NRA Has Themselves Another School Shooting..

LooseGoose wrote:Amazing what happens when you have an armed good guy on site that does his job.

Update: The sheriff’s PIO told NBC that the incident involved a single male shooter who was a student at the school, who targeted a female student. The armed guard (school resource officer) at the school then engaged in a firefight with the shooter, critically wounding him, and a third student was injured. The shooter and intended target are both critically injured, and the third student is in critical but stable condition. So far, they are not releasing any information on the weapon itself.

Well turns out not quite Goose.

Kid shot himself in the head.

Here's a good writeup that debunks a lot of Goose's bullshit.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-intersect/wp/2018/03/26/how-the-parkland-teens-became-villains-on-the-right-wing-internet/

Goose spreading fake news from the mainstream media again..

shocking.

LooseGoose wrote:Amazing what happens when you have an armed good guy on site that does his job.

Update: The sheriff’s PIO told NBC that the incident involved a single male shooter who was a student at the school, who targeted a female student. The armed guard (school resource officer) at the school then engaged in a firefight with the shooter, critically wounding him, and a third student was injured. The shooter and intended target are both critically injured, and the third student is in critical but stable condition. So far, they are not releasing any information on the weapon itself.

Goose - this is why I warn you and everyone else against trusting the mainstream media.

but, please continue to post their "news" reports as you wish.

Cameron wrote:

DWags wrote:


Well turns out not quite Goose.

Kid shot himself in the head.

So the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is... a bad guy with a gun?

‘According to the CDC study President Obama ordered in 2013, guns were present in approximately 300,000 crimes. They were used in self-defense or to stop crime approximately 500,000 times. Florida State criminology professor’s study puts the number at 2.5 million instances of self defense / stopping crimes’

Are most of the people who are threatening these kids, and making death threats against them, and coordinating internet attacks on them really thinking that these kids are out to take all the guns in America?   Is that really why they're making all these death threats?   I realize many of them are just ignorant bullies, but I'm interested in knowing what the motivation is for the attacks and death threats.

DWags wrote:Are most of the people who are threatening these kids, and making death threats against them, and coordinating internet attacks on them really thinking that these kids are out to take all the guns in America?   Is that really why they're making all these death threats?   I realize many of them are just ignorant bullies, but I'm interested in knowing what the motivation is for the attacks and death threats.

Well.... first of all, who are they? The same people that give death threats to anyone in the public sphere with a controversial opinion?

And for the record, many in attendance and at least one event speaker indicated their goal is a gun ban. That is the end goal. That’s how these death of a thousand cuts slippery slopes work.

DWags wrote:Are most of the people who are threatening these kids, and making death threats against them, and coordinating internet attacks on them really thinking that these kids are out to take all the guns in America?   Is that really why they're making all these death threats?   I realize many of them are just ignorant bullies, but I'm interested in knowing what the motivation is for the attacks and death threats.

paranoid, hate-filled easily duped racist bigots.

so basically those fine folks who just want to Make America Great Again.

So, I'm right about them.  They really are idiots.     Wow.

DWags wrote:So, I'm right about them.  They really are idiots.     Wow.

"idiots" might be one of the nicer things that could be said about them.

xsanguine wrote:

DWags wrote:Are most of the people who are threatening these kids, and making death threats against them, and coordinating internet attacks on them really thinking that these kids are out to take all the guns in America?   Is that really why they're making all these death threats?   I realize many of them are just ignorant bullies, but I'm interested in knowing what the motivation is for the attacks and death threats.

Well.... first of all, who are they? The same people that give death threats to anyone in the public sphere with a controversial opinion?

And for the record, many in attendance and at least one event speaker indicated their goal is a gun ban. That is the end goal. That’s how these death of a thousand cuts slippery slopes work.

Just so you guys know. I want assault style rifles and HC mags banned (even for handguns - I think 7? yeah, 7 round mags max). It doesn't have to be retroactive, but the ban will include a ban on parts, and aftermarket accessories, sales or commercial repair of existing rifles will also be illegal, even person to person, and if you buy rounds that can be used in them, you have to sign an affidavit saying that these rounds are not to be used in a banned firearm.

So I don't know exactly what these kids want, but that's my first step.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

DWags wrote:So, I'm right about them.  They really are idiots.     Wow.

"idiots" might be one of the nicer things that could be said about them.

True.  Easily frightened too.

I have not nor ever have been opposed to properly trained law enforcement officers who have training on beng a school resource employee and get SWAT training including physiological testing, interviews and work ups to make sure they are up to all phases of the job.

But what that requires is money for the approximately 24,000 public secondary schools to get one armed officer and that officer's training.

When we start talking money we get the same fiscal responsibility BS.

GRR Spartan wrote:I have not nor ever have been opposed to properly trained law enforcement officers who have training on beng a school resource employee and get SWAT training including physiological testing, interviews and work ups to make sure they are up to all phases of the job.

But what that requires is money for the approximately 24,000 public secondary schools to get one armed officer and that officer's training.

When we start talking money we get the same fiscal responsibility BS.

I got an idea

End this abysmal drug war that’s created the bulk of gun violence and put those field agents in schools. No need to add funds.

xsanguine wrote:

GRR Spartan wrote:I have not nor ever have been opposed to properly trained law enforcement officers who have training on beng a school resource employee and get SWAT training including physiological testing, interviews and work ups to make sure they are up to all phases of the job.

But what that requires is money for the approximately 24,000 public secondary schools to get one armed officer and that officer's training.

When we start talking money we get the same fiscal responsibility BS.

I got an idea

End this abysmal drug war that’s created the bulk of gun violence and put those field agents in schools. No need to add funds.

I agree here. But, while related, not the same.

so has America's Terrorist Organization - the NRA - apologized for spreading fake news?

Or has the mainstream media outlets who so desperately wanted their "guns in schools" dreams to be true apologized or issued retractions??

doubtful.

As far as the good guy with a gun theory, I read somewhere that there are just over 1 million guns per justifiable homicide in the US annually.

kingstonlake wrote:As far as the good guy with a gun theory, I read somewhere that there are just over 1 million guns per justifiable homicide in the US annually.

Well guns stop more crimes than are used to commit crimes, not including law enforcement.

Rocinante wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

I got an idea

End this abysmal drug war that’s created the bulk of gun violence and put those field agents in schools. No need to add funds.

I agree here. But, while related, not the same.

We’re talking about placing presumably trained individuals in schools in the extremely low chance of a school shooting, right?

Two birds and all.

Shrinking the prison industrial complex is better than drastically increasing it with further victimless crimes.

No. I agree the war on drugs is a failure and needs a complete makeover, and that prisons are filled with way too many nonviolent or drug offenders that are $$ for the for-profit prison industry or free labor for states.

Even if we were to solve that problem, there’s still a gun problem.

Rocinante wrote:No. I agree the war on drugs is a failure and needs a complete makeover, and that prisons are filled with way too many nonviolent or drug offenders that are $$ for the for-profit prison industry or free labor for states.

Even if we were to solve that problem, there’s still a gun problem.

And it’s going to be solved by... more prohibition?

xsanguine wrote:

Rocinante wrote:No. I agree the war on drugs is a failure and needs a complete makeover, and that prisons are filled with way too many nonviolent or drug offenders that are $$ for the for-profit prison industry or free labor for states.

Even if we were to solve that problem, there’s still a gun problem.

And it’s going to be solved by... more prohibition?

See my post above. I believe part of the answer is restrictions, yes.

Rocinante wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

And it’s going to be solved by... more prohibition?

See my post above. I believe part of the answer is restrictions, yes.

Nice. So the thinking is prohibition has been a catastrophe twice in our history why not give it a third shot?

It's a bold strategy, Roc.

The prohibition of slavery worked out pretty ok.

Slavery is a crime, Roc. There is no victim in possession.

xsanguine wrote:

DWags wrote:Are most of the people who are threatening these kids, and making death threats against them, and coordinating internet attacks on them really thinking that these kids are out to take all the guns in America?   Is that really why they're making all these death threats?   I realize many of them are just ignorant bullies, but I'm interested in knowing what the motivation is for the attacks and death threats.

Well.... first of all, who are they? The same people that give death threats to anyone in the public sphere with a controversial opinion?

And for the record, many in attendance and at least one event speaker indicated their goal is a gun ban. That is the end goal. That’s how these death of a thousand cuts slippery slopes work.

You should ask one of those kids that died for your right to own a gun.

xsanguine wrote:Slavery is a crime, Roc. There is no victim in possession.

There was a time when it wasn’t. The damn constitution had protections in it for slave owners. There was a war or something about it.

InTenSity wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Well.... first of all, who are they? The same people that give death threats to anyone in the public sphere with a controversial opinion?

And for the record, many in attendance and at least one event speaker indicated their goal is a gun ban. That is the end goal. That’s how these death of a thousand cuts slippery slopes work.

You should ask one of those kids that died for your right to own a gun.

First of all, it's everyone's right. It's a right I haven't taken advantage of, but it's certainly one that should be available. What does your right or my right to own the best tool for self-defense have to do with someone who acts unethically? You do realize they can be procured quite easily even after a theoretical ban. They will always be available. You are never going to stop their production. You will, however, push their availability to the black market.

Second of all, Intensity, I expect appeal to emotion fallacies on Facebook... not on a forum of supposedly college educated individuals. Do better. Be better.

Third of all, and this kind of goes along with point 2, I realize you're acting on emotion and not logic here, but... how the hell do you talk to someone who's dead?

Rocinante wrote:

xsanguine wrote:Slavery is a crime, Roc. There is no victim in possession.

There was a time when it wasn’t. The damn constitution had protections in it for slave owners.  There was a war or something about it.

There was never a time that slavery was ethical (not a crime). It may have been widely accepted, but there's always been a victim in slavery.

The Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper. You'll never see me argue on behalf of it outside of a debate exercise/practice.

xsanguine wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

There was a time when it wasn’t. The damn constitution had protections in it for slave owners.  There was a war or something about it.

There was never a time that slavery was ethical (not a crime). It may have been widely accepted, but there's always been a victim in slavery.

The Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper. You'll never see me argue on behalf of it outside of a debate exercise/practice.

We are a nation of laws, not of men. What’s “ethical” is decided by those laws. The sooner you understand that there really are no universal truths, the sooner you transition from someone who operates in the hypothetical to someone who operates in the real.

xsanguine wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:As far as the good guy with a gun theory, I read somewhere that there are just over 1 million guns per justifiable homicide in the US annually.

Well guns stop more crimes than are used to commit crimes, not including law enforcement.

I do t really want to respond to drivel and right wingers aren’t really into science but whatever

Rocinante wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

And it’s going to be solved by... more prohibition?

See my post above. I believe part of the answer is restrictions, yes.

They will turn the word restriction into prohibition. Ask why.

Rocinante wrote:The prohibition of slavery worked out pretty ok.

There are already restrictions on firearms. That’s all most people want. Right and left. Allowing the word prohibition to be used, especially if the knuckle draggers are clinging to what one teenager said, instead of sensible gun restriction, plays into the hands of the terrorists in our country. It’s what fox and most of the morons do.

Running excuse tally sponsored by the firearms manufacturers of America:

1. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
2. The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
3. It’s not a gun problem, it’s a mental health problem.
4. If more kids were nice to each other, less school shootings would happen.

Rocinante wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

There was never a time that slavery was ethical (not a crime). It may have been widely accepted, but there's always been a victim in slavery.

The Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper. You'll never see me argue on behalf of it outside of a debate exercise/practice.

We are a nation of laws, not of men. What’s “ethical” is decided by those laws. The sooner you understand that there really are no universal truths, the sooner you transition from someone who operates in the hypothetical to someone who operates in the real.

I’m aware of that, Roc. I didn’t argue that isn’t how it’s setup. I’m arguing the laws are unethical and explained why. Going by this belief many unethical laws (like slavery) would still be on the books. You take hypotheticals and make them realities.

Also, thank you, Roc.

DWags wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Well guns stop more crimes than are used to commit crimes, not including law enforcement.

I do t really want to respond to drivel and right wingers aren’t really into science but whatever

Here’s two studies in response to your op-ed, one ordered (and then not mentioned when the results came out) by President Obama. The other a Florida State criminology study (that mirrors the CDC study only amplified; government stats always skew towards their narrative)

https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/2

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol86/iss1/8/

DWags wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

See my post above. I believe part of the answer is restrictions, yes.

They will turn the word restriction into prohibition. Ask why.

Because that’s what speakers and plenty of attendees at the ‘march for our lives’ parade stated as their end game. Add in the articles from various prominent publications.... and you wonder why paranoid conservatives think your ilk are going to order grunts to implement and enforce mandatory gun buy backs (of course you guys won’t do any dirty work yourselves... you order others to commit violence against others on your behalf)

The conservatives are right in this instance. All these new regulations will do jack to murder rates or school shootings. So when these laws fall flat.... we’ll be here once again talking about further ‘common sense’ gun laws, which will always be relative to what is already enforced. You play chess? It’s called seeing 3 moves ahead. It won’t stop at these token laws.

Rocinante wrote:Running excuse tally sponsored by the firearms manufacturers of America:

1. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
2. The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
3. It’s not a gun problem, it’s a mental health problem.
4. If more kids were nice to each other, less school shootings would happen.

How many bad guys with guns are stopped by someone without a firearm?

xsanguine wrote:

DWags wrote:

They will turn the word restriction into prohibition. Ask why.

Because that’s what speakers and plenty of attendees at the ‘march for our lives’ parade stated as their end game. Add in the articles from various prominent publications.... and you wonder why paranoid conservatives think your ilk are going to order grunts to implement and enforce mandatory gun buy backs (of course you guys won’t do any dirty work yourselves... you order others to commit violence against others on your behalf)

The conservatives are right in this instance. All these new regulations will do jack to murder rates or school shootings. So when these laws fall flat.... we’ll be here once again talking about further ‘common sense’ gun laws, which will always be relative to what is already enforced. You play chess? It’s called seeing 3 moves ahead. It won’t stop at these token laws.

Yeah, nah. None of that will ever happen. Never ever ever. It's just some propoganda get get you guys all riled up. It works pretty well too.