Florida High School Shooting

[mdram]

Uhmm, a really large percentage of domestic abusers are never prosecuted, meaning the law wouldn't apply. Regardless, you said you opposed gun laws because it would assist people in protecting themselves from abusive partners. Now that you know lax gun laws actually INCREASE the likelihood of being killed by your partner have you changed your mind and come over to my side? If not, why?

again, talk to carol browne

 

[woolfe9998]

I "picked" that year because it was the graphic I found using a google search, not because of some nefarious reason of wanting to show the lowest possible number. If someone wants to search for it, I'll gladly amend my post to reflect the highest year ever, that won't alter my larger point as you said.

Here's a different graphic if someone finds it helpful; doesn't show the contrast between non-mass shooting homicides and mass shooting ones like the previous graphic did but gives the apple-apple figures.

The worst year ever was last year. I amended my prior post to show that there has been a sharply upward trend in the past 3 years. That's what is most concerning at the moment. If we're lucky, it will dip back down and just be a temporary statistical anomaly.

 

[glenn1]

Uhmm, a really large percentage of domestic abusers are never prosecuted, meaning the law wouldn't apply. Regardless, you said you opposed gun laws because it would assist people in protecting themselves from abusive partners. Now that you know lax gun laws actually INCREASE the likelihood of being killed by your partner have you changed your mind and come over to my side? If not, why?

This is why I seldom bother to argue with you anymore, you attempt to turn everything into a "heads I win tails you lose" argument. So now you're saying the existing gun laws that you supported aren't effective "because reasons" and yet the larger pile of laws you want to pass somehow will be effective despite the "because reasons" still being in effect? At what point do you just admit your incompetence on this topic?

 

[IJTSSG]

Thanks for your input. I placed it in the circular file for review

Thanks for the unnecessary confirmation of just how fucking stupid you really are. Loser.

 

[Mai72]

Mass shooting deaths aren't that high to begin with and get outsized attention for the same reason deaths via plane crash get outsized attention versus death by the exponentially more common car crash. Gun control to address mass shootings is most definitely a case of "don't let a crisis go to waste."

You people can rationalize anything.

What's next? Bear attacks vs gun shootings? Or, what about accidentally drowning in a doggie bowl vs gun deaths. Yea, that should do it.

So what if mass shootings happen less freqent. They shouldn't happen AT ALL. ZERO. Even one is bad enough.

 

[fskimospy]

This is why I seldom bother to argue with you anymore, you attempt to turn everything into a "heads I win tails you lose" argument.

Have you considered that you often argue irrationally? You brought up protection from domestic violence as support for your position. In reality, domestic violence is often perpetrated with guns, which runs directly contrary to your point. If we're being logical here shouldn't that make you change your position?

So now you're saying the existing gun laws that you supported aren't effective "because reasons" and yet the larger pile of laws you want to pass somehow will be effective despite the "because reasons" still being in effect? At what point do you just admit your incompetence on this topic?

Of course existing gun laws aren't as effective as they could be, we've discussed this many times before. The patchwork nature of them between states/municipalities makes it very easy to avoid them, hence the need for national legislation as I've said many times. This is very similar to the whole 'gun laws don't work because guns are illegal in Chicago' argument, which is a transparently stupid one to make.

So yes, of course we can craft effective gun laws. We see evidence of that all over the world. Arguing otherwise is silliness.

 

[Thebobo]

But what if you had a gun, and no bear spray? Will the bear is tearing you apart would you be thinking, "if only it was legal to use my gun..." or would you save your life?

https://www.outsideonline.com/1899301/shoot-or-spray-best-way-stop-charging-bear

 

[MomentsofSanity]

You people can rationalize anything.

What's next? Bear attacks vs gun shootings? Or, what about accidentally drowning in a doggie bowl vs gun deaths. Yea, that should do it.

So what if mass shootings happen less freqent. They shouldn't happen AT ALL. ZERO. Even one is bad enough.

Read back a couple pages. Bear attacks has been covered...

 

[mdram]

You people can rationalize anything.

What's next? Bear attacks vs gun shootings? Or, what about accidentally drowning in a doggie bowl vs gun deaths. Yea, that should do it.

So what if mass shootings happen less freqent. They shouldn't happen AT ALL. ZERO. Even one is bad enough.

so if something saves one life its acceptable?

great. concealed carry for everyone!

 

[SlowSpyder]

https://www.outsideonline.com/1899301/shoot-or-spray-best-way-stop-charging-bear

I'm not arguing what is better way to stop a bear. I'm arguing if you had a gun, and a bear was about to rip you apart, would you use your gun if it was the difference between life or death? I cannot see a court prosecuting someone in that circumstance. Your reluctance to answer is good enough for me, we can drop it, everyone knows what would happen in that scenario in reality.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I'm not arguing what is better way to stop a bear. I'm arguing if you had a gun, and a bear was about to rip you apart, would you use your gun if it was the difference between life or death? I cannot see a court prosecuting someone in that circumstance. Your reluctance to answer is good enough for me, we can drop it, everyone knows what would happen in that scenario in reality.

The legality of it is up in the air, I think.
Here's one from Denali where the person wasn't prosecuted:
https://www.nationalparkstraveler.o...grizzly-denali-national-park-and-preserve6320
And from yellowstone where they were:
http://missoulian.com/news/state-an...cle_88a8f17c-6d3a-11df-92ae-001cc4c002e0.html

Personally, in trial by Jury, I'd never vote to prosecute, to the point of hung jury, as long as I believed that it was indeed personal defense and not the person seeking a bear to kill. I personally feel that a person has a right to defend themselves in a life threatening situation, regardless of whatever rules mankind constructs around them. Right to live is the numero uno right we have as free-thinking organisms, followed shortly by right of choice.

 

[Kaido]

Madmen with the element of surprise over their innocent victims do not need guns to cause mass carnage.

Oh, for sure. Just look at the problems with mass stabbings in Asian countries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagamihara_stabbings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonhyeon-dong_massacre

The problem in America is two-fold:

1. People go crazy & kill people (which happens everywhere around the world)

2. Semi-automatic weapons are often used & make it easier to kill more people faster. Case in point, the shooter in Florida used a semi-automatic AR-15 to kill 17 people in 3 minutes:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/g00/n...a-school-shooting-suspect-20180215-story.html

Which, of course, can be argued either way:

https://reason.com/blog/2018/02/15/an-assault-weapon-ban-wont-stop-mass-sho

What it boils down to is that it's not so much a matter of getting rid of shootings 100% (because that's impossible), as much as it is attempting to reduce the issue, because:

1. We need to take action to solve our problem of mass school shootings

2. We can't stop people from making bad decisions

3. We can reduce how often it happens & also reduce the number of people who get shot when it does happen, which is far better than doing nothing

I bring up this example all the time, but in high school, I did my senior thesis on car safety. I was shocked to learn that we kill over 30,000 people a year EVERY YEAR in America in car accidents. That's INSANE! That's more than recent wars! While we can't solve that particular problem 100% (yet), we can introduce preventative measures over time, such as seatbelts, airbags, ABS, automatic emergency braking, OnStar help systems, etc., to manage that number. So it's more of an issue of managing it as best we can vs. completely eliminating it, due to realistic circumstances.

For historical reference, Australia not only banned the bulk of semi-automatic guns, but also did a mandatory buy-back, and they have not had a mass shooting using those types of weapons in over 20 years. The worst one I've seen in that country, according to Wikipedia, was where a guy with a shotgun killed 5 people. So again, looking at it from a realistic perspective: people are going to do bad things, and we cannot stop 100% of those things, but we can take action to reduce how bad things are when they do happen, because they will continue to happen, and we are pretty stupid if we take no action to work on resolving our problems.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

https://www.outsideonline.com/1899301/shoot-or-spray-best-way-stop-charging-bear

Carry a polearm, plant firmly with foot. As the critter begins to impale itself, roll left or right unsheathing your katana and make a slicing cut to the carotid. Finish with mace.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Thanks for the unnecessary confirmation of just how fucking stupid you really are. Loser.

Aww, you mad?

 

[Gryz]

so if something saves one life its acceptable?

In the last 50 years, more than 1.5 million Americans have died because of guns.
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/l...illed-guns-1968-all-u-s-wars-combined-n807156

I'm gonna make a wild guess here.
In the next 50 years, several millions Americans will die because of guns. (Two million ? Three ? More ?).
You and all the other gun-loving nutcases are partially responsible.

But you don't give a fuck.
We know.
It's a big sacrifice, for all those people to die.
But it's a sacrifice you are willing to make.
We know.

 

[mdram]

In the last 50 years, more than 1.5 million Americans have died because of guns.
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/l...illed-guns-1968-all-u-s-wars-combined-n807156

I'm gonna make a wild guess here.
In the next 50 years, several millions Americans will die because of guns. (Two million ? Three ? More ?).
You and all the other gun-loving nutcases are partially responsible.

But you don't give a fuck.
We know.
It's a big sacrifice, for all those people to die.
But it's a sacrifice you are willing to make.
We know.

and research show that guns are used over 1.5 million times a year in self defense
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

 

[brandonbull]

In the last 50 years, more than 1.5 million Americans have died because of guns.
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/l...illed-guns-1968-all-u-s-wars-combined-n807156

I'm gonna make a wild guess here.
In the next 50 years, several millions Americans will die because of guns. (Two million ? Three ? More ?).
You and all the other gun-loving nutcases are partially responsible.

But you don't give a fuck.
We know.
It's a big sacrifice, for all those people to die.
But it's a sacrifice you are willing to make.
We know.

Could you be a little more misleading with your stats? How many of those 1.5M were unjustified homicides?

 

[Brainonska511]

I'm not arguing what is better way to stop a bear. I'm arguing if you had a gun, and a bear was about to rip you apart, would you use your gun if it was the difference between life or death? I cannot see a court prosecuting someone in that circumstance. Your reluctance to answer is good enough for me, we can drop it, everyone knows what would happen in that scenario in reality.

A bear attacking you is incredibly unlikely, especially unprovoked. And if you're hiking through areas known to harbor bears, you'd have to be a huge idiot to not carry bear spray, which is known to be highly effective at deterring bears if they start to approach you.

People have a right to defend themselves if they are an attacked by an animal, but they should also take some personal responsibility if they're going hiking and not just rely on their gun.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

and research show that guns are used over 1.5 million times a year in self defense
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

You know that was completely discredited right?

 

[zerocool84]

You don't think that if people were bombarded with constant images of people being destroyed by pressure cooker bombs there wouldn't be more pressure cooker bomb attacks? Violence in general is common place and the increasing number of people that are on the borderline of mental stability takes that in a gets ideas about the romanticized violence.

So then you should be for Healthcare for everyone so we can catch these mental illnesses early to stop this type of stuff from happening.

 

[Capt Caveman]

sure you do. camping? fishing? hiking?
plenty of wild animal attacks

LMAO!! I'm out hiking almost every weekend. Never felt the need for a gun. You are a snow flake.

 

[mdram]

So then you should be for Healthcare for everyone so we can catch these mental illnesses early to stop this type of stuff from happening.

but its a law that everyone must have healthcare
you mean people dont follow the law?

 

[Younigue]

Carry a polearm, plant firmly with foot. As the critter begins to impale itself, roll left or right unsheathing your katana and make a slicing cut to the carotid. Finish with mace.

And the mace is NOT overkill!

 

[Mai72]

A school should be safe.

A forest with possible bears, ehh.. Not so much.

School= caring people, books, learning.
Forest= beautiful scenery, animals both beautiful and scary. Possibly dangerous.

 

[Thebobo]

A bear attacking you is incredibly unlikely, especially unprovoked. And if you're hiking through areas known to harbor bears, you'd have to be a huge idiot to not carry bear spray, which is known to be highly effective at deterring bears if they start to approach you.

People have a right to defend themselves if they are an attacked by an animal, but they should also take some personal responsibility if they're going hiking and not just rely on their gun.

Exactly and you are choosing to go into their environment. You chose to play by their rules. That's what I enjoyed about it, using your skills not to have a bear encounter. Read the true story night of the grizzlies.