Florida School Shooting

[Zymologist]

Several years ago there were a couple studies which revealed that blacks (who consistently vote left as a block) are considerably more racist than whites. Then for some reason they stopped doing studies like that.

Obviously it isn't studied because there's nothing there, right?

[rogue06]

I have to admit...after I posted that...I wondered if I had taken my humor too far.

My wife tells me I have a rendency to self-distruct in social situations...


(P.S. you seem to have emoji's down. What's the one with the character rubbing their chin and thinking?)

You need to collect your own and keep them in a file.

smiley think-wonder.gif

[rogue06]

I am right. That makes everyone else wrong.

They're especially wrong whenever they agree with you

[Mountain Man]

No. I think looking at ALL of the factors that led to the outcome is wise - and helpful in prehaps preventing future outcomes. That includes how the child got to be so twisted/angry, if there were any clear warning signs that would have been a clear indicator of a problem (i.e., like we had an angry, acting out, teenager in possession of an assualt rifle?), and how he got his hands on the weapon he used. If the goal is, "what can we learn and what can we do better," I'm all for it. It's called a post-incident-debrief.

As long as you're willing to do a "post-incident-debrief" then what of the fact that Cruz was part of a school system that had idiotic progressive policies which essentially tied the hands of the local police and shielded Cruz from facing the legal consequences of previous crimes -- including at least one assault committed a year ago. The school's mantra was "Keep kids out of the courtroom and in the classroom," which ignores the very real fact that some kids deserve to be in a courtroom. Then there's the elephant in the room: the tragic failure of "gun free zones" to prevent a single mass shooting.

We've tried the liberal approach of disarming law-abiding citizens, and it doesn't work. It's time to go the other direction.

[Cow Poke]

Wait. Has JimL finally weighed in on what constitutes a boy?

He's still contemplating that.

[Cow Poke]

might scare the students more than necessary though. Pistols would seem better for walking around the halls than carrying rifles.

Indoors, yes.

[Cow Poke]

As long as you're willing to do a "post-incident-debrief" then what of the fact that Cruz was part of a school system that had idiotic progressive policies which essentially tied the hands of the local police and shielded Cruz from facing the legal consequences of previous crimes -- including at least one assault committed a year ago. The school's mantra was "Keep kids out of the courtroom and in the classroom," which ignores the very real fact that some kids deserve to be in a courtroom. Then there's the elephant in the room: the tragic failure of "gun free zones" to prevent a single mass shooting.

We've tried the liberal approach of disarming law-abiding citizens, and it doesn't work. It's time to go the other direction.

And "keeping them out of the courtroom" pretty well negates any hope that they'll end up on a "can't buy a gun" list. Liberals!

It's like, "what kind of birdbrained dipwad policies can we come up with that will cause more problems for which we'll have to come up with birdbrained responses, while blaming conservatives?"

[carpedm9587]

You need to collect your own and keep them in a file.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]26595[/ATTACH]

That sounds like a lot of work ... :lazy:

[carpedm9587]

As long as you're willing to do a "post-incident-debrief" then what of the fact that Cruz was part of a school system that had idiotic progressive policies which essentially tied the hands of the local police and shielded Cruz from facing the legal consequences of previous crimes -- including at least one assault committed a year ago. The school's mantra was "Keep kids out of the courtroom and in the classroom," which ignores the very real fact that some kids deserve to be in a courtroom. Then there's the elephant in the room: the tragic failure of "gun free zones" to prevent a single mass shooting.

We've tried the liberal approach of disarming law-abiding citizens, and it doesn't work. It's time to go the other direction.

Right. I'm very familiar with the widespread disarming that has been done over the years. I guess that's why the U.S. has the highest guns/capita numbers in the world - at least double that of any other country. We have twice the guns/capita compared to Yemen, Serbia, Iraq, and Cyprus. We have more than three times the number of guns/capita of Canada, Austria, France and Norway. Four times the guns/capita of Switzerland, Australia, and Kuwait. Five times the guns/capita of Lebanon, Qatar and Peru. Ten times the guns/capita of Spain, Argentina, and Peru.

And the last number: ten times the guns/capita than the entire world. That disarming campaign was apparently really effective.

Why gun advocates make ridiculous comments like this is beyond me. Goes up there with the "don't take our guns" response to every conversation.

[Mountain Man]

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse, or if the relation between these two sentences genuinely escaped you:

Then there's the elephant in the room: the tragic failure of "gun free zones" to prevent a single mass shooting.

We've tried the liberal approach of disarming law-abiding citizens, and it doesn't work.

Granted, I put a paragraph break between them, but basic reading comprehension should have clued you in that the thoughts were related.

[carpedm9587]

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse, or if the relation between these two sentences genuinely escaped you:

Then there's the elephant in the room: the tragic failure of "gun free zones" to prevent a single mass shooting.

We've tried the liberal approach of disarming law-abiding citizens, and it doesn't work.

Granted, I put a paragraph break between them, but basic reading comprehension should have clued you in that the thoughts were related.

"No" to the first. "We don't know them to be" to the second.

And your comment remains ridiculous. Widespread "disarming" is clearly not happening in a country with ten times as many guns per capita as the rest of the world. Your comment is patently ridiculous, MM.

[Mountain Man]

Widespread "disarming" is clearly not happening...

And I clearly never said it was, but keep attacking that straw man. I think there are still a few bundles you haven't stomped on yet.

The fact is, nearly 100% of mass shootings since 1950 happened in "gun free zones", so what I said is perfectly true: enacting laws and policies that disarm law-abiding citizens is very obviously not the solution. As one former law-enforcement official recently said, "Gun free zones are not gun free for the criminal."

It's long past time we abolished the deadly "gun free zone".

[carpedm9587]

And I clearly never said it was, but keep attacking that straw man. I think there are still a few bundles you haven't stomped on yet.

The fact is, nearly 100% of mass shootings since 1950 happened in "gun free zones", so what I said is perfectly true: enacting laws and policies that disarm law-abiding citizens is very obviously not the solution. As one former law-enforcement official recently said, "Gun free zones are not gun free for the criminal."

It's long past time we abolished the deadly "gun free zone".

Your statement: "We've tried the liberal approach of disarming law-abiding citizens, and it doesn't work. It's time to go the other direction."

As I pointed out - patently false - and borderline ridiculous.

[Darth Executor]

Your statement: "We've tried the liberal approach of disarming law-abiding citizens, and it doesn't work. It's time to go the other direction."

As I pointed out - patently false - and borderline ridiculous.

What are you talking about, just look at the recent school shooting where the school insisted nobody be armed... not even the coach/security guard. Liberals do in fact disarm law-abiding citizens wherever they can, and schools are notorious for it.

[carpedm9587]

Your statement: "We've tried the liberal approach of disarming law-abiding citizens, and it doesn't work. It's time to go the other direction."

As I pointed out - patently false - and borderline ridiculous.

Wait - I'm going back and forth between work and posting - and something just clicked. Your continuous reference to the two sentences:

"Then there's the elephant in the room: the tragic failure of "gun free zones" to prevent a single mass shooting."

and

"We've tried the liberal approach of disarming law-abiding citizens, and it doesn't work. It's time to go the other direction."

is apparently meant to say you believe disarming people in schools is the wrong way to go, not that people across the country have been disarmed. I did not read carefully, and missed the point entirely, even after you repeated it. My bad - and I apologize.

That being said, I have two observations.

First, the sentence "Then there's the elephant in the room: the tragic failure of "gun free zones" to prevent a single mass shooting" is a statement you cannot know to be true. After all, if gun free zones prevented mass shootings, then they wouldn't have happened and you wouldn't know about it. The best you can say is that mass shootings HAVE occurred in gun free zones, which simply means gun free zones are not perfect and don't stop ALL mass shootings. How many they HAVE stopped is unknown, and I'm not even sure if it could BE known. I can't even imagine how that research would be done.

Second, every "gun free zone" I know of is an environment in which general individuals cannot carry guns. It does not preclude armed security officers. It means parents, children, teachers, staff, and visitors are not allowed to bribng a gun onto the property. We don't know if adding guns would improve or reduce the incidence of mass shotings because, again, there is no impartially funded and peer-reviewed research.