Parkland FL HS shooting, shooter arrested, 17 dead

[Mr Tree]

The Parkland shooter legally bought his long gun at age 19. The new rule will raise the minimum age to 21 to purchase a long gun.

Yeah I get that but was it his age that led to the shooting?

If I understand it he had mental issues. And I assume his mental health would have been more detrimental to what happened then his age. So why change the agerequirement.

I can be wrong but to me it just looks like bleeding on your knee and slapping a patch on your elbow.
It's just a 'no change' change so politicians can say they changed something.

It's 5 years old in the UK, circumstances depending

It's not...

By that measure I think we'd be around 6


Edit: thanks for the edit sorry for the double post! I totally forgot I just posted in this thread.

 

[Dotini]

What is raising the age to 21 going to do? How is going to help?

The Parkland shooter legally bought his long gun at age 19. The new rule will raise the minimum age to 21 to purchase a long gun.

Yeah I get that but was it his age that led to the shooting?

If I understand it he had mental issues. And I assume his mental health would have been more detrimental to what happened then his age. So why change the agerequirement.

I can be wrong but to me it just looks like bleeding on your knee and slapping a patch on your elbow.
It's just a 'no change' change so politicians can say they changed something.

It was his mental and emotional condition that led to the shooting, alright. Preventing people like him from buying a gun will help. Trump is talking about confiscating all guns from the mental ill, but that raises tough legal issues. He accuses fellow Republicans of being afraid of the NRA, but it's really their constituents they're afraid of.

 

[polysmut]

It's not...

https://www.gov.uk/alcohol-young-people-law

It’s illegal to give alcohol to children under 5.

 

[Joey D]

He accuses fellow Republicans of being afraid of the NRA, but it's really their constituents they're afraid of.

I think Trump is absolutely right to call them out as afraid of the NRA. While his "real talk" isn't always the best when dealing with foreign powers, I think it works quite well on calling out other domestic politicians.

 

[Mr Tree]

The Parkland shooter legally bought his long gun at age 19. The new rule will raise the minimum age to 21 to purchase a long gun.

It was his mental and emotional condition that led to the shooting, alright. Preventing people like him from buying a gun will help. Trump is talking about confiscating all guns from the mental ill, but that raises tough legal issues. He accuses fellow Republicans of being afraid of the NRA, but it's really their constituents they're afraid of.

How is confiscating the guns from mentally ill people going to raise legal issues?
I don't see how one can be against that and how you would be opposed when trying to implement those laws. It doesn't take away the right to have guns, it just checks if people are 'mentally capable' to carry a gun.

(Honnest question, I don't know the ins and outs of your laws/legal system)

 

[Dotini]

How is confiscating the guns from mentally ill people going to raise legal issues?
I don't see how one can be against that and how you would be opposed when trying to implement those laws. It doesn't take away the right to have guns, it just checks if people are 'mentally capable' to carry a gun.

(Honnest question, I don't know the ins and outs of your laws/legal system)

Well, that is a good question, and to fully answer it would require a lengthy reply. The short answer is that over here we supposedly require due process (legal justification) before seizing people's property. And another part of the answer is that medical and psychiatric records are held in confidence between a patient and doctor. That said, I agree it would be a good thing to take dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous, mentally ill people, no doubt. But once again, over here it would have to done legally, and in accordance with our democratic rights and freedoms enshrined in law. It's a slow, cumbersome, deliberate process, by design. We desire safety, but not at the expense of our basic rights.

 

[Mr Tree]

Well, that is a good question, and to fully answer it would require a lengthy reply. The short answer is that over here we supposedly require due process (legal justification) before seizing people's property. And another part of the answer is that medical and psychiatric records are held in confidence between a patient and doctor. That said, I agree it would be a good thing to take dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous, mentally ill people, no doubt. But once again, over here it would have to done legally, and in accordance with our democratic rights and freedoms enshrined in law. It's a slow, cumbersome, deliberate process, by design. We desire safety, but not at the expense of our basic rights.

Ok I see the issue with the patient-doctor confidential realtion. But there has to be a way to resolve this.
When I say take away the guns from the mentally ill, I meant with due process. It's not like we get our weapons taken away and if thet take away weapons of people it's due to the gun not being registered, the person owning the gun is breaking the laws concerning guns and firearm transport.

And yeah it's a slow process... Yet a lot of countries have found their way throught those processes while the US to an outsider looks like they're actively boycotting the process as to never get these laws. It's always due to circumstances we can't understand, which to us sounds like excuses.

I'm not saying you meant it that way but why do americans always act like our government can do whatever they want and that we don't have basic rights like due process? It's not like the us of a is the only country in the world that has freedom/rights people do realise that right?

 

[Dotini]

I'm not saying you meant it that way but why do americans always act like our government can do whatever they want and that we don't have basic rights like due process? It's not like the us of a is the only country in the world that has freedom/rights people do realise that right?

I'm not the expert on comparative freedoms and rights among all the world's countries. But offhand, I'd guess that the US of A traditionally has led the pack in terms of freedoms and rights. On the other hand, we used to be a highly homogenous, ultra-conformist, religiously dogmatic society. Over 70 years I've seen that change for the better. On the other hand, I've seen freedoms and rights diminish as our population has grown almost 200,000,000 in my lifetime. We have become more like rats in a cage, and more controls have become required.

 

[Mr Tree]

I'm not the expert on comparative freedoms and rights among all the world's countries. But offhand, I'd guess that the US of A traditionally has led the pack in terms of freedoms and rights. On the other hand, we used to be a highly homogenous, ultra-conformist, religiously dogmatic society. Over 70 years I've seen that change for the better. On the other hand, I've seen freedoms and rights diminish as our population has grown almost 200,000,000 in my lifetime. We have become more like rats in a cage, and more controls have become required.

Has lead the pack? That highly depends on where and what to look. Might be somrthing intersting to look into as I highly doubt any country was systematicly the leader of that pack.

Now all that was irrelevant as today, the moment in time the events we're discussing in happened. In other words it doesn't answer the question. It just diverts from it.

Why do americans think they have freedom and we live under a dictatorship? Do they think that way?


Edit: the comparative freedom is an interesting question none the less

 

[Johnnypenso]

How is confiscating the guns from mentally ill people going to raise legal issues?
I don't see how one can be against that and how you would be opposed when trying to implement those laws. It doesn't take away the right to have guns, it just checks if people are 'mentally capable' to carry a gun.

(Honnest question, I don't know the ins and outs of your laws/legal system)

Define mentally ill. As far as I can recall, most of the recent mass shootings didn't involve someone who would be considered legally mentally ill. Most, if not all, were functioning members of society. Sure, in hindsight we go through their lives and a lot of them look a little weird or different, but there are millions and millions of people who are shut ins, social outcasts, bullied in school or just plain go their own way in life, who don't go out and shoot people. So far at least, the Americans have been loathe to infringe upon the rights of the law abiding citizens in the hopes of catching that needle in the haystack that inevitably falls through the cracks.

 

[Mr Tree]

Define mentally ill. As far as I can recall, most of the recent mass shootings didn't involve someone who would be considered legally mentally ill. Most, if not all, were functioning members of society. Sure, in hindsight we go through their lives and a lot of them look a little weird or different, but there are millions and millions of people who are shut ins, social outcasts, bullied in school or just plain go their own way in life, who don't go out and shoot people. So far at least, the Americans have been loathe to infringe upon the rights of the law abiding citizens in the hopes of catching that needle in the haystack that inevitably falls through the cracks.

I think mentally ill should be defined if it's implemented. Where this line should be drawn, well I'm not sure. I grant you that these shooters wouldn't fall into that category.

Honest question. What's the big diffrence that makes mass shootings in america happen quite often compared to the rest of the world? There must be a diffrence that's at the root of this issue.

 

[Obelisk]

Honest question. What's the big diffrence that makes mass shootings in america happen quite often compared to the rest of the world? There must be a diffrence that's at the root of this issue.

Lack of gun education, lack of proper gun training for owners, lack of good mental health system, social stigma over mental conditions, failure to enforce already-present laws, failure to act on known threats (school and FBI didn't act on their knowledge of this kid).

Just my opinion, though. I'm sure other people will cite other things.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I think mentally ill should be defined if it's implemented. Where this line should be drawn, well I'm not sure. I grant you that these shooters wouldn't fall into that category.

Honest question. What's the big diffrence that makes mass shootings in america happen quite often compared to the rest of the world? There must be a difference that's at the root of this issue.

What's the big difference that in Europe that causes mass murders carried out with bombs, vehicles and gangs of armed men compared to the U.S.? What the big difference in the Middle East that makes suicide bombing so popular? What's the big difference in some South and Central American countries where drug gangs slaughter people by the thousands? The answer is simple. Different countries, different cultures, different history, different constitutions etc. It's easy to look at what they are doing in light of our own culture or to compare them with other western democracies and think, "Oh why don't they just do this or do that because it works for us? Americans are so crazy!". But to understand a European mindset or a Middle Eastern mindset you must first know their history, know what they've been through and how they got to where they are today. Our unique histories have led each of us in different directions and we each have different problems as a result. IMO anyway.

 

[Mr Tree]

What's the big difference that in Europe that causes mass murders carried out with bombs, vehicles and gangs of armed men compared to the U.S.? What the big difference in the Middle East that makes suicide bombing so popular? What's the big difference in some South and Central American countries where drug gangs slaughter people by the thousands? The answer is simple. Different countries, different cultures, different history, different constitutions etc. It's easy to look at what they are doing in light of our own culture or to compare them with other western democracies and think, "Oh why don't they just do this or do that because it works for us? Americans are so crazy!". But to understand a European mindset or a Middle Eastern mindset you must first know their history, know what they've been through and how they got to where they are today. Our unique histories have led each of us in different directions and we each have different problems as a result. IMO anyway.

Yeah you mean those yearly european bombings? (Sarcasm)

The vehicular attacks that kill 2-3 people opposed to 17 here and how many casualties in las vegas?

Also our government actually took action and enforced some changes. Something your government doesn't seel to be willing to do. And something you seem to agree with?

What is the main diffrence between my culture (the flemish one cause there is nu european culture) that make guns the primary choice?

I'm not saying it's easy I conceded that my plans were less then perfect. But then open up the discussion and try to do something about it.

Diffrent cultures let's not cgange a thing is not really the answer I expect from people like you who usually are open to discussion.

Edit: it's mostly this not wanting to change something that baffles me.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Yeah you mean those yearly european bombings? (Sarcasm)

The vehicular attacks that kill 2-3 people opposed to 17 here and how many casualties in las vegas?

Also our government actually took action and enforced some changes. Something your government doesn't seel to be willing to do. And something you seem to agree with?

What is the main diffrence between my culture (the flemish one cause there is nu european culture) that make guns the primary choice?

I'm not saying it's easy I conceded that my plans were less then perfect. But then open up the discussion and try to do something about it.

Diffrent cultures let's not cgange a thing is not really the answer I expect from people like you who usually are open to discussion.

Edit: it's mostly this not wanting to change something that baffles me.

Please quote where I said I don't want anything to change. The beginning of the solution is to understand the people you are dealing with not to simply impose laws and values from one culture into another culture and think that it's going to work. The fact that you so easily dismissed the cultural and historical differences between Americans and the rest of the world tells me that you don't really want to have an open conversation you simply want to impose what you think is right on a culture that you don't really want to understand. I'm not an American by the way so it's not my government that I'm talking about.

 

[Mr Tree]

Please quote where I said I don't want anything to change. The beginning of the solution is to understand the people you are dealing with not to simply impose laws and values from one culture into another culture and think that it's going to work. The fact that you so easily dismissed the cultural and historical differences between Americans and the rest of the world tells me that you don't really want to have an open conversation you simply want to impose what you think is right on a culture that you don't really want to understand. I'm not an American by the way so it's not my government that I'm talking about.

I forgot you where canadian right?

And no I think we're misunderstanding eachother. I didn't want to dismiss it I was curious what would be those diffrences that makes this very specific for the USA.

Again I conceded that my propositions were less then stellar. As you say to find a solution we need to understand the culture.

But I stand by the fact that 'our' choice of weapons often does less damage and we don't have the same amount of them as the USA. This does kot mean I meant our way or the highway. I also reread my post and can see how you got the idea I was insinuating exactly that.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I forgot you where canadian right?

And no I think we're misunderstanding eachother. I didn't want to dismiss it I was curious what would be those diffrences that makes this very specific for the USA.

Again I conceded that my propositions were less then stellar. As you say to find a solution we need to understand the culture.

But I stand by the fact that 'our' choice of weapons often does less damage and we don't have the same amount of them as the USA. This does kot mean I meant our way or the highway. I also reread my post and can see how you got the idea I was insinuating exactly that.

If one doesn't understand the history and culture you can't understand the problem to begin with and can't come up with effective and acceptable solutions. It would be like an American saying, "Oh you guys have a big issue with people driving over, shooting and bombing your citizens, why don't you just pass gun legislation and allow everyone to be armed?" To me that's as laughable as asking Americans to disarm because they live in a more violent society and the bad guys are carrying guns. The U.S. isn't Canada, isn't Europe, isn't the Middle East etc. It's a unique society with it's own history, own culture and own mindset. There's no need to defend your choice of weapon as that wasn't my point. My point was simply to say that you have your problems, they have theirs and we have ours. One solution can't be copy/pasted from place to place.

 

[Biggles]

I'm not the expert on comparative freedoms and rights among all the world's countries. But offhand, I'd guess that the US of A traditionally has led the pack in terms of freedoms and rights. On the other hand, we used to be a highly homogenous, ultra-conformist, religiously dogmatic society. Over 70 years I've seen that change for the better. On the other hand, I've seen freedoms and rights diminish as our population has grown almost 200,000,000 in my lifetime. We have become more like rats in a cage, and more controls have become required.

Perhaps you grew up in a "Leave it to Beaver" world Dotini, but honestly I don't think most US history has been all that homogenous, ultra-conformist & religiously dogmatic. The US is a nation of immigrants, each wave of which brought different cultures, social norms & religious traditions. Each of those immigrants groups: Irish, German, Polish, Scandinavian, Jewish, Italian etc. were subjected to discrimination, exploitation & hate. Freedom & rights? Well, I suppose so compared to where most immigrants were coming from ... unless you happened to be black, in which you had (literally) no freedom, until emancipation, & few rights after that until, quite recently.

I think the US you are referring to would be the US after the Second World War, when the US emerged as the world's primary economic super power, the population was expanding rapidly, the economy was growing dramatically, income tax was high, wealth disparities were at historic lows & there was wide spread optimism & a sense of common purpose.

 

[tipoma]

Perhaps you grew up in a "Leave it to Beaver" world Dotini, but honestly I don't think most US history has been all that homogenous, ultra-conformist & religiously dogmatic. The US is a nation of immigrants, each wave of which brought different cultures, social norms & religious traditions. Each of those immigrants groups: Irish, German, Polish, Scandinavian, Jewish, Italian etc. were subjected to discrimination, exploitation & hate. Freedom & rights? Well, I suppose so compared to where most immigrants were coming from ... unless you happened to be black, in which you had (literally) no freedom, until emancipation, & few rights after that until, quite recently.

In the beginning there where protestants, and there was a celebration of freedom and rights but that came with responsibility. Immigrants embraced the U.S. culture more than they influenced it but that's been washed away over time.

I think the US you are referring to would be the US after the Second World War, when the US emerged as the world's primary economic super power, the population was expanding rapidly, the economy was growing dramatically, income tax was high, wealth disparities were at historic lows & there was wide spread optimism & a sense of common purpose.

Nationalism, that is true enough, also being washed away. It's odd of you to throw in high income tax and wealth disparity but I'll go with it, it's called the dumbing down and it's very effective. There is no more freedom or rights in the country now and culture is almost non existant, it's all good though because we have welfare and laws so anytime social problems arrive we can cast blame on our citizens, write some more laws, throw some money around, and make up buzz words and news sound bites.

 

[UKMikey]

There is no more freedom or rights in the country now and culture is almost non existant, it's all good though because we have welfare and laws so anytime social problems arrive we can cast blame on our citizens, write some more laws, throw some money around, and make up buzz words and news sound bites.

You sound like one of our recently departed posters.

 

[Scaff]

If one doesn't understand the history and culture you can't understand the problem to begin with and can't come up with effective and acceptable solutions. It would be like an American saying, "Oh you guys have a big issue with people driving over, shooting and bombing your citizens, why don't you just pass gun legislation and allow everyone to be armed?" To me that's as laughable as asking Americans to disarm because they live in a more violent society and the bad guys are carrying guns. The U.S. isn't Canada, isn't Europe, isn't the Middle East etc. It's a unique society with it's own history, own culture and own mindset. There's no need to defend your choice of weapon as that wasn't my point. My point was simply to say that you have your problems, they have theirs and we have ours. One solution can't be copy/pasted from place to place.

I don't think many are saying that Americans should be disarmed, the 2nd removed or that one can simply copy and paste solutions; these would all be absurd.

However no more absurd that simply dismissing the solutions that other countries have used out of hand.

 

[Dotini]

Giving up traditional freedoms and liberties for the sake of safety in an increasingly crowded and overwrought world is probably a very rational as well as inevitable practice. However, in many Americans I know, even right here in uber-liberal Seattle, there is a stubborn emotional instinct to do things our own way.

 

[TexRex]

You sound like one of our recently departed posters.

And the resemblance is now more uncanny than ever.

 

[Dennisch]

Can someone tell my why someone like this shooter can avoid the death penalty by pleading guilty? Why are such deals made?

 

[TexRex]

Can someone tell my why someone like this shooter can avoid the death penalty by pleading guilty? Why are such deals made?

While I feel wholeheartedly that the sack of 🤬 does not deserve to remain above ground, I suspect the offer in exchange for a guilty plea was put on the table to avoid the drawn-out spectacle that a trial would surely become...and I support that.

 

[Joey D]

Can someone tell my why someone like this shooter can avoid the death penalty by pleading guilty? Why are such deals made?

In the long run it's probably actually cheaper for him to plead guilty and get life in prison without parole. When they plead non-guilty, the trial can drag out for a long time. And then typically with the death penalty there are a ton of appeals that result in more lengthy trials. Then right before they're put to death, there's often an injunction that results in more legal mumbo-jumbo.

I'd rather him just plead guilty and just get locked away without all the hassle and expense.

 

[TexRex]

I'd rather him just plead guilty and just get locked away without all the hassle and expense.

I mean...the correctional system isn't exactly cheap either, but I sincerely hope he gets tossed to the most unsavory companions available, because I have no doubt a good many of them would hold an unfavorable view towards those who gun down children at random and in mass.

 

[JKgo]

While I feel wholeheartedly that the sack of 🤬 does not deserve to remain above ground,

💡

...You want him to work in a mine, then?

At least that way, he'd pay back something to the society. Probably. Oh, I know: Trump can offer this guy up to Kim Jong-Un during their meeting and have him be the Yankee representative in that famous North Korean mine, where Little Kim sends all the naughty people to.

 

[AerodyManiac]

It’s not going to evoke any discussion, and some of you may have known/posted this already, but the shooter got a surge of fans after his face was on national television.

It’s explicable and predictable in some way, but still, shocking (to me) nonetheless.

Perhaps it’s because I never paid any attention to these, and thus have never seen anything like it before.

 

[Dennisch]

Every single one of those fans should be punched in the face. No questions, no explanations .