School shooting Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trump hasn't produced the Executive order to ban Bump Stocks he promised a while ago.

He's gone golfing instead.
 
IanS said:
Careful, you are beginning to reproduce the same arguments invariably voiced by the NRA :D ... OK, well maybe think about this (apologies for such a big mass of stuff, below ... ) -
Click to expand...

Both sides of most arguments tend to have valid points in there somewhere, and the NRA does, too. They just fly of the rails somewhere along the way.

- whenever these shooting cases arise, the NRA and pro-gun supporters almost always say that guns are not the problem and that legal owners are responsible people etc., and that the actual problem is illegally owned guns and a failure to check the mental health of certain gun owners. OK, afaik claims like that are totally untrue. Here is an article from NBC News in 2015 after a shooting in San Bernardino -

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/s...-used-mass-shootings-obtained-legally-n474441

The article says that going back 30 years over all the past “mass shootings” (see quote below for what “mass" shooting means) 82% of the guns used were legally owned -
" Eighty-two percent of weapons involved in mass shootings over the last three decades have been bought legally, according to a database compiled by Mother Jones magazine that defines a mass shooting as taking the lives of at least four people in a public place. Using that criteria, Mother Jones found 73 mass shootings since 1982."


And as if that 82% figure were not high enough, keep in mind that is a figure only for mass/spree shootings, though every year in the US the totality of the 10,000 or more gun deaths are situations where a gun owner has lost his temper inside the family home and just picked up one of his guns ans shot one or more members of the family, or just taken the gun across the road to shoot at an annoying neighbour, or gone to his workplace to shoot a workmate etc., … and it should be obvious that almost all cases like that (which are the vast majority of US shooting, i.e. as opposed to just 30 or 40 mass/spree shootings per year) are likely to be almost certainly where the guy legally owns the guns and he's just lost his temper (or been drunk etc.) and finally shot at someone in the home or effectively very close by … that's much more likely to involve legally owned guns than the case of planned mass/spree shooting at schools & elsewhere, where the shooter has invariably been planing the massacre for many months and may be determined to obtain guns specially for that life-changing event regardless of whether he has to obtained certain weapons illegally for that … so IOW that figure of 82% legal ownership, is if anything, likely to be even higher for almost all of the other 10,000+ shooting deaths per year in the US.

On top of which - in the present case of the Florida shooting, it has been widely reported that Cruz did in fact have legal use and license for those guns.
So unless someone has got very different (and genuine figures, not NRA invented lies) then imho the idea that illegal or unlicensed guns are a significant part of the problem appears to be an overt outright lie put around by groups like the NRA.

Finally, on that point, just for reference re. the number of gun deaths in the US, here is a short clear summary from the BBC in 2016 -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34996604
Click to expand...

82%+ legal ownership. Agreed. But under the system I have been consistently advocating, virtually none of them would have been legal. What is perfectly legal in most states is utterly unregulated. No licensing, no registration, nada. The very opposite of what I have been suggesting.

On your claim that people get drunk or angry and commit impulsive murders- how confident are you that a normal person is just a hairsbreadth from homicide? I think killing is at the far extreme of human behavior, yet you are portraying Americans as a shot-and-a-beer away from mayhem. You may well be right that people teetering on the edge of sanity can be nudged over, and if a gun is handy, it is certainly a recipe for disaster. But I would expect that the vast majority could get reeling pickled and not even think about killing, as I am sure a Brit can tie one on and not carve up his mates with a kitchen knife. Despite what the news might tell ya, we're not a pack of psychos over here.

Unfortunately I think several UK posters here may have seriously mislead you about how many UK homes have any such guns.

Right back near the start of this thread, I explained that after living all my 50+ years of life in London (which is a very big modern city with 8 to 10 million inhabitants), I had never known even one single person who had ever kept a gun in their house. Nor had I never met anyone who even claimed ever to have kept a gun, never met anyone who had ever known anyone else who had kept a gun, and never met anyone at all who ever even mentioned for 1 second any interest in any guns etc. Nothing. Zilch. And of course for about 35-40 years now, I've been an avid reader of the mature UK broadsheet press, and listened almost every day for many hours the BBC radio news in the UK and around the world (especially politics and current affairs) … and in all that time I can tell you there are almost never reports of any ordinary people keeping guns in their homes (the only time guns are in the UK news is when in certain rough areas of inner-cities, some gangland drug dealers (almost entirely black guys of West Indian origin who try to copy the drug-related gun violence from Jamaica and parts of the US, and where they have obtained what are usually very old pistols and often re-converted versions, which the gang leaders then use to threaten or shoot rival gang leaders in drug “turf wars”).

The most notable example of that in recent years was the case of guy called Mark Duggan, and you can read about that in the link below …

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Mark_Duggan


But apart from that, and apart from UK armed police now having to respond more often to acts of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism (several lethal cases last year), those are literally the only times you will ever read about or hear about or see news film of anything whatsoever about anyone in the UK owning guns or having any connection with any guns whatsoever.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt you, living in London. Based on other posters on these very fora, the lowest presented estimate of firearms in the UK is about 150,000. Now, how many of these owners get drunk or argue with the missus and kill with them? According to your statements above, sounds like about none. Poster MikeG recounts shooting (hunting) taking place behind his home while these very threads were being argued- is he mistaken?

Well a baseball bat is very VERY far from being as lethal as a gun! That's just not a comparison at all.

Again, that's the sort of thing that we hear from the NRA and it's supporters who say “oh, well you could kill people with a kitchen knife or a brick, and we are not banning those, so equally we cannot ban guns and bullets .. case solved - we all keep our guns!”
Click to expand...

You're walking my position around a bit. I am comparing a sporting item that has both a sane and a sinister application- and that is as far as I take the analogy. The NRA does extend it further, to 'therefore, no regulation for anything'. I have repeatedly argued firmly against that extrapolation. Guns are unique in their lethal capacity, no question. And living in one of the most strictly regulated States, I say we need my state's standards and yet more applied nationally.

Suppose the US bans automatic and semi-auto rifles. Do you really think that will have any noticeable reduction on the number of fatal US shooting incidents? I don't think it will. Anyone who sets out like Cruz to shoot at a school, or anyone who decides to shoot a member of the family, a neighbour, or a workmate because of some dispute, or anyone who shoots people in a drunken fit of anger or stupidity etc., can and will do that just as easily with any of many dozens of different high-power handguns or other types of rifles etc. … people like Cruz who plan for months to carry out a mass school shooting, will not give up the idea simply because they can no loner get an official license to buy an AR15 (to think that would deter them is crazy) … and people who shoot a family member, neighbour, workmate or anyone will do that just as easily and just as deadly with any sort of of loaded guns that they keep in the house (banning people from legally owning an AR15 will make not one iota of difference in the total overall figures).
Click to expand...

Just banning military style weapons, and in fact most semis, would without question reduce overall figures, simply because they can't deliver as many rounds in the same time. Cruz was reported IIRC to have shot for about 90 seconds. With a low capacity bolt action rifle, he would physically not have been able to shoot a fraction of the amount of bullets. But semis are only part of the problem. Handguns are the biggest, and IMO the least necessary of firearms. In NJ, they are allowed in homes and in ranges and nowhere else. Very hard to get a permit to even buy one as well. Jersey has far lower rates of gun crime than the national average as a result. This supports my argument: making access to buying guns a little more stringent correlates to a demonstrable drop in gun crimes.

The States need to put a lot in place to get guns under control. With hundreds of millions already out there and unregulated, it's a little late to close the barn door now. Owner regulation via licensing is still implementable now. Beginning registration at the same time will track the existing guns and put the brakes on the black market, which would otherwise blossom with the new customers who can't own legally under licensing. Any weapon holding more than 3 rounds for long guns would require second tier licensing that requires additional qualifications. It can be done without an outright ban on home ownership, as I don't see that happening since DC v Heller.
 
Pterodactyl said:
Which of the following should be described as a "school shooting" ?

A student shoots a non-student across the street from a school.

A non-student shoots another non-student in the school parking lot.
Click to expand...
These are school shootings. I deleted the suicides because the list didn't even state if a firearm was involved. Most suicides are carried out at home (with the Golden Gate bridge coming in close behind). It is worth noting that suicide by shooting is more popular in the USA than other countries - research could be done to see if that is due to the easy availability of guns.
 
Thermal said:
I don't doubt you, living in London. Based on other posters on these very fora, the lowest presented estimate of firearms in the UK is about 150,000. Now, how many of these owners get drunk or argue with the missus and kill with them? According to your statements above, sounds like about none. Poster MikeG recounts shooting (hunting) taking place behind his home while these very threads were being argued- is he mistaken?
Click to expand...

The figure you quote is the number of people with firearms certificates (which doesn't include shotguns which are considerably more numerous) rather than guns those 150k certificates cover about half a million guns (again this doesn't include shotguns). The guns were out yesterday behind my village, I didn't see them (rarely do) but I could hear them when I was walking the dog.

IanS's (slightly irritating) incredulity is a measure of how little people who do shoot actually talk about it to people who don't. Last week I was having a beer next to someone wearing a jumper with a small grouse estate logo on the breast, this is the UK equivalent of a 'cold dead hands' t shirt in the UK, but without the combative undercurrent. Just to be clear, we're not talking about embarrassment about their pastime, it's more a case of it being no-one else's business, and I'm sure to a degree not wanting to get into it with people who don't know what they're talking about. I often wear a tie from a hunting estate at work and I quite often get asked if (or where) I hunt (I don't) by people who do.


Thermal said:
You're walking my position around a bit.
Click to expand...

You're being very, very, generous there.
 
Thermal said:
Both sides of most arguments tend to have valid points in there somewhere, and the NRA does, too. They just fly of the rails somewhere along the way.



82%+ legal ownership. Agreed. But under the system I have been consistently advocating, virtually none of them would have been legal. What is perfectly legal in most states is utterly unregulated. No licensing, no registration, nada. The very opposite of what I have been suggesting.

On your claim that people get drunk or angry and commit impulsive murders- how confident are you that a normal person is just a hairsbreadth from homicide? I think killing is at the far extreme of human behavior, yet you are portraying Americans as a shot-and-a-beer away from mayhem. You may well be right that people teetering on the edge of sanity can be nudged over, and if a gun is handy, it is certainly a recipe for disaster. But I would expect that the vast majority could get reeling pickled and not even think about killing, as I am sure a Brit can tie one on and not carve up his mates with a kitchen knife. Despite what the news might tell ya, we're not a pack of psychos over here.



I don't doubt you, living in London. Based on other posters on these very fora, the lowest presented estimate of firearms in the UK is about 150,000. Now, how many of these owners get drunk or argue with the missus and kill with them? According to your statements above, sounds like about none. Poster MikeG recounts shooting (hunting) taking place behind his home while these very threads were being argued- is he mistaken?



You're walking my position around a bit. I am comparing a sporting item that has both a sane and a sinister application- and that is as far as I take the analogy. The NRA does extend it further, to 'therefore, no regulation for anything'. I have repeatedly argued firmly against that extrapolation. Guns are unique in their lethal capacity, no question. And living in one of the most strictly regulated States, I say we need my state's standards and yet more applied nationally.



Just banning military style weapons, and in fact most semis, would without question reduce overall figures, simply because they can't deliver as many rounds in the same time. Cruz was reported IIRC to have shot for about 90 seconds. With a low capacity bolt action rifle, he would physically not have been able to shoot a fraction of the amount of bullets. But semis are only part of the problem. Handguns are the biggest, and IMO the least necessary of firearms. In NJ, they are allowed in homes and in ranges and nowhere else. Very hard to get a permit to even buy one as well. Jersey has far lower rates of gun crime than the national average as a result. This supports my argument: making access to buying guns a little more stringent correlates to a demonstrable drop in gun crimes. The States need to put a lot in place to get guns under control. With hundreds of millions already out there and unregulated, it's a little late to close the barn door now. Owner regulation via licensing is still implementable now. Beginning registration at the same time will track the existing guns and put the brakes on the black market, which would otherwise blossom with the new customers who can't own legally under licensing. Any weapon holding more than 3 rounds for long guns would require second tier licensing that requires additional qualifications. It can be done without an outright ban on home ownership, as I don't see that happening since DC v Heller.
Click to expand...


Indeed, and even if he managed to have something like the SMLE, which in WWI was considered a fine battlefield rifle - with a fast rate of fire, the minimum for troops was 15 aimed rounds in a minute, with the record of 38 rounds. Cruz would have been struggling to get anywhere near that. And this was a weapon that so surprised the Germans at Mons, that they thought the BEF had 18 machineguns per battalion as opposed to two.
 
Thermal said:
Handguns are the biggest, and IMO the least necessary of firearms. In NJ, they are allowed in homes and in ranges and nowhere else. Very hard to get a permit to even buy one as well.
Click to expand...
Based on what I've read, the permit is "shall issue". The only thing I saw that was unusual on the application was two references required. What am I missing that would make the permit very hard to get?

Ranb
 
Slightly more on topic, the Florida Senate spent yesterday debating a gun bill. They first approved, by voice vote, a two-year moratorium on AR-15 sales, then when called to a roll call, defeated it. Cowards.
In one moment of drama, senators briefly approved and then rejected a two-year moratorium on the sale of AR-15 assault rifles, the type used in the Feb. 14 massacre.

The surprise action came on an unrecorded voice vote in which senators shouted yea or nay. Senate President Joe Negron, R-Stuart, ruled that the amendment passed. As Senate rules allow, it was reconsidered and overturned by a roll call vote of 21-17 with Flores and Garcia joining Democrats.
Click to expand...

The debate was, of course, Godwinned:
Sen. David Simmons of Altamonte Springs, an opponent of the ban, cited Adolf Hitler for seizing guns from German citizens and defended the need to allow civilians to have access to them. Democratic Sen. Kevin Rader, D-Delray Beach, who is Jewish and represents Parkland, called the analogy "absolutely unfair."
Click to expand...
And Godded:
But Sen. Kelli Stargel, a Lakeland Republican, countered that she and her colleagues were not motivated by politics. She said she is willing to raise the age to 21 but bristled at the claim by gun control activists that prayers don't matter.

"The one thing that will actually change this the most is the one thing that has become fighting words — and that is to say we need thoughts and prayers," she said.
Click to expand...
 
Ranb said:
Based on what I've read, the permit is "shall issue". The only thing I saw that was unusual on the application was two references required. What am I missing that would make the permit very hard to get?

Ranb
Click to expand...

You're right, 'hard' is not the right word. It is a lengthy process, about three months, with the criminal and mental health backgound checks and character references, and you are then issued a purchasing permit for one purchase good for only 90 days. This forces the purchase to be a more planned and calculated move, as opposed to an impulse buy. CCW is in theory a 'may issue' but in practice just doesn't happen.
 
Trebuchet said:
The debate was, of course, Godwinned:
Click to expand...
in 1938 the Nazis liberalised gun ownership laws, removing many restrictions on acquisition and ownership. Per Gun legislation in GermanyWP
... under the new law:

Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition.

The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, and the possession of ammunition.

The legal age at which guns could be purchased was lowered from 20 to 18.
Permits were valid for three years, rather than one year.

Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP (the National Socialist German Workers' Party) members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.

Manufacture of arms and ammunition continued to require a permit, with the proviso that such permits would no longer be issued to any company even partly owned by Jews​
 
Trebuchet said:
Slightly more on topic, the Florida Senate spent yesterday debating a gun bill. They first approved, by voice vote, a two-year moratorium on AR-15 sales, then when called to a roll call, defeated it. Cowards.


The debate was, of course, Godwinned:

And Godded:
Click to expand...

One of the big problems of the religionists is that belief doesn't mean feces and prayers at best makes the pray-er feel better - just as if they had accomplished something. They are wrong except for wild chance.
 
Craig B said:
in 1938 the Nazis liberalised gun ownership laws, removing many restrictions on acquisition and ownership. Per Gun legislation in GermanyWP
... under the new law:

Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition.

The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, and the possession of ammunition.

The legal age at which guns could be purchased was lowered from 20 to 18.
Permits were valid for three years, rather than one year.

Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP (the National Socialist German Workers' Party) members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.

Manufacture of arms and ammunition continued to require a permit, with the proviso that such permits would no longer be issued to any company even partly owned by Jews​
Click to expand...

Thanks, I knew that but was going to go look it up before citing the Republican lie.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom