School shooting Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.
MikeG said:
If you buy game (pheasant, partridge, rabbit etc) in Waitrose, how do you think it got there?
Click to expand...


Well the UK supermarkets do not rely on private citizens with guns who go out hobby shooting. So it certainly did not get there from UK gun enthusiasts!
 
IanS said:
Well the UK supermarkets do not rely on private citizens with guns who go out hobby shooting. So it certainly did not get there from UK gun enthusiasts!
Click to expand...

And in the US it is illegal to sell wild game. So you see venison at high end restaurants from game farms and soup kitchens from donations from hunters.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
There may be overlap.

The idea there are not behavior/mental illness categories here and it's just a coincidental finding seems rather oblivious to the evidence.

I'm not saying most of these shooters bear no fault because they are mentally ill. That's a different subject.
Click to expand...

Mental illness may be the hardest aspect of the gun control debate.

We know that some of the mass shooters were mentally ill by any standard. There is debate as to whether or not that mental illness contributed to those people's decision to perpetrate those acts. I tend to think that it did.

However...

We also know that the great overwhelming number of mentally ill people are non-violent. We know that there is a stigma associated with mental illness, enough that some mentally ill people avoid treatment out of fear of the stigma.

I could see a two part solution:
1: Mentally ill people with a history of violence could be prohibited from firearms ownership. Perhaps that could change on a per-person basis if the person goes a long period with no violence. That would accommodate people who are violent when the mental illness first takes hold, but eventually settle into a treatment and management regimen that works.

2: Short to Medium term holds on gun possession based on reporting by mental health professionals.

The catch being that of course, neither option is perfect.

I believe the first option was available for the Virginia Tech shooter, but was not correctly implemented. He was listed on a state database as mentally ill and potentially violent, meeting legal requirements that prohibited him from owning guns - but that didn't make it into the databases that the background checks used. ETA: I was a bit off in the previous sentence. He was declared mentally ill and danger to himself, but not placed on any database: Va. Tech Killer Ruled Mentally Ill by Court; Let Go After Hospital Visit

The Aurora shooter saw some mental health professionals who had the option of placing him under some sort of hold that could restrict possession, but they never exercised that option.

Both solutions need to be improved.

A lot of work needs to be done to make sure that mental health professionals are fully aware of what tools they have to help keep the violent mentally ill away from firearms. That somehow needs to extend to families and caregivers of mentally ill, they need to know their options.

Improving the background check databases all around is very necessary but has stalled in congress, despite overwhelming public support and even the backing of the NRA. The profound dysfunction of congress on the issue is beyond shameful.
 
Last edited:
Are mass shooters more likely to have a history of mental illness or of domestic violence?

AFAIK, the latest shooter did not have a record of domestic violence, but that is certainly a common theme among mass shooters.
 
IanS said:
Then do something more constructive with your time. Do something more educational. Something a bit harder than just trying kill things from 100 ft away! ... learn to play a musical instrument ... go and study for a maths or physics degree ... go and help poor and underprivileged or disabled people ... almost anything is better and far more challenging, skilful and educational than firing a gun at an unsuspecting rabbit (or an unsuspecting kid in a school).
Click to expand...

Who are you to decide what is a constructive use of time for others?

Actually, wing shooting is a highly challenging sport and takes a lot of practice to attain competency. Somehow, as a wing shooter myself, I have managed to learn to also play a musical instrument and found the time to earn an advance degree. So participating has not inhibited my ability to do these other things you feel are constructive.

Wild rabbit tastes quite a bit better than farmed, as do grouse, wild turkey and pheasant. Also, hunting is an environmentally sound practice, unlike most industrial meat farming operations.
Further, my children who also participate, have a greater understanding of where their food comes from, and that meat doesn't just arrive on the supermarket shelves without some sacrifice. This is the most important part IMO.

As for this derail, do you have any evidence that shotgunners/wingshooters have participated in or that the sport has caused mass shootings like we're supposed to be talking about here?
 
Last edited:
Pterodactyl said:
Who are you to decide what is a constructive use of time for others?

Actually, wing shooting is a highly challenging sport and takes a lot of practice to attain competency. Somehow, as a wing shooter myself, I have managed to learn to also play a musical instrument and found the time to earn an advance degree. So participating has not inhibited my ability to do these other things you feel are constructive.

Wild rabbit tastes quite a bit better than farmed, as do grouse, wild turkey and pheasant. Also, hunting is an environmentally sound practice, unlike most industrial meat farming operations.
Further, my children who also participate, have a greater understanding of where their food comes from, and that meat doesn't just arrive on the supermarket shelves without some sacrifice. This is the most important part IMO.

As for this derail, do you have any evidence that shotgunners/wingshooters have participated in or that the sport has caused mass shootings like we're supposed to be talking about here?
Click to expand...

I'm strongly in favour of gun control, but I have no disagreement with anything you've written here. I'd be in favour of a competence test for anyone planning to shoot at a living creature (as with NZ bow hunting licenses). Trophy hunting on the other hand....
 
IanS said:
Well the UK supermarkets do not rely on private citizens with guns who go out hobby shooting. So it certainly did not get there from UK gun enthusiasts!
Click to expand...

I dispute this. In fact, I suggest that just about the only source of game is from organised shoots. People who go on a shoot for a day might kill 10, 20 or 30 birds, yet take only a brace or so home. The rest are left with the organiser of the shoot, who no doubt sells them onto a butcher or game meat dealer. Waitrose presumably takes a certain amount regularly from the dealers. I've often found shot in such meat from Waitrose. (I've a feeling we may even be having a game casserole this evening. :thumbsup: )
 
DragonLady said:
The 2nd amendment says:


"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."

