Florida High School Shooting

[fskimospy]

So it's still too early?

It's always too early until it's been long enough that they can switch to arguing that it's in the past.

The sheer amount of bad faith that comes from conservatives when it relates to gun ownership is staggering. As I said already I wish they would just come out and admit that they view these massacres as an acceptable price to pay for gun ownership.

 

[Thebobo]

That's how I feel about gun safety classes. Being former law enforcement I'm stunned by what I see people doing with guns. Many folks treat them like water guns which is dangerous.

Well of course there always this classic. "I am the only one professional enough to carry this gun, BAM! lol

 

[Puffnstuff]

Sadly I don’t think calling the cops earlier would have helped. I mean the school already had an armed police officer stationed there and it wasn't enough.

Truth is there's some question about where he was at the time of the shooting and speculation that he wasn't even present. An armed officer is the first line of defense and he should've been on the move to engage the shooter first thing.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/b...l-florida-school-shooting-20180215-story.html

 

[Puffnstuff]

Well of course there always this classic. "I am the only one professional enough to carry this gun, BAM! lol

I saw that one which is quite scary considering his audience. It wasn't that long ago that an elderly lady at a police training class was killed by a cop.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

These are the types of restrictions that I view as infringements on my rights and will not go for. These are the types of overreaching restrictions that make the NRA very much what it is today.

Does the NRA accept applications from Russia?
Regardless 95% of NRA members support more background checks. Somewhere around the same number support a bump stock ban
As usual you are extraordinary

 

[SlowSpyder]

Well of course there always this classic. "I am the only one professional enough to carry this gun, BAM! lol

There are also videos like this:

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Because again most of these questions depend on your use case. If I'm at the firing range and limited to using only small-cap magazines or something that "makes the mechanism for reloading take more time" that's both a serious PITA and doing nothing to stop school shootings or whatever other policy objective you have. We have a rough analogue to guns in cars; you can own a NASCAR vehicle but that doesn't mean it's "street legal." Time, place, and manner laws work well for all sorts of products and activities that may be misused and cause harm to others, are firearms so completely unique they can't be handled likewise? Part of this discussion is going to be forgoing one-size fits all nationwide bans or restrictions since what's appropriate for someone in Brooklyn isn't appropriate for someone in the Alaskan bush. The other part is a recognition by all that life is dangerous and we can't stop evil people from doing horrendous things thus we need to do an appropriate cost-benefit analysis of proposed changes so they don't end up overly damaging of civil liberties (like post- 9/11 evesdropping by the NSA) or worthless feel-good security performance art (like the TSA at airports). Plenty of recent gun control laws fall more into to the feel-good performance art than actually something which would have a positive impact.

I get a lot of your points but I’m lost at whaaa it will take longer to reload at the gun range.

 

[mdram]

pass any regulations you want
as long as it applies to police, political bodyguards, ect

whats good for me is good for the gov

 

[SlowSpyder]

Does the NRA accept applications from Russia?
Regardless 95% of NRA members support more background checks. Somewhere around the same number support a bump stock ban
As usual you are extraordinary

Doesn't the Russian thing get old after awhile? Apparently not.

I'm for universal background checks, I don't feel that infringes on my 2A rights, in fact I think that'll help preserve the 2A over time. Like I said, I am not for everything the NRA is for, but they are the lesser of two evils when compared to the lunatic anti-2A'ers. When they'll be sensible about gun restrictions, maybe the NRA will as well.

 

[glenn1]

It's always too early until it's been long enough that they can switch to arguing that it's in the past.

The sheer amount of bad faith that comes from conservatives when it relates to gun ownership is staggering. As I said already I wish they would just come out and admit that they view these massacres as an acceptable price to pay for gun ownership.

Civil rights can be used for evil purposes and other rights can have unwanted consequences as well. People argue against capital punishment saying "what if you execute an innocent man" and no one accepts as a counter to that view "if a guilty man wasn't executed and killed someone else, was that innocent person's life an acceptable price to pay"? So yes, massacres might not be an acceptable price to pay but they might be a necessary price to pay, just like the First Amendment means we may need to incur the "acceptable price" that someone's life may be ruined by hate speech, libel, or whatnot. Asking for rights without any possible negative externalities resulting from them is an infantile wish and you're both better and smarter than that.

 

[SlowSpyder]

pass any regulations you want
as long as it applies to police, political bodyguards, ect

whats good for me is good for the gov

^This guy gets it.

 

[mdram]

 

[Grooveriding]

Not surprising to find out this was a radicalized MAGA Trump fanatic. At some point I expect something is going to happen about propaganda mills and indoctrination hotbeds like Stormfront, Infowars, r/the_donald etc. They are using these outlets to target insecure young men who are susceptible to the false narratives they push about what masculinity is and isn't. Getting them when they are vulnerable, indoctrinating them and hoping they will grow up to the fill the void of their dying off voter base.

It is going to continue that the most vulnerable and dysfunctional among this already delusional group will turn to violent terrorism. This is the standard playbook of radicalization. The fringe among the fringe will turn on those they hate and use violence, some will even start killing them.

 

[brandonbull]

Moron of the day contest?

You got my vote.

 

[Thebobo]

There are also videos like this:

Oh really? wow

 

[fskimospy]

Civil rights can be used for evil purposes and other rights can have unwanted consequences as well. People argue against capital punishment saying "what if you execute an innocent man" and no one accepts as a counter to that view "if a guilty man wasn't executed and killed someone else, was that innocent person's life an acceptable price to pay"? So yes, massacres might not be an acceptable price to pay but they might be a necessary price to pay, just like the First Amendment means we may need to incur the "acceptable price" that someone's life may be ruined by hate speech, libel, or whatnot.

I agree, except of course that there's little evidence that a lack of capital punishment is associated with a higher murder rate while an increase in gun ownership is clearly associated with a higher murder rate. Even granting your premise though, I'm perfectly comfortable with saying that I am willing to accept that the first amendment has costs as well as benefits. My issue is that conservatives are explicitly NOT willing to admit that when it comes to guns. I mean how often have we all seen them react to a gun massacre by saying 'if only there were more guns this wouldn't happen.'

Asking for rights without any possible negative externalities resulting from them is an infantile wish and you're both better and smarter than that.

That would indeed be an infantile wish but of course I never said anything even remotely close to that.

 

[Homerboy]

Did they go to public or private school(s)?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

These types of arguments are just stupid. There's really no other response needed. It's asinine.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Not surprising to find out this was a radicalized MAGA Trump fanatic. At some point I expect something is going to happen about propaganda mills and indoctrination hotbeds like Stormfront, Infowars, r/the_donald etc. They are using these outlets to target insecure young men who are susceptible to the false narratives they push about what masculinity is and isn't. Getting them when they are vulnerable, indoctrinating them and hoping they will grow up to the fill the void of their dying off voter base.

It is going to continue that the most vulnerable and dysfunctional among this already delusional group will turn to violent terrorism. This is the standard playbook of radicalization. The fringe among the fringe will turn on those they hate and use violence, some will even start killing them.

I hate to break it to you, but this young man was as human as any of the other 7 billion people on this planet. That needs to be recognized and acknowledged. We as a people don't get to just denigrate him as 'not one of us' because he did something we don't agree with.

 

[mdram]

These types of arguments are just stupid. There's really no other response needed. It's asinine.

why because politicians kids are more important than yours?

 

[mdram]

Did they go to public or private school(s)?

you think his kids would be in public schools?

 

[fskimospy]

why because politicians kids are more important than yours?

Yes, the president's children are more important than the average citizen's children as threats to them could be used to manipulate the president and endanger national security.

I can't believe this even needs to be said.

 

[glenn1]

I agree, except of course that there's little evidence that a lack of capital punishment is associated with a higher murder rate while an increase in gun ownership is clearly associated with a higher murder rate. Even granting your premise though, I'm perfectly comfortable with saying that I am willing to accept that the first amendment has costs as well as benefits. My issue is that conservatives are explicitly NOT willing to admit that when it comes to guns. I mean how often have we all seen them react to a gun massacre by saying 'if only there were more guns this wouldn't happen.'



That would indeed be an infantile wish but of course I never said anything even remotely close to that.

Okay, I'll make it explicit then. If massacres need to happen periodically so that someone who needs a firearm to prevent a bear from chewing off their child's face, then that may be an acceptable cost. What I'm willing to admit that is that almost any gun policy (or lack of one) is going to have an adverse impact on someone. Unlike you I'm not going to merely think of "what gun policy would be best for me" without consideration of anyone else and how that policy would effect other people. The veil of ignorance demands you admit that just because you might not want/need a gun or be impacted by a ban or restrictions doesn't mean that others wouldn't be harmed by them and likely in ways you couldn't predict or possibly even imagine with the limits of your environment and experience.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

why because politicians kids are more important than yours?

Because the POTUS kids are at a far greater risk of harm than any other kid on the planet.

To add. If you need to be told this you need to just leave the discussion. If you knew this already then you're just trolling and should leave the discussion.

 

[Thebobo]

Somehow I knew this was going to be Obama's fault.