Just noting that Sunday saw two more mass shootings reported, at a flea market in Houston with two deaths (3 injured) and in Winston-Salem in what seems to have been a shootout between vehicles (7 injured).

Maybe this should just be made a sticky/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27No_Way ... ly_Happens

I do fear for my family in the US at times, although thankfully there are not in a place where gun homicide is at its highest.

Its unfortunate. RIP to all.

You missed the 33 shot and 5 killed in Chicago because of mass shootings too

https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-shootin ... /11855997/

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Its unfortunate. RIP to all.

You missed the 33 shot and 5 killed in Chicago because of mass shootings too

https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-shootin ... /11855997/

The article did not describe any mass shootings - these were multiple gangland incidents with a single target or targets in a vehicle. Par for the course in bad neighborhoods. Gang violence is rarely random - learn the difference.

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Its unfortunate. RIP to all.

You missed the 33 shot and 5 killed in Chicago because of mass shootings too

https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-shootin ... /11855997/

The article did not describe any mass shootings - these were multiple gangland incidents with a single target or targets in a vehicle. Par for the course in bad neighborhoods. Gang violence is rarely random - learn the difference.

Are you gonna correct the OP?, the shooting in Houston wasn't a random shooting neither.

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texa ... 174782.php

And why are we normalizing gang violence? one person dead is one too many don't we agree?

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Its unfortunate. RIP to all.

You missed the 33 shot and 5 killed in Chicago because of mass shootings too

https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-shootin ... /11855997/

The article did not describe any mass shootings - these were multiple gangland incidents with a single target or targets in a vehicle. Par for the course in bad neighborhoods. Gang violence is rarely random - learn the difference.

Are you gonna correct the OP?, the shooting in Houston wasn't a random shooting neither.

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texa ... 174782.php

And why are we normalizing gang violence? one person dead is one too many don't we agree?

I didn’t see the article in the OP.

Americans already normalized gang violence decades ago - there are no serious nationwide efforts to legalize drugs and reduce the impact of that black market, there are no serious efforts to expand the ATF and prevent gangs from acquiring firearms, etc. Never gonna happen

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

The article did not describe any mass shootings - these were multiple gangland incidents with a single target or targets in a vehicle. Par for the course in bad neighborhoods. Gang violence is rarely random - learn the difference.

Are you gonna correct the OP?, the shooting in Houston wasn't a random shooting neither.

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texa ... 174782.php

And why are we normalizing gang violence? one person dead is one too many don't we agree?

I didn’t see the article in the OP.

Americans already normalized gang violence decades ago - there are no serious nationwide efforts to legalize drugs and reduce the impact of that black market, there are no serious efforts to expand the ATF and prevent gangs from acquiring firearms, etc. Never gonna happen

Expanding the ATF? how about enforcing the current local and state laws. That would help.

Law enforcement has been attacked for years, and the result is they stop policing and gangs have their way and do as they like in the streets.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Are you gonna correct the OP?, the shooting in Houston wasn't a random shooting neither.

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texa ... 174782.php

And why are we normalizing gang violence? one person dead is one too many don't we agree?

I didn’t see the article in the OP.

Americans already normalized gang violence decades ago - there are no serious nationwide efforts to legalize drugs and reduce the impact of that black market, there are no serious efforts to expand the ATF and prevent gangs from acquiring firearms, etc. Never gonna happen

Expanding the ATF? how about enforcing the current local and state laws. That would help.

Law enforcement has been attacked for years, and the result is they stop policing and gangs have their way and do as they like in the streets.

State and local police also do not have the resources to combat the illegal gun trade. The ATF has less than 2500 agents - that’s less than Dallas PD and expected to cover the whole country? BS.

The gang issue is multidimensional and state/local laws can hardly make a dent. That’s
obvious to anyone who has thought about this stuff for five seconds beyond sound bites.

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

I didn’t see the article in the OP.

Americans already normalized gang violence decades ago - there are no serious nationwide efforts to legalize drugs and reduce the impact of that black market, there are no serious efforts to expand the ATF and prevent gangs from acquiring firearms, etc. Never gonna happen

Expanding the ATF? how about enforcing the current local and state laws. That would help.

Law enforcement has been attacked for years, and the result is they stop policing and gangs have their way and do as they like in the streets.

State and local police also do not have the resources to combat the illegal gun trade. The ATF has less than 2500 agents - that’s less than Dallas PD and expected to cover the whole country? BS.

They do, its called policing, its called enforcing the law. Its called yous see a suspicious vehicle, you see suspicious activity you pull over, you look at the car, you stop and frisk. Etc. But that is all now deemed racist.

The ATF thing won't ever happen, the Biden Administration won't like to be called racist when one of their ATF agents shoot one suspect and because of the color of his skin there would be riots. They would blame Biden.

The easiest and fastest way is to allow law enforcement to go back and do their job without the fear of being labeled racist or what ever. You start with that.

This began since 2020, and it was all fun and games to blame police for the killing of one man, but that has led to mayhem. I remember "de-fund the police".

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Expanding the ATF? how about enforcing the current local and state laws. That would help.

Law enforcement has been attacked for years, and the result is they stop policing and gangs have their way and do as they like in the streets.

State and local police also do not have the resources to combat the illegal gun trade. The ATF has less than 2500 agents - that’s less than Dallas PD and expected to cover the whole country? BS.

They do, its called policing, its called enforcing the law. Its called yous see a suspicious vehicle, you see suspicious activity you pull over, you look at the car, you stop and frisk. Etc. But that is all now deemed racist.

The ATF thing won't ever happen, the Biden Administration won't like to be called racist when one of their ATF agents shoot one suspect and because of the color of his skin there would be riots. They would blame Biden.

The easiest and fastest way is to allow law enforcement to go back and do their job without the fear of being labeled racist or what ever. You start with that.

This began since 2020, and it was all fun and games to blame police for the killing of one man, but that has led to mayhem. I remember "de-fund the police".

There is no ‘easiest and fastest way’ with gangs because it’s a larger issue than any one place. Read my edit to previous post. These are transnational operations and you want local cops on the beat to solve it? Just plain stupid.

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

State and local police also do not have the resources to combat the illegal gun trade. The ATF has less than 2500 agents - that’s less than Dallas PD and expected to cover the whole country? BS.

They do, its called policing, its called enforcing the law. Its called yous see a suspicious vehicle, you see suspicious activity you pull over, you look at the car, you stop and frisk. Etc. But that is all now deemed racist.

The ATF thing won't ever happen, the Biden Administration won't like to be called racist when one of their ATF agents shoot one suspect and because of the color of his skin there would be riots. They would blame Biden.

The easiest and fastest way is to allow law enforcement to go back and do their job without the fear of being labeled racist or what ever. You start with that.

This began since 2020, and it was all fun and games to blame police for the killing of one man, but that has led to mayhem. I remember "de-fund the police".

There is no ‘easiest and fastest way’ with gangs because it’s a larger issue than any one place. Read my edit to previous post. These are transnational operations and you want local cops on the beat to solve it? Just plain stupid.

Local cops will do a better job than a fed. Because they know the area, they know the people, they know the bad guys. They are local.

They know where to see things that are not normal.

Summer 2020 changed policing, and as a result, this is what we have. Those living in the cities are paying the consequences. The rest of us living in the suburbs, we are doing fine.

It shouldn't be like that.

I'm only posting about mass shootings. I didn't realise that I also had to try and carve out gang violence because that's somehow OK.

In my city, the few gun deaths that there are tend to be gangland hits. Even the few domestic violence massacres have been via arson in recent years. The sickening toll of domestic violence (most are not massacres) is not using guns.

I'm happy to post about incidents outside the US when I spot them.

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Its unfortunate. RIP to all.

You missed the 33 shot and 5 killed in Chicago because of mass shootings too

https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-shootin ... /11855997/

The article did not describe any mass shootings - these were multiple gangland incidents with a single target or targets in a vehicle. Par for the course in bad neighborhoods. Gang violence is rarely random - learn the difference.

The incidents cited in the OP were likely gang violence as well.

TriJets wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Its unfortunate. RIP to all.

You missed the 33 shot and 5 killed in Chicago because of mass shootings too

https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-shootin ... /11855997/

The article did not describe any mass shootings - these were multiple gangland incidents with a single target or targets in a vehicle. Par for the course in bad neighborhoods. Gang violence is rarely random - learn the difference.

The incidents cited in the OP were likely gang violence as well.

So gang violence doesn't count?

I'm so confused about the US and its massively atypical levels of gun violence, and what's good killing and what isn't....

Kent350787 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

The article did not describe any mass shootings - these were multiple gangland incidents with a single target or targets in a vehicle. Par for the course in bad neighborhoods. Gang violence is rarely random - learn the difference.

The incidents cited in the OP were likely gang violence as well.

So gang violence doesn't count?

I'm so confused about the US and its massively atypical levels of gun violence, and what's good killing and what isn't....

There is no good killing...but there aredifferent terms because there are so many types of shooting events.

Kent350787 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

The article did not describe any mass shootings - these were multiple gangland incidents with a single target or targets in a vehicle. Par for the course in bad neighborhoods. Gang violence is rarely random - learn the difference.

The incidents cited in the OP were likely gang violence as well.

So gang violence doesn't count?

I'm so confused about the US and its massively atypical levels of gun violence, and what's good killing and what isn't....

It all counts, but gang violence typically concentrated against other gang members so your average Joe doesn't fret about it too much. Same way your normal highway driver doesn't worry too much if a NASCAR driver is injured while racing at Talladega.

TriJets wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

The incidents cited in the OP were likely gang violence as well.

So gang violence doesn't count?

I'm so confused about the US and its massively atypical levels of gun violence, and what's good killing and what isn't....

It all counts, but gang violence typically concentrated against other gang members so your average Joe doesn't fret about it too much. Same way your normal highway driver doesn't worry too much if a NASCAR driver is injured while racing at Talladega.

A lot of gang violence takes “collateral victims”, so not exactly like your example. True the intended victims and the bystanders are likely related in some fashion—blood or friends.

Same tired song and dance from Republicans:

but... but.. but... CHICAGO!!!

Maybe if we gave people bootstraps to pull themselves up by instead of taking away those bootstraps because they only want free stuff from the government, this might not happen as much? Maybe we try pouring money into education and health care AS WELL AS funding local police better, these things might not happen as often. But, we can't because that would cause people to be lazy and simply not want to work and demand free stuff from the government.

seb146 wrote:

Same tired song and dance from Republicans:

but... but.. but... CHICAGO!!!

Maybe if we gave people bootstraps to pull themselves up by instead of taking away those bootstraps because they only want free stuff from the government, this might not happen as much? Maybe we try pouring money into education and health care AS WELL AS funding local police better, these things might not happen as often. But, we can't because that would cause people to be lazy and simply not want to work and demand free stuff from the government.

'Chicago blah blah' is just a distraction from the fact nobody has made a major dent in fundamental issues fueling inner city despair for more than 40 years.

Kent350787 wrote:

Just noting that Sunday saw two more mass shootings reported, at a flea market in Houston with two deaths (3 injured) and in Winston-Salem in what seems to have been a shootout between vehicles (7 injured).

Maybe this should just be made a sticky/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27No_Way ... ly_Happens

I do fear for my family in the US at times, although thankfully there are not in a place where gun homicide is at its highest.

You should “fear” for them dying in an auto accident as accidents outnumber deaths from shootings by 2 to 1, approx 40,000 to 20,000.

dmg626 wrote:

You should “fear” for them dying in an auto accident as accidents outnumber deaths from shootings by 2 to 1, approx 40,000 to 20,000.

Cars are among the most highly regulated consumer products for precisely this reason. We looked at our highway fatality rates in the 1960s, saw how high they were, and redesigned everything from steering wheels to street corners in response - now we're looking at fewer total deaths per year despite having 100,000,000 more people. I wonder how much we could cut into that 20,000 if we approached guns the same way?

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Its unfortunate. RIP to all.

You missed the 33 shot and 5 killed in Chicago because of mass shootings too

https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-shootin ... /11855997/

Yep, Illinois, the state with the 8th highest gun homicide rate, 6.5 per 100k people, not good enough, they need to get up to Louisiana at 11 per 100k or Mississippi at 10.2 per 100k.

https://www.criminalattorneycincinnati. ... -by-state/

dmg626 wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

Just noting that Sunday saw two more mass shootings reported, at a flea market in Houston with two deaths (3 injured) and in Winston-Salem in what seems to have been a shootout between vehicles (7 injured).

Maybe this should just be made a sticky/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27No_Way ... ly_Happens

I do fear for my family in the US at times, although thankfully there are not in a place where gun homicide is at its highest.

You should “fear” for them dying in an auto accident as accidents outnumber deaths from shootings by 2 to 1, approx 40,000 to 20,000.

I suppose it is maths that causes the fear. In my country, motor accident deaths are around 10 times the number of gun deaths each year. Twice as likely to dies in a car accident sounds far worse to me than 10 times more likely.

And I still struggle to get my head around the fact that the rate of gun deaths in the USA is literally 100 times higher than in my country. And the fact that noone seems to be able to do anything worthwhile to change it.

Mind you, I've never been killed when visiting the USA.

Kent350787 wrote:

dmg626 wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

Just noting that Sunday saw two more mass shootings reported, at a flea market in Houston with two deaths (3 injured) and in Winston-Salem in what seems to have been a shootout between vehicles (7 injured).

Maybe this should just be made a sticky/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27No_Way ... ly_Happens

I do fear for my family in the US at times, although thankfully there are not in a place where gun homicide is at its highest.

You should “fear” for them dying in an auto accident as accidents outnumber deaths from shootings by 2 to 1, approx 40,000 to 20,000.

I suppose it is maths that causes the fear. In my country, motor accident deaths are around 10 times the number of gun deaths each year. Twice as likely to dies in a car accident sounds far worse to me than 10 times more likely.

And I still struggle to get my head around the fact that the rate of gun deaths in the USA is literally 100 times higher than in my country. And the fact that noone seems to be able to do anything worthwhile to change it.

Mind you, I've never been killed when visiting the USA.

I have never been killed in the cesspools of Portland and Seattle and San Francisco, either. I have been threatened in small towns many times.

The Non-Av section in A.net is seriously becoming an America-bashing forum.
Every country has its own set of positives and negatives. And while higher than other developed countries, your individual chance of being near an active shooter in the USA is still low.

This section is basically a CNN 2.0 now. We have enough negatively biased fear mongering media as it is nowadays. No need to make us even more depressed.

