Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2018/02/16 22:07:59
Subject: Re:School shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL
Prestor Jon wrote: Regardless of the 2nd amendment the bigger issue is that it is very difficult for the State to involuntarily commit somebody or force them to take medication. That in and of itself is not a bad thing, it should be difficult for the State to imprison people against their will or to alter their bodies against their will. Nobody wants to live under conditions where telling somebody you're depressed can get you locked up.
I agree, but I also feel obliged to point out that as it lays now, nothing is keeping my brother in law from buying as many firearms as he wants to despite him very definitely not being a person who should own them. This goes back to the point about how the FBI was tipped off but did nothing - what could they have done if he hadn't committed a crime yet?
I don't know what the solution is but it's a real problem. I don't agree with Sirlynchmobs exact approach but I also think our current interpretations of 2nd amendment is very problematic. Since there is no will to change it, this is not a problem that is going to be fixed and I can't really see anything changing that.
I don't want your brother to own firearms either if his mental illness makes him a danger to himself and/or others. However, regardless of how the 2nd amendment is interpreted by the courts barring somebody from exercising their rights and freedom simply for being ill has a host of legal obstacles to clear.
Our justice system is based on allowing the State to punish people for crimes they have committed. If you chose to do X then the State can charge with a crime, put you on trial and punish you if you get convicted. That is the system we have in place for stripping rights, including 2A rights, from people. You have your day in court you get adjudicated as mentally defective and you lose your 2A rights and can be involuntarily committed. You have your day in court and you are convicted of a felony, you lose your 2A rights and can be imprisoned. If you go to a psychiatrist and are diagnosed with a mental illness such as schizophrenia you haven't actually done anything wrong, you just have an illness.
You and your brother in law are both adult US citizens, residing in the US, with clean criminal records so we need to find a more justifiable reason for the State to deprive your brother in law of his rights and diminish his personhood other then him having a mental illness. He didn't do anything that caused him to be mentally ill that would justify punishing him for it, being schizophrenic is just who he is. The State shouldn't criminalize who you are the State should only criminalize what you choose to do. I really don't trust the Federal govt to handle that kind of slippery slope issue because it requires much more than an oversimplified one size fits all solution.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2018/02/16 22:19:19
Subject: Re:School shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL
daedalus wrote: I'm not opposed to the notion. They're just tricky questions to be answered. Particularly the last two.
Oh of course. As a Bill of Rights Advocate I understand completely. But a form of this that protects the rights of the person while following constitutional muster and court precedent can be made. Everyone is focused on their two camps and calling each other names.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2018/02/16 22:43:29
Subject: Re:School shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL
It's pointless to post school shooting threads to a discussion forum where discussion of US politics is banned, because no discussion is then possible. All you could post is variations of "that's bad".
That's Bad. Both the ban on politics and the school shooting. But if if happened in England and someone shot up a school yelling 'HEIL BREXIT!' that would be bad, but perfectly acceptable to discuss the political side of it.
The mods are English. Go Figure.
That said, I think that there should be a better look into WHY this seems to happen in the US pretty much exclusively. It's not guns, there are other countries with large scale private ownership of guns who don't have mass shootings anything like the US.
So what causes it?
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
2018/02/16 22:45:53
Subject: Re:School shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL
Prestor Jon wrote: I really don't trust the Federal govt to handle that kind of slippery slope issue because it requires much more than an oversimplified one size fits all solution.
So again, the thought is that when the people who know you best know you have impaired judgement and should not own firearms, your right to own firearms trumps that, which circles back to the earlier question: what was the FBI supposed to do? You're going to see the FBI thrown under the bus a lot in the next few days over their failure to act on the tip but there was no meaningful action they could have taken. You know the state can't take action on that; it would have to be at the federal level. But I agree that as the constitution is currently interpreted, this is how it lays.
Prestor Jon wrote: He didn't do anything that caused him to be mentally ill that would justify punishing him for it, being schizophrenic is just who he is. The State shouldn't criminalize who you are the State should only criminalize what you choose to do.
A person who is mentally ill by definition can't make rational choices in their behavior. No right is unlimited and society would be unworkable if it were, so I'm going to have to disagree with you: I think established mental illness is definitely something that should preclude you from owning firearms. Yes, I know there are add on questions there but that is the base ideal I am comfortable with.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: How prevalent is the conspiracy theory of ‘crisis actors’? Is it just an internet meme or is there genuine belief these shootings are staged?
Arendt offers two points that are salient to our thinking about guns: for one, they insert a hierarchy of some kind, but fundamental nonetheless, and thereby undermine equality. But furthermore, guns pose a monumental challenge to freedom, and particular, the liberty that is the hallmark of any democracy worthy of the name — that is, freedom of speech. Guns do communicate, after all, but in a way that is contrary to free speech aspirations: for, guns chasten speech.
This becomes clear if only you pry a little more deeply into the N.R.A.’s logic behind an armed society. An armed society is polite, by their thinking, precisely because guns would compel everyone to tamp down eccentric behavior, and refrain from actions that might seem threatening. The suggestion is that guns liberally interspersed throughout society would cause us all to walk gingerly — not make any sudden, unexpected moves — and watch what we say, how we act, whom we might offend.
As our Constitution provides, however, liberty entails precisely the freedom to be reckless, within limits, also the freedom to insult and offend as the case may be. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld our right to experiment in offensive language and ideas, and in some cases, offensive action and speech. Such experimentation is inherent to our freedom as such. But guns by their nature do not mix with this experiment — they don’t mix with taking offense. They are combustible ingredients in assembly and speech.
I often think of the armed protestor who showed up to one of the famously raucous town hall hearings on Obamacare in the summer of 2009. The media was very worked up over this man, who bore a sign that invoked a famous quote of Thomas Jefferson, accusing the president of tyranny. But no one engaged him at the protest; no one dared approach him even, for discussion or debate — though this was a town hall meeting, intended for just such purposes. Such is the effect of guns on speech — and assembly. Like it or not, they transform the bearer, and end the conversation in some fundamental way. They announce that the conversation is not completely unbounded, unfettered and free; there is or can be a limit to negotiation and debate — definitively.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/16 23:09:17
2018/02/16 23:16:46
Subject: School shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL
Arendt offers two points that are salient to our thinking about guns: for one, they insert a hierarchy of some kind, but fundamental nonetheless, and thereby undermine equality. But furthermore, guns pose a monumental challenge to freedom, and particular, the liberty that is the hallmark of any democracy worthy of the name — that is, freedom of speech. Guns do communicate, after all, but in a way that is contrary to free speech aspirations: for, guns chasten speech.
This becomes clear if only you pry a little more deeply into the N.R.A.’s logic behind an armed society. An armed society is polite, by their thinking, precisely because guns would compel everyone to tamp down eccentric behavior, and refrain from actions that might seem threatening. The suggestion is that guns liberally interspersed throughout society would cause us all to walk gingerly — not make any sudden, unexpected moves — and watch what we say, how we act, whom we might offend.
As our Constitution provides, however, liberty entails precisely the freedom to be reckless, within limits, also the freedom to insult and offend as the case may be. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld our right to experiment in offensive language and ideas, and in some cases, offensive action and speech. Such experimentation is inherent to our freedom as such. But guns by their nature do not mix with this experiment — they don’t mix with taking offense. They are combustible ingredients in assembly and speech.
I often think of the armed protestor who showed up to one of the famously raucous town hall hearings on Obamacare in the summer of 2009. The media was very worked up over this man, who bore a sign that invoked a famous quote of Thomas Jefferson, accusing the president of tyranny. But no one engaged him at the protest; no one dared approach him even, for discussion or debate — though this was a town hall meeting, intended for just such purposes. Such is the effect of guns on speech — and assembly. Like it or not, they transform the bearer, and end the conversation in some fundamental way. They announce that the conversation is not completely unbounded, unfettered and free; there is or can be a limit to negotiation and debate — definitively.
And yet, the need to defend one's self from Tyranny, or simply one's neighbors, still exists. It comes up again and again in the courts that the duty of the police is NOT to save you. Some truly shocking cases have taken place where, for example, the police stood by and let a man be stabbed to half to death on a subway without intervening. Where response times are so long that the police do little better than come to pick up the bodies. To depend on the police for your safety is the height of folly.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
2018/02/16 23:30:31
Subject: School shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL
Arendt offers two points that are salient to our thinking about guns: for one, they insert a hierarchy of some kind, but fundamental nonetheless, and thereby undermine equality. But furthermore, guns pose a monumental challenge to freedom, and particular, the liberty that is the hallmark of any democracy worthy of the name — that is, freedom of speech. Guns do communicate, after all, but in a way that is contrary to free speech aspirations: for, guns chasten speech.
This becomes clear if only you pry a little more deeply into the N.R.A.’s logic behind an armed society. An armed society is polite, by their thinking, precisely because guns would compel everyone to tamp down eccentric behavior, and refrain from actions that might seem threatening. The suggestion is that guns liberally interspersed throughout society would cause us all to walk gingerly — not make any sudden, unexpected moves — and watch what we say, how we act, whom we might offend.
As our Constitution provides, however, liberty entails precisely the freedom to be reckless, within limits, also the freedom to insult and offend as the case may be. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld our right to experiment in offensive language and ideas, and in some cases, offensive action and speech. Such experimentation is inherent to our freedom as such. But guns by their nature do not mix with this experiment — they don’t mix with taking offense. They are combustible ingredients in assembly and speech.
I often think of the armed protestor who showed up to one of the famously raucous town hall hearings on Obamacare in the summer of 2009. The media was very worked up over this man, who bore a sign that invoked a famous quote of Thomas Jefferson, accusing the president of tyranny. But no one engaged him at the protest; no one dared approach him even, for discussion or debate — though this was a town hall meeting, intended for just such purposes. Such is the effect of guns on speech — and assembly. Like it or not, they transform the bearer, and end the conversation in some fundamental way. They announce that the conversation is not completely unbounded, unfettered and free; there is or can be a limit to negotiation and debate — definitively.
And yet, the need to defend one's self from Tyranny, or simply one's neighbors, still exists. It comes up again and again in the courts that the duty of the police is NOT to save you. Some truly shocking cases have taken place where, for example, the police stood by and let a man be stabbed to half to death on a subway without intervening. Where response times are so long that the police do little better than come to pick up the bodies. To depend on the police for your safety is the height of folly.
Indeed, a cadre of American poets once famously opined that 911 is a joke.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
2018/02/17 00:15:49
Subject: School shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL
Indeed, a cadre of American poets once famously opined that 911 is a joke.
Police response time to my parents house is half an hour. I once called 911 to report my car being stolen up in Salamanca. It took the police two hours to drive three blocks. When I asked 'WTF?' I was told I called in the middle of shift change and no one could be bothered.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
2018/02/17 00:18:42
Subject: Re:School shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL
Like I said, we did it for the tobacco companies, multiple times, it can be done without a convention for the NRA. And we still have our FIrst amendment.
Apologies but that is not accurate.
1. The tobacco companies made a large settlement as they were charged with knowingly selling a harmful product. To be comparable, the gun makers would have to sell products that they knew had technical problems that made them unsafe to use.
the government currently seizes assets for no crimes, see eminent domain.
Eminent domain is related to land, not the monetary assets of private groups (NRA) or companies.
You're right though, my plan would take significant effort and a lot of work, but all things worth doing usually do. Let's remember the current plan though, do nothing, make getting guns easier, and wonder why gun violence is getting worse.
Your plan violates the basic tenants of three of the Bill of Rights. Its not a thins "worth doing," unless your intent is to start a war that kills millions (if we use Civil War numbers adjusted to current populations).
Could you mayhaps modify your proposal to one that doesn't do that?
Sure, just repeal the second and ban all guns.
but think about this for a bit
unless your intent is to start a war that kills millions (if we use Civil War
people are willing to go to war, killing more people to protect their guns, yet will do absolutely nothing and even argue againt doing anything to save children.
sure it's easy to pick apary my idea, but I also noticed no one answered my question directly, but they answered none the less. their guns mean more than the lives of children and thus I hold all gun owners as being complicit in all school shootings.
2018/02/17 00:19:18
Subject: Re:School shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL
BaronIveagh wrote: Police response time to my parents house is half an hour. I once called 911 to report my car being stolen up in Salamanca. It took the police two hours to drive three blocks. When I asked 'WTF?' I was told I called in the middle of shift change and no one could be bothered.
I believe it. Where I live there is no local police department - we have to depend on the county sheriff. The last time we called 911, they took 40 minutes to show up.
I definitely am not an anti-gun person by any measure.
sirlynchmob wrote: their guns mean more than the lives of children and thus I hold all gun owners as being complicit in all school shootings.
That's more than a little silly. It's possible to be a firearm owner and also support at least some gun control measures - not everyone is a Sith lord on the topic. I dont think you'd find many people on this forum protesting a ban on bump stocks, for example, were it to have happened.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/02/17 00:22:25
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2018/02/17 00:41:59
Subject: Re:School shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL
people are willing to go to war, killing more people to protect their guns, yet will do absolutely nothing and even argue againt doing anything to save children.
sure it's easy to pick apary my idea, but I also noticed no one answered my question directly, but they answered none the less. their guns mean more than the lives of children and thus I hold all gun owners as being complicit in all school shootings.
I hold you and your ilk as complacent in every school shooting because you put these poor kids into environments where there are few people trained and equipped to protect them.
Look at Israeli schools...
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2018/02/17 00:46:55
Subject: School shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL
What point is it to put the onus on mental health evaluation and intervention if the people charged with such duties don't do their job? I ask because I'm seeing a lot of reports that police were called about this guy, the FBI failed to investigate after being called in January, there were many posts on social media, and this guy had disciplinary action taken against him in high school eventually requiring his expulsion. There's even a report that this guy was taking meds prescribed by a psychiatrist.
And still nobody did anything. His guns were never confiscated. He was info was never forwarded to the ATF. What is the point of asking for some sort of new gun law if the people charged with enforcing laws aren't doing it in the first place?
This isn't a case of "nobody knew". There were warning signs all over the place. Many even had those blue "K-Mart special" flashing lights on them.
The more that comes out about this, the angrier I get. 17 people are dead due to something so entirely fething preventable.
2018/02/17 00:59:26
Subject: Re:School shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL
Like I said, we did it for the tobacco companies, multiple times, it can be done without a convention for the NRA. And we still have our FIrst amendment.
Apologies but that is not accurate.
1. The tobacco companies made a large settlement as they were charged with knowingly selling a harmful product. To be comparable, the gun makers would have to sell products that they knew had technical problems that made them unsafe to use.
the government currently seizes assets for no crimes, see eminent domain.
Eminent domain is related to land, not the monetary assets of private groups (NRA) or companies.
You're right though, my plan would take significant effort and a lot of work, but all things worth doing usually do. Let's remember the current plan though, do nothing, make getting guns easier, and wonder why gun violence is getting worse.
Your plan violates the basic tenants of three of the Bill of Rights. Its not a thins "worth doing," unless your intent is to start a war that kills millions (if we use Civil War numbers adjusted to current populations).
Could you mayhaps modify your proposal to one that doesn't do that?
Sure, just repeal the second and ban all guns.
but think about this for a bit
unless your intent is to start a war that kills millions (if we use Civil War
people are willing to go to war, killing more people to protect their guns, yet will do absolutely nothing and even argue againt doing anything to save children.
sure it's easy to pick apary my idea, but I also noticed no one answered my question directly, but they answered none the less. their guns mean more than the lives of children and thus I hold all gun owners as being complicit in all school shootings.
Wow, dude, when you strawman you really ball out. Please enlighten me as to how exactly my ownership of guns directly contributed to the recent school shooting in Florida? I’m not in Florida, neither are my guns and I have no plans to murder children so how exactly does that contribute to a specific individual choosing to shoot up a school? If giving up my guns actually meant that no child in the US would ever die of gun violence I’d consider it but that’s a faulty premise on its face. I know where my guns are, I know what my intentions are, I know neither myself nor my guns are a threat to schoolchildren so I’m going to hang onto them and vote accordingly.
Prestor Jon wrote: I really don't trust the Federal govt to handle that kind of slippery slope issue because it requires much more than an oversimplified one size fits all solution.
So again, the thought is that when the people who know you best know you have impaired judgement and should not own firearms, your right to own firearms trumps that, which circles back to the earlier question: what was the FBI supposed to do? You're going to see the FBI thrown under the bus a lot in the next few days over their failure to act on the tip but there was no meaningful action they could have taken. You know the state can't take action on that; it would have to be at the federal level. But I agree that as the constitution is currently interpreted, this is how it lays.
Prestor Jon wrote: He didn't do anything that caused him to be mentally ill that would justify punishing him for it, being schizophrenic is just who he is. The State shouldn't criminalize who you are the State should only criminalize what you choose to do.
A person who is mentally ill by definition can't make rational choices in their behavior. No right is unlimited and society would be unworkable if it were, so I'm going to have to disagree with you: I think established mental illness is definitely something that should preclude you from owning firearms. Yes, I know there are add on questions there but that is the base ideal I am comfortable with.
If your brother in law is dangerous enough to need to be involuntarily commmitted then the State should be able to prove that in court. I don’t think empowering relatives or doctors to have people locked up against their will is worth it. If somebody like your BiL is willing to take his meds and swears to do so to a judge then he should be allowed to live his life. If he is caught not taking his meds then the cops should be able to take him into custody put him back in court and have the judge commit him.
That’s what I would have liked to have seen the FBI do. Reach out to local law enforcement find out the cops had been called to respond to Cruz 36 times and review those incidents and reports to see if there was enough evidence to take him into custody for a mental competency evaluation. If I walked down the street and started shooting at my neighbor’s chickens or goats I would likely be arrested because that’s illegal. I’m pretty confident it’s illegal in Florida too and that’s only 1 of the 36 reasons the cops responded to Cruz.
The FBI should have followed their protocol, investigated the report, reviewed what local law enforcement had done and determined if more could be and needs to be done.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/17 01:12:57
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2018/02/17 01:35:35
Subject: Re:School shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL
people are willing to go to war, killing more people to protect their guns, yet will do absolutely nothing and even argue againt doing anything to save children.
sure it's easy to pick apary my idea, but I also noticed no one answered my question directly, but they answered none the less. their guns mean more than the lives of children and thus I hold all gun owners as being complicit in all school shootings.
I hold you and your ilk as complacent in every school shooting because you put these poor kids into environments where there are few people trained and equipped to protect them.
There was an armed deputy on the compass at the Florida shooting. He purportedly had said he never actually encountered the shooter.
The idea that you need to have armed security guards in school is ridiculous.
Look at Israeli schools...
I can't tell whether or not your original post was meant to be sarcastic/snarky, but if it was meant to be serious and you think this is legitimately a compelling argument...you're wrong on so many levels.
2018/02/17 02:10:49
Subject: Re:School shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL
people are willing to go to war, killing more people to protect their guns, yet will do absolutely nothing and even argue againt doing anything to save children.
sure it's easy to pick apary my idea, but I also noticed no one answered my question directly, but they answered none the less. their guns mean more than the lives of children and thus I hold all gun owners as being complicit in all school shootings.
I hold you and your ilk as complacent in every school shooting because you put these poor kids into environments where there are few people trained and equipped to protect them.
There was an armed deputy on the compass at the Florida shooting. He purportedly had said he never actually encountered the shooter.
The idea that you need to have armed security guards in school is ridiculous.
Look at Israeli schools...
I can't tell whether or not your original post was meant to be sarcastic/snarky, but if it was meant to be serious and you think this is legitimately a compelling argument...you're wrong on so many levels.
Only 1 guard? Makes my point there were few (in this case exactly 1) people trained and equipped, doesn't it.
And my point is exactly as serious as sirlynchmob blaming all gun owners for each school shooting. If folks like him didn't force our kids into unsafe environments it wouldn't be an issue.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/17 02:12:34
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2018/02/17 02:15:22
Subject: Re:School shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL
Only 1 guard? Makes my point there were few (in this case exactly 1) people trained and equipped, doesn't it.
And your point being "Let's put more guns into the school!" somehow decreases the danger?
And my point is exactly as serious as sirlynchmob blaming all gun owners for each school shooting. If folks like him didn't force our kids into unsafe environments it wouldn't be an issue.
IT'S A FREAKING SCHOOL!
Do you somehow think kids would magically be safer only being homeschooled? That somehow, magically, every teacher being armed means there will never be anything bad to happen to a school ever?
2018/02/17 04:03:03
Subject: Re:School shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL
BaronIveagh wrote: Police response time to my parents house is half an hour. I once called 911 to report my car being stolen up in Salamanca. It took the police two hours to drive three blocks. When I asked 'WTF?' I was told I called in the middle of shift change and no one could be bothered.
I believe it. Where I live there is no local police department - we have to depend on the county sheriff. The last time we called 911, they took 40 minutes to show up.
I definitely am not an anti-gun person by any measure.
sirlynchmob wrote: their guns mean more than the lives of children and thus I hold all gun owners as being complicit in all school shootings.
That's more than a little silly. It's possible to be a firearm owner and also support at least some gun control measures - not everyone is a Sith lord on the topic. I dont think you'd find many people on this forum protesting a ban on bump stocks, for example, were it to have happened.
Wait, I'm NOT a Sith Lord? But I have a degree from Count Dookie's Jedi school and Beauty Academy!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2018/02/17 04:44:44
Subject: Re:School shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL
Kan, you and I obviously had two very different school experiences. Maybe because they sent people from the GGR Juvenile Correction Facility to our high-school, or maybe you just lived in one of those nice places where you don't have at least one fight on your way to school each day. I can say that I can get behind the idea of teachers with guns. I might not have gotten stabbed in the lunch room in 12th grade if the lunch monitor was armed.
This guy had the ultimate cover Kan, he was a former student. Even if the guards had seen him, they might not have thought anything of it before it was too late. He even used it to sneak out of the school and leave. Thank God he wasn't smart enough to have a get away car nearby.
If your brother in law is dangerous enough to need to be involuntarily commmitted then the State should be able to prove that in court. I don’t think empowering relatives or doctors to have people locked up against their will is worth it. If somebody like your BiL is willing to take his meds and swears to do so to a judge then he should be allowed to live his life. If he is caught not taking his meds then the cops should be able to take him into custody put him back in court and have the judge commit him.
That’s what I would have liked to have seen the FBI do. Reach out to local law enforcement find out the cops had been called to respond to Cruz 36 times and review those incidents and reports to see if there was enough evidence to take him into custody for a mental competency evaluation. If I walked down the street and started shooting at my neighbor’s chickens or goats I would likely be arrested because that’s illegal. I’m pretty confident it’s illegal in Florida too and that’s only 1 of the 36 reasons the cops responded to Cruz.
The FBI should have followed their protocol, investigated the report, reviewed what local law enforcement had done and determined if more could be and needs to be done.
I think one of the most absurd things to happen in shootings of the recent past is the poor guy who went and turned himself in because he knew he was dangerous, and law enforcement (the FBI if I remember right?) not only just let him go but gave him back his gun. The guy basically waved his hands in the air screaming "help me I think I might hurt someone" and no one did a damn thing. Now that's not automatically their fault cause I don't think policy let them do anything to the guy but I think that there is an indication that the system failed and has failed a few times now.
How messed up is it that a twitter post prank can get a guy killed by a SWAT team because of an argument over a video game, but a man turning himself in saying "I'm dangerous" or other people screaming "this guy needs help" only warrants a "there's nothing we can do?" That's fethed up.
Luciferian wrote: Media infamy is unquestionably one of the motivating factors for doing this kind of thing. Throw into that higher depression and suicide rates among young males and so many other variables. A lot has changed, really.
Not really. Bonnie and Clyde were incredibly famous at the time of their crimes, same with Dillinger.
The media has always made killers famous, that has not changed at all.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
2018/02/17 11:51:33
Subject: School shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL
At the end of the day I don't blame people who don't care about school shootings enough to give up their guns. In the past 6 years since Sandy Hook there been 239 school shootings resulting in 138 deaths.
That *sounds* horrible, but by my quick maths/googling there's 77 million students in the USA, 56 million of which are between kindergarten and 12th grade. That's only 1 in every 2.4 million on a yearly basis.
Is it terrible when a kid dies? Of course. But I don't blame anyone for feeling it's not a big enough number to give up the right to own guns. Compare that to car accidents, which I believe is about 1000 dead kids a year, which rounds out to about 1 in 70k.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/17 11:52:27
2018/02/17 12:11:14
Subject: Re:School shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL
It's pointless to post school shooting threads to a discussion forum where discussion of US politics is banned, because no discussion is then possible. All you could post is variations of "that's bad".
I'd just like to highlight that this was posted over 2 pages ago and nobody seems to have considered the possibility of a school shooting thread about an incident outside of the USA. I think that warrants some thought and introspection.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/17 12:13:01
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
2018/02/17 12:22:47
Subject: School shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL
