School shooting in Parkland, FL

[usnuzuloose]

If anyone is interested a site called wild about trial. Go there it is on eastern time, go to the bond court site the shooter will be on around 12:30 for the docket for the bond hearing,

 

[MamaBelle4]

I do believe somewhere it is outlined what falls under that. Don't really know enough about though, but I believe one can find the info out there.

This is the direct wording:

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.

People have a tendency to interpret it to mean precisely whatever they want it to and ignore the actual meaning of the sentence. We had just won the Revolution on the backs of militia which had overthrown the tyrannical rule of England. The second amendment means that the people of this nation have the right to form a militia because it is necessary to should they feel our government became tyrannical and needed overthrown, and as such, they need to have access to weapons.

This is simply foolish and impractical in this day and age. I don't care what kind of gun you have, you can't stand against a tank or a fighter jet should a revolution happen. The weaponry has advanced too much for this to really be applicable in its intended form.

 

[sara_s]

I live 20 mins from this school. My boss ran out of the office yesterday after receiving a call from his panicked son, who was in the school - fine, but shaken up. It just goes to show that this can happen anywhere, anytime. I'm not a parent yet, but this terrifies me to no end. Devastating.

 

[GreatLakes]

More info on the shooter coming out.

The picture painted is grim. Clearly a troubled young man from his Instagram posts and behavior at school and at home.

Abusive, killing animals, threatening people, obsessed with weapons...

Yet, still allowed to have guns and knives by those around him.

This is a multi-faceted problem.

It sounds like school adminstrators did what they could, as he was expelled, yet, he was attending another school.

He goes from family to family with his guns after his parents died.

Many people who knew him predicted something like this would happen with him.

Yet he was free to do what he did.

Let's be careful, we don't want to label him.

"School officials said Cruz was attending another school in Broward County after his expulsion.

Cruz's mother Lynda Cruz died of pneumonia on November 1 neighbors, friends and family members said, according to the Sun Sentinel. Cruz and her husband, who died of a heart attack several years ago, adopted Nikolas and his biological brother, Zachary, after the couple moved from Long Island in New York to Broward County.

The boys were left in the care of a family friend after their mother died, family member Barbara Kumbatovich, of Long Island, said.

Unhappy there, Nikolas Cruz asked to move in with a friend's family in northwest Broward. The family agreed and Cruz moved in around Thanksgiving. According to the family's lawyer, who did not identify them, they knew that Cruz owned the AR-15 but made him keep it locked up in a cabinet. He did have the key, however.

Jim Lewis said the family is devastated and didn't see this coming. They are cooperating with authorities, he said.

Broward County Mayor Beam Furr said during an interview with CNN that the shooter was getting treatment at a mental health clinic for a while, but that he hadn't been back to the clinic for more than a year.

'It wasn't like there wasn't concern for him,' Furr said."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l-shooters-guns-violence-hurting-animals.html

This is a perfect example of systemic failure long before the actual act of killing. Guns are an easy scapegoat because they are things but people failed to prevent this from happening despite all of the signs it could. Potential mass shootings should be investigated like potential terrorist attacks. When someone is showing signs they are going to do something you alert the authorities whether that "something" is blow up a bridge or walk into a building and start shooting people. We have the means to investigate potential attacks before they happen, we just seem to have this disconnect between how we investigate and thwart a terror attack vs a mass shooting.

 

[Hikergirl]

And by "he should not have had a weapon", I am actually suggesting that his gun that he bought legally should have been confiscated after his animal abuse incidents and expulsion.

People found guilty of domestic abuse should have their weapons confiscated. People who have made terroristic threads should have their weapons confiscated. Your second amendment rights should stop at the point where you are a danger to others. The 1st amendment right of freedom of speech has limits. You can't threaten the life of the president, even though it's just speech. You can't incite panic. Your 2nd amendment rights should work the same way. If you are a danger to others, you don't get to own weapons.

I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
There are things that render you ineligible for owning firearms, there is no reason why there can't be things that take away that right if you do them after you legally purchase one. I should say there is no reason why some things can't be added to that already.

 

[dlavender]

Would hiking the age required to purchase a gun help? Move it to 21. Also, under the age of 25, require a couple of character "sponsors" to obtain anything over 1 handgun.

I know these changes wont stop all of these crimes, but we have to make it harder.

I can't understand why an 18 year old can walk into a gun store and buy whatever they are selling, as long as they cleared a background check.

It's totally reasonable for an 18 year old to have a AR-15 with countless magazines......

I don't see the logic in that

 

[Hikergirl]

This is the direct wording:

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.

People have a tendency to interpret it to mean precisely whatever they want it to and ignore the actual meaning of the sentence. We had just won the Revolution on the backs of militia which had overthrown the tyrannical rule of England. The second amendment means that the people of this nation have the right to form a militia because it is necessary to should they feel our government became tyrannical and needed overthrown, and as such, they need to have access to weapons.

This is simply foolish and impractical in this day and age. I don't care what kind of gun you have, you can't stand against a tank or a fighter jet should a revolution happen. The weaponry has advanced too much for this to really be applicable in its intended form.

I'm not talking about the general public's interpretation.
Like I said, the info is out there.

 

[GreatLakes]

Would hiking the age required to purchase a gun help? Move it to 21. Also, under the age of 25, require a couple of character "sponsors" to obtain anything over 1 handgun.

I know these changes wont stop all of these crimes, but we have to make it harder.

I can't understand why an 18 year old can walk into a gun store and buy whatever they are selling, as long as they cleared a background check.

It's totally reasonable for an 18 year old to have a AR-15 with countless magazines......

I don't see the logic in that

I think exercising your second amendment rights should be as easy as exercising your first. You don't have to go through hoops to "earn" the rights that come with the first amendment, you are automatically granted them by being born. I look at the second amendment the same way. You have it as a birthright as an American. I also think it should be just as hard to lose the second amendment rights as it is the first. There are very narrow circumstances in which the government can limit your speech or religion. Neither right is absolute but the limits are extremely narrow. I look at the second amendment the same way. It should be very hard and time consuming for the government to take away any of our rights.

 

[MamaBelle4]

I'm not talking about the general public's interpretation.
Like I said, the info is out there.

I'm not sure what you want me to search for. The wording in the amendment is pretty clear to me.

 

[rickybobby]

Guns have been around as long as America has been around. School shootings are for the most part a newer trend, which points to some other factor at play rather than the accessibility of guns.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

When I say rifle, I mean, I don't know, a muzzle loader? I know very little about guns, I'm not going to lie or pretend otherwise. I could Google the difference or ask my husband who owns several. When I say "guns like this" I mean precisely that. Guns that have the capability to fire this many shots this quickly have no reason to be in our society. They don't. If you like them for target practice, use something else, if that bums you out but saves dozens of lives, then I can live with that (and anyone should be able to).

And people who are telling me that banning these sorts of weapons "Clearly won't work because of x, y & z" are not offering any alternative solution. Don't tell me what won't work if you know so much more about it than I do, tell me what WILL. If you don't have any ideas, let's try the suggestions on the table because something has to be done.

And let's also not forget in the course of this conversation, that the second amendment protects a "well regulated militia" not any nut job who is 18 and has a driver's license and no priors.

(ETA the "you" above is generalized "you" and not directed at anyone in particular.)

This goes back to what I was saying about a more extreme version of control being necessary to have an impact.

90+% of all handguns sold in the US are semi-automatic with detachable magazines, just the same as “assault weapons”. And these are not new things. The most popular handgun in the US is the model 1911. As it’s name would indicate, it debuted in 1911.

At close range, handguns are every bit as deadly as a small-caliber “assault weapon”.

 

[dlavender]

I think exercising your second amendment rights should be as easy as exercising your first. You don't have to go through hoops to "earn" the rights that come with the first amendment, you are automatically granted them by being born. I look at the second amendment the same way. You have it as a birthright as an American. I also think it should be just as hard to lose the second amendment rights as it is the first. There are very narrow circumstances in which the government can limit your speech or religion. Neither right is absolute but the limits are extremely narrow. I look at the second amendment the same way. It should be very hard and time consuming for the government to take away any of our rights.

So why have any gun laws?

My 9 year old has this birthright.

Perhaps she should be able to get a glock with her American Girl gift card next time she is in the store?

Maybe buy a tank, and get some plutonium?

ETA: Put them in vending machines...B1 Fritos, C3 AR-15

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Re: the 1989 shooting...




Boy, that doesn't sound at all familiar.

But, if he had convictions TODAY, he could not walk into a gun shop and leave with a gun, nor could he purchase one online.

Admittedly, he could still find a non-dealer to sell him a used gun.

 

[MamaBelle4]

This goes back to what I was saying about a more extreme version of control being necessary to have an impact.

