Authorities also said students and teachers should remain barricaded in the school until they could be reached by police Dispatch at the Broward Sheriff’s Office confirmed the school was on lockdown and police were on location. According to WSVN, the Margate Fire Rescue team described the scene as a mass casualty incident, which reportedly means at least 20 people were injured.
141_Oscar_Mike wrote: » Most common question i'm seeing on Twitter this morning "What did Obama do in 8 years?" Trumpies are just on another level of thick.
pilly wrote: » And what do these lovely people say when children are killed because of them defending their right to bear arms?
America's favorite gun maker Remington
Manic Moran wrote: » You could always try asking directly (As long as you're willing to accept the time zone delay on responses). Some of us are on here. Here's my problem. As one of the few representatives of that demographic on Boards, I fight my little outnumbered corner. Every time one of these threads pops up, I post fairly lengthy observations on what I believe can be done and should be done. Go look up my comments in the two threads on the Vegas shooting (one in AH, one in Politics) for most recent examples. However, since I do not subscribe to the Boards groupthink on the issue, and do not use the word 'ban' or 'prohibit' with anywhere near as much abandon, it seems I am generally ignored or considered irrelevant. This despite the fact that as a firearms owner, (and one in a State which has attempted to place some of the strictest restrictions on firearms), I am probably better aware than most on here on both the firearms in question and the difficulty (both technical and political) in passing law or regulation which will have meaningful effect. Instead, what I see are pages upon pages of people coming in making blithe comments. I am apparently referred to as 'weirdo', a 'lovely person', a 'nut', and doubtless a few other epithets I missed in my scrolling of this thread. Perhaps small wonder that many people tend not to engage in discussion if that's the opinion. Folks will come in, do a drive-by posting of whatever sound-bite seems applicable, and often leave without waiting to see if that sound-bite will be challenged. The amount of times that I have expressed a concern with magazine limits, or the idea that "Trump allowed severely mentally ill people to get guns" is such that I've all but given up attempting to educate people. They won't listen. I can accept if they listen and disagree. But they won't get that far. I'm a nut, remember, why bother? Thankfully, this is not the entirety of Boardsies. There are a few people on here whose opinion diametrically opposes mine, yet actually do engage me with civility and thought. We're not going to ever see entirely eye to eye, but at least we understand where the other is coming from. We acknowledge the pros and cons of both sides of each others' arguments. Unlike the majority who prefer to tar with a broad brush, and attack a very nasty and difficult problem with the greatest superficiality. If it were America's favorite gun maker, they wouldn't be filing for bankruptcy. Have you seen their catalogue? Compare it to the catalogue from twenty or thirty years ago. They have failed to adapt to the market, and are suffering the consequences of any other company which does that.
pilly wrote: » I see where you're coming from AH tends to be for sound-bites to be honest so you're at a bit of a disadvantage as soon as you start posting paragraphs, people just skim over them. But I'm willing to listen if you keep it short and non patronising. Why do you think it's more important for you have a gun than it is to prevent a child being shot?
muppetshow1451 wrote: » Remember its not the gun but the person behind it that pulls the trigger. As seen in the last 5 years during terrorattacks in Europe,if they dont get access to firearms ,they use trucks or knives,hammers etc. So if they are obsessed by killing,then they will find other means.
Manic Moran wrote: » The amount of times that I have expressed a concern with magazine limits, or the idea that "Trump allowed severely mentally ill people to get guns" is such that I've all but given up attempting to educate people.
pilly wrote: » But I'm willing to listen if you keep it short and non patronising.
Why do you think it's more important for you have a gun than it is to prevent a child being shot?
LostinKildare wrote: » Is this aimed at me? It's not a fanciful "idea" I had, it is a fact that Trump signed on 28 February 2017 the repeal of an Obama policy that was meant to (potentially) restrict gun sales to approximately 75,000 persons who have been identified as suffering from "severe mental impairment."
Panjandrums wrote: » This post has been deleted.
Manic Moran wrote: » Again, look over my past responses. I am rarely short, granted, but I do try not to be patronising. I suspect such doesn't exactly win over people in argument as reasoned arguments do. My problem is I attempt, in general, to back up those arguments, which is why they are not usually short. I don't. Counter-questions. 1) Why must it be a mutually exclusive proposition? Is it possible that we can both retain firearms ownership and reduce the shooting of children? After all, it was within my lifetime that mass school shootings simply did not exist, and kids brought their own guns to school so they could go shooting with their friends after class. This seems evidence that the ability for people (even children) to have firearms does not necessarily equate with children getting shot. 2) I have a child of my own (In four months, I'll have a second one). Their safety is my most important duty as a father, and one of the tools for the safety of my family in our house is a firearm. I cannot affect what happens outside of my presence. I can affect what happens inside my house or my vicinity and I will take advantage of every tool at my disposal to do so. I'm an older chap, by the time my latest will be 18 and able to take some care of his/herself, I'll be 60. No way in hell I'm winning hand-to-hand at that age. Is the protection of my family less important than the protection of someone else's family, even before taking into account any other measures which could be taken to reduce the impact of school shootings?
