Coward Murders Children in Florida

[Heathen Hammer]

You keep saying we don't have a gun problem, yet people are dying from guns.

In that case US has car problem and burger problem too.

Gun manufacturers wouldn't because they are interested in long term gun sales. On the other hand, every gun manufacturer throws a party for their accountants when a shooting becomes a national tragedy because they know their sales will spike. National tragedies spike outrage, outrage spikes clamor for gun control, fear of gun control throws gunowners into a buying frenzy. Gun manufacturers fund the NRA and lobby politicians for that reason, to squash gun control bills in committee.

Gun control bills are squashed because they are useless and unpopular, not because of some NRA conspiracy.

Definitely not.

You need to go through a background check if you intent to by a gun in US.

Every gun is made with a purpose, to be a lethal weapon. Demanding we closely examine who is allowed to have a lethal weapon is far from controversial.

They already do in US, you can't buy a gun legally if you are a felon or have mental illness. That's more then enough.

[B. W.]

The Sheriff is a lefty and staffed his department with lefties. When the local police arrived they were disappointed when the Sheriff's deputies did not follow them inside. Also, it's out on social media now that the shooter was sympathetic to ISIS.

It's very strange that four armed deputies did not go in and take action against an active shooter that was in the process of killing kids.

A little more about the Sheriff's activities:

https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/florida-broward-county-sheriff-hires-terror-linked-cair-leader/

Now, before anyone starts, don't call me a conspiracy theorist. I'm just relating some very odd facts. I'm not saying there is a connection. The sheriff's deputies were obviously cowards who did not do their jobs.

The fact that it was a gun free zone does not give them an excuse to not go in.This was a disaster waiting to happen and the local citizens hold some responsibility for electing those retards.

[Gaidin]

You need to go through a background check if you intent to by a gun in US.

If you think that's a background check I have a bridge to an island in Alaska to sell you.

[Love Mountain]

No one said that banning guns wouldn't save any lives; it just wouldn't be worth it. It would do much more harm than good.

Millions of people die every year due to car crashes. Should we lower the speed limit to 20 mph? "If it saves one life"...

Are you insinuating that strict gun regulations would save only one life a year? And by the way, we have lots of car regulations that have significant reduced the aount of people who die from car crashes. Seatbelts, child seats, headlight requirements. In addition to that, there are lots of State sponsored websites and initiatives that exist to encourage manufacturers to prioritize safety. IIHS for example. So the idea that we've done nothing to prevent people from dying from car crashes because "freedom!" is absurd. We've done lots of things and spent a lot of money to do so while restricting people's freedom.

How odd that we can't seem to do the same for firearms. And stop saying I want to ban firearms. Me requiring a strict licensing process and a thorough background check isn't me banning firearms. It's me banning irresponsible adults from firearms.

When I want to strictly regulate and monitor FFLs with a possibility of nationalizing parts of FFL responsibilities, it's not me banning FFLs from doing business. It's me banning dirty FFLs and those who are too lazy or too unwilling to be responsible enough to sell firearms.

In that case US has car problem and burger problem too.

Yes we do. You have any idea how heavily the automotive industry is regulated in the U.S.? No you don't, because you wouldn't make such a statement otherwise. Cars also kill people, hence why the Govt. has spent billions on encouraging car safety, instituting standards, and improving highway safety.

Gun control bills are squashed because they are useless and unpopular, not because of some NRA conspiracy.

A gun lobby funded by gun manufacturers lobbying against gun regulations isn't conspiracy. It's the NRA doing their job. Stop saying calling everything you don't like a conspiracy. Globalist conspiracy. Leftist conspiracy. Don't even try.

You need to go through a background check if you intent to by a gun in US.

There is no background check in the U.S. before you buy a gun. There is a system that determines whether you are eligible or not eligible to buy something based on very loose criteria. Nobody does a mental health evaluation on you before you buy something. Nobody asks your local LEO whether there's been complaints about you being a domestic abuser. Nobody consults anyone or anything they simply check if you're in the system or not.

They already do in US, you can't buy a gun legally if you are a felon or have mental illness. That's more then enough.

No they don't and it's nowhere near enough. Unless you missed the part where a kid in Florida shot up a school with perfectly legal firearms.

The Sheriff is a lefty and staffed his department with lefties. When the local police arrived they were disappointed when the Sheriff's deputies did not follow them inside. Also, it's out on social media now that the shooter was sympathetic to ISIS.

It's very strange that four armed deputies did not go in and take action against an active shooter that was in the process of killing kids.

A little more about the Sheriff's activities:

https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/florida-broward-county-sheriff-hires-terror-linked-cair-leader/

Glad you've consulted a very reputable wordpress blog before coming to us with this.

Now, before anyone starts, don't call me a conspiracy theorist. I'm just relating some very odd facts. I'm not saying there is a connection. The sheriff's deputies were obviously cowards who did not do their jobs.

The fact that it was a gun free zone does not give them an excuse to not go in.This was a disaster waiting to happen and the local citizens hold some responsibility for electing those retards.

There are no facts. I don't even see anything on the page and even if I did, a random internet blog that has no verification of any kind is not proof of anything. Fake News as usual from you.

[Heathen Hammer]

Yes we do. You have any idea how heavily the automotive industry is regulated in the U.S.? No you don't, because you wouldn't make such a statement otherwise. Cars also kill people, hence why the Govt. has spent billions on encouraging car safety, instituting standards, and improving highway safety.

Good thing that gun industry is regulated as well then.

A gun lobby funded by gun manufacturers lobbying against gun regulations isn't conspiracy. It's the NRA doing their job. Stop saying calling everything you don't like a conspiracy. Globalist conspiracy. Leftist conspiracy. Don't even try.

You are the one claiming that there is a conspiracy. In reality even if NRA didn't exist, those bills would still be axed for above-mentioned reasons.

There is no background check in the U.S. before you buy a gun. There is a system that determines whether you are eligible or not eligible to buy something based on very loose criteria. Nobody does a mental health evaluation on you before you buy something. Nobody asks your local LEO whether there's been complaints about you being a domestic abuser. Nobody consults anyone or anything they simply check if you're in the system or not.

If you commit crimes or have mental illness, you'd be in the system.

No they don't and it's nowhere near enough. Unless you missed the part where a kid in Florida shot up a school with perfectly legal firearms.

Because he didn't have criminal record or mental illness record.

[Love Mountain]

Good thing that gun industry is regulated as well then.

Except for all intents and purposes its not.

You are the one claiming that there is a conspiracy. In reality even if NRA didn't exist, those bills would still be axed for above-mentioned reasons.

Saying the NRA does their job as a lobbying group is suddenly a conspiracy? I suppose all lobbying groups must a bunch of conspirators then. My mistake.

If you commit crimes or have mental illness, you'd be in the system.

No and no. NICBCS has specific criteria on who gets entered as ineligible, there's plenty of wiggle room, and no, they do not add you if you have mental health issues. They only add you if, "been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution". Which is not mental illness. Mental health is a very nuanced topic that requires an evaluation done by a professional in order to draw a sound conclusion.

Because he didn't have criminal record or mental illness record.

That we know of. He never took a mental evaluation nor has he ever gone through any training. This is why he was allowed to buy a gun, not because he was a good person who suddenly turned bad.

[Heathen Hammer]

[QUOTE=Sukiyama;15528286]Except for all intents and purposes its not. [/quote
It is regulated within reasonable limits, much like car industry is not regulated enough to prevent psychos from driving cars into crowds of people.

Saying the NRA does their job as a lobbying group is suddenly a conspiracy? I suppose all lobbying groups must a bunch of conspirators then. My mistake.

NRA is a civil rights group, and as such it does lobbying, but as it was pointed out before, even without NRA these bills would have been decimated, just like attempts to ban heavy metal music and video games by pretty much same strata.

No and no. NICBCS has specific criteria on who gets entered as ineligible, there's plenty of wiggle room, and no, they do not add you if you have mental health issues. They only add you if, "been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution". Which is not mental illness. Mental health is a very nuanced topic that requires an evaluation done by a professional in order to draw a sound conclusion.

And so then your previous argument doesn't make sense since you don't undergo such an evaluation when you apply for a driver's license either.

That we know of. He never took a mental evaluation nor has he ever gone through any training. This is why he was allowed to buy a gun, not because he was a good person who suddenly turned bad.

Again, with that in mind, even if he couldn't buy a gun he could have driven his car into a crowd of people, or just make a bomb out of items that don't even require ID for purchase. I'm yet to hear a coherent explanation of what exactly do proponents of "gun control" want.

[Love Mountain]

It is regulated within reasonable limits, much like car industry is not regulated enough to prevent psychos from driving cars into crowds of people.

Except vehicles are not designed with that in mind. Firearms are explicitly designed for mass murder.

NRA is a civil rights group, and as such it does lobbying, but as it was pointed out before, even without NRA these bills would have been decimated, just like attempts to ban heavy metal music and video games by pretty much same strata.

Its a lobbying group. Stop mincing words. And no there is no guarantee that these bills would be decimated if the NRA didn't exist. Prove it then. Have fun trying to prove that negative.

And so then your previous argument doesn't make sense since you don't undergo such an evaluation when you apply for a driver's license either.

Because vehicles are not designed for mass murder. Firearms are, and by the way, they're way better at it too.

Again, with that in mind, even if he couldn't buy a gun he could have driven his car into a crowd of people, or just make a bomb out of items that don't even require ID for purchase. I'm yet to hear a coherent explanation of what exactly do proponents of "gun control" want.

Using a car to kill people at his school would require planning. There's nothing proving that he knows how to make a bomb. And I have given a coherent explanation, read the thread. I've repeated myself multiple times.

And to add on to that, we don't suffer from an epidemic of vehicle ramming attacks. If we were, I'd be happy to explore how to protect the citizenry from it. What we suffer from is gun crime, and I've addressed how we can reduce it many times.

[mongrel]

The Sheriff is a lefty and staffed his department with lefties. When the local police arrived they were disappointed when the Sheriff's deputies did not follow them inside. Also, it's out on social media now that the shooter was sympathetic to ISIS.

It's very strange that four armed deputies did not go in and take action against an active shooter that was in the process of killing kids.

A little more about the Sheriff's activities:

https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/florida-broward-county-sheriff-hires-terror-linked-cair-leader/

Now, before anyone starts, don't call me a conspiracy theorist. I'm just relating some very odd facts. I'm not saying there is a connection. The sheriff's deputies were obviously cowards who did not do their jobs.

The fact that it was a gun free zone does not give them an excuse to not go in.This was a disaster waiting to happen and the local citizens hold some responsibility for electing those retards.

Any reason why BW is restorting to a racist anti-Miuslim site for a view on this? Deputy Scott Peterson a jihadi? I don't think so. CAIR responsible for his colleagues not going in? Bollocks.

Seeing that Communist Viet Cong defenistrated US forces, I fail to see how the holding of left-wing politics determines the ability to engage in combat. What the event does show is the fallacy of the one good man with a gun excuse. Any human being, armed or not, unless committed to a cause with fanatic zeal will tend to duck and cover if they think themselves outnumbered or outgunned.It is human nature.

I mock the 'flakes, whose pockets are bulging with NRA cash , suggesting they can't run schools without arming teachers with guns.They are the real cowards

Cal me old-fashioned, but in my day the only weapons a teacher needed was a cane and blackboard eraser.





I hope the surviving kids give their so-called representatives a good spanking.

[Prodromos]

You talked specifically about children deaths. Now you're talking about all. Do thousands of people die because of high speeds that are still lower than the speed limit of the area they're in?

Are most children deaths in school zones?

You can look up the numbers. Here are the facts for teens.

https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafe...factsheet.html

Why should a teenager be allowed to move a 2-ton chunk of steel at 60mph? Do you support banning people under 21 from driving? Do you support reducing the speed limit to 20 mph? It would save lives, wouldn't it? Don't you want that? Or do you want innocent children to die?

[PointOfViewGun]

Are most children deaths in school zones?

You can look up the numbers. Here are the facts for teens.

https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafe...factsheet.html

Why should a teenager be allowed to move a 2-ton chunk of steel at 60mph? Do you support banning people under 21 from driving? Do you support reducing the speed limit to 20 mph? It would save lives, wouldn't it? Don't you want that? Or do you want innocent children to die?

Why are you deflecting a question with questions? Are you unable to substantiate your questioning? Speed limit is already at 20-25 mph band in a variety of places. Boston city speed limit is 25 mph. I do want such low speed limits in high risk places like cities. Funny enough, you're arguing about a thing that's already a thing. It's like that Marco Rubio clip where he makes the argument for the crowd. Speed limit is like the magazine limit of a gun. We already have speed limits. You're trying to debate the extent of the speed limits. I guess you're OK with magazine limits too.

Almost forgot, I would indeed support banning people under 21 from driving, just like drinking, especially in cities. Let people learn how to use the mass transportation before they start driving to impress their friends. I didn't drive till I was 20, didn't lose anything.

From your link, in 2015, 2,333 teens died in car accidents. In 2014, 36% of all accidents by male drivers were due to speeding. Given the data from your link, we estimate that 840 teens die due to speeding, not thousands. So, if you're gonna deflect deflect in accuracy.

[alhoon]

Please show respect to other members (as per the Mudpit's 1st rule) even if you strongly disagree with them.

[Prodromos]

Why are you deflecting a question with questions? Are you unable to substantiate your questioning? Speed limit is already at 20-25 mph band in a variety of places. Boston city speed limit is 25 mph. I do want such low speed limits in high risk places like cities. Funny enough, you're arguing about a thing that's already a thing. It's like that Marco Rubio clip where he makes the argument for the crowd. Speed limit is like the magazine limit of a gun. We already have speed limits. You're trying to debate the extent of the speed limits. I guess you're OK with magazine limits too.

Almost forgot, I would indeed support banning people under 21 from driving, just like drinking, especially in cities. Let people learn how to use the mass transportation before they start driving to impress their friends. I didn't drive till I was 20, didn't lose anything.

From your link, in 2015, 2,333 teens died in car accidents. In 2014, 36% of all accidents by male drivers were due to speeding. Given the data from your link, we estimate that 840 teens die due to speeding, not thousands. So, if you're gonna deflect deflect in accuracy.

Last I checked you supported gun bans everywhere, not only near schools or on public roads.

If thousands of people are dying from driving too fast, obviously we should either ban cars or reduce the speed limit even more. How about 5 mph? Wouldn't it save lives if everyone drove at 5 mph? Do you support it or not?

Thanks for answering the question about banning under-21s from driving.

Now I know you're going to avoid these questions, so let me state my point:

"Saving lives" is good, but it isn't the best thing. "It would save lives" isn't a valid reason for gun regulations. There's more important things, like liberty. "Everyone eventually dies. Not everyone really lives."

[Heathen Hammer]

Except vehicles are not designed with that in mind. Firearms are explicitly designed for mass murder.

Because vehicles are not designed for mass murder. Firearms are, and by the way, they're way better at it too.

No, firearms are designed to shoot bullets. That implies variety of use from hunting and target sports to self-defense and military.

Its a lobbying group. Stop mincing words. And no there is no guarantee that these bills would be decimated if the NRA didn't exist. Prove it then. Have fun trying to prove that negative.

Its not like I should. We don't have video game and heavy metal lobbying groups, yet those didn't get banned either although cringy liberal politicians along with their dumb housewife supporters wanted to ban those as well.

Using a car to kill people at his school would require planning. There's nothing proving that he knows how to make a bomb. And I have given a coherent explanation, read the thread. I've repeated myself multiple times.

Anyone with grade 10 knowledge of chemistry would be able to make a bomb or could just look it up online. You don't need to plan much of anything if you plan to ram a crowd of people with your car either.

And to add on to that, we don't suffer from an epidemic of vehicle ramming attacks. If we were, I'd be happy to explore how to protect the citizenry from it. What we suffer from is gun crime, and I've addressed how we can reduce it many times.

Again, this is not about lack of laws, it is about laws that are already on the books not being followed.

[PointOfViewGun]

Last I checked you supported gun bans everywhere, not only near schools or on public roads.

If thousands of people are dying from driving too fast, obviously we should either ban cars or reduce the speed limit even more. How about 5 mph? Wouldn't it save lives if everyone drove at 5 mph? Do you support it or not?

Thanks for answering the question about banning under-21s from driving.

Now I know you're going to avoid these questions, so let me state my point:

"Saving lives" is good, but it isn't the best thing. "It would save lives" isn't a valid reason for gun regulations. There's more important things, like liberty. "Everyone eventually dies. Not everyone really lives."

Nope. I never outright argued for a gun ban. Yet, you repeatedly kept arguing as if that's all I or anyone argued for. I don't see what you exactly accomplish by altering what people argue like that.

We do actually have 5 mph in certain locations, especially where cars and pedestrians share the roads. It works. Making regular city roads speed limit 5 mph is not logical though. It would not cause less deaths as the fatality of the crush starts rising in average about 20-25 mph. Making it 5 mph citywide would be quite detrimental to continuity of life as well, which in the end would cause loss of lives through various reasons.

Don't confuse your position with mine. I avoided none of your questions, as ridiculous as they may be. You have, however, avoided mine. Repeatedly, you avoided telling me how many of the deaths actually occur because of high speeds that are still under the speed limit. Your entire premise relies on car accident deaths that happen where the care have not passed the speed limit. So far, you have produced no substance to support that.

Liberty is not exactly more important than safety. What you need is a balance between the two. "It would save lives" is a good enough reason for cars, bombs, construction, etc. It's a good enough reason to regulate guns as well.

[Gaidin]

If you commit crimes or have mental illness, you'd be in the system.

Such medical records are sealed against NICS unless judicially ordered. And there are so many miscommunications from groups not updating NICS its hilarious.

[Love Mountain]

No, firearms are designed to shoot bullets. That implies variety of use from hunting and target sports to self-defense and military.

No it doesn't. Mass killing of animals is still mass killing. Firearms are designed to inflict lethal damage to many different targets. In particular ARs are designed to hurt people, not animals. Most hunting guns do not require four barrel rails and high capacity ergonomic magazines.

Its not like I should. We don't have video game and heavy metal lobbying groups, yet those didn't get banned either although cringy liberal politicians along with their dumb housewife supporters wanted to ban those as well.

There are lobby groups that exist on behalf of video games and music. The reason why those things didn't get banned is because nobody wanted to seriously ban it. I know you think that cringy "liberals" and moms want to ban video games and music, but the fact is that an outspoken minority has about as much lobbying power as a teacup. Nobody ever took them seriously and the only major "regulation" of such material is the labeling of explicit material.

Anyone with grade 10 knowledge of chemistry would be able to make a bomb or could just look it up online. You don't need to plan much of anything if you plan to ram a crowd of people with your car either.

Except they don't. They get guns instead. What's more difficult, coming up with several hundred dollars to get a gun, stealing a gun from your dad (who probably checks up on it every now and then), or learning how to make a bomb or makeshift firearm out of household materials? Please. The amount of people who fail even remedial chemistry, and especially considering the type of people who commit mass shootings, the knowledge deficit alone is a sufficient deterrent.

Funny how countries where firearms are restricted, banned, or well controlled don't suddenly start suffering from vehicle ramming attacks, bombs, or the other number of absurdities you mentioned. Attacks and crime happens in other countries, yet we are the ones who suffer the most from mass shootings, from school shootings, from firearm related homicide of unprecedented levels. Funny how Mexico, a country far more violent, poor, and with more draconian gun control laws suffers from less firearm related homicide. Funny how Canada, a country that shares a direct land border with America suffers neither from rampant firearm trafficking nor from an epidemic of firearm homicide. people get knives instead.

It's as if the argument that "determined criminals will break the law" ignores the fact that most criminals are neither determined nor do they needlessly break the law. But hey, gun advocates are such amazing criminologists that they have solved the secret behind firearm crime in America, there aren't enough of them in enough people's hand. Brilliant.

Again, this is not about lack of laws, it is about laws that are already on the books not being followed.

We already disproved your bit about existing laws, that you don't even seem to understand as you talk about. They prevent neither criminals nor mentally ill people from getting firearms legally. A determined criminal or mentally ill person in America doesn't have to break the law to get a firearm, he can just buy it legally instead. Nor does America have any kind of system to make sure that gunowners are responsible, well adjusted individuals who are fully aware of laws surrounding firearms. It just assumes that have an American citizenship is sufficient to trust you with a lethal weapon.

Infallible logic right there.

[B. W.]

More information is coming out about police practices in Broward County that are absolutely stunning. If there was ever an environment that could allow something like this to take place it was there. In fact, it's amazing something like this didn't happen sooner.

https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...eep_state.html

And for all the folks railing about NRA contributions to lobbyists they should know that Planned Parenthood makes more lobbyist contributions in one year than the NRA has in the last twenty years. How many babies have died in the last twenty years? Where's the outrage against Planned Paerenthood?

[ByzantinePowerGame]

No it doesn't. Mass killing of animals is still mass killing. Firearms are designed to inflict lethal damage to many different targets. In particular ARs are designed to hurt people, not animals. Most hunting guns do not require four barrel rails and high capacity ergonomic magazines.



There are lobby groups that exist on behalf of video games and music. The reason why those things didn't get banned is because nobody wanted to seriously ban it. I know you think that cringy "liberals" and moms want to ban video games and music, but the fact is that an outspoken minority has about as much lobbying power as a teacup. Nobody ever took them seriously and the only major "regulation" of such material is the labeling of explicit material.



Except they don't. They get guns instead. What's more difficult, coming up with several hundred dollars to get a gun, stealing a gun from your dad (who probably checks up on it every now and then), or learning how to make a bomb or makeshift firearm out of household materials? Please. The amount of people who fail even remedial chemistry, and especially considering the type of people who commit mass shootings, the knowledge deficit alone is a sufficient deterrent.

Funny how countries where firearms are restricted, banned, or well controlled don't suddenly start suffering from vehicle ramming attacks, bombs, or the other number of absurdities you mentioned. Attacks and crime happens in other countries, yet we are the ones who suffer the most from mass shootings, from school shootings, from firearm related homicide of unprecedented levels. Funny how Mexico, a country far more violent, poor, and with more draconian gun control laws suffers from less firearm related homicide. Funny how Canada, a country that shares a direct land border with America suffers neither from rampant firearm trafficking nor from an epidemic of firearm homicide. people get knives instead.

It's as if the argument that "determined criminals will break the law" ignores the fact that most criminals are neither determined nor do they needlessly break the law. But hey, gun advocates are such amazing criminologists that they have solved the secret behind firearm crime in America, there aren't enough of them in enough people's hand. Brilliant.



We already disproved your bit about existing laws, that you don't even seem to understand as you talk about. They prevent neither criminals nor mentally ill people from getting firearms legally. A determined criminal or mentally ill person in America doesn't have to break the law to get a firearm, he can just buy it legally instead. Nor does America have any kind of system to make sure that gunowners are responsible, well adjusted individuals who are fully aware of laws surrounding firearms. It just assumes that have an American citizenship is sufficient to trust you with a lethal weapon.

Infallible logic right there.

Any weapon that is particularly useful or specifically designed for self-defense will generally also be useful for offense as well.

An M1 Carbine is light weight, has a round that is reasonably powerful out to 200 meters [at 100 meters it has about 4x the energy of a .357 magnum at muzzle], it is small, handy, points well, and it can accept a 15 round or 30 round magazine. It is an excellent carbine for home defense, ranch/farm defense, and it has been used by Brazilian special police units for close quarters urban situations because it is handy, light, and powerful.

It was also well suited for offense, being used in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam.



Keeping such a tool for potential defense is still a legitimate purpose for a legitimate tool and I wouldn't be bothered if every competent, non-criminal, citizen, adult in the USA owned one, or owned an AR-15 for that matter. The ultimate goal is to arm almost the entire population, that is to say everybody who is competent [those who are neither mentally retarded nor dangerously mentally ill], law-abiding [non-felons], citizens [illegals, student/business visitors, and tourists need not apply], adult [children are excluded]. Those not willing to be armed would not be required to be armed although an argument could be made, based on tradition and historical laws, for requiring all male head of households to be armed unless otherwise prohibited. Historically in the USA all white males were required to maintain a firearm and powder/shot unless they were too poor to afford one, as all white males were expected to be available for service in the militia upon being called out, and the English common law rule, as applied in the colonies and early USA required that all white males vigorously pursue any felons fleeing through their area, particularly if they were armed and able to do so, they were required to immediately make themselves available to the local constable and assist in law enforcement.

Today we wouldn't restrict this custom by race or sex, so we might very well require all people, period, to be armed, unless they were otherwise prohibited.

There should be 150-200 million privately owned AR-15s in the USA.




As to Canada, Canada also doesn't have 30-40% of their population on SSRI/psychotropic pharmaceuticals, but that has nothing to do with anything...

[Cyclops]

More information is coming out about police practices in Broward County that are absolutely stunning. If there was ever an environment that could allow something like this to take place it was there. In fact, it's amazing something like this didn't happen sooner.

https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...eep_state.html

So the narrative has gone from "geez if only we had armed people on site" to "we have armed people on site and they are Muslim Commies!" Its like NRA talking points are so puny they can't survive a single news cycle.

And for all the folks railing about NRA contributions to lobbyists they should know that Planned Parenthood makes more lobbyist contributions in one year than the NRA has in the last twenty years. How many babies have died in the last twenty years? Where's the outrage against Planned Paerenthood?

Mostly in posts by NRA bots and extremists who want to ban abortion and consequently increase the crime rate. Try to stay on topic.

...We already disproved your bit about existing laws, that you don't even seem to understand as you talk about. They prevent neither criminals nor mentally ill people from getting firearms legally. A determined criminal or mentally ill person in America doesn't have to break the law to get a firearm, he can just buy it legally instead. Nor does America have any kind of system to make sure that gunowners are responsible, well adjusted individuals who are fully aware of laws surrounding firearms. It just assumes that have an American citizenship is sufficient to trust you with a lethal weapon.

Infallible logic right there.

I'm pretty sure HH is right about patchy application of existing laws, and loopholes that should be closed. I think the bump stock issue (which was raised in the Las Vegas incident too) is a good example.

Otherwise I agree completely, the fantasy that this kid would have killed more people with a bomb (possible but unlikely) or a car (what, he was going to mow them down in the school corridors?) are plain stupid. Bombs are one shot devices, this boy shot people over several minutes.

The gun problem is way bigger than school shootings. Mass shootings are statistically a small proportion of gun deaths, so solutions can't be focussed too narrowly. The sensationalism around such events makes political action likely, just don't let it get railroaded.

We had a sad child killing case in my home city I the 1990's, where a boy called Daniel Valerio died. I have friends associated with the case so I knew a bit about it at the time. Medical professionals saw the boy's injuries over time and reported it to child safety agencies but nothing was done (partly due to insufficient resources). When he died the agencies realised they would look bad and began a campaign for mandatory reporting: it became an offense for a nurse or doctor not to report injuries. So the upshot of a case where a child's injuries were reported was that all nurses and doctors had their discretion to report removed (as if they were at fault, which they were not). There was only a small increase in child safety resources and the imposition of mandatory reporting actually increase strain on the system, so future cases (not just of this type, but all types of violence to children) were less likely to be acted on. Is SNAFUBAR a word? Its improved since then, but mandatory reporting has spread to other areas an is an imposition: health workers have to make judgement calls not on their own perception, but on the perception of a mandating authority that isn't expert in their area.

With gun control in Australia we went too far, shooters surrendered a lot of stuff above and beyond what was reasonable. It was an act of good faith on their part, and really helped reassure the community that shooters weren't a gang of armed nuts camped in our country looking for targets. The intervention of the US NRA certainly weakened their case, the Australian NRA behaved like idiots and lost all credibility. It seems they still have credibility in the US which is astounding given the stupidity of most of their arguments.