Gun restraining order might have thwarted Florida shooting - experts

[wabothai]

On 2/16/2018 at 6:53 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

The constitution disagrees with you. If people don't like it, change the constitution.

The founding fathers wanted an armed populace.

 that outdated mindset kills children today. 

So, what you are basically believe in is that everybody should have a gun, and that the unknown idiots who use it on others can just go ahead and kill.

Time to come from under your 'constitutional' rock.

[wabothai]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Why would you think that?

It would be up to the states to change the constitution.

I.s.o. spreading his hogwash around the world, he should be on the barricades pleading for a gun-free America.

He is supposed to be a leader.

(but unfortunately isn't).

[boomerangutang]

On 2/16/2018 at 11:24 AM, doggie1955 said:

In a DUI, we blame the driver... In a bombing, we blame the bomber... In a shooting, we blame the gun?

Who's blaming the gun?

I blame the NRA for enabling the US to become saturated with guns, and for spending billions of dollars to increase the proliferation of guns throughout.

Secondly, I blame 'lawmakers' both sides of the aisle (but mostly Republicans) for taking tens of millions from the NRA and thereby echoing the anti-American NRA mantra.

Thirdly, I blame Trump and his spineless followers for enabling Sandy Hook, LVegas, and all the other US shootings - individual and mass-shootings.

[boomerangutang]

If any movement gained ground to try and add an Amendment to the Constitution which better articulated what the Founding Fathers said in the 2nd Amendment, I know what would happen.

 

Rednecks, White Supremacists, Bikers, Neo-Nazisand all sorts of other misfit gun-huggers around the country would gladly take their guns out and start shooting.  They're looking for an excuse to shoot reasonable people. They pine for the day they can take action.  I know many US rednecks and know how they think.  

 

So, for that reason, and several others, there ain't gonna be no Amendment clearing up the 2nd Amendment.   Here is the line from the 2nd Amendment which has been mis-interpreted to make the US one of the most murderous countries on the planet:

 

 "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 

 

The amendment relates to 'a well-regulated militia' ...not to groups of single-digit-IQ loonies.  ...and the 'arms' referred to in the 2nd Amendment were smooth-bore single-shot guns.  Not even rifles.

 

 

[sirineou]

19 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

If any movement gained ground to try and add an Amendment to the Constitution which better articulated what the Founding Fathers said in the 2nd Amendment, I know what would happen.

 

Rednecks, White Supremacists, Bikers, Neo-Nazisand all sorts of other misfit gun-huggers around the country would gladly take their guns out and start shooting.  They're looking for an excuse to shoot reasonable people. They pine for the day they can take action.  I know many US rednecks and know how they think.  

 

So, for that reason, and several others, there ain't gonna be no Amendment clearing up the 2nd Amendment.   Here is the line from the 2nd Amendment which has been mis-interpreted to make the US one of the most murderous countries on the planet:

 

 "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 

 

The amendment relates to 'a well-regulated militia' ...not to groups of single-digit-IQ loonies.  ...and the 'arms' referred to in the 2nd Amendment were smooth-bore single-shot guns.  Not even rifles.

 

 

 Regardless of the type of guns they had then and we have now, the operative words in the amendment are 

"well regulated"

Edited February 19, 2018 by sirineou

[boomerangutang]

I wish I had been at that meeting when the 2nd Amendment was drafted.  Who knows, perhaps by getting the writers to articulate better, there would be a clearer amendment, which would  have possibly precluded the senseless shooting of tens of thousands of innocent Americans in the coming centuries.

 

I've personally known several people who have been senselessly shot and killed - due to nutjobs wielding guns.  It's not unusual for a mother or father to shoot their own kids.   Ok, they may have done their dastardly deeds by knives or framing hammers, ....but because of the intense saturation of guns (and the gun-worshiping culture of Americans) , it's most often a bullet shot in anger (or stupidity and/or cowardice) which kills people nearby.

 

Most Americans believe that guns make their holders righteous.  They learn that mostly from movies which depict the good guys always hitting their targets and the bad guys always missing.  ....and they learn from ignorant parents.  

 

Americans also hold the sucker punch in high esteem.  Again, in the movies, it's almost always the good guy who gets in the sucker punch which knocks down the bad guy.  It's a small step from a sucker punch to a sucker shot (a shot with no warning).   In sum, many Americans are psychologically damaged.  It's not a coincidence that Americans lead the world in taking pharma drugs for psychological problems.  

[AsianAtHeart]

On 2/16/2018 at 9:56 AM, cornishcarlos said:

A gun ban would have thwarted Florida shooting - me

How so?  Banning alcohol during the prohibition didn't stop its consumption--it just went underground.

 

Now...banning SSRIs might well have prevented the entire thing, including the student's suspension from school--whether or not he had guns.

[AsianAtHeart]

1 hour ago, boomerangutang said:

Who's blaming the gun?

I blame the NRA for enabling the US to become saturated with guns, and for spending billions of dollars to increase the proliferation of guns throughout.

Secondly, I blame 'lawmakers' both sides of the aisle (but mostly Republicans) for taking tens of millions from the NRA and thereby echoing the anti-American NRA mantra.

Thirdly, I blame Trump and his spineless followers for enabling Sandy Hook, LVegas, and all the other US shootings - individual and mass-shootings.

I blame the SSRIs.
Secondly, I blame the doctors for prescribing them.
Thirdly, I blame Big Pharma for planting their own teachers in the medical schools to ensure doctors are brainwashed to use them.

Fourthly, I blame the lawmakers who have turned a blind eye to the situation on account of the corrupt blood money from Big Pharma that helps support their campaigns.

Fifthly, I blame the press that is also affiliated with the big money makers and is too compromised to publish the truth about the drug connection to the mass murders.

 

But the truth is documented online for those who seek it.

[AsianAtHeart]

38 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

In sum, many Americans are psychologically damaged.  It's not a coincidence that Americans lead the world in taking pharma drugs for psychological problems.  

That is sure true. 

 

The food industry and the drug industry seem to be in cahoots to sell their products to people whose needs were created by those same products.  Without the nicotine, who would want to smoke?  Americans are addicted to their psychosis-treating pharmaceuticals, and end up worsening their own situations in the process of using them.  When will the vicious cycle be broken?  While some seek to break it by banning guns, that will never solve the real problems.

 

Australia learned that banning guns reduced the murder rate, but disproportionately spiked the incidence of rape.  I guess we can pick our poison. 

 

<sarcasm> It's probably better to be raped defenseless than to see people shot to death, right? after all, women are not so important as men--and they're the ones more affected by rape.  </sarcasm>

[observer90210]

10 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

They can't even stop bullying, so how do you suggest they "enforce strict and unconditionnal rules on interactions and behaviour between students and their peers, within school boundries."?

There are apparently 3,000+ students in that school, so how to monitor all of them every minute of the school day?

Perhaps by making it clear to all students in the general rules of the school that picking or bullying will get them expelled ? And having counsellors available to the students who get picked on and perhaps then taking steps towards those who gang up...not an easy task but could be worth a try ?

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Statistics show that in the US:

- Road Deaths per 100,000 people : 10.6 people

- Gun Deaths per 100,000 people : 3.85 people

Stats can prove anything depending on how they are used.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state

In 2014, the overall rate of death by firearms in the United States was 10.3 per 100,000 people — the same as for death by motor vehicles — with suicides accounting for roughly two out of every three gun deaths.

 

Worth noting that if suicides were not carried out with a gun, there are many other ways to kill oneself.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

8 hours ago, observer90210 said:

Perhaps by making it clear to all students in the general rules of the school that picking or bullying will get them expelled ? And having counsellors available to the students who get picked on and perhaps then taking steps towards those who gang up...not an easy task but could be worth a try ?

I'd like to see that, but are there sufficient qualified counsellors in the US to have enough in every school to make a difference?

This is a situation where the counsellor does need not only a piece of paper in psychology, but extra training in how to deal with children, and enough experience to be effective.

My comment about them not being able to stop bullying is because they just don't have enough staff to be everywhere keeping an eye on all the pupils.

Just expelling the bad pupils is not the answer, as is evident in the case currently under discussion.

Bullet proof windows and doors that can't be opened from the outside on all classrooms would seem to be a good start.

[observer90210]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'd like to see that, but are there sufficient qualified counsellors in the US to have enough in every school to make a difference?

This is a situation where the counsellor does need not only a piece of paper in psychology, but extra training in how to deal with children, and enough experience to be effective.

My comment about them not being able to stop bullying is because they just don't have enough staff to be everywhere keeping an eye on all the pupils.

Just expelling the bad pupils is not the answer, as is evident in the case currently under discussion.

Bullet proof windows and doors that can't be opened from the outside on all classrooms would seem to be a good start.

I'd also like to see and wonder if there would be enough funds sanctioned to bullet proof all the school windows in the country ? Remember, they put metal detectors and armed security at school entrances. It was quite efficient at a time. But it can lead the cracpots to commit their carnage outside school premises. No, I think the best solution is not to fight the symptoms with bullet proof glass (that seems unrealistic to fund)  but rather to fight the disease, with adapted personnal  (obviously that are well trained and used to work with children - seems obvious) to either counsel/expel the bullies and trouble makers and to detect the potential victims of such bullies who can become mass killers one day.

Edited February 20, 2018 by observer90210

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, observer90210 said:

I'd also like to see and wonder if there would be enough funds sanctioned to bullet proof all the school windows in the country ? Remember, they put metal detectors and armed security at school entrances. It was quite efficient at a time. But it can lead the cracpots to commit their carnage outside school premises. No, I think the best solution is not to fight the symptoms with bullet proof glass (that seems unrealistic to fund)  but rather to fight the disease, with adapted personnal  (obviously that are well trained and used to work with children - seems obvious) to either counsel/expel the bullies and trouble makers and to detect the potential victims of such bullies who can become mass killers one day.

I agree, but my point was that there are not enough well trained and experienced with children counsellors to be employed. Even if they were able to encourage enough people to become counsellors it would take many years before they could be put in schools.

Bullet proof glass and doors can be put in tomorrow. As for the money- depends how serious they are about protecting children from future incidents.

[mike324]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

Bullet proof glass and doors can be put in tomorrow. As for the money- depends how serious they are about protecting children from future incidents.

Are you serious, bullet proof glass and doors are a good solution? So if a gunmen takes student hostage, there will be no sniper from the outside to take him out. Smart! really smart!

 

You haven't thought of any good solutions. The best solution is still gun training and background checks for a start if you want to own such a dangerous object. The notion that oppositions such as the DEMS are taking away people's right from owning guns is plain wrong and absurd. There has been more guns sold under the Dems administration that any other time in history.

 

Trump blame the student had mental problems, yet he rolled back the law that was passed by Obama preventing those with mental issues from owning guns!

 

To combat the problem, you don't need to have more qualified gun users. Which is what you are proposing too. <<<<Off topic trolling comments removed>>>>

Edited February 21, 2018 by metisdead
Edited out off topic trolling comments to reduce off topic replies.

[metisdead]

Posts containing off topic trolling comments have been removed as well as the off topic replies. 

[Scott]

I am not going to get into any commentary on the larger issue of gun control, but in my earlier working life, I worked with young people who were in placed in care, some for abuse and neglect, but most were teens who were delinquent.  

 

That included a 12 year old boy who took a shot gun and blew his parents away because they wouldn't buy him something he wanted.   He was small for his age and I don't know how he could even hold the gun.   He had no previous indicators of violence and no behavioral problems at school.  

 

Young people are very impulsive and any contact with firearms needs to be in a closely supervised setting.   The portion of the brain that helps control impulsive behavior isn't fully developed until in the mid-20's.   In some people, it never does function properly.