School shooting Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ambrosia said:
iii) this is from 1995. 1995. 23 years ago. Twenty three! The world has changed a lot in the past 2 decades.
Click to expand...

Yup, this is how much its changed

1996 - 7 school shootings (11 killed - 6 wounded)
1997 - 6 school shootings (9 killed - 17 wounded)
1998 - 7 school shootings (13 killed - 41 wounded)
1999 - 6 school shootings (17 killed - 34 wounded) - Columbine
2000 - 5 school shootings (4 killed - 3 wounded)
2001 - 5 school shootings (5 killed - 19 wounded)
2002 - 7 school shootings (11killed - 9 wounded)
2003 - 4 school shootings (6 killed - 5 wounded)
2004 - 3 school shootings (1 killed - 5 wounded)
2005 - 5 school shootings (12 killed - 11 wounded)
2006 - 11 school shootings (14 killed - 20 wounded)
2007 - 5 school shootings (35 killed - 29 wounded) - Virginia Tech
2008 - 11 school shootings (16 killed - 27 wounded)
2009 - 6 school shootings (3 killed - 12 wounded)
2010 - 11 school shootings (8 killed - 16 wounded)
2011 - 7 school shootings (5 killed - 12 wounded)
2012 - 11 school shootings (42 killed - 16 wounded) - Sandy Hook
2013 - 26 school shootings (19 killed - 37 wounded)
2014 - 37 school shootings (17 killed - 36 wounded)
2015 - 21 school shootings (21 killed - 40 wounded)
2016 - 14 school shootings (9 killed - 27 wounded)
2017 - 9 school shootings (15 killed - 26 wounded)
2018 (to date) - 8 school shootings (20 killed - 41 wounded) - parkland

23 years
265 school shootings
313 killed
489 wounded
 
Born to a messed-up mom...

Radar Online said:
"Nick's biological mother was just a complete screw up, drug addict and thief," continued Devaney of Lynda, who paid a whopping $50,000 to adopt Nikolas straight from the hospital when he was only days old. And when she found out Nikolas' biological mother was having another child she immediately decided to adopt him as well.

Devaney said that since Nikolas' biological mom was in prison during her second pregnancy, Lynda was able to arrange to pay just $15,000 to adopt her baby. "She was happy with Nikolas and wasn't going to try for another one, but when she found out he would have a biological brother, she decided right away to take him and her husband was on board," said the neighbor. "The birth mother was just a mess and I even said to Lynda: 'You don't know the mother's background.' Both children were born after one-night stands. The birth mother, she didn't even really know who the two biological fathers were."...
Click to expand...

https://radaronline.com/photos/nikolas-cruz-childhood-neighbor-florida-shooter
 
Ambrosia said:
There are several problems with that. i) this is an interview question from a 60 minutes interview. Not a hot mike accidentally picking up "privately held views"

ii) this is a rabid anti gun persons opinion. The whole gun argument is controlled by extremists from either end. Don't listen to extremists, find a better compromise.

iii) this is from 1995. 1995. 23 years ago. Twenty three! The world has changed a lot in the past 2 decades.

Saying that xyz extremist is representative of the views of the majority of people that want to enact better gun control in the US is just wrong.

I get from your posts that you are ex military and are pro owning and using guns. There's nothing wrong with that.

I do think that if you believe that a registration scheme for guns that treats gun ownership for some categories of arms as a privilege and not a right as the thin end of the wedge, so that later people can take away all the guns, then you might want to re examine your point of view.

I don't see why the 2nd amendment in the US doesn't mean that anyone can get a basic gun (shotgun/single shot rifle/low capacity handgun) or similar but then there are a lot more extra hoops to jump through if you want to own higher powered arms, semi-auto arms, greater numbers of guns etc. Why must it mean that almost anyone can buy many high powered arms with minimal paperwork?

Wanna buy an AR-15? sure you need to take this course on gun safety and have suitable storage at your residence and pass this very stringent background check. What would be wrong with a system like that?
Click to expand...

For the reasonable person, nothing. The trouble is the debate is driven by whack-jobs who want no gun control - zero, zippo, none - so they can fight the government (?), and those who won't be satisfied until the only firearms legally allowed are bolt-action and single shot, and maybe not even then.
 
smartcooky said:
...
Having a gun for self defence might be a need*, but if there weren't so many guns around in the hands of loonies & screwballs, there wouldn't be a need. People in civilised countries seem to manage quite well without them.
Click to expand...
If that's what he meant, my need still stands. It doesn't need to be a bad guy with a gun if I'm hiking in the woods alone. It's always uncomfortable to pass or catch up to guys hiking on the same trail when you are a woman alone. I'm a firm believer of #notallmen. But my freedom is a tad restricted if I hike alone. Or at least my sense of security since I've done it sans a weapon anyway.

smartcooky said:
...* those living in the wilderness have a legit need to hunt, and to carry for protection against dangerous animals. Those living in suburban America do not.
Click to expand...
Nope, I have a real live example. I've driven a lot alone around the US. Parking my little cab-high camper Datsun or Toyota (I've had both) to sleep has felt safe and unsafe depending on where I stopped. I've always felt less safe in campgrounds near or in cities.

smartcooky said:
...Having a gun because the Big Bad Federal Gubmint is out to get ya is neither a "need" nor a "want".. its just paranoid fantasy.
Click to expand...
And here, we agree. It's an incredibly ignorant argument to claim you need your guns for the reason the writers of the 2nd Amendment likely had in mind.
 
Imagine if #blacklivesmatter decided that the solution to unarmed black people getting killed by police was to arm as many black people as possible.........
 
thaiboxerken said:
Imagine if #blacklivesmatter decided that the solution to unarmed black people getting killed by police was to arm as many black people as possible.........
Click to expand...

Seems like the smart thing to do.

Unless you think the wholesale murder of a few thousand new legal gun owners would go unnoticed.
 
Reheat said:
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...
Click to expand...

Can you name two of those dipsticks? I don't think you can, and the truth is that the one you could name is not accurately described by your comments.


Of course we all understand that target shooting can be fun, and you don't have to be some sort of psycho to enjoy it, and you aren't practicing for killing people. Yeah, someone said something that was kind of sort of like that, but, really, he was just trying to make a completely different point. In reality, I don't think a single person who has contributed here thinks the way you have described.

I don't think you could find 1 out of 100 Americans who would make it impossible, or even difficult, to go skeet shooting, and I don't think you would find 2 out 100 Americans who would look down on anyone just because they do it.

If the effort to restrict firearms continues, to the point that politicians actually pass legislation, we will all have to deal with this sort of mischaracterizations, I know, because that's really all you've got. The slippery slope argument is the only one that could possibly carry the day when it comes to private ownership of military capable weapons.

Not all slippery slope arguments are instances of the slippery slope fallacy, but most of the ones employed against gun control are. Anything that says that if we forbid the manufacture or sale of assault rifles, we will next forbid handgun or hunting rifle sales, is a slippery slope fallacy. Anything that says registration will lead to confiscation is a slippery slope fallacy. I expect to see a lot of them in the near future.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Imagine if #blacklivesmatter decided that the solution to unarmed black people getting killed by police was to arm as many black people as possible.........
Click to expand...

Such an important point. A lot of whites freaked out when the Black Panthers started parading around with open-carry rifles.

The analogy that they accomplished a lot though does not apply here, lest anyone bring their accomplishments up. Unless the NRA wants to start a free breakfast program for poor kids in Chiraq anyway. ;)
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
It would lose in court. You can't use your office to punish people with certain political POVs.
Click to expand...

This is a political POV in question? I'd say that it's actually worse. It's pretty much an open demand for quid pro quo corruption to happen to satisfy the GOP. All that they're doing, though, is voting against for certain pieces of legislation, which would, quite frankly, be politics as usual. Politicians have voted no on all kinds of legislation based on plenty of pathetic justifications. The only potential difference is that this guy's making a public threat, instead of just doing it or making the threat more private.

Skeptic Ginger said:
Delta is also a huge employer in that state which is why they have the tax break in the first place.

It's a hollow threat.
Click to expand...

Hopefully, but I'm not all that convinced. That things are at a point where the politician even thinks that such behavior is acceptable is more than problematic enough on its own, though.
 
Meadmaker said:
Can you name two of those dipsticks? I don't think you can, and the truth is that the one you could name is not accurately described by your comments.
Click to expand...

I will be one of those, Reheat's comments regrading one of us saying "the only purpose for a gun is to kill" is a complete misrepresentation of what was said (or at least, of what I said)

I am 100% certain that the conceivers and inventors of guns were not thinking of shooting sports or learning to shoot accurately just for the sake of it, when they first invented them. Guns were invented and designed with one purpose, and only one purpose in mind, and that is as a weapon of war to kill enemy soldiers. other pastimes and pursuits were born of that initial intended use.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
True the money isn't changing, but at least it signals a shift in the country's POV.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's a good way to describe it I think. People's attitudes toward the NRA seem to be shifting a bit and that could reduce their influence or force them to change tactics.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
Wow, using all caps in a written release criticizing media coverage, claiming to not be responsible to failings but praising his own "amazing leadership"... It's all so familiar.
Click to expand...

I detect the rancid smell of a scapegoating here. This Sheriff looks and sounds like he is back-pedalling up his own six. Its clear and obvious that he is trying to divert attention away from his own department's incompetence and onto the actions of one deputy.

The guy is fudging; the more I hear him talk, the more I think people have been too quick to judge Officer Peterson.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
I detect the rancid smell of a scapegoating here. This Sheriff looks and sounds like he is back-pedalling up his own six. Its clear and obvious that he is trying to divert attention away from his own department's incompetence and onto the actions of one deputy.

The guy is fudging; the more I hear him talk, the more I think people have been too quick to judge Officer Peterson.
Click to expand...

Never trust an American sheriff. Never.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom