Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
Dean Adam Smithee

Multiple deaths in South Florida high school shooting

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

oki

Probably because law enforcement would need a legal justification for incarcerating that individual.

 

By contrast, it wouldn't have been nearly as difficult for a Republican-controlled Congress and a Republican President to simply renew the existing assault weapons ban in 2004.

 

 

And yet again are you saying no assault rifle no dead kids? Come on, tell me that he would not have done the following:

 

Stolen or rented a moving truck and drove through students at a football game, after class, or pulled the fire alarm to force a large exodus.

Purchased a hammer smashed door windows and lobbed in home made pipe bombs.

Tell me he wouldn't have simply loaded his own vehicle up with some improvised explosives and set of a huge bomb as school was letting out.

Tell me wouldn't have stolen shotguns or handguns and had just as deadly or even more so effect.

Tell me he couldn't have found other ways.

 

If you can't, then shut the hell up already. The only way to ensure these kinds of things do not continue is remove the shooters from Society as to make sure they are a threat to no one.

 

By the way, threatening to shoot up a school is not a legal justification?

Having a violent history on top of that is not a legal justification?

 

But hey the actions of a tiny minuscule portion is legal justification enough to ban the sale or ownership of inanimate objects right? Ever stopped to think that maybe we should ban cars, trucks, and airplanes, after all are they not sued to kill scores?

Without them how would a mass murdered carry out there horrendous acts. Sure seems to me that if a psycho can't get there he can't kill anyone. Maybe if they had to walk or take a bus they would change there mind on the way.

 

 

 

Oki

Edited by oki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy

Israel said Thursday the high school campus had an armed officer, but the officer never encountered the suspect during the attack.

 

So much for the "good guy with a gun" theory.

 

The only way to ensure these kinds of things do not continue is remove the shooters from Society as to make sure they are a threat to no one.

 

On what legal grounds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oki

 

 

If someone had threatened to shoot up your place of work or home, shouldn't that be enough?

By the way, man up and respond to the rest of my post. Or do you just care about deaths when someone misuses an 'Assault Rifle'. Prove to me you care about innocent life being taken when it's not with a gun. Like I said, tell me, if he had no gun would that stopped him from making a bomb or bombs? Would it stopped him from using a car to drive through crowds of students? Besides, explain why this wasn't a problem in decades prior when all these types of weapons where even MORE ACCESSIBLE. After all, shouldn't we have had these types of shootings left and right before all the laws, all the restrictions and all the wonderful 'treatments' which didn't exist?

 

Oki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator T

Probably because law enforcement would need a legal justification for incarcerating that individual.

 

If there is a reasonable belief that someone is an imminent threat to themselves or others, the police can force them into a mental health facility for evaluation and treatment.

 

 

By contrast, it wouldn't have been nearly as difficult for a Republican-controlled Congress and a Republican President to simply renew the existing assault weapons ban in 2004.

 

Which would not have prevented him from going in with a couple handguns. Or a shotgun. Or..... an assault rifle. It would have just made it mildly harder to get his hands on the scarier looking weapon. People would still be dead. Do you remember Columbine? That was 1999. How many people were saved by a gun ban that day?

 

If you want someone to blame, blame Kennedy and Reagan. Blame the courts of the 70's. Blame Social Security. All of these and more contributed to the weakening of in-patient mental health treatment over the years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental

According to Buzzfeed he was reported to the MS FBI by a YouTuber on whose feed he had posted about instigating a school shooting massacre. FBI visited him and were supplied information about the postings. Nothing more until after the shooting yesterday.

 

This all happened in September of 2016 -- and we're all learning about what the leadership of the FBI were focused on more pressing "political" matters.

 

coffeenpc.gif

 

Yeah they had those Russian's to collude with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Severian

Yeah, the fact they had ONE armed officer there sure does refute the idea that armed people in schools can prevent this. DERP DERP DERP. One person for an entire school. Make that like every third or fourth teacher armed, problem solved. But this is exactly the kind of stupid "thought" process I'd expect out of Certain_Leftists.

 

And it wasn't an assault rifle! It was a Modern Sporting Rifle, a semi-auto rifle. And despite all of this more people are killed in knife attacks in this country than with all rifles combined, all rifles, not just AR15s.

 

But hey, let's also give this dipstick non-stop media coverage, his face plastered all over the news, that will make sure any other off kilter nutjob realizes that, hey, I can gets famous by shooting up a school!

Edited by Severian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

ARM TRAINED PEOPLE in Schools and post a sign out front that says "HELL YES WE ARE A GUN FRIENDLY SCHOOL". Mass shootings will be stopped.

This. Pretty simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy

If someone had threatened to shoot up your place of work or home, shouldn't that be enough?

 

That's not already illegal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy

If there is a reasonable belief that someone is an imminent threat to themselves or others, the police can force them into a mental health facility for evaluation and treatment.

 

I'm aware of the law, thanks.

 

Which would not have prevented him from going in with a couple handguns. Or a shotgun. Or..... an assault rifle. It would have just made it mildly harder to get his hands on the scarier looking weapon. People would still be dead. Do you remember Columbine? That was 1999. How many people were saved by a gun ban that day?

 

If you want someone to blame, blame Kennedy and Reagan. Blame the courts of the 70's. Blame Social Security. All of these and more contributed to the weakening of in-patient mental health treatment over the years.

 

This kind of nonsense is disappointing coming from a LEO who should know better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental

Probably because law enforcement would need a legal justification for incarcerating that individual.

 

By contrast, it wouldn't have been nearly as difficult for a Republican-controlled Congress and a Republican President to simply renew the existing assault weapons ban in 2004.

 

No, law enforcement does not incarcerate those people.

 

They are brought before a judge who with the assistance of medical professionals determines the people are a threat to themselves and others. Then they are ordered locked away. Problem is we no longer have Arkham Asylum, you now have a 10 bed BMU (behaivorial Mental Health Unit) in a floor on a hospital that looks at the nut case and then gives them a few pills and releases them.

 

What happens when they are off their meds? Ask any cop you know (yeah right) if he knows any Signal 58 people (Bat Crap Crazy) in his area. He will be capable of naming at least 10. That's in every city, every county and Every State. We know the crazies, we just can't do anything with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oki

That's not already illegal?

 

 

YOu have no honor and no courage. He had made threats against the school but was not locked up, and you can't even find the integrity to not demand that he would be locked up if he made the same threats against your home or loved ones. Much less defend your own beliefs that if he did not have access to this type of weapon he could not have carried out the attack in any number of other ways. Like I said, if you care about protecting the lives of innocents then you would be smart enough to realize that removing the threat is the only %100 way to ensure their safety. To a psycho..

Take my guns I will make a bomb, take my bomb I will use a car, take my car I will simply steal one, take me... Well not much I can do if I am locked up.

 

 

Oki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental

Probably because law enforcement would need a legal justification for incarcerating that individual.

 

By contrast, it wouldn't have been nearly as difficult for a Republican-controlled Congress and a Republican President to simply renew the existing assault weapons ban in 2004.

 

Which is UnConstitutional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental

 

Was he on campus or assigned to the campus and off on another call? Our SRO covers 8 schools in our county so he's "assigned" everywhere but the odds of him being at the right place at the right time is slim. If the "security guard" was armed this would be a non story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy

He had made threats against the school

 

Are you referring to his YouTube comment?

 

If the "security guard" was armed this would be a non story.

 

The quote was "armed officer."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dutch13

Probably because law enforcement would need a legal justification for incarcerating that individual.

 

By contrast, it wouldn't have been nearly as difficult for a Republican-controlled Congress and a Republican President to simply renew the existing assault weapons ban in 2004.

 

Wasn't that ban in place when Columbine happened? Besides they can't do it at the federal level because of the Bill of Rights, but every state is free to enact their own gun laws.......as many states have already done so.

Edited by Dutch13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

You don’t allow him access to firearms. Sure he can kill a few people with a knife or even more with a truck, but why make it easy on him?

Are you against taking weapons away from someone who is mentally ill and has made threats?

I agree with the general concept that we don't want to make it easy to do the wrong thing. Absolutely.

 

At the same time, a highly publicized bill banning "assault weapons" is useless and just for show, when 99% of voters have zero idea what's actually being talked about,

 

Such a ban wouldn't affect me personally but it would be a totally useless gesture followed by a bunch of self congratulating and back slapping, followed a year later by another school shooting.

 

Let's instead do something about this, seriously. Let's arm schools with professional people. Let's make it clear to shooter wannabes that schools aren't gun free zones like Chicago. That killing innocents won't be easy. Then, while that defensive security is being conducted, let's discuss how we can catch and often help deranged individuals - or take them away from other people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental

If there is a reasonable belief that someone is an imminent threat to themselves or others, the police can force them into a mental health facility for evaluation and treatment.

 

 

 

 

Which would not have prevented him from going in with a couple handguns. Or a shotgun. Or..... an assault rifle. It would have just made it mildly harder to get his hands on the scarier looking weapon. People would still be dead. Do you remember Columbine? That was 1999. How many people were saved by a gun ban that day?

 

If you want someone to blame, blame Kennedy and Reagan. Blame the courts of the 70's. Blame Social Security. All of these and more contributed to the weakening of in-patient mental health treatment over the years.

 

A shotgun would have been more devastating. Each round of 00Buck is 9 9mm rounds with a wide choke, that can clear a hallway of people. 7 or 5 rounds in the magazine and breach loading would have been much more devastating. There is a reason police and sheriff deputies still carry shotguns in the car as well as a semi auto rifle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oki

No, law enforcement does not incarcerate those people.

 

They are brought before a judge who with the assistance of medical professionals determines the people are a threat to themselves and others. Then they are ordered locked away. Problem is we no longer have Arkham Asylum, you now have a 10 bed BMU (behaivorial Mental Health Unit) in a floor on a hospital that looks at the nut case and then gives them a few pills and releases them.

 

What happens when they are off their meds? Ask any cop you know (yeah right) if he knows any Signal 58 people (Bat Crap Crazy) in his area. He will be capable of naming at least 10. That's in every city, every county and Every State. We know the crazies, we just can't do anything with them.

 

Ya' know you made me think of something. Really begs the question of why don't other nations have any where near the problems with crazy people on the street. Does this mean they are quick to lock up those who are a threat to themselves or others, the families lock them away, or there is a genetic-environmental defect common in our society? Trust me, crazy naked lady running down the street would make headlines in Japan, like I said why doesn't it seem to be a daily occurrence in other nations like here?

 

Oki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy

Wasn't that law in place when Columbine happened?

 

Yes.

 

What's your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental

Are you referring to his YouTube comment?

 

 

 

The quote was "armed officer."

 

The point I am making is you are disregarding the dead teacher a "security guard" who had no means of protection other than his body mass. IF HE had been armed a police officer assigned to many different schools would have been moot.

 

In the end who you going to feel more comfy protecting your family? The Police officer that is minutes away or the firearm in your safe that is seconds away? Me I am quite capable of calling the police AFTER I defend myself. They can draw the chalk outlines and take all the pictures they want of the perp as long as my family is safe.

 

You on the other hand feel safe surrendering your firearms to the authorities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental

I agree with the general concept that we don't want to make it easy to do the wrong thing. Absolutely.

 

At the same time, a highly publicized bill banning "assault weapons" is useless and just for show, when 99% of voters have zero idea what's actually being talked about,

 

Such a ban wouldn't affect me personally but it would be a totally useless gesture followed by a bunch of self congratulating and back slapping, followed a year later by another school shooting.

 

Let's instead do something about this, seriously. Let's arm schools with professional people. Let's make it clear to shooter wannabes that schools aren't gun free zones like Chicago. That killing innocents won't be easy. Then, while that defensive security is being conducted, let's discuss how we can catch and often help deranged individuals - or take them away from other people.

 

Exactly! How does the government secure a location? They do not post gun free zones, they let you know that they are quite capable of defending themselves. Why are our schools different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental

Yes.

 

What's your point?

 

That your law was useless. Or are you too vapid to realize that. You know what we haven't tried? Arming school teachers.

 

Did you know that some pilots on commercial planes are armed? Do you know which one's are? Do you know how to tell? Nope you have no clue but it is well known that some cockpits have qualified and trained pilots capable of defending themselves and the passengers. Want to hijack that plane with your plastic knife?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oki

Are you referring to his YouTube comment?

 

 

 

The quote was "armed officer."

 

 

If I had made threats to you, yours or your place of work you'd demand my arrest. PLUS, thanks for proving yet again you have zero integrity or courage by not answering even the most simple of questions. Saying you think a weapon ban would solve the problem or even help but not having the stones to even talk about the other methods which could be used is not only proof of weakness, it's also a tell tale sign of not knowing what the hell you are even talking about. Tell us why is a Ruger Mini-14 NOT AN ASSAULT RIFLE while an AR-15 by definition is. What magic beans makes the AR-15 so much more deadly. If you can't even answer this question you have no business demanding talking anything about guns or gun related.

 

Those of us who do have a clue not only know the key differences between the two we also understand the stupidity in classification differences.

Hell, tell us why a Mini-30 is not an Assault Rifle but an AK-47 is. Please do tell. Show us how smart you are. Come on, DO IT.

 

Oki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dutch13

Yes.

 

What's your point?

 

Why don't we have any meaningful changes in America? Because liberals won't engage in honest debate. They don't look to solve problems. They look to create hysteria and then try to gain more power over people in the resulting chaos.

 

 

 

 

Have you had one meaningful conversation in this thread? Why can't you answer the questions asked of you or respond to an entire post? Why do you simply cherry pick the parts that you think you can handle?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coach

The sad fact is that there are experts on security all over the world who have experience and have been successful in dealing with school shootings. The Israelis have been doing it for years. Mark Furman was on TV last night and spelled it out. One key is to train personnel specifically for school security. Every school should be surveyed so that limited and designated entrances and access to the school be manned at all times.

 

With the number of cell phones in the hands of students and teachers a single number should be designated to be called in the event anyone sees a suspicious character on campus.

 

Every school has a PA system to alert the school population instantly when a threat appears. Fire drills are common practices, why not danger drills and lock downs ? (When was the last time we had a disastrous school fire ? )

 

There is absolutely no need for panic legislation or taking away anyone's rights.

 

Unfortunately reason is no longer part of the American psyche so we are all in peril.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...