Why no school shooter thread?

The left argument has now turned to “see! Armed guards don’t work! Look at this one example!” 

posted by SportsAndLady

The left argument has now turned to “see! Armed guards don’t work! Look at this one example!” 

Kinda pokes holes in their "Only cops should have guns" argument, or that the government can protect you. Don't hire old ass, waiting on retirement, officers to be in crucial situations. I love how they hate cops 90% of the time but now decide that cops are human.

I wonder if the Sheriff had been a republican if the media would be going so soft on him. 

The FBI screwed this up - government agency.

The county sheriff screwed this up - government agency.

Leftist solution - "moar goverment!"

"Come with me and you'll be
In a world of pure indoctrination"

posted by queencitybuckeye

This. This times infinity.

 

Amen.

posted by iclfan2

It’s the same Broward County police department whose Sheriff blamed the NRA and everyone else except inept law enforcement. 

you somnetimes wonder if these people are directed to do this by elected political figures like this sherriff to fit the ant gun narrative.  Bigger body count draws more attention to their agenda

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/politics/lapierre-nra-analysis/index.html

unreal how low CNN will go to fit the narative.  Calling the SRO a "good guy with a gun"

posted by justincredible

Just verifying that you are, in fact, a grown man, and not a middle school kid, right?

Blame like_that runner-up for making derogatory comments to start it....he's just butt-hurt I figured out where his daddy lives from Flo......

HaHahahahaha

posted by salto

Blame like_that runner-up for making derogatory comments to start it....he's just butt-hurt I figured out where his daddy lives from Flo......

 

 

HaHahahahaha

Yikes, you are completely deranged.  And you think the world would be safer if you had a gun over belly?

Also,  congrats on admitting you are said.  You still try to deny it, but this pretty much confirms it, since the said alter username was the one who did this.  Justin, you permabanned said, just saying...

posted by Spock

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/politics/lapierre-nra-analysis/index.html

 

unreal how low CNN will go to fit the narative.  Calling the SRO a "good guy with a gun"

The gist of this article is that this is a complicated problem that doesn't have an easy fix.  That seems reasonable.  You can't legislate away guns and prevent this; you can't just arm all teachers and assume a suicidal shooter never shows up; you can't turn police state and investigate every kid who says something strange; etc.  This issue is confounding to say the least.  

Without going all political name calling on me, answer an honest question: why wouldn't banning assault rifles be a positive thing?  Has this kid in FLA not had a legally-purchased assault rifle, he likely would have still been able to kill, but perhaps not as many.  Plus he'd had have been easier to get to had there been someone willing to do it.  I realize that banning assault rifles doesn't make school shootings a nonissue.  But even if it only helps the problem a little, isn't it worth it.  I have yet to hear a good reason as to why these things need to remain legal to buy.  

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

The gist of this article is that this is a complicated problem that doesn't have an easy fix.  That seems reasonable.  You can't legislate away guns and prevent this; you can't just arm all teachers and assume a suicidal shooter never shows up; you can't turn police state and investigate every kid who says something strange; etc.  This issue is confounding to say the least.  

 

Without going all political name calling on me, answer an honest question: why wouldn't banning assault rifles be a positive thing?  Has this kid in FLA not had a legally-purchased assault rifle, he likely would have still been able to kill, but perhaps not as many.  Plus he'd had have been easier to get to had there been someone willing to do it.  I realize that banning assault rifles doesn't make school shootings a nonissue.  But even if it only helps the problem a little, isn't it worth it.  I have yet to hear a good reason as to why these things need to remain legal to buy.  

Slippery slope is the main reason many don't want that.

...and a real life Red Dawn....

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

The gist of this article is that this is a complicated problem that doesn't have an easy fix.  That seems reasonable.  You can't legislate away guns and prevent this; you can't just arm all teachers and assume a suicidal shooter never shows up; you can't turn police state and investigate every kid who says something strange; etc.  This issue is confounding to say the least.  

 

Without going all political name calling on me, answer an honest question: why wouldn't banning assault rifles be a positive thing?  Has this kid in FLA not had a legally-purchased assault rifle, he likely would have still been able to kill, but perhaps not as many.  Plus he'd had have been easier to get to had there been someone willing to do it.  I realize that banning assault rifles doesn't make school shootings a nonissue.  But even if it only helps the problem a little, isn't it worth it.  I have yet to hear a good reason as to why these things need to remain legal to buy.  

You read this entire thread, and are still calling them assault rifles?  SMH. 

Lets not use political terms used to apply names to weapons.  An AR 15 is not an "ASSAULT" rifle.  The act it was used for is an assault.  My hunting rifle at home can do the same thing.  Its not a assault weapon.

posted by like_that

You read this entire thread, and are still calling them assault rifles?  SMH. 

Whatever you want to call it then.... call it a thingymadiddly for all I care.  My question isn't about the name of the thing, it's about it's purpose in our society.  

posted by Spock

Lets not use political terms used to apply names to weapons.  An AR 15 is not an "ASSAULT" rifle.  The act it was used for is an assault.  My hunting rifle at home can do the same thing.  Its not a assault weapon.

Give me 60 rounds with an AR, you can have 60 with your hunting rifle, and let's see who can do more damage the quickest.

posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieWithout going all political name calling on me, answer an honest question: why wouldn't banning assault rifles be a positive thing? 

1. It is settled law that police officers are not required to protect us.

2. The Florida situation shows that not only do they not have to, sometimes they won't.

3. The overall average police response to an emergency call is 4 minutes. This also happens to be how long the shooting was reported to have lasted at that school. Way too long for situations where lives are on the line.

4. 1-3 make it pretty clear that if in a life of death situation, you must be your own first responder. Self-defense is an inalienable right. Such rights are not granted (or denied) by the government, the constitution lists the rights we have that they aren't allowed to fuck with. In short I get to choose how I defend myself, not you or "we".

5. There's no such fucking thing as an "assualt rifle". Stop with the everytown garbage.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

 

 

Without going all political name calling on me, answer an honest question: why wouldn't banning assault rifles be a positive thing?  Has this kid in FLA not had a legally-purchased assault rifle, he likely would have still been able to kill, but perhaps not as many.  Plus he'd had have been easier to get to had there been someone willing to do it.  I realize that banning assault rifles doesn't make school shootings a nonissue.  But even if it only helps the problem a little, isn't it worth it.  I have yet to hear a good reason as to why these things need to remain legal to buy.  

Well, you should stop your argument now since you don't know what an assault rifle is.

An AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle, by definition an assault rifle (military used/grade) can fire both burst and automatic fire. An AR-15 is just a semi-automatic hunting rifle with cosmetic changes to "look cool".

AR-15's look scary but use the same ammo, have the same firepower (muzzle velocity), the same firing rate (semi-automatic), and same magazine capacity as most semi-automatic hunting rifles. The difference is that an AR-15 looks like a military weapon while the hunting rifles look camouflaged or wood.

Assault rifles are already banned, no one can walk up and buy an automatic firing weapon, period.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Whatever you want to call it then.... call it a thingymadiddly for all I care.  My question isn't about the name of the thing, it's about it's purpose in our society.  

My point is try to come off as informed or educated on the subject, before you throw out bullshit buzz words.  This is why nobody takes gun control advocates seriously, and it is probably why you get "attacked" immediately.  If you're going to come to the table with an argument, don't come with bullshit and grandstand on it.  Pro gun supporters are all about truth and facts.  Assault weapons have been banned since the 80's btw. 

To answer your question, because it's a right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.  A pistol could have done more damage (see the VT shooter).  The AR15 was ALREADY BANNNED and gun crime was HIGHER during that ban.  I can't emphasize that enough.  It already has been proven by data that the AR15 is not the problem.  Just because there are a few lunatics that use it doesn't mean all of a sudden millions of law abiding citizens should have their 2nd amendment rights chipped away.   Now if your question is why would anyone need an AR15,  I counter that by why do you feel the need to exercise your first amendment rights by providing your uninformed opinion? 

Same question I asked laley.  Do you care about all gun crime, or do you choose to cherry pick a small percentage of the crime made by a small percentage of a specific type of gun?  If that is all you care about, why do you have a hierarchy on the type of murders being committed? One would assume if you cared about lives you would care about all lives being taken.   Now if you do care about all lives being taken by guns, I have already proposed a solution that would help more so than banning a specific type of gun that you think looks scary or passing "common sense" gun laws. 

posted by thavoice

Give me 60 rounds with an AR, you can have 60 with your hunting rifle, and let's see who can do more damage the quickest.

 

 

Considering many newer hunting rifles are semi-automatic and fire the same round (.223) as an AR-15, I would say the damage would be the same.

Unless the hunting rifle is a bolt action or lever action I would say your point is dumb.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Whatever you want to call it then.... call it a thingymadiddly for all I care.  My question isn't about the name of the thing, it's about it's purpose in our society.  

Your point is completely nullified when you actually know what the rifle is as I described above.  The main difference between AR-15's and most new hunting rifles is all how it looks, nothing else.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Whatever you want to call it then.... call it a thingymadiddly for all I care.  My question isn't about the name of the thing, it's about it's purpose in our society.  

Rights have nothing to do with things' "purpose in our society". We are a society of individuals with the right to pursue our own individual interests. Unless/until I infringe on your rights (not what I could or might do, but actually do), your right is to leave me the fuck alone.