Florida School Shooting

[cyclone27 710]

Well police had visited him more than 3 dozen times yet he doesn’t get a hit for purchasing a gun? It seems to me that should have triggered smth. 

 

No record of mental issues. So question is how do you prevent someone who clearly isn’t in the system for any of triggers? 

 

The answer is you can’t prevent it.

[Póg mo 1,749]

20 hours ago, Ban Hammer said:

Does the entire generation eat tide pods, or is it just a subset of a subset? Do please generalize. 

[Crazy Cat 41,888]

33 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

 Removing the guns will not remove the desire to commit the act, I promise you.

Anger should be directed at those who have led naive people to believe that a "gun free zone" is protection from crazy people or criminals........It is time to beef up security at our schools including arming and training teachers. Allow teacher to carry NOW!

[Crazy Cat 41,888]

10 minutes ago, cyclone27 said:

Well police had visited him more than 3 dozen times yet he doesn’t get a hit for purchasing a gun? It seems to me that should have triggered smth. 

 

No record of mental issues. So question is how do you prevent someone who clearly isn’t in the system for any of triggers? 

 

The answer is you can’t prevent it.

But you can take the necessary steps to make sure these killers are stopped if they get into a school with our children.  A year or so ago, the highway departments in Arkansas and Texas (and maybe more) began installing safety wires and fences along the medians of interstates to prevent drunk or disabled drivers from crossing the median and plowing into on-coming traffic.  Yet we don't have any safeguards in place inside these gun free zones.......The fastest and most effective way to stop these killers, in my opinion, is to train and arm teachers, thereby creating a safety net if the crazies penetrate our schools.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

38 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

Does the entire generation eat tide pods, or is it just a subset of a subset? Do please generalize. 

The legal gun owners that commit gun crime are a subset of a subset of a subset.  

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

51 minutes ago, -Trinity- said:

To start with your last sentence, I don't blame Trump for the shooting, I hold him accountable if he fails to come up with a solution. I haven't been in America that long to truly experience Obama's policy, and during Bush I was still living in Europe. But I can guarantee you if I had lived here my thoughts would have been exactly the same. My political views are based on what actions a leader is actually taking, I don't bash a leader just because I feel like it, or because I belong to a certain political party.

 

So far Trump is very clear about what he wants to do when it comes to limiting immigration, he doesn't hesitate to point out that he does so to protect the Americans. So why not take some actions ( no words, actions) to protect the Americans against domestic terorrism?

 

It's funny, I never mention gun restrictions, yet every time I have this discussion the argument is: taking the guns away is not the solution. Why is that? It's really interesting to see that reaction ( not just by you btw, but also among my friends and family members who are anti gun restrictions) even when I say: gun restrictions aren't the solution.

 

But something has to change, just accepting this as part of life isn't helping either: three massive shootings in less then 6 months...that's really worries me. And it should worry everyone in this country. 

 

Yes criminals will always find ways to buy guns, it's been proven over and over again. And I know how the process of buying a gun works, and certain people can't buy a gun legally. But the majority can, even the people who have a serious mental health issue. 

 

And if Trump's says that the shooting was an act committed by a "sicko" then he HAS the obligation and responsibility to put an end to it. He is the one in office now, not Obama or Bush.

 

 

 

About to take off on my flight, so can't respond to all now.

 

But I will ask this...  say we all agree to take guns away.  What will happen next?  How will they be taken?  Where will thru go?

[-Trinity- 513]

1 hour ago, cyclone27 said:

Well police had visited him more than 3 dozen times yet he doesn’t get a hit for purchasing a gun? It seems to me that should have triggered smth. 

 

No record of mental issues. So question is how do you prevent someone who clearly isn’t in the system for any of triggers? 

 

The answer is you can’t prevent it.

"Everyone knew Nikolas Cruz was deeply disturbed. He'd been in and out of mental health treatment. "

 

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/nikolas-cruz-legally-purchased-ar-15-despite-long-history-of-mental-illness-warnings-10089980

 

This looks like there were records of mental issues.

 

However, the many visits and issues with school should have triggered some systems to go off.

[yuna628 9,676]

4 hours ago, Merle said:

It's your right to not own a gun and I would never try to convince you otherwise. I also have values and would never want to have to shoot someone but if it comes down to my life or a lived ones life vs that of a person intent on doing us harm I'm  going to choose us every time. Unfortunately their are many people in this world don't share my or your values. As far as idiots shooting in the air, i have no problem with them losing their right to own a gun. They are not the type of people the NRA or any responsible gun owner are trying to protect from losing that right.

It's weird you know, but the cops came around to each house when the kid got shot. They didn't know whom had fired the bullet, so they started seizing everyone's guns. The entire town kicked off quite a fuss - how dare they collect guns like that, they said. But no one wanted to admit who had fired the shot (the whole lot of them had been shooting in the neighborhood and no one wanted to 'snitch'). I am sure that they feel they are very responsible gun owners, and that they should be able to do as they please with them.. otherwise why would they do it? I believe everyone should take owning a device, that's main purpose and intent is to kill or injure a human or animal with grave seriousness. But I know it's not just those in my town that behave irresponsibly with guns.. there's plenty more.. no one is willing to do something about it.

 

You may be offended by me saying this, but it feels like to me, at least, that the NRA at times acts as if they aren't for responsibility or accountability. If we decide to take away a gun from one person who is irresponsible, they seem afraid it will apply to everyone. It's kind of like a police union that becomes very defensive when bad cops sully the bunch. They just seem at times very afraid to address the bad apples.

 

We keep saying that we need to arm teachers - something teachers will be very much opposed to for a variety of reasons (and there are some safety issues in that imo). Some serious study of that would need to be done. But even this does not address the real issue. Disturbed people obtaining guns that can do a lot of damage. Every person who has done something is 1) a mentally deranged kid 2) a mentally deranged man 3) was undiagnosed, 4) was diagnosed or was flagged but slipped in via a loophole, 5) was diagnosed but never committed so nothing ever flagged. It's always the same over and over again.

 

In review of this shooters history he had quite a supply of guns. A kid of that age having many long guns and handguns (again he was not eligible to buy handguns.. so who gave them?), having the history he did - should imo trigger something... anything. We can say well people dropped the ball, but the consequences of dropping it are deadly. If all it takes is that for people to end up dead, then a better system is needed.

[-Trinity- 513]

1 hour ago, IDWAF said:

About to take off on my flight, so can't respond to all now.

 

But I will ask this...  say we all agree to take guns away.  What will happen next?  How will they be taken?  Where will thru go?

I dunno, but what about looking into other solutions first? 

 

For example, I know people who receive medical cannabis, don't qualify for owning a gun. I support that, cause I've seen firsthand what cannabis can do to a person.

 

But what happens if that person owned guns before? Is he required to give those up? As far as I know they aren't because there is no registration what guns and how much a person has. So how can they give up something that's unknown? 

 

Personally I don't have a problem with if someone has a permit and is using them properly and responsibly. But it becomes a huge problem if that person develops major mental health issues and still has those guns. Do we as a society have the right to take those guns away? Or can we only hope for the best, and expect the worst? 

 

Bottom line, where does someone's rights stop and where do the rights of other people start? 

 

Looking at the latest mass shooting it seems that the rights of the killer were more important then the rights of the victims he gunned down. Didn't they have the right to live? Did their family not have the right to have them around for much longer?

 

 

Edited February 18, 2018 by -Trinity-

[-Trinity- 513]

1 hour ago, IDWAF said:

About to take off on my flight, so can't respond to all now.

 

But I will ask this...  say we all agree to take guns away.  What will happen next?  How will they be taken?  Where will thru go?

Safe flight btw. 

[-Trinity- 513]

42 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

It's weird you know, but the cops came around to each house when the kid got shot. They didn't know whom had fired the bullet, so they started seizing everyone's guns. The entire town kicked off quite a fuss - how dare they collect guns like that, they said. But no one wanted to admit who had fired the shot (the whole lot of them had been shooting in the neighborhood and no one wanted to 'snitch'). I am sure that they feel they are very responsible gun owners, and that they should be able to do as they please with them.. otherwise why would they do it? I believe everyone should take owning a device, that's main purpose and intent is to kill or injure a human or animal with grave seriousness. But I know it's not just those in my town that behave irresponsibly with guns.. there's plenty more.. no one is willing to do something about it.

 

You may be offended by me saying this, but it feels like to me, at least, that the NRA at times acts as if they aren't for responsibility or accountability. If we decide to take away a gun from one person who is irresponsible, they seem afraid it will apply to everyone. It's kind of like a police union that becomes very defensive when bad cops sully the bunch. They just seem at times very afraid to address the bad apples.

 

We keep saying that we need to arm teachers - something teachers will be very much opposed to for a variety of reasons (and there are some safety issues in that imo). Some serious study of that would need to be done. But even this does not address the real issue. Disturbed people obtaining guns that can do a lot of damage. Every person who has done something is 1) a mentally deranged kid 2) a mentally deranged man 3) was undiagnosed, 4) was diagnosed or was flagged but slipped in via a loophole, 5) was diagnosed but never committed so nothing ever flagged. It's always the same over and over again.

 

In review of this shooters history he had quite a supply of guns. A kid of that age having many long guns and handguns (again he was not eligible to buy handguns.. so who gave them?), having the history he did - should imo trigger something... anything. We can say well people dropped the ball, but the consequences of dropping it are deadly. If all it takes is that for people to end up dead, then a better system is needed.

And they are right, they signed up for teaching children. Not for preparing themselves for a wild wild west scene.

 

It always amazes me when people say this. Is this going to be part of their education or something? And what if they are anti gun? Do they have too as part of their job description?

 

Are we going to have sort of millitairy/police teachers? 

 

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

37 minutes ago, -Trinity- said:

I dunno, but what about looking into other solutions first? 

And THAT’S the $10 million question.  What WILL work?  Some good ideas in this thread.  Some would be very hard to enforce.

 

For example, I know people who receive medical cannabis, don't qualify for owning a gun. I support that, cause I've seen firsthand what cannabis can do to a person.

I admit my experience with such is nil, but I thought they usually got the munchies and really sleepy?

 

But what happens if that person owned guns before? Is he required to give those up? As far as I know they aren't because there is no registration what guns and how much a person has. So how can they give up something that's unknown? 

There IS registration for buying guns, but only if they are purchased from a Federal Firearms License holder.  Buy a gun from a private individual, and that is not required.  Buy a stolen gun on the black market, and you won’t see any serial numbers written anywhere.  The “unknown” part is VERY real.

 

Personally I don't have a problem with if someone has a permit and is using them properly and responsibly. But it becomes a huge problem if that person develops major mental health issues and still has those guns. Do we as a society have the right to take those guns away? Or can we only hope for the best, and expect the worst? 

Who knows the (later diagnosed) mental patient owns guns?  Family?  Friends?  Would YOU turn your own husband over to the police if he were diagnosed and owned guns?  Not sure too many would.  And as I said above, if the guns were purchased privately, they wouldn’t be in any database (which should be the first line of defense).

 

Bottom line, where does someone's rights stop and where do the rights of other people start? 

There is no good answer to this question.  Guns aside, why do people murder others they don’t even know?  Is it the weapon’s fault?  The victim’s?  The environment’s (A school without metal detectors)?  The fault lies squarely on the murderer, period.  Whether the victim(s) is(are) killed with bare hands, rocks, knives, cars, guns, arrows, a ball point pen, a nail file (you get the idea)... the perp is to blame, and that person has chosen to ignore the rights of the victim(s).  You cannot prevent that, you can only punish that.

 

Looking at the latest mass shooting it seems that the rights of the killer were more important then the rights of the victims he gunned down. Didn't they have the right to live? Did their family not have the right to have them around for much longer?

 

 

Answered within, the best I can.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

And to be clear, Trinity, my responses are not arguing with you because I disagree with you.  I am simply providing a counter argument to your thoughts because that is what you will get.  I hate it, just as much as anyone here, that people are murdered so easily today.  I would give up my guns in a heartbeat if I knew in my heart it would prevent such from ever happening again.  But I can see no world today, where it will change anything when it comes to mass murders if every law-abiding gun owner gave up their guns.  All I see in that case is a country full of people who wouldn’t otherwise break the law becoming less capable of defending themselves.  Which would make it that much easier for the criminal element to do harm.  

 

I mean, it’s not like any person who intends to use a gun to rob, murder, or just act like a “tough thug” will go running to the local po po and turn their unregistered weapons over. (Pretty sure most here, even those who think more gun control will help, can see the logic of this.  At least, I hope they can!)

Edited February 18, 2018 by IDWAF

[Crazy Cat 41,888]

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

that the NRA at times acts as if they aren't for responsibility or accountability.

"From beginner to developing competitor, the NRA Training Department develops safe, ethical, responsible shooters through a network of more than 125000 instructors and range safety officers and coaches."

 

" With roughly 1 million people attending NRA training courses annually, the NRA is recognized nationally as the Gold Standard for firearm safety training. "

 

Some people think the NRA does nothing but lobby Congress.

[OriZ 3,157]

On 2/16/2018 at 6:40 AM, Bill & Katya said:

I sympathize, but if you go back in this thread there was at least one response that said this was a bad idea since the armed person (teacher or guard) might turn and start shooting people.  As I opined, someone will find a way to object and will not accept anything less than banning all guns.

lol. I don't have time to look through the whole thread but tbh I was expecting someone to come up with that backwards logic.