School shootings... what changed? (Page 7/33)
Patrick MAY 26, 01:48 AM

quote
Originally posted by williegoat:

That sentence is meaningless doublespeak. You don't want to take away guns, you just don't want me to have them.



The more you post in this thread Willie, the more I think maybe you shouldn't have any.

I think we're done here.
rinselberg MAY 26, 02:45 AM
Nikolas Cruz was age 19 when he murdered 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, in 2018. Cruz's (not to be confused with Ted Cruz) murder weapon was an AR-15 style, semiautomatic long gun which he had purchased—legally—about a year before he used it as a murder weapon. So he was age 18 or maybe just 19 when he purchased this weapon.

Three weeks after "Parkland", Florida's Republican Governor Rick Scott signed into Florida state law a bill that raised the minimum age for all firearms purchases in Florida from 18 years to 21 years, with the exception that rifles and shotguns may be purchased as young as age 18 by someone who is law enforcement, or a corrections officer or military. The age 18 (or 19) Nikolas Cruz would not have been able to legally purchase (in Florida) what became his murder weapon, had that legislation already been in effect.

The bill also imposed a 3-day waiting period on gun purchases and banned the sale of bump stocks, and made it easier for Florida law enforcement [agencies] and judges to take guns away from people on the basis that they are considered a discernible danger to themselves or to others.

The bill, which still stands as Florida law today, was the only new gun safety legislation enacted in Florida in more than 20 years, prior to its signing in 2018.

In this broadcast from May 25, 2022, MSNBC anchor Ali Velshi recounts the story and asserts that the NRA knocked Governor Scott's NRA Rating from an "A", down to a "C", as soon as or shortly after the Governor signed the bill into law.
https://youtu.be/OE32MFxjnDo

Maybe the NRA was slyly trying to do Governor Scott a favor, by knocking his NRA Rating down from "A" to "C" to make him look better in the eyes of many Florida voters after Parkland, although that is not the way that the story is recounted by Ali Velshi.

I do not know where the now U.S. Senator from Florida Rick Scott's NRA Rating stands today.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-26-2022).]

Hudini MAY 26, 04:54 AM

quote
Originally posted by Patrick:

The more you post in this thread Willie, the more I think maybe you shouldn't have any.

I think we're done here.



His point is quite simple. Whether or not he "shouldn't" have any is not anyone's decision but his. Not you, not me, not the government.

blackrams MAY 26, 05:01 AM
Personally, I don't see this as a gun issue nearly as much as others. Guns are simply tools. I can't blame a tool for what an operator does with that tool. Would the results have been any different had that 18 year old gone into that school with a sledge hammer, locked the doors and started beating those kids to death? Maybe a machete or any other tool? Yeah, a gun would make it less effortless but, not necessarily different.

I see this more as a cultural issue, one of personal responsibility. We live in a society where many have become dependent on someone else taking care of them, protecting them from the Big Bad Wolf. We seem to forget that when "we" need the Police because danger is only seconds away that (if we're lucky) LEOs are only a few minutes away.
I don't care where one calls home, there are bad mentally deficient people out there that think they can do whatever they want without personal responsibility.

IMHO, there are three kinds of people, Sheep, Sheep Dogs and Wolves. Pick your role. I may die trying but, I'm definitely not going to be a sheep and will do my utmost to protect my flock. Taking away my tools to protect the Sheep only makes me another casualty.

IMHO, Liberals are at the heart of the issue, they don't believe in being accountable for Personal Responsibility. They want and expect Big Brother to protect and provide for them. They are pretty much all sheep. But, that's just my opinion.

Anyone that thinks an AR15 is a weapon of Mass Destruction is obviously not thinking about what a weapon of Mass Destruction really is. Yes, in a soft target arena, such a weapon can do great harm but, only in that soft target arena. There are much more efficient methods/weapons available if, one thinks about it. But, we can always put up signs saying such soft targets are No Gun Allowed spaces. Yeah, that's proven to be a real deterrent.

Rams
Hudini MAY 26, 07:18 AM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:

IMHO, Liberals are at the heart of the issue, they don't believe in being accountable for Personal Responsibility. They want and expect Big Brother to protect and provide for them. They are pretty much all sheep. But, that's just my opinion.

<snip>
Rams



Agreed 100%, I would rather live in dangerous freedom than safe slavery.
82-T/A [At Work] MAY 26, 07:58 AM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

I am reconciled to all of that. Maybe there are other age thresholds that would best be raised. If we have to improve everything else before we improve the "firearms thing"—that's a FAIL. A "Swing and a Miss", as San Francisco Giants TV broadcaster Duane Kuiper likes to say.





I think there's a lot more to this.

First, I'd want to know if mass casualty events have increased... per capita that is. Not just that more people are dying, but is the frequency increasing beyond that of the population? The U.S. Population is now 340 million, give or take. About 30 years ago (1992)... it was 250 million. So, we've had explosive growth since then. The question I would ask then is... has the frequency increased MORE than the population has? If so... then something has changed... and we need to figure out what that is. If the frequency has increased along with the growth of the population on a linear curve, then nothing has changed.

Second, if we do think something has changed, what is it? Is it social media influence? Is it the family unit that's broken down (adults no longer parenting their children), is it the Government's influences, politics, and the 24/7 news cycle? When I was a kid, I didn't much care for politics, news, or any of that. I assume most kids are like that today, but maybe this stuff is so pervasive now? I don't know.


Being unscientific here... I am inclined to believe that a lot of this has to do with social media. I know that even as adults (on here), we say a lot of things to each other in a way that we might not actually say to someone's face. Whether we are bigger, smaller, or whatever... there's no filter when you're communicating digitally. As a group in person, we generally are more reserved and observe behavior and more conscious of how e behave. Kids can generally be pretty cruel to each other. Growing up, I was 6'2" by the time I graduated from high school. If anyone made fun of me, I just beat them up. But not all kids have that luxury, and many kids can't look past high school... so they are really affected by the things they see on social media... something that didn't exist when I was in high school.


So... would an aged-21 law actually do something? I'm skeptical. It has some common sense... we don't let kids drink. I think maybe the problem is parenting... I also think kids are forced to grow up too quickly regarding adult content and decisions, yet at the same time they aren't actually expected to do adult things (get a job, get their own apartment, etc.)



quote
Originally posted by randye:

You missed my point Todd.

If you believe that 21 years of age is a good rationale for an age restriction on buying and owning a firearm then that same rationale is obviously good for all the other things I noted.

That is precisely why I asked you to "reconcile" those things with your "approval" of the "21" bill, (a legislation which I believe is nonsense).

Beyond this arbitrary 21 age limit issue, Leftists LOVE to immediately try to capitalize on a tragedy for their own political gain and the introduction of legislation like that within mere hours after a tragedy is low, crass and despicable and shows them for just what they are.



I think you're being a bit aggressive with the term "approval" here, I'm only saying that I'm not in complete disagreement with it. That does not mean that I've just signed up to be a Communist and am now a card carrying member. It only means that I'm evaluating whether or not the law makes sense.

I try to be libertarian on a lot of these things, where the Government should have the least amount of involvement possible. But if you're asking me to reconcile things like gambling, drinking, smoking, and driving... I will say that in every one of those cases, the younger you are, the more likely you are to make a bad decision. That's the reason why people eventually passed laws to restrict them. Most of the deaths in vehicle accidents are caused by kids speeding, and / or drinking. Most of the drinking deaths at parties, or drunk driving, are caused by teens. I mean, if you're asking me to justify those laws, and apply that same justification to gun ownership... I can easily do that. Doesn't mean I like it... I think parents need to parent better. I also think to some extent that I believe people should just have free will... but it becomes a problem when others lives are involved.


All of that said, I recognize that the only TRUE reason why Democrats want stricter gun laws is not because they care about kids and school shootings, it's because they see gun ownership as the biggest hurdle against an authoritarian take-over of the U.S. Government, which in itself is the biggest hurdle against a one-world government. Democrat POLITICIANS (I should say), and probably a lot of their constituents, want guns gone so the Government is free to enact laws that they please, without the threat of the government being "righted."
82-T/A [At Work] MAY 26, 08:05 AM

quote
Originally posted by Patrick:

Is there another country on the face of the earth that requires armed guards and/or armed teachers in their elementary schools?

If not (and I suspect there isn't), what is the root of the problem within the US?




I had to respond to this because it's so wildly obtuse.

Yes... almost every country in Central America. I used to work for the Federal government, and I traveled by armored vehicle through much of Honduras, Guatemala, etc. Nearly every restaurant, school, university, bank (when you could find one), shopping mall, etc., had people with shotguns standing at every entrance, and in the parking lot. These were hired men to protect the people inside the stores and restaurants. You also see this in some parts of the Caribbean and South America as well. Of course, this is also very prevalent throughout Africa, and Asia.

I'm not trying to be mean, but have you ever traveled outside of Canada? This is a real question.
williegoat MAY 26, 08:45 AM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:

I had to respond to this because it's so wildly obtuse.


I brought up the rampant violence Mexico, I brought up the massacre of children in Norway, I brought up the worst school shooting in history in Russia. Patrick would rather insult an entire country than have a civil discussion about the facts.
I am fed up with leftists who choose to exacerbate the problem. I understand that they seek only to destroy the greatest nation the world has ever seen and I detest anyone who has that goal.

Yeah, I am pissed. If you cannot or will not help, get out of my face.
olejoedad MAY 26, 08:51 AM
This proposed bill is akin to the teacher putting the whole class into detention because one person misbehaved.
Restricting the rights of a class of people due to the actions of a few is not the way our nation works.

As an aside, when I was young, there was a push for 18 year olds to be able to vote, pushed along by the Democratic party. Interesting how things cycle around.

This is another attempt to weaken the Rights of the People.

After Sandy Hook, a prominent civil rights organization provided technical expertise to school systems free of charge on methods to improve security and harden the schools against attack. The organization was villified for suggesting the idea. Some schools took advantage of the program and were impressed with the advice provided.

Sadly too many schools failed to investigate and implement actions to protect the people that they are responsible for. And over time, have gotten lax in following protocols put in place after other attacks on schools that followed the insanity of Sandy Hook.

Where is the call from lawmakers for protecting the children that are in government buildings? Where is the legislation to fund protective measures? It didn't take Democratic leadership very long to spend millions of dollars to surround 'the People's House' with fences and barbwire after the 'insurrection' of January 6.

I suppose that we should remember that this is the party that screams about the senseless death of children and restricts rights, and promotes the senseless death of the unborn to protect rights.

Does anyone else see this contradiction of logic?

[This message has been edited by olejoedad (edited 05-26-2022).]

rinselberg MAY 26, 09:55 AM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:
Would the results have been any different had that 18 year old gone into that school with a sledge hammer, locked the doors and started beating those kids to death? Maybe a machete or any other tool? Yeah, a gun would make it less effortless but, not necessarily different.



EXCERPT

quote
When the attacker crashed the truck, it prompted a 911 call from a resident who added that the driver apparently had a rifle, said Travis Considine, spokesman for the Texas Department of Public Safety. The gunman encountered a school police officer and “they exchange gunfire,” Considine said, with the shooter wounding the officer and heading inside.

The side entrance to the school should have been locked, but it was unclear whether it was or if Ramos forced it open.

Two Uvalde police officers then showed up, Considine said, and tried to get inside, exchanging more gunfire with Ramos. Both officers were wounded, he said. The attacker then went to a fourth-grade classroom, where he barricaded himself in and “does most, if not all, of his damage.” A Border Patrol team responded to the scene, as did other law enforcement officials, who “were breaking windows and getting kids out,” Considine said.


"A grisly checklist and a sickening rampage: Inside the Uvalde massacre"
Arelis R. Hernández, Hannah Allam, Razzan Nakhlawi and Joanna Slater for the Washington Post; May 25, 2022.
https://www.washingtonpost....lde-school-shooting/

According to this account, the exceptionally well armed perp, who had an AR-15 style semiautomatic rifle with "plus-sized" magazines (and lots of them in the ammo vest that he was wearing) exchanged gunfire with police and inflicted gunfire wounds on three police officers who tried to stop him, before he was able to embark on his mass murder spree of children and teachers inside the school building.

As a longtime "Rams reader", I know that he served in this nation's armed forces.

Would his commanding officers have been OK with it if Rams had deliberately opted to arm himself with just a knife, sledge hammer, machete, or some other tool--all his own words here--instead of the Vietnam-era M14 rifle that U.S. Army and Marine Corps infantrymen were commonly equipped with during combat operations?

I know he was a helicopter pilot, but he can put himself in the place of the "grunts" that he was transporting, or otherwise supporting with his helicopter. Had Rams been an infantryman, instead of a helicopter pilot.

By juxtaposing these comments from Rams with the account of this Texas elementary school atrocity, I hope to invite "rinselberg readers" to contemplate the sagacity of Ram's remarks.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-26-2022).]