Parkland FL HS shooting, shooter arrested, 17 dead

[Joey D]

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.

To me it still doesn't change that a gun's primary purpose is to kill. Mainly for the reason you said in the next paragraph:

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.

I'm not suggesting we ban guns under the pretense they're purpose is to kill. I'm against an all out ban on any firearms of any type. However because they're a tool with the primary purpose of killing, they should at least have better, more well thought out guidelines around them. And I'm not suggesting banning "assault" rifles or anything along those lines either.

Really any law abiding citizen who can pass a background check and a mental health evaluation with no prior past of violent crimes should be allowed to own a gun of any type they're willing to pony up the cash for.

 

[McLaren]

To me it still doesn't change that a gun's primary purpose is to kill. Mainly for the reason you said in the next paragraph:



I'm not suggesting we ban guns under the pretense they're purpose is to kill. I'm against an all out ban on any firearms of any type. However because they're a tool with the primary purpose of killing, they should at least have better, more well thought out guidelines around them. And I'm not suggesting banning "assault" rifles or anything along those lines either.

Really any law abiding citizen who can pass a background check and a mental health evaluation with no prior past of violent crimes should be allowed to own a gun of any type they're willing to pony up the cash for.

I’ll agree with that.

I think the idea of a smart gun that operates within its owner fingerprints is something worth exploring as a means of stricter control whilst still allowing the ownership.

 

[Danoff]

I think the idea of a smart gun that operates within its owner fingerprints is something worth exploring as a means of stricter control whilst still allowing the ownership.

That one makes me pretty nervous.

 

[Obelisk]

I’ll agree with that.

I think the idea of a smart gun that operates within its owner fingerprints is something worth exploring as a means of stricter control whilst still allowing the ownership.

Suddenly we're talking about Psycho Pass, if I remember the name of it right.

Good idea, but entirely dependent on execution because fingerprint scanners can be defeated easily.

 

[LennyB]

There is not a human in existence exempt from the possibility of using a gun in the wrong fashion, where is the line? From that thought I tend to agree with the people who would rather put their lives in the hands of authority but I am an absolute kind of guy.

Boo who, bad things happen and my mother told me the word could be perfect, more laws will do that I think because surely people will blindly follow them.

 

[Blood Eagle]

Most pro 2A people I know and probably 100% on this site are willing to consider and discuss any proposal that might reduce the probability or death toll of mass shootings. But to keep it in the realm of the plausible, you'd need limit proposals to those that would likely survive a 2A challenge in court and most wouldn't.

 

[McLaren]

Suddenly we're talking about Psycho Pass, if I remember the name of it right.

Good idea, but entirely dependent on execution because fingerprint scanners can be defeated easily.

Just spitballing an idea. Obviously, it’s not that’s simple and would require a lot of engineering to perfect.

That one makes me pretty nervous.

Any reason? As said above, just spitballing.

 

[NotThePrez]

Just spitballing an idea. Obviously, it’s not that’s simple and would require a lot of engineering to perfect.

Any reason? As said above, just spitballing.

Because now everyone will think they can masquerade as James Bond. Next thing you know people will be buying up old DB5s en masse.

Jokes aside, the possibility of someone getting into the software, or the software/hardware becoming corrupt or broken when your sidearm is needed can range from annoying to lethal for the owner. Granted, my computer literacy is quite limited.

 

[DDastardly00]

From the USA today article linked above:

Broward County Mayor Beam Furr said during an interview with CNN that the shooter was getting treatment at a mental health clinic for a while, but that he hadn’t been back to the clinic for more than a year.

“It wasn’t like there wasn’t concern for him,” Furr said.

So in 2013, Florida passed House bill 1335:

Firearm Prohibition for Certain Individuals with Mental Illnesses

The Florida Legislature passed House Bill 1355 that became state law on July 1, 2013. Specifically, HB 1355 provided conditions under which a competent adult who has been allowed to transfer to voluntary status in lieu of court-ordered involuntary placement, after being admitted for involuntary examination at a Baker Act receiving facility, and who is certified by a physician to be of imminent danger to self or others, may be prohibited from purchasing firearms or obtaining or retaining a license for a concealed weapon

http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/programs/samh/MentalHealth/laws/HB1355-Saleanddeliveryoffirearms.pdf

Wait, does this mean we have a law in the books that could have prevented this sick individual from obtaining firearms and it wasn't enforced? What a shocker.

You can blame inanimate objects all you want to, however, I am going to blame first and foremost the sick individual that committed the atrocity and secondly the institutions and agencies responsible for letting a guy like this slip through the cracks. There are no excuses for lazy/sloppy work, he was on the FBI's radar and the School's radar as well, it wasn't followed through well enough and now 17 kids are dead because of it.

And lastly, does anyone honestly think new laws are the answer when we don't enforce the ones we have?

 

[LennyB]

Most pro 2A people I know and probably 100% on this site are willing to consider and discuss any proposal that might reduce the probability or death toll of mass shootings. But to keep it in the realm of the plausible, you'd need limit proposals to those that would likely survive a 2A challenge in court and most wouldn't.

Education for one thing but to me it's more important to insure peoples lives have meaning and purpose, we all like to feel important and wanted. Mass shootings can be limited but never eradicated IMO.

Let's go all cliche and ****...

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

That is my take, I think it's important to note that I am social by nature and I embrace it. I'm not right wing or libertarian or any of that. Being that as it may I take many burdens upon my shoulders and go out of my way on a daily basis to make sure others are getting on with their life. It's not perfect but I do my part as part of the pack and I think anyone who's answer to problems is more laws is a selfish coward, I do think that.

 

[Danoff]

Just spitballing an idea. Obviously, it’s not that’s simple and would require a lot of engineering to perfect.

Any reason? As said above, just spitballing.

As @NotThePrez mentioned above, the software is a concern. I'd be worried that it wouldn't work when needed, fingerprint scanners aren't as reliable as guns yet. I'd worry that it could be hacked in some way, or disabled in some broader way. Gotta have working batteries too.

There's another element too, which is that in court the gun will be assumed by a jury to have been fired by the owner if it has a fingerprint scanner, and that could lead to people being falsely imprisoned for murders they don't commit. It may also make it easier to pass off murder as suicide.

 

[CodeRedR51]

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.

It was designed for a specific purpose. How you personally use it is irrelevant.

This is the last reply from me in here. Dead horse, lather, rinse, repeat and all that jazz.

 

[Danoff]

It was designed for a specific purpose.

...a legal (and moral) purpose. Self-defense.

 

[LennyB]

Guns are designed to kill, my stomach can attest to the success of the creators. They can be used in many different ways however.

 

[McLaren]

As @NotThePrez mentioned above, the software is a concern. I'd be worried that it wouldn't work when needed, fingerprint scanners aren't as reliable as guns yet. I'd worry that it could be hacked in some way, or disabled in some broader way. Gotta have working batteries too.

There's another element too, which is that in court the gun will be assumed by a jury to have been fired by the owner if it has a fingerprint scanner, and that could lead to people being falsely imprisoned for murders they don't commit. It may also make it easier to pass off murder as suicide.

I think the technology and the possibility is still there and admit it would be very complex to make it work properly.

But your point is fair enough. I’m also fond of much harder background checks as well.

 

[Exorcet]

I think the idea of a smart gun that operates within its owner fingerprints is something worth exploring as a means of stricter control whilst still allowing the ownership.

An alternative to fingerprint scanning might be location based. The gun doesn't fire unless it's within a certain location (ie a house). The weapon would be of limited use outside of home defense in that case.

 

[Joey D]

Most pro 2A people I know and probably 100% on this site are willing to consider and discuss any proposal that might reduce the probability or death toll of mass shootings. But to keep it in the realm of the plausible, you'd need limit proposals to those that would likely survive a 2A challenge in court and most wouldn't.

While I do believe a majority of pro-2A people are reasonable individuals, it does seem like the most outspoken and loud ones aren't. While they are probably a small percentage of gun owners, they somehow seemingly carry a ton of influence.

I mean, I think most pro-gun folks would agree someone who's mentally ill and can't differentiate between right/wrong or fantasy/reality shouldn't own a gun. Or that people who've been convicted of violent crimes involving a weapon shouldn't be allowed to own one either.

 

[LennyB]

An alternative to fingerprint scanning might be location based. The gun doesn't fire unless it's within a certain location (ie a house). The weapon would be of limited use outside of home defense in that case.

So for things like this then?

I'm very much against any sort of gun restrictions, why would I purchase a gun that jacks around recognizing my fingerprint and location?

I thought of something just a moment ago maybe worth sharing maybe not but I will anyway. About 6 months ago someone broke into my home, the guy came in through a broken sliding glass door of my own fault, the dogs started to bark and I was awoken. I grabbed a 30/30 because it was the closest thing handy at the time(I leave guns laying around like screwdrivers or plyers so..) I said "who the **** are you and why are you in my house?

He put his hands in the air and said "please do not shoot, don't shoot" I said, get out of here the same way you came, quickly. He lingered a bit and I thought damnit! So I said, just leave ****er, I have no desire to shoot you, I have no desire to call the police either, just leave.

It turned out ok, from what I know from my own life experiences I would have to guess the guy was strung out on meth and was looking for a few bucks to put in his arm and nothing more. TBH it was not a very big deal to me at the time, only thinking about it now do I realize how close I came to taking another man's life.

That's in no way why I own guns though, if the exchange had not been so edgey I'd most likely surely to be more correct, helped the guy out, food, coat, liquor because I don't have the drugs he really needed.

Life is all I can call that, just life.

 

[Dennisch]

the institutions and agencies responsible for letting a guy like this slip through the cracks. There are no excuses for lazy/sloppy work, he was on the FBI's radar and the School's radar as well, it wasn't followed through well enough and now 17 kids are dead because of it.

It seems that the FBI and other institutions are just as effective as the European equivalent in charge of tracking down terrorists. They have all the information to prevent stuff from happening, and highly oddly, stuff happens.

NO point indeed to invent new laws when perfectly fine laws are in place but are not enforced.

And for the fingerprint scanners:

 

[DesertPenguin]

So for things like this then?

I'm very much against any sort of gun restrictions, why would I purchase a gun that jacks around recognizing my fingerprint and location?

I thought of something just a moment ago maybe worth sharing maybe not but I will anyway. About 6 months ago someone broke into my home, the guy came in through a broken sliding glass door of my own fault, the dogs started to bark and I was awoken. I grabbed a 30/30 because it was the closest thing handy at the time(I leave guns laying around like screwdrivers or plyers so..) I said "who the **** are you and why are you in my house?

He put his hands in the air and said "please do not shoot, don't shoot" I said, get out of here the same way you came, quickly. He lingered a bit and I thought damnit! So I said, just leave ****er, I have no desire to shoot you, I have no desire to call the police either, just leave.

It turned out ok, from what I know from my own life experiences I would have to guess the guy was strung out on meth and was looking for a few bucks to put in his arm and nothing more. TBH it was not a very big deal to me at the time, only thinking about it now do I realize how close I came to taking another man's life.

That's in no way why I own guns though, if the exchange had not been so edgey I'd most likely surely to be more correct, helped the guy out, food, coat, liquor because I don't have the drugs he really needed.

Life is all I can call that, just life.

Do you also realize how close you came to losing your own? You had no idea if he had a gun or would defend himself. Or even come back later when he thought your defenses were back down. Just sayin'

 

[Dennisch]

(I leave guns laying around like screwdrivers or plyers so..)

Responsible gun ownership.

 

[Sanji Himura]

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?

Crimes are also misreported by both police and the media. Even the definition of mass shootings can vary between news outlets, and I don't necessarily buy the fact that three or more victims can constitute a mass shooting.

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.

Like it or not, it is the law of the land here, and we are entitled to guns to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. How many shots it can fire at a time is irrelevant to the conversation, though I believe in the common sense that says that you shouldn't have a full auto.

Most pro 2A people I know and probably 100% on this site are willing to consider and discuss any proposal that might reduce the probability or death toll of mass shootings. But to keep it in the realm of the plausible, you'd need limit proposals to those that would likely survive a 2A challenge in court and most wouldn't.

Agreed. Given the Heller decision, the Brady Bill wouldn't have survived a 2A challenge today.

I mean, I think most pro-gun folks would agree someone who's mentally ill and can't differentiate between right/wrong or fantasy/reality shouldn't own a gun. Or that people who've been convicted of violent crimes involving a weapon shouldn't be allowed to own one either.

Problem is that there are laws already on the books that do say that. If it is not federal, then most certainly it is state level. Hell, New Jersey is one of the toughest on guns.

Do you also realize how close you came to losing your own? You had no idea if he had a gun or would defend himself. Or even come back later when he thought your defenses were back down. Just sayin'

Ultimately irrelevant. This did take place in a gun-free zone, which is an equivalent to free massacare, bring gun. No good guys to protect you from the idiot shooter in school.

 

[McLaren]

An alternative to fingerprint scanning might be location based. The gun doesn't fire unless it's within a certain location (ie a house). The weapon would be of limited use outside of home defense in that case.

I was thinking something else like an electronic fob that must be around the gun at all times. I like your idea but for those who rely on the weapon for self defense, I could see location-based causing issue if you’re somewhere the gun isn’t allowed to fire.

 

[Exorcet]

I'm very much against any sort of gun restrictions, why would I purchase a gun that jacks around recognizing my fingerprint and location?

I didn't say anything about them being mandatory. As for why, if you were concerned enough about your gun being misused then you would take the safeguard.

I was thinking something else like an electronic fob that must be around the gun at all times. I like your idea but for those who rely on the weapon for self defense, I could see location-based causing issue if you’re somewhere the gun isn’t allowed to fire.

Yeah, it would be best to have different security measures for different types of guns and owners. This is part of why I don't think these security features should be mandated on every weapon. The location locked idea would probably be fine for someone in an urban area who is only concerned with the protection of their immediate property. It's not the best choice for someone in a less populated area who might carry a gun around for defense from wildlife while outdoors.

 

[TexRex]

Responsible gun ownership.

Parenting too, it would seem...

I'm more afraid of my kid eating a bad fish taco from the school cafeteria.

 

[McLaren]

I didn't say anything about them being mandatory. As for why, if you were concerned enough about your gun being misused then you would take the safeguard.


Yeah, it would be best to have different security measures for different types of guns and owners. This is part of why I don't think these security features should be mandated on every weapon. The location locked idea would probably be fine for someone in an urban area who is only concerned with the protection of their immediate property. It's not the best choice for someone in a less populated area who might carry a gun around for defense from wildlife while outdoors.

But in the end, it’s not a bad idea. Like my own, it would just need lots and lots of testing to make it worthwhile bc I’m not trying to come across as just throwing on a fingerprint scanner and calling it a day; I obviously want all the logistics sorted out like making sure the firing mechanism still requires a physical trigger pull once it’s “unlocked”.

At the end of the day, these are just ideas that attempt to meet some common ground, IMO. It doesn’t ban the gun from the public consumption, but makes it a bit harder to be abused even after background checks. Even if it never works or comes to fruition, the heart behind the idea is in the right place.

