MR

Multiple injuries reported in shooting at Fla. high school

https://www.yahoo.com/news/live-updates ... 36418.html

Police in Broward County responded to reports of an active shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High school in Parkland, Fla., on Wednesday. According to local news reports, at least 20 people were injured. Local police say the suspected shooter was taken into custody. Follow below for the latest updates.

- School Supt - 'many fatalities'.

-17 dead, 14 hospitalized

Fact Finder wrote:http://www.wtsp.com/video/news/local/girl-says-she-spoke-with-shooter/67-8009098

Electric chair! No trial.

It's just too fucking easy to get guns in this country. That's the problem.

verslibre wrote:It's just too fucking easy to get guns in this country. That's the problem.

So pray tell what would you suggest?

Make them a lot harder to get. Duh.

verslibre wrote:Make them a lot harder to get. Duh.

That's the best you can do? How about trying to be more specific. What SPECIFIC laws or procedures would you suggest? I assume you are being serious here correct?

Boomchild wrote:

verslibre wrote:Make them a lot harder to get. Duh.

That's the best you can do? How about trying to be more specific. What SPECIFIC laws or procedures would you suggest? I assume you are being serious here correct?

I knew exactly how you would react. I knew if I wrote "make it harder," you'd start to lose your wig.

At the very minimum, raise the legal age to buy firearms. If the guy selling the guy looks at the kid's driver's license, and he can see that he's not even old enough to buy a beer: NO SALE. Increase the waiting period to buy handguns, hunting rifles and assault rifles. No more 10-day, 15-day, 30-day bullshit. Maybe it's time to think in terms of months. Maybe you should prove you're worthy of handling and owning. Make it a privilege, not a right.

There's something specific for you, wise guy. How many guns do you own? I'm not telling you to surrender your arsenal, Sgt. Tackleberry.

verslibre wrote:I knew exactly how you would react. I knew if I wrote "make it harder," you'd start to lose your wig.

At the very minimum, raise the legal age to buy firearms. If the guy selling the guy looks at the kid's driver's license, and he can see that he's not even old enough to buy a beer: NO SALE. Increase the waiting period to buy handguns, hunting rifles and assault rifles. No more 10-day, 15-day, 30-day bullshit. Maybe it's time to think in terms of months. Maybe you should prove you're worthy of handling and owning. Make it a privilege, not a right.

There's something specific for you, wise guy. How many guns do you own? I'm not telling you to surrender your arsenal, Sgt. Tackleberry.

If you think someone asking you to state you position intelligently, then there may be something wrong with you. Now onto the actual subject.

Firstly, in case you are not aware the 2nd amendment makes it right so "privilege" is not an option. Our founding fathers made it that way so the average citizen has the ability to defend oneself from a government that goes rouge on it's citizenry. Make no mistake that if it was a "privilege" our government in it's current state would have already tried to remove that privilege. As long as this country has a Constitution and remains a republic, you won't see that right go away.

If you increase the waiting period, how is that going to change anything? I mean if someone is buying said weapon for a malicious act that would only delay when they would be able to do it.

I don't have too much of an issue concerning raising the age limit. But keep in mind we have seen people of ALL ages commit crimes with firearms. I doubt it would have the effect you think it would.

Normally if someone was to ask me how many firearms I own i would tell them none of your fucking business. But in this case I will answer. NONE. I don't have a need for one at this moment. However, I believe in the right for anyone to own one if they so choose. I know a lot of people that do. They are average law abiding citizens that understand the nature of firearms. They handle them safely and obey all laws regarding them. Which is representative of the majority of people that do own them. However, you won't hear about those statistics.

Lastly here is talk on the subject that uses actual data and statistics on the subject. It can explain it far better then I can.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hyQDQPEsrs

Boomchild wrote:If you think someone asking you to state you position intelligently, then there may be something wrong with you.

Were you drunk when you wrote that? It makes no sense.

Boomchild wrote:Firstly, in case you are not aware the 2nd amendment makes it right so "privilege" is not an option. Our founding fathers made it that way so the average citizen has the ability to defend oneself from a government that goes rouge on it's citizenry.

Yeah, no shit, Sherlock. Now think of the time in which the Second Amendment was written. What was on the minds of "our founding fathers"?

Boomchild wrote:If you increase the waiting period, how is that going to change anything? I mean if someone is buying said weapon for a malicious act that would only delay when they would be able to do it.

Gee, I guess you're right. Then time shouldn't be a factor at all. In fact, gun shops are businesses, not charities. One should just be able to walk in and buy firearms and walk out. Brown-bag 'em! Here's your receipt.

Boomchild wrote:I don't have too much of an issue concerning raising the age limit. But keep in mind we have seen people of ALL ages commit crimes with firearms. I doubt it would have the effect you think it would.

That's like saying people of all ages enjoy pornography. When's the last time you saw a septuagenarian go on a shooting spree?

Boomchild wrote:Normally if someone was to ask me how many firearms I own i would tell them none of your fucking business. But in this case I will answer. NONE. I don't have a need for one at this moment. However, I believe in the right for anyone to own one if they so choose. I know a lot of people that do. They are average law abiding citizens that understand the nature of firearms. They handle them safely and obey all laws regarding them. Which is representative of the majority of people that do own them. However, you won't hear about those statistics.

Now you're just rambling. I'm not talking about a wholesale ban. I'm not talking about confiscation. I'm suggesting making the acquisition process a little more, say, tedious? It's too easy for douchebags to get guns. And the shop owner's going "Cool, a 19 y.o. bought an AR-15. And you know what they say, Merle? A sale isn't a sale until it's paid!" Then they flip the sign and everything's normal until a bunch of kids end up dead.

verslibre wrote:Were you drunk when you wrote that? It makes no sense.

What I am saying is evidently you have a problem with people asking you to put specifics to your position instead just a blurb. That you think it's strange for someone to ask you to do that.

verslibre wrote:Yeah, no shit, Sherlock. Now think of the time in which the Second Amendment was written. What was on the minds of "our founding fathers"?

The amendment was designed to allow the citizens to protect themselves from a runaway government. A government that would turn on it's citizens. Please don't tell me that kind of situation is not possible in the present.

verslibre wrote:Gee, I guess you're right. Then time shouldn't be a factor at all. In fact, gun shops are businesses, not charities. One should just be able to walk in and buy firearms and walk out. Brown-bag 'em! Here's your receipt.

I didn't say there shouldn't be background checks or waiting periods. Which is what you are inferring here. I was stating that I doubt extending it would effect on stopping people from committing violent acts with them.

verslibre wrote:That's like saying people of all ages enjoy pornography. When's the last time you saw a septuagenarian go on a shooting spree?

No it does not. Your statement infers that only younger people are committing mass shootings. Which is obviously not true.

verslibre wrote:Now you're just rambling. I'm not talking about a wholesale ban. I'm not talking about confiscation. I'm suggesting making the acquisition process a little more, say, tedious? It's too easy for douchebags to get guns. And the shop owner's going "Cool, a 19 y.o. bought an AR-15. And you know what they say, Merle? A sale isn't a sale until it's paid!" Then they flip the sign and everything's normal until a bunch of kids end up dead.

Judging by your flippant responses and weak suggestions on how to improve the process I can see that there is no point in discussing this with you.

Boomchild wrote:What I am saying is evidently you have a problem with people asking you to put specifics to your position instead just a blurb. That you think it's strange for someone to ask you to do that.

Did I say it's strange? Or do you have a problem with people remarking your statements sometimes lack cohesion?

Boomchild wrote:

verslibre wrote:Yeah, no shit, Sherlock. Now think of the time in which the Second Amendment was written. What was on the minds of "our founding fathers"?

The amendment was designed to allow the citizens to protect themselves from a runaway government. A government that would turn on it's citizens. Please don't tell me that kind of situation is not possible in the present.

Possible is not the same as probable. And I thought you were overjoyed with the current administration. So why should a runaway government be on your mind, and why would you expect me to think it may be on your mind? Do you see where this is going? Hint: a rabbit hole.

Boomchild wrote:

verslibre wrote:Gee, I guess you're right. Then time shouldn't be a factor at all. In fact, gun shops are businesses, not charities. One should just be able to walk in and buy firearms and walk out. Brown-bag 'em! Here's your receipt.

I didn't say there shouldn't be background checks or waiting periods. Which is what you are inferring here. I was stating that I doubt extending it would effect on stopping people from committing violent acts with them.

Or it may create a window that may allow for an opportunity to delay or even stop them. Like the cop on the news said, if you suddenly see "normal" people doing weird things they weren't doing before, like coming home with multiple purchases from the gun shop, maybe it's time to take notice and even drop a line so they can pay them a visit and see what's up. An ounce of prevention and all that.

Boomchild wrote:

verslibre wrote:That's like saying people of all ages enjoy pornography. When's the last time you saw a septuagenarian go on a shooting spree?

No it does not. Your statement infers that only younger people are committing mass shootings. Which is obviously not true.

The vast majority. The guy in Vegas was 64. But most of the time, these sprees involve younger people: Cruz — 19; the Pulse shooter — 29; Virginia Tech shooter — 23; Aurora shooter — 25; Loughner, the guy who shot Giffords, was 22 at the time; and the Oikos Univ. shooter was only a bit older, at 43. And you can look up more if you feel like it.

Boomchild wrote:

verslibre wrote:Now you're just rambling. I'm not talking about a wholesale ban. I'm not talking about confiscation. I'm suggesting making the acquisition process a little more, say, tedious? It's too easy for douchebags to get guns. And the shop owner's going "Cool, a 19 y.o. bought an AR-15. And you know what they say, Merle? A sale isn't a sale until it's paid!" Then they flip the sign and everything's normal until a bunch of kids end up dead.

Judging by your flippant responses and weak suggestions on how to improve the process I can see that there is no point in discussing this with you.

Because you got jack. The only reasons I see you supporting gun culture in its current state is because you're a card-carrying Republican, and the NRA sent 20 or 30 million big ones to Trump's campaign, because he ran as a Republican.

And that's ALL you got.

The NRA is the left's boogey man and has nothing to do with any recent shootings. None of the shooters are on record as being members, but keep grasping at someone / something to blame. How about blame the people who did the shooting, as the evil people, with no regard for the sanctity of human life that they are? The NRA making campaign contributions didn't just start when Trump ran for POTUS. I've been a member since 79 and all the other members I know have respect for human life, as well as respect for firearm safety. They advocate for responsible gun ownership and proper firearm safety training, not for unhinged psychopaths going out and taking innocent lives. I can't believe how fucking stupid people are sometimes....

Crying about the NRA, or even eliminating the organization won't do shit. Find an actual solution.

steveo777 wrote:The NRA is the left's boogey man and has nothing to do with any recent shootings. None of the shooters are on record as being members, but keep grasping at someone / something to blame. How about blame the people who did the shooting, as the evil people, with no regard for the sanctity of human life that they are? The NRA making campaign contributions didn't just start when Trump ran for POTUS. I've been a member since 79 and all the other members I know have respect for human life, as well as respect for firearm safety. They advocate for responsible gun ownership and proper firearm safety training, not for unhinged psychopaths going out and taking innocent lives. I can't believe how fucking stupid people are sometimes....

Crying about the NRA, or even eliminating the organization won't do shit. Find an actual solution.

Who the hell said that? Who are you talking to? What are you ON?

OIC, you're a member. Well, of course you're being defensive and blowing smoke. Calm down. Nobody's coming for that stash you buried in your backyard. The fuggin' grenades are all film props, anyway.

My cousins both went to this school (long since graduated). Hits very close to home.

Something really has to be done, and we can't get of our own polarized ways on this shit. Mental illness, social media, the whiner generation, and parenting (or lack thereof) are real problems with most of these little dipshits. Fuck any liberals who disingenuously ignore or discount these factors. We need to address a lot of these problems at the root, before the gun is in the child dipshit's killing hands. I don't know how exactly we do that, but it has to be done. This is like the preventative care they've been preaching the last several years to try and control healthcare costs.

And as a pretty right-wing conservative, I have to say: to sit here and ignore the gun problem is just something I can't countenance any longer. I'm getting really tired of the knee-jerk republican "it's not the gun, it's the person" mantra. It's also disingenuous. We have to at least try to do something reasonable about the essentially unfettered access to guns. There's no reason AR-15s and other highly efficient killing machines need to be available for purchase by the general public. I'm still waiting for one gun enthusiast to give me one good reason why they would possibly need an AR-15 or similar weapon. Let's at least get those things off the market (or at least make them solely available for use by hobbyists in licensed gun ranges). At least then there might be fewer events where they're used, and even civilians on the scene (teachers, kids, school security, etc.) will have a fighting chance to escape or even tackle/stop some little prick with a mere pistol or a shotgun.

Let's also think about ways to deter gun owner parents, family members, etc. from being careless when they know they have a twisted little fuck-up living under their roof that they're too lazy or self-absorbed to help. Your Little Johnny Psychopath goes off and uses your legally purchased gun to shoot up a school? Absent proof you took reasonable steps to prevent the kid from access to the gun (a safe to which he doesn't know the code, storing them in another location the kid doesn't have access to or know about, etc.), you are automatically criminally liable for at least negligent homicide (if not manslaughter) and civilly liable for enhanced damages, attorney's fees, etc. I know many criminals will find a way to get a gun. But most of these kids are just downtrodden suburban losers -- hardly hardened criminals in the traditional sense. Many of them likely lack the resources and enterprising ability to go out and illicitly procure a gun the same way an inner city street tough kid might. This stuff is like the chemotherapy for the disease that's already manifested.

We have to figure this shit out. I'm a father of two young kids now, and it's just sickening to think that I'll be sending my kids to school wondering each day if today will be the day some loser psycho decides to shoot up the place. Unbelievable. Such a thought never even crossed my mind when I went to school.

Ehwmatt wrote:And as a pretty right-wing conservative, I have to say: to sit here and ignore the gun problem is just something I can't countenance any longer. I'm getting really tired of the knee-jerk republican "it's not the gun, it's the person" mantra. It's also disingenuous. We have to at least try to do something reasonable about the essentially unfettered access to guns. There's no reason AR-15s and other highly efficient killing machines need to be available for purchase by the general public. I'm still waiting for one gun enthusiast to give me one good reason why they would possibly need an AR-15 or similar weapon. Let's at least get those things off the market (or at least make them solely available for use by hobbyists in licensed gun ranges). At least then there might be fewer events where they're used, and even civilians on the scene (teachers, kids, school security, etc.) will have a fighting chance to escape or even tackle/stop some little prick with a mere pistol or a shotgun.

Bingo.

Ehwmatt wrote:Unbelievable. Such a thought never even crossed my mind when I went to school.

The AR15 came on to the civilian market in 1964, so it’s funny how you try to blame the rifle and lack of regulations while they were even much less regulated before the 1968 Gun Control Act and 1994 Brady Bill and then end your statement saying that it was never something you had to worry about while going to school. Even though AR15s and similar firearms were every bit as readily available as they are now. So maybe it’s time for you to start pointing the finger at something else.

For cryin' out loud, stop worrying about shit before 1968 or 1994 and think about TODAY.

Boomchild wrote:

I notice that in this document it only references "shooter" and not "shooters". Obviously in a perfect scenario one guy could run into a completely unknown situation and only have to engage "a" shooter with a completely successful outcome. The security guy in this school shooting, had he just run into this unknown situation, I'm pretty sure he'd a just ended up as another casualty. Not that he's untrained or has flaws, but because he would have most likely gotten into a situation where the shooter had the tremendous advantage over him because of the "unknown" factor.

Sort of like how terrorists used to have great casualty success by setting up a secondary explosive device to detonate minutes after and in close proximity to the primary explosive detonation. The primary explosive would detonate, all the hero's would rush in and the secondary explosive would detonate taking out most, if not all of them. And it is because of this terrorist tactic, the response protocol to such situations has changed.

The only people who should be expected to immediately confront an active shooter(s) with half a chance at success are those who are face to face with them from the very beginning of the assault. In this case that would be the coaches and teachers who were within the structure where the shooter was and commenced to shooting. Maybe had they had a weapon, they could have had at least a half a chance at stopping him.

I'm sure he means shooter (singular) and shooters (plural), even if he did not explicitly type it up on his hastily-composed letter. The emphasis is clearly on "do our duty."

But carry on with your semantically-driven gobbledygook, JB.

verslibre wrote:For cryin' out loud, stop worrying about shit before 1968 or 1994 and think about TODAY.

The AR15 has been commercially available since 1964. It was easier to legally obtain from 1964 to 1968 than it is today. It became harder to buy in 1968 and then even harder to buy in 1994. That’s the fact of the matter. Sorry you don’t like facts. Where were all the school shootings then? Ehwmatt even admitted that getting shot at school was something he never really worried about despite the fact that the AR15 was just as readily available, if not more readily available, than it is today. But mass school shootings didn’t even really become a thing until 1999. So the culprit isn’t firearms or the AR15 in particular. Why didn’t mass school shootings become a regular occurrence in 1964 if the availability of the AR15 is to blame?

verslibre wrote:I'm sure he means shooter (singular) and shooters (plural), even if he did not explicitly type it up on his hastily-composed letter. The emphasis is clearly on "do our duty."

But carry on with your semantically-driven gobbledygook, JB.

Gobbledygook? Yeah, that would be what you call it when you put your bf cauck in your mouth. Taken it all the way to the balls, ey?

JBlake wrote:

verslibre wrote:I'm sure he means shooter (singular) and shooters (plural), even if he did not explicitly type it up on his hastily-composed letter. The emphasis is clearly on "do our duty."

But carry on with your semantically-driven gobbledygook, JB.

Gobbledygook? Yeah, that would be what you call it when you put your bf cauck in your mouth. Taken it all the way to the balls, ey?

*applause*

You are a Complete. Fucking. Idiot. Thanks for proving that by resorting to homosexual imagery and THEN misspelling cock.

Thanks for the lolz!

verslibre wrote:

JBlake wrote:

verslibre wrote:I'm sure he means shooter (singular) and shooters (plural), even if he did not explicitly type it up on his hastily-composed letter. The emphasis is clearly on "do our duty."

But carry on with your semantically-driven gobbledygook, JB.

Gobbledygook? Yeah, that would be what you call it when you put your bf cauck in your mouth. Taken it all the way to the balls, ey?

*applause*

You are a Complete. Fucking. Idiot. Thanks for proving that by resorting to homosexual imagery and THEN misspelling cock.

Thanks for the lolz!

You're quite welcome. However, in order for me to be making what you regard as homosexual imagery, I'd of had to know that you're a guy, which I do not know.

And BTW. I spelled it that way intentionally, I can also spell it cack. Or how's about sakmadac!

Looks like you enjoy "cock" quite a bit, JB.

Sing it with me now:

Whoaaa-ohhhh!! Here JBlake comes! He's a manHOLEeater!