School shooting Florida

[Skeptic Ginger]

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?

Guy in Vegas seemed to be better at keeping his intentions secret.

As for "becomes arrestable", there are other interventions besides arrest. And hopefully we can get some legislation where guns can be temporarily confiscated from an unstable person.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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"?

And very selective First Amendment rights.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The invisible hand over-reaches it's power sometimes, apparently....

Especially when one knows such legislation cannot possibly be passed but when what matters is how it sounds to the base in an election season.

 

[3point14]

Guy in Vegas seemed to be better at keeping his intentions secret.

As for "becomes arrestable", there are other interventions besides arrest. And hopefully we can get some legislation where guns are temporarily confiscated from an unstable person.

'Arrestable' I'm using as a sort of catch-all. I'm not even sure it's actually a word. I'm just interested in when, legally, the potential nutter can be quizzed by an official about the arsenal they're carrying. Everywhere else in the world, the answer seems to be 'as soon as he leaves the house or sooner', in the US it's 'when he pulls the trigger' or, possibly ever so slightly sooner than that, but only just, i.e. 'when he draws a bead'. I just think that's too late, but it's a direct product of the 'right' not 'privilege' thing.

 

[ponderingturtle]

'Arrestable' I'm using as a sort of catch-all. I'm not even sure it's actually a word. I'm just interested in when, legally, the potential nutter can be quizzed by an official about the arsenal they're carrying.

Well if they are black you can just open fire, everyone knows black teachers with carry permits are perfectly legal to shoot.

 

[Craig B]

There really isn't. A 'right' is something that enough people believe is a right at the time. There are no such things as born human rights, there are only enumerated rights, gained by force of numbers or force of arms.

"Rights" are situational, not a fundamental part of being a human.

Now you ar muddying the original simplicity of your proposition which was, as you will recall

... there's no such thing as a 'right', only privileges which can be won by force of action, but that's a whole other thing.​

Now you're saying that it is something enough people believe at a given time, which is a very different thing. Then you try to reconcile these by juxtaposing them as "force of numbers or force of arms". So force of action is unceremoniously transformed into force of arms, and "enough people" become "force of numbers" which is also a transformation. And "no such thing as 'right'" becomes "'rights' are situational", so perhaps there's no such thing as a situation.

To say that rights are not a fundamental part of being a human is true in terms of physical human existence, but that is not the domain in which rights exist. They are part of the social order, and I would suggest, part of any viable social order.

The school shooter had the will and the technology that enabled him to deprive people of life, but he had not the right to do this. That is the reason why the deed has caused shock and indignation, and why we are discussing it in this forum.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Payback for not giving NRA-members discounts:

Georgia Republicans a threating Delta to re-instate their NRA-partner program or else:

http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/26/news/companies/delta-nra-georgia-republican/index.html

Campaign bluster.

 

[Checkmite]

For certain definitions of "acting properly"!

I am not at all sure that what he did was not proper in the circumstances. There seems to a LOT of disagreement over what the correct policy is. If he thought the shooter was outside, or inside picking off targets outside (and with gunshot victims outside, and a Police radio transmission stating this fact, there was every indication that this is was the case) then what he did appears to exactly follow BCSO policy and training.

That's what I'm saying; if he did exactly follow BCSO policy, then there would have been no need to scapegoat Peterson because there would have been no "incompetence" to cover up.

I think some of us here may have jumped to conclusions too early...hindsight is always 20/20.

I am not convinced of that. My own judgment of Peterson is informed by the statements of Sheriff Israel, who has access to the findings of the investigators and who stated during the press conference that his condemnation of Peterson's actions was informed in part by video evidence. Peterson's assertions are exculpatory if true, but they are also self-serving; if he told the investigators the same thing and the investigators had reason to believe he was telling the truth, it doesn't make sense that Peterson would've been suspended without pay - again, if he did everything right, there would have been no need for any scapegoating.

 

[pgwenthold]

It's a hobby then nothing more. Why are people so reluctant to having stricter gun control if it's a hobby? It makes your hobby a bit more effort, so what?

I've thought about this. For example, if you go shoot at the shooting range. Fine. But if that is the case, how about if you leave your gone there? Shooting ranges can provide storage for the guns.

If you are just using them for target practice at the shooting range, then there is no reason to bring them home, right?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oh sure. I know that the NRA and many US gun enthusiasts would offer all sorts of reasons why they "need" guns. But of course their claims of "need" are patently absurd and obviously untrue (dishonest) - they do not "need" them for any such real issues (the believed issues are the actual "fantasy").....

Get out in the real world much?

Pretty sure there is a need to carry a gun when you are out and about in polar bear territory.

I don't have a gun and I'm very much for regulations and restrictions, but a woman hiking alone in the wilderness would have every reason to feel better carrying a gun, not for bears but for encountering less than honorable men on the trail.

There have been a few times I was car camping alone. I was nervous not having a gun. I've also hiked alone and hesitate to do so while having a gun would alleviate that concern to some degree.

I suggest your assertion is incredibly arrogant.

 

[3point14]

Now you ar muddying the original simplicity of your proposition which was, as you will recall

... there's no such thing as a 'right', only privileges which can be won by force of action, but that's a whole other thing.​

Now you're saying that it is something enough people believe at a given time, which is a very different thing.

I see what you mean. I think I should have included the word 'fundamental' or 'innate' in there.

Then you try to reconcile these by juxtaposing them as "force of numbers or force of arms". So force of action is unceremoniously transformed into force of arms, and "enough people" become "force of numbers" which is also a transformation. And "no such thing as 'right'" becomes "'rights' are situational", so perhaps there's no such thing as a situation.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. If enough people with big enough sticks sticks say it's a right, it's a right. If enough people with with big enough sticks say it isn't, it isn't.

To say that rights are not a fundamental part of being a human is true in terms of physical human existence, but that is not the domain in which rights exist. They are part of the social order, and I would suggest, part of any viable social order.

The social order is geographically dependent, i.e. situational.

The school shooter had the will and the technology that enabled him to deprive people of life, but he had not the right to do this. That is the reason why the deed has caused shock and indignation, and why we are discussing it in this forum.

He had all the right the needed to do this. Nobody stopped him.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

'Arrestable' I'm using as a sort of catch-all. I'm not even sure it's actually a word. I'm just interested in when, legally, the potential nutter can be quizzed by an official about the arsenal they're carrying. Everywhere else in the world, the answer seems to be 'as soon as he leaves the house or sooner', in the US it's 'when he pulls the trigger' or, possibly ever so slightly sooner than that, but only just, i.e. 'when he draws a bead'. I just think that's too late, but it's a direct product of the 'right' not 'privilege' thing.

The Parkland shooter is a good example of someone that might have been stopped. Others knew about his intentions, he had the weapon to do it.

I think the intervention options for police need to be expanded, and the ones that do exist need to be strengthened with more training and resources.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I've thought about this. For example, if you go shoot at the shooting range. Fine. But if that is the case, how about if you leave your gone there? Shooting ranges can provide storage for the guns.

If you are just using them for target practice at the shooting range, then there is no reason to bring them home, right?

Or even, if you won guns why is it so hard to store them properly. Gun safes are cheaper than most guns and trigger locks are cheaper still. A decent locking file cabinet could be good enough to store ammo.

Requiring safe storage of firearms and ammo should be an easy get for any legislation, but the organization that represents "responsible gun owners" has been against it for decades.

 

[Aridas]

Why don't you agree, given overwhelming empirical evidence, that trying to prevent change not only doesn't work but makes the problem worse?

That rather depends on what change and why it is being pushed. Change can very easily make things worse, too. Why do you think that the latest round of tax cuts in the US were being opposed so fiercely if not because people thought that they would make things worse?

Human progress depends on disruption of the status quo.

Duh? That does not even remotely imply that all disruption actually supports progress, let alone progress in a good direction.

The US desperately needs some novel approach to dealing with guns;

Novel? You say that like there aren't plenty of fairly well tested methods in use in various places around the world that would fairly certainly help, including a number of which that wouldn't cross the 2nd amendment. It's hard to consider them to actually be novel.

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.

And none of that even begins to support that invoking an appeal to novelty is a good counter to an appeal to tradition, nor that an appeal to tradition actually constitutes a viable argument against doing things in the indicated way. I would strongly suggest that you consider the difference between invoking fallacy and pointing out an actual flaw. As was noted initially, an appeal to tradition is a fallacy, which means that it's distinctly flawed as an argument itself. That does not, in any way, imply that it supports the opposite conclusion, though. That would invoke the fallacy fallacy.

To be clear, I do support a number of changes to our current gun laws, but I strongly oppose fallacies being used to support the reasoning as to why.

 

[Steve]

Get out in the real world much?

Pretty sure there is a need to carry a gun when you are out and about in polar bear territory.

I don't have a gun and I'm very much for regulations and restrictions, but a woman hiking alone in the wilderness would have every reason to feel better carrying a gun, not for bears but for encountering less than honorable men on the trail.

There have been a few times I was car camping alone. I was nervous not having a gun. I've also hiked alone and hesitate to do so while having a gun would alleviate that concern to some degree.

I suggest your assertion is incredibly arrogant.

Seems to me that the US would be a much safer place if gun ownership was restricted to women only. Women are much, much less likely to go on a killing spree.

How about regulations that allow unlimited ownership of guns by women with a provision that they can allow men to use their guns, but only one gun and magazine at a time.

 

[lobosrul5]

Get out in the real world much?

Pretty sure there is a need to carry a gun when you are out and about in polar bear territory.

I don't have a gun and I'm very much for regulations and restrictions, but a woman hiking alone in the wilderness would have every reason to feel better carrying a gun, not for bears but for encountering less than honorable men on the trail.

There have been a few times I was car camping alone. I was nervous not having a gun. I've also hiked alone and hesitate to do so while having a gun would alleviate that concern to some degree.

I suggest your assertion is incredibly arrogant.

Whoa, a pro-gun post from SG. I almost got my CCW license after an encounter with a rather large dog on a hiking trail. Everyone thinks their dog is the nicest friendliest thing in the world, some really aren't. I do carry a big lockable knife now though.

 

[Bob001]

Whoa, a pro-gun post from SG. I almost got my CCW license after an encounter with a rather large dog on a hiking trail. Everyone thinks their dog is the nicest friendliest thing in the world, some really aren't. I do carry a big lockable knife now though.

Against a dog, you'd be better off with pepper spray or a heavy stick. A dog can get his teeth in your leg pretty solidly while you're trying to stab it. And if the police get involved, they universally do not see a "big knife" as a tool of self-defense, even against animals.

 

[Thermal]

Get out in the real world much?

Pretty sure there is a need to carry a gun when you are out and about in polar bear territory.

I don't have a gun and I'm very much for regulations and restrictions, but a woman hiking alone in the wilderness would have every reason to feel better carrying a gun, not for bears but for encountering less than honorable men on the trail.

There have been a few times I was car camping alone. I was nervous not having a gun. I've also hiked alone and hesitate to do so while having a gun would alleviate that concern to some degree.

I suggest your assertion is incredibly arrogant.

To engage in a shootout or might pepper spray have served your purpose? Carrying a gun is only a good idea if you are prepared to kill another human. Many of us are not

 

[Aridas]

Campaign bluster.

I'm not so convinced, in this case, given the more specific actual threat, which was to remove a part of a pending bill.

 

[lobosrul5]

Against a dog, you'd be better off with pepper spray or a heavy stick. A dog can get his teeth in your leg pretty solidly while you're trying to stab it. And if the police get involved, they universally do not see a "big knife" as a tool of self-defense, even against animals.

Eh, as long as its below legal length, I'm fine in New Mexico. I do pretty high intensity hiking in the mountains, sometimes as much as 5,000 feet gross elevation change in 4 hours. I don't want to carry a big stick, I actually have tried and don't like using, poles. Pepper spray might just further piss off a dog, and it can get really windy on mountains, might just blow back in my face.