Parkland FL HS shooting, shooter arrested, 17 dead

[Foofer37]

What, that I should take reasonable precautions to ensure my own safety? Huh, I thought I came to that conclusion on my own - oh well, not a bad thing to be taught I guess.

Again, you miss the point. You're being taught that no one should have guns. You're being taught that guns are bad. You're being taught that all guns should be taken away and that civilians shouldn't have them. You're being taught that guns are the problem. Still not getting it?

 

[TexRex]

Again, you miss the point. You're being taught that no one should have guns. You're being taught that guns are bad. You're being taught that all guns should be taken away and that civilians shouldn't have them. You're being taught that guns are the problem. Still not getting it?

Everyone with a modicum of intelligence has the ability to process information they take in and determine the manner in which it affects them.

 

[Joey D]

Again, you miss the point. You're being taught that no one should have guns. You're being taught that guns are bad. You're being taught that all guns should be taken away and that civilians shouldn't have them. You're being taught that guns are the problem. Still not getting it?

I'm glad you know exactly what someone else is being taught in life.

But it's not really a problem to be taught guns are bad. We taught things every day and it's ultimately up to us to form our own opinions on them by thinking for yourself. I don't necessarily think guns are bad, but I fully understand how someone can come to that conclusion.

 

[Famine]

I'm glad you know exactly what someone else is being taught in life.

Someone else in another country, no less.



Anyway, if guns were designed for the purpose of killing, wouldn't they be longer, heavier and sharper? Seems to me that swords and axes are much better at it.

And chainsaws, although that's just a byproduct of their real purpose.

 

[Foofer37]

Lol. Wow, I waste my time. Again. Lol. This site is filled with morons. I leave you all to it

 

[UKMikey]

Hmm, sorry you don't understand the simple equation: When someone comes in guns blazing, either our churches or homes, we reserve the right to be able to fight back. Not just sit there unable to protect ourselves and our families. If a couple of large criminals break into my house and I'm not home what is my wife supposed to do? Call the police? It's too late. Sorry that you feel comfortable being completely helpless, no way to defend yourself or your family, which is YOUR responsibility by the way, no one else's. We reserve the right to defend ourselves. The rest of the world simply does not get this because they don't want to. You've been taught it's not your right and that you're safer this way. The problem is that you believe that. If someone broke into your house and hurt or killed one in your family in front of you, you will wish you had a way to stop them. This is what guns are for. Get it? Just because there are sick people who kill innocent people does not mean I now have to be defenseless and unable to protect my family.

I don't understand what we are refusing to get because we don't want to. Are we in Western Europe at greater risk of home invasion because we morons have been brainwashed not to have guns?

 

[Famine]

Lol. Wow, I waste my time. Again. Lol. This site is filled with morons. I leave you all to it

Another gem from the mind that brought you "evolution is a lie".

Wait until you discover that I'm British and actually quite like guns, made a point of visiting a firing range in California and would happily own more than one. It'll blow your gourd.

Edit: Oh well.

 

[Tornado]

I'm sorry, this is not a problem that is insolvable purely because you have a border. Europe has borders, with nations with guns in as well. Try again.

Really? . It's pretty hard for our criminals to get guns. And Europe has dangerous and corrupt borders too...

How "solved" did France consider that problem you so readily dismissed before 2015?

 

[TexRex]

Documentation.

That footage from inside was quite chilling.

I saw this last night but was too tired to respond and only remembered it in the wake of the recent ban hammer strike.

As despicable as I find the actions of the "journalist" (what a joke), I resent the implication that one, in a moment so harrowing, sets their own life on the line to "document" it for the beacon of banality that Twitter so often is...



I mean...I can see that it might be beneficial to act in this manner if more detail is provided, such as stating one's current location and a brief assessment of the situation--I'm not aware of 9-1-1 having a text line for those requesting emergency response in a situation where speaking can call attention to oneself. That doesn't appear to be the case here.

Moreover; what is the purpose of such documentation? Wouldn't one seeking to do so appreciate the attention of an individual or entity capable of making such "documentation" available to a larger audience?

 

[PeterJB]

As the assailant has been captured and arrested live and well I'm very interested to hear what he has to say, as in these circumstances we are rarely given that opportunity.

 

[Pupik]

It's definitely a generational thing; you see it with concerts, once-in-a-lifetime events, etc. Younger generations would rather record and post it to social media in the moment than wait.

If I'm going to die, I'm going to make damn sure to incriminate the guilty with the last fiber of my being.

If I drop my phone, lose my weapon, and have nothing but my bare hands, then you can perform a DNA test on who's grasp choked the last breath out of the MFer before we both pop off this mortal coil.

 

[Obelisk]

If I'm going to die, I'm going to make damn sure to incriminate the guilty with the last fiber of my being.

If I drop my phone, lose my weapon, and have nothing but my bare hands, then you can perform a DNA test on who's grasp choked the last breath out of the MFer before we both pop off this mortal coil.

 

[ryzno]

Got tired of reading every post, just want a review of the fake news...

18 mass shootings and him being a white supremacist. Did I miss anything?

 

[Exorcet]

I'm going to have to give up soon I swear, I'm honest enough to concede when I need to re-evaluate my point, but you guys seem to concede nothing. This one is bordering on insanity. Yes, you could use a vehicle. If there was a complete gun ban, would there be more vehicle massacres, killing the amounts of the like seen at Sandy Hook? Of course bloody not.

I'm not trying to be argumentative or difficult. I just don't think it's that simple. As has been pointed out in this thread, guns aren't absent outside of the US and yet, those other nations have reduced gun crime. That points to the issue not being one about guns, or at least not solely about guns.

I conceded that guns are good spur of the moment weapons and perhaps you could expect less unplanned killing. That might even lower death rates overall, I don't know for certain. When it comes to planned crimes, gun aren't the only thing to consider.

While I don't necessarily reject your particular premise, I definitely reject and despise the underlying assertion that difficulty in a venture makes it a nonstarter. Nothing happens yet again and something happens...yet again.

Really though, a system mandated by the government, which it would likely have to be if it's to have a meaningful impact, could be mandated to be universal...and that right there fixes one problem immediately. Frankly, this would work just fine for the single-location example. It could even be a given from the start; "You're applying for a permit to protect yourself in your own home? Great! Here's an application that, if accepted, entitles you only to a firearm with an electronic tether."

Make it harder to obtain guns that can kill anybody at any time, or whose possessor is ambiguous because any attempt to keep track of where that gun is goes down the drain once it leaves the rack or display case in a store that sells then, and instances of unlawful use go down immediately, without keeping those who should have the right to possess a firearm from doing exactly that.

It's not that difficulty makes it a nonstarter, the difficulty is just what caused me to lean toward my version of the idea. Although thinking over it more, disabling guns at specific locations prevents the just use of the weapons in those locations. I don't mind at all if that's what the property owner wants, but it's something to consider. Obviously I wouldn't think law enforcement would be subject to the issue, but civilian defense through firearms is a real occurrence.

Whatever the system ends up being I don't think it would have to be government enforced, but I can see there being a debate around that. While having a government system would help to ensure that the system is consistent across the country, you would still need to build the system, which would take some time to do. Working from the other end, with guns owners applying their own individually purchased security measures to weapons, could take effect faster. On the other hand not everyone might apply them or they might be slow to do so, so there is a possible downside there. I don't know what the price point for these systems would be either. That could play a role in people's willingness to buy into them if they had to purchase them for themselves.

 

[Omnis]

I know the family of one of the missing girls. I hope she's alive somewhere.

She died.

 

[Obelisk]

She died.

I'm so sorry for your loss.

 

[NotThePrez]

She died.

Condolences, my friend.

 

[Peter.]

It seems to be so much easier than it should to defend guns every time a gun control issue comes up. How people really manage to type with a serious face that 'cars kill more people' or that 'food poisoning is the real concern' is missing the point so much it's almost completely disgraceful. Of course I know it's possible to be a Devil's advocate and have sympathy at the same time, but if you have time to think about how the families of victims of all these mass shootings feel, or think about if it happened to you, maybe we would get somewhere beyond 'thoughts and prayers' and 'guns don't kill people'.

Whether it be the lack of laws, or poor enforcement of laws already there, it does not matter. Out right bans are stupid, but it is still far too easy to get one. Siding with 'right to bear arms' politicians who really are in it to keep their donations rolling in, and who would rather give guns to every teacher and probably student, than stop the sale of one gun to someone on every watch list there is, is close minded, even if you know outright bans won't fix the violence problem, which they wouldn't.

Everyday we spend arguing semantics instead of demanding more control and enforcement, as a group, is a day closer to when you or your kids get killed by someone who could have been stopped if laws were in place, or should have if laws were enforced.

 

[Exorcet]

It seems to be so much easier than it should to defend guns every time a gun control issue comes up. How people really manage to type with a serious face that 'cars kill more people' or that 'food poisoning is the real concern' is missing the point so much it's almost completely disgraceful. Of course I know it's possible to be a Devil's advocate and have sympathy at the same time, but if you have time to think about how the families of victims of all these mass shootings feel, or think about if it happened to you...

If your stance changes because it happens to you then you probably haven't thought on the issue in question, whatever it may be, very much. We certainly should acknowledge the pain that victims feel, and I honestly think it's very hard not to, but we shouldn't be making emotional decisions.

maybe we would get somewhere beyond 'thoughts and prayers' and 'guns don't kill people'.

Aren't we already passed this? I don't really see people advocating that we ignore the problem. It's a disagreement on what exactly should be done.

 

[TexRex]

It's a disagreement on what exactly should be done.

During which nothing gets done. Rash decisions shouldn't be made, of course, but how long has the disagreement been going on? Decisions made and put into action at this point would not be rash, they would be too late.

A bump stock ban on a federal level seemed to have support from key players on all sides in the wake of Las Vegas, and yet the only actions taken have been on a state level.

"It's a mental health issue." How is mental health being addressed currently? How does the "Better Care Reconciliation Act" propose it be addressed?

Let's say those who should not be able to get a gun legally due to mental instability of a propensity for violent behavior can no longer acquire a gun legally, too many legally-obtained guns fall through the cracks because there's no accountability beyond a certain point.

"The right to own a gun is necessary to fend off tyrannical government." Why so little faith in a government populated by those for whom you voted?

Why isn't the ownership of all weaponry permissible by law? Could it be that some examples are excessive? Or too dangerous? Why is the line drawn where it is? Why don't I have the right to carry a minigun on my person or mounted on my personal vehicle?

 

[DesertPenguin]

I know there's the whole issue of what the definition of "assault rifle" is.

 

[TetsuKobura]

I know there's the whole issue of what the definition of "assault rifle" is.

It certainly would help if people stopped calling the AR-15 an assault rifle, since it's semi automatic only, and that AR stands for the company that makes these rifles, ArmaLite.

 

[TexRex]

It certainly would help if people stopped calling the AR-15 an assault rifle

Help whom?

 

[Omnis]

The thoughts and prayers meme is a really disrespectful meme that isn't helpful. Antagonising people for no reason. All it does is stroke the ego of consequentialist assholes who arrogantly posit their assertions.

 

[TexRex]

The thoughts and prayers meme is a really disrespectful meme that isn't helpful. Antagonising people for no reason. All it does is stroke the ego of consequentialist assholes who arrogantly posit their assertions.

I think it reflects the frustration of people. The words probably meant something at some point, but they won't mean anything again until they're backed up with an actual attempt at meaningful action. As it is, it's just a cop-out.

 

[Omnis]

It's not a cop out. It's assholes disrespectfully trying to snuff out common decent condolences to push their hero agenda built for the victim culture they've helped cultivate. It's disrespectful and inappropriate, and it's opportunistic rather than constructive.

 

[TexRex]

What's the appropriate response when it seems nothing constructive is being done? I'm all for an approach from the mental health side if it makes a difference, and I even believe it can make a difference, but when is something going to be implemented?

 

[Omnis]

What's the appropriate response when it seems nothing constructive is being done? I'm all for an approach from the mental health side if it makes a difference, and I even believe it can make a difference, but when is something going to be implemented?

When families can grieve in peace and we can look at what went wrong before making it a political issue. The FBI really screwed the pooch here. Let's start with that. But for God's sake leave the innocent people alone.

 

[TexRex]

But for God's sake leave the innocent people alone.

I can get behind that 100%.

That said, I'm still frustrated. We may not be fully aware of what led to this most recent event, but others have pinpointed flaws in the system that are still present.

 

[Exorcet]

During which nothing gets done. Rash decisions shouldn't be made, of course, but how long has the disagreement been going on? Decisions made and put into action at this point would not be rash, they would be too late.

A bump stock ban on a federal level seemed to have support from key players on all sides in the wake of Las Vegas, and yet the only actions taken have been on a state level.

"It's a mental health issue." How is mental health being addressed currently? How does the "Better Care Reconciliation Act" propose it be addressed?

Let's say those who should not be able to get a gun legally due to mental instability of a propensity for violent behavior can no longer acquire a gun legally, too many legally-obtained guns fall through the cracks because there's no accountability beyond a certain point.

"The right to own a gun is necessary to fend off tyrannical government." Why so little faith in a government populated by those for whom you voted?

Why isn't the ownership of all weaponry permissible by law? Could it be that some examples are excessive? Or too dangerous? Why is the line drawn where it is? Why don't I have the right to carry a minigun on my person or mounted on my personal vehicle?

I don't want to sound like a broken record, but a deadlock in legal reform is another reason why I like to look outside of the government for solutions. This could apply to those guns falling through the cracks. Supposedly a nation wide and government enforced solution could impact every gun produced from this point on, unless it's not passed. Leaving it up to individuals to apply safety measures to weapons lets people opt out, but it also lets people apply them without the need to get everyone (or a lot of people) to agree on a solution.

On the government and voting, half of the votes in the last presidential election were against the winner who is now threatening war with another country. For many people their votes do nothing and those who end up in power may not provide many reasons for others to trust them.

Why is the line drawn where it is? Enough people agreed on that line. That's not to say that you can't have a line, but it's pretty much always going to be arbitrary.