Another horrific school shooting


Guest MormonGator
 Share

Recommended Posts

Fact is, we are all afraid.  And that's the problem. 

Here's from a news article:

Quote

There were 372 mass shootings in the US in 2015, killing 475 people and wounding1,870, according to the Mass Shooting Tracker, which catalogues such incidents. A mass shooting is defined as a single shooting incident which kills or injures four or more people, including the assailant.

But you really want a scare, look at these stats:
 

Quote

 

In 2016 NCMEC assisted law enforcement and families with more than 20,500 cases of missing children.

Case type:

  • 90 percent endangered runaways (18,450 children).
  • 6 percent family abductions (1500 children).
  • 1 percent lost, injured or otherwise missing children (205 children).
  • 1 percent nonfamily abductions (205 children).
  • 2 percent critically missing young adults, ages 18 to 20 (410 children).

These are just the kids that NCMEC assisted with.  But are we freaking out about child abductions?  No.  Why?  Because it's not beaten down on our heads every time one happens.  This is why I hate the news coverage of this.  It sensationalizes an extremely rare thing, to the point where you think you are more likely to lose a child from a school shooting than just being abducted randomly on the street.  And you start living in fear.   So much so, that you want to ban all guns, when the fact is, gun owners, unless they are criminals, in which case, they aren't allowed guns anyway, are responsible, and more than likely to save lives with their gun than without. 

One more thing to ponder:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

Weigh the lives lost to bad people with guns, vs the lives lost because good people didn't have guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes 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.

Being in law enforcement role (of sorts) where I regularly coordinate with other law enforcement agencies—it’s amazing how many “frequent fliers” there are whose names we all know, whose habits and social connections we’re all pretty sure of—but who we just don’t have *quite* enough on them to charge ‘em.  

I don’t immediately blame Israel for not doing more (though I think it’s cause for further investigation).  What I do blame him for, is going on CNN and hanging the GOP and NRA out to dry and denying any responsibility by his own department when he knew full well that his employees had indeed a) repeatedly let this kid go in the past, and b) cowered outside while the shooter ran wild through the school.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Being in law enforcement role (of sorts) where I regularly coordinate with other law enforcement agencies—it’s amazing how many “frequent fliers” there are whose names we all know, whose habits and social connections we’re all pretty sure of—but who we just don’t have *quite* enough on them to charge ‘em.  

I don’t immediately blame Israel for not doing more (though I think it’s cause for further investigation).  What I do blame him for, is going on CNN and hanging the GOP and NRA out to dry and denying any responsibility by his own department when he knew full well that his employees had indeed a) repeatedly let this kid go in the past, and b) cowered outside while the shooter ran wild through the school.

Even worse than his denial was his blustering attempt to turn the tables on Dana when called on it and bully her into silence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

This reminds me very much of the movie "Lord Jim" - 1965 version with Peter O'Toole.  Great film, if a bit cheesy at times.  i need to read the book - which i am sure is far better.

Now it sounds like there were four deputies cowering outside, not just one.  

@mirkwood, given what I understand about the modern doctrine of engaging school shooters ASAP, is there any reason the deputies would have failed to enter the building in the absence of a specific do-not-engage order?  I mean, I can understand one cowardly deputy—but four?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the thing missing in the picture is NOT with the deputies, but with the one who sets policy or is over the department.  Looking SQUARELY at the guys in charge of it.  That may be the connecting piece to all of them.

In either case, I'd be VERY upset if I were a parent.  I cannot understand any parent that would say...let's push for gun laws in the future...but NOT give a darn about their kids that were shot or threatened.  In the very REAL present, I'd be VERY upset at ANYONE who may have been able to go in and stop the shooter with force and chose not to.

To ME, that would be FAR more offensive and scandalous right then and there in the present than some future law that may or may not happen, and make me FAR more irate about what occurred than a law that may or may not be able to be passed.

However, I may also be influenced by recent event in my life and how I reflected on my reaction during that time period.

On the otherhand, even if it were department policy...I have a VERY hard time sympathizing for any officer that simply stood outside while the shooting was taking place instead of trying to save children and victims inside.  If it were my kid I don't care if they stepped off the force or retired...I'd be looking for any way at all to either charge them with a crime or sue the living daylights out of them.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Perhaps the thing missing in the picture is NOT with the deputies, but with the one who sets policy or is over the department.  Looking SQUARELY at the guys in charge of it.  That may be the connecting piece to all of them.

 

The sheriff said their policy is to make entry.  As far as I know, we have all gone to the rapid response policy.  I can't imagine any department that hasn't.

Edited by mirkwood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 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.

Way too good about themselves, apparently.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5422759/Former-Freemason-naked-inside-pipe-organ-Brisbane.html

I mean, at least I know that when I'm trying to feed the homeless, but accidentally down a bottle of Scotch instead, I should avoid getting naked inside pipe organs.

Edited by NightSG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mirkwood said:

The sheriff said their policy is to make entry.  As far as I know, we have all gone to the rapid response policy.  I can't imagine any department that hasn't.

This is what he says, but if three or four of his deputies stayed outside when they had the chance to stop the shooter...that sounds more like a problem with that department and lies squarely on their boss more than any one of them individually I would think.  I can understand one deputy perhaps being cowardly, but THREE or FOUR?  That starts sounding like a systematic problem with the department.  We don't know if the story is true or not (there are news organizations reporting this, but thus far until they have something more substantial, I'd consider a lot of it still in the realm of rumors and gossip), but normally officers won't stand idly by while their community's inhabitants are being shot up.  Most officers will do as you state, go and confront the shooter. 

If the story is true and ALL FOUR (or three) stood idly by while the shooting took place...it starts looking more like a problem with that department (and hence it falls on the boss).  The common connector would be their boss or bosses. 

IF I were a parent there, I think that would be FAR more infuriating than the gun laws if it turns out to be true.  The failure could be partially to blame with the ease with which the shooter got guns (which is a reason why there are those who are pushing for tightening or changing the gun laws...whether we agree with that idea or not), but the direct point of failure which could have prevented more deaths (it is likely some still would have happened) is that those who could have confronted the gunman decided NOT to confront the gunman.  IF this happened, I'd be wanting to blame those and their boss almost as much as the gunman himself, as I would see those actions as complicit with the gunmans' actions.

I think the Mayor's statement would reflect my own feelings if I lived in that community and were a parent of one of the children who were shot...

Quote

Coral Springs Mayor Skip Campbell said the city wants answers to the allegations. If proven true, “it not only makes me angry, it makes me furious,” he said.

(Note: I have emphasized that thus far, I don't know whether the story of three to four deputies standing by while this terrible event occurred is rumor or not at this point.  Because we don't know, much of what I'm am saying is only true IF what the news has recently reported turns out to be true.  It could very well be that this is a false rumor and instead the story is made up to be something trying to tear down the sheriff rather than something that actually occurred.  In that case, it would only fall on the head of the deputy that "resigned"...aka...retired...and his decision to not enter the school and confront the gunman of his own choices).

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

It could very well be that this is a false rumor and instead the story is made up to be something trying to tear down the sheriff rather than something that actually occurred.  

That sounds entirely plausible.  Sheriff candidates and elections and politics can get quite nasty.  I've seen it three times here in Colorado Springs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
On 2/24/2018 at 3:44 PM, NeuroTypical said:

That sounds entirely plausible.  Sheriff candidates and elections and politics can get quite nasty.  I've seen it three times here in Colorado Springs.

He's the most left wing sheriff in the entire state, by far. He was calling for gun control long before this. He's beloved by one group of people: Liberals. Broward is solidly left leaning, so it suits them just fine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just_A_Guy stated here:

Quote

 

Now it sounds like there were four deputies cowering outside, not just one.  

@mirkwood, given what I understand about the modern doctrine of engaging school shooters ASAP, is there any reason the deputies would have failed to enter the building in the absence of a specific do-not-engage order?  I mean, I can understand one cowardly deputy—but four?

 

Four deputies, and no one took action? It sounds like there was s.th. more decisive than only assumed cowardice...

Edited by CrimsonTide
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2018 at 2:55 PM, Godless said:

 

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. 

You know better than to say "the AR15 and similar weapons specifically have no practical use in our society".  If you don't remember, the AR15 was used to kill that mass shooter in a Texas church.  And here's some factoids - there are approximately 5-10 million AR15s in the US.  There has only been 13 AR15's used in mass shootings since 1984.  So... weapon of choice of mass murderers?  Uhm dude, it's the most popular rifle period.  Do you know the guy in Virginia Tech used a 9mm handgun?  

If you have a high-powered rifle (I actually find that definition funny being applied to my husband's .22 cal AR15) and you're only using it "to hit or deter your target", then yes, you should go do more time at the range!  HELLO... THAT'S WHAT THE GUN IS FOR - FOR RANGE SHOOTING and field target shooting!  And it's more fun plinking than swapping mags, so you use high rounds so you don't have to swap as much.  Not many people go buy AR15's so they can shoot people with it!  But you know what a lot of people buy quadzillion-round magazines for?  Doomsday Prepping.

I wanna see your studies.  Banning high-capacity magazines does 2 things - 1.) reduces the efficiency of a shooter to kill people, 2.) reduces the efficiency of people to kill shooters.  The interesting thing about Liberal Logic - "we can't ban abortion because women are just going to do back-alley abortions.", "we should ban high-capacity magazines because nobody will ever get one if we do, not even in back-alleys."  I wanna see if that study follows this logic.

As far as the practical purpose of anything making it Okay to infringe on basic human rights... my son said this to me a while ago when we ribbed him about turning 14 and never showed any interest in girls:  "I dream of the day when I meet a girl and we're excitedly comparing AR15 mods.  That's the day I'm going to chase after a girl".

On 2/23/2018 at 2:55 PM, Godless said:

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? 

The fact that you even defended that CNN townhall already tells me this debate is nothing but a partisan positioning for you that you are willing to defend people who chant "Burn her" because... democrats.

This is Broward County.  Wennieville Central of Florida.  Home of the hanging chads, the 9/11 terrorists, a Sherrif Department with a Lamborghini who gives gun training in Mosques but can't enter a school to engage a shooter, and represented in Congress by Muslim Brotherhood Debbie Wasserman Shultz.  David Hogg is a useful tool for the gun ban advocates of Broward County.  Coached, made up, scripted, postured, and polished to maximize weaponized compassion.  Perfect spokesperson for the NRA.  There's nothing that makes people buy more guns and join the NRA than the threat of a 17-year-old telling people "we're going to outlive you".

 

 

 

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

I wanna see your studies.  Banning high-capacity magazines does 2 things - 1.) reduces the efficiency of a shooter to kill people, 2.) reduces the efficiency of people to kill shooters.  The interesting thing about Liberal Logic - "we can't ban abortion because women are just going to do back-alley abortions.", "we should ban high-capacity magazines because nobody will ever get one if we do, not even in back-alleys."  I wanna see if that study follows this logic.

The logic goes that. yes, if you outlaw abortion you will lower the number of women getting abortion, however you will still have women who go to back alleys and get one.  Normally these back alley affairs are much more unsafe than in a clean and readied medical environment and so the mortality rate skyrockets. 

This is NOT the primary reason for pro-abortion individuals these days, but it is a minor reason that they will state.

The difference when using this type of excuse is that by allowing abortion, the idea is to at least save the woman's life if possible, and have more women who have their lives saved than who die in back alleys due to bad medical practices in said alleys.

On the otherhand, the same could be said of guns.  Outlawing guns (or even high capacity magazines) is NOT going to make it so that there are no guns in America.  The idea is to decrease the number of guns and hence, the number of individuals that are shot by these guns.  Using some statistics, they see a correlation at times between outlawing guns and a decrease in murders (with the exclusion of Mexico...obviously).  This too helps to save lives.

This is the liberal logic.  Both are focused on saving lives, one by increasing the number of facilities, while the other by banning the instrument utilized to bring about death.

This does not mean I condone the ideas, but I think I understand this logic.

Normally, today, this logic is not the highest idea that many use in saying we need abortions.  They now prefer the idea that a woman should have control over her body.  They do not take the Catholic view of pregnancy, and thus do not view the fetus as a living creature.  Instead they see it more like one would see a tumor, or a growth inside a body.  They would argue it does not have it's own consciousness.  Therefore, just as a woman can choose to have other growths removed from her body, she should also be allowed to do this with any growth inside her body.  It is her right to choose.

I, on the otherhand, am highly anti-abortion.  (I just wanted to make that clear in case someone made the mistake of thinking that since I was listing the logic behind why some are in favor of abortions, that meant I was in favor of abortions, which I am not.  I understand the WHY's, or try to at least).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

This is the liberal logic.  Both are focused on saving lives, one by increasing the number of facilities, while the other by banning the instrument utilized to bring about death.

And there it is.  The fallacy of the logic.  This is EXACTLY like how most people see snakes.  They see a racer snake in their backyard and they go running for the shovel to chop the thing's head off.  Why?  Because all they see of the snake is the one that killed people.  They don't see the snake doing anything good in the eco-system.

And this is how liberals see guns.  All they see is the guns used by criminals to kill people.  They don't see the gun used by the people to stop criminals.  And that's why when they say to reduce the number of guns, all they see on the equation is reduction of guns criminals use to kill people and not understanding that the opposite is also reduced - the reduction of guns used by people to stop criminals.  And here is what makes this kind of blind logic idiotic... criminals don't care how many laws they break in their desire to kill people.  Whereas, law abiding people do very much care about not breaking laws even when they desire to save people.  Do you see the ginormous problem here? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

And there it is.  The fallacy of the logic.  This is EXACTLY like how most people see snakes.  They see a racer snake in their backyard and they go running for the shovel to chop the thing's head off.  Why?  Because all they see of the snake is the one that killed people.  They don't see the snake doing anything good in the eco-system.

And this is how liberals see guns.  All they see is the guns used by criminals to kill people.  They don't see the gun used by the people to stop criminals.  And that's why when they say to reduce the number of guns, all they see on the equation is reduction of guns criminals use to kill people and not understanding that the opposite is also reduced - the reduction of guns used by people to stop criminals.  And here is what makes this kind of blind logic idiotic... criminals don't care how many laws they break in their desire to kill people.  Whereas, law abiding people do very much care about not breaking laws even when they desire to save people.  Do you see the ginormous problem here? 

Most who use this idea would probably say you are comparing apples and oranges.

Just because you cut down the number of apple trees in Washington State does not mean that if you cut down the orange trees in Washington state that you will reduce both in the same percentages nation wide.

The ideas may be similar, but the items they address are so different as to be as different as apples and oranges.

(I think I'm ending up playing the opposing Advocate here...these are not necessarily the views I espouse, but I think I have a handle on understanding much of it).

Of course, utilizing this idea you presented above, the idea would be that as less criminals would have guns (for example, many of the shooters in the US got their guns legally, even though in some cases if the system worked correctly they should NOT have been able to), there is less need for others to have guns to stop them.

Not all legal citizens will turn in their guns unless they are forced to by armed government agents taking them, so there will still be many with that deterrent if they really want their guns. 

I think many with the idea are looking more at nations like Japan where the outlaw of guns is associated with the extremely low rate of murders by guns (as opposed to Mexico where the draconian gun laws may not have helped with the huge amount of gun and gang violence).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Banning high-capacity magazines does 2 things - 1.) reduces the efficiency of a shooter to kill people, 2.) reduces the efficiency of people to kill shooters. 

I am in overall agreement with your points anatess2, just wanted to squabble here.  

Banning high-capacity magazines does absolutely nothing except have a negative impact on businesses and the economy.  Colorado's emotional reaction to the 2012 Aurora theater shooting included a package of democrat gun bills signed the the democrat governor.  One of the bills "banned" "high-capacity" "magazines" - and yes, all three of those phrases belong in mocking quotes.  

* The vast majority of Colorado's sheriffs joined with dozens of companies and organizations to sue to get the law overturned.  The suit resulted with an understanding that pretty much nobody is going to even attempt to enforce this law, because it's so dang unenforceable. 

* Magpul Industries fired 100 Colorado employees and moved its factory to another state. 

* Two state senators were recalled before their terms expired, in the state's first senator recalls in history. A third resigned shortly after the recall petition was certified by the court. The state govt went from a comfortable democratic majority, to a hanging-on-by-the-skin-of-their-teeth one democratic senator majority. 

* The running joke is that two guys and a Nissan Versa can make a good living, running weed out of Colorado, and high-cap magazines in.  The eternal road trip that pays for itself.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

* Two state senators were recalled before their terms expired, in the state's first senator recalls in history. A third resigned shortly after the recall petition was certified by the court. The state govt went from a comfortable democratic majority, to a hanging-on-by-the-skin-of-their-teeth one democratic senator majority. 

* The running joke is that two guys and a Nissan Versa can make a good living, running weed out of Colorado, and high-cap magazines in.  The eternal road trip that pays for itself.

And this is what the Democrats fail to realize.  Liberals also want to be left alone.  They are just as antagonistic to people who ban weed as to people who ban high capacity magazines.  And that's why, even with the kids marching on Washington, nobody is brave enough to bring up a gun control bill in Congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

March 20, 2013: Governor Hickenlooper said large-capacity magazines "have the potential to turn killers into killing machines." He also said he realized some gun owners may be inconvenienced but that "the potential for damage seems to outweigh, significantly, the inconvenience that people would have," he said. The bills signal a historic change for Democrats in a state where owning a gun is as common as owning a car in some rural areas. "I knew it would be a long haul, but I had faith in the people of Colorado."

September 10, 2013: State senators John Morse and Angela Giron become the first Colorado legislators ever to be recalled from office.

September 11, 2013: Speaking to reporters outside of his office, Hickenlooper said "You know I was never as, uh, fired up to the, on the, magazine checks..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

Most who use this idea would probably say you are comparing apples and oranges.

Just because you cut down the number of apple trees in Washington State does not mean that if you cut down the orange trees in Washington state that you will reduce both in the same percentages nation wide.

The ideas may be similar, but the items they address are so different as to be as different as apples and oranges.

(I think I'm ending up playing the opposing Advocate here...these are not necessarily the views I espouse, but I think I have a handle on understanding much of it).

Of course, utilizing this idea you presented above, the idea would be that as less criminals would have guns (for example, many of the shooters in the US got their guns legally, even though in some cases if the system worked correctly they should NOT have been able to), there is less need for others to have guns to stop them.

Not all legal citizens will turn in their guns unless they are forced to by armed government agents taking them, so there will still be many with that deterrent if they really want their guns. 

I think many with the idea are looking more at nations like Japan where the outlaw of guns is associated with the extremely low rate of murders by guns (as opposed to Mexico where the draconian gun laws may not have helped with the huge amount of gun and gang violence).

You're trying to make a pretzel here.

There's no apple and oranges.  There's only High-Capacity Magazines.  One item.  Okay, call it Apple Trees.

When you cut down this apple tree, it causes everything that the apple tree does to be cut down.  So - it will cut down criminal activity using the apple tree and it will cut down non-criminal activity using the apple tree.  Those activities are not apples and oranges.  They are all Apple Tree activities.

Okay, let's make it into an Orange.  Guns.  You seem to indicate that lesser guns means lesser criminals who have guns and lesser need for people to have guns.  Wrong.  The equalizer between a 110 pound woman being raped by a 210 pound man is a gun pointed at the man's head.  The only time that people will have a lesser need to have guns is when Jesus comes to bind Satan.

You say not all legal citizens will turn in their guns... so WHY MAKE A LAW?  You make a law so the law-abiding citizens will have to break it so then you'll have a reason to put them in jail?

Why do people always point to gun laws for murder rates?  Like death by knife is so much better than death by guns.  Japan has a low homicide rate compared to most other countries.  This has nothing to do with gun laws and has a lot to do with Japanese culture.  Mexico with its strict gun control laws still has a high murder rate.  Same thing - this has nothing to do with gun laws and more to do with Mexican culture.  When you point at a country to try to make them poster children of gun laws, don't forget that Hitler banned guns and so did Mao and Stalin and Marcos.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share