Florida High School Shooting

[zinfamous]

Its pretty clear that everyone in the "chain of command" failed to do a damn thing. Utter failure on every level, local, state, and federal. Really just pathetic. I hope at least it is a learning experience to help to prevent future acts like this. Over correcting is a problem too, square root is a gun now? Really?

The anti-gun nutters don't help their argument a lot of the time. AK47 stands for automatic killer, that fires 47 rounds per trigger pull? Chainsaw bayonet on a AR-15? Rifle shoots 3x the speed of a pistol? Pistol shots are like a knife wound? Easier to buy an AR15 than cold medicine? I mean wtf are these people thinking? Killing your argument with ignorance and lies. Seriously, chainsaw bayonet? This is from USA Today... supposedly a major news outlet. Hard to view them as credible at anything after that.

If these deputies did just not go in because they were scared, I can't even express how upset I am about that. Everyone has a fight or flight, and I have seen in first hand. Band of Brothers shows it pretty clearly too. If they were not given an order, did not have some protocol to do that, then it makes me sick. I don't understand how you couldn't break any rule to go in and try to save kids. Some people have it in them, some don't. If they just didn't feel like it, fired and maybe even in legal trouble from families. You either got it, or you don't.

Point of order: USA Today was the Fox News version of "news" long before Fox News was a twinkle in Roger Ailes's corpulent asshole. basically...never take anything they publish seriously.

Still, I rather do see your point to some degree.

 

[Meghan54]

Seemed fitting:

 

[Fenixgoon]

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/967043934601072640?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/23/msnbc-handguns-are-too-slow-to-stop-a-school-shooter/

Energy does not equal speed. Its a blatant lie. Handguns stop shooters all the time. Saying a pistol is too slow, is just idiotic. As I said, this does not help the anti gun nutter crowd. Feel free to read my post where I said I did not support him owning a weapon.

perhaps you should retake physics class.....

 

[Fenixgoon]

Seemed fitting:

all comes down to regulation of sales, or lack thereof. federally licensed dealers cannot sell a firearm (handgun or long gun) to ANYONE under 18.

OTOH, private persons cannot sell a handgun to anyone under 18, but there is no federal restriction on long guns.

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/who-can-have-a-gun/minimum-age/

private sales are not a loophole, which is what people keep saying is the "gunshow loophole". part of shoring up gun regulation would simply be to federally regulate private sales and require a background check same as an FFL sale.

i'm almost 100% certain i've said this before - it's a netflix/itunes problem. make background checks easy and painless - open NICS to the public for a small fee - and private parties will absolutely go through the system and support it. forcing people to go to dealers is going to lead to much more resistance, because some dealers are just a PITA and they act as a middleman. imagine if you had to sell your car through a car dealer. people would absolutely hate the used car buying process (it's bad enough as is!). now would going through a dealer be that bad for buying a gun? no, but the point is that adding a middle man is an unnecessary step in the sale process.

 

[pmv]

Come on man. It's known that these kids seek imfamy and more news coverage does that. How many copy carts did we hear about being stopped after this?

Coverage like we have does make things worse. If you want to argue that it's something we have to accept fine, but it's not neutral.

News coverage probably does have an effect. Shooters want to feel important and make the world pay attention to them, and some things just become a trend because they enter people's heads as something that is thinkable. Cultural tropes spread for meaningless self-perpetuating reasons as well as underlying 'real' ones.

But I don't see there's any chance of suppressing the desire of the media and the populace to pay attention to such tragedies. Those affected by them are going to want to make noise about them.

And it would be a pretty high-risk strategy to do so - how long do you try and ignore the killings before concluding they aren't decreasing significantly? Most of all, giving them less coverage also reduces the pressure to do anything about them.

But maybe one thing everyone could agree on is to not foreground the name, picture and self-justifications of the killer? Talk about the event and the victims but let the shooter disappear into obscurity. They usually aren't very interesting anyway.

 

[realibrad]

I understand it fine, I don’t buy into that it caused that drastic of a change in one year, two months if you want to get picky..

Why do you keep saying in the last year? Someone says media coverage helps drive copycats and you say and I say yes. Where does in the past year come in?

 

[realibrad]

News coverage probably does have an effect. Shooters want to feel important and make the world pay attention to them, and some things just become a trend because they enter people's heads as something that is thinkable. Cultural tropes spread for meaningless self-perpetuating reasons as well as underlying 'real' ones.

But I don't see there's any chance of suppressing the desire of the media and the populace to pay attention to such tragedies. Those affected by them are going to want to make noise about them.

And it would be a pretty high-risk strategy to do so - how long do you try and ignore the killings before concluding they aren't decreasing significantly? Most of all, giving them less coverage also reduces the pressure to do anything about them.

But maybe one thing everyone could agree on is to not foreground the name, picture and self-justifications of the killer? Talk about the event and the victims but let the shooter disappear into obscurity. They usually aren't very interesting anyway.

That I understand. I asked if his stance was that it can't change so we have to just accept it. But the idea that media is neutral is absurd.

 

[fskimospy]

If the targets were truly random and not based upon objective criteria then one would expect to see mass shootings happening almost anywhere and not heavily focused on schools and such. You coming up with one shooting that didn't follow that pattern isn't really a strong critique of the offered hypothesis that would-be shooters actively seek out places where they expect no armed resistance (such as a school). Another theory would be that would-be shooters prioritize people they know and/or think somehow "wronged" them so a school is likely if it's a young shooter. Potential problems with that theory is that older shooters don't seem to prioritize their workplace as much as younger shooters do.

So what's stopping them from targeting clubs, malls, or churches now? Once in a while you see a mass shooting at one of those places but it's far, far less prevalent than schools.

We see plenty of mass shootings at clubs (Pulse), malls, and churches (Dylan Roof, First Baptist in Texas, etc.)

To me the most logical reason as to why young people shoot up their schools is that those locations have sat at the center of their lives for years. It’s the most important single location to them so of course that’s the first place that springs to mind.

Certainly no psychiatrist here but it seems to me that while some people just want to kill, many want to send a message as well, and that often means targeting a location they know.

 

[SMOGZINN]

If these issue were reported prior to him legally purchasing the rifle. I would be for, but not sure how we would incorporate, some way of taking away the ability to own a weapon if a person commits certain act after they've legally purchased a gun. No matter what kind. Person buys a gun, then threatens to shoot up a school, he should have his ownership revoked in my opinion.

So, you are okay with removing a persons rights without due process? Because Cruz was not convicted with anything when the police were called out, his psychologist testified that he was not a danger to himself or others.

 

[Raizinman]

I don't understand about arming the teachers. They armed the deputies, gave them guns, bullet proof vests and other protection devices and they were afraid to confront the shooter. Why should a teacher? I would much prefer to see a walk thru metal detector with armed guards and only one entrance/exit to the school. This should keep all guns out (as a school should be a gun free zone) and also help prevent kids walking out of school. Just my 2 cents.

 

[HomerJS]

So, you are okay with removing a persons rights without due process? Because Cruz was not convicted with anything when the police were called out, his psychologist testified that he was not a danger to himself or others.

But if Ric Scott hadn't weakened the gun laws so much they could have taken his weapons.

 

[Darwin333]

I don't understand about arming the teachers. They armed the deputies, gave them guns, bullet proof vests and other protection devices and they were afraid to confront the shooter. Why should a teacher? I would much prefer to see a walk thru metal detector with armed guards and only one entrance/exit to the school. This should keep all guns out (as a school should be a gun free zone) and also help prevent kids walking out of school. Just my 2 cents.

I guarantee you that if the officer was inside and was in danger of being shot he would have tried to kill the shooter before he was killed himself. It doesn't take courage to fight back when you are already in the fight and honestly I have heard a ton of stories of teachers acting courageously in school shootings instead of just getting themselves to safety.

 

[SMOGZINN]

But if Ric Scott hadn't weakened the gun laws so much they could have taken his weapons.

I'm genuinely curious about this. How would they have taken his guns? He was, AFAIK, never convicted, his psychologist said he was not a danger. Was there a law that allowed the police to confiscate a gun for just being under suspicion of domestic abuse?

 

[umbrella39]

That's the bullshit rub here guys... This is Florida. Had this kids guns been taken away before the shooting there would have been armed 2A supporters with Tiki Torches and pitchforks storming the State Capital.

Do they REALLY think their specious new "arguments" hold any water?

 

[Sunburn74]

You've got this completely wrong. However it is a very poorly written/error filled article.

IMO, 2 amendments advocates are not generally supporters of felons having access to guns.

The SCOTUS:



I'm not sure what you mean by "SCOTUS finally stepping in and saying lets be reasonable here"; but the SCOTUS ruling was more in favor of guns rights for "felons" than you seem to think. ("Felons" is this context means any crime with a possible sentence of 1 yrs or more.) So, you've got that completely wrong.

Check this out:



The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is a "gun rights advocate? That's wrong, it's a gun control advocate. The author got that all wrong. The Trump admin was opposed to restoring gun rights to criminals, so you got that wrong.



^ This is clearly not 2nd amendment proponents advocating to restore gun rights to criminals/felons. Heck it's the complete opposite of that. You've horribly misunderstood this (crappy) article.

Fern

Hmm... I don't think so. The two plaintiffs in that case had their legal funding and support from the NRA directly. You can confirm this when you look the court briefs filed after the initial rulings where the NRA is listed as a co-plaintiff alongside the two individuals.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...nCRMQFghLMAk&usg=AOvVaw0ADenm1BNoi1atO7kvDhAq

Some lower courts initially found in favor of the plaintiffs but ultimately the SCOTUS found against them. Regardless of Trump's official position, the NRA was squarely behind restoring rights to felons.

 

[HomerJS]

That's the bullshit rub here guys... This is Florida. Had this kids guns been taken away before the shooting there would have been armed 2A supporters with Tiki Torches and pitchforks storming the State Capital.

Do they REALLY think their specious new "arguments" hold any water?

ding...ding...ding

 

[HomerJS]

I'm genuinely curious about this. How would they have taken his guns? He was, AFAIK, never convicted, his psychologist said he was not a danger. Was there a law that allowed the police to confiscate a gun for just being under suspicion of domestic abuse?

Other states have red flag laws. When Cruz exhibited this many symptoms police can get a court order to confiscate weapons albeit temporary until the situation is sorted out.

 

[Younigue]

I don't understand about arming the teachers. They armed the deputies, gave them guns, bullet proof vests and other protection devices and they were afraid to confront the shooter. Why should a teacher? I would much prefer to see a walk thru metal detector with armed guards and only one entrance/exit to the school. This should keep all guns out (as a school should be a gun free zone) and also help prevent kids walking out of school. Just my 2 cents.

That'll help tremendously if there were a fire at the school.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Other states have red flag laws. When Cruz exhibited this many symptoms police can get a court order to confiscate weapons albeit temporary until the situation is sorted out.

I did not know that! I still bet no court would grant that order seeing as how his Psychologist testified that he was not a danger to himself and others, but it is good to know that some states are doing that.

 

[HomerJS]

 

[realibrad]

I guarantee you that if the officer was inside and was in danger of being shot he would have tried to kill the shooter before he was killed himself. It doesn't take courage to fight back when you are already in the fight and honestly I have heard a ton of stories of teachers acting courageously in school shootings instead of just getting themselves to safety.

Actually, there are people that would still freeze and die without ever trying to defend themselves. Some people will freeze even if fighting back is the only hope. If you have ever been in a situation like that, or see video of how people react, they do strange things. Some just stand there like stone unable to move.

 

[fskimospy]

I guarantee you that if the officer was inside and was in danger of being shot he would have tried to kill the shooter before he was killed himself. It doesn't take courage to fight back when you are already in the fight and honestly I have heard a ton of stories of teachers acting courageously in school shootings instead of just getting themselves to safety.

I wouldn't guarantee that. While this area of research is obviously really murky due to the subject matter it seems reasonably likely that a significant portion of soldiers involved in combat do not actively participate or at least do not participate in a meaningful way.

Again, the research on this is bad, disputed, and hard to obtain as...well... measuring people's reactions during a battle is difficult as you're trying not to die. Personally though the idea that people would freeze up and not act even when confronted with mortal danger is not the most surprising thing in the world.

 

[realibrad]

So, you are okay with removing a persons rights without due process? Because Cruz was not convicted with anything when the police were called out, his psychologist testified that he was not a danger to himself or others.

Do you have a link to a psychologist testifying that he was not a danger? I see that social services did an investigation, but I did not know that a psychologist was involved.

 

[Darwin333]

You know, it's easy to look up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington

60 (3.9 g) Nosler partition Speed 3,160 ft/s Energy 1,330 ft⋅lbf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9×19mm_Parabellum

8.04 g (124 gr) Cor-Bon JHP +P+ Speed 1,250 ft/s Energy 434 ft⋅lbf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/263931

"Wounds inflicted by high velocity, center-fire rifles firing hunting ammunition are radically different from wounds caused by handguns or .22 rim-fire rifles. Injuries from pistol or .22 rim-fire bullets are confined to tissue and organs directly in the wound track. In contrast, high velocity rifle bullets can injure structures without actually contacting them. This is due to the temporary cavity produced by such missiles with the resultant shock waves having pressures of up to 200 atmospheres (20 MPa). Organs struck by such high velocity rifle bullets may undergo partial or complete disintegration. Hunting ammunition, as it passes through the body, tends to shed fragments of lead from its core, producing a characteristic snowstorm picture on X-ray."

Obviously a rifle round has more energy but getting shot with a handgun will make you just as dead. Even a nonfatal wound could easily incapacitate the shooter or at the very least slow him down. Self defense rounds for handguns are quite effective.

 

[Darwin333]

Actually, there are people that would still freeze and die without ever trying to defend themselves. Some people will freeze even if fighting back is the only hope. If you have ever been in a situation like that, or see video of how people react, they do strange things. Some just stand there like stone unable to move.

That is very true but I was talking specifically about the officer who has the training to overcome the fight or flight and has the means to effectively fight back.