School Shooting in Parkland, Florida

BorneTobyWilde

No way to stop it, probably measures that could be taken to offer some warning to schools though. Someone saw him before he entered grounds of school, before he was even in the area. Someone saw him on grounds, someone saw him enter school,someone saw him in the school. All those people walked away, they had no way to sound the alarm.
You have fire alarms every few feet, well maybe about time there was an active shooter alarm every few feet in school, and on grounds, and first person who sees him can smash it and raise alarm.

yermandan

Jim Bob Scratcher wrote: »

Here's the suspect

https://www.thedailybeast.com/nick-cruz-parkland-florida-shooting-stoneman-douglas-high-school

“Most kids ignored him at school. They pushed him off to the side as if he was garbage.”

“He was definitely not accepted at our school socially. People saw him as someone who was different than the normal people at our school,”

‘’Douglas High has a place students call “the Emo Gazebo,” he said. “That’s where all the kids that are considered weird or not accepted sat. Kids at the Emo Gazebo didn’t even accept him there. He was just an outcast...He didn’t have any friends.”

“I could tell he tried to be social at times but there was something off about him,” she said. “I never really saw him with many people. Girls thought he was creepy and weird. He was pretty pale with red hair. I didn’t talk to him that much, but from what I could tell he wasn’t a nice kid. He wore a lot of black and was always alone’’

BorneTobyWilde

yermandan wrote: »

“Most kids ignored him at school. They pushed him off to the side as if he was garbage.”

“He was definitely not accepted at our school socially. People saw him as someone who was different than the normal people at our school,”

‘’Douglas High has a place students call “the Emo Gazebo,” he said. “That’s where all the kids that are considered weird or not accepted sat. Kids at the Emo Gazebo didn’t even accept him there. He was just an outcast...He didn’t have any friends.”

“I could tell he tried to be social at times but there was something off about him,” she said. “I never really saw him with many people. Girls thought he was creepy and weird. He was pretty pale with red hair. I didn’t talk to him that much, but from what I could tell he wasn’t a nice kid. He wore a lot of black and was always alone’’

It's basically what popular kids say about every other kid in school. They love the attention, they will be the ones talking to media and painting the picture for the world to see.

Berserker

141_Oscar_Mike wrote: »

Most common question i'm seeing on Twitter this morning "What did Obama do in 8 years?"

Trumpies are just on another level of thick.

It's not just "trumphies". Lots of Americans ask the same question. I know that Obama is a much loved character in this part of the world but plenty of people in the USA think that he was a massive disappointment. He talked the talk and a lot of that talk was of a socialist nature, which just doesn't wash with a lot of folk in the USA. He's part of the reason why Trump is in power now!

The Backwards Man

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

No way to stop it, probably measures that could be taken to offer some warning to schools though. Someone saw him before he entered grounds of school, before he was even in the area. Someone saw him on grounds, someone saw him enter school,someone saw him in the school.

Someone sold him a semi automatic rifle.

Jimbob1977

This should transcend party politics

Yes, Republicans seem beholden to the gun industry.

However, the murder capitals of America (Chicago, Washington, LA, New Orleans, etc) are heavily Democrat. Most gang bangers would vote Democrat, if they voted at all.

ThinkProgress

Berserker wrote: »

It's not just "trumphies". Lots of Americans ask the same question. I know that Obama is a much loved character in this part of the world but plenty of people in the USA think that he was a massive disappointment. He talked the talk and a lot of that talk was of a socialist nature, which just doesn't wash with a lot of folk in the USA. He's part of the reason why Trump is in power now!

Yep, he was a disappointment overall... His main legacy will be "the first ever black US president" - but unfortunately not much more than that!

Just like Hilary would very likely have gone down in history, as the "first ever female US president" and not much more either!

Our own Leo is playing out a similar role in this country...

This is what you get, when you hire unexceptional candidates into roles, for the wrong reasons... disappointment... not really surprising tbh.

Jelle1880

People saying Obama was a disappointment are only following the **** the Republicans say.

The economic growth alone is proof he did a decent job. Same as with Bill Clinton: Mostly known for the Lewinsky stuff these days and Republicans also hate him, but overall he did a good job.

everlast75

I thought this article was quite on the money... literally

BorneTobyWilde

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Someone sold him a semi automatic rifle.

That was legal, nothing one can ever do about that.

Jelle1880

everlast75 wrote: »

big picture

http://www.thoughtsandprayersthegame.com/

All those thoughts and prayers surely will help.

Christy42

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Yep, he was a disappointment overall... His main legacy will be "the first ever black US president" - but unfortunately not much more than that!

Just like Hilary would very likely have gone down in history, as the "first ever female US president" and not much more either!

Our own Leo is playing out a similar role in this country...

This is what you get, when you hire unexceptional candidates into roles, for the wrong reasons... disappointment... not really surprising tbh.

Obamacare will be his legacy. It is a pretty great one too given its most die hard retractors refused to get rid of it when they had the power to do so (see healthcare vote).

Obama was insanely qualified unlike Trump and made repeated attempts to address this issue. He did fail but I fail to see how going with the people who have been bought and paid for by the people making money off of incidents like the school shooting is going to solve anything (see increase in gun sales after mass shootings).

Billy86

As expected, according to Florida government or Rick Scott this is not the time nor place to discuss gun control or mental health.

Hector Savage

Not a parody account either

https://twitter.com/ConservaMomUSA/status/963962698387124224

FatherTed

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Here's a great idea America, vote in a democrat who will change all of the gun laws like say i dunno Obama or Clinton. Oh wait a minut....

Sure because Presidents write the laws of the United States :rolleyes:

FatherTed

Berserker wrote: »

It's not just "trumphies". Lots of Americans ask the same question. I know that Obama is a much loved character in this part of the world but plenty of people in the USA think that he was a massive disappointment. He talked the talk and a lot of that talk was of a socialist nature, which just doesn't wash with a lot of folk in the USA. He's part of the reason why Trump is in power now!

That's your opinion. Mine is different. I think he was a great president and accomplished a lot considering what he had to put up with the Republicans in congress. Day 1 of Obama's presidency Mitch McConnell actually said their sole purpose was to make him fail and be a one term president. It didn't matter that the US economy crashed a few months before such was their hate for him. Anyways he was a lot better than the stooge before him and the treasonous racist we have now.

captbarnacles

Berserker wrote: »

It's not just "trumphies". Lots of Americans ask the same question. I know that Obama is a much loved character in this part of the world but plenty of people in the USA think that he was a massive disappointment. He talked the talk and a lot of that talk was of a socialist nature, which just doesn't wash with a lot of folk in the USA. He's part of the reason why Trump is in power now!

Eh...Obama was elected twice? and has a high approval rating right now?

Do you believe the voters who elected Trump were disappointed Obama voters? They weren't.

captbarnacles

FatherTed wrote: »

That's your opinion. Mine is different. I think he was a great president and accomplished a lot considering what he had to put up with the Republicans in congress. Day 1 of Obama's presidency Mitch McConnell actually said their sole purpose was to make him fail and be a one term president. It didn't matter that the US economy crashed a few months before such was their hate for him. Anyways he was a lot better than the stooge before him and the treasonous racist we have now.

Not least steering them out of the financial crisis.

LostinKildare

For those of you taking a pop at Obama, he wasn't able to push gun control legislation through Congress but he did implement a number of executive actions, summarised here:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jan/06/congress-blocked-obama-call-gun-control-mass-shoot/

including one aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of severely mentally disturbed persons.

It was reversed as soon as Trump came into office -- overturned by Congress on a party-line vote and signed by the new president almost exactly a year ago.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/28/politics/guns-mental-health-rule/

EDIT: I would have posted video of Trump signing the bill revoking the Obama-era gun checks for people with severe mental illness but guess what? The media was barrred from covering it, and so there is no video. Shameful.

Snickers Man

God contemplates a response to all those "thoughts and prayers".

pilly

141_Oscar_Mike wrote: »

Most common question i'm seeing on Twitter this morning "What did Obama do in 8 years?"

Trumpies are just on another level of thick.

It's a fair question though, one I did think of this morning. If he couldn't make a change I think there's little hope for the Americans really.

tabby aspreme

I would think the greatest concern for the NRA this week is, America's favorite gun maker Remington, has filed for bankruptcy, 900 million in debt.
Another school shooting is just a minor inconvenience for the NRA.

LostinKildare

They should also be worried about the FBI investigation into whether Russian oligarchs illegally funneled campaign contributions through the NRA in 2016 to help elect Trump, whom the NRA supported with $30 million in advertising.

Manic Moran

pilly wrote: »

And what do these lovely people say when children are killed because of them defending their right to bear arms?

You could always try asking directly (As long as you're willing to accept the time zone delay on responses). Some of us are on here.

Here's my problem. As one of the few representatives of that demographic on Boards, I fight my little outnumbered corner. Every time one of these threads pops up, I post fairly lengthy observations on what I believe can be done and should be done. Go look up my comments in the two threads on the Vegas shooting (one in AH, one in Politics) for most recent examples. However, since I do not subscribe to the Boards groupthink on the issue, and do not use the word 'ban' or 'prohibit' with anywhere near as much abandon, it seems I am generally ignored or considered irrelevant. This despite the fact that as a firearms owner, (and one in a State which has attempted to place some of the strictest restrictions on firearms), I am probably better aware than most on here on both the firearms in question and the difficulty (both technical and political) in passing law or regulation which will have meaningful effect.

Instead, what I see are pages upon pages of people coming in making blithe comments. I am apparently referred to as 'weirdo', a 'lovely person', a 'nut', and doubtless a few other epithets I missed in my scrolling of this thread. Perhaps small wonder that many people tend not to engage in discussion if that's the opinion. Folks will come in, do a drive-by posting of whatever sound-bite seems applicable, and often leave without waiting to see if that sound-bite will be challenged. The amount of times that I have expressed a concern with magazine limits, or the idea that "Trump allowed severely mentally ill people to get guns" is such that I've all but given up attempting to educate people. They won't listen. I can accept if they listen and disagree. But they won't get that far. I'm a nut, remember, why bother?

Thankfully, this is not the entirety of Boardsies. There are a few people on here whose opinion diametrically opposes mine, yet actually do engage me with civility and thought. We're not going to ever see entirely eye to eye, but at least we understand where the other is coming from. We acknowledge the pros and cons of both sides of each others' arguments. Unlike the majority who prefer to tar with a broad brush, and attack a very nasty and difficult problem with the greatest superficiality.

America's favorite gun maker Remington

If it were America's favorite gun maker, they wouldn't be filing for bankruptcy. Have you seen their catalogue? Compare it to the catalogue from twenty or thirty years ago. They have failed to adapt to the market, and are suffering the consequences of any other company which does that. Further, their quality control has also taken a very nasty hit, which has also affected sales.

pilly

Manic Moran wrote: »

You could always try asking directly (As long as you're willing to accept the time zone delay on responses). Some of us are on here.

Here's my problem. As one of the few representatives of that demographic on Boards, I fight my little outnumbered corner. Every time one of these threads pops up, I post fairly lengthy observations on what I believe can be done and should be done. Go look up my comments in the two threads on the Vegas shooting (one in AH, one in Politics) for most recent examples. However, since I do not subscribe to the Boards groupthink on the issue, and do not use the word 'ban' or 'prohibit' with anywhere near as much abandon, it seems I am generally ignored or considered irrelevant. This despite the fact that as a firearms owner, (and one in a State which has attempted to place some of the strictest restrictions on firearms), I am probably better aware than most on here on both the firearms in question and the difficulty (both technical and political) in passing law or regulation which will have meaningful effect.

Instead, what I see are pages upon pages of people coming in making blithe comments. I am apparently referred to as 'weirdo', a 'lovely person', a 'nut', and doubtless a few other epithets I missed in my scrolling of this thread. Perhaps small wonder that many people tend not to engage in discussion if that's the opinion. Folks will come in, do a drive-by posting of whatever sound-bite seems applicable, and often leave without waiting to see if that sound-bite will be challenged. The amount of times that I have expressed a concern with magazine limits, or the idea that "Trump allowed severely mentally ill people to get guns" is such that I've all but given up attempting to educate people. They won't listen. I can accept if they listen and disagree. But they won't get that far. I'm a nut, remember, why bother?

Thankfully, this is not the entirety of Boardsies. There are a few people on here whose opinion diametrically opposes mine, yet actually do engage me with civility and thought. We're not going to ever see entirely eye to eye, but at least we understand where the other is coming from. We acknowledge the pros and cons of both sides of each others' arguments. Unlike the majority who prefer to tar with a broad brush, and attack a very nasty and difficult problem with the greatest superficiality.



If it were America's favorite gun maker, they wouldn't be filing for bankruptcy. Have you seen their catalogue? Compare it to the catalogue from twenty or thirty years ago. They have failed to adapt to the market, and are suffering the consequences of any other company which does that.

I see where you're coming from AH tends to be for sound-bites to be honest so you're at a bit of a disadvantage as soon as you start posting paragraphs, people just skim over them.

But I'm willing to listen if you keep it short and non patronising.

Why do you think it's more important for you have a gun than it is to prevent a child being shot?

muppetshow1451

pilly wrote: »

I see where you're coming from AH tends to be for sound-bites to be honest so you're at a bit of a disadvantage as soon as you start posting paragraphs, people just skim over them.

But I'm willing to listen if you keep it short and non patronising.

Why do you think it's more important for you have a gun than it is to prevent a child being shot?

Remember its not the gun but the person behind it that pulls the trigger.
As seen in the last 5 years during terrorattacks in Europe,if they dont get access to firearms ,they use trucks or knives,hammers etc.
So if they are obsessed by killing,then they will find other means.

pilly

muppetshow1451 wrote: »

Remember its not the gun but the person behind it that pulls the trigger.
As seen in the last 5 years during terrorattacks in Europe,if they dont get access to firearms ,they use trucks or knives,hammers etc.
So if they are obsessed by killing,then they will find other means.

We're not talking about terror attacks here though are we?

Besides, I'd still rather take my chances against someone with a knife or hammer than a machine gun thanks.

LostinKildare

Manic Moran wrote: »

The amount of times that I have expressed a concern with magazine limits, or the idea that "Trump allowed severely mentally ill people to get guns" is such that I've all but given up attempting to educate people.

Is this aimed at me? It's not a fanciful "idea" I had, it is a fact that Trump signed on 28 February 2017 the repeal of an Obama policy that was meant to (potentially) restrict gun sales to approximately 75,000 persons who have been identified as suffering from "severe mental impairment."

Possibly it's the condescension that drips from your post that keeps others from engaging with you.

Manic Moran

pilly wrote: »

But I'm willing to listen if you keep it short and non patronising.

Again, look over my past responses. I am rarely short, granted, but I do try not to be patronising. I suspect such doesn't exactly win over people in argument as reasoned arguments do. My problem is I attempt, in general, to back up those arguments, which is why they are not usually short.

Why do you think it's more important for you have a gun than it is to prevent a child being shot?

I don't.

Counter-questions.

1) Why must it be a mutually exclusive proposition? Is it possible that we can both retain firearms ownership and reduce the shooting of children? After all, it was within my lifetime that mass school shootings simply did not exist, and kids brought their own guns to school so they could go shooting with their friends after class. This seems evidence that the ability for people (even children) to have firearms does not necessarily equate with children getting shot.

2) I have a child of my own (In four months, I'll have a second one). Their safety is my most important duty as a father, and one of the tools for the safety of my family in our house is a firearm. I cannot affect what happens outside of my presence. I can affect what happens inside my house or my vicinity and I will take advantage of every tool at my disposal to do so. I'm an older chap, by the time my latest will be 18 and able to take some care of his/herself, I'll be 60. No way in hell I'm winning hand-to-hand at that age. Is the protection of my family less important than the protection of someone else's family, even before taking into account any other measures which could be taken to reduce the impact of school shootings?

Manic Moran

LostinKildare wrote: »

Is this aimed at me? It's not a fanciful "idea" I had, it is a fact that Trump signed on 28 February 2017 the repeal of an Obama policy that was meant to (potentially) restrict gun sales to approximately 75,000 persons who have been identified as suffering from "severe mental impairment."

Amongst others, yes.

The ACLU is not a pro-gun organisation. They supported the repeal, because what the policy claimed to do was not what it actually did.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/disability-rights/gun-control-laws-should-be-fair

But gun control laws, like any law, should be fair, effective and not based on prejudice or stereotype. This rule met none of those criteria.

Chrongen

Panjandrums wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There's always one who comes out with the retarded "cars kill people, let's ban all cars"

You can't argue with this level of stupidity.

Harry Palmr

Anyone in Congress think enough school children have died yet this year?

pilly

Manic Moran wrote: »

Again, look over my past responses. I am rarely short, granted, but I do try not to be patronising. I suspect such doesn't exactly win over people in argument as reasoned arguments do. My problem is I attempt, in general, to back up those arguments, which is why they are not usually short.



I don't.

Counter-questions.

1) Why must it be a mutually exclusive proposition? Is it possible that we can both retain firearms ownership and reduce the shooting of children? After all, it was within my lifetime that mass school shootings simply did not exist, and kids brought their own guns to school so they could go shooting with their friends after class. This seems evidence that the ability for people (even children) to have firearms does not necessarily equate with children getting shot.

2) I have a child of my own (In four months, I'll have a second one). Their safety is my most important duty as a father, and one of the tools for the safety of my family in our house is a firearm. I cannot affect what happens outside of my presence. I can affect what happens inside my house or my vicinity and I will take advantage of every tool at my disposal to do so. I'm an older chap, by the time my latest will be 18 and able to take some care of his/herself, I'll be 60. No way in hell I'm winning hand-to-hand at that age. Is the protection of my family less important than the protection of someone else's family, even before taking into account any other measures which could be taken to reduce the impact of school shootings?

Well maybe you don't try to be patronising but I think the fact that two posters have now pointed out that your post came across that way may suggest that you need to amend your posting style.

Coming out with statements like "trying to educate people" (as if they're not educated) and accusing people of blithe statements and falsehoods is indeed patronising.

In answer to your questions:

1. I don't know how America has gotten to where it is but it's there now and the problem needs to be tackled.

2. No, the protection of your family alone is not more important than the greater good. If you're asking me to weigh it up, it's 1 child against 17 today alone, simple mathematics. Also, the vast majority of people in countries without widespread gun ownership manage to protect their children all the way to adulthood without the use of a gun. If you're really that paranoid about someone getting into your home and harming your children I would suggest a really good security system is a much preferable way of protecting them than subjecting them to seeing someone be killed in the home. Also, if you're truly that protective I don't believe that you feel you're only responsible for them whilst in your house. Why aren't you worried about what happens when they're in school?

Chrongen

TJ Mackie wrote: »

Media plays a big role.

Describing these scum as "deranged", "evil", "vile", "vicious" etc. along with all the coverage they get is actually glamorising being a shooter.

I think this is a fairly stupid argument. The shooters in these incidents either die by their own hand, get killed by the cops or get arrested. They never get to see a TV again or for a very long time after their work is done. So they aren't going to get to witness any kind of lionising.

FatherTed

Manic Moran wrote: »

Again, look over my past responses. I am rarely short, granted, but I do try not to be patronising. I suspect such doesn't exactly win over people in argument as reasoned arguments do. My problem is I attempt, in general, to back up those arguments, which is why they are not usually short.



I don't.

Counter-questions.

1) Why must it be a mutually exclusive proposition? Is it possible that we can both retain firearms ownership and reduce the shooting of children? After all, it was within my lifetime that mass school shootings simply did not exist, and kids brought their own guns to school so they could go shooting with their friends after class. This seems evidence that the ability for people (even children) to have firearms does not necessarily equate with children getting shot.

2) I have a child of my own (In four months, I'll have a second one). Their safety is my most important duty as a father, and one of the tools for the safety of my family in our house is a firearm. I cannot affect what happens outside of my presence. I can affect what happens inside my house or my vicinity and I will take advantage of every tool at my disposal to do so. I'm an older chap, by the time my latest will be 18 and able to take some care of his/herself, I'll be 60. No way in hell I'm winning hand-to-hand at that age. Is the protection of my family less important than the protection of someone else's family, even before taking into account any other measures which could be taken to reduce the impact of school shootings?

But do you really need to have a gun to protect your family? I live in the US as well. I don't have a gun to protect my wife and 3 kids. I just have a good security system, a loud dog and common sense. Nobody has ever tried to enter my home unwanted so I guess I've been just lucky, right? Oh yeah and the second amendment is a load of balls and should be repealed.

namloc1980

namloc1980 wrote: »

How long before the "mental illness" angle comes out?

BOOM!

pilly

Chrongen wrote: »

I think this is a fairly stupid argument. The shooters in these incidents either die by their own hand, get killed by the cops or get arrested. They never get to see a TV again or for a very long time after their work is done. So they aren't going to get to witness any kind of lionising.

I think the fact that you think prisoners in jail don't see TV is even more stupid? :eek:

circadian

Chrongen wrote: »

There's always one who comes out with the retarded "cars kill people, let's ban all cars"

You can't argue with this level of stupidity.

There's also 1.3 billion people in China so the statement doesn't even scale, if it were valid.

Chrongen

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

how and why given you said the sole purpose of a gun is to inflict harm or death?
Clearly it's not the sole purpose, so stop being obtuse about it.

He's not being obtuse, you're being fcuking petty and pedantic.

The sole purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile into a human or animal and kill then. Shooting at inanimate targets is just a method of perfecting one's aim.

Likewise the sole purpose of a fist is to punch someone. Punching a practice bag is for improving one's ability to effectively box the shit out of someone.

The hunting and self defence and sport angle is always trotted out by those who are petrified of change.

LostinKildare

Manic Moran wrote: »

Amongst others, yes.

The ACLU is not a pro-gun organisation. They supported the repeal, because what the policy claimed to do was not what it actually did.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/disability-rights/gun-control-laws-should-be-fair

But gun control laws, like any law, should be fair, effective and not based on prejudice or stereotype. This rule met none of those criteria.

Meh. While everyone's screaming MENTAL ILLNESS! MENTAL ILLNESS! have fun trotting out the ACLU's argument that severely mentally ill persons who cannot take care of themselves shouldn't be subjected to background checks when amassing firepower.

And if you're going to look to the ACLU for sustenance, keep in mind its well-known and long-standing view that the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms is primarily a collective right intended to allow the states to maintain militias (and it views this as an anachronism), not a individual right permitting individuals to own guns or other weapons.

Vic_08

Manic Moran wrote: »

1) Why must it be a mutually exclusive proposition? Is it possible that we can both retain firearms ownership and reduce the shooting of children? After all, it was within my lifetime that mass school shootings simply did not exist, and kids brought their own guns to school so they could go shooting with their friends after class. This seems evidence that the ability for people (even children) to have firearms does not necessarily equate with children getting shot.

Because human nature. Give people an easy way to kill others and some will use it.

Manic Moran wrote: »

2) I have a child of my own (In four months, I'll have a second one). Their safety is my most important duty as a father, and one of the tools for the safety of my family in our house is a firearm. I cannot affect what happens outside of my presence. I can affect what happens inside my house or my vicinity and I will take advantage of every tool at my disposal to do so. I'm an older chap, by the time my latest will be 18 and able to take some care of his/herself, I'll be 60. No way in hell I'm winning hand-to-hand at that age. Is the protection of my family less important than the protection of someone else's family, even before taking into account any other measures which could be taken to reduce the impact of school shootings?

All of this nonsense about needing guns to win a fight against an attacker is the problem. It is based on a ridiculous idea that there will be a chance to get your gun or have a fair fight in the first place.

Want to keep your kids safe? Best advice would be to emigrate to a country without mass gun ownership.

Rezident

Even if a US gun fanatic's whole family was killed in something like this, it wouldn't change their minds, it's as if their guns are now part of their identity, and identity is a powerful thing. This won't change a thing.

And they'll still tell you it's 'the greatest country in the world'! They still believe it too.

Kuva

News there had some of his friends say he was grand, neighbours say he was grand.

Apparently someone said, "I knew he'd do it"


He posted on YouTube under his own name that he was gonna shoot up a school but the FBI couldn't find him, haha.


How have the knob schools avoided this kind of thing?

Not that it'd change anything per second, family members of previous shoots said they wanted to keep their guns.

I wonder if their was a gun usage vote would it really be so clear cut.

Kuva

Rezident wrote: »

Even if a US gun fanatic's whole family was killed in something like this, it wouldn't change their minds, it's as if their guns are now part of their identity, and identity is a powerful thing. This won't change a thing.

And they'll still tell you it's 'the greatest country in the world'! They still believe it too.

I dunno, that's what the media are telling us.

Agricola

Politicians bought and paid for by the NRA/gun manufacturers. Profit more important than children's lives. A meglomanical sociopath sitting in the Oval office, talking about the problem of mental illness! - after he himself rolled back an Obama regulation to make it hard for the mentally ill to buy weapons. A sick sick society.

Kuva

Agricola wrote: »

Politicians bought and paid for by the NRA/gun manufacturers. Profit more important than children's lives. A meglomanical sociopath sitting in the Oval office, talking about the problem of mental illness! - after he himself rolled back an Obama regulation to make it hard for the mentally ill to buy weapons. A sick sick society.

Trying to roll back health care reform to allow insurance companies to drop people that claim to much aswell.

Billy86

Hector Savage wrote: »

Not a parody account either

https://twitter.com/ConservaMomUSA/status/963962698387124224

Actually this incident shows that unrealistic, childish, too-many-movies fantasy for what it really is... it has come out that the school had armed security.

And that's of course before getting to the point that he set off the fire alarm before opening fire in a hallway of crowded, panicked teens and teachers. Short of that James McEvoy film form 10 years back about bending gunshots to loop through different angles, we'd just have more dead. And that's if they could even see who was shooting amidst all the chaos.

It is remarkable how stupid that attitude is (though I know you're not supporting it!).

pjohnson

Billy86 wrote: »

Actually this incident shows that unrealistic, childish, too-many-movies fantasy for what it really is... it has come out that the school had armed security.

And that's of course before getting to the point that he set off the fire alarm before opening fire in a hallway of crowded, panicked teens and teachers. Short of that James McEvoy film form 10 years back about bending gunshots to loop through different angles, we'd just have more dead. And that's if they could even see who was shooting amidst all the chaos.

It is remarkable how stupid that attitude is (though I know you're not supporting it!).

This is the only solution America ever accepts. MORE guns. That'll protect us.

Wanderer78

pjohnson wrote: »

This is the only solution America ever accepts. MORE guns. That'll protect us.

dont be so stupid, its more 'good guys' with guns!

Manic Moran

pilly wrote: »

1. I don't know how America has gotten to where it is but it's there now and the problem needs to be tackled.

Agreed. But does/can the problem have to be tackled by banning guns? Or can it perhaps be tackled by other means more effectively, if perhaps with less fanfare?

2. No, the protection of your family alone is not more important than the greater good. If you're asking me to weigh it up, it's 1 child against 17 today alone, simple mathematics.

Is it only one child? Am I the only father to keep a firearm in the home for defensive purposes? And how about the various days where 17 children are not killed in one incident, but a firearm is used defensively?

Also, the vast majority of people in countries without widespread gun ownership manage to protect their children all the way to adulthood without the use of a gun.

Perhaps. However, they are not in the US, they don't have the US's societal problems leading to our own levels of criminal behaviour, and they don't already have some 300mil firearms in circulation which cannot be simply legislated into non-existence.

If you're really that paranoid about someone getting into your home and harming your children I would suggest a really good security system is a much preferable way of protecting them than subjecting them to seeing someone be killed in the home.

I would beg to differ. I have a good security system, with a sign posted on the outside that I have one. It has alarms on the entrances. It has internal motion sensors. It has a direct connection to a call center, which will get the police to my house in five minutes or less (We have a pretty responsive police force here). That's still five minutes I'm on my own. How much can happen in five minutes in a small house?

Someone suggested a large dog. Firstly, large dogs are expensive. Secondly, the wife is allergic, suitable dogs seem not really to exist. (Here's a list of hypoallergenic dog breeds. http://www.dogbreedslist.info/hypoallergenic-dog-breeds/#.WoXYxKinGUl Wife came with a yorkshire terrier). Thirdly, dogs are work and effort I don't want to put into it. A piece of metal which requires maintenance only every few months is far more sensible.

Also, if you're truly that protective I don't believe that you feel you're only responsible for them whilst in your house. Why aren't you worried about what happens when they're in school?

I am, and I am all for a sensible plan of action which reduces the chances of firearms injury at school. I have yet to see one proposed by our politicians which is both practicable and coherent, even before getting to the matter of whether or not I am permitted to personally own firearms. I believe the solution to be primarily sociological in the long term, which would help the kid's safety not just in school, but at the shopping mall, the cinema, coming home at night....

For example, should the first question be "Why does he have a gun?" or "Why does he think it would be a good idea to go kill a bunch of schoolkids?". Solving the latter question is probably going to be more beneficial than solving the former. Attempting to solve the former is simple in concept, but all but impossible in practice. Attempting to solve the latter is incredibly difficult in concept, but could be effective. Of course, the politicians go with the former.