Another school shooting - elementary school

[Kris]

Well my state is set to pass a law making it legal for teachers to carry guns with minimal training (a measly 24 hours). Have yet to find a teacher who thinks this is a good idea. I mean, let's just keep throwing more and more responsibilities at teachers but taking nothing away to ease their burdens. What could possibly go wrong?

Apart from all the other obvious disadvantages, this guarantees a shooter will go for the teachers first.  Why don't these people just buy them all the teachers shirts with big target circles front and back?  Or red shirts a la Star Trek?  We know who dies in an episode.

Yep. And way to speed up the exodus of teachers leaving the field.

[Phenix]

Well my state is set to pass a law making it legal for teachers to carry guns with minimal training (a measly 24 hours). Have yet to find a teacher who thinks this is a good idea. I mean, let's just keep throwing more and more responsibilities at teachers but taking nothing away to ease their burdens. What could possibly go wrong?

Apart from all the other obvious disadvantages, this guarantees a shooter will go for the teachers first.  Why don't these people just buy them all the teachers shirts with big target circles front and back?  Or red shirts a la Star Trek?  We know who dies in an episode.

Yep. And way to speed up the exodus of teachers leaving the field.

LOL. Yes, having the option to carry a gun if they want to is really going to send them packing.

[Kris]

Well my state is set to pass a law making it legal for teachers to carry guns with minimal training (a measly 24 hours). Have yet to find a teacher who thinks this is a good idea. I mean, let's just keep throwing more and more responsibilities at teachers but taking nothing away to ease their burdens. What could possibly go wrong?

Apart from all the other obvious disadvantages, this guarantees a shooter will go for the teachers first.  Why don't these people just buy them all the teachers shirts with big target circles front and back?  Or red shirts a la Star Trek?  We know who dies in an episode.

Yep. And way to speed up the exodus of teachers leaving the field.

LOL. Yes, having the option to carry a gun if they want to is really going to send them packing.

That's not what is going to send them packing.

[chemistk]

Well my state is set to pass a law making it legal for teachers to carry guns with minimal training (a measly 24 hours). Have yet to find a teacher who thinks this is a good idea. I mean, let's just keep throwing more and more responsibilities at teachers but taking nothing away to ease their burdens. What could possibly go wrong?

Apart from all the other obvious disadvantages, this guarantees a shooter will go for the teachers first.  Why don't these people just buy them all the teachers shirts with big target circles front and back?  Or red shirts a la Star Trek?  We know who dies in an episode.

Yep. And way to speed up the exodus of teachers leaving the field.

LOL. Yes, having the option to carry a gun if they want to is really going to send them packing.

That's not what is going to send them packing.

I agree having teachers carry firearms isn't going to be the only reason, but I also think it opens a horrible can of what if's that will surely contribute -

-Who's responsible to procure, maintain, and supply ammo for the teacher-wielded firearm? Is it the already woefully underfunded teachers?
-Who's responsible for keeping the firearm inaccessible to students? What happens if the recommended (of God forbid, mandated) firearm falls into the hands of a student?
-Who's responsible for maintaining permits and certifications for the firearm? Probably the teacher again?
-What happens if an assailant enters the premises and the teacher fails to incapacitate the assailant? Are they indirectly responsible for the injuries or deaths that ensue?
-What happens if a teacher mistakes a prank or an upset individual for an armed assailant and shoots + wounds or kills them? Is the teacher responsible?

The last thing anyone wants in their own line of work, unless they specifically choose a field with such a risk, is to think about the day they might have to shoot and kill someone while they are just doing their job.

And why stop at teachers? Why not make it legal and compulsory to carry firearms in any line of work? Surely we could prevent mass shootings everywhere by arming the good guys?

[GuitarStv]

The Canadian government is introducing a bill to freeze handgun ownership in response to the Texas incident.

The new legislation would amend the Firearms Act to freeze the buying, selling, importing and trading of handguns nationwide. The measures stop short of banning handguns outright, allowing existing owners to keep their handguns.

Bill C-21 would also allow for the automatic removal of gun licences from people who have committed domestic violence or engaged in criminal harassment, such as stalking. And it would create a new “red flag” law that would allow courts to require that people considered a danger to themselves or others surrender their firearms to police.

And this is... a good thing?  Serious question, is this being celebrated or criticized?  All I listen to here is Canadian radio and they just mentioned it briefly followed by, "and also, now meth and heroin are legal to have in small amounts".

Just to be clear, certain small quantities of drugs will be legal in the province of British Columbia, under a temporary exemption, with a whole lot of monitoring in place to see how it's working out.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-decriminalize-drugs-british-columbia-canada/

B.C. hosts about 1/7 of Canada's population.  They've sort of been at the front of fentanyl deaths and other drug-related problems.

The BC drug legalization thing is a kind of grand experiment.  They've been having an awful lot of opioid deaths, and our health professionals say that legalizing may be a way to prevent users from overdosing isolated/alone.  Theory being that if there's someone who knows what they're doing and can check up on them, maybe the deaths will reduce.  If the numbers of deaths from BC start to drop, I'd expect to see this kind of policy adopted across the country.

[CodingHare]

More details about police ineptitude and outright lies coming out of Uvalde:

Lie #1: The police immediately entered the building to bravely protect the kids.
Fact: The police waited an hour and a half to enter, while students depesperately called 911.  Oh, and they arrested a mother who tried to go in to help her child.

Lie #2: "there was a brave consolidated independent school district resource officer that approached him, engaged him at that time. Gunfire was not exchanged, but the subject was able to make it into the school."

Fact: "The bottom line is that officer was not on-scene, not on campus" before the 911 call came in of a man with a gun, McCraw said. He added that the officer drove to the school and rushed toward a person he thought was the armed man — who turned out to be a teacher.

The officer "drove right by the suspect, who was hunkered down behind a vehicle, where he began shooting at the school," McCraw said.

Lie #3: A teacher left the door propped open, it was her fault
Fact: She was on video slamming the door shut.  The automatic locks failed to engage.


Why would anyone trust a police response after this?  They had active shooter training less than a year ago.

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/03/1102689126/uvalde-shooting-police-response

[GuitarStv]

Lie #1:  The US will ever significantly reduce these mass shootings without implementing the sorts of common sense gun restrictions/registration seen in most other countries in the world.

[sixwings]

Well my state is set to pass a law making it legal for teachers to carry guns with minimal training (a measly 24 hours). Have yet to find a teacher who thinks this is a good idea. I mean, let's just keep throwing more and more responsibilities at teachers but taking nothing away to ease their burdens. What could possibly go wrong?

Apart from all the other obvious disadvantages, this guarantees a shooter will go for the teachers first.  Why don't these people just buy them all the teachers shirts with big target circles front and back?  Or red shirts a la Star Trek?  We know who dies in an episode.

Yep. And way to speed up the exodus of teachers leaving the field.

LOL. Yes, having the option to carry a gun if they want to is really going to send them packing.

That's not what is going to send them packing.

I agree having teachers carry firearms isn't going to be the only reason, but I also think it opens a horrible can of what if's that will surely contribute -

-Who's responsible to procure, maintain, and supply ammo for the teacher-wielded firearm? Is it the already woefully underfunded teachers?
-Who's responsible for keeping the firearm inaccessible to students? What happens if the recommended (of God forbid, mandated) firearm falls into the hands of a student?
-Who's responsible for maintaining permits and certifications for the firearm? Probably the teacher again?
-What happens if an assailant enters the premises and the teacher fails to incapacitate the assailant? Are they indirectly responsible for the injuries or deaths that ensue?
-What happens if a teacher mistakes a prank or an upset individual for an armed assailant and shoots + wounds or kills them? Is the teacher responsible?

The last thing anyone wants in their own line of work, unless they specifically choose a field with such a risk, is to think about the day they might have to shoot and kill someone while they are just doing their job.

And why stop at teachers? Why not make it legal and compulsory to carry firearms in any line of work? Surely we could prevent mass shootings everywhere by arming the good guys?

Don't forget about what would happen to a teacher if there's friendly fire while they engage in a casual hallway firefight with a shooter.

I've said it before but arming teachers is stupid peoples solution to this problem, it's not actually feasible, it's just for awful people who are totally fine with other peoples kids getting shot as long as they get to keep their guns to pat themselves on the back for having a "solution" to the problem.

Think about what the job description would be for these teachers
- Masters in educations
-Spending 8 hours a day with 30+ kids ensuring they learn to read, write, etc.
-Must take require SWAT training on a regular (~monthly) basis (You can't just give them a bunch of guns and expect uncoordinated, untrained teachers to know what to do in a shooting situation)
-Engage is firefights to serve and protect children
-Must be very proficient in the use of firearms, firearm safety, tactical operations in the face of extreme danger
-Supply your own equipment (who's gunna pay for this? The DOE that republicans cut budgets for every year between 2016-2020?)
-Pay, 36K a year to start, with 20 years of experience you can make 60K

It's not an actual serious solution to the problem. It's absolutely crazy to me that there's actual people who think this is a solution.

[FIRE Artist]

The Canadian government is introducing a bill to freeze handgun ownership in response to the Texas incident.

The new legislation would amend the Firearms Act to freeze the buying, selling, importing and trading of handguns nationwide. The measures stop short of banning handguns outright, allowing existing owners to keep their handguns.

Bill C-21 would also allow for the automatic removal of gun licences from people who have committed domestic violence or engaged in criminal harassment, such as stalking. And it would create a new “red flag” law that would allow courts to require that people considered a danger to themselves or others surrender their firearms to police.

And this is... a good thing?  Serious question, is this being celebrated or criticized?  All I listen to here is Canadian radio and they just mentioned it briefly followed by, "and also, now meth and heroin are legal to have in small amounts".

Just to be clear, certain small quantities of drugs will be legal in the province of British Columbia, under a temporary exemption, with a whole lot of monitoring in place to see how it's working out.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-decriminalize-drugs-british-columbia-canada/

B.C. hosts about 1/7 of Canada's population.  They've sort of been at the front of fentanyl deaths and other drug-related problems.

The BC drug legalization thing is a kind of grand experiment.  They've been having an awful lot of opioid deaths, and our health professionals say that legalizing may be a way to prevent users from overdosing isolated/alone.  Theory being that if there's someone who knows what they're doing and can check up on them, maybe the deaths will reduce.  If the numbers of deaths from BC start to drop, I'd expect to see this kind of policy adopted across the country.

This, and most importantly, it removes the fear of legal repercussions for calling for help when needed.  When people can be arrested for possessing and using personal quantities of controlled substances, the people around them who likely are also users, don’t call for help when an overdose happens, and don’t stick around to assist either.  Taking away the fear of arrest should save lives, now hopefully this will be proven so the same can be rolled out nation wide. 

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

As one of the few pro-gun ish people on this thread, let me say that arming teachers is a monumentally terrible idea that is universally loathed by all conservative pro gun teachers I know.

[Kris]

As one of the few pro-gun ish people on this thread, let me say that arming teachers is a monumentally terrible idea that is universally loathed by all conservative pro gun teachers I know.

Um, thank you, because it is stupid as shit.

[Poundwise]

So this is why the GOP can't improve itself:

In the wake of deadly mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde, Texas, Representative Chris Jacobs of New York, a congressman serving his first full term in the House, stunned fellow Republicans by embracing a federal assault weapons ban and limits on high-capacity magazines.

Speaking from his suburban Buffalo district a week ago, about 10 miles from the grocery store where 10 Black residents were slaughtered, Mr. Jacobs framed his risky break from bedrock Republican orthodoxy as bigger than politics: “I can’t in good conscience sit back and say I didn’t try to do something,” he said.

It took only seven days for political forces to catch up with him.

Citing the thousands of gun permits he had issued as Erie County clerk, Mr. Jacobs emphasized that he was a supporter of the Second Amendment, and said he wanted to avoid the brutal intraparty fight that would have been inevitable had he stayed in the race.

But he warned Republicans that their “absolute position” on guns would hurt the party in the long run and urged more senior lawmakers to step forward.

“Look, if you’re not going to take a stand on something like this, I don’t know what you’re going to take a stand on,” Mr. Jacobs added, citing the pain of families in Buffalo, Uvalde and elsewhere.

Mr. Jacobs’s decision to go against his party on gun control drew an immediate and vitriolic response: Local gun rights groups posted his cellphone number on the internet, and local and state party leaders began pulling their support, one by one.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/03/nyregion/chris-jacobs-congress-guns.html

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

As one of the few pro-gun ish people on this thread, let me say that arming teachers is a monumentally terrible idea that is universally loathed by all conservative pro gun teachers I know.

Um, thank you, because it is stupid as shit.

Yeah. Just wanted to let everyone know that even pro gun people that have a close tie to education ETA *usually* aren't deluded enough to think that's anything other than one of the worst ideas ever.

[Greystache]

Well my state is set to pass a law making it legal for teachers to carry guns with minimal training (a measly 24 hours). Have yet to find a teacher who thinks this is a good idea. I mean, let's just keep throwing more and more responsibilities at teachers but taking nothing away to ease their burdens. What could possibly go wrong?

If we are going to arm school staff, do the librarians get silencers?

[charis]

Well my state is set to pass a law making it legal for teachers to carry guns with minimal training (a measly 24 hours). Have yet to find a teacher who thinks this is a good idea. I mean, let's just keep throwing more and more responsibilities at teachers but taking nothing away to ease their burdens. What could possibly go wrong?

If we are going to arm school staff, do the librarians get silencers?

I wouldn't be sending my kids to a school where the teachers are carrying guns. That's insane.

[GuitarStv]

Well my state is set to pass a law making it legal for teachers to carry guns with minimal training (a measly 24 hours). Have yet to find a teacher who thinks this is a good idea. I mean, let's just keep throwing more and more responsibilities at teachers but taking nothing away to ease their burdens. What could possibly go wrong?

If we are going to arm school staff, do the librarians get silencers?

I wouldn't be sending my kids to a school where the teachers are carrying guns. That's insane.

What if they allowed students to pack heat too?  Seems as sensible as arming teachers.

[Abe]

Well my state is set to pass a law making it legal for teachers to carry guns with minimal training (a measly 24 hours). Have yet to find a teacher who thinks this is a good idea. I mean, let's just keep throwing more and more responsibilities at teachers but taking nothing away to ease their burdens. What could possibly go wrong?

If we are going to arm school staff, do the librarians get silencers?

I wouldn't be sending my kids to a school where the teachers are carrying guns. That's insane.

What if they allowed students to pack heat too?  Seems as sensible as arming teachers.

Where is Robocop? Wouldn't that solve all these problems?

The "arm the teacher" laws are despicable because they are specifically meant to give moral cover to gun nuts (in their minds, not in the general non-insane population) when the next school shooting happens. "If only them teachers would've armed up like we told 'em! Yee-haw!"

For the record, I'm not anti-gun but do think you need a better reason to own one other than "I like shooting stuff and it makes me feel strong to own them". That's not a well-regulated militia, that's a hobby.

[Abe]

The Canadian government is introducing a bill to freeze handgun ownership in response to the Texas incident.

The new legislation would amend the Firearms Act to freeze the buying, selling, importing and trading of handguns nationwide. The measures stop short of banning handguns outright, allowing existing owners to keep their handguns.

Bill C-21 would also allow for the automatic removal of gun licences from people who have committed domestic violence or engaged in criminal harassment, such as stalking. And it would create a new “red flag” law that would allow courts to require that people considered a danger to themselves or others surrender their firearms to police.

And this is... a good thing?  Serious question, is this being celebrated or criticized?  All I listen to here is Canadian radio and they just mentioned it briefly followed by, "and also, now meth and heroin are legal to have in small amounts".

Handguns don't server any purpose in society, and crazy people shouldn't have guns of any sort.  So yeah . . . it seems like a pretty good thing.

The only bad part is all the handguns that are still allowed to be owned. I guess in theory this will eventually get rid of illegally obtained handguns (assuming a cottage industry of gun-running across the Montana border doesn't develop). Canada will be in a similar situation as the US - all the delusional warriors keep their arsenals of destruction while the rest of us have limited recompense. It's hard to identify these people as crazy until after they shoot up a place.

[OzzieandHarriet]

Well my state is set to pass a law making it legal for teachers to carry guns with minimal training (a measly 24 hours). Have yet to find a teacher who thinks this is a good idea. I mean, let's just keep throwing more and more responsibilities at teachers but taking nothing away to ease their burdens. What could possibly go wrong?

If we are going to arm school staff, do the librarians get silencers?

I wouldn't be sending my kids to a school where the teachers are carrying guns. That's insane.

The right wing/libertarian/fascist contingent would like nothing better than to destroy public schools entirely. So this plays into that well.

[GuitarStv]

The Canadian government is introducing a bill to freeze handgun ownership in response to the Texas incident.

The new legislation would amend the Firearms Act to freeze the buying, selling, importing and trading of handguns nationwide. The measures stop short of banning handguns outright, allowing existing owners to keep their handguns.

Bill C-21 would also allow for the automatic removal of gun licences from people who have committed domestic violence or engaged in criminal harassment, such as stalking. And it would create a new “red flag” law that would allow courts to require that people considered a danger to themselves or others surrender their firearms to police.

And this is... a good thing?  Serious question, is this being celebrated or criticized?  All I listen to here is Canadian radio and they just mentioned it briefly followed by, "and also, now meth and heroin are legal to have in small amounts".

Handguns don't server any purpose in society, and crazy people shouldn't have guns of any sort.  So yeah . . . it seems like a pretty good thing.

The only bad part is all the handguns that are still allowed to be owned. I guess in theory this will eventually get rid of illegally obtained handguns (assuming a cottage industry of gun-running across the Montana border doesn't develop). Canada will be in a similar situation as the US - all the delusional warriors keep their arsenals of destruction while the rest of us have limited recompense. It's hard to identify these people as crazy until after they shoot up a place.

Because it's very easy to buy a gun in the States with no questions asked and no background check (and because you can then sell it illegally in Canada for a lot more money than you paid for it), the majority of black market hand guns used in crime in Canada are smuggled over the border from the US.

That's why along with preventing people from buying or transferring new handguns in the country, Bill C-21 does a whole bunch of stuff to try to limit this.  It increases penalties for gun trafficking, there are new wiretapping powers for police in gun smuggling cases, better gun registration data sharing across Canada related to straw purchasing, prevent purchase of ammunition for restricted firearms without first providing a valid gun license, etc.

Until the US gets it's shit together, it's never going to be possible to prevent all hand guns from falling into the hands of Canadian criminals.  But making it more difficult for criminals to get guns has seemed to work OK thus far.

[wenchsenior]

Well my state is set to pass a law making it legal for teachers to carry guns with minimal training (a measly 24 hours). Have yet to find a teacher who thinks this is a good idea. I mean, let's just keep throwing more and more responsibilities at teachers but taking nothing away to ease their burdens. What could possibly go wrong?

If we are going to arm school staff, do the librarians get silencers?

I wouldn't be sending my kids to a school where the teachers are carrying guns. That's insane.

What if they allowed students to pack heat too?  Seems as sensible as arming teachers.

They do in college in Texas.

[DadJokes]

So this Tulsa shooting, the guy was a patient angry because he was in pain after back surgery. He bought his AR-15 and ammunition on the same day he shot and killed the surgeon and three other people and then himself.

But no, this is not the time to talk about gun control.

We should arm surgeons to prevent this sort of thing.

/s

[scottish]

The Canadian government is introducing a bill to freeze handgun ownership in response to the Texas incident.

The new legislation would amend the Firearms Act to freeze the buying, selling, importing and trading of handguns nationwide. The measures stop short of banning handguns outright, allowing existing owners to keep their handguns.

Bill C-21 would also allow for the automatic removal of gun licences from people who have committed domestic violence or engaged in criminal harassment, such as stalking. And it would create a new “red flag” law that would allow courts to require that people considered a danger to themselves or others surrender their firearms to police.

And this is... a good thing?  Serious question, is this being celebrated or criticized?  All I listen to here is Canadian radio and they just mentioned it briefly followed by, "and also, now meth and heroin are legal to have in small amounts".

Handguns don't server any purpose in society, and crazy people shouldn't have guns of any sort.  So yeah . . . it seems like a pretty good thing.

The only bad part is all the handguns that are still allowed to be owned. I guess in theory this will eventually get rid of illegally obtained handguns (assuming a cottage industry of gun-running across the Montana border doesn't develop). Canada will be in a similar situation as the US - all the delusional warriors keep their arsenals of destruction while the rest of us have limited recompense. It's hard to identify these people as crazy until after they shoot up a place.

Because it's very easy to buy a gun in the States with no questions asked and no background check (and because you can then sell it illegally in Canada for a lot more money than you paid for it), the majority of black market hand guns used in crime in Canada are smuggled over the border from the US.

That's why along with preventing people from buying or transferring new handguns in the country, Bill C-21 does a whole bunch of stuff to try to limit this.  It increases penalties for gun trafficking, there are new wiretapping powers for police in gun smuggling cases, better gun registration data sharing across Canada related to straw purchasing, prevent purchase of ammunition for restricted firearms without first providing a valid gun license, etc.

Until the US gets it's shit together, it's never going to be possible to prevent all hand guns from falling into the hands of Canadian criminals.  But making it more difficult for criminals to get guns has seemed to work OK thus far.

It'd be interesting to see the stats behind the new policy.   Wiretapping, for example.   Don't criminals use secure messaging to communicate nowadays?    (That's what the EU says, anyway).   Good luck wiretapping that.

In terms of existing owners, this will probably be the first step in the direction of confiscating handguns.   I hope that one day people will be sufficiently responsible that the government won't feel the need to take this type of action.   It does impinge on freedom.   In the meantime, my freedom to not be shot outweighs your freedom to own a gun.

[Poundwise]

We should arm surgeons to prevent this sort of thing.

/s

"My name is Doctor Roy Guerrero. I am a board certified Pediatrician and I was present at Uvalde
Memorial Hospital the day of the massacre on May 24th, 2022 at Robb Elementary school.
I was called here today as a witness. But I showed up because I am a doctor.
Because HOW MANY years ago I swore an oath. An oath to do no harm."

https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/Guerrero%20Testimony_0.pdf

All 2nd amendment supporters should read the whole testimony from my link; it won't take long.

[teen persuasion]

So this is why the GOP can't improve itself:

In the wake of deadly mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde, Texas, Representative Chris Jacobs of New York, a congressman serving his first full term in the House, stunned fellow Republicans by embracing a federal assault weapons ban and limits on high-capacity magazines.

Speaking from his suburban Buffalo district a week ago, about 10 miles from the grocery store where 10 Black residents were slaughtered, Mr. Jacobs framed his risky break from bedrock Republican orthodoxy as bigger than politics: “I can’t in good conscience sit back and say I didn’t try to do something,” he said.

It took only seven days for political forces to catch up with him.

Citing the thousands of gun permits he had issued as Erie County clerk, Mr. Jacobs emphasized that he was a supporter of the Second Amendment, and said he wanted to avoid the brutal intraparty fight that would have been inevitable had he stayed in the race.

But he warned Republicans that their “absolute position” on guns would hurt the party in the long run and urged more senior lawmakers to step forward.

“Look, if you’re not going to take a stand on something like this, I don’t know what you’re going to take a stand on,” Mr. Jacobs added, citing the pain of families in Buffalo, Uvalde and elsewhere.

Mr. Jacobs’s decision to go against his party on gun control drew an immediate and vitriolic response: Local gun rights groups posted his cellphone number on the internet, and local and state party leaders began pulling their support, one by one.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/03/nyregion/chris-jacobs-congress-guns.html

This dude is *currently * my rep (his district, NY 27, is being cut but he was planning to run for NY 23, where Rep Reed just quit).  Until this point, Jacobs was a non-entity.  He had no opinion other than R party marching orders, but wasn't rabid like Stefanik in NY 21.  So I was shocked that he came out in favor of common sense gun controls.  Pleased, but still not enamored of him.

He lost his brief bump in respect when he dropped out of the upcoming primary.  It's a bright red district with no incumbent, he could have won it in probably any circumstances (his predecessor in NY 27 won with a felony insider trading charge pending).  Carl Paladino immediately jumped in the race (total slimebag, was so divisive he had to be removed from the city school board).  The state R party chief Langworthy has at the last minute declared *his* candidacy for NY 23, and all other party candidates dropped out to pave the way for Langworthy.

So Jacobs was labelled not sufficiently loyal to the party to run, and forced off the ballot, only to leave a vacuum that Paladino may just exploit for his own benefit - because he makes no bones about his sketchy loyalty to the R party.  Good move!

In Jacobs' defense - while he's still in office, he intends to vote for gun restrictions.  He was among 5 R's that did recently.  Four of them aren't running.

[PeteD01]

Not much to add to that:

Police Militarization Gave Us Uvalde
The adoption of aggressive, military-style tactics and weaponry has put American policing on the wrong track for decades.

"Above all, Uvalde is a clear sign that the benefits of police militarization have been profoundly oversold. Any police leader who does not recognize Uvalde as a foundational challenge to police legitimacy is a fool. The rationale for creating thousands of SWAT teams across the United States was that the good guys with guns would stop the bad guys with guns. For that promise, we have accepted a more and more militarized and aggressive police culture, with serious damage to basic constitutional liberties. What we got in return is 19 cops standing outside a classroom while children were slaughtered. We cannot continue to accept this culture."


https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/police-training-militarization-mass-shootings-uvalde/661295/