School shooting Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ranb said:
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Some people claim that the gun industry has blanket immunity when their products are involved in injuries or deaths. This is not true. A gun maker is not protected against defects in design.
Click to expand...
You mean, they're only unprotected when their guns don't work, and therefore aren't involved in injury and death.

If the gun works as designed, they're protected.
 
arthwollipot said:
And I didn't mean to offend anyone. I was referring to the fact that I've spoken to American gun owners on this forum and elsewhere, and most ETA some of them have stated openly that they would kill a person if they felt they had to. Most have said that they believe that they have a right to kill people.
Click to expand...

Do these comments mean that you don't believe there is a right to self defense for someone trying to kill you?
 
Grizzly Adams said:
Why? Whether he was doing what he was trained to do or not, the fact remains he did nothing to stop the carnage. People were forced to rely on the government to save them, and the government stood by and did nothing.
Click to expand...


Where was the guard Peterson standing when he first realised that Cruz was on the school premises with a gun? Where was Cruz in relation to the the guard? How far away from each other were they at that moment? How many school walls were between them? ...

... did the guard know which way to move to approach Cruz? Did he know how best to approach closer to Cruz or to find Cruz without himself being shot dead and thus leaving the school kids without any living armed guard? Did the guard know that there was only one shooter in the building? How did he know how many shooters were in the building and how would he know where they all were? ...

... from where Cruz was at that first moment, could he/Cruz see the armed guard? Did Cruz know where the guard was? Could Cruz have shot the guard if the guard approached at all? ...

... how did Cruz get into the school building with a loaded gun? Was there supposed to be anyone checking who comes into the school building? How far is any such entry point or check point from the armed guard? ...

... did other armed police also arrive on the scene? Did they approach Cruz? If not, then why not? Did they know whereabouts Cruz was in the building? Did they know how many shooters there were in the building? How far were those extra armed police from Cruz? Could they see Cruz? Could Cruz see them? How many walls were between them and Cruz? Could they approach Cruz behind the cover of schools walls? Or would they have needed to go across open ground? How would they know which direction to go? ...

... how long was all this taking before any armed officers got into the building, 4 min or 6 min or? Where was Cruz at that point? How many dead and dying and wounded students did the officers encounter at each moment as they entered any part of the building? What was their legal priority at that moment, to help the injured and dying, or to continue to search for a number of unidentified shooters? ... etc. etc. etc.

How did Cruz get loaded guns in the first place? Can anyone just buy guns and bullets in the USA and just stockpile those in private homes? Why did he have any guns at all? What did he need any guns for? ... what does any other private citizen need guns and bullets for on the streets of America?
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Adams said:
Incorrect. The fix is to take responsibility for your own personal safety. The fix is to not delegate the responsibility for your protection to an entity that has no more interest in your survival than "optics" and whatever meager contribution you may make to the tax base.
Click to expand...

I would love to agree with this.

So....what do we do to fix the schools so that children who have mental or emotional issues find sanctuary there, and do not want to arm themselves to the teeth?

How do we teach the kids that while it may be funny on Tuesday to make a kid the day's target for abuse and bullying, it won't be so funny come Friday when he's back with a rifle to even the score?

How do we teach teachers to actually put a stop to the types of abuses that make some students ready to kill 'em all -even if they know they will die doing it?

How do we empower our children to protect themselves against armed students?

In so doing, are we also teaching would-be shooters to protect themselves against the police who come in to stop them?

When someone is being bullied, and feels like their whole life is being ruined by it, what recourse does that person have?

If they're suffering violence, our current official mantra is "ignore it". Our slightly less official stance is "fight back and force 'em to respect ya", knowing that for some the only way to effectively fight back is with a weapon. Especially those who are the targets of abuse from everyone else. So, what do we do?

Isolate them from everyone else? They're already being made to feel unwanted and unwelcome, so should we confirm that by preventing interactions that can turn violent? When they grow up disconnected, lonely and unable to form proper attachments, can they then sue the school? Can we promise those kids, then, that come a few years down the line they'll be eligible for financial revenge?

Teach ''em how to do serious damage without a weapon? The average classroom has plenty of things in it one can do damage with (just try walking down a row of students when they've decided as a group to hurt you as you do, and you'll see). Chairs & desks, heavy books, sharp pencils, rulers.... A potential weapon is not hard to find, especially when you're able to think outside the box the way many school children do.

It's easy to say "each one of us should protect ourselves" and in most environments is both possible & sensible for adults. We can go to work, do our shopping, go to the movies or spend the day in the park without a single incident involving someone else trying to start a fight or hurt us.

But not so for many kids in school -rather, they face a constant, unrelenting series of issues with every other student, and even the other teachers. So how should they protect themselves?

Bottom line: maybe we don't need to fix the gun laws. Maybe we only need to fix the schools. If we raise school children who do not want to damage or kill other people, the world can be flooded with guns of all kinds and still be a safe place for everyone.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
Why? Whether he was doing what he was trained to do or not, the fact remains he did nothing to stop the carnage. People were forced to rely on the government to save them, and the government stood by and did nothing.
Click to expand...

I think one should add that the 'good guy with a gun' hero is a fantasy and needs to be stated as such.

As for the government, lets call that for what it is as well, it's the voters. Stop voting in legislators who don't have the bests interests of the voters in mind.

Expose fraudulent claims. Expose where the money is coming from behind these campaigns. And teach yourself how to recognize a politician that is for the people. Don't be discouraged that it is a long process.
 
Reheat said:
Do these comments mean that you don't believe there is a right to self defense for someone trying to kill you?
Click to expand...
No, they do not. But they mean that I believe that lethal force is by far the last and least preferable resort.

Some of the people I was referring to appear to advocate the use of lethal force as a first response. They have stated to me in the past that the right to self defence equals the right to kill. There was a whole thread about it. Go check it out.

Self defence does not even remotely necessitate killing a human being. Self defence with a firearm almost always does. If you're doing it right.
 
Pterodactyl said:
The cops are too aggressive. The cops aren't aggressive enough.
Everyone's a critic and no one's ever happy.
Click to expand...

How good at their job should cops be?

If they kill a dozen unarmed people (across the country) who posed no threat because the cop misjudged a situation is that an OK standard of care?

If they fail to enter a building where a shooter is actively killing people because of not taking policy or drills seriously enough is that standard OK?
 
If having a gun in the house is an effective means of self defence why do insurance rates go up and not down when you have on? Is it because actuaries have proven that you’re far, far more likely to shoot yourself or a family member than someone attacking you?
 
IanS said:
... did the guard know which way to move to approach Cruz? Did he know how best to approach closer to Cruz or to find Cruz without himself being shot dead and thus leaving the school kids without any living armed guard?
Click to expand...

This is positively laughable. What is the practical difference to the school kids between an armed guard who was shot dead trying to protect them, and a living armed guard who has run outside and hidden himself behind a bush while the gunman is inside with them and shooting them dead? What is the use of a living guard that is protecting nobody and nothing? What is he even "guarding" at that point? His words?

At least if he tried to seek out and engage the shooter there is a non-zero chance that he may not have been shot dead and in fact might have been able to neutralize the shooter and save the lives of some of the school kids. The chances of him saving any kid's life whatsoever while outside the building hiding behind a bush were zero.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
You on the other hand would have rushed in like a hero and taken down the perp of course?
Click to expand...

If I were a LEO who is trained and paid to protect and respond to such emergencies, I would be under obligation to, so yes. Otherwise I wouldn't have taken the job in the first place.

Captain_Swoop said:
Have you been under fire?
Click to expand...

Yes. Several times. I'm American, after all. :)

And since you'd like make it about me and not Deputy Peterson, I tell you this - I own firearms and I don't even consider myself a good guy with a gun. I'm just a guy with a gun, neither good or bad. If I were to save the day in some kind of critical scenario, then I'd consider myself the good guy. However, I hold no illusion that will be likely to happen because I don't keep or carry a firearm outside of my home. Period. It is illegal to do so where I live. So I'm fully aware that in a gunman scenario I'll either be hiding, fleeing or dead.

This is how I interpret the NRA "good guy with a gun mantra". The drooling imbeciles who believe they'll rush in and shoot the bad guy without the training and discipline it takes to get yourself in that kind of mindset are perhaps the biggest reason why I urge some folks to just put their guns up for sale and pay for psychiatric therapy with the proceeds.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Adams said:
Incorrect. The fix is to take responsibility for your own personal safety. The fix is to not delegate the responsibility for your protection to an entity that has no more interest in your survival than "optics" and whatever meager contribution you may make to the tax base.
Click to expand...


In that case if you ever see anyone in America then you must immediately shoot them dead, because they might be about to shoot you ... everyone should immediately shoot everyone else ...

... in fact - make sure you get a gun that can kill at the longest possible distance. That way you can shoot people before they have any chance to even know you are there. ...

... do not bother with legal certificates either, because as you just said " The fix is to take responsibility for your own personal safety. The fix is to not delegate the responsibility ..." - so definitely do not rely on any government or law makers denying you the personal right and "need" to your guns ... just get the biggest most deadly weapons you can and start shooting at everyone.
 
jimbob said:
...

However given that in far more favourable circumstance, cops tend to only have less than 50% of shootings hitting the intended target (not a reflection on cops, but on the capabilities of pistols in real life situations). I don't think that a single cop rushing into the building would have been likely to achieve much.

Given the political pressure to fire the sheriff it now looks as though cops don't have a duty to put themselves into harm's way unless it's unlikely to work and they have a significant risk of harm. Which seems somewhat perverse to me.
Click to expand...
NPR interview, 2012
Baltimore County Chief of Police James Johnson. He is a 34-year veteran of the force. He's also the incoming chairman of the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence.

JAMES JOHNSON: In the past, the strategy was to respond - initial patrol units respond, and secure both inner and outer perimeters; and wait - sometimes a lengthy wait; for more equipped, response-type units from tactical, for example. Today, all across America, the practice is, police officers who are patrolmen, who initially receive the call, respond at the scene. Once they make an assessment, they cause an immediate intervention to freeze; stabilize; and keep the incident from moving throughout a larger structure, such as a mall or a school. In addition, there's been significant enhancements in officer armament, weapon upgrades and other technologies - from communication to other wireless improvements - to help us deal with active-shooter confrontations.
Click to expand...

I believe the Broward Sheriff stated their policy was consistent with this.
 
arthwollipot said:
No, they do not. But they mean that I believe that lethal force is by far the last and least preferable resort.

Some of the people I was referring to appear to advocate the use of lethal force as a first response. They have stated to me in the past that the right to self defence equals the right to kill. There was a whole thread about it. Go check it out.

Self defence does not even remotely necessitate killing a human being. Self defence with a firearm almost always does. If you're doing it right.
Click to expand...

You have a distorted view of reality. I'm speaking of a dispute where conversation and rational discussion are over and someone is trying to kill you. That's what self defense is. Prior to that point it isn't self defense. Your words indicate that you know exactly that's where it's headed, but you then appear to believe there is a non-lethal way to assuredly stop someone intent on killing you. Well, good luck with that. Lethal force is the only way to assuredly stop lethal force. Good luck with anything different. Moses Browning and Sam Colt made everyone equal.
 
Reheat said:
It should have shown up in training scenarios. It was the guys job. Why not simply admit he was a coward and not make excuses for cowardliness.
Click to expand...


training can never show what will happen unless your training will offer the real chance of getting shot.

You can fly through every scenario or training unit and then freeze at the moment of action. I have seen it.
 
Ranb said:
.... Probably because the victims of deadly car accidents blame the driver and not the car maker?
Click to expand...
Probably because they don't design cars with the intent that they be capable of mowing down as many people as possible.
 
AJM8125 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Really?

He hears shooting, works out where it's coming from and heads that way. How many bullets is that before he gets there? How many dead and injured before he even begins to confront the gunman?

ffs (or were you being ironic? In which case my apologies)
 
Grizzly Adams said:
Problem 1: Deputy instructed not to charge into shooting. Outcome: Many dead people..........
Click to expand...

No. That's just ridiculous. Let me help you:

Problem 1: Semi automatic weaponry available freely irrespective of age and mental state. Outcome: many dead children.

Fix that problem, and, like other countries, you wouldn't even need police stationed in schools.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom