Florida Shooting

[TimmySmith 2,783]

We should avoid all terms related to classifying guns. All of them - semiautomatic, high capacity, assault style, AR15, etc. make gun aficionados fixate on semantics and exceptions to the rules, like world class marksmen who can pull a trigger rapidly. All this detracts from meaningful discussion.

 

The conversation should begin with: what firearms/ammunition should be restricted to the public? What do we do about people who already own such firearms?

 

ETA. What KSB said

Meh, MDC keeps using a phrase that is ridiculous. 99% of handguns today, and probably 80% bought all time, are one pull-one shot weapons. The size of the clip, cartridge, number of chambers, etc = the number of pulls until it is empty. Are we going to ban something we cannot even define?

 

Question 2 is simple. You have to go and get them. Easier said than done.

[MDC 7,887]

I didnt realize that I needed to be a ballistics expert in order to have the opinion that the types of high capacity / rapid fire weapons used in these shootings probably should not be widely available.

[parrot 789]

Have pressure cooker bombs caused a disproportionate number of mass bombing deaths? Or is it Professor Plum with the pipe?

 

Did a pressure cooker ban expire a little over a decade and since then have we seen a precipitous rise in pressure cooker bombings? If so, might it not make sense to look at restricting pressure cookers again?

[cbfalcon 827]

 

 

"But the bottom line is that the far right won't budge one inch on gun control for fear the "liberals" will take a mile. Just like the far left will look for an all out ban on all guns for citizens. So here we sit, with good ole common sense just flying in the wind"

 

If you can look at it objectively.......the far left has little to no chance of ever banning all guns for all citizens anytime soon if ever. I get the slippery slope argument, but it's always felt a bit lazy in my opinion, as it seems like a way of saying I refuse to do the right thing right now because it would mean I may have to take a stand on something else in the future.

 

The point being, it's my opinion that the far right would be best served by budging now, and they can fight the next fight when it's actually here.

[Cdub100 3,995]

Bullshit

100% true.

 

Here's a news flash for you and everyone else attempting to destroy our bill of rights. If you think the people will give up their right and duty as an American citizen to bear arms you have no idea the blood she'd that will happen.

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

History has shown over and over and over and over and over again. When you disarm the people the free state falls. We will not allow that to happen.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

 

If you can look at it objectively.......the far left has little to no chance of ever banning all guns for all citizens anytime soon if ever. I get the slippery slope argument, but it's always felt a bit lazy in my opinion, as it seems like a way of saying I refuse to do the right thing right now because it would mean I may have to take a stand on something else in the future.

 

The point being, it's my opinion that the far right would be best served by budging now, and they can fight the next fight when it's actually here.

For the NRA (and its supporters), that is the slippery slope.

 

Here is what our lawmakers and most citizens fail to recognize. When looking for compromise across two competing groups who are diametrically opposed to each other, the best deal is the one where both parties feel like they lost. Instead, we would rather just make any change than feel like you lost, even if the other side felt they lost too.

[Cdub100 3,995]

Guys we need sensible gun control

 

National firearms act

 

Guys we need sensible gun control

 

Federal firearm act

 

Guys we need sensible gun control

 

Gun control act

 

Guys we need sensible gun control

 

AT&F created

 

Guys we need sensible gun control

 

Law enforcement act

 

Guys we need sensible gun control

 

Crime control act

 

Guys we need sensible gun control

 

Brady bill

 

Guys we need sensible gun control

 

Violent crime control act

 

Guys we need sensible gun control

 

Obama act

 

Guys we need sensible gun control

 

.......

 

 

 

Yeah no slippery slope there. There is no more room to debate we will not allow liberals to keep moving the goal post towards the repeal of the 2A. Period.

[Sho Nuff 720]

100% true.

 

Here's a news flash for you and everyone else attempting to destroy our bill of rights. If you think the people will give up their right and duty as an American citizen to bear arms you have no idea the blood she'd that will happen.

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

History has shown over and over and over and over and over again. When you disarm the people the free state falls. We will not allow that to happen.

 

Destroy the bill of rights? Again...you are full of and a reason the debate never goes anywhere because people like you are full of and don't shut up.

Very few are talking about disarming the people...Ive stated quite clearly thats not my goal.

The goal of the left isn't complete disarming either (that takes a 2/3s majority for an amendment...).

Run along and let people trying to have legit dialog talk now sonny.

[Cdub100 3,995]

 

Destroy the bill of rights? Again...you are full of ###### and a reason the debate never goes anywhere because people like you are full of ###### and don't shut up.

Very few are talking about disarming the people...Ive stated quite clearly thats not my goal.

The goal of the left isn't complete disarming either (that takes a 2/3s majority for an amendment...).

