8 ms·

It sort of blows up the whole pro gun control argument that citizens shouldn't be expected to have to protect themselves but instead rely on law enforcement :p

• woodruffw 4y ago
  This is not, to my knowledge, an argument that anybody who is serious about gun control uses.
  • drugstorecowboy 4y ago
    Isn't it implied? If you remove my ability to protect myself am I not forced to rely on the police to protect me? Unless they are arguing that gun control will solve all future violent crime I don't see how you could say this with a straight face. If they are "serious" about gun control or not would certainly be up for debate, but I have heard this argument many many times.
    • threatofrain 4y ago
      In this case you would've needed enough guns to subdue the police, as the police were threatening to taser and arrest parents who wanted to save their kids. There's sufficient consensus on both the stronger/weaker gun control sides to agree that police are the most tactically equipped to deal with an ongoing crime, and that you should not interfere with professionals who are already at the scene.
      • ALittleLight 4y ago
        Saying that you shouldn't interfere with an ongoing crime implicitly assumes the police are doing something about the crime and not just watching children be murdered. Best case is parents stand back while the police engage - but if the police aren't doing that then all bets are off.
        • threatofrain 4y ago
          The police were doing something. They were threatening the parents with tasers and arrests if they interfered. Does "all bets are off" mean that parents should have enough tactical force to subdue the police? In evaluating potential scenarios, is a shootout with the police on the table of possibilities? The police even threaten parents with obstruction of justice and violating probation for merely talking to the media about running into the school.
          • ALittleLight 4y ago
            If I happened to be on the jury for a case assessing the murder of an Uvalde police officer by an Uvalde school parent I would not vote "Guilty" under any circumstance. Realistically, I think what this situation means is that the police, at least in Uvalde, need to be disbanded and reformed and serious steps need to be taken to ensure their failure is not repeated. I think such serious steps include charging the cowardly officers with murder. Future Uvalde officers should know it is more dangerous to refuse to face the school shooter - and one path for that is if they know they will get the death penalty for being complicit in the mass murder of children if they just cower outside while the massacre happens.
            • threatofrain 4y ago
              You're basically asking for a Supreme Court shakeup and an overturning of stare decisis. That's the only way any criminal charge would even be on the table for discussion.
              • ALittleLight 4y ago
                I don't think so. If I were an Uvalde prosecutor (and I'm not even a lawyer so I have limited knowledge of the law) then I would charge the police on the grounds that they protected the murderer from the parents without actually doing anything to arrest or kill the murderer. The police were effectively serving as protection for the murderer. It would be legal for the police to detain the parents in the course of the police doing their duty - for example, the police could hold the parents back while other officers engaged the shooter, but if the police aren't fulfilling their duties then they have no legal reason to detain the parents and are therefore engaging in criminal acts to facilitate the murder of children. I would take a list of the children who died and charge all of the non-responsive officers with the murder of the first child on the list under this theory. If a jury rejected it then I would charge the officers for the second child on the list, possibly with an updated theory of the crime to account for double jeopardy or to anticipate the police officers defense, and keep going until I found a sympathetic jury or ran out of victims. If the supreme court, or any superior court, would overturn this case that would have to happen after the case was decided in the lower courts and while the officers languished in jail and I would fight to delay any overturning as long as possible. Apart from the law, the basic facts of the matter are that nineteen children were murdered and the police are largely responsible for that fact. Of course the murderer is the one who ultimately killed the children, and bears the most culpability, but the police had ample time and opportunity to engage the murderer and save the children and did not. Morally, the police are absolutely responsible and I think a creative and aggressive prosecutor could find a way to present the fact pattern such that a jury would agree.
      • Supermancho 4y ago
        > There's sufficient consensus on both the stronger/weaker gun control sides to agree that police are the most tactically equipped to deal with an ongoing crime I disagree because I use a different bar for "sufficient". I never have a conversation with people (or online) within the midwest states without a jab at the ineffectiveness of LEOs. There's been a national consensus for awhile, which has been diminished, for sure. For many, Jan 6 was another event showing that the lack of police action can lead to outrageous events that were previously fantasy. Confidence in police (local or not) has been eroding for decades and this is a tentpole event that will be referenced in the future.
    • Apocryphon 4y ago
      Why aren’t tasers and other nonlethal weapons ever suggested as an alternative to guns for personal defense?
      • daenz 4y ago
        >Why aren't [non-lethal weapons] ever suggested They are suggested. Many people carry mace/pepper spray. Tasers are finicky and require a fortunate prong placement in the attacker, and the attacker to not be wearing thick clothing, or it just doesn't work. Stun guns require you to be upclose and personal with the attacker. If you're a smaller/weaker person, this is extremely risky. Most non-lethal weapons are for you to get away from an uncommitted attacker as quickly as possible, not to stop a serious threat in its tracks. If someone has a weapon and intent on killing you, a firearm is your best bet in stopping them.
        • Apocryphon 4y ago
          Makes me wonder why we haven't seen more advancements in this space in the last few decades, especially with the U.S. military overseeing multiple occupations where sublethal weaponry would've been helpful. No startups trying to invent sci-fi stun guns at all? Years ago I once made a joke that Tesla could pivot into that by inventing a "lightning gun." Given Musk's descent into attention-grabbing memelordom, I'm surprised he hasn't suggested such a possibility yet, to unilaterally solve all these controversies in the news, himself.
          • everforward 4y ago
            It's very hard to create a force that will incapacitate someone without a substantial risk of killing them. Sufficient blunt force to some area to stun someone will kill them if it hits elsewhere. Tolerances for electricity are different between people (Tasers do kill people). Mace and pepperballs don't fully incapacitate someone. Lightning guns (or really any directed energy weapon) have problems with exponential decay. Tranquilizer guns might work, although I don't know how wide the dosing range is. It's a hard problem. People still die from anesthesia, which is basically trying to keep someone incapacitated in a very controlled setting.
    • wfhordie 4y ago
      > If you remove my ability to protect myself am I not forced to rely on the police to protect me? Gun control does not remove your ability to protect yourself. This is a false premise. Even in a world where the US government institutes mandatory buy backs of anything that looks like a gun, you are not completely devoid of options to protect yourself. Statistically, aside from some very specific places in the US like the bad parts of LA/Chicago/New York, you are far more likely to die of suicide by firearm than you are of homicide by firearm.
      • sevenf0ur 4y ago
        What self defense tool is as effective as a firearm, especially in hands of a smaller or elderly person? Any gun control measure that restricts firearms makes it harder to defend yourself. I'd like to think you can depend on the police but that's not always the case.
        • wfhordie 4y ago
          > Any gun control measure that restricts firearms makes it harder to defend yourself. Bump stocks were outlawed. What impact did that have on self-defense? What impact did restricting assault weapons have on self defense? You are making a claim here. It is necessary for you to back up your claim with evidence. The goal post already moved from the original comment I replied to, which is fine. To avoid further wriggling, though, we need data.
          • sevenf0ur 4y ago
            You brought up the point of banning (restricting) all firearms. No sense arguing about assault weapons since that's a loosely based term. I think the fact that all the world's police use firearms should point to their effectiveness.
    • pygy_ 4y ago
      The argument is that fewer guns in circulation decreases violence. That is to the point where cops are unarmed in Norway, most of the UK and Ireland, Iceland, New Zealand, Botswana and a dozen smaller countries.
      • _-david-_ 4y ago
        The US has been increasing the number of guns and has seen a decrease in violence.
        • pygy_ 4y ago
          It might have reached saturation. Violence is decreasing everywhere else too (dropping lead gasoline and screen time are the probable drivers). The US is still an outlier as far as gun deaths go.
  • daenz 4y ago
    >anybody who is serious about gun control This sounds like a "no true scotsman" fallacy. If your definition of someone who is not serious includes people who say "rely on police to help", then it is circular logic.
• johndevor 4y ago
  Yes it does.
• threatofrain 4y ago
  People who want weaker and stronger gun control laws can find consensus for the idea that trained police are the most tactically equipped to deal with an ongoing crime, and that you should not interfere with professionals who are already on the scene. 40% of Uvalde's city budget is going to police. The police went in to save their own kids, but detained and chastised parents who went in to do the same. How many more trained experts with guns we do need to stop school shootings? Should townsfolk have enough guns and force on their side to subdue the police so that they can go into classrooms themselves as an impromptu tactical force?
  • johndevor 4y ago
    Accountability is the issue. If they can tax you by force, they're not going to put themselves in harms way. They already got paid. (Generalization of course, but true in many life-and-death situations.)
    • kube-system 4y ago
      Most people won't willingly die at work for any amount of money or accountability, and I don't blame them. These kinds of situations are outrageous because people want to believe in superheros, but they don't exist.
      • falcolas 4y ago
        When a group sees themselves superheroes, are treated like superheroes, put superhero slogans on their vehicles, are given weapons and armor and hazard pay based on their imminent superhero behavior, only to run and cower at the first sign of danger... Perhaps it's not the rest of us who are the problem.
        • dylan604 4y ago
          Perhaps not the superhero we want, but the superhero we deserve?
      • nescioquid 4y ago
• markovbot 4y ago
  parents tried to go in UNARMED and the cops arrested them. Bringing a gun wouldn't have helped them, unless they had mowed down every cop first. Do you think they should have done that?
  • s1artibartfast 4y ago
    I don't know enough about this situation to make a call, but you can imagine hypothetical trolley problems where that is the moral requirement.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  • troon-lover 4y ago
• bitwize 4y ago
  The new argument is "If trained police officers are afraid to engage an active shooter, why should we expect school staff to?"
  • drugstorecowboy 4y ago
    Yes, which completely ignores the difference between a person who has had this situation forced on them (A teacher or school administrator) and someone who has to choose to enter it. I think it might be quite a bit easier to confront a shooter when its obvious that doing nothing will result in your death. In this situation in particular I can't imagine how armed teachers would have made it any worse, but can certainly imagine it making it better.
    • pkulak 4y ago
      I can absolutely imagine how a firefight between a bunch of people with no training makes things worse. I can also imagine dozens of ways arming teachers makes things worse for that 10 9s of time where there's not an active school shooter.
    • Apocryphon 4y ago
      What if an armed teacher becomes the active shooter?
      • MandieD 4y ago
        Or more likely: an angry teenage boy manages to get the gun off an armed teacher?
      • drugstorecowboy 4y ago
        And what exactly would stop that from happening now? Do you really believe the only thing stopping a teacher from a rampage is the fact that its illegal for them to have a gun on campus?
        • Apocryphon 4y ago
• MomoXenosaga 4y ago
  A society of heavily armed spooked people! What can possibly go wrong... Enjoy your war zone. Honestly in a decade they will beg the pro gun control people to save them so maybe we should do this?
• d1str0 4y ago
  I think it’s funny that this footage is deemed to dangerous for the public, but the weapons used by the gunmen are totally safe for the public to purchase.
• corrral 4y ago
  Other take: north of a dozen "good guys with guns" didn't do jack-shit. Other other take: military bases have very strict gun control, far in excess of the civilian world, despite hopefully being far more reliable, stable, and law-abiding than the general population. It makes them more vulnerable in certain rare cases, but they judge it to make them far safer in general, so the rules stick. Other other other take: pro-gun people and pro-gun organizations sure are eager to keep gun-toting randos way the hell away from themselves, most of the time. Super weird behavior if they think more guns make them safer. See also: most courthouses even in red states, et c. When it actually matters, it's pretty clear what is regarded by basically everyone as making a place safer: fewer guns. It's only when people are talking a big game that they absolutely aren't willing to back up, that they claim to believe the opposite is true.
  • daenz 4y ago
    >north of a dozen "good guys with guns" didn't do jack-shit. The "good guys with guns" clearly had no investment in a positive outcome, unlike the parents who were fighting the police to save their kids. A "good guy with a gun", by definition, has a personal, moral obligation to save lives...something that those police obviously lacked, so classifying them as such is disingenuous.
    • corrral 4y ago
      OK, so we've solved school shootings, let's say (ignoring that when it actually matters ~everyone agrees removing guns makes things safer, let's just grant that for the sake of argument). How about when it's not kids, with relatives nearby? Vegas shooting? Malls? You gonna run in and risk your life to save some strangers? These cops didn't, despite guns and training and all that "warrior mentality" shit. [EDIT] My main point is just that we already know how to reduce gun violence. People with power, even if they're publicly extremely pro-gun, don't want people with guns around them unless they're paying them or they're cops. Organizations with the ability to curtail gun possession do so enthusiastically and almost universally, even if their members & leadership claim the solution to shootings is more guns in more places. So we flood the world with more guns and save (let's be extremely generous) 5% of the people who'd have been murdered with guns. Great. Wonderful. Could have done a lot better by doing the opposite, though.
• ausbah 4y ago
  if there was good gun control, or heaven forbid no guns in the first place, this shooting would have had a much lower chance of happening
• rasz 4y ago
  Only if you are ready to shoot the cops first, as they showed on the scene immediately and were preventing parents from going in.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]