FL School Shooting

[officeguy]

No, they'll have people that "knew" this kid, say he was a little "off", and that'll be that.

Yup. From the Sun Sentinel:

“I know she had been having some issues with them, especially the older one. He was being a problem. I know he did have some issues and he may have been taking medication. [He] did have some kind of emotional or difficulties,” Kumbatovich said. “[Lynda] kept a really close handle on both boys. They were not major issues, as far as I know, just things teenagers do like not coming home on time, maybe being disrespectful.”

Another relative, who spoke on condition of anonymity over the sensitive matter, said Nikolas had been diagnosed with autism.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/b...g/fl-school-shooting-cruz-20180214-story.html

 

[glhs837]

I already said your generation did not have in restricted access to semi automatic weapons.

It means you didn’t have access to the type of weapons that enabled people to shoot dozens of people in minutes.

Funny, picked up my first ever firearm back around Chiristmas. A Ruger 10/22 rifle. Hold 10 rounds with the stock magazine. Semiautomatic rifle, one trigger pull, one round downrange. What I found interesting was that it went on sale for the first time the same year I was born, 1964. Semi-auto weapons have been available for sale for quite a long time. It's not any change in the guns that drives this stuff.

 

[This_person]

Yes. I can. And I know many others who can. But you should also be responsible enough to realize it’s obvious not everyone can and not everyone controls their access properly and that should be enough to make you say “Hey I’m willing to give up some of my weekend fun to ensure this never happens again”.

2A has nothing to do with weekend fun. If you look at who wrote it and when, you can see that it is all about keeping the population armed so as to overthrow a government that is not staying within its bounds (as a last resort, of course).

The constitution does not grant rights. Those rights are inherent within each human. The constitution restricts the government from taking away rights that we all have. The constitution is clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

We can agree that there are reasonable limits to this. A felon, convicted of multiple law violations using a gun has demonstrated that they cannot own weapons without endangering the rest of the public. It is reasonable to see this. A three year old cannot reasonably be expected to bear a 9 mm.

A 19 year old, with no convictions of weapons abuse, with no adjudicated psychological problems that keep them from interacting in daily society (as in, adjudicated to be in need of incarceration or being institutionalized involuntarily) should be able to own and bear any weapon of his or her choice.

 

[This_person]

I already said your generation did not have in restricted access to semi automatic weapons.

The first machine gun, the Puckle machine gun, was built in 1718. How old do you think Vrai is?

Don't like that slow of a machine gun? How about the Maxim gun, made in 1885?

Pretty sure Vrai's not that old either (since I'm older than her).

But, of course the Puckle was not commonly used, and the Maxim was after the constitution was written so it doesn't apply, right?

Those guys used MUSKETS for goodness sakes.

So, how fast could you reload and use a musket?

[video=youtube;SJMbxZ1k9NQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJMbxZ1k9NQ[/video]

And, that was by a guy in the 21st century, who did not need to do it to protect himself or kill bears or anything like that. I'm guessing a lot of people could do that back in the 18th century.

 

[Sapidus]

2A has nothing to do with weekend fun. If you look at who wrote it and when, you can see that it is all about keeping the population armed so as to overthrow a government that is not staying within its bounds (as a last resort, of course).

The constitution does not grant rights. Those rights are inherent within each human. The constitution restricts the government from taking away rights that we all have. The constitution is clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

We can agree that there are reasonable limits to this. A felon, convicted of multiple law violations using a gun has demonstrated that they cannot own weapons without endangering the rest of the public. It is reasonable to see this. A three year old cannot reasonably be expected to bear a 9 mm.

A 19 year old, with no convictions of weapons abuse, with no adjudicated psychological problems that keep them from interacting in daily society (as in, adjudicated to be in need of incarceration or being institutionalized involuntarily) should be able to own and bear any weapon of his or her choice.

So you are saying that you prefer mass shootings to updating the constitution. To fit with our current society that the original sinners could not have foreseen.

Smart choice. Throw your hat in with people who only knew muskets versus the children and families destroyed by gun violence.

 

[Sapidus]

The first machine gun, the Puckle machine gun, was built in 1718. How old do you think Vrai is?

Don't like that slow of a machine gun? How about the Maxim gun, made in 1885?

Pretty sure Vrai's not that old either (since I'm older than her).

But, of course the Puckle was not commonly used, and the Maxim was after the constitution was written so it doesn't apply, right?

Those guys used MUSKETS for goodness sakes.

So, how fast could you reload and use a musket?

[video=youtube;SJMbxZ1k9NQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJMbxZ1k9NQ[/video]

And, that was by a guy in the 21st century, who did not need to do it to protect himself or kill bears or anything like that. I'm guessing a lot of people could do that back in the 18th century.

I don’t think you understand the phrase unrestricted access. I didn’t say these things didn’t exist.

Stop trying to prove a semantic point and focus on the stolen lives and families torn apart becuase some people can’t imagine not being able to target shoot on weekends with semi automatic weekends

 

[littlelady]

So you are saying that you prefer mass shootings to updating the constitution. To fit with our current society that the original sinners could not have foreseen.

Smart choice. Throw your hat in with people who only knew muskets versus the children and families destroyed by gun violence.

You are one sick puppy. Do you consider our Founding Fathers sinners as you reap the benefits of what they sowed? You really need to leave America, and find another country you are more comfortable in. Also, my hub’s 9mm has been by our bed for 20+ years and never killed anybody, but is at the ready with the rest of our guns. If we are on the list, so be it. Also, how many fams have been destroyed by their own violence?

Also, do you think updating The Constitution will change anything? You are a riot; so to speak. :

It is seems our FF’s had more common sense than you do. Ok, I am done. Nite, nite.

 

[vraiblonde]

Anyway, can we agree that the gun isn't the problem? Logic and all...

 

[This_person]

So you are saying that you prefer mass shootings to updating the constitution.

Oh, absolutely!! People die DAILY from car accidents due to improper driving - yet we don't ban cars. People die DAILY from improper medical procedures, but we don't ban doctors. The actual positives of gun ownership in the hands of responsible citizens FAR outweighs the tiny number of people who die in mass shootings each decade.

To fit with our current society that the original sinners could not have foreseen.

"original sinners"? Do you mean "founding fathers"?

I think they foresaw where we are today. I think that's why they ensured the 2A was in the Constitution.

Smart choice. Throw your hat in with people who only knew muskets versus the children and families destroyed by gun violence.

They also only knew of tiny circulation newspapers - does that mean the 1A doesn't apply to the internet? They also only knew of 13 states, does that mean we can't have all 50 today? They also only knew of paper documents, does that mean that 4A does not apply to electronic media? They only knew of commerce which could be handled with horse-drawn carriages - does the commerce clause not apply to items shipped by semi trucks? The "only knew muskets" argument is beneath the vast majority of humans, but clearly not you.

By the way, families back then were destroyed by gun violence as well. Did you ever hear of Christopher Seider? How about Alexander Hamilton? Try to not be completely clueless.

 

[This_person]

I don’t think you understand the phrase unrestricted access. I didn’t say these things didn’t exist.

Who restricted the access?

Stop trying to prove a semantic point and focus on the stolen lives and families torn apart becuase some people can’t imagine not being able to target shoot on weekends with semi automatic weekends

2A has nothing to do with weekend fun, like target shooting. If you look at who wrote it and when, you can see that it is all about keeping the population armed so as to overthrow a government that is not staying within its bounds (as a last resort, of course).

The constitution does not grant rights. Those rights are inherent within each human. The constitution restricts the government from taking away rights that we all have. The constitution is clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

We can agree that there are reasonable limits to this. A felon, convicted of multiple law violations using a gun has demonstrated that they cannot own weapons without endangering the rest of the public. It is reasonable to see this. A three year old cannot reasonably be expected to bear a 9 mm.

A 19 year old, with no convictions of weapons abuse, with no adjudicated psychological problems that keep them from interacting in daily society (as in, adjudicated to be in need of incarceration or being institutionalized involuntarily) should be able to own and bear any weapon of his or her choice.

 

[This_person]

Anyway, can we agree that the gun isn't the problem? Logic and all...

Intelligent and reasonable people can agree that, yes. Not liberals.

 

[littlelady]

And

Intelligent and reasonable people can agree that, yes. Not liberals.

I think liberals, at this point, should be called communists.

I already said nite nite, but had to say that.

Also, who in their right mind would want to go down in history as a mass murderer? It has nothing to do with guns, except for the fact that it gets the intent done fast. Jack the Ripper never used a gun. I do know that the future for my grandtots is not looking good. I wish I could live forever to protect them. God bless America.

 

[SamSpade]

My response to these is generally the same -
Did the shooter surrender willingly? What stopped his shooting rampage?

Was it - men with guns?

The clear and obvious solution is not to take away everyone's guns - aside from that being impossible
and useless against someone who has one illegally.

The solution is to make sure a man with a gun is already THERE.

What *I* don't get is why having armed police go into the school AFTER shootings take place
is acceptable, but putting them there ahead of time is not.

 

[PsyOps]

Yes. I can. And I know many others who can. But you should also be responsible enough to realize it’s obvious not everyone can and not everyone controls their access properly and that should be enough to make you say “Hey I’m willing to give up some of my weekend fun to ensure this never happens again”.

But, you said gun control is not having access to the type of weapons that enabled people to shoot dozens of people in minutes, yet you claim you can properly own one without doing so. If you've proven that the gun (an AR for example) won't cause you to go on a shooting rampage, why shouldn't you be free to own such a weapon? Why do I have to forfeit my rights because someone else's inability to use that firearm properly? I mean, there a thousands who are a danger to all of us on the road every single day, yet you're not demanding we all give up our cars because of them.

And let me let you in on a little clue... I don't own an AR because I find it fun to go shoot on weekends; I own one because I have determined, for a multitude of reasons, that it's an appropriate weapon (among several) for me and my self defense. I'm not willing to give that up just because we have a few loonies willing to shoot up a school. And I'm especially not willing to give that up just because you're uncomfortable with the thought of me owning one; that can't get beyond your own trust in yourself and trust others in the same; that I might go on a shooting spree with it. I take owning firearms very seriously because it's what was used by smart-minded FREE people a long time ago to establish this country. There is real meaning in having an armed citizenry; and that isn't just plinking on weekends for our entertainment.

“The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” - Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

 

[nutz]

I don’t think you understand the phrase unrestricted access. I didn’t say these things didn’t exist.

Stop trying to prove a semantic point and focus on the stolen lives and families torn apart becuase some people can’t imagine not being able to target shoot on weekends with semi automatic weekends

Then write to your judges, DA's, state AG, AG, senators, congressmen, etc. and ask why the people that commit firearm offenses are NOT held to the fullest extent of the law. We don't need new laws, enforcement of the current would be better.

 

[Gilligan]

More antecdotes from this idiot. How helpful.

Have to keep slapping down your incessant lies. Now if you would just stop lying....

 

[GURPS]

Horrible. If only there was some way to prevent this.

No matter what let’s not talk about gun control.

Oh Wise ONE Please Expound on which 'common sense' gun laws would have stopped this or any of the last 50 mass shootings
yeah that's right NONE

A semi automatic weapon is different then a shot gun.

And one anecdote doesn’t prove anything.

the weapon makes NO Matter .... and it is NOT an Anecdote, it was a Lifestyle

my wife was on her High School Rifle Team ... students brought .22 Cal Semi Auto Rifles to school on the Bus.
Weapons were kept in their LOCKERS until Rifle Class

Well, frankly, it's your generation that is shooting up their schools. My generation handled guns just fine. So what's your problem?

Our Generation was raise with some morals .... wither you believed or not, I'd guess a majority were drug to Church on Sundays

...... and that should be enough to make you say “Hey I’m willing to give up some of my weekend fun to ensure this never happens again”.

WTF does this even mean

More antecdotes from this idiot. How helpful.

More Progressive Handwave'm when when you don't like the facts as presented

Stop trying to prove a semantic point and focus on the stolen lives and families torn apart becuase some people can’t imagine not being able to target shoot on weekends with semi automatic weekends

wtf are you going on about ....... why are you all for restricting the RIGHTS of Law Abiding Citizens

 

[warneckutz]

Horrible. If only there was some way to prevent this.

No matter what let’s not talk about gun control. That will only make it worse. Sarcasm.

Stop talking tough... we all know you're a pansy. Shut the #### up, fool.

 

[Sapidus]

But, you said gun control is not having access to the type of weapons that enabled people to shoot dozens of people in minutes, yet you claim you can properly own one without doing so. If you've proven that the gun (an AR for example) won't cause you to go on a shooting rampage, why shouldn't you be free to own such a weapon? Why do I have to forfeit my rights because someone else's inability to use that firearm properly? I mean, there a thousands who are a danger to all of us on the road every single day, yet you're not demanding we all give up our cars because of them.

And let me let you in on a little clue... I don't own an AR because I find it fun to go shoot on weekends; I own one because I have determined, for a multitude of reasons, that it's an appropriate weapon (among several) for me and my self defense. I'm not willing to give that up just because we have a few loonies willing to shoot up a school. And I'm especially not willing to give that up just because you're uncomfortable with the thought of me owning one; that can't get beyond your own trust in yourself and trust others in the same; that I might go on a shooting spree with it. I take owning firearms very seriously because it's what was used by smart-minded FREE people a long time ago to establish this country. There is real meaning in having an armed citizenry; and that isn't just plinking on weekends for our entertainment.

“The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” - Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

To your first point about cars people are actually required to take a knowledge and driving test before they are allowed to operate a vehicle. Would you be against the same for a gun?

How do you feel about Rubio taking $3 million from the NRA and immidetialy saying now is not the time to talk about gun control?

I clearly stated before that there are many responsible gun owners out there and I know many of them.

If I was a gun owner I would say to myself what can I do to change this situation?

You could petition for stricter regulations on who gets a gun through some kind of testing mechanism like getting a drivers license. Would you be against that?

Some countries require sheriffs to check on the security of citizens stored guns. Would you be against that?

 

[transporter]

My access to firearms and the types I own has not changed in 50 years. Why are you so willfully ignorant??

Even on a subject where you possess a higher level of knowledge you STILL can't be the least bit honest or intelligent in your commentary.

Maryland was ahead of the federal government again when, in 1966, it required a seven-day waiting period for gun purchasers, and background checks performed by the Maryland State Police.

Ok...this is 52 years

In 1972, Maryland made it so that only a citizen with a "good and substantial reason" could carry a concealed handgun in public, and any person caught illegally possessing a handgun would be sentenced to jail.

During the 1980's an inordinate number of crimes were being committed with low quality handguns, known as "Saturday Night Specials." The state legislature banned these weapons, and developed the Handgun Roster Board in 1988.

The board determines what guns can or can't be sold in Maryland.

The following year, Maryland expanded the seven-day waiting period. This bill added assault rifles, such as the AK-47, to the list of guns that required background checks

Starting in 1992, gun owners had to secure their firearms, so that children under 16 can't use guns while they are unsupervised.

In 1994, Gov. William Donald Schaefer and the legislature banned detachable magazines with a capacity of more than 20 rounds and certain weapons defined as assault pistols.

The Maryland Gun Violence Act was a package of laws, passed in 1996, that made straw purchases a crime, and limited regulated firearms purchases to one per month.

The Responsible Gun Safety Act of 2000 required that all handguns made before January 1, 2003, be equipped with an external safety device....That bill also updated the Handgun Roster Board, instituted a required safety course for purchase of a handgun

https://patch.com/maryland/silverspring/maryland-s-history-of-gun-control-b4e5ae00