90+% of all handguns sold in the US are semi-automatic with detachable magazines, just the same as “assault weapons”. And these are not new things. The most popular handgun in the US is the model 1911. As it’s name would indicate, it debuted in 1911.

At close range, handguns are every bit as deadly as a small-caliber “assault weapon”.

I'm okay with that. Though I'm sure plenty aren't.

If not that, what about restricting the amount of ammo you can purchase? Would that be helpful? I'm not sure how you would regulate that to be honest.

 

[sam_gordon]

This is the direct wording:

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.

People have a tendency to interpret it to mean precisely whatever they want it to and ignore the actual meaning of the sentence. We had just won the Revolution on the backs of militia which had overthrown the tyrannical rule of England. The second amendment means that the people of this nation have the right to form a militia because it is necessary to should they feel our government became tyrannical and needed overthrown, and as such, they need to have access to weapons.

This is simply foolish and impractical in this day and age. I don't care what kind of gun you have, you can't stand against a tank or a fighter jet should a revolution happen. The weaponry has advanced too much for this to really be applicable in its intended form.

I disagree with your interpretation. I agree they wanted to give the public the capability to fight back against a tyrannical government OR help protect the country. But saying "you won't be able to stand against the technology government has so you shouldn't try" is no different than saying "we can't stop these school shootings from happening so we shouldn't try". I'm guessing you wouldn't agree with the latter.

I do agree people can lose their right to own firearms. What's at issue is identifying those people AND putting them through due process.

 

[mi*vida*loca]

Guns aren't the problem. Psychos with guns are the problem.

I grew up in a high crime area. Kids brought guns to school from time to time. I saw them with my own eyes. Yet we never had a school shooting and it was never anything I worried about. To this day my old city has never had a school shooting even after being named "murder capital USA" several times. And we had all the reasons in the world to be angry. We were poor, penniless, living below the poverty line, most with no hope for our futures, most with no father, sometimes school lunch was the only meal some of us had, yet none of us shot up our school.

Like a PP said...guns have been around forever. There is another problem here.

 

[cabanafrau]

When I say rifle, I mean, I don't know, a muzzle loader? I know very little about guns, I'm not going to lie or pretend otherwise. I could Google the difference or ask my husband who owns several. When I say "guns like this" I mean precisely that. Guns that have the capability to fire this many shots this quickly have no reason to be in our society. They don't. If you like them for target practice, use something else, if that bums you out but saves dozens of lives, then I can live with that (and anyone should be able to).

And people who are telling me that banning these sorts of weapons "Clearly won't work because of x, y & z" are not offering any alternative solution. Don't tell me what won't work if you know so much more about it than I do, tell me what WILL. If you don't have any ideas, let's try the suggestions on the table because something has to be done.

And let's also not forget in the course of this conversation, that the second amendment protects a "well regulated militia" not any nut job who is 18 and has a driver's license and no priors.

(ETA the "you" above is generalized "you" and not directed at anyone in particular.)

Not wanting to hear reasons why proposed solutions won't work unless the proper solution can be offered isn't the standard for solving anything. It makes no sense to propose solutions and insist they must be implemented despite knowing they are ineffective. Propose solutions, evaluate efficacy and work on finding ways to improve identified flaws or keep striving for better solutions.

 

[dlavender]

Guns aren't the problem. Psychos with guns are the problem.

I grew up in a high crime area. Kids brought guns to school from time to time. I saw them with my own eyes. Yet we never had a school shooting and it was never anything I worried about. To this day my old city has never had a school shooting even after being named "murder capital USA" several times.

Like a PP said...guns have been around forever. There is another problem here.

The hard part is preventing the psycho from getting the gun.

Since its their "birthrite" to have one, and all......

Set up a tip line? "you think someone is a psycho, call and we will investigate" ?

Probably would need a pretty hefty tipline center to handle that one.

Do they enter the no buy list instantly after the phone call?

It would probably be more practical to just make it harder to get the weapons in the first place.

Just a thought.

 

[dlavender]

Perhaps the cost could be a deterrent?

Add a hefty "tax".

"Ok, I totally get why you need this AR-15 and accompanying 10 magazines. That's totally normal. That's going to be $10k, please...."

Doesn't take away any rights. Use the tax for the security in schools that protect people from the guy buying said weapon.

 

[sam_gordon]

Saw this on Megyn Kelly and thought it was interesting...