Reports of a shooting in a Florida school

Scroll to see replies

Mass shootings happen everyday in America, its crazy.

Its always been this way in that part of the world. More people get murdered in the US every year than in Iraq and Iraq is in the middle of a war. That's quite an accomplishment for a country.

Reply 21

MrSuavetopia

Another shooting. Wonder how long it will be before we forget this one.

Reply 22

The PoliticalGuy

Original post by jdddd

Thats the second amendment. I remember the left, when they said, 'Catalonia can't leave Spain because its against their constitution' just as banning guns would be against Americas constitution.. thats why there has been efforts to bring in gun control and different states have different gun Laws, but for the most part you can't ban guns because of the constitution.

I don't remember anyone from the left saying that can you please reference and so what it is illegal under law. Gun control is not enough as seen via the Las Vegas shooting mass school shootings happening almost every week. Yes, you can ban guns by repealing the second amendment by a 2/3 vote from congress and 3/4 vote on all states.

Reply 23

s.a.u

Might as well report on the sun coming up. Not news if it happens so often.

Reply 24

Caesar333

Its okay, the travel ban and relaxed gun laws will solve the issue! Thank you president Trump, god bless you and your family! #MAGA

Reply 25

Notoriety

Original post by The PoliticalGuy

Right wing nuts (Donald Trump and co) are now calling for young children to have the right to bear arms and for the gun free zones on schools to be lifted.
"To protect them from school shootings".

But you're conflating two questions. One is: the Second Amendment needs to go. Second is: what is to be done to protect vulnerable people from mass shootings.

To Question 1, it is not going to go. To suggest otherwise would be to live in fantasy land. All you can do is adapt and put up with it. To Question 2, given that the Second Amendment is staying and there are a lot of armed people in the US (owing guns legally and illegally), you must protect yourself. In the face of that, having a designated member of staff at a school who is trained to use firearms could save a lot of lives.

Reply 26

Notoriety

Original post by CookieButter

Its always been this way in that part of the world. More people get murdered in the US every year than in Iraq and Iraq is in the middle of a war. That's quite an accomplishment for a country.

If Iraq is in a war, do you really think Iraqi police have the resources or even the inclination to investigate 100% of homicides? Also Iraq is a much smaller population.

Reply 27

jdddd

Original post by The PoliticalGuy

So they repeal the Catalonian state.. If they did repeal you would have never seen such a blood bath in your life. People would go mad.

Reply 28

icequeenTM

Ever heard of a school shooting elsewhere?
300 school shootings since 2013 in the US.
2nd amendment is a joke.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 29

username2281157

Don't want to sound insensitive, but you do know this is pretty common in the US

Reply 30

yungaheartz

14 dead. which makes this worse than Columbine

Reply 31

Stiff Little Fingers

Original post by Notoriety

Or, if you bin your heroism fantasy, cost far more. The idea that a good guy with a gun stops the bad guys with guns doing as much damage is not one that has any grounding in reality.

No surprise, we're talking about a nation who have a loud section who'd rather claim massacring children is a false flag (sandy hook) rather than admit their attitude to guns needs to change

Reply 32

gjd800

Well, as long as we all send thoughts and prayers, it'll be fine.

Reply 33

Notoriety

Original post by Stiff Little Fingers

Or, if you bin your heroism fantasy, cost far more. The idea that a good guy with a gun stops the bad guys with guns doing as much damage is not one that has any grounding in reality.

You have not evidenced how it would cost more lives. If anything it would be neutral. That is, the designated protector would be ineffective and would also die. Or the designated protector would run away scared and be ineffective.

Or the designated protector would just shoot wildly into flocks of running children, by mistake, and the death toll would increase? It is not really parsimonious, for a series of reasons; the first two are more likely.

What happens with these shootings is that the victims flee and the killer roams wildly shooting anything that moves. But he is really at a disadvantage compared to the designated protector, as the killer's location is published by the sound of gunshots, which makes him an easy target.

Reply 34

AlexanderHam

There can be no serious dispute that the wide availability of guns in America has led to a much higher rate of gun homicide. Construing the Second Amendment to mean people must be able to buy semi-automatic rifles and semi-auto pistols without licensure literally means dead children. Refusing to introduce proper background checks, limits on numbers of firearms, closing the gunshow loophole, literally means dead children.

It's nauseating that there are American right-wingers who will consciously decide that they would prefer some children die (and thousands of adults) so that they can maintain their almost completely unrestricted right to buy and own guns.

Of course, I guess many of them may not be consciously deciding that; they are so biased, and so willing to believe whatever crap Fox News, Breitbart, Infowars and the NRA pour down their gullet, that they genuinely believe that more guns makes people safer.

This proclaimed need to have guns so that they can violently rise up against a future tyrannical government is total idiocy. It's not guns that prevent tyranny, it's centuries of political norms and conventions, of the rule of law, of respect for political plurality and civil rights, these centuries of accretions of rights and democratic norms, that prevent tyranny. Ironically, many of these extremist right-wingers are right now setting fire to the rule of law, to centuries of political norms and conventions, in defence of the Orange Fuhrer and because they will happily destroy democracy as long as it "triggers liberals"

Reply 35

The RAR

It's a country full of psychos with guns after all, not surprised
Next

Reply 36

Stiff Little Fingers

Original post by Notoriety

Nor have you given any evidence to support your position (understandably given your position is not based in reality). You claim they'd be ineffective, this much is true, however ineffective or panicking in this case means poor aim and greater risk of friendly fire, particularly in situations where there are crowds. Your entire position relies on the childish idea of a good guy with a gun - they don't exist, what there actually is a naive person more likely to exacerbate a situation than defuse it.

Reply 37

Notoriety

Original post by Stiff Little Fingers

Nor have you given any evidence to support your position (understandably given your position is not based in reality).

Can you be a grown up and desist with the ad hominem attacks? Thanks.

You claim they'd be ineffective, this much is true

I never said they would be ineffective, or I would never have suggested their efficacy at saving lives. I said an ineffective result is rather unlikely to be the exacerbating kind you describe.

however ineffective or panicking in this case means poor aim and greater risk of friendly fire, particularly in situations where there are crowds.

This is based on sheer conjecture of how you imagine people would react. In a situation of life and death, the fight response kicks in. Similar to how a green cop faced with an armed suspect has the awareness to check their surroundings, make sure their partners are not caught in the cross-fire. Now you could say the cop has gun training; but why is it unimaginable that a hypothetical designated protector would not have extensive training.

The sheer panic you talk about is more akin to a flight response.

Your entire position relies on the childish idea of a good guy with a gun - they don't exist, what there actually is a naive person more likely to exacerbate a situation than defuse it.

Your entire position relies on the idea that a person could not be trained to carry a firearm and be responsible when doing so. Even though when these situations come to an end, you'd be relying on a police officer who has been trained to carry a firearm ending the situation.