Texas shooting.
-
wrote on 29 May 2022, 13:44 last edited by
@Jolly said in Texas shooting.:
40 miles.
So he took a bullet to the head that would have been a kill shot if the bad guy had twitched differently.
-
@Axtremus said in Texas shooting.:
@Mik said in Texas shooting.:
The author points out rather trivial objections and situations that might make this an imperfect solution in some cases. My belief is it is the low hanging fruit and should be taken seriously. It works quite well in our district and can be done without the time and effort involved in firearm legislation.
I wouldn't characterize all the objections as trivial. Indeed similar design concepts are being evaluated by/for schools here as well. Given the sizes of the school buildings and student populations here, though, actual proposals are more along the line of "multiple entrances, open just around school opening times to let students in quickly, then locked down all but one entrance during class hours." During class hours, the school may have select entrances opened to accommodate specific field/PE traffic, but otherwise will effectively have only one usable entrance that has other security design features to screen all comers.
Even that sort of design concept costs a good sum to implement, and that's reflected in bond proposals and property tax discussions. Wanna guess who are the ones most likely to argue/vote against school bond proposals and against raising property taxes to fund these things? Yeah, the same folks most likely to vote/argue against stricter gun control regulations. It's like the rest of the population has to bear the non-trivial extra cost of "hardening school security" to accommodate the feelings of the pro-gun/anti-tax crowd, just to keep everyone's children safe.
Like the author, your approach is assuming defeat at the hand of some imagined enemy simply because you won’t agree to anything but impossible gun control laws.
wrote on 29 May 2022, 16:39 last edited by@Mik said in Texas shooting.:
@Axtremus said in Texas shooting.:
@Mik said in Texas shooting.:
The author points out rather trivial objections and situations that might make this an imperfect solution in some cases. My belief is it is the low hanging fruit and should be taken seriously. It works quite well in our district and can be done without the time and effort involved in firearm legislation.
I wouldn't characterize all the objections as trivial. Indeed similar design concepts are being evaluated by/for schools here as well. Given the sizes of the school buildings and student populations here, though, actual proposals are more along the line of "multiple entrances, open just around school opening times to let students in quickly, then locked down all but one entrance during class hours." During class hours, the school may have select entrances opened to accommodate specific field/PE traffic, but otherwise will effectively have only one usable entrance that has other security design features to screen all comers.
Even that sort of design concept costs a good sum to implement, and that's reflected in bond proposals and property tax discussions. Wanna guess who are the ones most likely to argue/vote against school bond proposals and against raising property taxes to fund these things? Yeah, the same folks most likely to vote/argue against stricter gun control regulations. It's like the rest of the population has to bear the non-trivial extra cost of "hardening school security" to accommodate the feelings of the pro-gun/anti-tax crowd, just to keep everyone's children safe.
Like the author, your approach is assuming defeat at the hand of some imagined enemy simply because you won’t agree to anything but impossible gun control laws.
Not at all, I quite support securing the schools and support funding such measures, with attendant school bonds and property tax consequences. It’s the pro-gun yet at the same time anti-tax crowd who oftentimes stand in the way of actually funding the measures to beef up school security.
You seem to be a bit “head in the sand” where you appear unwilling to acknowledge the real limitations to beefing up school security, and keep thinking that doing so will always be cheap and simple. Perhaps a little reexaminations of your assumptions wouldn’t hurt?
-
wrote on 29 May 2022, 16:44 last edited by
Ax what the hell is wrong with you, man.
-
@Mik said in Texas shooting.:
@Axtremus said in Texas shooting.:
@Mik said in Texas shooting.:
The author points out rather trivial objections and situations that might make this an imperfect solution in some cases. My belief is it is the low hanging fruit and should be taken seriously. It works quite well in our district and can be done without the time and effort involved in firearm legislation.
I wouldn't characterize all the objections as trivial. Indeed similar design concepts are being evaluated by/for schools here as well. Given the sizes of the school buildings and student populations here, though, actual proposals are more along the line of "multiple entrances, open just around school opening times to let students in quickly, then locked down all but one entrance during class hours." During class hours, the school may have select entrances opened to accommodate specific field/PE traffic, but otherwise will effectively have only one usable entrance that has other security design features to screen all comers.
Even that sort of design concept costs a good sum to implement, and that's reflected in bond proposals and property tax discussions. Wanna guess who are the ones most likely to argue/vote against school bond proposals and against raising property taxes to fund these things? Yeah, the same folks most likely to vote/argue against stricter gun control regulations. It's like the rest of the population has to bear the non-trivial extra cost of "hardening school security" to accommodate the feelings of the pro-gun/anti-tax crowd, just to keep everyone's children safe.
Like the author, your approach is assuming defeat at the hand of some imagined enemy simply because you won’t agree to anything but impossible gun control laws.
Not at all, I quite support securing the schools and support funding such measures, with attendant school bonds and property tax consequences. It’s the pro-gun yet at the same time anti-tax crowd who oftentimes stand in the way of actually funding the measures to beef up school security.
You seem to be a bit “head in the sand” where you appear unwilling to acknowledge the real limitations to beefing up school security, and keep thinking that doing so will always be cheap and simple. Perhaps a little reexaminations of your assumptions wouldn’t hurt?
wrote on 29 May 2022, 16:49 last edited by@Axtremus said in Texas shooting.:
@Mik said in Texas shooting.:
@Axtremus said in Texas shooting.:
@Mik said in Texas shooting.:
The author points out rather trivial objections and situations that might make this an imperfect solution in some cases. My belief is it is the low hanging fruit and should be taken seriously. It works quite well in our district and can be done without the time and effort involved in firearm legislation.
I wouldn't characterize all the objections as trivial. Indeed similar design concepts are being evaluated by/for schools here as well. Given the sizes of the school buildings and student populations here, though, actual proposals are more along the line of "multiple entrances, open just around school opening times to let students in quickly, then locked down all but one entrance during class hours." During class hours, the school may have select entrances opened to accommodate specific field/PE traffic, but otherwise will effectively have only one usable entrance that has other security design features to screen all comers.
Even that sort of design concept costs a good sum to implement, and that's reflected in bond proposals and property tax discussions. Wanna guess who are the ones most likely to argue/vote against school bond proposals and against raising property taxes to fund these things? Yeah, the same folks most likely to vote/argue against stricter gun control regulations. It's like the rest of the population has to bear the non-trivial extra cost of "hardening school security" to accommodate the feelings of the pro-gun/anti-tax crowd, just to keep everyone's children safe.
Like the author, your approach is assuming defeat at the hand of some imagined enemy simply because you won’t agree to anything but impossible gun control laws.
Not at all, I quite support securing the schools and support funding such measures, with attendant school bonds and property tax consequences. It’s the pro-gun yet at the same time anti-tax crowd who oftentimes stand in the way of actually funding the measures to beef up school security.
You seem to be a bit “head in the sand” where you appear unwilling to acknowledge the real limitations to beefing up school security, and keep thinking that doing so will always be cheap and simple. Perhaps a little reexaminations of your assumptions wouldn’t hurt?
I never said any of that. You assumed it. Hence my assertion.
-
wrote on 29 May 2022, 17:15 last edited by
Anybody who thinks we can't increase security without tax increases, must assume that the security is of less value than everything else we're spending current tax money on. Ax, is that what you believe? That security is important, just not more important than what we're already spending money on?
-
wrote on 29 May 2022, 17:34 last edited by
-
wrote on 29 May 2022, 19:45 last edited by
Interesting. Both John Nance Garner (one of FDR’s VPs) and Matthew McConaughey are from Olvide.
-
Interesting. Both John Nance Garner (one of FDR’s VPs) and Matthew McConaughey are from Olvide.
wrote on 29 May 2022, 21:08 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Texas shooting.:
Matthew McConaughey are from Olvide.
He made an appearance a day or so ago.
-
wrote on 29 May 2022, 21:11 last edited by
BTW, since 1966...
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130124/mental-health-and-firearms
-
wrote on 30 May 2022, 00:38 last edited by
@Jolly said in Texas shooting.:
40 miles.
See, this is a good example of how NOT to publish the shooter's name. Bravo.
-
wrote on 31 May 2022, 12:09 last edited by
How long until Alex Jones starts terrorizing the parents?
-
wrote on 31 May 2022, 12:47 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in Texas shooting.:
How long until Alex Jones starts terrorizing the parents?
Apparently because he wouldn't be doing so in my living room, it doesn't matter if he does or not.
-
@jon-nyc said in Texas shooting.:
How long until Alex Jones starts terrorizing the parents?
Apparently because he wouldn't be doing so in my living room, it doesn't matter if he does or not.
wrote on 31 May 2022, 14:02 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer said in Texas shooting.:
@jon-nyc said in Texas shooting.:
How long until Alex Jones starts terrorizing the parents?
Apparently because he wouldn't be doing so in my living room, it doesn't matter if he does or not.
It doesn't impact you, that is correct.
-
wrote on 31 May 2022, 21:39 last edited by
Maybe there was a reason he shot up the school...
https://nypost.com/2022/05/31/texas-shooters-grandma-taught-at-robb-elementary-school/
-
wrote on 31 May 2022, 23:48 last edited by
Pretty cool, albeit heartbreaking:
-
wrote on 2 Jun 2022, 05:27 last edited by
While oodles of people seem to be ganging up on the school police chief who had the 19 officers in the hallway, from what I've read on the timeline, his assumption that it was not an active shooting situation may have been reasonable. Standing in the hallway, the police could hear any shots going on in the classroom and would presume that he was shooting children. The only shots fired were through the door - at them. The school police chief was waiting for specialized personnel to attack with appropriate skill and equipment. The more I think about it, perhaps he was not so cowardly as has been presented.
-
wrote on 2 Jun 2022, 05:31 last edited by
If that happened and I were him I’d cooperate with the investigation.
-
wrote on 3 Jun 2022, 10:39 last edited by jon-nyc 6 Mar 2022, 10:39
Heard on Sam Harris’s latest podcast with Graeme Wood (which I highly recommend) that Uvalde’s own training materials say to go in immediately, even if you’re the first on the scene. It goes in to say something to the effect of “if that’s not something you would be able to do then this is not the right line of work for you”.
-
Heard on Sam Harris’s latest podcast with Graeme Wood (which I highly recommend) that Uvalde’s own training materials say to go in immediately, even if you’re the first on the scene. It goes in to say something to the effect of “if that’s not something you would be able to do then this is not the right line of work for you”.
wrote on 3 Jun 2022, 14:41 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Texas shooting.:
Heard on Sam Harris’s latest podcast with Graeme Wood (which I highly recommend) that Uvalde’s own training materials say to go in immediately, even if you’re the first on the scene. It goes in to say something to the effect of “if that’s not something you would be able to do then this is not the right line of work for you”.
I suppose they thought it was a barricaded shooter who wasn't able to do damage to anybody but himself, or potentially to officers storming into the room to take him down. The degree of miscommunication or willful ignorance that went into that thinking will have to be sussed out. But I suspect that was the mindset of the officers in the hallway at the time. There were so many of them that none of them probably felt personally responsible for the response. Just following orders, and assuming some rational informed decision making was going on above them in the chain of command.
-
wrote on 3 Jun 2022, 14:43 last edited by
