School shooting Florida

[Reheat]

Outside of the fevered imaginations of gun rights advocates, I've not heard credible reports of any secret, unspoken agenda to confiscate all guns by any legislators. It astonishes that the slightest scintilla of a potential for complete confiscation (which probably 95-99% of Americans DON'T want) is sufficient to induce essent.ially an unreasoning, CT-level, impenetrable firewall of obstinance against common sense change.

Well, some have a different opinion. It was asserted earlier that Feinstein was specifically referring to "assault weapons" when she made her statement of intent in 1994. Not everyone agrees.

Here's some others whose intent seems pretty clear.

https://www.quora.com/Are-there-actually-any-mainstream-Democrats-who-want-to-ban-all-guns

 

[Reheat]

But you ought to have to prove something to someone in order to carry around a gun. Not to us, of course, but to the authorities.

Cruz didn't have to prove anything other than having the money to pay. I suppose he also had to pass a criminal background check. They do those, don't they? Good thing he was an upstanding citizen. As far as the gun store knew, the only thing that made him different from you was his age.

If you're implying that I approve of his ability to purchase and carry that firearm to the school, I don't. A lot of things fell thru the cracks on this one. Lots of things need to improve, but punishing me for his actions is not one of them.

 

[Thermal]

Because it was a gun free zone?

BTW, why aren't gun free zones not working like the fantasy being sold?

Citizens saving the public does happen.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...er-shoots-gunman-met-0420-20150419-story.html

Now if you would be so kind as to answer my question? Why are people so upset that the "good guys with guns" AKA the deputies did not respond properly if "good guys with guns" don't solve problems?

People are fine with trained LEOs carrying guns, and expect them to be ready to use them when necessary. No problem. The 'good guy with a gun' meme, as the NRA uses it, implies that everyone should be allowed to carry and shoot as long as they self-identify as one of the good guys. These self-proclaimed good guys need not have any training or understanding of law enforcement, and may even have very different ideas of what a good guy does than the rest of us. The NRA's 'good guy with a gun' schpeel is not about police being armed.

 

[smartcooky]

If Peterson had in fact acted properly, then there was no incompetence that needed scapegoating.

For certain definitions of "acting properly"!

I am not at all sure that what he did was not proper in the circumstances. There seems to a LOT of disagreement over what the correct policy is. If he thought the shooter was outside, or inside picking off targets outside (and with gunshot victims outside, and a Police radio transmission stating this fact, there was every indication that this is was the case) then what he did appears to exactly follow BCSO policy and training.

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.

Had he been correct, and the shooter was picking off targets outside, he was a sitting duck the moment he broke cover. As it was....

"[Peterson] took up a tactical position between the 700-800 buildings corridor/corner,"

Seems early reports that he "took cover behind his car" were incorrect.

I think some of us here may have jumped to conclusions too early...hindsight is always 20/20.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Because it was a gun free zone?

BTW, why aren't gun free zones not working like the fantasy being sold?

Citizens saving the public does happen.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...er-shoots-gunman-met-0420-20150419-story.html

Now if you would be so kind as to answer my question? Why are people so upset that the "good guys with guns" AKA the deputies did not respond properly if "good guys with guns" don't solve problems?

OMG where do I start with this crap?

I'm going to bed. Maybe tomorrow. I'll leave a tab open.

 

[Aridas]

"An integral part of of American culture".
Sorry, but so was slavery.
"We have always done it this way" is a reason against, not for doing it anymore.

Err... no. It's neither a valid argument for or against, even if you try to arbitrarily limit the field to slavery.

Statement by Casey Cagle the Lt Governor of Georgia

"I will kill any tax legislation that benefits @Delta unless the company changes its position and fully reinstates its relationship with @NRA. Corporations cannot attack conservatives and expect us not to fight back."

I saw that in the news and... that's just wrong on so very many levels. Ugh.

If Delta doesn't give a voluntary special discount to a private organization, then they are 'attacking conservatives' and subject to punitive tax measures from government?

Just like not letting the government give special treatment to certain subsets of Christianity is an attack on Christianity. Ahh, "conservative" logic.

I call B.S.

But, but... it just sounds so much like the manly, heroic, and totally honest man that we all know and are yuuuuuge fans of. How could it possibly be BS?

Well, some have a different opinion. It was asserted earlier that Feinstein was specifically referring to "assault weapons" when she made her statement of intent in 1994. Not everyone agrees.

Here's some others whose intent seems pretty clear.

https://www.quora.com/Are-there-actually-any-mainstream-Democrats-who-want-to-ban-all-guns

Any? That's a pretty low bar, you know. One that's easily met, quite frankly. If one tried, one could probably find a few Republicans who would be happy to ban guns, for that matter, even if the NRA's largely helped to weed them out of the more powerful positions. The harder and more relevant bar is showing that there's anything even close to sufficient support to actually get it done. Incidentally, that such quotes exist and in many cases were likely made to the public rather contradicts the secret conspiracy angle. Going past that, though, measures like registering guns owned aren't even close to the same thing as banning them, even if doing such could potentially facilitate banning them, among many other far, far less controversial and seemingly positive things.

 

[arthwollipot]

So what? How 'bout correlating to the deadliest firearms available in each country? The Norway shooter apparently tried to buy an AK47 before he settled for an American .223 semi-auto. The guy in Las Vegas might have used a grenade launcher if he could have gotten one. You think he would have done the same damage if he only had a bolt-action deer rifle?

You think he would have done the same damage if he only had a knife?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Err... no. It's neither a valid argument for or against, even if you try to arbitrarily limit the field to slavery.

Yes it is.
Name a single thing that isn't done better today than the way it was 200 years ago.
If you've always done things the one way, you have failed to do it better.

 

[cullennz]

Not sure if its been posted but Trump has said if it was him he would have run in un-armed

Lol

I love this guy!

 

[MikeG]

It's quite simple and it not unjustified paranoia. Just like you've loosely used the term "assault weapon" many of the gun grabbing politicians don't have a clue what an assault weapon is, but they don't like it's looks or features.

At the present time the ATF does not know what firearms most folks have (except for those who post photos on gun forums). Consequently, these politicians don't respect the 2nd Amendment, therefore in their view the only real world issue standing between them and confiscation is that they don't know who has what firearms.

Look, if I thought that by giving up a firearm that I may or may not have would prevent these massacres, particularly of children I'd do it in a heart beat. I'm not the problem, why punish me for something that I'm not responsible for and never will be.

There are measures that can be meaningful and have been proposed, but the plethora of gun grabbing dipsticks in Congress want to ban something or propose cosmetic "feel good" fixes that do nothing constructive, except to piss off people just like me.

Fix the freaking NICS and hold accountable those that don't report required prohibited types. There are a few other measures, but this is getting too long.

Stop going after guns and I will stop believing that someone wants to confiscate them.

This is a mad confusion of paranoia and circular reasoning. Worst of all, it involves no logic, and includes no references. It's almost as though the USA is the only country on the planet, and that nowhere else has ever tried anything in the field of gun ownership. But paranoia really dominates. "They're coming to get us". Sheesh.

 

[MikeG]

..........The 'good guy with a gun' meme, as the NRA uses it, implies that everyone should be allowed to carry and shoot as long as they self-identify as one of the good guys. These self-proclaimed good guys need not have any training or understanding of law enforcement, and may even have very different ideas of what a good guy does than the rest of us........

Vigilantes. Good guy with a gun = a vigilante. They've been watching too many cowboy films.

 

[thaiboxerken]

This is a mad confusion of paranoia and circular reasoning. Worst of all, it involves no logic, and includes no references. It's almost as though the USA is the only country on the planet, and that nowhere else has ever tried anything in the field of gun ownership. But paranoia really dominates. "They're coming to get us". Sheesh.

Not only no logic, references or evidence, but the arguments contradict logic and evidence. Gun control legislation works everywhere else in the world, but it won't work in the USA because of...reasons.

 

[MikeG]

Matter of taste, I suppose. I buy a year's supply when I buy it (fifty to a hundred pills are more than enough) . If it's a real threat for suicides, I could understand limits. I'm a little shocked this might be the case.

Of course it's unlikely to be used much for suicide in a country where anyone can easily get hold of a gun. But in countries where shooting yourself isn't an option, overdosing is a problem. Where there are problems, responsible countries seek to solve them, and putting paracetamol in blister packs actually measurably reduced the suicide rate. It works, so the populace accepts the most mild of inconveniences for the general good of society.

 

[MikeG]

If you're implying that I approve of his ability to purchase and carry that firearm to the school, I don't. A lot of things fell thru the cracks on this one. Lots of things need to improve, but punishing me for his actions is not one of them.

There's your problem, right there.

You can't look past yourself. You want something, no matter the consequences, and won't accept anything that doesn't allow you exactly what you want on the terms you want it. Filling in a form, paying a fee, and having to wait whilst medical and personal references are taken up......wow what an assault on your rights! Having to keep the weapon safely out of the reach of children or thieves.......it's the end of the world as we know it! "They're coming for my guns."

This isn't about YOU. This is about the society you live in. Your (collective you) obsession with weaponry is leading directly to the murder of your kids, to a thousand Americans a year being shot dead by police, and to a homicide rate at least four times the rate of anywhere else in the modern industrialised nations around the world. YOU should be thinking of US instead......but get this........for your own good. Paranoid me-me-me,- it's-all-about-me attitudes actually make things worse for you. If you knew that everyone around you who owned a gun was mentally stable, kept their gun safely, and could lose their right to have a weapon if they behaved criminally or had a mental breakdown, you would be immensely safer.

It beggars belief that the me-obsessed gun nut doesn't realise that he is his own worst enemy.

 

[Cain]

Not only no logic, references or evidence, but the arguments contradict logic and evidence. Gun control legislation works everywhere else in the world, but it won't work in the USA because of...reasons.

We're a country awash in guns, so it's too late to adopt effective regulations. Like with global warming, we just have to adapt.

 

[MikeG]

CNN: FedEx will keep its NRA discount.

Simple. Stop using FedEx. Social media campaign to boycott FedEx coming up....

 

[Civet]

Simple. Stop using FedEx. Social media campaign to boycott FedEx coming up....

After the recent exodus, FedEx looks like the only household name giving out NRA-related discounts. I'll be interested in learning if any boycott effort has much effect. I'd guess that FedEx is the type of company that can take the heat, but I guess we'll see.
Also, FedEx has put out a statement about the issue:
https://about.van.fedex.com/newsroo...national-rifle-association-gun-safety-policy/

 

[Darat]

Because it was a gun free zone?

BTW, why aren't gun free zones not working like the fantasy being sold?

Citizens saving the public does happen.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...er-shoots-gunman-met-0420-20150419-story.html

Now if you would be so kind as to answer my question? Why are people so upset that the "good guys with guns" AKA the deputies did not respond properly if "good guys with guns" don't solve problems?

At what age should children be armed with lethal firearms to carry around school?

 

[cullennz]

We're a country awash in guns, so it's too late to adopt effective regulations.

Just because something may take a generation or two does not make it not worth doing.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Just because something may take a generation or two does not make it not worth doing.

If it doesn't work instantly, it is a bad idea.....