Florida School Shooting

[smilesammich 10,727]

7 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

But anyone with an ID can walk into a liquor store and buy alcohol. And if you’re obviously not near the age of 21, you can buy alcohol with no ID.  All that federal regulation didn’t stop Joe Blow from buying that bottle of vodka and drinking it before he got in his car and caused an accident. Even if you take his license away, he can still get drunk, get in a car and drive  illegally. 

 

Many years back a friend of mine was in a car with someone else, their car was hit by a drunk driver. My friend was busted up and in a coma for 3 weeks. His friend was killed. The drunk that hit them was not injured and had gotten out of jail a couple of weeks prior for driving drunk and killing someone. He didn’t have a license when he hit my friend. So two accidents, 2 deaths with jail in between. 

right, that argument applies to everything government regulated though. there will always be people that don't follow regulations, my point is it doesn't stop us from having regulations in place for public safety's sake (mostly revenue/tax really, but they say it's to protect). so, we have this relatively new public safety threat and because of the 2nd, instead of imposing more effective regulation, we're suppose to arm even more people. more guns. it makes no sense to me when i think of all the relatively non lethal things we regulate heavily, to the point of absurdity.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, smilesammich said:

i know its true. i'm not talking about just the end sale of a customer showing an i.d to purchase a six pack. i'm talking about federal and state alcohol compliance within the alcohol industry. have you ever gone through the process of getting a liquor approved for sale at state or federal level? do you work with the ttb? do you have any idea what goes into getting that bottle to your local liquor store shelf - under the premise of public safety?  i'll tell you, it's a ton of regulation, there are lawyers and compliance companies that specialize in beverage law. all to keep words like "strong" off your beer label, lest you think beer gives you power. it's a heavily regulated industry. and most regulations are totally unnecessary because people don't even realize what's being done in the background for their perceived protection. but guns? guns you can sell on Craigslist. no oversight, just make sure you're doing the right thing.

Yes, I am very familiar with the requirements to make and sell liquor.  But your argument about all the regulations is moot.  It’s not about keeping the public safe.  It’s about income for the gubmint.  Which some people (I’m sure you are well versed, in your neck of the woods) are willing to ignore the laws and make their own anyway.  And in spite of all this regulation that you are bringing up, there are still way more alcohol related deaths in the US every year than gun deaths, right?  So what good is all that regulation doing for public safety?  Should we ban alcohol?  I mean, obviously that evil bottle sitting on the shelf is as much to blame as the gun in the gun rack.  

 

Or... is it?

 

If you want to talk about the feds all up in your knickers, you should see what it takes to become an FFL holder.  All the hoops you must jump thru.  And just like a manufacturer of alcohol, once you apply for and get your permit to brew or your FFL, you are subject to the feds invading your home and property, any time day or night, on a whim.  All to make sure you are in compliance with the laws that you promised to uphold when you applied for your license.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

3 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

right, that argument applies to everything government regulated though. there will always be people that don't follow regulations, my point is it doesn't stop us from having regulations in place for public safety's sake (mostly revenue/tax really, but they say it's to protect). so, we have this relatively new public safety threat and because of the 2nd, instead of imposing more effective regulation, we're suppose to arm even more people. more guns. it makes no sense to me when i think of all the relatively non lethal things we regulate heavily, to the point of absurdity.

I use alcohol as a comparison because alcohol kills morw people than guns. And most everything that is said about guns can be said about alcohol and is a good comparison, IMO. It’s illegal to drive drunk, but nobody suggests banning cars or a particular car. 

 

I’m in MA, and our gun laws are on the strict side compared to many states. I comply with the laws that are in place here as I would if I lived elsewhere. 

 

Assault rifles account for about 250 deaths per year in the US, handguns about 10,000. People are killed everyday and it barely makes the news anymore 

[smilesammich 10,727]

2 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Yes, I am very familiar with the requirements to make and sell liquor.  But your argument about all the regulations is moot.  It’s not about keeping the public safe.  It’s about income for the gubmint.  Which some people (I’m sure you are well versed, in your neck of the woods) are willing to ignore the laws and make their own anyway.  And in spite of all this regulation that you are bringing up, there are still way more alcohol related deaths in the US every year than gun deaths, right?  So what good is all that regulation doing for public safety?  Should we ban alcohol?  I mean, obviously that evil bottle sitting on the shelf is as much to blame as the gun in the gun rack.  

 

Or... is it?

 

If you want to talk about the feds all up in your knickers, you should see what it takes to become an FFL holder.  All the hoops you must jump thru.  And just like a manufacturer of alcohol, once you apply for and get your permit to brew or your FFL, you are subject to the feds invading your home and property, any time day or night, on a whim.  All to make sure you are in compliance with the laws that you promised to uphold when you applied for your license.

actually, it is about public safety. revenue has been tacked on (and on and on).

still not talking about banning guns.  

[-Trinity- 513]

2 hours ago, Ban Hammer said:

the first allows the seller to insure the recipient is legally able to posses a firearm. 

the latter  opens one up to lawsuits until the end of time.

How do you insure that the person you sell a weapon to is legally able to posses a firearm.

What if that person committed a crime like domestic violence within the last month, something you aren't aware of?

Or just got his permit for medical cannabis. As we all know, not all people will tell the truth....

[Sonea 138]

33 minutes ago, -Trinity- said:

How do you insure that the person you sell a weapon to is legally able to posses a firearm.

What if that person committed a crime like domestic violence within the last month, something you aren't aware of?

Or just got his permit for medical cannabis. As we all know, not all people will tell the truth....

Pretty soon you won't need a permit. My state doesn't.

[-Trinity- 513]

Just now, Sonea said:

Pretty soon you won't need a permit. My state doesn't.

For cannabis you mean? Yeah, I'm sure that will change soon in California.

[Sonea 138]

 

 

1 minute ago, -Trinity- said:

For cannabis you mean? Yeah, I'm sure that will change soon in California.

It did officially this year

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

1 hour ago, -Trinity- said:

How do you insure that the person you sell a weapon to is legally able to posses a firearm.

What if that person committed a crime like domestic violence within the last month, something you aren't aware of?

Or just got his permit for medical cannabis. As we all know, not all people will tell the truth....

has a cch.  is a ffl.  is a member of the military.  and so on.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

[-Trinity- 513]

https://nypost.com/2018/02/23/four-sheriffs-deputies-hid-during-florida-school-shooting/

 

Ok, so let me get this straight, there were four, not one but four (4) deputies there at the time of the shooting. Most likely armed, and they didn't do anything?

 

 

Edited February 24, 2018 by -Trinity-

[-Trinity- 513]

36 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

Ehm...officerS

 

Everyone is blaming everyone. gov. Scott says it's fault if FBI, opponents say it's fault of lax gun laws. Other blame parents for letting iPads raise their kids, it's the videogames, no it's the movies, it's Rick music, no it's rap music. 

 

It's like talking in circles, and no one wants to take responsibility.

Edited February 24, 2018 by -Trinity-

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 hours ago, smilesammich said:

actually, it is about public safety. revenue has been tacked on (and on and on).

still not talking about banning guns.  

I re-read both of our posts, and only saw those two words in your post.  Do you think I am accusing you of wanting to do that?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

22 minutes ago, -Trinity- said:

https://nypost.com/2018/02/23/four-sheriffs-deputies-hid-during-florida-school-shooting/

 

Ok, so let me get this straight, there were four, not one but four (4) deputies there at the time of the shooting. Most likely armed, and they didn't do anything?

 

 

I see the sheriff working inside the school already quit.  These three need to follow shortly.  Talk about dereliction of duty.

[-Trinity- 513]

5 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

I see the sheriff working inside the school already quit.  These three need to follow shortly.  Talk about dereliction of duty.

It's a bloody shame. If it turns out he didn't do anything with the warning, he should be prosecuted.