14 school children and teacher killed in yet another school shooting, in Texas.

[tall73]

The chance of your opponent having a gun is vastly increased in a society where gun ownbership is 1.2 guns per person, as against .07 guns per person.

Very much agreed!

But the reality is that we do have many more guns, and that may not be something that can be fixed. I noted the experience in New Zealand where only around a third or a bit more of the banned guns thought to be in circulation were turned in. And I would presume that at least the majority of those turned in were by those who regarded the law enough to do so. Which means some who didn't regard the law still had quite a few guns. Do you think we would get all of them turned in with our gun culture?

And even in countries that limit guns, some criminals and terrorists still wind up with them. I think that is even more likely given how many guns we have in the USA and the greater region.

Tall73 said:
a. unseal minor violent offender records to improve background checks.
b. Require social media companies to use human review for human reported statements making specific threats. Often these shootings are discussed ahead of time.
c. Drastically increase funding and study of the factors that drive such shootings, and crime in general. Look for solutions to the isolation, poverty, fatherlessness, drugs, gangs, human trafficking etc.
d. Proper red flag laws that give a person a day in court to defend themselves seem warranted.

I agree that some measure of improvement may be seen here, however there is a sense od deflection rather than attacking the problem head on.

I have proposed measures that would further limit access to guns by people who might be a danger, or increase chances of intervention. That is not a deflection. That is a suggestion in our context that might work.

However, since you do not care for those suggestions, please state, very clearly, what specific measures you would take to attack the problem head on, so I can consider them.

Please do not take this as a criticism of your approach, but rather the lament that this has gone on for a long time and our eyes are exhausted with weeping for your children.

I guess the question might be, does the Government have a role to play in the protection of its citizens?

Yes, I think they do. The question is what would result in that outcome.

 

[tall73]

Fix one specific problem and that will fix all similar problems. It radiates out.

So we should pass very specific measures that chip away at the problem, derived only from the specifics of each recent shooting? And we should be sure not to consider other ramifications? That seems a strange way to do policy.

So if in this case the assault-type weapon was bought by an 18 year old and we say that to help solve this problem you have to be 21, then that can become a general rule. But if you take a general view, say that all guns must be registered, then it doesn't solve this problem. It doesn't filter down because it's not applicable.

I noted that the 9th circuit recently found this unconstitutional. I am sure it may be appealed or the issue revisited, and other jurisdictions may pass laws that then are challenged. But that does cause problems for the 21 rule. We may get more clarification if measures at the federal level enact this, and it is challenged.

But I think it is very strange that you would propose something that would still allow under 21 year olds to obtain shotguns, or hunting rifles to use in school shootings, and would not resolve the many mass shootings by people over 21, just because those were the details of this particular shooting.

That's not to say we mustn't look at general solutions to general problems. But this thread is about a specific problem.

Well shouldn't we get even more specific and only outlaw the Daniel Defense brand, since this shooter used that?

 

[Bradskii]

So we should pass very specific measures that chip away at the problem, derived only from the specifics of each recent shooting?

We do both. This thread is about a specific problem.

 

[RDKirk]

The chance of your opponent having a gun is vastly increased in a society where gun ownbership is 1.2 guns per person, as against .07 guns per person.

And old man or a young woman is still facing death if the opponent is a young man with a knife, club, or even fists.

I guess the question might be, does the Government have a role to play in the protection of its citizens?

The US Supreme Court has already ruled, "No." Twice, in fact.

So, it is not a question.

 

[Bradskii]

The US Supreme Court has already ruled, "No." Twice, in fact.

So, it is not a question.

What? Isn't it the prime consideration for any government? To which SC decisions are you referring?

 

[tall73]

We do both. This thread is about a specific problem.

And I offered specific solutions to that problem.

But I also discussed the larger ramifications of some of the solutions others proposed for the broad solutions.

 

[tall73]

What? Isn't it the prime consideration for any government? To which SC decisions are you referring?

He will have to clarify, but he may mean the decisions about police not having a duty to defend.

I took the question to be more broad, as in the purpose of government generally.

 

[tall73]

What? Isn't it the prime consideration for any government? To which SC decisions are you referring?

Here is a discussion, and it even involves school shootings. Pretty sure the police at Uvalde knew this one.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/educ...otect-parkland-students-during-mass-shooting/

A federal judge in South Florida tossed out a lawsuit filed by more than a dozen students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., who said they were traumatized by a mass shooting there in February and that county officials should have protected them.

U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom said neither the school nor sheriff’s deputies had a legal obligation to protect students from the alleged shooter, Nikolas Cruz, who is accused of killing 17 people at the school Feb. 14. Her reasoning? The students were not in state custody

However, there is a related claim against the school resource officer that so far has gone forward, so we will have to see how that goes.

And this article gives more details on the two exceptions (one of which talks about the custody aspect). You have to scroll down a bit, the standalone version is behind a paywall.

LACP - June '15 - week 4 - News of the Week ... LACP.org / LA Community Policing

When considering whether law enforcement has a duty to protect, first ask if a special relationship exists. If a suspect is taken into custody by law enforcement, a duty to protect -be it at the scene, during transport, or at the jail-exists. The majority of courts require a person to be in physical custody of police before that person has a special relationship with police. However, the Sixth Circuit held that police had a duty to protect a woman where she was effectively in custody when she was threatened with arrest and placed involuntarily in her boyfriend's car. The Ninth Circuit held that the government created a special relationship with a noncitizen by paroling him into federal custody as a government witness. One federal district court has held a special relationship between the state and a confidential informant existed, and thus there was a duty to protect.


Most circuit courts analyze the issue of whether the state-created danger theory is applicable by examining if officers left the individual in a situation that was more dangerous than the one in which they found him, by creating a previously nonexisting danger or increasing the danger. For example, an intoxicated bar patron, who was ejected by police late at night into subfreezing temperatures wearing only jeans and a T-shirt, and was prevented from returning to the bar or driving his truck, made a failure-to-protect claim. As the Sixth Circuit said, "The question is not whether the victim was safe during the state action, but whether he was safer before the state action than he was after it."

 

[Bradskii]

He will have to clarify, but he may mean the decisions about police not having a duty to defend.

I took the question to be more broad, as in the purpose of government generally.

I'd say that they both have a duty to protect. Police mottos in more than one country are along the lines of 'To serve and protect'. And I'd say that without doubt, the prime considerstion of any government is the protection of its citizens. But, as I've been complaining, this is off topic.

 

[tall73]

I'd say that they both have a duty to protect. Police mottos in more than one country are along the lines of 'To serve and protect'. And I'd say that without doubt, the prime considerstion of any government is the protection of its citizens. But, as I've been complaining, this is off topic.

It is very much on topic. The police in Uvalde did not have a legal duty to protect, if the law is interpreted as it has been so far. I suspect that played into their decisions.

And slogans are not legal decisions. Did you read the articles?

 

[Bradskii]

It is very much on topic. The police in Uvalde did not have a legal duty to protect, if the law is interpreted as it has been so far. I suspect that played into their decisions.

And slogans are not legal decisions. Did you read the articles?

This will be the last comment I make on this aspect of the matter. The massacre of innocent kids wouldn't have been prevented if some court had decided that the police in Uvalde do or do not have a duty to protect. What possibly would have saved them is an 18 year old not being ably to buy an assault-type weapon easier than he could have bought a bottle of Jack Daniels.

 

[tall73]

This will be the last comment I make on this aspect of the matter. The massacre of innocent kids wouldn't have been prevented if some court had decided that the police in Uvalde do or do not have a duty to protect.

You of course don't have to comment further. But it could have saved some of them had they gone in immediately. And they may have considered that if they had a duty to defend.

 

[tall73]

What possibly would have saved them is an 18 year old not being ably to buy an assault-type weapon easier than he could have bought a bottle of Jack Daniels.

Not if he just took a different gun instead. Which is why if your solution is no guns, you can't just focus on one type.

For instance one of the mass shootings posted earlier with more than ten fatalities involved a shotgun. And some hunting rifles are also semi-automatic.

 

[tall73]

The massacre of innocent kids wouldn't have been prevented if some court had decided that the police in Uvalde do or do not have a duty to protect.

We don't know everything about their actions prior to the shooting yet, and they are not talking.

But we know they responded to his mother's home where he and his mother were in very loud altercations per a neighbor. We know the mother was on drugs. We know he was known by people in town, and online to torture animals.

It is possible the police didn't protect, or care, all along.

 

[Bradskii]

You of course don't have to comment further. But it could have saved some of them had they gone in immediately. And they may have considered that if they had a duty to defend.

I don't think you need a badge sewn on your uniform to prompt you to save some children being shot in the face. 'Hey Sarge - remember what the Ninth Circuit said? We don't have a duty to try to stop this guy. You wanna coffee while we wait for the feds? Maybe a donut?'.

 

[Bradskii]

Not if he just took a different gun instead. Which is why if your solution is no guns, you can't just focus on one type.

Then we have a specific problem and need a specific soluition. So no guns to any 18 year old. At least not without a significant background check (and I mean inclusing references from family/employer/school etc).

 

[tall73]

I don't think you need a badge sewn on your uniform to prompt you to save some children being shot in the face. 'Hey Sarge - remember what the Ninth Circuit said? We don't have a duty to try to stop this guy. You wanna coffee while we wait for the feds? Maybe a donut?'.

While I very much agree you should not need a badge or anything other than human decency to try, the reality is we now have multiple cases where they did not. And we have the marshals outside reportedly threatening parents and even using a taser on a parent who wanted to try.

And if someone knows they will be liable for not acting that is a better situation than we have now.

The second exception to the rule of no duty to protect as currently interpreted is not to leave them in a worse situation. So if they are already afraid for their life, have no legal duty to protect, and know if they leave them in worse shape as the result of action they could be liable, then that is a perverse incentive to stand by. And that is what they did.

Now I certainly agree they SHOULD have a duty to defend. But the courts don't seem to agree for the most part.

 

[Bradskii]

We don't know everything about their actions prior to the shooting yet, and they are not talking.

But we know they responded to his mother's home where he and his mother were in very loud altercations per a neighbor. We know the mother was on drugs. We know he was known by people in town, and online to torture animals.

It is possible the police didn't protect, or care, all along.

Then there's another specific problem that needs a specific solution. So if an 18 year old does want to buy a gun, you need more than a basic criminal background check. The licensing authority also needs to contact the relevant police department to see if the guy had caused any problems.

 

[Bradskii]

While I very much agree you should not need a badge or anything other than human decency to try, the reality is we now have multiple cases where they did not. And we have the marshals outside reportedly threatening parents and even using a taser on a parent who wanted to try.

And if someone knows they will be liable for not acting that is a better situation than we have now.

The second exception to the rule of no duty to protect as currently interpreted is not to leave them in a worse situation. So if they are already afraid for their life, have no legal duty to protect, and know if they leave them in worse shape as the result of action they could be liable, then that is a perverse incentive to stand by. And that is what they did.

Now I certainly agree they SHOULD have a duty to defend. But the courts don't seem to agree for the most part.

All off topic and irrelevant.

 

[tall73]

Then we have a specific problem and need a specific soluition. So no guns to any 18 year old. At least not without a significant background check (and I mean inclusing references from family/employer/school etc).

Well here are the ages from a lot more specific cases. Now what?

Las Vegas Strip massacre 64
Orlando nightclub massacre 29
Virginia Tech massacre 23
Sandy Hook Elementary massacre 20
Texas First Baptist Church massacre 26
Luby's massacre 35
El Paso Walmart mass shooting 21
San Ysidro McDonald's massacre 41
Robb Elementary School massacre 18
Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting 19
United States Postal Service shooting 44
San Bernardino mass shooting 28
Binghamton shootings 41
Fort Hood massacre 39
Columbine High School massacre 17
Virginia Beach municipal building shooting 40
Thousand Oaks nightclub shooting 28
Washington Navy Yard shooting 34
Aurora theater shooting 24
Tree of Life synagogue shooting 46
Buffalo supermarket massacre 18
Boulder supermarket shooting 21
Santa Fe High School shooting 17
Red Lake massacre 16
GMAC massacre 42
San Jose VTA shooting 57
Dayton entertainment district shooting 24
Umpqua Community College shooting 26
Charleston Church Shooting 21
Hartford Beer Distributor shooting 34
Westroads Mall shooting 19
Atlanta day trading spree killings 44
101 California Street shootings 55
Standard Gravure shooting 47
FedEx warehouse shooting 19
Atlanta massage parlor shootings 21
Seal Beach shooting 42
Carthage nursing home shooting 45
Goleta postal shootings 44
Wedgwood Baptist Church shooting 47
Welding shop shooting 51
Odessa-Midland shooting spree 36
Hialeah apartment shooting 42
Accent Signage Systems shooting 36
Sikh temple shooting 40
Oikos University killings 43
Capitol Hill massacre 28
Living Church of God shooting 44
Lockheed Martin shooting 48
Wakefield massacre 42
Xerox killings 40
ESL shooting 39
Kalamazoo shooting spree 45
Isla Vista mass murder 22
Santa Monica rampage 23
Seattle cafe shooting 40
Tucson shooting 22
Atlantis Plastics shooting 25
Kirkwood City Council shooting 52
Crandon shooting 20
Trolley Square shooting 18
Amish school shooting 32
Fort Lauderdale revenge shooting 41
Walter Rossler Company massacre 28
Long Island Rail Road massacre 35
University of Iowa shooting 28
Stockton schoolyard shooting 26
Shopping centers spree killings 59
Dallas nightclub shooting 39
Molson Coors shooting 51
Harry Pratt Co. warehouse shooting 45
SunTrust bank shooting 21
T&T Trucking shooting 54
Capital Gazette shooting 38
Rancho Tehama shooting spree 44
Florida awning manufacturer shooting 45
Fort Lauderdale airport shooting 26
Cascade Mall shooting 20
Dallas police shooting 25
Chattanooga military recruitment center 24
Marysville-Pilchuck High School shooting 15
Pinewood Village Apartment shooting 27
Mohawk Valley shootings 64
Su Jung Health Sauna shooting 59
IHOP shooting 32
Northern Illinois University shooting 27
Damageplan show shooting 25
Navistar shooting 66
Hotel shooting 36
Westside Middle School killings 11
Connecticut Lottery shooting 35
Caltrans maintenance yard shooting 41
Air Force base shooting 20
Watkins Glen killings 50
Royal Oak postal shootings 31
Oxford High School shooting 15
Springfield convenience store shooting 31
Waffle House shooting 29
Pennsylvania carwash shooting 28
Alturas tribal shooting 44
Coffee shop police killings 37
Thurston High School shooting 15
R.E. Phelon Company shooting 43
Chuck E. Cheese's killings 19
Luigi's shooting 22
Lindhurst High School shooting 20