Parkland FL HS shooting, shooter arrested, 17 dead

[TexRex]

Automatic weapons have been BANNED from the US for DECADES.

Why?

 

[PocketZeven]

Why do you keep going back to this in every mass shooting thread? Are you under the impression that automatic weapons are legal for everyday purchase in the US and are not regulated?

Good question! I find US politics really engaging and i am surprised in the influence Big Pharma and Gun manufacturers have in politics. I also prefer not to comment in mass shooting threads, but there are just so many in the US. (also this is only the 2nd mass shooting thread i am posting)

I'm no expert in weaponry. I meant a rifle like an AR-15, which can be purchased on the same day quite easily in Florida, without a waiting period, as long you have not had any trouble with the law before. Also it isnt required to register it. I was probably mistaken that an AR-15 is an automatic weapon. I wasnt lying.. maybe a bit ignorent on weapons.

 

[TetsuKobura]

Why?

Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 bans all automatic weapons in the united states from 1986 and forward. Guns made prior are not subject to this rule.

 

[Blood Eagle]

Good question! I find US politics really engaging and i am surprised in the influence Big Pharma and Gun manufacturers have in politics. I also prefer not to comment in mass shooting threads, but there are just so many in the US. (also this is only the 2nd mass shooting thread i am posting)

I'm no expert in weaponry. I meant a rifle like an AR-15, which can be purchased on the same day quite easily in Florida, without a waiting period, as long you have not had any trouble with the law before. You also do not need to register it.

It's understandable to not be an expert in weaponry but ARs are not automatic. I live in California. Here ARs are all but banned, magazine limitation is 10 rounds and 30 round magazines are illegal. There is also a mandatory 10 day wait and mandatory registration on all handgun and long guns and you have to pass a test to be able to buy a handgun. No law on the books stopped the San Bernardino shooting which was a terrorist act. Banning certain guns for aesthetics to me is a bigger indicator that the end result is an eventual ban on all guns if they can get the support and tug at the heartstrings of Americans enough. Emotionally charged legislation drags this down an actual slippery slope of bad-faith compromises.

 

[Danoff]

You don't know anything about US gun laws, do you? Automatic weapons have been BANNED from the US for DECADES. This is not an NRA issue, so quit spreading bs lies.

Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 bans all automatic weapons in the united states from 1986 and forward. Guns made prior are not subject to this rule.

As you pointed out, automatic weapons haven't actually been banned. It's quite difficult to get one though. You can own a tank in the US if you go through the right processes.

 

[TexRex]

Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 bans all automatic weapons in the united states from 1986 and forward. Guns made prior are not subject to this rule.

That's a statement regarding and interpretation of an act/law--one that the subsequent post indicates as incorrect--not an answer to the question that was asked.

Why must one jump through more hoops to acquire an automatic weapon through legitimate channels? Why can't I buy one without meeting requirements additional to, or different from, those for non-automatic firearms?

 

[Blood Eagle]

What TexRex is trying to do is get TetsuKobura to admit that the reason for the regulation of full auto weapons is because of the National Firearms Act which was a response to a massacure using fully automatic weapons in the 1930's. Then I assume he'll turn it into an argument that the government did at some point do something and now don't. It's an easy setup and you should understand the reasons for the original question.

 

[Dennisch]

the National Firearms Act which was a response to a massacure using fully automatic weapons in the 1930's.

Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 bans all automatic weapons in the united states from 1986 and forward.

Man, that's a quick response.

 

[Blood Eagle]

Man, that's a quick response.

The NFA and the Firearm Owners Protection Act are not the same thing. NFA is from the 1930's. At least research what both are.

 

[Dennisch]

The NFA and the Firearm Owners Protection Act are not the same thing. NFA is from the 1930's. At least research what both are.

Twas a joke. Don't get your red white and blue panties in a bunch.

 

[Blood Eagle]

Twas a joke. Don't get your red white and blue panties in a bunch.

G-strings don't bunch up bro.

 

[ryzno]

There goes covfefe all over my dash!!

 

[TexRex]

Twas a joke. Don't get your red white and blue panties in a bunch.

 

[Dennisch]

Why is nobody talking about the armed guard or armed school resource manager, who was at the school since 2009, and did nothing but take a defensive position?

I thought that the only thing to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun? And this one seems to be a trained one.

 

[Blood Eagle]

Why is nobody talking about the armed guard or armed school resource manager, who was at the school since 2009, and did nothing but taking a defensive position?

I thought that the only thing to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun? And this one seems to be a trained one.

When I was in the Military we called that Dereliction of Duty but Police Officers in the United States have no Constitutional obligation to protect the general public. That gun they carry is to protect themselves. It doesn't really help that people glorify Police Officers and the Military. What you have is a coward. Cop/military or whatever. That's not to say someone else would have done the exact same thing be it another officer or civilian. It's one example. Can't really base everything on it.

 

[Pupik]

Why is nobody talking about the armed guard or armed school resource manager, who was at the school since 2009, and did nothing but take a defensive position?

I thought that the only thing to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun? And this one seems to be a trained one.

We used to joke that school resource officers probably couldn't shoot the broad side of a barn, so maybe we were right.

https://www.local10.com/news/parkla...officer-did-not-enter-school-during-shootings

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/2...never-went-in-amid-shooting-sheriff-says.html

How often does this happen? We'll never know.

Admittedly, I'd probably crap myself silly.

 

[Dennisch]

And there lies the problem with the idea of arming teachers. You can train them to use a gun all day long, but you can't simulate the pressure a real situation brings.

 

[Blood Eagle]

And there lies the problem with the idea of arming teachers. You can train them to use a gun all day long, but you can't simulate the pressure a real situation brings.

I think that's debatable. People react differently to stressful situations and not everyone's brain works the same. That said, I've never advocated arming teachers but I'd support it over banning specific types of guns. You can't base what happened in this situation to all potential future situations under the same circumstances.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Dear sir,

This was just a very rough forumpost. I am from the Netherlands, where mass shootings is far less of a fear in daily life. It was a not tirade and im not emotionally reacting. I just dont find any logic in american (mostly conservative) policy views. The post was not 100% accurate and should be taken in with a little nuance to it. Since the 80's the US also been massively agressive against drugdealing and use (high jailsentences), yet incredibly lax concerning weapon ownership. The freedom to own and use both are treated very differently. (one is in your constitution and one not)

In my opinion the problem is not the 2nd amendment, but lobbying in politics. The NRA actively push and create this culture of gun enthousiast to promote their own financial intrest. And like other wealthy individuals and organisations they can buy influence in the government. Politicians should not be able to be bought, but be representatives of the people. The only reason there are no stricter gun laws on, for example automatic weapons, is because the NRA doesnt want it and therefore bought politicians and created this idea that gun laws is "taking away your freedom", to scare their following to gain support.

the Netherlands just doesnt have a large gun culture. The general people dont have a desire to own or use guns. Why would we?

Hell... people should be pissed that Kinder eggs were banned! Why take away a child's freedom to enjoy delishes chocolate and a wonderful toy! Because a child accidently choked and died? Well "kinder eggs dont kill people! People do!".


Here in the Netherlands having small amounts of drugs is actually "allowed". Law enforcement solely concentrate on the dealers, smugglers and not the user. They even have government funded test labs where you can test your xtc, cocaine etc. If its good or bad quality anomously!

I don't fear but if you want to believe media, then yeah we live in boarded up houses, arm lock in groups to and from the grocery store, and stay ever vigilant cause we're just waiting to get mowed down...

And there lies the problem with the idea of arming teachers. You can train them to use a gun all day long, but you can't simulate the pressure a real situation brings.

I imagine it's quite different between someone facing a shooter with the potential to stop them or die, and that of a guy safe from the situation and has a choice to put himself in the danger. The fact that ROTC members died to save their fellow classmates, proves that somewhat.

It also puts into perspective how brave they were compared to a guy that claimed to serve and protect.

 

[Joey D]

I think that's debatable. People react differently to stressful situations and not everyone's brain works the same. That said, I've never advocated arming teachers but I'd support it over banning specific types of guns. You can't base what happened in this situation to all potential future situations under the same circumstances.

I honestly don't think many teachers would have the wherewithal to handle a gun in a high-pressure situation with 30+ students in close proximity. Police officers, armed guards, and military personnel train fairly hard to get to a level where they can use a weapon effectively if need be. Even then, they make mistakes or use their weapons inappropriately.

Also, if I had a kid, I wouldn't be comfortable having them be in a classroom with an armed teacher. A school with an armed guard or police officer? Sure, I'd have no issues, but not a teacher. In my opinion, a teacher's job is to teach, not go on the offensive if something happens. Plus, as mentioned already, many teachers aren't stable. They have a high-stress job, with long hours, low pay, and typically crushing debt. I've seen enough mild manner teachers absolutely lose it either in the classroom or even on social media.

 

[McLaren]

You don't need to worry about an oppressive government anymore. Your army is big enough to protect your rights.

What was the big topic of 2017 again? Oh yes, police brutality and how cops never say anything about the bad apples in their uniform. How they serve as judge, jury, and executioner on the streets, specifically to the African American population.

Now people want gun owners to turn over their weapons to the very same people.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Why is nobody talking about the armed guard or armed school resource manager, who was at the school since 2009, and did nothing but take a defensive position?

I thought that the only thing to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun? And this one seems to be a trained one.

Probably the same reason few people are talking about the tips called in to the Sherrif's office prior to the shooting. Or the time police were called after he assaulted someone and were told he was threatening to go and get his gun. Or the warnings received by the FBI about the YT comment, “I’m going to be a professional school shooter,” posted under his own name. Or the second warning the FBI received in the form of a call to a tip line to "warn them that Cruz had expressed a desire to kill people and was a potential school shooter. The caller apparently 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.

Or perhaps people are talking about those things but it's hard to hear them over people shouting, "BAN ALL DA GUNZ AND MAKE A LOT MORE LAWZ!!".

 

[Touring Mars]

Why is nobody talking about the armed guard or armed school resource manager, who was at the school since 2009, and did nothing but take a defensive position?

Who knew that having an armed guard in every school in the nation isn't going to stop mass shootings.

There seems to be this idea that security guards/teachers/people in general ought to be trained or trainable in guerilla warfare and/or close-range combat with semi-automatic weapons. Of course, one would hope that a security guard, janitor or teacher who is given a gun (and told to use it in the event of an attack) is properly trained in dealing with an actual shooting spree, lest it causes more shootings that it prevents.

The article I read this morning states that it is not yet known whether the guard will face criminal charges, but that the local sheriff is of the opinion - no doubt shared by many - that the guard should have 'gone in and killed the killer'; which raises an important question. Would armed teachers face criminal charges for not killing a rampaging gunman, or a student who pulls a gun or knife out in class?

 

[Dotini]

 

[TexRex]

people in general ought to be trained or trainable in guerilla warfare and/or close-range combat with semi-automatic weapons.

It seems to me that that would play a significant role in a well regulated militia; you know, the first part of the second amendment, staunch proponents of which seem to never mention.

If the word of the document is the end-all be-all that people make it out to be, why is there no expectation, let alone requirement (I certainly don't recall one), for those seeking lawful possession to respond to a call to arms?

 

[Danoff]

Who knew that having an armed guard in every school in the nation isn't going to stop mass shootings.

There seems to be this idea that security guards/teachers/people in general ought to be trained or trainable in guerilla warfare and/or close-range combat with semi-automatic weapons. Of course, one would hope that a security guard, janitor or teacher who is given a gun (and told to use it in the event of an attack) is properly trained in dealing with an actual shooting spree, lest it causes more shootings that it prevents.

The article I read this morning states that it is not yet known whether the guard will face criminal charges, but that the local sheriff is of the opinion - no doubt shared by many - that the guard should have 'gone in and killed the killer'; which raises an important question. Would armed teachers face criminal charges for not killing a rampaging gunman, or a student who pulls a gun or knife out in class?

I don't think the guard should face criminal charges, but he should probably be fired - seeing as how he didn't do his job. If it's the job of the teachers to use a gun in that situation, I think you scare off a lot of really great teachers. If it's "optional" then you only end up with the teachers that want a gun in the classroom having one... and that seems like it's biasing toward teachers that would themselves go on a rampage.

It's not a good solution. I think having police presence in or near schools is not a bad idea, but we need to stop telling police that their job is to cover their own rear and remind them that the job is to put their life on the line for the safety of the public. That's the job.

It seems to me that that would play a significant role in a well regulated militia; you know, the first part of the second amendment, staunch proponents of which seem to never mention.

It's not mentioned often because, first of all, it doesn't mean the same thing to our ears today as it did then, and second of all, it's an aside... one justification of potentially many. It has been analyzed to death, including in DC vs. Heller (which gets brought up a lot for good reason).


Edit:

What it means is... "the ability to defend yourself being essential to freedom".

 

[TexRex]

it doesn't mean the same thing to our ears today as it did then

Is it just me or has that assertion been shot down innumerable times with regards to the latter portion of the text?

The founding fathers lacked foresight, and it's because of this that it's crucial that the text be reinterpreted constantly, as it pertains to modern life, rather than choked out like so much chewing tobacco.

The word of the text is ambiguous; this is both a good and a bad thing. Laws and regulations are necessary to fill in the gaps.

 

[Danoff]

Is it just me or has that assertion been shot down innumerable times with regards to the latter portion of the text?

I don't know what you're referring to.


Edit:

Here's the wikipedia excerpt of what is a more thorough analysis in the majority opinion

The Court also added dicta regarding the private ownership of machine guns. In doing so, it suggested the elevation of the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision, which by itself protects handguns, over the first prong (protecting arms that "have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"), which may not by itself protect machine guns: "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home."[49]

The Court did not address which level of judicial review should be used by lower courts in deciding future cases claiming infringement of the right to keep and bear arms: "Since this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field." The Court states, "If all that was required to overcome the right to keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws, and would have no effect."[50] Also, regarding Justice Breyer's proposal of a "judge-empowering 'interest-balancing inquiry,'" the Court states, "We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding 'interest-balancing' approach."[51]

 

[TexRex]

I don't know what you're referring to.

"It doesn't mean the same thing to our ears..."

I myself have seen that argument shot down by staunch proponents of the status quo when it's presented by those seeking change with regards to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"; I can't begin to imagine how many times it has been in total.

 

[Danoff]

"It doesn't mean the same thing to our ears..."

I myself have seen that argument shot down by staunch proponents of the status quo when it's presented by those seeking change with regards to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"; I can't begin to imagine how many times it has been in total.

It would depend on the context. If they're trying to use that to justify their right to buy a gun without any background checks, licensing, etc.... yea that has been shot down. Hard. Basically every time.