We need to remember that when the constitution was drafted, guns were not just for hunting or self-defense or target practice. They were the weapons of war, which had just freed our country from the tyranny of the British government.

The reason no one in their right minds wants any kind of ban on guns that prevents guns from being readily accessed and used is to prevent our current government from becoming tyrannical. They have to take away the guns -or just keep making them harder and harder to get- before they can make many inroads against our other civil rights.

But, once it's impossible for the average person to get guns, all the average people are hostage to whatever happens next -the loss of free speech & the free press, being subject to search and seizures (ergo losing any guns they've hidden), etc.

No one in the USA wants that. Or, at least, no one in the USA should want that.

I think if the gun control advocates want to make real inroads toward finding ways to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them, and lower the murder rate, they have to approach the issue with the reasons for the 2nd amendment's existence in mind.

Remember: the Constitution is not an ideal, or a best-case-scenario. It's the law.

In some ways, I'm jealous of those in the UK who see their government as a benevolent entity providing for the peoples and working with the overall health of the population in mind.

However, I'm quite American, and at the end of the day I do not -will never- trust our government to put the welfare of the citizens above the person desires of those in power. Nor do I have to go far to find examples of this happening already -from enacting laws forcing people to buy various forms of insurance to seizing assets from those merely suspected of a crime, many of us see the rights to bear arms as a necessity. If our government falls too far out of line with what most of us want, a revolution (or the mere ability to bring one) is the only thing that will protect our free states.
Click to expand...

If the US Government really decided to breach the constitution and take on the little pretend army of half-witted gun-nuts running around in the Amercan wilderness playing soldier, the Militias would not stand a chance. Air Power is everything. You have a bunch of play soldiers armed with shotguns, hunting rifles and semi-automatics against an overwhelming force of ground attack aircraft such as the A-10 Warthog (5 x USAF squadrons deployed in Georgia, Nevada and Arizona, 4 x ANG Squadrons deployed in Maryland, Idaho, Michigan and Indiana), a total of over 200 of them, then you have F15 Strike Eagles, F/A 18 Hornets, F-35 Lightnings, various G/A Helicopters such as the Apache and the Cobra. It would be all over in a week. Some well-placed GBU43's would take out the biggest compounds, and the ground attack aircraft and drones would mop up the rest.
 
Last edited:
pgwenthold said:
Are mass shooters more likely to have a history of mental illness or of domestic violence?

AFAIK, the latest shooter did not have a record of domestic violence, but that is certainly a common theme among mass shooters.
Click to expand...
Cruz did commit domestic violence against his mother. Police were called many times.
 
crescent said:
2: Short to Medium term holds on gun possession based on reporting by mental health professionals.
Click to expand...

Today you can only limit sales. Not possession. Nobody knows if you have guns at home or not. And even if they search your home, you might have them hidden elsewhere. For this to work, you would need gun registration. That must be always the first step, IMHO.
 
The fact is that up until the 1970's no one cared about the second amendment - everyone considered it obsolete. That is why no one went to the supreme Court when some cities banned all private guns within their limits.
Scalia was breaking with over a century of precedence with his ruling - which is unusual to say the least.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
The fact is that up until the 1970's no one cared about the second amendment - everyone considered it obsolete. That is why no one went to the supreme Court when some cities banned all private guns within their limits.
Click to expand...

Do you have support for this claim? Some sort of study comparing Supreme court cases or discussions on the topic, perhaps?
 
Dr.Sid said:
Today you can only limit sales. Not possession. Nobody knows if you have guns at home or not. And even if they search your home, you might have them hidden elsewhere. For this to work, you would need gun registration. That must be always the first step, IMHO.
Click to expand...

The perfect solution does not need to be the enemy of the good solution.

You can still have limited success without registration. Order a person to turn in any guns they might have, with the understanding that they will face charges if they don't comply. Not everyone will be honest, but many will. It is better than nothing. Similar things are already being done for domestic violence - success is not perfect, but not a total failure either.

You can ask people they know if there are guns in person's possession. Roommates may know. The Florida shooter's guns were not registered, but the family he stayed with knew he had them, for example.

I would love universal registration - but as it stands we can't even get improvement on things that are showing a 97% public approval rate (such as improving the existing background check system). Change is in the air though.
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
I dispute this. In fact, I suggest that just about the only source of game is from organised shoots. People who go on a shoot for a day might kill 10, 20 or 30 birds, yet take only a brace or so home. The rest are left with the organiser of the shoot, who no doubt sells them onto a butcher or game meat dealer. Waitrose presumably takes a certain amount regularly from the dealers. I've often found shot in such meat from Waitrose. (I've a feeling we may even be having a game casserole this evening. :thumbsup: )
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't recall ever buying any but game sold in Waitrose does warn on the label that it may contain shot.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
You regularly wear a sword in your everyday life?

I wear a Gladius when I am re-enacting, not doing the shopping.

For a start in the UK parading around the streets with a sword would get you arrested.
Click to expand...
William Parcher's statement, to which I was responding, did not specify when or how the sword was carried. He said that If you carry a sword, unqualified, then you are mentally ill. "No question". He was very clearly implying that all people who carry swords, at any time, for any reason, have a mental illness. Even if that's not what he meant, it's what he wrote.

I am willing to accept the statement as mere hyperbole so long as he acknowledges that fact. I'm not naive enough to expect an apology.
 
arthwollipot said:
Do CCW permit holders carry around a firearm in daily public life, or is it an accessory for special occasions or special events?
Click to expand...

I can name at least three friends who carry them in daily life. (FWIW, they are all SCA members, and they are almost always carrying a loaded gun with them when not in garb.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom