School shooting Florida

[Pterodactyl]

The cops are too aggressive. The cops aren't aggressive enough.
Everyone's a critic and no one's ever happy.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

This starts to sound like the script to "Paths of Glory" Kubrick, 1957, in which WW1 soldiers are Court martialed because they refused to get mowed down by German machine guns.

 

[Trebuchet]

The part that is confusing me is, why in the hell are Enterprise, Wyndham, Hertz, Best Western, etc giving discounts to NRA members in the first *********** place?

Why should the NRA get special treatment?

I also heard that airlines are ending their special group deals for NRA events.

My wife is a vet. Airlines don't give group discounts to AVMA members for travel to AVMA events (hotels do, in convention cities, but they do with all conventions).

Since when do public advocacy organization members get business discounts? Other than the AARP, that is.

This has probably been answered, I've fallen behind. Companies give discounts to all sorts of affinity groups, especially AARP, but many others as well. And you don't have to be in AARP to get senior discounts. It's good for business.

 

[fuelair]

This starts to sound like the script to "Paths of Glory" Kubrick, 1957, in which WW1 soldiers are Court martialed because they refused to get mowed down by German machine guns.

Also, unless the British are lying about it, soldiers executed for being mentally unable to face the fighting. The idea of marching or even running in the open was insane. And I am not even mentioning "in often deep mud!!!"

 

[Nessie]

Yep.

Like I said last night, instead of complaining about how the guy(s) didn't do their job, why not acknowledge that it shows how even people trained to handle weapons can't handle this type of a situation?

But that goes against the mantra of good guys with a guns and it must not be evidenced that the NRA are wrong.

 

[bobdroege7]

Let's face reality

US schools should have manned guard towers

Preferrably only one entry/exit point and any visitors should only have contact through thickened glass screens

Don't forget the concertina wire, sally ports, and electrified 12 foot double chain-link fences.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Also, unless the British are lying about it, soldiers executed for being mentally unable to face the fighting. The idea of marching or even running in the open was insane. And I am not even mentioning "in often deep mud!!!"

Quite right because as soon as you let one off from doing it others will follow and your army collapses.

They have to be more scared of the consequences of not attacking (certain death) than attacking (maybe death)

 

[Bob001]

Or so the writer claims. Who was the writer anyway? I asked you for a single example of a car manufacturer that was held liable for the criminal misuse of one of the cars they built. What do you have to support your argument?

You know what? I don't know of one. But I do know that carmakers, power tool makers, builders etc. didn't need a unique federal law to shield them from such suits. Why should gunmakers alone benefit from a special prohibition that prevents anyone from even filing suit under existing statutes and case law and making their argument to a judge and jury? And if prosecutors can make the case that the actions of the gun industry, collectively, endanger the community, they should be able to make that case, too, just as they did against the tobacco companies. It just seems odd that anti-government right-wingers should be so insistent that the federal government should block juries of ordinary citizens from even hearing the arguments.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

But that goes against the mantra of good guys with a guns and it must not be evidenced that the NRA are wrong.

But it goes against the mantra of the government is supposed to protect you and it must not be evidenced that the gun-grabbers are wrong.

 

[quadraginta]

Don't forget the concertina wire, sally ports, and electrified 12 foot double chain-link fences.

Used as a kill zone with attack dogs patrolling 24/7.

Those would be an essential elements of a good defense strategy.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

You know what? I don't know of one. But I do know that carmakers, power tool makers, builders etc. didn't need a unique federal law to shield them from such suits.

You're right they didn't need it. Because there isn't a loud and sizeable segment of society bent on prohibiting their products by any means possible, and if they can't get it in the law or by favorable court rulings, they'll do it by lawsuit.

 

[Bob001]

You're right they didn't need it. Because there isn't a loud and sizeable segment of society bent on prohibiting their products by any means possible, and if they can't get it in the law or by favorable court rulings, they'll do it by lawsuit.

Which is also an entirely legal procedure that results in decisions by juries composed of citizens who are members of the community. And you think that's so sinister it needs to be arbitrarily blocked? Maybe the gun lobby is afraid the plaintiffs are right.

 

[Civet]

You know what? I don't know of one. But I do know that carmakers, power tool makers, builders etc. didn't need a unique federal law to shield them from such suits. Why should gunmakers alone benefit from a special prohibition that prevents anyone from even filing suit under existing statutes and case law and making their argument to a judge and jury?

Well, I think part of the justification was that folks were afraid that litigants would use targeted lawsuits as a tool to try and destroy gun companies and that wasn't happening in the other industries you mention. I'm not persuaded that lawsuits would have actually destroyed the big gun manufacturers, but it was a risk and people were concerned about it. I think we'd see similar laws pop up for, say, the auto industry if major car companies were facing bankruptcy because of lawsuits over people committing intentional vehicular homicide.

 

[Bob001]

You're right they didn't need it. Because there isn't a loud and sizeable segment of society bent on prohibiting their products by any means possible, and if they can't get it in the law or by favorable court rulings, they'll do it by lawsuit.

And that "loud and sizeable segment of society" is actually a large majority. Nearly 80 percent of Americans don 't own any firearms. But we are all in danger from them.

 

[IanS]

Let's face reality

US schools should have manned guard towers

Preferrably only one entry/exit point and any visitors should only have contact through thickened glass screens

Close down all the schools. That stops the main avenue of attack...

... do all teaching by video link.

Do the same for all places of work and all other types of places that have been attacked. Nobody should leave their home.

Or ... change the gun laws to stop private citizens owning guns and piles of bullets in private homes (where anyone in the house can just walk out into the street and start killing people).

Or …. just carry on killing vast numbers of kids/people and admit that their lives were just necessary collateral for the much greater benefit/hobby of gun ownership (it is your “right” after all).

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Which is also an entirely legal procedure that results in decisions by juries composed of citizens who are members of the community. And you think that's so sinister it needs to be arbitrarily blocked? Maybe the gun lobby is afraid the plaintiffs are right.

No, they are afraid of being continuously sued under flawed theories of liability and they'll be unable to stay in business due to crushing legal costs.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

And that "loud and sizeable segment of society" is actually a large majority. Nearly 80 percent of Americans don 't own any firearms. But we are all in danger from them.

First of all, you're making the utterly unfounded assumption that every person who doesn't own a gun favors your desire to restrict them.

Second, there may have been a time in the US where 80% of the population supported slavery. They were wrong, too.

 

[TJM]

But that goes against the mantra of good guys with a guns and it must not be evidenced that the NRA are wrong.

This wasn't a "good guy" scenario.

A good guy with a gun would've rushed in defense of the children and faculty with no regard for his personal safety. Then end result ideally being 0 to minimal casualties and the threat neutralized.

Deputy Peterson, for whatever reason, is not a good guy with a gun. Apparently he was only masquerading as one.

Hell of a way to have the mask come off though.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

But that goes against the mantra of good guys with a guns and it must not be evidenced that the NRA are wrong.

The good guy wasn't good enough. It's the only possible explanation since the mantra is obviously flawless.

Meanwhile, I'm still interested in discovering what Officer Scapegoat was instructed and trained to do in a active shooter scenario.

 

[Distracted1]

This wasn't a "good guy" scenario.

A good guy with a gun would've rushed in defense of the children and faculty with no regard for his personal safety. Then end result ideally being 0 to minimal casualties and the threat neutralized.

Deputy Peterson, for whatever reason, is not a good guy with a gun. Apparently he was only masquerading as one.

Hell of a way to have the mask come off though.

The seemingly common ability to masquerade oneself as a "good guy" with a gun is a damn fine argument for restricting the amount of ordinance in private hands IMO.