School shooting Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.
3point14 said:
Good, piece. I'd disagree with this bit:

"We can enact gun control without infringing on the right to bear arms"

I think any and all attempted control of who can own what and when is infringement.

In short, I think the second amendment is unfit for purpose. The moment anyone is denied a firearm because of age, criminal history or poor mental health, the right of the people to bear arms has been infringed. I think this is incompatible with modern life.
Click to expand...

If the second amendment was interpreted as 'the people' addressing a collective, rather than an individual right, there would be no problem. A quadriplegic may have the right to bear arms, but not the ability. Same with the mentally ill or felon; they individually may not have the ability, but the collective citizenry still maintains both right and ability.

eta: I think this meshes well with the intent of a well-regulated militia. Not all citizens were militia members, but collectively 'the people' were able to bear arms to that end.
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
On youtube there is a channel about british muzzleloaders though he also does a lot with cartridge rifles. He has videos on how he reloads his lee- Metford rifle at home. And his shooting videos seem to be in the countryside not a specific organized range.
Click to expand...

the channel is imaginatively called "British Muzzleloaders". The gentlemen who runs it lives in British Columbia and does most of his shooting on improvised ranges. Not the most exciting communicator, but an interesting channel if you enjoy this sort of thing.
 
I wonder why the UK, Australia, etc are so appalled at mass shootings that they enact sweeping restrictions, but the US does not. I think it may have to do with a sense of community that is lacking in the States? Americans have an overwhelmingly Us v Them mentality, IME. I wonder if that interferes with enacting measures for the common good.
 
Thermal said:
I wonder why the UK, Australia, etc are so appalled at mass shootings that they enact sweeping restrictions, but the US does not. I think it may have to do with a sense of community that is lacking in the States? Americans have an overwhelmingly Us v Them mentality, IME. I wonder if that interferes with enacting measures for the common good.
Click to expand...

Because they are subjects of a monarch and recognize themselves inferior to the peerage around them. As the slavemaster is responsible for the integrity of his property, the responsibility to provide defense for a person belongs to the crown along with that person's dignity.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Because they are subjects of a monarch and recognize themselves inferior to the peerage around them. As the slavemaster is responsible for the integrity of his property, the responsibility to provide defense for a person belongs to the crown along with that person's dignity.
Click to expand...

No, seriously. I think there is more of a sense of respecting others hard-wired into the thinking of non-USAians. It is hard to explain why Americans don't look at Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc and say 'Never again'. But we do, and repeatedly.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Because they are subjects of a monarch and recognize themselves inferior to the peerage around them. As the slavemaster is responsible for the integrity of his property, the responsibility to provide defense for a person belongs to the crown along with that person's dignity.
Click to expand...

Or maybe they just don't like getting killed by lunatics with guns and are trying to avoid that.
 
Thermal said:
No, seriously. I think there is more of a sense of respecting others hard-wired into the thinking of non-USAians. It is hard to explain why Americans don't look at Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc and say 'Never again'. But we do, and repeatedly.
Click to expand...

It's hard wired because the UK and Australia live under a monarchy that recognizes some people are simply special based on birth. It is easy for ants to recognize their collective. Man is responsible for his or her individual safety.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Because they are subjects of a monarch and recognize themselves inferior to the peerage around them. As the slavemaster is responsible for the integrity of his property, the responsibility to provide defense for a person belongs to the crown along with that person's dignity.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that's it! :rolleyes:
 
Let's not get Bobbed.

I respectfully suggest that you create another thread if you want to discuss your view of the UK monarchy. This is not the thread for it.
 
Worm said:
Let's not get Bobbed.

I respectfully suggest that you create another thread if you want to discuss your view of the UK monarchy. This is not the thread for it.
Click to expand...

If we want to discuss why Americans feel responsible for individual self defense to a degree the UK and Australia don't, that is my interpretation why.
 
Belz... said:
I'm sure that's it! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Surely. Of course, at that point you'd need a totally different and unrelated explanation for, say, the French attitude.


But, moving back to the land of sanity, to a place without a man with an enormous and indiscriminate stirring spoon, a spoon that only agitates and has no other purpose...
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
It's hard wired because the UK and Australia live under a monarchy that recognizes some people are simply special based on birth. It is easy for ants to recognize their collective. Man is responsible for his or her individual safety.
Click to expand...

Ok, but we act socially as a collective as well. Having cops, military, courts and all.

I don't think you will find many living UKians who think that royalty is meaningfully superior. Parliament and whatnot.
 
BobTheCoward said:
If we want to discuss why Americans feel responsible for individual self defense to a degree the UK and Australia don't, that is my interpretation why.
Click to expand...

I know there are railguns but I'm getting pretty sure that there must be derailguns as well. I'm sure you believe in the sacred right of people to carry them also. ;)
 
Thermal said:
Ok, but we act socially as a collective as well. Having cops, military, courts and all.

I don't think you will find many living UKians who think that royalty is meaningfully superior. Parliament and whatnot.
Click to expand...

There is a famous Court ruling that police do not have a duty to protect. Regardless of the collective, I am on my own for protection.
 
llwyd said:
I know there are railguns but I'm getting pretty sure that there must be derailguns as well. I'm sure you believe in the sacred right of people to carry them also. ;)
Click to expand...

for discussing why the US and UK differ on gun laws, a discussion of their different governments, and how that affects outlooks seem very much on topic. What am I missing?
 
Last edited:
School shooter threatened others with a gun, first host family told police

CNN said:
Just months before Nikolas Cruz killed 17 at his former high school in South Florida, the host family who had taken him in immediately after his mother's death warned local law enforcement that the 19-year-old had "used a gun against people before" and "has put the gun to others' heads in the past," according to records obtained by CNN...

CNN has obtained records from the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office that detail deputies' interactions with Cruz in the Deschamps home where he lived for a few weeks in November, before he moved in with another family, the Sneads, and months before the massacre...

Rock Deschamps told the deputy that Cruz had been suffering significantly from the loss of his mother and that he didn't want him to go to jail, only to leave the house until he calmed down. He signed a form saying he refused to prosecute....
Click to expand...


There is another really sad part at the end of this article. When Cruz's mother died in November nobody came to the funeral. Nobody.

"The boy was stoic. Not a tear. Not an emotion. I asked him if he was upset. He said: 'I'm upset because nobody came, and nobody cares about my mother,'" Paul Gold recalled.

"I told him that his mother was loved by many, many people and they just couldn't make it, timing and whatnot. It was a complete lie. But I felt horrible. Here's this poor kid, and his mother dies, and not a soul shows up," Gold said...
Click to expand...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/21/us/s...first-host-family-told-police-invs/index.html
 
Checkmite said:
This is correct according to my understanding as well. All of the assailant's shooting was basically confined to one area or "wing" of the school; when he had finished there, he left his weapon on the floor and ran to a separate part of the building, from there evacuating with the rest of the students because without a weapon he was indistinguishable from any of them to police, and none of the students or faculty in that area of the building could have been aware that he was the assailant.
Click to expand...

Plus, some of the injuries and fatalities seem to have been the result of the shooter firing THROUGH the walls, into classrooms he could not enter.

Locked doors have value, but that value is reduced if the walls are not bulletproof, or if there are windows. Making doors and walls bulletproof to 9mm handgun ammo is good. Making them resistant to 5.56 NATO (what M-16, some Ar-15, and others use) is better, making the resistant to 7.62 (AK-47 and others) is even better. At this point though, you are getting into the pretty heavy armor.

To meet the NRA's idea, we would need schools with few to no windows, at least on ground floors, unless we go with "bulletproof" glass, with is thick, expensive, and only stays "bulletproof" for the first few shots. Walls would need to be resistant to 7.62 ammo, which has been used by a number of mass shooters, including the Las Vegas one.

Prisons are like that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom