Jump to content

Which of these is the primary enabler of mass shootings in the USA?

Plasmodium

By Plasmodium
in Non Wrestling Topics

 Share

Which of these is the primary enabler of mass shootings in the USA?  

10 members have voted

  1. 1. Which of these is the primary enabler of mass shootings in the USA?

    • Parenting. Our parenting skills simply aren't up to par with the UK, Australia, Japan, Russia and everywhere else.
      5
    • Religion is out of the classroom. We need to push religion in public schools like the UK, Australia, Japan, Russia and everywhere else does.
      1
    • Video games. The video games our children play are much more intense and gory than the games played in the UK, Australia, Japan, Russia and everywhere else.
      0
    • Social media. We are a free country and the price for freedom of speech is breeding online hatred and self-loathing. Social media is unavailable or highly restrcted in the UK, Australia, Japan, Russia and everywhere else.
      0
    • Mental illness and substance abuse. Mental illness is restricted to the USA. Alcoholism, excessive marijuana usage and illicit drug abuse does not happen regularly in the UK, Australia, Japan, Russia or anywhere else.
      0
    • Guns and gun culture. The ease of access to military grade weaponary as well as the giga scale industrialization and glorification of them distinguishes the USA from the UK, Australia, Japan, Russia and everywhere else that experiences a fraction of our mass shooting rate.
      4

Recommended Posts

WrestlingRasta Big Brain

WrestlingRasta

Posted
Posted

Copy and paste strikes again.

Read my post above  Or, just drug them up, that’s a lot easier. 
 

When someone says they don’t know what can be done about parenting other than just drug them up, and then tries to double down on it…. not sure I can even continue with the conversation with them.  They’re either not serious and just trying to be stupid, or they’re too far gone  

 

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

BerniePragle
BerniePragle

Well, about all I learned from this thread is why some people are called Progressives and some aren't.  Left to your own devices, some of you would still be wearing fig leaves and riding donkeys.

mspart
mspart

Here you go Plasi. mspart

BobDole
BobDole

Parenting- I think one of the biggest things that isn't discussed much is the fact that many families have both parents working to make a living. Kids are at aftercare and such until 5pm and have 3-4

WrestlingRasta Big Brain

WrestlingRasta

Posted
Posted

New tidbit….

the Uvalde officer who was on trial for not doing his sworn duty and trying to protect those kids, was found not guilty of not doing his sworn duty and trying to protect those kids. 
 

So the message is….even if a school has an armed guard and they’re not comfortable doing their sworn duty to protect the kids….it’s okay. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paul158 Big Brain

Paul158

Posted
Posted
59 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

New tidbit….

the Uvalde officer who was on trial for not doing his sworn duty and trying to protect those kids, was found not guilty of not doing his sworn duty and trying to protect those kids. 
 

So the message is….even if a school has an armed guard and they’re not comfortable doing their sworn duty to protect the kids….it’s okay. 
 

Do you mean the Parkland resource officer ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mspart Big Brain

mspart

Posted
Posted

So what good is having armed personnel protecting a school if they won't protect a school?    The prosecution must not have established his intent not to get involved is all I can figure. 

What does the future hold now?   No one will get involved?   That's the precedent set here. 

mspart

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paul158 Big Brain

Paul158

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, mspart said:

So what good is having armed personnel protecting a school if they won't protect a school?    The prosecution must not have established his intent not to get involved is all I can figure. 

What does the future hold now?   No one will get involved?   That's the precedent set here. 

mspart

If you get a chance read up on the Parkland shooter. What an utter failure on almost every level that led up to this  tragic shooting. From his parent , to the family that took him and his guns (9) with the gun safe,( the father insisted he give him the key to the safe)( of course the kid had 2 more keys), to the school ,to the local police that had about 50 run ins with him.   If the resource officer could have pin pointed were he was and how many shooters there were he would have needed several other officers to take him out. The shooter had a semi auto rifle ,  and hundreds of rounds of ammo. I doubt if the officer would have lasted 10 seconds had he found him. I think the officer had a 9mm with about 9 rounds. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mspart Big Brain

mspart

Posted
Posted

I don't see that as an excuse.   The resource officer is there to protect the kids.   By abdicating that, who knows how many kids would still be alive if he had gone after the shooter.   He may not have won that is true.   But it is just as likely, with his training, he could have taken out the shooter before more damage was done.  Even with a 9mm and a few well placed rounds. 

I agree with everything else you said.   I just don't excuse the resource officer who was armed and there to stop this kind of thing.   However, we never truly know what we will do in a similar circumstance until we are in it.   I will give him that much I guess.

mspart

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Le duke Big Brain

Le duke

Posted
Posted
I don't see that as an excuse.   The resource officer is there to protect the kids.   By abdicating that, who knows how many kids would still be alive if he had gone after the shooter.   He may not have won that is true.   But it is just as likely, with his training, he could have taken out the shooter before more damage was done.  Even with a 9mm and a few well placed rounds. 
I agree with everything else you said.   I just don't excuse the resource officer who was armed and there to stop this kind of thing.   However, we never truly know what we will do in a similar circumstance until we are in it.   I will give him that much I guess.
mspart

SCOTUS has ruled that police have no legal responsibility to protect (and serve) you. Castle Rock vs Gonzalez, 2005.

Which is kind of horrific.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WrestlingRasta Big Brain

WrestlingRasta

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, Le duke said:


SCOTUS has ruled that police have no legal responsibility to protect (and serve) you. Castle Rock vs Gonzalez, 2005.

Which is kind of horrific.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So then, by Supreme Court Ruling, an SRO in every school is in fact not the answer.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mspart Big Brain

mspart

Posted
Posted

That sounds like the case.   That one was about a restraining order that was not enforced by the local police.   Apparently that is not required.  So what is the purpose of a restraining order?   3 people are dead as a result.

mspart

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...