Active shooter now 20 plus injured in Florida school

[Ostatedchi]

Not worried about it. The only gun I own is a Red Rider BB gun with a compass on the stock and a thing that tells time. In your scenario, an AR-15 isn't going to do anything other than kill a few brown shirts before they find a way to kill me and my entire family. Either way I am effed. I will have to trust that enough people in this country have enough common sense, morals, and empathy to prevent your doomsday scenario.

Okay, so you don't ever believe in a WTSHTF scenario. And if it does ever happen, you just give up. Fine. Don't force your choice on others.

You don't want me to force my belief that abortion is bad on you and take away your opportunity to choose and make that decision for yourself. I'd say the same applies here.

How many people are killed by abortion vs. semi-auto firearms?

I mean, it's all about saving the children, right?

 

[skylinepoke]

As someone posted earlier, restrictions on multi-bullet guns will create a huge black market for these weapons.

ARs are fun to shoot but their needs to be restrictions on purchase of them and /or the ammunition but that will feed the black market which none of us want.

The second amendment is more about over-reaching government than gun ownership but the Founding Fathers realized the ability of an individual to own firearms would help limit this type of government. My wife's grandfather was born in Russia in 1907 and he fully realized what an over-reaching government will do after the little revolution in 1917. One of the first things that he did when he finally made it to this country was to buy a rifle because he saw what no gun ownership did to the Russian people.

 

[Been Jammin]

Okay, so you don't ever believe in a WTSHTF scenario. And if it does ever happen, you just give up. Fine. Don't force your choice on others.

Surely you realize that no matter how many big guns you have, and how many neighbors you get help from, the Brownshirts are going to have more guys and bigger guns. You know that right?

 

[Ostatedchi]

Surely you realize that no matter how many big guns you have, and how many neighbors you get help from, the Brownshirts are going to have more guys and bigger guns. You know that right?

So I just give up? F that. I'll stand and fight as opposed to being herded into a rail car to a camp.

I may not win, but I'll make it difficult for them. That's a lesson from history I'd prefer not to repeat. And if there are tons of firearms in America across millions of us and that acts as a deterrent from that ever happening, even better.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

It says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Done

Actually, that's not what it says, either.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

1. "Well regulated" means something.

2. "being necessary to the security of a free State" states the purpose of the amendment -- to protect a free State. Twice this provision contemplates that it's related to protecting the state -- once by mentioning the well regulated militia, and the second time by expressly stating the purpose.

3. The idea of the SA's objective being to defend against crime just isn't int he original enactment. They were pretty articulate as to the rationale for the SA.

It's amazing how people ignore the plain text of the first half of the SA.

 

[Ostatedchi]

Actually, that's not what it says, either.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

1. "Well regulated" means something.

2. "being necessary to the security of a free State" states the purpose of the amendment -- to protect a free State. Twice this provision contemplates that it's related to protecting the state -- once by mentioning the well regulated militia, and the second time by expressly stating the purpose.

3. The idea of the SA's objective being to defend against crime just isn't int he original enactment. They were pretty articulate as to the rationale for the SA.

It's amazing how people ignore the plain text of the first half of the SA.

DC vs. Heller. Read it.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

DC vs. Heller. Read it.

I have, but it's been a while. It's an abortion of logic as I recall. "Precatory" language now means it should be ignored instead of used to divine intent of the drafter. Classic result-oriented logic.

 

[Been Jammin]

So I just give up? F that. I'll stand and fight as opposed to being herded into a rail car to a camp.

I may not win, but I'll make it difficult for them. That's a lesson from history I'd prefer not to repeat. And if there are tons of firearms in America across millions of us and that acts as a deterrent from that ever happening, even better.

While you have their attention focused on you, I will be figuring out a way to get over that shiny new wall to a place where I can live in luxury and eat tacos every day. I will be sure to tell all of my new bad hombre friends about my buddy who so magnanimously sacrificed himself so that I could escape the oppressive regime.

 

[AC_Exotic]

I don't really care one way or another what the kid's political views are if they didn't have anything to do with what he did. That being said he was part of a white supremacy group and was most definitely a Trump supporter. I'm guessing he wasn't exactly down with the party of Obama.

Actually, the report from the MSM on him being a white supremacist is now inaccurate.

From the Tallahassee Democrat:

http://www.tallahassee.com/story/ne...ist-militia-tallahassee-leader-say/341751002/

And I agree, ultimately it doesn't matter what his political views were. We've got to figure out a way to make sure our kids in schools are as safe as possible.

 

[Been Jammin]

Hell yes they are the ones who need them more than anybody. Go live a month in east St. Louis with a grandma raising her kids and grandkids with no male over ten in the house and Post up with your pew pew red rider when the neighborhood gangs hear a rich vet is visiting from Dallas.

Sounds like you think semi-automatic weapons should be easy to get a hold of and extremely inexpensive. And that more people who can't afford gun safes should own them.

Interesting. Until today, I thought you were a pretty intelligent dude.

 

[HighStickHarry]

Sounds like you think semi-automatic weapons should be easy to get a hold of and extremely inexpensive. And that more people who can't afford gun safes should own them.

Interesting. Until today, I thought you were a pretty intelligent dude.

Ha that just proves you have terrible opinions.

Here is my stance. The free market should determine price and there should be a federal data base that prohibits the sale of guns to people who have been identified as dangerous by more than one person with a psychiatry degree. I do not currently believe private sales should undergo a background check. Also, Felons should not be allowed to own guns.

Schools should be protected by armed guards. Either local police or private contractors. No rich suburban school or private school should get any more protection than a poor inner city school. Since both parties have decided federal debt is nothing to worry about money is not an issue. Anyone who has passed a conceal carry class should be allowed to carry on school property as well.

 

[BarneyMiller]

This problem will never be solved if the argument doesn't get past the weapons involved in the assault. We need to look at why a person will do this kind of thing instead of how he did. As long as there is the mindset and desire to kill a bunch of people, someone will do it. If he can't get a automatic, semi-automatic, revolver or any kind of gun, he'll learn to build a pipe bomb and set it off outside a door - do we then ban nails? Or, build a fertilizer bomb and blow up a building - do we ban rental trucks? Arguing the weapons used solves nothing. We need to ask why. Was he coddled so much with the "everyone gets a trophy" culture we have now that when he realized he actually failed at something, he wanted someone else to pay for his failures? Would allowing prayer in school and giving him exposure to religion help? Would religion have made it worse? If, when he were younger, his teachers were allowed to take him out in the hall and bust his ass, would he have learned more respect for authority? Any number of questions can be asked and discussed. But, as I said in earlier posts, this phenomenon of frequent mass killings is relatively new in our history as a country. Something in our evolving culture is giving way to certain people to believe that this is an acceptable response to events in their lives. Blaming the weapon is a cop out and ignores the much deeper and more difficult discussion of what has changed over the years to allow this kind of thinking to develop as often as it is.

 

[Been Jammin]

Or, build a fertilizer bomb and blow up a building - do we ban rental trucks?

In your opinion, why has no one built a fertilizer truck bomb and set it off since Tim McVeigh? (Apologies if it has happened and I am forgetting. If so, change my question to why does it not happen as often as mass shootings?).

 

[BarneyMiller]

In your opinion, why has no one built a fertilizer truck bomb and set it off since Tim McVeigh? (Apologies if it has happened and I am forgetting. If so, change my question to why does it not happen as often as mass shootings?).

Guns are easier to use. I'm sure that is what you want to hear And you're right. My point is ban all guns and idiots will find another means. People will find a way to do what they want. Do you really think eliminating guns solves the problem?

 

[Been Jammin]

Guns are easier to use. I'm sure that is what you want to hear And you're right. My point is ban all guns and idiots will find another means. People will find a way to do what they want. Do you really think eliminating guns solves the problem?

No. I agree with you.

The answer I was looking for was that after McVeigh, changes were made that made it more difficult for an individual to purchase mass quantities of fertilizer without setting off alarm bells.

I agree with your points about elimination of guns not being the answer (I am not in favor of banning all guns, just think it should be tougher to get a semi-automatic weapon).

I just think that changes to the status quo can make a difference. Like they did with fertilizer bomb trucks. We shouldn't just throw up our hands and say, "sorry, there is nothing we can do".

 

[BarneyMiller]

No. I agree with you.

The answer I was looking for was that after McVeigh, changes were made that made it more difficult for an individual to purchase mass quantities of fertilizer without setting off alarm bells.

I agree with your points about elimination of guns not being the answer (I am not in favor of banning all guns, just think it should be tougher to get a semi-automatic weapon).

I just think that changes to the status quo can make a difference. Like they did with fertilizer bomb trucks. We shouldn't just throw up our hands and say, "sorry, there is nothing we can do".

I'm certainly not saying there is nothing we can do. I think focusing on limiting access to the weapons used is misplacing where the focus should be. In my opinion it is determining why has this become an acceptable response to an individuals life events.

 

[Pancreek1]

Surely you realize that no matter how many big guns you have, and how many neighbors you get help from, the Brownshirts are going to have more guys and bigger guns. You know that right?

No, I don't realize that. The US Citizens' collective arsenal is larger than the US Military's arsenal of similar sized weapons. The number of people with those weapons is 100 times the size of the US Military. So in a SHTF scenario, I'd take odds on the citizens vs. the rogue military, particularly when the military personnel start defecting instead of fighting their own citizens.

 

[Been Jammin]

Ha that just proves you have terrible opinions.

That's your opinion.

Here is my stance. The free market should determine price and there should be a federal data base that prohibits the sale of guns to people who have been identified as dangerous by more than one person with a psychiatry degree.

I'd like to see limits to the number of guns legally produced/imported. The Vegas shooter did not have money issues, but the majority of these gunmen are young or people who are struggling financially. Higher cost might be a deterrent that prevents some of them from getting their hands on the more efficient killing machines.

The data base sounds like a good idea, but I'm not sure how much it will help. Parents have to have money and motivation to get kids a psychological evaluation. Your idea makes sense, but the majority of these shooters will find a way around it or not be in the database.

Agree about felons. Surprised anyone would disagree.

Schools should be protected by armed guards. Either local police or private contractors. No rich suburban school or private school should get any more protection than a poor inner city school. Since both parties have decided federal debt is nothing to worry about money is not an issue. Anyone who has passed a conceal carry class should be allowed to carry on school property as well.

Sounds good, but I can see a lot of pitfalls.
The guards have to be willing to get in the middle of the fight, rather than just taking a paycheck and hiding in the janitor closet when the s hits the f.

I'm not sure about the conceal carry idea. Could lead to a lot more problems. Like frightened teachers shooting aggressive students, students shooting each other over a girl, or students overpowering a teacher and killing him with his own gun.

 

[Been Jammin]

No, I don't realize that. The US Citizens' collective arsenal is larger than the US Military's arsenal of similar sized weapons. The number of people with those weapons is 100 times the size of the US Military. So in a SHTF scenario, I'd take odds on the citizens vs. the rogue military, particularly when the military personnel start defecting instead of fighting their own citizens.

Similar sized weapons, maybe. But the military has weapons that are much bigger and more powerful than the citizens. In a SHTF scenario, they aren't going to hold back and try to make it a fair fight. They will just send in a drone bomb to destroy the homes of the people with the arsenals.

 

[Pancreek1]

Similar sized weapons, maybe. But the military has weapons that are much bigger and more powerful than the citizens. In a SHTF scenario, they aren't going to hold back and try to make it a fair fight. They will just send in a drone bomb to destroy the homes of the people with the arsenals.

Out of our entire population over 100 million people own guns. They most certainly would have the firepower to use air support and large weapons, but the political ability to sustain when millions upon millions fight back will be zero and it would fold rapidly. I am 100% sure of that as long as the millions have the "ability" to put up a resistance. Take that ability away and it would be a cake walk

 

[squeak]

The US military cannot take over the US citizens.

 

[dnhall]

Disagree. The weapon doesn't select the target and has other purposes than simply to kill.

What other purpose? I’m curious to hear this one.

 

[dnhall]

It isn't about NEED. It is about the Constitution.

Right to bare arms doesn’t have to allow automatic or semi-automatic weapons, grenade launchers, etc.! NRA has done a FANTASTIC job expanding this nation’s tolerance for gun ownership and availability and yet, gun owners are in the minority nationwide they’re just much louder, much more politically active, and much more aggressive than the majority who don’t own guns nor see the need. The tail is wagging the dog due to money and aggressive political action that will require the same fervor and investment to get some common sense back in this country related to weapons and their availability!

 

[squeak]

Right to bare arms doesn’t have to allow automatic or semi-automatic weapons, grenade launchers, etc.! NRA has done a FANTASTIC job expanding this nation’s tolerance for gun ownership and availability and yet, gun owners are in the minority nationwide they’re just much louder, much more politically active, and much more aggressive than the majority who don’t own guns nor see the need. The tail is wagging the dog due to money and aggressive political action that will require the same fervor and investment to get some common sense back in this country related to weapons and their availability!

So allow just revolvers, bolt action rifles, and shotguns?

 

[dnhall]

So allow just revolvers, bolt action rifles, and shotguns?

That’s meeting the second amendment WITHOUT providing an environment where any numbnut so inclined can build their own arsenal and arm themselves with weapons that have no real purpose but to kill as many as possible as quickly as possible! That is the Second Amendment run amok!

 

[squeak]

That’s meeting the second amendment WITHOUT providing an environment where any numbnut so inclined can build their own arsenal and arm themselves with weapons that have no real purpose but to kill as many as possible as quickly as possible! That is the Second Amendment run amok!

Pistols have no purpose but to kill as many people as possible?

 

[janroc]

Out of our entire population over 100 million people own guns. They most certainly would have the firepower to use air support and large weapons, but the political ability to sustain when millions upon millions fight back will be zero and it would fold rapidly. I am 100% sure of that as long as the millions have the "ability" to put up a resistance. Take that ability away and it would be a cake walk

Not sure where you got this info, but it has been widely reported that 3% of the population owns about half of the guns in this country. Additionally, in 2016 about 40% of the households in this country had a gun. At that time there were approximately 126 million households. Math hurts my head, but I think that tells me that a lot less than 100M individual people own guns, especially when factor gender into the equation.

More important though, is your conclusion that all 100M would be fighting on the same side against the gov. Seems an especially dicey proposition in the tumpy years. No doubt his followers would support anything dear leader wanted to do. It's closer to a cult than I have ever witnessed on the political scene. To his credit, he recognized this fact when he said he could murder people on 5th avenue (?) and his peeps would still be his peeps.

This whole discussion about mericans needing guns to battle the Army/marines/air force/navy/national guard, etc. is asinine on so many levels. Glad I got to participate. (Btw, who's side are the local popo's and highway patrol on in your silly apocalyptic scenario. My money is on them, what with the local course knowledge. )

 

[dnhall]

No. I agree with you.

The answer I was looking for was that after McVeigh, changes were made that made it more difficult for an individual to purchase mass quantities of fertilizer without setting off alarm bells.

I agree with your points about elimination of guns not being the answer (I am not in favor of banning all guns, just think it should be tougher to get a semi-automatic weapon).

I just think that changes to the status quo can make a difference. Like they did with fertilizer bomb trucks. We shouldn't just throw up our hands and say, "sorry, there is nothing we can do".

There still needs to be discussion concerning the reality of less gun violence and incidents PER CAPITA in nations that made gun availability much more difficult! Results matter and that analysis needs to occur and serious discussions had instead of the usual deflection, citing of the Second Amendment, and overt campaign to buy Congressmen to keep anything from changing! If other nations have had success we need to check out how if we’re serious about improving this rather pathetic situation.

We also can realize we are the ONLY industrialized nation that has FOR PROFIT health care. It seems our allies around the world believe quality health care should be a basic human right and provide it for their citizens.
Capitalism is wonderful until it becomes cannibalistic where profit is deemed more important than affordable quality care for citizens that need it! That’s why citizens forgo meds they can’t afford and doctors don’t order needed tests because insurance won’t pay for it!

It seems as enlightened as we believe the United States of America to be valuing human life and our citizens considering our gun laws and healthcare could use some improvement especially if there are examples other nations have discovered that we should take a closer look at in an effort to improve life here! If they have found ways we might wish to emulate why not? Greed shouldn’t be allowed as the answer for why we shouldn’t!

 

[dnhall]

Pistols have no purpose but to kill as many people as possible?

Assault weapons, grenade launchers, bump stocks etc. AR-15 etc.

 

[squeak]

Assault weapons, grenade launchers, bump stocks etc. AR-15 etc.

A pistol is semi-automatic. What about an LR 223?

 

[skylinepoke]

You guys are quoting stats on law abiding people, what about the criminals and their guns?
Gun restrictions(which I favor) and mental health are band aids to cover the root problems—people.

 

[BluegrassPoke]

Joy Behar said that VP Pence has a mental illness since he listens to God. The left is out of touch.

 

[Ostatedchi]

Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I'm not willing to sacrifice my constitutionally protected rights. period. I'm ashamed that some of my fellow Americans are willing.

 

[Pancreek1]

Not sure where you got this info, but it has been widely reported that 3% of the population owns about half of the guns in this country. Additionally, in 2016 about 40% of the households in this country had a gun. At that time there were approximately 126 million households. Math hurts my head, but I think that tells me that a lot less than 100M individual people own guns, especially when factor gender into the equation.

More important though, is your conclusion that all 100M would be fighting on the same side against the gov. Seems an especially dicey proposition in the tumpy years. No doubt his followers would support anything dear leader wanted to do. It's closer to a cult than I have ever witnessed on the political scene. To his credit, he recognized this fact when he said he could murder people on 5th avenue (?) and his peeps would still be his peeps.

This whole discussion about mericans needing guns to battle the Army/marines/air force/navy/national guard, etc. is asinine on so many levels. Glad I got to participate. (Btw, who's side are the local popo's and highway patrol on in your silly apocalyptic scenario. My money is on them, what with the local course knowledge. )

Easy Correlation two ways.

300 million guns in the US. Each Gun owner averages 3 per person (average) = 100M
29% of the population owns guns. 29% of 350M =100M

It may be asinine, but the current divisiveness is so severe it is not as asinine as one might think. I can see an election in my Daughter's lifetime (maybe not mine) where martial law is ruled by a the Commander in Chief. Regardless, the founding fathers had it in mind in the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Ostatedchi]

That’s meeting the second amendment WITHOUT providing an environment where any numbnut so inclined can build their own arsenal and arm themselves with weapons that have no real purpose but to kill as many as possible as quickly as possible! That is the Second Amendment run amok!

No. That's just the 2nd amendment as written. Anything else would require an amendment to rewrite it.

 

[HighStickHarry]

So the federal government had knowledge that this guy literally under his real name posted on YouTube he wanted to shoot up a school. And now the masses are screaming for the federal government to do something ANYTHING!

Honestly dads taking turns patrolling their kids schools with deer rifles will stop more mass shootings than the empty suits in Washington.

 

[long-duc-dong]

Okay, so you don't ever believe in a WTSHTF scenario. And if it does ever happen, you just give up. Fine. Don't force your choice on others.

You don't want me to force my belief that abortion is bad on you and take away your opportunity to choose and make that decision for yourself. I'd say the same applies here.

How many people are killed by abortion vs. semi-auto firearms?

I mean, it's all about saving the children, right?

I thought this was a pretty good response, but didn’t see any reply. Just curious what that reply would be. This is an interesting thread to read.

 

[BIGOSUFAN]

Good article by an Emergency Psychiatrist about the absurdity of the "we need better mental health" line.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0910-goldenberg-guns-mental-health-20150910-story.html

 

[Pancreek1]

I have a simple question for the control advocates. 20 years ago, this problem didn't exist.....full stop. 20 years ago gun ownership was equal to what it was today (percentage of households) And don't tell me its about the magazine size, as guns 20 years ago carried clips of 8-10 rounds per clip (both rifles and hand guns). I know, I owned them 20 years ago

So 20 years ago, the problem simply wasn't there and today it is.....yet all of a sudden it is only about the guns? It makes no sense.

It is about the digital age, and video game violence. It is about lack of parenting. It is about lack of discipline in schools. It is about a whole lot of things before you get WAY down the list to gun access.

Make it mandatory for 2 years of Military service for every child turning 18 and graduating high school. Put discipline back in schools. Hold parents accountable. REALLY accountable. Add early education about avoiding the unthinkable. Brain wash the kids with bombardment of information about the evils of violence. But to simply blame guns blindly and making "hope a strategy" is the dumbest thing we could possibly do.

 

[Been Jammin]

I have a simple question for the control advocates. 20 years ago, this problem didn't exist.....full stop. 20 years ago gun ownership was equal to what it was today (percentage of households) And don't tell me its about the magazine size, as guns 20 years ago carried clips of 8-10 rounds per clip (both rifles and hand guns). I know, I owned them 20 years ago

So 20 years ago, the problem simply wasn't there and today it is.....yet all of a sudden it is only about the guns? It makes no sense.

It is about the digital age, and video game violence. It is about lack of parenting. It is about lack of discipline in schools. It is about a whole lot of things before you get WAY down the list to gun access.

Make it mandatory for 2 years of Military service for every child turning 18 and graduating high school. Put discipline back in schools. Hold parents accountable. REALLY accountable. Add early education about avoiding the unthinkable. Brain wash the kids with bombardment of information about the evils of violence. But to simply blame guns blindly and making "hope a strategy" is the dumbest thing we could possibly do.

20 years ago it was OK to bring a box cutter on an airplane. Times change. Along with them, rules and laws change accordingly.