Another shooting (Parkland High School)

[gregintenn]

4 minutes ago, jgradyc said:

I think almost all of the mass school shootings were done by shooters age 25 or younger. 

How old was the shooter in Las Vegas?

[SWCUMBERLAND]

14 minutes ago, gregintenn said:

How old was the shooter in Las Vegas?

64

[Ronald_55]

15 minutes ago, jgradyc said:

I think almost all of the mass school shootings were done by shooters age 25 or younger. 

Most people in those buildings are under 25. Thus those people have a "beef" with that place. Workplace shootings probably have a higher percentage of older shooters if I had to guess. 

There are other examples of people with no connection looking for east targets, but if they don't have a gun they will drive a truck full of homemade explosives onto the playground or the into the front door at dismissal. 

[Sidecarist]

If we have a law that says 26yrs of age or whatever, what makes you think they would obey it? This isn't a legal problem it's a people problem.

Common sense isn't common anymore and I'm afraid that the backlash from this will not be helpful in the long run. Restriction of rights for the majority of people in an effort to stop random sociopaths simply won't work.

A true killer will find a way to kill.

[gregintenn]

It is literally insane to believe a criminal who has no regard for the law will somehow comply with a new law if only it were enacted.

[TGO David]

19 hours ago, Mr.Mildot said:

Access to firearms has never been more restricted that at the present time. AR15 has been on the civilian market for over 50 years and is one of the most popular firearms in history, probably millions to 10's of millions of them in the US.  Obviously, something changed other than access to firearms; if there was a correlation then these incidents would be less likely now, not more.

The AR came on the market in 1963, at a time when there were virtually no gun laws other than restrictions on machineguns, 5 years before the 1968 GCA.  What has happened in the time period since then, lets reason together:

We as a nation have practically destroyed the nuclear family, eviscerated and emasculated the role of the Church in society and replaced chivalry and self-sacrifice with victimhood and narcissism. 

We abort viable pregnancies due to inconvenience, and promote offing the elderly and ill if we deem their quality of life substandard.  We allow our children to play video games that utilize the exact same psychological conditioning used to make our Vietnam Vets more efficient killers (and caused an explosion of PTSD casualties, you all know that more vets have killed themselves since the war than died in it).  

Instead of mothers and fathers raising their sons and daughters to be ladies and gentlemen,  we tell the kids they might be homosexuals or misgendered, and instead of disciplining and training them we put them on Prozac and Ritalin and give them Facebook to experience the insecurities of puberty on a macro scale, all alone on powerful mind altering medications with no morals and no father to smack them and no mother to hug them.

Short of a revival (and I do mean the Christian sort), I don't know what can turn this around, we've wasted a generation, maybe two now, and I'm staying armed and vigilant because the last thing that's gonna make anyone safer is taking away the ability to meet these threats head on.  I'm sorry to say I don't see this getting better anytime soon, but will continue to pray about it, and do what I can to influence my children and other young people that I can in appositive way...

 

Excellent post.

[bersaguy]

19 hours ago, Mr.Mildot said:

Access to firearms has never been more restricted that at the present time. AR15 has been on the civilian market for over 50 years and is one of the most popular firearms in history, probably millions to 10's of millions of them in the US.  Obviously, something changed other than access to firearms; if there was a correlation then these incidents would be less likely now, not more.

The AR came on the market in 1963, at a time when there were virtually no gun laws other than restrictions on machineguns, 5 years before the 1968 GCA.  What has happened in the time period since then, lets reason together:

We as a nation have practically destroyed the nuclear family, eviscerated and emasculated the role of the Church in society and replaced chivalry and self-sacrifice with victimhood and narcissism. 

We abort viable pregnancies due to inconvenience, and promote offing the elderly and ill if we deem their quality of life substandard.  We allow our children to play video games that utilize the exact same psychological conditioning used to make our Vietnam Vets more efficient killers (and caused an explosion of PTSD casualties, you all know that more vets have killed themselves since the war than died in it).  

Instead of mothers and fathers raising their sons and daughters to be ladies and gentlemen,  we tell the kids they might be homosexuals or misgendered, and instead of disciplining and training them we put them on Prozac and Ritalin and give them Facebook to experience the insecurities of puberty on a macro scale, all alone on powerful mind altering medications with no morals and no father to smack them and no mother to hug them.

Short of a revival (and I do mean the Christian sort), I don't know what can turn this around, we've wasted a generation, maybe two now, and I'm staying armed and vigilant because the last thing that's gonna make anyone safer is taking away the ability to meet these threats head on.  I'm sorry to say I don't see this getting better anytime soon, but will continue to pray about it, and do what I can to influence my children and other young people that I can in appositive way...

 

If I could like this post 10,000 times I would

[xsubsailor]

I'm not trying to dump on the FBI but something appears to be wrong with their decision making.

The FBI Keeps Missing Mass Shooters Before It’s Too Late

Revelations that the FBI had been warned about Florida high school shooter Nikolaus Cruz fit an all-too-familiar pattern, in which apparent law enforcement errors have preceded mass murders.

 

 

 

 

http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/15/fbi-missing-mass-shooters-florida-nikolas-cruz-omar-mateen/

[Garufa]

10 minutes ago, xsubsailor said:

I'm not trying to dump on the FBI but something appears to be wrong with their decision making.

The FBI Keeps Missing Mass Shooters Before It’s Too Late

Revelations that the FBI had been warned about Florida high school shooter Nikolaus Cruz fit an all-too-familiar pattern, in which apparent law enforcement errors have preceded mass murders.

 

 

 

 

http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/15/fbi-missing-mass-shooters-florida-nikolas-cruz-omar-mateen/

What could they have done?

[gregintenn]

13 minutes ago, Garufa said:

What could they have done?

Isn't making terrorist threats against the law?

[Oh Shoot]

20 hours ago, Mr.Mildot said:

Access to firearms has never been more restricted that at the present time.

Well, there was that 10 year Assault Weapon Ban thang, ya know.

The "inconvenient truth" is that of course the number of mass shooting casualties would fall if all semi-auto weapons were banned from ownership with no grandfathering. If the average person can't get one, well, duh...

It would of course take a while, indeed a whole generation or more to ferret all of them out, but by some point, nobody would be running into a school with an AR or AK.  Because you couldn't take Daddy's from the safe, or go out and buy one a week or month or year before you used it (many if not most of the mass shootings from the younger crowd, the gun was acquired relatively close in time to it's use). Because nobody would be making or selling them, and yes, a whole lotta gun manufacturers would go out of biz.

Now, don't shoot the messenger, but all you have to do is look at other countries where semi-auto is banned and/or very tightly controlled. Once heavily armed Australia remains a relatively violent country, but it's one on one crime, no longer mass mayhem. Mass murder by firearm no longer really exists in the UK or much of western Europe. (except by the terrorists let into the country, but that's a different issue). Etc etc.

Do, I advocate that? Of course not, as I feel the long term last hope for a free country rests on the populace being adequately armed. But the price is high, and I don't kid myself that any of the proposed half-measures will have much affect, even over time. Hell, investigating "suspected loons" has its own inherent risks to freedom overall too and can set some dangerous precedents.

Of course, you can still use revolvers, shotguns, bolt/lever action rifles, knives, axes, bombs, arson, whatever, but none of those methods are nearly as safe or convenient to the perp as wading through a captive audience with an AK or AR, or even a 10/22 for that matter,  with hundreds of rounds.  And that could effectively be removed from the society eventually, speaking in practical and logical terms only.

 

- OS   (not expecting this to be a popular response )

Edited February 16, 2018 by Oh Shoot

[deerslayer]

9 minutes ago, Oh Shoot said:

The "inconvenient truth" is that of course the number of mass shooting casualties would fall if all semi-auto weapons were banned from ownership with no grandfathering.

 

Maybe, but I would wager that a more-competent-than-average competitive shooter with a top-notch bolt action rifle could kill more people from Paddock's position in the 10 or 11 minutes that Paddock had than Paddock did.  Aimed fire is so underrated.  

[Oh Shoot]

1 minute ago, deerslayer said:

Maybe, but I would wager that a more-competent-than-average competitive shooter with a top-notch bolt action rifle could kill more people from Paddock's position in the 10 or 11 minutes that Paddock had than Paddock did.  Aimed fire is so underrated.  

Well, at least that would require expertise and dedication, not just a wacko who's gone to the range a time or two with his AR, if even that.

- OS

[TripleGGG]

Well, there was that 10 year Assault Weapon Ban thang, ya know.
The "inconvenient truth" is that of course the number of mass shooting casualties would fall if all semi-auto weapons were banned from ownership with no grandfathering. If the average person can't get one, well, duh...
It would of course take a while, indeed a whole generation or more to ferret all of them out, but by some point, nobody would be running into a school with an AR or AK.  Because you couldn't take Daddy's from the safe, or go out and buy one a week or month or year before you used it (many if not most of the mass shootings from the younger crowd, the gun was acquired relatively close in time to it's use). Because nobody would be making or selling them, and yes, a whole lotta gun manufacturers would go out of biz.
Now, don't shoot the messenger, but all you have to do is look at other countries where semi-auto is banned and/or very tightly controlled. Once heavily armed Australia remains a relatively violent country, but it's one on one crime, no longer mass mayhem. Mass murder by firearm no longer really exists in the UK or much of western Europe. (except by the terrorists let into the country, but that's a different issue). Etc etc.
Do, I advocate that? Of course not, as I feel the long term last hope for a free country rests on the populace being adequately armed. But the price is high, and I don't kid myself that any of the proposed half-measures will have much affect, even over time. Hell, investigating "suspected loons" has its own inherent risks to freedom overall too and can set some dangerous precedents.
Of course, you can still use revolvers, shotguns, bolt/lever action rifles, knives, axes, bombs, arson, whatever, but none of those methods are nearly as safe or convenient to the perp as wading through a captive audience with an AK or AR, or even a 10/22 for that matter,  with hundreds of rounds.  And that could effectively be removed from the society eventually, speaking in practical and logical terms only.
 
- OS   (not expecting this to be a popular response )

Probably not popular OS but something that may not be too far from being tried.

[TripleGGG]

Maybe, but I would wager that a more-competent-than-average competitive shooter with a top-notch bolt action rifle could kill more people from Paddock's position in the 10 or 11 minutes that Paddock had than Paddock did.  Aimed fire is so underrated.  

Had this very conversation with a Marine friend today.

[deerslayer]

Yeah, expertise and dedication to surpass what Paddock did, but a duffer could still pull off a mass shooting with a bolt or lever gun.  

[Mr.Mildot]

19 minutes ago, Oh Shoot said:

Well, there was that 10 year Assault Weapon Ban thang, ya know.

The "inconvenient truth" is that of course the number of mass shooting casualties would fall if all semi-auto weapons were banned from ownership with no grandfathering. If the average person can't get one, well, duh...

It would of course take a while, indeed a whole generation or more to ferret all of them out, but by some point, nobody would be running into a school with an AR or AK.  Because you couldn't take Daddy's from the safe, or go out and buy one a week or month or year before you used it (many if not most of the mass shootings from the younger crowd, the gun was acquired relatively close in time to it's use). Because nobody would be making or selling them, and yes, a whole lotta gun manufacturers would go out of biz.

Now, don't shoot the messenger, but all you have to do is look at other countries where semi-auto is banned and/or very tightly controlled. Once heavily armed Australia remains a relatively violent country, but it's one on one crime, no longer mass mayhem. Etc etc.

Do, I advocate that? Of course not, as I feel the last hope for a free country rests on the populace being adequately armed. But the price is high, and I don't kid myself that any of the proposed half-measures will have much affect, even over time. Hell, investigating "suspected loons" has its own inherent risks to freedom overall too and can set some dangerous precedents.

- OS

I'm not willing to trade in the liberty of an entire nation of people, today or ever, to try to prevent a particular type of heinous crime from occurring which is both statistically incredibly rare and not even remotely related to access to firearms.

The assault weapon ban never went away and only got worse where I live, yet there are violent criminals committing violent acts all over the place.  

Many men on this board probably have similar experiences or can relate similar experiences my father had:  As a kid in the 50's/60's he and all his friends owned guns they mail ordered from Sears and Roebuck catalog, worked at a gas station all alone at 14 that sold guns the same way they sold gas, to anyone with money, and learned to shoot from the school principal who was also the Scoutmaster.  People weren't killing each other.

We've torn our nation and our culture apart which in the end is the cause, not the guns.  So we can shred the constitution, disarm the American people and become socialists on the brink of extinction like most of Europe or we can actually address the real issue which is the systematic attack and dismantling of the Home, the Church and the American Way of Life.

[Sidecarist]

A ban on the weapon (gun) used by a criminal to commit such a crime would only direct them to a new weapon (truck, explosive, etc).

[Oh Shoot]

1 hour ago, Sidecarist said:

A ban on the weapon (gun) used by a criminal to commit such a crime would only direct them to a new weapon (truck, explosive, etc).

A hackneyed talking point, but in all history of America, only know of one successful mass murder in a school that wasn't from firearms and that was a bombing back in the 20's in Michigan, which didn't even match most yearly totals these days.

Takes learned skill and nerve to do bombs. Anybody can create mayhem against unarmed kids with an AR.

- OS

 

Edited February 16, 2018 by Oh Shoot

[SWCUMBERLAND]

2 hours ago, Oh Shoot said:

Well, there was that 10 year Assault Weapon Ban thang, ya know.

The "inconvenient truth" is that of course the number of mass shooting casualties would fall if all semi-auto weapons were banned from ownership with no grandfathering. If the average person can't get one, well, duh...

It would of course take a while, indeed a whole generation or more to ferret all of them out, but by some point, nobody would be running into a school with an AR or AK.  Because you couldn't take Daddy's from the safe, or go out and buy one a week or month or year before you used it (many if not most of the mass shootings from the younger crowd, the gun was acquired relatively close in time to it's use). Because nobody would be making or selling them, and yes, a whole lotta gun manufacturers would go out of biz.

Now, don't shoot the messenger, but all you have to do is look at other countries where semi-auto is banned and/or very tightly controlled. Once heavily armed Australia remains a relatively violent country, but it's one on one crime, no longer mass mayhem. Mass murder by firearm no longer really exists in the UK or much of western Europe. (except by the terrorists let into the country, but that's a different issue). Etc etc.

Do, I advocate that? Of course not, as I feel the long term last hope for a free country rests on the populace being adequately armed. But the price is high, and I don't kid myself that any of the proposed half-measures will have much affect, even over time. Hell, investigating "suspected loons" has its own inherent risks to freedom overall too and can set some dangerous precedents.

Of course, you can still use revolvers, shotguns, bolt/lever action rifles, knives, axes, bombs, arson, whatever, but none of those methods are nearly as safe or convenient to the perp as wading through a captive audience with an AK or AR, or even a 10/22 for that matter,  with hundreds of rounds.  And that could effectively be removed from the society eventually, speaking in practical and logical terms only.

 

- OS   (not expecting this to be a popular response )

I wouldn't want to foul your expectations, or lack of.

 

Of COURSE if you take legal firearms away, the percentage of gun crimes will go down... but never away, as the baddies will always find a way. And since such a step is a major stride towards an authoritarian state, one won't have to worry about the stats anymore.

Mass murder, whether by the hand of a terrorist or a lunatic will be with us for a long time. Underestimating the ingenuity of the bloodyhanded, absent firearms, would be folly. 

An earlier post inquired if making terrorist threats was a crime? Yes, it is.

 

SWC

[Jeb48]

If a law fixes the problem, we already have the one that says murder is illegal. Doesn't seem to fix the problem.

[Sidecarist]

30 minutes ago, Oh Shoot said:

A hackneyed talking point, but in all history of America, only know of one successful mass murder in a school that wasn't from firearms and that was a bombing back in the 20's in Michigan, which didn't even match most yearly totals these days.

Takes learned skill and nerve to do bombs. Anybody can create mayhem against unarmed kids with an AR.

- OS

 

I'm not just looking at the US or just schools. Elsewhere in the world trucks and cars have been used for mass murder where guns are harder to get. A determined sociopath will find a way to be successful and/or become famous. 

Bombs are regularly assembled in some parts of the world by people with far less education and resources than this guy had. As far as nerve, how much nerve did it take for him to commit this crime? Plenty I think...

Edited February 16, 2018 by Sidecarist

[Oh Shoot]

7 minutes ago, SWCUMBERLAND said:

Of COURSE if you take legal firearms away, the percentage of gun crimes will go down

That was really my main point. But so many deny it.

7 minutes ago, SWCUMBERLAND said:

... but never away, as the baddies will always find a way.

As far as the school situation, I can't think of a one (except the almost 100 year old bombing I mentioned) that would have happened if the perps couldn't get their hands on existing legally obtained firearms.

Your other points regarding authoritarian state I echoed myself.

5 minutes ago, Sidecarist said:

I'm not just looking at the US or just schools. ..

Well, I was, it being the actual subject of thread and all.

- OS

[No_0ne]

5 hours ago, jgradyc said:

I think almost all of the mass school shootings were done by shooters age 25 or younger. 

 

Point of fact,  statistically the majority of violent crimes are perpetrated by those 25 and under...

 

54 minutes ago, Oh Shoot said:

A hackneyed talking point, but in all history of America, only know of one successful mass murder in a school that wasn't from firearms and that was a bombing back in the 20's in Michigan, which didn't even match most yearly totals these days.

Takes learned skill and nerve to do bombs. Anybody can create mayhem against unarmed kids with an AR.

- OS

 

 

Yes, the Bath Township school bombing of 1927 remains by far the deadliest mass murder of school children in history.  Right in the middle of "the good ole days" ...

[Sidecarist]

8 minutes ago, Oh Shoot said:

Well, I was, it being the actual subject of thread and all.

- OS

While I see your point, I think when considering such a thing as a ban on guns we here in the US would have to look outside our borders in an attempt to gauge the effectiveness of such a ban. 

Lunatics are lunatics all around the world. A determined man that plans in advance is not going to be thwarted by restricting access to one weapon type. The crime will look different but people will still get murdered.

At its heart this is still a people problem more than a weapon problem.