Jump to content
Radio Shack Killa

God save us....

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, HFrog1999 said:

 

Yep, it’s disgusting and shameful.

 

I just joined the NRA for the first time.  If you’re not a member you should as well.

 

The only people responsible for that tragedy are the murderer and the officials who were aware of the threat and refused to stop it.

 

 

http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/20/parkland-survivor-media-pushing-gun-control/

 

 

 

 

17 minutes ago, HFrog1999 said:

 

I’m sorry, but you’re a sick POS if you think a massacre is an opportunity to score political points and donations!  I can’t comprehend the level of HATE in the hearts of people who exploit tragedy to try and take the human right of self defense from people!

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, crunch said:

Political agenda, exploitation and HATE are occurring on both sides of the gun control debate.  

Sadly, this is true. 

 

Just as the NRA has a right to advocate for their agenda, so do the anti-gun groups. 

 

They both look awful right now, though. Time always allows the benefit of perspective. Both exploiting kids and hunkering down for 2nd amendment rights are in really bad taste at the moment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, arming people at schools is a band-aid. It doesn’t cure anything. This particular shooting could easily have been prevented if just one or two indicators hadn’t been ignored by the adults empowered to prevent it. 

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, crunch said:

I agree, we should not arm teachers.  I also don't like the idea of an armed guard at every school, every entrance.  Why?  Ineffective.  There is a weakness at some point in the schedule, or one can be manufactured.  Throwing more guns into the mix just creates a gun culture I am not totally comfortable with. I do however, support a citizens right to defend his or her self and family, by whatever means necessary.  And I also support the right of Americans to have, collect and lawfully use firearms.  

 

Many schools are already protected with armed police.  This school was supposed to have an armed officer.

 

Something went wrong.  The killer should’ve never made it on campus.  Security measures should be improved.

 

This shouldn’t be about politics.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Luke Chisolm said:

In my opinion, arming people at schools is a band-aid. It doesn’t cure anything. This particular shooting could easily have been prevented if just one or two indicators hadn’t been ignored by the adults empowered to prevent it. 

 

There are a lot of school shootings that are prevented due to the vigilance of parents, law enforcement, and students.

 

This was a failure of certain people.

 

It’s not necessarily an indictment of every school or our nation at large.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Luke Chisolm said:

In my opinion, arming people at schools is a band-aid. It doesn’t cure anything. This particular shooting could easily have been prevented if just one or two indicators hadn’t been ignored by the adults empowered to prevent it. 

 

You're assuming there were, in fact, any adults empowered to prevent it. This is a large assumption given the restrictions in the present laws.

 

Many have asserted he should have been arrested/involuntarily committed. I think if you ask police you will find that they would be very leery of saying they could have arrested him. What I have seen doesn't seem all that actionable...mostly general statements. Not specific threats against specific individuals/property(?) as would be required to swear out an arrest warrant. 

 

Same with involuntary commitment. Cops cannot make that determination very much under present laws most places. And think about it: Do you REALLY want to give cops the ability to summarily haul you involuntarily into a mental hospital and summarily confiscate your guns because you are in a rage over something? I think most would take a bit of a breath before agreeing to that. And you might notice the large cuts in the most recent federal budget proposed a couple of days ago to mental health research and services. That will decrease not increase beds.

 

My suggestion is to look for elsewhere in the system to try to affect things. That would be earlier in the process of acquisition and redefining what can be acquired.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, HFrog1999 said:

 

Many schools are already protected with armed police.  This school was supposed to have an armed officer.

 

Something went wrong.  The killer should’ve never made it on campus.  Security measures should be improved.

 

This shouldn’t be about politics.  

The campus is over 3000 students. One armed officer can do nothing to really secure a campus that size.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, HFrog1999 said:

They are children that should be allowed to morn!  

How do you know this isn't their way to mourn their friends? I can't think of a better way, frankly.

 

There have been many pieces written already to refute the notion that these kids are being manipulated by anyone. Try snopes.com for some fact checking. Or the NYTimes. Or the WSJ. Or the Christian Science Monitor. Many, many traditionally unbiased sources have done the work to dig deeper than a sound bite or a click bait headline.

 

Meanwhile, 14 kids and three adults who died because someone who had no need to buy a semi-automatic weapon was able to get one with no problem are being laid to rest.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, PurpleDawg said:

How do you know this isn't their way to mourn their friends? I can't think of a better way, frankly.

 

There have been many pieces written already to refute the notion that these kids are being manipulated by anyone. Try snopes.com for some fact checking. Or the NYTimes. Or the WSJ. Or the Christian Science Monitor. Many, many traditionally unbiased sources have done the work to dig deeper than a sound bite or a click bait headline.

 

Meanwhile, 14 kids and three adults who died because someone who had no need to buy a semi-automatic weapon was able to get one with no problem are being laid to rest.

 

Again, just because you experience a traumatic event, that does not make you an expert on policy regarding the issue. The media giving credence to these kids message as a legitimate form of policy prescription is ridiculous. Basing policy off of raw emotion is dangerous and just not good in practice. 

 

Btw, snopes and NYT are definitely biased.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SuperToad said:

 

Again, just because you experience a traumatic event, that does not make you an expert on policy regarding the issue. The media giving credence to these kids message as a legitimate form of policy prescription is ridiculous. Basing policy off of raw emotion is dangerous and just not good in practice. 

 

Drunk driving legislation which appears to have affected rates was largely driven by the very same sort of thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, NewfoundlandFreeFrog said:

 

Drunk driving legislation which appears to have affected rated was largely driven by the very same sort of thing.

 

And in the occurrences of drunk driving, were the victims/family of victims blaming the driver, or the vehicle for deaths?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SuperToad said:

 

And in the occurrences of drunk driving, were the victims/family of victims blaming the driver or the car for deaths?

 

 

 

Both, usually. That's their message.

 

But the point is they feel quite able to suggest policy because of tragedy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NewfoundlandFreeFrog said:

 

Both, usually. That's their message.

 

Thats not true and you know it.

 

Does the media trot out drunk driving victims in front of cameras calling for a ban on all or some types of vehicles?  Do they make car dealerships and car manufactures out to be some sort of domestic terror group?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, SuperToad said:

Btw, snopes and NYT are definitely biased.

Yeah, I just saw that about snopes in the Daily Caller.

 

The NYT is our nation's newspaper of record. Too bad for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, SuperToad said:

 

Thats not true and you know it.

 

Does the media trot out drunk driving victims in front of cameras calling for a ban on all or some types of vehicles?  Do they make car dealerships and car manufactures out to be some sort of domestic terror group?

It is their point: They say a car is too dangerous a machine for a drunk to drive. So we need to do as much as possible to reduce access of those machine to drunks. And that access has been the point of most of their policy.

 

But you're missing the point: What I'm speaking to is your point that those who are affected by tragedy are not the ones qualified to make relevant policy. Not the relevant policies themselves. Relevant policies don't need to be exactly the same in every area. Though I really think access is important in both these issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, crunch said:

Ridiculous.  If you really believe that, you are out of touch with reality.  

 

And you're out of touch with the point: Those who have been affected by something are often the best qualified to actually make change not the worst as was originally stated.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, SuperToad said:

Basing policy off of raw emotion is dangerous and just not good in practice. 

I do agree with this opinion, btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NewfoundlandFreeFrog said:

It is their point: They say a car is too dangerous a machine for a drunk to drive. So we need to do as much as possible to reduce access of those machine to drunks. 

 

But you're missing the point: What I'm speaking to is your point that those who are affected by tragedy are not the ones qualified to make relevant policy. Not the relevant policies themselves. Relevant policies don't need to be exactly the same in every area.

 

No one wants drunk drivers on the roads whether they are personally effected or not. No one wants deranged people shooting up schools, whether they are personally effected or not. 

 

The degree to which you are emotionally effected does not dictate the degree to which your solution to the problem is correct or effective.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, crunch said:

No, what was originally stated is that just because you experience a traumatic event does not make you an expert on policy or prescription.  The media acting like these kids have the answers is a joke.  They have every right to make their points.  But, they are not experts.  It is a manipulation.  

And I'm stating that MADD and related groups are a very good counterexample. And in another parallel MADD was often originally attacked on much these same lines and still is today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, crunch said:

So, in your view the NRA should be in position to suggest relevant policy, because their membership would be the most affected?  Like MADD?  

No. I'm not sure what reality you're in here. 

 

Anyway, leave me alone...watching the hockey game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, crunch said:

Ok.  So when it doesn't jibe with your political view, the emotional, affected group is not relevant.  Got it.  

The NRA would be the restaurant/bar associations who fought MADD originally, not MADD. I have no idea where you're coming from. It makes no sense to me.

 

Another Cdn goal even with the unfair ref!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, NewfoundlandFreeFrog said:

 

You're assuming there were, in fact, any adults empowered to prevent it. This is a large assumption given the restrictions in the present laws.

 

Many have asserted he should have been arrested/involuntarily committed. I think if you ask police you will find that they would be very leery of saying they could have arrested him. What I have seen doesn't seem all that actionable, mostly general statements. Not specific threats against specific individuals/property as would be required to swear out an arrest warrant. 

 

Same with involuntary commitment. Cops cannot make that determination very much under present laws most places. And think about it: Do you REALLY want to give cops the ability to summarily haul you into a mental hospital and summarily confiscate your guns because you are in a rage over something? I think most would take a bit of a breath before agreeing to that. 

 

My suggestion is to look for elsewhere in the system to try to affect things. That would be earlier in the process of acquisition.

I disagree. He had quite a history of violence, theft, gun history and outright strange behavior that a cursory investigation could have revealed to be highly alarming and worthy of incarceration. 

 

The media investigated and discovered it in a couple of days — I’m sure our law enforcement could have done it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Luke Chisolm said:

I disagree. He had quite a history of violence, theft, gun history and outright strange behavior that a cursory investigation could have revealed to be highly alarming and worthy of incarceration. 

 

The media investigated and discovered it in a couple of days — I’m sure our law enforcement could have done it. 

 

 

"Highly alarming"? Absolutely. "Worthy of incarceration?" Maybe. Or maybe not. The local police repeatedly dealing with him did not do so, certainly. They need to act within the laws as they stand and not as anyone in any media would have it. 

 

Summary involuntary incarceration/confiscation warrants are one suggested solution which borders on what you are proposing. I think a couple of states are beginning to experiment with this idea. My own personal opinion here is that the constitutional and potential government overreach problems with that approach FAR outweigh the much more minor problems of reducing easy access to high lethality. I simply am VERY leery of giving the police that much power. That's the real slippery slope to my mind.  Reducing access to high lethality seems much more reasonable in my humble opinion. There needs to be a balance of rights, I agree, but it's also important to figure out which rights are best to balance. 

 

While mental illness is a convenient handle to grab, I think some of the groups grabbing it need to be extremely thoughtful about it. It is fraught with possibilities of abuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NewfoundlandFreeFrog said:

 

"Worthy of incarceration?" Maybe. Yet the local police repeatedly dealing with him did not do so. They need to act within the laws as they stand and not as anyone in any media would have it. 

 

Summary involuntary incarceration/confiscation warrants are one suggested solution which borders on what you are proposing. I think a couple of states are beginning to experiment with this idea. My own personal opinion here is that the constitutional and potential government overreach problems with that approach FAR outweigh the much more minor problems of reducing easy access to high lethality. I simply am VERY leery of giving the police that much power. That's the real slippery slope to my mind.  Reducing access to high lethality seems much more reasonable in my humble opinion. There needs to be a balance of rights, I agree, but it's also important to figure out which rights are best to balance. 

 

While mental illness is a convenient handle to grab, I think some of the groups grabbing it need to be extremely thoughtful about it. It is fraught with possibilities of abuse.

Law enforcement didn’t connect all the dots. Had they done that, this kid would have likely been in a juvenile facility. It only took the media a couple of days. Law enforcement failed.  Just my opinion. Feel free to continue to disagree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Luke Chisolm said:

Law enforcement didn’t connect all the dots. Had they done that, this kid would have likely been in a juvenile facility. It only took the media a couple of days. Law enforcement failed.  Just my opinion. Feel free to continue to disagree. 

 

Can't say I disagree with the sentiment. Can say he does not qualify as a juvenile under Florida law as best I understand it. He's an adult with adult rights and privileges. Any incarceration/detention solution you apply to him applies to all adults.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...