 300 and something on scene, doing their job, regardless of who the fuck was in charge. I guess at training these cops all skipped the class about active shooters are bad and can be legally shot.
Not to pick any side in a world conflict, or make anything about this post anymore political, but this is why I have a hard time knowing about the civilian and children lost in Gaza. How the losses make up a disproportionally high number of women and children. I don’t give a flying fuck the color of a child’s skin or what religion their parents practice, THEY ARE FUCKING CHILDREN, FOR FUCKS SAKE!!
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
How many of those cops are still employed, I wonder…
How many of them are being paid to police schools.
Technically the guns were outside the school
Came here to say this. Perhaps if they’d been inside, the outcome would have been different.
Too bad the shooter wasn’t black. The cops weren’t trained for this.
This is a cop problem, not a gun problem. All the guns were working, including the shooter’s. The cops saw fit to take their lunch hour instead of working.
This is a cop problem, not a gun problem. All the guns were working, including the shooter’s. The cops saw fit to take their lunch hour instead of working.
This. Specifically it’s a “police do not have a duty to protect” problem, that stems from a series of court cases going back to at least the 80s.
I think it’s a problem that cops are just hired employees rather than anything more significant than that.
I mean, if it were up to me they would be paid better, required to insure both individually and at a department level against damages to civilian persons and property, and subject to much stricter civilian scrutiny.
They would keep qualified immunity, but with much tighter reigns on the “qualified” part. Immunity only when necessary, with civilian oversight as to when that is. We would toss out the thing where police are not liable for damages done by them, they would be responsible for and expected to insure against it.
The insurance thing is two tiered for a.similar reason - if the damage is deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes by civilian oversight then it would be on the city and the city’s insurance to pay for it, if not then on the officer and the officer’s insurance. This eventually prices bad (but not quite criminally bad) officers out of the job.
Are you a doctor?
No, but malpractice insurance was exactly what I was thinking about as a model.
Just saw a video. Hahaha, I’m gonna stop being capitalist cattle and switch to crime.
If your Mafia family is organized as a worker co-op, is it praxis?
But I’m not Italian!
Why not?
They won’t let me be Italian.
Uvalde is majority-minority. If cops went in, more kids probably would’ve died.
That’s tongue-in-cheek gallows humor but sadly not too far off from reality.
If we’re playing “what if”, my made up story is that they rushed in with 300 cops and nobody died.
But the reality is they did NOTHING.
I get what you’re alluding to, but actually the cops yelled out that they were there and for any children hiding to come out (obviously well before they’d neutralized the shooter) and the kids who responded and came out of their hiding places were shot dead because the cops were too cowardly (or busy checking their Facebook feed based on video evidence) to actually protect these innocent 5-10 year olds. I have a child in that age range and my blood starts boiling even discussing this topic.
Let us not forget that these wannabe police even arrested parents who were willing to rush into danger to protect their children. That’s all they were good for on this day.
The guy that was checking his phone…his wife was one of the teachers in the school that died.
I think if anything, that cop deserves a little slack.
I don’t really get what you’re saying.
That most people there are minorities, and cops don’t do well around them.
Really enraging to have all those Punisher logos juxtaposed with their cowering and pants pissing.
To protect and serve. *
*terms and conditions apply
- capital
No, it doesn’t prove that guns in school won’t solve the problem.
It proves you can’t trust cops to do the bare fucking minimum.
If teachers had been armed? It might–might–have ended sooner with fewer innocent victims. At least the teachers had some skin in the game, and teachers usually care about the kids in schools.
Giving guns to teachers to fight school shooters is exactly the excalating move that I would expect from the US.
What’s your solution?
Grow up and stop thinking guns make you look badass, for one.
How about “Less guns in the hands of those who should not have them in the first place”, like every other civilized country does? And guess what, those countries know “school shootings” only as something America does.
I’m with you there in general.
We don’t need metal detectors outside of school either
My solution is making gun ownership less indiscriminate. In my country, I’d have to prove that I need a gun for self-defense and pass a psychological and physical check. Moreover, the license would have to be renewed after 5 years.
I have a friend that used to be a stripper (“exotic dancer”, if you prefer). She tried to get a concealed carry permit–in Detroit–long before Heller v. D.C. and McDonald v. Chicago because she had a stalker. She was denied, because she didn’t have any greater need for self-defense than any other person.
Who defines psychological wellness? For reference, I’m a gun owner, and I compete in shooting matches on a regular basis. About a decade ago, I failed to complete suicide; I attempted suicide because I was being seriously abused (verbally, mentally, emotionally, financially, and sometimes physically) by my ex-spouse, which had lead to serious isolation and depression. I believe that I am mentally healthy now–as did my last psychiatrist–but I am forever barred from owning a firearm in Illinois because I was held for observation at a hospital in the state. Moreover, people with serious mental illnesses are more likely to be victims orf violence rather then perpetrators.
Why should people that are less physically capable be less able to defend themselves?
You can’t “prove you need a gun for self defense” until it’s too late. Unless you mean “only of you’re rich, important, and white (this is America mind you) enough that we think there’s a chance those dirty not-white races may attack you.”
Personally I don’t think we should limit guns to the wealthy elite, I think that even us lowly poors deserve the right to protect our lives.
I’ve never even thought, “I need a gun” and I’m not rich or wealthy or affluent. The only reason I’ll ever learn to handle firearms is to shoot fascists if the need arises.
Damn fine reason. Unfortunately not everyone is as lucky as you in not needing one before then, too. I wish they were, but unfirtunately there are still people who want to victimize others. Less than there used to be though, crime has gone down since '93, so that’s a positive!
The problem is that in the US, the guns are already in the hands of everyone. There are more guns than people. The cat’s out of the box.
Buyback programs. Ammo purchasing restrictions. Laws requiring documentation of all firearms with strict penalties for undocumented weapons. There are proven menthods of de-escalating and de-weaponizing populations when they are provided with the means, motive and opportunity.
Get out of here with this defeatist attitude. You’d never make this argument for driving a vehicle without a license because “tHeRe ArE tOo MaNy CaRs”
Buyback programs in the US are good for PR but do little to remove guns that would be used in a crime. Mostly people sell their junk and old rifles at these things. Many times, while they’re waiting in line they’ll get a better offer by the mob of people on the sidewalks looking to buy.
Ammo restrictions, I agree would be effective. But the 2nd Amendment would shut that down.
Documented firearms, again the cat is out of the bag. There are millions of undocumented firearms in the US. And no criminal would use one with a paper trail anyway. This just makes things harder for honest people.
Those “proven” methods haven’t worked in the US. The 2nd Amendment and a very armed population will see to it that the guns are here to stay, by force if necessary.
I’m not a defeatist, I’m a realist.
Each of these ideas solves a different aspect of the bigger problem, but none of them will solve the entire issue.
The problem is that with these ‘realistic’ views, we never make ANY progress by just throwing our hands up, saying ‘Well there are just too many guns to solve the problem with a single solution.’
