School shooting Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.
sadhatter said:
Ever notice how when a tragedy like this happens we hear a lot about a certain weapon ( in my 32 years is been uzi, hand guns ,sawed off shotguns, and now "assault" rifles. Not to mention the knives that get press for a year randomly) we pass laws making that weapon harder to get or illegal,yet this crap still keeps happening.

Maybe focusing on the job instead of the tool would work better.
Click to expand...

While I get your point, we really never have done the highlighted very well. The assault weapon ban wasn't a ban.

Maybe if we focused on the person instead of the tool. Make all weapons hard to get for certain people, for example.
 
sadhatter said:
Ever notice how when a tragedy like this happens we hear a lot about a certain weapon ( in my 32 years is been uzi, hand guns ,sawed off shotguns, and now "assault" rifles. Not to mention the knives that get press for a year randomly) we pass laws making that weapon harder to get or illegal,yet this crap still keeps happening.
Click to expand...

Dividing your question into two parts:

No, I have not noticed that in the wake of a shooting we "hear a lot" about a certain weapon - at least, not any more than usual. Both handguns and AR-15s in particular have been controversial for more than a decade now.

And no, we do not pass laws making that weapon harder to get or illegal; it's been a long, long, very long time, and many school shootings, since any restrictive gun laws have been passed. In fact our Congress - again, for over a decade - has pointedly refused to pass any more restrictive gun legislation; and at the state level it's nothing doing either, except for the exact opposite - taking the teeth out of existing gun legislation.
 
Last edited:
White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders says Donald Trump will meet with the video game industry to talk about school safety & gun control.

Well, that'l fix it!
 
sadhatter said:
Ever notice how when a tragedy like this happens we hear a lot about a certain weapon ( in my 32 years is been uzi, hand guns ,sawed off shotguns, and now "assault" rifles. Not to mention the knives that get press for a year randomly) we pass laws making that weapon harder to get or illegal,yet this crap still keeps happening.

Maybe focusing on the job instead of the tool would work better.
Click to expand...

You're being ironic, right?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Alex Wagner
‏
Verified account

@alexwagner

Delta CEO defends choice to end NRA partnership in the wake of Georgia legislature killing the company's coveted tax break: "Our decision was not made for economic gain and our values are not for sale."
Click to expand...

Classy response.
 
Dr. Keith said:
You said it was important and I can not fathom how. I listed the most interested parties in the event and I doubt it mattered to any of them. So, if you think it is important, who would it matter to and why?

Unless you are thinking we need to ban certain types of ammo, but I really doubt that is your position. I think the point is to detract from actual conversation.
Click to expand...

The specific issue to which I was replying was referencing a radiologists observations that wounds seemed extraordinarily destructive to him/her. That Dr. seemed impressed with the destructive nature of the wounds on some victims. That Dr. made statements to the effect that the AR/.223 was very destructive.

Someone else indicated that the Dr. perhaps had not seen many rifle wounds as opposed to handguns wounds. I merely observed that the ammo could have made a difference.

I was adding to the conversation that it could have been the ammo as opposed to the .223 round itself. Varmint type ammo is very destructive to organs after it enters a body as long as it does not strike bone.

I apologize if my attempt to provide some education to the issues was offensive to you. There are many folks here who are totally ignorant regarding anything about guns and who insist that the .223 AR platform is an ugly war weapon not suitable for anything else. Perhaps I inadvertently gave advice to the grabbers in the process...
 
Last edited:
P.J. Denyer said:
The point is that an elected politician is using tax to punish a private company that employs thousands of people in his state for not offering a discount to his supporters. How many were actually using it doesn't change that.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the politician is acting in accordance with what he thinks his constituents want him to do. If that is not the case then they can vote him out of office or recall him.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
The point is that an elected politician is using tax to punish a private company that employs thousands of people in his state for not offering a discount to his supporters. How many were actually using it doesn't change that.
Click to expand...

That was kind of the point I was trying to make, but I couldn't figure out what to actually say.

They are taking significant action against a company because it stopped offering a discount that only 13 people ever took advantage of.

The cost of administering the discount probably far outweighed any additional revenue brought in by gaining additional customers, given that few customers ever seemed to know about the discount.
 
crescent said:
That was kind of the point I was trying to make, but I couldn't figure out what to actually say.

They are taking significant action against a company because it stopped offering a discount that only 13 people ever took advantage of.

The cost of administering the discount probably far outweighed any additional revenue brought in by gaining additional customers, given that few customers ever seemed to know about the discount.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I completely misunderstood your intention.

But yes, real smart politicking. Disadvantages one of his state's biggest employers over a discount only thirteen people ever used. Smart. Still, at least it's now clear who pays the piper...
 
P.J. Denyer said:
Sorry, I completely misunderstood your intention.

But yes, real smart politicking. Disadvantages one of his state's biggest employers over a discount only thirteen people ever used. Smart. Still, at least it's now clear who pays the piper...
Click to expand...

I wonder how many people in that state have a personal stake in the success of Delta, as either employees or stockholders? Do you think it is more than 13?
 
Dr. Keith said:
I wonder how many people in that state have a personal stake in the success of Delta, as either employees or stockholders? Do you think it is more than 13?
Click to expand...

Rough guess is employees alone outnumber NRA discount users by about 32,987. Of course they just work and pay their taxes rather than giving him millions of dollars in campaign contributions so **** them.
 
ServiceSoon said:
Distract from discussing availability of weapons? Quite the opposite my friend!

The entire conversation in the media-sphere revolves around firearms. I predict that the bill of sale offered by the media-sphere will do very little to curtail mass shootings in an acceptable way.
If the average number of people whom die from mass shootings was 20, and laws are passed, which reduced that number to 10; would that be acceptable to you? If 250 people per year are killed in mass shootings, and laws are passed, which reduced that number to 200; would that be acceptable to you?
Click to expand...

Phrasing, bud. When they are reduced to one per decade it would still not ever, ever, be 'acceptable'. At some point, we may have to accept that nothing more can reasonably be done and that a determined sociopath will find a way. But there will Never. Be. An. Acceptable. Number. Of. Shot. Schoolchildren.

And this can't be tap-danced around: mass shootings cannot be pulled off without easy access to high powered weaponry. Cruz was no Lex Luthor who was going to build his own weapons. He bought them off the shelf. The easy availability is a huge part of the problem, though agreed not the entire problem.

What effect do you predict your suggestions to reduce mass shootings will result in? What evidence do you have that your predictions are accurate? (If you mention xyz country as justification for any proposed solutions they will be taken with a grain of salt. There are way too many variables when comparing other countries to the US. Socialization, law enforcement, healthcare, etc to make any reliable comparisons. If we exactly mirrored every aspect of the other countries than I admit our results would be almost exact, but that is not what anybody is advocating).
These are serious questions.

I believe that rhetoric such as saying weapons of war, assault weapons, etc, is an indication of narrow-mindedness. It's an unhealthy fixation on one aspect of many.
Click to expand...

No, it's readily identifying a simple to remedy part of the equation. Cruz was no Olympic shooting hopeful. Not even a 4-H plinker. He amassed military style weapons intending mass murder. So the question becomes 'well, did he abuse existing sporting arms, like using a baseball bat to attack someone? A lot of us think he didn't. He used those guns to do exactly what they were designed to do.

It doesn't even address the root-cause of these tragedies. Calling people 'wack jobs' isn't helpful. These are individuals that are suffering from an illness. An illness that is treatable. We're trying to reduce stigmas. Taking action before these individuals get to place of deciding to kill others should be a goal too. Calling them 'wack jobs' isn't going to solve anything.
Click to expand...

That's fair. Mental illness is the root cause here. It is also profoundly difficult to identify and effectively treat it's victims. It is not difficult to make the tools they choose out of their reach. We keep sharp knives out of the reach of toddlers, so why not keep high powered weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill and criminals? Licensing, baby. Easy-peasy.

Discussing preventative and mitigating solutions seem appropriate. It's called wedge approach. I am not personally opposed to moving semi-auto guns to title II firearms. If that were to occur I believe that the tax on firearms should be reduced from $200. That is a preventative measure. Discussing possible mitigating solutions (barriers, bulletproof glass, points of access, etc) when these incidents occur can provide benefit as well.
Click to expand...

Making semis title 2 might be a workable solution. Require some serious demonstration of proficiency to buy, and they are effectively in the hands of responsible sportsmen and out of reach of the Cruz types.

Bulletproof glass couldn't hurt, as safety measures are always a good thing. The massive cost would be prohibitive, though, and it should be an at best tertiary measure after the first two are addressed (availability and mental illness). But really, mass shooters entering a building by shooting through glass has not been a big factor in the equation, I think. Cruz attended this school and may have been familiar with alternate ways in, as many students are.

I acknowledge that societies operate on finite resources. How schools choose to allocate their monetary resources should be left to the localities and states. The local government and elected representatives are in a better position to make these decisions. I believe that the continued nationalization of mass shootings is contributing to some of the inaction. Of which the natural progress is outrage, anger and hopelessness.
Click to expand...

I think the progression is outrage, frustration and commitment to solution. We are in the first two now. The rest of the world made it to the third. Batter up.
 
William Parcher said:
It seems really odd that there was only 13 discounts used ever. There must have been some reason why NRA members didn't want to use Delta. Did anyone read an explanation?
Click to expand...

It was likely a discount code that couldn't be combined with other discounts. AAA offers similar discounts and I rarely remember to use them. And when I do there is typically a better deal available if I don't use the AAA discount. Except with hotels.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom