Parkland, FL school shooting

[dezii]

I have mentioned the following before...believe after the Sandy Hook slaughter...


It's mentioned how schools should be a gun free area...yet we are surrounded by law enforcement folks..[cops]  who are armed and no one thinks twice about it...Some have said schools should have armed guards on the premises from morning to closing...Actually that would be, I believe , prohibitive expensive, especially today with budgets being so constrained.

There are many folks who today get and want  to be able to carry weapons for personal protection, and more and more States which are loosening up and allowing such happenings. Even if licensed for concealed carry, today most of these folks would have to leave their weapons in the car...schools are gun free zones..either leave in vehicle or don't carry or risk losing their jobs if found with a weapon. 

I would not be against  such licensed people, if they wanted to , be able to carry their weapons into the work space.....not to take the place of law enforcement ....but go through training...including the weapons itself and the type of rounds used...Have to be careful not to have rounds that would go through walls...hit innocents...not even so much to actively go after a shooter but able to protect their own students if needed as they barricaded the rooms...Possible even have a group plan with others so armed in case of a incursion...a battle plan , practice after hours, under supervision of professionals..police department...only for those adults who want to be so armed...strictly volunteer...

I don't think students would be upset if they knew a teacher or custodian was so armed...just looked upon as more law enforceful people...possible weapons are in brief cases or handbags, not really shown...

[saveinla]

www.wnd.com/2018/02/bold-grandma-calls-cops-thwarts-grandsons-bloody-school-massacre/

[billisonboard]

Feb 15, 2018 21:00:17 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Feb 15, 2018 20:35:43 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

What is your definition of "curbing"?

curbing

v. The act of knocking someone out and then placing thier open mouth on a curb so that when the back of the skull is repeatedly stopmed on all of their teeth get broken. www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=curbing

Let's just say I wouldn't recommend going on TV and saying, "We expect this diet will cure prostate cancer," when you intended on saying, "We expect this diet will curb prostate cancer."

I'm clinging to hope here that there's going to be answers to my questions now that I've addressed your concerns. Am I going to get them, are you just yanking my chain?

You didn't give a definition of curbing. Are you talking about a decrease in new cases? Are you talking about a decrease in complications for those who already it?

[thyme4change]

Feb 15, 2018 22:18:50 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Thyme's reference is included in the latter part of this whitepaper:

www.unomaha.edu/public-safety/_doc/faculty-staff-brt-guide.pdf

Most of the warning signs seem fairly general. For example:

• Violent fantasy content
  
• Anger problems
• Fascination with weapons and accoutrements
• Loner
• Suicidal ideation

I say "general" because all of the above would have applied to me or my friends at various points during out teenage years. We whiled away the time playing violent video games. I tended to be a loner. Some of my friends entertained themselves by shooting squirrels and throwing Molotov cocktails (which I witnessed on occasion). Some contemplated suicide.

If me and my small group of friends (none of who went on to kill anyone, incidentally) got into these kinds of things, I have a hard time believing the same wouldn't be true for tens or even hundreds of millions of other people going through teenagehood.

Other signs are more rarified:

• Homicidal ideation
• Stalking
• Imitation of other murderers

These I can't claim to have seen among myself or friends. I don't know how useful they are as predictors of mass shootings, and I'm deeply skeptical that using them as a basis to confiscate weapons will prove effective, but I suppose it's worth a try,

That list isn't definitive. It is a starting point for a discussion about possible red flags.

I think identifying the difference between what tens of millions of young people do and what a person who is turning increasingly violent is something that can be done. It isn't like we are jailing them, just removing guns from their reach until they can be properly evaluated and maybe treated by a professional.

Also, it was not suggested that one or two of these behaviors is an automatic granting of the position. Someone would have to come to a judge with solid reasoning that there could be a problem.

And, if we temporarily remove gun access from (pick a number) 10,000 people - it doesn't mean we prevented 10,000 mass shootings - maybe we prevented 1. Maybe we only prevented one person from shooting their spouse. We won't really know. But, we might help 9,575 people get through a hard time and learn some coping skills.

Who knows. I am trying to suggest something that specifically addresses an attempt to identify potential gun violence, without interrupting the rights of the 112M responsible gun owners. It isn't perfect, but neither is our current system.

I am looking to discuss solutions that are different than what is being suggestes.

Also, this addresses the problem that people can own guns for years legally, and then go through some life event that changes them, and after years of responsible gun ownership, gets all weird and showers an outdoor concert with bullets.

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 15, 2018 22:12:53 GMT -5 hurley1980 said:

The one that doesn't include "people different than us", and is committed primarily by white men, is met with "thoughts and prayers" and no real resolution.  I wonder why that is? 

I don't.

Just as I don't wonder why the political left in the US offers thoughts and prayers in the wake of killings by ISIS terrorists and illegal immigrants, and demands action when somebody perpetrates a massacre with an assault rifle.

The US is locked in the left-right dialectic, and each side has an entrenched position on these issues. Because of the dialectic, people tend to fall into these same trenches, judging the misconduct of their own side differently from that of the opposition, rationalizing it, or justifying it with fallacies like tu quoque.

Our recourse is calmness, firmness, respect, patience, a willingness to engage in civil debate, and a willingness to turn the other cheek when attacked or provoked. Also, not letting resentment of our opponents' ideologies turn into hatred of opponents themselves, which is becoming rarer on both sides.

[thyme4change]

Feb 15, 2018 22:43:43 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Feb 15, 2018 22:12:53 GMT -5 hurley1980 said:

The one that doesn't include "people different than us", and is committed primarily by white men, is met with "thoughts and prayers" and no real resolution.  I wonder why that is? 

I don't.

Just as I don't wonder why the political left in the US offers thoughts and prayers in the wake of killings by ISIS terrorists and illegal immigrants, and demands action when somebody perpetrates a massacre with an assault rifle.

The US is locked in the left-right dialectic, and each side has an entrenched position on these issues. Because of the dialectic, people tend to fall into these same trenches, judging the misconduct of their own side differently from that of the opposition, rationalizing it, or justifying it with fallacies like tu quoque.

Our recourse is calmness, firmness, respect, patience, a willingness to engage in civil debate, and a willingness to turn the other cheek when attacked or provoked. Also, not letting resentment of our opponents' ideologies turn into hatred of opponents themselves, which is becoming rarer on both sides.

Well, when we try to break out with creative thinking, we get slapped down so fast by people who think we are against them because they shot a squirrel as an 18 year old that it is barely worth even trying to discuss anything.

[Tennesseer]

Feb 15, 2018 22:26:58 GMT -5 saveinla said:

www.wnd.com/2018/02/bold-grandma-calls-cops-thwarts-grandsons-bloody-school-massacre/

Good for her.

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 15, 2018 22:40:05 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Feb 15, 2018 22:18:50 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Thyme's reference is included in the latter part of this whitepaper:

www.unomaha.edu/public-safety/_doc/faculty-staff-brt-guide.pdf

Most of the warning signs seem fairly general. For example:

• Violent fantasy content
  
• Anger problems
• Fascination with weapons and accoutrements
• Loner
• Suicidal ideation

I say "general" because all of the above would have applied to me or my friends at various points during out teenage years. We whiled away the time playing violent video games. I tended to be a loner. Some of my friends entertained themselves by shooting squirrels and throwing Molotov cocktails (which I witnessed on occasion). Some contemplated suicide.

If me and my small group of friends (none of who went on to kill anyone, incidentally) got into these kinds of things, I have a hard time believing the same wouldn't be true for tens or even hundreds of millions of other people going through teenagehood.

Other signs are more rarified:

• Homicidal ideation
• Stalking
• Imitation of other murderers

These I can't claim to have seen among myself or friends. I don't know how useful they are as predictors of mass shootings, and I'm deeply skeptical that using them as a basis to confiscate weapons will prove effective, but I suppose it's worth a try,

That list isn't definitive. It is a starting point for a discussion about possible red flags.

I think identifying the difference between what tens of millions of young people do and what a person who is turning increasingly violent is something that can be done. It isn't like we are jailing them, just removing guns from their reach until they can be properly evaluated and maybe treated by a professional.

Also, it was not suggested that one or two of these behaviors is an automatic granting of the position. Someone would have to come to a judge with solid reasoning that there could be a problem.

And, if we temporarily remove gun access from (pick a number) 10,000 people - it doesn't mean we prevented 10,000 mass shootings - maybe we prevented 1. Maybe we only prevented one person from shooting their spouse. We won't really know. But, we might help 9,575 people get through a hard time and learn some coping skills.

Who knows. I am trying to suggest something that specifically addresses an attempt to identify potential gun violence, without interrupting the rights of the 112M responsible gun owners. It isn't perfect, but neither is our current system.

I am looking to discuss solutions that are different than what is being suggestes.

Also, this addresses the problem that people can own guns for years legally, and then go through some life event that changes them, and after years of responsible gun ownership, gets all weird and showers an outdoor concert with bullets.

I'm not so worried about the rights of the 10,000 people, since stalking, imitating murders, expressing the desire to kill people are grounds enough in my mind to strip kids of their killing machines for a while.

But the three things that do worry me:

1. unless the confiscation occurs suddenly without any advance warning, it might well provoke the attack it's meant to thwart (note that "Victim/martyr self-concept" and "Paranoia" are both on the list)
   
   
2. even if the confiscation is successful, if it "triggers" a paranoid individual, he's still perfectly capable of killing people by other means
   
   
3. as others have pointed out, tying confiscation to specific signs and behaviours will drive those behaviours "underground" to an extent.  This isn't altogether a bad thing, but it has ramifications in terms of how effective the policy can be, and may suppress observers' ability to identify a problem and intervene by other means.
   

[thyme4change]

Feb 15, 2018 22:58:18 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Feb 15, 2018 22:40:05 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

That list isn't definitive. It is a starting point for a discussion about possible red flags.

I think identifying the difference between what tens of millions of young people do and what a person who is turning increasingly violent is something that can be done. It isn't like we are jailing them, just removing guns from their reach until they can be properly evaluated and maybe treated by a professional.

Also, it was not suggested that one or two of these behaviors is an automatic granting of the position. Someone would have to come to a judge with solid reasoning that there could be a problem.

And, if we temporarily remove gun access from (pick a number) 10,000 people - it doesn't mean we prevented 10,000 mass shootings - maybe we prevented 1. Maybe we only prevented one person from shooting their spouse. We won't really know. But, we might help 9,575 people get through a hard time and learn some coping skills.

Who knows. I am trying to suggest something that specifically addresses an attempt to identify potential gun violence, without interrupting the rights of the 112M responsible gun owners. It isn't perfect, but neither is our current system.

I am looking to discuss solutions that are different than what is being suggestes.

Also, this addresses the problem that people can own guns for years legally, and then go through some life event that changes them, and after years of responsible gun ownership, gets all weird and showers an outdoor concert with bullets.

I'm not so worried about the rights of the 10,000 people, since stalking, imitating murders, expressing the desire to kill people are grounds enough in my mind to strip kids of their killing machines for a while.

But the three things that do worry me:

1. unless the confiscation occurs suddenly without any advance warning, it might well provoke the attack it's meant to thwart (note that "Victim/martyr self-concept" and "Paranoia" are both on the list)
   
   
2. even if the confiscation is successful, if it "triggers" a paranoid individual, he's still perfectly capable of killing people by other means
   
   
3. as others have pointed out, tying confiscation to specific signs and behaviours will drive those behaviours "underground" to an extent.  This isn't altogether a bad thing, but it has ramifications in terms of how effective the policy can be, and may suppress observers' ability to identify a problem and intervene by other means.
   

Do you have any suggestion worth discussing, or are you just here to shit on any possible suggestion?

Clearly this doesn't work for you. Is the solution to just shoot people?

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 15, 2018 23:10:23 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Feb 15, 2018 22:58:18 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I'm not so worried about the rights of the 10,000 people, since stalking, imitating murders, expressing the desire to kill people are grounds enough in my mind to strip kids of their killing machines for a while.

But the three things that do worry me:

1. unless the confiscation occurs suddenly without any advance warning, it might well provoke the attack it's meant to thwart (note that "Victim/martyr self-concept" and "Paranoia" are both on the list)
   
   
2. even if the confiscation is successful, if it "triggers" a paranoid individual, he's still perfectly capable of killing people by other means
   
   
3. as others have pointed out, tying confiscation to specific signs and behaviours will drive those behaviours "underground" to an extent.  This isn't altogether a bad thing, but it has ramifications in terms of how effective the policy can be, and may suppress observers' ability to identify a problem and intervene by other means.
   

Do you have any suggestion worth discussing, or are you just here to shit on any possible suggestion?

Clearly this doesn't work for you. Is the solution to just shoot people?

The only effective way to mitigate the symptoms is a complete Canadian-style system of bans and regulations, which isn't possible in the US, either logistically or legislatively.

The solution is to excise violence, pride, and rebelliousness from Western culture, which also isn't possible. However, individuals can do a great deal to insulate themselves and their families from being caught up in it.

I'm not here specifically to tear down others' suggestions, but often when I behold the hue and cry "something CAN be done, something NEEDS to be done," I'm compelled to point out this attitude is a progenitor of unjust policies, often with grave unintended consequences. As far as specific policies are concerned, I'm apt to point out what the unintended consequences might be.

I'm also here to refute the notion that "Our thoughts and prayers are with..." is an offensive statement, which isn't true. Likewise for the claim that opponents of gun control don't care about victims or their families, or are operating solely in the interest of money.

Finally, you say, "Clearly this doesn't work for you." but my conclusion from earlier is "I suppose it's worth a try."  I'm skeptical it will work, but it's one of the only suggestions thus far that could potentially save lives, and doesn't disenfranchise tens of millions of citizens to do it.

[tallguy]

I'm also here to refute the notion that "Our thoughts and prayers are with..." is an offensive statement, which isn't true.

By itself it is certainly not offensive. In context with the idea that for those who can actually do something about the issue to offer only such platitudes while abdicating their responsibility to actually do something about the issue? Yeah, if I were a parent of a child murdered in such a shooting, I would have an awful lot of things to say to any politician who offered me only "thoughts and prayers...) to my face. And if he offered me the NRA party line in response I would hope for his sake he had a very large security detail with him.

[Lizard Queen]

Feb 15, 2018 22:24:02 GMT -5 dezii said:

I have mentioned the following before...believe after the Sandy Hook slaughter...


It's mentioned how schools should be a gun free area...yet we are surrounded by law enforcement folks..[cops]  who are armed and no one thinks twice about it...Some have said schools should have armed guards on the premises from morning to closing...Actually that would be, I believe , prohibitive expensive, especially today with budgets being so constrained.

There are many folks who today get and want  to be able to carry weapons for personal protection, and more and more States which are loosening up and allowing such happenings. Even if licensed for concealed carry, today most of these folks would have to leave their weapons in the car...schools are gun free zones..either leave in vehicle or don't carry or risk losing their jobs if found with a weapon. 

I would not be against  such licensed people, if they wanted to , be able to carry their weapons into the work space.....not to take the place of law enforcement ....but go through training...including the weapons itself and the type of rounds used...Have to be careful not to have rounds that would go through walls...hit innocents...not even so much to actively go after a shooter but able to protect their own students if needed as they barricaded the rooms...Possible even have a group plan with others so armed in case of a incursion...a battle plan , practice after hours, under supervision of professionals..police department...only for those adults who want to be so armed...strictly volunteer...

I don't think students would be upset if they knew a teacher or custodian was so armed...just looked upon as more law enforceful people...possible weapons are in brief cases or handbags, not really shown...

I am against that, because people are careless, and there are already a lot of accidental shootings.  Even when they aren't careless, more guns around means more opportunity for people to get at them (a kid could see I gun in teacher's drawer, and where the teacher keeps the key to such drawer, and sneak into it).  I feel safer without guns around at all.  Just because you aren't a moron with your gun, doesn't mean your neighbor isn't.

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 16, 2018 9:13:43 GMT -5 tallguy said:

I'm also here to refute the notion that "Our thoughts and prayers are with..." is an offensive statement, which isn't true.

By itself it is certainly not offensive. In context with the idea that for those who can actually do something about the issue to offer only such platitudes while abdicating their responsibility to actually do something about the issue? Yeah, if I were a parent of a child murdered in such a shooting, I would have an awful lot of things to say to any politician who offered me only "thoughts and prayers...) to my face. And if he offered me the NRA party line in response I would hope for his sake he had a very large security detail with him.

Let me put it this way: It isn't an inherently offensive statement.

Your offense is because you're the parent of a slain child who disagrees with the politician over what can/should be done federally vis a vis arms prohibitions. Short of abandoning his position and telling you what you want to hear, "My thoughts and prayers are with you." is among the least offensive things he can say.

Remember, for every one of you, he also has to talk to a million lawful, firearm-owning citizens bound by the bans and regulations he enacts at your behest. He also has his conscience and Constitutional ideals to consider.

"Abdicating their responsibility to actually do something" is your (Tallguy's) assessment. While it's undoubtedly true in some cases, it's a baseless accusation. When no solution whose benefits outweigh its costs exists, doing nothing is the only responsible thing to do.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

I'd only be in favor of everyone being able to walk around with a gun in schools and at work if the government requires thumb print technology to be installed on all guns.    This software takes your thumb print and registers you and whoever else you choose as the only people who can fire the weapon.  If someone else gets a hold of it they can't pull the trigger.   Trying to dismantle or otherwise tamper with the technology renders the gun useless.

No way do we need kids knowing that Mr Jones has a gun in his desk and sneaking back in during recess to take a peek at it.  I don't need an unstable co-worker knowing his cube mate has a gun stashed in his locker.   At least for the moment if someone wants to shoot up my workplace they have to think about it, go home and get their guns first.

I know everyone who has a gun seems to think they are Annie Oakley but it's just like driving.   Everyone rates themselves as an exception driver, but the statistics show as a collective whole we're horrible drivers.  You consider yourself to be the bee's knees when it comes to shooting and maybe you are, doesn't mean the person next to you is.

[tallguy]

Feb 16, 2018 9:39:39 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Feb 16, 2018 9:13:43 GMT -5 tallguy said:

By itself it is certainly not offensive. In context with the idea that for those who can actually do something about the issue to offer only such platitudes while abdicating their responsibility to actually do something about the issue? Yeah, if I were a parent of a child murdered in such a shooting, I would have an awful lot of things to say to any politician who offered me only "thoughts and prayers...) to my face. And if he offered me the NRA party line in response I would hope for his sake he had a very large security detail with him.

Let me put it this way: It isn't an inherently offensive statement.

Your offense is because you're the parent of a slain child who disagrees with the politician over what can/should be done federally vis a vis arms prohibitions. Short of abandoning his position and telling you what you want to hear, "My thoughts and prayers are with you." is among the least offensive things he can say.

Remember, for every one of you, he also has to talk to a million lawful, firearm-owning citizens bound by the bans and regulations he enacts at your behest. He also has his conscience and Constitutional ideals to consider.

"Abdicating their responsibility to actually do something" is your (Tallguy's) assessment. While it's undoubtedly true in some cases, it's a baseless accusation. When no solution whose benefits outweigh its costs exists, doing nothing is the only responsible thing to do.

And the majority of those lawful, firearm-owning citizens are in favor of many of those bans and regulations that we talk about here.  Additionally, the Constitutional concerns are misplaced.  The Court erred in Heller, in that it chose to create law rather than interpret law.  The Stevens dissent is far more logical and persuasive than the Scalia opinion.  The language of the Amendment was debated at the time of adoption, and specific language ensuring the individual right to own guns was deliberately not included.  It was included in some of the state constitutions, but was not included in the Second Amendment.  Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gave the federal government the right and power to arm militias.  The Second Amendment was to give that right and power back to the states.  Former Chief Justice Warren Burger said in 1990:

“The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.”

[thyme4change]

The "arm everyone" tactic is an affront to individual rights, even more so than "take away all guns." The vast majority of Americans do not want to walk around with a gun strapped to them.

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 16, 2018 10:33:02 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Feb 16, 2018 9:39:39 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Let me put it this way: It isn't an inherently offensive statement.

Your offense is because you're the parent of a slain child who disagrees with the politician over what can/should be done federally vis a vis arms prohibitions. Short of abandoning his position and telling you what you want to hear, "My thoughts and prayers are with you." is among the least offensive things he can say.

Remember, for every one of you, he also has to talk to a million lawful, firearm-owning citizens bound by the bans and regulations he enacts at your behest. He also has his conscience and Constitutional ideals to consider.

"Abdicating their responsibility to actually do something" is your (Tallguy's) assessment. While it's undoubtedly true in some cases, it's a baseless accusation. When no solution whose benefits outweigh its costs exists, doing nothing is the only responsible thing to do.

And the majority of those lawful, firearm-owning citizens are in favor of many of those bans and regulations that we talk about here.  Additionally, the Constitutional concerns are misplaced.  The Court erred in Heller, in that it chose to create law rather than interpret law.  The Stevens dissent is far more logical and persuasive than the Scalia opinion.  The language of the Amendment was debated at the time of adoption, and specific language ensuring the individual right to own guns was deliberately not included.  It was included in some of the state constitutions, but was not included in the Second Amendment.  Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gave the federal government the right and power to arm militias.  The Second Amendment was to give that right and power back to the states.  Former Chief Justice Warren Burger said in 1990:

“The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.”

I mostly agree with you on the interpretation, but i) this doesn't invalidate any of my arguments about the origins of offense, ii) a lawmaker may reasonably believe the SCOTUS didn't err in Heller, especially if the ruling aligns with his/her own judgments on the proper balance between freedom and security.

Re "the majority of those lawful, firearm-owning citizens are in favor of many of those bans and regulations": this depends entirely on the bans and regulations under consideration. Even limiting ourselves to firearm bans based on mental health assessments, which seem to be popular, there's no consensus on what the exact criteria will be, who will perform the assessments, how long the ban will last (i.e. what are the conditions on its reversal), what avenues of appeal citizens may have, and how to deal with confiscating guns from one man without also confiscating them from everyone who lives with him.

I suspect that once a policy hashes out all of these details, if it has any teeth at all, it will only be supported by a narrow majority or a minority.

[Spellbound454]

Abdicating their responsibility to actually do something" is your (Tallguy's) assessment. While it's undoubtedly true in some cases, it's a baseless accusation. When no solution whose benefits outweigh its costs exists, doing nothing is the only responsible thing to do.

Nope the has been a assault weapons ban before which ran out in 2004. (in response to a School massacre) During that the the number of kids dying in School shootings dropped significantly


some would like this to be looked at again.

The "right to bear arms" isn't infinite anyway....... You cant have a helicopter gunship or a cruise missile.
Its about finding what is right for society and enacting it under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act

benefits outweigh its costs

What price do you put on the life of those kids? ...or the next lot of dead kids when it inevitably happens again.

Doing "nothing" would be negligent.

[thyme4change]

Feb 16, 2018 12:06:57 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

Abdicating their responsibility to actually do something" is your (Tallguy's) assessment. While it's undoubtedly true in some cases, it's a baseless accusation. When no solution whose benefits outweigh its costs exists, doing nothing is the only responsible thing to do.

Nope the has been a assault weapons ban before which ran out in 2004. (in response to a School massacre) During that the the number of kids dying in School shootings dropped significantly


some would like this to be looked at again.

The "right to bear arms" isn't infinite anyway....... You cant have a helicopter gunship or a cruise missile.
Its about finding what is right for society and enacting it under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act

benefits outweigh its costs

What price do you put on the life of those kids? ...or the next lot of dead kids when it inevitably happens again.

Doing "nothing" would be negligent.

Like a thousand guys with assault rifles could take down the newly upgraded and heavily funded US military.

[dezii]

our Donald? Will wonders neverv cease with this poor excuse for a POTUS...Mental illness yes...the weapon and ease of obtaining...his own signing a Presidential order weakening a Obama one dealing with making it harder for a mentally ill individual  being able to purchase weapons never mentioned....Ever the man to play to his base and the NRA who largely supported him...incidental to the process is the dead and the wounded...

The fact is, all Americans have rights, and while one may feel there is something wrong say with a individual, one can't just pick them up and commit them for examination with out cause.

Being a senior, senior..I remember my State having institutions...in the vernacular as kids , we called them "Nut House"..."Insane Asylums" where disturbed folks were put...treated hopefully or not... Some years ago these places were closed...the inmates were released ...given a monthly check and left on their own...believe most States have done that so have hard time understanding what our Donald is suggesting.
==================================
"President Donald Trump on Thursday responded to the massacre at a South Florida high school by suggesting students and the surrounding community could have done more to prevent the attack."
----------------------------------------------

www.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-florida-students-done-150722680.html

[Wisconsin Beth]

I think he's suggesting that the parents, teachers, friends were supposed to trot down to the cops and report him.

Which is just rumor and I don't think most cops will be able to follow up.

[happyhoix]

I heard one of the cops comment the other day that 'owning one of those guns is not illegal' so even if someone had called the cops and reported that the kid owned one, they couldn't have done anything about it.

I'm sure the FBI will get a lot of flack for not responding to someone's tip to them about this kid, but I imagine the FBI fields hundreds if not thousands of tips like this in a year, and don't have the manpower to open an investigation on every one. And even if they had, what did the kid do that was illegal? Lots of people own these kinds of guns and take pictures of themselves holding guns.  We can't arrest people who are likely to do things, only people who have done things. At best they might have been able to get him referred to psychological counseling, probably.

[dezii]

Feb 16, 2018 15:47:03 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I heard one of the cops comment the other day that 'owning one of those guns is not illegal' so even if someone had called the cops and reported that the kid owned one, they couldn't have done anything about it.

I'm sure the FBI will get a lot of flack for not responding to someone's tip to them about this kid, but I imagine the FBI fields hundreds if not thousands of tips like this in a year, and don't have the manpower to open an investigation on every one. And even if they had, what did the kid do that was illegal? Lots of people own these kinds of guns and take pictures of themselves holding guns.  We can't arrest people who are likely to do things, only people who have done things. At best they might have been able to get him referred to psychological counseling, probably.

That was discussed on CNN and your correct...not much one can do...unless there are direct threats or such unless one is say the POTUS  or a congress person or elected official...and there are enough mental cases in the country...we will see this happen again...Actually to have to go up against some one with such a weapon with a hand gun...not a fair match up actually...yet to have armed guards with say automatic weapons on school grounds...like on the beaches in Brazil or as I saw with State Cops in Boston Air Port a few years ago...scary sh*t...

[retread]

Feb 16, 2018 12:06:57 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

Nope the has been a assault weapons ban before which ran out in 2004. (in response to a School massacre) During that the the number of kids dying in School shootings dropped significantly

Spellbound, what was the purpose of making a statement and immediately following it with a graph which does absolutely nothing to support that statement?

To say something "dropped significantly" during a given time period, you need data prior to that time period with which to compare.

There is precious little time shown before the era of the AWB and what little is there, is contrary to your statement.    

Perhaps you should have had the courage to show a graph that included a significant period of time prior to the AWB.  You might have mitigated the glaringly obvious fact that there was no single year prior to the AWB which had a greater number of deaths by mass shootings than there was in 1999 (smack-dab in the middle of the AWB) by looking at the AVERAGE number of deaths by mass shootings spread over a few or several years at time.

The truth is, the AWB did have a very modest yet discernible effect.  There were probably tens fewer lives lost per year on average, during that period of time which just might have been attributed to the AWB.

But the greater truth is, that if you look at the trend over several decades, it's been constantly accelerating.  And that trend is far more dramatic than the change we saw due to the AWB.

Doing "nothing" would be negligent.

Those are pretty words, aren't they? A seemingly responsible attitude.

Yet there are vast numbers of people, many of them children who die or live miserable lives due to malnutrition, right here in this country. Focusing on the possibility of saving a few lives by perpetuating the red-tape and bloated bureaucracy involved in these highly ineffective gun laws rather than working to save thousands who are malnourished, would not only be negligent, it would be irresponsible.

However the media doesn't focus our attention on such things. It isn't marked by loud chaotic events. It's a long, quiet process. But even more senseless and horrific, just the same.

[billisonboard]

Feb 15, 2018 21:00:17 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Feb 15, 2018 20:35:43 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

What is your definition of "curbing"?

curbing

v. The act of knocking someone out and then placing thier open mouth on a curb so that when the back of the skull is repeatedly stopmed on all of their teeth get broken. www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=curbing

Let's just say I wouldn't recommend going on TV and saying, "We expect this diet will cure prostate cancer," when you intended on saying, "We expect this diet will curb prostate cancer."

I'm clinging to hope here that there's going to be answers to my questions now that I've addressed your concerns. Am I going to get them, are you just yanking my chain?

I would have no problem going on TV and saying, "My short research indicates that there is no connection to diet and the onset of type 1 diabetes. If you have research that indicates otherwise, please share it with me."

If you have evidence that children with type 1 diabetes are purchasing from vending machines and consuming items that are killing them, lets look at how we can better educate children with type 1 diabetes so they make a different choice or how we can educate their parents to not give them access to the money to use the machines. We could also look at redesign of machines so that very young children can not as easily access the coin slots of vending machines. If you have evidence that random people are purchasing such items from vending machines and force feeding them to diabetic children, simply not having such items available in vending machines without removing them entirely from existence would not solve the problem.

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 16, 2018 12:06:57 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

Abdicating their responsibility to actually do something" is your (Tallguy's) assessment. While it's undoubtedly true in some cases, it's a baseless accusation. When no solution whose benefits outweigh its costs exists, doing nothing is the only responsible thing to do.

Nope the has been a assault weapons ban before which ran out in 2004. (in response to a School massacre) During that the the number of kids dying in School shootings dropped significantly

Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Take the chart back to 1982 using MoJo's own data and observe there is no "drop" during the period in question, simply a continuation of a low baseline number that persists as far back as 1982.

Having said this, the chart does clearly show an increasing trend. While it fails to establish that the increase is related to the repeal of the ban (and in fact suggests otherwise when the data is taken back to 1982), it does support the case that the problem is getting worse year after year, making the case for an effective prohibition relatively stronger.

Finally, we note that the number of mass shooting deaths caused by assault weapons per year (also available in the data) averages around 30 in recent years, which is a tiny fraction of the total yearly carnage in the US, and an insignificant fraction of the 10 million AW-owning citizens impacted by the ban.



some would like this to be looked at again.

The "right to bear arms" isn't infinite anyway....... You cant have a helicopter gunship or a cruise missile.
Its about finding what is right for society and enacting it under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act

True.

benefits outweigh its costs

What price do you put on the life of those kids? ...or the next lot of dead kids when it inevitably happens again.

I can't give you a number, but it's surely less than the price I put on any major liberty of 10 million people.

Bans on "bump stocks", silencers, and high-capacity magazines I support.

Doing "nothing" would be negligent.

Not if all the alternatives are worse on a cost/benefit basis.

Responses inline.

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 16, 2018 16:59:34 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Feb 15, 2018 21:00:17 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Let's just say I wouldn't recommend going on TV and saying, "We expect this diet will cure prostate cancer," when you intended on saying, "We expect this diet will curb prostate cancer."

I'm clinging to hope here that there's going to be answers to my questions now that I've addressed your concerns. Am I going to get them, are you just yanking my chain?

I would have no problem going on TV and saying, "My short research indicates that there is no connection to diet and the onset of type 1 diabetes. If you have research that indicates otherwise, please share it with me."

If you have evidence that children with type 1 diabetes are purchasing from vending machines and consuming items that are killing them, lets look at how we can better educate children with type 1 diabetes so they make a different choice or how we can educate their parents to not give them access to the money to use the machines. We could also look at redesign of machines so that very young children can not as easily access the coin slots of vending machines. If you have evidence that random people are purchasing such items from vending machines and force feeding them to diabetic children, simply not having such items available in vending machines without removing them entirely from existence would not solve the problem.

The argument you're facing down is that the products sold in the vending machines (chips, candy bars, etc.) are enticing, addictive, and easily accessible to people of all ages. Children from age 3-18 are enticed to buy junk food, leading to obesity, junk food addiction, diabetes, and sometimes even death. (The same is true for adults, but this group of 200 is mainly concerned with children.)

It is their firm belief, backed up by a few compelling studies, that banning all junk food vending machines in the city (population 1M) will reduce the number of child deaths due to diabetes from 15 per year to 5 per year. They don't want elevated coin slots, warning labels, more education about the dangers of junk food, or any number of other stopgap measures. They want the machines gone, and they know you have the power to make it happen.

You are firmly ideologically opposed to the ban. You don't want your 1M citizens deprived of their liberty to purchase goodies out of vending machines for sake of (probabilistically speaking) saving 10 kids' lives per year. The benefits are nowhere near sufficient to justify the costs. If the problem is going to be fixed, parents and supervisors are going to have to be more vigilant in monitoring, educating, and policing children in their care.

Having spelled this all out in painfully explicit detail for you: You are being asked to comment about the death of the child star (complications due to diabetes) by the reporter. You then have to face her parents and the group of 200, who ostensibly blame you (your unwillingness to ban vending machines) for the death of the child. What do you say to the reporter? What do you say to the parents and the 200?

[billisonboard]

Feb 16, 2018 17:42:25 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

...

..., backed up by a few compelling studies, ...

Cite one.

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 16, 2018 17:56:28 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Feb 16, 2018 17:42:25 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

...

..., backed up by a few compelling studies, ...

Cite one.

This is a hypothetical.

I have posited that you find the studies compelling.

If you can't answer the question because you can't fathom being ideologically opposed to the ban, say so now and give my last thread of hope that you'll answer the questions the clean death it deserves.

[billisonboard]

Feb 16, 2018 17:42:25 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

...

... You are being asked to comment about the death of the child star (complications due to diabetes) by the reporter. You then have to face her parents and the group of 200, who ostensibly blame you (your unwillingness to ban vending machines) for the death of the child. What do you say to the reporter? "I will comment after meeting the parents." What do you say to the parents and the 200? See the following.

"It isn't that true the products sold in the vending machines (chips, candy bars, etc.) are enticing, addictive, and easily accessible to people of all ages. Children from age 3-18 are enticed to buy junk food, leading to obesity, junk food addiction, diabetes, and sometimes even death. The same is true for adults.  And if they are that easily sucked in, they deserve to die.

My firm belief, backed up by a few compelling studies, that banning all junk food vending machines in the city won't reduce the number of child deaths due to diabetes at all. I don't care you don't want elevated coin slots, warning labels, more education about the dangers of junk food, or any number of other stopgap measures. I don't care you want the machines gone, and although I have the power to make it happen, it isn't going to happen.

I am firmly ideologically opposed to the ban. I don't want your fellow 1M citizens deprived of their liberty to purchase goodies out of vending machines for sake of saving no lives at all. The benefits are nowhere near sufficient to justify the costs. If the problem is going to be fixed, you parents and supervisors are going to have to be more vigilant in monitoring, educating, and policing your and other children in your care."

"did I say it the way you wanted me to say it?"