Gun Control Debate

[N.E. Brigand]

PBS anchor Yamiche Alcindor reporting on a news conference given by Texas law enforcement today:

"A police commander on the scene decided the gunman locked in a classroom meant 'there was time' to get the keys and 'no more children at risk.'

This determination was made while the elementary school kids were calling 9-1-1 and their parents were begging cops to go inside."

They just let those kids die.

- - - - - - - - - -
Edited to add: To be sure, the statements at the press conference could just be more lies. The person they're now blaming for letting the kids die could be a scapegoat for someone else.

[Sunsilver]

What a horrible fustercluck!!

There's a lot of people who are going to need PTSD counselling after this - 911 operators as well as kids and parents!

And how could the SWAT team have training and NOT use it?? Were they even there?

Crossposted with N.E. - hope - well don't know what to hope, that's not going to add more pain and anguish to the situation. No doubt that police officer is going to lose his job, as he should.

[N.E. Brigand]

This is an actual tweet posted just 11 days ago by Daniel Defense, the company that manufactured the gun used by the killer in Uvalde:



The same company's guns were also used in the 2017 Las Vegas shooting that killed 60 people at a concert.

I think they want Americans to die. I want that manufacturer sued out of existence and I want its owners jailed for life. Is that too much to ask?

[N.E. Brigand]

The New York Times reports that the Uvalde police department trained for an active shooter scenario in a school just over two months ago. The manual used for that training is very explicit about the need to stop the shooter as quickly as possible, and if there's only one police officer on site, then that officer alone should confront the shooter immediately. Is that risky? Yes. But: "First responders to the active shooter scene will usually be required to place themselves in harm's way and display uncommon acts of courage to protect the innocent."

[RoseMorninStar]

(From Amanda Gorman)
"I wrote this poem after the massacre in Uvalde, Texas. Though it was hard to find the words to write poetry about horrific, intelligible tragedy, I was moved after a few thoughts I posted here turned into $1 million successfully raised for @everytown for Gun Safety in just 3 days. The one thing I know how to do when times are dark is to write. And that’s what I’ll keep doing, even when told poetry can never make a difference against a gun. As Audre Lorde said, “poetry is not a luxury. It is a vital necessity of our existence. It forms the quality of the light within which we predicate our hopes and dreams toward survival and change, first made into language, then into idea, then into more tangible action.” If this poem speaks to you, speak back—act. A good place to start is following @everytown & texting BOLD to 644-33. Love, A @nytopinion"

Everything hurts,
Our hearts shadowed and strange,
Minds made muddied and mute.
We carry tragedy, terrifying and true.
And yet none of it is new;
We knew it as home,
As horror,
As heritage.
Even our children
Cannot be children,
Cannot be.

Everything hurts.
It’s a hard time to be alive,
And even harder to stay that way.
We’re burdened to live out these days,
While at the same time, blessed to outlive them.

This alarm is how we know
We must be altered —
That we must differ or die,
That we must triumph or try.
Thus while hate cannot be terminated,
It can be transformed
Into a love that lets us live.

May we not just grieve, but give:
May we not just ache, but act;
May our signed right to bear arms
Never blind our sight from shared harm;
May we choose our children over chaos.
May another innocent never be lost.

Maybe everything hurts,
Our hearts shadowed & strange.
But only when everything hurts
May everything change.

Amanda Gorman

[Alatar]

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Sometimes it takes someone who is not from here to put it into perspective. Thanks, Al.

[Jude]

Video not available in my country. Can someone post a summary?

[Sunsilver]

Yes, please!

[RoseMorninStar]

Does it open up for our Canadian friends with this Facebook video?

[Sunsilver]

Yes, it does! Thank you, Rose!

I've been arguing about gun control with a bunch of dyed-in-the-wool 'don't you DARE touch my Second Amendment Rights' conservatives. I know without any doubt what their response to this video would be. "HOW DARE someone from another country try to tell US what to do? They don't understand!"

I know because that's what they frequently say to ME. It's like I have no right to an opinion because I'm not from their country.

Their attitude is very much like that video Voronwë posted on the previous page of a reporter from England trying to interview Ted Cruz.

[RoseMorninStar]

I have relatives who have posted 'What part of 'shall not be infringed upon' don't you understand' memes. I FEEL like responding, 'What well regulated militia did you join' but I ain't taking that bait.

Jude, I know you're not on FB, could you view it?

[Jude]

After two tries, yes

[N.E. Brigand]

Per NBC, late last night, a man who had traveled from California to Washington, D.C. called 911 to report himself for having homicidal thoughts about Justice Brett Kavanaugh, on whose street the man then was. He said he had a gun with him, although it was locked in a case and unloaded. Police arrested the man and found that his bags indeed did contain a "black tactical chest rig and tactical knife, a Glock 17 pistol with two magazine and ammunition, pepper spray, zip ties, a hammer, screwdriver, nail punch, crow bar, pistol light [and] duct tape". (Edited to add: he called 911 after finding the Justice's home was guarded by federal marshals.)

As the following quote shows, this could be posted to other threads here, including those about the Supreme Court and abortion, but I'm putting it here for the bolded phrase:

"After his arrest, he allegedly told investigators he'd decided to target Kavanaugh because he was angry about the possibility that Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade and about the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. He said he thought that Kavanaugh would loosen gun laws."

[elengil]

So there's a 'live' feed on NYTimes for the votes. Here are the snips so far:

June 8, 2022, 5:30 p.m. ET2 hours ago
2 hours ago
Catie Edmondson

The House is now beginning a series of votes on Democrats’ gun control legislation. Democratic leaders are forcing a separate vote on each proposal in the legislation, in order to put Republicans on the record on each measure.

June 8, 2022, 6:12 p.m. ET58 minutes ago
58 minutes ago
Catie Edmondson

The House approved the first section of Democrats’ sprawling gun control legislation, a provision to raise the age for purchasers of semi-automatic rifles to 21. Nine Republicans voted in favor of that provision, and two Democrats opposed it.

June 8, 2022, 6:52 p.m. ET19 minutes ago
19 minutes ago
Catie Edmondson

The House approved the fifth section of Democrats’ sprawling gun control legislation, a provision formally banning bump stocks. Democrats were united in voting to approve it, and 13 Republicans joined them.

June 8, 2022, 6:59 p.m. ET12 minutes ago
12 minutes ago
Catie Edmondson

The section banning high-capacity magazines — defined by Democrats as carrying 15 rounds or more — picked up relatively scant support in the House, with only four Republicans supporting the provision, and four Democrats opposing it. Three of the four Republicans who supported it are retiring from Congress at the end of the year.

[Frelga]

20220608_165833.jpg (94.47 KiB) Viewed 2176 times

[N.E. Brigand]

Per NBC, late last night, a man who had traveled from California to Washington, D.C. called 911 to report himself for having homicidal thoughts about Justice Brett Kavanaugh, on whose street the man then was. He said he had a gun with him, although it was locked in a case and unloaded. Police arrested the man and found that his bags indeed did contain a "black tactical chest rig and tactical knife, a Glock 17 pistol with two magazine and ammunition, pepper spray, zip ties, a hammer, screwdriver, nail punch, crow bar, pistol light [and] duct tape". (Edited to add: he called 911 after finding the Justice's home was guarded by federal marshals.)

As the following quote shows, this could be posted to other threads here, including those about the Supreme Court and abortion, but I'm putting it here for the italicized phrase: "After his arrest, he allegedly told investigators he'd decided to target Kavanaugh because he was angry about the possibility that Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade and about the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. He said he thought that Kavanaugh would loosen gun laws."

As New York Magazine columnist Jonathan Chait observes here, a number of conservative politicians and pundits are trying to blame this would-be assassin's plan on some controversial remarks that Senator Chuck Schumer, then the Minority Leader, made during a rally outside the Supreme Court more than two years ago, which were the subject of a published response from Chief Justice John Roberts about the danger of intemperate comments. I'm glad to see Chait corrects the record. At the time, I wrote to a number of pundits, not including Chait, making essentially the same argument he does now. Here's what I wrote then, with boldface indicating the only part of Schumer's speech that most people quote:

While I think Chuck Schumer was somewhat inarticulate, most reports about his remarks excerpt only the 20-second passage to which Justice Roberts mentions in his rebuke (and I suspect Roberts himself is responding to a reported truncation of Schumer's statement and not to the whole). So using this video, where Schumer's four-minute speech starts at about the 2 hr. 13 min. mark (and as partially reported in this article in Roll Call and this tweet by the article's author), I transcribed what, following some introductory acknowledgements, Schumer actually said at today's rally:

"Now why are we here? Because inside the walls of this court--[interruption from off-camera]--Who's talking? We can't have two rallies at once. OK. OK. [gesturing off camera] Oh, that's the bad guys? OK, we will ignore them. Now we stand here today because behind me, inside the walls of this court, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments, as you know, for the first major abortion rights cases since Justice Kavanaugh [signals audience to boo] and Justice Gorsuch [signals to audience to boo] came to the bench.

We know what's at stake. Over the last three years, women's reproductive rights have come under attack in a way we haven't seen in modern history. From Louisiana to Missouri to Texas, Republican legislatures are waging a war on women--all women!--and they're taking away fundamental rights. [turns toward court] I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. The bottom line is very simple: we will stand with the American people, we will stand with American women, we will tell President Trump and Senate Republicans, who have stacked the court with right-wing ideologues, that you're going to be gone in November, and you’ll never be able to do what you're trying to do now ever, ever again. Do you hear that over there on the far right? [gestures toward counter-rally] You're gone in November!"

We are here to send these folks a message: not on our watch. So let me ask you, my friends, are we going to let Republicans undo a woman's right to choose? [Audience: 'No!'] Are we going to stay quiet as they try to turn back the clock? [Audience: 'No!'] Are we going to give up or waver when things get tough? [Audience: 'No!'] No, we're going to stand together in one voice and take a stand on behalf of women and families throughout the country. We're going to stand against all these attempts to restrict a women's right to choose, and we will win. Thank you. God bless you. On to victory, everybody."

Despite some poor phrasing, it still seems clear to me that Schumer's meaning is that if the Supreme Court upholds further restrictions on abortion, the result will be Donald Trump and Senate Republicans being voted out of office later this year. That's the "price" that will be paid; that's what will "hit" Gorsuch and Kavanaugh: the removal of the people who put them on the Court.

I expect there are lots of politicians who have used the exact same language about their opponents in the past, and everyone knew it was figurative.

Also, as numerous observers have noted, Schumer seems to be paraphrasing what Justice Kavanaugh said to Democratic Senators during his confirmation hearings: "You sowed the wind for decades to come. I fear that the whole country will reap the whirlwind." Not to mention that Kavanaugh warned them "what goes around comes around". Although to be fair, defenders of Kavanaugh argue that Kavanaugh was referring there to threats made toward his family (after news of his past bad deeds had come to light).

All that said, it still probably makes sense for Schumer to apologize for not being clear.

And Schumer did apologize soon after for his lack of clarity. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump said that Schumer "must pay a severe price for this!", but I don't think that Trump was urging violence against Schumer any more than Schumer was saying that the protesters who would be "gone in November" would be arrested or killed.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Meanwhile, Congress is moving swiftly to pass a law providing more security for Supreme Court justices. Democrats wanted the legislation to also include a provision for protection of SCOTUS staff and clerks when necessary, but Republicans wouldn't agree to that.

[N.E. Brigand]

Per NBC, late last night, a man who had traveled from California to Washington, D.C. called 911 to report himself for having homicidal thoughts about Justice Brett Kavanaugh, on whose street the man then was. He said he had a gun with him, although it was locked in a case and unloaded. Police arrested the man and found that his bags indeed did contain a "black tactical chest rig and tactical knife, a Glock 17 pistol with two magazine and ammunition, pepper spray, zip ties, a hammer, screwdriver, nail punch, crow bar, pistol light [and] duct tape". (Edited to add: he called 911 after finding the Justice's home was guarded by federal marshals.)

Meanwhile, Congress is moving swiftly to pass a law providing more security for Supreme Court justices. Democrats wanted the legislation to also include a provision for protection of SCOTUS staff and clerks when necessary, but Republicans wouldn't agree to that.

Why didn't Congress pass such a law in February 2021 when it was revealed that a man who killed a federal judge's husband and son at their home in 2020 had also been plotting to kill Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor?

[N.E. Brigand]

Meanwhile, Congress is moving swiftly to pass a law providing more security for Supreme Court justices. Democrats wanted the legislation to also include a provision for protection of SCOTUS staff and clerks when necessary, but Republicans wouldn't agree to that.

Making this all more explict: the House is passing a bill that includes protection for clerks, but Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says that bill "is not going to pass the Senate" because the "security issue is related to Supreme Court justices, not to nameless staff who no one knows."

But the justices themselves already have security. That's appears to be what gave cold feet to the man who planned to assassinate Justice Kavanaugh: he encountered marshals stationed outside Kavanaugh's house before he called 911 on himself.

McConnell says that providing protection to Supreme Court staff is "an unnecessary shot sending a message about how proud they were that something leaked out of the Supreme Court." Mind you, we have no way of knowing that the leaks came from clerks rather than justices (and there are very good reasons to think that most if not all of the leaks, which mostly went to conservative outlets, came from conservatives who work at the Court).

[Eldy]

Head of State Police Calls Response to Uvalde Shooting an ‘Abject Failure’ - NY Times

The director of the Texas Department of Public Safety testified to a Texas State Senate committee today, confirming much of what has been reported by the Times and other news sources based on leaks, including that the classroom door was never locked.

The Texas Tribune has a non-paywalled article on the same subject. This excerpt sorta sums it up:

Arredondo, who testified in closed session to a House committee on Tuesday, told The Texas Tribune that after he and another officer determined the doors to the adjoining classrooms containing the shooter were locked, the best course of action was to wait for more officers, firepower, keys and a breaching tool.

McCraw laid out a starkly different set of facts: That officers with rifles arrived within minutes and the classroom doors could not have been locked from the inside. Reporting by The Tribune revealed that ballistic shields and a breaching tool, called a Halligan bar, were also quickly on scene. He also told lawmakers that sometime before the shooting that the teacher who taught in the conjoined classrooms 111 and 112 had flagged to the school administration that the door would not lock.

McCraw said though the state police are a far larger agency than the six-person Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District department, Arredondo was the rightful incident commander because he was the most senior first responder who had immediate jurisdiction over the district’s campuses. He said Arredondo could have transferred command to another agency, such as state troopers who arrived, but never did so.

The Tribune has previously reported that Arredondo left behind his radios when he entered the school, a decision which confounded everyone else they spoke to.