Parkland School Shooting Discussion Thread

[Likely Guy]

1 minute ago, Likely Guy said:

Hell yeah, that's just another.

But just to be clear, some forms of gun control can't be left off the table for a solution to be found.

[Kismit]

18 minutes ago, acidhead said:

Yes the late 90's.... Coincides with the rise in home computers, laptops, tablets and cell phones.  The ultimate rise in communication and social media plate forms of all sorts.

Earlier I was researching a graph in this thread a page back and came across this interesting peice of info from none other the NY times: 

Gun Deaths Are Mostly Suicides

By Margot Sanger-Katz

Oct. 8, 2015

When Americans think about deaths from guns, we tend to focus on homicides. But the problem of gun suicide is inescapable: More than 60 percent of people in this country who die from guns die by suicide.

Suicide gets a lot less attention than murders for a few reasons. One big one is that news organizations generally don’t cover suicides the way they do murders. There’s evidence that news attention around suicide can lead to more suicides. Suicide is more stigmatized and less discussed than homicide.

****

Just thought I'd share... Seemed interesting as school shootings have increased.

 

The late 90's did see an increase in computers in the homes and also a 71% increase in hand gun ownership.

One of these things may have an indirect link to shoitings but the other has a direct link.

[Michelle]

2 minutes ago, Kismit said:

The late 90's did see an increase in computers in the homes and also a 71% increase in hand gun ownership.

One of these things may have an indirect link to shoitings but the other has a direct link.

Having a Democrat president always makes gun sales skyrocket.

[Kismit]

Just now, Michelle said:

Having a Democrat president always makes gun sales skyrocket.

Why?

[+susieice]

Suicides could increase with the higher ownership of handguns, but these mass shooters use high powered rifles. 

[acidhead]

5 minutes ago, Kismit said:

The late 90's did see an increase in computers in the homes and also a 71% increase in hand gun ownership.

One of these things may have an indirect link to shoitings but the other has a direct link.

The direct link most likely is whenever the populace of America gets direct info that the GOV is coming for your guns sales spike.  It's simple economics.

[acidhead]

3 minutes ago, Michelle said:

Having a Democrat president always makes gun sales skyrocket.

Economics 101

[Michelle]

5 minutes ago, Kismit said:

Why?

Because the entire administration is trying to figure out more ways to restrict them. All they would have to do is enforce the laws on the books already. Then they start cutting money from city funds for the police and other city services...therefor crime rises.

It's a vicious circle I've seen many times.

[glorybebe]

Copycat school shooting threats sweep across the country as 14-year-old boy 'promises round three on Florida' and dozens of other kids are arrested nationwide

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5410747/Missouri-boy-arrested-AK-47-school-shooting-threat.html

This just makes my heart ache.  This is not something that can be blamed on mental health alone.  This is society.  Wanting to be feared and infamous for killing innocent kids...I just can't get my head around that.

[Kismit]

16 minutes ago, acidhead said:

The direct link most likely is whenever the populace of America gets direct info that the GOV is coming for your guns sales spike.  It's simple economics.

There was also an increase in shootings in the 80's prior to computers and cellphones. Including Cleveland elementary school, Mantifore school, a post office, and a McDonalds where 22 people were killed and 19 injured.

[Kismit]

3 minutes ago, Michelle said:

Because the entire administration is trying to figure out more ways to restrict them. All they would have to do is enforce the laws on the books already. Then they start cutting money from city funds for the police and other city services...therefor crime rises.

It's a vicious circle I've seen many times.

I think they should simplify the rules and make them easier to enforce. I think they should enforce those rules and increase the law enforcement officers.

And I think they need to strongly limit access to assualt style weapons.

[Black Red Devil]

29 minutes ago, acidhead said:

The deaths by firearms in that graph from 2013 includes suicides ....which was around 22 000 of the 34 000

Oh OK.  Thanks

[RavenHawk]

6 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

Are you seriously convinced some semi-automatics, double-barrow shotguns and pistols

Just a minor correction, but it’s “barrel”.  You Auzzie’s are probably thinking double-shots of Fosters!    But you haven’t been paying attention.  It has been brought up that the problems of occupation forces dealing with the indigenous are immense.  With the history of America, it starts with the Native Americans in King Phillip’s War, through Japan, Germany, Iraq, and Afghanistan (and many more).  But now, if a tyrannical government sends in the military to disarm the people, the military will be more overwhelm than it ever has because no other indigenous has ever been as armed.  The military will not have the stomach for attacking their own.  The military owes it’s allegiance to the people and the nation, not the government.  There will be a mass mutiny and defection.  This is why Obama wanted to organize a National Civilian Security Force (NCSF) that is just as equipped and funded as the military.  A force that is totally loyal to Obama.  Ultimately, this force would be able to counter the military.  Why do you think Obama had decapitated the military leadership?  Why do you think he had quietly weaponized government agencies against the American people?

 

are going to give you the power and control you need to overturn a Govt?  

Not trying to overturn a government, but remove one that has become tyrannical as is our right.  What other government on this planet suffers that right of the people?

 

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

 

We are not talking about something like Waco or Ruby Ridge.  It is the recent abuses that push the limits under the Obama Administration were leading to.  Obama was specifically a Constitutional lawyer.  There are two reasons to do that.  One is to protect the Constitution from abuses and the other is to dismantle it.  What do you think Obama’s overall goal was?

 

but really?!  We're not living in the middle ages anymore you know

That’s right, we’re not.  Yet there are greedy men that still think they can control the people.  For this reason alone, makes the necessity of the 2^nd Amendment even more evident in today’s world.

 

and even then, the power was always in the hand of who was in charge of the military. Why? 

The military is to be used in defense of the people.  Not used against them.  When the government deems it necessary to use the military on the people, then it has lost its Charter of Power.

 

If you had a sword they had cannons, if you had a crossbow they had catapults. 

Did the Viet Cong win because they had bigger cannons?  Or because they demoralized the homefront?  If the military went up against the very thing it has taken an oath to defend, it would be demoralized.  When the larger force is demoralized, the smaller one can rout it.

 

Also the normal citizen is not trained to combat and kill like a professional soldier. 

That is true but it is amazing what one will see in the learning curve.  If we practiced the 2^nd Amendment fully, it would be easier.

 

Power over a Govt isn't obtained by matching who has more firepower.  You're always going to lose. 

As mentioned before, it’s not always about matching up firepower as it is taking the advantage and seizing the initiative.  Our military has a bad habit of giving up the initiative.  Anyone familiar with Sun Tzu is never out numbered.

 

Power is obtained through Parliament and voting in a free, democratic and progressive society.

In this country power is granted by charters of freedom.  In the rest of the world, freedom is granted by charters of power.  It is that fundamental difference that separates freedom in a social democracy and freedom in a ConstitutionalRepublic.

 

Look at the coups that have taken place in many of those tinpot dictatorships, the first thing they do is take charge of the military. 

It’s usually the military that initiates the coup.

 

With the weapons in the hands of the military establishment today, especially the USA, a few guided missiles in the right corners would disperse any rioting anti-Govt crowd. 

The military is a highly professional organization and they abide by the Posse Comitatus Act.  It ties in with the 3^rd Amendment and the fear that the Founding Fathers had of standing armies.  In those days, the bulk of most armies were mercs and conscripts in foreign lands that owed their loyalty to the Monarch.  Today’s army is professional and part of the people.  They wouldn’t have the stomach to attack the people.  You’d have to place commanders that would be more loyal to the government than the people into key positions.  Al la “Dr Strangelove”, “7 Days in May”, or the Obama Administration.  The government would have to play for the death blow in the first strike.  If the government doesn’t put down the opposition in the first round, they won’t get a second.

I bet the first to run would be those armchair war hawks who have a screenshot of themselves holding an AK15 on their PC.

I doubt there would be many like this.  It would be the despots hiding in spider holes and the like.

[F3SS]

1 hour ago, Black Red Devil said:

That doesn't make sense to me.  It might be because I'm not an American and didn't grow up there but I don't understand the logic.  If it (to bear arms) only represents a figure of speech in your Constitution, keep it as a principle but amend it to control the distribution of guns.  For example that idiot in Las Vegas had something like a dozen different type of weapons.  Why?

You’re in power. You’re in charge of 10,000 people backed by an armed force of around 1% of that number. You want to change how some things work around here but there are rules and regulations. Just things written on paper. The population is armed as well and they aren’t going to like those changes very much. On the flip side, the population is unarmed. There’s not a whole lot they can do if you’re really insistent. Which population is more likely to keep your power in check? Sure, your 100 armed forces have superior weaponry and might be able to inflict massive damage on the armed population but then, if you win, you’re ruling over a population you’ve just murdered the crap out of and your backing is low on morale and maybe even feeling vengeful because you ordered them to destroy their neighborhoods and probably even kill their friends, family and neighbors. You like sleeping with one eye open?

To me, those things aren’t likely to happen to us. Our guns are a deterrent. Those scenarios alone are a deterrent. 

Edited February 20, 2018 by F3SS

[F3SS]

Meant to ad that we have plenty of ways to control gun distribution. In fact there is probably every way already on the books. The problem is that until you have something official on your record that says you can’t own one there isn’t much that can be done as far as legitimate sales go.

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, Kismit said:

The sad fact is knowing next week there will be another. And the week after that, and possibly the week after that too.

If steps were taken to harden the defense of schools, those shootings needn't happen THERE any longer.  You leave out one common factor concerning these shootings.  They all happen in places where the shooter is the ONLY ARMED person.  I'm not sure what part of "impossible" is so difficult for you folks to understand.  Approximately 350 million firearms in the hands of Americans.  If every new AR or AK type semi-auto were banned from production tomorrow, the only effect would be to raise the price for individual sales between private citizens.  If the government decided to do as most of you folks from the UK seem to desire - and buy or seize the rest - citizens would buy more from the black market or build their own.  

Yes, there will be others.  But they don't HAVE to happen in schools or places where citizens gather in groups that tend to be unarmed.  Those who dismiss the idea of taking the steps to make these shootings far more difficult to execute, really don't want A solution, they just want THEIR solution.

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, Black Red Devil said:

My surprise isn't the amount of vehicle fatalities, its the fact that deaths by firearms are equal to those of vehicles.  Your right about texting, my daughter is one of the worse culprits.

1

Then show her THIS: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/03/31/witness-truck-driver-texas-crash-killed-13-texting/99888684/

The young man will spend the rest of his life in prison and he wasn't a vicious, hard-hearted criminal.  He just behaved in a selfish, immature way.  This was an event that still haunts me when I think of it.  Best wishes on convincing her.  I demanded that my daughter become acquainted with this case.

[Hawken]

1 hour ago, Kismit said:

I think they should simplify the rules and make them easier to enforce. I think they should enforce those rules and increase the law enforcement officers.

And I think they need to strongly limit access to assualt style weapons.

People want the AR-15 banded because it holds up to 30 rounds of ammo and to top it off, it's scary looking. But the Mini 14 has the same capabilities but is used mostly for hunting and doesn't look so wicked.

 

[RavenHawk]

What people are missing is that there are over 1 million deaths from heart disease and cancer.  And much of that is from diet and life style.  But more importantly, these take the lives of vastly more children than firearms.  Is that any less heartbreaking?  Why aren't people more animated about that?

[+susieice]

7 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

What people are missing is that there are over 1 million deaths from heart disease and cancer.  And much of that is from diet and life style.  But more importantly, these take the lives of vastly more children than firearms.  Is that any less heartbreaking?  Why aren't people more animated about that?

 

That's why grandparents can't be home to be with children who's parents are working. They have to work if they want a roof over their heads and food to eat. They may even be able to supplement their medicare. Everyone wants their grandparents to take their medicine. The problem is they can barely afford them. That's another problem the US has that a lot of the rest of the world doesn't. Wait until they're done messing with the elderly's social security.

Did I hit another head Likely? 

Edited February 20, 2018 by susieice

[acidhead]

9 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

What people are missing is that there are over 1 million deaths from heart disease and cancer.  And much of that is from diet and life style.  But more importantly, these take the lives of vastly more children than firearms.  Is that any less heartbreaking?  Why aren't people more animated about that?

 

Politics

Left vs right

[RavenHawk]

1 minute ago, acidhead said:

Politics

Left vs right

I’ll go further and say it’s more than politics.  It’s ideology.  Progressivism is not politics.

[Hawken]

1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:

What people are missing is that there are over 1 million deaths from heart disease and cancer.  And much of that is from diet and life style.  But more importantly, these take the lives of vastly more children than firearms.  Is that any less heartbreaking?  Why aren't people more animated about that?

 

In my community more people have died of cancer then by the gun. People I know have died mid age. The additives in foods is a contributing factor in it. NutraSweet (Aspartame) was proven to cause health problems. But instead of removing it off the market, They change the name to AminoSweet, Pal Sweet or Canderel. Seems like they don't care about the publics interest.

[Kismit]

2 hours ago, Hawkin said:

People want the AR-15 banded because it holds up to 30 rounds of ammo and to top it off, it's scary looking. But the Mini 14 has the same capabilities but is used mostly for hunting and doesn't look so wicked.

 

Do you think the fact the AR-15 looks wicked might be one of the reasons it appeals to a mentally unstable shooter?

[Hawken]

2 minutes ago, Kismit said:

Do you think the fact the AR-15 looks wicked might be one of the reasons it appeals to a mentally unstable shooter?

I can't say what's in the mind of the shooter. But since the AR-15 has been the choice in shootings, the media reports what type of weapon the shooter has used. When the public sees it. There's an outcry to ban it since it's got so much publicity. And it's sleek look could play a roll in it also. We are a society that judges a book by it's cover.