Mass Shootings in the US

I’m a Cop. 40 years. American, not some wannabe fuckstick country that opines their the epitome of grace and manners.

Brit LE is at least 10 years behind us.
Thank fck for that , Cletus PB Riengpiece IIIrd !
Call us if you want to learn some manners, whynot? And cut down on the caffeine, seems to have made you a bit twitchy & irritable.
 

endure

GCM
I’m a Cop. 40 years. American, not some wannabe fuckstick country that opines they are the epitome of grace and manners and all things police.

Brit LE is at least 10 years behind us.
1653607150090.png
 
I’m a Cop. 40 years. American, not some wannabe fuckstick country that opines they are the epitome of grace and manners and all things police.

Brit LE is at least 10 years behind us.

In the past 12 years I have worked with multiple US Police Departments. In my field US LE is at least 20 years behind most of Europe.
 

Nomad1382

War Hero
I'm not getting into the rest of this but you'd be hard pressed to set off a fire alarm from outside the fence if you weren't supposed to be getting in. Not impossible (I can think of a couple of ways) but tricky.
Inside job, like the 2 above, students at the school, pull the alarm and....
 
I’m a Cop. 40 years. American, not some wannabe fuckstick country that opines they are the epitome of grace and manners and all things police.

Brit LE is at least 10 years behind us.
Maybe because Brit citizenry do not do the stuff that the US LE need to deal with? Is it better that US LE needs to do these things or Brit LE does not?
 
Contrary to what you may have been led to believe, until 2008, no federal court had held that the Second Amendment conveyed a right to own a gun. On the contrary, the Supreme Court clearly said that it didn’t.
Erm. No, it didn't. The point about Heller (and what made it so interesting) is that it was the first time that the Supreme Court had assessed a Constitutional Right de novo in over a century. There was precisely zero caselaw on the subject. The closest it came was the notorious 'Miller' case of the 1930s (by which point Miller was dead, so argument was limited) and which SCOTUS refused to consider discussing because it didn't think that a shotgun was a militarily useful weapon (The implication being that if it were militarily useful, it may be covered under 2A, but, again, as Miller was dead, nobody bothered pushing the matter). There were, however, hints from the 19th century such as the observation by the court that if blacks had all the rights of US citizens, it would also given them the right to arms.

I would add to Alamo's post that it's not just the Federal 2A at issue. 44 States have their own Constitutional right to arms, some of which are far more specific than the federal right. (Which makes sense if you think about the history of the federal government's jurisdiction over states and their citizens).
For example, Texas's Constitution says "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime". Several states have verbiage extremely similar to Wisconsin's "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose." The most recent Constitutional change was in 2014, Missouri's was changed to read "That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. "

With those sorts of things in the State constitutions, you can understand why the States' representatives might be disinclined to partake in a Constutitional Convention about the 2A. You can also see why State law enforcement would be extremely lax in enforcing any Federal laws on the subject. By way of example, note the lack of effort being made by certain State and local police to enforce federal Marijuana or immigration laws with which those States disagree..
Oh dear!
It looks like people won't be able to exercise their "god-given rights" at the NRA conference.

Guns are banned at Houston NRA conference where Trump is speaking​

That wasn't an NRA policy, it was a policy of the private entity which ran the conference center. Conservatives to tend to be big on individual choice, after all.
 
I just came across the following in a news story and thought it might interest some people. This is just deaths by firearms, not mass shootings or homicide in general.

Darker colours indicate a higher rate per capita, while lighter colours indicate a lower rate.

Firearm Mortality by State

2022-05-26_Stats-of-the-States_Firearm-Mortality.png


Here's the 10 lowest.
2022-05-26_Firearm-Mortality_10-lowest.png


Here's the 10 highest.
2022-05-26_Firearm-Mortality_10-highest.png


This shows considerable variability across the country. The sorts of states that are on each list also seem to have things in common with each other which they don't hold in common with those on the other list.

I'll let people draw their own conclusions.
 
American law enforcement has the ability to train teachers.
If a teacher can complete the course for peace officer candidates I think that would suffice.


You keep saying no, but what makes you the SME on that course of action?

You said gun crime, reducing the flow of gang bangers from South of the border will help that issue.
They tried that in Kansa after Sandy Hook (iirc) and the insurers refused to insure schools with armed teachers due to the significantly increased liability risk
 
They tried that in Kansa after Sandy Hook (iirc) and the insurers refused to insure schools with armed teachers due to the significantly increased liability risk

Oh really.
You might want to read that pdf.
 
Erm. No, it didn't. The point about Heller (and what made it so interesting) is that it was the first time that the Supreme Court had assessed a Constitutional Right de novo in over a century. There was precisely zero caselaw on the subject. The closest it came was the notorious 'Miller' case of the 1930s (by which point Miller was dead, so argument was limited) and which SCOTUS refused to consider discussing because it didn't think that a shotgun was a militarily useful weapon (The implication being that if it were militarily useful, it may be covered under 2A, but, again, as Miller was dead, nobody bothered pushing the matter). There were, however, hints from the 19th century such as the observation by the court that if blacks had all the rights of US citizens, it would also given them the right to arms.

I would add to Alamo's post that it's not just the Federal 2A at issue. 44 States have their own Constitutional right to arms, some of which are far more specific than the federal right. (Which makes sense if you think about the history of the federal government's jurisdiction over states and their citizens).
For example, Texas's Constitution says "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime". Several states have verbiage extremely similar to Wisconsin's "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose." The most recent Constitutional change was in 2014, Missouri's was changed to read "That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. "

With those sorts of things in the State constitutions, you can understand why the States' representatives might be disinclined to partake in a Constutitional Convention about the 2A. You can also see why State law enforcement would be extremely lax in enforcing any Federal laws on the subject. By way of example, note the lack of effort being made by certain State and local police to enforce federal Marijuana or immigration laws with which those States disagree..

That wasn't an NRA policy, it was a policy of the private entity which ran the conference center. Conservatives to tend to be big on individual choice, after all.
Excellent Post CT.

Colour me confused.

As you say "There was precisely zero caselaw on the subject" but given these two sentences doesn't this mean prior to the Heller case, and even since then the 2A is still considered to mean,
"The Right to Bear Arms is only lawful for service within a Militia.

"SCOTUS refused to consider discussing because it didn't think that a shotgun was a militarily useful weapon, the implication being that if it were militarily useful it may be covered under 2A".

and

Hints from the 19th century such as the observation by the court that if blacks had all the rights of US citizens, it would also given them the right to arms.

The

JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER, 2008

In its decision, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court was careful to stress the limited nature of its ruling. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia noted: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

The Court provided examples of laws it considered “presumptively lawful,” including those which:
  • Prohibit firearm possession by dangerous people.
  • Forbid firearm possession in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.
  • Impose conditions on the commercial sale of firearms.
The Heller decision was far from the blanket endorsement of unlimited gun rights that the gun lobby hoped it might be. Rather, the last decade of post-Heller litigation has demonstrated that the decision was a limited ruling fully compatible with the many lifesaving gun laws that protect us today.

This was further upheld in 2010.

MCDONALD V. CITY OF CHICAGO.

In 2010, the Supreme Court heard a case challenging Chicago’s handgun ban, one similar to DC’s recently overturned ban. Otis McDonald and three other Chicago residents sued the city over the ban, and because the Heller decision only applied federally, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

In McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court held in a 5–4 ruling that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments in addition to the federal government. While Chicago’s complete handgun ban was overturned, the Court reiterated in McDonald that a wide variety of state and local gun laws are constitutionally permissible.

The McDonald court stated that: “It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not ‘a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.’”

The fact that STATES are preempting any further rulings on the 2A within their State when legislatures interpret the Second Amendment as giving individuals the right to bear arms in public without a permit, an interpretation the Supreme Court has not made.
 
I’m a Cop. 40 years. American, not some wannabe fuckstick country that opines they are the epitome of grace and manners and all things police.

Brit LE is at least 10 years behind us.

Ummmm, not from what I have seen and I was in one, and worked with the other. Further, when I was in the military I happened to end up in a speshul unit (best described as a task force) where my everyday bought me into direct contact with either German, Belgian and Dutch police because I have language as well as technical skills.

There is a marked difference between what the majority of American Law Enforcement does and between police work. You only see cops actually wandering around interacting with the public in large cities here. In the UK you get to know your patch, you walk around your area, pop in talk to shop keepers, garage owners, and schools. It is all about presence and giving confidence. The only time I see a cop over here is when they are lurking to catch speeders, or parked outside an eatery where they will use their badge to get a discount on food. The food thing, or discount on anything is considered abuse of authority, or even corruption in some UK and european forces - even in the NYPD, I believe.

As to expertise; fcuk me where do I even begin, some things I cannot even mention as the existence of the establishments, and the courses run in them is classified. However, an acquaintance was on SO19 for many years, he hosted a couple of blokes from LAPD SWAT in London so they offered for him to come over. When he was over here he chipped in with the training and the LAPD asked if instructors from SO19 could come over to teach them how to do it properly.

EOD, the Feds run the majority of EOD training for US plod. Take a wild guess where they came for training, I had an interesting chat with an SSA in the unit building in HQ NI in 1982, he was there to see what we did on the ground.

Driving, the Secret Service have been known to send their instructors, not their worker ants, their instructors, over to the UK for our police standard, and advanced driving courses. The secret service also do other courses but, we don’t talk about those.

My mate was the chief motorcycle instructor for my force, he regularly used to have students from American forces. He also used to do contract work with a few other European countries, he is that good.

I constantly see police officer jobs advertised over here. My neighbour in Florida, Charley had been the chief human resources officer for a very large telecoms company. He was able to retire at 50 with his bonuses and share options and after getting bored he started to volunteer in the community. He got to know the local Sheriff who asked him to be his non-exec HR person, voluntary, unpaid, part-time. I once asked Charley why all the deputies I came across seemed to be illiterate and incapable of joined up thinking. His answer was, “Effendi, if we have ten vacancies and only six applicants, who can write their names, guess what”. Whilst there are bright, well educated police officers here there are also a lot of knuckle draggers who should not be allowed in a uniform.

To reinforce my above comment: The father of my sons friend is a State Police Captain here in Texas. He was invited to teach at the local college police academy, an honour he thought. He started teaching and marking work. Then the prospective future police officers started to complain about the low marks he was giving. The Dean asked him in for a chat where he expressed the students concerns, and was there anything the Captain could do about it. Yes, do the work, do the work well and they'll get the marks. He told them to poke it very shortly afterwards as he was not willing to drop the standards applied to state police recruits when dealing with future city police recruits.

I have looked over here and cannot even find a definition of a police officer. When you go to a police training centre, not a community college, in the UK one of the first things they teach you the definition of what a police officer is:

A citizen, locally appointed by the Crown, for the protection of life and property, and the prevention and detection of crime.

Simple really, yet many city police forces I see over here seem to make it up as they go, or at the whim of the mayor who appoints the Chief. The main activity of the police seems to be issuing traffic tickets from which their particular city gets a cut and pays for the mayors gun toting mall ninjas.

Twice I have reported a crime over here, both easy to solve, both gifts of easy detective work for the investigating officer. All I got was a disinterested attitude and a crime number. I could have been in a position to arrest the perpetrators of both crimes within a couple of hours. But, city PD’s being what they are, crimes don’t pay them unlike speeding tickets so they don’t bother with real crime.

FFS they don’t even let uniform officers investigate traffic incidents here in Texas. A uniform cleans up the mess and then the file is passed to a detective to investigate. I put that down to uniforms being dim and detectives being cleverer. In the UK dealing with a traffic incident end to end is a basic skill that every police officer has. Fatalities are passed on to an accident investigation unit, but most others are dealt with by whatever uniform is allocated to the incident initially - accident plan, statements and report.

Finally, if the UK is ten years behind American policing consider why did an editor of the New York Times, who I know, ask me to present to the NYPD. He knew they were looking into re-introducing beat policing, getting out of their cars and back into the community. I was invited to present the British Bobbies perspective on beat policing. If you are wondering why he got involved, his wife is very senior in the NYPD.

Just to expand on the ten year thing and our little wannabe country: The last time there was a recession it was caused by the US banking system being cowboys. They threw the planet into a recession because they were bundling up bad debt behind good paper and selling it to europe. Part of the deal to be allowed to interact in international banking with the other big boys after that was that the US actually bought in regulation like the rest of the banking world. We came over when my wife, and a fair few of her peers, were asked to clean up the big US banks. She ended up doing regulatory compliance work that she had done in the UK twenty five years before.

I was actually planning on being a reserve officer over here but, after having seen one too many negative things I decided against it.
 
Last edited:

Oh really.
You might want to read that pdf.
Yes, really

You keep avoiding answering the question though.

What is more desirable? Having to arm teachers and fortify schools or preventing children accessing automatic weapons? Because the shooters are, in the main, children too.

The fact that the gunman responsible for this week’s massacre in Uvalde was able to buy two AR-15s days after his 18th birthday highlights how much easier it is for Americans to purchase rifles than handguns.

Under federal law, Americans buying handguns from licensed dealers must be at least 21, which would have precluded the gunman from buying that type of weapon. That trumps Texas law, which only requires buyers of any type of firearm to be 18 or older.


Is your right to own, and carry, an automatic weapon more important than the lives of kids?

 
Interesting.

Police in Toronto have shot and killed a man after he was spotted carrying a rifle near an elementary school, prompting an emergency lockdown for hundreds of students.

Officers responded to reports of a man, described as being in his late teens or early 20s, carrying a firearm in Scarborough’s Port Union area of the Canadian city about 1pm.


Witnesses told local media they heard three gunshots and then saw police attempting to revive the man.

 
Speaking to a pro gun septic mate who carries everywhere he goes. His best argument, and he has a point, is that after the twin towers attack we did not ban aeroplanes.
What we did do is secure the cockpits.
Secure the schools.
And someone else pointed out that Us politicians kids, are on the whole transported to and from school in bullet proof cars and escorted by armed security, the schools they attend are very well protected.
This school was protected by armed security, too, so what happened? Mall Cop motivation and intellect? minimum wage, insufficient training? met a minimalist recruitment criteria, ie, over 18 and under 80, has a pulse and at least one trigger finger?


 
For those that think stricter laws on firearms purchases will solve the active shooter problem.

During the Columbine Massacre in 1999 the attackers used 4 different firearms. All 4 weapons were purchased illegally, 1 of them was of a type that had been banned nationally 5 years before. All of the magazines they used were also of a type banned at that time.

An 18 year old and a 17 year with no links to crime or gangs were able to get everything they needed to perpetrate the massacre illegally. If you are determined to commit the ultimate crime, then committing smaller crimes to get the things you need is no big deal and in a country with millions of unregistered weapons it's not even that hard.

You are a good 100 years too late to try and fix this through restricting gun sales and/or registration and background checks, the only people it is going to effect are those that didn't want them for committing crime.

I don't think that "stricter laws on firearms purchases will solve the active shooter problem."

I think it's a necessary step in beginning to ameliorate the situation.

Do you think otherwise?
 

Latest Threads

Top