Texas high school shooting
 

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/san...ing/index.html

Sounds like 8-10 already dead. They've found explosives, too. The assumption is that it's a white dude, I guess? I'm not seeing any reports about what kind of gun it was.

Good grief.

I saw reports that people had found his Facebook page before it was deleted. White...or white/ hispanic dude with a Slavic sounding name.

He had a pic of a military looking coat with communist, nazi, fundi Christian, and Pagan patches. Also bisexual pride pins. Also was a football player at the school.

Seems like an Edgelord

What is that?

Someone who is trying too hard to be dark and edgy


Edit to add link about shooter:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost....dentified/amp/

Never thought I'd fondly look back on the days when "dark and edgy" meant telling someone you didn't mourn your dead grandmother enough.

That's a very eclectic variety of self-identifiers.

Seems like he was using them as totems of virtue.

Like the Nazi cross was strength or something. He had a whole list about what it meant to him. I didn’t save the list from my original source.

Sounds like... he is Greek?

Nothing released yet about what gun was used but I'm guessing it had to be a handgun since it sounds like... he just kind of got up and started shooting in art class? Hard to conceal an AR-15 in your backpack.

Sawed off shotgun and maybe an AR

I'm seeing reports of pipe bombs as well.
Where was this kid radicalized?

I could see a sawed off shotgun stuffed into a backpack... but an AR? Eh...

May be another incel....like the Toronto guy. I’ve seen those groups celebrating him online

Ugh another one of these cases.

It's a shame about the word Incel.
Used to mean something other than entitled misogynistic manbaby.

Texas governor says it was the shotgun and a .38. Both legally owned by the father.

Was the shotgun sawed off?
Because I didn't think those were legal, depending on the length of the barrel.

I'm assuming sawed off enough to fit in his backpack... so definitely illegal.

NRA be like after this gun shooting

https://i.imgur.com/NSCBjUn.gif

Not to mention more useless thoughts and prayers from our NRA bought politicians.

Some states let you own a sawed shotgun if you buy a special permit and pay a special tax. Not sure what Texas does. Kid could have cut it this morning too. Making a legally owned shotgun an illegal weapon.

Short barreled shotguns are NFA items and are illegal unless you file with the ATF and pay a $200 tax stamp which comes with about a 6 month wait for approval. He probably just hacked it down himself. Or perhaps he acquired one of the two perfectly legal in most states short barreled shotguns that do not require tax stamp or wait because these guns were manufactured from the ground up as short barreled guns and not modified from longer barely versions.

Saw this on the news earlier today. Oddly enough, one of my guildmates on a game I play online is from there, and was very upset about it. She mentioned dealing with family matters from the incident.

I was very curious what the liberal agenda would be in this shooting, as this shooting is completely counter to the Florida one that had all the high schoolers protesting. This was a 17 year-old child, not an adult, that grabbed his dad's guns (and we can get into a separate discussion about the parents' stake in the blame here and I'm all for that, and I do believe they have a large stake of blame in things for at least two reasons I can think of)... literally not one thing David Hogg and the others have been protesting for "gun reform" (moving legal gun age to 21, banning "assault-style rifles") would have done one thing to prevent this. Handguns are legal. Shotguns are legal. Neither are scary-looking "assault-style rifles" and this child bypassed all laws by simply... grabbing daddy's guns and stuffing them in a backpack.

So here's the angle:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...e-guns/560771/

"We want to get rid of all guns. Because other countries. And this."

Yikes. But at least... honest, now, since I guess there's really no other angle to attack this vs. the last one? Bring on the UK bins with the butterknife and screwdriver deposit symbol next (as literally exists now in the UK), I guess?

Apparently a counter-terrorism think tank started watching social media shortly after news of the story broke. It took 30 minutes for the fake Facebook pages to start picking up speed.

So don't trust everything you hear regarding the shooter.

Why is it always so important that those behind all these school massacres played videogames?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...518-story.html

Andrew show me the part where the article said "We should get rid of guns"

The same reason people insist making all guns go away will make crazy and violent people stop being crazy and violent.

We don't want to admit we have a People Problem. We don't want to fix the mental health care industry in America because we'd rather pretend those people don't exist. We don't want to admit that an entire generation of "parents" failed to raise their kids with empathy and/or coping skills because it was easier to hand them a tablet or smartphone and keep them quiet. We don't want to admit that getting kids hooked on amphetamines by age 6 because they're "hyperactive" was a really, really, REALLY bad idea.

Human beings demand a Convenient Boogeyman so they don't have to come up with Actual Solutions. It HAS to be guns, or video games, or TV and Movies.

It's never, EVER Human Error, or the fact that human beings come out of the box sh*tty and are only going to get sh*ttier as they age, unless they're raised properly. Admitting it's a People Problem is discouraging, because the solutions are more complicated than anyone wants to deal with.

Oh, but if the problem is something we can scream about, march against, and write up a bunch of meaningless legislation that punishes and inconveniences those who obey the law while keeping things "business as usual" for those who don't... well, that's easy.

If we can't decrease the amount of them and stop being such a gun obsessed culture, I wish the technology would at least improve in a way that creates better safety to some degree.

I've thought for some years now that the design needs to become more high-tech... Start creating guns with a hand print reader in the grip that will allow it to only fire for the actual owner. (Who had no trouble passing deep background checks.) And make them somehow tamper proof and nonworking if screwed with.

Don't take away the others from people, but stop manufacturing them and the ammo that goes with them... Let people who own them keep their relics as vintage collectables. It wouldn't be a fast solution (maybe not even 100% due to some presumably knowing how to make ammo, though the larger majority probably won't be capable), but eventually it would at least decrease gun theft and these damn kids taking them from parents if the thing won't fire for anyone but the owner. (Granted it could be that a legit owner turns into a nut, but it would hopefully still be much fewer such incidences.)

People, Americans in particular, are fond of easy solutions to complicated problems.

Because at the end of the day we don't mind who's inconvenienced, so long as it isn't us. So long as it's a THEM that has a problem why should WE change?

I'm not in Gun Fandom, so I don't know how to accurately address this issue within their community, nor should it be my responsibility to do so. But since the Gun Fandom seems to at least not see a problem, or at worst not care...then maybe it is up to the Big Bad Ol' Government to step in.

But yeah, we have a mental health issue in this country. We've had one for a while, and it's only getting worse the harder and harder it is for people to afford health care.

Or if they can afford it, they won't seek it out because of stigma, or because they're afraid people will come for their guns.

There's also the domestic abuse angle that is often under reported.

Plus the entitlement issue.

It's a big mess, with no easy answers...which is why people too stupid or lazy to address the big picture with no easy answers are all to willing to blame religion, video games, or the fact that a school has multiple fire exits.

It's important to remember that the current reading of the "well-regulated militia" clause is fairly new, and came about in backlash to the Black Panther Party open carrying. It went to the Supreme Court because a dude living in the DC area wanted to own a gun, and the laws there wouldn't let him.
Even the lawyers looking to bring the case didn't like using that dude as an example of their cause.

Not the least of which because he had a habit of using racially charged language.

At this point I’m for regulating gun owners and sellers. Not the products. Currently I’m not so much for banning types of guns or ammo. But making laws holding gun owners and sellers more responsible when a gun they own is used in a crime.

As a gun owner you should have to prove you had all the safety measures in place but the shooter broke the gun safe electronic code or something. If you can’t prove you had the gun locked up tight then you should be prosecuted as an accomplice. Gun safes should be mandatory part of ownership.

If someone is drunk driving with a kid in the car I’m pretty sure they get arrested and the kid goes to child services. If you have your gun somewhat easily accessible, you get arrested and prosecuted if it’s used in a crime.

Maybe gun dealers need proof of gun safe ownership before selling the gun. Long gone are the days of a pistol in the bedside table drawer. Your kid or family friend gets your gun, you go to jail. Gun stores can’t prove the customer provided the means and intent to properly secure the firearm, they go to jail.

This guy gets it! Bravo to you sir! America has been for quite some time a country where placing a band aid on everything just to get by is the way to go. The current American way is to pass the buck, finger point, and blame someone or something else for all of their problems. It’s never your fault!

Alcohol was a problem so they took it away and it created a black market only making things worse. Drugs are problem so they tried to make it look like they were do something about it and once again a black market that only seemed to increase the problem. Why on earth would any gun grabber think it would be any different with guns?

And anyone that says we’re not trying to take your guns is full of it. Go ahead take AR’s and assault style weapons and put magazine limits on things and when nothing changes it’ll be we’ve got to take more and more until there’s nothing left. That is the goal! If we lived in a country where people actually did their part, got along, reinstated family values, and took care of their own it wouldn’t matter how many guns there were. But that would be a monumental task to get people to work together and attack the REAL CAUSE and not just treat a symptom so certain people can feel like they accomplished something!

And that makes the mentally ill not exist?

Problem is, "gun grabbers" kind of exist, in two different senses, on still rather similar sides of the same coin. (Those too eager to take away and those too eager to 'grab' them and take up arms.) One thinks taking guns away will solve it? Too easy? Well, ya know... their counterpart that thinks throwing more guns at the problem is the answer is also an equally simple, equally stupid non-solution.

Honestly, if people are so hard up on being able to own all that they want, then they need to be the ones to take a far larger role in figuring out a workable solution. Not just throwing more guns at the problem

I mean, if tiger ownership became a big thing, but there was a problem with owner's neighbors getting attacked when they get loose, is it the neighbors job to figure out a solution...? No. It should be the owners taking a good look at what they might be able to improve on and their collective association of tiger owners in general.

If OWNERS and groups like the NRA would more willingly try hard to find something that works then people who don't share their gun interests might at least see that they're trying and less often feel like they need to be the ones to try to do something about, well, not wanting them or their kids to die like that. Because as it stands, most don't seem to be trying, they just defend a right to own and nothing more. That isn't enough.

I think it's multifaceted.

America has extremely lax gun laws, and sorry guys, but every other rich nation has stricter gun laws. And we all have proportionally less gun violence.

The rampant individualism and the poor health care doesn't help the mental health crisis, I'm sure. But there are mental health problems everywhere. We had a lunatic in Toronto that ran people over with a van, because the van was easily accessible to him. Guns weren't. If the guns are easy to get, people will kill others with them.

And no one needs a semi-automatic or other rapid fire gun for any reason. I know that wasn't what was used here, but it's an issue with these shootings you guys have.

Though that’s like putting your life in another persons hands. If my neighbor had a tiger that’s known to escape from time to time you better believe I’d being doing something more than just trusting them to take care of it.

Like I said a few posts ago penalties need to be enforced for those that have guns and do not store them safely enough that they end up being used in a crime. Little Timmy gets Grandpa’s gun and commits a crime Grandpa is going to be in some severe trouble. Same thing if Sally gets into Grandmas medicine cabinet and takes pills for her and her friends and someone overdoses. Grandma is going to be in some trouble.

Yeah Timmy and Sally have personal accountability. But when you own products like firearms or pills that can end lives you also have responsibilities. So do doctors prescribing the pills and gun stores selling firearms. More penalties for all. Possible prison time and paying the families of victims to start with.

Broad generalization, factually incorrect. My state, NJ, allegedly has some of the toughest gun laws in the country. We don't seem to have a lot of reported shootings, but there are too many variables to say it's solely related to the existing laws themselves. There's also tons of government corruption and organized crime is still a very real and active thing. You *could* say, "NJ has tough gun laws, thus fewer people get shot in NJ," but it's not a straight line from A to B.

Point being, though, some places in the U.S. may be lax, others definitely are more strict. I bristle at the "You Americans are gun-crazy" narrative. It's simply false. That's not what *you* specifically said, but it has been and is being said, so I felt it bears mentioning.
----------------------------------------------------------

As for proper care and storage of weapons; aside from my Dad, the only people I ever knew who owned guns - at least the ones I *know* owned guns; I'm sure a few simply never shared that information with me because it wasn't relevant - but anyway, the few gun owners I know all kept theirs in giant fridge-sized safes with one-to-several locks on them. That seems more than reasonable, and I don't think most gun owners would have a problem if that was made a mandatory storage method, punishable by law if not adhered to. Seems pretty common sense, to me. It may have made a difference in this case, where the shooter allegedly stole his father's guns; we'll never know, but it's a possibility.

Still wouldn't do jack sh*t to stop those pesky black-market types from getting them and storing them however they jolly well pleased... but it might help a smidge. If it would make people feel better, then maybe it's something to consider. It's a conversation worth having.

That said, all the gun owners I know are also among the most responsible people I know in general, and have all their sh*t super-together as a general rule. They hate it when this kinda sh*t happens, because then they get lumped in with the lunatics, despite being nothing at all like them. But they own a gun, or several, and therefore "are nuts" by proxy. "Guns are The Devil and anyone who likes them is evil by association" has become the narrative. That's unfair.

I don't own a gun and never will, but I simply don't think it's fair any time decent people are lumped in with ne'er-do-wells, simply by circumstance. Let's face it, nobody wants to see more shootings happen, but people shouldn't focus so much on "Guns" as they should focus on, "WHY does this generation default to Mass Murder as a reaction to disappointment?" We've always had guns, and we've always had bullies, and mentally ill people, but we haven't had this many mass shootings until the last 20 years or so.

Something changed. When you isolate the variables, you notice the patterns: Part-Time parents, kids raised by The Internet, without decency, manners, or empathy - and forget about "Discipline", that's a dirty word - combined with a pharmaceutical industry that targets children as "consumers" and convinces people that every kid who can't sit still has a "disorder", that can only be treated by pumping their still-developing brains full of chemicals it's going to take decades to fully gauge the side effects of.

When all of those things run parallel, I *really* question why "Guns" is all anyone can see as a reason why kids are snapping to such extreme degrees. There's SO much more that's wrong, that can actually BE fixed, if people had the right priorities.

But that would take a lot more effort. So, no, let's dump it all on guns and video games, pass a bill, and wallow in the satisfaction of a job well done... or at least, a Real Problem well-lip serviced. Eh?

Eh.

But see, this anecdote actually does more to prove the point I'm always trying to make - That if a person wants to cause death and destruction, they will, with whatever is available. The actual tool itself is not the most relevant detail. If this Texas kid couldn't get his Dad's guns, he almost certainly would have brought a knife into art class, and he definitely would have been able to kill and injure at least a few people before he was taken down. 23 people? Maybe not, but still a few. He wanted to hurt people, and he did, and he would have anyway, gun or no gun, because he was a disturbed lunatic and nobody cared enough to intervene long before this happened, the way they should have.

Some people will say, "But he only killed/hurt so many because he had a GUN!" And what THAT says, is that it would be "acceptable" if he "only" killed three or four people with a knife (AND also ignores that he was also, apparently, making bombs... which is a whole other kind of "Holy SH*T, where were his parents at?", in my opinion).

I'm not comfortable with even the idea that the gun itself is so important to the narrative, that any other kind of fatal attack would somehow hypothetically be less bad simply by absence of a gun. Even one dead kid is too many, so the "At least it wasn't a gun" thing doesn't sit well with me. Crazy is Crazy, and Dead is Dead.

I guess I'm more of a Big Picture guy.

What you said isnt a solution in fact it basically boils down to "If everyone was nicer then there would be no crime" like if you want to critizize other peoples method fine but next time at least have an idea that's not something out of a PBS cartoon
Umm no unless the people he stabbed were either the disabled or children I doubt anyone wouldve died and if you dont believe there was a mass stabbing in 2014 and while 24 people got attacked none of them died http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-26959628. You say it doesnt matter whether or not the guy have a knife but apparently its a difference between life ans death

The "attacker's" own incompetence with handling the knife may have also been a factor in that particular case. I'd also have to see the knife.

That said, I maintain that if you have a knife in your hands and actual intent to kill (emphasis on "actual"), and you can't even effectively fatally injure one person, your heart wasn't in it and it's all for attention. Which is what most of these psychos are not-so-secretly after, anyway: Fame and/or Infamy.

That's another thing that changed. "Back in the day", stuff like this happened from time to time, and when it did, the press treated it thusly: "Something extremely bad happened, the perpetrator was Some Nut, and we're not going to dignify him or his actions by spending any more than the absolute bare minimum discussing this." The criminal was either executed or rotted to death in prison, and everyone happily moved on with their lives.

Now? Instant celebrity and non-stop media coverage. Everyone knows the shooter's name and life story within a half an hour of the incident (yet they constantly overlook all the decade-plus of Warning Signs that the person in question was a powder keg; always some "Not MY son!" enabling horse sh*t, like the Cruz kid). I blame Columbine in part for this; those two sh*theads made no secret in their tapes and diaries that a main driving factor was the idea that they would "live forever in infamy" for what they did, and they have. There are more than a few "troubled youths" who have LITERALLY grown up idolizing those two c*nts, and the endless case studies and analyses have more or less provided a "School Shooting How-To Guide" for people who identify with them.

We don't need to be turning these people into celebrities and martyrs. EVERY time this happens, there's immediate copycat threats within 48 hours at other schools. That's no coincidence; nor is it coincidence when someone like the current twat declares he's going to go out in a "blaze of glory", then turns chickensh*t and turns himself into the police instead. He simply realized that he can't enjoy his three hots and a cot in prison, or seeing his face all over the news, if he's dead. He'll more than likely be executed in 30 or 40 years after endless appeals and millions of dollars in taxpayer support, but until then, he's gonna be a STAR... by his own dubious definition.

And if you think that's not a factor, you've never been a teenage boy that "nobody liked and everyone picked on." If he was that unhappy with life, and REALLY wanted to die, he would have done the "honorable" thing and blown his own empty f*cking head off in his own room, and spared everyone else; nothing of value would have been lost. You don't do sh*t like this if you're NOT looking for attention; it's actually probably more of a motivator than "revenge", if we're being honest. A disproportionate number of mass shooters have been narcissists and sociopaths. Most had sh*tty upbringing, and almost all were put on psychiatric drugs at a questionable age.

ALL of that was important before a single one of them ever picked up a weapon, and it remains important now; but people don't like the longer, more detailed version of the "Cause/Effect" game. It has to be ONE easily-controlled factor. "Guns." "Video Games." Not people, though. NEVER the parents, certainly. Their kids were only assembling an arsenal and building pipe bombs in the f*cking garage; what were they supposed to do, invade their kids' privacy? Jesus.

See, I just think it's super important to count all the other dominoes that fell over BEFORE some maladjusted twat picked up a gun. It's never a random impulse, yet people try and convince themselves that "If only that darn GUN wasn't there, everything would've been perfectly fine!" No it wouldn't; kid probably would've bottled up his "issues" for a few more years before strangling his eventual wife or girlfriend to death. If he didn't do this, it would have been something else. How do I know that? Because nobody tried to stop this guy BEFORE he did what he did, despite everyone around him clearly seeing him as a dangerous and unstable person!

See, I've BEEN a "troubled youth with a sh*tty background and easy access to weapons" that multiple people over the years took the time to intervene on the behalf of, to ensure I did NOT become one of these c*nts. So I don't buy the excuses or the Blame Game. IF I had ever snapped and shot someone, I'd frankly be insulted if anyone tried to blame the gun and not me, because that's the reality of life. "When I do Good, give me all the credit; when I do Bad, give me all the blame." At least, that's how it used to work, and is supposed to. "Personal Responsibility" is another dirty word nowadays.

To place blame on an inanimate object, regardless of its designed function, removes some of the blame and guilt from the actual shooter(s). And I want the shooter(s) to carry 100% of the blame. That's all they deserve; not 99% blame, with even 1% blame for the tool(s) they used. 100% blame, for pulling the trigger in the first place, and for being such a worthless human being that something that happened to them in f*cking HIGH SCHOOL was somehow, in their minds, worth fatally hurting people over.

Again, what the F*CK happened to this generation? "This girl didn't wanna go out with me; better shoot up the school." "These kids all picked on me; better make them all pay, to show the world I DIDN'T deserve to be scorned and ostracized!" "I have feelings! I have value as a human being! Nobody appreciates me, though, so I'll just have to KILL THEM ALL! Then they'll realize they were wrong, and I'm NOT some dangerous wacko!" What. The. F*CK. These people are so goddamned "damaged" that their gut reaction to some of the most benign disappointments life can throw at them is to f*cking KILL PEOPLE.

.........I'm sorry, I'd honestly rather know why THAT's happening on a constant basis now, than to keep hearing the "guns" circle-jerk. If we're not going to even bother to collectively have the correct conversations, then nothing is going to change.
-----------------------


Y'know what I'd LOVE to see change? C*nts like this getting to live off tapayer dollars in the relative comfort of a prison cell for an extended period. He was caught, he confessed, there is NO question of guilt; just drag him out back and put a bullet in the back of his head, job done. Can't argue "taxpayer cost" when a single bullet costs less than a quarter, and it would be poetic justice. Actually, true "justice" would require him to be shot 23 or so times; and THAT"s just fine with me, too. F*ck this kid; even one more day above ground while 10 people are under it because he had a "bad day" is a supreme insult. Any human rights he had - including the right to exist - were given up when he decided that his "feelings" meant more than other people's lives. The punishment must be of equal measure to the crime; otherwise, it's not "punishment" at all, its tolerance. Well, I don't fancy to "tolerating" people like that. Any empathy or sympathy I may have hypothetically had for him or his "problems" evaporated when he decided "Everyone's gonna pay."

Dogs get put to sleep for biting someone, but a mass-murderer can escape justice in the name of "compassion". I have infinitely more sympathy for the dogs. No sh*t. A dog is reacting on instinct to protect itself; a murderer has made a willing and conscious decision to hurt people, and then acted upon it. The dog bites out of self-preservation and fear; the human murders because of a choice. The dog almost always gets put down; the human, only rarely, and only if they're from a state with f*cking common sense. What sense does ANY of that make?

It's f*cked up. All of it. Every single bit of this is f*cked up. But people just keep avoiding the Big Picture. Because Guns.

I guess it's just easier.

Guns are not the problem it is the people.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-43610936

London, a city that does not allow guns had more murders the past two months than the city of New York did where it is lawful to own a gun and who use to be notorious for gun violence. Its a people issue, not a gun issue. I think we need to enforce our gun laws more than anything and also pass some common sense laws.

I heard that ol' Saucy Jack did some damage over there back in the day, too. Wonder what kinda heat he was packing? :lol: Surely he couldn't have murdered multiple women on what very well could have been two separate continents, as modern evidence suggests, if all he had was a flimsy old knife.

Come to think of it, most serial killers historically preferred anything BUT guns, as they're noisy, messy, and attract too much attention. Probably why they were almost never caught despite racking up rather impressive body count numbers. Then again, those cats usually actually wanted more than to make a big mess and tease Suicide-By-Cop so they could get their face on TV.

It's almost like nothing fits neatly into a little box, or something.

Yeah and guess what London is still safer than 50 major cities from the USA, New York has one of the strictest gun laws in the country so bad example there also thats only in a 2 month time frame if we looked at it year by year then we see London having less murders than New York City. Also New York hasnt really been notorious for gun violence in years