You can't help but to ignore the actual events, can you? This was an active shooting. The parents and the officers preventing them from saving their children, could hear the gunshots that were killing their children. Do you understand? This is not a mother jumping into a burning building for her dead child. I am one hundred percent uninterested in your pathetic attempts to turn the conversation to hypotheticals. We have the scenario. We know what happened. Police aided and abetted in the murder of 19 children and 2 teachers at an elementary school. This was primarily possible for two primary reasons: 1. Teachers could not lawfully carry firearms in the school, no matter their level of training. 2. The police force in charge of school safety was a politicized force controlled by the school administration.

You speak as though you have answers to what people would or should do in random scenarios. We don't need a random scenario. A single shooter was killing pre-pubescent children. School Police failed to engage him. The School Police Chief told the arriving city police to not engage, and to set up a perimeter. Parents showed up, and could hear their children being shot. They demanded the officers save their kids. The officers refused. The parents then attempted to save their children, at which point the city police, at the order of the school police chief, prevented the parents from intervening, pepper spraying and tazing parents, cuffing others. For over an hour, parents got to listen to their children be executed as the police, under the order of a political appointee, held them at bay.

Now, is it possible that this lone 18 year old shooter could take down an armed parent? Sure, it's equally possible the armed parent will get the shooter. What about a dozen armed parents? Now, why is this a question? Because police refused to engage, in a scenario where children were being executed, and further aided and abetted in that mass child murder by preventing any aid from parents.

Do you have anything else to say, or is there a school police chief nearby you'd rather be blowing?

Bold:So do you genius.

Underline: Keep doing exactly what you bitch about I guess

The police failing isn't a whistle for random people to try blindly. The "good guy with a gun" or "teacher with a gun" narratives are idiotic.

Your reading comprehension must be shit. I'm not talking about what people could have done in a random scenario. I'm talking about what people actually did. I'm talking about the circumstances that allowed for it. Do you think that a Governor's Mansion or a court house would just allow you to walk in armed, shoot some people over the course of an hour? The answer, in case you've ever been to one of these buildings, is a hard no. Why? They're swarming in police and several other forms of armed security, have metal detectors, and any number of other precautions. What precautions were taken at the school?

This isn't a question of "police failing". This is a question of children being executed over the course of an hour when there were over a dozen officers and several dozen parents there, listening. This is about officers refusing to save the children, and indeed, preventing the parents from doing so. This is about the fact that it's two officers from the oh so scary border patrol's tactical unit disobeying directives from the "School Police Chief" and confronting and killing the shooter, as should have been done from the start, while armchair warriors talk about why parents shouldn't be able to protect their now-dead children.

I don't give two fucks less what you think of parents. It's their child not yours. It is their function, as a parent, to protect nurture their child until they're grown. That's not the job of society or education systems or the government. The government directly intervened against the children, preventing parents from carrying out their most primal duty, and ending up with 19 dead children. Stupid bullshit like "You can't be allowed you protect your own child" is why so many are advocating for the funding following the student. Fuck the state education system that seeks to murder children. Let's go with competitive education that strives to make your child as prepared for the future as humanly possible... Or home school, or whatever is needed. But why deal with a government death trap where the government enforcers won't intervene on my child's behalf, but will cuff me and force me to listen as my child is murdered?

This topic is far larger than your attempt to demonize guns or parents. This is a question of whether the state education system, especially those portions receiving funding by the federal government, whether for lunch programs or whatever else, are now more dangerous to children than beneficial. Federal law prevents armed teachers or security, armed parents. The police cannot be relied upon even to intervene in any way that will save the lives of the children. The standard safety precautions taken at nearly all other form of government building are lacking. And the moment anything goes wrong at a school, the government is immediately going on a campaign to disarm the parents of the dead children, so that they will be unable to protect their remaining live children.

You speak as a person with no children, no responsibilities, and little care for other humans. The ideal sociopath. You attempt to analyze the tactics of going after the 18 year old with the gun, never once bothering to ask yourself what experience this kid had with a gun, given he'd not been out shooting with anyone they can find, the gun was new, he was not trained in any way, is hilariously inept. Your attempt to blame the parents when those parents were forced to listen as their children were executed by the very same people they were paying to insure the safety of said children...

You're a piece of work. Not a good piece. But a piece. That's for sure.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Jun 1 2022 12:25am

Not reading all your rant.

Wanna know what REALLY would of stopped this? Not letting the 18 year old legally buy Ar-15s.

Why did he shoot up a gun free zone? Why target defenseless children? He wasn't going after a teacher. This wasn't an old grudge.

The worst school massacres are explosives. I sincerely doubt this freak would have been stopped by any lack of guns. I also have questions on how he could afford the gun. The reports all claim his was constantly bullied and made fun of for being poor. Yet he went out and purchased a firearm for over $2000? That's an interesting purchase. First, it was transacted on a debit card. Prepaid debit cards have daily spending limits. Bank accounts start with spending limits on the card. They don't really budge from those limits. In order to spend more, you need to do a direct transfer (account and routing number). But he's reported as buying on Debit. So how does a supposedly poor kid who has just recently turned 18 suddenly pop up with a debit card that allows a transaction over $2000?

This is the other primary concerns of you "school police chief" blowers. You're so eager to attack guns, you don't ask more basic questions. First, you refuse to assign blame where it lies (the shooter, followed by the police aiding and abetting the shooter), then, what's the funding?

Quite frankly, I'm surprised that someone with such an incurious mind bothers to discuss politics at all. Just tune in to Maddow. She's more than happy to tell you what to think. Or Lemon. Stelter? Whatever your poison of choice is. Oh wait! Maybe you're a fan of that wicked sharp political genius, the guru of all gurus... Whoopi Goldberg?

the whole remove guns and only be pusses is a liberal thing for sure.
Problem is they still want the authorities to have them and so unchecking that balance of power will yield more gun violence as it does in chicago.

He did it because he could and was enabled by 2nd amendment humper laws.

He did it because of our culture of bullying the weak, promoting firearms as a way to "Even the odds", and lack of mental healthcare.

He did it because america would rather see dead children than not be able to buy an ar-15 at 18.

He did it because people like you grandstand the idea that guns protect people instead of take lives and enact laws to let guns flow more and more easily.

In your story that support is mostly a few confused purple hair toasters. The rest of the support is half hearted and people who don't really care but say they support only to stop the screaming reactionary leftoids who wouldnt shut up otherwise.

Don't be mad girl.

He did it because he could and was enabled by a gun free zone. [x]Fixed

That's it. There's nothing more than that. We need to spend billions every year protecting our politicians, our DMVs and courthouses, tens of billions protecting our banks, but our children?

The bottom line is you do not wish children to be safe. You wish for absolute control over children. You do not wish anyone but the state to be able to protect themselves. Which leaves only the State and Criminals prepared for their own defense.

So, right after enforcers of the state just forced parents to listen as their children were executed, you're saying that those same enforcers are the only people who should be armed?

Tell us more.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Jun 1 2022 12:54am

Leftoids employ knee jerk solutions which don't address the cause. In the process only disarming a responsible owner. Imagine the good that can be accomplished if they put a 1/3rd of the effort of dealing with the root cause instead of handing out bandaids.

Biden admin no doubt loves these empty browny points for doing fuck all.

Also take away guns and give to only law enforcement that stand around while the killing goes on. Nice one tell us more about how criminals can freely slaughter civilians and children while police are playing cheerleader?

This post was edited by addone on Jun 1 2022 01:01am