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.
pilly wrote: » It's like saying we give up on crime because there's millions of criminals out there. Ridiculous logic. You call a halt, you stop that figure growing and eventually the older generation die off.
Hitman3000 wrote: » Amazing how the Aussies managed this on a smaller scale without a hell of a body count. As I told another poster earlier 1.5 million people shot dead on American soil since 1968. So what do you suggest carry on, nothing can be done so why try?
BattleCorp wrote: By the way, there are roughly as many guns in Oz now as there was before the ban.
BattleCorp wrote: » A couple of points. People who are calling for gun control, what does that mean? Are you looking for all guns to be banned, some guns banned, only some people allowed guns or what? If guns were banned in America today, what do you do about the +300,000,000 guns already in circulation? Time to get real. They can't be taken back from everybody. And if the Government tried, that'd lead to one he'll of a body count.
JenovaProject wrote: » Australia isnt the same as America...Im sure you copped that already.
JenovaProject wrote: Australia isnt the same as America...Im sure you copped that already.
BattleCorp wrote: » pilly wrote: » It's like saying we give up on crime because there's millions of criminals out there. Ridiculous logic. You call a halt, you stop that figure growing and eventually the older generation die off. You can't call a halt. Not unless the US Constitution is changed. And the people have to vote for that. And that won't happen any time soon. Guns don't really go out of date. I shot a gun made in 1917 last week. It worked perfectly. You'll be waiting a long time for all 300,000,000 guns to be put out of action.
Hitman3000 wrote: » You're right last mass shooting in Australia in 1996 35 murdered by a gunman . Government 9 days later in bi partisan support brought in restrictive gun laws and a buyback scheme. No mass shootings since of course I'm sure critics in the states at the time said it wouldn't work.
Hitman3000 wrote: » How many mass shootings in Oz since Jan 1st?
smurgen wrote: » Offer 5,000 USD buy back per gun.A cost of 1.5 tr USD if all bought into the scheme.lets face it the dummies over there only respond to financial or food incentives and 1.5 tr would be a cheap fix to change the landscape of society.of course adha suffering,uneducated morons would never stand for such a scheme so if will never happen.
uncleoswald wrote: » For compromise sake? It's how you pass bi-partisan legislation. The bill didn't go far enough for many from the pro gun-control lobby who thought Schumer was too soft on the issue.
If gun owners are genuinely serious about this they would support a little bit of compromise.
Also the "inconvenience" was considered necessary to ensure background checks were actually carried out. There is no point in closing loopholes in the system when you can just bypass it all together.
Again, the bill didn't actually propose a database, the NRA simply maintained it "could" lead to one.
And anyway, Maryland's experiment involved cataloging gun casings and just because they tried it and it failed the whole idea of a database shouldn't be dismissed. And in Canada, Quebec has actually recently brought back the database.
Guess who is not coming for you in your sleep? The US Government. And how many people are genuinely protected from 'gangs' by the fact they own a gun? It's partially a result of this paranoid mindset that leads to a populace swimming in guns and as a result gun violence.
BattleCorp wrote: Guns don't really go out of date. I shot a gun made in 1917 last week. It worked perfectly. You'll be waiting a long time for all 300,000,000 guns to be put out of action.
Christy42 wrote: » A lot of people claiming that any increase in legislation on guns would increase law breaking in terms of law breaking/ propensity to violence of American citizens. You must have a pretty low opinion of American citizens in general. I can't imagine any other first world country having an issue with gun control if they had a history of it similar to the US. Is there something wrong with US citizens as human beings or is this just some bull**** excuse to avoid talking about a serious issue leaving kids dead in US schools? If the former should the EU start blocking immigration from such an obviously violent group of people? If they are not so violent surely there must be a solution? I keep hearing that crazy people will find a way to kill people but the vast majority that "find a way" are in the US. The suggestion that US people are worse than other people is obviously silly so the US must look to their own legislation to bring them in line with first world countries.
Manic Moran wrote: » See above. "Compromise" usually seems to be more a case of "OK, we'll make the law more strict, but in the interest of compromise, we'll not make it as strict as we'd like." The compromise from the gun owner's perspective was "we don't want to make the law more strict, but in the interest of compromise, we'll make it more strict than we have it now."
Manic Moran wrote: » It would be no easier or harder to bypass. Instead of deciding to bypass the "on the spot" background check, all one has to do is decide to bypass the "go to the firearms dealer" background check. The method of police verification for both is identical: Pose to be a buyer and ensure that the process is followed. In one case, prosecute those who don't follow the on-the-spot process, in the other case, prosecute those who don't say "OK, let's drive to a dealer and pay him to do what we were going to do anyway".
Manic Moran wrote: » What it did do was to mandate that records for all sales be maintained for inspection by the federal government for a minimum of 20 years. Is it a database? No. But the requirement was enough to sour some support.
Manic Moran wrote: » And has their level of compliance been any better than the level of compliance Canada saw at the national level? Cases in point in the US: It was estimated that the number of persons with rifles requiring registration in CT and NY were 350,000 and about 1,000,000 respectively. Total compliance, 41,347 in CT, and 23,847 in NY. I believe CT's compliance rate was higher than Canada's, and NY's lower. That doesn't mean that there are 1.3million criminals now in NY and CT, mind. We're going through a similar registration period here in California. Our choice is "Register, or spend five minutes with a screwdriver and piece of plastic to make it look ugly". A whole hell of a lot of folks I know are going with the ugly route. I'm not sure what the law is supposed to achieve, but my State government is spending plenty of dollars implementing it. [ETA: The irony is that since the people who wrote the laws don't like guns and thus know little about them, the ugly weapons (known as featureless rifles) are actually more "dangerous" than the ones needing registration,]
Manic Moran wrote: » No idea. How many folks have actually used a firearm in a defensive situation? that's a more answerable question, figures varying from over 100,000 a year to 6million a year, depending on which source you choose. (Obviously the higher figure comes from a pro-gun source). The last time the DoJ looked at the question was quite some time ago, in the Clinton era, they concluded more or less a million.
rossie1977 wrote: » The arguments are of course nonsense. Down the years we have had the same talking points: * Americans are violent by nature * It's a racial diversity problem * It's a mental health issue * It's the video games/rock music Fact is the countries with the most guns in circulation have the most gun deaths by and large. 4% of Americans own more than 50% of all guns in the country too so its really only a small group who hold sway over everyone else.
uncleoswald wrote: » Wait, I'm confused, I thought the majority of gun owners supported background checks? Coming to the table in agreement on that but not budging further is not compromise, it's the opposite.
Sorry I'm not really following this point and obviously don't know the ins and outs. But if there is a way to bypass the background checks than that is a fault in the system and not the idea itself? Work to improve the system.
See this isn't really a very unreasonable mandate, and the fact that it soured support suggest those people weren't very committed to the cause to begin with. Again it's just feet dragging on a topic they claim to support.
Are we talking a database again? The bill in question didn't ask for a database so the point is moot. And for the record I'd only propose a database of new guns sold so no need to retroactively chase owners.
As a hypothetical I'd be pretty confident that if all guns were removed from the hands of ordinary citizens, the lives saved from accidental deaths, domestic violence incidents and suicide would far outweigh those currently saved from defensive situations using guns. Also what constitutes a "defensive situation"? I know the idea of confronting an intruder in your home is practically romanticised in the US but it's not always the safest or most sensible option. A Harverd study found that "The likelihood of injury when there was a self-defense gun use (10.9%) was basically identical to the likelihood of injury when the victim took no action at all (11.0%),"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743515001188
muppetshow1451 wrote: » Somehow Switzerland doesnt fit in with that.
ThinkProgress wrote: » Yep, gun capital of Europe... while also being one of the most peaceful, non-violent countries on earth! Careful with this line of debating... it can bring about some very uncomfortable truths, for people who are desperate to make this all about gun control. :P The US of A has a very deep-rooted historical problem with violence and crime... that is primarily what needs to be focused on, and adequately tackled. (Instead of the particular tools being chosen to commit said crimes!)
BattleCorp wrote: » Not a clue. I'm going to guess zero. Gun deaths are down in Oz, that's true. There are two ways of looking at it. You can say the (sort of) gun ban resulted in a drop in gun deaths. That would back up the ban the guns side. Or You can say that the number of guns is now the same as before the (sort of) gun ban yet gun deaths are down so it mustn't have been the guns.
degsie wrote: » Mr Trump has once again confirmed that this is a mental health issue, ONLY.
IvySlayer wrote: » So did anyone ask him why he reversed an order that Obama made that stopped certain people with mental health conditions from buying guns?
Manic Moran wrote: » Oddly, I can't seem to find a statement from him specifically on the matter, though as it was a law passed by congress, I'm sure some politicians have statements. The general gist is it removed firearms rights without due process or any evidence that they may pose a threat. Here is the letter from ACLU asking the house to reverse the regulation.https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ACLU.pdfWe oppose this rule because it advances and reinforces the harmful stereotype that people with mental disabilities, a vast and diverse group of citizens, are violent. There is no data to support a connection between the need for a representative payee to manage one’s Social Security disability benefits and a propensity toward gun violence[...]The rule includes no meaningful due process protections prior to the SSA’s transmittal of names to the NICS database See also this Obama-appointed disability rights advocate.https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/2/6/14522132/gun-control-disabilities-republicans-nra-obamaBut this time, I and my disability rights colleagues found myself in an unusual position: siding with the Republicans and, yes, the National Rifle Association. Because while congressional Democrats have been admirable allies to the disability community on the vast majority of issues, when it comes to gun violence, both parties use people with mental illness as props — in ways that don’t help public safety, and that put vulnerable people at risk. In this case, it was the Democrats that got the issue wrong.[...] Last December, the Social Security Administration issued a new regulation that had the dubious distinction of bringing together pro-gun groups, and disability and civil rights advocates — the latter including the ACLU and the Autistic Self Advocacy Network.
Christy42 wrote: » Except Donald Trump has specifically gone against these view points by saying it is a mental health issue. The main point of them seems to be the singling out of those with mental health issues as opposed to specific rights themselves. Trump on the other hand singled out mental illness specifically as the reason for this attack. Trump needs (well he doesn't need, not enough people care) to take some action. If he thinks it is a mental health issue then funding should be increased in this area and policies made to combat the issue. Instead it is just fighting against any sort of change to very real problem that are leaving children dead. Without a serious attempt to take actions that they think will solve the issue they are just cowards defending their funders.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: 40 years later and what's changed ?
BattleCorp wrote: » It is a mental health issue. Normal people who own guns don't go shooting up schools. There are semi auto rifles in lots of countries and they don't have the problems that the US has.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c599644a213e5f18742e0afff85076a6.svg)