School Shooting in Parkland, Florida

BattleCorp · 19-02-2018 9:14am

smurgen wrote: »

That's grand.sure gangs are known for using softer,non life threatening bullets and only shooting other gang members.no threat to normal citizens.

I think the point Manic is making there is that gangs/criminals don't give a rats ass about laws or to be specific, gun control laws.

I'm pretty certain that the Hutches and Kinihans don't have licences for any of their guns.

19-02-2018 9:51am

BattleCorp wrote: »

Where are you getting that idea from? I'm not pandering to anyone, much less a bunch of loons. I certainly didn't say that in my post as I said I am in favour of background checks etc.

By the way, background checks don't always work as many shooters acquire their firearms illegally. Adam Lanza stole his mother's gun I believe.

And if Adam Lanza hadn’t had access to guns stored in his family home, would he have stolen the same arsenal from elsewhere? If it was illegal to store guns, would Adam Lanza’s window of opportunity been taken from him and would all those lives been spared?

If he still had a killing spree in mind, would restrictions on the guns he used prevented him from stock piling them over a period of time?

Akrasia · 19-02-2018 11:44am

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

And if Adam Lanza hadn’t had access to guns stored in his family home, would he have stolen the same arsenal from elsewhere? If it was illegal to store guns, would Adam Lanza’s window of opportunity been taken from him and would all those lives been spared?

If he still had a killing spree in mind, would restrictions on the guns he used prevented him from stock piling them over a period of time?

Restrictions would have made it more difficult for him and more easy for the intelligence agencies to flag his criminal intent.

If the FBI had investigated him and found a cache of illegal weapons he would immediately be seen as a threat, but if they searched his house and found a legally owned AR15, they can't use that as probable cause that he had criminal intent.

BattleCorp · 19-02-2018 11:49am

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

And if Adam Lanza hadn’t had access to guns stored in his family home, would he have stolen the same arsenal from elsewhere? If it was illegal to store guns, would Adam Lanza’s window of opportunity been taken from him and would all those lives been spared?

If he still had a killing spree in mind, would restrictions on the guns he used prevented him from stock piling them over a period of time?

I don't understand your point about it being illegal to store guns. If you own guns, then you have to store them somewhere.

Adam Lanza's mother stored her guns in a gunsafe. She was responsible that way. Adam Lanza discovered where she kept the keys and stole some of the guns.

Would Lanza have acquired guns somewhere else if there were no guns in his house, I've no idea. I'll guess probably because people who are hell-bent on causing death and destruction seem to find a way. Look at the terrorist in Nice, France in 2016. He didn't use a gun and he killed 86 people and injured 458 people. He used a truck.

I will say this. If there were no guns in America, this attack wouldn't have happened. There, I said it.

But there are guns in America and there always will be guns in America. Even if they change the Constitution to ban guns (which won't happen in my lifetime anyway), lots of States have their own Constitution and these would all have to be changed too (again unlikely). And that does nothing for the 3,000,000,000 guns already out there and the criminals who won't give a sh1te about laws banning guns will still be able to get them.

SharpshooterTom · 19-02-2018 12:17pm

Christy42 wrote: »

Obamacare will be his legacy. It is a pretty great one too given its most die hard retractors refused to get rid of it when they had the power to do so (see healthcare vote).

There's plenty of time still for the GOP to damage Obamacare and I'm sure they'll be at war with it in one way or another over the next 20-30 years, neutering it at least, they've already repealed the individual mandate, and their next goal might be the employer mandate amongst others. They'll likely never repeal Obamacare entirely, but they'll do a lot of damage to the law and ensure that the law may likely never ever reach its full potential.

Uninsured rated now according to gallup is currently now 12.2%, historically the uninsured rate is 14-15%, 3 million people have already lost their health insurance allegedly under Trump and that may likely rise further. 45 million had no health insurance before the ACA and I suspect by 2020 we will be back into the mid 30s. The US healthcare system baring some tweaks is basically still the same system as it was before Obamacare.

Obamacare's legacy was only ever going to act as an interim for what was the long term goal, single payer. And if that ever passes (and likely would be permanent) Obamacare will be forgotten about.

SharpshooterTom · 19-02-2018 12:25pm

FatherTed wrote: »

That's your opinion. Mine is different. I think he was a great president and accomplished a lot considering what he had to put up with the Republicans in congress.

Historians don't even rank Obama in the top 10 at the moment, he's had 3 presidential rankings scoring between 12th-18th, which I think is about right.

He was a good, above average president. But a great president implies someone like FDR, Lincoln, JFK/LBJ (Civil rights, Voting rights act, Medicare/Medicaid, Apollo missions to the moon).

Compare Obama's 8 years to the 8 years of JFK/LBJ, he's nowhere near in that league.

He was a great statesman, iconic, inspiring, super charismatic, but legislatively he was no near being a presidential great.

His most notable foreign policy success was the Iran nuclear deal, which Trump might destroy in may, if that goes, what would be his foreign policy legacy? It starts to become very very thin after that.

Hande hoche! · 19-02-2018 12:34pm

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

Historians don't even rank Obama in the top 10 at the moment, he's had 3 presidential rankings scoring between 12th-18th, which I think is about right.

He was a good, above average president. But a great president implies someone like FDR, Lincoln, JFK/LBJ (Civil rights, Voting rights act, Medicare/Medicaid, Apollo missions to the moon).

Compare Obama's 8 years to the 8 years of JFK/LBJ, he's nowhere near in that league.

He was a great statesman, iconic, inspiring, super charismatic, but legislatively he was no near being a presidential great.

His most notable foreign policy success was the Iran nuclear deal, which Trump might destroy in may, if that goes, what would be his foreign policy legacy? It starts to become very very thin after that.

There was a warming of ties with Cuba. Which admittedly seemed a bit rushed.

Skylinehead · 19-02-2018 12:37pm

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

Historians don't even rank Obama in the top 10 at the moment, he's had 3 presidential rankings scoring between 12th-18th, which I think is about right.

He was a good, above average president. But a great president implies someone like FDR, Lincoln, JFK/LBJ (Civil rights, Voting rights act, Medicare/Medicaid, Apollo missions to the moon).

Compare Obama's 8 years to the 8 years of JFK/LBJ, he's nowhere near in that league.

He was a great statesman, iconic, inspiring, super charismatic, but legislatively he was no near being a presidential great.

His most notable foreign policy success was the Iran nuclear deal, which Trump might destroy in may, if that goes, what would be his foreign policy legacy? It starts to become very very thin after that.

JFK was a hothead populist that nearly started a nuclear war, and LBJ, although his Great Society brought a lot through, I don't think he can be considered great either considering Vietnam. Obama too, he didn't really de-escalate enough.

Snickers Man · 19-02-2018 1:23pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

I would argue that neither has the opposition then, [suggested anything remotely effective or indeed reasonable] if your definition of reasonable is 'something I agree with'.

What is unreasonable about "a simple process to ensure all firearms are sold with a background check (And correct input of the NICS data)"?

In itself: nothing. Except that I believe the minutiae of such a regulation is hotly debated by many leading gun-rights associations.

But leaving that aside and assuming that the consensus among "gun-rights defenders" is that such checks should be mandatory. What use would they be if the information gathered by such checks was perfunctory?

What sort of questions could reasonably be asked during a "background check"?

Have you a criminal record?
Have you ever been diagnosed with a) schizophrenia b) paranoia c)post traumatic stress disorder
Have you ever consulted a psychiatrist/psychologist because of behavioural issues?
Have you ever been investigated for crimes conducted during the Nazi era in Germany?

(If you think the last one is facetious, it was a question that anyone entering the US on a visa waiver had to answer until very recently --and for all I know may still be the case--despite the fact that if you were born the day after Adolf Hitler died, you would be 72 years old at the time of writing)

I reckon that many "mass shooting" perpetrators could answer no, and truthfully, to most of those questions. But so saying they weren't truthful? What powers of verification do authorities have, and what resources would have to be put in place to ensure verification?

The more perfunctory the questions; the more ineffective the measure. On the other hand, the more intrusive the questions, and the more latitude is given to authorities to obtain information from third parties about one's conduct and demeanour, the more you infringe the individual's other "inalienable rights". For instance, those guaranteed by the following statement:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

You might recognise that as the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, one that is generally taken to ensure a "right to privacy" of its citizens.

Which of the two Amendments, Second or Fourth, are you more in favour of amending and weakening to strengthen the other? I guess that is the choice of those advocating more "background checks" and more "detection of mental illnesses".

Manic Moran wrote: »

What is unreasonable about a program of instruction aimed at reducing negligent or accidental firearms death or injury?

Nothing. The scandal would be that there isn't something mandatory along these lines in place already. Are you telling me that anybody in the US, after a suitable perfunctory background check, can walk out of a gun store with an AK or an Armalite and a box of ammo and take it home on the back seat of their car without being subject to a minimum of training and testing?

"Hey, come on man. I've done my driving test. That's one complex potentially lethal piece of equipment whose operation and condition are subject to regulatory inspection and control. What more do you want?" :eek::eek:

Manic Moran wrote: »

I am no sociologist. I am, however, reasonably well versed in firearms legislation and "We must reduce the amount of firearms" and "We must reduce the lethality of firearms" are equally large rubs.

So how do other normal healthy functioning democracies all manage it then? Are Americans just more stupid than anybody else? Or are they so hung up on their "exceptionalism" that they feel it beneath them to look around the world and ask honest questions about how other countries manage to tolerate gun ownership without having the same devastating consequences?

The difference between America and the rest of the democratic, capitalist, call it "free" if you want, world is that in most other countries (including Ireland and Britain) you are allowed to own a gun; you're just not allowed shoot anyone with it. At least, not legally--in almost all circumstances. Whereas in America, one has a constitutional right, in effect, to defend oneself with lethal force even if one has not been subjected to lethal attack.

If you are looking for what makes America "exceptional" on this issue, there it is.

Now having isolated the key difference, what do you suggest you do about it? I am not providing glib answers. I have no say in America's gun policy, not being American.

As the strong silent hero says in many a classic Western: "I'd like it to be my idea". It's got to be America's idea. And maybe America's idea is "Screw it. We're fine!"

What is your American idea?

SharpshooterTom · 19-02-2018 1:30pm

Hande hoche! wrote: »

There was a warming of ties with Cuba. Which admittedly seemed a bit rushed.

Which has been partially reversed now as Trump has now reimposed some travel restrictions. The embassy's opened, that's about it, the Cuban embargo (which was the biggie) still remains in place.

SharpshooterTom · 19-02-2018 1:50pm

Skylinehead wrote: »

JFK was a hothead populist that nearly started a nuclear war, and LBJ, although his Great Society brought a lot through, I don't think he can be considered great either considering Vietnam. Obama too, he didn't really de-escalate enough.

LBJ deserves criticism for Vietnam, The deaths of 58,000 US troops (39,000 under his administration), plus the 3-4 million civilians killed.

But his domestic policies were outstanding and transformed US society like no other administration has in the past 70 years.

Lyndon Johnson (1963-1969):
- Medicare (in affect single payer healthcare for 65+ year olds, payed through a lifetime on the payroll tax), previously the uninsured rate for this age group before Medicare was 40% (which was a disgrace, the most sickest and vulnerable age group), now today its nearly 0%.
- Medicaid (avenue for the poorest Americans to be able to pay/get access to healthcare)
- Civil Rights act
- Voting Rights act
- Apollo missions to the moon (ok this was joint with JFK)
- Highest GDP by any postwar president
- Immigration act 1965

And just to point out how incredibly powerful the Immigration act of 1965 was, compare these two elections and the white vote in each with the electoral college score:

1988: Bush (60% of white vote) vs Dukakis (40% of white vote)
Bush 426
Dukakis 111

2012: Romney (59% of white vote) vs Obama (37% of white vote)
Obama 332
Romney 205

That's the legacy of LBJ's immigration act right there, Obama wouldn't have ever been president without it.

LBJ was ranked the 10th best president in the most recent C-Span survey, higher than both Obama and Clinton.

So yes the Vietnam war was a tragedy and should never be forgotten, (not to mention the 3-4 million civilians killed), but his domestic policies, including the 40 million African Americans who now have equal rights in all 50 states, 70 million people who have access to healthcare and other sweeping anti poverty programmes, overall you can see why he was a net positive.

Skylinehead · 19-02-2018 2:54pm

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

LBJ deserves criticism for Vietnam, The deaths of 58,000 US troops (39,000 under his administration), plus the 3-4 million civilians killed.

But his domestic policies were outstanding and transformed US society like no other administration has in the past 70 years.

Lyndon Johnson (1963-1969):
- Medicare (in affect single payer healthcare for 65+ year olds, payed through a lifetime on the payroll tax), previously the uninsured rate for this age group before Medicare was 40% (which was a disgrace, the most sickest and vulnerable age group), now today its nearly 0%.
- Medicaid (avenue for the poorest Americans to be able to pay/get access to healthcare)
- Civil Rights act
- Voting Rights act
- Apollo missions to the moon (ok this was joint with JFK)
- Highest GDP by any postwar president
- Immigration act 1965

And just to point out how incredibly powerful the Immigration act of 1965 was, compare these two elections and the white vote in each with the electoral college score:

1988: Bush (60% of white vote) vs Dukakis (40% of white vote)
Bush 426
Dukakis 111

2012: Romney (59% of white vote) vs Obama (37% of white vote)
Obama 332
Romney 205

That's the legacy of LBJ's immigration act right there, Obama wouldn't have ever been president without it.

LBJ was ranked the 10th best president in the most recent C-Span survey, higher than both Obama and Clinton.

So yes the Vietnam war was a tragedy and should never be forgotten, (not to mention the 3-4 million civilians killed), but his domestic policies, including the 40 million African Americans who now have equal rights in all 50 states, 70 million people who have access to healthcare and other sweeping anti poverty programmes, overall you can see why he was a net positive.

Arguably the biggest number of changes since FDR and the New Deal, and nothing better since then either. Fantastic social policies.

Vietnam really does stink the whole thing up though, it was the first modern "dirty" war without real justification that the US got involved in, and their foreign policy has been no good for anyone since then.

El_Duderino 09 · 20-02-2018 9:19am

Snickers Man wrote:

Have you a criminal record? Have you ever been diagnosed with a) schizophrenia b) paranoia c)post traumatic stress disorder Have you ever consulted a psychiatrist/psychologist because of behavioural issues? Have you ever been investigated for crimes conducted during the Nazi era in Germany?

Those questions might be a good start.

The mind is complicated. It's not like you can dip a strip of cobalt paper into the brain and it comes out blue if the person is mental.

A perfectly normal person can have a psychotic break, or can become dangerous over a long period of time.

The fact is that America has a problem that doesn't exist in any other developed country - see the countries with similar or higher gun death rates Trump would call them sh1thole countries. If they want to deal with the problem it would take radical thinking and dealing with the problems at multiple points. Just restricting access to guns wont solve the problems.

I think Americans are happy to put up with gun violence in exchange for the freedom to have guns.

Hitman3000 · 20-02-2018 2:40pm

Just looking at Sky news. A principal of a school in Missouri apologised for a raffle his school held several hours after the Parkland massacre, the prize an AR 15 rifle.....

Billy86 · 20-02-2018 2:43pm

Those are pretty regular in some parts of the US, usually sponsored by the NRA if I am correct.

BattleCorp · 20-02-2018 3:19pm

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Just looking at Sky news. A principal of a school in Missouri apologised for a raffle his school held several hours after the Parkland massacre, the prize an AR 15 rifle.....

That's not unusual. Some banks gave out AR15 rifles if someone opened up a certain type of account with them.

Hitman3000 · 20-02-2018 3:23pm

BattleCorp wrote:

That's not unusual. Some banks gave out AR15 rifles if someone opened up a certain type of account with them.

No wonder there is such a fcuked up relationship with guns in America.....

BattleCorp · 20-02-2018 3:25pm

Hitman3000 wrote: »

No wonder there is such a fcuked up relationship with guns in America.....

There are raffles held here in Ireland where firearms are given out as prizes. Winners would need a licence though before they could take possession of them.

Hitman3000 · 20-02-2018 3:38pm

BattleCorp wrote:

There are raffles held here in Ireland where firearms are given out as prizes. Winners would need a licence though before they could take possession of them.

Are there? Care to provide evidence if your claim.

BattleCorp · 20-02-2018 3:54pm

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Are there? Care to provide evidence if your claim.

Our club held a raffle as a fundraiser for a sick member of our club.

Hitman3000 · 20-02-2018 4:23pm

BattleCorp wrote:

Our club held a raffle as a fundraiser for a sick member of our club.

So a hunting club held a raffle? Bit different than a school or a bank handing out an AR 15 as a prize or promotional gimmick. What was the prize?

BattleCorp · 20-02-2018 4:46pm

Hitman3000 wrote: »

So a hunting club held a raffle? Bit different than a school or a bank handing out an AR 15 as a prize or promotional gimmick. What was the prize?

I never mentioned a school or a bank. I just said there are raffles held here in Ireland where firearms are given out as a prize.

My club isn't a hunting club, it's a target shooting club. There were four guns as prizes.

vetinari · 20-02-2018 4:48pm

Yeah, but the prize is related to the club's activity. I'd be surprised to see a bank in Ireland have a rifle as a reward for opening an account.

BattleCorp · 20-02-2018 4:54pm

vetinari wrote: »

Yeah, but the prize is related to the club's activity. I'd be surprised to see a bank in Ireland have a rifle as a reward for opening an account.

Ah yeah, agreed. But that's what happens in America.

Hitman3000 · 20-02-2018 5:02pm

BattleCorp wrote:

Ah yeah, agreed. But that's what happens in America.

So you tried to make an invalid comparison.

BattleCorp · 20-02-2018 5:12pm

Hitman3000 wrote: »

What type of guns? You forgot to answer.

A custom build Dlask/Kidd .22 Gallery Rifle
A Grandpower K22 X-trim
A Tactical Innovations 10/22 straight pull rifle.
One other gun that I can't remember. It was a rifle. I think it was something suitable for hunting.

BattleCorp · 20-02-2018 5:14pm

Hitman3000 wrote: »

So you tried to make an invalid comparison.

Nope. Read my post #505. I didn't compare it to anything. Just made a statement.

Hitman3000 · 20-02-2018 5:16pm

BattleCorp wrote:

A custom build Dlask/Kidd .22 Gallery Rifle A Grandpower K22 X-trim A Tactical Innovations 10/22 straight pull rifle. One other gun that I can't remember. It was a rifle. I think it was something suitable for hunting.

Specifically though nine if which can be legally held without a licence and gunclub membership.
None of which are remotely in the category of the weapon I mentioned in a raffle held by a school.

Hitman3000 · 20-02-2018 5:19pm

BattleCorp wrote:

Nope. Read my post #505. I didn't compare it to anything. Just made a statement.

I did, I mentioned a school raffling an AR 15 hours after the Parkland massacre, you proceeded to say raffles for weapons are held in Ireland the inference is 'what's the difference '

BattleCorp · 20-02-2018 6:14pm

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Specifically though nine if which can be legally held without a licence and gunclub membership.
None of which are remotely in the category of the weapon I mentioned in a raffle held by a school.

Agreed, they are not in the category of firearm raffled in the school. You can own the rifles without membership of a gun club. You still need a licence but there's no requirement to be in a gunclub.

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I did, I mentioned a school raffling an AR 15 hours after the Parkland massacre, you proceeded to say raffles for weapons are held in Ireland the inference is 'what's the difference '

Can you stop trying to put words in my mouth please. I didn't infer 'what's the difference'. I took from your post that you seemed surprised that guns would be raffled in America. I didn't compare guns or anything. I just said that guns are also raffled here.

School Shooting in Parkland, Florida

Comments