OT Florida School Shooting (1 Viewer)

[Chris Craig]

Never said that but if a dude rolls up on my house trying to break in in the middle of the night, hes dead. Plain and simple. I never said in order to defend yourself at all times you need a gun but I see the liberal force is out and trying to twist words.

Not neccessary. Subdue him call the cops

 

[dviss1]

Sorry the truth doesn't match the propaganda.

Your strawmen are irrelevant and have nothing to do with my view of things.

You simply can't be this dense...

I've already addressed the fact you PURPOSELY neglected homicides by talking homicides and not gun deaths.

 

[rasheedfan2005]

No it has nothing to do with killing people and everything to do with hunting for your own food, you know, what people used to do

It's cheaper to kill a good sized deer and have it processed than it is to buy beef. But hunting isnt a thing. Stop trying to kill us!

 

[Cippy91]

Say SOMETHING about suicide...

Please FUCK...

They are by far the majority of gun deaths in this country....

Goes hand and hand with metal illness and depression. So that goes to show my point even more.

 

[Denny Crane]

From the left.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mclaughlin-parkland-shooting-20180215-story.html

Every solution to mass shootings inevitably involves a serious trade-off
ByDan McLaughlin

What can we do? What should we do?

The answers are not easy, and they inevitably involve a trade-off: accepting the unacceptable, or restricting our freedoms. The three big ones are freedom of the press (publicity gives oxygen to these kinds of acts, so restricting coverage will reduce copycats); the right to bear arms (guns don't cause human evil, but of course they make it easier to carry out); and due process (targeting potential mass shooters, or mentally ill people in general, is possible, but requires us to curtail Americans' civil rights before they have actually committed a crime).

It is by no means clear that any of these solutions would be more effective than the others, and each of them involves punishing a very large number of people in order to stop the evil-doings of a very small number of people.

The knee-jerk reaction is to go after firearms, but there's a bait-and-switch element to gun-control arguments in these situations. Activists focus on small restrictions that are palatable to many. If anyone points out that small restrictions won't do much to stop shootings, the activists argue that larger restrictions, unpalatable to many, would do the trick.

Gun owners are used to hearing, almost in the same breath, "we'll stop shootings by banning all guns" and "nobody's trying to take your guns away."

 

[Cippy91]

Not neccessary. Subdue him call the cops

and if he has a gun? what are you gonna do? a knife? please tell me

 

[dviss1]

Nobody hunts with an AR-15, you are old though, you have issues reading I get it. I was talking about rifles people hunt with you know. I never once said all guns are used to hunt actual animals for food. Most people have it for protection in their homes. Mix that in with people who hunt and people who just like to shoot. Surprise, some people like to just shoot for a hobby, that's why air soft and bb guns exist

False. So false.

 

[Denny Crane]

Haha that sentence

Homicide is one person killing another. Suicide is a person killing themselves. The difference matters.

 

[rasheedfan2005]

I don't hear one solution from the conservatives on the board.

Only EXCUSES.

Already gave you one. Make murder illegal. Dont try to tell me criminals break the law either. If we make it illegal for law abiding citizebs to murder than the criminals will be punished! Win/win

 

[Cippy91]

False. So false.

What hunter goes out with an AR-15 killing deer? or any other animal for food?

 

[Denny Crane]

If two or more guys come at me with pistols or knives, the AR-15 would sure be handy.

 

[Denny Crane]

You simply can't be this dense...

I've already addressed the fact you PURPOSELY neglected homicides by talking homicides and not gun deaths.

Homicides is what matters. You take away the guns and homicides don't change. What does that tell you?

YOU can't be that dense. Seriously.

Hint: they still kill at the same number, they still commit suicide even more, and they simply find another tool to accomplish their terrible deeds.

 

[dviss1]

From the left.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mclaughlin-parkland-shooting-20180215-story.html

Every solution to mass shootings inevitably involves a serious trade-off
ByDan McLaughlin

What can we do? What should we do?

The answers are not easy, and they inevitably involve a trade-off: accepting the unacceptable, or restricting our freedoms. The three big ones are freedom of the press (publicity gives oxygen to these kinds of acts, so restricting coverage will reduce copycats); the right to bear arms (guns don't cause human evil, but of course they make it easier to carry out); and due process (targeting potential mass shooters, or mentally ill people in general, is possible, but requires us to curtail Americans' civil rights before they have actually committed a crime).

It is by no means clear that any of these solutions would be more effective than the others, and each of them involves punishing a very large number of people in order to stop the evil-doings of a very small number of people.

The knee-jerk reaction is to go after firearms, but there's a bait-and-switch element to gun-control arguments in these situations. Activists focus on small restrictions that are palatable to many. If anyone points out that small restrictions won't do much to stop shootings, the activists argue that larger restrictions, unpalatable to many, would do the trick.

Gun owners are used to hearing, almost in the same breath, "we'll stop shootings by banning all guns" and "nobody's trying to take your guns away."

Nice try. That dude is a conservative writer and that's an Op ed.

 

[riverman]

You take away the guns and homicides don't change

Simply not true.....homicides are much more infrequent without easy access to guns and ammo....proven fact...

 

[Denny Crane]

Nice try. That dude is a conservative writer and that's an Op ed.

LA Times is a left leaning paper, including the editorials they publish.

You have no answers for what he wrote. Clearly.

 

[rasheedfan2005]

What hunter goes out with an AR-15 killing deer? or any other animal for food?

It's possible, but not cost efficient. Stoner platform can be chambered in pretty much any caliber. Add a good scope and enjoy hunting with your favorite caliber. Most people agree a bolt action is more accurate though. And a good remmington 700 in .270 or something is generally going to be cheaper to make more accurate.

"AR-15" is what most people refer to the civilian version of the military M-16. But generally people are just scared of the looks because the military uses the stoner platform. The gas extraction system, the ease of tear down and cleaning, the reliability, none of it makes the particular platform any more dangerous than any other gun design. The military likes it for the reliability and ease of field stripping.

 

[dviss1]

Homicides is what matters. You take away the guns and homicides don't change. What does that tell you?

YOU can't be that dense. Seriously.

Hint: they still kill at the same number, they still commit suicide even more, and they simply find another tool to accomplish their terrible deeds.

Shameful.

Just like I said. Suicide = mental illness.
Denny = they still kill at the same number, they still commit suicide even more, and they simply find another tool to accomplish their terrible deeds.

Which is simply untrue.

 

[dviss1]

LA Times is a left leaning paper, including the editorials they publish.

You have no answers for what he wrote. Clearly.

WhytheFUCKdoicarewhatthatconsays?

I don't. He's fallible.

 

[Denny Crane]

Simply not true.....homicides are much more infrequent without easy access to guns and ammo....proven fact...

Laughable. Make the claim and don't support it.

Without banning guns or more gun control.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/what-caused-the-crime-decline/477408/

What Caused the Great Crime Decline in the U.S.?
After decades of soaring levels of homicides and drug violence, the country’s crime rate plunged dramatically over the last 25 years. What happened?

...

By decade’s end, the homicide rate plunged 42 percent nationwide. Violent crime decreased by one-third. What turned into a precipitous decline started later in some areas and took longer in others. But it happened everywhere: in each region of the country, in cities large and small, in rural and urban areas alike. In the Northeast, which reaped the largest benefits, the homicide rate was halved. Murders plummeted by 75 percent in New York City alone as the city entered the new millennium.

The trend kept ticking downward from there, more slowly and with some fluctuations, to the present day. By virtually any metric, Americans now live in one of the least violent times in the nation’s history.

But the forces that drove the Great American Crime Decline remain a mystery. Theories abound among sociologists, economists, and political scientists about the causes, with some hypotheses stronger than others. But there’s no real consensus among scholars about what caused one of the largest social shifts in modern American history.

 

[Hobbesarable]

Triggered.

 

[stampedehero]

When shit like this happens, I hate it but I’m also very curious about the shooters situation. How did he get to this point? What happened? I mean this is high school. He’s very young. How did he get the gun? What kind of gun is it? What was going on in his life? Mental health? We need to figure out what drives people to do this shit. No normal person thinks of doing this to people. Mental health is too big of an issue in this country. Way more of an issue than guns

You have detective instinct!

 

[Denny Crane]

WhytheFUCKdoicarewhatthatconsays?

I don't. He's fallible.

With one side of your mouth, you complain about conservatives and solutions. With the other you won't read the solutions offered by conservatives or the arguments for/against the possibilities.

That's simply not smart.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Guns are made to kill people. Thats what they are used for.

That's not why there are 300 million guns in this country. Think about it

 

[Hobbesarable]

I am not even a liberal. I understand you feel you need to lash out. Try having a discussion without having a meltdown.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

I don't hear one solution from the conservatives on the board.

Only EXCUSES.

How about providing students the same amount of security provided in a hospital ICU, Police Dept, Gas attendant, radio station and others. Have one entrance that you must buzz in and be let through. If you have no business there, you do not get in. This and a couple of armed security guards. and that would solve a lot of problems.

 

[dviss1]

What hunter goes out with an AR-15 killing deer? or any other animal for food?

Here Are 7 Animals Hunters Kill Using an AR-15

After the Orlando nightclub shooting, Democrats criticized the routine sale of the type of semiautomatic rifle used by Omar Mateen. Hillary Clinton called them “weapons of war.” Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin said that if you used a gun like the AR-15 — or the similar Sig Sauer used in Orlando — to go hunting “you should stick to fishing.”

But many gun owners say they use semiautomatic rifles to hunt regularly.

In interviews with TIME, leaders of 15 state shooting groups said semiautomatic rifles are popular with hunters in their states. Hunters say they favor the gun for its versatility, accuracy and customizable features for shooting animals. The semiautomatic feature, which allows these guns to shoot up to 45 rounds a minute, is not always necessary, but useful in some situations, hunters say.

“These are not scary black rifles,” Chambers told TIME. “These are very useful tools for hunting.”

 

[dviss1]

How about providing students the same amount of security provided in a hospital ICU, Police Dept, Gas attendant, radio station and others. Have one entrance that you must buzz in and be let through. If you have no business there, you do not get in. This and a couple of armed security guards. and that would solve a lot of problems.

So let's put a band aid on the problem and not do anything to prevent it...

That doesn't solve one problem. It only helps after the fact.

 

[dviss1]

How about providing students the same amount of security provided in a hospital ICU, Police Dept, Gas attendant, radio station and others. Have one entrance that you must buzz in and be let through. If you have no business there, you do not get in. This and a couple of armed security guards. and that would solve a lot of problems.

There were good guys with guns at Columbine. Lots of good they did.

 

[Denny Crane]

The charts you do not like, and even the one you posted, show that "prevention" is impossible.

EVERYTHING is a band aid.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

So let's put a band aid on the problem and not do anything to prevent it...

That doesn't solve one problem. It only helps after the fact.

Oh, I was under the belief that you wanted solutions to solving school shootings.