School shooting Florida

[Reheat]

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.

It's stupid because it was a stupid made up distortion of legitimate comments that advocated no such thing.

 

[Reheat]

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.

I suppose then it depends on the individuals quality and type of learning as a youngster. Sounds as if you may have encountered some with "Red Neck" experience.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If its a problem that angry, unstable, impulsive young men can easily buy powerful, high capacity, rapid firing weapons and go on shooting rampages then tackling the problem by only considering how best to kill them after they do so seems a distinctly blinkered approach.

If it's not a problem, well, carry on as you are.

 

[Nessie]

Indeed, the POTUS solution is to get teachers to summarily execute pupils, kids who they could well know, prior to the police attending and summarily executing them.

 

[Steve]

If its a problem that angry, unstable, impulsive young men can easily buy powerful, high capacity, rapid firing weapons and go on shooting rampages then tackling the problem by only considering how best to kill them after they do so seems a distinctly blinkered approach.

If it's not a problem, well, carry on as you are.

An excellent summary.

 

[IanS]

Just remember there might come a day when you need us heathen Americans again just like you did a couple of times in the last Century. There is a down side to disarming the populace.

Guns have been an integral part of American culture since before we kicked your asses out some 200 + years ago.

Your posts are full of gun waving macho posturing (from behind the safety of your computer screen on the other side of the world).

This thread has zero to do with what happened in WW2 (or WW1), though afaik the US military has never relied on private citizens having already made themselves “gun experts” by shooting things in the streets and fields of the US.

The problem in all these US shooting cases is the easy availability of guns to the general public.

The problem is not that in a population of 300 million there are inevitably large numbers of people who became dangerously deluded, psychotic, or otherwise simply letting their anger and grudges get the better of them. That happens in every country. Nor is it a problem of just more background checks and more form-filling and more weapons training for everyone. None of that is going to stop the huge number of US shooting cases in a country where so many people are so easily able to get all manner of high-power guns and ammunition to store and play with in their homes, and to take out on the streets when and if they simply feel like it.

What you are posting here is just the same old pro-gun rhetoric that we hear every time from the NRA & other dangerous maniacs like that. Well, they are in the exact opposite business of trying to stop people having guns to shoot so many people with … the entire reason for their existence is to promote and increase more & more of the lethally dangerous gun ownership that keeps producing the mass murder of US school children and thousands of others every year in the USA.

And what for? What are all their guns for? For “self defence”? So what are they going to do in any self defence situation? Are they going to try to shoot and kill anyone who they think might be about to attack them or “mug” them or steal their car? Or do you need the guns to shoot back at cops who are enforcing laws that you don't like? You want the option of a shooting war on the streets if US police have to enforce much tighter restrictions on gun owners? Do you actually think you need to be armed to the teeth in case you personally need to overthrow a government that you disagree with? … the government decides to take away your guns and you think you should be armed to oppose them by a public shooting war?

 

[Nessie]

....

The problem in all these US shooting cases is the easy availability of guns to the general public.

The problem is not that in a population of 300 million there are inevitably large numbers of people who became dangerously deluded, psychotic, or otherwise simply letting their anger and grudges get the better of them. That happens in every country. Nor is it a problem of just more background checks and more form-filling and more weapons training for everyone. None of that is going to stop the huge number of US shooting cases in a country where so many people are so easily able to get all manner of high-power guns and ammunition to store and play with in their homes, and to take out on the streets when and if they simply feel like it.

...

The problem is that in the USA, "people who became dangerously deluded, psychotic, or otherwise simply letting their anger and grudges get the better of them" are easily able to get hold of guns. That does not happen in every country, it only happens in the USA.

Everywhere else, criminals, nuts, angry people and youths find it hard to get hold of guns.

Lots countries allow civilians to have automatic weapons like AR 15s and the types of weapon commonly associated with mass shootings;

https://www.liveandinvestoverseas.com/news/10-countries-easiest-gun-laws-world/

The Cumbria shooting shows that a shotgun and bolt action rifle can result in multiple deaths. There is no correlation between mass shootings and the type of guns civilians are allowed.

The only correlation is where unsuitable people can easily get a gun and there s only one country where that happens.

 

[Meadmaker]

though afaik the US military has never relied on private citizens having already made themselves “gun experts” by shooting things in the streets and fields of the US.

April 19, 1775.

After that, not so much.


(And, obviously, there wasn't even a US at that point, much less a US military, but to understand the 2nd amendment, you really have to understand the Battle of Concord.)

ETA: And to truly understand it, you have to be able to apply it to today's situation. Hint: When Paul Revere was telling people "The British are coming!", they were coming to take away the local militia's community held weapons. They were not coming to take away privately owned weapons.

 

[baron]

If the NRA get their way I predict that a couple of years down the line, when an armed teacher goes on the rampage and shoots the kids, the gun nuts won't admit their mistake; instead, they'll claim it proves that all students should be armed too. The NRA, busily swallowing increasingly large animals to catch that pesky fly.

 

[Nessie]

The NRA will just use the no true Scotsman fallacy, to claim after the fact that he was not a good guy with a gun after all.

 

[ponderingturtle]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Some people claim that the gun industry has blanket immunity when their products are involved in injuries or deaths. This is not true. A gun maker is not protected against defects in design.

The above link refers to a wrongful death caused by a car that they claim was not made properly, not that a person used the vehicle to run over Yelchin and cause his death. So when has Ford or any other car maker been sued because a driver or other user used an automobile to kill someone?

So anyone with glock leg should be able to sue over it. Make the product to easy to make a mistake with like the chrysler case and be subject of lawsuits.

If your car had that potential to injure you while getting into it with a bit of being inattentive it would be huge lawsuits. In guns it is just laugh at the dumb ass.

 

[IanS]

Of course there is a function for the police. But the police are, obviously, not omnipresent and, even when they are there, you can't rely on them to do anything to save you. The responsibility for saving you is, ultimately, your own. Unless the state is willing to take on the responsibility of protecting everyone, the notion that we should disarm ourselves is asinine.

Posts like this would be hilarious, if it were not for the fact that the poster actually believes his own dangerous nonsense (and believes the same idiotic lethal dishonesty from the NRA).

It's beliefs like this from gun fanatics that show just how serious the problem is in the USA. Too many US gun owners actually think they should kill people if they think that the person might attack them or steal their possessions ... they think they have been appointed judge, jury and executioner for any situation where they rightly or wrongly decide that some other member of the public needs to be executed by mass gunfire.

Of all the US shootings every year which result in wounding or death (i.e. shooting by armed members of the public, i.e. not including cases of the police shooting suspected criminals), how many of the victims turn out to be innocent people vs. how many of those victims are later found by the courts to have been dangerous criminals who "deserved" to be shot?

 

[jimbob]

Only 150,000 American schoolkids have experienced school shootings since Colombine.

I fail to see what the problem is.

 

[Brainster]

Looks like the school was doing a terrible job teaching civics to the students:

David Hogg, a survivor of the Parkland, Florida high school shooting, told Morning Joe on Monday that he thinks Gov. Rick Scott should be “held accountable” for the failure of three sheriff’s deputies to confront the gunman.

“They’re in charge of them,” Hogg said of those elected officials. “This is their fault.”

“They should have been regulating them,” he continued. “I’m not going to allow them to pressure these people because at the end of the day it’s their fault. These elected officials are the boss of these sheriff personnel and just like the president is the boss of the FBI, Governor Rick Scott is essentially the boss of Scott Israel, the sheriff, and as such he should be held accountable.

The state governor is the boss of county sheriffs?

 

[LTC8K6]

If the NRA get their way I predict that a couple of years down the line, when an armed teacher goes on the rampage and shoots the kids, the gun nuts won't admit their mistake; instead, they'll claim it proves that all students should be armed too. The NRA, busily swallowing increasingly large animals to catch that pesky fly.

What has been preventing this scenario?
Nothing that I can think of.

 

[Civet]

So anyone with glock leg should be able to sue over it. Make the product to easy to make a mistake with like the chrysler case and be subject of lawsuits.

If your car had that potential to injure you while getting into it with a bit of being inattentive it would be huge lawsuits. In guns it is just laugh at the dumb ass.

Glock's been sued for accidental shootings a bunch of times. Sometimes they win but a lot of times they settle and include a confidentiality agreement as part of the settlement to prevent further discussion and bad press.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Glock's been sued for accidental shootings a bunch of times. Sometimes they win but a lot of times they settle and include a confidentiality agreement as part of the settlement to prevent further discussion and bad press.

Hasn't cost them enough to make a safer handgun.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I know you're pretty proud of the fact that the UK has essentially disarmed. How could anyone miss that fact with their noses being rubbed in it over and over again in not such a nice way.

Just remember there might come a day when you need us heathen Americans again just like you did a couple of times in the last Century. There is a down side to disarming the populace.

Live school children?

 

[phiwum]

Well, there was:

———
After the fall of France and the Dunkirk evacuation in 1940, Britain found itself short of arms for island defense. The Home Guard was forced to drill with canes, umbrellas, spears, pikes, and clubs. When citizens could find a gun, it was generally a sporting shotgun, which was ill-suited for most types of military use because of its short range and bulky ammunition. British government advertisements in United States newspapers and in magazines such as American Rifleman begged readers to "Send A Gun to Defend a British Home--British civilians, faced with threat of invasion, desperately need arms for the defense of their homes." The ads pleaded for "Pistols, Rifles, Revolvers, Shotguns and Binoculars from American civilians who wish to answer the call and aid in defense of British homes."[77] As

Prime Minister Winston Churchill's book Their Finest Hour details the arrival of the shipments. Churchill personally supervised the deliveries to ensure that they were sent on fast ships, and distributed first to Home Guard members in coastal zones. Churchill thought that the American donations (p.418)were "entirely on a different level from anything we have transported across the Atlantic except for the Canadian division itself." Churchill warned an advisor that "the loss of these rifles and field-guns [if the transport ships were sunk by Nazi submarines] would be a disaster of the first order." He later recalled that "[w]hen the ships from America approached our shores with their priceless arms, special trains were waiting in all the ports to receive their cargoes." "The Home Guard in every county, in every town, in every village, sat up all through the night to receive them .... By the end of July we were an armed nation ... a lot of our men and some women had weapons in their hands."

———

Thanks very much for that. I had no idea.

 

[phiwum]

You do realise that the UK has an armed military? And that most USA folk don't own a gun?

To be fair, I'll wager that gun ownership is correlated with volunteering for the US armed forces.

But maybe not the Coast Guard.