'Numerous fatalities' at Florida high school after ex-student opens fire

[JemJem]

I have a feeling that if there is enough overall outcry, there will probably be some changes regarding gun control in the US (in some states anyway) in the near future; but sadly, they will probably be not-so-significant changes.

[BobBKK]

17 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I saw that too, and I think she just realises he is a broken human being that did a horrible thing. We all have our own responses, but we should be allowed to have them.

 

Re bullies, they were just as bad when corporal punishment was in force in schools. In my secondary school bullying was officially sanctioned and encouraged by the headmaster.

Even prince Charles was bullied.

Morning, well we will differ a bit on that. He just killed 17 people and the only 'comfort' should be to those families. how will they feel watching that?  Our society is far too much for the criminals and not the victims IMHO.

 

Yes you are right bullying has been around for ages and should be stopped but in Prince Charles's school no one brought in weapons as far as I know. Bullying is horrible and I suffered too but i did not hurt anyone as a result of it.  I'm afraid I have little sympathy with this freak and, I know you don't agree, but i think he should be executed for it (as I hope the guy in Pakistan is too) but he'll go to a comfy institution, watch tv, have therapy sessions, play football in the prison yard while 17 families suffer forever.

[metisdead]

A post containing a video with profanity and racist slurs has been removed as well as the replies.  

[riclag]

8 hours ago, Air Smiles said:

 

The simplest way would be an amnesty with an expiration date, then huge fines and finally prison sentences for illegal gun possession.  Not very difficult really.

 

America's gun problem would be almost non-existent within 3 years.

 

Statistically, gun owners are far likelier to be shot and killed than non gun owners, so the best way for Americans to protect themselves is to be unarmed and call the police.

 

 

 Call the police! When confronted one must act accordingly, especially in a life threatening situation.Constitutionally ,the  Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals.

[Becker]

3 minutes ago, riclag said:

 Call the police! When confronted one must act accordingly, especially in a life threatening situation.Constitutionally ,the  Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals.

In all countries comparable to the US this is not an issue. The vast majority don't own guns and that includes criminals. Clearly this is the way forward for the US.

[riclag]

1 minute ago, Becker said:

In all countries comparable to the US this is not an issue. The vast majority don't own guns and that includes criminals. Clearly this is the way forward for the US.

Most countries citizens  don't have close to 300 million guns. How does one determine what criminals own for guns! Banning assault weapons is open for discussion. 

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, BobBKK said:

Morning, well we will differ a bit on that. He just killed 17 people and the only 'comfort' should be to those families. how will they feel watching that?  Our society is far too much for the criminals and not the victims IMHO.

 

Yes you are right bullying has been around for ages and should be stopped but in Prince Charles's school no one brought in weapons as far as I know. Bullying is horrible and I suffered too but i did not hurt anyone as a result of it.  I'm afraid I have little sympathy with this freak and, I know you don't agree, but i think he should be executed for it (as I hope the guy in Pakistan is too) but he'll go to a comfy institution, watch tv, have therapy sessions, play football in the prison yard while 17 families suffer forever.

I only said she feels sorry that he is a broken human being. 

You make too much of that to accuse me of something.

I don't support executions but he should be kept in solitary till he dies, like every other murderer.

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, Air Smiles said:

 

The simplest way would be an amnesty with an expiration date, then huge fines and finally prison sentences for illegal gun possession.  Not very difficult really.

 

America's gun problem would be almost non-existent within 3 years.

 

Statistically, gun owners are far likelier to be shot and killed than non gun owners, so the best way for Americans to protect themselves is to be unarmed and call the police.

 

 

Why do you ignore the constitution? What you propose is not legal.

Why do you think the police will even be able to get there in time to save you?

Do you think the criminals will hand over their weapons when they are already not allowed to own them?

[Becker]

40 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Only those that don't want to know the truth believe that any country doesn't have weapons in the hands of criminals.

The truth?? The truth is that the US is awash with weapons and it's killing children and adults in droves. That is the truth.

[FritsSikkink]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Why do you ignore the constitution? What you propose is not legal.

Why do you think the police will even be able to get there in time to save you?

Do you think the criminals will hand over their weapons when they are already not allowed to own them?

You and all the people who defend their gun rights are part of the problem, here some nice read:

 

https://shareblue.com/teen-who-survived-massacre-rips-trump-to-pieces-in-emotional-takedown/

Edited February 18, 2018 by FritsSikkink

[Air Smiles]

3 hours ago, riclag said:

 Call the police! When confronted one must act accordingly, especially in a life threatening situation.Constitutionally ,the  Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals.

I'm calling nonsense on your post.

 

Just to be clear, you are saying in America when you call the police(like you do in every other country) they don't come as it's not written in the constitution that they have to respond?

[Air Smiles]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Why do you ignore the constitution? What you propose is not legal.

Why do you think the police will even be able to get there in time to save you?

Do you think the criminals will hand over their weapons when they are already not allowed to own them?

The 2nd amendment to the constitution is just that, an amendment.  Written hundreds of years ago in a time when there were no police force or automatic weapons.

 

Quote

 

amendment

noun

noun: amendment; plural noun: amendments

a minor change or addition designed to improve a text, piece of legislation, etc.

"an amendment to existing bail laws"

synonyms:revision, alteration, change, modification, qualification, adaptation, adjustment; More

 

 

So it shouldn't be too hard to make a further amendment to the constitution to outlaw gun ownership.

 

As for the police getting there in time in your improbable home invasion scenario, which is very very unlikely to happen and to the extent where you would need a gun to survive. There are a ton of other things you can do instead, cctv, safe room, security doors and windows etc

 

If personal safety is your main concern you obviously skipped over the part of my post which mentioned that gun owners and their family members are statistically more likely to be shot and killed than non gun owners....a lot of the time by their own gun.

 

[riclag]

30 minutes ago, Air Smiles said:

I'm calling nonsense on your post.

 

Just to be clear, you are saying in America when you call the police(like you do in every other country) they don't come as it's not written in the constitution that they have to respond?

3 hours ago, riclag said:

 Call the police! When confronted one must act accordingly, especially in a life threatening situation.Constitutionally ,the  Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals.

 

Google :Constitutionally ,the  Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals. No, I didn't say they didn't need to respond. Its not in the constitution that law enforcement  has to protect you.

 

[Thakkar]

Amreica’s unique gun problem in 17 charts

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts

[stevenl]

4 hours ago, riclag said:

3 hours ago, riclag said:

 Call the police! When confronted one must act accordingly, especially in a life threatening situation.Constitutionally ,the  Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals.

 

Google :Constitutionally ,the  Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals. No, I didn't say they didn't need to respond. Its not in the constitution that law enforcement  has to protect you.

 

So it is not in the constitution. What is your point, will police come or not?

[Thakkar]

20 hours ago, riclag said:

"Removing legal guns from American homes" . There is almost  280 million guns.How will that work,honor system?There are laws on the books,the overwhelming majority adhere to them .You can't deny that the bad guys don't play fare.Americans have the right to protect themselves 

Despite the hyper-masculine opines and pleadings offered by the Gun Right, their dreams of “a good guy with a gun” stopping a mass shooting (or other type of violence) are largely a myth.  “Defensive gun use”—the idea that individual gun owners use their weapons to stop crime—is a cherished tenet of America’s gun obsessives. As argued ( http://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/defensive-gun-use-armed-with-reason-hemenway/ ) in the 2015 issue of the journal Preventive Medicine, this so-called “commonsense” is untrue. (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings )

 

Conservatives and the Gun Right have a second cherished myth: more guns equal less crime. This claim has also been debunked.

(http://www.salon.com/2015/05/24/the_rights_big_gun_lie_debunking_the_phony_case_that_more_guns_will_stop_crime/ )

 

Moreover, social scientists have shown that there is a direct relationship

(http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/09/13/2617131/largest-gun-study-guns-murder/ ) between the number of guns in a society and gun violence.

 

Experts on interpersonal violence such as David Grossman* have demonstrated that it is extremely difficult for a person to kill another human being, reliably, on command, and under stress, with a gun. The dream scenario of an individual person using their gun to stop a mass shooting is refuted by experts in police training and military tactics who detail how fighting in enclosed spaces such as a school or other building is extremely difficult for even highly trained personal. In fact, a group of gun fetishists tried to simulate their response to a terrorist attack like the Charlie Hebdo shootings in France. Their goal was to show that “a good guy with a gun” could stop “bad guys” with a gun. The result? The “Death Wish” and “Dirty Harry” role-playing heroes embarrassed themselves as they were repeatedly “killed” in the exercise.

 

* I had the link to this, but I’ve lost it. You’ll have to search for it if you want the details.

[Thakkar]

I never miss an opportunity to post (and repost) this:

 

 

[Skywalker69]

It´s strange that you can´t vote without an ID but you can buy a assault weapon!

[FritsSikkink]

15 hours ago, riclag said:

Most countries citizens  don't have close to 300 million guns. How does one determine what criminals own for guns! Banning assault weapons is open for discussion. 

There should be an discussion, you have had years for that and it solves completely nothing. There is only 1 way, like they use all over the world and it works:

GUN CONTROL. So stop the pathetic excuses and just do it.

[Air Smiles]

12 hours ago, riclag said:

Its not in the constitution that law enforcement  has to protect you.

 

Some cops don't read too well and the constitution is a somewhat weighty tome .... instead, it was decided the words "To protect and serve"  would be written on their car door, so they would have to read those words every time they returned to their police cars with donuts and coffee.

Edited February 18, 2018 by Air Smiles

[BobBKK]

18 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I only said she feels sorry that he is a broken human being. 

You make too much of that to accuse me of something.

I don't support executions but he should be kept in solitary till he dies, like every other murderer.

Fair enough but he's not mentally sick he's bad. He planned it, boasted about it and executed it now he will try and con us all that he's mentally ill.  The Pakistani guy 'broken too'?    we could go on making excuses - the time has come to STOP making excuses and end the carnage. People should pay for their actions and take responsibility. If this guy had thought he might hang he might have thought twice but aside from 'is it a deterrent'  it's justice.

[FritsSikkink]

Maybe an idea to implement gun control the "USA" way:

1) Everybody who want a gun needs to be a member of the NRA and pay a license fee per gun.

2) When there is a mass shooting, the NRA will pay every victim (or remaining family) 10 million US.

 

Lets see if there will be changes after that. 

[attrayant]

 

This is getting tiresome.

 

19 hours ago, riclag said:

Constitutionally, the Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals.

 

 

Then why do you suppose they do it?  Why don't the police just sit their in their squad cars scarfing down donuts when the call about murders and rapes come in?

 

Now that you mention it, I'd better go to medical school because there's no constitutional mandate for doctors to do their job either, and... hold on a sec  - what kinds of skilled professionals are constitutionally required to do their jobs?

 

Maybe now you see what kind of a ridiculous tangent this is.

[Thakkar]

26 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

This is getting tiresome.

 

 

 

Then why do you suppose they do it?  Why don't the police just sit their in their squad cars scarfing down donuts when the call about murders and rapes come in?

 

Now that you mention it, I'd better go to medical school because there's no constitutional mandate for doctors to do their job either, and... hold on a sec  - what kinds of skilled professionals are constitutionally required to do their jobs?

 

Maybe now you see what kind of a ridiculous tangent this is.

 

The pro gun arguments are so weak that tangential erraticness is a feature, not a bug.

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, Air Smiles said:

The 2nd amendment to the constitution is just that, an amendment.  Written hundreds of years ago in a time when there were no police force or automatic weapons.

 

 

So it shouldn't be too hard to make a further amendment to the constitution to outlaw gun ownership.

 

As for the police getting there in time in your improbable home invasion scenario, which is very very unlikely to happen and to the extent where you would need a gun to survive. There are a ton of other things you can do instead, cctv, safe room, security doors and windows etc

 

If personal safety is your main concern you obviously skipped over the part of my post which mentioned that gun owners and their family members are statistically more likely to be shot and killed than non gun owners....a lot of the time by their own gun.

 

So it shouldn't be too hard to make a further amendment to the constitution to outlaw gun ownership.

Correct, so just do it. Call your congressman, start an organisation, lobby congress, and make a new amendment.

Go for it.

[morrobay]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

So it shouldn't be too hard to make a further amendment to the constitution to outlaw gun ownership.

Correct, so just do it. Call your congressman, start an organisation, lobby congress, and make a new amendment.

Go for it.

No lets not throw the baby out with bathwater: Lets outlaw gun ownership from wackos.  Lets confiscate guns from wackos,

And lets put them under surveillance to make sure that is the case , and make arrests. 

Edited February 19, 2018 by morrobay