 

[huskeR32]

That's right because we have 200 years of jurisprudence that says that ordinary citizens can carry a weapon. The Heller decision just reinforced that.

In United States v. Miller, 1939, SCOTUS ruled (emphasis mine):

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

So what we really have "200 years of jurisprudence" saying is that the question was one of militia regulation, not one of individual citizens arming themselves. So Heller didn't "reinforce" anything, it carved out a position that the courts had declined to take for more than two centuries; namely that the Second Amendment applied to individuals (read: people who are not members of a state militia).

Further, in United States v. Cruikshank, 1876, SCOTUS said (again, emphasis mine):

"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

Here, the question was whether a state could impose restrictions on firearms, and the court said yes; the Second Amendment only prevented the federal government from doing so, the states were free to do as they chose. So what we have here is not the constitutionally-enshrined right to bear arms so often claimed, but merely a promise that the federal government would stay out of the matter. If all fifty states wanted to ban firearms, the Second Amendment didn't have anything to say on the matter.

And lest you question this, Heller itself confirmed the notion in 2008 (emphasis mine):

With respect to Cruikshank's continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.

It wasn't until McDonald v. Chicago in 2010 that SCOTUS overturned this idea, and said that the 14th Amendment meant that the 2nd Amendment applied to the states as well.

None of this is to say that the current state of 2A as carved out by Heller and McDonald is illegitimate; I hate how the courts ruled in those cases, but that's politics.

What I am saying, is that it's time for you and your gun-loving ilk to stop propagating the notion that this country has, in no uncertain terms, guaranteed the individual right to bear arms for 200+ years. It's simply not true. Quit puffing up your arguments with these baseless claims of being on the historically correct side of the issue.

 

[Danoff]

What I am saying, is that it's time for you and your gun-loving ilk to stop propagating the notion that this country has, in no uncertain terms, guaranteed the individual right to bear arms for 200+ years. It's simply not true. Quit puffing up your arguments with these baseless claims of being on the historically correct side of the issue.

That is kinda what the recent court cases did though, go back and construe the 2nd amendment completely, as it was intended. It doesn't mean that guns can't be regulated (as we use that term today, not as it was used back then), it means that guns can't be banned.... for individuals. And that's what it always meant. The 2nd amendment was not written to apply only to members of a militia. It was written to apply to everybody*.

I cannot believe we are arguing the 2nd amendment in this thread. It has to be one of the most well documented constitutional debates of all time, and is pretty settled, and this thread isn't even about it.

*free people at least

 

[huskeR32]

That is kinda what the recent court cases did though, go back and construe the 2nd amendment completely, as it was intended.

Whether or not it's been settled "as intended" is a question we both know will continue to be debated. But that's not really my point. I was quite clearly objecting to the notion that the pro-gun argument is backed up by "200 years of jurisprudence," when it's in fact backed up by 10 years of jurisprudence, and preceded by 200 years of judicial uncertainty and ambiguity.

 

[TexRex]

Yeah, it would be best to have different security measures for different types of guns and owners. This is part of why I don't think these security features should be mandated on every weapon. The location locked idea would probably be fine for someone in an urban area who is only concerned with the protection of their immediate property. It's not the best choice for someone in a less populated area who might carry a gun around for defense from wildlife while outdoors.

But in the end, it’s not a bad idea. Like my own, it would just need lots and lots of testing to make it worthwhile bc I’m not trying to come across as just throwing on a fingerprint scanner and calling it a day; I obviously want all the logistics sorted out like making sure the firing mechanism still requires a physical trigger pull once it’s “unlocked”.

I've heard the location-lock proposal on several occasions (seemingly all after a horrific event, sadly), and I've been shocked by it always being limited to functionality at a specific location rather than prohibiting functionality at specific locations.

I'm not opposed to gun ownership (for the most part--the fact that there's a preferred type for acts such as what occurred yesterday makes me question legality across the [current] board), just to those who ought not get their hands on them being able to do so.