Jump to content


Parkland, FL High School Shooting


Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:
Time to be blunt.

 

Here's the article.....

 

He will be a man, or maybe still a boy.

 

He will have a semiautomatic rifle — an AR-15, or something like it — and several high-capacity magazines filled with ammunition.

 

The weapon will have been purchased legally, the background check no obstacle.

He will walk into a school, or a concert, or an office building.

 

And he will open fire into a crowd of innocents.

 

Even as he’s still firing — crack crack crack — word will begin to spread. Survivors huddled in closets or behind bandstands will send pictures, text messages, and videos into a world that is again aghast.

 

Televisions will play the videos recorded amid the carnage, the sound somehow worse than the images. The fear in the victims’ voices will be familiar, yet too potent — a sound outside the boundaries of our own empathy.

 

We will hear about the heroes: Teachers who barricaded their classrooms or threw themselves between their students and the gunfire; concertgoers who shielded strangers as bullets plowed into their backs.

And we will hear about him: He was strange and troubled and cruel to animals; he’d shown signs of mental illness; he lost his job; he beat his wife.

 

A chorus will rise to ask why anybody should own such a weapon, much less someone so obviously troubled; another chorus will accuse the first of politicizing tragedy. Some will point to the Second Amendment, and blame a lack of treatment for the mentally ill.

 

Politicians, and then the president, will emerge. Some will plead for new laws. More will ask only for thoughts and prayers. Some will not mention guns at all.

 

Any promises will be broken. Beyond the shattered orbit of the school or church or concert that became a shooting gallery, the whole thing will recede too soon into memory.

 

And then it will all happen again.

 

Whoever he is, he may already have the rifle. And he will follow the script.

So will we.

 

There are only three things we don’t know about the next time:

WHO, WHERE, AND HOW MANY?

Edited by Kiyoat Husker
Link to comment

That's a very powerful article and sadly more true than it should be. Until we do something about this problem, whether it be funding more mental health research to diagnose the issue, passing common sense legislation such as not allowing those that are mentally ill to legally purchase a gun, or as a society becoming more informed voter and getting people in Washington that will better represent their constituents, the question will always remain......WHO, WHERE, and HOW MANY? That's something I don't want to accept and I hope Americans around the country agree.

Link to comment

fwiw...there is 1 possible solution that i just thought of for school shootings.  almsot all of them are kids shooting kids.  what if the legal age to get ahold of these military grade weapons was raised to 21? it's already 21 for pistols.    it would get some of these kids out of school before they can go crazy and shoot the place up with a tool designed to kill lots of people in a hurry.   sure, they still might go crazy and get hold of something else to kill with...or maybe even an assault weapon....but it is 1 small layer of protection to at least try to decrease the carnage.

Link to comment

Question for those who are for or against some sort of gun laws/regulations.  What else can be done to prevent this from happening at our schools besides better mental health evals and some sort of gun restrictions?  Are we going to have to start treating our schools like prisons and enforce daily lock downs with armed guards standing out front?  Is this even an option for districts who can barely afford to keep their own doors open?

 

Or does this really boil down to child discipline, respect, finding jesus, etc.. and how its been lost amongst the youth?  I see these viewpoints all over social media after every mass shooting.

Link to comment

13 minutes ago, commando said:

i reread the 2nd amendment and realized something.   why do the first 4 words get left out of all the discussion about gun control?  "A Well regulated militia".  it seems that it wasn't meant to be an unregulated free for all to me.

 

Exactly.  Someone in this thread (not going to look for it) mentioned the possibility that State-level National Guard units could fit the definition of "well-regulated militia".  I mean, State-level military has been referred to as "militia" in the past...

 

http://www.nationalguard.mil/About-the-Guard/How-We-Began/

 

Quote

We recognize December 13th as the birthday of the National Guard. On this date in 1636, the first militia regiments in North America were organized in Massachusetts. Based upon an order of the Massachusetts Bay Colony's General Court, the colony's militia was organized into three permanent regiments to better defend the colony. Today, the descendants of these first regiments - the 181st Infantry, the 182nd Infantry, the 101st Field Artillery, and the 101st Engineer Battalion of the Massachusetts Army National Guard – share the distinction of being the oldest units in the U.S. military. December 13, 1636, thus marks the beginning of the organized militia, and the birth of the National Guard's oldest organized units is symbolic of the founding of all the state, territory, and District of Columbia militias that collectively make up today's National Guard.

 

Edited by Kiyoat Husker
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Stumpy1 said:

Let's take a look at Australia and maybe you will understand my post a little more.  Australia implemented a gun control law after a mass shooting in 1996 and it greatly reduced gun mass killings but it didn't stop mass killings altogether. 

 

In June of 2000,  15 people were killed by arson at a hostel

In Feb of 2009, 10 people were killed by arson at a ralley

In July of 2009,  5 family members were beat to death with a hammer

In November of 2011,  11 people were killed by arson at a nursing home

In Dec of 2014,  8 children were killed by a knife at a residence

In Jan of 2017,  6 people were killed by a car at a mall

 

Before the gun control, the only other arson attack was in 1973 which killed 15 people. 

 

Like I mentioned,  take away guns and people will still find ways to cause mass casualties.  I am not opposed to stricter gun laws.  I actually wouldn't mind it because I know a few people that own guns and they are dumber then a box of hammers.   I was just simply pointing out that people with mental issues will find other ways to cause harm. 

 

 

So, you don't want to take steps to reduce them, because it won't completely prevent them? Or am I off base here? 

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, commando said:

i reread the 2nd amendment and realized something.   why do the first 4 words get left out of all the discussion about gun control?  "A Well regulated militia".  it seems that it wasn't meant to be an unregulated free for all to me.

 

It's because the NRA wanted it that way. They've spent decades and countless millions aiding the movement to push those four words out of the modern interpretation.

 

This should be required reading to understand how the 2A got to where it is today & how any real change to it will have to be done.

 

Quote

Today at the NRA’s headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia, oversized letters on the facade no longer refer to “marksmanship” and “safety.” Instead, the Second Amendment is emblazoned on a wall of the building’s lobby. Visitors might not notice that the text is incomplete. It reads:
 

“.. the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
 

The first half—the part about the well regulated militia—has been edited out.

 

Link to comment

2 hours ago, knapplc said:

 People hold their guns more dearly than to their country, their fellow citizens, or their god. 

 

 

 

I know A LOT of gun owners, and this statement isn't true with any of them. Assuming that someone who wants to keep their guns has no regard for their fellow citizens is an oversimplification, and kind of lazy.

 

As I've stated before. I am a gun owner. I even own a few semi-automatic rifles. I would never willingly part with all of my guns, but in an effort to slow down this epidemic our country faces, I would support stricter gun laws, and even a ban on semi-automatic weapons (on a buyback program, they weren't cheap). However, I know a lot of good people that wouldn't be willing to do so. Including the best man I know in this world, my father-in-law. It's quite a bit more complicated than opponents of the 2A want to realize.

 

Edit: While I am a proponent  of gun rights, I am not foolish to the motives of the NRA. It's quite clear who's interests they are protecting.

Edited by B.B. Hemingway
  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, dudeguyy said:

 

It's because the NRA wanted it that way. They've spent decades and countless millions aiding the movement to push those four words out of the modern interpretation.

 

This should be required reading to understand how the 2A got to where it is today & how any real change to it will have to be done.

 

 

 

It's also worth noting that the original power for the states to maintain militia actually comes from the pre-constitution Articles of Federation(1777), which the Constitution modified somewhat.  Here is the more-descriptive version from the AOF:

 

Quote

... every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

 

The "well-regulated" line in both documents can be interpreted as a response to the recurring problems they had with poorly trained, poorly equipped civilian militias, and the lack of resolve from some of those groups.  This Wikipedia article is a great overview, if you care to read it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Can you expand on this a bit?

 

Sure, he and I just spoke about this last night. It was a 30 minute conversation, but I'll sum up his viewpoints the best I can.

-He's of the mind (and this is common of his generation, especially in our area) that you fight fire with fire. Why would you disarm the innocent of the only protection they would have against such a lunatic.

-Why would you take away the ability of a man to protect his family in an attempt to stop a lunatic from doing something that he'll likely find a way to do anyways.

-Tyranny.... It's a real fear (i use that term loosely) among portions of older, White America. Personally, I acknowledge the likelihood of it ever happening are small, but I'd also be lying if I said there wasn't a small part of me that would worried about it if we disarmed American citizens.

- An armed general public is our best asset of national security. This is a stance that I have personally, long agreed with.

 

Most of you will say "Nobody is trying to take all of your guns, just the assault rifles", but there is a belief among pro-gun citizens, including my Father-in-law, that the government wouldn't stop there.

Edited by B.B. Hemingway
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...