School shooting Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump says the weapons used in the Parkland shooting were bought on the "black market,"

That isn't true.
Click to expand...

He rarely says anything that is true. Why would this be different?

And why would there be a black market for guns in a country where hundreds of millions of them have been bought legally?
 
Steve said:
And why would there be a black market for guns in a country where hundreds of millions of them have been bought legally?
Click to expand...

The black market is for people who don't have the legal right to own guns anymore - mostly people with criminal convictions or who otherwise can't pass a background check.

ILLEGAL GUN TRAFFICKING
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump says the weapons used in the Parkland shooting were bought on the "black market,"

That isn't true.
Click to expand...
Did Trump actually use plural? It was one rifle bought locally and the store that sold it closed down after the shooting.

Cruz did buy about 10 rifles in about the past year including an AK-47 type or style.
 
Last edited:
"I like taking the guns early," President Trump says in a conference today. "Take the guns first, go through due process second."

(Wayne LaPierre’s head asplodes)
 
It might be because I am not American, though I suspect it may be the same for everyone, but I am finding it increasing difficult to follow what views this Trump dude has on a lot of things lately.

Things like this guns thing he seems to be swinging wildly from ones side to the next depending on what day it is. Contradicting himself.

And the worrying thing is it seems to be getting more and more erratic as time passes.

Sure this dude ain't got Alzheimers or another issue?

If Americans get the dude, no worries. I'll ignore it
 
Trump has no principles and never tells the truth when a lie is available. Therefore, consistency is impossible.
 
Steve said:
<snip> Also, he was worried that he might be "out-gunned".

<snip>
Click to expand...

William Parcher said:
Did Peterson say that? I didn't see that quote from him.
Click to expand...

Steve said:
No. Allow me to clarify:

"There are some here who argue that was the correct thing to do because of protocols and training. Also, they argue that he was worried that he might be "out-gunned".
Click to expand...


That's a "clarify"? Funny way to spell, "I made it up.".

Looks more like a backpedal and rewrite.
 
Civet said:
His words would magically mean something other than the thing he actually said. And many, many Republicans would accept that and give him a pass on it.
Click to expand...


From this article on Trump's latest gun stance;


When Vice President Mike Pence talked about how those who are a “danger to themselves or others” should have their firearms taken away, but also afforded due process, the president jumped in to one-up Pence.

“Or, Mike, take the firearms first, and then go to court,” Trump said, breaking with his own vice president on live TV. “Because that's another system. Because a lot of times, by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court, to get the due process procedures.”

The president continued, sounding like the caricature of “gun-grabbing” Democrats he’d once warned against: “I like taking the guns early. Like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida… To go to court would have taken a long time. So you could do exactly what you're saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second.”

...

White House spokespeople did not immediately respond to questions on whether or not this was now the official position of the Trump White House. However, two administration officials told The Daily Beast that aides were already preparing “clarifications” for future statements or briefings in anticipation of being asked if the president wants to take away people’s guns without due process.
Click to expand...


The Trump Translator Team™ (AKA T3)*, ever prepared to frantically and futilely try to remove the most recently inserted foot from their boss's mouth, leaps into action.



(* Not a job I envy them. I doubt they get much sleep. :p)
 
Last edited:
quadraginta said:
From this article on Trump's latest gun stance;


​


The Trump Translator Team™ (AKA T3)*, ever prepared to frantically and futilely try to remove the most recently inserted foot from their boss's mouth, leaps into action.



(* Not a job I envy them. I doubt they get much sleep. :p)
Click to expand...

If I was one of them, I'd claim that Trump was simply describing the initial, short-term stage of a GVRO wherein a person's weapons can be taken for a short period prior to a hearing. It's not what he meant of course, but it sounds plausible.
 
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.


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.
Click to expand...
I think that's a fair assessment. Few folks concerned with the current situation want to disarm everyone.
 
Wayward son said:
Perhaps he thought that as a single officer, probably armed with a handgun, going up against the gunman (or gunmen - I doubt he knew) armed with an AR15 would be a suicide mission. We can all sit in our comfortable homes and say that he should have gone in there and sacrificed his life so people in a society so insane that they let almost anyone obtain those mass-murder devices would feel a little more comfortable and safe with the insane situation they have created.
Click to expand...

quadraginta said:
That's a "clarify"? Funny way to spell, "I made it up.".

Looks more like a backpedal and rewrite.
Click to expand...

No backpedal. The way I originally wrote it made it appear that I said that Peterson said that he was outgunned. I know of no evidence that he ever said that and I did not intend to imply it. William Parcher pointed that out and I corrected it..

I have not changed my opinion that Peterson acted cowardly. I do not needed to make things up to support that.

As i intended to say, others in this thread have suggested that Peterson was justified in not responding because he was outgunned. I provide the quote above as an example.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thermal said:
That's a good idea. Its funny, I don't often think about requiring safe storage at home because it was so automatic for me, I take it as a given that an owner would never leave a firearm laying around easily accessible. Some others, not so much I suppose.
Click to expand...

I have a friend who just told me about a guy who has guns all over the house, in places like on top of the fridge. He apparently has taught his kids about guns and their proper usage, but... it does seem like a needlessly very high risk way of handling gun education.
 
cullennz said:
It might be because I am not American, though I suspect it may be the same for everyone, but I am finding it increasing difficult to follow what views this Trump dude has on a lot of things lately.
Click to expand...

One of the mildly amusing pastimes of a few folk was listening to what he said and then going back through his tweets and finding him say the exact opposite not all that long ago. I suspect that it's faded out from the public eye more because his general untrustworthiness is so manifestly obvious to anyone who hasn't blinded themselves than anything else.

cullennz said:
Sure this dude ain't got Alzheimers or another issue?
Click to expand...

He totally took a basic test and passed it with flying colors, so there's no way that he could have mental problems! And we found out that he's grown a few inches since his relatively recent pictures with people who are the height he was measured to be, too! Also, he's totally not obese! Exactly 1 lb less than obese is not obese, no matter what it may look like!

I do support the S.T.A.B.L.E. G.E.N.I.U.S. Act, though, regardless of that, even though I think that Trump's biggest issue is one of character, not mental ability. He's been acting not too differently from this for a long, long time, after all.
 
Last edited:
cullennz said:
It might be because I am not American, though I suspect it may be the same for everyone, but I am finding it increasing difficult to follow what views this Trump dude has on a lot of things lately.

Things like this guns thing he seems to be swinging wildly from ones side to the next depending on what day it is. Contradicting himself.

And the worrying thing is it seems to be getting more and more erratic as time passes.

Sure this dude ain't got Alzheimers or another issue?

If Americans get the dude, no worries. I'll ignore it
Click to expand...
No, you have it about right. Consistency and rationality are not present here.
 
IanS said:
Sure, it's not on your mind, and that is not the reason why you personally are practicing shooting at targets. But the fundamental reason for anyone ever using targets in the first place (think about why that ever started being done in the first place ... why did people ever originally practice firing any weapons at targets?), is fundamentally to become more proficient with what are actually deadly weapons.

But the point is not to say that anyone should be stopped from target shooting. It's just to point out that if the guns that you use even for target shooting, are kept loaded in your own home, as they are in the US (and probably elsewhere too), then you certainly do pose a risk to the general public because of that easy access which you have to lethal weapons ... even if you are only ever intending to use them for target shooting.

But please, lets not get too "hung up" on this, or too scathing of what any of us say about it ... the only reason I bother to give those explanations is because another poster replied to me a few pages back saying something about target shooting being completely harmless or however he put it ... and all that I am saying in response to that is "actually, shooting at targets was originally, and still is fundementally, a way of practicing to be more accurate with deadly weapons" ... and in the present context of US public shootings, the problem with even target shooting is that people are allowed to keep those same guns and bullets in their own homes ... and it's precisely that situation of keeping loaded guns in private homes (even if the owner only ever wants to engage in target shooting) which is the issue that leads to those guns being taken onto the streets to get people killed.
Click to expand...

I've never kept a loaded gun in my home. I'm not allowed to. The rifle never left the range.

You're actually not talking about target shooting. You're talking about how to store weapons. Those are two completely different things.
 
Thermal said:
My apologies, then, I misinterpreted.



Are you proposing that the solution to mitigate this potential is to prohibit home storage of guns and ammo? I think that would be too extreme a stance to fly in the USA. Home protection and all (not that I think home shootouts are in any way a sane scenario, but many do). Annual licensing, tied into a criminal/mental health database is the most likely mitigating measure, I would think. The occasional crime of passion would remain a very real threat, as it is now.
Click to expand...

I think that a reasonable argument could be made that you should need a license to keep your gun at home. If you don't get a license it stays at the range / hunting club / whatever.
 
erlando said:
I think that a reasonable argument could be made that you should need a license to keep your gun at home. If you don't get a license it stays at the range / hunting club / whatever.
Click to expand...

Sounds more than reasonable, I would think.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom