Parkland FL HS shooting, shooter arrested, 17 dead

[Danoff]

How else can you have "reasonable discussion" or an "exchange of ideas" if you don't get the involved parties face to face?

Seems to me that folks unhappy with what these kids are saying are finding it easier to gin up cries of "liberal agenda" than to treat these kids with respect and find some answers to their tough questions. Which is a pathetic way for adults to conduct themselves, if you ask me.

I haven't watched or read any of it, so I can't comment from the perspective of having seen it, but... what it sounds like to me is an attempt to try to pit victims of violence against people who are not responsible for perpetrating violence against them and create a false conflict.

This is not the first time that we've had victims of violence trotted out on television promoting legislation so that it can "never happen again". It gives them the opportunity to grasp a false sense of purpose in their purposeless suffering, and it creates an opportunity to drown actual thought with emotion.

 

[Biggles]

This is not the first time that we've had victims of violence trotted out on television promoting legislation so that it can "never happen again". It gives them the opportunity to grasp a false sense of purpose in their purposeless suffering, and it creates an opportunity to drown actual thought with emotion.

That really is a chillingly detached view of human existence. It seems perfectly reasonable that Americans might seek solutions to a recurring problem that repeatedly results in the pointless killings of schoolchildren & other US citizens. But good on you for dismissing any possibility that they might seek to find some sense of purpose in the midst of their "purposeless suffering".

It's actually quite realistic to expect that legislation could go some way towards reducing gun deaths in the US. It certainly won't be easy, given the huge number of guns already in circulation in the US & the ongoing fetishization of guns in US culture. Seems to me that a good place to start would be with strictly enforced universal background checks (supported by 96% of the American population according to a recent Quinipiac poll) & a federally mandated waiting period (supported by 87% of the American population) that is long enough to allow for proper background checks. This may not put much of a dent in the gang & drug related killings that account for a large percentage of gun homicides in the US, but it would likely help reduce the number of random mass shootings carried out by "non-criminals" like Nicholas Cruz.

 

[Danoff]

That really is a chillingly detached view of human existence.

Only because you misunderstand it.

It seems perfectly reasonable that Americans might seek solutions to a recurring problem that repeatedly results in the pointless killings of schoolchildren & other US citizens. But good on you for dismissing any possibility that they might seek to find some sense of purpose in the midst of their "purposeless suffering".

You're attempting to push a rope. Trying to ascribe meaning to an event by taking some action afterward is impossible. The meaning you obtain from that stems from the action taken, not the event itself. People attempt this kind of chain of causality all the time, and it consistently trips them up on morality. "But if I just hadn't answered the phone, he'd still be alive today, I'm responsible". Nope. Likewise if legislation is passed that saves thousands of lives (somehow), the Parkland shooter is not responsible for saving those lives, and his actions are not responsible for providing meaning to any of his victims.

I'm not dismissing their search for purpose, I'm dismissing the notion that they can use an attempt at legislation to give that specific event in their lives purpose.

It's actually quite realistic to expect that legislation could go some way towards reducing gun deaths in the US.

"gun deaths" not being important at all. If you want to be a utilitarian and use human lives as your simplistic calculation for whether something is good, then at least see all human lives the same. People killed by guns are not more or less valuable than people killed by other weapons.

It certainly won't be easy, given the huge number of guns already in circulation in the US & the ongoing fetishization of guns in US culture. Seems to me that a good place to start would be with strictly enforced universal background checks (supported by 96% of the American population according to a recent Quinipiac poll) & a federally mandated waiting period (supported by 87% of the American population) that is long enough to allow for proper background checks. This may not put much of a dent in the gang & drug related killings that account for a large percentage of gun homicides in the US, but it would likely help reduce the number of random mass shootings carried out by "non-criminals" like Nicholas Cruz.

I'm not against background checks, waiting periods, and even licensing for gun ownership.

 

[Johnnypenso]

How else can you have "reasonable discussion" or an "exchange of ideas" if you don't get the involved parties face to face?

Seems to me that folks unhappy with what these kids are saying are finding it easier to gin up cries of "liberal agenda" than to treat these kids with respect and find some answers to their tough questions. Which is a pathetic way for adults to conduct themselves, if you ask me.

What is special about these kids that they deserve any more respect than any other group of high schoolers in a national political debate? Normally teengers as a group are considered too immature and lacking in real world experience to be serious political commentators. That this group are victims of a horrible tragedy doesn't make them any more deserving of respect in this debate than any other group of teens. On top of that, if they are going to try and wade in as equals, their opinions and background will be subject to the same brutal scrutiny as anyone else. Politics and political debate is a tough business.

 

[McLaren]

How else can you have "reasonable discussion" or an "exchange of ideas" if you don't get the involved parties face to face?

Seems to me that folks unhappy with what these kids are saying are finding it easier to gin up cries of "liberal agenda" than to treat these kids with respect and find some answers to their tough questions. Which is a pathetic way for adults to conduct themselves, if you ask me.

Why should a teen whose response to gun owners and pro-2A politicians is to call them “****ers” repeatedly be given any respect? Respect is earned, not given and he’s pissing in the wind with his attitude.

There is also no reasonable discussion to be had from a side who goes, “When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we’ll take a mile”. They open themselves up to response with the way they speak.

Stay out of politics if they can’t take it. It brings out absolute monsters from all sides.

 

[PeterJB]

There seems to be this notion in the media that because these kids have been on the receiving end of a shooting that means they're experts on gun legislation. To be honest I'm glad that they and others like them have no interest in getting their hands on guns because they seem to be completely clueless on gun legislation and lack the most basic knowledge of firearm terminology.

 

[Liquid]

It's fairly likely, even obvious, that teenagers and schoolchildren won't be word savvy with firearm terminology and legislation, that's almost asking too much of anyone who isn't a professed expert or enthusiast.

Mass shooting survivors deserve to get their voices heard but to hold it up as a standard bearer or put it on a pedestal as an unquestionable piece of oration is unfair on them and needless pressure and scrutiny. But it's not a wild, crazy, unbelievable or grotesque to at least consider the opinions of people who have been victims of mass shootings.

 

[TexRex]

I'm glad that they and others like them have no interest in getting their hands on guns because they seem to be completely clueless on gun legislation and lack the most basic knowledge of firearm terminology.

Yeah...one doesn't need to be informed regarding either in order to store, care for, carry or operate a firearm in a safe and responsible manner, nor does knowledge of either guarantee one isn't going to shoot kids in a crowded school after having pulled the fire alarm to do so more efficiently.

Beyond that, one doesn't need to be up on the legislation to be affected by it (or not, as the case may be) when one wants to acquire a firearm. I'd love for that to be a condition of legal ownership, but pro-gun lobbyists would have a hissy fit and claim forcing education on the subject infringes on individuals' right to ownership.

 

[McLaren]

It's fairly likely, even obvious, that teenagers and schoolchildren won't be word savvy with firearm terminology and legislation, that's almost asking too much of anyone who isn't a professed expert or enthusiast.

Mass shooting survivors deserve to get their voices heard but to hold it up as a standard bearer or put it on a pedestal as an unquestionable piece of oration is unfair on them and needless pressure and scrutiny. But it's not a wild, crazy, unbelievable or grotesque to at least consider the opinions of people who have been victims of mass shootings.

Why is the same media that gives Hogg a platform ignoring Kashuv, though?

He’s a survivor as well but he seems nearly blacklisted by most media outlets from speaking. He’s even been mocked by a Canadian official.

There seems to be this notion in the media that because these kids have been on the receiving end of a shooting that means they're experts on gun legislation. To be honest I'm glad that they and others like them have no interest in getting their hands on guns because they seem to be completely clueless on gun legislation and lack the most basic knowledge of firearm terminology.

Because they spew that garbage themselves. That other kid was on Maher saying until you’ve been on the other end of an AR15, they are the experts, they know what they’re talking about.

This logic has been debunked so quickly, it’s sad. Everyone here who has been involved in a serious accident should suddenly have a say in vehicle safety laws now.

 

[Biggles]

Trying to ascribe meaning to an event by taking some action afterward is impossible. The meaning you obtain from that stems from the action taken, not the event itself. People attempt this kind of chain of causality all the time, and it consistently trips them up on morality. "But if I just hadn't answered the phone, he'd still be alive today, I'm responsible". Nope. Likewise if legislation is passed that saves thousands of lives (somehow), the Parkland shooter is not responsible for saving those lives, and his actions are not responsible for providing meaning to any of his victims.

I'm not dismissing their search for purpose, I'm dismissing the notion that they can use an attempt at legislation to give that specific event in their lives purpose.

Give me a break. The reaction of the victims in choosing to pursue political, legislative change as a reaction to the horrific events they witnessed is entirely rational. You're creating a strawman fallacy here, in projecting an imagined "chain of causality" into their motivations.

I'm not against background checks, waiting periods, and even licensing for gun ownership.

It's alway nice when we can agree on something.

 

[Danoff]

Give me a break. The reaction of the victims in choosing to pursue political, legislative change as a reaction to the horrific events they witnessed is entirely rational. You're creating a strawman fallacy here, in projecting an imagined "chain of causality" into their motivations.

I do see your point. I don't know what their motivations are, and I am making some assumptions. It's something we've all seen enough times for it to be a stereotype... the grieving mom on good morning america saying "my daughter's death will not be for nothing". Nope, it was for nothing. Maybe these kids aren't playing that game - to be honest I don't care enough about their motivations to try to figure it out. I suspect that it is exactly the mistake they are making.

 

[AerodyManiac]

Everyone here who has been involved in a serious accident should suddenly have a say in vehicle safety laws now.

I don’t really know how much they are charged in the US, but if the opposite were the case, then surely long-time sufferers of rare and uncurable diseases shouldn’t have much of a say in the pricing of relevant drugs and medication, and the only ones that are entitled to deciding their price would be the pharmaceutical companies themselves, no?

 

[McLaren]

I don’t really know how much they are charged in the US, but if the opposite were the case, then surely long-time sufferers of rare and uncurable diseases shouldn’t have much of a say in the pricing of relevant drugs and medication, and the only ones that are entitled to deciding their price would be the pharmaceutical companies themselves, no?

A patient doesn’t have a say in how much they are charged for treatment. Nor should they have a say in how treatment works to begin with; unless they’re doctors or qualified people who know how a disease works, someone like my uncle who is going through cancer treatment shouldn’t be lobbying to change how cancer is managed bc he has no background in medicine.

Which is the point of why these kids have no business saying, “We are the experts” on gun control bc they were involved in a school shooting. We’ve got an ass load of people in Chicago alone who are experts then.

 

[TexRex]

Which is the point of why these kids have no business saying, “We are the experts” on gun control bc they were involved in a school shooting.

Are they actually claiming to be experts on gun control? It seems to me they're merely protesting what they believe to be a lack thereof, motivated by what they've experienced.

Who are the experts on gun control?

 

[McLaren]

Are they actually claiming to be experts on gun control? It seems to me they're merely protesting what they believe to be a lack thereof, motivated by what they've experienced.

Who are the experts on gun control?

“They’re trying to say we don’t know what we’re talking about,” said Hogg. “Until you’ve been on the receiving end of an AR-15. Until you’ve been locked into your [classroom]… We have seen our friends text their parents goodbye. We are the experts, how dare you tell us we don’t know.”

Claiming until you’ve been on the end of an AR15, is a strong statement to make against a society that includes people who have been on the opposite end of guns and much worse. I still question whether or not these kids were actually on the opposite end like Anthony Borges or just in the building.

But also saying things like this is a good way to demonstrate they clearly know better than anyone else.

I mean this sincerely, to all the generations before us, we sincerely accept your apology. We appreciate you’re willing to let us rebuild the world that you f—-d up. “

Yep, all us older folks did this. Step back, a kid who 6 months ago not doing anything now knows how to fix all our problems bc he was in a shooting.

As for your question, not these kids. And probably not any of these politicians who don’t even know how a gun works.

