Parkland FL HS shooting, shooter arrested, 17 dead

[A2K78]

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, not does it seem to make much difference in deterring the next mass shooter.

The point I'm trying to emphasize is the fact these mass shootings are no different than your everday gang related violence, yet we continue to make them out to something different. As for regulating guns, if history have taught us anything it's the fact regulation and prohibitions have always been a catastrophic failure..the drug war and alcohol being prime examples.

 

[Imari]

Imagine if the 2nd Amendment was made into a property rights issue(which it rightly is about)...

It's not. It was originally about defence of the state. It's since had the goalposts moved pretty substantially to suit people's personal goals.

Did you know that the people that wrote the 2nd amendment were adamantly against standing armies? That thing that the US has the largest one in the world? Yet the amendment that is most representative of that is now used for something completely different.

I would suggest that if people's interpretation of an amendment can change over time (as it clearly has), then the relevance of that amendment can also change over time.

The point I'm trying to emphasize is the fact these mass shootings are no different than your everday gang related violence, yet we continue to make them out to something different.

Apart from one being largely caused by broad socio-economic issues, and the other largely being caused by mental health and personal social problems. And one being one group against another specific group, versus the other which is typically an individual or a very small group against whoever is within firing range. There's are plenty of relevent differences between gang violence and school shootings, just as there are differences between civil war and sibling rivalry.

Just because the outcomes are similar or the same, doesn't mean the road to get there was. And different causes require different solutions.

 

[Mr Tree]

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".

Ok that's in the 2nd amendment but how do you interpret 'a well regulatef militia'?

The point I'm trying to emphasize is the fact these mass shootings are no different than your everday gang related violence, yet we continue to make them out to something different. As for regulating guns, if history have taught us anything it's the fact regulation and prohibitions have always been a catastrophic failure..the drug war and alcohol being prime examples.

Yeah regulation never got us anything....
Like healthcare for europeans?
A minimum wage so I don't have to work 2-3jobs.
Ow yeah less gun violence and deaths everywhere in the civilised world (except the unregulated USA).
Unions that protect our rights as employees.
A traffic system that's not pure mayham.
...
The list is endless so yeah regulation can be a good thing.

But now the important part. What do you mean 'by any means nessecary'?

 

[Imari]

Yeah regulation never got us anything....

It's also quite amusing that people talk about regulations being a failure or having unregulated guns, but actually the US has a significant number of gun regulations. There are regulations on what types of guns people can own, regulations on who can own them, regulations on how they can be modified, regulations on where and when they can be carried and how they may be used.

It's not really about regulations versus no regulations, it's about current regulations (or something like them) versus stricter regulations. It's just that people who are for current regulations would like to paint that as "freedom" because it's good propaganda. It's quite intellectually dishonest.

Gun rights have been being "infringed" for centuries, which really raises the question of why the 2nd Amendment didn't (and doesn't currently) apply to those laws. I don't hear a lot of noise claiming that the Hughes Amendment is unconstitutional via the 2nd Amendment, for example.

There are very, very few people who are for total unrestricted access to anyone of all firearms, and for good reason. Even the most diehard gun enthusiast has a hard time arguing that there are valid civilian purposes for say, a minigun. But I could be wrong, @A2K78 could be one of those people who thinks that total deregulation is the way forward.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Ok that's in the 2nd amendment but how do you interpret 'a well regulatef militia'?




Yeah regulation never got us anything....
Like healthcare for europeans?
A minimum wage so I don't have to work 2-3jobs.
Ow yeah less gun violence and deaths everywhere in the civilised world (except the unregulated USA).
Unions that protect our rights as employees.
A traffic system that's not pure mayham.
...
The list is endless so yeah regulation can be a good thing.

But now the important part. What do you mean 'by any means nessecary'?

Americans have healthcare. You also can't be refused healthcare even if you don't have insurance, during an emergency. They also have a minimum wage and last time I checked, a higher average wage than every European country except for Switzerland. They also have unions and these things called traffic lights and highways. Quite a few of them actually. You do win on gun deaths though, so 1/5 ain't bad.

 

[Mr Tree]

Americans have healthcare. You also can't be refused healthcare even if you don't have insurance, during an emergency. They also have a minimum wage and last time I checked, a higher average wage than every European country except for Switzerland. They also have unions and these things called traffic lights and highways. Quite a few of them actually. You do win on gun deaths though, so 1/5 ain't bad.

Hey mate must be a misunderstanding.

Yes you have healthcare (but very limited compared to most eu countries) as that was the point I was trying to make.

All the other things were more universal. Of course you have a traffic code, minimum wage,....

That was exactly what I was trying to say. Regulations aren't inherrently bad.

You also have tegulations on guns just less strict then ours.

That didn't seem to be clear.

 

[TexRex]

Yes you have...

Of course you have...

You also have...

Just FYI, he's actually Canadian and is merely speaking to what Americans (as in those from the United States, not those from the Americas) have as an observer from the north.

 

[Biggles]

The point I'm trying to emphasize is the fact these mass shootings are no different than your everday gang related violence, yet we continue to make them out to something different. As for regulating guns, if history have taught us anything it's the fact regulation and prohibitions have always been a catastrophic failure..the drug war and alcohol being prime examples.

Actually, I think they really ARE something different. The causes behind random mass shootings are not the same as gang violence. And no, regulation & prohibitions have NOT always been a catastrophic failure. Well-conceived regulations & prohibitions have been an essential component of successful human civilization - the drug war & alcohol prohibition not falling into the category of "well-conceived".

 

[Imari]

Well-conceived regulations & prohibitions have been an essential component of successful human civilization - the drug war & alcohol prohibition not falling into the category of "well-conceived".

I would say that the drug war is a good example of something where appropriate regulation appears to be succeeding where prohibition has failed.

 

[Danoff]

There are very, very few people who are for total unrestricted access to anyone of all firearms, and for good reason. Even the most diehard gun enthusiast has a hard time arguing that there are valid civilian purposes for say, a minigun. But I could be wrong, @A2K78 could be one of those people who thinks that total deregulation is the way forward.

Civilian ownership is not really in line with unregulated access. I keep pointing out that Schwarzenegger owns a tank. Civilians can own miniguns, tanks, even fighter aircraft, without total deregulation. It is possible to not infringe the right to bear arms without complete deregulation, at least that has been the consistent message from the supreme court. I should note that speech is also regulated.

 

[A2K78]

@Imari

I can go into detail as to how government regulations have been disastrous both economically and socially i.e. some of the most racist government policies have been as a result of government regulations.

Anyhow speaking of guns the first real attempt to regulate guns in terms of gun type was the aftermath of the Valentine Massacre. Anyhow I'm not a absolutist when it come to the 2nd Amendment but rather the Bills of Rights(only the frist 10)

 

[Imari]

@Imari

I can go into detail as to how government regulations have been disastrous both economically and socially i.e. some of the most racist government policies have been as a result of government regulations.

All government regulations, everywhere, ever? Go for it. Want me to hold your beer?

You should know before you start that just because government policies can be racist, that doesn't make regulation bad. That is a flawed argument, just as as saying that because some Americans are racist all Americans are bad would be.

I believe a lot of gun owners are fond of the idea that guns aren't evil. As it goes, guns are just tools, and it's people that use them in evil ways. It's slightly oversimplified, but it does make clear the idea that fundamentally it's humans who are making the decisions, whether it be in how to use a gun or how to use regulation.

Do you not think that regulations might be a bit similar? I won't argue that there isn't plenty of stupid, racist, and ultimately damaging regulation out there. There's loads. But I'd argue it's not bad simply because it's regulation, it's bad because it was made by people who were stupid, racist, self-serving or otherwise not inclined or able to think about what was best for the country.

Anyhow speaking of guns the first real attempt to regulate guns in terms of gun type was the aftermath of the Valentine Massacre.

True, however considering that reasonably reliable and accurate automatic weapons that could be carried by a single person had only been around since about WW1, that means they basically started regulating them the moment a single person could carry enough firepower to clear a room before anyone could respond (and there wasn't a war on). 15 years in regulation is about as quick as it gets.

Instead of you going into broad strokes about government regulation, how about you go into detail about how the National Firearms Act or the Federal Firearms Acts have been disastrous both economically and socially? That seems like it would be relevant and more achievable than demonstrating how all government regulation is bad.

Don't forget that there will have been both positive and negative effects, and something is really only judged as disastrous by it's overall effect.

 

[Biggles]

@Imari
I can go into detail as to how government regulations have been disastrous both economically and socially i.e. some of the most racist government policies have been as a result of government regulations.

What Imari said. What you mean is SOME government regulations have been disastrous. I don't think anybody would disagree with that.

 

[A2K78]

If you would like an example of an government regulation that has have a disastrous effect look no further than the minimum wage which essentially outlaws work.

As for gun regulations they serve no good other than to create barriers to legal ownership whereas it only create a blackmarket

 

[Obelisk]

which essentially outlaws work.

Nope. Minimum wage is there to allow for a fair work market. Do you really think a person would be able to do anything even remotely resembling a healthy life at $2 an hour? $5?
Not to mention that a minimum wage can make markets more efficient.

Back up what you're saying with verified sources. And by verified, I mean peer-reviewed journals and analyses that prove that minimum wage has "disastrous effects" and "outlaws work". Otherwise that statement is just a load of crock.

 

[Imari]

If you would like an example of an government regulation that has have a disastrous effect look no further than the minimum wage which essentially outlaws work.

Like I said, that's one. That's not a case for all government regulation being bad.

As for gun regulations they serve no good other than to create barriers to legal ownership whereas it only create a blackmarket

No good at all? None? Really?

You think the country would be better served by anyone, regardless of age, criminal history, mental status or anything else being able to purchase any gun they like, including military grade weapons?

I think we're probably done. Any reasonable person can think of at least some positive and negative effects of any regulation. If you can't think of a single positive point for gun regulations then you aren't able to discuss the topic rationally. Put the Glocks on the shelf in the 7/11 beside the chocolate bars and be done with it.

I mean, I'm in general for gun regulation that allows people access for reasonable purposes but is quite strict in the way that it chooses who can be allowed that privilege. Not to dissimilar to cars, but more strict as I see a gun as a greater responsibility than a car. I guess that means that I'm for quite strict regulation, but at least I can see the disadvantages of that choice. I just think that the disadvantages are outweighed by the advantages.

Although I do live in a country that implemented extremely strict gun control laws not so long ago, and they seem to have been fairly successful. Whether it was the laws or the fact that a population that supports those sort of laws is going to be the sort to not abuse gun privileges anyway is up for debate, but that's where I'm coming from.

 

[allsupratt]

So my wife is/was an anti gun person.

2 days ago i brought home a small .380 and she wasnt having another weapon in the house, good deal or not..

I left it on the kitchen table to bring back to the seller the next day.

That night we woke up to a loud bang in the back, followed by another. I jumped up and headed to the living room, by the 3rd bang, grabbing and loading that very weapon in the way to the back door. As i got close to the back door it shattered with the 4th bang. I pulled back the curtain and a guy was trying to get into the house. I held him right there at gun point until the police arrived and arrested him. The police told me i was within my rights to shoot him (stand your ground) but I felt I had the situation under control and there was no need to escalate it..

Now all the sudden she is pro gun and made me purchase that weapon for her.

All that being said..

I feel that gun regulations are not the answer. They aren't the problem. We dont need to fix guns we need to fix people. I spent the last 2 days fixing my property out of pocket because insurance (even the highest premium) is a joke and obviously this guy wont ever pay for it. I researched this guy to find out he has been in and out of jail his whole life (43 yo) for the same **** over and over again. Burglary, assaults, and many many other charges to include assaulting police officers.

He's just a common druggie that has a pattern of getting high on everything from meth to pharmaceuticals, then breaking into places.

The whole system needs to be fixed, post crime. Every day we hear about individuals that stay in trouble and get released to do it all over again and sometimes worse. What i never realized was small crime such as this comes out of the homeowners pockets. The DA even said chances are ill never recoup my money.

Id be willing to bet that if insurance was automatically required to pay criminal damages, career criminals would see harsher punishments just for the fact they don't want to keep paying for damages.

Another major step would be to stop pharmas strangle hold on the drug trade. The only drug they make that i like is the fentynol because it kills so many of the druggies.

But honestly getting back to the OP, how many of these mass shooters were on anti psychotics when they went off on society. I have read most of them where. Gun regulations just puts a bandaid on a severed leg. It does nothing to fix the issue.


Tldr; gun control debate is like changing front left tire on your car, in attempt to fix a misfire in the engine.

 

[TexRex]

i brought home a small .380...I left it on the kitchen table

Good call.

That night we woke up to a loud bang in the back...a guy was trying to get into the house...I held him right there at gun point until the police arrived and arrested him

Alternatively, the two of you sleep soundly and, best case reasonable scenario, an established criminal simply leaves with a firearm he didn't pay for, much less qualify for.

So yeah, "guns aren't the problem," but maybe the wrong people getting their hands on them is more likely to be?

 

[Biggles]

So my wife is/was an anti gun person.

2 days ago i brought home a small .380 and she wasnt having another weapon in the house, good deal or not..

I left it on the kitchen table to bring back to the seller the next day.

That night we woke up to a loud bang in the back, followed by another. I jumped up and headed to the living room, by the 3rd bang, grabbing and loading that very weapon in the way to the back door. As i got close to the back door it shattered with the 4th bang. I pulled back the curtain and a guy was trying to get into the house. I held him right there at gun point until the police arrived and arrested him. The police told me i was within my rights to shoot him (stand your ground) but I felt I had the situation under control and there was no need to escalate it..

Now all the sudden she is pro gun and made me purchase that weapon for her.

All that being said..

I feel that gun regulations are not the answer. They aren't the problem. We dont need to fix guns we need to fix people. I spent the last 2 days fixing my property out of pocket because insurance (even the highest premium) is a joke and obviously this guy wont ever pay for it. I researched this guy to find out he has been in and out of jail his whole life (43 yo) for the same **** over and over again. Burglary, assaults, and many many other charges to include assaulting police officers.

He's just a common druggie that has a pattern of getting high on everything from meth to pharmaceuticals, then breaking into places.

The whole system needs to be fixed, post crime. Every day we hear about individuals that stay in trouble and get released to do it all over again and sometimes worse. What i never realized was small crime such as this comes out of the homeowners pockets. The DA even said chances are ill never recoup my money.

Id be willing to bet that if insurance was automatically required to pay criminal damages, career criminals would see harsher punishments just for the fact they don't want to keep paying for damages.

Another major step would be to stop pharmas strangle hold on the drug trade. The only drug they make that i like is the fentynol because it kills so many of the druggies.

But honestly getting back to the OP, how many of these mass shooters were on anti psychotics when they went off on society. I have read most of them where. Gun regulations just puts a bandaid on a severed leg. It does nothing to fix the issue.


Tldr; gun control debate is like changing front left tire on your car, in attempt to fix a misfire in the engine.

Nice story ... but it's not clear why you think it makes any kind of case against gun control.

 

[Obelisk]

Nice story ... but it's not clear why you think it makes any kind of case against gun control.

If he didn't have the gun, a lot of really nasty stuff could have happened. The person breaking in had a violent history and was on some kind of a drug at the time, so...God knows what kind of things this guy (the person breaking in) was thinking, especially since he assaulted people and assaulted LEOs prior to this.

A huge majority of self defense incidents like this end without the gun actually being fired.

 

[Biggles]

If he didn't have the gun, a lot of really nasty stuff could have happened. The person breaking in had a violent history and was on some kind of a drug at the time, so...God knows what kind of things this guy (the person breaking in) was thinking, especially since he assaulted people and assaulted LEOs prior to this.

A huge majority of self defense incidents like this end without the gun actually being fired.

Effective gun control - extensive background checks - would presumably not have meant he couldn't have owned a gun, but would make it less easy for a convicted felon, drug abuser, violent offender or a mentally unstable individual to get access to a gun. Nikolas Cruz had no problem walking into a gun shop & LEGALLY buying an AR-15. Perhaps its hard for you to envisage a society that isn't awash with guns, but such places do exist. Admittedly, getting the US to that point may be a lost cause, but starting with more rigorous background checks might be a good place to start.

 

[Obelisk]

Effective gun control - extensive background checks - would presumably not have meant he couldn't have owned a gun, but would make it less easy for a convicted felon, drug abuser, violent offender or a mentally unstable individual to get access to a gun. Nikolas Cruz had no problem walking into a gun shop & LEGALLY buying an AR-15. Perhaps its hard for you to envisage a society that isn't awash with guns, but such places do exist. Admittedly, getting the US to that point may be a lost cause, but starting with more rigorous background checks might be a good place to start.

You are missing the point.

I was telling you that the criminal that broke into the house was a major threat to the residents of the house.

If allsupratt did not have the gun, he could have been seriously injured or killed by the criminal.

It seems like you completely misinterpteted or just straight-up ignored my original explanation to push an agenda when all I did was attempt to outline the point allsupra was making.

 

[Johnnypenso]

IMO the fear of regulations stems from a fear of over regulation, not a fear of reasonable regulation. For example, if someone has a history of mental issues of course most reasonable people can agree they probably should be prohibited from owning a weapon. What is feared however, is that once the ball is rolling it will never stop and soon you won't be able to own a weapon if you had a traffic conviction at 17 or a barfight at 22.

 

[TexRex]

If allsupratt did not have the gun, he could have been seriously injured or killed by the criminal.

All sorts of things could have happened...

He could have responded as indicated and still been seriously injured or killed by the criminal.

He could have responded as indicated and been seriously injured or killed through his own actions.

He could have responded as indicated and seriously injured or killed the criminal.

He could have not been roused by noises made and been the victim of theft of everyday items.

He could have not been roused by noises made and been seriously injured or killed with an item the intruder brought along.

He could have not been roused by noises made and been seriously injured or killed by the intruder, armed with a firearm found on the kitchen table.

The intruder could have been impaled on a shard of glass protruding from the window frame, resulting in an even bigger mess in need of cleaning.

Plenty more possibilities exist.

It seems like you completely misinterpteted or just straight-up ignored my original explanation to push an agenda when all I did was attempt to outline the point allsupra was making.

Did it really need to be outlined? Or did you feel the need to outline it as a way of pushing your own agenda that reflects the sentiment expressed after the story?

Hey, guess what, everyone has a perspective, and by discussing topics that pertain to that perspective, they are in effect "pushing an agenda," but the phrase "pushing an agenda" has negative connotations that those with an opposing perspective like to imply when "pushing an agenda."

 

[Obelisk]

Or did you feel the need to outline it as a way of pushing your own agenda that reflects the sentiment expressed after the story?

Dude, I really don't carry any sentiment for or against 2A. I enjoy shooting firearms, but as far as I'm concerned, I'd only ever need to own a firearm for self-defense. I don't appreciate you accusing me of having an agenda, particularly when I only came back into the thread to outline the point behind another user's story. I don't necessarily agree with his actions or choices (leaving a gun on a table is a pretty bad move in any serious situation) but I could see what he was getting at.

Edit: And the problem was that the user I was responding to did not, in any way, directly acknowledge what I had outlined, and then backhanded me with this comment:

Perhaps its hard for you to envisage a society that isn't awash with guns, but such places do exist.

 

[Joey D]

You are missing the point.

I was telling you that the criminal that broke into the house was a major threat to the residents of the house.

If allsupratt did not have the gun, he could have been seriously injured or killed by the criminal.

It seems like you completely misinterpteted or just straight-up ignored my original explanation to push an agenda when all I did was attempt to outline the point allsupra was making.

The story isn't an example of why gun control is bad. It is an example of why banning guns outright for citizens is bad.

Gun control, like background checks, training, etc. are all reasonable things and don't infringe on the rights of the person. They can still legally buy a gun and keep it in their possession. It just makes it more difficult for those who shouldn't have guns to get one in the first place. Going hand-in-hand with gun control, the ATF in the US needs to step up controlling the import of illegal guns into the country. Cut off the black market, or at the very least make it prohibitively expensive, and many criminals are outta luck.

 

[Biggles]

You are missing the point.

I was telling you that the criminal that broke into the house was a major threat to the residents of the house.

If allsupratt did not have the gun, he could have been seriously injured or killed by the criminal.

It seems like you completely misinterpteted or just straight-up ignored my original explanation to push an agenda when all I did was attempt to outline the point allsupra was making.

What TexRex wrote.

In fact, from what I understand of the narrative, the intruder didn't break into the house. It's quite possible, likely even, that if allsupratt had simply indicated that he was there, was prepared to defend his property & had called the police, that the intruder would have fled.

I'm not sure what "agenda" you think I'm pushing. It's clear to the hundreds of millions of people that live in countries where privately owned firearms are rare, that guns are NOT a necessary requirement for private or societal protection. They are also clearly NOT necessary "to protect democracy from a tyrannical government". Those are narratives pushed by the gun lobby. It IS true however, that the United States is dealing with a different situation - that there are already hundreds of millions of privately owned firearms in circulation. The options are to simply give up on any kind of control or regulation & accept that every now & then someone like Nichloas Cruz, or Adam Lanza, or Stephen Paddock, or Seung-HuiCho, or George Hennard, or Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold, or James Holmes etc. etc. will shoot a bunch of people for no apparent reason, other than to shoot them ... or to try & arrive a some form of regulation that helps make those mass shootings as uncommon as they are in the rest of the developed world.

 

[Obelisk]

They are also clearly NOT necessary "to protect democracy from a tyrannical government".

This is crock, and I agree with you on this. It's based on a flawed interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

It's quite possible, likely even, that if allsupratt had simply indicated that he was there, was prepared to defend his property & had called the police, that the intruder would have fled.

Anything could have happened, honestly.

guns are NOT a necessary requirement for private or societal protection.

This is also true. Guns are the most convenient option, unfortunately. I'm trained in martial arts and it takes years to get to a level where the person can adequately protect themselves from most scenarios. Buying a gun and having it handy takes way less time (and Americans are more concerned with convenience these days, from personal experience as an American).


FWIW, I apologize for getting belligerent.

 

[Northstar]

It's quite possible, likely even, that if allsupratt had simply indicated that he was there, was prepared to defend his property & had called the police, that the intruder would have fled.

I'm not sure anyone could say this for certainty considering we have no clue where he lives. Some places like where I currently live just saying such a thing would probably suffice since I live a whole 2 miles from the police station. However I've also lived in more rural areas where the number of deputies can be counted on one hand and would take a good 15+ minutes to get there, plenty of time for a burglar to do their thing and leave.

 

[Biggles]

This is crock, and I agree with you on this. It's based on a flawed interpretation of the 2nd Amendment..

I don't know what to think about the 2nd Amendment. I assume there have been reams of learned interpretation written about it. To me, it seems very poorly written, leaving the interpretation very much up in the air. I take it to mean:
1. (certainly) that an armed militia is required to protect the state from foreign & internal threats
2. & (possibly) that citizens should have the right to bear arms to protect themselves.

The way the two ideas are cobbled together in a single sentence, the meaning becomes rather uncertain.

Regardless, I hear the point made continually by gun advocates/patriots that an armed citizenry is a bulwark against a "tyrannical government". In fact, the ongoing, active participation of the citizenry in the democratic process, a belief in the rule of law & an impartial judiciary, an engaged & free press - these are the things that protect against tyrannical government. If these things break down, civil war between various factions, is a more likely outcome than citizens rising up en masse to oppose the government. This is what has happened repeatedly, throughout history, (including US history) when the mechanics of democracy break down.

Self-defense seems like a reasonable right, but it's not clear how self-defense requires the ownership of multiple guns, or semi-automatic, quasi military-grade weapons.

I don't have an "agenda", as I am not a US citizen. I only have a commentary, based on common sense & my experience of living in England, the US, Canada & a couple of other European countries. There are some questionable arguments made on both sides of the gun debate, but the pro-gun side is a mother lode of specious, self-serving arguments.