Parkland FL HS shooting, shooter arrested, 17 dead

[CodeRedR51]

So I ask you, since keeping people safe is clearly very important to you; when are you going to crush your Elantra and cut up your drivers license?

A vehicle is not designed as an instrument to kill. That is the sole purpose of a gun. Animals or humans, doesn't matter.

Apples & Oranges.

But we've been here before, we will be here again. Arguing over gun laws every time there is a mass killing in this country. Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

[LennyB]

I think someone should just come out and say it so I will, give me liberty or give me death. I don't mind one inch that some consider me at risk for living in a society with guns. To me it is not an unnecessary risk but quite the opposite.

What part of responsibility do people miss I wonder to myself, many things in life can be avoided if the thoughts of others are kept in mind. Then again I have never liked having my hand held, ok ok, maybe if my gf at the time is hot enough to rock my box.

 

[Danoff]

A vehicle is not designed as an instrument to kill. That is the sole purpose of a gun. Animals or humans, doesn't matter.

Killing is not illegal*, hunting or self-defense, doesn't matter. I've purchased several guns for the sole purpose of being capable of lawfully killing another human being in self defense (or in defense of my family) if the dire need arises.


*in all circumstances, just like vehicle use is not illegal in all circumstances


Edit:

We've been over this. Why am I seeing the same defeated arguments made by the same people?

 

[LennyB]

Killing is not illegal*, hunting or self-defense, doesn't matter.


*in all circumstances, just like vehicle use is not illegal in all circumstances

We all kill to eat, that is a fact. I've seen this argument before about inanimate objects, sometimes being used correctly or sometimes being used incorrectly and I don't see a difference between a gun and a car, or a 40oz soda for that matter.

 

[Danoff]

We all kill to eat, that is a fact. I've seen this argument before about inanimate objects, sometimes being used correctly or sometimes being used incorrectly and I don't see a difference between a gun and a car, or a 40oz soda for that matter.

...well... vegans might argue with you.

I think your point is that guns, cars, and soda all have legal (and moral) uses. Ironically, I think you'd find more people who would argue that you have no right to drink soda than people who would argue that you have no right to defend your life.

 

[LennyB]

Even vegans kill something though, how is it possible to find a never living food source?

 

[Michael88]

A vehicle is not designed as an instrument to kill. That is the sole purpose of a gun. Animals or humans, doesn't matter.

If guns were designed to kill, does that mean I have been using all my rifles and shotgun not correctly in all those years? Damn. And here I thought shooting paper targets at extended ranges in sport shooting clubs was their purpose, the guns were even advertised for that very purpose from their manufacturer. I always thought that shooting up people was a worst case scenario of misuse of said firearms, but I was wrong.

 

[Joey D]

If guns were designed to kill, does that mean I have been using all my rifles and shotgun not correctly in all those years? Damn. And here I thought shooting paper targets at extended ranges in sport shooting clubs was their purpose, the guns were even advertised for that very purpose from their manufacturer. Bummer.

A gun's primary purpose is to kill or injure, however people use them in other ways. It's just like a car is designed to transport people, however some use it as a weapon.

 

[MatskiMonk]

A lot of people in the US live without ever seeing a real gun as well. But the UK has roughly half of the murder rate of the US even if you ignore all US gun murder.

I think you're trying to address a point I haven't made.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

A gun's primary purpose is to kill or injure, however people use them in other ways. It's just like a car is designed to transport people, however some use it as a weapon.

That'd be like saying a knife's primary purpose it to kill...

 

[Michael88]

A gun's primary purpose is to kill or injure, however people use them in other ways. It's just like a car is designed to transport people, however some use it as a weapon.

Nope. For example defensive carry pistols are made to be carried and to defend the owner and, not just to kill living beings. Modern precision rifles are developed specifically to have ridiculous amounts of accuracy to shoot targets out to up to 1600 yards which is a very popular and expensive sport. There are reproductions of 1800's muzzleloaders that are used in traditional target shooting and reenactment.

In fact none of the firearms that are made for the civilian market are made to hurt and injure people. The are made for sporting and defensive purposes, like a long bow or a replica sword, but of course you can misuse them and hurt other people with them, just like with a car.

And fun fact, if you are going with the original purpose - the first firearms were not developed to hurt and injure, they were designed to create a lot of noise on the medieval battlefield to scare horses and confuse soldiers.

 

[LennyB]

If guns were designed to kill, does that mean I have been using all my rifles and shotgun not correctly in all those years? Damn. And here I thought shooting paper targets at extended ranges in sport shooting clubs was their purpose, the guns were even advertised for that very purpose from their manufacturer. I always thought that shooting up people was a worst case scenario of misuse of said firearms, but I was wrong.

I use my guns to kill, I use my fly rods to kill, if I want something I reach out and grab it. Getting to the larger point though as that statement was a bit cheeky, guns can be a threat or deterrent as well, cold war anyone?(please no, I was just kidding).

As a hobby I'm sure shooting clay pigeons is innocent enough I just don't understand it personally. I honestly hope that the people around me do not think my guns are a sign of mocheesmo, fear, or attitude. I will always consider my right to guns on a legal stand point as a right of protection from the government and from a personal standpoint as a right to feed myself through the death of an animal. Personal protection doesn't come into play really for me, I'd be much more likely to use a gun in the aid of another human beings defense.

 

[McLaren]

A gun's primary purpose is to kill or injure, however people use them in other ways. It's just like a car is designed to transport people, however some use it as a weapon.

If you want to lope all the guns into a specific category, sure. But you missed what he said; there are guns built for a specific purpose of a sport.

Skeet shotguns are typically designed with a specific barrel lengths and open chokes. Or, one will use a trap gun with a longer barrel and tighter choke. The fact the Olympics have this sport show not all guns’ specific purpose is to kill. You know those guns are built with the utmost detail for the sport.

 

[EamerRed]

I've been quoted a load of times here so apologies but I'm not directly answering all points. I think the main one has been that the US has had homicide rates fall at a similar rate to other countries since the 90's despite still having gun control? Well yes, it has, and I can't find any evidence to contradict that. But, and I mean this with the greatest respect, when crime rates are so astronomically high to begin with, it is easier to get those first few percentage points. Weird analogy but in the same way it's easier to give a car an extra 10 BHP from 100BHP to 900BHP, if that makes sense?

I don't buy this argument about the constitution and freedom. It's absolute nonsense. I can still live my life exactly how I like without needing a weapon with me in my place. In the event that you need to use the weapon, if you have it sensibly stored, you wouldn't be able to access it in a hurry anyway.

To Danoff, fair play to you, you're making me research more thoroughly and reconsider my opinion. I still stand by my anti-gun stance, but you make a fair point.

And finally, please don't take these posts as a dig at your entire country. I love the States, I'd live there if I could. This is just an external opinion on one part of your society.

 

[Danoff]

I think you're trying to address a point I haven't made.

I was addressing your "feasible" point.

 

[Joey D]

That'd be like saying a knife's primary purpose it to kill...

A knife's primary purpose is to cut. Food, rope, skin, etc. all fall under that.

Nope. For example a defensive carry pistols are made to be carried and to defend the owner and, not just to kill living beings. Modern precision rifles are developed specifically to shoot targets out to up to 1500 yards which is a very popular and expensive sport. In fact none of the firearms that are made for the civilian market are made to hurt and injure people.

I didn't say they just kill living beings, I said it's the primary purpose. That doesn't mean there aren't other purposes they are used for. For instance a hammer's primary purpose to to drive nails, however someone can easily use it to kill people.

I get using guns for sport, I use my handgun for target shooting primarily. My shotgun has only ever been used to shoot trap too. It doesn't change the fact their primary purpose is to kill. I just choose not to use them in that way.

And do you have some sort of source to back up the claim that no civilian firearms are made to hurt people? Because I don't believe that one bit, mainly because there are some firearms that have zero differences between the civilian and military counterparts.

If you want to lope all the guns into a specific category, sure. But you missed what he said; there are guns built for a specific purpose of a sport.

Skeet shotguns are typically designed with a specific barrel lengths and open chokes. Or, one will use a trap gun with a longer barrel and tighter choke. The fact the Olympics have this sport show not all guns’ specific purpose is to kill. You know those guns are built with the utmost detail for the sport.

I didn't say the specific purpose is to kill, I said it's the primary purpose, I recognize people use guns in a variety of different ways. And I don't know why you can't lump all guns together, they're all tools of the same type.

In it's most basic form, a trap shooting shotgun is still a shotgun, which was originally designed to kill. It's just been modified for a different use.

