ADVERTISEMENT

Active shooter now 20 plus injured in Florida school

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

You are avoiding my point. If guns are same in 20 years, yet school shootings happen now but didn't then, explain simply how guns are the problem and explain where the focus on fixing the problem should be if you admit guns haven't changed but people have
 
DWKdrfIWsAUr3E1.jpg:large
 
You are avoiding my point. If guns are same in 20 years, yet school shootings happen now but didn't then, explain simply how guns are the problem and explain where the focus on fixing the problem should be if you admit guns haven't changed but people have

How about this. Since you seem to have all the answers, tell us what needs to change to fix the problem. If you want to blame it on social media, do you think we should outlaw Instagram and Facebook? If you think it is do to sucky parenting, should we force people to take parenting classes before they are allowed to have children? You can talk all you want about finding the root of the problem and fixing it, but that is an unrealistic goal.

Box cutters and airplanes existed for decades prior to 9-11, then someone figured out a way to take advantage of that, and the rules changed. As you point out, kids (and adults) have figured out ways to murder large numbers of innocent victims in a very short period of time. Something needs to change.
 
I answered this specifically in a previous post with specifics.

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.

Oh, you were serious about those ideas?

Not even slightly realistic. "hold parents really accountable"? Give me a break.
 
I could take any of my hunting rifles or sidearms and do everything that idiot did in Florida....and probably more.

So unless you are willing to take every single gun off the streets, which is impossible (and EVERYONE KNOWS IT), then why not focus on the real problem. Society has changed and not for the better. It is not politically correct, but if you really want to solve this problem, reclaim our old societal values. Discipline in school, discipline at home, consequences from 12 months old up, meaningful consequences, work ethic, religion, high standards and expectations. I could go on all day, but it would be helpless because the gun control advocates have it stuck in their heads its about guns when clearly it is not.
 
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I like your analogy of how things have changed post 9-11 vis a vi' box cutters.

Know what changed? Security at every airport in the world. Security at every State and Federal building in the US, inclusive of Xray scanners and armed guards everywhere. An entire brand new Federal department now with thousands and thousands of people dedicated to keeping us safe 24/7. Know what didn't change? They didn't come to my house to get my box cutters.

Yet, the gun control people wouldn't think of PREVENTING anyone from entering a school with a gun by the use of surveillance, tight security and tight control over anyone entering the property through aiport type screening (exactly like an airport or any Federal Building). No instead of stopping me from entering the school armed, they want to come to my house to get the box cutter......as if that will stop anything. It won't and everyone knows it.
 
I could take any of my hunting rifles or sidearms and do everything that idiot did in Florida....and probably more.

Why didn't he use a hunting rifle or sidearm?
How about the LV shooter?
Orlando shooter?
Sandy Hook?

and on and on and on.

They used a AR-15 because it is easy to get, affordable and more efficient at killing.
 
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I like your analogy of how things have changed post 9-11 vis a vi' box cutters.

Know what changed? Security at every airport in the world. Security at every State and Federal building in the US, inclusive of Xray scanners and armed guards everywhere. An entire brand new Federal department now with thousands and thousands of people dedicated to keeping us safe 24/7. Know what didn't change? They didn't come to my house to get my box cutters.

Yet, the gun control people wouldn't think of PREVENTING anyone from entering a school with a gun by the use of surveillance, tight security and tight control over anyone entering the property through aiport type screening (exactly like an airport or any Federal Building). No instead of stopping me from entering the school armed, they want to come to my house to get the box cutter......as if that will stop anything. It won't and everyone knows it.
Well said.
 
It is not more efficient at killing. Full Stop. I can fit 6 clips to my traditional rifles in my front and back pockets of my blue jeans. That is 60 rounds with the same "speed" as an AR15 (i.e., one trigger pull, one round).

Las Vegas was a sniper rifle

Again, if you know guns you'd know that the AR15 is not the problem. out of 300M guns, it is less than one half of one percent and it is no more efficient than the many of the other 300M
 
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I like your analogy of how things have changed post 9-11 vis a vi' box cutters.

Know what changed? Security at every airport in the world. Security at every State and Federal building in the US, inclusive of Xray scanners and armed guards everywhere. An entire brand new Federal department now with thousands and thousands of people dedicated to keeping us safe 24/7. Know what didn't change? They didn't come to my house to get my box cutters.

Yet, the gun control people wouldn't think of PREVENTING anyone from entering a school with a gun by the use of surveillance, tight security and tight control over anyone entering the property through aiport type screening (exactly like an airport or any Federal Building). No instead of stopping me from entering the school armed, they want to come to my house to get the box cutter......as if that will stop anything. It won't and everyone knows it.

Doing the things you propose, and making semi-automatic weapons more difficult to acquire are not mutually exclusive. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

Do you think Cruz would have used an AR-15 if it was illegal to sell one to a 19 year old? I don't.

What if he had to pay a 1000 dollar tax at the time of purchase? Probably not since he was a cashier at a Dollar General store.
 
Doing the things you propose, and making semi-automatic weapons more difficult to acquire are not mutually exclusive. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

Do you think Cruz would have used an AR-15 if it was illegal to sell one to a 19 year old? I don't.

What if he had to pay a 1000 dollar tax at the time of purchase? Probably not since he was a cashier at a Dollar General store.
How would you make them more difficult to acquire?
 
It is not more efficient at killing. Full Stop. I can fit 6 clips to my traditional rifles in my front and back pockets of my blue jeans. That is 60 rounds with the same "speed" as an AR15 (i.e., one trigger pull, one round).

So, you would have to change clips 6 times to fire 60 rounds, right?

Maybe a football coach, security guard, or brave student would have a chance to disarm you while you changed clips. Maybe 5 more of the 17 dead students would have a chance to escape with their lives.

(I freely admit that I don't know a lot about guns).
 
Doing the things you propose, and making semi-automatic weapons more difficult to acquire are not mutually exclusive. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

Do you think Cruz would have used an AR-15 if it was illegal to sell one to a 19 year old? I don't.

What if he had to pay a 1000 dollar tax at the time of purchase? Probably not since he was a cashier at a Dollar General store.

If you want me to I can name over 100 gun models that predate the M-16--->M-4---->AR15 style guns.....All used for hunting.......that can do what happened at Sandy Hook and Florida...AND MORE. Do you think an idiot like Cruz is going to give up because one of 150 options has been taken off the market?

Pretty naive assumption
 
I have an M-4 (the US military version of the AR-15), and my clips are 8-10 rounds each. Of course you can buy larger clips but it only takes 2 seconds to change clips. Seriously.
 
If you want me to I can name over 100 gun models that predate the M-16--->M-4---->AR15 style guns.....All used for hunting.......that can do what happened at Sandy Hook and Florida...AND MORE. Do you think an idiot like Cruz is going to give up because one of 150 options has been taken off the market?

Pretty naive assumption

Probably.

But, as I posted previously, he didn't use a tank, flamethrower, or grenade launcher because he could not get one. I don't think it is realistic to take away people's guns or to ban sales of guns. But, I'd be satisfied if they were heavily taxed, not legally sold to people under the age of 21, and required a waiting period between purchase and pick up. If you really want/need one, you would still be able to get it.
 
But, I'd be satisfied if they were heavily taxed, not legally sold to people under the age of 21, and required a waiting period between purchase and pick up. If you really want/need one, you would still be able to get it.

I can go for all of that other than the taxation bit. I think heavy vetting and background checking and a waiting period is reasonable. Something we can agree on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Been Jammin
Tell that to the battered wife trying to get away from her abusive husband. How long should she be required to wait before being able to defend herself?

How many examples of battered wives who defended themselves with a gun, that the wife went out and purchased, can you come up with?
 
How many examples of battered wives who defended themselves with a gun, that the wife went out and purchased, can you come up with?
I prefer to use stats. http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/domviol/facts.htm

One woman is beaten by her husband or partner every 15 seconds in the United States. (Uniform Crime Reports, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1991). Three to four million women in the United States are beaten in their homes each year by their husbands, ex-husbands, or male lovers. ("Women and Violence," Hearings before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, August 29 and December 11, 1990, Senate Hearing 101-939, pt. 1, p. 12.)

So, I'd imagine that many of them would look to purchase a firearm as protection. Even if that is only 1%, then you are looking at 30,000. 1 tenth of 1 percent would still be 3,000. More than are killed in mass shooting events per year. And that's just battered wives.
 
Last edited:
So, I'd imagine that many of them would look to purchase a firearm as protection. Even if that is only 1%, then you are looking at 30,000. 1 tenth of 1 percent would still be 3,000. More than are killed in mass shooting events per year.

Why is it that you can't show me any examples of these 3,000 women per year?

Let's say that all 3,000 want to purchase a gun (unrealistic), can afford to purchase a gun (unrealistic), and are emotionally strong enough to actually go out and purchase a gun (unrealistic). What precludes them from waiting for a period of time between purchase and pickup? They are not going to go to the gun shop, walk in the front door and kill their husband. They are going to wait until the time is right and show him the gun (or use it). They don't necessarily need the gun immediately.

You might could have come up with a better scenario to shoot down (pun intended) the idea of a waiting period.

Earlier in the thread, you were all about the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. A waiting period is not counter to that, yet you are reaching for rationalizations as to why it is a bad idea. Are you a lobbyist for the NRA? Do you work for a gun manufacturer?
 
You asked for a scenario. I gave one. And just because a woman doesn't USE the firearm, doesn't mean that she should have to wait in order to have the ability to protect herself from an aggressive spouse or boyfriend.

Especially in this digital age, there is no reason that a full, comprehensive background check be nearly real time. A waiting period can be both a positive (cool down period) or a negative (prevents someone in dire need of accessing one).

But how does a waiting period stop or reduce the mass shooting events that is the ultimate topic of this conversation? They don't. Not in the slightest.
 
How many examples of battered wives who defended themselves with a gun, that the wife went out and purchased, can you come up with?
I don't know anyone who had a dog with cancer and spend thousands on treatment. But I know it happens.

If I don't personally know them, do they not count?
 
I don't know anyone who had a dog with cancer and spend thousands on treatment. But I know it happens.

If I don't personally know them, do they not count?

http://www.cvillevet.com/kayas-blog.pml

https://www.rover.com/blog/radiation-treatments-dog-true-story/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...terrier-chemotherapy-surgery-success-far.html

Since you asked, I found 3 examples to support your educated guess that people spend thousands of dollars on cancer treatment for their pets. Took me about 1 minute to help you out. Since it was so easy to find these examples, I think it supports your contention that it is fairly commonplace.
 
http://www.cvillevet.com/kayas-blog.pml

https://www.rover.com/blog/radiation-treatments-dog-true-story/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...terrier-chemotherapy-surgery-success-far.html

Since you asked, I found 3 examples to support your educated guess that people spend thousands of dollars on cancer treatment for their pets. Took me about 1 minute to help you out. Since it was so easy to find these examples, I think it supports your contention that it is fairly commonplace.
Sleeping with the Enemy
Escape from Terror: The Teresa Stamper Story
The Color Purple
When No one Would Listen
China Moon
What's Love Got to do with It


Numerous real life examples. o_O
 
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.

Columbine was 19 years ago. The luby"s massacre in Texas was 27 years ago. The day trading mass murder was 19 years ago. The Edmond Post office mass murder was 32 years ago. The Texas tower assassin did his thing in the 60's. I could go on, but all of these mass murders resulted in double digit deaths. The problem was there 20 years ago.

Undoubtedly, the last couple of years has seen a serious uptick in the frequency of these events, and the effectiveness of the murderer. You seem to make much of the fact that gun ownership hasn’t increased much ( in fact it’s gone down) over the last decade or so. Seems irrelevant as relates to folks buying the AR-15 and other assault weapons AND mass murder issues. I think the fact that the 15 being the most popular rifle sold in this country might be related to the increase of mass murder using said weapon, which essentially, could not be sold in this country until 2004. Maybe not. What say you?

Your solution is borne of pure..... We can’t fund public schools in this state and you want to add 2 years of military school? Paid by? That shit is idiocy on a new level. New level idiocy shit. I like it.

Sorry if someone else pointed out what a lovely, thoughtful post yours was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Been Jammin
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT