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

[Jingthing]

3 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

...

We are the bourgeois, the cause of every historical evil and none of the good.

Know thyself, innit?

Edited February 16, 2018 by Jingthing

[Skywalker69]

Fox News host praises AR-15s as ‘so safe’ hours after one was used to murder 17 people

 

 

Fox News host Laura Ingraham, just hours after 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz used an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle to murder 17 people at a Florida high school, praised the weapon as “so safe.”

 

Ingraham and her guest, Aaron Cohen, criticized Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) for suggesting the powerful weapon is too widely available. Cohen said that Murphy was “not qualified to assess threat” or “manage risk.”

 

https://thinkprogress.org/fox-news-ar-15s-so-safe-4c70ef707235/

[Jingthing]

Second amendment suicide pact --

 

Quote

Politicians, primarily but not exclusively Republicans, are turning their idolatrous worship of the Second Amendment into a suicide pact. If the United States had been under assault from Muslim terrorists, they would have acted long ago. But apparently homegrown mass murderers are of scant concern even though they kill far more people than terrorists do.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-second-amendment-is-being-turned-into-a-suicide-pact/2018/02/15/632f702c-128e-11e8-9570-29c9830535e5_story.html

[pegman]

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

That women were more unsatisfied in the 50's is impossible to assess.  Some female personalities are suited to juggling career and family, and some are not. The whole world was openly racist 50 years ago, but even so western nations were the least racist and the most self critical about it. Great strides were made, but victim culture from the left has polarized the issue to the point were people can't truthfully discuss the issue without causing a riot.

Medicine and technology has improved steadily. This is science, the liberals didn't cure polio or discover the superconductor. Science did.

And yes things were better for Old white men. Not anymore. Their opinions are invalid, they are considered sexual predators, racists, and recently a women's panel had a discussion about whether or not they have been made redundant. We are the bourgeois, the cause of every historical evil and none of the good.

Speak for yourself.

[wabothai]

Make the NRA a criminal organization and charge the leadership with accessory to murder.

Holland (most medical associations) is doing the same with the tobacco industry.

[wabothai]

On 2/15/2018 at 12:54 PM, canuckamuck said:

America needs to return to its values, They lost their way in the 60's. Family values America had much better mental health.

In Canada I used to drive to high school in a pickup with rifles and shotguns in the gun rack. Not a single person had any concerns about that. That's because we were all sane.

is that garanteed?

[metisdead]

 A troll post has been removed. 

 

Edit:   More than one.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Scott

[Gecko123]

Both this kids adoptive parent's died, and their house reportedly sold for $575,000 in 2017. I'm wondering who inherited the parent's estate, and if this kid received support from the adoptive parent's estate. If the parents were fairly well off and this kid with all these well-documented behavioral problems inherited any money from them,  I'm wondering if a conservator wasn't appointed for Nickolas' share of the estate. Such a conservator might have been in position to monitor his behavior and intervene if necessary.

 

Picture of Nickolas Cruz's parent's house where he lived for over a dozen years:

Source: Paris-Match.com

Edited February 17, 2018 by Gecko123

[BobBKK]

20 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You obviously haven't been reading what I have written. I want armed guards in schools.

I'd also like to see intervention, counselling and action before incidents happen.

Stopping the bullies would help too.

But you're missing the larger picture. All this is a s a result of the pc'ism of society. Bullies are bullies because we 'care' about their feelings instead of clamping down HARD. If someone gets kicked out of school there maybe a lawsuit and additional damages for 'hurt feelings' etc.

 

It happens in America because America is weak in dealing with some crimes (I saw the lawyer with her arm around the suspect on TV giving 'comfort') yet is draconian on drug crimes locking away even marijuana users. 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, BobBKK said:

But you're missing the larger picture. All this is a s a result of the pc'ism of society. Bullies are bullies because we 'care' about their feelings instead of clamping down HARD. If someone gets kicked out of school there maybe a lawsuit and additional damages for 'hurt feelings' etc.

 

It happens in America because America is weak in dealing with some crimes (I saw the lawyer with her arm around the suspect on TV giving 'comfort') yet is draconian on drug crimes locking away even marijuana users. 

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.

Edited February 17, 2018 by thaibeachlovers

[metisdead]

Off topic troll posts and the replies have been removed. 

 

A post that contained an image with profanity has been removed as well:

 

8) You will not post disruptive or inflammatory messages, vulgarities, obscenities or profanities.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, pegman said:

Speak for yourself.

I hope he was being facetious.

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Society has been liberalizing since the 60's at a steady pace. When you compare the news of today to the news of the 50's do you see the fruit? People used to leave their doors unlocked and kids played all day without checking in with their parents. Now we live in a dystopian novel. 

I don't know about leaving the house unlocked when not there, but it was only 20 years after leaving the door unlocked when we were in the house to me locking the door when I was inside.

When I was a child I would head off on my bike to play with my friends all day and my mother was not concerned that I might not return, as paedophiles had never been heard of. I spent my holidays outside all day, not hiding in my bedroom talking to my imaginary friends on a machine.

Also, I think there were about 4 murders in a whole year, or maybe less. Big deal when one did happen.

Child murder- just unthinkable.

Any mass murders when they happened, were always something that happened in the USA. Certainly, even though most people had access to a rifle, I don't remember them being used to kill people or to commit crimes. That was something that happened in British crime novels.

Dangerous world though. Malaya, Korea, Indonesian conflict, MAD, Vietnam; I grew up reading about wars in far away places, but we lived in peace. Must have been lucky, I guess.

[canuckamuck]

11 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I hope he was being facetious.

Don't bother trying to piece together my comments on this thread. There isn't enough left to make any sense of them.

[attrayant]

53 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

When I was a child I would head off on my bike to play with my friends all day and my mother was not concerned that I might not return, as paedophiles had never been heard of.

 

You're remembering the good old days of being cocooned up in your sleepy little hamlet.  My parents used to obsess endlessly about it since I was very independent at an early age and liked to wander around town on my own.  I spent a lot of time with an older friend, who I think was in high school while I was 10-12ish.  They asked me things like "does he touch you a lot" or "does he ever try to hold your hand?"  I thought they were bizarre questions at the time but now I realize what they were fishing for.

 

Quote

Also, I think there were about 4 murders in a whole year, or maybe less. Big deal when one did happen.

 

Child murder- just unthinkable.

 

Any mass murders when they happened, were always something that happened in the USA. Certainly, even though most people had access to a rifle, I don't remember them being used to kill people or to commit crimes. That was something that happened in British crime novels.

[edited for brevity]

 

These things happened, there's no doubt. Ridgway, Bundy, Gacy just to name a few.   Wikipedia lists over 150 serial killers from 1950-present.  The Internet now acts like a global public address system alerting us to everything, everywhere, all the time.  Before the Internet, almost all news was local news and it seemed like nothing ever happened.

 

 

 

Edited February 17, 2018 by attrayant
typo

[thaibeachlovers]

18 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

You're remembering the good old days of being cocooned up in your sleepy little hamlet.  My parents used to obsess endlessly about it since I was very independent at an early age and liked to wander around town on my own.  I spent a lot of time with an older friend, who I think was in high school while I was 10-12ish.  They asked me things like "does he touch you a lot" or "does he ever try to hold your hand?"  I thought they were bizarre questions at the time but now I realize what they were fishing for.

 

[edited for brevity]

 

These things happened, there's no doubt. Ridgway, Bundy, Gacy just to name a few.   Wikipedia lists over 150 serial killers from 1950-present.  The Internet now acts like a global public address system alerting us to everything, everywhere, all the time.  Before the Internet, almost all news was local news and it seemed like nothing ever happened.

 

 

 

Oh no, not a hamlet at all. City.

My mother never asked me questions like that, because she didn't think that sort of thing happened there and they didn't.

 

We heard about all the mass murders in the US when they happened. World wide news. First one I remember was the guy that went on top of a water tower to kill people on the ground. Don't remember his name.

I think the only things I knew about America then was cowboys and Indians ( very popular game ), the atomic bomb and they liked to kill each other.

The assassination of Kennedy sparked a lot of interest though. After that Jackie was as famous as princess Di was later.

[Thakkar]

On 2/15/2018 at 5:18 PM, riclag said:

Do you think doing away or tinkering with #2 is going to solve the problem?Criminals and sickos are going to find the means to get a gun.

The usual refrain from gun advocates is that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Think about that. What they're saying is that criminals don't respect laws. Let the emptiness of that argument sink in. 

 

Laws, restrictions and sanctions affect everyone, including criminals. Otherwise, why have any laws at all? The existence of criminals is the very reason for criminal laws.

 

Removing legal guns from American homes will immediately reduce by a quarter million (every year!) the number of guns in the hands of criminals because that's the number of guns stolen in burglaries every year, most of which are never recovered. (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fshbopc0510.pdf)

 

Severely restricting gun ownership will make guns more expensive and harder to obtain, even for criminals.

 

No matter how you slice it, tighter gun laws = fewer guns and fewer guns = fewer gun deaths. So, again, the bottom line question is this: how many thousands of avoidable American deaths (yearly!) is your second amendment right worth?

 

In the absence of gun control, what we have is an ever escalating civilian arms race with no end in sight. Everyone armed to the teeth and living in constant fear is no way to go through life.

[Gecko123]

Some people on this thread seem to be suggesting that if only we could return to an 'Andy of Mayberry' world all these pesky school shootings would just go away. A world where women were homemakers, kids fished down at the local river, milkshakes were slurped at the soda fountain, girls wore saddle shoes, minorities knew their place, and everyone went to church on Sunday. Ahhh, the good old days, they wistfully sigh. Snap out of it, people. Those days are gone forever. The question at hand is what are we going to do to minimize these mass shootings?

 

More mental health access? You can't spot every person who is about to go off the deep end. Just look at Stephen Paddock, the Las Vegas shooter. After months of investigation, the police still can't pin down what his motive was. It's also extremely ironic that Trump and the Republican dominated Congress are touting mental health care as the solution, at the same time that access to medical (including mental health) care is being scaled back through cuts to Obamacare and Medicaid. We're living in a world where people are more isolated than before, where there's less a sense of community in many places, which makes detecting mental health problems more difficult. And that's not probably not going to change any time soon, if ever. Mental health screening, a supplementary solution? Yes. The primary solution? No way.

 

More armed guards at schools? Do you seriously think this is going to solve the problem? There are plenty of other venues where large numbers of people congregate (churches, malls, movie theatres, large restaurants, concerts, sporting events, airports, beaches, parks). So as these shooters adjust to new security measures and pick new targets, you think the solution is to just put armed guards everywhere as a deterrent? Who is going to pay for all this added security? You don't think it would be more expedient to prevent people from having access to weapons which can wreak such carnage in a blink of an eye? I sure do.

 

Do you really want to allow pretty much anybody who can pass a mental and criminal history background check to be able to acquire weapons which can kill dozens and dozens (if not hundreds) of people in a very short period of time? What, so you can theoretically defend yourself from a tyranical central government (which, by the way, has an army, air force, navy, and nuclear weapons at its disposal), or if a race or civil war breaks out?  I get it, I get it, you feel safer with a gun in your house. (Never mind you are infinitely more likely to shoot yourself or a member of your family than an intruder.) But don't you, in turn, realize that most Americans no longer feel safe because of the number of guns in circulation and all the shootings? I understand, I understand, you're obsessed with your second amendment rights. But what about everyone's right to feel safe, and to feel reasonably confident that their kid is going to be safe at school? Aren't those rights covered by the words 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' in the constitution as well? Those people don't have a say in this debate? I think they should. A very large say in the debate.

 

To me, the gun lobby has brainwashed people into believing that any change to gun laws is a threat to their freedom, when the reality is living with gun violence and fear of gun violence is taking a toll on people's freedom as well.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Gecko123

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Oh no, not a hamlet at all. City.

My mother never asked me questions like that, because she didn't think that sort of thing happened there and they didn't.

 

We heard about all the mass murders in the US when they happened. World wide news. First one I remember was the guy that went on top of a water tower to kill people on the ground. Don't remember his name.

I think the only things I knew about America then was cowboys and Indians ( very popular game ), the atomic bomb and they liked to kill each other.

The assassination of Kennedy sparked a lot of interest though. After that Jackie was as famous as princess Di was later.

'These things didn't happen'

 

Just as they didn't happen in the Catholic church, sport clubs, etc.

 

Of course they happened, you or your parents just didn't know about it.

[canuckamuck]

43 minutes ago, Gecko123 said:

Some people on this thread seem to be suggesting that if only we could return to an 'Andy of Mayberry' world all these pesky school shootings would just go away. A world where women were homemakers, kids fished down at the local river, milkshakes were slurped at the soda fountain, girls wore saddle shoes, minorities knew their place, and everyone went to church on Sunday. Ahhh, the good old days, they wistfully sigh.

Do you suggest it is because we are too intelligent now to behave like decent humble folks. We have learned how to be bad and we like it too much.

[mikebike]

On 16/02/2018 at 6:16 PM, canuckamuck said:

Proof? of what? That high school shootings are a sign of a broken culture? If you can't get on board with that, there is no point discussing further.

What is a "broken culture"? Do you just throw out words and expect them to have a universal meaning?

[Gecko123]

32 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Do you suggest it is because we are too intelligent now to behave like decent humble folks. We have learned how to be bad and we like it too much.

If I had to point to one single factor which has caused the family social fabric to fray it would be women entering the work force. This was driven by rising inflation (oil, food, and housing prices) and the fact that the standard of living for a single wage earner family was slipping. In terms of women having an opportunity to participate in the workforce, most economists would tell you that this fuller utilization of human resources is one of the best things America has going for it. Yes, there has been a price paid in terms of damage to the family support structure, which I lament as well, but I honestly have to say I have never heard (at least not in the past 50 years) the argument that "social progressives" are to blame for these changes. Economic pressures to maintain standards of living were the main driver behind these social changes, not "liberal" or progressive thinking.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Gecko123

[sirineou]

1 hour ago, Thakkar said:

The usual refrain from gun advocates is that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Think about that. What they're saying is that criminals don't respect laws. Let the emptiness of that argument sink in. 

 

Laws, restrictions and sanctions affect everyone, including criminals. Otherwise, why have any laws at all? The existence of criminals is the very reason for criminal laws.

 

Removing legal guns from American homes will immediately reduce by a quarter million (every year!) the number of guns in the hands of criminals because that's the number of guns stolen in burglaries every year, most of which are never recovered. (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fshbopc0510.pdf)

 

Severely restricting gun ownership will make guns more expensive and harder to obtain, even for criminals.

 

No matter how you slice it, tighter gun laws = fewer guns and fewer guns = fewer gun deaths. So, again, the bottom line question is this: how many thousands of avoidable American deaths (yearly!) is your second amendment right worth?

 

In the absence of gun control, what we have is an ever escalating civilian arms race with no end in sight. Everyone armed to the teeth and living in constant fear is no way to go through life.

 Using reason to argue with the unreasonable, I find that unreasonable also!

In the US,the only thing easier than buying a gun is buying a republican, reduce both and all our lives will become easier.

[ravip]

Watch Dallas sportscaster Dale Hansen's emotional take on Florida school shooting
 

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/02/watch-dallas-sportscaster-dale-hansens-emotional-take-on-florida-school-shooting

 

[sanuk711]

 

[riclag]

6 hours ago, Thakkar said:

The usual refrain from gun advocates is that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Think about that. What they're saying is that criminals don't respect laws. Let the emptiness of that argument sink in. 

 

Laws, restrictions and sanctions affect everyone, including criminals. Otherwise, why have any laws at all? The existence of criminals is the very reason for criminal laws.

 

Removing legal guns from American homes will immediately reduce by a quarter million (every year!) the number of guns in the hands of criminals because that's the number of guns stolen in burglaries every year, most of which are never recovered. (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fshbopc0510.pdf)

 

Severely restricting gun ownership will make guns more expensive and harder to obtain, even for criminals.

 

No matter how you slice it, tighter gun laws = fewer guns and fewer guns = fewer gun deaths. So, again, the bottom line question is this: how many thousands of avoidable American deaths (yearly!) is your second amendment right worth?

 

In the absence of gun control, what we have is an ever escalating civilian arms race with no end in sight. Everyone armed to the teeth and living in constant fear is no way to go through life.

"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 

Edited February 17, 2018 by riclag

[Lampang2]

 

The reverse in Sweden.

[Credo]

2 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 

The country managed to removed the $20 Gold Coin from circulation and that seemed to work.   

 

As far as guns are concerned, the ones that need to be removed are the assault-type weapons and any component that can be used to alter them to assault-type capability.    

 

Had the AR-15 been illegal, this friendless young man would not have been able to buy one.   Had he bought one then the FBI would have had immediate grounds to arrest him.   

 

Get those guns out of civilian hands and there may be shootings, but the body count is going to be one helluva lot lower.   

 

In Las Vegas, the guy couldn't even see who he was shooting.   Ridiculous, actually.   

[Air Smiles]

3 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 

 

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.

 

 

Edited February 17, 2018 by Air Smiles

[Skywalker69]

3 hours ago, Lampang2 said:

The reverse in Sweden.

BS!!!