Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mass shooting at Florida school

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
    I take it this means, in your opinion, that any kind of nationally co-ordinated approach is impossible?
    It won't happen nationally but some individual states might. California is a special case, the lawmakers here always react with knee-jerk reactions and add more and more anti-gun laws into the books.


    Looks like Trump decided to target bump stocks...again. Today he signed a memorandum directing the AG Jeff Sessions to propose regulations to ban all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns.




    .
    "Stand for the flag ~ Kneel for the fallen"

    "A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer." ~ Bruce Lee

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Persephone View Post
      It won't happen nationally but some individual states might. California is a special case, the lawmakers here always react with knee-jerk reactions and add more and more anti-gun laws into the books.


      Looks like Trump decided to target bump stocks...again. Today he signed a memorandum directing the AG Jeff Sessions to propose regulations to ban all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns.




      .
      Trump is a liberal in denial, and Republicans are just suckers. What about our mental health care system.

      I currently have a family member who is severely ill. She has been PECed more than two dozen times in less than two years. The financial burden caused by nearly daily police calls, ambulance visits, and trips to the ER has to be in excess of $50K.This cost has exploded since Obamacare came to Louisiana. She currently is facing criminal charges for striking a nurse, caused serious injury to myself.

      Despite ALL the above. This woman will not be committed on a long-term basis because at the core of every rejection is her civil rights. "Off the record though", the problem is a mental health care sham. Bobby Jindal dismantled the longterm mental health program reducing the number of beds to less than 100. Instead, we have more than a dozen crisis centers to handle short term commitments.

      I know another case where a man recently discharged from a "short term" hospital stabbed a baby to death. Yet, the judge and jury had no problem sentencing him to life in prison.

      I had great reservations about sharing my story here, but I feel compelled to tell it to some extent. We do need to visit our gun laws. Its too easy for people with severe mental problems to obtain firearms. However, this move by President Trump is just a ploy that makes no sense.

      Bump fire might make it easier to fire a weapon rapidly, but that isn't the only contributing factor. A more important factor is training and experience. Its the person holding the weapon that makes it deadly, not the weapon. The shooters in Las Vegas, Florida, and Dallas, all had training that made them lethal weapons.

      However, like Mental Health, restricting training and access to firearms based on mental health, is too dangerous. Its harder to get a driver's license than become qualified in CQC.

      But hey, at least Trump's not Hillary..........
      "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Deltapooh View Post
        Trump is a liberal in denial, and Republicans are just suckers. What about our mental health care system.

        I currently have a family member who is severely ill. She has been PECed more than two dozen times in less than two years. The financial burden caused by nearly daily police calls, ambulance visits, and trips to the ER has to be in excess of $50K.This cost has exploded since Obamacare came to Louisiana. She currently is facing criminal charges for striking a nurse, caused serious injury to myself.

        Despite ALL the above. This woman will not be committed on a long-term basis because at the core of every rejection is her civil rights. "Off the record though", the problem is a mental health care sham. Bobby Jindal dismantled the longterm mental health program reducing the number of beds to less than 100. Instead, we have more than a dozen crisis centers to handle short term commitments.

        I know another case where a man recently discharged from a "short term" hospital stabbed a baby to death. Yet, the judge and jury had no problem sentencing him to life in prison.

        I had great reservations about sharing my story here, but I feel compelled to tell it to some extent. We do need to visit our gun laws. Its too easy for people with severe mental problems to obtain firearms. However, this move by President Trump is just a ploy that makes no sense.

        Bump fire might make it easier to fire a weapon rapidly, but that isn't the only contributing factor. A more important factor is training and experience. Its the person holding the weapon that makes it deadly, not the weapon. The shooters in Las Vegas, Florida, and Dallas, all had training that made them lethal weapons.

        However, like Mental Health, restricting training and access to firearms based on mental health, is too dangerous. Its harder to get a driver's license than become qualified in CQC.

        But hey, at least Trump's not Hillary..........


        Thanks for sharing your story. It sounds eerily familiar...I also have a family member who have mental health issues. On top of that, she's an alcoholic. Fortunately she have low cost subsidized healthcare in California.

        Looks like Trump will try to tackle mental health...



        A stoic President Donald Trump pledged Thursday to address mental health and school safety following the latest shooting massacre at an American school.

        However, in a speech to reassure the nation, the president made no specific reference to guns or gun laws after the shooting in Parkland, Florida.

        "We are committed to working with state and local leaders to secure our schools and tackle the difficult issue of mental health," the president said.

        https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/15/trum...-shooting.html
        "Stand for the flag ~ Kneel for the fallen"

        "A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer." ~ Bruce Lee

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
          "The collective will is that we don't want it to change. ... "
          Yeah, that's part of what I meant; but also, maybe, that those who might have the will (on an individual basis) are neither numerous enough, nor powerful enough, to bring about the kinds of changes they'd like to see?


          Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
          " ... As to this specific incident, well, tens of thousands of schools, millions of students, and one shooting.

          These sort of incidents could be prevented by arming staff or hiring armed security, adding security doors to classrooms, and similar techniques which are in use in a few schools across the country, but school districts persist in 'it won't happen here'; and statistically, they are right: there are one or two school shootings a year amidst tens of thousands of schools. The odds are on the side of doing it on the cheap.

          Meanwhile a subject went amok with a machete at a central Texas flea market last year and was shot to death by two customers and a booth operator before he could hurt anyone; in San Antonio an armed robber in a fast food joint was killed by a customer (we had a thread on that one). Four to six times a day in the USA armed criminals and deranged individuals are stopped by ordinary citizens who are armed. Every day.

          The only mass shooters who make the news are those who choose a venue where they survive long enough to do their bloody work.

          The real answer is more guns, not less. Fewer laws, not more.
          I do understand your rationale.
          IMO, given what I've come to understand so far and what you have said, I think the only way fewer guns could work would be reduction on such a scale that Americans would never accept; therefore, not an answer.

          That said, I think perhaps there could still still be some benefit in making things like background checks more effective and/or more difficult to circumvent?
          Surely, there has to be something you guys can do?
          "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

          Comment


          • It does not help that greedy Trump anti Americans control our country. What a dump the USA is today, God please bring back the glory days of America.

            School shootings did not occur in the past as they do today.
            Long live the Lionheart! Please watch this video
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=jRDwlR4zbEM
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3DBaY0RsxU
            Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.

            George S Patton

            Comment


            • Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
              Yeah, that's part of what I meant; but also, maybe, that those who might have the will (on an individual basis) are neither numerous enough, nor powerful enough, to bring about the kinds of changes they'd like to see?
              The Bill of Rights and case law are in the way. They can nibble around the edges, but the core aspect of unfettered private ownership of firearms, is non-negotiable.

              And yes, they lack the numbers. Americans do not like to be told they cannot do something, even if they don't actually want to do it. A lot of pro-gun support comes from people who have never owned a firearm.

              But in the end, you need all of Congress, the POTUS, and a majority vote in 33 states to significantly impact gun ownership.


              Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
              I do understand your rationale.
              IMO, given what I've come to understand so far and what you have said, I think the only way fewer guns could work would be reduction on such a scale that Americans would never accept; therefore, not an answer.

              That said, I think perhaps there could still still be some benefit in making things like background checks more effective and/or more difficult to circumvent?
              Surely, there has to be something you guys can do?
              Yes: more guns, fewer laws. I am not joking.

              Screw background checks: it is no one's business when or what I purchase. Only three out of the thirty-plus firearms I own are traceable in any fashion, and that is no accident. The only reason three of them are is because I carried them on duty; even then they are in no database other than my agency, and probably not even there since I retired.

              Owning firearms is an inalienable right. The government has no authority to curtail it without due process. Not through background checks, or any other method. Read that part out loud.