Run along and let people trying to have legit dialog talk now sonny.

That is your goal liar. We already have gun control. Above and beyond what is needed. The only place to go from here is to disarm and repeal the 2A.

 

Bad people do bad things. That will never change. Disarming good people is not the solution.

[Sho Nuff 720]

That is your goal liar. We already have gun control. Above and beyond what is needed. The only place to go from here is to disarm and repeal the 2A.

 

Bad people do bad things. That will never change. Disarming good people is not the solution.

 

Its my goal...awesome. Thanks for telling me what I think despite that never really being my position.

Making it more difficult for bad people to harm mass amounts of people is a possible solution.

Thats the focking point.

 

Now shoo child...

[TimmySmith 2,783]

I didnt realize that I needed to be a ballistics expert in order to have the opinion that the types of high capacity / rapid fire weapons used in these shootings probably should not be widely available.

What defines "high capacity / rapid fire" for non-automatic weapons? That is the issue that has foiled everyone who has confronted it.

[drobeski 3,061]

What kind of mental meds was this kid prescribed if any. Are they the same as past mental case shooters?

Did doctors treat his mental condition ? If so who are they ?

 

Pill pushing doctors could be playing a big part in all of this.

[5-Points 3,766]

 

Did a pressure cooker ban expire a little over a decade and since then have we seen a precipitous rise in pressure cooker bombings? If so, might it not make sense to ban pressure cookers again?

You've touched on something that I find interesting. Data shows that the Clinton ban had no measurable effect on violent crime. So the law was allowed to sunset. Not until fairly recently have we seen an uptick in their usage in these active shooter scenarios.

 

I wonder why that is. It's not as though AR's have suddenly become more deadly. They've long been a favorite for millions of shooters as evidenced by the sheer number of them in private hands. Only recently have they been used in these types of attacks.

 

Something changed. It wasn't the rifle, other than maybe cosmetically. Granted, we've upgraded optics, laser sights and other accessories that maybe allow for quicker target acquisition but that isn't specific to AR's.

 

There was a societal change somewhere along the way that has resulted in an increase in AR's being used in mass shootings. I'd like to find out what that change was and why it occurred. Otherwise, we can ban all the guns we want but we'll never get to the root of the problem and it will just manifest itself in other ways.

[parrot 789]

What defines "high capacity / rapid fire" for non-automatic weapons? That is the issue that has foiled everyone who has confronted it.

 

The basic culprit here is a semi-auto which accepts detachable magazines. Ban those and you're 90% of the way there, on the rifle front anyway. The original assault weapons ban got bogged down in features like folding stocks and pistol grips which brought about completely reasonable complaints that you could own a weapon with pretty much the same functionality as an "assault weapon" with just cosmetic differences.

[bandrus1 413]

 

The basic culprit here is a semi-auto which accepts detachable magazines. Ban those and you're 90% of the way there, on the rifle front anyway. The original assault weapons ban got bogged down in features like folding stocks and pistol grips which brought about completely reasonable complaints that you could own a weapon with pretty much the same functionality as an "assault weapon" with just cosmetic differences.

 

 

ban new sales or all together?

 

You will never get people to just turn those in

[TimmySmith 2,783]

 

The basic culprit here is a semi-auto which accepts detachable magazines. Ban those and you're 90% of the way there, on the rifle front anyway. The original assault weapons ban got bogged down in features like folding stocks and pistol grips which brought about completely reasonable complaints that you could own a weapon with pretty much the same functionality as an "assault weapon" with just cosmetic differences.

I think the public and the legislatures would get behind a one piece weapon that had a reasonable capacity. Law enforcement could still have access to a weapon with removable clip.

[parrot 789]

 

 

ban new sales or all together?

 

You will never get people to just turn those in

 

Probably just new sales since you're right that there is really no way you are going to collect the ones that are already out there even if you somehow managed to get that passed. I'm mostly just taking it over the hurdles of what types of weapons might need further restriction. The logistics of putting together a law that would actually keep them out of the wrong handles is a whole other problem.

[parrot 789]

I think the public and the legislatures would get behind a one piece weapon that had a reasonable capacity. Law enforcement could still have access to a weapon with removable clip.

 

 

You've touched on something that I find interesting. Data shows that the Clinton ban had no measurable effect on violent crime. So the law was allowed to sunset. Not until fairly recently have we seen an uptick in their usage in these active shooter scenarios.

 

I wonder why that is. It's not as though AR's have suddenly become more deadly. They've long been a favorite for millions of shooters as evidenced by the sheer number of them in private hands. Only recently have they been used in these types of attacks.

 

Something changed. It wasn't the rifle, other than maybe cosmetically. Granted, we've upgraded optics, laser sights and other accessories that maybe allow for quicker target acquisition but that isn't specific to AR's.

 

There was a societal change somewhere along the way that has resulted in an increase in AR's being used in mass shootings. I'd like to find out what that change was and why it occurred. Otherwise, we can ban all the guns we want but we'll never get to the root of the problem and it will just manifest itself in other ways.

I think there have been societal changes. But you can't just ignore the correlation between these guns becoming increasingly available and cheaper and increasingly being the weapon of choice in these kinds of rampage attacks. There's no saying we can't try to address any societal changes and simultaneously make it so that pretty much anyone outside of a convicted felon can't just walk into a Wal-Mart and come out with an AR, an assload of magazines, and hundreds of rounds.

[Baker Boy 1,710]

The uneducated anti gun people in this thread don't realize all the laws they want passed have already passed.

They created a no gun zone and thought their kids would be safe. Unfortunately criminals don’t care about no gun zones. They also won’t care about a ban on guns.

 

Why do they think banning guns will work better than their stupid no gun zones?

[cyclone24 1,935]

They created a no gun zone and thought their kids would be safe. Unfortunately criminals dont care about no gun zones. They also wont care about a ban on guns.

 

Why do they think banning guns will work better than their stupid no gun zones?

Uhhhhgain....why have any laws at all then. JFC you gun folks are clearly on the wrong side of modern history.

 

NRA can suck my ever loving cack.

[parrot 789]

They created a no gun zone and thought their kids would be safe. Unfortunately criminals don’t care about no gun zones. They also won’t care about a ban on guns.

 

Why do they think banning guns will work better than their stupid no gun zones?

 

Nobody gives a fock what criminals care and don't care about. The question is how do we make it more difficult for them to do what they want to do and one obvious approach is to restrict the availability of the tools they use. Is that an easy, or total solution? No, probably not. But some of us want to see the problem worked, not just throw our hands up and say there's nothing the greatest country in the history of the world can do to keep deranged people from easily getting their hands on military-grade weapons and killing innocents by the dozens. I guess we're just better Americans than you.

[Mungwater 601]

Uhhhhgain....why have any laws at all then. JFC you gun folks are clearly on the wrong side of modern history.

 

NRA can suck my ever loving cack.

The issue is the left doesnt know enough about guns to have a discussion, the right is too hell bent on keeping theirs to have a discussion. I do think that something needs to happen, but until both sides educate themselves and actually have a discussion, we have what we have.

[cyclone24 1,935]

The issue is the left doesnt know enough about guns to have a discussion, the right is too hell bent on keeping theirs to have a discussion. I do think that something needs to happen, but until both sides educate themselves and actually have a discussion, we have what we have.

I'm not sure I need to know one piece on a gun to know an 18 year old doesn't need to have an AR15 for any reason. But I agree in general.

[MDC 7,887]

What defines "high capacity / rapid fire" for non-automatic weapons? That is the issue that has foiled everyone who has confronted it.

I readily admit that I dont know enough about firearms to know where the line should be drawn, but most of the firearms used to perpetrate mass shootings seem to only have a purely recreational or collector purpose.

[Strike 6,023]

 

Nobody gives a fock what criminals care and don't care about. The question is how do we make it more difficult for them to do what they want to do and one obvious approach is to restrict the availability of the tools they use. Is that an easy, or total solution? No, probably not. But some of us want to see the problem worked, not just throw our hands up and say there's nothing the greatest country in the history of the world can do to keep deranged people from easily getting their hands on military-grade weapons and killing innocents by the dozens. I guess we're just better Americans than you.

 

That would be great if it wasn't so common after these shootings to find out that law enforcement was aware of the threat and didn't do anything about it. A grandma in Washington state reported her grandson earlier this week to police. Guess what? They did something about it so we're not hearing about a shooting in Washington. A couple of brothers in NY were arrested this week who were planning on a terrorist/bomb attack on a school. Because when LE was notified of them they did their job. Now those two are in jail. We only talk about the ones that actually happen, and in so many cases we've found out after the fact that the incident could have been prevent but for incompetent/lazy LE. But we should give up our rights anyways. God, I can't believe I have to keep defending our constitution. I don't even own a gun.

 

[Mungwater 601]

I'm not sure I need to know one piece on a gun to know an 18 year old doesn't need to have an AR15 for any reason. But I agree in general.

The issue is if you say AR15, that wont solve anything. Thats like taking Nikes off the market to stop running.

[tanatastic 2,062]

I'm not sure I need to know one piece on a gun to know an 18 year old doesn't need to have an AR15 for any reason. But I agree in general.

An 18 year old with a history of bad behavior and expelled from school. This was basically selling Jason Voorhees a machete after he walks in, mask and all.

[Mungwater 601]

An 18 year old with a history of bad behavior and expelled from school. This was basically selling Jason Voorhees a machete after he walks in, mask and all.

So if you have bad behavior and get expelled, you cant vote either?

[drobeski 3,061]

What's medications was he on ?

[ZeroTolerance 584]

So if you have bad behavior and get expelled, you cant vote either?

Can you kill a dozen or so people with your ballot?

[Mungwater 601]

Can you kill a dozen or so people with your ballot?

Actually, yeah..

 

But the argument is thats a right, and bad behavior and expulsion cant remove a right

[parrot 789]

 

That would be great if it wasn't so common after these shootings to find out that law enforcement was aware of the threat and didn't do anything about it. A grandma in Washington state reported her grandson earlier this week to police. Guess what? They did something about it so we're not hearing about a shooting in Washington. A couple of brothers in NY were arrested this week who were planning on a terrorist/bomb attack on a school. Because when LE was notified of them they did their job. Now those two are in jail. We only talk about the ones that actually happen, and in so many cases we've found out after the fact that the incident could have been prevent but for incompetent/lazy LE. But we should give up our rights anyways. God, I can't believe I have to keep defending our constitution. I don't even own a gun.

 

 

I'm all for LE doing their job and giving them resources to do it. But still people are going to fall through the cracks and if they aren't able to just walk into the neighborhood Wal-Mart and grab an AR, that is going to help, no?

 

I own several guns and I enjoy them. I also believe in the 2nd amendment. I also also understand that we already have restrictions in place on certain classes of weapons and no one claims that renders their 2nd amendment rights void. Let's treat these "assault weapons" just like we treat automatic weapons. We're just marginally moving a line that already exists.

[tanatastic 2,062]

So if you have bad behavior and get expelled, you cant vote either?

Ok, putting aside your pointless question in response to my post...Do you think its cool to sell an AR15 to a troubled kid with a history of violence, brandishing firearms, bragging about killing animals and running afoul of the law? Just want to know where we stand here.

 

Lol on his social media the kid bragged about wanting to be a school shooter and killing blacks/Muslims etc, and not in a hoorah military way, in a I am a psycho way. This was months ago. This is the least surprising perp in the history of crime.

[Mungwater 601]

Ok, putting aside your pointless question in response to my post...Do you think its cool to sell an AR15 to a troubled kid with a history of violence, brandishing firearms, bragging about killing animals and running afoul of the law? Just want to know where we stand here.

No I dont..

[tanatastic 2,062]

No I dont..

Then yes I think he should still be allowed to vote. We dont have the means or time to run checks on every voter and his opinion is still valid. Its his right to vote. His right to bear arms though is silly and the downfall of the country. He should not have that right.

[Strike 6,023]

 

I'm all for LE doing their job and giving them resources to do it. But still people are going to fall through the cracks and if they aren't able to just walk into the neighborhood Wal-Mart and grab an AR, that is going to help, no?

 

I own several guns and I enjoy them. I also believe in the 2nd amendment. I also also understand that we already have restrictions in place on certain classes of weapons and no one claims that renders their 2nd amendment rights void. Let's treat these "assault weapons" just like we treat automatic weapons. We're just marginally moving a line that already exists.

 

When we restrict a constitutional right, the onus is on the government to show very good cause for doing so. There is almost always a legal challenge that ends up at the SCOTUS in such cases. It's hard to make an argument that will fly at that level if the other side can simply point out that absent incompetent/legal LE response the incidents wouldn't have happened. If you take out all the incidents that could have been prevented but for incompetent/lazy LE efforts I think it will be hard to make a compelling case for additional restrictions.

[5-Points 3,766]

 

I think there have been societal changes. But you can't just ignore the correlation between these guns becoming increasingly available and cheaper and increasingly being the weapon of choice in these kinds of rampage attacks. There's no saying we can't try to address any societal changes and simultaneously make it so that pretty much anyone outside of a convicted felon can't just walk into a Wal-Mart and come out with an AR, an assload of magazines, and hundreds of rounds.

I'm not ignoring it, I have/do understand that it's an issue. I just think it's secondary to a much bigger issue which needs to be addressed first. Because there will be no going back next time there's a ban.

 

While I agree that not everybody should be allowed to "just walk into a Wal-Mart and come out with an AR, an assload of magazines, and hundreds of rounds", I do think that I and millions of other law abiding Americans should be able to.

[edjr 6,898]

[Alias Detective 1,459]

FBI focked this up!

 

Law suits will be ENORMOUS.

[Mungwater 601]

Then yes I think he should still be allowed to vote. We dont have the means or time to run checks on every voter and his opinion is still valid. Its his right to vote. His right to bear arms though is silly and the downfall of the country. He should not have that right.

But being an extremely creepy kid doesnt remove a right