Another horrific school shooting

[eVa]

So these children and teachers/coaches were let down from the FBI all they way down to that deputy. 

[anatess2]

15 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

It must be an American cultural thing?  Australian responded very well to more legal restrictions on gun ownership.

Australian confiscation of firearms is another one of those things that did nothing much but to make Australians feel good about themselves.  https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/australia-gun-control-obama-america/

Yes, it's a cultural thing.  If an organized terrorist invades Australia what are they going to do?  Rely on their military.  What if their military gets defeated?  RELY ON AMERICA.

That is most UN countries in the nation including Great Britain. 

If an organized terrorist invades the US - or if the US government decides to become Venezuela - these terrorists will not survive Texas even if the Texas Rangers or the US Military couldn't do anything.  Most every single household in Texas will immediately become part of the militia.  And no, it will NEVER occur to them to rely on Australia or even Canada to save their butts.

And this is the reason the United States became the success story that it is after seceding from the British Crown.  The culture of LIBERTY is ingrained in the American fabric of society.  We have INDIVIDUAL freedoms that nobody can take away from the individual, not even by our government, because the individual is equipped to defend them.  After all, you can only demand that somebody stop slapping you everytime you say something they don't like if you can physically make the guy stop it.

Edited February 23, 2018 by anatess2

[anatess2]

21 minutes ago, eVa said:

So these children and teachers/coaches were let down from the FBI all they way down to that deputy. 

Yes.

But yeah, let's demand a ban on AR15s.

[NeuroTypical]

I am a random citizen.  I have a day job and a family.  And a concealed carry permit.  Should I be out and about with my gun, and I hear gunfire, I have no responsibility to whoever is caught in whatever is happening.  In most situations, you'll most likely see me running the crap the other way.  Maybe with a kid under each arm or helping an old lady or something, but my job, my duty to my family, dictate that I save myself.  If I'm in a school (and it's legal to carry there), my duty is to my kids.

When you put on a uniform and a badge, and get paid to be armed in a certain location, all that changes.  You are now paid to run towards the gunfire.  You are choosing to put your own life at risk for random strangers, even if it results in your family losing you.  This is the difference between LEO and me, and it is why those who wear a badge or uniform earn my respect and support, even if I don't know anything else about them.  Even should I hear something negative about them, I tend to respect the badge.  They choose to live a life that might lead them to die for me - and they don't even know me.  It's powerful stuff.

So I hear this officer was paid to be armed in a school, and he did not run towards the gun fire.  He did not enter the building.  I do not know all the details, I can't judge his heart, but I am steamed.  Folks in law enforcement all tell me Columbine changed everything - there's no more "establish a perimeter and wait for backup".  They tell me the training now is along the lines of "engage as soon as you can, even if you're on your own".  I hear this from multiple sources in multiple states.

 

 

 

[NeuroTypical]

10 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

There is a big difference between homicide (which are horrible and happen everywhere) and mass shootings.  Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since the strict gun control laws came in.

And we can still have guns, we just have to jump through a few more hoops - which helps keep the crazy people from getting them in the first place!

Oh wow Blossom - you actually doubled-down there, didn't you?  

So, if I'm hearing you correctly, even if Australia's total homicides had doubled or tripled after the gun control laws, you'd still be in favor of it, because the sensational-sounding mass shootings would have dropped.  Is that correct?  Even if they're gun related?

Anyway, you can google up the following news stories from Australia:

2009 - Lin family murders - 5 killed with blunt instrument
2011 - Quakers Hill nursing home fire - 11 killed by arson
2014 - Rozelle fire murders - 3 killed by arson
2014 - Hunt family murders - 4 killed by gun 
2014 - Cairns child killings - 8 children killed by knife
2017 - Melourne car attack - 6 deaths, 30+ injured, by vehicle attack

 

Edited February 23, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[anatess2]

5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I am a random citizen.  I have a day job and a family.  And a concealed carry permit.  Should I be out and about with my gun, and I hear gunfire, I have no responsibility to whoever is caught in whatever is happening.  In most situations, you'll most likely see me running the crap the other way.  Maybe with a kid under each arm or helping an old lady or something, but my job, my duty to my family, dictate that I save myself.  If I'm in a school (and it's legal to carry there), my duty is to my kids.

This is what I'm worried about with my husband.  He's the kind of guy who will go Rambo in situations like this.  My 2 sons are growing up to be the same way.  For example, I asked him once - what would you do if you see me dead on the floor in an armed robbery?  He said he'll find the guy and make sure he's dead.  So I told him - well, that could mean you're stuck in jail for a life sentence of vigilante justice.  Who is gonna take care of the kids?  He said - I'll find the guy and make sure he's dead and worry about all the other details later.

[mirkwood]

36 minutes ago, eVa said:

So these children and teachers/coaches were let down from the FBI all they way down to that deputy. 

When the statements are made you begin an investigation. That does not always = an arrest. State code dictates when the line is crossed and something like this becomes a crime. If that line is not crossed, then there is not a whole lot that law enforcement can do at that point. What the pre shooting details on this are I do not know, except what the media tells us. I doubt that they have the full picture on what was known in advance, or necessarily are accurate in what they are claiming. In order to make an arrest, there has to be probable cause. Whether or not that existed pre shooting I do not know. What I often see are people clamoring for something to be done that sounds an awful lot like a demand for the minority report to become reality. People complain and say the police do not follow probable cause, then they get upset over something else and say that the police should have acted with out probable cause. 

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

When the statements are made you begin an investigation. That does not always = an arrest. State code dictates when the line is crossed and something like this becomes a crime. If that line is not crossed, then there is not a whole lot that law enforcement can do at that point. What the pre shooting details on this are I do not know, except what the media tells us. I doubt that they have the full picture on what was known in advance, or necessarily are accurate in what they are claiming. In order to make an arrest, there has to be probable cause. Whether or not that existed pre shooting I do not know. What I often see are people clamoring for something to be done that sounds an awful lot like a demand for the minority report to become reality. People complain and say the police do not follow probable cause, then they get upset over something else and say that the police should have acted with out probable cause. 

The FBI did apologize for not forwarding the 2 credible tips they got about the guy to the FBI Miami field office.  They admit the protocol did not get followed.  On the other hand, there was an FBI arrest done on another kid who had the same pattern as Cruz.  I'm not quite sure about the details of what happened after the FBI took the guy.  I have found I have no desire to dig up info on people who want to shoot kids. 

Sometimes, I start thinking about conspiracy theories like... it's the 2018 election season, maybe the FBI wanted this to happen so they have reason to cause the CNN townhall vitriol.  Did you see all that hate those people spewed on Rubio and Loesch on national TV?

 

[Guest MormonGator]

24 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

When the statements are made you begin an investigation. That does not always = an arrest. State code dictates when the line is crossed and something like this becomes a crime. If that line is not crossed, then there is not a whole lot that law enforcement can do at that point. What the pre shooting details on this are I do not know, except what the media tells us. I doubt that they have the full picture on what was known in advance, or necessarily are accurate in what they are claiming. In order to make an arrest, there has to be probable cause. Whether or not that existed pre shooting I do not know. What I often see are people clamoring for something to be done that sounds an awful lot like a demand for the minority report to become reality. People complain and say the police do not follow probable cause, then they get upset over something else and say that the police should have acted with out probable cause. 

The resource officer has already been fired. There isn't much more they can do with him, is there? I mean, he can't be charged with a crime. 

Some people down here (some, not all) want a scapegoat to blame the crime on. I think the resource officer will have to move. His life and reputation are basically destroyed. Just reporting on what I've heard, not what I believe. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-23/trump-calls-deputy-a-coward-for-not-engaging-florida-shooter?cmpid=socialflow-facebook-business&utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

 

I think a lot of people down here agree with Trumps assessment.

Edited February 23, 2018 by MormonGator

[eVa]

54 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

en the statements are made you begin an investigation. That does not always = an arrest. State code dictates when the line is crossed and something like this becomes a crime. If that line is not crossed, then there is not a whole lot that law enforcement can do at that point. What the pre shooting details on this are I do not know, except what the media tells us. I doubt that they have the full picture on what was known in advance, or necessarily are accurate in what they are claiming. In order to make an arrest, there has to be probable cause. Whether or not that existed pre shooting I do not know. What I often see are people clamoring for something to be done that sounds an awful lot like a demand for the minority report to become reality. People complain and say the police do not follow probable cause, then they get upset over something else and say that the police should have acted with out probable cause. 

Hindsight, right!  That is true none of us have the entire picture of what went on before the horrendous events on that day.  Of course we are only fed what the media wants to dish out and that makes things volatile.  I read something online almost 10 years ago about that minority report tech already being tested in NYC.  I think tech has exacerbated the immediate gratification monster.  Being in law enforcement in this day and age has got to be extremely difficult.  My heart goes out to all who protect and serve.

[Guest Godless]

5 hours ago, anatess2 said:

In the meantime, my other son's art school is screwed.  They just had a lunch event where teachers and students went and wrote the White House to ban AR15s.

 

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Yes.

But yeah, let's demand a ban on AR15s.

Maybe more concealed handguns in school and fewer high capacity rifles would be a great start. The AR15 and similar weapons specifically have no practical use in our society. They are the weapon of choice of mass murderers. I also believe that other semi-auto rifles in the private sector have no practical reason for having 30 round magazines. If you have a high-powered rifle and can't hit or deter your target with 10-12 rounds, then you need more time at the range, not more bullets. Studies conducted on the effects of the previous assault weapon ban had mixed results on the correlation of fewer rifles to fewer gun deaths, but from what I've read there was far more evidence to suggest that banning high-capacity magazines could save lives. Maybe not stop the shootings altogether, but lower the body count. 

Quote

Sometimes, I start thinking about conspiracy theories like... it's the 2018 election season, maybe the FBI wanted this to happen so they have reason to cause the CNN townhall vitriol.

Quote

Did you see all that hate those people spewed on Rubio and Loesch on national TV?

First, my reaction to your comment is that "those people" just lost friends, family members, and classmates to gun violence. They just watched first hand as a scenario that we have seen countless times in this country created havoc in their town, and they decided that enough is enough. This was never going to be a pleasant conversation, but it's one that needs to happen. And mad props to Marco Rubio and Dana Loesch for facing those kids, teachers, and parents, unlike Governor Rick Scott. 

As to the town hall itself, I saw outrage and anger. I saw a community shook by tragedy demanding action to prevent any community from ever going through the same thing. You call that hate, I call it the start of a movement. Say what you want about Jake Tapper, but I think he did a commendable job of making sure things didn't get out of hand and that Rubio and Loesch had a chance to say their piece. Dana Loesch sounded like a broken record talking about mental illness and red flags. Important things to look at, yes, but not the only things. People are going to slip through the cracks no matter what you do. How do we prevent those people from committing mass murder? At what point do we decide that protecting children is more important than protecting the right of people to own weapons very specifically designed for mass killing? 

Edited February 23, 2018 by Godless

[JohnsonJones]

Many years ago (actually centuries) Paul Revere made a historic ride.  He was the one that started the ride to warn his fellow colonists that the British were coming, but it was others that continued his ride through the night. 

The REASON the British were coming were not because they were in love with the Colonists, but because they had heard that the colonist were storing military grade weapons, including brass canon.  Their goal was to confiscate these military grade weapons.  Colonists might be permitted to have a weapon to hunt, but when it came to weapons that could be utilized for military means, the British felt this was too far.  That British march to take these weapons turned out in failure as they met resistance by the duly alerted Colonists who had created their own independent group outside the allowed military groups and militia that the British permitted.  These individuals, illegally acting under British colonial law, drove the British back eventually that night, shooting from behind trees, fences, and other items as the British in the Brilliant Red Coats made ripe targets for the colonial citizens. 

Loyalists condemned these individuals who wanted to have these military grade weapons.  What purpose did these colonists have except to use it for warfare?  Why did they even want to have these weapons, afterall, were they not protected by the British empire and it's soldiers.  Did they not already have their own colonial militias...why then would they form this independent group of minute men composed of farmers and other untrained individuals to keep and bear military arms?  What did this mean now that these independent colonials had openly fought against British Forces?

This effect reverberated through the colonies and was seen as some of the first shots fired for independence.  This war, eventually known as the Revolutionary War of American Independence, kept this event in mind (along with others) when many from the Northern Colonies pushed for an item in the Constitution allowing citizens the ability to do as they did that fateful night without the threat of suffering or worrying about the government trying to seize these arms like the British did.  It was controversial then, just like it was now, and it did NOT make it into the US constitution.  However, one of the first items passed as the new amendments known as the Bill of Rights was what has now become the Right to Bear arms.

Edited February 23, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[mordorbund]

22 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Illusion of control: "We" are going to "arm teachers".  That worries us, because we've met some teachers we don't want anywhere near a firearm.

The reality I'd like to see: The teachers who don't want to be armed, won't be.  The ones who do, can choose to do such.   It's up to them.  They get to be the people of Ammon if they want.  Nobody is asking any teacher to mature or grow a new mindset or pick up a scary gun or anything.  But if they want to, the law allows them to, and society (backed up by research) trusts them to do their homework/get trained/practice/permitted/etc.

Again, this has been legal and happening in Utah for almost two decades now.  The various concerns and anxieties that arise have had all those years to come to fruition in Utah - anyone got any news stories to share?  Anyone hear about the unimpressive immature teacher who accidentally shot a student after they came packing to work?

Shoot a student? No. 

 

 

[Guest MormonGator]

http://www.ocala.com/news/20180223/teacher-two-others-arrested-in-connection-to-sale-andor-possession-of-meth

This is why arming teachers may not be the best idea. 

Edited February 23, 2018 by MormonGator

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I like Anatess' idea of teacher with a military background carrying, but the others?  I don't know . . .  

One teacher forgot her weapon in the rest room.  I hate to say it but that''s the kind of absentminded thing that would happen to me.  (2016)
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/09/13/ex-teacher-charged-leaving-gun-school-bathroom-police-say/90314614/

Bathrooms and guns are a bad combination apparently...this teacher had an accidental misfiring and was wounded by flying porcelain....I'm not kidding  (2014)
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/utah-teacher-hurt-when-gun-accidently-shatters-toilet-n201256

In this story, a teen shot himself in the school bathroom.  Sadly, he died. (3 days ago)
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/21/ohio-student-dies-after-shooting-himself-in-school-bathroom-officials-say.html

A professor accidentally shot himself in the foot in the middle of teaching a class (2014)
http://www.localnews8.com/news/isu-professor-shoots-self-in-foot/58063274

Here's an ex-Marine, now teacher, who doesn't think teachers should be armed - I have to consider both sides (today)
http://time.com/5172852/trump-guns-teachers-nra/

Edited February 23, 2018 by LiterateParakeet

[Blossom76]

7 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Oh wow Blossom - you actually doubled-down there, didn't you?  

So, if I'm hearing you correctly, even if Australia's total homicides had doubled or tripled after the gun control laws, you'd still be in favor of it, because the sensational-sounding mass shootings would have dropped.  Is that correct?  Even if they're gun related?

Anyway, you can google up the following news stories from Australia:

2009 - Lin family murders - 5 killed with blunt instrument
2011 - Quakers Hill nursing home fire - 11 killed by arson
2014 - Rozelle fire murders - 3 killed by arson
2014 - Hunt family murders - 4 killed by gun 
2014 - Cairns child killings - 8 children killed by knife
2017 - Melourne car attack - 6 deaths, 30+ injured, by vehicle attack

 

No you're not hearing me correctly, I simply said that since gun control happened in Australia we haven't had a mass shooting incident.

I think gun control is a good idea, because it makes it harder for nut jobs and any random person from getting their hands on a gun. In Australia to get a gun you have to go through a strict process that includes gun training.  How anyone can think that is a bad idea is beyond me. 

Perhaps if there were gun control laws in America those poor children would still be alive, and to me that would be worth people having to fill out some extra paperwork, join a gun club, be properly trained and have some accountability to how they store and use their guns. I'm out of this thread before some gun happy American red neck shoots me  

And I watch the news thank you very much, and you really should have mentioned Snowtown and Ivan Milat as well, they were pretty horrific - and Ivan had a gun because of the loophole in our gun laws that allows all farmers to be armed  

Edited February 23, 2018 by Blossom76

[Blossom76]

7 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Australian confiscation of firearms is another one of those things that did nothing much but to make Australians feel good about themselves.  https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/australia-gun-control-obama-america/

Yes, it's a cultural thing.  If an organized terrorist invades Australia what are they going to do?  Rely on their military.  What if their military gets defeated?  RELY ON AMERICA.

That is most UN countries in the nation including Great Britain. 

If an organized terrorist invades the US - or if the US government decides to become Venezuela - these terrorists will not survive Texas even if the Texas Rangers or the US Military couldn't do anything.  Most every single household in Texas will immediately become part of the militia.  And no, it will NEVER occur to them to rely on Australia or even Canada to save their butts.

And this is the reason the United States became the success story that it is after seceding from the British Crown.  The culture of LIBERTY is ingrained in the American fabric of society.  We have INDIVIDUAL freedoms that nobody can take away from the individual, not even by our government, because the individual is equipped to defend them.  After all, you can only demand that somebody stop slapping you everytime you say something they don't like if you can physically make the guy stop it.

Hows all that liberty working out for you? At least when I pick a school to send my children too I don't have to ask myself - 'has there been a shooting there and do they have a metal detector at the gate?'

Anyway I'm out of this thread, good luck with your guns

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Blossom76 said:

Hows all that liberty working out for you? At least when I pick a school to send my children too I don't have to ask myself - 'has there been a shooting there and do they have a metal detector at the gate?'

Anyway I'm out of this thread, good luck with your guns

Oh, I’m sorry.  For a minute there, I thought you were typing in Japanese.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Blossom76 said:

Hows all that liberty working out for you?

So far, so good. 242 years this year and still counting.

1 hour ago, Blossom76 said:

At least when I pick a school to send my children too I don't have to ask myself - 'has there been a shooting there and do they have a metal detector at the gate?'

Methinks someone gets her ideas of the US from Hollywood movies and TV shows...

1 hour ago, Blossom76 said:

Anyway I'm out of this thread, good luck with your guns

You know what they say: Gun control means hitting what you're aiming at.

[bytebear]

I think it's working out fairly well, at least as good as any other country.  The Nice, France truck attack killed more people than the largest mass shooting in US history.  School shootings are extremely rare.  Also, the US has 323 million people compared to Australia's 24 million.  I think there are a lot of factors at play, and guns is just one of them.   I truly believe the trend is because it's trendy.  If you are a disgruntled kid with no outlet for your anger, you do what all the other kids are doing, which is go and shoot up your old school.  Used to be the trend was "going postal" which referred to a rash of gun shootings from disgruntled post office workers.  That trend went away, but not before it coined a term we still use today.   This trend will go away too, if we stop glorifying it.  But taking guns away is not the solution.

 

[NightSG]

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

http://www.ocala.com/news/20180223/teacher-two-others-arrested-in-connection-to-sale-andor-possession-of-meth

This is why arming teachers may not be the best idea. 

We should make meth illegal so this sort of thing won't happen.

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, NightSG said:

We should make meth illegal so this sort of thing won't happen.

Like I've mentioned before several times on the thread I'm much more sympathetic to the arming teachers argument. I own several guns, and I'm a second amendment guy. But I'm not naive to the dangers this could lead to. 

And ironically I've used that argument myself, @NightSG. So yes, I agree with that. 

Edited February 24, 2018 by MormonGator

[Grunt]

9 hours ago, MormonGator said:

I guess the Sheriff asked him to resign. Scott Israel (sheriff) is devastated that the resource officer didn't do more. 
 

Israel is an anti-gun bully that could have stopped the whole thing by doing something during any of the 39 visits the department made to the shooter or assaults, threats, etc.

[Grunt]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Like I've mentioned before several times on the thread I'm much more sympathetic to the arming teachers argument. I own several guns, and I'm a second amendment guy. But I'm not naive to the dangers this could lead to. 

I wouldn't arm teachers, at least not initially. Just remove the restrictions and allow those who regularly carry do so at school, too.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

Israel is an anti-gun bully that could have stopped the whole thing by doing something during any of the 39 visits the department made to the shooter or assaults, threats, etc.

We agree, I'm just reporting what Israel did. He's the most left wing sheriff in the entire state, by far. I live in a very rural county on the other side of the state. I don't think my sheriff would do the same thing, for the record. 

 

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

I wouldn't arm teachers, at least not initially. Just remove the restrictions and allow those who regularly carry do so at school, too.

Agree.