              There will always be nutjobs out there. But 2-5 times a day, every day, a nutjob or criminal is stopped by an armed civilian. Take away the felon-on-felon killings, and our murder rate is low.

              We are not, as a nation, interested in changing the gun laws except to loosen them. The media can whine and the haters can posture, but when it comes to elections and votes on bills, the message comes through loud and clear.
              Last edited by Arnold J Rimmer; 20 Feb 18, 23:11.
              Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

              Comment


              • OK, AJR, I think I get nearly all of what you are saying.
                I ask for clarification on one point only:

                Do you support the right of ALL adult Americans, even if they have extensive criminal backgrounds - especially in crimes of violence - or have been diagnosed as clinically insane, or both?

                But then, I guess criminals will generally find ways to circumvent the law and any ID/background checks anyway; so perhaps I have just answered my own question in relation to those?

                I suppose that just leaves the clinically insane. What about those?
                Last edited by panther3485; 21 Feb 18, 05:43.
                "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
                  OK, AJR, I think I get nearly all of what you are saying.
                  I ask for clarification on one point only:

                  Do you support the right of ALL adult Americans, even if they have extensive criminal backgrounds - especially in crimes of violence - or have been diagnosed as clinically insane, or both?
                  The rules for criminal backgrounds vary from state to state, but generally a felon cannot possess a firearm for ten years after his sentence is completed. I support that situation, as it comes about after due process. I am also aware that it is largely ignored by the criminal community. The penalties carry zero deterrent.

                  Insanity as a removal of rights can only take place after due process; i.e., a trial. Being diagnosed is not a factor until a court weighs in. And getting a court to make such a ruling is extremely difficult, I know from repeaqted experience.

                  The Bill of Rights protects all rights unless set aside by due process, ie, a criminal or certain civil trials. I firmly support that as the only way any of our rights can circumvented. Because, in fact, that is the only way.

                  So yes, I support the Constitution of the United States.


                  Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
                  But then, I guess criminals will generally find ways to circumvent the law and any ID/background checks anyway; so perhaps I have just answered my own question in relation to those?

                  I suppose that just leaves the clinically insane. What about those?
                  Background checks impact less than half of legal weapons sales, and obviously no illegal sale. Decades of effort have established that there is no viable scheme to reduce criminal access to any sort of weapon.

                  As to the mentally ill, very few are a danger to anyone except themselves. Until a court rules otherwise, their rights are just as firmly entrenched in stone as mine or any other citizen's.

                  That is the key point: the right to unrestricted access to firearms is an inalienable right, not subject to any level of government's regulation. That is not subject to change. Any ban or restriction that gets put forth survives only until it reaches a higher court, in which case it goes down in flames.

                  In order to effect any meaningful change, you would have to alter the Constitution. That has happened only seventeen times in over two centuries. Other than the 13th, none of the new amendments have been of radical import, being mainly procedural.
                  Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                  Comment


                  • Thanks. +1
                    You've helped answer a good number of questions for me.
                    Some other members have been helpful too.
                    It's hard to feel any better about this issue but at least my understanding has improved a tad.

                    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                    The rules for criminal backgrounds vary from state to state, but generally a felon cannot possess a firearm for ten years after his sentence is completed. I support that situation, as it comes about after due process. I am also aware that it is largely ignored by the criminal community. The penalties carry zero deterrent.

                    Insanity as a removal of rights can only take place after due process; i.e., a trial. Being diagnosed is not a factor until a court weighs in. And getting a court to make such a ruling is extremely difficult, I know from repeaqted experience.

                    The Bill of Rights protects all rights unless set aside by due process, ie, a criminal or certain civil trials. I firmly support that as the only way any of our rights can circumvented. Because, in fact, that is the only way.

                    So yes, I support the Constitution of the United States.




                    Background checks impact less than half of legal weapons sales, and obviously no illegal sale. Decades of effort have established that there is no viable scheme to reduce criminal access to any sort of weapon.

                    As to the mentally ill, very few are a danger to anyone except themselves. Until a court rules otherwise, their rights are just as firmly entrenched in stone as mine or any other citizen's.

                    That is the key point: the right to unrestricted access to firearms is an inalienable right, not subject to any level of government's regulation. That is not subject to change. Any ban or restriction that gets put forth survives only until it reaches a higher court, in which case it goes down in flames.

                    In order to effect any meaningful change, you would have to alter the Constitution. That has happened only seventeen times in over two centuries. Other than the 13th, none of the new amendments have been of radical import, being mainly procedural.
                    "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

                    Comment


                    • Bad idea:

                      https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/tr...cid=spartandhp

                      This is a knee-jerk reaction and is not well thought-out.
                      We are not now that strength which in old days
                      Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                      Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                      To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Massena View Post
                        Bad idea:

                        https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/tr...cid=spartandhp

                        This is a knee-jerk reaction and is not well thought-out.
                        That article is completely misleading.

                        Here's what he covered:

                        President Trump promised tougher background checks and mental health screens for gun buyers.

                        Yet Trump appeared open to a wide range of ideas, including raising the minimum age to buy an assault rifle from 18 to 21, conducting more active shooter drills, and toughening background checks with mental health screenings.

                        "You can't have 100 security guards in Marjory Stoneman Douglas," he said. "It would be teachers and coaches. If the coach had a firearm in his locker.... He wouldn't have had to run. He would have shot and that would have been the end of it."

                        The exchanges were respectful and ran counter to the acrimony that's permeated the gun debate.

                        https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...res/358927002/
                        "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Deltapooh View Post
                          Trump is a liberal in denial, and Republicans are just suckers. What about our mental health care system.
                          He's not even in denial, Trump is a blatantly obvious liberal. Always has been.

                          Trump was in favor of banning assault rifles back in 2000 and he is taking his first steps towards that. He has always favored democrats and spoke glowingly of their policies.

                          The election of Trump, as a supposed conservative and outsider, proves that the establishment can play the American public like puppets.
                          "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
                          - Benjamin Franklin

                          The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
                            He's not even in denial, Trump is a blatantly obvious liberal. Always has been.

                            Trump was in favor of banning assault rifles back in 2000 and he is taking his first steps towards that. He has always favored democrats and spoke glowingly of their policies.

                            The election of Trump, as a supposed conservative and outsider, proves that the establishment can play the American public like puppets.
                            I see it differently.

                            Trump was liberal in social issues (abortion, guns, etc.) but was conservative in economic issues (less regulations, lower taxes, etc). In addition, Trump was and still is part of the establishment as any other wealthy republican or democrat. It is difficult to see how a real "anti-establishment" guy became successful in a business such as real estate development which requires extensive contacts with the the current establishment from banks to local state and federal governments. Normally the establishment does not have such fruitful cooperations with its real anti-establishment opponents.
                            Last edited by pamak; 21 Feb 18, 23:24.
                            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                            Comment


                            • Just what we need-more conspiracy theory nonsense:

                              https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ho...cid=spartandhp
                              We are not now that strength which in old days
                              Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                              Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                              To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by pamak View Post
                                I see it differently.

                                Trump was liberal in social issues (abortion, guns, etc.) but was conservative in economic issues (less regulations, lower taxes, etc). In addition, Trump was and still is part of the establishment as any other wealthy republican or democrat. It is difficult to see how a real "anti-establishment" guy became successful in a business such as real estate development which requires extensive contacts with the the current establishment from banks to local state and federal governments. Normally the establishment does not have such fruitful cooperations with its real anti-establishment opponents.
                                He is liberal on economic issues as well. In the past, he is on record stating that the economy is always better under democrats. Today under his presidency, the deficit and government intervention in the economy continues to grow. Those are liberal economic philosophies in action.
                                "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
                                - Benjamin Franklin

                                The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X