• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

At least 17 dead in Florida school shooting, law enforcement says

Recommended Posts

wakjak    11,316
5 minutes ago, macrosslover said:

I'm asking something simple, change what from what or to what?  What do you think is wrong with the current laws that could/should be changed to hopefully prevent something like this from happening again?  Rather than attacking Republicans because you say they are always saying "it's too soon to talk about gun control", I'm asking what your idea or do you know of a plan to control guns.  Ideally one that would have stopped this massacre.

Not allowing any Tom, Dick or Harry to just be able to walk into a store and buy a gun would be a great start. And yes I'm aware background checks are required. 

 

That in the end did not stop anything. 

 

There should be testing and mental fitness tests taken and passed with flying colours, and then you should have to be issued a licence, and as with any licence, it should have to be renewed at least every 4-5 years. 

 

Raising the age limit to 21.

 

Perhaps making semi automatic weapons restricted to those who pass a restricted firearms licence test. 

 

I know, who could ever think of such ridiculous suggestions right? And therein would lie the problem, wouldn't it? Unwillingness to even listen to suggestion? 

 

Nothing will ever stop gun violence in a country so infatuated with gun ownership. 

 

Can it be lessened? Sure it can. If anyone gave a damn about trying to change the laws. 

 

Instead the take the constitution as if it were from the mouth of God himself. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macrosslover    496
4 minutes ago, wakjak said:

Not allowing any Tom, Dick or Harry to just be able to walk into a store and buy a gun would be a great start. And yes I'm aware background checks are required. 

 

That in the end did not stop anything. 

 

There should be testing and mental fitness tests taken and passed with flying colours, and then you should have to be issued a licence, and as with any licence, it should have to be renewed at least every 4-5 years. 

 

Raising the age limit to 21.

 

Perhaps making semi automatic weapons restricted to those who pass a restricted firearms licence test. 

 

I know, who could ever think of such ridiculous suggestions right? And therein would lie the problem, wouldn't it? Unwillingness to even listen to suggestion? 

 

Nothing will ever stop gun violence in a country so infatuated with gun ownership. 

 

Can it be lessened? Sure it can. If anyone gave a damn about trying to change the laws. 

 

Instead the take the constitution as if it were from the mouth of God himself. 

Most of those sound like ideas I could accept.  I think you would find most legal gun owners would be able to pass all of those restrictions or tests.  The age limit will never be raised to 21, as long as you can join the military at 18, which is the main reason the voting age had to be lowered.

 

Whether people like the second amendment or not, you can't say it has less value than all the other amendments that liberals believe are straight from the mouth of god.  You don't have to agree with everything, but it is what it is.

 

I can tell you though that none of that stuff will probably ever happen.  Democrats cry bloody murder when Republicans pass laws to require a simple ID to vote, so if you were to require not just an ID, but an actual government issued license to exercise a constitutional right, perhaps understand why the other side might get upset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+DevTech    1,225
5 minutes ago, wakjak said:

Instead the take the constitution as if it were from the mouth of God himself. 

Well, it is close to the Mouth of God and the wishes of The Founders and their intent should be considered with great weight.

 

The 2nd Amendment is an amendment because they were not perfect and they realized that "The Right To Revolt" enshrined in The Declaration of Independence was not properly protected in the Constitution.

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

 

A large part of the Declaration is concerned with The Right To Revolt and that is deserves ongoing vigilance.

 

There is nothing in any of this that prevents reasonable restrictions on guns. For example, elimination of handguns would not seriously impact the Right To Revolt. Requiring graduated age related access restrictions would also be reasonable. Requiring training courses and strict regulations on storage would be more than reasonable since accidental deaths to the owners of guns and their families far outweigh the tragedy of mass shootings. However, the restriction of semi-automatic rifles would probably not be a good idea in supporting The Right To revolt.

 

The Founders simply did not intend for gun ownership to be a hobby and would consider the NRA to be an abomination. The NRA's constant chorus of "2nd Amendment" is a perversion of the true purpose and makes discussion of the role of the 2nd Amendment in the gun control debate almost impossible to be coherent.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+DevTech    1,225

"There is no higher calling than service to others"

 

That quote from the Peaceful Warrior has driven a lot of my thinking when investing time in the Neowin forums. But, to quote the Bible, "To everything there is a season." (Ecclesiastes 3)

 

I have decided to terminate my participation in non-technical forums at Neowin for a variety of reasons. This news is really of no significance to anyone and hence the arbitrary location in the topic I have been currently commenting on. I had hoped that Neowin might have been a haven for well considered discussion by technically educated people on non-technical topics far from the "Maddening Crowd"

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/opinion/trump-network-film-populism.html

 

I have enjoyed the information provided by many points of view and really appreciate people that attempt to form a discussion instead of a debate. The current trend to extreme polarization is a weakness, not a strength and is being exploited by Russia to influence your thoughts:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/19/technology/russian-bots-school-shooting.html

 

Unfortunately there is just the same amount of tribalistic thinking on the upswing here at Neowin like anywhere else. When I point out "Tribalistic" primitivistic thought processes, there has been in general a strange zero comprehension of what I am saying as if Tribalism has sunk down into the invisible fabric of our society and people are not even aware of their Tribal influences or else actually embrace this growing form of non-thinking with vigor and joy:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/opinion/destructive-political-tribalism.html

 

In my opinion, Tribalism has gained in force as "service to others" went out of fashion to be replaced by "entitlement" as immortalized by Nirvana "Here we are now, entertain us" - But too my surprise, this tug of war was closely studied by a French Resistance Fighter in WW2:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/opinion/simone-weil-human-rights-obligations.html

 

Israel does not have mass school shootings. They have open carry of firearms everywhere by civilians which they strongly encourage as a civil obligation while at the same time a very restrictive set of regulations concerning gun ownership. They don't have a debate on gun ownership versus gun control since they have both at the same time! It shows that making a debate about gun control the central starting point of any disaster is the wrong approach. Gun Control is needed. Use of guns and protection of the 2nd Amendment is also needed. By trying to pick one or the other, nothing ever gets achieved:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/world/middleeast/israel-guns-mike-huckabee.html

 

Everything that has failed to work over the last 30 years will not magically start to be effective if you win a debate or an election. A solution to a problem that is not a working solution will remain a non-working solution no matter how much it is your favorite approach or how many votes it gets. To get people working together with their thinking caps on requires great leadership, so it is simply not reasonable to expect this problem to be solved during the reign of the Mad King:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/19/opinion/how-does-trump-stack-up-against-the-best-and-worst-presidents.html

 

Finally to everyone who has called me a "gun nut" in the various gun control related threads. That always made me laugh! I don't own a gun and my political thinking mostly leans very far left to Universal Health Care, elimination of the vulgarity of the 1% and universal access to education provided the brutal prison environment of a typical American school is not the model.

 

On the other end of the political spectrum, I believe that protecting Free Speech and the Right To Revolt (2nd Amendment) is vital not just to the long term survival of the U.S. as a democracy but to all countries on Planet Earth, as the U.S. Constitution provides an anchor point in the development of human civilization to show that governments can abuse citizens so much, but no further.

 

As a mostly liberal person to a mostly conservative person, I would like to express a special appreciation to @DocM for his "above and beyond the call of duty" efforts to research topics and provide informative technical details in a very information-rich manner. Since I am retreating back to the technical forums, I will miss seeing his daily "service to others"

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    14,422
1 hour ago, wakjak said:

I aware that nothing could have been done at the time... I've actually posted that exact thing. They couldn't take his guns from him. They were legally bought. 

 

They can however bring legislation that makes it more difficult for someone like him to purchase firearms in the first place. 

So what you're both suggesting is... Now isn't the time to think about gun control laws? 

 

Gotcha. 

 

No gotcha. This all assumes someone intent on doing carnage would actually follow the law, and yet all the evidence is they do not. 

 

This is where "by any means necessary" bites your position in its ass. 

 

If some nut is intent on killing he could just as easily wait for school to let out and drive a U-Haul or loaded full size pickup through the crowd waiting to board their bus. 

 

It's not like this hasn't been done before. Killers gonna kill, and they will adapt their methods to the situation. In Paris it was a truck, in Bath MI it was a bomb. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wakjak    11,316
3 minutes ago, DocM said:

 

No gotcha. This all assumes someone intent on doing carnage would actually follow the law, and yet all the evidence is they do not. 

 

This is where "by any means necessary" bites your position in its ass. 

 

If some nut is intent on killing he could just as easily wait for school to let out and drive a U-Haul or loaded full size pickup through the crowd waiting to board their bus. 

 

It's not like this hasn't been done before. Killers gonna kill, and they will adapt their methods to the situation. In Paris it was a truck, in Bath MI it was a bomb. 

 

 

And yet still no answer as to how to fix the issue, instead just shift the blame... Typical. What else should I expect from a gun fanatic. 

 

Unfortunately for your narrative, the killer did not use a Uhaul. He used a gun. The item specifically designed for death. I know it's useless to say that, because you'll say blah blah more vehicle deaths... But we're not talking about those, we're talking about trying to minimize gun deaths. 

 

According to the law, he was absolutely following the law, until he ended up killing 17 people. That's how he was allowed to buy his guns in the first place. 

Edited by wakjak
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    14,422
22 minutes ago, wakjak said:

And yet still no answer as to how to fix the issue, instead just shift the blame... Typical. What else should I expect from a gun fanatic. 

In MI that would read "citizen"

Quote

According to the law, he was absolutely following the law, until he ended up killing 17 people. That's how he was allowed to buy his guns in the first place. 

Which is why you're likely to see proposals from the White House soon.  Banning bump stocks, putting more heat on the states to comply with NICS reporting (which many don't), etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Titoist    224

Vehicles kill... yes. But to drive a vehicle in the first place requires, training, licensing, registration and insurance.

 

So if you are going to use a vehicle to defend gun ownership, first you must put gun ownership at the same level as vehicles... with training, licensing, registration and insurance.

 

Try arguing that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    14,422
36 minutes ago, Titoist said:

Vehicles kill... yes. But to drive a vehicle in the first place requires, training, licensing, registration and insurance.

 

So if you are going to use a vehicle to defend gun ownership, first you must put gun ownership at the same level as vehicles... with training, licensing, registration and insurance.

 

Try arguing that!

 

Did you have to take training, journalistic or otherwise, in order to exercise your First Amendment right to free speech before posting?

 

Driving is a privilege, not guaranteed Constitutionally or by legislation.  Our theoretical truck killer wouldn't give a damn any more than a spree/mass shooter does.

 

Gun ownership is a Constitutional right, and not just federally - most State Constitutions have language based on the Second Amendment.

 

Further, the decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) confirmed the right to own and use a firearm. 

 

Quote

The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes

 

Edited by DocM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Titoist    224
34 minutes ago, DocM said:

 

Did you have to take training, journalistic or otherwise, in order to exercise your First Amendment right to free speech before posting?

 

Driving is a privilege, not guaranteed Constitutionally or by legislation.  Our theoretical truck killer wouldn't give a damn any more than a spree/mass shooter does.

 

Gun ownership is a Constitutional right, and not just federally - most State Constitutions have language based on the Second Amendment.

 

Further, the decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) confirmed the right to own and use a firearm. 

 

 

I couldn't care less about US laws or constitution. In Canada, gun ownership is a privilege, not a right. Freedom of Speech is not absolute and is restricted when it comes to hate speech, racism, bigotry and violence.

 

Actually, from what I recall.... the US Constitution is not absolute either. There are amendments, and even to this day women have no rights under the US Constitution, hence why there is still a huge fight about reproductive rights. An amendment is an amendment and can be amended at any time by those in power with a majority.

Edited by Titoist
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    14,422
48 minutes ago, Titoist said:

I couldn't care less about US laws or constitution. 

The discussion is US law wrt firearms, not Canadian law.

Quote

>

Actually, from what I recall.... the US Constitution is not absolute either. There are amendments, and even to this day women have no rights under the US Constitution, 

14th Amendment, Equal Protection Clause. Among other Constitutional Clauses, Civil Rights laws and Supreme Court decisions.

Quote

hence why there is still a huge fight about reproductive rights.

 

The fight is over regulated vs unregulated, and if the US govt should pay for it. Medicaid pays for abortion under certain circumstances. 

 

Quote

An Anamendment is an amendment and can be amended at any time by those in power with a majority.

No.  You are misunderstanding our system. We are not a parlaimentary system like Canada. We are a Constitutionally limited republic.

 

In the US it would take 2/3 of both Houses of Congress, or a Constitutional Convention of the States (never done since the first one), to propose a change. Then, 3/4 of the States need to approve the change. Most of them are red states.  This also includes changes to the Amendments. A time limit can also be applied to the approval process.

 

Good luck with that.

 

It's a very high standard which has only been met 27 times since 1789, 17 times since 1791, and one of those was to repeal another Amendment (Prohibition.) 

 

25 Amendments remain active, and the first 10 (The Bill of Rights) are pretty much considered untouchable. This includes the Second Amendment.

Edited by DocM
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+FloatingFatMan    15,580
1 hour ago, DocM said:

25 Amendments remain active, and the first 10 (The Bill of Rights) are pretty much considered untouchable. This includes the Second Amendment.

NO law, EVER, should be considered untouchable.  Times change, and laws needs to change with them lest they trap you in their unworkable limitations.

 

IMO, the 2nd amendment has been turned into just such a law.  It's original intent is virtually impossible to achieve now, and instead it's just used to justify ridiculous levels of private gun ownership.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steven P.    10,684

This thread has turned into a gun control debate and has also been reported, it no longer appears to be about the victims in Florida (of which is still in the news due to protests etc) if you want to talk gun debate, create a new thread, I am closing this one.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.