TJ Mackie wrote: » Media plays a big role. Describing these scum as "deranged", "evil", "vile", "vicious" etc. along with all the coverage they get is actually glamorising being a shooter.
namloc1980 wrote: » How long before the "mental illness" angle comes out?
Chrongen wrote: » I think this is a fairly stupid argument. The shooters in these incidents either die by their own hand, get killed by the cops or get arrested. They never get to see a TV again or for a very long time after their work is done. So they aren't going to get to witness any kind of lionising.
Chrongen wrote: » There's always one who comes out with the retarded "cars kill people, let's ban all cars" You can't argue with this level of stupidity.
Cookie_Monster wrote: » how and why given you said the sole purpose of a gun is to inflict harm or death? Clearly it's not the sole purpose, so stop being obtuse about it.
Manic Moran wrote: » Amongst others, yes. The ACLU is not a pro-gun organisation. They supported the repeal, because what the policy claimed to do was not what it actually did.https://www.aclu.org/blog/disability-rights/gun-control-laws-should-be-fairBut gun control laws, like any law, should be fair, effective and not based on prejudice or stereotype. This rule met none of those criteria.
Manic Moran wrote: » 1) Why must it be a mutually exclusive proposition? Is it possible that we can both retain firearms ownership and reduce the shooting of children? After all, it was within my lifetime that mass school shootings simply did not exist, and kids brought their own guns to school so they could go shooting with their friends after class. This seems evidence that the ability for people (even children) to have firearms does not necessarily equate with children getting shot.
Manic Moran wrote: » 2) I have a child of my own (In four months, I'll have a second one). Their safety is my most important duty as a father, and one of the tools for the safety of my family in our house is a firearm. I cannot affect what happens outside of my presence. I can affect what happens inside my house or my vicinity and I will take advantage of every tool at my disposal to do so. I'm an older chap, by the time my latest will be 18 and able to take some care of his/herself, I'll be 60. No way in hell I'm winning hand-to-hand at that age. Is the protection of my family less important than the protection of someone else's family, even before taking into account any other measures which could be taken to reduce the impact of school shootings?
Rezident wrote: » Even if a US gun fanatic's whole family was killed in something like this, it wouldn't change their minds, it's as if their guns are now part of their identity, and identity is a powerful thing. This won't change a thing. And they'll still tell you it's 'the greatest country in the world'! They still believe it too.
Agricola wrote: » Politicians bought and paid for by the NRA/gun manufacturers. Profit more important than children's lives. A meglomanical sociopath sitting in the Oval office, talking about the problem of mental illness! - after he himself rolled back an Obama regulation to make it hard for the mentally ill to buy weapons. A sick sick society.
Hector Savage wrote: » Not a parody account eitherhttps://twitter.com/ConservaMomUSA/status/963962698387124224
Billy86 wrote: » Actually this incident shows that unrealistic, childish, too-many-movies fantasy for what it really is... it has come out that the school had armed security. And that's of course before getting to the point that he set off the fire alarm before opening fire in a hallway of crowded, panicked teens and teachers. Short of that James McEvoy film form 10 years back about bending gunshots to loop through different angles, we'd just have more dead. And that's if they could even see who was shooting amidst all the chaos. It is remarkable how stupid that attitude is (though I know you're not supporting it!).
pjohnson wrote: » This is the only solution America ever accepts. MORE guns. That'll protect us.
pilly wrote: » 1. I don't know how America has gotten to where it is but it's there now and the problem needs to be tackled.
2. No, the protection of your family alone is not more important than the greater good. If you're asking me to weigh it up, it's 1 child against 17 today alone, simple mathematics.
Also, the vast majority of people in countries without widespread gun ownership manage to protect their children all the way to adulthood without the use of a gun.
If you're really that paranoid about someone getting into your home and harming your children I would suggest a really good security system is a much preferable way of protecting them than subjecting them to seeing someone be killed in the home.
Also, if you're truly that protective I don't believe that you feel you're only responsible for them whilst in your house. Why aren't you worried about what happens when they're in school?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/eaabbaf8a16773590ee22dd6c15f1d68.svg)
