Parkland School Shooting Discussion Thread

[Likely Guy]

10 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

 I almost lose hope sometimes

I'm glad that your generation was free thinking.

[+susieice]

https://www.truthrevolt.org/news/teachers-protest-armmewith-anything-guns

Here's what teachers are saying.

[GlitterRose]

I really commend people for not getting so hot over this topic that it ended up closed.

I know emotions run high with this, but it's a discussion that should be had. 

[Dark_Grey]

1 minute ago, ChaosRose said:

I really commend people for not getting so hot over this topic that it ended up closed.

I know emotions run high with this, but it's a discussion that should be had. 

Agreed. For how hot this topic is, this has been one of the more constructive threads for all of us. We are learning as we go and adjusting the discussion accordingly...I think it's because this problem transcends politics. Doesn't matter who you voted for, no one here is willing to put up with more kids being hurt. Good job, guys - hopefully we can find a solution that works. 

[Dark_Grey]

As for the Officers that waited outside, its tough to comment on it unless you've been in that situation. Those guys aren't paramilitary, they aren't repelling through windows with smoke grenades. The day the before they were probably handing out traffic tickets. Seems to me like they were bound by policies and procedures

[aztek]

17 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Because schools are meant to be safe spaces,  

no, schools meant to teach kids and prepare them for adult life, in every way.  life isn't safe, who are you gonna raise in a safe place?  someone who is unprepared for future reality,  whose way at dealing with problems is get offended and blame someone else, and prbly with over selfestimate , and entitlement  syndrome. no wonder we see kids shooting up schools lately,  liberal "progressive" teachings work just as designed.

btw safe place is a first place a bad guy will go, 

[SHaYap]

The question being asked is now ' Am I Next ? '
 

Quote

 

~

Florida students take on NRA, set eyes on midterm elections

World

Saturday, 24 Feb 2018

8:49 PM MYT
 

_________________

(Reuters) - In the week since 17 of David Hogg's classmates and teachers were gunned down in Florida, he and his fellow high schoolers have launched a movement that reshaped the gun control debate almost overnight and may influence the U.S. midterm elections.
 

~

 

• the StarOnline link

~

[F3SS]

It seems a certain segment thinks that the second amendment only exists because of the nra. 

[Tatetopa]

3 hours ago, Dark_Grey said:

Agreed. For how hot this topic is, this has been one of the more constructive threads for all of us. We are learning as we go and adjusting the discussion accordingly...I think it's because this problem transcends politics. Doesn't matter who you voted for, no one here is willing to put up with more kids being hurt. Good job, guys - hopefully we can find a solution that works. 

Well said.  I have been a gun owner, target shooter, hunter since I was a kid.  That is what I thought guns were for.  Until I read some well structured arguments, I never gave the Second Amendment a second thought.  Personally, I never entertained a thought about taking up arms against an unjust government, but I can't dismiss the concern as a total  fantasy. People use guns in some areas of the country for the more mundane, but still real function of self-protection.  I can't dismiss that just because I seem to live in a safer area.  I would be concerned if the government tried to take away anybody's firearms. 

Beyond that, does protection of the Second Amendment necessarily lead to a violent murderous society?  I don't think so.  This kind of violence does not benefit anyone unless they are working toward the decay of society or they are making a fortune arming people indiscriminately   There is a lot of middle ground for solving the real problems of society that are not caused by too many guns or too few guns.  Right now I see a big diversion going on between "They are going to take away your guns", vs. "We will not let them."   That doesn't solve any of our joint problems, just sets us at each other's throats. So how do we focus on the real problems  with some respect and trust ?

[Likely Guy]

15 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Well said.  I have been a gun owner, target shooter, hunter since I was a kid.  That is what I thought guns were for.  Until I read some well structured arguments, I never gave the Second Amendment a second thought.  Personally, I never entertained a thought about taking up arms against an unjust government, but I can't dismiss the concern as a total  fantasy. People use guns in some areas of the country for the more mundane, but still real function of self-protection.  I can't dismiss that just because I seem to live in a safer area.  I would be concerned if the government tried to take away anybody's firearms. 

Beyond that, does protection of the Second Amendment necessarily lead to a violent murderous society?  I don't think so.  This kind of violence does not benefit anyone unless they are working toward the decay of society or they are making a fortune arming people indiscriminately   There is a lot of middle ground for solving the real problems of society that are not caused by too many guns or too few guns.  Right now I see a big diversion going on between "They are going to take away your guns", vs. "We will not let them."   That doesn't solve any of our joint problems, just sets us at each other's throats. So how do we focus on the real problems  with some respect and trust ?

First have to agree what the problem(s) are.

[+and-then]

13 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Right now I see a big diversion going on between "They are going to take away your guns", vs. "We will not let them."   That doesn't solve any of our joint problems, just sets us at each other's throats. So how do we focus on the real problems  with some respect and trust ?

I'll give the clearest answer that I can.  The second amendment to the Constitution cannot be "limited" by legislation without setting a precedent for the future that could easily lead to "limiting" OTHER rights.  For example, if the age is limited to 21 or 25 and above for certain classes of weapons, what stops another group, after the inevitable NEXT school shooting, from deciding to limit CERTAIN kinds of inflammatory speech?  It's already done in Europe.  The second is a basic natural right that is not subject to such tinkering except in very clear instances where there is BROAD agreement, over time.  IMO, limiting rights should be the very last resort.  They never come back, ever.  The government is about taking power, never in returning it.  To be even talking about giving it more power under the current circumstances is sheer madness.  What more needs to be known about the corruption and lawlessness of government to convince people that it isn't there for US, it's there for those in power?

[SHaYap]

2 minutes ago, Likely Guy said:

First have to agree what the problem(s) are.

I don't believe for one second that nobody does not know what the problems are, the big issue is nobody is willing to admit their part in perpetuating the problems as it is profitable to their causes and beliefs ....even at such a great cost year after year that is willingly conceded, it only applies when and if it is at a loss to others ...

[Paranormal Panther]

21 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

*wakes up*

Any discussion towards raising minimum age requirements, banning bump stocks should be a 'gimme', shouldn't it?

Posting an armed man in front of every entrance/egress in over 100,000 schools has been discussed here. Uptick in abortions and lack of faith in God have been discussed here. I'm tired, and won't discuss such stupid solutions.

I'll keep repeating that while this is a crap storm of imperfect coincidences, to ignore any form of g... (don't say It!)

...the responsible people that own and use guns, are for raising minimum age, getting rid of useless bump stocks...

You know how anti-Trump I am, but that's the smartest thing that (I think) came out of his face in over two years.

How much that will amount to? A hill of beans in the long run is my prognosis.

 

I was talking about the driving age. Some high school kids are too immature and too irresponsible to drive. Our driving ages vary from state to state. It would be very hard to change the laws.

[Farmer77]

15 minutes ago, Paranormal Panther said:

I was talking about the driving age. Some high school kids are too immature and too irresponsible to drive. Our driving ages vary from state to state. It would be very hard to change the laws.

Its funny how that works, I have an 18 year old with no interest in driving, which is good because he is very young for his age. However I also have a 13 year old who if legal id probably feel comfortable tossing the keys to now. 

 

[Paranormal Panther]

8 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Its funny how that works, I have an 18 year old with no interest in driving, which is good because he is very young for his age. However I also have a 13 year old who if legal id probably feel comfortable tossing the keys to now. 

 

Things sure have changed. I was "teased" by my friends because I got my driver's license in my senior year instead of my junior year. That was a different time, though. We grew up faster than many of the boys and girls in this generation.

[Likely Guy]

35 minutes ago, Paranormal Panther said:

Things sure have changed. I was "teased" by my friends because I got my driver's license in my senior year instead of my junior year. That was a different time, though. We grew up faster than many of the boys and girls in this generation.

To me, at least, that argues for the minimum age of purchase for a firearm to be raised, if this generation is that immature. Most school shooters are of school age (or soon after). Just look at it as a 'three year cooling-off period' once they age out of the system.

 

[Tatetopa]

9 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

First have to agree what the problem(s) are.

Yeah, no small matter.

[Tatetopa]

10 hours ago, and then said:

I'll give the clearest answer that I can.  The second amendment to the Constitution cannot be "limited" by legislation without setting a precedent for the future that could easily lead to "limiting" OTHER rights.  For example, if the age is limited to 21 or 25 and above for certain classes of weapons, what stops another group, after the inevitable NEXT school shooting, from deciding to limit CERTAIN kinds of inflammatory speech?  It's already done in Europe.  The second is a basic natural right that is not subject to such tinkering except in very clear instances where there is BROAD agreement, over time.  IMO, limiting rights should be the very last resort.  They never come back, ever.  The government is about taking power, never in returning it.  To be even talking about giving it more power under the current circumstances is sheer madness.  What more needs to be known about the corruption and lawlessness of government to convince people that it isn't there for US, it's there for those in power?

Thanks.  I am not sure of the limits here.   What established the current limits?  Age?  Type of weapons?  How is current practice established?  Why no machine guns or hand grenades? Can a 13 year old buy a pistol when he gets po'ed at his parents?  When laser rifles or shoulder mount rail guns become options for the military, will they naturally be part of public domain, or will they be restricted?  At this point, it seems a little arbitrary as to how old an individual must be and what weapons are allowed. Do we decide that by debate and popular vote or what?

Apart from that  is your observation on the government.  Even rife with corruption, there are still patriotic civil servants at local, state, and national level.  Can we not vote people out and elect new ones that will adopt reforms that will stifle the huge  flow of money  into politics?  What about not needing any more than a community government to make decisions about a community?  Somehow citizens have to retake the government and set things right if that is possible. Here is the thing and then, if I were in total agreement with you, I would think the US was done for.  I have to believe  there is some hope to wrest things back from the brink.

[Only_]

On 22/02/2018 at 9:51 PM, .ZZ. said:

What a wimpy world you younger people live in.

Are you a Christian? If so, give up your weapons and follow Christ's exemple.

[Farmer77]

2 minutes ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Are you a Christian? If so, give up your weapons and follow Christ's exemple.

OK I have to ask why are you following @.ZZ. around harassing him with that? 

[SHaYap]

6 hours ago, Paranormal Panther said:

Things sure have changed. I was "teased" by my friends because I got my driver's license in my senior year instead of my junior year. That was a different time, though. We grew up faster than many of the boys and girls in this generation.

On top of which traffic was less congested and cars were better made to withstand a lot of impact ... these days a wrong bend on the road will total a vehicle and mangle whoever is inside, regardless of driving skills ...

~

[+and-then]

2 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

I have to believe  there is some hope to wrest things back from the brink.

Why?  I certainly hope there is a chance but WHY do you think so?  What makes you hopeful, specifically? 

[Tatetopa]

9 hours ago, and then said:

Why?  I certainly hope there is a chance but WHY do you think so?  What makes you hopeful, specifically? 

Young people give me hope.  For the most part, they are strong and stable. A lot gets made of snowflakes and safe spaces, but that is not the hallmark of the generation.  To scoff at a generation for a trivial few  is just the old bull snorting while he does the rest of his business.  We say young people are our future.  As a country, that may be true, but for individuals, reverse it for a second.

On a personal level, young people are our past; and we might be their future.  Look at kids, they have the same wide eyed innocence and courage to take on the world when you and I did when we were their age.  We see our past in them. They grew up with your genes, your values, and any common sense you were able to impart. And our kids know us best.  They see our flaws, our self-deceptions, and sometimes our failings affect them the most.  So our kids look at us as their future. They may inherit the same physical traits, but they can look at our choices and make better ones. They have an advantage, they are starting off fresh.  They don't have to take the blame for all of our bad decisions and self-serving alliances.  They may have to live with the consequences,  but not the blame. And it will be their world to shape.  They may screw it up, but that is their basic inalienable right.  The old and powerful can gracefully let go, or like some of our senior politicians, be moved aside by changing events when they are no longer relevant.   It is high time the old familiar faces in politics and public life take to their well earned rocking chairs on the front porch and let fresher ideas guide the future.

Personally andthen, I might not have a sufficient justification for hope, but by nature I can't give up. I may not be a lot of help, but I will do what I can. I just had my eyes fixed, I am going to have my second knee fixed before I turn 70.  I don't expect to wear it out, but by God I will go out walking.

[Aquila King]

13 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Are you a Christian? If so, give up your weapons and follow Christ's exemple.

Pretty sure Christ wasn't as peace loving as he's made out to be...

[skliss]

And he never said that you don't have the right to protect yourself or your family.