 

[TexRex]

Okay, so one indeed claimed to be an expert, though what they claimed to be an expert on is ambiguous. It strikes me as a kneejerk reaction to an also ambiguous statement (Are they accused of not knowing the ins and outs of gun control or are they accused of not knowing what topic they're trying to address?) in an emotionally-charged environment. Given that they are casual observers (albeit motivated) rather than those with a great deal of experience making their case with tact and eloquence, I don't find it the least bit surprising that they might give in to baser impulses. That may mean they're not the best candidates to have the debate, but it doesn't mean they have no claim to stake.

Claiming until you’ve been on the end of an AR15, is a strong statement to make against a society that includes people who have been on the opposite end of guns and much worse.

I need some clarification here, as the wording seems to indicate something was left out (I've certainly had thoughts with which my fingers were unable to keep up.), and I'm unaware if "opposite end" refers to the opposite of the earlier "the end" or to opposite the individual operating it.

As for "society," I suspect most of society hasn't been on either end of a firearm in a situation where human life was threatened.

I still question whether or not these kids were actually on the opposite end like Anthony Borges or just in the building.

Cool, so because you disagree with their assertions you also suspect they're lying to feign interest.

As for your question, not these kids.

Why bother acknowledging the question if you aren't going to bother making any* attempt to actually answer it?

*See how "any" is italicized as though to convey emphasis? I used the same emphasis on "are" in my question, rather than "are not."

It's clear that you don't believe they're experts on gun control (you even said as much), and neither do I. A casual observer, regardless of their motivations, does not an expert make.

And probably not any of these politicians who don’t even know how a gun works.

Still not answering the question, but also seems to suggest you're confused as to what's meant by "control" in this context. Knowing how a gun works does nothing to make it more difficult for anyone who has demonstrated a propensity to engage in violent behavior (be it a fostering of such behavior in their life, as in with gang activity, or a chemical imbalance that affects impulse control) and/or a complete disregard for the lives of others to get their hands on one.

Gun control to me doesn't mean abolishment of established rights of the many, but in this context it certainly doesn't mean the ability to operate one with adeptness under the forces inherent to its function. The latter being the case, I can get on board with knowledge of how guns work being of benefit.

Yeah...one doesn't need to be informed regarding [gun legislation or firearm terminology] in order to store, care for, carry or operate a firearm in a safe and responsible manner, nor does knowledge of either guarantee one isn't going to shoot kids in a crowded school after having pulled the fire alarm to do so more efficiently.

 

[Danoff]

Probably the very last people to ask what a rational approach for regulating firearms while respecting the lives of law abiding owners should be, would be people who are (recently) emotionally scarred from the use of a firearm. This is not a person who is in a position to think clearly on the subject, I don't see why we insist, as a society, that that somehow makes them MORE worthy of listening to. The only argument I can think of for that is if somehow people think that their stories are being marginalized or ignored and need to be heard.

We all heard it... none of us have trouble understanding it... we get it... it's just not as simple as proclaiming that this can't ever happen again at any cost.

And yes, I might say something stupid like that too if it were my kid that got shot.

 

[McLaren]

Why bother acknowledging the question if you aren't going to bother making any* attempt to actually answer it?

Because as evident by your post, you weren’t actually looking for answer, just a point to argue. Sorry I didn’t waste my time giving you what you already replied to.

To another point, I’m saying the kids are exaggerating to make their point. Don’t tell someone until they’ve been on the receiving end of an AR, they don’t know what they’re talking about; he wasn’t either, filming from a class room.

I also never said most of society, I said a society that includes people who have, hence why a lot of veterans didn’t take kindly to that statement.

You can feel free to act like these kids after something else. I’ve seen enough from Hogg to know he has no business in politics; he’ll champion for what he thinks should be done regarding gun control, but when it comes to mental illness in relation, he’ll say he’s 17, that’s not his job to make those decisions.

 

[TexRex]

Probably the very last people to ask what a rational approach for regulating firearms while respecting the lives of law abiding owners should be, would be people who are (recently) emotionally scarred from the use of a firearm.

I agree, and their approach reflects the trauma, but I don't know that anyone is suggesting that these individuals be the ones who draft legislation. They want to be heard, though, and I believe they have every right to be heard.

We all heard it... none of us have trouble understanding it... we get it... it's just not as simple as proclaiming that this can't ever happen again at any cost.

It's true that chants of "never again" don't themselves prevent anything from happening again, but that fact doesn't make them useless by default.

And yes, I might say something stupid like that too if it were my kid that got shot.

I can't even imagine... I mean, I know what was going through my head during the stabbings at UT Austin (where my own daughter is enrolled) last year.

I can't help but think of Andrew Pollack, whose daughter was among those slain, and comments I personally witnessed regarding his motivations and a presumed disregard for his own daughter's life. At one point I nearly floored someone who said "if he cared he would join the fight against guns."

I agree that increased [and functional; *cough* *cough* armed officers who neglect to respond *cough* *cough*] security presence may have had a meaningful affect, and indeed should be addressed for further incidents, but I'm still convinced there's an underlying, gun-related issue.

Because as evident by your post, you weren’t actually looking for answer, just a point to argue.

If it had occurred to me to ask you who the gun control experts are prior to you saying these kids aren't, I would have. In that scenario, it might not have come off as argument for argument's sake. That said, it was a serious question. If pressed, I could possibly think of some qualities an expert in the subject might possess (one of which may be thorough familiarity with firearms, but I don't believe that to be a requirement), I just don't know who fits the bill.

While I don't believe these kids (or any kids, frankly) are experts, I don't accept lobbyists [on either side] as such either.

I also never said most of society, I said a society that includes people who have, hence why a lot of veterans didn’t take kindly to that statement.

Society includes a great many types of people, which is why I specified "most," and believe that to be the case. I never accused you of indicating a percentage of society. And while I believe veterans should be lauded for their service to their country (even if hindsight has shown some of "her" needs to be illegitimate), they are a group that itself is made up of a great many types, some of whom want lax regulations to be addressed.

 

[McLaren]

While I don't believe these kids (or any kids, frankly) are experts, I don't accept lobbyists [on either side] as such either.

Then we’re in agreement here. I’m not saying the other side is any more qualified; I just don’t want anyone trying to propose gun control who may not even know what trigger discipline is. We don’t need someone like Hillary (as ex) spouting off about suppressors as the silent killer when they’re not actually silent and they’re regulated more than the gun.

Society includes a great many types of people, which is why I specified "most," and believe that to be the case. I never accused you of indicating a percentage of society. And while I believe veterans should be lauded for their service to their country (even if hindsight has shown some of "her" needs to be illegitimate), they are a group that itself is made up of a great many types, some of whom want lax regulations to be addressed.

The point is this: they made a statement to society as if it had never been through what they been through. They need to be careful assuming they’re the only ones; with the high amount of mass shootings the news always talks about, gunviolencearchive claims there have been at least 15,872 incidents and 7,063 injuries. That means a LOT of people just this year alone know what it means to be shot at.

These kids need to learn how to articulate their thoughts better instead of speaking off the cuff which makes them no better than the silly man in the White House.

 

[TexRex]

I just don’t want anyone trying to propose gun control who may not even know what trigger discipline is.

I've been hunting since I was 15 (31 years ago) and had to look it up. Now, having done so, I realize that's ("Straight finger, off the trigger. Straight finger, off the trigger. Straight finger, off the trigger." My grandfather drilled it into me.) the second thing I was taught (The first thing being: "Don't point at anything you don't want to kill." He had a way with words.), but that's not a term I learned.

I still don't necessarily think experience using or knowledge of terminology should be a requirement, though it would likely come along with other characteristics I'd like to see in someone involved in the drafting of legislation, such as a career in law enforcement, ideally including service on the federal level and lack of admonishment specific to the capacity in which they served, as well as experience in the field.

The point is this: they made a statement to society as if it had never been through what they been through. They need to be careful assuming they’re the only ones; with the high amount of mass shootings the news always talks about, gunviolencearchive claims there have been at least 15,872 incidents and 7,063 injuries. That means a LOT of people just this year alone know what it means to be shot at.

These kids need to learn how to articulate their thoughts better instead of speaking off the cuff which makes them no better than the silly man in the White House.

I get that, and I agree...even to the extent that I acknowledge a more tactful approach would likely increase the number of people willing to listen to what they have to say.

To be frank, I'm not actually listening to a whole lot of what they're saying, and my eyes start to glaze over when the topic--as someone who wants to see a meaningful, reasonable change, I'm not who they're addressing anyway--but it seems to me that some of the most fervent responses are directed at those critics with soapboxes, who I suspect are not among those who have been threatened in the manner you refer to. And there has been some real asshattery lately.

 

[A2K78]

Imagine if the 2nd Amendment was made into a property rights issue(which it rightly is about) liberals would have an extremely weak argument when it come to issues such as background checks, magazine capacity and a whole range of issues concerning guns and knives.

As for repealing the 2nd Amendment, even if you were to remove it from the Bills of Rights guess what? An individual still has the natural right to self defense by any means necessary. You can say the say thing about the 1st Amendment. That said just the government didn't give you the right to speak or self defense, in turn government cannot take...the role of government overall is to protect those rights, not infringe on them in any way.

 

[UKMikey]

I'm guessing it ceases to become purely a property issue when it potentially infringes on other people's right to life. Does the law actually use the words "by any means necessary" or do they talk about reasonable force? If it's the former then I don't see what would prevent a homeowner deciding that bump stocks or automatic weaponry are "necessary" to defend his home.

 

[A2K78]

I'm guessing it ceases to become purely a property issue when it potentially infringes on other people's right to life. Does theUK law actually use the words "by any means necessary" or do they talk about reasonable force? If it's the former then I don't see what would prevent a homeowner deciding that bump stocks or automatic weaponry are "necessary" to defend his home.

First off the only time someones right to life is being violated is when it's taken outside the realm of self defense because that's pure criminal murder. As for bump stocks and automatic guns(which would be impossible to get even if they were legal) our all knowing lawmakers must've forgotten the line in the Bills of Rights where it say "shall not be infringed".

 

[UKMikey]

Yeah, that doesn't really answer my question about reasonable force vs by any means necessary.

I wonder what self defence has to do with some armed nut wandering into a high school and shooting up kids which is what I thought this thread was supposed to be about. I'm not familiar with US law but doesn't the Bill Of Rights afford them any protection?

 

[A2K78]

Yeah, that doesn't really answer my question about reasonable force vs by any means necessary.

I wonder what self defence has to do with some armed nut wandering into a high school and shooting up kids which is what I thought this thred was supposed to be about. I'm not familiar with US law but doesn't the Bill Of Rights afford them any protection?

people that go around shooting up schools, let alone stores are nothing but criminals and should be treated as such.

 

[TexRex]

people that go around shooting up schools, let alone stores are nothing but criminals and should be treated as such.

"Let alone stores?" Is the act of shooting up a school not the more heinous act?

Also, wouldn't one aspect of treating these criminals as criminals be to restrict access to firearms? Am I incorrect in understanding that that's a major mandate of the background check convention?

automatic guns(which would be impossible to get even if they were legal)

Uhm...how's that? What would rule out widespread availability in the absence of a ban?

 

[Obelisk]

Uhm...how's that? What would rule out widespread availability in the absence of a ban?

I think his logic is item rarity/price keeps it out of people's hands.

Not very good logic, that post.

 

[TexRex]

I think his logic is item rarity/price keeps it out of people's hands.

If that's indeed the case, that logic is misplaced, because manufacturing quality firearms cheaply is something this country has done very well for a very long time, and that expertise would inevitably be put to use to meet demand in the absence of a ban.

Frankly, I suspect the market would be satisfied even without increased production, thanks to the considerable number of "illegal" articles already out there. The ban is what makes them "rare" and expensive.

 

[Biggles]

people that go around shooting up schools, let alone stores are nothing but criminals and should be treated as such.

Here's the problem: most of these school shooters - & the other random mass shooters - are not "criminals" before their act of mass homicide. Treating them as criminals after the fact does nothing to help prevent further incidents. Regulation of people's behaviour, driving regulations, zoning bylaws, building codes etc. are designed to help protect people from future problems, based on learning from past experience. Treating a school shooter as "nothing but a criminal" doesn't do anything to restore the lives of those he killed, nor does it seem to make much difference in deterring the next mass shooter.