Nineteen children under the age of 10 killed in TX school shooting

[Spider-Dan]

A gunman killed at least 18 children and 2 adults at a Texas elementary school

The number of people confirmed killed in a school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, has risen to 20, according to Sgt. Erick Estrada of the Texas Department of Public Safety.

Estrada told CNN that 18 children, likely between the ages of 7 and 9, and two adults are among the dead. The shooter is also deceased.

Estrada also offered new details about the events leading up to the horrific slaughter at Robb Elementary School, about 85 miles south of San Antonio.

According to calls to law enforcement beginning at around 11:20 a.m. local time, the gunman, who has been identified as an 18-year-old male resident of Uvalde, shot his grandmother at her home before heading toward the school in a large, dark truck. He crashed the vehicle in a ditch near the small campus.

Callers told law enforcement that he was seen exiting the truck carrying "some sort of rifle," a backpack, and wearing body armor. The gunman made his way into the school building through a south facing door and began shooting, Estrada said.

It is unclear if the shooter had a specific target or targets in minds.

---



Let's all keep in mind that had someone tried to regulate or restrict this killer's access to guns a week ago, conservatives across the nation would have decried reducing the ability of "a good guy with a gun" to defend himself.  Every one of these murderers is a Good Guy With A Gun - a person we want with a gun in their hands! - right up until the instant that they start butchering children, at which point nothing could have been done to stop this.  No, wait, that's wrong... there is only one way to "stop this," and it's to put as many guns into the hands of as many citizens as possible.  You know, citizens like this guy, or the guy in Buffalo.  Say, what's going on over there with that Johnny Depp trial?  And I heard some schools are forcing half the kids to become trans for "diversity."  That's the REAL DANGER!

Predicting the legislative response to this is as boring as it is obvious: nothing.  Absolutely nothing will change, and even if it did, SCOTUS would immediately rule it unconstitutional.  That ship has sailed.  The only really interesting question is: how long until the right starts claiming that this was a false flag operation?  It's Tuesday now, so I imagine by week's end that Newsmax or OANN will have some segments about how some people are questioning the convenient timing of this """attack""".

[ArtieChokePhin]

And there go the liberals again, using a situation like this to push their no guns agenda. 

Had the school had properly armed security personnel and had teachers been allowed to carry guns to school, this wouldn't have happened.   No more gun free zones is what will stop this.   Not stricter gun laws.

[CF DolFan]

And there go the liberals again, using a situation like this to push their no guns agenda.  

Had the school had properly armed security personnel and had teachers been allowed to carry guns to school, this wouldn't have happened.   No more gun free zones is what will stop this.   Not stricter gun laws.

It's sad but that's the truth. We live in a world that is more evil than ever. The schools who are protected have yet to be hit and why would they? Taking protection away from the innocents will not stop gun violence any more than prohibition and the great war on drugs. Before anyone talks about taking guns away they will need to prove how our current laws stop illegal activity like drugs, prostitutions, crime, and murder without guns. Laws are only useful in protection if everyone else follows them.

[stinkfish]

And there go the liberals again, using a situation like this to push their no guns agenda.  

Had the school had properly armed security personnel and had teachers been allowed to carry guns to school, this wouldn't have happened.   No more gun free zones is what will stop this.   Not stricter gun laws.

It's not a "liberal" thing. I'm probably the only conservative Republican living in Boston. I'm on the no guns agenda side. So, blame the school for not being locked up tight like Fort Knox for this having have happened? Maybe if the teachers were all armed to the teeth, and maybe if all of the 10 year olds in the school were also armed to the teeth then this wouldn't have happened. I mean, hey, this is  Amurica after all, a flag to wave, a Bible to thump, and a gun to fire for everyone. I really like what the PM of New Zeland did a couple of years ago after a mas shooting in her country. Took all of the guns away. Can't do that here, though, because the King of England might show up and start throwing his tyrannical weight around.
Yeah, I'm kind of being snarky and I'm angry about this whole thing. The best way to prevent this from not happening is to not have kids going to schools that are as impenetrable as a super max prison. But maybe to have more strict gun laws. Just by a little so as not to get a certain segment of the population's stars and bars undies all knotted up.

[ArtieChokePhin]

It's not a "liberal" thing. I'm probably the only conservative Republican living in Boston. I'm on the no guns agenda side. So, blame the school for not being locked up tight like Fort Knox for this having have happened? Maybe if the teachers were all armed to the teeth, and maybe if all of the 10 year olds in the school were also armed to the teeth then this wouldn't have happened. I mean, hey, this is  Amurica after all, a flag to wave, a Bible to thump, and a gun to fire for everyone. I really like what the PM of New Zeland did a couple of years ago after a mas shooting in her country. Took all of the guns away. Can't do that here, though, because the King of England might show up and start throwing his tyrannical weight around.
Yeah, I'm kind of being snarky and I'm angry about this whole thing. The best way to prevent this from not happening is to not have kids going to schools that are as impenetrable as a super max prison. But maybe to have more strict gun laws. Just by a little so as not to get a certain segment of the population's stars and bars undies all knotted up.

And you're pretty dense if you think strict gun laws will stop this.   Criminals don't follow the laws and will get guns anyway.   All strict gun laws will do is render the good guys unable to defend themselves.   

The day they take our guns away here in the States is the day I respond by firing them at those who come to take them.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

It's sad but that's the truth. We live in a world that is more evil than ever. The schools who are protected have yet to be hit and why would they? Taking protection away from the innocents will not stop gun violence any more than prohibition and the great war on drugs. Before anyone talks about taking guns away they will need to prove how our current laws stop illegal activity like drugs, prostitutions, crime, and murder without guns. Laws are only useful in protection if everyone else follows them.

Another lie.  Parkland had an armed SRO, did absolutely nothing to deter or stop the carnage. 

[ArtieChokePhin]

Another lie.  Parkland had an armed SRO, did absolutely nothing to deter or stop the carnage. 

I'm not talking about armed SRO.   I'm talking about armed teachers.   And pay them more for chrissakes!!   Lord knows they do enough. 

[Spider-Dan]

And you're pretty dense if you think strict gun laws will stop this.

Seems to work pretty well in every other country in the world.  I wonder why it is that the United States of America is the only country that cannot prevent regular mass shootings from occurring?

The fact that you guys insist shootings have nothing to do with gun availability because criminals don't obey laws is delusional.  Why aren't we having regular mass chemical weapon attacks in this country?  Why aren't we having a new Timothy McVeigh every day of the year?

[Spider-Dan]

I'm talking about armed teachers.   And pay them more for chrissakes!!   Lord knows they do enough.

"Arm the groomers!" is the perfect conservative response to this kind of event.

Everything you say today is completely attached from what you said yesterday or will say tomorrow.  Yesterday, teachers were pedophiles who need to be prevented by law from grooming our children; today, they are the underpaid frontline who need to be armed to the man; tomorrow, we will need to cut taxes because of the waste from these lazy teacher's unions.

[ArtieChokePhin]

Seems to work pretty well in every other country in the world.  I wonder why it is that the United States of America is the only country that cannot prevent regular mass shootings from occurring?

Your statement is complete bullshit.  There are mass shootings in schools and villages in third world countries and even developed areas worldwide.   Again, criminals will get guns regardless of what you do.

If people weren't allowed to own guns, there would be a LOT more crimes nationwide.

Why do you think Chicago and New York lead the nation in gun related crimes?   Because they don't allow their residents to own guns.

[Spider-Dan]

Your statement is complete bullshit.  There are mass shootings in schools and villages in third world countries and even developed areas worldwide.

In other countries, mass shootings are a rare and catastrophic event, prompting an immediate response.  In America, we average more than one mass shooting a day.

Other countries' gun laws are EXTREMELY effective at preventing the kind of mass shootings that are commonplace in this country.

Why do you think Chicago and New York lead the nation in gun related crimes?

Because the states of New York and Illinois are not legally allowed to conduct searches at the state border, so people from gun-crazy states can just bring in whatever they want.

We trust that national bans on drugs like heroin and methamphetamine have a positive effect on our society, and the existence of drug users - and even drug addicts! - is not EVER taken to mean that drug bans are useless.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

If gun free zones are such a bad idea, why are attendees at the NRA national convention, prohibited from bringing “firearms, firearm accessories, knives, and other items,” including backpacks and selfie sticks.

Yes, the NRA national convention is a gun free zone. 

[Spider-Dan]

SCOTUS ruled that laws that establish a mandatory minimum distance for abortion clinic protesters violate 1st Amendment freedom of speech.
But when there are rumors that some people might protest near the homes of SCOTUS families?  WE NEED SAFE SPACES IMMEDIATELY

They don't believe any of this BS; it's theater for the rubes.  Every Republican in the US Senate would sooner quit than allow civilians to bring guns into the US Capitol.

[Phishfan]

If gun free zones are such a bad idea, why are attendees at the NRA national convention, prohibited from bringing “firearms, firearm accessories, knives, and other items,” including backpacks and selfie sticks.

Yes, the NRA national convention is a gun free zone. 

Because of Secret Service regulations.

[stinkfish]

My stance isn't exactly get rid off all of the guns. I think that the kinds of guns, like AR15s don't belong in the hands of civilians. I don't see why We the People need or should have guns like that. I suppose that if you want to go on a killing spree then that kind of a gun would be perfect, but for everyone out there who talks about home and personal protection a hand gun, shotgun etc... should be enough. Admittedly I'm not a gun guy. Really don't know anything about them. Never had one, never interested in owning I've been up in the woods of Maine and New hampshire and have shot some trees with licensed owners, and it was fun. But I just feel like owning certain kinds of guns are unnecessary, or overkill, or some guys just trying to wave their big dicks around.