DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Another School Shooting, Parkland, Florida

Diam - correct me if I'm wrong ... the NRA and others that are Pro gun lobby routinely respond to school shootings by saying that the situation would have been controlled by more law abiding citizens having guns, someone to shoot the unlawful active shooter before he killed more innocents. . . . Paraphrasing - a rally cry of 'we need more guns' ... that is routinely the answer that is offered by the Pro gun segment, right? (http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2018...napolitano.html) And if that message has changed or adapted over the years - because the NRA if nothing else is very smart with their PR and media message - it's still the basic premise of their argument. Arm teachers. Arm students at Universities . . . . Hopefully you can agree that this is at least one aspect that is a stock answer to the tragedies. And in which case - you might understand that my 'sarcasm' about quoting that in my first post. . . . and if not then we're probably wasting our time talking. I don't believe more guns is a solution. For lots of reasons - but if you gave a gun to every teacher in every school do you think I'd feel safer sending my child to school? Not one little bit.

The next step for me - is to simply ask is there anything that might be done to be able to reduce gun death in the country? Anything at all? Or is what is happening now on a regular basis - we just have to accept it and we can't do anything to make even the smallest impact .... either decrease the likelihood it happens or the death count when it does happen.

I saw the comments here about 18 gun shootings in 2018 - and how that included accidental misfiring and kids shooting themselves... But I guess we can all agree that it happens way too often. If there is one major Sandy Hook or Parkland or Columbine event every year - or every other year ... it's too many right? . . . If there was a major plane crash every year in the USA - they would be working day and night on how to fix the problem and people would be afraid to fly. Agreed? So doesn't it seem a little incredible that we have a problem - a horrific problem - and nothing is being done to try and look at the problem and discuss it?

I saw comments that this isn't a uniquely USA problem - and that just because the USA has way more guns per capita than any other nation on earth - that isn't part of the problem. But that doesn't actually follow when you look at the numbers. This is an interesting article. You don't even have to read any words - it simply has some charts that show the numbers.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html

Now. At this point - when looking at the numbers of guns in the USA and how that doesn't make us more safe compared to other countries with less guns and much higher gun controls ... and looking at the number of deaths and mass shootings etc. It might seem simple to say we need to get rid of guns and have more gun control and we'll fix everything. . . . and maybe you and every other Pro gun enthusiast reading this would assume that would be my conclusion. But it's not. The USA is different than every other nation on earth - the constitution is one part of that. the fact there are 300 million guns already out there is another part of what makes the situation unique. There isn't an "easy" answer. There isn't a magic wand someone can wave. I don't have a list of solutions - I'm not that smart and don't know all the factors involved.

What I do know is that: There is a problem - and no-one and I literally mean no-one, from the leader of the country to the politicians to the Pro-gun public - want to have a serious discussion about it. It seems to me that the Pro Gun lobby won't engage because the assumption is that debate will lead to some form of gun regulation. And that ANY gun regulation is bad and an infringement of rights. To me that's just whack. You can't have a meaningful conversation where one side dictates what you can or cannot discuss or explore. Is there a 'mental health' aspect to this? Absolutely. Is that a valid area of discussion and exploration? Yes. Is it the only thing that should be discussed and explored? No. Not even close.

I don't have the answers - and I believe any self respecting NRA member or gun enthusiast has been prepared to counter a wide range of topics on a wide range of popular liberal ideas to regulate gun ownership ... and I have no doubt some of the counter arguments are very valid. I have no doubt that there are people who want to think that a gun ban solves the problem, which I don't believe to be true. But at the moment it seems like we stick our heads in the sand - or rather the politicians stick the NRA funding in the ears - rather than engage in an all encompassing review of the situation.

But there are some inconsistencies things I find highly dubious or questionable:

In the land of the free - it seems the argument that you *need* guns to protect yourself from the government means we're actually a nation living in fear. If you feel the need to own guns to protect yourself in everyday life from criminals, it seems the same holds true, we're living in a state of fear that is driving us to feel less safe if we don't own a gun.

I know a lot of gun enthusiasts. I know people with bunkers and 10,000's of rounds of ammo stored and 100's of weapons. Truly - if the might if the US gov't and army were to turn into a militia - does anyone think owning AR15's - and whatever is currently legal is going to make a difference? Heck - Would a fully armed public with automatic weapons - and armed with a bunch of currently illegal arms and munitions, make a difference? Lord I hope not. The US Army is going to win every single time no matter how the public is armed. As it should in this day and age.

If fully automatic weapons are a no-go for the public ... how or why is a semi-automatic weapon needed? What's the justification? Why do you need to legally own a sniper rifle? I really don't know what difference it makes. Does the constitution say that the people have a right to the same technology as the government?

Does gun ownership decrease crime or make you safer? Both sides have data that gets assembled and supports their agenda. From what I can tell the NRA looks like it still relies on some statistics from 1995 - which would seem to raise questions. But it's a muddy area that can be manipulated by either side to try and stack statistics in their favor. I did read that in 2012 - there were 259 cases of justified homicides in self defense versus 1.2 million crimes where justifiable homicide in self defense would be warranted. So does that mean they are a deterrent? Or does that prove that they aren't a deterrent? And ... to be honest from my perspective ... I don't think there is much/anything that can or should be done with regards to laws that cover handguns ... and I think for self defense we're talking hand guns right? You don't try to whip out your semi-auto in a self defense situation? Ever? So while I am questioning whether gun ownership actually makes a real difference in regards to self defense - I'm not advocating that you take handguns away, simply asking what difference they actually make.

There's other questions I have but lastly to an often quoted response that guns don't kill people - people kill people, and if these sick individuals who commit mass shootings want to kill lots of people, they will find a way and the gun has nothing to do with it .... Sure. That's got a little basis in fact. But the argument is failed/flawed/redundant/retarded .... when all these mass killings use the same method to kill the maximum number of innocents, you're telling me you don't want to examine how/why they all choose to use guns rather than all the other methods the pro-gun lobby is telling us would be just as easy??? If we accept that there are sick/crazies who are going to go postal and try to kill others - and the goal of any discussion is to reduce the number of fatalities when it does happen - are you telling me that semi-autos and guns are not the most efficient way to kill large numbers of people? And isn't that ultimately the goal? If the AR-15 is constantly the weapon of choice in mass shootings... why is that? Is that a reasonable question to discuss? What is the comparison of provable lives lost to this weapon versus provable examples of lives saved or tyrannical government suppressed? IS that worthy of not even being discussed or looked at?

At the end of the day I have a lot more questions than answers - because I don't know what the answers are. Its not a simple or linear problem. But to bunker down and take it straight to politics and labeling is wrong.

As I say all the time:

Everyone is a law abiding citizen, until all of a sudden, they aren’t.

To me I would rather have metal detectors and armed police officers at each school. I don't understand how our most precious resource is left undefended to any thug who wants to cause harm.

I would also change the design of most public school to allow said police officers to more easily defend the school from outside threats.

One hell of a post mgh. You raise a lot of great questions Like you, I don't have all the answers but I'll give it a go;



I would if the teachers were well trained. My belief is that the appearance of protection is a deterrent. If you're a burglar, would you target homes that don't have a security system or homes with? How about the sign that says 'Home is protected by Smith and Wesson'. They'll typically choose the unprotected. If kids know teachers are armed and trained it would be in their best interest to rethink the attack. Look at the P.O.S Cruz, I'll plead guilty if you take the death penalty off the table, you fricken coward! Am I right? IDK.



How many home made bombs have been used? When there is a will there is a way. Which goes back to arming teachers, drive a car bomb into the school. The teachers become ineffective. Guns are used because these kids know they will face no resistance until the cops show up.

The school in Florida had (1) armed school resource officer on duty at the school at the time of the shooting. There are roughly 3000 students on the campus at any one time during the school day at the school in Parkland Florida.
The schools keep asking for more money for school security. They have kept asking for more money for school resource officers, cameras, mental health. They are asking for more and since 2007, Florida legislators have cut the Safe schools budget in Florida by 15 percent. Not more money for more issues, they are being cut. Another "do more with less"

And since the shooting in Parkland this week, a grandmother in Washington state turned in her grandson who already was in advanced plotting of a school shooting that "would try to eclipse the total number of killed" in a school shooting. There was also another one stopped in South Caroling on Friday.
And one school district over from ours on Friday night some kid posted for a second time himself posing with a gun. The school and police after Florida are investigating.

Florida legislature also put a stop this week to a provision in a bill that would ease up the background checks for firearm purchases. At least for now.

I don't know what to say-There are mental health issues, gun issues, etc. but I just think we are a violent society and there is just too much hate and discontent and people on bs sites and are not simply smart enough to know they are getting trolled. And you are not safe pretty much anywhere but an airport security checkpoint and the super bowl. Any where else you go, to a concert, night club, school event, college, shopping mall-you are a target.

Our school is having a school security meeting with parents in the next week or two.

I would not have the security controlled by the school. I would leave the police in charge of it. I would prefer 2-4 specially trained police officers per school. 2 for k-6 and 4 for 7-12. For a school with 3000 kids then perhaps 6 officers would be more in line.

There is zero excuse not to budget for the safety of our kids. I don't care what party your from.

Thank you

In answer - and I had thought about this during the initial post ... but it was long enough without adding to it! ..... Teachers - being trained. Yes, they would have to be for sure. But I think there's an incorrect vision that we could somehow train teachers into being competent gun owners who maybe have similar skills to a police officer or professional security force. The reality is that most teachers I know don't posses the sort of mental make up to achieve the level of gun competency I would think is required. I think a large % of them would not want to carry a gun and then what do you do? Fire 1/2 your teachers? I know many many teachers who have spent their professional lives training for and being teachers ... and they aren't very good at it. What makes me think that sending them on a short training course on competent gun ownership and how to react to a mass shooting incident is going to make them better at that they are a teacher? For myself I think going down this route would make schools more dangerous myself.

I do agree for the common criminal the appearance of protection is enough to thwart or deter the attempt of criminality .... but for these mass shootings, I do not think the same philosophy holds true. just my opinion.

As for the car bombings and where there is a will there is a way -- yes. But that's sort or my point. Make it harder... there is a reason why all these mass shootings rely on the same thing at the moment (a gun) - it's because as of today it's the easiest and most efficient solution. . . . if we ever make progress and gun deaths and mass shootings are not the norm, and mass killings are occurring because of car bombs or Molotov Cocktails or whatever .... then we discuss how to prevent that from happening. But we need to and should be talking about what the situation is now - not saying if we stop them using guns they will find another way. To me that's sort of like saying because people break the speed limit every single day and will always do so, we should not have a speed limit.

The female student’s emotional diatribe will pull at heart strings and enrage some...but in it she blames the people that sold him accessories that made the rifle fully automatic (huh??) and blamed FL for allowing permitless CONCEALED carry of rifles and shotguns...she faults trump for getting NRA funds...but finds no fault with the FBI...she says students did their part in identifying him but his parents and neighbors didn’t...she says to quit focusing and blaming mental health...

This speech is exactly why you can’t have a rationale discussion immediately after anything....emotion leads to irrationale responses.

But this video gets a pass by half of the population because the student is a survivor/victim and is entitled to direct the discussion and I am of no important and can’t weigh in because I wasn’t there.

jc

I know not much if anything will change after yet another school massacre. BUT what I do know is that the little girl with the 'we call BS' speech was damn refreshing. All of us should feel this way.

I have a different perspective -

The emotional student may have made lots of inaccurate assertions... she may be in the blame stage of the grief process ... there might be lots of her anger and angst that is misplaced or ill-informed. She's young, I doubt she has studied this issue/problem in great detail ... and I don't expect her to have the answers. I think anything that can move the conversation forward so that people and especially politicians are forced to talk about it is a great thing. And the distraught and emotional, heart wrenching wake that is left behind in these tragedies should be front and center in the discussion to remind everyone why the discussion is taking place. "Thoughts and Prayers, but it's too soon to talk about the issues" is a total line of convenient crap to hide behind. . . . if it's too soon for Parkland, it's not too soon to talk about the exact same issues from the Sandy Hook shootings or the Vegas shootings.

And your opinion and your views and rights are just as valid as the female students. . . you are just as entitled as anyone to say whatever you want on the matter and contribute to a discussion on the mass shootings and what she or others say.

While I agree with your last statements,reality says otherwise...the victim/survivor shouts down “you weren’t there” or “you don’t know what it was like” and the discussion is instantly over.

I disagree. You don't need to be the victim of a crime to have an opinion on why the crime happened or what the best course of action might be to prevent future crimes of the same nature. And shouting is never the sign of having a winning argument.

j/c

My wife seen this on Facebook;

There have been 4320 deaths due to drunk driving in 2018. Nobody is looking to ban cars because people are smart enough to realize it's not the cars fault.

Interesting.

Yeah, except cars were not invented with the single purpose to kill . Guns are made with that purpose and before you counter with all the things you can do with guns besides kill...save it . Hell ya can pound nails with guns if you want but they are designed and manufactured for the soul purpose of separating life from a living being . Any argument that doesn't start with that fact in mind is not going to be a genuine argument .

If there was only one type of vehicle that drunks ever used (or used overwhelmingly) then maybe they would?

Equating the need to legally own an AR15 that is used for .... what? To a car that is used every day in every walk of life by nearly every person in the USA is a little skewed .. in my opinion.

I found this rather long worded but alternative perspective for you:

The fundamental purpose of a car, at its most basic level, is to convey someone from point A to point B. The purpose of a gun, on the other hand, is to inflict a significant amount of damage on whatever or whomever the gun is aimed at once the trigger is pulled. This is true regardless of whether a gun is used for self-defense, hunting, recreation, or murder. Although a life is a life, killing somebody by accident is not the same as killing somebody on purpose. Except in rare circumstances, killing somebody with a car is an accident. Even when intoxicated, the driver’s intent is not to harm another person. When a shooter fires his or her weapon at another person, whether it be in self-defense or not, the intent is to seriously injure or kill the target. Although gun accidents do happen, they result in a distinct minority of the casualties from gun violence (and we support regulation that minimizes the frequency and severity of gun accidents when they do happen). Guns are weapons, cars are a mode of transportation. There is a significant difference. This line of argument also ignores that the only gun ban currently being proposed is on assault rifles, and that there are many effective regulations other than bans to stem gun violence.

Even accepting the analogy as valid, however, leads to the opposite conclusion intended by gun advocates. Instead of illustrating the complete inanity and futility of gun regulation, the analogy highlights the empirical efficacy of car regulation with respect to decreased accident and mortality rates. Regulations on cars and driving have saved nearly 85,000 lives and $600 billion over the past two decades. Even the most simple and ubiquitous safety measures such as seat belts and airbags have reduced mortality rates. Over the past three decades, drunk driving fatalities have fallen 65%. While this staggering drop may not entirely be explained by regulation, the bulk of these changes are a direct result of such policies.

That's a great point.

However, my point is the person. Cars weren't made to be driven drunk. Guns weren't made for the sole purpose to be used by CRIMINALS.

And another well written rebuttal:

But cars kill people,or, more accurately, people driving cars kill people, just as people shooting guns kill people. They’re both inanimate objects that are very dangerous to the user and to those around them but that are considered indispensable to the American way of life, so the analogy seems a very strong one: sensible measures we take to regulate cars and ensure they are as safe as possible for Americans to operate are also probably sensible regulatory measures for guns.

No one would ban cars (or guns) but we do (and should) require:
- licensing with written and practical tests;
- frequent renewal including updated photo and medical questionnaire;
- specialty licensing and training for specialty products;
- product registration and mandatory liability insurance policy;
- effective enforcement of product safety and use regulations;
- key locks and other anti-theft devices;
- manufacturer-funded safety research;
- adoption by manufacturers of identified best safety features in spite of additional cost;
- industry or publicly funded awareness and safety campaigns; and
- restriction of high-performance, unsafe products to private courses/ranges.

We already do every single one of those things with motor vehicles. When we finally woke up to the problem of drunk driving we tightened DUI regulation and enforcement and no one ever complained that we wanted to ban cars — because that retort is not an argument, it’s just an irrational barrier to reasonable discussion. Sensible gun control would include other things not relevant to cars, like waiting periods and restrictions on felons or the mentally ill.

ok I thought these were your ideas.

Jc

Japan's process for gun ownership is alot like getting licenses for a car: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.busines...-deaths-2017-10

BAH!

The Constitution guarantees our Right to our weapons and says nothing about wagons or cars or horses or hammers!

Move to another Country, chase down nuts or Amend the Constitution but leave me, my Rights and my guns alone!

Murica

Heh. Wonder if Europe will ban cars and trucks. Since the new trend is to use them to mow down crowds.

Over 40,000 people in America died in car accidents last year. Gun deaths are nowhere even close to that number. Apparently a 2000 pld sledgehammer is better at killing people than guns are since people with guns are actually trying ...

jc and to no one individual poster.

Enacting gun legislation to ban any type of guns is just asinine. We live in a profit over people world and your children, the middle and poor classes children do not matter. They are only here to earn profits for the big corps.

And I hate this guns don't kill people people kill people crap! It's people WITH guns doing the killing. And sure they could do it with cars, knives, terrible cooking, or slow and hideously by marriage. But we are only talking about people killing people with guns right now, so if that is too much for your ADHD to handle, stay out of the conversation.

Killing kids is now an acceptable part of driving up the bottom line! I have yet to hear Trump even say the words gun violence since this shooting. It's Obama's fault, the dems fault, and it would not have happened if the FBI were not investigating Trump... I've heard all of that.

I bet we would hear the words gun violence, and see some legislation if this happened at Barron Trump's school.

Trumps school has armed security. He's safe.

That's the problem with gun people, they feel safe with their guns. You are never safe if someone wants to do you harm, nobody is completely safe in those circumstances.

AND OF COURSE HE HAS SECURITY! DUH!

There were 353 deaths at schools due to shooting last year. Literally more died walking home from school. Yes, it's terrible that it happened but in the order of things actually threatening the lives of kids it's actually pretty far down the totem pole. It's just that it makes a flashier news story and gains attention vs the things that are really killing kids in droves like suicide 45,000 or drugs 64,000 or just falling down 36,000. School shooting are such a minor thing compared to those issues that it's silly that people are more worried about gun related school deaths vs real issues that are killing our kids.

Accidents. We're talking murder here.

And Suicide/drugs should be high priority too.

Video 1 - Dec 20, 2012
Video 2 - Feb 18, 2014
Video 3 - Mar 30, 2017

Weak sauce bro. See things like this just spread the fear and keep the gun sales high... I got rid of my guns 20 years ago. In all that time, the only time I wished I had one was when coyotes tried to surround my German Shepherd.

I don't live in a high crime area, but we have our fair share of it here. And there are a ton of meth/heroin junkies here.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not anti gun. I just don't feel the need to have one. Now as I get older and more feeble that might change, but I'd rather not now.

And I don't want guns banned, I just want common sense laws. Make it harder to get them. Make everyone get an annual license to own them and a felony to not have them registered.

That way if you get caught with one and no license, you go to jail. Bad guys don't like going to jail for nothing. It would deter some.

Or stop selling DIY ammo parts and limit the quantity you can buy somehow like maybe returning spent casings. An AR-15 with 15 rounds is much less deadly than one with 500.

I know there will be those that find a way around anything we come up with but many will not bother and that will save lives.

What crap OCD! Who cares about the dates on the videos? Unfrickin real! This stuff happens everyday.

Dude fix your panties, they seem to be in a wad. And sorry for the slow response was in edit mode on the post above finishing my thoughts. Chillax now.

They plan to rob, kidnap and kill people do you think they care if it's a felony to own one without an annual license and not have them registered?

by that logic, we don't need a wall, cause illegal immigrants will just go around, through, over, under, etc.

By that logic why have any laws? Druggies do drugs, rapist still rape, killers still kill...

Marijuana is illegal in most states should they make stricter marijuana laws, longer prison terms higher fines?


Gun laws will only effect law abiding citizens, the wall only effects non law abiding people...

Before you start rampaging for new laws that are going to unfairly impact the wrong people, I suggest you contact or at least pay attention to your local District Attorney's Office.

Find out how many firearms charges were made over a period of time.

Then find out how many of those charged have similar past charges or other violent crime type charges in their past.

Then find out how many of those charges ended up in convictions.

Then find out what the average sentence for a person convicted of a firearms related offense is.

As a cop, I can tell you that there is a lot of truth to the belief that more laws isn't going to fix the problem. Actually prosecuting the cases will do way more to reduce gun violence in America. I can promise you that.

When I run a criminal history on someone who has had firearms charges in the past, it is not uncommon to see charges like Possession of a Firearm By Felon voluntarily dismissed by the DA. And what made them a felon is usually a robbery or aggravated assault.

And of those who are convicted, it's not uncommon for them to receive supervised probation... not jail time. Not years, not months or weeks.

I came across this one dude a couple months ago. Had previously been charged with our equivalent to Attempted Murder (Assault with a Deadly Weapon Inflicting Serious Injury with Intent to Kill). He plead guilty to a lesser offense of Assault with a Deadly Weapon Inflicting serious Injury. His sentence? 36 months of supervised probation.

The lack of prosecution is not uncommon in the criminal justice system.

If O.J. Simpson had committed that robbery in my county, there's no way he would have done time for it.

So before you push for more laws that make criminals out of people who don't bother anybody, make sure we're properly punishing the people who we should be punishing first.

OCD.....you are reaching and because of such this is why no one will negotiate...you suggest banning reloading components....can you demonstrate a single mass shooting where the shooter was using ammunition that he or she reloaded themselves???

Not too but instead of. 100,000 plus deaths vs 300ish deaths. Yet the media is all over the 300ish when it's barely a drop in the bucket compared to the real issues hurting our youth.

Why do you think that is?

If that's the case, then even more gun legislation would be pointless.