====

With all of this I'm not arguing against guns, but I do think saying something that suggests guns aren't meant to kill or injure is not correct.

 

[DDastardly00]

Sadly my 2nd post on page one turned out to be prophetic, there were warnings, they just weren't followed through on:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43071710

Words cannot adequately describe how tired I am of reading statements like these:

"The FBI has confirmed that it was warned about the teenager who allegedly carried out a mass shooting at his former school in Florida."

So they couldn't track the IP address? It's either stupid or lazy, one or the other.

After seeing a comment on a YouTube post last year by Mr Cruz, 19, user Ben Bennight contacted the FBI and spoke to representatives for about 20 minutes.

Mr Bennight said the FBI contacted him again following the school shooting in Parkland.

The FBI confirmed on Thursday that they were made aware of the comment, adding that they had conducted "checks" but were unable to identify the person behind it.

So according to multiple statements from witnesses, he was kicked off Campus and expelled from the school last year for making threats to students and for having bullets in his backpack, is that not alarming enough? Then you read something like this:

He seemed like the kind of kid who would do something like this."

Other students echoed that opinion. "Everyone predicted it," one told local station WFOR.

But police said they were had not been warned of a possible attack by Mr Cruz.

So the FBI was notified but the local police were not? This doesn't just seem like a massive fail on the part of the school for not reporting it, and that's because IT IS A MASSIVE FAIL.

In schools we teach the children this, 'If you see something, say something'. That only works if the information is passed on to Law enforcement. Sadly this one was very preventable.

 

[Michael88]

I don't buy this argument about the constitution and freedom. It's absolute nonsense.

Self defense is a human right, and human rights mean freedom. I think thats not too hard to understand. Do you want to give up any of your other human rights and say they have nothing to do with your freedom? How about freedom of speech?

I can still live my life exactly how I like without needing a weapon with me in my place. In the event that you need to use the weapon, if you have it sensibly stored, you wouldn't be able to access it in a hurry anyway.

Yes, and I can live my life exactly how I like without a seat belt or a fire extinguisher. But oh boy, should something terrible happen and I need any of those two items but I don't have them its very possible that my life as I know it will be over. Turns out people die every day because of fires or because they did not use a seat belt. People also die every day because they did not have the means to defend themselves effectively from an attack. Everybody thinks things like that only happens to others, but thats not a logical thinking.

And no, there are very good ways to store guns so you have them immediately in an emergency. Thumb-print safes next to your bed for example, you can have your loaded gun in your hands in under 5 seconds.

 

[Danoff]

With all of this I'm not arguing against guns, but I do think saying something that suggests guns aren't meant to kill or injure is not correct.

I tend to agree with you. I wouldn't own my handguns if they weren't designed (really well) to kill. If target practice is someone's game, there are cheaper less annoying ways to do it. Guns are so loud and messy and there are enough regulations and considerations that it's not worth it if all you want to do is put some holes in a piece of paper remotely.

I think gun owners should not be afraid to embrace the fact that guns are designed to kill (many of them are designed to kill people specifically).

 

[McLaren]

With all of this I'm not arguing against guns, but I do think saying something that suggests guns aren't meant to kill or injure is not correct.

And we think saying all guns primary purpose is to kill us incorrect.

The primary purpose of a skeet gun used in the Olympics is to... shoot clay targets. If someone took one and killed someone, that would be a misuse of why it was built. No different than taking a steak knife and used to stab someone; that’s not what it was intended to be used for.

 

[Danoff]

Sadly my 2nd post on page one turned out to be prophetic, there were warnings, they just weren't followed through on:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43071710

Words cannot adequately describe how tired I am of reading statements like these:



So they couldn't track the IP address? It's either stupid or lazy, one or the other.



So according to multiple statements from witnesses, he was kicked off Campus and expelled from the school last year for making threats to students and for having bullets in his backpack, is that not alarming enough? Then you read something like this:



So the FBI was notified but the local police were not? This doesn't just seem like a massive fail on the part of the school for not reporting it, and that's because IT IS A MASSIVE FAIL.

In schools we teach the children this, 'If you see something, say something'. That only works if the information is passed on to Law enforcement. Sadly this one was very preventable.

The gun control argument distracts us from the real analysis, a portion of which is right here ^. Over and over in these threads there is a tragedy, people come in yelling about guns, and somewhere in the thread it is revealed that once again the US systems for keeping guns out of the hands of people we KNOW are dangerous has let us down. This is one of the main places where we need to get to work.

And we think saying all guns primary purpose is to kill us incorrect.

Fair enough, some guns have other purposes. Like staple guns. I think people are not really discussing special purpose guns like your examples though. I know I know, distinguishing them can be tricky.

 

[MatskiMonk]

So the FBI was notified but the local police were not? This doesn't just seem like a massive fail on the part of the school for not reporting it, and that's because IT IS A MASSIVE FAIL.

In schools we teach the children this, 'If you see something, say something'. That only works if the information is passed on to Law enforcement. Sadly this one was very preventable.

Out of interest, even with the all the prior knowledge, what could the police have done to prevent this?

 

[McLaren]

Fair enough, some guns have other purposes. Like staple guns. I think people are not really discussing special purpose guns like your examples though. I know I know, distinguishing them can be tricky.

Don’t think it would take much to severly injure or kill someone with a nail gun, either.

The point was made against trying to act like the guns people use for target shooting doesn’t change their primary purpose to kill. Skeet guns aren’t built to kill people like a generic shot gun, it just has the capability and looks much like any other.

As I’ve said before, guns are a hobby. They all work and shoot different, so it’s fun to experience that. They all have the ability to kill, but that’s why the user needs to be looked at first before we go after the weapon.

 

[Obelisk]

To Danoff, fair play to you, you're making me research more thoroughly and reconsider my opinion. I still stand by my anti-gun stance, but you make a fair point.

And finally, please don't take these posts as a dig at your entire country. I love the States, I'd live there if I could. This is just an external opinion on one part of your society.

I'm genuinely impressed. This is the first time I've seen someone follow up on their own research instead of sticking to their guns (excuse me for that) and having a flame-out.

Otherwise, I'm seeing valid points across both sides on this thread. I am personally of the mindset that having a gun is a valid thing, but I will admit there needs to be far more stringent gun security at home and when out and about in order to keep the guns from falling into the wrong hands.

 

[LennyB]

I don't buy this argument about the constitution and freedom

That is all I needed to hear.

 

[DDastardly00]

Out of interest, even with the all the prior knowledge, what could the police have done to prevent this?

Threating others with violence is a chargeable offense, so is bringing ammunition onto a school campus, he could've been charged with both and ordered by a judge to undergo a psychological evaluation, which hopefully would've shown that he was unfit for society.

 

[EamerRed]

That is all I needed to hear.

Coming from someone who doesn't think anyone should ever have an opinion on a country that's not their own. Fantastic.

 

[LennyB]

Coming from someone who doesn't think anyone should ever have an opinion on a country that's not their own. Fantastic.

I don't think I ever said that but whatever, I will always wonder why it seems so important what 'muricans are doing to people who live somewhere else though.

I'm not fantastic I'm fabulous lol.

Seriously though for a moment, some people actually do not care about liberty and I understand that.

 

[NotThePrez]

Out of interest, even with the all the prior knowledge, what could the police have done to prevent this?

Threatning violence and bringing ammo to a school are both big no-no's. Cops could've gone to his home, talked to his parents about the situation, told them what was said, school could've/should've contacted the parents directly about the nature of his suspension, probably a couple other things that I'm forgetting or don't know about.

Which raises the question, where are/were the parents? I only know a few details about the perpetrator, but nothing about the parents, even nothing like "the parents do not wish to comment at this time."

Edit: Answered my own question.

 

[Danoff]

Threating others with violence is a chargeable offense, so is bringing ammunition onto a school campus, he could've been charged with both and ordered by a judge to undergo a psychological evaluation, which hopefully would've shown that he was unfit for society.

Even if he was eventually released on those charges, I'd like to make sure that he can't legally obtain guns after doing those things. And I'd take it a step further, I'd like some sting operations on folks with backgrounds like this. See if you can offer them the opportunity to illegally obtain guns and nab them for trying.

I get that trying to catch people obtaining illegal guns is hard. But surely if we're talking about a teenager who has threatened a school and brought ammunition we could spare some effort in making sure that person isn't trying to buy guns illegally.

Meanwhile, we set up sting operations to catch people trying to buy some time with a prostitute... something that shouldn't even be a crime.