I thought I was hearing a joke in an offhand moment when I first heard him speak. Then I realized it was a press conference about the shooting. Who thought that statement was a good idea?

New York Post

Biden makes ice cream joke in first statement since Nashville shooting

The 80-year-old president told an audience he "came down because I heard there was chocolate chip ice cream."

Read more from New York Post

A more important question maybe to ask, here's a school shooter with legal guns, isn't the legal purchase of guns and acting like a responsible gun owner (because if you buy guns legally I guess that qualifies) if that isn't enough to stop this kind of thing from happening, then what do you do? Juat accept that nine year olds will occasionally die? Wonderful logic. 

Second question, female shooters are very rare are they not? Obviously we haven't read the manifesto but are there different motivations with a woman as opposed to the majority of male shooters who are all loners and complete losers.

I thought the same thing when I heard it was a woman. That is so rare we never hear about it. Then they said the woman is transgender.  So is the shooter a woman or someone who was born a biological male and now identifies as a woman?

The shooter had two other targets picked out but the schools had security, so this school was chosen. It was a soft target.  It’s a given that not all gun ownership results in deadly violence, in fact most does not. So why aren’t schools protected?

Showtalk said:

That is so rare we never hear about it.

Has there ever been a case before? I can't think of one. 

Showtalk said:

Then they said the woman is transgender.  So is the shooter a woman or someone who was born a biological male and now identifies as a woman?

How wonderful for your side, imagine the hay they will make of this.

Showtalk said:

It was a soft target.

Any human casualties are a soft target. 

Showtalk said:

 It’s a given that not all gun ownership results in deadly violence, in fact most does not.

Except everything we hear is that responsible gun owners would NEVER do this, which is clearly not true in the slightest. Great, some people obey the law, but others don't, the solution seems simple to me.

Showtalk said:

So why aren’t schools protected?

Ask the morons in Uvalde.

Soft target isn’t referring to people. It’s referring to accessibility to a venue for criminals to attack. A hard target would be a school with security. Gun free zones are soft targets.

My “side “ whatever that means, is not in favor of violence of any type and will not cheer in this case. They was a Christian school attacked which should be considered a hate crime.  You notice if you check, the left won’t refer to gender on their own but they’ve had to report the facts since the police spokesperson did.

We agree about Uvalde.

Showtalk said:

Soft target isn’t referring to people. It’s referring to accessibility to a venue for criminals to attack.

It's actually a combination of all three, after I googled it.

Showtalk said:

My “side “ whatever that means, is not in favor of violence of any type and will not cheer in this case.

But yet your side won't do anything to prevent it from happening again.

Showtalk said:

You notice if you check, the left won’t refer to gender on their own but they’ve had to report the facts since the police spokesperson did.

NBC had that hours ago, so I don't think that's correct, and if it's the first they heard of it from the police...same difference no? I don't see how it has any relevance until we see a motive, now the police do have the manifesto which may very well draw and inescapable link but so far that is unknown to us.

Showtalk said:

We agree about Uvalde.

So, where do we go from here? Obviously more people with guns against the bad guys with guns simply isn't working.

I'm with you. The vast majority of legal gun owners never use their guns illegally. Taking their guns away will not stop such violence. A person determined to commit mass murder will find a way to do so guns or no guns.

This school had no armed security on campus. The local LE, however, immediately responded and ran toward the gunfire, unlike in Uvalde. They encountered the shooter and quickly engaged.  The shooter was killed, which in my book is a good thing.

don5328 said:

. Taking their guns away will not stop such violence. A person determined to commit mass murder will find a way to do so guns or no guns.

But it would take away the easiest method of committing mass murder, people can dodge a car and being hit by one is no guarantee it will kill you, bombs...well, you need some technical know how and you need to be able to place it where will people will be without anyone finding it. There's a reason why we have mass shootings instead of mass caricides or mass bombicides...you see what I'm saying?

don5328 said:

This school had no armed security on campus

Having it doesn't mean anything, see Uvalde. 

don5328 said:

The local LE, however, immediately responded and ran toward the gunfire, unlike in Uvalde.

This time.

don5328 said:

The shooter was killed, which in my book is a good thing.

'Murica! What an awesome country, where a good thing is we killed a shooter...but only after three nine year olds were killed and instead of finding solutions to ensure that never happens again, we're just closing the books on the shooter being dead, such a good thing. Well done boys, let's grab  a brewski and celebrate. 

The_Rock (JABRONI256) said...

A more important question maybe to ask, here's a school shooter with legal guns, isn't the legal purchase of guns and acting like a responsible gun owner (because if you buy guns legally I guess that qualifies) if that isn't enough to stop this kind of thing from happening, then what do you do?

<sarcasm on>You ban all guns and make them illegal... it worked with drugs didn't it?<\sarcasm off>

FWIW