Suspicious Circumstances at SBUSD Office

BASIC - hmmm interesting.... so they allowed a man with no pants to wander into the building because they're soft on "big crime?" What "big crime" is this again?

My bad, I meant to say crime.

Oh gotcha! So....... no crazies with no pants in red states then?

Bet you're one of those who think attacking police officers while storming the Capitol was no big deal, huh. You might want to rethink your stance on who the soft-on-big-crimes ones really are. Also think about who's enabling the most horrific big crime of all - slaughtering children in schools.

Deflecting the causes and solutions of issues in our state with "but what about red states" doesn't have the effect you think it does. Also, isn't that your favorite type of fallacy... whataboutsim?

You really don't understand "deflection," do you?

Here you go though..... OK, so liberals may be more lax on crimes, but mental illness is different. Further, it's not ONLY blue states who have crime so blaming all criminal activity in general on liberal leaders is really misplaced unless you can also show that there are no crimes in red states. Can you show that? Can you show that there are no people with mental illness in red states? If you can't then it kind of invalidates your point that this specific incident was caused by liberal leaders.

There. A long winded, yet completely same way of saying "no crazies with no pants in red states then?"

Ooga booga, Newsome make big crime, big border need big wall for make Amrica unga bunga again.

I’ll respond by saying that Santa Barbara has a massive problem for it’s size. And there’s a reason.

That’s hilarious chillin. You’ve got a way with words my friend. Scored a couple votes too I see.

Big orange man tough on crime, more guns make boom boom against bad guys with guns. Hunter laptop dooga dooga.

Arguing using logic is pointless, SACJON. Actually, pretty much anything in the way of argument is pointless these days. People (on all sides) just get more hardened in their positions. Sad times.

Second in line are the police who stood around when they could hear the kids crying for help. The wounded teachers comments are just awful.

Why would anyone blame Lozano? She hasn't worked in months.

I think 4:39PM said the cops took his pants... so maybe not?

BICYCLIST - I think voice said the Trumpers took them, whatever that means. My comment about the permit was a little (no pun intended as I wasn't there) joke about something being in the open....

Bottom line, far better he walked in a school district office without pants on than carrying an assault weapon. So your finger pointing at politicians on the left being "cool with crime" was laughable in the face of the horrific crimes the right enables.

Please tell us how the right enabled an 18 year old to grow up without a father figure, in social isolation with few or no friends, living at his grandmothers house with a strung-out mom the grandparent just kicked out of the house.

VOICE - "Please tell us how the right enabled an 18 year old to grow up without a father figure, in social isolation with few or no friends, living at his grandmothers house with a strung-out mom the grandparent just kicked out of the house." ----- Why? None of that matters. Had he not had a LEGALLY purchased AR-15 or any other gun, he wouldn't have been able to kill that many people while holding off police that were too frightened to storm the classroom.

Sacjon is right, Voice - Republicans enable these shooters by refusing to ban assault weapons, or at least to restrict them, that's how! They claim mental illness is the cause, yet are against background checks. They claim shooters would get the guns illegally anyways - so why don't they, then? Because it's easier to just buy them from the local gun shop! This kid waited until he could buy them legally, didn't he! As soon as he turned 18 he bought them when it was legal for him. Republicans claims Second Amendment rights, yet the Second Amendment clearly states "Well Regulated", which Republicans refuse to do, while completely ignoring our Right to Life! Are you kidding with asking how they're enabling these horrific incidents of slaughter?!! And don't even start with the ridiculous arguments about a gun "doesn't pull it's own trigger" when you refuse to implement reasonable background checks or restrictions on who can pull that trigger. Or the one about "automobiles kill more people", when automobiles serve a far more important function than killing people - unlike assault weapons whose only purpose is to kill numerous people in less than a minute. It's time to ban these horrific weapons that have no business in the hands of common citizens who are not affiliated with a well regulated legal militia such as the National Guard.

Sacjon and Lina, if you think "none of that matters" (my comment at 8:55) you will forever be putting band-aids on some of our society's worst issues and never make meaningful progress towards stopping them. Lina, not enough space to put together a repose to that but it's a lot of emotion and media/politician one-liners that doesn't accurately reflect the detail or nuance required to properly discuss the issue. For example, can you define what is an 'assault weapon'? , many would say protection is a purpose separate from 'killing people', and you added 'legal' where there is none in the 2A's "well regulated militia".

VOICE - I'm saying none of that matters here as in, you are deliberately avoiding the ONE, SINGLE element of this tragedy that could have easily been altered - the purchase of a gun capable of killing masses within seconds and that is too frightening for even an entire police team to engage with. To say we need to focus the gun problem is not to ignore mental health concerns. Again, you refuse to accept that people are capable of doing two things at once.

I also think many don't realize how close we are to potentially needing this kind of protection. During the riots of 2021 there were large swaths of major cities where the police could not / would not come if you called 911, particularly in an fast enough manner to matter. We're fortunate to be in the bubble of SB so we're a step removed. But in the event of a large earthquake for example, with emergency personnel overloaded throughout SoCal, power has been off for days, grocery stores are rationing or empty, looting in LA which may very well creep up here, the police may not be able to respond when you're hiding in your bedroom closet, with your wife and young kids, calling 911 to say there are three guys trying to break down your front door and one or more of them has a gun.

VOICE - are you seriously going to say the police "would not come if you called 911" and acknowledge that the Uvalde police retreated from their duty and then say it is up to US to protect ourselves?? Are you freaking kidding? THAT IS THEIR JOB. Why are we paying them to refuse to protect us? THAT is the problem.

And further.... are you really trying to say the teachers and kids should have been armed in Uvalde? WTF... I'm speechless honestly. Just absolutely freaking speechless.

This victim blaming mentality is f*#&ing disgusting.

So Sacjon, if the age to purchase a rifle was 21, would it have stopped him from doing it at 21? From doing it at 18 with a just-as-lethal shotgun? From inflicting death and destruction on others via any other means without a gun? How would his future children turned out? If he had grown up in a stable home with caring parents who actively and positively participated in the kids life, would he have done it then? If his high school had guidance counselors who were able to identify and assist social isolated and bullied individuals like himself, would have done it then? How would his future children turned out? You say do both, YES, but which one is a band-aid and which one is a solution?

"which one is a band-aid and which one is a solution" - you assume any mental health issues could have been cured. That's fallacious.

If he had to be 21, these kids would be alive. Who knows what would have happened three years from now.

Answer us this, then I'm done. Still dry heaving over your victim blaming. Why does NO OTHER COUNTRY have this problem? Is America the only civilized country with mental health issues?

Why do you keep thinking no other country has this problem? Over 50 people were just killed two days ago in a mass shooting at a church in Africa. 20 in March in a mass shooting in Mexico. Russia last fall. Then there is is the Middle East.... Please educate yourself beyond the carefully scripted "information" spoon fed to you by the MSM.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3289010

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/mass-shootings-by-country

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/mass-shootings-by-country

Average (Mean) Annual Death Rate per Million People from Mass Public Shootings (U.S., Canada, and Europe, 2009-2015):
Norway — 1.888
Serbia — 0.381
France — 0.347
Macedonia — 0.337
Albania — 0.206
Slovakia — 0.185
Switzerland — 0.142
Finland — 0.132
Belgium — 0.128
Czech Republic — 0.123
United States — 0.089
Austria — 0.068
Netherlands — 0.051
Canada — 0.032
England — 0.027
Germany — 0.023
Russia — 0.012
Italy — 0.009

Yeah, VOR, also a meteor might hit. Let's all buy anti-meteor technology which unfortunately can be used to also murder innocent people in huge numbers.

The whole "civil war", "breakdown of civilization", "overthrow our own government" chain of arguments from the gun cultists is laughable.

Also, I love when the gun cultists dismiss the entire issue when someone uses a piece of inaccurate technology. We all know what "assault weapon" or "assault rifle" refers to in the context of the discussion.

Get over the ridiculous nitpicking.

There are limits on firearm ownership in this country, that's already established. The question is where to draw the line. I have no problem targeting weapons that are the go to for mass murderers. Let's make it just a little more difficult for them to go about their killing sprees.

VOICE - "civilized country" - that means not third world dictatorships.

Also, we've already discussed the flaws in that world population review report. If you are really going to say there are more mass shootings in other civilized/developed/whatever you want to call them countries, then we have nothing to discuss. You are the problem, not the victims' lack of AR-15s.

That same study acknowledges the stats are disputed.... nice try though.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/united-states-lower-death-shootings/

Alex, in many cities the police were not able to respond if called. That is not some far-flung low-probability event like a meteor, that actually happened. Large earthquakes have occurred in our lifetime and will again. We are not invincible, it only takes a day or two without food before chaos ensues. And my question about "what is a assualt weapon/rifle" is very on point to exactly what we're proposing to ban, specifics and details matter! Prior "assault weapon" ban was based largely on cosmetic rather than functional features. Many erroneously believe an "assault rifle/weapon" is fully automatic.

Snopes actually rates that as a "mixture" and not what the link you provided says, "Our conclusion is that this is accurate based on the CPRC’s definition of a mass shooting..." and then snopes goes on to add a lot of but this but that to match their bias. Snopes waived bye to balanced fact checking years ago, and it's actual usefulness never expanded beyond double checking weird things sent through email like the Nigerian prince.

"Snopes waived bye to balanced fact checking years ago" - yet you cling desperately to the study by "Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), a pro-gun rights nonprofit run by economist John Lott." LOL...... classic.

VOICE - so you are going to sit there an claim, with a straight face, there are more mass shootings in France and Norway than there are in the US? Yes or no?

You two are insufferable sometimes

What 11:44 said.

VOICE - still waiting...... are going to sit there an claim, with a straight face, there are more mass shootings in France and Norway than there are in the US? Yes or no?

Two+ years discussing covid stats and measures and you still don't know what per capita means....

AGAIN- so you are going to sit there an claim, with a straight face, there are more mass shootings in France and Norway than there are in the US? Yes or no?

Per capita doesn't matter here. You're flat out admitting that the stats may be true, but they don't say what you think they say. Norway had ONE mass shooting (77 killed) between 2009 and 2015 and they rank #1. Do you seriously not see the flaw in using that stat to say they have the highest rate of mass shootings? Just answer, yes or no.