Jump to content


Parkland, FL High School Shooting


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Redux said:

If it's a defending an individuals right to free speech you have to allow them their right to bare arms as well, that's the catch 22.  So if we start suggesting removing ones right to bare arms I see no reason we can't put a boot in the ass of anyone who mildly threatens violence based on their allegiances.  And vague threats or not, today we can't really afford to be choosy with level of threat when it comes to the well being of students.

 

I first found the news of this specific incident out on the Snapchat story page.  That is ridiculous to me.  Way too much coverage and does more harm than good.

I'm going to start sounding like a gun zealots, but removing free speech rights is a slippery slope. One man's vague protest kneeling during the national anthem is another man's treasonous act against the.country and military punishable by full measure of the law.

 

No doubt that guy is a piece of s#!t, but once you set precedence it's hard to go back.

Edited by ZRod
  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

2 minutes ago, ZRod said:

I'm going to start sounding like a gun zealots, but removing free speech rights is a slippery slope. One man's vague protest kneeling during the national anthem is another man's treasonous act against the.country and military punishable by full measure of the law.

 

No doubt that guy is a piece of s#!t, but once you set precedence it's hard to go back.

 

Okay, so by the law of the amendments he is protected.  So really we can't discuss taking that right away from gun owners because it too is a slippery slope.  Granted, guns are a tool that can be use to cause major harm.  But in the days of social media and the internet, so can free speech.  Both can be considered a catalyst.  And if the amendments are going to protect one right, they have to protect the other.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Redux said:

 

Okay, so by the law of the amendments he is protected.  So really we can't discuss taking that right away from gun owners because it too is a slippery slope.  Granted, guns are a tool that can be use to cause major harm.  But in the days of social media and the internet, so can free speech.  Both can be considered a catalyst.  And if the amendments are going to protect one right, they have to protect the other.

Except the amendments and can be changed, right? And we already apply them selectively in many ways, i.e. felons can't have firearms and you can't yell fire in a movie theater. So, I see your point and agree with you more than you probably think I do. It just my nature to play devil's advocate. Maybe we need to take a hard look into hate speech like Canada has done. I just think it's far more dangerous and tyrannical to take away rights to speech than it is to take away guns.

Edited by ZRod
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Redux said:

 

Seriously?  I'm talking about actually having the opportunity to prevent an incident like this one and you're asking what law we can use?  Who cares.?  Just get it done, get this guy handled before he hurts.  Make an example out of him so it hopefully prevents not just what he wants to do, but what others may want to do.

 

We can't just go around punishing those who haven't technically done anything wrong though, right?  That's exactly the notion behind super strict gun laws.  They would affect everyone, innocent or not.  It's okay to talk about that but not okay to talk about taking care of a threat before that threat becomes an incident, then laws and rights come into play because it's a persons right to free speech to threaten violence.  Kinda just like the right to bare arms, but that's okay because guns are scary.   To me, people are scarier.  We need stricter people laws to go with the stricter gun laws.

 

Here's the thing.  I'm sick of seeing the "guns don't kill people, peiple kill people" crap.  I'm all for making it harder to obtain weapons.  I even suggested that this Kleve should legally be able to have his guns taken away because of that video.  These tragedies happen, these threads pop up and the main thing discusses is stricter gun control.  Yet duriing this clowns discussion many suggested ignoring the problem.  IGNORING IT!  Ignoring it is EXACTLY how s#!t like this happens, from the sound of it the FBI dropped the ball on this incident.  We actually have a chance to take care of the root if the problem at UNL instead of jumping to the gun problem after the fact, and nobody can find a way to handle it.

 

Honestly, I don't follow these stories super close. One, because they are horrible and two because the more coverage they get the more they happen.  That's the part people ignore.  After Columbine became a news mecca, these things started being emulated and glorified.  People messed up in the head saw it as an outlet and a way to go out in a blaze of glory.

 

The press needs to leave this s#!t alone, report the news and drop it.  Stop using it as a way to push an agenda because it's making things worse.  Get stricter gun regulation in place.  And finally, when given the opportunity to prevent an incident at the source, find a damn way to do it.

 

You misunderstand. You're advocating doing something. What is that? Kick him out of school? The Florida shooter wasn't in school. 

 

Take away his guns? That's a Second Amendment violation and UNL has a legal fight. 

 

The problem with Kleve is you cannot prevent a lone wolf gunman from getting guns under current laws. It's not even hard to get them, and even reasonable curbs like Obama put in have been removed by Trump.

 

You want to do something, there has to be a basis, and it has to be effective. Just getting angry doesn't accomplish anything.

Link to comment

20 minutes ago, knapplc said:

It's not even hard to get them, and even reasonable curbs like Obama put in have been removed by Trump.

True.....but this also had the support of some mental health organizations and the ACLU.

 

There are many causes that fight any considered form of discrimination.  Travel bans for instance.

 

There's a piece of these things that intersect with concerns of discrimination.

 

Freedom and protection can sometimes feel like being on a teeter totter.....true balance can be easier said than done.

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

You misunderstand. You're advocating doing something. What is that? Kick him out of school? The Florida shooter wasn't in school. 

 

Take away his guns? That's a Second Amendment violation and UNL has a legal fight. 

 

The problem with Kleve is you cannot prevent a lone wolf gunman from getting guns under current laws. It's not even hard to get them, and even reasonable curbs like Obama put in have been removed by Trump.

 

You want to do something, there has to be a basis, and it has to be effective. Just getting angry doesn't accomplish anything.

 

I'm advocating that the discussion on that front be proactive instead of heindsight.

 

Get them, he already has them.  There in lies the problem.  Not often does a situation present itself before tragedy, that's what we have here.  

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

I'm advocating that the discussion on that front be proactive instead of heindsight.

 

Get them, he already has them.  There in lies the problem.  Not often does a situation present itself before tragedy, that's what we have here.  

But you don't know that he will act in extreme violence, or that his words and participation are anything other than trolling and attention seeking. None of us know that. 99.9999% of these loudmouth scum bags never do anything, and we've seen that swift over-reaction can lose more than we anticipated. Tthe Patriot act is a glaring example. 

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
58 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

I'm advocating that the discussion on that front be proactive instead of heindsight.

 

Get them, he already has them.  There in lies the problem.  Not often does a situation present itself before tragedy, that's what we have here.  

I share your frustration with this guy and this situation. If we're talking in generalities, I'd like to see something done, too.

 

But I don't know what can be done that isn't already being done, which is to contact him, make him aware that the authorities are aware of him and his video, and watch him. What if he's just hot air now, UNL kicks him off campus for hate speech, and that's what triggers him to get shooty? What if by seeming inaction, UNL is actually saving lives?

Link to comment
51 minutes ago, ZRod said:

But you don't know that he will act in extreme violence

 

Why take the chance?!  At the very least HEAVY surveillance 24/7 is the least we could do.  When a threat presents itself we should not sit idly by hoping it's hot air.

 

24 minutes ago, knapplc said:

I share your frustration with this guy and this situation. If we're talking in generalities, I'd like to see something done, too.

 

But I don't know what can be done that isn't already being done, which is to contact him, make him aware that the authorities are aware of him and his video, and watch him. What if he's just hot air now, UNL kicks him off campus for hate speech, and that's what triggers him to get shooty? What if by seeming inaction, UNL is actually saving lives?

 

When light of this first came out I said we DO NOT want to make this punk a martyr.  That's still true.

 

There's another problem altogether.  Having to sit back and let him be a bigot, hoping his threats are empty, just so we don't trigger it.  That's a major flaw in how things like this have to be handled.  Do something major, cause something major.  Do nothing, hope nothing major happens.

 

Then there are the other incidents that had no warning.  I'm never going to pretend to have the answer, it's why I live in a town of 2,200.  Life is fleeting and I like mine simple and safe for my day to day, for myself and my families sake.  I hate the idea of arming teachers, eventually one will go postal or some mouthy s#!thead will push too far and a new problem arises.  I like the idea of armed vets, even though it too would present issues.  Any solution is going to have a problem attached to it.  This world sucks.

Edited by Redux
Link to comment

On ‎2‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 12:39 AM, Landlord said:

If you insist on making an analogy out of the two, okay, so be it. If you want to own and operate a vehicle, you have to:

 

• Acquire a license, with written and practical tests

• Renew your license every few years, and be in a state and federal database

• Get specialty licensing for specialty vehicles

• Have your vehicle registered, pay yearly tag fees, and have at least liability insurance

• Restriction of crazy high-performance and potentially unsafe vehicles to private courses/competitions/etc.

 

That's a good list of reasonable ways to approach something that is serious and important to regulate the right way. Does any of that seem unreasonable to apply to gun ownership?

 

Yes, I'd probably be for those points.  However, even with all that there would STILL be mass shootings because people, at any time, can lose their minds or reach a point where they just don't give a f***.  And those points don't even address the immense black market sale of weapons such regulations would create.

 

I am not sure what the answer is on how to stop these mass shootings. 

 

What I do know is that I am not going to give up my freedom to have guns and carry, just to make someone else feel better.  History is full of examples (China, Russia, nazi Germany, just to name a few) where an unarmed populace falls into tyranny and despotism because only the police and military have guns.  Just because we live in America does not mean it couldn't happen here.  I'm not some right-wing, alt-right, militia moron reading Breitbart and saying the black helicopters are coming.  I'm saying that an armed populace makes potential tyrants and despots think twice.

 

I'm just going to use this as an analogy and nothing more: the government wanted a way to spy and surveil the American populace.  9-11 happened and in a wave of "euphoric patriotism" the Patriot Act was enacted.  

 

The point: How do you get a group of people to do something that is completely against their own self-interest?  You create a problem, make it big enough, and have it happen often enough, that people clamor for something to be done and lo and behold, some person or group swoops in with the "solution."  It's the oldest trick in the political playbook and I fear that these school shootings are the "problem" that was created.  Now we're at the stage where people are clamoring for something to be done and I don't like where this is headed.    

 

 

Edited by Making Chimichangas
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Making Chimichangas said:

I am not sure what the answer is on how to stop these mass shootings. 

 

 

I'm not either. It's a question a lot of us are having trouble with. But that doesn't even matter. Could we at least start working on the answer to how to make there be even slightly less mass shootings? Say, even 10% less? Could we start there and then work our way towards stopping? No. Apparently we cannot.

 

Also nobody is suggesting that you should give up your freedom to own a gun. That's not something you need to worry about as it's not something that anyone is trying to take away.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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