Texas Elementary School Shooting, as many as 22 dead, including Children

[Ivanstone]

Uh... no.

Massive lulz. The M16 itself is only lightweight compared to heavy military firearms. The M16 was an attempt to bridge the gap between the heavier M1 Garand (and its quickly un-adopted replacement, the M14), and the significantly lighter M1 carbine as a standard infantry rifle.

More importantly, most comparable civilian semi-automatic rifles are lighter than the M16, which ranged up to over 8 pounds unloaded.



Magazine capacity wasn't a significant reason the M16 used a smaller caliber round. The M16 initially used the same 20-round magazine capacity as the larger-caliber M14 before it.



That's because AR-15s are not automatic. Nor would you need to shoot more than a few rounds at a deer. Nor would you use 5.56 against a deer, hopefully.

But deer are not even remotely the only game that is hunted, and 5.56 is very commonly used in hunting smaller game.



Yes, and...?

I oppose it, just like I said. What SCOTUS is contemplating doing with Roe v Wade is a disgusting tragedy, and a huge step backwards. But that's not what SCOTUS has typically done, and if they do what it's reported that they're likely to do, it will tarnish the legacy of the Supreme Court for a long, long time.



The 2nd Amendment doesn't actively hurt other people. That's just pure sophistry. A certain tiny percent of people who abuse the right are guilty of hurting other people, just like the proverbial person who yells "Fire!" in a crowded room. People who abuse the right should be duly punished. People who do not abuse the right... should not.

When militaries go back to using large calibre rifles let me know. The M16 has a number of features on it that are useful. AR15s retain some of those features.

The M16 replaced the more cumbersome M1. The M16 Carbine replaced the M1 Carbine. I wonder what the market for AR15 Carbines are like?

Lighter bullets means you can carry more of them. This applies equally for the original 20 round magazines or the various larger magazines available since then.

Exactly. There’s no need for a large capacity weapon. Capacity is only needed for getting your jollies at the gun range or…. Getting into a firefight. Large capacity magazines can be left at the gun range. I would be fascinated to know which game requires an AR15 instead of a low capacity high accuracy rifle.

The point is that the current SCOTUS are actively trying to turn over precedent for very trivial reasons. It’s in the interest of public health to firmly regulate guns.

Abuse of the law is only ever done by a tiny minority of people, yet the law books are filled with hair splitting of the many different kinds of theft just because people keep on thinking of different ways to steal. Similarly, your quality of life wouldn’t be diminished if guns had much heavier regulation.

- - - Updated - - -

Fully automatic is an "arbitrary distinction"?

Hah. No.

I mean... the NFA has existed since 1934. If it hasn't been successfully brought down yet, I wouldn't be worried at this point.

If I had to choose between the legality of a fully automatic weapon with 5 round magazine capacity versus a semiautomatic 30 round weapon, I would choose the former. The latter is much more dangerous.

Gun deregulation was been increased steadily since the 70s. If the NRA leadership wasn’t so greedy and did their jobs, things would probably be worse.

[PhaelixWW]

When militaries go back to using large calibre rifles let me know.

They won't, at least not for standard infantry. If your definitely of "lightweight" is "lighter than too heavy", then sure, they're lightweight. But they're not more lightweight than the M1 carbine, nor are they more lightweight than most comparable civilian semi-automatic rifles.

The M16 has a number of features on it that are useful. AR15s retain some of those features.

Which "useful" features? (Not including ergonomic features.) And these "useful" features are unique to the M16 and the AR-15?

The M16 replaced the more cumbersome M1. The M16 Carbine replaced the M1 Carbine.

The M16 replaced both the M14 (which was a replacement for the M1 Garand) and the M1 carbine.

There is no such thing as an M16 carbine. Perhaps you mean the M4 carbine, but that wasn't adopted until 1994, a full 20+ years after the end of use of the M1 carbine, so hardly a replacement for it. In fact, the M4 eventually fully replaced the M16 by 2015.

Lighter bullets means you can carry more of them. This applies equally for the original 20 round magazines or the various larger magazines available since then.

Yes, but that's different from what you initially said. Increased total carry amount was a factor, increased magazine capacity... not so much.

Capacity is only needed for getting your jollies at the gun range or…. Getting into a firefight.

So, like... self defense?

I would be fascinated to know which game requires an AR15 instead of a low capacity high accuracy rifle.

Why are you suggesting that an AR-15 can't be low-capacity nor highly accurate? That's just laughable. And I specifically mentioned small game, of which there are lots. That's not to say that you can't use .223 to hunt deer; it's just hardly the best choice out there, unless the only rifle you own is a .223. There are absolutely deer loads available in .223 ammunition.

It also makes a decent hog hunting round, depending on location. But then there's all the rest of the small game, including coyotes and scads of other varmints.

The point is that the current SCOTUS are actively trying to turn over precedent for very trivial reasons. It’s in the interest of public health to firmly regulate guns.

Alternately, SCOTUS should leave both rights alone, rather than picking and choosing which rights they'll abrogate based on political party.

Abuse of the law is only ever done by a tiny minority of people, yet the law books are filled...

...with things that are not rights protected by the Constitution. That's the salient point here.

Similarly, your quality of life wouldn’t be diminished if guns had much heavier regulation.

Unless one were in need of a firearm for self-defense, which is a core tenet of the 2nd Amendment right, as affirmed in DC v. Heller.

Then, yeah, "quality of life" would be affected for sure.

[Paranoid Android]

I'm reading many details on how the police really effed this up.

A fourth grader who survived the shooting said officers assaulting the barricaded room told kids to call for help before they had incapacitated the gunman, which led to him shooting a kid who called for help

Cops stood outside the school while the killer rampaged inside.

Onlookers yelled at them to go in. They didn’t. One parent urged bystanders:

“Let’s just rush in because the cops aren’t doing anything like they are supposed t

“1st acknowledge the brave men and women of law enforcement,” not condolences to the family first. Also, the cops engaged the shooter before he entered the school, and they are still alive? Finally, cops went in and pulled their own kids out during the active shooter threat. WTF?

Vid of interview embedded. This one is crazy if the police chose their children over any of the other children for safety.


Cops stood outside and wouldn't let parents help. Umm this one I understand somewhat of having people just running around in school and adding to more causalities, but you can argue of having people run around the school if they all had guns trying to decipher who is an Active Shooter.

As far as police not going in I guess they need to "secure" the perimeter and again, not having people rush in.

Oh the other one was when the shooter crashed his car one police officer followed him into the school, pretty much allowing the shooting to occur.


It's easy enough for me to Monday Morning Quarterback here, but I post this to show people thinking police at school, plus arming people is effin silly.

This is the Uvalde police SWAT team. This community of 13,000 people spends 40% of its municipal budget on the police.

[PhaelixWW]

Gun deregulation was been increased steadily since the 70s.

Wait... what? Lol. You're kidding, right?

[Edge-]

This is the Uvalde police SWAT team. This community of 13,000 people spends 40% of its municipal budget on the police.

Continues to be hilarious to me that podunk little towns and counties with nobody fuckin living there and no meaningful violent crime that heavily armed law enforcement are needed for always manage to find the budget for heavily armed SWAT teams, complete with military-grade vehicles that they have no use for.

Fuckin defund the police indeed, start spending that money on something actually effective instead of giving them tanks and more tacticool gear.

[Ivanstone]

They won't, at least not for standard infantry. If your definitely of "lightweight" is "lighter than too heavy", then sure, they're lightweight. But they're not more lightweight than the M1 carbine, nor are they more lightweight than most comparable civilian semi-automatic rifles.



Which "useful" features? (Not including ergonomic features.) And these "useful" features are unique to the M16 and the AR-15?



The M16 replaced both the M14 (which was a replacement for the M1 Garand) and the M1 carbine.

There is no such thing as an M16 carbine. Perhaps you mean the M4 carbine, but that wasn't adopted until 1994, a full 20+ years after the end of use of the M1 carbine, so hardly a replacement for it. In fact, the M4 eventually fully replaced the M16 by 2015.



Yes, but that's different from what you initially said. Increased total carry amount was a factor, increased magazine capacity... not so much.



So, like... self defense?



Why are you suggesting that an AR-15 can't be low-capacity nor highly accurate? That's just laughable. And I specifically mentioned small game, of which there are lots. That's not to say that you can't use .223 to hunt deer; it's just hardly the best choice out there, unless the only rifle you own is a .223. There are absolutely deer loads available in .223 ammunition.

It also makes a decent hog hunting round, depending on location. But then there's all the rest of the small game, including coyotes and scads of other varmints.



Alternately, SCOTUS should leave both rights alone, rather than picking and choosing which rights they'll abrogate based on political party.



...with things that are not rights protected by the Constitution. That's the salient point here.



Unless one were in need of a firearm for self-defense, which is a core tenet of the 2nd Amendment right, as affirmed in DC v. Heller.

Then, yeah, "quality of life" would be affected for sure.

You do understand that a carbine and a rifle are two different weapons right? They may look a lot a like, the even act somewhat a like but they nevertheless have two separate functions. The CAR15 was introduced at the same time as the M16. The US military will continue to use both carbines and rifles for foreseeable future.

No I pretty much stated that smaller calibre bullets can be carried in greater abundance. Large capacity magazines seem to be a favourite of civilians.

I would be fascinated to see one incidence of a civilian needing the firepower of an AR15 for self defence.

I’m implying that a military style semiautomatic is completely unnecessary for hunting. If you need a smaller calibre weapon, get one that’s not an AR15.

There are plenty of things that are rights but have regulations on them. Speech has restrictions for example. The only difference here is that guns are potentially much more dangerous.

[PhaelixWW]

Continues to be hilarious to me that podunk little towns and counties with nobody fuckin living there and no meaningful violent crime that heavily armed law enforcement are needed for always manage to find the budget for heavily armed SWAT teams, complete with military-grade vehicles that they have no use for.

Seems like a strange take, considering the current topic.

Also, you're assuming that SWAT departments cost a significant amount of money, which... like... no they don't, typically?

Those military-grade vehicles are military excess and basically free to the department, per the LESO and the 1033 Program.

I mean, if you want to criticize their apparent inability to do their job effectively in this situation, that seems to be quite possibly warranted.

[Paranoid Android]

Texas Department of Public Safety now says there was no school resource officer who engaged the Uvalde shooter — eighth hours after telling CNN that the officer was interviewed about the engagement.

The story seems to keep falling apart.

[Edge-]

Seems like a strange take, considering the current topic.

Also, you're assuming that SWAT departments cost a significant amount of money, which... like... no they don't, typically?

Those military-grade vehicles are military excess and basically free to the department, per the LESO and the 1033 Program.

I mean, if you want to criticize their apparent inability to do their job effectively in this situation, that seems to be quite possibly warranted.

I'm thoroughly exhausted with the pedantry, dude, but whatever.

I guess I need to make everything super duper ultra explicit for the "Actua-Lee" crowd -

Even if it's "cheap", police largely do not need military grade weaponry and vehicles. Especially the latter. Extremely especially when we're talking about tiny departments that face little violent crime, where it makes more sense to partner with larger counties/cities to share resources including the SWAT teams that the larger communities would have. The militarization of police has not made us safer.

The local SWAT team did a walkthrough of the school earlier this year in preparation for exactly this type of scenario occuring, reportedly. I guess it was a massive, monumental waste of time and any resources invested into it given that the local cops apparently thought it best to wait outside the school for almost an hour keeping parents away but not engaging the shooter, get at least one kid killed by asking the child to call out for help, and went in to get their own kids to safety before doing their jobs.

Yes, fuck every single officer involved in this, especially the leadership that keep lying through their teeth and spouting copaganda that gets debunked repeatedly.

- - - Updated - - -

Texas Department of Public Safety now says there was no school resource officer who engaged the Uvalde shooter — eighth hours after telling CNN that the officer was interviewed about the engagement.

The story seems to keep falling apart.

TLDR: Don't believe anything cops say for at least 24/48 hours, because at this point it's most likely a lie to make it look like they didn't completely fail at accomplishing their jobs and their failures resulted in more deaths.

[Huehuecoyotl]

TLDR: Don't believe anything cops say for at least 24/48 hours, because at this point it's most likely a lie to make it look like they didn't completely fail at accomplishing their jobs and their failures resulted in more deaths.

Don't forget that they're also trying to mix up the story as much as they possibly can. So that people will end up disbelieving the truth when it finally comes out, because they've heard so many contradictory falsehoods in the meantime. Swamp the reality of how shitty their response was with a 1000 versions of the timeline.

[Gravity2015]

I am surprised no parents were shot by the police for trying to go in armed to kill the fucker, i thought everyone in Texas had a gun on their hip (not against that, not one bit fwiw)

[postman1782]

Newsflash, champ: a lot of incorrect information is given in the early hours.

They also said the shooter was in custody on day 1, too. They said the shooting was outside the school. Then inside. Then both.

And I'm also betting that your memory isn't really as good as you think it is and that it's also likely that you misinterpreted what you heard. Can you find the sheriff statement you mean?

No, the sheriff is walking back everything he can, so he doesn't get fucking sued. How did the cops get shot at or how did the cops get their "minor injuries"?

[Zan15]

Apparently failing to read posts properly makes you... you.

All I've called out are people making things up based on nothing more than unsubstantiated assumptions and pretending that they're truth. I'm not interested in defending the police with regards to actual, documented failures.

But... yeah, if you're so predisposed to believe the worst about any situation involving a police officer that you misinterpret vague information in the most unrealistic way and then not only convince yourself that it's true, but attempt to convince others that it's true... then you're anti-cop and a cop-hater.

.

Nah I got it just about right the first time based on the comments made since the beginning of this thread not to mention other mega threads.

It's funny shitting on people commenting on an ever evolving story and making assumptions when there has been many assumptions made since the start by all parties involved.

Maybe people are just not using this horrible mass shooting and are taking their experience with the same things happening time and time again all over the country when it comes to the police.

No one here is anti-cop in any real sense, they want changes.

Even if they are wrong in this one event, most of what they said is mostly spot on when it comes to what's become the "norm" in this country and how failure after failure has shown changes need to be made but you can never get past the screams of people claiming the ones asking for change are "anti-cop".

You just have to look at an entire party's attack on the defund movement to prove that the second you want change or make disparaging comments about law enforcement you are automatically anti-cop no matter the situation and no matter the failures.

[PhaelixWW]

You do understand that a carbine and a rifle are two different weapons right?

Carbine rifles are still rifles...

The CAR15 was introduced at the same time as the M16.

The US military had no widespread use of the various CAR-15 carbine models. They were mainly used by some Navy SEALS and Air Force pilots.

They were also not the same as the civilian models, notably.

The US military will continue to use both carbines and rifles for foreseeable future.

Uh... no.

There was no standard infantry carbine for 20 years between the M1 and the M4, and since then the M4 has largely phased out the longer M16, starting in 2010. The trend to move towards one primary rifle model has been around for a long, long time. Prior to that, more M1 carbines were produced than M1 Garands. At first, they went for the lighter caliber but longer length in the M16, then moved down to the shorter length in the M4.

Now, they'll be changing over to the Sig XM5, which is still carbine-length, but moving back to a heavier (though not as heavy as 7.62x51mm or .30-06) caliber for the standard-issue military infantry firearm.

No I pretty much stated that smaller calibre bullets can be carried in greater abundance.

No, sorry, you said:

ammunition that is also lightweight so a magazine can have a higher capacity

You didn't say carry capacity, you definitely said magazine capacity. That's the only statement you initially made, and to which I objected.

I would be fascinated to see one incidence of a civilian needing the firepower of an AR15 for self defence.

The admittedly anecdotal information is out there. Knock yourself out.

I’m implying that a military style semiautomatic is completely unnecessary for hunting. If you need a smaller calibre weapon, get one that’s not an AR15.

"Military style" is a completely meaningless euphemism in this context. Again, there's nothing fundamentally different between an AR-15 and another semi-automatic small-caliber rifle, of which there are lots and have been for a long, long time.

There are plenty of things that are rights but have regulations on them.

And there are an awful lot of regulations on firearms, too.

Speech has restrictions for example. The only difference here is that guns are potentially much more dangerous.

Hardly the only difference, actually. The restrictions on speech are only there to specifically prevent damaging abuse, whereas most new proposed gun control measures seek to limit normal use in the hopes that it will trickle down to some later instance of damaging abuse, somewhere, somehow.

Gun control measures that directly target the abuse/abuser are totally fine, but they're mostly all already enacted.

[Trifle]

That's not really accurate. DC v. Heller affirmed the right of the individual to own firearms, it didn't create the right. The idea behind the ruling is that the right was acknowledged by the 2nd Amendment and affirmed by the Supreme Court, but had existed the whole time. This was just the first time the US Supreme Court had decided to rule specifically on this issue.

From a practical perspective it only dates back to 2008, because prior to that legal rulings didn't recognize it.

Technically you're correct, however I heavily disagree with the ruling so from my POV they created a brand new right by pulling it out of their asses, because that's clearly not what the 2nd says. The ruling isn't even internally consistent... they called it a "limited" right, but can you point to me where in the 2nd amendment it says that it doesn't always apply? Because the 'shall not be infringed' part seems pretty clear to me. I guess it was too far even for them to call it a real right, because then you wouldn't be able to stop the "wrong" people from owning guns.

[PhaelixWW]

I'm thoroughly exhausted with the pedantry, dude, but whatever.

What pedantry? Are you saying you don't fucking mean the things you say? Am I not allowed to call out your bullshit because... why exactly?

Yeah, fuck that ish.

I'm allowed to rebut your claims when they're wrong. If you can't take the heat, don't start the flaming. Or just don't post wrong shit and then be forced to backpedal. I'm sure it's embarrassing to you, but that's not what "pedantry" means.

Even if it's "cheap", police largely do not need military grade weaponry and vehicles. Especially the latter.

Sure, probably not. Is this apropos of anything? Do you have proof that the small-town Uvalde SWAT team has a military APC? Like, literally what reality are you arguing against? I've only really ever seen large city SWAT teams with military vehicles.

Maybe stop arguing things that either don't exist or at least have nothing to do with any specific instance you want to bring up.

The militarization of police has not made us safer.

Quite possibly not. But that's an entirely different matter, and you certainly don't help your case when you're categorically wrong about the only information you post in support of your case.

The local SWAT team did a walkthrough of the school earlier this year in preparation for exactly this type of scenario occuring, reportedly. I guess it was a massive, monumental waste of time and any resources invested into it given that the local cops apparently thought it best to wait outside the school for almost an hour keeping parents away but not engaging the shooter, get at least one kid killed by asking the child to call out for help, and went in to get their own kids to safety before doing their jobs.

And this is definitely a more valid criticism.

At the risk of being called "pedantic" again, I'd point out that people are just assuming that the kid who was supposedly shot as officers made entry actually died. There were several kids who were injured, but survived. I would assume that one who could receive almost immediate care would be more likely to be among them.

That hardly makes the situation great, but shot and survived would be better than shot and killed. I'm sure we'll find out more later.

- - - Updated - - -

The ruling isn't even internally consistent... they called it a "limited" right, but can you point to me where in the 2nd amendment it says that it doesn't always apply? Because the 'shall not be infringed' part seems pretty clear to me.

The same place where it says that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply when someone yells "Fire!" in a crowded room, or uses certain types of extreme hate-speech.

That's the point of case law.

[jeezusisacasual]

Imagine arguing the pedantry of people not being wholly educated about firearm nuance when 19 kids will never know those differences because they were shot dead in an institute that exists to educate and prepare them for life after childhood.

Fuck the “freedoms” of people when this was the system working . At some point, you grow up and realise that even if you aren’t a piece of shit, the freedoms you want are allowing this, and you have to now accept that maybe you need to make the sacrifice of not having accessible guns. I know those selfish kids didn’t want to sacrifice themselves for you, but maybe you can stand up and say, “I appreciate what I have and will give up some to curb or stop this rampant destruction”.

They simply do not care not now not ever. They think that whatever small arms they have will protect them if the government came to take their guns but good news is that i would simply tell officials of every person i know of if they had any kind of firearm addresses, car model etc.

[Themius]

The 2nd amendment crowd do not want guns for "government tyranny", truly it is about some civil war and race issue... these issues became way more pronounced under Obama and it has been a decent dog whistle to whip up voters.

[PACOX]

I remember when I was in high school and middle school all exits were monitored or locked. Your only chance to sneak in without crossing facility was during lunch. We even had a satellite parking lot that they watched with golf carts. Doors also auto locked.


You either had to go through the office or a past facility/the resource officer to get on campus. I'm guessing elementary schools are a bit more lax but I imagined that wouldn't be the case because little kids are more prone to wandering off or taken off campus without permission. I can't get over how someone could just walk on campus. I blame poor budgets and regulation blocking legislation.

I think it's almost worse that he didn't encounter the RO prior, at least you could identify the point of failure and work from there.


The gun control discussion is mute. What can be said has been said years ago. If Sandy Hook and Vegas weren't the breaking point then I don't want to even imagine if such an event exists. We live in a country held back by the bastardization of words from a few old dudes from 200 years ago. We're still held back by the a few old dudes completely detached from the lives of the average citizen.

[Themius]

I remember when I was in high school and middle school all exits were monitored or locked. Your only chance to sneak in without crossing facility was during lunch. We even had a satellite parking lot that they watched with golf carts. Doors also auto locked.


You either had to go through the office or a past facility/the resource officer to get on campus. I'm guessing elementary schools are a bit more lax but I imagined that wouldn't be the case because little kids are more prone to wandering off or taken off campus without permission. I can't get over how someone could just walk on campus. I blame poor budgets and regulation blocking legislation.

I think it's almost worse that he didn't encounter the RO prior, at least you could identify the point of failure and work from there.


The gun control discussion is mute. What can be said has been said years ago. If Sandy Hook and Vegas weren't the breaking point then I don't want to even imagine if such an event exists. We live in a country held back by the bastardization of words from a few old dudes from 200 years ago. We're still held back by the a few old dudes completely detached from the lives of the average citizen.

Worse that those old dudes had the idea that the constitution is a living document that should be rewritten by future generations. Yet somehow we end up with people that view the words as sacred things never to be changed...

An event that would lead to changes? I do not think such an event exists, if it does I can't imagine what it would be. Over a hundred people killed in mass attacks over a couple of weeks wasn't enough... I do not believe an attack where even say hundreds were killed in one event would lead to changes. It would just take the crown of "Most deadly mass shooting" and then we would hear "Shame about those 750 people, we gotta figure out why this keeps happening".

This country doesn't give a shit and honestly, it feels like it is just a sinking ship. The amount of people that want gun reforms is lower than it used to be due to higher violence... since I guess in typical American fashion, nonsense leads the day.

"Things are so dangerous because of guns, therefore we need to make guns easier to get so I can protect myself with a gun!"