Cont: School shooting Florida - pt 2

Border Reiver said:
Absolutely correct. However, nothing precludes tackling multiple aspects of the violence problem. Mental health is one facet, access to guns is another, dealing with other social issues is still another.
Click to expand...

Its clear that NRA gun-nuts cannot multi-task. They are insisting that any solution be of the single, simple "one-size-fits-all" type, and that it does not involve any restriction on gun ownership.
 
pgwenthold said:
Then again, why SHOULD the school students have to be the ones to come up with policy proposals to do things like, prevent school shootings?

<snip>

I've pointed this out before. The most important thing the Parkland students are doing is to highlight the problem.

<snip>

Don't leave this up to high school students to solve. Be grown ups. But, above all, do something about it!
Click to expand...

Thank you. These points need to be made. And repeated.

If adults don't like kids preaching to them, then the adults should maybe act more like adults.
 
Meadmaker said:
I don't care to get into specific details. I'm not well versed in them. The point is that some guns are made specifically to fire lots of bullets, very fast. By contrast, I own several guns. (I don't use them. I just own them.)

Most of them can fire a bullet, or a shotgun shell, and then you have to work some sort of action to fire a second one, if it's even possible without reloading, and none of them can fire very many. I also own a revolver. If it's fully loaded, I can fire six shots, by pulling the trigger six times. Then, I would have to reload. It's also not very accurate, so the target has to be at close range.

Those characteristics of a revolver make it easy to use as a murder weapon, but also very good as a weapon of self defense. What would I need for self defense? In most scenarios, I need to scare someone away. It's perfect for that. I might have to fire a few shots quickly at an attacker. It's pretty good for that.

If I had an AK-47, I could fire a whole lot of shots before having to take time to reload. I could also fire farther and more accurately. What scenario do I need to be able to do that? If I'm hunting, I don't need to fire lots of shots. In self defense, I don't need to fire long range, and I don't need to fire all that many shots. I could come up with some sort of scenario where I did need to fire lots of shots, but it would be a bizarre fantasy that involved holding out against gangs or someone determined to kill me, and similarly armed. That's never going to happen. I don't need that weapon.

The only people who do need that weapon are people who want to hit a whole lot of moving targets, very quickly, or someone who has to provide suppressing fire during a sustained shootout. I can't think of any good reason that I would want to enable a civilian to perform well in either of those scenarios.

So, I won't be getting into details about exactly which weapons should be banned for future sale. I'll leave that to legislators' staffs. I'll just stick with my earlier comment that I want to ban weapons that can fire lots of bullets real fast. Someone else can define "lots" and "real fast".
Click to expand...

I think that's all pretty clear, thanks. Point made with no technical jargon needed.
 
Dr. Keith said:
Thank you. These points need to be made. And repeated.

If adults don't like kids preaching to them, then the adults should maybe act more like adults.
Click to expand...

The problem, of course, is that "doing something about the problem" requires that you admit there is a problem in the first place.

How much of this attack on the kids and their plans or lack of them or whatever is merely an attempt to distract from the fact that they don't care? Do they agree school shootings are a problem that needs to be addressed? I'm not convinced that they do. They think protecting gun rights is a more important problem than preventing school shootings, to the extent that they won't even think about reasonable non-gun control measures, because they would open the door for gun control. Notice that their only solution to school shootings is "more guns." And if that is coming from the NRA, how do you distinguish it from marketing?
 
Cruz just said that he wants all of his inheritance money to go to the victims' families... or to charities of their choice. It is potentially $800,000.
 
I can't find it now, but I was seeing earlier tonight about an ex-marine and MAGA-type who made a video of himself shooting at a cardboard cutout of David Hogg.

Yeah, that's right. Trump supporter, classy NRA guy is making a big deal about shooting the picture of a guy who survived a school shooting.

But whatever you do, don't call him deplorable, right?

Apparently, he had it pinned at the top of his Twitter account. Not some accidental thing or anything, he was friggin proud of it.

But apparently#2, his Twitter account is now gone.

I'm sure the NRA is proud of this guy, right?
 
Brilliant!

A teacher at the Parkland, Florida, high school where 17 students and teachers were shot to death was arrested for allegedly leaving a loaded gun in a public bathroom.

A homeless man is accused of picking it up and firing it.

...

In an interview with MSNBC after the shooting, Simpson said he might be willing to carry a gun to protect his students.

"I don't know if that's the answer, but I know that there are some of us that are willing to take the training if it was offered and probably be another line of defense, but again it's a complicated subject and I'm not sure if it's the answer," Simpson said. "I think it's easier to get these type weapons out of the hands of people that aren't meant to do anything but kill."
Click to expand...
 
quadraginta said:
I don't think you are using the language in a way that most people would. Getting shot at in their school is exactly something which gives them the moral authority to speak out. Far more than anyone who hasn't been subjected to the results of the toothless laws we have which failed them specifically.




As others have pointed out above, it is apparent that you have failed to actually pay attention to the things they have been saying.

Much easier to simply cast baseless aspersions on them as a group when you have no arguments of merit or any based on fact.
Click to expand...

By your logic if we have a murder trial we should compose the jury of victims of as similar a crime as possible. After all they have experience.
 
pgwenthold said:
I can't find it now, but I was seeing earlier tonight about an ex-marine and MAGA-type who made a video of himself shooting at a cardboard cutout of David Hogg.

Yeah, that's right. Trump supporter, classy NRA guy is making a big deal about shooting the picture of a guy who survived a school shooting.

But whatever you do, don't call him deplorable, right?

Apparently, he had it pinned at the top of his Twitter account. Not some accidental thing or anything, he was friggin proud of it.

But apparently#2, his Twitter account is now gone.

I'm sure the NRA is proud of this guy, right?
Click to expand...


A guy who used to have a radio talk show in Saint Louis said he wanted to sodomize Mr. Hogg using a fireplace poker. He said it on his radio show, on what turned out to be the last day of the show.


What I see in incidents like this is a sort of pseudo-machismo. A "Ha! I am powerful! I can hurt you!" behavior. It's kind of sick.
 
Meadmaker said:
A guy who used to have a radio talk show in Saint Louis said he wanted to sodomize Mr. Hogg using a fireplace poker. He said it on his radio show, on what turned out to be the last day of the show.


What I see in incidents like this is a sort of pseudo-machismo. A "Ha! I am powerful! I can hurt you!" behavior. It's kind of sick.
Click to expand...

You call it "pseudo-machismo." I just call them ********.

Either way, yep, it's pretty sick.
 
smartcooky said:
Yep. First you will have to create a legal definition of what they are.

e.g. (but not definitive)

Assault Rifle:
1. Any rifle in which rounds are automatically chambered by any kind of mechanism.

2. Any rifle which will fire consecutive shots without requiring the operator to manually re-cock the rifle.

Then you make the sale and ownership of those weapons illegal, and the Government runs an amnesty with an offer to buy back any privately owned weapons. After 12 months, anyone caught in possession of an Assault Rifle has ALL their weapons confiscated, they lose their right to own firearms, and then they are prosecuted (facing possible jail time).
Click to expand...

Gravity hopper and electronic tiny slide.

Just got around your law, try again.
 
sadhatter said:
Gravity hopper and electronic tiny slide.

Just got around your law, try again.
Click to expand...

Hmmm.....you must be pretty good at this. Maybe you can get a job on the legislative staff of the people who have to write the actual definition that goes into the actual law.
 
sadhatter said:
By your logic if we have a murder trial we should compose the jury of victims of as similar a crime as possible. After all they have experience.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what bizarre and tortured steps you used to arrive at this association, but it certainly doesn't resemble anything a sane, normal person
with an I.Q. above room temperature would conclude.

What does having the moral authority to speak out on a subject have to do with fitness to serve on a jury?
 
Last edited:
sadhatter said:
Gravity hopper and electronic tiny slide.

Just got around your law, try again.
Click to expand...

One could define it in terms of projectile velocity, kinetic energy and rate of fire, as well as size or weight. As I am unaware of any massacres usein such devices, I guess that semi-automatic rifles are more efficient than your suggestion.


ETA - or indeed have experts draft the law

pgwenthold said:
You call it "pseudo-machismo." I just call them ********.

Either way, yep, it's pretty sick.
Click to expand...

It is almost as though the gun nuts are the ones expressing irrational emotions. It *really* is a religion to some, and the victims are attacking their god.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
A guy who used to have a radio talk show in Saint Louis said he wanted to sodomize Mr. Hogg using a fireplace poker. He said it on his radio show, on what turned out to be the last day of the show.


What I see in incidents like this is a sort of pseudo-machismo. A "Ha! I am powerful! I can hurt you!" behavior. It's kind of sick.
Click to expand...

"kind of sick" slight understatement!

One would hope this has come to law enforcement attention. I would go as far as saying that something like this outburst is a reason for someone to not be allowed to own firearms. He is obviously a mentally unwell person and until he is treated he shouldn't be allowed near lethal
weapons.
 
Last edited:
sadhatter said:
Gravity hopper and electronic tiny slide.

Just got around your law, try again.
Click to expand...
Many countries in the world seem to be able to create workable legislation that restrict access to the weapons of the type Meadmaker describes. So if USA legislators are struggling they can copy and paste from those!
 
Darat said:
Many countries in the world seem to be able to create workable legislation that restrict access to the weapons of the type Meadmaker describes. So if USA legislators are struggling they can copy and paste from those!
Click to expand...

The circumstances between those countries is completely different, so copy and paste would not work.

In the UK when it came to restricting access to certain types of weapons, the police knew who had 99% of them due to the pre existing licensing system which required owners to register each gun, including its serial number. Gangs, criminals and angry youths had very few unlicensed guns between them. The sum total of guns to be seized was in the hundreds of thousands.

It was quiet straightforward to go get the now restricted guns and the effect was to remove 99% of them from civilian hands. There was also no danger to the police from the civilians as there was limited opposition to the seizures and none was expressed in terms of violence and armed resistance.

The USA has significantly more guns in circulation than in the UK, many millions. Many, if not most are at unknown locations with unknown people. Many of those people are gangs, criminals, angry youths. Many have expressed the intention to fight to keep their weapons.

Now, go get the USA police to seize an unknown amount of guns, off an unknown group of people, many of whom will shoot back, using British copy and pasted legislation......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom