School shooting Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reheat said:
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.
Click to expand...

Still not answering the question: How exactly is registration "one step away from confiscation"?
 
smartcooky said:
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."


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...

Police Scotland (and others) training for the first person on the scene - SADCHALETS

S -Survey the scene.
A -Assess the situation and the risk implications.
D -Disseminate information to the correct groups in the correct sequence.
C -Casualties: Number, type, and condition.
H -Hazards: Types, severity, impacts, and status.
A -Access: Management control points, safe routes in, and reception centers.
L -Location: Specific grid reference or prominent feature of the event.
E -Emergency Services: What support is required.
T -Type: Nature and type of crisis incident.
S -Start Logging: Start collating information from the beginning of the event.

It was that cop's job to do as much of the above as possible.

Considering how many school shootings there have been, it is amazing this knowledge gap is only become apparent now.
 
erlando said:
Still not answering the question: How exactly is registration "one step away from confiscation"?
Click to expand...

Confiscation is very difficult, if not impossible, without knowing who has what gun and where. After Hungerford and Dunblane, it was easy for the UK police to gather up all the gun types which were now banned from civilian ownership. There are now about 7 guns for every 100 people in the UK. Back in 1988 when the first round of confiscations started, that would have been higher, but not much higher. Maybe 10 or 11 per 100 people.

The USA has an estimated 88.8 guns per 100 people and no idea who has what in most states. Without knowing who has what and where, how do you even start confiscation?
 
Cain said:
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.
Click to expand...

Correct and there are many coping mechanisms, which people have already been using as the USA adapts to the situation.
 
Reheat said:
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.

.
Click to expand...


Firstly you cannot foresee the future, and you actually do not know if next year you will develop a mental or psychological issue which turns you into a lethal danger with your easy access to loaded guns. You are one of many millions of gun owners in the US. Most of them would probably say what you just said, but the truth is that every year thousands of those gun owners will either develop mental or psychological problems or else will have their lives and beliefs turned upside down by some unexpected life changing events, with the result that they do then become a lethal danger to other people around them.

Secondly – you are in fact responsible for the huge number of shooting cases in the US. All of the people in the US who support private home ownership of lethal weapons, and who are preventing major restrictions similar to what we have in the UK and other responsible nations, they are the people who are responsible for the deadly problem continuing year after year dead after death.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
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.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

When the phrase, in practice, applies first and foremost to the person making the claim, not necessarily the entire history of the method, your 200 years challenge can be easily seen to be little more than a red herring.

Either way, your argument is notably close to an appeal to novelty, incidentally, which is no better than the appeal to tradition that you dislike for pretty much the same reasons. Some newer ways may well be better, but them being better will have have nothing to do with being newer. "We have always done it this way" is effectively irrelevant to how good it actually is, without valid separate justification, however much the user might wish it were enough. Rather, it brings up two points of note. First, the way supposedly works, which is obviously important. New, untested methods bear a rather significant chance of NOT working (either at all or as well), after all, and generally for reasons unforeseen by the designers (whoever they are). Second, it invokes the specter of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," which is a completely reasonable position, overall, even if it is far from perfect all the time.



Cain said:
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.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Because doing nothing is better than implementing even common-sense logistical measures and safety regulations? Good to know that nothing could be done about all that damage and death because of vehicular accidents during all these years, too! We were and are a country awash with cars and trucks, so it's long been too late to adopt effective regulations. Oh well, we'll just have to adapt to the ever increasing body count, right?
 
Last edited:
How about you apply the appeal to novelty and the appeal to tradition to bear on the case at hand (i.e. guns in the US) and see which you think will help solve the problem and which refuses to even try to solve the problem?
 
The Great Zaganza said:
How about you apply the appeal to novelty and the appeal to tradition to bear on the case at hand (i.e. guns in the US) and see which you think will help solve the problem and which refuses to even try to solve the problem?
Click to expand...

To be quite clear, neither is a reasonable option. Both would be completely wrong-headed, given that they're inherently fallacious, and basing policy on fallacies, especially known fallacies, is an absurdly terrible method to use.

How about you take a step back and think about what's actually being said before showing that you aren't even applying basic critical thinking to what you're saying?
 
Last edited:
cullennz said:
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!
Click to expand...

As long as there was no blood, he can't deal with blood: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-t...ust-while-a-man-bled-to-death-in-front-of-him

"...“I’m not good for medical. In other words, if you cut your finger and there’s blood pouring out, I’m gone,” he told Stern. ...“So what happens is, this guy falls off right on his face, hits his head, and I thought he died. And you know what I did? I said, ‘Oh my God, that’s disgusting,’ and I turned away,” said Trump. “I couldn’t, you know, he was right in front of me and I turned away. I didn’t want to touch him… he’s bleeding all over the place, I felt terrible. You know, beautiful marble floor, didn’t look like it. It changed color. Became very red. ... ..."
 
Nessie said:
The USA has an estimated 88.8 guns per 100 people and no idea who has what in most states. Without knowing who has what and where, how do you even start confiscation?
Click to expand...

You don't

You start from a date that you have controls over who can legally buy them. Put up a reward for people who might think they don't need them any more, to VOLUNTARILY hand the restricted in.

Leave those who already have them alone, obviously with the proviso the same old rules apply to keep them.
 
Last edited:
Just because gun owners claim to be responsible and law-abiding does not mean the rest of us must necessarily take them at their word. Even evil people often think of themselves as good folk.

And as pointed out by others, even if one is just fine now does not mean this will always be so. It can take but a moment, in the heat of passion, to grab a gun in order to settle a dispute. Some psychological issue can develop over time. A moment's inattention and a child could start playing, or someone else in anger could grab a weapon.

A gun within reach is tragedy waiting to happen. As statistics tell us, too many folk are killed or injured with their own or a family gun. Which is part of the reason most citizens/ households have no gun.

A minority of US citizens are holding the nation hostage to their fetish. The rights of the many are rendered subservient to the rights of the few. *All* would be better served with some good sense and compromise exercised by that few.
 
Aridas said:
:rolleyes:

When the phrase, in practice, applies first and foremost to the person making the claim, not necessarily the entire history of the method, your 200 years challenge can be easily seen to be little more than a red herring.

Either way, your argument is notably close to an appeal to novelty, incidentally, which is no better than the appeal to tradition that you dislike for pretty much the same reasons. Some newer ways may well be better, but them being better will have have nothing to do with being newer. "We have always done it this way" is effectively irrelevant to how good it actually is, without valid separate justification, however much the user might wish it were enough. Rather, it brings up two points of note. First, the way supposedly works, which is obviously important. New, untested methods bear a rather significant chance of NOT working (either at all or as well), after all, and generally for reasons unforeseen by the designers (whoever they are). Second, it invokes the specter of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," which is a completely reasonable position, overall, even if it is far from perfect all the time.





:rolleyes: Because doing nothing is better than implementing even common-sense logistical measures and safety regulations? Good to know that nothing could be done about all that damage and death because of vehicular accidents during all these years, too! We were and are a country awash with cars and trucks, so it's long been too late to adopt effective regulations. Oh well, we'll just have to adapt to the ever increasing body count, right?
Click to expand...

Considering a biker recently died in NY on a rally about the compulsion to wear helmets, there is resistance to all sorts of safety measures designed to reduce deaths.

Cars do not have 2nd Amendment type protection and an active, successful anti-regulation lobby like the NRA.

Plus the cars produced in the USA are also widely sold abroad and cars brought to the USA have safety features, think Volvo in particular. Guns are not sold like that.

The comparison is a false analogy.
 
I think I should explain my other post better.

We (in NZ) call it a retrospective law.

If im stating the obvious forgive me. It basically means it starts from a date certain restrictions apply. Anyone under the law before that date have the rights of the old law.

Having said that I would have the restrictions on any NEW guns that are on the restricted list only available if they meet the new law.

Edit: not non
 
Last edited:
fuelair said:
My surprise (and a happy one) is that as far as I know no one has gone to a school (or other such) with a shotgun that works like a multi shot rifle or pistol (auto load but not full auto function). That would be more effective at shorter distances. I am pretty sure this info will not cause anyone here to try such though.
Click to expand...

Virginia Tech was a pistol. And is still in the top 10 mass shootings though likely not for much longer.
 
lobosrul5 said:
Delta is headquartered in Atlanta. Its airport serves as their hub. They'd lose their shirts if they stopped flying to Atl, unless some other state gave them incentives to leave that is.

Eta: Ninjad but yeah Atl is THE hub for them. Good to see the GOP respecting "freedom of association" for corporations (that was sarcasm).
Click to expand...

No one claims that the GOP cares about trivialities like the first amendment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom