Re: >=15 allegedly killed in shooting at Florida high school

205
highdesert wrote:And the right wing is already spinning the conspiracy theories led by the usual suspects - Rush Limbaugh; Bill O'Reilly; and Alex Jones.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/busi ... pe=article
Somewhere there is a thread on the latest conspiracy idiocy.
sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

Re: >=15 allegedly killed in shooting at Florida high school

206
jamhand wrote:
senorgrand wrote:Our efforts should be focused on eliminating school shootings, not making feeble attempts at reducing their death tolls. That's like answering the Polio Epidemic with a better iron lung rather than creating a vaccine to wipe it out.
Those efforts are not mutually exclusive and a priori we don't know that one prong will be more effective than the other.
Should we just be content for people to shoot up a school with a pump gun, revolver or bolt action rifle? Banning ARs or even semi automatic weapons won't stop school shootings and might not even lower the death toll. As posted on this board, over half of mass shootings happening after the AWB sunset were not with "assault weapons."

Responding to a mass shooting with an AWB is tantamount to admitting we can't stop these things from happening, so we'll just make feeble attempts at reducing the death toll when they do occur.
Image


"Person, woman, man, camera, TV."

Re: >=15 allegedly killed in shooting at Florida high school

207
YankeeTarheel wrote:Yet despite being expelled from school for violently attacking another student dating his ex-GF (to whom he was abusive--no surprise there), he was, under Florida law, able to stockpile an armory.
You mean the laws of the US. Florida law isn't unique in this regard. No state has laws that would have rendered him a prohibited person, and we've had deadlier mass shootings in this country that involved guns that are legal in all 50 states.
YankeeTarheel wrote:The post saying we've only had 8 school shootings vs 5 for Germany simply isn't accurate. We've had 12 school shootings in the US just in 2018. No other nation is seeing that. And most of them, not all, but most, are by young, white males. It can and does happen anywhere and everywhere.
You've completely misquoted the post on Germany vs. The US. Since 1999 (including Columbine) Germany has only had 2 mass shootings in K-12 schools, while the US has only had 5. And per capita, their rate of both mass shootings in K-12 schools and deaths due to such shootings exceed ours by a large amount. The mass shootings in question are all listed in that post, along with the dates and numbers of deaths. If you know of any left out, feel free to add them. Otherwise, you're wrong.

And the Everytown figure on school shootings for 2018 has already been roundly discredited, since they are counting things like a police officer having an accidental discharge that just went into the floor, a middle-aged man who tried to commit suicide at 2:00am in his car parked on a street adjacent to a school, and a couple of cases where someone on a school campus merely thought they heard a gunshot in the distance. To them any shot fired, or believed to have been fired, anywhere remotely near a school is a 'school shooting'.

>=15 allegedly killed in shooting at Florida high school

208
senorgrand wrote:
jamhand wrote:
senorgrand wrote:Our efforts should be focused on eliminating school shootings, not making feeble attempts at reducing their death tolls. That's like answering the Polio Epidemic with a better iron lung rather than creating a vaccine to wipe it out.
Those efforts are not mutually exclusive and a priori we don't know that one prong will be more effective than the other.
Should we just be content for people to shoot up a school with a pump gun, revolver or bolt action rifle? Banning ARs or even semi automatic weapons won't stop school shootings and might not even lower the death toll. As posted on this board, over half of mass shootings happening after the AWB sunset were not with "assault weapons."

Responding to a mass shooting with an AWB is tantamount to admitting we can't stop these things from happening, so we'll just make feeble attempts at reducing the death toll when they do occur.
If you want to lose weight you can both increase your calorie output and reduce calorie input. It doesn’t have to be one or the other.

Re: >=15 allegedly killed in shooting at Florida high school

209
jamhand wrote:
senorgrand wrote:
jamhand wrote:
senorgrand wrote:Our efforts should be focused on eliminating school shootings, not making feeble attempts at reducing their death tolls. That's like answering the Polio Epidemic with a better iron lung rather than creating a vaccine to wipe it out.
Those efforts are not mutually exclusive and a priori we don't know that one prong will be more effective than the other.
Should we just be content for people to shoot up a school with a pump gun, revolver or bolt action rifle? Banning ARs or even semi automatic weapons won't stop school shootings and might not even lower the death toll. As posted on this board, over half of mass shootings happening after the AWB sunset were not with "assault weapons."

Responding to a mass shooting with an AWB is tantamount to admitting we can't stop these things from happening, so we'll just make feeble attempts at reducing the death toll when they do occur.
If you want to lose weight you can both increase your calorie output and reduce calorie input. It doesn’t have to be one or the other.
But not all policies are moral equivalents. With gun violence we are faced with several options, some of which implicate innocent, protected behavior, some of which do not. In such circumstances, how can one justify choosing the former? When your preferred policy solutions conflict with the legal limits we've placed on the power of government, the correct response is not to say "well, what if we violated those limits just a little bit, would that be a good compromise?" or "if we squint hard enough the Constitution doesn't say we can't do that," it's to look for policy solutions that don't implicate those limits at all. We do this in nearly every other area of policy (see, e.g., the literature on economic "nudges"). Why that's so hard for people to accept on guns baffles me.
Image

Re: >=15 allegedly killed in shooting at Florida high school

210
jamhand wrote:
senorgrand wrote:
jamhand wrote:
senorgrand wrote:Our efforts should be focused on eliminating school shootings, not making feeble attempts at reducing their death tolls. That's like answering the Polio Epidemic with a better iron lung rather than creating a vaccine to wipe it out.
Those efforts are not mutually exclusive and a priori we don't know that one prong will be more effective than the other.
Should we just be content for people to shoot up a school with a pump gun, revolver or bolt action rifle? Banning ARs or even semi automatic weapons won't stop school shootings and might not even lower the death toll. As posted on this board, over half of mass shootings happening after the AWB sunset were not with "assault weapons."

Responding to a mass shooting with an AWB is tantamount to admitting we can't stop these things from happening, so we'll just make feeble attempts at reducing the death toll when they do occur.
If you want to lose weight you can both increase your calorie output and reduce calorie input. It doesn’t have to be one or the other.
But here's the rub. Gun control works just like the war on drugs or the war on terror.

1) Identify a problem
2) Propose a solution that just so happens to restrict constitutional rights (AWB, asset forfeiture, water boarding)
3) solution fails to solve problem
4) keep the failing "solution" and return to step 1

Your comparison is faulty...it's like comparing vitamins with antibiotics. Vitamins won't cure your infection.
Image


"Person, woman, man, camera, TV."

Re: >=15 allegedly killed in shooting at Florida high school

211
Etervigila wrote:
jamhand wrote:
senorgrand wrote:
jamhand wrote:
Those efforts are not mutually exclusive and a priori we don't know that one prong will be more effective than the other.
Should we just be content for people to shoot up a school with a pump gun, revolver or bolt action rifle? Banning ARs or even semi automatic weapons won't stop school shootings and might not even lower the death toll. As posted on this board, over half of mass shootings happening after the AWB sunset were not with "assault weapons."

Responding to a mass shooting with an AWB is tantamount to admitting we can't stop these things from happening, so we'll just make feeble attempts at reducing the death toll when they do occur.
If you want to lose weight you can both increase your calorie output and reduce calorie input. It doesn’t have to be one or the other.
But not all policies are moral equivalents. With gun violence we are faced with several options, some of which implicate innocent, protected behavior, some of which do not. In such circumstances, how can one justify choosing the former? When your preferred policy solutions conflict with the legal limits we've placed on the power of government, the correct response is not to say "well, what if we violated those limits just a little bit, would that be a good compromise?" or "if we squint hard enough the Constitution doesn't say we can't do that," it's to look for policy solutions that don't implicate those limits at all. We do this in nearly every other area of policy (see, e.g., the literature on economic "nudges"). Why that's so hard for people to accept on guns baffles me.
"No one wants to take away your guns. Well, we want to take away some of your guns, but we'll let you keep some of them. Then, when that doesn't work, we'll want to take more of them, but we'll still leave you a few. And, of course, that won't work either, so we'll eventually take all of them. But no one wants to take away your guns."

Re: >=15 allegedly killed in shooting at Florida high school

213
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/school-sho ... ly-speaks/
James also told CBS News he thought there was only one key to the gun safe where he made Cruz keep his weapons. But James now believes there were actually two keys – and Cruz had the other.
This is hard, I think. If Cruz was a minor, it would be a no-brainer: Keep both keys. But since Cruz was legally an adult and could legally own and purchase long guns, how could this shooting have been prevented?

Re: >=15 allegedly killed in shooting at Florida high school

214
AndyH wrote:https://www.cbsnews.com/news/school-sho ... ly-speaks/
James also told CBS News he thought there was only one key to the gun safe where he made Cruz keep his weapons. But James now believes there were actually two keys – and Cruz had the other.
This is hard, I think. If Cruz was a minor, it would be a no-brainer: Keep both keys. But since Cruz was legally an adult and could legally own and purchase long guns, how could this shooting have been prevented?
Gun Violence Restraining Orders. Multiple people were aware that Cruz wasn’t doing well and was making disturbing comments.

Re: >=15 allegedly killed in shooting at Florida high school

215
It has emerged that an armed school resource officer refused to engage the shooter:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43164634


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"I have been saying for some time now that America only has one party - the property party. It's the party of big corporations, the party of money. It has two right-wings; one is Democrat and the other is Republican."
-Gore Vidal

Re: >=15 allegedly killed in shooting at Florida high school

216
7N6Wolf wrote:It has emerged that an armed school resource officer refused to engage the shooter:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43164634
This just gets worse and worse!

During the CNN town hall, Dana Loesch questioned the Sheriff about why 39 issues weren't enough. Knives and bullets to school, threats to kill people, police visits to Cruz' houe, assaulted students, assaulted parents.
https://youtu.be/ZaLh74eXTDo?t=1h30m43s

This should never have happened.

Re: >=15 allegedly killed in shooting at Florida high school

217
AndyH wrote: But since Cruz was legally an adult and could legally own and purchase long guns, how could this shooting have been prevented?
Well, the FBI could have investigated the report they had that he was planning to shoot up a school, the school administration or the local authorities could have done more to intervene given the dozens of incidents in which he was involved, the school resource officer who refused to enter the building during the shooting could have done his job, etc.

Re: >=15 allegedly killed in shooting at Florida high school

218
highdesert wrote:And the right wing is already spinning the conspiracy theories led by the usual suspects - Rush Limbaugh; Bill O'Reilly; and Alex Jones.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/busi ... pe=article
And this guy.
Trump on Thursday met with state and local officials at the White House to discuss solutions to address gun violence. The president reiterated his support for raising the age when Americans can buy assault weapons such as the AR-15. The 19-year-old charged in the Parkland shooting was able to purchase an AR-15 rifle in Florida.

“It should all be at 21,” Trump said at an event at the White House. “And the NRA will back it.”

“They’re very close to me. I’m close to them. The NRA wants to do the right thing,” Trump claimed. “I’ve spoken to them often in the last two days. It’s not a battle — I think the NRA wants to do the right thing.”
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/us ... 9e56b9cd8d

IOKIYAR

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: >=15 allegedly killed in shooting at Florida high school

219
Evo1 wrote:
Well, the FBI could have investigated the report they had that he was planning to shoot up a school, the school administration or the local authorities could have done more to intervene given the dozens of incidents in which he was involved, the school resource officer who refused to enter the building during the shooting could have done his job, etc.
As information is coming to light the situation is almost becoming more about criminal negligence on the part of law enforcement than it is a mentally ill teenager with a firearm. This was clearly preventable had the laws and protocols already on the books been enforced and followed. Had an on duty LEO acted as he was trained, instead of being a coward more concerned about his retirement than the lives of his community's children and carrying out his sworn duty, fewer lives, maybe none, would have been lost. Had the two officers currently on leave and the FBI agent who received the initial "if you see something say something" call from a tipster fulfilled their sworn duty no children would have lost their lives.

This didn't "just happen" this was allowed to happen and law enforcement needs to be held accountable for the deaths of these children as much, if not more, than the murderer himself. Law enforcement has no mitigating circumstances as to why they failed to act, why they failed to prevent this mentally unstable young man in succeeding in his well documented and well publicized plan to kill.

Re: >=15 allegedly killed in shooting at Florida high school

222
Hobbes, "Leviathan," Ch. IV: "... wherein men live without security than what their own strength and their own inventions shall furnish them... life of man (will be), solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent." -Gandhi

Re: >=15 allegedly killed in shooting at Florida high school

223
The FBI was informed of the perp's threats, and that information was not passed on to the field office in Florida. The perp had numerous interactions with police for violence and threats. Similarly, he had been removed from the school for violence and then later moved back to that school with the school supposedly unable to do anything. And then the deputy somehow managed to avoid engaging the shooter.

Given that, it seems as if the students who, apparently of their own volition, went to Tallahassee to try to shame the state legislature would be justifiably focused on something other than AR-15s.
sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

Re: >=15 allegedly killed in shooting at Florida high school

224
m1ckDELTA wrote:
Wabatuckian wrote:Warren v D.C.

Police have no legal duty to protect you. Most will, but they're not required to do so.

Regards.
Warren v D.C. negates the argument that the police will protect us so we don’t need the 2nd Amendment interpreted as an individual right.
Yep, this.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: >=15 allegedly killed in shooting at Florida high school

225
YankeeTarheel wrote:
DispositionMatrix wrote:
YankeeTarheel wrote:So where am I going with this rant? Back to what I've been saying all along: We need to nudge both the Left and the Right to focusing on better means of determining WHO and WHERE gun possession needs to be prohibited, not the WHAT. I'm not sure one can convince a die-hard politician that changing the mag limit from 15 to 10 rounds, as proposed here in NJ, is a meaningless ineffective gesture that will merely cost gun owners to have to pay gunsmiths to pin their magazines, which makes them harder to clean. I mean, if someone sticks you up, does it matter if the asshole has 5, 6, 8, 10, or 15 rounds?

Because they are putting us between a rock and a hard place. I became an owner because I saw the rise of the neo-nazi racists as getting a shot of adrenaline from the "election" of Trump, and I and my family are IMMEDIATELY a target of them. I doubt any of THEM will be turning in their guns or having their magazines pinned! So at a critical juncture, people like NJ Senate Majority Leader Weinberg wants to do just that. Doesn't she realize that the anti-Semites and racists want HER and her family dead, solely for being Jewish? Andrew Anglin, the Daily Stormer guy, wrote "Of course I want to gas kikes!" She's cutting her own throat.
She probably believes the state will save her, or she has armed security.
I doubt that. I've been a Progressive all my life and most don't think that way. I think she simply isn't making the connection. One problem, one solution (irrespective of whether the solution is viable and / or valid). Besides, far too many on the Left STILL don't recognize the threat to our whole Democratic Republican structure that Trumpism casts. The whole DNC, DLCC, DSCC, and DCCC are ALL like ostriches with their heads in the sand.
Invalid comparison. You have not been a progressive member of the ruling class your entire professional life. She has, and I find it highly unlikely she does not have security. Your concerns aren't even going to register with her unless they translate to votes.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests