Miami school shooting

[rscott]

mike9009 said:

RobDickinson said:

DurianIceCream said:

The second amendment protects the right to bear arms. Ammunition is an integral part of bearing arms, so the second amendment protects the right to obtain ammunition.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

What part of well regulated or militia was this 19 year old shooter involved in?

All proponents of guns in the US are very very quick to quote half of the amendment whist just as quick to wilfully ignore the other half.

I also thought amendments could be amended?

Breadvan72 commented on this a while back - they can't amend an amendment, but it can be superceded.

[DurianIceCream]

^ it's been interpreted a number of times by the US Supreme Court. The second amendment, in the opinion of the court, means private citizens have the right to obtain guns without being in a formal militia. Various states have tried various things. Washington DC tried to ban handguns, but that was found to be unconstitutional. The realistic options would be to increase the minimum age to buy a gun or restrict magazine capacity. I can't see semi-automatics ever being restricted or banned.

I don't think the situation with guns in the US is sensible, but it is what it is.

[rscott]

[frankenstein12]

mike9009 said:

frankenstein12 said:

No but then they are all legal and sane gun owners. How many guns in the UK are owned illegally?

Gun crime is on the increase in the UK. In fact crimes using most weapons are on the increase in the Uk and most of them are with illegal weaponry such as guns, Knives and acids.

Can you substantiate your claim that gun crime is increasing in the UK?

Probably but i dont particularly want to be googling that sort of thing due to my government work.

[Efbe]

DurianIceCream said:

^ it's been interpreted a number of times by the US Supreme Court. The second amendment, in the opinion of the court, means private citizens have the right to obtain guns without being in a formal militia. Various states have tried various things. Washington DC tried to ban handguns, but that was found to be unconstitutional. The realistic options would be to increase the minimum age to buy a gun or restrict magazine capacity. I can't see semi-automatics ever being restricted or banned.

I don't think the situation with guns in the US is sensible, but it is what it is.

ok cheers

so are militias common in the US?

[frankenstein12]

Halmyre said:

frankenstein12 said:

Halmyre said:

frankenstein12 said:

Halmyre said:

frankenstein12 said:

Byker28i said:

frankenstein12 said:

Not perfect but a decent compromise to the idea of having either none or all which seems to be about the present mindset.

Quoted as seriously I cannot believe you wrote that.

Go read this article
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...land-should-...

Link does not work.

You can disbelieve all you want. The reality FACT of the matter is you will not stop nutters gaining access to these types of weapons whether you restrict access or ban them. There are just too many of them in the US. There are something like 2 guns for every person in the US.

As such as much as it sucks the only realistic to try reduce death tolls in school shootings barring turning schools into fortressess/virtual prisons for students is to arm teachers.

Edited by frankenstein12 on Friday 23 February 17:17

Sit down and have a think about how long it would take for the teachers to make their way to the gun cabinet, unlock it (who sets off the gun alert?) and tool up. In the meanwhile the assailant is running around shooting up the place. Oh, and he set the fire alarm off so presumably everyone was outside or on their way outside.

Ok so your response to reduce the threat to schools/soft targets is? And lets be realistic here since there is no way at all they can ban guns in the US due to the second amendment.

Your 'solution' panders to the standard wk-fantasy of steely-eyed sharpshooters taking down the bad guy with precise and accurate shooting. Won't happen.

So you dont have any solutions? Ok then why are you criticising my suggestion which is a damn sight better than most that have been made by Trump etc which involve allowing teachers to wander around schools armed with guns?

I'm criticising it because it's unworkable. OK?

My solutions. Ban semi-automatics. Limit the number of guns anyone is allowed to own. Sliding scale tax on ammunition purchase. Gun and ammunition purchase to be logged. Stricter controls on gun purchase - background checks, medical checks, cooling off period, etc.

And in fantasy land that may be legally or politically do able and would also be followed but here in the real world it will NEVER ever happen.

Plenty of polls show that Americans are very anti banning or restricting access to guns. It is in their blood.

Likewise it is not legally bought guns that are the problem. It is all the myriad other failings in the system that allows these mass shootings to keep happening.

Most legal gun owners of guns like AR15 are very good sane legal americans.

The problem as i showed in an earlier post and as has been made evident in the last two mass shootings is poor gun control.

The latest shooter should never have been able to buy those guns legally however due to failings by numerous authorities the gun shops fully complied with all the laws but he passed checks he should not have because he was not flagged on the system as a risk.

The same with the previous ex army guy who managed to obtain guns as the military failed to notify the relevant authorites when he was discharged so he was able to pass background checks and buy high powered weapons.

Now of course if the systems had worked there would still not have been anything stopping them buying machine guns as they could simply have bought them from a private citizen which does not require any of the normal background checks if buying from a gun shop except in a very very small number of US States. Yet another fail point.

Or they could have obtained one illegally.

I find all the talk of banning certain guns or restricting access to number of guns people can own utterly baffling as it will stop any actual progress dead in the water the same as suggesting more guns are the answer. Why not be realistic and work towards a middle ground.

Better gun controls. Better cohesion between all the relevant bodies to make sure the gun controls work and keep guns out of the hands of crazy people.

Bring in laws to make sure parents are held equally liable for any criminal act caused if they allow their kids to gain access to their guns

Protective measures taken at schools and if needed do as I suggest as a middle ground rather than having teachers carrying guns around every day in school as that is just asking for trouble on so many levels. Its that or as an alternate middle ground put metal detectors or xray machines at the entrance to every school to make sure no one can bring a gun into school.

Edited by frankenstein12 on Friday 23 February 23:30

[frankenstein12]

So it gets worse and there is all sorts coming out now.

Apparently there were 4 browsed officers outside the school including the one who was seen on camera hiding behind a concrete pillar while the shooting was going on inside the school.

It is also coming to light that there was an agreement between the school board and police to not arrest or charge students for crimes or bad behaviour as it meant the school got good grades and extra funding.

The browsed police (local pd) were actively subverting the law and when students from the school were caught with stolen property instead of raising a criminal case against the students they would log the stolen goods as found items/lost property which meant they would go into a storage unit and gather dust and the student caught with stolen goods would be released without charge etc.

[jmorgan]

Efbe said:

RobDickinson said:

DurianIceCream said:

The second amendment protects the right to bear arms. Ammunition is an integral part of bearing arms, so the second amendment protects the right to obtain ammunition.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

What part of well regulated or militia was this 19 year old shooter involved in?

All proponents of guns in the US are very very quick to quote half of the amendment whist just as quick to wilfully ignore the other half.

but what exactly does the amendment mean?

To me it is saying the country needs a militia. May be the use of the word militia has changed, but I thought that meant a civilian force, not governmental. But it seems to me to be saying the militia should have the arms, was there a militia at the time that couldn't have arms?

I suppose the circumstances around why the amendment was ... well amended would help me too, but tbh too tired to google it now

Worded when there was no standing army. Interesting that people get all suggestively killy when someone suggests that there will try to stop the legal means to own guns "lever it from my cold dead hands" and all that yet the same people berate the feds for not dealing with the killers comments yet they have threatened the government.

They overturned prohibition. They can stop this, they need the will. Until then no amount of armed teachers or armed students or guns in boxes on the wall or armed anything will prevent more. The NRA have the country buttoned up.

[andy_s]

jmorgan said:

The NRA have the country buttoned up.

But losing a few major sponsors now I read, although I don't think it will gain much traction.

[red_slr]

Costa offering HET1 courses for free for teachers. Not sure what I think about that but I would take that freebie!

[jmorgan]

andy_s said:

jmorgan said:

The NRA have the country buttoned up.

But losing a few major sponsors now I read, although I don't think it will gain much traction.

This will be a blip for them. Looking at where they have sent their donations, they are not dim. They play the long game and have weathered other mass shootings and guided the law makers to avoid them. This will happen again, the pro lobby and taker of money will blame anything but themselves.

Not my country but if I were, ratcheting back guns would be a generation or two thing, can't see this as an overnight fix.

[HTP99]

I wonder if the teachers themselves have been asked if they are happy to to be armed?

[Byker28i]

frankenstein12 said:

So it gets worse and there is all sorts coming out now.

Apparently there were 4 browsed officers outside the school including the one who was seen on camera hiding behind a concrete pillar while the shooting was going on inside the school.

It is also coming to light that there was an agreement between the school board and police to not arrest or charge students for crimes or bad behaviour as it meant the school got good grades and extra funding.

The browsed police (local pd) were actively subverting the law and when students from the school were caught with stolen property instead of raising a criminal case against the students they would log the stolen goods as found items/lost property which meant they would go into a storage unit and gather dust and the student caught with stolen goods would be released without charge etc.

Sources? There's a lot of disinformation being put around by NRA/trump supporters and russian bots.

[andy_s]

red_slr said:

Costa offering HET1 courses for free for teachers. Not sure what I think about that but I would take that freebie!

I'd be surprised if most don't have some form of input at the moment anyway, it can be a very useful thing for a number of reasons if done properly albeit of course the last ring of defence in terms of this sort of incident in the States. I've been training people for a few years on this and seen a few other versions and although some are quite good, most are quite generic and miss some crucial points imo.
But yes, having an opportunity to think about what the best options are when you're in a calm setting is always better than making something up on the spur of the moment when your brain is frozen in panic...

[Dr Jekyll]

Efbe said:

RobDickinson said:

DurianIceCream said:

The second amendment protects the right to bear arms. Ammunition is an integral part of bearing arms, so the second amendment protects the right to obtain ammunition.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

What part of well regulated or militia was this 19 year old shooter involved in?

All proponents of guns in the US are very very quick to quote half of the amendment whist just as quick to wilfully ignore the other half.

but what exactly does the amendment mean?

To me it is saying the country needs a militia. May be the use of the word militia has changed, but I thought that meant a civilian force, not governmental. But it seems to me to be saying the militia should have the arms, was there a militia at the time that couldn't have arms?

I suppose the circumstances around why the amendment was ... well amended would help me too, but tbh too tired to google it now

It's saying that the right to bear arms should not be infringed BECAUSE the country needs a militia. It doesn't say the right to bear arms should only apply if there is a militia. There was a high level court ruling a few years back that held that the 'right to bear arms' bit still applied irrespective of the original reason for it.

[jmorgan]

Dr Jekyll said:

It's saying that the right to bear arms should not be infringed BECAUSE the country needs a militia. It doesn't say the right to bear arms should only apply if there is a militia. There was a high level court ruling a few years back that held that the 'right to bear arms' bit still applied irrespective of the original reason for it.

Interested in this ruling, any pointers? One thing I have learned recently that judges seem to be appointed on political grounds.

And can that ruling (not being familiar with US law) be changed or amended?

[RobDickinson]

Its all political the GOP tend to own that kind of thing mostly

[Dr Jekyll]

jmorgan said:

Dr Jekyll said:

It's saying that the right to bear arms should not be infringed BECAUSE the country needs a militia. It doesn't say the right to bear arms should only apply if there is a militia. There was a high level court ruling a few years back that held that the 'right to bear arms' bit still applied irrespective of the original reason for it.

Interested in this ruling, any pointers? One thing I have learned recently that judges seem to be appointed on political grounds.

And can that ruling (not being familiar with US law) be changed or amended?

Columbia V Heller 2008.

I'm not sure any court could overrule it, certainly a law change could override it.

[frankenstein12]

Byker28i said:

frankenstein12 said:

So it gets worse and there is all sorts coming out now.

Apparently there were 4 browsed officers outside the school including the one who was seen on camera hiding behind a concrete pillar while the shooting was going on inside the school.

It is also coming to light that there was an agreement between the school board and police to not arrest or charge students for crimes or bad behaviour as it meant the school got good grades and extra funding.

The browsed police (local pd) were actively subverting the law and when students from the school were caught with stolen property instead of raising a criminal case against the students they would log the stolen goods as found items/lost property which meant they would go into a storage unit and gather dust and the student caught with stolen goods would be released without charge etc.

Sources? There's a lot of disinformation being put around by NRA/trump supporters and russian bots.

Not a big fan of Clinton news network but since its THE liberal anti Trump news outlet...

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/23/politics/parkla...


http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/23/broward-county-s...

Unfortunately I cannot find anything in a Google search about the tweets I saw yesterday but I will try find them to see if I can post the source so people can read, research and make their decisions on validity etc.

[rscott]

frankenstein12 said:

Not a big fan of Clinton news network but since its THE liberal anti Trump news outlet...

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/23/politics/parkla...


http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/23/broward-county-s...

Unfortunately I cannot find anything in a Google search about the tweets I saw yesterday but I will try find them to see if I can post the source so people can read, research and make their decisions on validity etc.

So nothing to back up your claims about deals between the school board and the sheriff's department?

As for the Daily Caller link... Even if they'd responded to the reports about him being a risk, what could they legally have done? They've got no powers to remove his legally purchased weapons.