School shooting Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.
IanS said:
OK, fair enough. Though what you are describing is not what I was actually thinking of when I said M&S (the spell check here won't accept the W supermarket!), or any responsible UK food shop, do not rely on private individuals to supply them with rabbits or game birds or venison etc.

What you are describing (correct me if I am wrong) is some sort of licensed game suppliers (maybe even some members of the landed titled aristocracy and the like) who invite a sizeable number of licensed friends, associates or acquaintances to a specific organised game-shoot on their private estate ... and where the owner of the estate or whoever he licenses, keeps the majority of "the kill" and sells it to UK supermarkets or probably more often to local butchers ... is that what you are describing? ...

... because that would not be much different to any livestock farmer who supplies any other types or meat, would it?

What I was talking about was ordinary private individuals who occasionally (or regularly) go out at the weekend for a Saturday mornings shooting on local farmland ... maybe they manage to hit half a dozen various birds ... but UK supermarkets are not relying on that for their supply of game meat, are they?
Click to expand...

Some do, they sell to local restaurants and such.
 
The reason why there are hardly any Supreme Court cases involving the right to guns is that until Heller, the 2nd Amendment wasn't Incorporated: that means that while the Federal government wasn't allowed to infringe on your right to bear arms, it was entirely up to the States whether they wanted to grant their citizens this right.
We should also note that for the first 100 years of its existence the NRA was a purely a-political hunting association which never endorsed any president. But in the 1980's the leadership got more or less swapped out and henceforth they supported conservatives, starting with Reagan.

The point is the current state of affairs of gun laws is an abberation compared to most of US history. It takes a special kind of hubris to claim that you know better what the framers of the Constitution meant than any legal scholars so far.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Excellent point.

One of the kids speaking out today said he thought SWAT came to rescue them but instead he was treated as if he was the shooter. You see all those kids running out with their hands on their heads and you have to wonder if that's really the best procedure. Are they going to shoot a kid who refuses? Or shoot one who mouths off to them?
Click to expand...

Probably yes because a shooter could hide among the students being evacuated.
 
William Parcher said:
I don't really know why the Sheriff is doing this firearm change. Maybe he wants to have deputies be armed more like SWAT even before those guys arrive. If you have an active spree shooter on campus you want to engage with maximum firepower immediately. These are just guesses. I don't know.
Click to expand...

BobTheCoward said:
We crap in people using notes now?
Click to expand...

William Parcher said:
Broward County Sheriff says from now onwards all deputies at schools will be carrying rifles and they may even be AR-15s. Previously they would have been carrying pistols.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article201442569.html
Click to expand...

fuelair said:
Not necessarily, replacing insecure doors with resistant ones would help. Since I taught Chemistry there were ALWAYS interesting chemicals that would not be pleasant to an unwelcome intruder without harming students present to hand .........BUT a very secure door would be much better!!!
Click to expand...


If this were not such a deadly serious matter then some of the pro-gun responses here would be hilarious/laughable … the solution is not to have thicker armour plated doors or for school teachers to be armed, or for President Trump to support NRA calls for more armed guards at schools or to have their hand guns uprated to rapid fire assault rifles or to have more ineffective background checks and form-filling etc. All of that is quite obvious pro-gun madness (to put it mildly) …. the solution is glaringly obvious – the USA needs to have far less guns and bullets so easily available to the general public in their homes …

… the only obvious way for the US to do that, i.e. to very significantly reduce the availability of guns and bullets to ordinary private citizens all over the US, is to change the gun laws.

The US needs to change it's gun laws. How difficult is that to understand?
 
Last edited:
Craig B said:
Surely any UK politician who made such a moronic self serving statement as that, about the country's law enforcement agencies, would be out of office very shortly thereafter.
Click to expand...


The UK is particularly full of moronic politicians making moronic statements at the moment with little or nothing in the way of consequences.
 
IanS said:
If this were not such a deadly serious matter then some of the pro-gun responses here would be hilarious/laughable … the solution is not to have thicker armour plated doors or for school teachers to be armed, or for President Trump to support NRA calls for more armed guards at schools or to have their hand guns uprated to rapid fire assault rifles or to have more ineffective background checks and form-filling etc. All of that is quite obvious pro-gun madness (to put it mildly) …. the solution is glaringly obvious – the USA needs to have far less guns and bullets so easily available to the general public in their homes …

… the only obvious way for the US to do that, i.e. to very significantly reduce the availability of guns and bullets to ordinary private citizens all over the US, is to change the gun laws.

The US needs to change it's gun laws. How difficult is that to understand?
Click to expand...

But they really don't WANT to. They want to be able to continue playing with their guns no matter the cost. That's why they are proposing throwing more guns at a symptom of a problem run amok instead of actually doing something about the problem itself.

The president's feigned interest at the listening session (he looked like he was bored and really didn't want to be there - probably missed a round of golf) said it all. He wants the problem to go away by looking like he's doing something.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I'm pro-gun regulations and other evidence based approaches to deal to with shooters, but this one is silly. I don't think duck and cover drills when I was a kid were particularly damaging to my psyche.

It's the news of the shooters that is damaging, not the drills.
Click to expand...

Strongly disagree. The fact that such a thing is normalised and formalised is incredibly damaging to your society in of itself.

Kids should not be going to school thinking about what to do if one or more of their classmates start to massacre the other kids. That should be such a remote possibility that the school would be better of running drills of what to do if a meteorite is about to hit the school!
 
Dr.Sid said:
Well if you are an arrogant bastard, but you make yourself a note to be a less of one, I think it's good news.
Click to expand...

Problem is whilst I can understand him, for instance, needing notes to remind him of the accurate statistics or precise names of acts etc., or even a new policy he wants to announce but it is the banality of the notes that should astonish folk. He needed notes for that?!?
 
IanS said:
the solution is not to have thicker armour plated doors or for school teachers to be armed, or for President Trump to support NRA calls for more armed guards at schools or to have their hand guns uprated to rapid fire assault rifles or to have more ineffective background checks and form-filling etc.
Click to expand...


But aren't those the main differences between the USA and the rest of the world?
As everybody knows, in Europe we have armor-plated doors, armed teachers, no Trump, no NRA, policemen with assault rifles and swift and efficient background checks, so it's obvious that this must be the way to solve the problem.
 
MikeG said:
Really? You'd use the paradises-on-earth of Iraq and Afghanistan in support of a case for having an armed citizenry in order to keep a government in check? I hope you realise that you just lost the argument.
Click to expand...

I had a similar response to the argument that banning guns wouldn't help because look how many people are killed with machettes in Africa.
 
How many mass stabbings happened in the US vs mass shootings?

I think this is quite an argument against those who keep saying guns don't kill, people kill.
 
Seismosaurus said:
And that exact thing was said before the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. But holding a country against local militias/terrorists/insurgents, whatever you want to call them, isn't so easy even if you have all the high tech weapons and they just have the low tech stuff.
Click to expand...

Which is why we need to deregulate explosives. It is IED's we need to have freely available not semi auto rifles and pistols. Those were useless.
 
phiwum said:
Listen, that man can play guitar. I'm not thrilled with his nonsensical political views, but he can play guitar.
Click to expand...

It isn't his guitar playing that got him on the board of the NRA though, his political influence is because people like his political views.
 
crescent said:
How thick would "bulletproof" glass need to be to stop a 7.62 x 39 round?
Click to expand...

Yep makes far more sense to brick up all the windows.

And how will school districts that can't even afford to heat the damn buildings turn all their schools into bunkers I have no idea.
 
smartcooky said:
Secure classroom doors would not have done much good. Cruz set off the fire alarms to get the kids out into the corridors so that he had a bigger target to aim at. You can't really have the entry doors secure because kids have to use them regularly, and having those doors unsecured means that a school kid shooter can still gain entrance to the building.

Using gas/chemicals won't work because the shooter can just use a simple activated carbon spray mask; which can be bought for about $50 at the local garden shop.
Click to expand...

Machine gun nests at the entrances of course.
 
Probably not the look CNN wants right now

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...wn-hall-quashed-question-on-armed-guards.html

"CNN had originally asked me to write a speech and questions and it ended up being all scripted," Haab told Miami's WPLG-TV. "I don't think that it's going get anything accomplished. It's not gonna ask the true questions that all the parents and teachers and students have.

"I expected to be able to ask my questions and give my opinion on my questions," he added.
Click to expand...

My bet is his draft was a rambling nightmare and they tried to help clean it up. I don't base that on anything political, just on how terrible kids his age write.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
“**** you, I like guns.”
Click to expand...


Good, piece. I'd disagree with this bit:

"We can enact gun control without infringing on the right to bear arms"

I think any and all attempted control of who can own what and when is infringement.

In short, I think the second amendment is unfit for purpose. The moment anyone is denied a firearm because of age, criminal history or poor mental health, the right of the people to bear arms has been infringed. I think this is incompatible with modern life.
 
IanS said:
- do people here think that the number of such US shootings (particular the spree shooting at schools etc) would be greatly reduced if it had gun controls similar to the UK?

- or do you think there is some specific reason why in the US such changes would have little effect to reduce the number of such shootings?
Click to expand...

Hard to answer. If US was UK, it would well .. be like UK. If you took UK gun law, and applied it overnight in US, it would not work. It's too big of a step. UK took decades and many incremental steps to get their law where it is.
There is so many guns in US, only confiscate them all with proper paperwork would take months.
Also the idea itself is unrealistic. IMHO US needs incremental steps. But they should start. So far US did exactly nothing.
And sure, Trump isn't clearly banning guns overnight. But if he managed to at least extend the pre-sale checks, it would be more than Bush or even Obama did. But most likely even that is just talking ..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom