[RD] Florida School Shooting

[Hrothbern]

4th deadliest school shooting and not a single thread!

Is it still news ?

And Trump ofc does not put the finger on the trigger, on the gun, but blames the schools that they should more adequately report mentally ill to the authorities.
Meanwhile gun manufacturer Remington has asked for chapter 11 to offload 700 Mio of her 950 Mio debt, because of less sales, because the US citizens are assured the gun laws will not change
Perhaps Remington should start to manufacture bullet proof school bags.... seems to be an emerging business...

 

[Lexicus]

Turns out Cruz was apparently a member of a Nazi paramilitary group that wants to turn Florida into a white ethnostate. I can't wait for the usual suspects to start asking "what about the antifas!"

 

[Berzerker]

another mass murderer who enjoyed killing animals

 

[Skwink]

gee I sure hope I don't get murked at college tomorrow

 

[Berzerker]

Rachel Maddow did a segment on activists for the Americans with Disabilities Act being arrested for disrupting Congress lamenting how their rights were under attack. She followed that segment with another in which she joined the chorus of people who want to deny the mentally ill their gun rights because of the Florida shootings.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Depends on type of 'disability', no? I mean if this is about mental illness, some mental illnesses are not scientifically tied to violence or recklessness, in which case it makes no sense to have different laws re guns for those people. Other mental illnesses are tied to violence, which is why in many countries (here too) if you are getting a gun (hunting rifle only, here) you must be evaluated by a psychiatrist.
If this is about people with very low IQ, yes, i don't think it would be a good idea to give them guns.

 

[Hrothbern]

Preventing people with a mental illness to purchase a gun will not be enough if any guns allready purchased by that person before he was declared mentally ill are not taken away

 

[Birdjaguar]

Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people. Every nation should be allowed to have nuclear weapons; in fact, the more nukes we have the safer we will all be. And per the very first piece of legislation signed by The Donald in January 2017, the mentally ill should not be restricted from having access to nuclear weapons.

 

[Lexicus]

Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people. Every nation should be allowed to have nuclear weapons; in fact, the more nukes we have the safer we will all be. And per the very first piece of legislation signed by The Donald in January 2017, the mentally ill should not be restricted from having access to nuclear weapons.

The only way to stop a bad guy with a cigarette from giving you lung cancer is a good guy with a cigarette

 

[Chose]

Apparently the FBI had been contacted multiple times about the shooter. Once by a YouTuber who received a comment "I'm going to be a professional school shooter" by a user of the same name as the shoot on one of his videos in September, and again by a close family member in January. Also, the police had responded to his house on 39 separate occasions over a 7 year period through 2016.

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/16/politics/parkland-shooting-fbi-tipster/index.html

I'm all for stricter gun laws and better enforcement of them, limiting magazine size and getting rid of AR-15 style assault rifles is a fine start. Reducing the amount of damage a mentally disturbed kid can do would be good. But the problem is that these mass shooting are a tiny fraction of gun related deaths in the US, the vast majority, I believe over 99%, are not with assault rifles, so this doesn't really even begin to address the root of the problem.

In this case we have the disturbing failure of the police and FBI to properly address the situation, we have the shooter being cleared by his therapist according to FoxNews, and another kid with a disturbing home life on medication.

Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people. Every nation should be allowed to have nuclear weapons; in fact, the more nukes we have the safer we will all be. And per the very first piece of legislation signed by The Donald in January 2017, the mentally ill should not be restricted from having access to nuclear weapons.

This doesn't really help in deciding where the line should be. Pro-gun people could, and do, point out that common anti-gun arguments could also be applied to knives. It's actually not very helpful and mostly missing the real issue. Most people agree about the everything except the stuff in the middle.

knifes(Cars?)->hunting rifle(Trucks?)->handgun-> semiautomatic assault rifle->automatic->tank->nuclear weapon

The question is where the line is and why. Banning semiautomatic assault weapons doesn't really address the root of the gun problem, although I'm all for advocating this (not with references to nuclear weapons though) and it would be a start to reducing mass-shooting related death. However, the way bigger problem is handguns and it doesn't seem realistic as of yet to ban them, and could probably result in a very dangerous backlash. Plus we already have over 300,000,000 guns and there is a big question of what to do with them. This is what I think we should be talking about.

 

[Lexicus]

I'm all for stricter gun laws and better enforcement of them, limiting magazine size and getting rid of AR-15 style assault rifles is a fine start. Reducing the amount of damage a mentally disturbed kid can do would be good. But the problem is that these mass shooting are a tiny fraction of gun related deaths in the US, the vast majority, I believe over 99%, are not with assault rifles, so this doesn't really even begin to address the root of the problem.

This is exactly correct. Only by seriously cutting down private gun ownership do we have a hope of seriously cutting down gun violence.

Pro-gun people could, and do, point out that common anti-gun arguments could also be applied to knives.

This is specious nonsense though, because knives are simply not as dangerous as guns. And knives (and cars and trucks) provide a lot of utility beyond killing people, much, much, much, much more than guns do (though I know that the sole purpose of all guns is not to kill people, that is the sole purpose of the majority of guns).

 

[Synobun]

This doesn't really help in deciding where the line should be. Pro-gun people could, and do, point out that common anti-gun arguments could also be applied to knives. It's actually not very helpful and mostly missing the real issue. Most people agree about the everything except the stuff in the middle.

The question is where the line is and why. Banning semiautomatic assault weapons doesn't really address the root of the gun problem, although I'm all for advocating this (not with references to nuclear weapons though) and it would be a start to reducing mass-shooting related death. However, the way bigger problem is handguns and it doesn't seem realistic as of yet to ban them, and could probably result in a very dangerous backlash. Plus we already have over 300,000 guns and there is a big question of what to do with them. This is what I think we should be talking about.

@Lexicus just beat me to the punch. The capacity for mass killings is severely limited with knives and hunting rifles. You don't solve the underlying issues but while you're tackling them you are, at the very least, reducing the body count by a significant degree.

Which is important, I think. Less people dying seems neat.

 

[Chose]

@Lexicus just beat me to the punch. The capacity for mass killings is severely limited with knives and hunting rifles. You don't solve the underlying issues but while you're tackling them you are, at the very least, reducing the body count by a significant degree.

Which is important, I think. Less people dying seems neat.

Yes I agree. I hope that was clear in my post... "and it would be a start to reducing mass-shooting related death".

 

[Lexicus]

This whole "what about knives though, are you going to ban those too?!?!?!?!?!?!!" thing is just patently absurd. Clearly, knives are just as dangerous as guns, which is why knives and swords are the primary infantry weapon issued by every major country's military? It's why the introduction of firearms had no real effect on the evolution of military tactics, equipment etc?

Here's an illustration. One time I was using a knife to cut carrots and had an accident. I cut my finger fairly bad, not quite badly enough to need a stitch. So that's what happens with most knife accidents. You might need some stitches. Worst-case scenario you might cut a big artery and die. It probably happens once in a while.

My dad remembers a kid he went to elementary school with. This was 50+ years ago. The kid and his friend were playing with dad's shotgun, and had an accident. He blew his friend's head off. My dad never saw the kid who did that again.

 

[Chose]

This is specious nonsense though, because knives are simply not as dangerous as guns. And knives (and cars and trucks) provide a lot of utility beyond killing people, much, much, much, much more than guns do (though I know that the sole purpose of all guns is not to kill people, that is the sole purpose of the majority of guns).

Right. My point is nuclear weapons are as far from guns as knives are, they are both attempts to "expose" a flaw in someone's reasoning, but I think they just miss the point.

 

[Lexicus]

Right. My point is nuclear weapons are as far from guns as knives are, they are both attempts to "expose" a flaw in someone's reasoning, but I think they just miss the point.

I believe that nuclear weapons should be legal for recreational purposes

 

[Chose]

I believe that nuclear weapons should be legal for recreational purposes

That is ridiculous. I think they should only be legal if used for hunting for food.

 

[Berzerker]

he's coming right for us, Ned!

 

[Birdjaguar]

The easiest solution to the gun problem is to allow all the guns we do now, but require every gun be registered to an owner. Then by law make every owner responsible for any crime or accident committed with one of their guns. You loan a gun to a friend and he kills someone, you both are equally responsible. Your kid takes one of your guns and shoots up a school, you are held equally responsible. This would make every gun owner legally responsible for any act involving their guns. If a gun is stolen, you better report it to the police and get your name off as current owner. If you have stupid, crazy kids, you better keep those guns locked up. If you give a gun to someone, you better legally transfer ownership. As a gun owner you become legally responsible for your guns. Guns without owners get destroyed. It won't solve all the problems, but it will send a wake up call to gun owners that they need to do a better job of controlling the guns they own. It would be a great state referendum to get it started or even a federal law. Negligence with your firearms becomes seriously criminal.

 

[Marla_Singer]

@Birdjaguar, this is not just a problem of responsibility. Your idea sounds intellectually clear but the truth is just that the more there are guns around, the more there will be gun-related deaths around. It's as simple as that.

As long as people will hide themselves from that reality and propose stupid ideas like arming school teachers with assault rifles, things can only go worse and worse.