You bring up a good point about mass shooters being on a suicide mission. It seems many of these men (and they all seem to be men) are there to prove a point, abet a seriously sick point. There are others in the past who’ve done this. Back during the Vietnam war, monks would set themselves afire to protest the war. The killing was already around them and their statement was poignant. But today, to kill first to prove a point, then commit suicide seems not having to face the consequences so is the cowards way out. The “I’ll show them”attitude,sometimes along with a political/cultural manifesto, is their moment of fame. But it’s actually a moment of shame because in the suicide they’re saying that maybe their actions were not right because they’re not willing to fight for them after the fact. In any case, it’s a very sad state of illness that is affecting the entire country.
They really are the snowflake generations in many ways, sad to say. And now of course, they only want to work four days a week (apparently, we're trying that out) but of course continue to make their full salary, benefits, etc.. I look back and wonder how both my husband and myself worked like maniacs from the time we got work permits (age 16), to during school, to after college was completed, to the time we retired. We moved all over the place, finally bought three houses (sold two), owned numerous cars, got numerous loans (and paid them back), and saved money in the interim. I wonder, how the heck did we do all that and still managed to work five and sometimes six days a week? Amazing!
Definitely without whining OR crying! :) Remember, there's no crying in baseball (A League of Their Own) and for us, no crying in life itself. I mean, we were expected by our parents (the WWII generation) to get out there and work, because they were not about to see us sit on our behinds, playing on our cell phones (which of course didn't exist back then), and do nothing. If we wanted money, we were expected to get out and EARN it. I began earning money by age 12 babysitting, ironing clothes, and cleaning houses. Yes, that was a different day, but still and all. My husband worked at various menial jobs (busboy, custodial, etc.), then in summers between college years, at a welding plant. I think the younger generations have it WAY TOO EASY, and their parents don't expect enough of them! Like I stated, both my and my husband's parents were of the WWII generation, and there was you know what to pay if you didn't try and make something of yourself! It was EXPECTED! And as for buying houses, cars, etc., we did it on our own through blood, sweat and tears.
Huh? My parents (the WWII Generation - the so-called Greatest Generation) raised us - my husband and myself - to work hard, etc.). My generation raised OUR kids to work hard - at least my husband and I raised OUR kids that way. How others raised THEIR kids, we have no control over. I think overall however, the generations that came along in the seventies, eighties, nineties and so on, were often raised to believe (not only from their parents but by society as a whole) that the world owed them a living. It so doesn't. Does EVERY person in the Millennial group and those that came afterward think that? Of course not, but a great many do. Far more than in MY OWN generation. The idea of a four day work week, sitting and working from home (often a metaphor for doing nothing) and a lot of the other things the "Entitlement Generations" seem to live by, are not going to do our country, as a whole, any good. The world owes no one anything. No one.
I think most of us who are Boomers were probably raised the way you and I were. :) Apparently, others here think differently, or that somehow we dropped some ball along the way. My husband and I raised our kids to excel, work hard, and not expect handouts or believe they were entitled to anything! My guess is you did the same.
General Roosevelt inspired the men of the IV (aka Ivy) Division such 2nd LT Bill Chapman whose story is told by his son in Battle-Hardened: An Infantry Officer's Harrowing Journey from D-Day to VE-Day. The blurb that follows from Goodreads explains the book. What impressed me, and, frankly, was new to me, was just what it took to be a company grade leader in the infantry (tactics, stamina, courage etc). There is an incident in the book when Bill Chapman meets General Roosevelt.
Here’s the blurb: Battle-Hardened: An Infantry Officer's Harrowing Journey from D-Day to VE-Day tells the story of an American soldier's growth from a 2nd Lieutenant eager to prove his worth in battle to a skilled and resolute commander over the course of the Northern European Campaign. Craig Chapman delves deep into the personal recollections and mental state of Bill Champman as he fought against the Nazis, enduring frontline combat and witnessing horror on a massive scale. Lieutenant Chapman maintains his sanity by isolating his emotions from the chaos of the battlefield, and the young officer turns into a hard-edged warrior who dispassionately orders men to risk their lives yet still manages to hold onto his humanity.
Good morning, Bill - thank you for sharing Theodore Roosevelt Jr story - I especially enjoyed it and it poses a great counterpoint to this morning's WSJ article about U.S. economic sentiment being at a 35-yr low.
"it completely flips the idea that someone with a gun on the scene is going to deter this." This is a ridiculous statement. The gun on the scene is not to DETER it is to STOP. Are we really arguing that we should just let him continue to kill people because he wants to die?
Hey just curious, and maybe the answer is yes, but: have you ever been under fire and had to return fire? Some people can do it (and even accurately), but in my reading and experience, and I do have a small amount of experience in this, most people don't *truly* know until the moment is upon them how they will react.
Also, the "gun on the scene" is clearly intended both to deter as well as stop. They are not exclusive. But if there were a way to stop these things from happening to begin with wouldn't that be worth exploring?
Yes. No, in that situation, the gun on the scene is meant to stop. And, no, you do not and should not have the right to take away a woman's right to defend herself and her family nor that which makes her capable of doing so.
Bill, I don't mean to be disrespectful. Remove me from the newsletter if you must but, there is evil in the world. Taking a person's means of self-defense away from them is wrong and will never be an acceptable answer.
Didn't the police wait outside in this particular case like we were trained to do prior to Columbine.
FACT: The sooner evil is confronted by a good gal or guy with a gun, the sooner the killing stops.
In Buffalo, the killer was confronted by a retired cop with a gun. The cop shot the killer but he had a protective vest. The killer killed the cop then went inside and killed everyone else. So the cop and his gun were no deterrent.
Thank you for sharing. I admittedly don't have all the details but, while tragic, would you not agree that Aaron Salter, Jr. is a hero and though he couldn't save everyone, he probably did save lives by engaging the evil allowing some to escape?
I love that you posted this. I have been trying to think how to reply to your previous comment ... but let's just say the entire point of this newsletter is to be able to have disagreements even about contentious subjects without killing each other over it. There are not many places left where this is the case. So thank you.
OK, to get specific... I don't think I've *ever* advocated to take away people's right to defend themselves. I mention this because you seem to think otherwise. And that includes concealed carry. I live in suburbans NJ, where it's quite hard to get a concealed carry permit. And since I live here, where there is statistically not a big threat of running into someone else with a gun, I don't want one.
But if I lived in TX or FL? Or especially somewhere very rural in the USA? I won't prejudge ... I dunno what I would do.
This is worth a whole other newsletter at some point, but I also experienced first-hand in Iraq that actually killing someone, even if that were the price of my own life, was a much bigger deal than I had previously envisioned. (To be clear, I was a reporter not a soldier there, but I was in some very remote and unique situations where I was under fire for quite some time and forced to think clearly about what I would do.)
Anyway, that said, every poll I have seen suggests that teachers in the USA do not want to carry. They don't want to be armed. I suspect it would vary geographically but my guess is that even if more teachers in Oklahoma (for ex) want to carry than in NJ, that it would still be a smaller % than the general population.
As for the police in Ulvade — I mean, don't get me stared. Or do, that's OK. It seems like total incompetence and posturing, which led to more kids getting killed.
I have posted elsewhere that it if were my daughter in there and I was armed with nothing but my car keys, I think I would have charged the building and the cops could have shot me in the back if they felt that strongly.
But... even so ... where were the "good guys with the guns" in Ulvade? There was a school resource officer... I don't know what happened to him. There were dozens if not hundreds of cops, all doing whatever. And I wonder about all the parents... I mean, it's rural Texas. Were none of them armed?
I honestly don't know who I'm debating with except a guy maybe named David who apparently subscribes to my newsletter. (Thanks!) But anyway, thanks for posting and being generally a decent guy about it.
Damn, this comment is so long I should have saved it and used it for a newsletter. I'd better go write one.
The incidence of guns being used against strangers is very low. There is a greater possibility of it being used against a partner, most often, a woman”
I have a few other subscriptions to daily emails that either summarize the news or share worth-knowing information (or a combination of both), yours is the only one I read.
60+ years on and I still have my Gerber baby spoon. And I know it's hard to do but buying a house should be a business transaction not an emotional investment. Way too easy to get over your head buying emotionally. The war in Ukraine was a 30 day sound bite. People's attention span is too short these days to keep the focus longer term..
I didn’t know this about Gen. Theodore Roosevelt. Thank you for this reminder of today being June 6, D-Day. Will put our flags out front to commemorate it.
As an aside, I took the time to read all of the links of today’s other 7 topics.
I appreciate them all … !!
One wonders if people who cry during the process of trying to buy a house - whether they might feel entitled to get what they want, when they want, and how they want it (?) Then again, they say it’s healthy to release pent up emotions…
I enjoyed reading about the 83 yr. old gentleman who sailed across the Pacific… it gives me both encouragement and incentive to maintain my mental and physical health!!
If buying a house is making you cry, this isn't the house you should be buying. Your agent, who is NOT your "friend", is most likely trying to sell you something that you really can't afford at all. Remember, the agent works for a commission. Of course they're going to upsell.
Beware any agent, car salesperson, etc who merely asks how much money do you make and then says this is what you can afford. Yeah, I can " afford " the house if I eat nothing but baloney sammiches for the duration of the loan. And drive a paid for, 10 year old car for the next 10 years.
These dolts pick their targets precisely because they know everyone there is unarmed. They would go elsewhere if it was common knowledge that there were people there who were not only armed, but who shoot to kill, no questions asked.
Put armed teachers, coaches, councilors, etc in my kiddos school. Then we can stop these bullshit fetal position drills that teach kids to just give up the second something bad might happen to them.
Respectfully, I couldn't disagree more. well I do agree they're dolts. I'm not a teacher or a coach, etc but if I was, I would likely retire or never join the profession if it was required that I have to be armed to do my job to be involved with children. I didn't sign up to be in the military or police depts. We shouldn't be pushing down these tactics to our civilian population.
I am neither emotional or a lefty. You would have no way of knowing.
This used to be a good place to have an open, respectful discussion. Now all of a sudden today it has turned into a juvenile cat fight fight with you and Cunningham leading the charge. I’m not takin’ the bait so have fun.
“Whoever is trying to bring you down is already below you.”
Why, why, WHY is it all or nothing with no gun...people? You don't wanna shoot, don't. Nobody is making you carry the gun, it's voluntary. Or don't you read the entire article?
Remember, there is a name for unarmed people in an armed conflict. Targets.
I bet if you had a handgun and came after me in a grocery store I could evade you. If you came at me with an AR-15 you would likely accidentally hit me.
Yikes, why not just make a firearm a part of back to school shopping? Okay kiddos, got your folders, your notebooks, your pens and pencils, and oh yes, most importantly your firearm, cuz we don't want you to be a target.
Yes, dripping with sarcasm, cuz that's your all or nothing stance in reverse.
Say I’m a police officer responding to a school shooting. I arrive and find several people with weapons. How in the hell do I determine who is there is already complete chaos.
How do these teachers, counselors and coaches learn appropriate shooting skills, much less deal with that kind of situation? Law enforcement spends years training and they can get it wrong. I want teachers that teach, not shoot.
What about collateral victims? With all these armed teachers, counselors and coaches running around, how do they decide whom to shoot? Each other because they are holding a weapon?
If the shooters arrive with an AR-15 should the teachers then start packing AR-15s themselves just to be appropriately armed?
Arming anyone in a school is the very definition of insanity.
Hey Lefty, this has been your side's emotional response to what would happen as concealed carry laws were passed throughout the country. Hasn't happened like you've claimed it would. And, although, mistakes could be made... how is it even possible that you wouldn't have wanted a good guy or gal on scene quicker than the police were willing to respond?
On several occasions there have been folks with guns firing back. I believe in one of the mass shootings there were so many shots fired that the police had a hell of a time determining who was firing at whom. Darrell has a point. Law enforcement should know how to determine this. Not someone who had a short course in handling a gun.
Ninah, please link to the active shooter situations you referenced. I heard once from the neighbor of my best friend's 3rd cousin twice- removed is not acceptable when claiming it is okay to take a woman's means of self-defense away from her. Thank you
Where was it mentioned (except by you) that taking away a gun was an option? I’ll track down the article on one of the mass shootings at the hotel where this happened.
It was the Las Vegas shooting during a country music festival 2017. Many of the articles that mentioned the investigation are no longer available. I posted them on FB at the time. But I’m sure you’ll agree that there were plenty of folks attending the festival with handguns.
A different perspective on shooters. Most folks don't need semi-auto weapons, but that's a whole other issue. The kids (and sometimes adults) in rural areas are in a different mindset than the urbanites. Rural folk rely on guns. To hunt, for protection; it can be 30+ minutes between a call for help and it's arrival, for protection from wildlife; many rural areas have many critters that can do a lot of harm and you don't want to try to go against them with a stick or something. Many have three or four generations living under a roof or other extended family. The kids who are having these mental health issues are aware that if they seek help, under current red flag laws, the entire household's guns would be confiscated. Leaving the entire family without protection and without means to hunt. They don't want to/ they won't put their entire family at risk because of their problem. They do, many of them, have some sense of responsibility to others. Unfortunately, the way things are as of now, sometimes some of them feel like they're backed into a corner (and they kind of are). They're often too young to figure out a way out, so they go along until they literally snap. Until this glitch is fixed, I'm sure you'll continue to see the things we're seeing much too much of.
No, I don't believe any civilian "needs" any type of semi automatic weapon. A regular old rifle, shotgun, or even a pistol will handle critters, and provide adequate protection from troublemakers. As to the "glitch": as stated firearms are a part of rural life. As the laws stand now, the background checks are not going to work for people who don't have a record, as many of these mass shooters don't have a record before they do this. As to the red flag laws, not so sure that's really the way to go. This is why---if a person is having a mental health crisis, and they live with family and even extended family, they are unlikely to reach out for help, because they and their family may not be able to afford it, and many insurance don't cover mental health. The other reason, and maybe more involved is that they know if they are "flagged" the whole family may lose their firearms. That would be devastating to a rural family. These youngsters don't want to be the cause of their family having no protection, and not being able to hunt and put food on the table. So, in one sense, they're shouldering responsibility of a large part. And they're too young and not prepared to handle that type of stress. So they go til they snap. I'm not sure what all the answers are. Probably different laws for urban and rural. And, idk what age you are, but it used to be that disagreements were settled with words, or possibly fists, not just reaching for a gun. It's a very sad thing that people have forgotten how to behave in a civilized manner. After the past few years, as people are re-entering being in crowds, ...... sadly, I think this is going to be a very awful summer and autumn.
I don’t think many rural people hunt and live a subsistence lifestyle unless they are living in Alaska or places like that vying for a place on a reality TV show.
Statistically, assault rifles are involved in a vast majority of the situations. Most are perpetrated by white males 18-26. Most of these statistically (just read a great study in the WaPo) are looking for a way out by suicide, so more guns in schools and other places are just what they are looking g for, and not victims.
So, ban assault rifles or at least place a minimum age restriction such as 25 or older, spend more on suicide prevention, limit magazines to 20 rounds and expand background checks and add licensing, trading and testing as we do for automobiles.
You're right, on statistics. And double right that more guns aren't the way to go.
Totally agree on banning assault weapons, spend more on mental health and I've written to lawmakers numerous times about the licensing, training, and testing as we have for automobiles. Possibly going one step further, requiring psychiatric testing before licensing for a weapon.
Speaking for myself, and where I live. This is rural. Nearest neighbor is 5 miles away in any direction. If you call 911 (if there's cell service) it's 30 + minutes before they'd get out here. We're not subsistence lifestyle, but we do garden, and definitely hunt and fish. It helps stretch the grocery budget. There's lots of game. Deer, hogs, turkey, etc.
There are also 5 - 7 types of venomous snakes around here. And we have had a rattlesnake get in the house. There are also coyotes, bobcats, and panthers that we've seen within a few miles. Neighbors have taken gators and one has video of a small black bear in their back yard.
The woods are full of feral hogs, they get to about 200 to 300 pounds when full grown and they can be very aggressive.
I realize our life is far outside the norm for the country. Most folks live urban, or suburban, and everything is different. Maybe make the bulk of the laws for the bulk of the people and their lifestyles. With certain exceptions for the rural folks.
I guarantee if your child was playing outside and became threatened by a coyote or a venomous snake or whatever, you'd be understanding why firearms are a necessary part of life out here.
Indeed, we have more in common than you might think.
To be clear, I am not against hunting and target practice weapons. I used to do both. Honestly, I more enjoyed sitting in a tree watching nature unfold, but I digress.
I learned years ago to have the right tool for the job. A deer rifle, a shotgun and a 10 shot pistol are plenty and I suspect work quite nicely for you in your situation. I still have the 22 single shot rifle my grandfather taught me to shoot in 1965.
Funny story…my brother-in-law still has part of his grandparent’s old farm in middle GA. He saw alligators there at the creek this year for the first time ever and he is 72 and messed around there as a kid. They are all living off of the feral hogs that took over the property a few years ago.
You bring up a good point about mass shooters being on a suicide mission. It seems many of these men (and they all seem to be men) are there to prove a point, abet a seriously sick point. There are others in the past who’ve done this. Back during the Vietnam war, monks would set themselves afire to protest the war. The killing was already around them and their statement was poignant. But today, to kill first to prove a point, then commit suicide seems not having to face the consequences so is the cowards way out. The “I’ll show them”attitude,sometimes along with a political/cultural manifesto, is their moment of fame. But it’s actually a moment of shame because in the suicide they’re saying that maybe their actions were not right because they’re not willing to fight for them after the fact. In any case, it’s a very sad state of illness that is affecting the entire country.
Awwww, if the process of buying a house makes you cry, how in the heck are you going to maintain one?
Pleez.
Remember, these are the snowflake generations!
Yes, I am aware of that, who knows how many will get their college loans forgiven...
They really are the snowflake generations in many ways, sad to say. And now of course, they only want to work four days a week (apparently, we're trying that out) but of course continue to make their full salary, benefits, etc.. I look back and wonder how both my husband and myself worked like maniacs from the time we got work permits (age 16), to during school, to after college was completed, to the time we retired. We moved all over the place, finally bought three houses (sold two), owned numerous cars, got numerous loans (and paid them back), and saved money in the interim. I wonder, how the heck did we do all that and still managed to work five and sometimes six days a week? Amazing!
and without crying?:)
Definitely without whining OR crying! :) Remember, there's no crying in baseball (A League of Their Own) and for us, no crying in life itself. I mean, we were expected by our parents (the WWII generation) to get out there and work, because they were not about to see us sit on our behinds, playing on our cell phones (which of course didn't exist back then), and do nothing. If we wanted money, we were expected to get out and EARN it. I began earning money by age 12 babysitting, ironing clothes, and cleaning houses. Yes, that was a different day, but still and all. My husband worked at various menial jobs (busboy, custodial, etc.), then in summers between college years, at a welding plant. I think the younger generations have it WAY TOO EASY, and their parents don't expect enough of them! Like I stated, both my and my husband's parents were of the WWII generation, and there was you know what to pay if you didn't try and make something of yourself! It was EXPECTED! And as for buying houses, cars, etc., we did it on our own through blood, sweat and tears.
So, who dropped the parenting ball? Your generation or the kids you raised?
Huh? My parents (the WWII Generation - the so-called Greatest Generation) raised us - my husband and myself - to work hard, etc.). My generation raised OUR kids to work hard - at least my husband and I raised OUR kids that way. How others raised THEIR kids, we have no control over. I think overall however, the generations that came along in the seventies, eighties, nineties and so on, were often raised to believe (not only from their parents but by society as a whole) that the world owed them a living. It so doesn't. Does EVERY person in the Millennial group and those that came afterward think that? Of course not, but a great many do. Far more than in MY OWN generation. The idea of a four day work week, sitting and working from home (often a metaphor for doing nothing) and a lot of the other things the "Entitlement Generations" seem to live by, are not going to do our country, as a whole, any good. The world owes no one anything. No one.
Exactly..raised the same way.
I think most of us who are Boomers were probably raised the way you and I were. :) Apparently, others here think differently, or that somehow we dropped some ball along the way. My husband and I raised our kids to excel, work hard, and not expect handouts or believe they were entitled to anything! My guess is you did the same.
General Roosevelt inspired the men of the IV (aka Ivy) Division such 2nd LT Bill Chapman whose story is told by his son in Battle-Hardened: An Infantry Officer's Harrowing Journey from D-Day to VE-Day. The blurb that follows from Goodreads explains the book. What impressed me, and, frankly, was new to me, was just what it took to be a company grade leader in the infantry (tactics, stamina, courage etc). There is an incident in the book when Bill Chapman meets General Roosevelt.
Here’s the blurb: Battle-Hardened: An Infantry Officer's Harrowing Journey from D-Day to VE-Day tells the story of an American soldier's growth from a 2nd Lieutenant eager to prove his worth in battle to a skilled and resolute commander over the course of the Northern European Campaign. Craig Chapman delves deep into the personal recollections and mental state of Bill Champman as he fought against the Nazis, enduring frontline combat and witnessing horror on a massive scale. Lieutenant Chapman maintains his sanity by isolating his emotions from the chaos of the battlefield, and the young officer turns into a hard-edged warrior who dispassionately orders men to risk their lives yet still manages to hold onto his humanity.
Here’s link to Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34557858-battle-hardened
I loved it
Thanks
https://knu.edu.iq/
Thanks for this link, I did not know about Knowledge University before but now I am very interested. Are you affiliated?
Good morning, Bill - thank you for sharing Theodore Roosevelt Jr story - I especially enjoyed it and it poses a great counterpoint to this morning's WSJ article about U.S. economic sentiment being at a 35-yr low.
"it completely flips the idea that someone with a gun on the scene is going to deter this." This is a ridiculous statement. The gun on the scene is not to DETER it is to STOP. Are we really arguing that we should just let him continue to kill people because he wants to die?
Hey just curious, and maybe the answer is yes, but: have you ever been under fire and had to return fire? Some people can do it (and even accurately), but in my reading and experience, and I do have a small amount of experience in this, most people don't *truly* know until the moment is upon them how they will react.
Also, the "gun on the scene" is clearly intended both to deter as well as stop. They are not exclusive. But if there were a way to stop these things from happening to begin with wouldn't that be worth exploring?
Yes. No, in that situation, the gun on the scene is meant to stop. And, no, you do not and should not have the right to take away a woman's right to defend herself and her family nor that which makes her capable of doing so.
See above, but I don't know where I've advocated for taking away a right to self-defense.
Fair enough. I apologize. Just so used to that being the immediate want by one side when pure evil acts.
Bill, I don't mean to be disrespectful. Remove me from the newsletter if you must but, there is evil in the world. Taking a person's means of self-defense away from them is wrong and will never be an acceptable answer.
Didn't the police wait outside in this particular case like we were trained to do prior to Columbine.
FACT: The sooner evil is confronted by a good gal or guy with a gun, the sooner the killing stops.
In Buffalo, the killer was confronted by a retired cop with a gun. The cop shot the killer but he had a protective vest. The killer killed the cop then went inside and killed everyone else. So the cop and his gun were no deterrent.
Thank you for sharing. I admittedly don't have all the details but, while tragic, would you not agree that Aaron Salter, Jr. is a hero and though he couldn't save everyone, he probably did save lives by engaging the evil allowing some to escape?
I love that you posted this. I have been trying to think how to reply to your previous comment ... but let's just say the entire point of this newsletter is to be able to have disagreements even about contentious subjects without killing each other over it. There are not many places left where this is the case. So thank you.
OK, to get specific... I don't think I've *ever* advocated to take away people's right to defend themselves. I mention this because you seem to think otherwise. And that includes concealed carry. I live in suburbans NJ, where it's quite hard to get a concealed carry permit. And since I live here, where there is statistically not a big threat of running into someone else with a gun, I don't want one.
But if I lived in TX or FL? Or especially somewhere very rural in the USA? I won't prejudge ... I dunno what I would do.
This is worth a whole other newsletter at some point, but I also experienced first-hand in Iraq that actually killing someone, even if that were the price of my own life, was a much bigger deal than I had previously envisioned. (To be clear, I was a reporter not a soldier there, but I was in some very remote and unique situations where I was under fire for quite some time and forced to think clearly about what I would do.)
Anyway, that said, every poll I have seen suggests that teachers in the USA do not want to carry. They don't want to be armed. I suspect it would vary geographically but my guess is that even if more teachers in Oklahoma (for ex) want to carry than in NJ, that it would still be a smaller % than the general population.
As for the police in Ulvade — I mean, don't get me stared. Or do, that's OK. It seems like total incompetence and posturing, which led to more kids getting killed.
I have posted elsewhere that it if were my daughter in there and I was armed with nothing but my car keys, I think I would have charged the building and the cops could have shot me in the back if they felt that strongly.
But... even so ... where were the "good guys with the guns" in Ulvade? There was a school resource officer... I don't know what happened to him. There were dozens if not hundreds of cops, all doing whatever. And I wonder about all the parents... I mean, it's rural Texas. Were none of them armed?
I honestly don't know who I'm debating with except a guy maybe named David who apparently subscribes to my newsletter. (Thanks!) But anyway, thanks for posting and being generally a decent guy about it.
Damn, this comment is so long I should have saved it and used it for a newsletter. I'd better go write one.
Thanks Bill. Appreciate the reasoned reply. I'll get back to you on this.
Bill, Here’s an article that might be useful.
https://www.upworthy.com/military-general-explains-ar15-weapon-of-war?rebelltitem=5#rebelltitem5
Here’s another
“Hand guns kill more at home, esp women.
The incidence of guns being used against strangers is very low. There is a greater possibility of it being used against a partner, most often, a woman”
https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-home/?fbclid=IwAR2Gf7PV8_94aSDo1wje9c4guGef7oUyP_XJEgWn-13c6II6mpdaPIwWT6Q&fs=e&s=cl
Nicely said…as usual.
Thanks for another good email.
I have a few other subscriptions to daily emails that either summarize the news or share worth-knowing information (or a combination of both), yours is the only one I read.
Same here, Ivonne ;-)
I am reminded of a Will Rogers comment. "Good judgement comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgement."
60+ years on and I still have my Gerber baby spoon. And I know it's hard to do but buying a house should be a business transaction not an emotional investment. Way too easy to get over your head buying emotionally. The war in Ukraine was a 30 day sound bite. People's attention span is too short these days to keep the focus longer term..
I didn’t know this about Gen. Theodore Roosevelt. Thank you for this reminder of today being June 6, D-Day. Will put our flags out front to commemorate it.
As an aside, I took the time to read all of the links of today’s other 7 topics.
I appreciate them all … !!
One wonders if people who cry during the process of trying to buy a house - whether they might feel entitled to get what they want, when they want, and how they want it (?) Then again, they say it’s healthy to release pent up emotions…
I enjoyed reading about the 83 yr. old gentleman who sailed across the Pacific… it gives me both encouragement and incentive to maintain my mental and physical health!!
Buying a home:
If buying a house is making you cry, this isn't the house you should be buying. Your agent, who is NOT your "friend", is most likely trying to sell you something that you really can't afford at all. Remember, the agent works for a commission. Of course they're going to upsell.
Beware any agent, car salesperson, etc who merely asks how much money do you make and then says this is what you can afford. Yeah, I can " afford " the house if I eat nothing but baloney sammiches for the duration of the loan. And drive a paid for, 10 year old car for the next 10 years.
Mass shooters:
These dolts pick their targets precisely because they know everyone there is unarmed. They would go elsewhere if it was common knowledge that there were people there who were not only armed, but who shoot to kill, no questions asked.
Put armed teachers, coaches, councilors, etc in my kiddos school. Then we can stop these bullshit fetal position drills that teach kids to just give up the second something bad might happen to them.
Respectfully, I couldn't disagree more. well I do agree they're dolts. I'm not a teacher or a coach, etc but if I was, I would likely retire or never join the profession if it was required that I have to be armed to do my job to be involved with children. I didn't sign up to be in the military or police depts. We shouldn't be pushing down these tactics to our civilian population.
You're welcome.
No one said anything about REQUIRING you to be armed.
Exactly!
Then what the hell are you saying? Make up your mind, because what you are describing is pure chaos.
Is this an emotional response to my logical comment or is this to Mickey? Because nothing I said described pure chaos.
I am neither emotional or a lefty. You would have no way of knowing.
This used to be a good place to have an open, respectful discussion. Now all of a sudden today it has turned into a juvenile cat fight fight with you and Cunningham leading the charge. I’m not takin’ the bait so have fun.
“Whoever is trying to bring you down is already below you.”
— Maya Gregory, 8th grade student
"Then what the hell are you saying? Make up your mind, because what you are describing is pure chaos." -- Darrell
Why, why, WHY is it all or nothing with no gun...people? You don't wanna shoot, don't. Nobody is making you carry the gun, it's voluntary. Or don't you read the entire article?
Remember, there is a name for unarmed people in an armed conflict. Targets.
Just sayin'...
I bet if you had a handgun and came after me in a grocery store I could evade you. If you came at me with an AR-15 you would likely accidentally hit me.
Yikes, why not just make a firearm a part of back to school shopping? Okay kiddos, got your folders, your notebooks, your pens and pencils, and oh yes, most importantly your firearm, cuz we don't want you to be a target.
Yes, dripping with sarcasm, cuz that's your all or nothing stance in reverse.
Say I’m a police officer responding to a school shooting. I arrive and find several people with weapons. How in the hell do I determine who is there is already complete chaos.
How do these teachers, counselors and coaches learn appropriate shooting skills, much less deal with that kind of situation? Law enforcement spends years training and they can get it wrong. I want teachers that teach, not shoot.
What about collateral victims? With all these armed teachers, counselors and coaches running around, how do they decide whom to shoot? Each other because they are holding a weapon?
If the shooters arrive with an AR-15 should the teachers then start packing AR-15s themselves just to be appropriately armed?
Arming anyone in a school is the very definition of insanity.
Hey Lefty, this has been your side's emotional response to what would happen as concealed carry laws were passed throughout the country. Hasn't happened like you've claimed it would. And, although, mistakes could be made... how is it even possible that you wouldn't have wanted a good guy or gal on scene quicker than the police were willing to respond?
On several occasions there have been folks with guns firing back. I believe in one of the mass shootings there were so many shots fired that the police had a hell of a time determining who was firing at whom. Darrell has a point. Law enforcement should know how to determine this. Not someone who had a short course in handling a gun.
https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-home/?fs=e&s=cl&fbclid=IwAR2tm21bc5S-xXALp_3n3HAYu33cT-P7Qh9sPY6C_Z3zOFVunKlQ-kOnD84&fs=e&s=cl
Ninah, please link to the active shooter situations you referenced. I heard once from the neighbor of my best friend's 3rd cousin twice- removed is not acceptable when claiming it is okay to take a woman's means of self-defense away from her. Thank you
Where was it mentioned (except by you) that taking away a gun was an option? I’ll track down the article on one of the mass shootings at the hotel where this happened.
It was the Las Vegas shooting during a country music festival 2017. Many of the articles that mentioned the investigation are no longer available. I posted them on FB at the time. But I’m sure you’ll agree that there were plenty of folks attending the festival with handguns.
Oh my, now I know why I subscribed to Understandably's newsletter. <3
Half of Americans cry at least once...is the original headline, but Home buying is so traumatic is the one sited in the 7 other things link...
I wonder what the actual question was?
Did you cry for any reason during the home buying process?
Well, yes, my dog died.
Always more behind the story...and on that note, thanks for another story about a Roosevelt I'd never heard, Bill.
I wonder what it took for him to be allowed to go in the first wave...I guess it could've been being related to the president. :)
What a beautiful and inspiring quote by General Roosevelt! Thank you for the advice to, “Fight where you’re at.”
A different perspective on shooters. Most folks don't need semi-auto weapons, but that's a whole other issue. The kids (and sometimes adults) in rural areas are in a different mindset than the urbanites. Rural folk rely on guns. To hunt, for protection; it can be 30+ minutes between a call for help and it's arrival, for protection from wildlife; many rural areas have many critters that can do a lot of harm and you don't want to try to go against them with a stick or something. Many have three or four generations living under a roof or other extended family. The kids who are having these mental health issues are aware that if they seek help, under current red flag laws, the entire household's guns would be confiscated. Leaving the entire family without protection and without means to hunt. They don't want to/ they won't put their entire family at risk because of their problem. They do, many of them, have some sense of responsibility to others. Unfortunately, the way things are as of now, sometimes some of them feel like they're backed into a corner (and they kind of are). They're often too young to figure out a way out, so they go along until they literally snap. Until this glitch is fixed, I'm sure you'll continue to see the things we're seeing much too much of.
You describe a pretty big “glitch.” What are your suggestions? And do these country folk need AR-15s to shoot the critters?
No, I don't believe any civilian "needs" any type of semi automatic weapon. A regular old rifle, shotgun, or even a pistol will handle critters, and provide adequate protection from troublemakers. As to the "glitch": as stated firearms are a part of rural life. As the laws stand now, the background checks are not going to work for people who don't have a record, as many of these mass shooters don't have a record before they do this. As to the red flag laws, not so sure that's really the way to go. This is why---if a person is having a mental health crisis, and they live with family and even extended family, they are unlikely to reach out for help, because they and their family may not be able to afford it, and many insurance don't cover mental health. The other reason, and maybe more involved is that they know if they are "flagged" the whole family may lose their firearms. That would be devastating to a rural family. These youngsters don't want to be the cause of their family having no protection, and not being able to hunt and put food on the table. So, in one sense, they're shouldering responsibility of a large part. And they're too young and not prepared to handle that type of stress. So they go til they snap. I'm not sure what all the answers are. Probably different laws for urban and rural. And, idk what age you are, but it used to be that disagreements were settled with words, or possibly fists, not just reaching for a gun. It's a very sad thing that people have forgotten how to behave in a civilized manner. After the past few years, as people are re-entering being in crowds, ...... sadly, I think this is going to be a very awful summer and autumn.
I agree with much of what you said.
I don’t think many rural people hunt and live a subsistence lifestyle unless they are living in Alaska or places like that vying for a place on a reality TV show.
Statistically, assault rifles are involved in a vast majority of the situations. Most are perpetrated by white males 18-26. Most of these statistically (just read a great study in the WaPo) are looking for a way out by suicide, so more guns in schools and other places are just what they are looking g for, and not victims.
So, ban assault rifles or at least place a minimum age restriction such as 25 or older, spend more on suicide prevention, limit magazines to 20 rounds and expand background checks and add licensing, trading and testing as we do for automobiles.
Apologies, meant to say limit magazines to 10 rounds.
….add licensing, training* and testing.
I wish we could edit posts after submitting 😤
We have a lot of common ground.
You're right, on statistics. And double right that more guns aren't the way to go.
Totally agree on banning assault weapons, spend more on mental health and I've written to lawmakers numerous times about the licensing, training, and testing as we have for automobiles. Possibly going one step further, requiring psychiatric testing before licensing for a weapon.
Speaking for myself, and where I live. This is rural. Nearest neighbor is 5 miles away in any direction. If you call 911 (if there's cell service) it's 30 + minutes before they'd get out here. We're not subsistence lifestyle, but we do garden, and definitely hunt and fish. It helps stretch the grocery budget. There's lots of game. Deer, hogs, turkey, etc.
There are also 5 - 7 types of venomous snakes around here. And we have had a rattlesnake get in the house. There are also coyotes, bobcats, and panthers that we've seen within a few miles. Neighbors have taken gators and one has video of a small black bear in their back yard.
The woods are full of feral hogs, they get to about 200 to 300 pounds when full grown and they can be very aggressive.
I realize our life is far outside the norm for the country. Most folks live urban, or suburban, and everything is different. Maybe make the bulk of the laws for the bulk of the people and their lifestyles. With certain exceptions for the rural folks.
I guarantee if your child was playing outside and became threatened by a coyote or a venomous snake or whatever, you'd be understanding why firearms are a necessary part of life out here.
Indeed, we have more in common than you might think.
To be clear, I am not against hunting and target practice weapons. I used to do both. Honestly, I more enjoyed sitting in a tree watching nature unfold, but I digress.
I learned years ago to have the right tool for the job. A deer rifle, a shotgun and a 10 shot pistol are plenty and I suspect work quite nicely for you in your situation. I still have the 22 single shot rifle my grandfather taught me to shoot in 1965.
Funny story…my brother-in-law still has part of his grandparent’s old farm in middle GA. He saw alligators there at the creek this year for the first time ever and he is 72 and messed around there as a kid. They are all living off of the feral hogs that took over the property a few years ago.