21 killed, 18 injured in shooting at elementary school in Uvalde, Texas

I know however, there IS malice in our government, actually lot of it, I simply cannot say if there is a malicious element in Uvalde.


I’ve probably said it a hundred times already but it’s often neither malice nor stupidity, but instead, deliberate indifference. They just don’t care at all about people’s rights or people’s lives. And that’s in fact much worse.
 
Screenshot_20220529-071406_LinkedIn.jpg
It’s worth the time to watch
 
O'Rourke bets shooting will shake up Texas governor's race
Interesting parallel…I guess he thinks second times the charm, since it’s children so, what, 100X the emotional push vs last time at Walmart?

“2019, and the former congressman was running for president when he declared during a debate, “Hell, yes, we’re gonna take your AR-15,” weeks after a gunman targeting Mexican immigrants killed 23 people at a Walmart in O’Rourke’s native El Paso.”
 
Well, let’s see what the founding fathers who wrote the 2nd amendment had to say about it.

Perhaps they meant muskets for the army and 9mm only for FBI lawyers. Let’s see:


View attachment 621382
View attachment 621383
View attachment 621384
View attachment 621385
View attachment 621386
View attachment 621387
View attachment 621388
View attachment 621389View attachment 621390

Note that the "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms ..." quote is originally due to Cesare Beccaria (1764) and was penned in Italian. Jefferson himself quoted it in Italian in his Legal Commonplace Book. It's interestingly one of the few false attributions that is actually more apropos and more powerful when presented in context by the original author.

From Monticello.org :

A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility who considers particular more than general conveniencies, who had rather command the sentiments of mankind than excite them, who dares say to reason, "Be thou a slave;" who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.

The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons.

-- Cesare Beccaria (1764) (from a later translation to English)
 

Red-flag laws, by acclamation, may be our response to the latest Texas and Buffalo shootings. But red-flag laws are only as good as the evidence that causes somebody, often police, to invoke them. Most are single-data-point laws—somebody complains for some reason. The results are bound to be mediocre, producing false positives and harassment of innocent citizens. But now punch the name into a hypotheti-cal Google Mass Shooter Profiling Tool, scanning the subject’s recent online history, purchases and school, employment, police, medical, and travel records. A subroutine, the Google Social Stability Matrix, examines data related to the subject’s longer-term life pattern. Is he a stable, invested member of the community or adrift and uncon-nected?

Many data points are better than one, making the red-flag petition less of a shot in the dark and less of a menace to the law-abiding. A subject who rates a 3 might merit a welfare check, one who earns an 8 an immediate lookout-order using networked license-plate readers and face-recognition cameras. But then ask: Why wait for a red-flag petitioner to supply a name? Why not have an algorithm already looking for warning patterns that even a family member, school official or employer might not see?


Brilliant - FaceBook, Twitter and other private messaging sites connected to a super-computer able to spot potential mass shooters. Does that system also dispatch a SWAT team to kick down your door and take you into custody? Does a Domestic Intelligence Surveillance Court issue de facto warrants and hold you for weeks without trial or lawyer under protective observation and questioning?

The author, Holman W Jenkins, has been fond of gun control for a long time Jenkins: Gun Control That Works
 
I think the feds are going to prevent all gun sales to folks who are under 21 years of age. It wont made a difference but it is a "feel good" measure that they can do just to say they did something.
 

Red-flag laws, by acclamation, may be our response to the latest Texas and Buffalo shootings. But red-flag laws are only as good as the evidence that causes somebody, often police, to invoke them. Most are single-data-point laws—somebody complains for some reason. The results are bound to be mediocre, producing false positives and harassment of innocent citizens. But now punch the name into a hypotheti-cal Google Mass Shooter Profiling Tool, scanning the subject’s recent online history, purchases and school, employment, police, medical, and travel records. A subroutine, the Google Social Stability Matrix, examines data related to the subject’s longer-term life pattern. Is he a stable, invested member of the community or adrift and uncon-nected?

Many data points are better than one, making the red-flag petition less of a shot in the dark and less of a menace to the law-abiding. A subject who rates a 3 might merit a welfare check, one who earns an 8 an immediate lookout-order using networked license-plate readers and face-recognition cameras. But then ask: Why wait for a red-flag petitioner to supply a name? Why not have an algorithm already looking for warning patterns that even a family member, school official or employer might not see?


Brilliant - FaceBook, Twitter and other private messaging sites connected to a super-computer able to spot potential mass shooters. Does that system also dispatch a SWAT team to kick down your door and take you into custody? Does a Domestic Intelligence Surveillance Court issue de facto warrants and hold you for weeks without trial or lawyer under protective observation and questioning?

The author, Holman W Jenkins, has been fond of gun control for a long time Jenkins: Gun Control That Works
Half the NES members tripped these data points all day long here. That said, I will know I’d better go operational if @calsdad or @Reptile don’t show up here for a week. 😂
 
Back
Top Bottom