Another shooting.

[Tony Towner]

Normally when we cut and paste on here we credit the original piece rather than trying to pass off as our own work.

 

[Johnny75]

Normally when we cut and paste on here we credit the original piece rather than trying to pass off as our own work.

Where's it from TT?

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

The deflection onto the FBI investigation of Russia is pathetic and endorsed by Trump himself. Can't upset the NRA though...

 

[Johnny75]

The deflection onto the FBI investigation of Russia is pathetic and endorsed by Trump himself. Can't upset the NRA though...

It's a new low even for Trump to use the deaths of children in his own fight to get an investigation he doesn't like shut down. What a scumbag.

 

[Tony Towner]

Where's it from TT?

I don't know and I might be being unfair, which if that is the case then I will apologise. It just doesn't feel like an original piece to me.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

I don't know and I might be being unfair, which if that is the case then I will apologise. It just doesn't feel like an original piece to me.

Either way the premise seems a bit far fetched.

There are countless deaths every year, some accidental and most self inflicted but also a lot of pointless and malicious ones, which are bought about by the excessive availably of guns in the US. There will always be those accidents, suicidal thoughts and unhinged individuals but if you take away their most potent means it causing damage you're a lot less likely to have the same catastrophic consequences in the future. Say that kid the other day hadn't been able to legally aquire a gun so easily, would he have gone to attack the school armed with a big knife or would he have bottled it because that wouldn't give him enough 'advantage'? Even if he'd followed through with his downgraded weaponry you'd have to think he'd have done a lot less damage, perhaps those brave people who stepped in to protect others may even have been able to overpower and disarm him completely?

Guns aren't so much the route of the problem but they're a huge magnifier of the consequences, why would anyone think that was acceptable thing to leave lying around when they so rarely have any practical use? I wonder how many gun owners actually use their guns for anything other than wasting a bit of time and money down the range from time to time?

Even the self defence thing is largely nonsense, wouldn't it be better to have a secure and alarmed house than a gun? Stop the people getting in to begin with rather than threatening them at gun point if/when they do. You'd think most burglars would want to scarper if disturbed anyway, so the presence of the home owner would probably do enough to end the situation with or without a gun in hand, the former only more likely to lead to a terrible accident between two panicked parties. You certainly wouldn't need a military grade automatic weapon to make the sort of threat required to intimidate even the more determined domestic burglar.

The whole holding government to account or defending from foreign invaders thought is so far fetched it's completely laughable. If a bunch of wannabe militia men think they're going to be any match for an organised, modern, mechanised army then they're need a damn sight more firepower than the automatic weapons they have now. The renegade US army would be pissing themselves as they rolled unhindered through towns in their Abrams tanks. If they're going to use that argument then they need to be asking for even more relaxed laws so they can stock their arsenals up with something that might actually make a difference.

The whole thing is pathetic.

 

[Paul]

The self defense things a bit of a red herring as well

"According to the FBI 2015 statistics 102 people were killed during burglaries in the US

This compares poorly to the 1011 people killed by immediate family mostly as a result of arguments that got out of hand."

 

[Keef]

The whole armed militia,self defence thing is even more laughable when any attack by an enemy army will come with air power as well,pistols and assault rifles aren't going to do anything to planes dropping bombs on you from 35,000 feet and 20 odd miles away.

 

[slink]

My favorite bit of rhetoric to come out of this incident is that America doesn't have a gun problem, it has a God problem. As in, these shootings are happening because we aren't Christian enough.

Seriously.

As someone who isn't religious i struggle with that too but i know a lot of people rely on their faith. Not sure how being more Christian would have helped in this situation though. I've also seen many stupid people claim that they should ban, cars, knives, baseball bats etc if they are going to ban guns because they kill people too. Unbelievable really.

 

[Derby Wolf]

Normally when we cut and paste on here we credit the original piece rather than trying to pass off as our own work.

Copied and pasted a paragraph at random and it throws up http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2018/02/18/peter-smith-trigger-warning/ on Google.

Well spotted.

 

[t3ch]

Apparently, there are some 300 million legally-held guns in the United States. Who knows how many illegally-held guns there are? Lots I imagine. In the wake of the latest horrific school shooting in Florida, the usual suspects are calling for tighter gun control. The Republicans and the NRA are blamed for having always resisted such calls.

For the first two years of Obama’s presidency, the Democrats had an overwhelming majority in the House and close to a filibuster majority in the Senate. For four months, they had 60 votes in the Senate and therefore absolute control. Why did they not act to impose additional controls on gun ownership, if the current laws are such a burning affront to public safety? There are, I suggest, two principal reasons.

First, beyond emotional cheap talk, it is very difficult to identify specific amendments to the law which would both reduce the risk of gun violence and be enforceable.

Second, it’s not the Republicans in Congress or the NRA that represents the biggest obstacle to imposing anything which smacks of seriously restricting gun rights, it is gun-owning voters. The latest Gallup poll (Oct 2017) reported that 42% of US households had a gun. That would clearly mean well over 50% of adults have access to guns. Moreover, many of those gun owners are passionate about their right to bear arms.

One further complication is that federal law overlays state laws, which differ from state to state. Federal law bans a convicted felon from owning a firearm, also someone who is involuntarily committed to a mental institution or declared mentally incompetent by a court or government body. The interpretation of this law can vary from state to state, which perhaps creates an opportunity for legislators at a federal and state levels to close off any obvious loopholes. Though this would have made no difference in this most recent school shooting.

Closing loopholes aside, the difficulties of taking substantive measures should not be lost from sight. Take mental illness, which has occupied the attention of commentators urging that something more be done.

The shooter, Nikolas Cruz, was a disturbed loner according to his fellow school students. He had been expelled from the school and reportedly had also, for a while, attended a mental health clinic. The problem is in determining whether someone, like him, is certifiably mentally ill or incompetent. It’s simply not tenable for any such determination to be treated lightly in a free society if it wants to remain free. The civil liberties of a lot of people would be put at risk if untoward behaviour was a ticket to the local asylum. Despotic regimes know how effective that can be.

Once again, talk is cheap. Effective action far more challenging.

You will notice if you tune in to US cable news that those on the left are fond of citing Australia’s gun laws — Howard’s confiscations — as a model to which the US might aspire, at least to some degree. And pigs might fly. The comparison is between a compliant population ready to do the bidding of government and a population (at least many of them) who regard government with deep suspicion.

If you speak to an average Australian, almost any Australian, you will find them rolling their eyes at the US gun laws. We have been conditioned here to accept that our own self-defence is best handled by the police and the army. We are sheep reliant on the herder and his sheepdogs to protect us from the wolves. Many Americans are not so conditioned. This, almost certainly, goes back to the beginning and the revolutionary War of Independence and to the subsequent Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

Ratified in 1791, the Second Amendment reads as follows:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Commentators put a lot of emphasis on this amendment, and the difficulty in getting around it, in explaining the current status quo. They also say it has outlived its relevancy. They are right in a sense. But only in a sense.

What is often missing, in my view, is an appreciation of the cultural effect the amendment has had down through the centuries and decades. It has moulded a population of people of self-reliant and independent mind, who are simply unwilling to give up their “God-given right” to defend themselves and their families.

Even though in company I have never found myself other than alone, I happen to support the American model and the right of citizens to bear arms. In my view, we have a right to the means to defend ourselves if thugs break into our homes. The police will arrive too late. Take a broader view as well. Don’t assume things will always be as they are. History says they won’t.

By confiscating arms, Hitler knew that he had taken away a bulwark against his secret police hauling dissidents off in the middle of the night. And, to switch threats, with what exactly are we going to fight them on the beaches, on the landing grounds, in the fields and in the streets, if our meagre under-resourced defence forces are overwhelmed?

The counter to this point of view is encapsulated by the despair at fourteen students and three staff members being gunned down and killed by a deranged former student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. What is the answer to that? Unfortunately, not all problems have a complete answer. Even if there were no guns at all; as we know, knives, bombs and vehicles in the hands of maniacs or fanatics can kill pretty effectively.

Part of the answer in the US is to introduce the kind of security around schools that they have in Israeli schools. Armed guards, electronic security, high walls and barbed wire, only one entrance and exit, ID requirements. And probably this will be required increasingly in most countries in the future whatever gun laws are in place. That is the way the world is going. The internet of everything and the wanton killing of children. How much progress is that!

A final point: perhaps above all, good intelligence gathering is needed to identify threats and to act on them before they are realised. In the Florida case Cruz was promising to be a “professional school shooter”. This information was relayed to the FBI and nothing was done. Maybe they were too busy sending hate-Trump text messages between each other and chasing down his imaginary Russian liaisons to have the time.

lol

 

[Alan]

lol

It's almost as if the world (and the destructive capacity of firearms) has changed since 1791. Imagine that.

 

[Alan]

Ah, Kentucky doing the US proud...

Under Senate Bill 103, public school boards and private schools would be able to tap teachers or staff to serve as "school marshals," who would be allowed to carry a gun on campus if they have a concealed carry permit.

In Kentucky, concealed carry classes teach basic firearm mechanics and safety, but don't train participants for active shooter situations—the only circumstance the bill would allow school staff to use the guns.

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/20/5873...ign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180220

 

[t3ch]

yes if teachers were armed it would be a deterrent to any potential future shooters. attackers would be outnumbered and outgunned when exchanging fire in the school.

just needs proper funding, training, and political willpower to make the decision happen!

 

[Stan Hullis]

Great idea until the first 'armed teacher' mass shooting

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[Parkins left foot]

Teachers and intruders having a shoot off in a room filled with students doesn't sound a massive benefit. Shot by friendly fire or the perpetrator - your'e still dead

 

[SLA]

Yeah, what you really need to do is give a stressed out, under-paid, over-worked government employee a firearm in a room full of kids who are making his/her life hell. I can see that ending very well.

 

[Keef]

The other thing as well,if there's a shooting in a school,police are called and told there's somebody shooting people in school,they turn up looking for an armed person,see a teacher with a gun,they fit the description,so they get shot,then the outrage starts all over again

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Lovely from the Executive Vice President of the NRA.

Apparently the Florida shooting was caused ENTIRELY by the FBI, mental illness, "political elites" (whatever the fuck that means), and the lack of gun free zones in schools, and lack of guards and armed teachers (hmmm - trying to square the last two there and nope, I failed)

Fucking hell - the reason is the bellend got an automatic weapon capable of spraying death around. At fucking eighteen. With the most ridiculous lack of scrutiny. You want to stop this shit, make it fucking harder to get a gun, and lo and behold, your schools will become gun free.

America wake up and smell the fucking coffee.

 

[t3ch]

The other thing as well,if there's a shooting in a school,police are called and told there's somebody shooting people in school,they turn up looking for an armed person,see a teacher with a gun,they fit the description,so they get shot,then the outrage starts all over again

we will provide all the teachers with lime green hats to indicate that they are good guys.

anyone not dressed appropriately when police enter gets shot in the face.

Great idea until the first 'armed teacher' mass shooting

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

the other teachers will shoot them!! maybe we could have some senior students as armed backups, like they get elected into the student council and carry during school hours in case of staff rebellion.