Florida High School Shooting

[JSt0rm]

That must make Uncle Sam the worlds most irresponsible person by several orders of magnitude.

uncle sam isnt a person

 

[glenn1]

uncle sam isnt a person

Good thing too because he's a really big asshole a lot of the time and prone to shooting people up without much provocation, especially the ones with a bit more melanin.

 

[JSt0rm]

Good thing too because he's a really big asshole a lot of the time and prone to shooting people up without much provocation, especially the ones with a bit more melanin.

this is the paranoia that gun owners exhibit. they think the only thing stoping the gov from nerve gassing them is their plinkers.

 

[umbrella39]

How does it feel to be wrong, and wrong again?? You keep going back to this bubble protector.

How does it feel to be pathetic, for decades... At least I am not you...

 

[umbrella39]

Luv?

See how it doesn't bother me when they say shit like that? They are talking to me, too... Toughen your skin. Sort of hate being lopped in with gun nuts (Sorry mate, but like you) but I guess it goes with the territory...

 

[Younigue]

My dear I must disagree with you on that point for I have owned such weapons and never ever had any intent to harm anyone nor were any of my weapons used to threaten another person or commit a crime. They were properly kept in a locked gun safe that was properly secured to the foundation of my home. My kids are kind and respectful to others and would never consider harming another person.

There are jackasses in this world who think about hurting other people all the time and its this mentality that doesn't need to own anything harmful to another person.

Doesn't change the fact that there is no need for them to be in civilians hands. Irresponsible doesn't just apply to those who will kill or want to kill with them it is also owning them when there is no practical reason to.

Thank you for not screaming at me.

 

[Younigue]

That must make Uncle Sam the worlds most irresponsible person by several orders of magnitude.

Sure does.

Do you think gun nuts are emulating "Uncle Sam"? Nope.

Does the guy in the poster even have a gun? I thought he was pointing a FINGER! Sure, go target practice with one of those!

 

[FIVR]

Yellow flag, personal foul lying in a thread...

Nobody here is excusing the FBI for failing to notify their local offices about this guy. What I am saying is even if they had Florida law and federal law makes it too easy for anyone to obtain guns. Doctors are not allowed to question patents about gun violence, the CDC can't do research on gun violence.

What could the FBI do absent this guy failing to violate any federals laws to date?

The FBI could have done any number of things that they do on a regular basis for people suspected of ties to ISIS or Islamic terrorism. They could have assigned an undercover agent to become this kids "friend" and goad him into conducting the attack, then do a sting operation on him the moment he calls the uber to do it. And they could have done numerous other things they regularly do to people they suspect of selling large amounts of drugs (search home, family members homes... etc). They also could've simply checked his youtube and instagram. They didn't need all the massive surveillance tools at their disposal to know this kid was a racist psychopath. The FBI has HUGE amounts of authority to investigate in this country and those powers have only expanded since 9/11. They do whatever the F they want to whomever they want. If their years-long harassment of Hillary Clinton wasn't proof of that, I don't know what is.

PS: I prefaced my comment with the assertion that the current state of US gun laws is at the heart of the mass shooter problem we have today. That doesn't mean the FBI isn't at fault for totally ignoring multiple people's reports on the shooter.

 

[glenn1]

this is the paranoia that gun owners exhibit. they think the only thing stoping the gov from nerve gassing them is their plinkers.

Worked for the Bundys. Twice. Sure you have the generational event like the Waco compound getting burned to the ground or Ruby Ridge, but generally having guns means this:

And not having guns means this:

 

[JSt0rm]

Worked for the Bundys. Twice. Sure you have the generational event like the Waco compound getting burned to the ground or Ruby Ridge, but generally having guns means this:

And not having guns means this:

that guy was fired you psycho. You dont get to "feel" safe at the expense of everyone else. thats not society.

 

[Jhhnn]

They didn't need all the massive surveillance tools at their disposal to know this kid was a racist psychopath.

Which isn't illegal. The FBI enforces the law, remember?

 

[Jhhnn]

Worked for the Bundys. Twice. Sure you have the generational event like the Waco compound getting burned to the ground or Ruby Ridge, but generally having guns means this:

And not having guns means this:

Gawd. People have guns so they can act like the Bundy-whacks?

 

[rise]

Another slaughter, maybe we should take a look at these guns laws, again. Why have all these AW?
NRAasholes: Handguns kill more people! FBI FBI Russia Hillary Look there!
Well, yea, I mean AW aren't really the best for say, suicide or armed robbery or rape even...
NRAssholes: You ant to stop the violence, snowflake, we need CCW you libtard!! MORE GUNS, the people we have armed are the wrong people you see, but we'll get it right this time!

I see...

 

[zerocool84]

Gawd. People have guns so they can act like the Bundy-whacks?

Seriously, horrible example

 

[jackstar7]

Yeah I guess advocating for such “privileges” as not having the government spy on you, or not trying to restrict whether you can get married or buy a Happy Meal is beyond what the big 2 parties can offer.

Why do libertarians care about marriage? I thought they didn't want the government involved in their personal affairs?

Ah, I'm just yanking your chain. Carry on to Galt's Gulch and leave all of us poor suckers behind.

 

[jackstar7]

Doesn't change the fact that there is no need for them to be in civilians hands. Irresponsible doesn't just apply to those who will kill or want to kill with them it is also owning them when there is no practical reason to.

Thank you for not screaming at me.

I'd add there's no need for them to be in the hands of most cops once they aren't in the hands of civilians, too.

That should bring down those wrongful death situations by a measure.

 

[rise]

The MarchForOurLives is going to be big. I'm guessing some big money donors will be on board for sure.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Doesn't change the fact that there is no need for them to be in civilians hands. Irresponsible doesn't just apply to those who will kill or want to kill with them it is also owning them when there is no practical reason to.

The argument that "you shouldn't be able to own something if you don't need it or there isn't a practical reason to" needs to die. I don't need to own a swimming pool, a car, or knives. I could live my life without any of those. I probably don't even need my left arm since my typing/programming finger is on my right hand. If you don't want me to own something, then you must show me why I need to NOT own it. The burden of proof is on you, and proof will never consist of "you don't need that".

 

[HomerJS]

The FBI could have done any number of things that they do on a regular basis for people suspected of ties to ISIS or Islamic terrorism. They could have assigned an undercover agent to become this kids "friend" and goad him into conducting the attack, then do a sting operation on him the moment he calls the uber to do it. And they could have done numerous other things they regularly do to people they suspect of selling large amounts of drugs (search home, family members homes... etc). They also could've simply checked his youtube and instagram. They didn't need all the massive surveillance tools at their disposal to know this kid was a racist psychopath. The FBI has HUGE amounts of authority to investigate in this country and those powers have only expanded since 9/11. They do whatever the F they want to whomever they want. If their years-long harassment of Hillary Clinton wasn't proof of that, I don't know what is.

PS: I prefaced my comment with the assertion that the current state of US gun laws is at the heart of the mass shooter problem we have today. That doesn't mean the FBI isn't at fault for totally ignoring multiple people's reports on the shooter.

Except the government made a category of criminal to cover your example call an enemy combatant. US citizens cooperating with ISIS can get that type of FBI monitoring. This guy didn't fit. Disaffected youth turned terrorist with easy access to guns.

Yes they are at fault for not acting but because of the US "let's let everybody have guns" culture they would have been powerless to stop him. Some states have created laws that can stop guys like him from buying guns but the NRA and 2A absolutists object to this too.

Our gun culture is more responsible for this the the FBI.

 

[Younigue]

The argument that "you shouldn't be able to own something if you don't need it or there isn't a practical reason to" needs to die. I don't need to own a swimming pool, a car, or knives. I could live my life without any of those. I probably don't even need my left arm since my typing/programming finger is on my right hand. If you don't want me to own something, then you must show me why I need to NOT own it. The burden of proof is on you, and proof will never consist of "you don't need that".

Well, my explanation is you're not likely to kill 17 children with your pool, your car, your knife or your left arm (it's your less dominant gun arm I'm assuming). That argument will never go away because you're comparing the asinine to truly dangerous weapons. Of course we all have things we don't need but I'm going to boldly state that none of my non-essential, non-practical things are capable of killing 17 people in minutes. The "proof" is just that and EVERY TIME that, mass shootings. What more proof could you possibly require?

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Well, my explanation is you're not likely to kill 17 children with your pool, your car, your knife or your left arm (it's your less dominant gun arm I'm assuming). That argument will never go away because you're comparing the asinine to truly dangerous weapons. Of course we all have things we don't need but I'm going to boldly state that none of my non-essential, non-practical things are capable of killing 17 people in minutes. The "proof" is just that and EVERY TIME that, mass shootings. What more proof could you possibly require?

Actually, everything I just listed kills more people per year than assault rifles.

 

[HomerJS]

Actually, everything I just listed kills more people per year than assault rifles.

Heart disease is the number one killer of people. Doesn't mean we should stop cancer research

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Heart disease is the number one killer of people. Doesn't mean we should stop cancer research

You missed the point. The discussion revolved around whether you should "need" to own something in order to be permitted to own it. Is "you don't need that" a valid reason to force someone to give it up?

 

[Younigue]

You missed the point. The discussion revolved around whether you should "need" to own something in order to be permitted to own it. Is "you don't need that" a valid reason to force someone to give it up?

When it can kill many people within minutes? Yes, a million times yes. That is absolutely a valid enough reason. Today you say you wouldn't use that weapon to kill many but tomorrow might be a bad day and the day after that and the day after that until it becomes a bad day for a shit load of people. You don't need them, deserve them and neither should you have any right to them. If you want to shoot one, go to a shooting range. That's what my friend did and he thoroughly loved it but then guess what he did? He didn't purchase one. If between visits to the range you find yourself in withdrawal do the sound effects. My brother looked to be having the time of his life when he used to do it and there was zero chance he'd kill 17 people doing it. FYI People can easily survive the inevitable spittal that goes along with sound effects. Gross but a towel fixes ya right up. No therapy, no PTSD, no recovery, no loss of life, no loss of innocence, no overwhelming heartbreak...

So, what makes someone's desire to own such guns more important than children going to school with out having to worry that someone might come in and just start spraying them down? No chance to hide, no chance to run, no future. You know what those kids bring to a gun fight? Their lives... It's hardly a fight at all. But seriously though, if your want to own these guns is more important than the people falling victim to them then get your Tourette's on and just start screaming in people's faces FU*K YOU! You don't need to but you CAN especially if it's just something you want to do. Clearly that's what all 2A purposeful misinterpretors ARE doing.

The main purpose of guns that can quickly kill many people at once IS to kill many people at once. You can lie and call yourself a collector but if you're a collector then the guns don't need to work. They can just be pretty things to look at.

Yeah, there is no good reason to own such guns. Ever. But there are a ton of stupid ones, a ton of self-indulgent excuses, a ton of ridiculous justifications, a ton of phallic insecurities to sooth, a ton of misguided ideas of masculinity.

Alright, I'm going to force myself to stop now.

Your argument on this matter is the argument of a douchbag. Not the argument of a person whose rights would be stepped on in a life altering way if he couldn't have him some asshole guns.

 

[ivwshane]

You missed the point. The discussion revolved around whether you should "need" to own something in order to be permitted to own it. Is "you don't need that" a valid reason to force someone to give it up?

I think your point is valid but can you explain why things like hands grenades are illegal to own? Now why doesn't that apply to such guns that are capable of doing a mass amount of harm in a short period?

I'd argue that the NFA, under its destructive device prohibition, could cover such weapons, no new laws would need to be passed and no constitutional crises either.