School shooting Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.
jimbob said:
It wasn't straw as much as me channelling ponderingturtle, given the inanity of the arguments around that.

I did make a very slight logical leap - using a consequence of the status quo as an explicit price worth paying, instead of an implicit one.

But mainly it was the inanity of the idea that people with experience of shooting handguns, or even semiautomatic rifles are going to be so much easier to train than those who haven't learned any bad habits.

Given the number of accidental firearms deaths that would be classed as negligent discharges, I think that there are a lot of people learning bad habits. Many of whom would want to join the military.
Click to expand...
Totally could be the case that the military has to retrain folks. I have never been part of the military and so can't say.

But I can say that not every semi auto owner has a grudge. We can debate over the right to own a semi auto rifle without presuming that such folk have a grudge.
 
phiwum said:
Do you find that a reasonable restriction? Maybe I don't know the harms of aspirin, but I'd kinda like the ability to buy more than that.
Click to expand...

It doesn't bother me in the slightest.

how many analgesics are you likely to want to use in a given week?

If the answer to that question is "more than I can get from a single shop visit" then you should go visit your GP.

I add a couple of boxes a week to my weekly grocery shop whenever I am running low.

Aspirin overdose is hard to do, out of all of the OTC painkillers it's only Paracetamol that is easy to overdose on but they are all restricted to 2 boxes per person per visit.
 
phiwum said:
Totally could be the case that the military has to retrain folks. I have never been part of the military and so can't say.

But I can say that not every semi auto owner has a grudge. We can debate over the right to own a semi auto rifle without presuming that such folk have a grudge.
Click to expand...

Fun? Why would anybody want such a weapon apart from a sense of fun at owning it? 'Fun' here includes entertaining fantasies.

(Not digging at you, btw ;))

Seriously - what real practical use is such a gun to anybody, such that it overrides the dangers?

Getting off a number of shots at the deer in quick succession? How about you become a better shot with a bolt-action rifle? How about you realise there's no real need to worry that you'll starve for lack of venison?

Getting off a number of shots at the burglar in quick succession? Give me a break. Give us all a break. Doesn't happen.

These guns are allowed purely to fuel the fantasy world in which some people exist. Then sometimes that fantasy erupts and disturbs the real world in the form of mass shootings. The fantasy world of the shooter. Oh, and maybe they're allowed for some to make money on the side.
 
phiwum said:
Partly because we're a mighty big nation with different concerns.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't some kind of gun licensing be on the table for discussion after events like this at the very least?

The Florida school shooter could be the poster child for "people who should absolutely not have access to firearms"
 
You know, I really believe - you don't know until you test it - but I think I... I really believe I'd run in there even if I didn't have a weapon....
Click to expand...



I call B.S.
 
Ambrosia said:
It doesn't bother me in the slightest.

how many analgesics are you likely to want to use in a given week?

If the answer to that question is "more than I can get from a single shop visit" then you should go visit your GP.

I add a couple of boxes a week to my weekly grocery shop whenever I am running low.

Aspirin overdose is hard to do, out of all of the OTC painkillers it's only Paracetamol that is easy to overdose on but they are all restricted to 2 boxes per person per visit.
Click to expand...

Not about how many are used in a week. I buy the big bulk jars cause they're cheaper. I refill smaller ones in each of my bathrooms and kitchen about once a year.
 
Armed Parkland officer believed shots came from outside school, attorney says

CNN said:
An attorney for Stoneman Douglas High School's former resource officer defended the officer's response to the Parkland shooting, saying in a statement Monday that Scot Peterson acted "appropriate under the circumstances."

Peterson, who was armed on campus, did not enter the school because he believed the shooting was coming from outside the school buildings, according to attorney Joseph DiRuzzo III.

"Let there be no mistake, Mr. Peterson wishes that he could have prevented the untimely passing of the seventeen victims on that day, and his heart goes out to the families of the victims in their time of need," the statement from DiRuzzo says. "However, the allegations that Mr. Peterson was a coward and that his performance, under the circumstances, failed to meet the standards of police officers are patently untrue."...

"What I saw was a deputy arrive at the west side of building 12, take up a position," Sheriff Israel said of the footage. "And he never went in." However, in the statement, DiRuzzo said that Israel's statement "is, at best, gross over-simplification" of what happened when a shooter killed 17 people.

Peterson initially ran toward the 1200 building where the shooting took place, and then he "heard gunshots but believed that those gunshots were originating from outside of any of the buildings on the school campus," according to DiRuzzo.

The Broward County Sheriff's Office, or BSO, "trains its officers that in the event of outdoor gunfire one is to seek cover and assess the situation in order to communicate what one observes to other law enforcement," DiRuzzo said. Peterson acted consistent with his training and "took up a tactical position between the 700-800 buildings corridor/corner," Peterson said. He was the first officer to advise dispatch that he heard shots fired, and he initiated a "Code Red" to lock down the campus, according to the statement.

"Radio transmissions indicated that there was a gunshot victim in the area of the football field," which served to confirm Mr. Peterson's belief "that the shooter, or shooters, were outside," according to DiRuzzo's statement.

DiRuzzo's statement argues that Sheriff Israel jumped to an unfounded conclusion and then publicly criticized Peterson's actions.

"Mr. Peterson is confident that his actions on that day were appropriate under the circumstances and that the video (together with the eye-witness testimony of those on the scene) will exonerate him of any sub-par performance," DiRuzzo says in the statement....
Click to expand...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/26/us/p...esource-officer-attorney-statement/index.html
 
Ambrosia said:
Shouldn't some kind of gun licensing be on the table for discussion after events like this at the very least?

The Florida school shooter could be the poster child for "people who should absolutely not have access to firearms"
Click to expand...

I don't think there is anyone arguing about that at all.

The NICS background check is suppose to verify everything that licensing would. However the NICS is flawed in both directions.

This is one of the reason one finds intense criticism of both the FBI and the County Sheriff's Department in not investigating or following protocol on this culprit. That is the stopgap that's suppose to prevent this type of massacre, but it's failed on these last two mass shooting events.

You will find that virtually all gun owners oppose anything similar to registration simply because that is one step away from confiscation. Contrary to ignorant assertions on this forum that that's a myth. It is indeed the end game of several prominent legislators. They won't say that straight up in public, but will privately...
 
Last edited:
Reheat said:
You will find that virtually all gun owners oppose anything similar to registration simply because that is one step away from confiscation. Contrary to ignorant assertions on this forum that that's a myth. It is indeed the end game of several prominent legislators. They won't say that straight up in public, but will privately...
Click to expand...

How is it "one step away from confiscation"? And how do you know what prominent legislators say in private?
 
William Parcher said:
Armed Parkland officer believed shots came from outside school, attorney says

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/26/us/p...esource-officer-attorney-statement/index.html
Click to expand...

Well this changes everything.

"The Broward County Sheriff's Office, or BSO, "trains its officers that in the event of outdoor gunfire one is to seek cover and assess the situation in order to communicate what one observes to other law enforcement," DiRuzzo said. Peterson acted consistent with his training and "took up a tactical position between the 700-800 buildings corridor/corner," Peterson said. He was the first officer to advise dispatch that he heard shots fired, and he initiated a "Code Red" to lock down the campus, according to the statement."
Click to expand...


It seems like he did exactly what his training demanded that he do.

"Radio transmissions indicated that there was a gunshot victim in the area of the football field," which served to confirm Mr. Peterson's belief "that the shooter, or shooters, were outside,"
Click to expand...

He had every reason to believe the active shooter was outside, not inside.

I guess some of those who jumped on the bandwagon and called him a coward might have to reassess their tendency towards knee-jerk reactions
 
Reheat said:
I don't think there is anyone arguing about that at all.

The NICS background check is suppose to verify everything that licensing would. However the NICS is flawed in both directions.

This is one of the reason one finds intense criticism of both the FBI and the County Sheriff's Department in not investigating or following protocol on this culprit. That is the stopgap that's suppose to prevent this type of massacre, but it's failed on these last two mass shooting events.

You will find that virtually all gun owners oppose anything similar to registration simply because that is one step away from confiscation. Contrary to ignorant assertions on this forum that that's a myth. It is indeed the end game of several prominent legislators. They won't say that straight up in public, but will privately...
Click to expand...

Theres two things in common with almost every perpetrator of mass shootings in the USA in the 21st century: their weapons were legally purchased, and it should've been obvious that they shouldn't have had them*. It doesn't matter whose fault it is that there is no good system in place, there needs to be one.

*The Las Vegas shooter being the lone exception I know of
 
smartcooky said:
Well this changes everything.




It seems like he did exactly what his training demanded that he do.



He had every reason to believe the active shooter was outside, not inside.

I guess some of those who jumped on the bandwagon and called him a coward might have to reassess their tendency towards knee-jerk reactions
Click to expand...

Except that this new version, provided by his attorney, is at odds with everything thus far reported, including Peterson' and the Sherriffs own acciunts. Sounds more like a retrofit cover to a cynical reader.
 
Reheat said:
You will find that virtually all gun owners oppose anything similar to registration simply because that is one step away from confiscation. Contrary to ignorant assertions on this forum that that's a myth. It is indeed the end game of several prominent legislators. They won't say that straight up in public, but will privately...
Click to expand...

Well gee-whiz... like all NZ gun owners, all my guns are registered, and I'm licensed, yet my Big Bad Government hasn't come to take my guns away. Gun owners in Canada, UK, Australia, Switzerland, Germany, Austria, France and in fact most other countries in the world have either licensing or registration or both. Their Big Bad Governments haven't come to take their guns away.

Oh, of course, silly me, I completely forgot. 'merica is special isn't it? Its full of very special snowflakes gun-nuts... paranoid ones who are afraid of their Big Bad Government... the very same Big Bad Government that has had over 200 years and dozens of opportunities to justify to taking away everyone's guns... and haven't; the very same Big Bad Government that they keep voting in every four years.
 
smartcooky said:
Well gee-whiz... like all NZ gun owners, all my guns are registered, and I'm licensed, yet my Big Bad Government hasn't come to take my guns away. Gun owners in Canada, UK, Australia, Switzerland, Germany, Austria, France and in fact most other countries in the world have either licensing or registration or both. Their Big Bad Governments haven't come to take their guns away.

Oh, of course, silly me, I completely forgot. 'merica is special isn't it? Its full of very special snowflakes gun-nuts... paranoid ones who are afraid of their Big Bad Government... the very same Big Bad Government that has had over 200 years and dozens of opportunities to justify to taking away everyone's guns... and haven't; the very same Big Bad Government that they keep voting in every four years.
Click to expand...

And yet, despite the protection offered by the Second Amendment, the police in the US are far more likely to shoot completely innocent people through negligence or malice than the police in, say New Zealand.
 
erlando said:
How is it "one step away from confiscation"? And how do you know what prominent legislators say in private?
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of someone who thought they were saying something in private, but a hot mike recorded what they said. Technically, I guess that's not private, but the person speaking thought it was.

Here's a quote from Diane Feinstein, one or the more rabit gun grabbers in Congress. She has never seen a gun grab law she didn't like.

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
 
Thermal said:
Except that this new version, provided by his attorney, is at odds with everything thus far reported, including Peterson' and the Sherriffs own acciunts. Sounds more like a retrofit cover to a cynical reader.
Click to expand...

And there is the problem. We only have what is reported, and not everytign has been reports.

I did read much earlier report, a few days ago, that there was a radio call that said a gunshot victim was outside. That should certainly be an indication that the shooter was outside, or if inside, was shooting at people outside. If that was actually the case, then that makes him an instant target
 
Gun advocates accept that all motor vehicles are to be registered, but not instruments of death. OK...

A consequence of there being so many guns in circulation is that criminals that otherwise would be content to merely, say, rob someone tend to get twitchy and a bit trigger-happy, not knowing if their victim might whip out a piece. My point is that the escalation in an arms race where the populace increasingly arms up only increases the likelihood of the bad guys taking fewer chances and start blasting sooner.

Gun advocates should examine other nations where the access to guns is far less easy than in the US. See how it's possible for police to do their job while unarmed, because of the low probability of citizens to be packing (and less likely to be homicidal, to boot.) In the US, the matter of a simple traffic stop for speeding is fraught with dangers most other law enforcement agencies elsewhere rarely have to deal with.

My point is that the common refrain of the gun rights crowd which goes, "An armed citizenry is a polite citizenry" can not possibly hold true in the real world. Humans are not absolutely predictable robots. Such "politeness" *might* be possible only if the more restrictive measures they fight tooth and nail against could be implemented.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom