Parkland FL HS shooting, shooter arrested, 17 dead

  • Thread starter Obelisk
  • 675 comments
  • 28,780 views
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.
You can't think of any other instance "it doesn't mean the same thing to our ears..." has been disregarded time and time again when it comes to the second amendment?

I actually suspect you had to think for a moment to come up with one other than those defending certain types of firearms to those arguing the founding fathers probably couldn't imagine how far technology would advance.

As I said, the text is ambiguous. Regulations are in place that define the word further by making it more difficult to acquire [presumably] more dangerous firearms. There is no reason the word can't be defined further.
 
You can't think of any other instance "it doesn't mean the same thing to our ears..." has been disregarded time and time again when it comes to the second amendment?

I actually suspect you had to think for a moment to come up with one other than those defending certain types of firearms to those arguing the founding fathers probably couldn't imagine how far technology would advance.

As I said, the text is ambiguous. Regulations are in place that define the word further by making it more difficult to acquire [presumably] more dangerous firearms. There is no reason the word can't be defined further.

Taken to the guns thread.
 
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.

Yeah I'm not really on the arm teachers side but there is one thing I know for sure and that's that most people don't like being shot at whether you are strolling through your day to day or you are the one planning to shoot up a school. My high school had a resource officer on campus always and I saw him arrest one kid and it turns out he had brought a gun to school in his backpack and planned to either brandish it to a student he had a disagreement with or shoot said other student. He was a new student and from Mexico. I was in class and the principle and the resource officer came in and called him by name and arrested him on the spot. This was either 1998 or 1999. Can't remember for sure.

***Edit*** It was 1997. Sorry.

http://articles.latimes.com/1997/sep/16/local/me-32930 Also I don't remember it right. Was in the hall.
 
Last edited:
It turns out there were no fewer than four Broward County Sheriff's Deputies who refused to enter the school school until after police arrived. Was it cowardice, or policy? At least one of them has lost his job.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/politics/parkland-school-shooting-broward-deputies/index.html

I looked up Broward County on wiki and found some interesting demographics, including this:
Broward County is now the most reliably Democratic county in the state,[45][46] with the exception of the much less populous and majority African American Gadsden County in North Florida. This change in voting tendencies can be attributed to the large migrations of middle and upper-class snowbirds and transplants from more liberal states, a growing LGBT community, liberal positions on social issues such as abortion and gun control, and naturalized U.S. citizens born in places such as Latin America, the Caribbean, Canada, Europe, and Asia.


Also, I found this amusing idea - the military connection "nobody wants to talk about".
http://theantimedia.org/mass-shooters-common/

(ANTIMEDIA) — In the aftermath of yet another mass shooting in the United States, the internet and broadcast news alike are inundated with commentary about why this keeps happening in America. Some blame guns, others blame mental health, and still others confidently blame false flag events and crisis actors.

But one commonality among numerous mass killings in the United States remains absent from these conversations. It is always reported when details of the shooter are published, but the widespread connection is rarely acknowledged: A mounting number of mass shooters have ties to the military, including Nikolas Cruz, who was a member of his school’s military prep organization, JROTC (Army Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps).

The United States has indulged in a culture of ‘patriotic’ militarism for decades, glorifying this institutionalized violence as a sign of strength and morality. As Anti-Media observed last week shortly after the Florida shooting, “We memorialize those who commit violence for the government and hold them in the highest esteem — throwing tantrums when others express dissenting opinions or fail to bow to the people who serve these institutions.”

Indeed, this glorification of violence bleeds over into the United States’ unique problem of individuals committing acts of mass violence. Here is a brief sampling of perpetrators of some of the most high-profile mass shootings in recent years. Many were either members of the military at some point, were rejected by the military (but clearly wanted to join), or came from a military family:
  • Chris Harper Mercer, who shot up a school in Oregon, was kicked out of the army and often wore military fatigue pants as a regular outfit. He was described as “militant.”
  • The Navy Yard shooter, Aaron Alexis, was a Navy reservist before he became a contractor and conducted his rampage on military grounds.
  • Nidal Hassan, the Fort Hood shooter, was a psychiatrist in the military and committed his shooting on military grounds.
  • Wade Michael Page, who opened fire on a Sikh temple, was kicked out of the military.
  • Devin Patrick Kelly, who killed 26 people in a chapel in Texas last year, was also kicked out of the military.
  • Esteban Santiago-Ruiz, who shot up the Ft. Lauderdale airport, was a member of the National Guard.
  • Chris Dorner, who notoriously began murdering police officers over deeply-rooted frustrations over racism and injustice within the Los Angeles Police Department, was a Marine before he became a cop.
  • Micah Javier Johnson, who went on a cop-killing spree in Dallas in 2016, was a member of the Army Reserves and fought in Afghanistan.
  • At least one member of a foiled plot to blow up a mosque in Kansas had served in the military and then continued in the National Guard.
  • Eric Frein, who ambushed Pennsylvania state troopers in 2014, came from a military family, reenacted military battles, and carried military gear and camouflage face paint. Police found an Army sniper handbook in his bedroom.
  • One of the infamous Columbine High School shooters, Eric Harris, came from a military family and was rejected by the Marines over his use of antidepressants.
Other shooters, like Paul Ciancia, Adam Lanza, and James Holmes showed up to their shootings donning battle gear, and while this does not implicate a direct tie to the military, their decision to show up to a massacre of innocent people in tactical outfits (most commonly associated with the military and police) arguably demonstrates their mentality: one of battle, which is constantly glorified in American culture. Unsurprisingly, Cruz wore his JROTC shirt to shoot up Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.
 
Last edited:
I like that one about the military connection. A bunch of non hackers who were mostly rejected or kicked out meaning unfit for military service. Dorner was never a Marine. Nidal Hasan was a terrorist. The connection is they were all whack jobs and some flew under the radar better than others. Marc Lepine is not on that list because he was not a US mass shooter but Canada. He tried to join the Canadian armed forces but was turned away. He went to a university, seperated all the women and shot them because “feminism ruined his life”. He killed 14 women and wounded 10 women and 4 men before killing himself. There was a military connection in there somewhere though.
 
A bit late to the party again, but I would like to address some things:

The only reason there are no stricter gun laws on, for example automatic weapons
As someone mentioned up thread, automatic weapons manufactured after 1986 are banned in the US.

I meant a rifle like an AR-15
oh, so you support the banning of Semi-Automatic weapons, perfectly legal in the US since invention?

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.
Not true. There is a minimum of a three day waiting period for handguns, possibly longer in the case of the gun that he used in the shooting. The only exception is that if that person was a concealed weapons holder, which Cruz obviously was not. This goes to show that whoever sold him the gun in the first place broke the law. source

Edit to add: It is either that or Cruz planned this out at least four days in advance.

Also it isnt required to register it.
That is about the only true thing that you said all day.

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.
The issue isn't that you train them, the issue lies with the drills that they would undertake once a gun enters the classroom. As stated earlier, I support that teachers should be armed. But they should practice active shooter situations to keep their skills sharp.
 
Last edited:
Semi-Automatic is not 3 shots per trigger pull. That would be burst fire, which would make the rifle an Assault Rifle, which has been illegal in the US for quite a while.
 
The issue isn't that you train them, the issue lies with the drills that they would undertake once a gun enters the classroom. As stated earlier, I support that teachers should be armed. But they should practice active shooter situations to keep their skills sharp.

Actually, the real issue is who will pay for the training and weapons. If it does come so far, I'd say tax guns or bullets.

It's still by far one of the dumbest ideas sprouted so far though.
 
Semi-Automatic is not 3 shots per trigger pull. That would be burst fire, which would make the rifle an Assault Rifle, which has been illegal in the US for quite a while.

While I know this I’d bet LMSCorvetteGT2 does as well. But read the wording again on sanji’s post to see why we are confused.
 
Semi-Automatic is not 3 shots per trigger pull. That would be burst fire, which would make the rifle an Assault Rifle, which has been illegal in the US for quite a while.

Assault rifles are a type of weapon, there is nothing that has made them illegal, there was the Assault weapon ban of the mid 90s, that did not use anything from industry to define the weapons and took a broad stroke approach. Thus even the gov't was clueless to what they were banning, other than the fact they look like a military derivative or for "combat". Burst fire as I just said is a selective fire option which isn't legal.
 
A bit late to the party again, but I would like to address some things:

As someone mentioned up thread, automatic weapons manufactured after 1986 are banned in the US.

oh, so you support the banning of Semi-Automatic weapons, perfectly legal in the US since invention?

Not true. There is a minimum of a three day waiting period for handguns, possibly longer in the case of the gun that he used in the shooting. The only exception is that if that person was a concealed weapons holder, which Cruz obviously was not. This goes to show that whoever sold him the gun in the first place broke the law. source

Edit to add: It is either that or Cruz planned this out at least four days in advance.

That is about the only true thing that you said all day.

The issue isn't that you train them, the issue lies with the drills that they would undertake once a gun enters the classroom. As stated earlier, I support that teachers should be armed. But they should practice active shooter situations to keep their skills sharp.
You totally missed the point. I corrected it in an edit. Anyways not going to go into it anymore. The discussion is for the us citizens I’m just glad the schools where my kids go to don’t need to have one of the following: armed teachers, security guards, fences, metal detectors etc. I truly hope such occurrence will never happen again! With or without any gun control.
 
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.

According to your logics all emergency training is for nought, like first aid, self defense, survival training, military training, police training etc. because they cannot simulate the pressure of a real emergency / dangerous situation.

But there is many training courses for situations where lives are at stake and it turns out they are effective, thats why they exist and why they are highly regarded. How to use guns effectively in emergencies is no exception.
 
Last edited:
Training is expensive. Who pays for it? Americans won't pay for their teachers to get a good salary for the work that they already do and they won't fund all schools enough to allow students to have reasonable class sizes, advanced classes, music, art, hands-on learning, and vocational classes. Why will they pay for a percentage of teachers to be professionally trained in handling a gun in what is, effectively, a combat situation? I saw a figure thrown around that it cost around $15k to train a Marine in 2006, not factoring in equipment or salary. If 20% of teachers are armed and trained, and you have a staff/student ratio of 1:15, then you're expecting each armed teacher to protect 79 people. In such a situation it's not likely that they'll know the exact location of a shooter without some method of communicating, which risks both alerting the shooter to their presence and could cost more money. Is it reasonable to expect a Marine just out of basic training to protect 79 civilians from one shooter who is potentially heavily armed and likely more concerned with making headlines than living? I don't think it is, but that's up for debate. If we say that it is, and that the 20% figure is acceptable, then that leaves you with 20% of 3.2 million teachers, which is 640,000 teachers to train. Assume their training costs $15k, that will come to $9,600,000,000. That's without factoring in the cost of establishing an organisational structure to allow this training to be managed, buying and maintaining weapons and storage facilities, building new training facilities, and paying the salaries and expenses of the teachers while they're being trained.
 
According to your logics all emergency training is for nought, like first aid, self defense, survival training, military training, police training etc. because they cannot simulate the pressure of a real emergency / dangerous situation.

But there is many training courses for situations where lives are at stake and it turns out they are effective, thats why they exist and why they are highly regarded. How to use guns effectively in emergencies is no exception.

Tell that to the cop who let 17 kids die.

Edit.

Give me one example of a training that involves being shot at with live ammo. Not shooting with live ammo but being shot at with live ammo. A training that can actually kill you.

Nothing simulates the pressure of possibly dying. That's why people freeze when the real **** is going down. You can't tell that in advance.

Again. More guns isn't the answer. Start with repairing the damage that's already here.
 
Last edited:
Muh Gunz will protect us from tyranny hahahaha

Good luck fighting an army which has drones, f22's and f35's and a million well trained personnel.

Your gunz wont do anything. So called tyranny takeover in the usa made sense when everybody had muskets. I doubt a tyranny or a dictaorship will happen as the US political system and constituion limits any sort of dictatorship from happening.
 
Last edited:
Tell that to the cop who let 17 kids die.

Edit.

Give me one example of a training that involves being shot at with live ammo. Not shooting with live ammo but being shot at with live ammo. A training that can actually kill you.

Nothing simulates the pressure of possibly dying. That's why people freeze when the real **** is going down. You can't tell that in advance.

Again. More guns isn't the answer. Start with repairing the damage that's already here.

Your hate against guns is clouding your logics and leads you to half baked conclusion. People training for live or death situations on a daily basis, that training is mandatory for many jobs, and survivors of tough situations that actually had to use their training and knowledge often report how beneficial their knowledge and training was and that it kept them level headed.

Training on puppets does not prepare you for the stress of patching up real injured bleeding dying people, but it sure helps a lot, kicking and boxing dummies sure as hell does not simulate a real attack, but learning how to defend yourself with arms and legs sure helps a ton.

Flying bullets is the same thing, while it does not simulate the stress of that situation it prepares you to act correctly and effectively when something terrible happens. That is what training is for, to make you act automatically no matter the circumstances.

And more guns is THE solution, if more guns did not help then why do people call the police when a shooting rampage happens? Police is armed men and women with a badge on their chest. People do not call police because they carry chocolate presents and flowers, they only call them because they are armed and supposed to stop the attacker with gun force. If they weren't armed nobody would call them. You don't call the fire brigade when a shooting happens, right?
 
Your hate against guns is clouding your logics and leads you to half baked conclusion. People training for live or death situations on a daily basis, that training is mandatory for many jobs, and survivors of tough situations that actually had to use their training and knowledge often report how beneficial their knowledge and training was and that it kept them level headed.

Training on puppets does not prepare you for patching up a real injured bleeding dying people, but it sure helps a lot, kicking and boxing dummies sure as hell does not simulate a real attack, but learning how to defend yourself with arms and legs sure help a ton.

Flying bullets is the same thing, while it does not simulate the stress of that situation it prepares you to act correctly and effectively when something terrible happens. That is what training is for, to make you act automatically no matter the circumstances.

And more guns is THE solution, if more guns did not help then why do people call the police when a shooting rampage happens? Police is armed men and women with a badge on their chest. People do not call police because they carry chocolate presents and flowers, they only call them because they are armed. if they weren't nobody would call them.

Please show me where I hate guns or want to take them away.

Listen to yourself. You're defending what is probably the most stupid solution out there. You want more guns in a place where people have shown that they can't handle the responsibility. Fix the current situation.

I'm done discussing this ridiculous subject.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
According to your logics all emergency training is for nought, like first aid, self defense, survival training, military training, police training etc. because they cannot simulate the pressure of a real emergency / dangerous situation.

But there is many training courses for situations where lives are at stake and it turns out they are effective, thats why they exist and why they are highly regarded. How to use guns effectively in emergencies is no exception.
It works for military and police training because they constantly drill for it, so unless you are advocating that teachers are trained constantly to deal with this then its a nonstarter (and by constantly I mean just that - not annual refreshers, but all the time).

 
Please show me where I hate guns or want to take them away.

Listen to yourself. You're defending what is probably the most stupid solution out there. You want more guns in a place where people have shown that they can't handle the responsibility. Fix the current situation.

I'm done discussing this ridiculous subject.

Ragequit if you must, but calling things ridiculous and stupid when you tell me that emergency training does not work and when telling me more guns is not the solution when police has to arrive at the scene to solve the problem with actual guns is quite funny.

People can handle firearms just fine, statistically 99,999999% of the people who own guns do not commit any crime and and do not shoot themselves. Thats as good as with any other possibly dangerous object like cars or fuel. People are responsible, sadly that 000000,1% will always exist and cause trouble, but you cannot call literally millions of people not responsible enough to handle a firearm. You let the media manipulate you in thinking people cannot handle firearms when in fact only an incredibly tiny fraction cannot.

It works for military and police training because they constantly drill for it, so unless you are advocating that teachers are trained constantly to deal with this then its a nonstarter (and by constantly I mean just that - not annual refreshers, but all the time).

Police does not train nearly as often as you'd think, but I would opt for armed security personnel instead that have more time to train than the teachers. Teachers are busy enough with their regular job already. That could actually be a job for veterans who already know the drill and maybe even have combat experience.

Also, in the recent church shooting the person who stopped the attacker was a civilian armed with an AR-15, he did have some training under his belt, kept level headed under fire, took a good shot and stopped the attack on another church probably saving dozens of lives.- You do not need to train daily for many hours to have a reasonable amount of training for such situations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ragequit if you must, but calling things ridiculous and stupid when you tell me that emergency training does not work and when telling me more guns is not the solution when police has to arrive at the scene to solve the problem with actual guns is quite funny.

People can handle firearms just fine, statistically 99,999999% of the people who own guns do not commit any crime and and do not shoot themselves. Thats as good as with any other possibly dangerous object like cars or fuel. People are responsible, sadly that 000000,1% will always exist and cause trouble, but you cannot call literally millions of people not responsible enough to handle a firearm. You let the media manipulate you in thinking people cannot handle firearms when in fact only an incredibly tiny fraction cannot.
People can not handle firearms in a active shooter situation without constant and continuous training, that's been shown time and time again.

They become a risk to themselves, to others and also now add to the confusion as to who the actual shooter(s) are when those trained do arrive.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
People can not handle firearms in a active shooter situation without constant and continuous training, that's been shown time and time again.

They become a risk to themselves, to others and also now add to the confusion as to who the actual shooter(s) are when those trained do arrive.

I just gave you a good example that they can, in the recent church shooting. There is also many situations of self defense when people acted correctly when faced by an intruder with a gun or during robberies or assault. It does not take so much training, even the police and military does not train as much for such situations as you would think - and I do have a military background.
 
Police does not train nearly as often as you'd think, but I would opt for armed security personnel instead that have more time to train than the teachers. Teachers are busy enough with their regular job already. That could actually be a job for veterans who already know the drill and maybe even have combat experience.
Police and the military still have significant;y more time to train than teachers ever will, nor do those same bodies agree with you that this is something that anyone can do with minimal continuous training.

Also, in the recent church shooting the person who stopped the attacker was a civilian armed with an AR-15, he did have some training under his belt, kept level headed under fire, took a good shot and stopped the attack on another church probably saving dozens of lives.- You do not need to train daily for many hours to have a reasonable amount of training for such situations.
And for every one of these stories you have a number of these.........

https://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/te...ots-carjacking-victim-in-head-then-runs-away/

...........which is why anecdotal single piece evidence is never a good way to look at things, and rather the entire body of evidence is better to look at. which points to the 'good guy with a gun' being far from the norm, and more often not being the reality.

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/evd4we/the-good-guy-with-a-gun-theory-debunked
 
Police and the military still have significant;y more time to train than teachers ever will, nor do those same bodies agree with you that this is something that anyone can do with minimal continuous training.
Thats true, teachers are very busy people thats why I mentioned that dedicated security personnel would make more sense. Please read my posts more carefully.

..........which is why anecdotal single piece evidence is never a good way to look at things, and rather the entire body of evidence is better to look at. which points to the 'good guy with a gun' being far from the norm, and more often not being the reality.

Show me the ''whole body of evidence'' and I will counter each of your stories with videos and stories where people have used guns to defend themselves against attackers, burglars etc. effectively.

Also I would not take vice very seriously.
 
Thats true, teachers are very busy people thats why I mentioned that dedicated security personnel would make more sense. Please read my posts more carefully.



Show me the ''whole body of evidence'' and I will counter each of your stories with videos and stories where people have used guns to defend themselves against attackers, burglars etc. effectively.

Also I would not take vice very seriously.
Follow the link in the article to the 37 year study by Stamford university.

Edit here you go:
https://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/violent-crime-increases-right-carry-states/
 
As a wise man once said, only believe in the statistics you have falsified yourself - there is no way you can validate the data and their exact definition of ''violent crime''. I know somebody who works on statistics full time, the way you define the data the statistics can point either way. We had an official statistic that said crime is going down drastically - later it was leaked that they simply took a dozen of assaults and declared them as series - bam, a dozen individual crimes wrapped into one single crime. Do this a couple of times and crime that is rising is actually portrayed as if it was declining. Statistics work like that, I would not trust in those numbers.

I do not trust any kind of statistic anymore, especially not from biased sources, be it pro guns or against guns.
 
Last edited:
Back