Florida School Shooting

[smilesammich 10,727]

4 minutes ago, missileman said:

1.  Train

2.  Arm

3.  Plan

4.  Protect

thats cute. i find it odd that you down society for missing all the clues and dropping the ball but then want to arm society and expect a better outcome with less human error? 

[Sonea 138]

2 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

because we're not allowed to address the real problem of gun violence. even here, talking about it now, it isn't about limiting access to guns - the conversation is about how to limit the existence of certain people. it blows my mind.

 

I'm not saying limit the existence of certain people, that is horrid. I'm not even saying take away rights of younger people, I'm just suggesting a higher level of screening for them.

[Crazy Cat 41,898]

Hmmm......57% white......43% others

 

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 minute ago, Sonea said:

I'm not saying limit the existence of certain people, that is horrid. I'm not even saying take away rights of younger people, I'm just suggesting a higher level of screening for them.

Quote

I do think gun owners are at a cross roads now. Right now everyone is calling for banning gun type A or type B. It would be better to do more to ban the person type and not the gun. If we continue to follow the not 1 inch mentality we will eventually lose.

ban the person type. what do you mean by that?

[-Trinity- 513]

23 minutes ago, missileman said:

The FBI was very specifically told that the kid  was a danger, and that he might shoot up a school......yet the FBI failed to inform the Miami office....This was simply a failure of the FBI to do their job...and it cost 17 people their lives.

 

Had there been real protective measures in place, this tragedy could have been minimized despite this FBI failure.

But the FBI isn't a separate entity, right? I mean it still is part of the federal government, and the laws it operate under are developed by federal law makers. And I'm sure before those laws pass, everyone involved knows what they are about.

 

Besides, the police had also a responsibility in this:

For years before Nikolas Cruz gunned down classmates and teachers at his former high school, his mother had repeatedly called police to the home to help deal with his violent outbursts, threats and self-destructive behavior, according to police documents obtained by CNN on Friday.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/16/us/florida-shooter-cruz-records-police-calls-to-home-invs/index.html

 

 

 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

3 minutes ago, Sonea said:

I'm not saying limit the existence of certain people, that is horrid. I'm not even saying take away rights of younger people, I'm just suggesting a higher level of screening for them.

Agree. Like the idea we should screen Muslims coming into this country more ?

[Crazy Cat 41,898]

2 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

thats cute. i find it odd that you down society for missing all the clues and dropping the ball but then want to arm society and expect a better outcome with less human error? 

Laugh if you want, but my plan would offer our children in schools far better protection against these killers than what they have now......The truly laughable fact is that naive people actually believe that gun free zones do anything but make some liberal minds feel good about themselves.  They sacrifice our children in order to feel good about themselves.....smh.

[-Trinity- 513]

Are their actually any female mass shooters in US history? I'm trying to think of any.

 

 

[yuna628 9,677]

14 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Seems to be a different profile in the inner cities.

Profiling crimes in inner cities where it relates to gang activity is quite a different matter. We have on occasion young black men that will bring firearms to their school. They are typically arrested (like last week). They also typically don't acquire their weapon legally. Their intent is not the same as the intent in a mass school shooting or other 'soft targets' of note. They usually intend on firing at a single target, or bring it out of fear of being fired at by that target, or to act like a tough guy. It should be a concern of course, but let's try and focus on one problem at a time before throwing up some herrings.

 

13 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Young non white boys mostly committed 3K just in Chicago last year. Tell me more about banning young white boys to solve the problem 

To solve the problem of mass school shootings is what this thread is about. Not gang violence in inner city Chicago. On a good day B'more can give Chicago a run for it's money. But it is inherently a different issue. Want to solve those? You're going to have to tackle poverty, gangs, drugs, and a variety of other factors.

 

7 minutes ago, cyclone27 said:

DC sniper didn’t fit the profile . See CNN conveniently left that mass shooting off their list.

The DC sniper is not one that inherently fits the profile as it relates to a mass school shooting, no - but it does tend to fit into a serial killer profile. Neither are a few other instances that come to mind in particular workplace mass violence scenarios.

 

This though is mainly about kids that may or may not have clear signs of mental issues, legally obtaining a firearm, and acting out their scenario for glory, fame, angst, and a variety of other reasons. Copycats follow (joyously celebrated on the internet even, in some circles).

 

5 minutes ago, Sonea said:

I'm not saying limit the existence of certain people, that is horrid. I'm not even saying take away rights of younger people, I'm just suggesting a higher level of screening for them.

How would the higher level of screening work though? There's pushback to virtually any changes to screenings by some, and there's no clear suggestion as to what type of screening would have flagged this or other individuals. It's going to happen again and everyone will shrug and say 'oh well'.

 

[Sonea 138]

Just now, smilesammich said:

ban the person type. what do you mean by that?

If we implement a phycological screening for 25 and under, persons who may have mental health issues will be banned from buying firearms at that time. I don't think it even needs to be a permanent ban. I subscribe to the notion that under 25s are still developing mentally and some (not all) have inbalances that make the reckless and dangerous. 

[Crazy Cat 41,898]

[Boiler 45,557]

8 minutes ago, missileman said:

Hmmm......57% white......43% others

 

Not sure that really helps the point they are trying to make.

 

Please concentrate on feelings.

[yuna628 9,677]

1 minute ago, -Trinity- said:

Are their actually any female mass shooters in US history? I'm trying to think of any.

 

 

Since 1982? Statistically (and there's not a ton of study because of it's rarity) only three individuals. I'm not sure as to the history or the specifics of those three cases either.

 

1 minute ago, Sonea said:

If we implement a phycological screening for 25 and under, persons who may have mental health issues will be banned from buying firearms at that time. I don't think it even needs to be a permanent ban. I subscribe to the notion that under 25s are still developing mentally and some (not all) have inbalances that make the reckless and dangerous. 

Something I'd agree to. But you'll see people scoff and protest.

[-Trinity- 513]

1 minute ago, Sonea said:

If we implement a phycological screening for 25 and under, persons who may have mental health issues will be banned from buying firearms at that time. I don't think it even needs to be a permanent ban. I subscribe to the notion that under 25s are still developing mentally and some (not all) have inbalances that make the reckless and dangerous. 

Most gun owners don't want such a screening. And I think the NRA prevented that to become a rule.

 

 

[Sonea 138]

3 minutes ago, -Trinity- said:

Are their actually any female mass shooters in US history? I'm trying to think of any.

 

 

Yes. san bernardino