I find that title to be wholly innaccurate.
There were also women on the force, so it was 376 boys and girls in blue sat around and let 19 kids and 2 teachers die.
Well, 375. There was that one asshole who shouted “Do you need our help?” to which a hiding child responded “Yes we need help!” and was subsequently shot by the gunman
That person actively caused a child to die.
Don’t forget the one cop that wanted to help but was held back and prevented from entering (I think his wife was a teacher or something)
Oh, and that other cop who was going to try to open the unlocked classroom door but was then told to go patrol the rest of the school
The only reason they even started evacuating was because one of them opened a classroom and saw it was full
A: Marvel saw fit to publish a comic book in which Frank Castle tells cops to stop using his logo. B: now that the guy with a Punisher lock screen has experienced loss, he may step up his war-on-crime game.
You give cops, let alone the general public too much credit in the Media Literacy department.
Missing in the picture: a second track with no one tied on it.
That switch stops trolley
What’s the point of all that military gear they’re wasting tax payer money on then? Fascist cosplay?
It’s to use on protesters, not on actual crime.
Yeah. Shooter was not pregnant enough.
Arm ALL THE PREGNANT MOTHERS! If you Preggnant You Get a FREE FIREARM WITH UNLIMITED BULLETS !
:-D
This has a very borderlands vibe to it.
If they are actually fascists then it isn’t cosplay though.
They will be using all that firepower to keep “certain people” from getting to vote.
It makes their pussies wet.
Why does female anatomy always get used as an insult? It’s a prime example of toxic masculinity and patriarchy that non-male genitalia are so reviled as to be an insult against others.
Nobody ever uses “dick” as an insult.
You use whatever is gonna make the target mad as an insult. It’s why bad mouth little kids will go after your mom or say removed in comms. It’s the low hanging fruit. They don’t care about your mom and they’re not likely to be racist either. It’s about attention.
Because they’re the type who think they’re alpha males, and that particular insult is incredibly insulting to them.
Cops refuse to show up on my methhead neighbors - they have weapons. But when my (then) husband wanted to evict my little unarmed 5’3” butt from the house I’d lived in for the past seven years, after physically beating me to the point I wasn’t really cogent, they sent a whole riot squad to pick me up.
Here in Denmark a crazed man attacked the Fields shopping center with a couple of hunting rifles. The first time something like this happened in a very long time.
Danish armed police had a quick response time. Loads of dudes with in full body armour and MP-5s guarding every main exit while other guys went inside to clear out the civilians and hunt the shooter down.
The sniper equipped helicopter circling the shopping center spotted the shooter coming out of a service door and he subsequently got caught.
I think in total only 5 people died, which was from the short period when the guy started shooting.
All the right wing gun addicts from America were chest thumping and table banging, shouting all over social media that this somehow was an example that gun laws don’t work. However, considering this happened within a short period after the school shooting in America, all it truly did was make American police look like a bad joke.
As much as ACAB, I can admit that sometimes an armed response is necessary. It sounds like you danes have a well trained force, rather than some 6 week academy psychos with a hard-on for violence.
Cops aren’t really bastards in Denmark. Oh sure, you’ll find anti establishment types everywhere; there certainly is no love for the police in Christiania. However, the overall opinion of Danish citizens towards the police is positive. In Denmark people genuinely feel safer seeing a policeman on the street.
Police in Copenhagen are also friendly; unless they’re in the middle of something, you can, as a citizen or a tourist, walk up to one and ask them questions.
Police do carry pistols in Denmark, but someone just starting their career in law enforcement isn’t immediately given a gun until they’ve had a good job record and proper training for a few years. The amount of paperwork a cop has to go through for even suggesting they’ll pull their gun is staggering.
It isn’t any more complicated than that ACAB is an obvious
US-centricexaggeration and that there are police forces out there that doesn’t suffer from the same systemic problems that according* to American media is pandemic in their country.ACAB is an obvious US-centric exaggeration
Started by working class British punks no less!
I stand corrected on that part then, it was wrong assumption based on the fact it seems like 99,9% of all negative news in regards to police I see is from USA. I’ll strike it out.
Well tbf our cops do kinda suck a lot and we have some glaring systemic issues with our policing system lol, it’s not like the assumption is unreasonable!
It’s maybe not unreasonable, but as someone living in Norway with only neutral/positive experience with police, it certainly rubs me the wrong way when people speak of it as if it is an universal truth. Especially as American online culture inevitably affects Norwegian kids’ view of society, which is very different from the American society.
Oh for sure, you guys actually train yours!
Wherever it originated, it’s the US cops that seem the most obvious and appropriate target for ACAB. I hate the acronym because while all police forces in the Western world seem to have some systemic issues, theyre not all as extreme as in the US. Also, it literally isn’t all cops, it’s the system they work in, so CAB would be both shorter and more accurate
It’s “all cops are bastards” for a few reasons.
First, ACAB because the good ones get rooted out if they don’t both turn a blind eye to their bastard peers misdeeds, or in some cases actively help them covered up. Good cops don’t stay cops for long.
Second, only bastards are attracted to that job. The power, the impunity, the unearned respect. Anyone who wants to be a cop is either already a bastard, or the few that aren’t are stupid and misinterpreted the obvious situation, and they get rooted out very quickly. What kind of person looks at policing in America and decides that they want to be a part of that? A bastard, that kind
Third, “the thin blue line”. The true meaning of this is that there is a thin blue line that police are never supposed to cross, that being snitching on other officers.
The police (in the USA) are their own entity, a cohesive group. Time after time we see it on the news, the police abusing their power, killing people, forced confessions, torture, racism, misogyny, theft through civil asset forfeiture, rape. Sure, maybe there is a cop who hasn’t personally done these things, but they are a part of the group that does. They are 100% complicit, even though they would be putting themselves at risk to expose or protest these actions.
I think it has been long accepted that ACAB is in reference to the police of the USA. While police misconduct itself certainly isn’t limited to the yanks, it’s so overwhelming here that there really is no nuance to this situation.
In the USA, policing itself is corrupt. The idea that a member of this corrupt institution could be good is almost a paradox. Here in the US, there is no such thing as a “good cop”. “Good” and “cop” are mutually exclusive.
I noted another poster who.was from Norway complaining that his kids have picked up ACAB despite being from a place with a markedly better police force than the US. I’m in NZ and the same thing has happened with my kids. You may be just talking about the US context but the Internet is borderless
It’s exactly because our police are a cult that we need armed citizens.
Its not. No one needs armed citizen. All it leads to are the hundreds of shootings in your country. You need trained police and strict gun laws. Get rid of privately owned guns and the cops wont be scared everyone has a gun somewhere.
Go train the police then. Let me know if they listen to you. Let me know if it goes fairly. Afterwards face reality. This isn’t Europe. We already have a police force cult and nobody is stopping them without force. Maybe you’d be right if you were starting a brand new country somewhere without displacing any natives and kept a strong border to stop smugglers.
What does getting into a shootout with police solve?
That many fewer police. Works best if I can leave behind my reasons.
Please stop fedposting.
Do you have “naturally dangerous” areas in your country? I’m a gun-control-but-not-ban Progressive, and my reasoning is that most of the towns I’ve lived have had wildlife issues that are only reasonable resolved by firearms. Our coyote breeds attack large pets, small children, and (rarely) adults. We are a free-range-chicken state (chickens must be allowed to run free). My last road, coyotes ran rampant hospitalizing my next door neighbors 100lb+ lab (he was huge). It’s not safe to be out alone or in your woods at certain times of year. Not to mention the occasional black bear who usually runs away but sometimes charges… A coyote charged my wife once and her german shepherd fortunately scared it off without bloodshed.
In the last town I lived, we didn’t have police, only mutual aid contracts. The mutual-aid department didn’t have animal control. Their standard answer to a dangerous predator running amok was “shoot it”.
Now… I firmly believe our police is way over-financed, and think the last thing we need is MORE police officers. ACAB and all that jazz. Being honest, I have little respect for police in general, if marginally more than some on my side. So assuming you have areas likes that, how do you resolve it? The last answer I was given was “everyone should move to cities”. Needless to say, I was not amused.
I’d love to be convinced that zero-guns-allowed-for-nonhunters at the national level is physically possible in the US, but I just can’t.
How about zero guns in populated areas? How about getting serious about consequences for harm caused by unsecured weapons? How about limited gun types to what is useful for expected scenarios? How about requiring a reason to own? How about fewer places to get them? How about more expensive ammo? How about just an order of magnitude less?
And yes, for the love of god, require the cops in your area to have training, skills, mental health.
How about zero guns in populated areas?
I’ve argued for that before, differentiation of regions. It went over like a fart in church with literally everyone. The gun control crowd seem to think “rednecks will figure it out or should move to the city”, and the gun rights crowd thinks “cities are more dangerous than the country”. I’ve seen knife restrictions in big cities, so firearm restrictions seem more reasonable. Many countries require guns to be locked in cases instead of worn on the person. In cities, that seems pretty reasonable.
How about getting serious about consequences for harm caused by unsecured weapons?
I’ve always fought for that. But this isn’t “no guns at all”, which is what I was asking about. Most of your suggestions are not “no guns at all” and seem worthy of discussion.
How about limited gun types to what is useful for expected scenarios?
For me, this is a nonstarter. If someone is at their house and dealing with a coyote attacking family or pets, a semiautomatic rifle is the best tool. If they are using their firearm preventatively, that would be a shotgun. If they need a firearm while travelling and not hunting or anything, semi-automatic pistol. I just named basically every kind of gun somebody wants to ban. Well, that and guns that look especially scary, which I think is stupid. We already limit the guns types to what is useful, and I’ll be the first to fight for keeping machineguns out of civilian hands.
I’m also all about banning things like bump stocks, of course. But being honest, many safety accessories people suggest banning aren’t contributors to gun violence.
How about fewer places to get them?
Are you suggesting the Federal government step in? In my state, they’re fairly difficult to get. Should the Fed try to mimic our laws and policies? That doesn’t really seem to be the problem to me, though. If people want firearms and they’re legal to purchase, they’ll get them whether there’s 1 store in their county or Walmart sells them.
How about more expensive ammo?
That seems worth discussing. I have some concerns; unless there’s a firing range exception, it means gun owners will have less experience and comfort with their firearm. A person with a gun and no regular practice/training is like a dull knife. It sounds less dangerous for all of 5 seconds before it leads to some accidental tragedy. I’m actually a believer in requiring con-ed including target-shooting for someone who wants to own a gun. A gun that shoots its target can be horrible. A gun that misses its target IS horrible.
How about just an order of magnitude less?
An order of magnitude less what? Less ammo? How does that reduce gun violence? A magnitude fewer guns? How do you intend to execute on that? I do think there’s way too many guns in the US. And I think a lot of people own guns that shouldn’t, regardless of the gun. I’m a strong believer in background check and psych check to own a gun.
And yes, for the love of god, require the cops in your area to have training, skills, mental health.
We don’t have many of those (cops in our area). And unlike the conservatives out there, I kinda like to keep it that way. My not liking cops is why I do like access to firearms. They’re simply not qualified or trustworthy in many real-world cases where a firearm solves a problem without ever being pointed at a human being.
the gun rights crowd thinks “cities are more dangerous than the country”.
Maybe we focus too much on the concerns of relatively few gun owners and too little on the victims. Bringing a weapon into a city creates more risk for more innocent victims, and that’s not ok. Even for people who believe they’re a “good guy with a gun”, the reality is they’re making things worse
But this isn’t “no guns at all”, which is what I was asking about.
This has to be part of it. Anti-regulation people will always claim gun control can’t work because of the huge number of guns already there, legal or not. But you can make things better than before, you can make more serious consequences even for illegal weapons
I’m also all about banning things like bump stocks, of course. But being honest, many safety accessories people suggest banning aren’t contributors to gun violence.
But a lot of those accessories make mass shootings easier. While one innocent victim getting shot is a tragedy, it’s not as bad as 4 or 20, or any larger number. A bump stock makes it easier to shoot faster, a larger magazine makes it easier to shoot more. Both make it harder for a potential additional victim to find an escape.
Are you suggesting the Federal government step in? In my state, they’re fairly difficult to get.
It has to. In my state guns are also harder to get and that’s reflected in much lower gun ownership. However there’s only so much you can do at a state level when someone can visit a Walmart over the border. My state also has regulations on alcohol, where they limit the number of store that can sell. Why is alcohol more regulated than deadly weapons?
How about more expensive ammo? unless there’s a firing range exception, it means gun owners will have less experience and comfort with their firearm.
True, but there’s a vast quantity of illegal guns already out there, and you can’t control illegal sales. You can make those more expensive to use, and maybe some won’t
A magnitude fewer guns? How do you intend to execute on that?
That’s a damn good question, but you can’t give up without trying. This really turns into a long term issue: are current controls increasing the number out there or decreasing them? iF we make new guns harder to get in fewer places more expensive to use and with more serious consequences for recklessly endangering people, maybe that reduces the number of weapons continually added. Maybe that will make a difference over time
We don’t have many of those (cops in our area). And unlike the conservatives out there, I kinda like to keep it that way.
I understand the urge and there are certainly good reasons, yet I don’t think the statistics really bear that out. For all the news about police shootings, the vast majority never do. For all the news about police brutality and racism, almost all are normal people trying to do their best. At least some police environments seem to bring out the worst in people rather than the best. That’s what needs to change.
Of the people I know who are cops, I would definitely trust them to help. We can change things to encourage those people, encourage professionalism, ensure they can use tools other than their weapon , ensure they are mentally healthy enough to handle the responsibility. Yes, I definitely blame unions but maybe differently than some: I do actually like that police unions stand up for the rights of accused officers, if justice is upheld. But where’s the outrage for the damage a bad cop does to the entire profession? But I never hear about a focus on professionalism and safety like other unions do. Where is the police union on encouraging training, professional development, workshops on judgement and de escalation? Where is the focus on better serving your “customers”? Police can become a trusted authority that improve public safety, and that will help more people than “every one for themselves”
Do you think a cop is any more a “good guy with a gun”?
NZ has strict gun controls but guns are allowed for pest control and hunting. There’s a lot of room between that kind of control and “everyone has an AR15 and a concealed firearm without a licence”.
The person I was responding to was talking about 100% total gun bans. Just want to make sure you realize this. Nothing you said disagrees with my take on gun control. If you intended to agree, that’s cool (but rare online ;) )
Looking at this wiki page, NZ seems to have the same kind of gun laws my home state has, with a fairly similar ownership rate (and it looks like NZ averages 5 guns per owner?). As a general rule, I wouldn’t use the term “strict gun controls” if a country’s laws match any US state. We get a little crazy here with our Second Amendment.
There’s a lot of room between that kind of control and “everyone has an AR15 and a concealed firearm without a licence”.
100%, except I’m not sure why everyone is so obsessed with AR-15s. People keep trying to ban them in the US while deadlier weapons get a pass. And concealed carry is sorta funny. In my state, all carry is concealed carry because open carry scares non-gun-owners. You can basically have your gun license challenged in my state if you open carry because it can be used to argue you’re not in the right mind to own a gun if you carry openly knowing it’ll scare people.
Sorry, just assumed you were arguing a stricter line on gun control. My fault for not being more careful. I agree with you about
What about countries that do have strict gun laws and only relatively recently started having shootings? What changed between then and now across the West?
Which countries are those? Countries with strict gun laws have less gun violence.
And yet gun violence is growing across Europe despite few if any changes to gun law.
No, it isn’t. Gun violence is down a cross Europe except for in Sweden: https://www.idunn.no/doi/10.18261/njc.25.1.4
Cop cult bad! Gun cult good! Ugg has spoken!
Cops have a lower frequency of good people than the sum of everyone else. Wanna know what makes the difference? Cops are specifically people who sought out that power. This also applies to politicians, judges, and HOA board members.
Are all those poor black kids in the US military evil, too, then?
Good thing cops are not legally required to help you in the US, even if you’re about to be killed by a criminal.
Neat how they always choose to protect nazi protestors.
It was super apparent with j6. After months of watching protesters get beaten, teargassed, and arrested en masse (among other things) it was absolutely mind blowing to watch the police do the (almost) bare minimum to stop y’all-qeada even when they killed a cop. You would think they were trying to break up a bar fight and not an armed mob.
I expected them to at least treat this violent mob (chanting death threats to the *vice president) attacking the capitol the same as they had every single BLM protest the previous summer, and realistically take that event as more of an attack on our nation and respond in kind.
All summer we saw police around the country absolutely fuck people up, mass arrests, immediate crowd control, but on j6 all of the sudden they weren’t an all powerful, super coordinated crowd stopping machine.
It was infuriating
The ones there fought like hell, and were severely outnumbered. Their backup was delayed for hours.
You are completely right, I just think that if it was BLM storming the capital way more than one person would have been shot.
Only 14 people were taken into custody on the day of the j6 insurrection, and only one person was shot.
They were already using rubber bullets, they very well could have escalated in kind with live ammunition, we are talking about government officials here, not retail store windows.
I understand that there is nuance to this situation, but I just had a visceral reaction to seeing this group get the kids gloves treatment after months of seeing the standard police response to protests that they didn’t agree with.
Understood, and agreed.
Came here to say this. The SCOTUS has ruled multiple times that police officers and other agents of the government are only legally obligated to capture criminals, not prevent laws from being broken. A cop can legally watch someone execute someone and as long as they arrest the perpetrator afterwards, they are legally in the clear. Never believe a cop who says they are here to protect you. In a world where the laws are written to protect business interests and cops only have to uphold the law, the cops are nothing more than tax funded corporate enforcers.
376 armed cowards keeping a bunch of parents from rescuing their kids… and what changed? nuthin.
so gross
Nothing changed because Uvalde immediately re-elected the same republiQan slate that put them there. After that tragedy. There should be no more question that it’s a cult.
Uvalde immediately re-elected the same republiQan slate that put them there
Sadly, the kids weren’t allowed to vote. Mature enough to get shot at. Not mature enough to select the police who stand idle while it happens.
I scoff every time a cop on a TV show is like “I joined the force to save lives and make a difference” because it’s painfully obvious that this is pretty much never the case in reality.
They joined the force because it has the best job security next to CEOs in the US.
More like it’s yet more proof that you cannot rely on the police to protect you.
Yeah none of those guns were actually “in the school” because thin blue line means
copscowards above anyone else. They won’t risk their lives for you.
Final proof that more guns in our schools will not keep our kids safe.
What does the issue of the inaction of law enforcement have to do with the idea of “guns in our schools” (presumably this is inferring armed security or arming other school staff)? I am of the opinion that a lot of these issues could be solved adding armed security to schools. There are quite a number of sensitive locations like that which would benefit from that sort of security, imo.
Because the police ARE state funded “armed security guards”. They ARE added to schools and yet they’ve failed to their job.
Even if the police were functioning well enough to act to stop a school shooter, there is still the issue of time — it takes time to arrive to the scene to respond to the threat. A competent on-site security presence would be a good first line of defense. Think of a time sensitive scenario like a home invasion — would you rather have the means to immediately protect your home, or would you rather wait for the police to arrive? What if someone attacks you on the street? Would you rather have the means to immediately protect yourself, or would you rather wait for police to arrive? In some cases, no matter how competent the law enforcement is, it’s simply impossible for them to respond fast enough.
The problem is the police, not the guns.
what did the guy kill the kids with
NO! NO SECURITY! Leave all doors unlocked and make sure nobody has so much as a pointy stick, we just need to ban a specific gun responsible for less than 500 deaths per year accounting for 0.833% repeating of our total gun deaths, that’ll solve everything!
Have you met a security guard? you do not want a guy who failed the extremely low bar to be a cop, and who likely can’t handle the tiny bit of authority granted to them to be around kids.
What if the security is competent?
Sure, just ignore that the Uvalde ISD has its own armed police force.
Regarding that, I found this:
The school district also has its own police force with four officers and partners with local law enforcement, according to the document. Secondary campuses have staff who patrol door entrances, parking lots and perimeters of campuses. [source]
If that’s what you are referring to, it isn’t exactly what I meant. I was more referring to a dedicated static armed security force that watches entrances to the school.
Ah gotcha more people to stand around to listen to the kids die
Am I correct in understanding that you are inferring that the security guards would be likely to do what the police did?
How does every other country tackle this problem 🤔
Fewer guns. Better mental health treatment. Fewer guns. More safety nets. Less extreme poverty. Fewer guns.
I even wonder if no guns at all would somehow decrease public shootings, are there any countries that implement that policy?
What do you mean? If there are no guns… what… what would the shootings be done with? Fingerguns don’t count.
As for an example that comes close to what you’re asking for:
There is no silver bullet here tho. There are some pretty obvious directions that would improve things, and some that would make it worse. Adding more guns, is an amazingly stupid approach, and characteristically American. If adding guns makes things worse, could reducing guns help? Surprisedpikachu.
Gotta defend yourself against people with guns, with guns, so make it more accessible. Give gammy a gun, you never know! How about littly Timmy, he’s old enough to walk home… ah, that’s right, there is no infrastructure for walking. That’d be too dangerous… Meh. Enough Internet for today.
You’re emphasizing the wrong part, imo. The overall societal negligence of mental health, especially for young males, is the biggest ‘fish to fry’. By that I mean the ratio of reduction in gun crime to amount of resources put in is best in addressing that issue head-on, and I feel said issue needs to get a LOT better before that will stop being the case.
After all, what’s better: preventing a homicidal person from getting access to a gun, or preventing a person from becoming homicidal in the first place?
Preventing access to guns. That’s actually possible
I see other people posting about mental health. NZ doesn’t have a mass shooting problem. We do have a mental health crisis. What we don’t have is guns. Americans always try to make this complicated. It really isn’t.
Thing is, there will always be unhinged people. Or people who are very upset or desperate or confused. And generally, we can tell whether any individual person is like that. What you can do is not allow everyone access to machines designed to kill people
I’m in the U.S. The problem is that violence is almost literally the cornerstone of our culture. The entire prehistory and history of the U.S. starts with violence. Displacing a people, warring with them for centuries to carve out a place in a land that keeps killing settlers. More violence and death as cities are established and more natives are killed. Every other super power at the time killing each other over this land, finally the descendents of the settlers revolting against foreign rule, more war, and a country established on stolen, blood soaked land. Built, fed, and clothed by slaves.
All the whole fighting neighboring descendents of settlers in bloody wars, over stolen land, driven unceasingly by “Manifest Destiny”.
More war as the descendents of settlers, now natives to their barely 100 year old country, proceed to kill each other over the right to enslave others, creating a cultural schism that still exists over 150 years later.
Fast forward through two global wars barely 50 years later, and hardly a generation apart, we have global Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine casting a shadow over every single human life for every day since 1962.
An oft forgotten underground sea of violence lies between the fragile crust of civility that supports U.S. society. Even the government itself is adversarial, pitting branch against branch, state against federal, local against state to maintain a balance checked by the threat of violence and anarchy.
Oh, and through it all, an ever present an undercurrent of racism, a miasma permeating the fabric of everything this country was built on and with.
Historically, when it wasn’t guns, it was mobs, lynching, firebombing entire towns and neighborhoods, knives, fists, terrorism, crosses set on fire, sundown towns, racist rallies, segregation, cultural warfare, propaganda, economic terrorism and oppression through targeted laws, the prison system, low wages, and the violence inherent in capitalism in general.
Violence has driven, and continues to drive, the vast majority of decisions made in this country.
tl;dr analogy: The guns are the polar bear sitting on the melting iceberg. The violence inherent in U.S. culture is the ever rising global average temperature, and we’re not even pretending to address the violence.
Americans always try to make this complicated
Not all of us do though, just enough people are rabid about doing so that we can barely ever make an ounce of progress. It is pretty fucking obvious that millions of guns easily available are the problem. You have to work pretty hard to think otherwise. When Tylenol killed kids overdosing, no one started looking for ways to argue against fixing that issue, we just started looking for ways to reduce kids’ access to it because it was a no brainer.
“Final proof that more guns in you schools will not keep our kids safe” - wasn’t the problem that the guns weren’t in the school, rather they were standing in front of it?
Cop’s first priority is themselves. If it’s convenient, they might help others.
Holy shit, I thought it was double digits. How did they get 376 to show up without any of them roid raging their way into doing something other than dicking around?
How did they get 376 to show up without any of them roid raging their way into doing something other than dicking around?
Some of them tried and were actively prevented from doing it by other Officers. The whole situation is actually worse than most people realize.
There’s no way that’d ever be justifiable, but what’s their excuse?
Probably something about free school lunches or litter boxes.
I recall a conservative news segment where the “jounalist” and “expert” had discussed that the kids should have rushed the shooter and overwhelmed him. Doesn’t matter they were 6-7 they should have stepped up and stopped it all.
Meanwhile, the actual people gained to do that wouldn’t, despite overwhelming numbers
“Hey kid, it’s up to you to stop another acute manifestation of the US’ problem with guns”
