School shooting Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.
smartcooky said:
And there is the problem. We only have what is reported, and not everytign has been reports.

I did read much earlier report, a few days ago, that there was a radio call that said a gunshot victim was outside. That should certainly be an indication that the shooter was outside, or if inside, was shooting at people outside. If that was actually the case, then that makes him an instant target
Click to expand...

Ok, but why would it take almost two weeks to report this very different version? Deputy Peterson, Sheriff et al have been publicly speaking- they forgot all this till just now (and after talking with the lawyer)? Seems like a convenient memory jog for all involved. The police expressed surprise to see the Deputies outside when they arrived, as well. They expressed additional surprise that they remained outside while the police went in, too.
 
Reheat said:
Have you ever heard of someone who thought they were saying something in private, but a hot mike recorded what they said. Technically, I guess that's not private, but the person speaking thought it was.

Here's a quote from Diane Feinstein, one or the more rabit gun grabbers in Congress. She has never seen a gun grab law she didn't like.

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
Click to expand...

Ah, so if one wants all guns gone then we can't do anything that may tangentially lead to the end result because there is no way we could turn it back if there were a massive increase in the desire of the public to ban guns such that two prominent politicians thought they should be banned.

This is text book paranoia.

ETA: Sorry, it is worse than paranoia now that erlando has corrected the quote in the post below.
 
Last edited:
Reheat said:
Have you ever heard of someone who thought they were saying something in private, but a hot mike recorded what they said. Technically, I guess that's not private, but the person speaking thought it was.

Here's a quote from Diane Feinstein, one or the more rabit gun grabbers in Congress. She has never seen a gun grab law she didn't like.

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
Click to expand...

That quote is not what you want it to be. She was speaking specifically about assault weapons: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...hris-cox-falsely-says-dianne-feinstein-wante/

Furthermore it was not a "hot-mike made in private" remark. It was in an interview on CBS News' 60 minutes... http://rkba.org/media/60minutes.aw.5feb95

Why are you lying?

"The votes weren't there". Which brings me back to my first question. How exactly is registration "a step away from confiscation"?
 
Nessie said:
There was a lot of support for William of Orange in Britain.
Click to expand...
Still is. They can be seen marching around Glasgow in July, wearing sashes. There's even more of them in N Ireland, and the present UK government depends on support from one of their factions to maintain its control over Parliament. Regrettable,
 
Thermal said:
Ok, but why would it take almost two weeks to report this very different version? Deputy Peterson, Sheriff et al have been publicly speaking- they forgot all this till just now (and after talking with the lawyer)? Seems like a convenient memory jog for all involved. The police expressed surprise to see the Deputies outside when they arrived, as well. They expressed additional surprise that they remained outside while the police went in, too.
Click to expand...

Keep changing the story until you get one that covers your ass.

If the rules and regs seriously kept an armed dude, who's primary purpose was to protect the kids, from protecting them then his presence at the school serves absolutely no purpose. Get rid of the guard and hire a couple more teachers with the $$$.

Lucky for him the precious rules might have saved his ass. They did nothing for the dead kids.
 
Reheat said:
If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
Click to expand...

We can always trust gun nuts to parrot the NRA falsehood that she was talking about taking all guns away.

The facts (you know what those are don't you. They are the things that NRA and you are short on) are, that she was talking specifically about assault rifles.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...hris-cox-falsely-says-dianne-feinstein-wante/

And she is not the only one saying this

http://www.msnbc.com/kasie-dc/watch/rep-crist-we-are-at-a-tipping-point-in-gun-debate-1170273859815

Anyone who thinks it is not different this time needs to think again. The drive for change is ramping up. These kids are not going to fade away any time soon.
 
erlando said:
That quote is not what you want it to be. She was speaking specifically about assault weapons: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...hris-cox-falsely-says-dianne-feinstein-wante/

Furthermore it was not a "hot-mike made in private" remark. It was in an interview on CBS News' 60 minutes... http://rkba.org/media/60minutes.aw.5feb95

Why are you lying?

"The votes weren't there". Which brings me back to my first question. How exactly is registration "a step away from confiscation"?
Click to expand...

Because it makes so much better a story:
"You can't trust what the anti-gun politicians say in public; see, just by chance we were able to find out what Feinstein really thinks in secret! They are after all of our guns!!"

But I must point out that the use of the quote wasn't technically lying. Reheat posted "Have you ever heard of someone who thought they were saying something in private, but a hot mike recorded what they said " followed immediately by Feinstein's quote. He never stated that the two were linked- that Feinstein's quote was made in private and accidentally overheard by a unrecognized hot mike. That may have been the assumption the pro-gun lobby wanted to us make, but technically they were just two independent sentences placed in close approximation...

So the quote was taken out of context and highly colored to make it seem nefarious. But the pro-gun advocates were not technically lying.
 
erlando said:
How exactly is registration "a step away from confiscation"?
Click to expand...

It's quite simple and it not unjustified paranoia. Just like you've loosely used the term "assault weapon" many of the gun grabbing politicians don't have a clue what an assault weapon is, but they don't like it's looks or features.

At the present time the ATF does not know what firearms most folks have (except for those who post photos on gun forums). Consequently, these politicians don't respect the 2nd Amendment, therefore in their view the only real world issue standing between them and confiscation is that they don't know who has what firearms.

Look, if I thought that by giving up a firearm that I may or may not have would prevent these massacres, particularly of children I'd do it in a heart beat. I'm not the problem, why punish me for something that I'm not responsible for and never will be.

There are measures that can be meaningful and have been proposed, but the plethora of gun grabbing dipsticks in Congress want to ban something or propose cosmetic "feel good" fixes that do nothing constructive, except to piss off people just like me.

Fix the freaking NICS and hold accountable those that don't report required prohibited types. There are a few other measures, but this is getting too long.

Stop going after guns and I will stop believing that someone wants to confiscate them.
 
Last edited:
Reheat said:
What a load of total BS and filled with strawmen. The audacity of calling me a liar is an awesome load of pure horse manure.
Click to expand...

The tendency to call people liars on this forum is a pet peeve of mine, so I can understand you taking umbrage at it.

Nevertheless, your post packed a lot of falsehoods into a small space. Not lies, but falsehoods.


When confronted with lethal force, you may be able to use non-lethal force. You may be able to extricate yourself with no force at all. i.e. your best option, if it is available, is to run away. Also, just because lethal force is available does not mean it can or will be used effectively. There are all sorts of reasons why you have lethal force available, and yet you cannot stop the lethal force with which you are confronted.

Moreover, if you have lethal force available, you might use it ineffectively. (i.e. there is nothing "assured" about lethal force.) You might shoot someone accidentally, as in you don't intend to fire the gun, but you fire it anyway. You might shoot another "good guy", because you miss the bad guy. You might choose to use lethal force when not necessary, and end up escalating a non-lethat situation into a lethal one. You might shoot a good guy because you misidentify him as a bad guy. Or, you might just shoot someone because he made you mad. In fact, all of those are more likely than that you will ever use a gun successfully to deter a bad guy with a gun.

You may object to that last part, because you are skilled with a gun, or because you aren't the sort to get mad and shoot someone. Pardon my skepticism, but I can't tell you from those other people who don't handle weapons well, who don't take the time to be certain their target is really a bad guy, or even people who just fly off the handle and kill someone because they got really mad. It is unlikely you are any of those sorts, really, but you are indistinguishable from people who are those sorts. Moreover, the probability that you are one of those bad, or inept, people with a gun is greater than the probability that you will stop a bad guy with a gun, so, I don't want you to have a gun.

But I'm willing to compromise. You can have a small one, as long as you don't carry it around in public.

But, I only have one vote, so until I can convince 50.1% of my fellow citizens that keeping big guns out of your hands, your gun is safe. But I bought the T-shirt for the march anyway.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Except that this new version, provided by his attorney, is at odds with everything thus far reported, including Peterson' and the Sherriffs own acciunts. Sounds more like a retrofit cover to a cynical reader.
Click to expand...
I don't think we had heard Peterson's account at all. I don't think he ever spoke to the press.
 
Thermal said:
Ok, but why would it take almost two weeks to report this very different version? Deputy Peterson, Sheriff et al have been publicly speaking- they forgot all this till just now (and after talking with the lawyer)? Seems like a convenient memory jog for all involved.
Click to expand...
I didn't know that Peterson spoke to the press. Please give a link to that because I'm curious about what he said.

Why two weeks to make a statement? He probably got a lawyer right away and is following their legal guidance. Maybe he did want to inform the world sooner but his lawyer needed more time to get organized or whatever. There could be entirely rational reasons why it took 10-12 days.
 
Ambrosia said:
It doesn't bother me in the slightest.

how many analgesics are you likely to want to use in a given week?

If the answer to that question is "more than I can get from a single shop visit" then you should go visit your GP.

I add a couple of boxes a week to my weekly grocery shop whenever I am running low.

Aspirin overdose is hard to do, out of all of the OTC painkillers it's only Paracetamol that is easy to overdose on but they are all restricted to 2 boxes per person per visit.
Click to expand...
Matter of taste, I suppose. I buy a year's supply when I buy it (fifty to a hundred pills are more than enough) . If it's a real threat for suicides, I could understand limits. I'm a little shocked this might be the case.
 
Meadmaker said:
The tendency to call people liars on this forum is a pet peeve of mine, so I can understand you taking umbrage at it.

Nevertheless, your post packed a lot of falsehoods into a small space. Not lies, but falsehoods.


When confronted with lethal force, you may be able to use non-lethal force. You may be able to extricate yourself with no force at all. i.e. your best option, if it is available, is to run away. Also, just because lethal force is available does not mean it can or will be used effectively. There are all sorts of reasons why you have lethal force available, and yet you cannot stop the lethal force with which you are confronted.
Click to expand...

Your post includes thoughtful comments, so I'll treat it that way. Of course, one can not or sometimes should not attempt to use lethal force. A crowded mall is a good example. Firing might endanger innocents or a good guy might be mistaken for a bad guy. In that respect you might be mistaken for a bad guy, as well by another armed citizen or the rapidly arriving police. Those are all definitely hazards to consider for certain.

Running away is not a good option at all. I am not going to turn my back on a weapon at all, certainly not a gun. In a knife threat backing up might be an option, but turning ones back is not...

While we're at it I'll address pepper spray or a combination of tear gas and pepper. That's great for a less than imminent lethal threat and could prevent a threat developing into something lethal. I carry a small canister in my pocket and recommend that others do the same. The main issue here is the dilemma between when to use non-lethal versus lethal force. There is no encompassing right or wrong answer, it's a matter of judgment and then hope it's the right one...

snip

Meadmaker said:
You may object to that last part, because you are skilled with a gun, or because you aren't the sort to get mad and shoot someone. Pardon my skepticism, but I can't tell you from those other people who don't handle weapons well, who don't take the time to be certain their target is really a bad guy, or even people who just fly off the handle and kill someone because they got really mad. It is unlikely you are any of those sorts, really, but you are indistinguishable from people who are those sorts. Moreover, the probability that you are one of those bad, or inept, people with a gun is greater than the probability that you will stop a bad guy with a gun, so, I don't want you to have a gun.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not a hot head, I have nothing to prove to anyone. I have been shoot at and missed several times before, so I hope I could handle a critical confrontation correctly. Who know, sometimes it 's a matter of luck or providence....

Meadmaker said:
But I'm willing to compromise. You can have a small one, as long as you don't carry it around in public.
Click to expand...

Well, it makes me feel better that you approve, so I'll just carry one in between small and large and keep it concealed. It's truly great that we can compromise, huh?
 
Reheat said:
You will find that virtually all gun owners oppose anything similar to registration simply because that is one step away from confiscation. Contrary to ignorant assertions on this forum that that's a myth. It is indeed the end game of several prominent legislators. They won't say that straight up in public, but will privately...
Click to expand...

The fact that some legislators want to confiscate (some) guns does not mean registration is one step away from anything at all.
 
Meadmaker said:
The fact that some legislators want to confiscate (some) guns does not mean registration is one step away from anything at all.
Click to expand...

I disagree, but I can't prove their end game, so we'll leave it at that. Contrary to several on this forum they don't like to reveal their ultimate intent in public.
 
jimbob said:
Generic, maybe 30p

The reason being that it *does* reduce suicide and for a method that ends up being quite unpleasant, but seems fairly non-scary at the time.
Click to expand...

The only parallel I can think of is New York City .. where they banned younger kids from buying canned spray paint .... the level of graffiti was markedly reduced.

Can't argue with success .. so I have to give you this one ! :) ...

I'm not big on retracting sales to try to prevent "events" ... but it obviously does work in some cases ... good point ... in Canada after hours when the chemist (or Pharmacists) is closed ... you can only buy little packs of pain pills same as in your area.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom