Florida High School Shooting

[[DHT]Osiris]

The standard isn't the hurdle, it's the due process rights that even the mentally ill are still entitled to. You could expedite the removal of guns from the mentally ill given more resources and money but it's never going to be as quick as would be required to make mass shootings by the insane anything but a non-zero number. The question becomes one of where the appropriate trade-off between the rights of the potentially mentally ill and those of society at large. Remember as well it's not as simple as "act crazy and we'll take away your guns," being judged mentally incapable means considerable adverse changes for those so found, everything from involuntary forced institutionalization to loss of voting rights and many other rights besides.

Yeah I'm aware of that. You also can never reach that zero number. If I'm thinking in fantasy land, even in Minority Report where precogs were 'aware' of everything that was going to happen, murders still took place. Back in reality, there'll always be some tradeoff because nobody wants a damn cyborg cop following them around ensuring they do only what they are expressly permitted to via RL-NTFS permissions.

To add to that, you often don't know that someone's at this level (this one was a close exception) until after the fact. If we assumed every broody, isolated, bullied teenager was a potential rampage waiting to happen, half the damn kids (or more) growing up would be under constant psych evals, myself included.

Is removal of high-cap semi-auto weapons an acceptable tradeoff for the cost of human lives? Probably, I don't know. I still fear for the potential for abuse for such a thing, but I'm just one voice in a chorus.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Just another day in the U.S. education system...

 

[Jaskalas]

i saw the damage a gun could do when hunting.

take away the education and training, make things mysterious, and kids get curious
then bad things happen

This killer was familiar and proficient with his gun. He reveled in the damage it would do.
Most of these killers fall outside your notion of normal behavior and expected outcomes.

 

[fskimospy]

Guns are used 100,000-200,000 times in self defense per year? That's that many lives potentially saved. To me this just reinforces how much good guns do for society, despite the press'es glorification and magnification every time they are used for evil intent.

I'm sure it does, because you're emotionally invested and irrational about this issue. All research clearly shows that guns are used far, far more often to threaten lives and commit crimes than they are used defensively. It's not even close.

As we've already established empirically in other threads, guns are a net negative for the personal safety of their owners.

 

[Malditor]

We've probably had as many guns and gun owners for decades *statistically speaking since population has grown over the years*, yet these events are relatively recent occurrences. As many people have mention, a lot of us grew up with shotguns and rifles being in the trucks/cars of students and faculty without any incidents of these attacks. That being the case, why is it that guns themselves have become the scapegoat for these tragedies? Instead of demonizing the device used, and/or those who own them, we should be focusing on better response to the tips and clues that are inevitably found after these things happen. How many times has an internet post indicating intent, or news that the authorities were tipped off about a possible issue from someone, only to find that it wasn't properly followed up or at all? How about the fact that it's possible that knowing that the attack will get so much attention is a possible reason they occur? These people WANT the attention and notoriety that comes from their actions.

 

[mdram]

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-statement-on-the-shooting-in-parkland-florida

February 16, 2018
FBI Statement on the Shooting in Parkland, Florida
On January 5, 2018, a person close to Nikolas Cruz contacted the FBI’s Public Access Line (PAL) tipline to report concerns about him. The caller provided information about Cruz’s gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting.

Under established protocols, the information provided by the caller should have been assessed as a potential threat to life. The information then should have been forwarded to the FBI Miami Field Office, where appropriate investigative steps would have been taken.

We have determined that these protocols were not followed for the information received by the PAL on January 5. The information was not provided to the Miami Field Office, and no further investigation was conducted at that time.

FBI Director Christopher Wray said:

“We are still investigating the facts. I am committed to getting to the bottom of what happened in this particular matter, as well as reviewing our processes for responding to information that we receive from the public. It’s up to all Americans to be vigilant, and when members of the public contact us with concerns, we must act properly and quickly.

“We have spoken with victims and families, and deeply regret the additional pain this causes all those affected by this horrific tragedy. All of the men and women of the FBI are dedicated to keeping the American people safe, and are relentlessly committed to improving all that we do and how we do it.”

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

We've probably had as many guns and gun owners for decades *statistically speaking since population has grown over the years*, yet these events are relatively recent occurrences. As many people have mention, a lot of us grew up with shotguns and rifles being in the trucks/cars of students and faculty without any incidents of these attacks. That being the case, why is it that guns themselves have become the scapegoat for these tragedies? Instead of demonizing the device used, and/or those who own them, we should be focusing on better response to the tips and clues that are inevitably found after these things happen. How many times has an internet post indicating intent, or news that the authorities were tipped off about a possible issue from someone, only to find that it wasn't properly followed up or at all? How about the fact that it's possible that knowing that the attack will get so much attention is a possible reason they occur? These people WANT the attention and notoriety that comes from their actions.

'Cuz people want action now (I don't blame them) and scooping up the tool is a lot easier and quicker than doing a multi-decade mental health reform program. In addition, the potential benefit of immediate removal of said tools is outweighing the potential loss of personal rights down the road for them. This is the sticking point that most 2A advocates have vs those calling for the removal/restriction of specific weapons/weapon classifications.

 

[glenn1]

Is removal of high-cap semi-auto weapons an acceptable tradeoff for the cost of human lives? Probably, I don't know. I still fear for the potential for abuse for such a thing, but I'm just one voice in a chorus.

Depends on what your success criteria for "acceptable" are. We deal with risks in different ways all the time (avoid, transfer, mitigate, accept) and firearms shouldn't be exempt. We accept the risk of cars capable of driving way faster than any legal speed limits even though one possible outcome of that is our own death in return for very little potential benefit to us. Yet the same people who want to use the utilitarian argument for gun control aren't consistently applying their own standards because firearms are a product they don't personally feel they gain a benefit from, thus they want to go straight avoid or transfer (from guns to explosives or other means) because they wouldn't feel adversely impacted if guns are banned. It's easy to want to ban something you won't personally gain a benefit from (see abortion).

 

[nOOky]

Yeah I'm aware of that. You also can never reach that zero number. If I'm thinking in fantasy land, even in Minority Report where precogs were 'aware' of everything that was going to happen, murders still took place. Back in reality, there'll always be some tradeoff because nobody wants a damn cyborg cop following them around ensuring they do only what they are expressly permitted to via RL-NTFS permissions.

To add to that, you often don't know that someone's at this level (this one was a close exception) until after the fact. If we assumed every broody, isolated, bullied teenager was a potential rampage waiting to happen, half the damn kids (or more) growing up would be under constant psych evals, myself included.

Is removal of high-cap semi-auto weapons an acceptable tradeoff for the cost of human lives? Probably, I don't know. I still fear for the potential for abuse for such a thing, but I'm just one voice in a chorus.

I'd be all for a ban of assault-style rifles with high cap magazines. We could send our thoughts and prayers to those poor souls that lost their guns.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Depends on what your success criteria for "acceptable" are. We deal with risks in different ways all the time (avoid, transfer, mitigate, accept) and firearms shouldn't be exempt. We accept the risk of cars capable of driving way faster than any legal speed limits even though one possible outcome of that is our own death in return for very little potential benefit to us. Yet the same people who want to use the utilitarian argument for gun control aren't consistently applying their own standards because firearms are a product they don't personally feel they gain a benefit from, thus they want to go straight avoid or transfer (from guns to explosives or other means) because they wouldn't feel adversely impacted if guns are banned. It's easy to want to ban something you won't personally gain a benefit from (see abortion).

Yeah, and I feel the same way. I always feel drawn to go back to the argument of, if this discussion is regarding pure loss of human life, there's better places to put our efforts. If it's not, it's focusing on a singular thing that doesn't affect you, therefore you have no skin in the game... but it must be admitted that said discussion is not about loss of human life else we wouldn't be focusing on a statistical outlier.

I get a lot of flak for that.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Smoke cigarettes?? Nope. Even if they were $.50/pack, like when I was a kid and many kids my age smoked, I wouldn't smoke them. Now a nice cigar is a totally different matter. But even there, a cigar is an occasional treat. Even if they were cheaper, I doubt I'd indulge more often.

This is just for me, of course; I can't say what other's choices may be. But I'm sure for some, your point is very valid.

But most of the reason for their being expensive is tax (here, taxes make up 80% of the price). So you appear to be saying that government regulation is actually part of the reason why you don't smoke.

 

[mdram]

I'd be all for a ban of assault-style rifles with high cap magazines. We could send our thoughts and prayers to those poor souls that lost their guns.

that word style.
so its all about looks?

 

[jackstar7]

Guns are used 100,000-200,000 times in self defense per year? That's that many lives potentially saved. To me this just reinforces how much good guns do for society, despite the press'es glorification and magnification every time they are used for evil intent.

That's called confirmation bias.

 

[glenn1]

That's called confirmation bias.

Like the old joke about how long a minute is depends on which side of the bathroom door you're on, whether it's confirmation bias or not probably has a great deal to do with whether you're one of those 100-200K people who were defending themselves or someone who's looking at a mass shooting and trying to think of ways to avoid the next one.

 

[Malditor]

'Cuz people want action now (I don't blame them) and scooping up the tool is a lot easier and quicker than doing a multi-decade mental health reform program. In addition, the potential benefit of immediate removal of said tools is outweighing the potential loss of personal rights down the road for them. This is the sticking point that most 2A advocates have vs those calling for the removal/restriction of specific weapons/weapon classifications.

Knee jerk reactions are rarely the right ones though, and if you can't resolve the root cause of an issue it's just going to reoccur in a different manner. I wish people would just understand that these shootings are a symptom of some deeper rooted issue that would not be solved with new gun restrictions. That they can't point at what another country has done and say "look it works" simply because we are not that country.

 

[Dulanic]

Why is the next step never taken separate the mentally ill from guns? This guy was already a known threat he should have not been allowed to purchase an AR-15.

2A is not absolute. Why should a mentally deranged person or one prone to violence be allowed to own a gun?

I'm surprised we're still awaiting we don't know the facts line or he could had gotten it illegally anyway lines.

I have no problem with people owning guns, I have one myself. I have problems with how fucking EASY it is to get them. People go nuts if they're told they need to wait a week or whatever, and I don't get that. You don't NEED a gun that badly that in a emergency you run to the fucking Walmart and need it this second. If it is that necessary for someone, they would already have gone through the process.

There is a 100 different things that can happen to slow things down. Like it sounds like the FBI may have fucked up... which blows. But should we only have a 1 step deterrent that always has to be perfect? I know at work that if I only had one process in place that was 70% effective, and I didn't have any other steps to help get it closer to 100%, I'd be fired from my job.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Knee jerk reactions are rarely the right ones though, and if you can't resolve the root cause of an issue it's just going to reoccur in a different manner. I wish people would just understand that these shootings are a symptom of some deeper rooted issue that would not be solved with new gun restrictions. That they can't point at what another country has done and say "look it works" simply because we are not that country.

I believe that, and you clearly believe that, but odds are good some 200m Americans don't believe that and are going to make that a sticking issue come next election, I'd wager.

 

[jackstar7]

Like the old joke about how long a minute is depends on which side of the bathroom door you're on, whether it's confirmation bias or not probably has a great deal to do with whether you're one of those 100-200K people who were defending themselves or someone who's looking at a mass shooting and trying to think of ways to avoid the next one.

How many kids need to die before you consider giving up your toys?

 

[glenn1]

How many kids need to die before you consider giving up your toys?

Evidently lots more because I may need them to defend from someone like you who wants to take away rights.

 

[jackstar7]

Evidently lots more because I may need them to defend from someone like you who wants to take away rights.

When folks dismiss you as disgusting, this is why.

We also took away your right to own slaves. You still fighting that battle, too?

 

[nOOky]

that word style.
so its all about looks?

No, but I think you already know that. If you want me to Google the various interpretations of what an assault rifle is, and repost it here for you it will have to wait until I get off work because my lunch break is over.

 

[mdram]

No, but I think you already know that. If you want me to Google the various interpretations of what an assault rifle is, and repost it here for you it will have to wait until I get off work because my lunch break is over.

oh i know that various places have various interpretations
all are bogus, see pici linked
some are legal, some are not. depending where you live

 

[Malditor]

I believe that, and you clearly believe that, but odds are good some 200m Americans don't believe that and are going to make that a sticking issue come next election, I'd wager.

Most likely, and it's very unfortunate.

 

[interchange]

The root cause of this is improperly treated mental illness. In question is how to deal with that.

Wrong.

 

[glenn1]

When folks dismiss you as disgusting, this is why.

We also took away your right to own slaves. You still fighting that battle, too?

Feel free to amend the constitution to ban guns the way we did for slaves.