School shooting Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.
Really? It only takes a bit of "being inattentive" to kill yourself or others with a car. The driver is usually to blame, not the car.

There is a bit of a difference of inattention when actively in use, such as shooting the wrong person in the face like a republican vice president, or such. And getting seriously injured when not in use. The confusing controls are totally irrelevant in all cases it must still boil down to operator error.
 
Vigilantes. Good guy with a gun = a vigilante. They've been watching too many cowboy films.

But all gun owners dream of being like George Zimmerman. A true good guy with a gun. Keeping the blacks out of his neighborhood.
 
I was forwarded a video of an old Jim Jefferies comedy skit re guns, last night. The transcript is here:
http://scrapsfromtheloft.com/2017/04/01/jim-jefferies-gun-control-full-transcript/

Rather prophetically, he points out that an armed security guard on a low wage is unlikely to tackle a massacre in a school:
“We’ll put an armed security guard at every school across America.” Yeah, that’ll work out. The average security guard in America earns $16 an hour. Not a lot of wiggle room to be a *********** hero! Someone comes onto the school and… [Mimicking machine gun] And you’ve got Kevin. Now, I’m sure Kevin’s ****-hot at Call of Duty, but it might not *********** cut it, ladies and gentlemen.
[There's some naughty words in the the link]
I appreciate the chap(s) guarding the school in Florida may not have the job title of security guard, and may be on a different mage, but the issue still stands.
 
Last edited:
Considering a biker recently died in NY on a rally about the compulsion to wear helmets, there is resistance to all sorts of safety measures designed to reduce deaths.

Of course there is. There's resistance to just about everything that a person may be told to do, quite frankly. And?

Cars do not have 2nd Amendment type protection and an active, successful anti-regulation lobby like the NRA.

Which certainly made/makes it easier to get safety legislation passed. Quite a bit of potential safety-related legislation would not even remotely bring the 2nd Amendment into play, including the conservative redefinition of it, for that matter. Thus, this seems to be a superficiality that doesn't address the point that was made there.

Plus the cars produced in the USA are also widely sold abroad and cars brought to the USA have safety features, think Volvo in particular. Guns are not sold like that.

And?

The comparison is a false analogy.

It may be worth noting that the car part was rather sarcastic in nature. It's true that the forces arrayed on each side of the issue are different and that the specific circumstances also have differences, but it's also true that the regulations surrounding cars and trucks and the cultural awareness of the dangers was much more lax in the past, before, say, MADD and the like really came into the larger picture. We were then, as we are now, in a country that was certainly awash in cars, trucks, and, as ever, alcohol. Given the dramatic decrease in vehicular damages and deaths after measures to increase safety were put into play, clearly, effective regulation was not completely off the table.
 
Last edited:
To be quite clear, neither is a reasonable option. Both would be completely wrong-headed, given that they're inherently fallacious, and basing policy on fallacies, especially known fallacies, is an absurdly terrible method to use.

How about you take a step back and think about what's actually being said before showing that you aren't even applying basic critical thinking to what you're saying?

Why don't you agree, given overwhelming empirical evidence, that trying to prevent change not only doesn't work but makes the problem worse?
Human progress depends on disruption of the status quo.

The US desperately needs some novel approach to dealing with guns; it would be foolish to assume that we will get it right the first try, but it would be even more foolish to not do anything until the perfect solution presents itself.
 
Does the letter explain exactly what the Sheriff was supposed to have done to address the threat?

I keep hearing this "they knew he was a threat and didn't do anything about it." I want to know exactly what should have been done that wasn't. Oh, by the way, what should have been done LEGALLY. No "they should have raided his home and confiscated his weapons" or "they should have locked him up" nonsense.


I often wonder, in these situations, at what point someone intent on imitating their anti-heroes becomes arrestable.

In most of the western world, anyone on their way to do mischief with a bundle of ammo and some automatic weaponry is arrestable as soon as they leave their house.

In the US, I think the guy in Vegas wasn't actually breaking the law until he drew a bead on the crowd - is that right?
 
........In most of the western world, anyone on their way to do mischief with a bundle of ammo and some automatic weaponry is arrestable as soon as they leave their house.......

Before they leave their house, indeed. Plenty of terrorists are arrested for planning or preparing acts of terrorism.
 
I often wonder, in these situations, at what point someone intent on imitating their anti-heroes becomes arrestable.

In most of the western world, anyone on their way to do mischief with a bundle of ammo and some automatic weaponry is arrestable as soon as they leave their house.

In the US, I think the guy in Vegas wasn't actually breaking the law until he drew a bead on the crowd - is that right?

In the USA, they can be arrested if their intent to murder is discovered. However, if not, they can walk around fully armed to the teeth and not be breaking any law.
 
In the USA, they can be arrested if their intent to murder is discovered. However, if not, they can walk around fully armed to the teeth and not be breaking any law.


That's part of the issue, I think.

How about the Florida nutter - when did he become arrestable?

And, in a very slightly different inquiry, at what point would it have become reasonable for a LEO to approach him and ask probing questions. The guys I've seen on youtube walking around with loaded rifles are always really, really pissed if the police approach them and the police appear, as far as I can see, to just have to suck this up.
 
... Stop going after guns and I will stop believing that someone wants to confiscate them.

Realistically there is never going to be a time when nobody wants to ban all guns. There will always be some fantasist clamouring to be rid of them entirely.

Does that mean nothing practical can ever be done because any concession whatever will comfort those people and that would be too painful to contemplate?
 
If Peterson had in fact acted properly, then there was no incompetence that needed scapegoating.

I don't know, Sheriff Israel seems to be acting very oddly, to say the least.

The sheriff acknowledged on Sunday that the deputy’s inaction might have cost lives.

“Do I believe if Scot Peterson went into that building, there was a chance he could have neutralized the killer and saved lives? Yes, I believe that,” he told the host of the program, Jake Tapper.

Deputy Peterson’s actions are not the only ones in question.

The sheriff’s office is also investigating whether other deputies who arrived on the scene failed to enter the high school immediately. Officers from the Coral Springs Police Department, who were the first to respond to the shooting, told CNN that at least three Broward County deputies had hung back during the response. Standard police protocol for dealing with an active shooter requires officers to try to confront the shooters as quickly as possible.

Sheriff Israel said on Sunday that his deputies arrived four minutes after Mr. Cruz had left the freshman building where the massacre took place. But Mr. Tapper noted that the deputies did not know at that point that Mr. Cruz had already left, and should have proceeded as though the shooting were still underway.

“We will investigate every action of our deputies, of their supervisors,” the sheriff said, adding that Coral Springs police officers will give witness statements to investigators from his office. “If they did things wrong,” he said of his department’s personnel, “I will take care of business in a disciplinary manner.”

Sheriff Israel, who effusively praised his deputies in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, had insisted in a news conference on Wednesday that his deputies had not delayed their entry into the school. He appeared at a town-hall-style event that evening, broadcast on CNN, during which he criticized the National Rifle Association aggressively and urged state lawmakers to give police more power to commit the mentally ill to hospitals involuntarily.

He did not mention Deputy Peterson’s inaction on that broadcast, even though, as he told Mr. Tapper on Sunday, he had seen video footage earlier that day showing that the deputy had stayed outside.

The sheriff said on Sunday that his office waited until Thursday, the day after the broadcast, to corroborate that the deputy had not entered the school and to notify families of the victims about the finding.

“I’m not on a timeline for TV or any news show,” he said.

Sheriff Israel said he has asked the Police Executive Research Forum, based in Washington, to conduct an independent after-action report on how his office responded to the shooting.

He rejected suggestions that his office had missed repeated signs that Mr. Cruz was a threat to Stoneman Douglas High, even though at least 23 calls involving Mr. Cruz were made to deputies over the past decade. The sheriff’s office is investigating how two of those calls were handled, and has placed the two deputies who responded to them on restricted duty.

Sheriff Israel indicated that he was unaware until after the shooting that there had been a long list of calls directly involving Mr. Cruz.

“I can only take responsibility for what I knew about,” the sheriff said. Almost none of the incidents involved offenses that would merit an arrest, he said, adding: “our deputies did everything right.”

“Our deputies have done amazing things,” he said.

Linky.

There is an investigation ongoing, and besides being premature in rushing to judgement, the way the Sheriff is speaking in general seems very unprofessional.
 
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.

Study here shows it significantly reduced the death rate from paracetomol/acetaminophen:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK374099/

Similarly, it was only in the last few days right here that I read that the switch to blister packs rather than bottles of loose pills might have a similar beneficial effect in reducing impulsive overdoses.

If you want more than two packs here (4 days max dose) you just visit 2 shops. I did that this week, in fact. I did actually hesitate over buying Sainbury's ibuprofen as they wanted 55p for it. Tch. Only about 40p in Tesco. :) It does feel rather odd that we're not allowed to be sold more than two packs of pills but when it literally saves lives you'd feel a bit of a dick for objecting.

Straying back on topic for just a moment, I'm reminded that America's gun death toll is not primarily anything to do with mass shootings or AR-15s; it's suicides using handguns. The paracetomol thing kinda makes you think about how many suicides are an impulsive act that could be prevented by making the means just slightly less convenient.
 
Study here shows it significantly reduced the death rate from paracetomol/acetaminophen:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK374099/

Similarly, it was only in the last few days right here that I read that the switch to blister packs rather than bottles of loose pills might have a similar beneficial effect in reducing impulsive overdoses.

If you want more than two packs here (4 days max dose) you just visit 2 shops. I did that this week, in fact. I did actually hesitate over buying Sainbury's ibuprofen as they wanted 55p for it. Tch. Only about 40p in Tesco. :) It does feel rather odd that we're not allowed to be sold more than two packs of pills but when it literally saves lives you'd feel a bit of a dick for objecting.

Straying back on topic for just a moment, I'm reminded that America's gun death toll is not primarily anything to do with mass shootings or AR-15s; it's suicides using handguns. The paracetomol thing kinda makes you think about how many suicides are an impulsive act that could be prevented by making the means just slightly less convenient.

The other side is that when I see such packs for sale they are more like $4 vs $8 for 250 pills. So the option does strike americans as bad in part because of how highly priced our pills are when sold that way.
 
The other side is that when I see such packs for sale they are more like $4 vs $8 for 250 pills. So the option does strike americans as bad in part because of how highly priced our pills are when sold that way.

Well, we're quite content here to pay a few pennies more per pill given that this measure is saving lives at the rate of 70 per year. Societal good at minuscule individual cost: what's the problem with that?
 
In the UK we are limited to 2 packets (total 32 pills I think) of Asprin/Panadol etc any one shop.

<snip>


I wonder why that is.

We have no such restrictions on aspirin, Tylenol, ibuprofen, etc. here. I could go to any supermarket and buy a thousand if I wanted to. If I picked a generic store brand it would probably cost less than $20 at somewhere like Walmart.
 
For UK folk - you can get larger quantities of paracetamol in one go either with a prescription from your Dr or from a pharmacy, from the chemists it is a maximum of 100 per person per transaction.
 
Statement by Casey Cagle the Lt Governor of Georgia

"I will kill any tax legislation that benefits @Delta unless the company changes its position and fully reinstates its relationship with @NRA. Corporations cannot attack conservatives and expect us not to fight back."


It is apparent that these people can't even hear themselves when they say things like that.

Since when does a "conservative" think it is the right of a public official to question and even stifle the legal business practices of a private business? Why should he have any say in who Delta chooses as an advertising partner?

This is the party of "small government" and "free enterprise"?
 
Not only no logic, references or evidence, but the arguments contradict logic and evidence. Gun control legislation works everywhere else in the world, but it won't work in the USA because of...reasons.

We're a country awash in guns, so it's too late to adopt effective regulations. Like with global warming, we just have to adapt.



What is the difference between “adapting” vs “adopting effective legislation”? What sort of changes are you thinking of as “adapting”?

At first sight we might all say that the sheer number of guns in the US would make effective legislation very difficult (much more difficult than it was in the UK and many other countries). But actually it's just the gun owners themselves who are making it difficult … the guns themselves are not opposing or doing anything (they are just lumps of metal) … it's the large number of gun owners who would apparently make change difficult by all sorts of threatened resistance.

It's probably true that in a democracy it's hard for any government to make changes without the will & support of the majority of citizens. But sometimes when the issue is a matter quite literally of life-&-death, the politicians and courts have to stand up and be counted … in the end they have to make those changes even if a large section of society doesn't like it, and that must always be the case where those changes are needed to stop people with guns from murdering countless thousands of innocent people every year in the US.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom