School shooting Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am not British, so forgive me for putting the County after Norfolk. I suspect you know it's location.

No, my total experience was not in the Stanford Military Training area as you've implied, I merely traveled thru that location twice daily as it was a short cut to my work location at RAF Lakenheath. I didn't live in the woods, duh. :rolleyes: I lived on the outskirts of a village which I named. It's at least 5 miles from the village where I lived to the training area.

I did see a few pheasants there, but nothing else except a few birds in the way of animals. On second thought someone was raising sheep in at least part of the area. The only military I ever encountered there were Gurkas. I don't recall ever encountering any British Army folks.

I rode a bicycle throughout much of the area around my house, but never ever encountered anyone hunting much less shooting and never discussed nor heard a discussion of firearms.
I suppose I had a unique experience as I would certainly have enjoyed hunting pheasants, but never had the opportunity...



I grew up in West Virginia, which is virtually awash with hunters both local and, in season, from out of state.

I suspect that many residents there could report the same anecdotal experience which you have.

It means little or nothing. Not everyone hunts. In fact more people don't hunt than do. Not everyone who hunts talks about it incessantly with anyone who holds still long enough to hear.

I hunted. I had many friends who hunted. We could go for long periods without bringing up the subject with every single person who happened to pass by. Days, even. :rolleyes:

Now, if you were trying to avoid a conversation about football or basketball, or Arch Moore ... that might be a different story.
 
Why SHOULD it make a difference? It shouldn't

Why DOESN'T it make a difference?

Because the "general public" is too passive to do anything about it. Call them numb to the issue or what, it doesn't matter.

It took the high schoolers to stand up, and they did it when THEY WERE THE VICTIMS. They had to do it, because no one else would.

I remember grieving parents of 6-year olds in the media after Sandy Hook urging politicians to do something. Nothing happened.

Nothing is different this time either, politics-wise. If anything it is a worse political climate for getting some kind of gun control legislation through. The Florida congress shut down the debate right in the face of victims attending the session.

Nothing will happen.
 
Problem 1: Deputy instructed not to charge into shooting. Outcome: Many dead people. Fix: Do not rely on the government for your own protection.

Problem 2: Deputy refused to engage shooter despite being advised to do so. Outcome: Many dead people. Fix: Do not rely on the government for your own protection.

Seems the fix is the same, regardless of what the deputy was told to do.

YEAH! MOAR GUNS!
 
I remember grieving parents of 6-year olds in the media after Sandy Hook urging politicians to do something. Nothing happened.

Nothing is different this time either, politics-wise. If anything it is a worse political climate for getting some kind of gun control legislation through. The Florida congress shut down the debate right in the face of victims attending the session.

Nothing will happen.

I also don't buy into the idea that the aftermath of this incident is really going to be all that different than what we've seen before. I will stick my neck out on one prediction though: I think we'll see more states institute GVRO systems similar to what we have in California. It's a bipartisan-friendly approach and I think a few Republicans have already made favorable noises about it.
 
We need lots of rednecks with guns so that military training becomes cheaper?



Sorry, but that must be the stupidest argument against gun laws I've ever heard.
I think the one that you may need your gun so you can send your gun to the UK in case Germany is about to invade the UK in WW3 is the stupidist one to date.
 
I did not even imply that $$ might be involved. That is not necessarily the issue I was eluding to. Lives can not be repaid anyway.

The point you missed is that your firearms industry (already small is all but gone). Don't even think about justify air power and nukes as the solution to an aggressor. Nothing will ever replace a land army occupying ground....ever. You need small arms to equip a land army. Where do you propose go get those arms?

The last successful invasion was in 1066. I am not worried about attack, such that the civilian population needs to arm.
 
Perhaps in your world. Not mine.

Are you saying there is such a thing as a good guy with a gun, to beat the bad guy?

If so, how do you know who are the good guys? Or do you only deal in hindsight?
 
Not sure if this quite qualifies as a strawman argument but it is dang close.

Not quite. Taking a valid general point that has been made and then horribly misapplying it in an effort to discredit the point is certainly fallacious, but is not a strawman. Fewer guns available to the general public does make the general population safer in a bunch of ways, overall, after all. Trying to argue against that by pointing out that focusing on taking them away from those with a "legitimate" claim for possession while in the line of duty makes for a somewhat obvious case of false equivalence/conflation of notably different issues, however much they may be tangentially related.

No one arguing for improved gun control is suggesting that one group such as bank security guards doing their job should be targeted on their own.

For that matter, given the US, it's a quite small minority who would support taking them away from those with a "legitimate" claim for possession while in the line of duty in the first place, even among those who are quite firmly for gun control (bearing in mind that "legitimate" may vary depending on the situation). I've never seen the right of the military to be allowed to own and let its members use guns in the line of duty challenged, for example. I hear that the guns and ammo are strictly regulated, though, too, in addition to a very notable focus on gun safety that... owners among the general public are largely not bound by, at all.

I was going to ask if I was the only one who has never been in a bank with an armed guard before.
Same here

No guards in banks
No screen between bank tellers and customers, just an open counter

<snip>

This is something America could learn from us if they tried... but they won't. Minds aren't just closed to this solution, they are bolted and padlocked shut.

I don't recall ever having been in one, myself, or at least one where a guard actually showed themselves. The branches around where I've lived in the US would seem to be rather like the ones where you are, then, with no guards and an open counter. I'm being charitable, regardless, and assuming that the guards who guard money as it's being transferred from bank to bank can qualify as bank guards, though, as well as allowing for banks in areas that are high crime anyways to perhaps keep a guard or few like that.

The claim that some people want to ban all guns is a Canard. The pro-gun side has always claimed that any regulation is a "slippery slope" to total abolishment of gun rights.
Sorry, but you don't get to play that card anymore.

Ehh, the claim is more likely to be the libs or the dems, unfortunately, which has ever been pretty much indefensible, despite the scaremongering froth. Some Democrats, though, certainly do want to ban all guns (or specific guns) and have tried. It's... "interesting" when the popularity of a gun can be ruled by the courts to overrule the power of the state to regulate or ban a particular model, though, and when self-defense is suddenly treated as if it's an intrinsic part of the 2nd Amendment, despite long precedent to the contrary and no mention of it in the 2nd Amendment. Either way, currently, the ban all guns people hold rather little power in the party, though, afaik. People supporting much lesser forms of gun control, on the other hand, are quite prevalent. A general assault rifle ban, with a few special exceptions, and fixing the problems with background checks (some of which were more recently and directly caused by the NRA), in particular, hold broad support among Democrats. Support largely starts going downhill past that as what counts as reasonable regulation becomes somewhat less clear. In rural areas (which there are plenty of in the US), in particular, there are a lot of younger people that are raised to enjoy a bit of hunting, which means that hunting rifles are very unlikely to ever actually be banned.

Are you saying there is such a thing as a good guy with a gun, to beat the bad guy?

By the look of it, there have been, a number of times! The increased prevalence of guns tends to mean that there's a lot more gun accidents and bad guys with guns, though, only a small proportion of which lead to good guys with a gun even having the chance to beat the bad guy.

If so, how do you know who are the good guys? Or do you only deal in hindsight?

Given the current state of things, obviously, you don't know until hindsight comes into play. It's not like it's particularly feasible to do unscripted real life tests before the event, regardless.
 
Last edited:
We need lots of rednecks with guns so that military training becomes cheaper?

Sorry, but that must be the stupidest argument against gun laws I've ever heard.

I think the one that you may need your gun so you can send your gun to the UK in case Germany is about to invade the UK in WW3 is the stupidist one to date.

They stem from the same reaction -

I love my guns.
Someone is suggesting guns be restricted.
I'd better say anything, anything, to protect my guns. Dredge up something from history that looks faintly plausible as a rationalisation; invent some future invasion scenario; defend my position, no matter how foolish.
Think quickly ... they're coming to get my guns.
 
Don't know if it was already posted, but Jordan Klepper did a funny and informative bit about what would likely happen if teachers were armed.



About 10 minutes long, but the relevant part starts around 7:30.

For those who don't like to watch Youtube videos, Klepper gets a concealed carry permit, completing the amount of training necessary. He then goes to a training facility where law enforcement train for active shooter situations in schools. He gets put in a situation where he knows there is at least one active shooter and he's tasked with resolving the situation. Result: He shoots an innocent student and then gets gunned down.

People who think the solution to gun violence is more guns are completely out of their minds. They apparently think reality works like the movies, and I would imagine they have never been in a high stress situation ever in their life.
 
That's what I was wondering. Ours don't even have grilles or screens in front of the tellers. Just the countertop.
Some people want to make us believe that there are literally guns everywhere instead of mostly concentrated in the homes and hands of nutters who believe either that they live their lives under threat of rising violent crime rates (they'll never believe the statistics that show crime rates going down) or that they and their friends form the last line of defense against a fascist government.

They want us to believe this in order to make it seem that the only reason most of us get through our days without being shot is that there are lots of guns around. They'll also use it as an excuse for not making any changes to gun laws because there are just too many already out there.

Banks aren't armed to the teeth, convenience store clerks don't have shotguns behind their counters, and the only people at all likely to point a gun at you are your friends and family...and it might just be with one of your guns.
 
Sure, you only have to worry about vehicles, knives, and acid attacks. All occurring with no viable defense.

Per capita if you amalgamate all those attacks together, lets call them "armed violent attacks" and stand them up against "armed violent attacks" in the US, how do the figures compare?

So, do you think you are the only ones horrified?

No I think that most Americans are horrified whenever something like this happens. I think it's all the more sad that nothing is ever done about the issue.

Need I inform you that the US is not the UK, nor is it Europe. [...]

Guns have been an integral part of American culture since before we kicked your asses out some 200 + years ago. Attempting to get rid of them or even apply significant restriction might have a worse result than finding other plausible solutions.

If you want to get all historical then guns have been an integral part of American culture since the first colonists used them to massacre the parts of the indigenous population that European viruses hadn't killed yet. If America had been discovered before guns had been a thing the outcome might have been a lot different, but I digress.

There are other solutions, however, just like here each side doesn't listen to the other one, therefore nothing ever gets done. That in some respects might not be as bad as doing some of the "feel good" proposals advocated by gun grabbers. % 99 of the gun owning citizenry are not the problem, most firmly believe that giving up their firearm(s) supposedly for the greater good would have no effect. Therefore, most of that % 99 won't support anything related to the elimination, curtailment, or anything ultimately leading to the banning of any type of firearm...

I'm not advocating that the US enacts strict gun control regulations like we have in the UK. I'm advocating that the US has a proper debate about gun control.

That's the first step that needs to happen. It's a hugely emotional issue. The "won't somebody think of the children" crowd have this ONE issue that they have actual solid case for and might be able to make a difference on. On the other side there are the entrenched fanatical gun fanatics who have talked themselves into believing that they are fighting for freedom and for the constitution and for America! when if fact they are mostly just wanting to keep all of their toys.
Then we have the politicians. Like most things opinion is split on partisan lines and the "Good old rich white boys" party who have someone managed to get themselves elected despite a smaller and smaller fraction of the population being old, rich and white hold sway. Politics is engineered in the US such that even when a party holds power it can't get anything meaningful done. (see previous Obama administration) the politicians today have one overriding concern, how to get elected. That trumps all else. It leads to pandering to powerful lobby groups and gerrymandering and vote rigging and lots of things designed to maintain the status quo so that the good old rich white boys can stay rich. (see the US healthcare debacle for a prime example)
There's lots of actual honest to goodness politicians in the US that want to change things to serve the people, but they are drowned out by the ones that game the system for selfish reasons.

The prime tool in all of the political fights is the politics of fear.

That's what's being used mostly these days to keep power and maintain the status quo. "You need a gun for self defense" - no you don't. The odds of you ever being in a situation where having a gun could have made a difference to your wellbeing are astronomically small. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" - er yes and no. Said good guy needs to be trained and needs to actually go and do it when the time comes, or he's not exactly a good guy. Are there actual incidents where a "good guy with a gun" has stopped such an event. There are incidents I can recall where they have had little to no effect. I'd guess that the numbers show this claim to be incorrect.

It's not the culture and history of the US that means that guns are so prevalent. It's the culture of fear that's being cultivated by politicians to keep power that's the main driver imo.
Gun control in the US is a thorny problem, but it's not an intractable one.

Lets actually get to some sensible control measures that should be talked about.

What weapons should civilians have access to? Hunting is a thing, so lets OK hunting rifles. Self defense is a thing (it shouldn't be, but hey) so lets OK handguns. Farms are a thing so lets OK shotguns.

Automatic weapons are already outlawed, lets look at semi-automatics. Does any responsible civilian owner need semi automatic weapons? They're nice and all but the usefulness of the tool isn't greatly impigned by having to cock the gun or slide a bolt or whatever in between shots. Maybe OK those for use at gun ranges or have some extra hoops that are harder to jump through so that enthusiasts can still use them but general civilians can't get hold of them so easily.

What calibres of weapons should we allow? What capacity magazines should be OK?

How high a bar should we set before a person can buy a gun? It should bar unfit people for sure, how long should "responsible" people have to wait? Should criminal convictions disbar you from being able to own a gun? If so how long for? etc etc

Instead of reasoned debate on how best to limit peoples access to weapons to curtail as much as possible mass shootings, while still allowing responsible people to own and shoot guns the whole argument devolves into this shouting match between the most fanatical advocates of opposite sides and nothing is ever done.

The US is the only western country this happens in regularly. There's a reason for that.

I hope this time around things are different. I hope that this doesn't just blow over and the lobbying power of the NRA dissolves and that actual sensible discussions happen about gun control this time. I'm not going to hold my breath though.
 
Closest we have is the armed people at international airports, but I think that was a 911 "everyone freak out!!" thing as there seem to be about 2 and I've never heard of anyone needing them

I was detained by a pair of them for about half an hour once. They were calm, reassuring, polite, efficient, and completely on top of the situation. The first thing they did was put my wife and I at our ease and defuse the tension that the airport security had generated. They then quickly dealt with the issue and sent us on our way in time to catch our flight. They were genuinely good guys with guns.

I'm glad that they had the guns, with their training and experience rather than the Gatwick security guards who seemed determined to provoke the situation, gave instructions then treated attempts to follow them as hostile, and outright misrepresented what had happened to the police. Looking back at it now their behaviour reminds me a lot of some instances when US police have shot unarmed civilians in the way it escalated for no apparent reason.
 
"An integral part of of American culture".
Sorry, but so was slavery.
"We have always done it this way" is a reason against, not for doing it anymore.
 
I remember grieving parents of 6-year olds in the media after Sandy Hook urging politicians to do something. Nothing happened.

Nothing is different this time either, politics-wise. If anything it is a worse political climate for getting some kind of gun control legislation through. The Florida congress shut down the debate right in the face of victims attending the session.

Nothing will happen.

Something has already happened. Not much, but something.

I went to a ThinkProgress article yesterday that was about companies that do business with the NRA. It had a graphic where there were a whole bunch of company logos. About 2/3 of them had a red line through them, representing companies that had dropped their associations since the original article was published.

Fed Ex was the most prominent company still on the list. I'll expect to see that one with a red line pretty soon.

Not much, but perhaps a signal that change is coming. Perhaps.
 
Something has already happened. Not much, but something.

I went to a ThinkProgress article yesterday that was about companies that do business with the NRA. It had a graphic where there were a whole bunch of company logos. About 2/3 of them had a red line through them, representing companies that had dropped their associations since the original article was published.

Fed Ex was the most prominent company still on the list. I'll expect to see that one with a red line pretty soon.
Not much, but perhaps a signal that change is coming. Perhaps.

If that means DHL will be delivering all the guns then the problem is over! :D
 
Both Army and Marines receive much more extensive training, but colleagues have told me it's much easier and faster to train someone with experience with firearms than not.

That's a bit of a yes, and no.

If a person is already a good shot then training can be fairly quick as all they need to do is become familiar with the idiosyncrasies of the service weapon.

A person completely unfamiliar with firearms I and my colleagues have found to be easier to train then someone with someone who shoots already. Generally, because the novice has no previous bad habits that need to be overcome.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom