Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > GENERAL DISCUSSION > General gun discussions
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

General gun discussions This is a place to lounge and discuss firearm related topics with other forum members.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 05-28-2022, 3:23 AM
five.five-six's Avatar
five.five-six five.five-six is offline
Former cabinetguy
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: In a cage at the San Diego Zoo
Posts: 34,107
iTrader: 72 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Granted, we don't know at what range the kids were actually shot; but, at greater than a few inches, a 'kill shot' can be more difficult than many think/believe.

I have to stop you right there. These were little children locked in a classroom and he had over an hour while cops stood outside handcuffing any parents who tried to go in and stop him.


He could have done the same thing with a Universal M1. He had plenty of time to learn how to clear malfunctions.
__________________
Weíre ALL GOING TO DIE!

Canít somebody do something?!?!?!?!
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 05-28-2022, 3:48 AM
five.five-six's Avatar
five.five-six five.five-six is offline
Former cabinetguy
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: In a cage at the San Diego Zoo
Posts: 34,107
iTrader: 72 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Ignoring all the condescension, let's just say that you are asserting a lot of assumptions as absolute fact. (Inside the same classroom isn't the same as point blank and if the kids were moving, it's still a pretty good hit ratio for a complete novice.) It could be the way you propose and, then again, it might not be. I'd rather know than assume as it can be important related to the narrative being built. Not everyone inherently has the knack and I've seen many novices not be able to hit the broadside of a barn from the inside without a learning curve involved.
ďPoint blankĒ range for M855 ball ammo from a 20Ē barrel is a little more than 200 yards, that covers the inside of any classroom Iíve ever seen.

He had an hour to learn how to shoot with 2 dozen police outside protecting him from angry parents.

__________________
Weíre ALL GOING TO DIE!

Canít somebody do something?!?!?!?!
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 05-28-2022, 4:24 AM
LoadedM333 LoadedM333 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Sunny Diego, Kommiefornia
Posts: 1,627
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Speaking of which. Where did he get the F-150 quad cab. Even used in todays market that is a sizable chunk of change.

F-150 belongs to grandma.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
NRA LifeTime Member
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 05-28-2022, 10:04 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 3,797
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SharedShots View Post
And that is how it starts and how it will end, looking at the legal things gun owners do and then applying the twisted logic that if they do it and this warped minded evil guy did it then OMG, of course, all gun owners are just one potentiality away from the same thing. Its how all gun control works or can't you see that potentiality?...
Quote:
Originally Posted by five.five-six View Post
I have to stop you right there. These were little children locked in a classroom and he had over an hour while cops stood outside handcuffing any parents who tried to go in and stop him.


He could have done the same thing with a Universal M1. He had plenty of time to learn how to clear malfunctions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by five.five-six View Post
...that covers the inside of any classroom Iíve ever seen.

He had an hour to learn how to shoot with 2 dozen police outside protecting him from angry parents...
Guys, I get what you're doing and why. I'm just not up to an on-going argument over deflection. Regardless of the theatrics and rhetoric, you are doing exactly what I said; i.e., deflecting in the interest of controlling the narrative that emerges.

You're not interested in the actual story. You're more interested in constructing a narrative you can control and which favors you and your agenda. The problem I keep pointing out is that you are, in essence, making the anti's argument for them; i.e., that guns, particularly certain types, are inherently dangerous, potentially too dangerous and unusual to be considered appropriate for civilians.

No matter what, this thing is going to be parsed and the pieces are going to be acontextually presented so as to misrepresent things. The ONLY defense is to have the whole story and not a 'designer' version of it tailored, supposedly, in our favor. The problem is that you're NEVER going to be able to simply write this stuff off from a public perspective with inferences and rationalizes which may or may not be relevant to the specific in question. Instead...

Quote:
Originally Posted by SharedShots
...How easily some of us fall into the trap of analyzing the legal activities and legal behaviors in the search for answers because there is some urgency to address something that has already happened, and throw caution and the protection of all our rights to the scrutiny of those who seek only to take them away...
You're more interested in chest thumping and distraction to counter the specific narrative you believe is coming and constructing a one-size-fits-all story line that's 'simple,' but potentially not as relevant or complete as it should be. You then accuse anyone who doesn't join you of being naive, inept, incompetent, traitorous to the cause, etc., In a certain context, it's referred to as 'circling the wagons.' Yet, all you are doing is engaging in the same old rhetoric and inspiring the same back and forth that's always engaged in relation to such incidents. You're not looking for Truth. You're looking to project 'your truth,' regardless of actual reality.

The problem you continue to ignore is that, virtually always, Truth (not 'your truth') is what nullifies the narrative the anti's attempt to construct out of each of these types of incidents. What eventually emerges from what you declare irrelevant is a 'reality check' which shines light on the misrepresentations which are built on the acontextual bits and pieces, not to mention the presumptions and 'spin' presented by both extremes. Ultimately, it is precisely that which keeps the 'extreme exemplar' from becoming 'the norm' and used against us.

But, carry forth in your self-righteous zeal, your accusations cast against your allies who don't agree with your methods, and the narrative you feel more comfortable with. It's just as predictable as what comes from the Left and, in the end, contributes in that portions of "Truth" are eventually found in it, just as other portions are found in the overzealous and misleading spin used by the anti's. As a result, "Truth" is found, not in the story which is pushed, by either 'side,' but in the details (not to mention questions) created by those who attempt to 'control the narrative.'
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 05-28-2022, 10:22 AM
SharedShots SharedShots is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 1,595
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Guys, I get what you're doing and why. I'm just not up to an on-going argument over deflection. Regardless of the theatrics and rhetoric, you are doing exactly what I said; i.e., deflecting in the interest of controlling the narrative that emerges.

You're not interested in the actual story. You're more interested in constructing a narrative you can control and which favors you and your agenda. The problem I keep pointing out is that you are, in essence, making the anti's argument for them; i.e., that guns, particularly certain types, are inherently dangerous, potentially too dangerous and unusual to be considered appropriate for civilians.

I'm saying no such thing. Look into that mirror.

No matter what, this thing is going to be parsed and the pieces are going to be acontextually presented so as to misrepresent things. The ONLY defense is to have the whole story and not a 'designer' version of it tailored, supposedly, in our favor. The problem is that you're NEVER going to be able to simply write this stuff off from a public perspective with inferences and rationalizes which may or may not be relevant to the specific in question. Instead...



You're more interested in chest thumping and distraction to counter the specific narrative you believe is coming and constructing a one-size-fits-all story line that's 'simple,' but potentially not as relevant or complete as it should be. You then accuse anyone who doesn't join you of being naive, inept, incompetent, traitorous to the cause, etc., In a certain context, it's referred to as 'circling the wagons.' Yet, all you are doing is engaging in the same old rhetoric and inspiring the same back and forth that's always engaged in relation to such incidents. You're not looking for Truth. You're looking to project 'your truth,' regardless of actual reality.

I haven't said that, those are your words and a rather feeble attempt to put your words into other people's mouths. Rather typical for someone who projects.

The problem you continue to ignore is that, virtually always, Truth (not 'your truth') is what nullifies the narrative the anti's attempt to construct out of each of these types of incidents. What eventually emerges from what you declare irrelevant is a 'reality check' which shines light on the misrepresentations which are built on the acontextual bits and pieces, not to mention the presumptions and 'spin' presented by both extremes. Ultimately, it is precisely that which keeps the 'extreme exemplar' from becoming 'the norm' and used against us.

I don't have the same problem you seem to have. I'd rather learn why he did what he did and not bother with where he got money, what gun he used, where or how he trained, all that does is feed the left which regardless of anything else is quickly becoming apparent it where you see the truth you keep talking about

But, carry forth in your self-righteous zeal, your accusations cast against your allies who don't agree with your methods, and the narrative you feel more comfortable with. It's just as predictable as what comes from the Left and, in the end, contributes in that portions of "Truth" are eventually found in it, just as other portions are found in the overzealous and misleading spin used by the anti's. As a result, "Truth" is found, not in the story which is pushed, by either 'side,' but in the details (not to mention questions) created by those who attempt to 'control the narrative.'
I guess now you are the purveyor of truth right? Would that be like dividing up information about point blank ranges, no one knowing with any reasonable idea that the shooter wasn't shooting at kids across some field but was very close? That much was known almost as soon as the first information was put out yet you couldn't understand or figure it out - they guy had rifles in 5.56mm yet you were going on about distance in a classroom.

The left is epitomized by your entire series of posts, tried and true. Yeah, the tactic is well know, focus on things many gun owners do and then go about casting doubt upon them, calling into question how things like buying a gun, perhaps training to use them, purchasing ammo and so on can be linked to some deranged animal who killed a lot of people. Thats you, not me and take a good, long hard look in the mirror of the world you're in. So typical, look here and not there, look at the rifle not the person using it, look at the training not the person training, look at the means and not the intent or the use. All the attributes of those wishing nothing more than to have champions of control because it's their truth.

I could very well be that your position isn't clearly articulated despite evidence you are very much so. It could be that the interest to get into some details that bear little if any relevance to the actual criminal behavior has value, not well defined. All that is possible. They might be valid points, they are not perhaps, at this point in time.


.
__________________
Don't get stuck on Stupid, read a Sticky!

If all you're going to do is post hearsay who needs to read what you have to say?

Defense is a losing proposition when time is on the side of the opponent.
Not losing is not a Victory if everything stays the same.
Winning isn't the only thing, there is also losing.

Last edited by SharedShots; 05-28-2022 at 10:36 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 05-28-2022, 10:43 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 3,797
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SharedShots View Post
...The left is epitomized by your entire series of posts, tried and true...
Thank you for illustrating my point...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
...You then accuse anyone who doesn't join you of being naive, inept, incompetent, traitorous to the cause, etc., In a certain context, it's referred to as 'circling the wagons.'...
But, carry on. For, as I also said...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
...But, carry forth in your self-righteous zeal, your accusations cast against your allies who don't agree with your methods, and the narrative you feel more comfortable with. It's just as predictable as what comes from the Left and, in the end, contributes in that portions of "Truth" are eventually found in it, just as other portions are found in the overzealous and misleading spin used by the anti's. As a result, "Truth" is found, not in the story which is pushed, by either 'side,' but in the details (not to mention questions) created by those who attempt to 'control the narrative.'
You see, I'm more interested in the whole story, not a piece of it that I can then control/attack or restrict their presumed narrative or use to bolster my chosen narrative...

Quote:
Originally Posted by SharedShots
...I'd rather learn why he did what he did and not bother with where he got money, what gun he used, where or how he trained, all that does is feed the left which regardless of anything else is quickly becoming apparent it where you see the truth you keep talking about...
Remember what I said...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
...The problem you continue to ignore is that, virtually always, Truth (not 'your truth') is what nullifies the narrative the anti's attempt to construct out of each of these types of incidents. What eventually emerges from what you declare irrelevant is a 'reality check' which shines light on the misrepresentations which are built on the acontextual bits and pieces, not to mention the presumptions and 'spin' presented by both extremes. Ultimately, it is precisely that which keeps the 'extreme exemplar' from becoming 'the norm' and used against us...
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 05-28-2022, 8:18 PM
jeremiah12 jeremiah12 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,966
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

You would be surprised at how much money teens have today and all the ways they obtain it. Teens are constantly obtaining and selling things. It does not matter what it is. Mom is a drug addict. He easily could have been selling drugs on the side.

I had one kid this that always had stacks of $1 bills. He would constantly flash them. I am talking fat wads that were rolled up and he would tell me at times he had $500.

His grandfather grew pot for medical reasons. The kid would get some of that and roll his own mini-joints and sell them in the bathroom for $1 each. He rolled them in toilet paper from the bathroom. He had no overhead costs. He was caught a few times but because he had an IEP with a behavior intervention plan, he could not be suspended. He finally got expelled for bringing a paintball gun to school and shooting several girls on their breasts with it. It was assault and sexual harassment as well as bringing an imitation gun to school. He took off the orange tip.

They steal or collect cell phones lost and found and wipe the memory or replace the sim cards and sell them. They steal anything they come across and sell it. If they have a friend that works at another store, say a shoe store, they work with the friend to obtain items, like it might accidently get tossed in the trash, or left out back, or placed in the wrong box and sold dirt cheap.

He was living rent free with the grandparents. They likely gave him money. I have many students who live with their grandparents because mom is a drug addict and/or prostitute. Many times the grandparents feel so guilty about their daughter's behavior they shower their grandkid with money, and other things and let them do whatever they want. If they discipline them, the kid runs back to mom and is living in a bad situation. At least with me, they have a safe place and have something to eat. It is pure guilt.
__________________
Anyone can look around and see the damage to the state and country inflicted by bad politicians.

A vote is clearly much more dangerous than a gun.

Why advocate restrictions on one right (voting) without comparable restrictions on another (self defense) (or, why not say 'Be a U.S. citizen' as the requirement for CCW)?

--Librarian
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 05-28-2022, 8:40 PM
jeremiah12 jeremiah12 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,966
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

It could be that the interest to get into some details that bear little if any relevance to the actual criminal behavior has value, not well defined. All that is possible. They might be valid points, they are not perhaps, at this point in time.
[/QUOTE]

Sharedshots: Your point resonated with me.

Everyone wants to know what happened and why. My post on how the kid could have gotten his money was a bit harsh.

Many want to understand what is really not understandable. What would drive an 18 year old to do this. The victims were innocent children that did absolutely nothing to him. A whole bunch of adults that should have protected failed in their jobs because they did not follow SOP and others just want to pretend this could never happen in their community, it happens in Chicago or Atlanta, not here.

Many here raise their kids right, are involved with their kids, do the right thing and just have no experience with a parent who does not parent at all but basically tosses her kid out of the house because drugs and her boyfriend is more important. I want to know where is the dad?

Parents send their kids to school and expect the school system does everything to keep their kids safe. When parents ask question, they are reassured, we do everything we can. We take part in active shooter drills. We have safety protocols in place. We keep gates and doors locked at all times.

Then this happens and it is obvious, the shooter got quick access through an open, unlocked gate and an unlocked classroom door. He attempted to get into a couple of other classrooms and could not because those doors were locked.

Had that front gate been locked like it should have been, that would have bought more time for first responders that were close behind.

We need to know how he got his guns.

For most of us, how the heck could he afford a Daniel Defense as an 18-year old flipping burgers because many of us remember a time or are in a time right now when we would love to buy one but because of famlly obligations or other things, cannot afford it.

It also is important to know, did someone give him the money? If so, that person needs to be investigated to determine if that person knew what the money was for and if that person knew what this kid was planning.
__________________
Anyone can look around and see the damage to the state and country inflicted by bad politicians.

A vote is clearly much more dangerous than a gun.

Why advocate restrictions on one right (voting) without comparable restrictions on another (self defense) (or, why not say 'Be a U.S. citizen' as the requirement for CCW)?

--Librarian
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 05-29-2022, 3:15 AM
SharedShots SharedShots is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 1,595
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremiah12 View Post
It could be that the interest to get into some details that bear little if any relevance to the actual criminal behavior has value, not well defined. All that is possible. They might be valid points, they are not perhaps, at this point in time.
Sharedshots: Your point resonated with me.

Everyone wants to know what happened and why. My post on how the kid could have gotten his money was a bit harsh.

Many want to understand what is really not understandable. What would drive an 18 year old to do this. The victims were innocent children that did absolutely nothing to him. A whole bunch of adults that should have protected failed in their jobs because they did not follow SOP and others just want to pretend this could never happen in their community, it happens in Chicago or Atlanta, not here.

Many here raise their kids right, are involved with their kids, do the right thing and just have no experience with a parent who does not parent at all but basically tosses her kid out of the house because drugs and her boyfriend is more important. I want to know where is the dad?

What happens when you find out where the Dad is? Do you also find out why he isn't there or just apply some standard that he's dirt and punish him? How far are you willing to look and when you stop looking? Why aren't we asking those who turn a blind eye toward the protected who seem to so good at leaving their families? Why do we elevate to near Sainthood those who instead of being home with their children are out dealing drugs, passing counterfeit money and breaking other laws?

Parents send their kids to school and expect the school system does everything to keep their kids safe. When parents ask question, they are reassured, we do everything we can. We take part in active shooter drills. We have safety protocols in place. We keep gates and doors locked at all times.

Actually, we don't. We leave doors open because some people think it's okay, that they are special and need fast access for personal reasons. We do however, spend millions and probably billions on schools and over the past few years haven't even opened them (much of california) and in all that time with all the money what became better? School security? Not really. Why? Because teachers don't want to return to schools, ask their Union. We're afraid to ask why.

Then this happens and it is obvious, the shooter got quick access through an open, unlocked gate and an unlocked classroom door. He attempted to get into a couple of other classrooms and could not because those doors were locked.

Had that front gate been locked like it should have been, that would have bought more time for first responders that were close behind.

We need to know how he got his guns.

For most of us, how the heck could he afford a Daniel Defense as an 18-year old flipping burgers because many of us remember a time or are in a time right now when we would love to buy one but because of famlly obligations or other things, cannot afford it.

From the time I was 14&1/2 during my freshman year in high school until I gradulated I bought a new motorcycle every year. Even that far back they cost as much as some DD AR. I worked for it. I made it a priority. We're all acting like young adults can't afford things yet just look around, they all have stuff and lots of it costs money. Why are we acting like everyone is poor and unable to eat or clothe themselves?

It also is important to know, did someone give him the money? If so, that person needs to be investigated to determine if that person knew what the money was for and if that person knew what this kid was planning.[/QUOTE]

We know how he got the guns, he bought them, legally. That question starts and ends there not because anyone is afraid to look deeper or further but because it is the answer. Please don't snip that comment without the context below.

The guns he bought weren't something special or all that expensive. Were they more expensive than a typical motorcycle an 18 year old might buy or a car or an iPhone, celebrity signed sneakers, designer clothes? Look what happened in just a few days, Daniel Defense guns went from better quality to some holy grail only wealthy people can afford. Absolute nonsense. Maybe it's because so any people think anything more than a few hundred dollars isn something no one has anymore. Yet, young adults manage to secure student loans for tens of thousands and sometimes more than $100,000 and no one says a word. They didn't kill a bunch of people but that isn't really true because some do just that, they use other means - drugs being one of those means. Anyone care? Nope. Right here on some gun forum we have people asking how he afforded guns that while better quality are pretty ordinary. Are we all so poor that an AR costing maybe $1500-$2500 is now out of reach for an 18 year old? Who thinks such things? As prevention, should all people who buy an AR costing more than some arbitrary amount be investigated too? That is unlikely say some yet when they walk into a gun store to buy a gun, very soon they will be video recorded, not for store security but because they might do something bad. Hello?

Lets wake up people, homeless people in San Francisco beg on the street and make hundreds of dollars per day. What do we mean where did he get the money or how could he afford something almost anyone could if that is what they wanted? Have we become so dependent upon a government handout that we think everyone else is as well?

My point is that as a society why do we want to know where a criminal got the money only when it's something like this? Why do we not want to know where the drug dealer who kills more people selling Fentanyl over a longer period of time, including children got their money to buy the drug they distribute or sell? Isn't it as important? Why not? Are we afraid to admit the reason knowing it's something we could stop or are we so afraid we can't stop it and thus just accept it will happen? That is just one example.

It's easy to take away from my posts that I'm against finding out some very simple things but that isn't it at all. I am against applying a standard only when it suits a political agenda even when the people applying it aren't the ones pushing that agenda, they are merely the tools of that agenda, knowing so or not. I prefer to think not but the effect is the same, their position that we need to know applies only when guns are used but when anything else is used.

Many innocent lives were lost and that almost all were children is a fact but are we now as a society or even just concerned people going to use that fact as a basis to create a standard that applies to every other innocent person? Those innocent people are gun owners who obtain their guns legally and do not take the lives of others using them as the means. Emotions are strong motivators but we should take great caution to insure emotions aren't the driving factor in creating yet another class of people as is so quickly happening that the law abiding gun owner is tantamount to a criminal in waiting - one to be feared and investigated because they might do something.

We do not ordinarily prosecute parents for the crimes of their children. It happens but it is unusual. When it comes to guns though, it's often called for and is in this case as well. First, he was 18 years old, an adult and not a child. If we are willing to prosecute all parents of all children who commit crimes then that is one thing but if it's most often only when a gun is used what have we done? How can we say it was done in the name of prevention or satisfaction when the parents of drug distributors and dealers aren't prosecuted as well? Is it because we can figure out who the parents of gun owners are but not drug dealers?

Taken to it's logical conclusion, if we were to find out someone gave him the money, even if we also found out it was done with knowledge of this criminals intent, we could and should prosecute them, they would be accessory to murders. However; is that a standard or just something we do not to get our pound of flesh, a way to quiet the anger and ease the soul because AR rifles were used? Now to this point, was the reason to find out satisfaction or prevention? It has been alluded to it's prevention. Fine, then if prevention is the goal how does it work? We investigate everyone who buys a gun to find out where they got the money, right? Prevention takes place before something happens, not after. Is my point a reason not to find out? Absolutely not. is it a reason not to find out if the only reason is that a gun was used? Absolutely yes.

We (society) talk about equality, equity and the rule of law, the Constitution and all the rights specifically enumerated and many created by inference - EXCEPT when it comes to guns. Why? Are we afraid of that answer?

If we apply standards to all gun owners or those wishing to own guns legally and they match the standards applied elsewhere and to everyone else, as oppressive or invasive as they might be, ok, society said so. However; if its political whether those apply the standards know it or not (tools) then how can we justify that?

Worry not, we'll all know exactly where he got the money along with many other things in our quest to understand nothing about why he did what he did. All those things might turn out to be the same things millions of other people do when obtaining firearms. Since we're gone the road to say it's about prevention then are those efforts going to be proactively applied to everyone who owns guns or wants to because - prevention?

Somewhat OT but closely linked to the overall question, much as been said about applying the counter to a possible overturn of Roe V Wade to gun control, many politicians have said it and it's a campaign slogan right here in California, Blah blah, went after Texas abortion blah blah as if California now controls Texas or should. How convenient it is to apply standards when it suits political agendas and that is why we should proceed with extreme caution in this event. It's so easy to cast the widest net possible and say the innocent will be thrown back while only the guilty will remain caught. Then why aren't we doing the same thing to catch those who kill people - mostly innocent every day? We don't want to, period, yet now there is the push to increase gun control in California because of what happened in this event, in Texas. The standards apply only when it's politically expedient.

We cannot as a society accept that some people will become criminals for whatever reason, we must always find out if something or someone else was responsible and then adress those or them as the problem and not perhaps that a person(s) decided to kill people for no other reason than they wanted to kill people. It's even easier to go that way when your desire is really just to remove the rights of millions because it raises your own influence, power and control.










.
__________________
Don't get stuck on Stupid, read a Sticky!

If all you're going to do is post hearsay who needs to read what you have to say?

Defense is a losing proposition when time is on the side of the opponent.
Not losing is not a Victory if everything stays the same.
Winning isn't the only thing, there is also losing.

Last edited by SharedShots; 05-29-2022 at 3:31 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 05-29-2022, 6:44 AM
Notpc's Avatar
Notpc Notpc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Out In The Desert(Behind Enemy Lines)
Posts: 1,537
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Let's not forget about the truck he arrived (crashed) in. From the pictures, it appears to be a newer F-150. Was that grandpa's truck?
__________________
"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain..."
Roy Batty
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 05-29-2022, 8:17 AM
sigstroker sigstroker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: not in CA
Posts: 14,323
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Good grief, do you people ever read, or just post?

He got the money working at his job. He said so.

The truck is his grandmother's.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 05-29-2022, 12:11 PM
jeremiah12 jeremiah12 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,966
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

What happens when you find out where the Dad is? Do you also find out why he isn't there or just apply some standard that he's dirt and punish him? How far are you willing to look and when you stop looking? Why aren't we asking those who turn a blind eye toward the protected who seem to so good at leaving their families? Why do we elevate to near Sainthood those who instead of being home with their children are out dealing drugs, passing counterfeit money and breaking other laws?


My bringing up the dad was to point out the media has not made any mention of his father. They are blaming the gun, not the shooter. Ban guns. They want to know this kid did it. Kids do not go bad overnight. This was 18 years in the making. I am one of those teachers that actually look at CUM files. Those are the paper records kept in the front office. The information is not computerized for student privacy reasons. For some of these kids, the files are inches thick. A file for the typical high school student with an uneventful time in public schools since entering in Kindergarten is about a half inch at most.

I can be confident that every single one of these students that have committed a major violent act at school (shootings, bombings, stabbings) have very thick files. The bombings and stabbings do not get widely reported by the news media.

The problem is, a large percentage of kids with thick files never do anything violent.

Study after study have shown that without a doubt, children do best in a two parent, intact home where they are raised by their biological parents. Single parent homes create issues for kids. Divorce creates issues. Remarriage after divorce triples the negative outcomes on kids. Kids with involved extended families do much better (grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc).

Several major students that have followed kids from birth to 18 have found that the best predictor of school success is parents reading to their children starting around the age of 1 and reading at least one hour a day through Kindergarten. It could be the parent reading or the kid reading.

Others have clearly shown that kids raised in homes that are language rich, meaning the parents are speaking regularly to their kids from birth, and emphasis reading, will be the most successful in school.

This all has to be done before the child starts Kindergarten. Today, this is not happening to the degree it was even 20 years ago.

Student success is further enhanced by parents regularly talking to their kids. It can be about anything. Just having conversations is the key. Keep the lines of communications open. Do things together. It can be conversations while driving to the store about random things. My grown son calls this dad talk. Ever since he can remember growing up, I would take him everywhere and he would tell me stories and I would tell him stories. We bought a fixer upper house just before he was born. I took him even as an infant to the Home Improvement store to buy things. I was talking to him while pushing the basket with him in it and pulling a cart stacked with lumber or whatever else. I was still doing this when he was 2 and he was helping me load the carts (he was not much help and slowed down the process but I was building up his self-worth and teaching him the importance of working and helping).

How many kids these days get this. Yours might, I suspect many on here spend time with their kids and do these dad things. Go to the average school and you will be surrounded by children who were raised without this.

The news media will not mention this. They do not want to make parents feel bad.

Look at this shooters life for the past few years, he has done what he wanted to with no real adult oversight. He did not live with mom. Grandpa had no idea what the kid did because grandpa went to work at 5 am. Grandma stayed at home it seemed. Read between the lines from what you see in their behaviors when interviewed, what was said and not said, and you know this kid had nobody setting limits during his teen years. He was left to raise himself.

The main leader of the Columbine shooter, lived with both parents, but they let him stay in his room all the time. The tried to go in but he would lock the door and they let that happened and stayed out. How many of us dads here would tolerate that. It would have never happened with my son. The computer was in the living room, not his room. The TV was in the living room, not his room. School work was done on the desk in the living room, not in his room. I even put a small stereo system on the desk in the living room so he could listen to his music while doing homework. Headphones were not allowed. I wanted to hear what he was listening to. (At about the age of 12 he discovered classic Rock and came to me excitedly to share this great music). He wanted to know if I had ever heard of Jimi Hendrix, Aerosmith, Pink Floyd, RUSH, ect. So listening to the music of his choice was easy )

This has been in the making since the 70s. Divorce was desigmatized because we did not want to hurt anyone feelings. Then we normalized unmarried women who had children. We did not want to hurt anyone's feelings.

My mom divorced my dad because he beat her and us children. It was for a good reason. We were stigmatized for the divorce but it was better than him staying around. He did pretty much leave our lives after that. He never spent time with his kids, he was to busy with his boats, electronics, friends, and other hobbies. We were in his way. If I disturbed him why he was playing with his toys, I would be thrown across the room and out the door.

But I still suffered from the divorce. The problem was my parents should not have gotten married to begin with. My mom married him at 18 and had me just after she turned 19. She married the first guy who had a job that could get her out of the home of her very abusive father. Back then, women did not leave home until they married.

How many times have people here complained about kids getting suspended for creative writing papers involving guns and gore that got students suspended, or drawings of the same topic resulting in the same. If we tagged every kid that played violent video games, that is 90% of the males and 40% of the females. They may not do it at your home but they do at a friend's home.

I have been involved in the hours of meetings that can result because I reported my concerns, with detailed evidence, over a student. The mom hired an attorney and did everything to discredit me, the school, and then got a medical diagnosis for her son which then required a d 504 plan giving him legal protections. All of a sudden the district settled by tossing all the paperwork I filled out and I got a gag order to never discuss my concerns again. The kid still engaged in his behavior, and every time an administrator tried to suspend him for asaulting a student, the lawyer came down, filed complaints that we were not following the 504, and it was settled by dropping the suspension and removing the incident from his record.

There are teachers who care, but the laws protect the students. You have to change the laws and you have to start with the Federal laws first.




Parents send their kids to school and expect the school system does everything to keep their kids safe. When parents ask question, they are reassured, we do everything we can. We take part in active shooter drills. We have safety protocols in place. We keep gates and doors locked at all times.

Actually, we don't. We leave doors open because some people think it's okay, that they are special and need fast access for personal reasons. We do however, spend millions and probably billions on schools and over the past few years haven't even opened them (much of california) and in all that time with all the money what became better? School security? Not really. Why? Because teachers don't want to return to schools, ask their Union. We're afraid to ask why.


A large number act as if they are special and need fast access for personal reasons. There is always an excuse why the rules do not apply. When you answer for safety their answer is a shooting will not happen here.

This TX school was in a rural area. I am sure they felt they were immune from big city problems. Though many talked about the frequent speeding vehicles and car chases because of the illegals.

Go to any elementary school and the overall mindset is we are safe and it will not happen. That is human psychology and nothing is going to change it except a system of tight oversight with significant consequences for those who violate policies. Then you deal with community outrage because a beloved teacher was harshly punished for forgetting to lock a door. She is so good with our kids and it was a small error that resulted in no harm, until the one day when it day. Statistically, a teacher could go thirty years leaving their door unlocked all day, every day and nothing bad will happen, especially at an elementary school.

Tans have said it and it's a campaign slogan right here in California, Blah blah, went after Texas abortion blah blah as if California now controls Texas or should. How convenient it is to apply standards when it suits political agendas and that is why we should proceed with extreme caution in this event. It's so easy to cast the widest net possible and say the innocent will be thrown back while only the guilty will remain caught. Then why aren't we doing the same thing to catch those who kill people - mostly innocent every day? We don't want to, period, yet now there is the push to increase gun control in California because of what happened in this event, in Texas. The standards apply only when it's politically expedient.


Again, they are seeking a simple solution to a complex problem. Ban guns and this will not happen. It is a feel good solution. Look at all the other countries that have banned guns or have very strict gun controls. It sounds good.

We know that it is garbage because we have taken the time to educate ourselves about the issue. I will not repeat what we already know. I am a Second Amendment purist, what do you not understand about shall not be infringed? There is not one gun control law that would have stopped this or any other school shooting. There are multiple ways to get guns, make them all illegal and determined people will still get them.

I have a non-CA CARB approved engine in my truck because I did my research and found a way to get it. Even if the the State could identify it as a non-CARB approved engine that I swapped in, there is an exception to the law I exploited. On the outside nothing is different. The internals are different but it is cleaner burning because it runs more efficiently and it is a pre-OMD 2 engine. I have passed every smog check with better than average results for my vehicle.

The point is, there is always a way to get around a law and criminals just ignore them. People who are planning to go out in a blaze of glory just do not care about getting caught because they have no plans to stick around to suffer any consequences. They have nothing to lose and in their minds everything to gain.

We are demanding the same simple solutions. Lock gates and classrooms for example. Yes, I agree. In practice, there will always be unlocked gates and classrooms because of human behavior and how schools function. A group of parents will always complain bitterly if their access to a school is inhibited or sloweed even by a few minutes because they are special and exempted, their kids go there.

Realize, all parents do not think the same just as all gun owners do not think the same.

Teachers work with a lot of autonomy in their classroom and it is easy for them to get an attitude they can make exceptions for their convenience. Teachers make more decisions during their workday than any other profession. We more control inside our classroom than most managers have over their employees at a private company. We can make exceptions for some students if we want, in some cases, as long as we are not showing bias and it does not violate a law. So it is easy to start to believe we can make exceptions for ourselves.

Finally, the work of the FBI's Behavioral Analysis unit, which has produced many fine books and studies since it first started, even admits that sometimes a person will show no red flags or fit the profile of the average school shooter, serial killer, or whatever. You can research all you want, delve into the person's entire life and you are left with they were born that way.

So, we are supposed to flag this kid because he had a social media account with the handle of school-shooter? Do you know how many teens use a variation of that handle and will never be a school shooter. We flag him because he writes out plans on social media about shooting up a school?

I can tell you at just my site a dozen kids were flagged this year alone for that. The police got involved, homes were searched, the whole nine yards and nothing came of it. Some were obviously playing out a fantasy online. Two boys were playing a how would we do it game. Similar to how my friends and I in Junior High played out how to do all sorts of mayheim after we purchased the Anarchist's Cookbook at a local bookstore/comic book shop.

Then kids have extra protections as juveniles. These same protections protect your kids when they are in school. I cannot just share information about your kid with anyone. Schools do not have the staff to properly investigate everything so they contact LE and let them handle it.

I agree that there has been lots of extra money available. I will talk about that in the next post.
__________________
Anyone can look around and see the damage to the state and country inflicted by bad politicians.

A vote is clearly much more dangerous than a gun.

Why advocate restrictions on one right (voting) without comparable restrictions on another (self defense) (or, why not say 'Be a U.S. citizen' as the requirement for CCW)?

--Librarian
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 05-29-2022, 1:53 PM
jeremiah12 jeremiah12 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,966
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default What about the extra money.

If any of you wants an education about the politics of how extra money schools get is spent, I urge you to get involved in the LCAP committees of your local school districts.

The LCAP (Local Control and Accountabilty Program) was put in place a few years ago. The idea was there was not enough money to fix every problem in the schools and each district had their unique situation. So they should be given a pot of money free from direct state control to decide how to use it.

Sounds great. The catch is, as with all governmental processes, a committee has to be formed and all the state transparency rules have to be followed. I believe most of the LCAP meetings are run with School Board over sight. In my district, they hold a working session, meaning no votes can be taken, it is committee work, open for public input with no decisions to be made.

The LCAP committee has to be composed of the various stakeholders. So there are teacher representatives, staff representatives, parent representatives, community representatives, student representatives, representatives from the various ethnic communities that have a significant presence in the student population and interpreters for those languages. Of course now, you have to have a representative for the LQBTQ++ community and who knows who else. I do not have time for this and it is a waste of time.

Then the fighting starts. Each group puts forth proposals on how to spend the money. They all have their pet projects. Of course each group wants the entire slice of the pie. I believe one restriction is it cannot go to teacher salaries. It can go to teacher bonuses but it rarely happens. I know our union pushes for it but it always get cut because everybody else wants so much of the pie the committee just drops the teacher bonuses with an overwhelming majority of the vote (the only noes will come from the teacher representatives) The district will fight hard for things like Chromebooks for all, equity plans and anything else they can get so they can remove those items from the General budget to use for their pet projects. Since the district has to ultimately sign off after Board approval, the district will get a significant chunk of what it wants. Everybody fights and makes side deals. This happens at the 4 LCAP meetings open to the public and the various subcommittee meetings to hash out specific issues. These are open to the public but they never come. The public can comment but has no say. If they want a say, they need to join the committee.

Because every group wants what is on its agenda, and school security is supposed to be the job of the district, the committee will rarely approve money for security upgrades, and if they do, it is for small projects. Like at my site, the tennis courts on the far edge of campus did not have a gate across the enterance coming from the street blliecause when the school was built, the public was to have 24/7 access to the courts. A person could walk onto campus through that gate and then the one leading from the tennis court to the school grounds. Four years ago, we finally got locking gates and the public can no longer use the courts.

As to all the extra money released in the last two years for COVID relief, it has lots of strings attached. The government never gives money without strings. It had to go to things like Chromebooks, WiFi hotspots for students to use at home, all sorts of electronics for the classroom. I have things purchased for me to use, like three 20" computer screens that I cannot do anything with. The arrived after distance learning was over.

Supplies were purchased for each student. The box for each student included a computer mouse, a USB minihub, a small web camera, and all sorts of office supplies. Many students that got them took what they wanted and dumped the rest. The garbage was full of computer mice, portable web cameras, and the usb minihubs. That money that purchased this could only be used to buy student supplies. These supplies had to go home and cannot be used in the classroom. We still have a storeroom full of these boxes that were not picked up.

Last May, teachers were told to go to the Gym, which was the distribution place, and they could take what they wanted if they kept their mouths shut. No administrator could officially be aware so the gym doors were left unlocked for two hours after school so teachers or any student who wanted, could go through and take what they wanted.

I will tell one one thing that money could not be used for, School Security.

In CA, a couple of times a year the school board has to certify that certain things are true. This includes there are enough textbooks, there is enough science equipment to adequately teach all the lab science classes the district offers, the school meets the State standards for school Safety, and others.

Years ago when I and other science teachers had enough of having no science equipment, we went to that Board Meeting and had the Science Equipment certification pulled from the consent agenda. Then we gave them our science departments science equipment inventory, for my site it was a half a page of equipment that was working and supplies we had. It was 5 pages of equipment that was not working and needed repair and had been unuseable for years.

When the district officials were asked what would happen if the board did not certify that we had the equipment we needed, the answer was, the state would withhold a few million dollars of our budget. There was no penalty for certifying though even if it was not correct. There was no oversight, it gets filed and that is all. The law is that the Board is free to make the certification, even if they have no science equipment.

School safety is similar. If it meets state standards, passed inspection, you are good. There are no annual inspections. There are no penalties if some agency were to decide to reinspect and find a school no longer met the standards or were not following the adopted protocols. There are no laws to force compliance. The law says these things are required. The law does not provide funding for them no a mechanism to force compliance except to withhold money from the general budget. If the school board certifies though, that meets the legal requirements.

Fire safety is a good one. My school allowed many things that violated the city fire code. My FIL was a firefighter and spent time doing fire safety inspections for the city. They had jurisdiction over the schools according to the City ordinance. I showed him pictures so he arranged a surprise inspection and the city closed the school until the violations were fixed. We had one day off. Then the school attorneys filed an injunction, it turns out state law puts the state fire marshall in charge of school fire inspections and he can overrule the city. His sent a notice from Sacramento that the school passed inspection. The state did not do an inspection at all. They told the school Maintenance and Operation what to inspect, they did, and filled in the check sheet and sent it off. Nobody cares what the actual facts are, only what is checked off on the boxes on the form that is filed with the state. When you get to court, that is what counts, the paperwork. People who testify that there were shortcuts can easily be labeled whistleblowers and disgruntled employees. The also have to show hard evidence of their claims. For every witness that says things were not done properly, they will bring two that state they were done properly and have paper records to verify.

You want real safety improvements, then the state has to specifically add those strings to the money and put in place strict oversight guidelines.

Teachers are tasked with so many things other than teaching today. Every year it is just add one more thing to what teachers are required to do. There is not enough hours in the day to do everything that is legally required of me. So I throw it all in my inbox. I prioritize and for me my students come first. The after school meetings are second. The stupid compliance paperwork is a distance third and most of it is tossed without being done. If asked, I just say, I did not remember seeing it, send me another and I will get to it. This is one profession that still requires paper copies and not electronic copies. I already deal with 200 daily emails and I toss most of those without reading because there is no time. I do emails during 15 minutes in the morning, 15 minutes during my prep period, during lunch while eating and 15 minutes after school. I do not do email at home. Evenings at home are for planning or relaxing.
__________________
Anyone can look around and see the damage to the state and country inflicted by bad politicians.

A vote is clearly much more dangerous than a gun.

Why advocate restrictions on one right (voting) without comparable restrictions on another (self defense) (or, why not say 'Be a U.S. citizen' as the requirement for CCW)?

--Librarian
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 05-29-2022, 2:19 PM
Tarn_Helm's Avatar
Tarn_Helm Tarn_Helm is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 2,124
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith4him View Post
Seriously, I make very good money, I can't afford one of those, well I can, but my wife would be pissed. How does a 18 yr old flipping burgers living with GM afford an $1800 dollar AR?


https://www.the-sun.com/news/5417999...posts-warning/

"The other, a Daniel Defense, was recovered from inside the elementary school, the outlet reported."
stimulus checks
__________________
"The Religion of Peace": Islam: What the West Needs to Know.
". . . all [historical] experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms
[of governmental abuses and usurpations] to which they are accustomed."
Decl. of Indep., July 4, 1776

NRA Benefactor/Life Member; Lifer: CRPA, GOA, SAF & JPFO

Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 05-29-2022, 2:31 PM
Tarn_Helm's Avatar
Tarn_Helm Tarn_Helm is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 2,124
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremiah12 View Post
If any of you wants an education about the politics of how extra money schools get is spent, I urge you to get involved in the LCAP committees of your local school districts.

The LCAP (Local Control and Accountabilty Program) was put in place a few years ago. The idea was there was not enough money to fix every problem in the schools and each district had their unique situation. So they should be given a pot of money free from direct state control to decide how to use it.

Sounds great. The catch is, as with all governmental processes, a committee has to be formed and all the state transparency rules have to be followed. I believe most of the LCAP meetings are run with School Board over sight. In my district, they hold a working session, meaning no votes can be taken, it is committee work, open for public input with no decisions to be made.

The LCAP committee has to be composed of the various stakeholders. So there are teacher representatives, staff representatives, parent representatives, community representatives, student representatives, representatives from the various ethnic communities that have a significant presence in the student population and interpreters for those languages. Of course now, you have to have a representative for the LQBTQ++ community and who knows who else. I do not have time for this and it is a waste of time.

Then the fighting starts. Each group puts forth proposals on how to spend the money. They all have their pet projects. Of course each group wants the entire slice of the pie. I believe one restriction is it cannot go to teacher salaries. It can go to teacher bonuses but it rarely happens. I know our union pushes for it but it always get cut because everybody else wants so much of the pie the committee just drops the teacher bonuses with an overwhelming majority of the vote (the only noes will come from the teacher representatives) The district will fight hard for things like Chromebooks for all, equity plans and anything else they can get so they can remove those items from the General budget to use for their pet projects. Since the district has to ultimately sign off after Board approval, the district will get a significant chunk of what it wants. Everybody fights and makes side deals. This happens at the 4 LCAP meetings open to the public and the various subcommittee meetings to hash out specific issues. These are open to the public but they never come. The public can comment but has no say. If they want a say, they need to join the committee.

Because every group wants what is on its agenda, and school security is supposed to be the job of the district, the committee will rarely approve money for security upgrades, and if they do, it is for small projects. Like at my site, the tennis courts on the far edge of campus did not have a gate across the enterance coming from the street blliecause when the school was built, the public was to have 24/7 access to the courts. A person could walk onto campus through that gate and then the one leading from the tennis court to the school grounds. Four years ago, we finally got locking gates and the public can no longer use the courts.

As to all the extra money released in the last two years for COVID relief, it has lots of strings attached. The government never gives money without strings. It had to go to things like Chromebooks, WiFi hotspots for students to use at home, all sorts of electronics for the classroom. I have things purchased for me to use, like three 20" computer screens that I cannot do anything with. The arrived after distance learning was over.

Supplies were purchased for each student. The box for each student included a computer mouse, a USB minihub, a small web camera, and all sorts of office supplies. Many students that got them took what they wanted and dumped the rest. The garbage was full of computer mice, portable web cameras, and the usb minihubs. That money that purchased this could only be used to buy student supplies. These supplies had to go home and cannot be used in the classroom. We still have a storeroom full of these boxes that were not picked up.

Last May, teachers were told to go to the Gym, which was the distribution place, and they could take what they wanted if they kept their mouths shut. No administrator could officially be aware so the gym doors were left unlocked for two hours after school so teachers or any student who wanted, could go through and take what they wanted.

I will tell one one thing that money could not be used for, School Security.

In CA, a couple of times a year the school board has to certify that certain things are true. This includes there are enough textbooks, there is enough science equipment to adequately teach all the lab science classes the district offers, the school meets the State standards for school Safety, and others.

Years ago when I and other science teachers had enough of having no science equipment, we went to that Board Meeting and had the Science Equipment certification pulled from the consent agenda. Then we gave them our science departments science equipment inventory, for my site it was a half a page of equipment that was working and supplies we had. It was 5 pages of equipment that was not working and needed repair and had been unuseable for years.

When the district officials were asked what would happen if the board did not certify that we had the equipment we needed, the answer was, the state would withhold a few million dollars of our budget. There was no penalty for certifying though even if it was not correct. There was no oversight, it gets filed and that is all. The law is that the Board is free to make the certification, even if they have no science equipment.

School safety is similar. If it meets state standards, passed inspection, you are good. There are no annual inspections. There are no penalties if some agency were to decide to reinspect and find a school no longer met the standards or were not following the adopted protocols. There are no laws to force compliance. The law says these things are required. The law does not provide funding for them no a mechanism to force compliance except to withhold money from the general budget. If the school board certifies though, that meets the legal requirements.

Fire safety is a good one. My school allowed many things that violated the city fire code. My FIL was a firefighter and spent time doing fire safety inspections for the city. They had jurisdiction over the schools according to the City ordinance. I showed him pictures so he arranged a surprise inspection and the city closed the school until the violations were fixed. We had one day off. Then the school attorneys filed an injunction, it turns out state law puts the state fire marshall in charge of school fire inspections and he can overrule the city. His sent a notice from Sacramento that the school passed inspection. The state did not do an inspection at all. They told the school Maintenance and Operation what to inspect, they did, and filled in the check sheet and sent it off. Nobody cares what the actual facts are, only what is checked off on the boxes on the form that is filed with the state. When you get to court, that is what counts, the paperwork. People who testify that there were shortcuts can easily be labeled whistleblowers and disgruntled employees. The also have to show hard evidence of their claims. For every witness that says things were not done properly, they will bring two that state they were done properly and have paper records to verify.

You want real safety improvements, then the state has to specifically add those strings to the money and put in place strict oversight guidelines.

Teachers are tasked with so many things other than teaching today. Every year it is just add one more thing to what teachers are required to do. There is not enough hours in the day to do everything that is legally required of me. So I throw it all in my inbox. I prioritize and for me my students come first. The after school meetings are second. The stupid compliance paperwork is a distance third and most of it is tossed without being done. If asked, I just say, I did not remember seeing it, send me another and I will get to it. This is one profession that still requires paper copies and not electronic copies. I already deal with 200 daily emails and I toss most of those without reading because there is no time. I do emails during 15 minutes in the morning, 15 minutes during my prep period, during lunch while eating and 15 minutes after school. I do not do email at home. Evenings at home are for planning or relaxing.
I have been a public school teacher for 17 years (and before that, did a stint from 1996-2001).

While some LCAP groups at some sites might work a little different from how you describe above, the waste, fraud, and abuse that you detailed is essentially true for most sites.

The whole funding system is a giant pig trough for political pigs, as in the type of pig caricatured in Animal Farm.

(No offense meant here to actual pigs.)

Taxpayers are ripped off daily in CA by our public school system.

Just like with https://www.lahsa.org/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQDGG-nlB6g">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQDGG-nlB6g" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350">
__________________
"The Religion of Peace": Islam: What the West Needs to Know.
". . . all [historical] experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms
[of governmental abuses and usurpations] to which they are accustomed."
Decl. of Indep., July 4, 1776

NRA Benefactor/Life Member; Lifer: CRPA, GOA, SAF & JPFO

Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 05-29-2022, 2:38 PM
Brother_Hesekiel Brother_Hesekiel is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 647
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Abortion and guns have something in common: they are highly polarizing subjects. "Pro-life" folks believe life begins at conception; therefore, abortion is murder. "Pro-choice" folks believe the unborn is part of the woman's body and thus the woman has the right to choose. The two sides will NEVER agree on this.

Same with guns.
We all agree that insane mass murderers should not be able to get their hands on guns. Yet one side believes that banning all guns is the way to do this, while the other side believes we need to focus on the individuals who are so troubled. Both sides will NEVER agree on this.

We are also not open to reasoning on this. We hear and interpret what we want to hear. It doesn't matter what gun the madman used, how he could afford it, how many warning signs there were, how horribly law enforcement f*cked up; all that matters is that again one of these evil AR-15 assault rifles was used and that's what the one side will focus on.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 05-29-2022, 2:39 PM
jeremiah12 jeremiah12 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,966
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SharedShots View Post

We cannot as a society accept that some people will become criminals for whatever reason, we must always find out if something or someone else was responsible and then adress those or them as the problem and not perhaps that a person(s) decided to kill people for no other reason than they wanted to kill people. It's even easier to go that way when your desire is really just to remove the rights of millions because it raises your own influence, power and control.
.
In a free society, this is exactly what we have to accept. If we go to deep down that rabbit hole, then the company that gave him a job to allow to have money to buy his guns can be punished. Every person that he had contact with can be held accountable because they should have known.

What is happening is the masses want the illusion of safety and are willing to give up freedom for a little more safety and we know where that goes. The politicians have learned that doing something, even if it is the wrong thing gets votes. People today do not want to think critically. They want simple answers and solutions so they can go back to their everyday lives with the false belief that it cannot happen again because of the latest gun control law.

Then it happens again and we need more gun control.

Go on that witch hunt. We can become Nazi Germany, Communist Russia or China where one person commits a crime against the state and their family and friends are severely punished even if they helped in no way or had no knowledge. Let us all spy on on family, friends, and neighbors and report everything.

How many people here have advocated not following the law on transferring weapons or ammo and then complain bitterly if they were turned in by family or friends. The next step is the government goons visit at night and take you away to be seen no more.

So, there is a reason to only hold the person responsible criminally liable and have a very high bar to proscecute anyone that might have known and not reported or might have assisted. That assisted part is a huge swamp that can suck in many innocents, including the FFL that sold the gun. Take any one thing out of the long series of events leading up to this and the school shooting may not have happened.

We do not know if he targeted this school or he attacked this school because he crashed his truck close to it and it was available. He was speeding away at a high rate of speed, without crashing, he might have passed up this school and tried another target. Law enforcement might have caught up to him had he not crashed and ended it.

He is solely responsible for this evil. Others made mistakes that if were not made may have prevented it. Had this person not been intent upon evil, it would not have happened in the first, no matter how many guns he had.

The harsh reality is this is also going to be used to prohibit people with mental illiness from gun ownership. There is a very large group of gun with medically diagnosed mental illnesses that would never do such a thing. If they were prone to this, this would happen daily. 75% of Americans will deal with a mental illness in there lifetime. Less than 5% will ever do anything violent.

I have chronic depression and PTSD and do take meds. There are a few million at least like me that live perfectly normal lives and have and will never do such an violent evil act. Look at the number of combat vets with PTSD and access to guns and they are not out doing these things.

Remember when Obama wanted to take away the gun rights of Vets with PTSD? He was doing something about the mental illness issue.

Right now I am hearing the same old crap, ban assault weapons, detailed background checks including psychiatric evaluations, check of all medical records, check of school records, interview friends and family and the list goes on.

Even psychatrist will tell you they cannot predict who will commit violent acts. I lived with a step-father that could convince all round him and the experts that he was the nicest safest person around. He was a trained psychiatric nurse. He was a rapist, child abuser, and pedophile. When we lived in Santa Cruz, he knew Ed Kemper because Big Ed hung at at the hospital ER with the cops and nurses. He gave Big Ed some of the drugs he would use on the women he raped and murdered.

My step-father used those same drugs on co-eds he picked up to rape. he also got great enjoyment out of setting up in the hills near places where people stopped for whatever reasons and shot at their feet with his rifle to scare the **** out of them. He was named the Santa Cruz Sniper.

I was never believed. When he was caught and arrested for beating me and I told everythng, he was sent for a psych eval and the report returned I was lying because he was normal. They all ignored his stint in the state hospital due to his manic-depression (now bipolar) and other issues. That was behind him now.

You read the background of some of the mass shooters and you will see the same thing. They can come across as mentally sane when given psych evals. So, do not expect any way to readily identify these people before hand that will not also ensnare a bunch of people that might fit a profile but never do such evil. It will be just another simple solution that causes more harm than good and be used to take away the rights of millions.

Do not fall for any trap that comes from the left or right.
__________________
Anyone can look around and see the damage to the state and country inflicted by bad politicians.

A vote is clearly much more dangerous than a gun.

Why advocate restrictions on one right (voting) without comparable restrictions on another (self defense) (or, why not say 'Be a U.S. citizen' as the requirement for CCW)?

--Librarian
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 05-29-2022, 4:23 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 3,797
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremiah12 View Post
In a free society, this is exactly what we have to accept...

You read the background of some of the mass shooters and you will see the same thing. They can come across as mentally sane when given psych evals. So, do not expect any way to readily identify these people before hand that will not also ensnare a bunch of people that might fit a profile but never do such evil. It will be just another simple solution that causes more harm than good and be used to take away the rights of millions.

Do not fall for any trap that comes from the left or right.
Exactly.

The idea is to not 'control the story,' but to allow the full story to come to light. Retrospectively, 'the story' becomes self apparent; including the mistakes made that shouldn't have been and the errors made that could not have been predicted or seen.

Each 'side' pushes a narrative favorable to their agenda; i.e., a simplistic scenario which seems to favor a simplistic solution. The reality is, in a free society, there is no solution, only lessons one can learn from and a common ground accepted. To mandate that common ground defeats the purpose in that mandates reflect a simplistic agenda which is rarely what is actually at work.

It's easy to find a 'scapegoat' and 'punish' those who appear to fall into that category. Sadly, it's sometimes as easy and maybe even easier to construct a scapegoat. Unfortunately, both ignore the reality of the situation in favor of an 'acceptable villain' which can be dealt with utilizing an 'acceptable solution.' Yet, as I just said, there is no solution, only lessons to be learned and appropriately used in the future.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 05-29-2022, 4:55 PM
Oceanbob's Avatar
Oceanbob Oceanbob is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 12,317
iTrader: 165 / 100%
Default

NO GIRL FRIENDS TO BLOW HIS MONEY OR HIS WAD ON. PROBABLY THE PROBLEM.
__________________
May the Bridges I burn light the way.

Life Is Not About Waiting For The Storm To Pass - Its About Learning To Dance In The Rain.

Fewer people are killed with all rifles each year (323 in 2011) than with shotguns (356), hammers and clubs (496), and hands and feet (728).
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 05-29-2022, 7:28 PM
SharedShots SharedShots is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 1,595
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Exactly.

The idea is to not 'control the story,' but to allow the full story to come to light. Retrospectively, 'the story' becomes self apparent; including the mistakes made that shouldn't have been and the errors made that could not have been predicted or seen.

Each 'side' pushes a narrative favorable to their agenda; i.e., a simplistic scenario which seems to favor a simplistic solution. The reality is, in a free society, there is no solution, only lessons one can learn from and a common ground accepted. To mandate that common ground defeats the purpose in that mandates reflect a simplistic agenda which is rarely what is actually at work.

It's easy to find a 'scapegoat' and 'punish' those who appear to fall into that category. Sadly, it's sometimes as easy and maybe even easier to construct a scapegoat. Unfortunately, both ignore the reality of the situation in favor of an 'acceptable villain' which can be dealt with utilizing an 'acceptable solution.' Yet, as I just said, there is no solution, only lessons to be learned and appropriately used in the future.
Do you believe that a human can be born evil or do you believe that all humans who are evil are so because of external experiences or learned behavior which they rely upon to make a choice or are in some way cultivated (for lack of better word right now) to be evil?








.
__________________
Don't get stuck on Stupid, read a Sticky!

If all you're going to do is post hearsay who needs to read what you have to say?

Defense is a losing proposition when time is on the side of the opponent.
Not losing is not a Victory if everything stays the same.
Winning isn't the only thing, there is also losing.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 05-29-2022, 11:47 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 3,797
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SharedShots View Post
Do you believe that a human can be born evil or do you believe that all humans who are evil are so because of external experiences or learned behavior which they rely upon to make a choice or are in some way cultivated (for lack of better word right now) to be evil?
Why does it have to be one or another? Why can't it be all of the above?

Some are born, some learn, some are influenced, some are cultivated, etc.

There is no single, one-size-fits-all solution set here. That is why it is so important to learn as much as possible rather than attempt to pigeon-hole everyone into a certain mold. Are there commonalities? Yes and no. Are there signals to watch out for? Potentially, but they are not universally applicable. Why? Because each individual is unique.

Just like not all Democrats are evil and not all Republicans are on the side of the angels. Not everyone who owns a firearm is a patriot and not everyone who doesn't is a traitor. Not everyone who believes one way is right and everyone else is wrong. To set such parameters is the antithesis of free thinking and a free people.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 05-30-2022, 6:52 AM
SharedShots SharedShots is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 1,595
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Why does it have to be one or another? Why can't it be all of the above?

Some are born, some learn, some are influenced, some are cultivated, etc.

There is no single, one-size-fits-all solution set here. That is why it is so important to learn as much as possible rather than attempt to pigeon-hole everyone into a certain mold. Are there commonalities? Yes and no. Are there signals to watch out for? Potentially, but they are not universally applicable. Why? Because each individual is unique.

Just like not all Democrats are evil and not all Republicans are on the side of the angels. Not everyone who owns a firearm is a patriot and not everyone who doesn't is a traitor. Not everyone who believes one way is right and everyone else is wrong. To set such parameters is the antithesis of free thinking and a free people.

Meanwhile, in Chicago, just so far, 38 people were shot, 6 fatalities so far. I'd be willing to say that few if any of the shooters fit the profile of the shooter in Texas. I wonder, how deep will the nation go to finding out how those shooters paid for their guns, the brands they chose or the external experiences and influences that affected them. Or; will the nation just accept that its part and parcel to Chicago and it didn't happen in a school?

I didn't say it had to be one or the other, the choices weren't exclusive of any other but did include those choices. If I inferred only two choices were available, poor question on my part.

The pigeon-hole is interesting because isn't that what happens after exhaustive analysis into things which just happened to take place (someone - anyone, saves some money and buys a gun) is used to identify the same thing in others who don't kill people (this event)?

Isn't one of the purposes in delving into why for example, he picked Daniel Defense firearms one way to then look at all others who buy Daniel Defense firearms with suspicion even when it is casual? It might interest you to know that is already taking place.

Should we not be concerned he chose a Daniel Defense AR? I don't know, maybe we should but is the Daniel Defense AR so much different from another that the choice was relevant?

If we accept that a person can be born evil so to speak and that some of them act out their evil that takes away the one thing we as people seem to need, a way to identify the why. We have a hard time understanding that some people are just evil not because of external influences but because it's part of them. We have this need to attribute some eternal influence or experience that we can point to and say "Ah-ha, that was the reason that person killed 10-20-30 people" Having that we then go about doing what? We go about setting up the conditions, rules, regulations and laws to control those influences and experiences.

That is also a foundation of gun control. Gun control is based upon controlling a tool/object and not accepting the fact that it's the person who did the deed. Gun control can't accept the idea that a person is born evil, that the reason behind their heinous crimes must be always attributed to the availability and possession of the gun.

Hence the reason for the question.

What caught my eye was your comment about something being appropriate when the time is right or words to that effect. Correct me if I misunderstand but doesn't that mean at some point, if we have the means and willingness as a society we can address things like buying/owning guns if they are obtained in certain ways if those ways can be linked to crimes? I'm talking currently legal means, not situations like theft and so on.

Back to finding out things. Recently, some reporter or what passes as a reporter these days, wrote an article describing in detail how they were able to use the Internet and in 5 clicks order a Daniel Defense AR on-line. IIRC the price was around $1750, not the fantastic and expensive amount people are being led to believe. The reporter went down that rabbit hole, under the guise of finding out how the shooter could have bought such a rifle. Easy the reporter says. Click click click and the order is placed. Hidden far down in the article, past where the easily influenced would stop reading and decide more gun control was needed was the explanation that while the order was made in seconds, the rifle had to be shipped to an FFL, a background check had to be conducted prior to delivery. It was almost like an afterthought. That is free speech and protected. Just because it is doesn't mean we must or should.

What would the casual reader, the easily influenced or the already convinced person take away? That Daniel Defense sells guns to anyone via the Internet and that it's easy for anyone, including those less that 18 years old, to buy a gun from them. The reputation assassination is complete, those people are now demanding gun controls all because someone couldn't or wouldn't accept anything other than the reason this happened was because the shooter was evil and that one of the reason he killed all those people was because of Daniel Defense and on-line ordering of an AR rifle.

There is the pigeon-hole staring at all gun owners and those wanting to own guns right in the face. Already, there is a republican member of congress calling for a commonsense gun law to increase the age to buy a forearm from 18 to 21. No doubt that is because the person who wants to kill dozens or even one person won't do it when they turn 21. Something happens to people when they turn 21, who knows, maybe we need to find out? Then when its time and appropriate we can put in controls.

I don't oppose finding out information, but I do oppose not being able to look at something objectively and rather multiplying or extrapolating that information to make it into something it is not. Maybe on that we aren't saying different things and actually agree.

Wait until someone decides that it's young 18-year-old men who do all these things and not young 18-year-old women and that we need to find out why and then when we're able and it's appropriate, do something about it.

Free thinking and freedom comes with a cost. Sometimes that cost is restraint and the responsibility to think past the emotion of the day, the near term benefit and instead consider the consequences. Today, anyone can say or hear anything and instantly create a situation where it becomes far more important than it is. Before the Internet, there was a built-in delay which allowed for reflection. That is gone. Ask Daniel Defense how it's working out.

So here, I am saying lets not rush to figuring out how someone bought a gun when the answer is right there for us to know (he saved some money), he went into a store to pickup the gun after getting a background check, bought ammo, all legal things and instead ask why he decided to kill people. Even if he stole the money, without an arrest how do we stop someone from stealing some money, say their parents or other relatives? We can't stop kids from buying cigarettes. Maybe, just maybe the answer is after all that, that he was evil from the day he was born and while that answer doesn't address our need to find something we can fix, perhaps in this case it wasn't fixable and we should go about punishing an entire population to satisfy that need.






.
__________________
Don't get stuck on Stupid, read a Sticky!

If all you're going to do is post hearsay who needs to read what you have to say?

Defense is a losing proposition when time is on the side of the opponent.
Not losing is not a Victory if everything stays the same.
Winning isn't the only thing, there is also losing.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 05-30-2022, 7:22 AM
jeremiah12 jeremiah12 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,966
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SharedShots View Post
Do you believe that a human can be born evil or do you believe that all humans who are evil are so because of external experiences or learned behavior which they rely upon to make a choice or are in some way cultivated (for lack of better word right now) to be evil?
.
Here is a short article that touches on this question. https://blog.oup.com/2021/04/what-ca...serial-killer/

I am a science person so I look for evidence use evidence to mold my opinions.

I am also a Christian and know that there are some things that are out of the realm of science, like the question about the existence of God.

Some people are born with genetics that predisposes them to evil. Their brain does not develop properly and some areas are not properly functioning. Somewhere during fetal development things did not go right and sometimes it is due to genetics.

So you get a person born who will never develop empathy, no matter the family he grew up in. Dennis Rader, AKA, BTK, had a normal family by all appearances. His parents were involved in his life and did all the family things. What they did not know, he went around torturing animals and he always made sure to do it in ways that his parents would not catch him. Pre-puberty, he was already stalking women and fantasizing of sex with them.

He was always careful in planning and hide it from those around him. That is why it took so long to catch him.

Eventually he grew tired of life and realized he would never achieve the perfection of his fantasy. So he engaged detectives with taunts and was not as careful in covering his tracks. He planned to eventually get caught so he could take full credit for his work.

Then some grow up with terrible childhoods that suffered great trauma and warped them so they lost the ability to empathize.

The problem with painting with that broad brush, a large percentage, of kids raised in horrid backgrounds never go on to commit crimes or become child abusers.

It is called resiliency.

Then you have kids that can go either way. They might have a genetic predisposition but with the right interventions and in the right family, they become productive members of society.

The problem with studying mass shooters, or serial killers and then using that to try to predict who might become one so we all look for the red flags and use that to lock them up, is the falacy that even though the majority have trait A in common, not all who exhibit trait A become criminals. Many times only 10% do.

In the infancy of the FBI profiling program, they used a very large check list. One of the items on it was bed wetting because in the 50s, psychologists came up with an idea that kids that are wetting the bed at the age of 3 have something wrong with them. They should be able to awaken to go to the bathroom so they must be awaking at night. They are just being defiant and wetting the bed. They are showing control over their parents because their parents have to change and wash the bedding.

All the parents of the serial killers said their kid wet the bed. So eventually that became part of the profile.

As they interviewed more and more, and did all sorts of other studies, bed wetting was being reported less and less and it became confusing. What happened?

Those born in the 40s and 50s had parents who expected them to not wet the bed after the age of 2, or even earlier. Those born in the 60s and later had parents who did not have that expectation and the occasional bed wettng was no big deal. In fact, medical studies eventually showed boys are more prone to bed wetting because their brains are slower to develop the ability to awaken them out of a deep sleep. It happens earlier on average for girls. So bed wetting dropped off the list.

I have done much reading and research on this topic because of my experiences with my POS step-father and what he did to me and forced me to do to others. He came into my life at the age of 7, the physical abuse started at the age of 8, and the sexual abuse started at the age of 10. Things just go progressively worse and he was very good at torture and then pulling me into torturing others for his enjoyment.

I finally realized the difference was empathy. I felt for every one of the victims that he made me do things to. As a kid though, when told you do it or I will just kill the person, it was empathy that compelled me to do the things because at least the person would survive. Today, I would flat out refuse and say if you kill the person, it is on you, not me. When I turned 11, I basically rebelled against him and he lost control over me. I was so depressed, angry, and upset I was good with him killing me, and he almost did.

Psychopaths come across as charming and wonderful people to those they want to build that image for. That is why you will always hear, he was such a great person, I cannot believe it, he was a wonderful family man, a pillar of the community and so on. They are doing that because they are manipulating and using people. Everything they do is for a reason. It is to build their image or get what they want.

Alone, they drop the niceties and show their true self. There will always be stories by others that this is not a good person, but they will not be believed.

I lived with one for 6 years and watched him manipulate people to get exactly what he wanted and nearly all thought he was a great guy, including the doctors and police officers he worked with. Whenever the abuse was discovered and we had a court date, his doctor and police friends would tell the judge how great of a person he was and that I had to be lying. He had to be right, I had an accident that somehow sustained injuries similar to being hit by a Mack truck in the living room while he was sleeping upstairs.
__________________
Anyone can look around and see the damage to the state and country inflicted by bad politicians.

A vote is clearly much more dangerous than a gun.

Why advocate restrictions on one right (voting) without comparable restrictions on another (self defense) (or, why not say 'Be a U.S. citizen' as the requirement for CCW)?

--Librarian
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 05-30-2022, 8:10 AM
jeremiah12 jeremiah12 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,966
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SharedShots View Post
Meanwhile, in Chicago, just so far, 38 people were shot, 6 fatalities so far. I'd be willing to say that few if any of the shooters fit the profile of the shooter in Texas. I wonder, how deep will the nation go to finding out how those shooters paid for their guns, the brands they chose or the external experiences and influences that affected them. Or; will the nation just accept that its part and parcel to Chicago and it didn't happen in a school?

.
We already know what the problem is in Chicago. The majority steal their guns or buy them off the black market. Much of it is gang related. That is why for so long gun stores were banned in Chicago and their politicians preached they should be banned state wide and even nationwide. The shootings still happened because they got their guns illegally.

It is also mostly Black on Black crime and so they are all the victims. Many will say they got what the deserved. It is a very complex problem and will take decades and a billion or so dollars to fix if there is the will to do so. The fix will require things that are ahborent to at least one side of the political aisle. Chicago shows the complete breakdown of society. In those areas, it operates like a 3rd world country. It is easier to say let them rot and stay away.

Some of the same problems though are the reason behind school shooters. BTW, school shootings happen in Chicago, they do not make the news. They are mostly drug and gang related.

Any so-called solution that involves raising the age for legal purchasing of guns is a feel good. Kids get alcohol, cigarettes, pot, and other drugs all the time. I have learned from experience, any kid that wants a gun can just buy one from their local drug dealer. They will sell you one or hook you up with someone that will sell you one. The drug dealers get them in trade for drugs.

With the Cartels losing revenue from pot, because it is so much cheaper, they are now expanding into trafficking guns into the US. There are many who buy guns in the US to send to the Cartels. The Cartels though are now getting guns from Brazil and the Philipines to sell her and in Europe. They already have the smuggling infrastructure so adding another thing to smuggle and sell is easy.

The problem right now is it is not politically correct to bring that to light. We might hurt the feelings of Latinos and pot is not bad. The legalize and tax of pot has not worked. In CA, the legal industry is collapsing because they cannot compete with the untaxed illegal sales coming from Mexico or the untaxed Cartel grows here.

The reporter you mentioned writing about how easy it is to buy a gun, that has been happening for a few decades. That happened after the Cleveland School shooting in Stockton, about 1 mile from where I lived at the time. Reporters were going out and buying these dangerous weapons and reporting about it. That was the cause of CA first AW ban. It did not work.

Reporters though need sensaltionalism to sell. The only way we can combat it is with reason and to point out previous bans did not work. It will not work though because the majority want instant fixes and assurance it will never happen again. Neither can be done and instant fixes never solve the problem.

To start evaluating the response right now is also wrong. This was a chaotic situation and all the information that is needed to paint the complete picture is not in. It will take a few months to get the results of all the forensic evidence, to look at all the video and piece it together and do everything else.

To expect the person giving a news conference to have all the information is unreasonable. They also give out the best information they had at the time. As more is learned, what was initially thought changes. But everybody screams they lied or were caught withholding information.

The school district chief in charge at the scene stated in an article I read on Fox news, that his initial information and the best evidence he had at that time was the shooter shot all the kids in the classroom within minutes of entering and then barricaded himself inside. It ceased being an active shooter situation and became a barracaded situation. That is why they stopped the active shooter protocol. The gunman was isolated, all of his victims had already been shot and there was no more shooting.

So they switched to evacuating all the other classrooms to get those kids to safety, as is the standard procedure when an active shooter situation becomes a standoff. The shooter was contained and not going anywhere. Two officers had been shot while attempting entery. He knew more would be shot and potentially wounded and a shootout would result endangering kids in the nearby classrooms.

We will know when the autopsy reports come out and they tell us if death was immediate or about how long it took for each victim to bleed out. More importantly, was there a chance to save any child's life if the could have received immediate medical attention. Then you have to balance that against the potential loss of life caused to students in the adjacent classrooms if a shoot happened while they were still there.

He also said he could have made the wrong decision and is willing to accept those consequences.

This is why I want to wait to see the final report to pass judgement. All of the questions being raised now need to be answered, but the real answers will take time.
__________________
Anyone can look around and see the damage to the state and country inflicted by bad politicians.

A vote is clearly much more dangerous than a gun.

Why advocate restrictions on one right (voting) without comparable restrictions on another (self defense) (or, why not say 'Be a U.S. citizen' as the requirement for CCW)?

--Librarian
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 05-30-2022, 10:48 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 3,797
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SharedShots View Post
I didn't say it had to be one or the other...
No?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SharedShots View Post
Do you believe that a human can be born evil or do you believe that all humans who are evil are so because of external experiences or learned behavior which they rely upon to make a choice or are in some way cultivated (for lack of better word right now) to be evil?
I see a choice, not a series of options.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SharedShots
The pigeon-hole is interesting because isn't that what happens after exhaustive analysis into things which just happened to take place (someone - anyone, saves some money and buys a gun) is used to identify the same thing in others who don't kill people (this event)?
Re-read the sentence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
...That is why it is so important to learn as much as possible rather than attempt to pigeon-hole everyone into a certain mold...
Learn as much as possible. That's my premise. Your's seems to be to pigeon-hole anything beyond a certain point as nefarious intent and dismiss it as irrelevant...

Quote:
Originally Posted by SharedShots
Isn't one of the purposes in delving into why for example, he picked Daniel Defense firearms one way to then look at all others who buy Daniel Defense firearms with suspicion even when it is casual? It might interest you to know that is already taking place.

Should we not be concerned he chose a Daniel Defense AR? I don't know, maybe we should but is the Daniel Defense AR so much different from another that the choice was relevant?
At this point, it's about fleshing out what happened, not reducing it to components which are then used to promote a narrative that favors 'our side.' Such preemptive 'editing' invariably leads to questions and often misses facts which ultimately do favor our argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SharedShots
...a way to identify the why...
Assigning a reason to favor a narrative is exactly what both sides prematurely do so as to preempt a narrative which potentially works against the outcome sought. Sometimes, there is no deep, dark answer and, no matter how difficult to accept, "it is what it is." In other cases, the more one knows, the better one is able to understand and a kernel might even be discovered which either enlightens or opens to door to enlightenment for a given individual; not necessarily you, but someone else.

What mitigates use of a given incident is actual understanding of the incident rather than imposing an understanding; the latter actually being 'use of the incident' for a specific purpose. As I said, in the vast majority of cases, actual understanding tends to preclude nefarious use or, at least, use for a specific purpose such as gun control...

Quote:
Originally Posted by SharedShots
Gun control can't accept the idea that a person is born evil, that the reason behind their heinous crimes must be always attributed to the availability and possession of the gun.
To the contrary, gun control proponents also allow for those 'born evil' and claim that access to firearms should be mitigated or eliminated as a result. It's not just about not letting a 'good boy go bad,' but about not allowing a 'bad boy' access to the tools he would utilize in being bad. In fact, that's been the argument presented as much, if not more, than the former in that the claim is... "If guns just weren't available..." isn't strictly limited to the idea of temptation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SharedShots
...Correct me if I misunderstand but doesn't that mean at some point, if we have the means and willingness as a society we can address things like buying/owning guns if they are obtained in certain ways if those ways can be linked to crimes?...
I'm going to assume you are referencing where I said... "Yet, as I just said, there is no solution, only lessons to be learned and appropriately used in the future."

What you suggest is ONE possibility, but such doesn't encompass the entirety of 'appropriate use' of the lessons learned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SharedShots
Back to finding out things. Recently, some reporter or what passes as a reporter these days, wrote an article describing in detail how they were able to use the Internet and in 5 clicks order a Daniel Defense AR on-line. IIRC the price was around $1750, not the fantastic and expensive amount people are being led to believe.
When I was 18, that would have been a 'fantastic and expensive amount' for myself to have had, let alone spend on a firearm, even accounting for current sensibilities. Remember as well, he bought two, along will other things such as ammo and magazines. Such may be a 'less than substantial' amount in your reality, but for the rest of us, it's not an inconsiderable sum for an 18-year old, even with little by way of overhead expenses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SharedShots
The reporter went down that rabbit hole, under the guise of finding out how the shooter could have bought such a rifle. Easy the reporter says. Click click click and the order is placed. Hidden far down in the article, past where the easily influenced would stop reading and decide more gun control was needed was the explanation that while the order was made in seconds, the rifle had to be shipped to an FFL, a background check had to be conducted prior to delivery. It was almost like an afterthought. That is free speech and protected. Just because it is doesn't mean we must or should.

What would the casual reader, the easily influenced or the already convinced person take away? That Daniel Defense sells guns to anyone via the Internet and that it's easy for anyone, including those less that 18 years old, to buy a gun from them...
So... We ignore facts or declare them irrelevant because some won't read it all or will read it a certain way so as to confirm their preconceived notions? Worse. We ignore or declare irrelevant the facts because they are not emphasized (though noted) or presented in a manner we agree with?

What happened to the counter narrative where such facts are emphasized? You don't 'win' by eliminating the story. You 'win' by telling the entire story. What people choose to take from the story after the entire story is told is beyond your control and if you leave blanks to be filled in, they will fill in the blanks with their own 'facts.' In fact, that's precisely what the anti's rely on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SharedShots
...There is the pigeon-hole staring at all gun owners and those wanting to own guns right in the face...
As always happens and neither you nor I are going to change that. All we can do is make sure the WHOLE story is told, not just the parts and pieces which favor a given narrative. As I said, in the vast majority of cases, when the whole story is told, we are, by and large, better off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SharedShots
I don't oppose finding out information, but I do oppose not being able to look at something objectively and rather multiplying or extrapolating that information to make it into something it is not. Maybe on that we aren't saying different things and actually agree.
You are correct in that we're not all that different with out intent. It's how we get there that differs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SharedShots
Free thinking and freedom comes with a cost. Sometimes that cost is restraint and the responsibility to think past the emotion of the day, the near term benefit and instead consider the consequences. Today, anyone can say or hear anything and instantly create a situation where it becomes far more important than it is.
Which is why you wait for and seek the whole story and not a 'crafted' one which is constructed before all the facts are known or by declaring certain facts as irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SharedShots
So here, I am saying lets not rush to figuring out how someone bought a gun when the answer is right there for us to know (he saved some money), he went into a store to pickup the gun after getting a background check, bought ammo, all legal things...
"All legal things" is part of what's being ascertained. According to the AP... Texas school shooter wasnít arrested for threat in 2018, officials say, the Uvalde shooter wasn't involved in the prior incident. So, that's one aspect down. But, then you have... Before massacre, Uvalde gunman frequently threatened teen girls online. In other words, what is being ascertained is whether the shooter was or should have been 'flagged,' not whether he was doing something legal based on a potentially 'inappropriate' status.

In other words, was there sufficient cause to have precluded his purchase. Just because "it was legal" doesn't mean it should have been for this individual. Just like the kid in Florida with his dozens of "contacts" and whether he should have been flagged. What is being investigated is whether something was missed, ignored, etc.; i.e., a legitimate warning signal that should have been handled differently. That has to be decided and evaluated on an individual basis; but, it is something which still needs to be looked into and not simply dismissed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SharedShots
...Maybe, just maybe the answer is after all that, that he was evil from the day he was born and while that answer doesn't address our need to find something we can fix, perhaps in this case it wasn't fixable and we should go about punishing an entire population to satisfy that need.
Such is a very real possibility. But, it's something which needs to be ascertained, not presumed or declared in the interest of something else. To make such an assessment, all the facts must be available and analyzed.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 05-30-2022, 11:27 AM
SharedShots SharedShots is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 1,595
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
No?



I see a choice, not a series of options.



Re-read the sentence.



Learn as much as possible. That's my premise. Your's seems to be to pigeon-hole anything beyond a certain point as nefarious intent and dismiss it as irrelevant...



At this point, it's about fleshing out what happened, not reducing it to components which are then used to promote a narrative that favors 'our side.' Such preemptive 'editing' invariably leads to questions and often misses facts which ultimately do favor our argument.



Assigning a reason to favor a narrative is exactly what both sides prematurely do so as to preempt a narrative which potentially works against the outcome sought. Sometimes, there is no deep, dark answer and, no matter how difficult to accept, "it is what it is." In other cases, the more one knows, the better one is able to understand and a kernel might even be discovered which either enlightens or opens to door to enlightenment for a given individual; not necessarily you, but someone else.

What mitigates use of a given incident is actual understanding of the incident rather than imposing an understanding; the latter actually being 'use of the incident' for a specific purpose. As I said, in the vast majority of cases, actual understanding tends to preclude nefarious use or, at least, use for a specific purpose such as gun control...



To the contrary, gun control proponents also allow for those 'born evil' and claim that access to firearms should be mitigated or eliminated as a result. It's not just about not letting a 'good boy go bad,' but about not allowing a 'bad boy' access to the tools he would utilize in being bad. In fact, that's been the argument presented as much, if not more, than the former in that the claim is... "If guns just weren't available..." isn't strictly limited to the idea of temptation.



I'm going to assume you are referencing where I said... "Yet, as I just said, there is no solution, only lessons to be learned and appropriately used in the future."

What you suggest is ONE possibility, but such doesn't encompass the entirety of 'appropriate use' of the lessons learned.



When I was 18, that would have been a 'fantastic and expensive amount' for myself to have had, let alone spend on a firearm, even accounting for current sensibilities. Remember as well, he bought two, along will other things such as ammo and magazines. Such may be a 'less than substantial' amount in your reality, but for the rest of us, it's not an inconsiderable sum for an 18-year old, even with little by way of overhead expenses.



So... We ignore facts or declare them irrelevant because some won't read it all or will read it a certain way so as to confirm their preconceived notions? Worse. We ignore or declare irrelevant the facts because they are not emphasized (though noted) or presented in a manner we agree with?

What happened to the counter narrative where such facts are emphasized? You don't 'win' by eliminating the story. You 'win' by telling the entire story. What people choose to take from the story after the entire story is told is beyond your control and if you leave blanks to be filled in, they will fill in the blanks with their own 'facts.' In fact, that's precisely what the anti's rely on.



As always happens and neither you nor I are going to change that. All we can do is make sure the WHOLE story is told, not just the parts and pieces which favor a given narrative. As I said, in the vast majority of cases, when the whole story is told, we are, by and large, better off.



You are correct in that we're not all that different with out intent. It's how we get there that differs.



Which is why you wait for and seek the whole story and not a 'crafted' one which is constructed before all the facts are known or by declaring certain facts as irrelevant.



"All legal things" is part of what's being ascertained. According to the AP... Texas school shooter wasnít arrested for threat in 2018, officials say, the Uvalde shooter wasn't involved in the prior incident. So, that's one aspect down. But, then you have... Before massacre, Uvalde gunman frequently threatened teen girls online. In other words, what is being ascertained is whether the shooter was or should have been 'flagged,' not whether he was doing something legal based on a potentially 'inappropriate' status.

In other words, was there sufficient cause to have precluded his purchase. Just because "it was legal" doesn't mean it should have been for this individual. Just like the kid in Florida with his dozens of "contacts" and whether he should have been flagged. What is being investigated is whether something was missed, ignored, etc.; i.e., a legitimate warning signal that should have been handled differently. That has to be decided and evaluated on an individual basis; but, it is something which still needs to be looked into and not simply dismissed.



Such is a very real possibility. But, it's something which needs to be ascertained, not presumed or declared in the interest of something else. To make such an assessment, all the facts must be available and analyzed.
You can tell alot when someone reads something and then cuts as you did:

I post
"I didn't say it had to be one or the other, the choices weren't exclusive of any other but did include those choices. If I inferred only two choices were available, poor question on my part.

and you snip : "I didn't say it had to be one or the other..." having read the clarification and use that as the basis of your reply instead of the clarification.

That explains quite a bit.





.
__________________
Don't get stuck on Stupid, read a Sticky!

If all you're going to do is post hearsay who needs to read what you have to say?

Defense is a losing proposition when time is on the side of the opponent.
Not losing is not a Victory if everything stays the same.
Winning isn't the only thing, there is also losing.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 05-30-2022, 2:09 PM
AK bro's Avatar
AK bro AK bro is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2022
Location: Kalifornistan
Posts: 17
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

A full investigation is needed including the gun shop where this guy bought the gun, which method of payment was used (his own credit card? Third-party?), credit history, and a thorough check of his finances.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 05-30-2022, 2:14 PM
spectralhunter's Avatar
spectralhunter spectralhunter is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 517
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AK bro View Post
A full investigation is needed including the gun shop where this guy bought the gun, which method of payment was used (his own credit card? Third-party?), credit history, and a thorough check of his finances.

Iím sure they will but why is that important? Ramos passed background checks.

He worked and lived at home. Minimum wage is much higher now. Itís not impossible to think he raised the money himself. And if he was planning to die, it seems plausible he bought the best because, why not?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
__________________
ďOf all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 05-30-2022, 2:36 PM
CenterX's Avatar
CenterX CenterX is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sleep North SFO Bay
Posts: 1,671
iTrader: 40 / 100%
Default

the entire fiasco started around the time of the Spanish Inquisition.

evil Spanish stealing money to fund adventures in the Americas. Pent up hatred of children.

a disaster.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 05-30-2022, 7:19 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 3,797
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SharedShots View Post
You can tell alot when someone reads something and then cuts as you did:

I post
"I didn't say it had to be one or the other, the choices weren't exclusive of any other but did include those choices. If I inferred only two choices were available, poor question on my part.

and you snip : "I didn't say it had to be one or the other..." having read the clarification and use that as the basis of your reply instead of the clarification.

That explains quite a bit.
Nice try. What I did was go back and demonstrate what you actually said and why I reacted as I did, then carried on with the discussion. (You didn't infer anything. That's what you actually said.) You are the one actually doing the 'creative editing' and attempting to use that as 'proof' that I'm acting nefariously.

I'd suggest that means the discussion is over. As I said...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
...Learn as much as possible. That's my premise. Your's seems to be to pigeon-hole anything beyond a certain point as nefarious intent and dismiss it as irrelevant...

At this point, it's about fleshing out what happened, not reducing it to components which are then used to promote a narrative that favors 'our side.' Such preemptive 'editing' invariably leads to questions and often misses facts which ultimately do favor our argument...

What is being investigated is whether something was missed, ignored, etc.; i.e., a legitimate warning signal that should have been handled differently. That has to be decided and evaluated on an individual basis; but, it is something which still needs to be looked into and not simply dismissed...

...it's something which needs to be ascertained, not presumed or declared in the interest of something else. To make such an assessment, all the facts must be available and analyzed.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 05-30-2022 at 7:21 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 05-31-2022, 1:36 PM
Bajacracker Bajacracker is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: East Bay
Posts: 14
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

I read an article just today that he used the Credova payment plan option.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 05-31-2022, 8:12 PM
jeremiah12 jeremiah12 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,966
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bajacracker View Post
I read an article just today that he used the Credova payment plan option.
That was a smart move especially if he planned to not survive the attack. He is now off the hook for paying it back.
__________________
Anyone can look around and see the damage to the state and country inflicted by bad politicians.

A vote is clearly much more dangerous than a gun.

Why advocate restrictions on one right (voting) without comparable restrictions on another (self defense) (or, why not say 'Be a U.S. citizen' as the requirement for CCW)?

--Librarian
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 06-01-2022, 2:47 AM
CenterX's Avatar
CenterX CenterX is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sleep North SFO Bay
Posts: 1,671
iTrader: 40 / 100%
Default

are all these posts done by a robot software application. to many characters per minute to be a real person in real time.
__________________

- Aut Pax Aut Bellum - Volunteer LDW
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 06-01-2022, 4:23 AM
MeatyMac's Avatar
MeatyMac MeatyMac is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: A Banana Republic
Posts: 1,458
iTrader: 74 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CenterX View Post
are all these posts done by a robot software application. to many characters per minute to be a real person in real time.
Wondering the same thing...How do you prove it?
__________________
.

............... <a href=http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic165916_5.gif target=_blank>http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...ic165916_5.gif</a>
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 06-02-2022, 7:43 AM
Ol'Chap's Avatar
Ol'Chap Ol'Chap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: South Orange County
Posts: 140
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

AI perhaps but I doubt it...
__________________

"I've got a firm policy on gun control; If there's a gun around, I want to be the one controlling it." - Clint Eastwood
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 06-03-2022, 1:15 AM
SharedShots SharedShots is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 1,595
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Read this thread carefully. If we know how the shooter got a measly several thousand to buy a Daniel Defense AR and ammo and some other guns, maybe they can find a pattern and prevent these heinous crimes. Maybe we missed something - like where did you get some money to buy your guns since it's about prevention. You know, like common sense gun control. They don't want to ban "assault weapons", the new target is - wait for it - - - - - AR Platforms. Aren't there 9mm ARs? OMG, an AR that is also a 9mm? Yes, that is the new focus, just watch and listen.

The new gun control same as the old gun control. They don't want to take your guns until they do. All they need is just a little more information dontcha know? They don't want to take away guns from hunters right? No, just so long as you're only hunting squirrels with a 22, and make it a CB cap while you're at it; 9mms are for hunting the most dangerous game on earth it's amazing they come with more than a 2 round magazine. Missiles for Ukraine? Screw that, send them 9mms and the war would be over in minutes.

Where did questions like that show up? In the media of course. Look how fast those same questions made the rounds on nearly every gun forum - where did he get the money? Why did he buy a DD AR? Come on guys, as responsible law abiding gun owners don't you want to know the whole story? Don't be afraid to know, it just the whole story right?. Within a day the same questions showed up all over gun forums and in the media too. All that's needed is to prove it wasn't anyone could make more money begging outside of a Costco.

When the time is right and appropriate the proper efforts can be put in place to make sure this never happens again. Read the thread carefully.

Its been said to the effect that the greatest trick the devil ever pulled off was convincing people he didn't exist. Look at the new wave of gun control, they all want to convince people they are really just interested in finding out the whole story so that with understanding maybe some good will come out of it. Don't be afraid they say, it's all about concern, interest and curiosity. It is nothing of the sort. It's how votes get collected and even reasonable people vote for "reasonable gun control". Gun control laws don't get passed by the votes of gun control groups, they get passed by reasonable people being convinced there is more to it than just evil people who are evil because they are. Along the way are the good intentions, paving the road. Need some info - er grease? Here you go.

Mention Chicago and what do you get? Oh, everyone knows why that is happening. Well then, if everyone knows why so many people are being killed in Chicago and yet that can't be stopped how is knowing where this evil scum got money going to stop mass shootings? We know the facts don't we? They've been analyzed haven't they? Wait - what?

In case you haven't been paying attention, hasn't the media now adopted that description, the "AR PLATFORM"? Why yes they have. From local to national media, they are dropping the term "Assault Weapon" and are using the term "AR PLATFORM.

















.

Last edited by SharedShots; 06-03-2022 at 1:17 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 06-03-2022, 4:34 AM
jeremiah12 jeremiah12 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,966
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

He bought the his Daniel Defense rifle directly from Daniel Defense using their buy now and pay later plan. It was sent to his local FFL, Oasis Outback in Uvalde, TX to be transferred legally. I found this information with a quick Google search and wrote about it here:

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...5&postcount=14
__________________
Anyone can look around and see the damage to the state and country inflicted by bad politicians.

A vote is clearly much more dangerous than a gun.

Why advocate restrictions on one right (voting) without comparable restrictions on another (self defense) (or, why not say 'Be a U.S. citizen' as the requirement for CCW)?

--Librarian
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 8:58 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical