School shooting Florida

[IanS]

Really? It only takes a bit of "being inattentive" to kill yourself or others with a car. The driver is usually to blame, not the car.

Cars and car ownership are not remotely comparable to guns and gun ownership anyway. The comparison is just a dishonest fudge.

Cars and aeroplanes just replaced horses and horse drawn carriages as far better more efficient forms of transport for people who needed to travel longer distances to get from place to place. Cars are not designed as weapons of war to kill or injure people, quite the opposite in fact (e.g. most new cars now have autonomous breaking, as well as simpler things like lane departure warning and blind spot warning in the mirrors etc.).

Guns are specifically designed for, and really only any use for, killing people or killing animals (even target shooting is presumably just simulated practice to make the shooter better at using the guns to kill). They are weapons of war ... ordinary members of the public should not be allowed to make a hobby out buying and firing war weapons ... otherwise the result will be thousands of innocent people shot dead every year.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It is apparent that these people can't even hear themselves when they say things like that.

Since when does a "conservative" think it is the right of a public official to question and even stifle the legal business practices of a private business? Why should he have any say in who Delta chooses as an advertising partner?

This is the party of "small government" and "free enterprise"?

When it targets the NRA clearly. 2nd amendment is way way more important than the first.

 

[pgwenthold]

In the USA, they can be arrested if their intent to murder is discovered.

But the problem is, how do you determine that real "intent to murder" and distinguish it from empty threats?

There are a lot of blowhards who talk about blowing everyone away and crap like that, especially on social media. We should just go and confiscate their guns automatically?

Not that I'd have a problem with that myself, but I'd love to hear what the NRA thinks of that one....

 

[ponderingturtle]

But the problem is, how do you determine that real "intent to murder" and distinguish it from empty threats?

There are a lot of blowhards who talk about blowing everyone away and crap like that, especially on social media. We should just go and confiscate their guns automatically?

Not that I'd have a problem with that myself, but I'd love to hear what the NRA thinks of that one....

You wait until they kill then get angry about them ignoring the signs. And if they take peoples guns away for empty threats you get angry about that too. Win win for selling guns.

It is like how the NRA is complaining about the court case they won that makes it optional for states to report things to get people listed on the gun ban list. Genius, you make holes in the system then later complain about those holes as the reason the system doesn't work and so the fundamental system never gets improved.

You have to admire the psychopathic genius of it all.

 

[lobosrul5]

That's part of the issue, I think.

How about the Florida nutter - when did he become arrestable?

And, in a very slightly different inquiry, at what point would it have become reasonable for a LEO to approach him and ask probing questions. The white guys I've seen on youtube walking around with loaded rifles are always really, really pissed if the police approach them and the police appear, as far as I can see, to just have to suck this up.

 

[crescent]

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

I don't have time to dig through all of those right away, but one did stick out at me. This quote from Charles Pashayan:

“All of this has to be understood as part of a process leading ultimately to a treaty that will give an international body power over our domestic laws.”

I googled the phrase. Charles Pashayan was a Republican, for whatever that is worth. He was speaking in defense of the 2A, not against it. the full quote follows, I've bolded the missing text:

"All of this has to be understood as part of a process leading ultimately to a treaty that will give an international body power over our domestic laws. That is why we must make sure that there is nothing, express or implied, that would give even the appearance of infringing on our Bill of Rights, which includes the Second Amendment."

This was from a 2006 Conference on Small Arms. Even then, I think Pashayan was off base - the conference existed to look into the International trade of small arms, but didn't seem to focus at all on domestic laws, policies, or regulation.

In other words, one of the sources you cite at an example of someone wanting to ban guns is actually a quote from someone defending the right to own guns and opposing regulation of the international trade of guns.

I'll try to dig through some of the other quotes as I have time.

 

[lobosrul5]

Guns are specifically designed for, and really only any use for, killing people or killing animals (even target shooting is presumably just simulated practice to make the shooter better at using the guns to kill). They are weapons of war ... ordinary members of the public should not be allowed to make a hobby out buying and firing war weapons ... otherwise the result will be thousands of innocent people shot dead every year.

Sorry, but lots and lots of people just enjoy target shooting for the sake of it. I haven't been bird hunting in over a decade, but I still like shooting skeet or 5 stand on occasion. Neither of which has anything at all to do with training to kill (except birds I suppose).

 

[IanS]

Realistically there is never going to be a time when nobody wants to ban all guns. There will always be some fantasist clamouring to be rid of them entirely.
Does that mean nothing practical can ever be done because any concession whatever will comfort those people and that would be too painful to contemplate?

Apart from the confusion of writing in double negatives - why does it have to be people called "fantasists" who think all guns should be banned from home possession for the vast majority of private citizens (the exceptions might include certain types of farmers and people employed on farmland to kill vermin or predatory wild animals ... plus of course people specifically employed as armed guards and armed police etc.) ... why does any other normal citizen ever need to have loaded guns?

It would be a different matter if loaded guns were not lethally dangerous in the hands of those ordinary private citizens who have turned gun ownership and shooting into a hobby ... but of course nothing could be further from the truth - it most definitely is lethally dangerous, and in the US it is lethal on a massive scale, including far too many cases where even unsuspecting children are massacred in schools - that is a very serious problem indeed (probably the understatement of all time) for which the private citizen gun owners are entirely responsible in the US.

 

[lobosrul5]

Apart from the confusion of writing in double negatives - why does it have to be people called "fantasists" who think all guns should be banned from home possession for the vast majority of private citizens (the exceptions might include certain types of farmers and people employed on farmland to kill vermin or predatory wild animals ... plus of course people specifically employed as armed guards and armed police etc.) ... why does any other normal citizen ever need to have loaded guns?

It would be a different matter if loaded guns were not lethally dangerous in the hands of those ordinary private citizens who have turned gun ownership and shooting into a hobby ... but of course nothing could be further from the truth - it most definitely is lethally dangerous, and in the US it is lethal on a massive scale, including far too many cases where even unsuspecting children are massacred in schools - that is a very serious problem indeed (probably the understatement of all time) for which the private citizen gun owners are entirely responsible in the US.

You're a fantasist because only a tiny percentage of people agree with you. We are, ostensibly still, a democracy. Therefore its rather unlikely for laws to be passed with only single digit support for them, that clearly contradict the US Constitution.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Payback for not giving NRA-members discounts:

Georgia Republicans a threating Delta to re-instate their NRA-partner program or else:

http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/26/news/companies/delta-nra-georgia-republican/index.html

 

[phiwum]

Guns could be confiscated every time they are inherited.

When my father became unsuitable for owning guns, he gave them to his kids. No inheritance involved.

I considered taking a revolver that I liked quite a bit, but decided against it since I have few shooting opportunities where I live.

 

[phiwum]

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?

Neither of them are a sufficient argument. They are both fallacies.

If you want to argue for gun control, did so on the basis of evidence. Your preferred argument suggests that we should give up democracy soon, since it's over two hundred years old.

Too be fair, given 2016, that's not as obviously a reductio as I'd like.

 

[MikeG]

Apart from the confusion of writing in double negatives - why does it have to be people called "fantasists" who think all guns should be banned from home possession for the vast majority of private citizens (the exceptions might include certain types of farmers and people employed on farmland to kill vermin or predatory wild animals ... plus of course people specifically employed as armed guards and armed police etc.) ... why does any other normal citizen ever need to have loaded guns?

It would be a different matter if loaded guns were not lethally dangerous in the hands of those ordinary private citizens who have turned gun ownership and shooting into a hobby ... but of course nothing could be further from the truth - it most definitely is lethally dangerous, and in the US it is lethal on a massive scale, including far too many cases where even unsuspecting children are massacred in schools - that is a very serious problem indeed (probably the understatement of all time) for which the private citizen gun owners are entirely responsible in the US.

As you know, I have argued for 40 pages, and in previous threads, in favour of gun control in the USA. I don't agree with the extent of your proposals. It's difficult to understand why the USA would be expected to go from having the loosest gun regime in the modern industrialised world to a having a more restrictive regime than we have here in the UK. I think we might be better for arguing for something that is sensible, realistic and achievable, rather than providing ammunition for the paranoid who think everyone is out to get their guns.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... why does it have to be people called "fantasists" who think all guns should be banned from home possession for the vast majority of private citizens (the exceptions might include certain types of farmers and people employed on farmland to kill vermin or predatory wild animals ... plus of course people specifically employed as armed guards and armed police etc.)

I used the term "fantasist" to describe someone who clamoured to be rid of guns entirely. That's what I wrote. Not all those highlighted exceptions you wrote.

Do you think it was too strong a term to use for an entirely unrealistic demand?

My point, of course, was that both sides in this debate seem to prefer to attack the most extreme views of the other side instead of seeking consensus on practical solutions somewhere in the middle ground. How can you make any concession whatsoever when you fixate on how people you really despise will gloat over it?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Neither of them are a sufficient argument. They are both fallacies.

If you want to argue for gun control, did so on the basis of evidence. Your preferred argument suggests that we should give up democracy soon, since it's over two hundred years old.

Too be fair, given 2016, that's not as obviously a reductio as I'd like.

we HAVE given up Democracy as designed in 1788.
There was a novel aspect to include minorities and women in the vote, in case you haven't noticed.

 

[IanS]

You're a fantasist because only a tiny percentage of people agree with you. We are, ostensibly still, a democracy. Therefore its rather unlikely for laws to be passed with only single digit support for them, that clearly contradict the US Constitution.

That does not make me or others "fantasists" (or any other such intentionally derogatory descriptions) - I doubt very much if the US is going to do anything really significant to actually prevent most of these shootings ... so I am not labouring under any "fantasy" beliefs that the current US government has any real intention of stopping it. Though, iirc Obama did often say that the thing he wanted to do most in the US, and the thing he regretted most about failing to achieve, was to have much safer gun controls.

But people in the US (or anywhere) do not "need" guns. Why to they actually need any guns? They don't need them. They merely want them as hobbyist play things and some macho posturing. But it's getting huge numbers of completely innocent unsuspecting people killed every year ... including even massacres of young kids in US schools ... and that's not a price worth paying (not by any stretch of any sane imagination).

 

[William Parcher]

True. But it seems odd that Sheriff Israel would suspend him without pay and be so publicly condemning after interviewing Peterson if Peterson reported this new version of events at the time.

'Boss, I believed the shooter was outside. There were reports of a wounded out on the field. In the few minutes we had, that was our best info and we responded per protocol to outside shooter.'

Shouldn't take over a week to spit that out, and Israel shouldn't have been able to misunderstand that. Such a complete about-face from 'he was disgusted' with Peterson to 'he responded appropriately' sounds more like a PR spin than a big ol' misunderstanding.

You keep saying that Peterson has changed his story, but we don't really know that. It can't be assumed simply by observing Sheriff Israel.

Peterson was suspended (without pay) with a pending and ongoing investigation. That unfinished investigation would have determined if Peterson would be fired or put back on the job or reassigned or whatever. The department had not yet decided what to do about Peterson. But then almost immediately Peterson resigned. We don't know why he did that. Maybe it was advised by his lawyer but we just don't know.

You questioned why it took 12 days for Peterson to explain his side (through his lawyer) with the implication added by you that he changed the story. I could now ask you a question: How long will it take Sheriff Israel to announce that Peterson has now changed his story? Because if Peterson is now telling lies then Broward County better hurry up and tell the world about it.

This is a very high profile and tragic incident. Liars are going to need to be called out as quickly as possible.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... Why to they actually need any guns?

One view is that the American population need guns in case they need to fight their own government. Ironically the same reason the British government thought it wise to get guns out of circulation after WWI.

Whether the idea of a future tyrannical US government being overthrown by its own population is more or less realistic than the 1920s British establishment being overthrown by a socialist revolution is probably one for future historians, but my money's on the latter.

There were, I suppose, some who wanted or even expected the 1926 General Strike to tear down the UK establishment and build a Soviet-style workers paradise. With more weapons around there might have been attempts at armed insurrection even if it couldn't likely have succeeded.

<edit to add> I'd actually put the fight your own government argument in the fantasist camp too. It sounds like a fantastical excuse to justify your hobby to me.

 

[Darat]

But the problem is, how do you determine that real "intent to murder" and distinguish it from empty threats?

There are a lot of blowhards who talk about blowing everyone away and crap like that, especially on social media. We should just go and confiscate their guns automatically? Not that I'd have a problem with that myself, but I'd love to hear what the NRA thinks of that one....

Seriously my view is yes we should. People who are so stupid or so troubled that they think making such threats are OK should not be having access to firearms.

People need to accept responsibility for their actions.

 

[Reheat]

Sorry, but lots and lots of people just enjoy target shooting for the sake of it. I haven't been bird hunting in over a decade, but I still like shooting skeet or 5 stand on occasion. Neither of which has anything at all to do with training to kill (except birds I suppose).

No, according to a lot of dipsticks here the only purpose for a gun is to kill. They can not imagine someone enjoying the skill of achieving precision in longer range shooting or enjoying a day of shooting skeet (clays) simply because it's fun. Likely they live in a crowded city with no property available for shooting and think everyone else lives in the same environment or else have a dysfunctional family that gets in heated arguments sufficient to worry about someone harming another.

When I was a teenager my extended family routinely enjoyed many shooting events on holidays such as contests involving precision shooting rifle, pistol, and shotgun. No one ever considered that someone might shoot another human being. People who think that's the only purpose for guns obviously dysfunctional or mentally whacked and shouldn't ever be near a firearm. For them a society truly void of firearms may be the best thing that ever happen to them...