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

[Poopymonster]

It's likely through the district, so it's based on whatever rate the district/union negotiate for. Honestly I don't know if it's even legal to jack up rates following something like a mass shooting.

Should be a workman's comp issue. He was injured on the job.

- - - Updated - - -

I haven't looked into this at all, but it's my understanding public-school teachers have government insurance.

Of course I lied. I did look into it. Texas teachers get health insurance.

Now, maybe it's shitty insurance or there's an ugly copay or whatever. But I don't think their insurance will go up. It's possible the taxpayers will have to pay more when the state teacher insurer says "these fuckers are getting shot, they're higher risk, we're raising your prices".

That teacher should be fine in terms of direct costs. Should. This is still the US health care system after all. But I don't see any reason offhand they'd need to pay a bunch more because of this.

They "could" carry guns as part of their job (Let's reflect on how violently American that sounds), even if they don't they now are in a high risk job. Prices are gonna skyrocket. Not this year, maybe next year though. Depending on how often we're gonna sacrifice children at the altar of ammosexuality they might do it asap.

Not to mention the schools insurance itself is gonna gonna go through the roof.

[Nymrohd]

They "could" carry guns as part of their job (Let's reflect on how violently American that sounds), even if they don't they now are in a high risk job. Prices are gonna skyrocket. Not this year, maybe next year though. Depending on how often we're gonna sacrifice children at the altar of ammosexuality they might do it asap.

While school shootings are definitely a statistically significant abnormality for the US (mostly because even adjusted per capita they just don't match the numbers for anywhere else), I'd be unsure that they affect teacher mortality and chance of injury at a statistically significant level so as to alter actuarial tables. I don't think insurance can justify a hike without that?

[downnola]

While Gun regulation would probably be the most impactful action at this point. It isn't the only solution or angle you could take, yet you are completely blind to anything else then gun-control. you don't try, you don't think, you don't act.

This sentence here demonstrates how full of shit you are. If you're not talking about the most impactful action after an elementary school massacre then you're not serious about solving the problem, are you? Your calls to action appear to be about as useless as placing police inside schools (who never stop these massacres) or blaming the shootings on mental health (an example of what a real excuse is, btw). Maybe if we put god and "traditional values" back in the classroom people won't grow up to be violent killers! Maybe we should ban violent video games and arm teachers? Who knows though, I'm just taking random shots in the dark here because you haven't actually suggested any real solutions aside from:

You could get involved in politics for one.

Like campaigning for and voting for people who actually pass reforms?

Or try to educate people(many many different ways of doing this)

Yes, there are many ways to do this including discussions on an internet message board. Curious though how you accuse us of not doing anything and wasting our time because we're discussing the topic here with you and others.

or realize that guns are only a part of the problem and you could try to focus on the other problems that go with the issue like mental health etc.

The United States has this problem because it has the loosest access to guns in the world. So no, guns actually are the problem, plain and simple. Improving mental health in this country is important, but you've gone ahead and made an excuse for this gun violence and recommended a weak, half-measure in the same sentence. But we're the ones who don't want to address the problem, yeah? No, some of us are trying to address the problem in the best way possible instead of suggesting half-measures, shifting blame, and making excuses for the ones responsible for it all.

[Flarelaine]

Because of course it's not criminal to simply not do your job as a cop, the DOJ investigation won't be criminal.

Complicated. Obviously, everyone wants cops to do something other than munching doughnuts, but cops who feel obligated to charge in with guns blazing simply to keep their jobs might be even more trouble. They are trigger-happy enough as it is.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Meh! Just as I wouldn't condemn the cop that didn't go into the school during the parkland shooting, I am not going to hang these cops by the same line. They weren't exactly the same in terms of what kind of tools they had to deal with the situation.

The fact is I personally think this is a perfect example of what has been said for a long time and not really understood. The COPS have NO obligation to put their lives in jeopardy to save ANYONE.

The hilariously ironic bullshit is hat all the bootlickers and back the blue hypocrites are the very ones either still calling everyone of these guys fucking hero's an defending them or outraged that the blue isn't obligated to do shit. And all the OVERFUNDING in the world isn't going to change that.

Arm the teachers or pay armed security guards. Honestly as for the school shootings, I am pretty sure a majority of them would stop if the P.O.S who do them typically got one between the eyes before they even got one off.

Hell my guess is armed security is likely going to be the next step. It's a super booming business right now.

[Flarelaine]

The gun control discussion is this way >>>.

[Breccia]

They weren't exactly the same in terms of what kind of tools they had to deal with the situation.

There's a lot of discussion that could be held on this topic, probably in another thread, but this part here is something I think everyone accepts as fact. The Texas school district police were very likely not wearing armor at the time, or more precisely, not wearing body armor that would have stopped an AR-15 round at urban shooting range (it's not like the shooter was firing at the school from two blocks away). I took a look around and found nothing, so I'll go with the assumption they were carrying standard police weaponry of a sidearm, taser, and pepper spray. Perhaps they had shotguns in their truck, cops or not this was Texas.

But all of that is secondary to what we've seen about them not having a working radio and not getting 911 calls. It wouldn't matter if they had SWAT gear and RPGs if they didn't know there was a shooter or where he was!

We might disagree on the police's ethical responsibilities when they willingly accept a job guarding a school district and someone comes to that school district to commit a bunch of murders. But I don't think we disagree that Texas, and America in general, has intentionally put itself in a situation where the average American can easily become better armed than the police who are supposed to stop the average American from murdering people.

[Kathandira]

Meh! Just as I wouldn't condemn the cop that didn't go into the school during the parkland shooting, I am not going to hang these cops by the same line. They weren't exactly the same in terms of what kind of tools they had to deal with the situation.

The fact is I personally think this is a perfect example of what has been said for a long time and not really understood. The COPS have NO obligation to put their lives in jeopardy to save ANYONE.

The hilariously ironic bullshit is hat all the bootlickers and back the blue hypocrites are the very ones either still calling everyone of these guys fucking hero's an defending them or outraged that the blue isn't obligated to do shit. And all the OVERFUNDING in the world isn't going to change that.

Arm the teachers or pay armed security guards. Honestly as for the school shootings, I am pretty sure a majority of them would stop if the P.O.S who do them typically got one between the eyes before they even got one off.

Hell my guess is armed security is likely going to be the next step. It's a super booming business right now.

We had an officer in our high school back in 95'-99'. So having officers in school is not a new thing.

Funny part is though, there isn't much an officer can do if they are outnumbered. We had a group of kids tackle and beat the crap out of a cop in our school. They didn't have weapons, and didn't take the cops weapon. But left him there in enough pain where he wasn't getting up.

It was a county school, so there were kids from all types of areas. These ones were from less than desirable environments.

When people think about cops in school, they generally don't think about young kids who are in gangs, or just really aggressive. Cops in schools will not deter violence. The cops will be the first target before moving on to unarmed staff and students.

[Breccia]

Looks like I can refine my earlier statement.

A teacher wounded in a school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, has criticised police as "cowards" for delaying taking action while his pupils were killed.

In a harrowing interview with ABC News he said he told his students to pretend to be asleep during the shooting.

Eleven of them died when the gunman stalked his and an adjacent classroom for over an hour as police stood in the hall.

"You had a bulletproof vest. I had nothing," he said of the police.

I am going to give the teacher the benefit of the doubt. So the Texas school district police were wearing vests, then. They're free to publicly admit they were not...I doubt they will, even if it's true.

Speaking of which, does the Texas school martial system also give the armed teachers body armor? (checks Texas' rules) Wow, these are useless. Doesn't even say if the school martial system give them the gun they're allowed to use.

Body armor appears to be legal in Texas, unless you're a felon. I guess the teachers are expected to provide their own body armor? Wouldn't be the first thing a teacher was expected to provide with their own money. Did I mention Texas teachers are paid less than most? Yeah the cost of living might be lower, but things like guns and body armor don't typically have locally-set prices.

[Adam Jensen]

Looks like I can refine my earlier statement.



I am going to give the teacher the benefit of the doubt. So the Texas school district police were wearing vests, then. They're free to publicly admit they were not...I doubt they will, even if it's true.

Speaking of which, does the Texas school martial system also give the armed teachers body armor? (checks Texas' rules) Wow, these are useless. Doesn't even say if the school martial system give them the gun they're allowed to use.

Body armor appears to be legal in Texas, unless you're a felon. I guess the teachers are expected to provide their own body armor? Wouldn't be the first thing a teacher was expected to provide with their own money. Did I mention Texas teachers are paid less than most? Yeah the cost of living might be lower, but things like guns and body armor don't typically have locally-set prices.

If Republicans get their way and our "solution*" is to arm the teachers, you bet your ass teachers will be expected to provide their own body armor and weapons.

We already expect them to provide their own school supplies after all.

"What, actually pay the teachers? What is this? Socialist Canada?"

*arming the teachers has got to be the stupidest thing I've heard on a long time

[Endus]

"What, actually pay the teachers? What is this? Socialist Canada?"

*arming the teachers has got to be the stupidest thing I've heard on a long time

Difficulty; even in socialist Canada, teachers get paid for shit.

Not quite AS shit as the USA, but standards are also higher; minimum for Ontario is a Bachelor of Education, and that requires a prior BA/BSc for admission. Starting salary's like $50k/year, but minimum wage here's $15/hour, so like $31k/year. And that's in CAD, so it's like 20% less than that for the equivalent in USD.

[Adam Jensen]

Difficulty; even in socialist Canada, teachers get paid for shit.

Not quite AS shit as the USA, but standards are also higher; minimum for Ontario is a Bachelor of Education, and that requires a prior BA/BSc for admission. Starting salary's like $50k/year, but minimum wage here's $15/hour, so like $31k/year. And that's in CAD, so it's like 20% less than that for the equivalent in USD.

Never understood why they're paid so little when they have such a massive effect in our society and perform a very crucial job.

I guess it's not as flashy as paying Raytheon to engineer a fancy new bomb.

[Doctor Amadeus]

There's a lot of discussion that could be held on this topic, probably in another thread, but this part here is something I think everyone accepts as fact. The Texas school district police were very likely not wearing armor at the time, or more precisely, not wearing body armor that would have stopped an AR-15 round at urban shooting range (it's not like the shooter was firing at the school from two blocks away). I took a look around and found nothing, so I'll go with the assumption they were carrying standard police weaponry of a sidearm, taser, and pepper spray. Perhaps they had shotguns in their truck, cops or not this was Texas.

But all of that is secondary to what we've seen about them not having a working radio and not getting 911 calls. It wouldn't matter if they had SWAT gear and RPGs if they didn't know there was a shooter or where he was!

We might disagree on the police's ethical responsibilities when they willingly accept a job guarding a school district and someone comes to that school district to commit a bunch of murders. But I don't think we disagree that Texas, and America in general, has intentionally put itself in a situation where the average American can easily become better armed than the police who are supposed to stop the average American from murdering people.

I do not want to get infracted and it is not my intent to talk about gun control at all here.

However I did want to point out that I appreciate this break down here. And while I am extremely critical of the police response, I am never going to say what others should have done concerning grave risk when it wasn't me.

Going in there unprepared or ill equipped could have made a bad situation worse.

That said speaking only to the threat that was there was little too no chance of survival if struck. However while you can't out run a bullet this kind of weapon requires a finer skill set in general for aiming, meaning you can move out of line of site faster than the person adjust especially if you have the right weapon and gear and backup.

That said training isn't enough, it also takes experience dealing with a situation from a target that fires back at you with the intention of killing you. That's all I am going to address concerning what the police could have done.

Police are over funded and in this instance despite what anyone says they were fucking useless.

- - - Updated - - -

We had an officer in our high school back in 95'-99'. So having officers in school is not a new thing.

Funny part is though, there isn't much an officer can do if they are outnumbered. We had a group of kids tackle and beat the crap out of a cop in our school. They didn't have weapons, and didn't take the cops weapon. But left him there in enough pain where he wasn't getting up.

It was a county school, so there were kids from all types of areas. These ones were from less than desirable environments.

When people think about cops in school, they generally don't think about young kids who are in gangs, or just really aggressive. Cops in schools will not deter violence. The cops will be the first target before moving on to unarmed staff and students.

Yeah cops vs private security there are pros and cons to each, especially depending on the school, although I for sure see the points your made by your experience which mans I am aware you could be right.

The thing is though in context school shooters are NOT looking for blow back or any kind of resistance in fact none of these mass shooters typically do, if there is armed security or cops, most wont because by the time they show up they kill themselves or surrender.

[Endus]

Never understood why they're paid so little when they have such a massive effect in our society and perform a very crucial job.

I guess it's not as flashy as paying Raytheon to engineer a fancy new bomb.

It's the same level of training as an architect, here in Ontario, but the starting wages are a good 40-50% lower. Even accounting for teacher salaries only covering 10 months, there's still a really wide gap, and it's not like it's less work.

[Breccia]

even in socialist Canada, teachers get paid for shit.

Yeah but...I can deduct it from my taxes. That's kind of like being paid. For 20% or so.

Going in there unprepared or ill equipped could have made a bad situation worse.

These specific police were certainly both unprepared, and I'd say "under-equipped" not "ill-equipped". They were prepared, they just weren't prepared for this. Regardless of their actions or inactions taken and regardless of their motivations for such, it's a failure when the police you specifically prepare for defending a school from the average American, singular, cannot defend their school from the average American. Whoever set up the Uvadle school police should be ashamed of themselves and fired -- and yes, I am going to call out that special Texas School Police Or Whatever group that fucking failed every chance I get. Texas had a govt agency for exactly this kind of prepwork, and it was a total and systematic failure even before the average American pulled the trigger of his weapon of war.

"Will not" is a separate issue. And I'm still not at all happy they lied about their actions.

[Edge-]

https://twitter.com/PaulDEaton52/sta...92803271544833

IIRC there was a lot of back and forth in this thread about "AR-15 IS CIVILIAN WEAPON AND NOT WEAPON OF WAR! IS REASONABLE FOR SHOOTING GOPHERS!"

I'm no gun expert myself, I'm familiar with them and can use them safely but I don't pretend to have deep knowledge.

So I think a retired Major General who ran infantry at Fort Benning might be someone to listen to on this.

And he sure seems to think an AR-15 is a weapon of war, and calling out those playing word-games on the AR-15 and "assault weapons".

[Endus]

https://twitter.com/PaulDEaton52/sta...92803271544833

IIRC there was a lot of back and forth in this thread about "AR-15 IS CIVILIAN WEAPON AND NOT WEAPON OF WAR! IS REASONABLE FOR SHOOTING GOPHERS!"

I'm no gun expert myself, I'm familiar with them and can use them safely but I don't pretend to have deep knowledge.

So I think a retired Major General who ran infantry at Fort Benning might be someone to listen to on this.

And he sure seems to think an AR-15 is a weapon of war, and calling out those playing word-games on the AR-15 and "assault weapons".

I've said it before; if you're more concerned about the pedantry of what, precisely, a "weapon of war" or "assault weapon" are defined as, then you're not interested in meaningful change and seek only to protect the status quo of more-than-daily mass shootings.

Any new gun legislation can define either term in whatever way they want to. They could define "assault weapon" as "any rifle capable of semi-automatic fire", and that'd be what "assault weapon" means, from that point forward. The pedantry is utterly worthless and just seeks to get people chasing their tails about meaningless definition minutiae rather than actually moving forward with policy.

[Rasulis]

Ban books! No gun controls. Never that. Crime of thoughts are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worse than homicides.

[Deus Mortis]

https://twitter.com/PaulDEaton52/sta...92803271544833

IIRC there was a lot of back and forth in this thread about "AR-15 IS CIVILIAN WEAPON AND NOT WEAPON OF WAR! IS REASONABLE FOR SHOOTING GOPHERS!"

I'm no gun expert myself, I'm familiar with them and can use them safely but I don't pretend to have deep knowledge.

So I think a retired Major General who ran infantry at Fort Benning might be someone to listen to on this.

And he sure seems to think an AR-15 is a weapon of war, and calling out those playing word-games on the AR-15 and "assault weapons".

I've said it before; if you're more concerned about the pedantry of what, precisely, a "weapon of war" or "assault weapon" are defined as, then you're not interested in meaningful change and seek only to protect the status quo of more-than-daily mass shootings.

Any new gun legislation can define either term in whatever way they want to. They could define "assault weapon" as "any rifle capable of semi-automatic fire", and that'd be what "assault weapon" means, from that point forward. The pedantry is utterly worthless and just seeks to get people chasing their tails about meaningless definition minutiae rather than actually moving forward with policy.

You guys might want to move it to the correct thread as Flarelaine has said this numerous times now.

Please drop gun control discussion, technical gun discussion and especially personal back and forth as these only derail the discussion.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/09/us/uv...day/index.html
Texas investigative committee holds first hearing to search for answers in Uvalde school shooting

A Texas House Investigative Committee began its search for answers in the Robb Elementary School shooting on Thursday and could produce a preliminary report on its fact-finding mission by the end of the month.

"The people of Uvalde and the entire State of Texas deserve facts and answers as to what happened leading up to, during, and in the aftermath of this tragedy, and this committee will do everything in its power to get to the bottom of the matter," Republican state Rep. Dustin Burrows, the committee chairman, said in the panel's opening remarks.
Burrows added that the committee "may produce a preliminary report in order to accommodate the need to have some information out to the public before a full and thorough investigation has taken place."

A source close to the committee said the preliminary report is expected to be complete by the end of June. The report is expected to focus on the facts only and include a chronological sequence of events, a timeline, and details on the shooter, according to this source. The committee is quasi-judicial and has subpoena power, and all witness testimony will be under oath, the source said.

In the coming weeks, the committee -- comprised of Burrows, Democratic state Rep. Joe Moody and former Texas Supreme Court Justice Eva Guzman -- will be hearing testimony from law enforcement authorities.
"Failing to tackle these issues because they are difficult or politically uncomfortable is cowardly and morally wrong," Moody said Thursday. "We have a duty to do what we can, because our children's lives are on the line."
After opening remarks, the committee ended the public portion of the hearing and moved to a private executive session.

The committee hearing comes two weeks after gunman Salvador Ramos used an AR-15-style rifle to kill 19 children and two teachers inside adjoining classrooms at Robb Elementary. The gunman was in the classrooms for more than an hour even as law enforcement stood in the hallway outside and as children inside called 911 and urgently pleaded for help, officials said.

The 18-year-old gunman was ultimately shot and killed by a Border Patrol tactical response team, according to a timeline provided by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS).
The lengthy delay appeared to violate commonly accepted protocol in active shooter situations, in which police are instructed to stop the gunman as soon as possible.

Authorities have offered contradictory explanations of how the gunman was able to enter the school, what police did in response and why he was able to remain inside for so long. They have not held a press conference to answer these key questions in over a week, frustrating local residents and officials alike.

"I've asked everybody involved for a briefing at one point or another," Uvalde Mayor Don McLaughlin said Tuesday. "It's frustrating, but again I've been told I'm not law enforcement, but it makes me feel real frustrated."

At McLaughlin's request, the US Department of Justice assembled a team to lead a federal review of the response to the shooting. The team will be supported by experts including retired police chiefs and an FBI official. US Attorney General Merrick Garland said Wednesday the DOJ investigation "is not a criminal review."

Also on Thursday, Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District (UCISD) superintendent Hal Harrell took some questions but declined to speak on the investigation or on the employment status of Pedro "Pete" Arredondo, the school police chief who oversaw the flawed response to the shooting.

"That's a personnel question and I'm not going to be able to answer that in a public forum," he said.

[Rasulis]

School security companies sell 'school hardening' to prevent shootings

Security companies spent years pushing schools to buy more products – from "ballistic attack-resistant" doors to smoke cannons that spew haze from ceilings to confuse a shooter. But sales were slow, and industry's campaign to free up taxpayer money for upgrades had stalled.

That changed last February, when a former student shot and killed 17 people at a Florida high school. Publicly, the rampage reignited the United States gun-control debate. Privately, it propelled industry efforts to sell school fortification as the answer to the mass killing of American kids.

Since that attack, security firms and nonprofit groups linked to the industry have persuaded lawmakers to elevate the often-costly "hardening" of schools over other measures that researchers and educators say are proven to reduce violence, an Associated Press investigation shows.

The industry helped Congress draft a law that committed $350 million to equipment and other school security over the next decade. Nearly 20 states have come up with another $450 million.

A perspective from a School Hardening Industry insider.

"School safety is the wild, wild West," said Mason Wooldridge, a security consultant who helps school districts assess vulnerabilities. "Any company can claim anything they want."

Several years ago, Mr. Wooldridge helped his step-father's firm, NetTalon Security Systems, install a $500,000 system that included smoke cannons at an Indiana school. Wooldridge then helped get state legislation that prioritized hardening. Now self-employed, Wooldridge says the school, marketed as the "Safest School in America," could've been made just as safe for $100,000.

What are we looking at in term of dollars and cents?

Education security revenue in the US was about $2.5 billion in 2017, approximately 60 percent generated by elementary and secondary schools, according to the research firm IHS Markit. IHS had projected anemic growth for several years but, after Parkland, revised its forecast to $3 billion by 2019.

Revenue could grow more if industry succeeds in plans to craft state legislation setting minimum standards for school equipment purchases.

Such industry "best practices" set a steep price for cash-strapped districts. According to one nonprofit group formed by a major door lock manufacturer, upgrading an elementary school with basic equipment costs at least $94,000 and a high school at least $170,000. If the nation's public schools followed those guidelines, the cost would total at least $11 billion, according to the industry calculations.

Conflict of interests everybody?

That nonprofit, the Secure Schools Alliance, doesn't advertise that it was created and funded by Allegion plc, a $2.4 billion publicly traded corporation that specializes in doors, locks, and entry systems. The nonprofit's executive director, Robert Boyd, told AP he helped draft this year's federal funding legislation.

An Allegion executive who also serves as the nonprofit's board president, Maria Pia Tamburri, said Secure Schools was formed not because of Allegion's interests but because "it's the right thing to do" for safety.