Coward Murders Children in Florida

[Pontifex Maximus]

One could argue the Bill of Rights protects you from the government, and one of them is your right to have a gun.

[Vanoi]

I am just simply stating reality. Of course the 2nd Amendment is somewhat based off of fear the founders had about tyrannical governments. It just wouldn't work.

[Prodromos]

My guns don't protect me from the government. The government will win.

Guns are protecting you from the government right now.

[Vanoi]

No they aren't. That's ridiculous. The government is not scared of some gun owners with AR-15s.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Are you sure?

[NorseThing]

It's getting real tiring sorting through the one liner virtue signalling from people who roll into this thread without even reading the OP.

I will do you a favor and post a wall text (though without links -- call it editorial)

The problem is not guns. It is bad stuff taken into schools.

The recent school shooting was by a 19 year old. He was having problems so they expelled him a year ago. This same young man was also geting some psychiatric help. He stopped the process also about a year ago. The stories being published seem to lack mention of parents and adults being in his life. His ex-girl friend is seeing somebody else. There was some fighting within the last year with the new boyfriend. (Young bulls smacking each other for a mate is natural and is not unusual for either young men or animals.) I think there is a pattern here. Notice that this pattern did not once mention in either good or bad ways anything about guns and ammunition. It is also a pattern that cannot really and truly predict that a mass shooter will come from this set of problems though many have portions of such backgrounds.

As a child, I think we all read 'Lord of the Flies'. It was probably required reading for some of us. The big picture in that novel was the lack of adult supervision combined with the children's struggle for survival. Children can be and often are vicious. If anything can be learned, we should be thankful that young women are not as common as mass shooters. That alone would double the numbers. The why some people become mass shooters when others with similar problems do no cross the line into murder or mass muder is a mystery.

So why is it guns that are the declared problem and some sort of law to reduce the number of weapons in the general population a proposed solution? If guns are even part of the problem, the problem in this case would be a young man too young to purchase controlled substances such as cigarettes and scotch wiskey can legally purchase a semi automatic weapon to be used in hunting among other legitiment uses?

Of course we already had the debate about voting due to Vietnam and decided that if you are old enough to fight for the country, you should be old enough to vote. The wisdom of the logic is debatable but we now have laws in place that are not going to be reversed or backed away from. For the sake of consistency, maybe all things should trigger at one time or all at two times at the most -- voting, controlled substances, controlled weapons, driving, flying, etc. But then our society is not known for consistency.

We could get into people stopping and not completing psychiatric treatments. Or we could discuss parents not totally committed to a mere two decades to raise their own children. Raising is not just money, it is also time and personal effort. The time in day care that we call elementary and secondary education is not a substitute for parenting. We hear about bullies in the schools. These may be symptoms to problems that should be addressed but they are not germain to school shootings. We cannot and should not attempt to delve into each and every person's thoughts and writings and then place restrictions on their activities simply for thinking. This is a dangerous thought process and does not get at the root of the problem.

Oh and for the opening post -- Florida is one of the states with the death penalty so we can see how that goes forward. The defense attorney has discussed with the young man where to go from here. He now after the legal consultation (but perhaps earlier with the psychiatric treatments) hears voices. He is obviously a troubled young man -- heck he killed people. Our laws will probably insulate him from the death penalty. Obviously, if the death penalty is already on the books, acts of rage at not really deterred by the laws in any case.

There was a single armed presence in the building -- a resource officer. One officer is obviously not a solution. Is this money well spent? If you want more guns, then you need to accept the fact that people with less training than a single armed guard or community officer will be armed. To just harden a court house needs many people trained and used for weapons response, operating metal detectors. inspecting the materials taken into the building, etc. Hardening a building is not just for keeping guns out. There are explosives, knives, chemicals, and all sorts of dangers that can and should be kept in control. Hardening a site is more than keeping things out. It also includes responding when bad things are within the building as well. Pretty soon a small version of a police department developes. This is getting closer to the root of the problem. Trying to predict and find the people before they become mass shooters is not realistic if you want a secure place for students to become educated.

The tasks involved in hardening a school can conceivably be doubled up with existing staff (not just the teachers). Staff is critical for this hardening and especially with structural changes for entry and egress. Move the break rooms to more public areas -- closing off the break areas means less eyes on the open areas. Monitors should be everywhere -- yes everywhere. Banks do this. Prisons do this. The local manufactuing plants do this. The local Fast food outlet is loaded with piles of young adult workers and they do this.

Secretarial and other office staff need to work at the actual entrences and in other public areas. All working adults should be visable, they are not the enemy. Part of their job is to keep our children safe. Expecting the bad guys to walk in and register is fantasy. Doors are not just in place to keep out the wind. Use doors as they were intended to be used. Locks are not just for when the buildings are empty. Again, use locks to keep things locked. It all costs money. No simple solutions exist or they would arleady be in place. Teachers want more money so they will be in direct competition for any expenditures. This is a school board by school board decision on how to balance these desires. There is a limit. The limit is money.

[Vanoi]

Different circumstance. Were they afraid he would coup the government or that he could keep killing people?

[Pontifex Maximus]

I think all of that is very valid. I had hesitated to talk about this case specifically because dwelling on the discrete details of each case and trying to form a workable policy to prevent it from happening again ends up looking piecemeal and somewhat worthless. Inthis case, however, we're talking about multiple institutions failing in their responsibility to investigate, report, and follow through with an intervention. The fact that the FBI was aware of this individual and had clear probable cause to begin interfering with his plans is sort of shocking. If the FBI can't protect us from people who they know own guns and post online saying they want to be a school shooter, what are they good for?

[Gallus]

Guns are protecting you from the government right now.

. I didn't know USA was that close to civil war.

[Prodromos]

No they aren't. That's ridiculous. The government is not scared of some gun owners with AR-15s.

What you're describing is the "wall of fear", an essential element of any government. It's when people avoid fighting because they attribute superhuman fearlessness and strength to their opponents. The government is very concerned with maintaining their image as unbeatable. Once this wall of fear collapses, so does the government, in most cases. That's why revolutionary movements, e.g. Otpor!, dedicate a lot of effort to bringing down the wall of fear, such as by using humor, protests, etc. The government's power stems from organization, not physical power.

[Vanoi]

Wall of fear? No I think it's the drones equipped with hellfire missiles and the US military that I would fear.

[Love Mountain]

Ah there's no point in trying to debate with people who think we need to just ban guns and solve the problem. The 2A isn't going to be repealed any time soon, and gun restriction isn't a viable solution for many reasons. This coupled with a flippant disregard for things like Constitutional rights makes the whole business pretty tedious. If that's all that someone has to contribute to the discussion it's a waste of time to post.

What's tedious is the constant condescending tone gunowners adopt when discussing gun control. My position is far more nuanced than simply "ban guns". It's funny, 2A supporters always berate and moan the lack of sophistication of the gun control debate, yet the refuse to participate in it in any constructive manner. Instead they resort to your tactics.

Another mass shooting. Let's discuss it, but keep gun control out of it. What a brave intellectual pursuit that is. I'd love to see someone discuss this tragedy and argue that guns are not the problems right in front of the faces of the victims' families. It's disgusting.

Supreme Court defined genuine needs. Self-defense is one. Anyone could claim that and get a gun.

Ban them all but the 300 million in circulation will be grandfathered in.

I'm all for grandfathering in legal firearms. I'm not going to be sympathetic to those who acquired it illegally. Gun registration should be mandatory. One time exception for registering your gun legal or illegal within 6 months of a bill that would introduce universal gun registries. After that all illegal firearms have to be turned in. Punishment for possession of a non-registered firearm should range from a heavy fine to a severe federal offense.

Many of these measures would go against the Constitution. People often forget that while guns can be used to ward off crime, the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to help the people fight government tyranny. Funny and true image:

I don't give a shite what the primary purpose of the 2A is. The primary purpose of the 5th Amendment was to protect private property, that was extended to slavery. Constitution worship is cowardice. That document is not perfect. The Government is not perfect. The current state of America is not perfect. We have to strive for more, for better, and anybody who gets in the way of that by citing a 300 year old document that's next to impossible to change can sod off. I don't care about the Founders' opinion. I care about what's going on in the country now and what we can do to fix it.

And no. That image is idiotic. Americans are in no danger of being oppressed nor are they currently being oppressed.

Let them have their guns, just stop selling ammo!

Anyway, I really don't know how the US can extricate itself from the position it is in. Gun control can work to maintain low levels of gun ownership and it is those low levels that put limits on gun crime. It means you either need to obtain a permit (which involves concealing your criminal intent in the face of scrutiny) or you need to have connections with criminals who can supply you illegally. In the US, you can be an anonymous law abiding citizen right up until the moment you open fire.

I would only support low level ammunition control. Large orders of ammo have to have due cause and a demonstrable history of responsible gun ownership. Otherwise I'm against limitation on ammunition types or quotas on how many bullets you can have. But tracking every firearm related purchase is a must. That means either holding FFLs accountable, or nationalizing sales of firearms.

Guns are protecting you from the government right now.

No they don't. American Law is what protects you from the Government. You know what else? Strong protections of civil society as well as safeguards against concentration of power. Guns have done jack to protect you from tyranny.

I will do you a favor and post a wall text (though without links -- call it editorial)

The problem is not guns. It is bad stuff taken into schools.

Absolute bollocks. The gun was absolutely part of the problem.

The recent school shooting was by a 19 year old. He was having problems so they expelled him a year ago. This same young man was also geting some psychiatric help. He stopped the process also about a year ago. The stories being published seem to lack mention of parents and adults being in his life. His ex-girl friend is seeing somebody else. There was some fighting within the last year with the new boyfriend. (Young bulls smacking each other for a mate is natural and is not unusual for either young men or animals.) I think there is a pattern here. Notice that this pattern did not once mention in either good or bad ways anything about guns and ammunition. It is also a pattern that cannot really and truly predict that a mass shooter will come from this set of problems though many have portions of such backgrounds.

Almost seems like a pattern that could be solved by a background check or a psychological evaluation. Hmm.

As a child, I think we all read 'Lord of the Flies'. It was probably required reading for some of us. The big picture in that novel was the lack of adult supervision combined with the children's struggle for survival. Children can be and often are vicious. If anything can be learned, we should be thankful that young women are not as common as mass shooters. That alone would double the numbers. The why some people become mass shooters when others with similar problems do no cross the line into murder or mass muder is a mystery.

So why is it guns that are the declared problem and some sort of law to reduce the number of weapons in the general population a proposed solution? If guns are even part of the problem, the problem in this case would be a young man too young to purchase controlled substances such as cigarettes and scotch wiskey can legally purchase a semi automatic weapon to be used in hunting among other legitiment uses?

Because guns are not something Americans should be "entitled" to. You shouldn't get to own a firearm simply because you are an American that broke now laws. No, owning a gun should be a privilege. You get to own one when you have demonstrated that you are a supremely responsible individual who is mentally stable and contribute to society. You should demonstrate that your drive to own a gun is for the purposes of recreation, self-defense, and what can generally be classified as "responsible use". You should also demonstrate that you are aware of the responsibilities that come with owning a firearm and that you have both the knowledge and the training to handle a firearm with skill and abide by the law.

We do a similar test when we pass a test for driving cars. We do not need to do such things for cigarettes and alcohol because those are substances that harm our own body and are used purely for recreation. Not to mention the difficulty of enforcing sober driving.

Of course we already had the debate about voting due to Vietnam and decided that if you are old enough to fight for the country, you should be old enough to vote. The wisdom of the logic is debatable but we now have laws in place that are not going to be reversed or backed away from. For the sake of consistency, maybe all things should trigger at one time or all at two times at the most -- voting, controlled substances, controlled weapons, driving, flying, etc. But then our society is not known for consistency.

This is absurd. There is no consistence between physical ability to fight for your country, and the biological long-term effects of smoking/drinking on a young man's body. Similarly, there is little connection between being trained to fight an enemy and the code of conduct during war, and responsible ownership of firearms in civil society. There is no issue of consistency, there is an issue of entitlement and attempting to cast an ideology over a vast array of issues that have no connection to each other aside from being available to American residents and their age.

We could get into people stopping and not completing psychiatric treatments. Or we could discuss parents not totally committed to a mere two decades to raise their own children. Raising is not just money, it is also time and personal effort. The time in day care that we call elementary and secondary education is not a substitute for parenting. We hear about bullies in the schools. These may be symptoms to problems that should be addressed but they are not germain to school shootings. We cannot and should not attempt to delve into each and every person's thoughts and writings and then place restrictions on their activities simply for thinking. This is a dangerous thought process and does not get at the root of the problem.

Or we can realize that the freedom of individuals is the freedom to fail and become disadvantaged due to circumstances. That means the Gov. is responsible for offering avenues of recourse as well as denying deadly firearms to individuals who are not ready for such responsibility.

There was a single armed presence in the building -- a resource officer. One officer is obviously not a solution. Is this money well spent? If you want more guns, then you need to accept the fact that people with less training than a single armed guard or community officer will be armed. To just harden a court house needs many people trained and used for weapons response, operating metal detectors. inspecting the materials taken into the building, etc. Hardening a building is not just for keeping guns out. There are explosives, knives, chemicals, and all sorts of dangers that can and should be kept in control. Hardening a site is more than keeping things out. It also includes responding when bad things are within the building as well. Pretty soon a small version of a police department developes. This is getting closer to the root of the problem. Trying to predict and find the people before they become mass shooters is not realistic if you want a secure place for students to become educated.

The tasks involved in hardening a school can conceivably be doubled up with existing staff (not just the teachers). Staff is critical for this hardening and especially with structural changes for entry and egress. Move the break rooms to more public areas -- closing off the break areas means less eyes on the open areas. Monitors should be everywhere -- yes everywhere. Banks do this. Prisons do this. The local manufactuing plants do this. The local Fast food outlet is loaded with piles of young adult workers and they do this.


Secretarial and other office staff need to work at the actual entrences and in other public areas. All working adults should be visable, they are not the enemy. Part of their job is to keep our children safe. Expecting the bad guys to walk in and register is fantasy. Doors are not just in place to keep out the wind. Use doors as they were intended to be used. Locks are not just for when the buildings are empty. Again, use locks to keep things locked. It all costs money. No simple solutions exist or they would arleady be in place. Teachers want more money so they will be in direct competition for any expenditures. This is a school board by school board decision on how to balance these desires. There is a limit. The limit is money.

I'd rather take away money from the gun lobby than take away money from an honest tax payer who is constantly under threat of firearm violence because of the sheer availability of firearms to criminals in this country. Sorry, but I have no interest in paying for an externality caused by dirty FFLs, irresponsible gun owners, and the gun lobby. Which continues to profit from the misery caused by firearms every year. Normal Western countries do not have an issue of school shootings to the degree we do, and they don't have to resort to measures you are proposing.

This is ignoring that nobody wants to fund K-12 education anyway. The last major initiative was in 2000s during Bush's No Child Left Behind policy which has a mixed legacy.

[Derpy Hooves]

My guns don't protect me from the government. The government will win.

Just like we won in Vietnam

[Vanoi]

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Sukiyama,

The police had multiple tips about the shooter and did nothing to stop it. The FBI had tips too, and they sid nothing. We need weapons for self defense more than evet if our law enforcement is falling asleep at the wheel like this. Seems like if the school had an armed guard, deaths could have been prevented. Droning on about taking everyone's guns away being the only option is as shallow as it is unrealistic.

[Love Mountain]

Sukiyama,

The police had multiple tips about the shooter and did nothing to stop it. The FBI had tips too, and they sid nothing. We need weapons for self defense more than evet if our law enforcement is falling asleep at the wheel like this. Seems like if the school had an armed guard, deaths could have been prevented. Droning on about taking everyone's guns away being the only option is as shallow as it is unrealistic.

“It is now clear that the warning signs were there and tips to the FBI were missed,” Sessions said in a statement. “We see the tragic consequences of those failures.”
The Jan. 5 tip about Cruz came in to the FBI’s general call line, where personnel process thousands of calls each day, some of them more serious than others. When the process works, the call taker records information from the tipster, runs basic database checks on the person at issue and — if the matter appears serious enough — passes a package to agents in the field.
The warning about Cruz should have been passed to the local FBI field office in Miami, but “these protocols were not followed” and no further inquiries were made, the bureau said in a statement. A call operator reported it to a supervisor but the warning never made it any further, according to a law enforcement official who asked not to be identified.
[ Five crucial minutes: How the shooting unfolded ]
The bureau knew the identity of the tipster — an adult — and the tip involved a threat to life, meaning it should have been taken seriously, said a federal law enforcement official.
The tipster did not describe an attack plan with a time and place but did provide specific information on Cruz, including warning signs, two law enforcement officials said. The officials said the bureau is still exploring why the information was not given to agents for investigation. Authorities do not believe call volume was the reason it fell through the cracks.
“We are still investigating the facts,” Wray said in the statement. “I am committed to getting to the bottom of what happened in this particular matter, as well as reviewing our processes for responding to information that we receive from the public.”
[ Comment drew notice: ‘Im going to be a professional school shooter’ ]
Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel, who is leading the investigation, said he “didn’t think anybody could say” the shooting could have been averted if the FBI acted on the tip. Israel said responsibility for the shooting rests with one person: “Make no mistake about it America, the only one to blame for this incident is the killer himself.” Israel said at a briefing Friday that he hopes members of the public will continue alerting law enforcement when they see suspicious activity.

Last fall, a bail bondsman in Mississippi spotted a disturbing comment on his YouTube channel.“Im going to be a professional school shooter,” it read. There was nothing more.

It's funny. This game of blame deflection and dodging. Something, something police state yet something, something national security. It's funny how quickly they trip over each other. The FBI thing is a non-issue. There are thousands of such warnings every day. What's worse, when someone gets SWATted and an innocent person dies? Or when FBI doesn't investigate a simple youtube comment and a warning from a caller? Should the FBI investigate every single possible call? There is neither the manpower nor should that be legal. If my door gets broken down because I made too many pro-Russian posts on this board I'm suing the Gov.

[Pontifex Maximus]

I've never seen someone try so hard to blame guns as being the only factor involved in mass slayings.

[Heathen Hammer]

My guns don't protect me from the government. The government will win.

The US government would lose. Majority of military is more likely to side with rebels then with tyrannical government, and even if that wasn't the case, good luck fighting a war of attrition on your own territory.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

US government sucks at winning things.

I really don't know how many more lifes taken by mass shootings it ll take for someone to see the need for this simple action against guns......

There is no need for action against guns, since clearly guns aren't the problem. Spree shootings themselves are statistically insignificant in relation to overall violent crime, while majority of gun crime occurs in states with draconian gun control.

[Love Mountain]

I've never seen someone try so hard to blame guns as being the only factor involved in mass slayings.

The US government would lose. Majority of military is more likely to side with rebels then with tyrannical government, and even if that wasn't the case, good luck fighting a war of attrition on your own territory.

Glad that you agree that guns are not necessary at all then.

US government sucks at winning things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milita..._United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United..._regime_change

Funny how we win despite suck sucking at it.

There is no need for action against guns, since clearly guns aren't the problem. Spree shootings themselves are statistically insignificant in relation to overall violent crime, while majority of gun crime occurs in states with draconian gun control.

It's almost like you can buy a gun in Nevada and bring it into California. Crazy how statewide gun control doesn't work. It's almost as if we need to enforce law across the country.

[Caduet]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milita..._United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United..._regime_change

Funny how we win despite suck sucking at it.

We haven't defeated a single insurgency. The only thing we are good at is toppling governments, which does not matter when stopping an insurgency. Even the Civil War was against a government, unrecognized but the Confederacy was a thing. PLUS when you consider the insurgents would almost certainly be getting russian and chinese support the US government is absolutely doomed. Clearly america has plenty of crazies, and you only need a small cadre to keep an insurgency rolling.

I can hardly wait to see the balkanization of the USA.