Side note: The news will ALWAYS report the most negative events. Never, have I seen positive breaking news.

acavpics wrote:

The Non-Av section in A.net is seriously becoming an America-bashing forum.
Every country has its own set of positives and negatives. And while higher than other developed countries, your individual chance of being near an active shooter in the USA is still low.

This section is basically a CNN 2.0 now. We have enough negatively biased fear mongering media as it is nowadays. No need to make us even more depressed.

Side note: The news will ALWAYS report the most negative events. Never, have I seen positive breaking news.

If it has "BREAKING NEWS!" attached to it on a cable channel, yeah, it'll probably be pretty bad. But there is good news from time to time, if you keep your eye out for it. I'm particularly amazed at what medical science has been able to do in such a short time with mRNA vaccines.

Newark727 wrote:

acavpics wrote:

The Non-Av section in A.net is seriously becoming an America-bashing forum.
Every country has its own set of positives and negatives. And while higher than other developed countries, your individual chance of being near an active shooter in the USA is still low.

This section is basically a CNN 2.0 now. We have enough negatively biased fear mongering media as it is nowadays. No need to make us even more depressed.

Side note: The news will ALWAYS report the most negative events. Never, have I seen positive breaking news.

If it has "BREAKING NEWS!" attached to it on a cable channel, yeah, it'll probably be pretty bad. But there is good news from time to time, if you keep your eye out for it. I'm particularly amazed at what medical science has been able to do in such a short time with mRNA vaccines.

Bleach, prayer, and tanning your privates is a much better option.

Seriously, though, the number of right wing extremists here who degrade and yell and call names at those of us who don't share their opinion is about the same as in real life America. Which is a shame, since they listen to both sides allegedly.....

Newark727 wrote:

acavpics wrote:

The Non-Av section in A.net is seriously becoming an America-bashing forum.
Every country has its own set of positives and negatives. And while higher than other developed countries, your individual chance of being near an active shooter in the USA is still low.

This section is basically a CNN 2.0 now. We have enough negatively biased fear mongering media as it is nowadays. No need to make us even more depressed.

Side note: The news will ALWAYS report the most negative events. Never, have I seen positive breaking news.

If it has "BREAKING NEWS!" attached to it on a cable channel, yeah, it'll probably be pretty bad. But there is good news from time to time, if you keep your eye out for it. I'm particularly amazed at what medical science has been able to do in such a short time with mRNA vaccines.

True. But if you just go to Google News, stories like that are usually at the way way bottom of the page.
If COVID cases are not surging, then the media will cherry pick any other panic-inducing stories to share.

For the "BUT CHICAGO!!!" crowd:

What are gun laws in TX, NC, and IL? I ask because these shootings took place in TX and NC and Chicago is in the state of IL. I know there are many factors that lead to gun violence. Any violence. From mental illness to people being pushed to their limits to poverty to drugs to you name it. Ease of access to guns is just one factor and not the be all and end all. That would help, but we need to fix other problems as well.

seb146 wrote:

For the "BUT CHICAGO!!!" crowd:

What are gun laws in TX, NC, and IL? I ask because these shootings took place in TX and NC and Chicago is in the state of IL. I know there are many factors that lead to gun violence. Any violence. From mental illness to people being pushed to their limits to poverty to drugs to you name it. Ease of access to guns is just one factor and not the be all and end all. That would help, but we need to fix other problems as well.

Agree with you here, seb.

TriJets wrote:

seb146 wrote:

For the "BUT CHICAGO!!!" crowd:

What are gun laws in TX, NC, and IL? I ask because these shootings took place in TX and NC and Chicago is in the state of IL. I know there are many factors that lead to gun violence. Any violence. From mental illness to people being pushed to their limits to poverty to drugs to you name it. Ease of access to guns is just one factor and not the be all and end all. That would help, but we need to fix other problems as well.

Agree with you here, seb.

@seb146 Everything you said is 100% correct... But there is one MAJOR factor you missed:

NEWS MEDIA DRIVEN FAME AND NOTORIETY

Whenever there is a mass shooting, the media never fails to post a picture of a shooter, and spend hours talking about them, what made them do this, and how they did it. That is a recipe for copycat attacks perpetrated by others who also feel rejected by society.

This is the likely the biggest reason that we have seen an increase in public mass shootings since Aurora in Sandy Hook, considering that there was a boom in technology (smartphones, news apps, 24/7 news coverage etc.) around that time.

acavpics wrote:

But there is one MAJOR factor you missed:

NEWS MEDIA DRIVEN FAME AND NOTORIETY

Whenever there is a mass shooting, the media never fails to post a picture of a shooter, and spend hours talking about them, what made them do this, and how they did it. That is a recipe for copycat attacks perpetrated by others who also feel rejected by society.

In Europe we also get one or more of the US news channels. Typically (speaking for NL) CNN and/or Fox.

Local news media in europe also has the same footage and the same discussion. Yet, mass shootings remain a rarity. And that’s with plenty of guns available on the black market, leftovers from the Balkan conflicts. Meanwhile, in the US a mass shooting does even make the national news unless you get double digit casualties or there is really absolutely nothing else to report.

The news is not a major factor. They are a minor factor, but not major. Acces to guns is the major factor.

acavpics wrote:

@seb146 Everything you said is 100% correct... But there is one MAJOR factor you missed:

NEWS MEDIA DRIVEN FAME AND NOTORIETY

Whenever there is a mass shooting, the media never fails to post a picture of a shooter, and spend hours talking about them, what made them do this, and how they did it. That is a recipe for copycat attacks perpetrated by others who also feel rejected by society.

This is the likely the biggest reason that we have seen an increase in public mass shootings since Aurora in Sandy Hook, considering that there was a boom in technology (smartphones, news apps, 24/7 news coverage etc.) around that time.

There may be something to this, though I would pin the start date a little earlier - I always think of Andy Warhol, not for anything he himself did, but for his thoughts on notoriety. It isn't really fifteen minutes of fame or even infamy, just fifteen minutes of attention. I think too of the Greek city who punished the vandal who burned down the temple by enforcing the forgetting of his name - but it's not like that was the last temple to be burned, either.

But I'm not sure it's enough. Media culture is very cosmopolitan - they have Facebook and TV news and the tabloid press in Australia, the UK, Japan, and just about everywhere else too. And it's not as though the means and method of Adam Lanza are out of reach to people who have different motives, either - we're seeing these attacks become increasingly ideological. At some point it may not matter to the shooter if their name dies with them - as long as the manifesto doesn't, or they feel their victims to be sufficiently deserving.

(And isn't it interesting that the whole idea of a manifesto seems to be making a comeback too? Always felt like a very late 19th century/early 20th century thing to me.)

https://twitter.com/BNNBreaking/status/ ... 3880722432

Deputy speaks: 2 officers had chance to shoot Uvalde school gunman

https://apnews.com/article/politics-tex ... b14ad87592

Two Uvalde city police officers passed up a fleeting chance to shoot a gunman outside Robb Elementary School before he went on to kill 21 people inside the school, a senior sheriff’s deputy told The New York Times.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

https://twitter.com/BNNBreaking/status/1537969963880722432

Deputy speaks: 2 officers had chance to shoot Uvalde school gunman

https://apnews.com/article/politics-tex ... b14ad87592

Two Uvalde city police officers passed up a fleeting chance to shoot a gunman outside Robb Elementary School before he went on to kill 21 people inside the school, a senior sheriff’s deputy told The New York Times.

And meanwhile Uvalde is still resisting every attempt at an investigation into the police department. Something highly suspect about that, almost acting as if they’re criminals. Personally…I think the police accidentally shot a kid. Something about it all is not adding up, including their wonderful press conference in which they, unprompted, mentioned that every victim had definitely been shot by the perp.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/06 ... -info.html

FGITD wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

https://twitter.com/BNNBreaking/status/1537969963880722432

Deputy speaks: 2 officers had chance to shoot Uvalde school gunman

https://apnews.com/article/politics-tex ... b14ad87592

Two Uvalde city police officers passed up a fleeting chance to shoot a gunman outside Robb Elementary School before he went on to kill 21 people inside the school, a senior sheriff’s deputy told The New York Times.

And meanwhile Uvalde is still resisting every attempt at an investigation into the police department. Something highly suspect about that, almost acting as if they’re criminals. Personally…I think the police accidentally shot a kid. Something about it all is not adding up, including their wonderful press conference in which they, unprompted, mentioned that every victim had definitely been shot by the perp.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/06 ... -info.html

Much less well known of course, a completely different situation other than We have the most dangerous job in 'Murica, so just never question us, give us all the tools, don't ever challenge even obvious failings .
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... cers-watch

70 year old killer of other senior citizens, in what is becoming more of a target with each year, a church.
So, where's the gangs here then? C'mon, where, maybe, just maybe, the killer is a minority to salve your paranoia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgn7-NLz9ak

Personally I am glad I live in a country where most of the people I will meet, (even the Police) are not armed.

GDB wrote:

FGITD wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

https://twitter.com/BNNBreaking/status/1537969963880722432

Deputy speaks: 2 officers had chance to shoot Uvalde school gunman

https://apnews.com/article/politics-tex ... b14ad87592

Two Uvalde city police officers passed up a fleeting chance to shoot a gunman outside Robb Elementary School before he went on to kill 21 people inside the school, a senior sheriff’s deputy told The New York Times.

And meanwhile Uvalde is still resisting every attempt at an investigation into the police department. Something highly suspect about that, almost acting as if they’re criminals. Personally…I think the police accidentally shot a kid. Something about it all is not adding up, including their wonderful press conference in which they, unprompted, mentioned that every victim had definitely been shot by the perp.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/06 ... -info.html

Much less well known of course, a completely different situation other than We have the most dangerous job in 'Murica, so just never question us, give us all the tools, don't ever challenge even obvious failings .
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... cers-watch

Not a thing wrong with that. The police aren't trained or equipped for water rescue. If they had jumped in after him they would have drowned as well. Drowning people by nature will try to pull you under if you get close to them. I am trained in water rescue and swift water rescue and those cops absolutely did the right thing....call for help. It sucks but that's basically all they could do since he swam so far away before he drowned.

TriJets wrote:

GDB wrote:

FGITD wrote:

And meanwhile Uvalde is still resisting every attempt at an investigation into the police department. Something highly suspect about that, almost acting as if they’re criminals. Personally…I think the police accidentally shot a kid. Something about it all is not adding up, including their wonderful press conference in which they, unprompted, mentioned that every victim had definitely been shot by the perp.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/06 ... -info.html

Much less well known of course, a completely different situation other than We have the most dangerous job in 'Murica, so just never question us, give us all the tools, don't ever challenge even obvious failings .
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... cers-watch

Not a thing wrong with that. The police aren't trained or equipped for water rescue. If they had jumped in after him they would have drowned as well. Drowning people by nature will try to pull you under if you get close to them. I am trained in water rescue and swift water rescue and those cops absolutely did the right thing....call for help. It sucks but that's basically all they could do since he swam so far away before he drowned.

Seems like they did nothing even allowing for them, perhaps, not being able to jump in.

A police officer in most Western nations would actually be prepared to risk their lives, over 80% are not even armed here, don’t need to be, guns are not unknown though largely criminal on criminal and very rare anything more than a pistol, often a modified replica or reactivated, potentially as dangerous for the user too. Still it is a risk plus knifes, swords, or direct physical violence. It’s a different mindset, no one wants recklessness but the first priority is to the public you are sworn to serve, even if that means risking your life, that is not the first priority. That’s how you police by not not control, but by broad consent. A consent that is real, not one interpretation of a 18th document.
Though highly trained armed support is available and, mainly due to terrorism, a feature at obvious potential targets.

Anyway, if it wasn’t clear enough, that it’s about a mindset, all this defence of brutality, corruption, murder, these often linked, are brushed off by the ‘we have the most dangerous job so shut up’, (not even near to true statistically), same as in Texas, with an attempt at a cover up in the latter.
You certainly saw all of those writ large in Baltimore in 2015, ditto in the past, LAPD, NYPD, just the notorious ones off the top of my head.
With the ‘our lives first’ being defence each time.
Best not go into a comparison of training the average potential officer in the US has, compared to other leading Western nations, easy enough to find.

Trijets is correct. Who knows, maybe the officers couldn't swim? I'm sure it's not a job requirement. The man jumped in voluntarily.

GDB wrote:

TriJets wrote:

GDB wrote:

Much less well known of course, a completely different situation other than We have the most dangerous job in 'Murica, so just never question us, give us all the tools, don't ever challenge even obvious failings .
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... cers-watch

Not a thing wrong with that. The police aren't trained or equipped for water rescue. If they had jumped in after him they would have drowned as well. Drowning people by nature will try to pull you under if you get close to them. I am trained in water rescue and swift water rescue and those cops absolutely did the right thing....call for help. It sucks but that's basically all they could do since he swam so far away before he drowned.

Seems like they did nothing even allowing for them, perhaps, not being able to jump in.

A police officer in most Western nations would actually be prepared to risk their lives, over 80% are not even armed here, don’t need to be, guns are not unknown though largely criminal on criminal and very rare anything more than a pistol, often a modified replica or reactivated, potentially as dangerous for the user too. Still it is a risk plus knifes, swords, or direct physical violence. It’s a different mindset, no one wants recklessness but the first priority is to the public you are sworn to serve, even if that means risking your life, that is not the first priority. That’s how you police by not not control, but by broad consent. A consent that is real, not one interpretation of a 18th document.
Though highly trained armed support is available and, mainly due to terrorism, a feature at obvious potential targets.

Anyway, if it wasn’t clear enough, that it’s about a mindset, all this defence of brutality, corruption, murder, these often linked, are brushed off by the ‘we have the most dangerous job so shut up’, (not even near to true statistically), same as in Texas, with an attempt at a cover up in the latter.
You certainly saw all of those writ large in Baltimore in 2015, ditto in the past, LAPD, NYPD, just the notorious ones off the top of my head.
With the ‘our lives first’ being defence each time.
Best not go into a comparison of training the average potential officer in the US has, compared to other leading Western nations, easy enough to find.

It isn't about risking their lives....it is about a near certain death for the officers. Jumping in after him without training and equipment would only make the situation worse, as now there would be two or three people to rescue instead of just one. Unfortunately, the victim in this case decided to swim far into a lake and couldn't swim back. Tragic but also completely of his own doing. No reason to turn one death into three.

TriJets wrote:

GDB wrote:

TriJets wrote:

Not a thing wrong with that. The police aren't trained or equipped for water rescue. If they had jumped in after him they would have drowned as well. Drowning people by nature will try to pull you under if you get close to them. I am trained in water rescue and swift water rescue and those cops absolutely did the right thing....call for help. It sucks but that's basically all they could do since he swam so far away before he drowned.

Seems like they did nothing even allowing for them, perhaps, not being able to jump in.

A police officer in most Western nations would actually be prepared to risk their lives, over 80% are not even armed here, don’t need to be, guns are not unknown though largely criminal on criminal and very rare anything more than a pistol, often a modified replica or reactivated, potentially as dangerous for the user too. Still it is a risk plus knifes, swords, or direct physical violence. It’s a different mindset, no one wants recklessness but the first priority is to the public you are sworn to serve, even if that means risking your life, that is not the first priority. That’s how you police by not not control, but by broad consent. A consent that is real, not one interpretation of a 18th document.
Though highly trained armed support is available and, mainly due to terrorism, a feature at obvious potential targets.

Anyway, if it wasn’t clear enough, that it’s about a mindset, all this defence of brutality, corruption, murder, these often linked, are brushed off by the ‘we have the most dangerous job so shut up’, (not even near to true statistically), same as in Texas, with an attempt at a cover up in the latter.
You certainly saw all of those writ large in Baltimore in 2015, ditto in the past, LAPD, NYPD, just the notorious ones off the top of my head.
With the ‘our lives first’ being defence each time.
Best not go into a comparison of training the average potential officer in the US has, compared to other leading Western nations, easy enough to find.

It isn't about risking their lives....it is about a near certain death for the officers. Jumping in after him without training and equipment would only make the situation worse, as now there would be two or three people to rescue instead of just one. Unfortunately, the victim in this case decided to swim far into a lake and couldn't swim back. Tragic but also completely of his own doing. No reason to turn one death into three.

Not wanting to go on with a subject away from the main one, though this man was clearly not in his right frame of mind. They told him swimming there was prohibited but as you saw, he was not aggressive (in the footage shown), so why not detain him for his own safety before he did what he said he was planning to do? If prohibited to swim there they would be performing their duties to protect. In his case this man from himself.

Sadly, that job involves encountering people, for whatever reason, not in their right mind, from self harm to full on meltdowns, be it a history of mental illness, substance abuse or missing their meds.
With big cuts in police numbers in the past dozen years in the UK, allied to even deeper ones in social support, our cops are spending more of their time becoming de facto social workers as well as dealing with rising crime, with those reduced numbers.
It should not be that way however long training, with as much emphasis on conflict resolution as what immediately comes to mind with policing, does help.

I know being mostly unarmed here is unusual but not unique, most forces in advanced Western nations who are routinely armed still however train for longer than the US average, have higher entry criteria and if anything due to being armed, even more on conflict avoidance and resolution, unless that is not possible.
It might well be that going in would be dangerous for the officers in that clip, one on their own yes, but it wasn’t just one there, aside from pretty mild warnings there just seemed, at least in what has been released, an almost indifferent attitude.
Which elsewhere seems striking, alien almost.
Though I note they are under investigation, which fair enough, is routine.

GDB wrote:

TriJets wrote:

GDB wrote:

Seems like they did nothing even allowing for them, perhaps, not being able to jump in.

A police officer in most Western nations would actually be prepared to risk their lives, over 80% are not even armed here, don’t need to be, guns are not unknown though largely criminal on criminal and very rare anything more than a pistol, often a modified replica or reactivated, potentially as dangerous for the user too. Still it is a risk plus knifes, swords, or direct physical violence. It’s a different mindset, no one wants recklessness but the first priority is to the public you are sworn to serve, even if that means risking your life, that is not the first priority. That’s how you police by not not control, but by broad consent. A consent that is real, not one interpretation of a 18th document.
Though highly trained armed support is available and, mainly due to terrorism, a feature at obvious potential targets.

Anyway, if it wasn’t clear enough, that it’s about a mindset, all this defence of brutality, corruption, murder, these often linked, are brushed off by the ‘we have the most dangerous job so shut up’, (not even near to true statistically), same as in Texas, with an attempt at a cover up in the latter.
You certainly saw all of those writ large in Baltimore in 2015, ditto in the past, LAPD, NYPD, just the notorious ones off the top of my head.
With the ‘our lives first’ being defence each time.
Best not go into a comparison of training the average potential officer in the US has, compared to other leading Western nations, easy enough to find.

It isn't about risking their lives....it is about a near certain death for the officers. Jumping in after him without training and equipment would only make the situation worse, as now there would be two or three people to rescue instead of just one. Unfortunately, the victim in this case decided to swim far into a lake and couldn't swim back. Tragic but also completely of his own doing. No reason to turn one death into three.

Not wanting to go on with a subject away from the main one, though this man was clearly not in his right frame of mind. They told him swimming there was prohibited but as you saw, he was not aggressive (in the footage shown), so why not detain him for his own safety before he did what he said he was planning to do? If prohibited to swim there they would be performing their duties to protect. In his case this man from himself.

Sadly, that job involves encountering people, for whatever reason, not in their right mind, from self harm to full on meltdowns, be it a history of mental illness, substance abuse or missing their meds.
With big cuts in police numbers in the past dozen years in the UK, allied to even deeper ones in social support, our cops are spending more of their time becoming de facto social workers as well as dealing with rising crime, with those reduced numbers.
It should not be that way however long training, with as much emphasis on conflict resolution as what immediately comes to mind with policing, does help.

I know being mostly unarmed here is unusual but not unique, most forces in advanced Western nations who are routinely armed still however train for longer than the US average, have higher entry criteria and if anything due to being armed, even more on conflict avoidance and resolution, unless that is not possible.
It might well be that going in would be dangerous for the officers in that clip, one on their own yes, but it wasn’t just one there, aside from pretty mild warnings there just seemed, at least in what has been released, an almost indifferent attitude.
Which elsewhere seems striking, alien almost.
Though I note they are under investigation, which fair enough, is routine.

I don't believe they could legally detain him until/unless they suspected he was doing something wrong. They may have thought that he was going to jump in the lake, but they can't arrest him for something that he hasn't done yet. All they can do is warn him not to, which they did. Had they tried to tackle him because they had a suspicion he'd actually go in the lake, they'd be facing charges of brutality.

Unfortunately the world is an imperfect place and sometimes people are left with no good options.

seb146 wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

dmg626 wrote:

You should “fear” for them dying in an auto accident as accidents outnumber deaths from shootings by 2 to 1, approx 40,000 to 20,000.

I suppose it is maths that causes the fear. In my country, motor accident deaths are around 10 times the number of gun deaths each year. Twice as likely to dies in a car accident sounds far worse to me than 10 times more likely.

And I still struggle to get my head around the fact that the rate of gun deaths in the USA is literally 100 times higher than in my country. And the fact that noone seems to be able to do anything worthwhile to change it.

Mind you, I've never been killed when visiting the USA.

I have never been killed in the cesspools of Portland and Seattle and San Francisco, either. I have been threatened in small towns many times.

You’ve had weapons pointed at you many times in small towns, really?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

I suppose it is maths that causes the fear. In my country, motor accident deaths are around 10 times the number of gun deaths each year. Twice as likely to dies in a car accident sounds far worse to me than 10 times more likely.

And I still struggle to get my head around the fact that the rate of gun deaths in the USA is literally 100 times higher than in my country. And the fact that noone seems to be able to do anything worthwhile to change it.

Mind you, I've never been killed when visiting the USA.

I have never been killed in the cesspools of Portland and Seattle and San Francisco, either. I have been threatened in small towns many times.

You’ve had weapons pointed at you many times in small towns, really?

Years ago, he claimed to see many people carrying concealed guns while at Fisherman's Wharf in SF. Of course, here he said "threatened", but didn't say how.

johns624 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

I have never been killed in the cesspools of Portland and Seattle and San Francisco, either. I have been threatened in small towns many times.

You’ve had weapons pointed at you many times in small towns, really?

Years ago, he claimed to see many people carrying concealed guns while at Fisherman's Wharf in SF. Of course, here he said "threatened", but didn't say how.

I have been beaten and had my property vandalized in small towns and see people carrying weapons. Are they good guys with guns or not? I don't know. They are threatening.

Wow, I’ve lived in small towns down south and in Arizona, live in one in New England now, not once even remotely threatened. I’ve walked around African cites—Port Elizabeth and Cape Town, around a dozen EU cities, never slightly concerned. I’m big on avoidance, look unimportant, the enemy maybe low on ammo.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Wow, I’ve lived in small towns down south and in Arizona, live in one in New England now, not once even remotely threatened. I’ve walked around African cites—Port Elizabeth and Cape Town, around a dozen EU cities, never slightly concerned. I’m big on avoidance, look unimportant, the enemy maybe low on ammo.

I've almost perfected being the "gray man". Of course, growing up in Detroit (not the suburbs) I subconsciously live my public life in Condition Yellow. Here's a little story that describes it---My wife is from LA. It took awhile before she listened when I told her that anytime we were in a restaurant, that I had to sit facing the door. One day, we were visiting her family in the San Pedro-RPV area of the South Bay. We were sitting in a Starbucks when all at once I noticed a female cop outside with her back to the wall, her gun in hand and she was taking quick peeks into the Starbucks. I immediately grabbed my wife by the arm and said "c'mon, we're leaving". She was confused but listened to me. We were almost out the door when the two cops walked in, holstering their guns. It turns out that an employee had accidentally hit the "panic button". After that, she always lets me face the door because she wouldn't notice something like that. I felt vulnerable that I couldn't carry in CA and all I had with me was a pocket knife.

seb146 wrote:

[
I have been beaten

Maybe you should apply for a CPL?