What is wrong

The shooter threatened his ex girlfriends new boyfriend saying he'd kill him and sent him pictures of his guns he should have been charged with terroristic threatening at the least and had a no contact order placed on him. In my state if you have a no contact your weapons are seized until it is resolved. This didn't happen obviously.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...orida-shooters-ex-received-death-threats.html

I'm all for the second amendment I don't think the first reaction should be to take impede others liberties when this was obviously preventable.
 
I would put the bank on the fact that this was not some thing that came out of the blue. This young man had a history of problems and the one place that he spent almost half of his life at kicked him to the curb instead of finding out why he was so troubled.But the public will never hear about what this kid life was like to push him to doing this because that would make the school and authorities look bad.

Or (alternate explanation here)...The kid's a nut-job
 
Used to be 100 years ago a guilty person was tried sentenced and hung. Now a guilty person is tried and tried and tried until it is all forgotten. Guns used to be for hunting and protection on the farm. Now they are for pretend soldier. I do not think a 30 or 100 round clip is much good for hunting. Would not be much left of the animal. 100 or even 50 years ago sons learned how to handle guns from their father. Now it is a video game. Perhaps gun control is not required just ammunition control. IE you get to buy ..... rounds a year for hunting and farm protection. If you need more you would need a letter from the police you need the ammunition.
 
I'm not trying to start any fights but I have a question.

It seems as if we have a good mix of both groups here so maybe this is a good place to start. Please remember be nice!

What "common sense" laws would folks like to see? How do you see it working?
 
I'm not saying he is not guilty of the crime but what did the authorities do to prevent it? This kid that is what 18 or 19 years old that had no parents that has proven time and time again that he had problems and not one person of authority did anything about it and when he does do what he told them he was going to do then everyone is shocked how big of a red flag did they need.Drive by any High School and look at these kids they are far from being adult yet he was surround by adults how didn't gave a shit what his problems were they washed their hands of him and that decision came back to haunt them.I know if I was a parent that lost a son or a daughter to this shooting I would be mad as hell with the school and authorities that came in contact with this boy and did nothing to help him.
 
I'm not trying to start any fights but I have a question.

It seems as if we have a good mix of both groups here so maybe this is a good place to start. Please remember be nice!

What "common sense" laws would folks like to see? How do you see it working?

At the core of this issue is that no law that assigns permission to own a gun can be considered "common-sense". For common-sense dictates that criminals are not deterred by lack of permission. If we can put that silly notion aside, maybe we can start tackling the issue in a sensible way.

1) Expedited death penalty. If a jury finds you guilty, you die. None of this, "I did it but I didn't get enough hugs from Momma", crap.

2) Abolish so-called gun-free zones. These zones are only free of guns carried by the good guys.

3) Mandatory firearms training for any professional charged with caring for our kids. My heart goes out to the teacher who used his own body as a shield to protect his students, but I would much rather he had been armed and trained.

4) Peer-reviewed no-gun list. Instead of government telling us who can and cannot own firearms, that decision should be made by organizations comprised of law-abiding gun-owners. Government has a conflict of interest in seeking to enforce the 2nd amendment which was intended to protect the citizenry from an out of control government.

5) Mandatory reporting of prescriptions for mind-altering drugs (see # 4). "Sure Mr. Sad. I'll give you a prescription for Xanax, but I'm afraid you will also be placed on the no-gun list, for as long as that prescription is in effect.

6) Smart-gun technology. Biometrics used to establish identity of shooter before allowing gun to fire.
 
5) Mandatory reporting of prescriptions for mind-altering drugs (see # 4). "Sure Mr. Sad. I'll give you a prescription for Xanax, but I'm afraid you will also be placed on the no-gun list, for as long as that prescription is in effect.

I do not know about other states but Illinois has a similar law already. For the last 10 months I have been battling rectal cancer. I have gone through a protocol of radiation/chemo, had the tumor removed via surgery and now I am 1/2 way through the final regime of chemotherapy. In preparing for this last round of aggressive chemo, one option I explored was "medical marijuana". To receive this I had to be fingerprinted and photographed, send in a detailed form with $100 to the state. The doctor also had to complete a form and send it in. The state matches them up before issuing the card (similar to a drivers license) to you. You have to present the Medical Card along with another picture ID to gain access to the dispensary.

During this process, I went to a local gun store to have my fingerprints taken. Big signs in multiple locations "Holders of a medical marijuana card are ineligible to purchase firearms".


FYI - the "gummy bear" type works well to help me sleep and seems to be helping my arthritic knees. I only take them on my actual chemo days when I cannot sleep from the chemicals. I am glad I invested in the process.
 
Steve hope life gets better for you know 2 people with what you have. One 10 years ago he is doing good now. One just got diagnosed he has positive attitude but scared.
 
I do not know about other states but Illinois has a similar law already. For the last 10 months I have been battling rectal cancer. I have gone through a protocol of radiation/chemo, had the tumor removed via surgery and now I am 1/2 way through the final regime of chemotherapy. In preparing for this last round of aggressive chemo, one option I explored was "medical marijuana". To receive this I had to be fingerprinted and photographed, send in a detailed form with $100 to the state. The doctor also had to complete a form and send it in. The state matches them up before issuing the card (similar to a drivers license) to you. You have to present the Medical Card along with another picture ID to gain access to the dispensary.

During this process, I went to a local gun store to have my fingerprints taken. Big signs in multiple locations "Holders of a medical marijuana card are ineligible to purchase firearms".


FYI - the "gummy bear" type works well to help me sleep and seems to be helping my arthritic knees. I only take them on my actual chemo days when I cannot sleep from the chemicals. I am glad I invested in the process.
My brother had melanoma. Went through surgery, chemo, and radiation treatments. Like you he was warned about aggressive chemo. He'd smoke some weed after the treatments, never got sick or felt crappy, he said he just felt a little tired. He was self employed and even worked after on the chemo days.

The Drs kept asking about diet or anything else he did because the lack of side effects was not the norm. He never did tell them about the weed. I think he was embarrassed, one time he laughingly told me 'all my life I've never got into any drug use and now look at me, I'm a 58yo pot head'. I'm glad to hear it's doing you some good, it did for my brother too.

FWIW my brothers name was Steve(if my Mom was here she say 'no it's not, his name is Stephen'). My best wishes to you Steve. When it's all over light up a celebratory doobie....we won't tell on ya'.
 
I do not know about other states but Illinois has a similar law already. For the last 10 months I have been battling rectal cancer. I have gone through a protocol of radiation/chemo, had the tumor removed via surgery and now I am 1/2 way through the final regime of chemotherapy. In preparing for this last round of aggressive chemo, one option I explored was "medical marijuana". To receive this I had to be fingerprinted and photographed, send in a detailed form with $100 to the state. The doctor also had to complete a form and send it in. The state matches them up before issuing the card (similar to a drivers license) to you. You have to present the Medical Card along with another picture ID to gain access to the dispensary.

During this process, I went to a local gun store to have my fingerprints taken. Big signs in multiple locations "Holders of a medical marijuana card are ineligible to purchase firearms".


FYI - the "gummy bear" type works well to help me sleep and seems to be helping my arthritic knees. I only take them on my actual chemo days when I cannot sleep from the chemicals. I am glad I invested in the process.

Best wishes for a speedy recovery. Hang in there.
 
My brother had melanoma. Went through surgery, chemo, and radiation treatments. Like you he was warned about aggressive chemo. He'd smoke some weed after the treatments, never got sick or felt crappy, he said he just felt a little tired. He was self employed and even worked after on the chemo days.

The Drs kept asking about diet or anything else he did because the lack of side effects was not the norm. He never did tell them about the weed. I think he was embarrassed, one time he laughingly told me 'all my life I've never got into any drug use and now look at me, I'm a 58yo pot head'. I'm glad to hear it's doing you some good, it did for my brother too.

FWIW my brothers name was Steve(if my Mom was here she say 'no it's not, his name is Stephen'). My best wishes to you Steve. When it's all over light up a celebratory doobie....we won't tell on ya'.
Thanks. I will do that!

I also watch my diet, eat lots of fresh veggies and fruits. And eat lots of fish but also occasionally things like liver n onions. Good for the iron and blood count.

-Steve without the p...
 
Mike asked what is wrong, so here are a few of my thoughts on what is wrong.

Before I make the points I am only making points about school type attacks and their like by young males, not geo-political terrorism.

The clear majority of the perps have no father in their life. The continued break-up of the family is a huge factor in these boys life outcome.

The feminization of boys, boys are being neutered by society and they do not understand how this can affect the male psyche.

Our society does not allow dicipline. Boys in particular need strong dicipline to become disciplined men. We try to dicipline boys like girls and many do not respond to that type of discipline. In many states strong physical discipline is illegal. (The kind I was given when I needed it.)

Almost all of the males involved in mass attacks are or have been on mind altering psychotic pharmaceutical drugs.

Social media's rise parallels suicide and attack increases.

The lack of a god in society and the behavior religion stressed on the people involved in it.

All of the above combine to create a situation where many boys are doing bad and a few actually go beyond the pale.

So blame the guns, lack of security, and a host of other political issues, but the truth is our society has some rot created by our affluence and selfishness and those issues are just stops for the behavior created by the points above.

MM
 
Hypothetical question here (and likely a dangerous one given the audience!)...

What if there were no guns? Zero. Not a single one. Not the bad guys, not the good guys. Would mass shootings be replaced by something else? I assume they would, but would they be less catastrophic and easier to mitigate and/or control?

Not judging, condemning or anything here, and I know an overly idealistic question perhaps (perhaps not though). I grew up in a rural community and have shot lots of guns and lots of things. Just furthering the discussion...
 
Hypothetical question here (and likely a dangerous one given the audience!)...

What if there were no guns? Zero. Not a single one. Not the bad guys, not the good guys. Would mass shootings be replaced by something else? I assume they would, but would they be less catastrophic and easier to mitigate and/or control?

Not judging, condemning or anything here, and I know an overly idealistic question perhaps (perhaps not though). I grew up in a rural community and have shot lots of guns and lots of things. Just furthering the discussion...

Let's take that concept further.

What there was no evil?

The problems are deeper than just the gun.
 
Let's take that concept further.

What there was no evil?

The problems are deeper than just the gun.

Touché.

A little story about evil (a relative term)...

When I was a teenager about 30-35 years ago, on a Saturday night my buddies and I would venture into "enemy territory" to what we called the "Quebec side". For those not familiar with the geography around Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, we are right on the border with neighbouring province Quebec...where the drinking age is 18, a year younger than in Ontario!

There were little taverns and dive bars that were always packed on weekends with kids from Ontario, and their sports rivals from Quebec. It got rough, there were fights at times, and we always had a baseball bat, hockey stick, tire iron, or whatever hanging around the car to even the playing field if required. We needed them to defend against evil, right?

The next morning there were ice packs, cuts, bruises, black eyes and the occasional broken nose or hand. No one ever died, except from the odd car accident. The only concern my parents ever had was drinking and driving (which was somewhat of a right of passage where I grew up).

If there were guns around, no doubt someone would have been shot. I don't think a second gun would have prevented the first one from firing (or vice versa), or the third, or fourth, etc. I think the more guns in the equation, the more likely one would go off.

I'm not sure what it's like there these days. There's probably some guns in the mix, and because there are, with my kids getting to about the age I was, I'm not sure I want them anywhere near these situations.

There's evil armed with a big mouth and a stick, then there's evil with a gun. Big difference.

I don't really see a solution if guns are a given and are ubiquitous. It's a bit like a nuclear arms race waged by individuals instead of countries, where rogue countries have unlimited access and there is no path to disarmament.
 
Bajturner a responsible gun owner would never bring a firearm into a situation like that one because thats just a terrible idea and two because its completely illegal you can't bring a firearm into a place where they serve alcohol like bars.

When there were no guns we were still off'ing ourselves in ridiculous numbers just think of the crusades.. there are bad people out there and a firearm is a great equalizer..

My family owns a construction company people steal stuff all of the time and its basically my job to go catch them in the act as I live closest to the shop. One time I rolled up and a guy had a hatchet in his hand I never came back without a pistol ever again. The police take over an hour to get there everytime I'd be dead or in jail if I couldn't legally protect myself.
 
Yep, across into Quebec province is where the casino's are. Have spent time in Ottawa over the years with work.

I think back 30 or so years ago. We didn't have these shootings at schools, concerts, or movie theater. Would never entered anyone's mind that something like this might occur.

Now sadly it is (has) become way to common place. Our shock has been replaced with a numbness and pain that we feel for those affected.

What is different from that time before when this was not on our news every week.

Have the gun laws weakened?

Did we have more government oversight of firearms 30 years ago?

Was the waiting period longer? Did you have to be 30 to buy a gun?

Were guns just more scarce, not as high a percentage of people had them?

Were background checks much more rigid 30 years ago?
 
I think alot of it has to do with the media .. In all reality today is the safest time in this country in the past 25 years statistically but your constantly bombarded with news of this and that.. This causes some parents to never let their kids out of the house. People think they're kids are gonna get kidnapped because they hear it in the news. Yet overall crime has decreased 50 percent since 1991. We're constantly pumped negativity. These kids that were never allowed to play in the woods and be real kids are the problem.
 
What if there were no guns? Zero. Not a single one. Not the bad guys, not the good guys. Would mass shootings be replaced by something else? I assume they would, but would they be less catastrophic and easier to mitigate and/or control?
.

The terrorists are a step ahead already.
Their methods of attack in the recent past include knives and trucks.

Why? Is it tougher for them to buy a gun but easy to rent a moving truck?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
112,948
Messages
1,422,804
Members
60,930
Latest member
Ebrown69
Back
Top