Shooting at Florida School, Shooter IS in custody. - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53136641]Which, as I'm trying to explain to you, won't do any good unless you launch a mandatory turn-in campaign and destroy several hundred million of the existing firearms like the UK did to prevent criminals from being able to steal them.[/QUOTE] Which demonstrates it is possible. We stand as your example.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;53136644]Perhaps it would be a good idea to start looking at more strict measures on storing firearms, then. How about gun safes being mandatory with all purchases? (You might have already proposed this in the past, my memory isn't fresh) Anyway, I think a lot of this argument hangs on the fact that it's an inevitability that criminals wind up with guns in their laps. That they're bound to get them no matter the unique conditions of legal gun ownership. A larger saturation of guns means more guns in the hands of criminals. It shouldn't be a given that criminals should have such ready access to firearms. It certainly isn't elsewhere.[/QUOTE] I proposed safe storage laws in my Big Post on page 7 or 8 with the caveat that the fed offers at least some subsidy on them. They easily get to be almost a thousand dollars, which is not an acceptable price for something that is mandatory. [editline]16th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Craigewan;53136646]Which demonstrates it is possible. We stand as your example.[/QUOTE] It was much much easier for the UK to do it on account of having far less to begin with and already having had a list of who had them. You also aren't going to be able to convince gun owners to turn in multi-thousand-dollar collections for an applebee's gift card. I own a number of guns which are well over a century old, one of which even qualifies as an "assault weapon" under the terms of the AWB. You will not by any means convince me to chuck those things into a smelter, even if that means having a "boating accident." I'm not going to be complicit in a mass scrapping of rare antiquities just because their existence offends someone's senses. It is not considered acceptable in the United States to confiscate large amounts of valuable property from people who have done nothing wrong. That is protected by a Constitutional amendment entirely separate from the 2nd.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53136635]Yeah, there are less fatalities, but you still have people trying to kill each other. Would it not be better to deal with the reasons people are trying to kill each other than simply keep trying to take away the means to do it? [/QUOTE] When the means to do it vary so much in how effective they end up being, then I don't think it's necessarily that simple. I think we can all agree that people trying to kill each other is a bad thing, but it's also worth considering how easily they're able to do so.

God damn it is so nauseating to keep watching this same circular pointless discussion every fucking time this shit happens man, worry about problems that can actually be changed you will never take guns out of America. School reform please.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53136641]Keep in mind homicide statistics are counted in kind of a funny way in the US. Two bad statistical practices inflate our gun homicide rate beyond what it should be. - Crimes where the type of weapon was not recorded get lumped in with gun homicides - Shooting and killing someone in self defense is still technically considered criminal homicide and recorded as such - you just don't get prosecuted - but those incidents are also added to the gun homicide rate I'm not going to deny that our rate is higher than it should be but there's a lot of things playing into it. US statisticians are primarily politicians and like to creatively interpret numbers, that's why you will find a lot of conflicting data if you go looking. I wasn't trying to imply the 2500 London firearm incidents were all homicides, either, so I'm not sure where you got that. They are predominately robberies or attempted-but-failed homicides as far as I'm aware. That doesn't mean there's no gun crime. [/QUOTE] My apologies, "misleading" was the wrong word, and implied that you were intentionally trying to mislead. I think incongruous with my own (and potentially others) impressions of what an "incident" were (and with the comparison I offered to an insufficient extent) is a better way to put it. Anyway, this is the first I've heard of those two inflationary practices and they surprise me greatly. Do you have any sources to back them up? I'm also interested in to what extent these practices affect the statistics, if we know how much they do at all. Nevertheless, I can say for certain that both are pretty moronic and shouldn't be done. [QUOTE=Grenadiac;53136649]I proposed safe storage laws in my Big Post on page 7 or 8 with the caveat that the fed offers at least some subsidy on them. They easily get to be almost a thousand dollars, which is not an acceptable price for something that is mandatory. [/QUOTE] Gotcha, thanks! The cost is definitely a dilemma that's tricky to get around.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;53136633]Is this a sure fact? Or just conjecture? Grenadiac's post seems to suggest fact - but I just want to be sure that the logical foundation for this is sound. Other countries, such as, incidentally, the UK, have much lower firearm crime rates (i.e., criminals using guns), with criminals resorting to tools such as acid and knives to do their dirty work. Speaking of the UK, it seems like Grenadiac's figures were even more misleading than I thought, due to the way it categorizes and defines what constitutes as an "incident". From what I can tell, the UK **actually** had [url="https://public.tableau.com/profile/metropolitan.police.service#!/vizhome/MPSFY201617CrimeStatistics/NOTES"]only 110 gun related [I]homicides[/I],[/url] unless I'm interpreting these statistics wrong, which is entirely within the realm of possibility. According to the same source I posted earlier, there were 15,590 gun related deaths in the US. Suicides not included. [url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate"] Per 100,000, the UK's generic intentional homicide rate also utterly pales in comparison to that of the US.[/url] So even when accounting for the presence of knives and other gun-alternatives, it seems that their problems don't stack up from any angle. Now, of course, no two countries are alike and there are many more factors at play here. But I think that when considering just [I]how[/I] exceptional the US is in terms of its gun crime, it's worth considering that the presence of guns might be a significant factor.[/QUOTE] Does the UK have a massive land border notorious for having literally tons of things smuggled through, legal or illegal? The logistics are already set up. Adding guns won't be hard for them.

It's hard to find a source on it, but I've run into this over and over again in these debates while fact-checking statistics being thrown around (including my own). An example of a popular tactic on the conservative/pro-gun side is to [I]deflate[/I] numbers by leaving out certain types of violent crimes (such as rape) which can involve firearms. The resulting numbers are then presented in a misleading way to make the overall violent crime rate seem lower. [url=http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/Japan-Gun-Control-and-People-Control.htm]According to an article I am currently reading[/url] (which also mentions the FBI reporting justified homicides with non-justified homicides), Japan manipulates its homicide rate by not counting accidental killings in the course of committing another crime as homicides, whereas other nations do - Japan only counts deliberate murder as homicide in its crime statistics. (This article is from 1988 and I'm not familiar with the author so take all of that with a grain of salt. It may or may not still be true today and may or may not have been true in 1988 - I'll try to post more about it when I finish exploring the article's claims & the author himself) I would encourage you to look at statistics yourself and try to get an idea of how they can be manipulated. For example, it is common to cite a low number of reported justifiable homicides as proof that self defense is not a factor in the US. That fails to take into account cases in which lawful use of a firearm only injured a perpetrator, repelled the perpetrator, or caused the perpetrator to give up without a shot fired - three cases which, at least as far as recorded situations go - seem to happen pretty commonly, especially in more heavily armed parts of the US. I was reading a news article the other day which cited a low incidence of self defense shootings in Chicago as proof of the uselessness of firearms for self defense. While part of that statement is true, it leaves out critical context: Chicago has extremely strict gun control, so they are not really widely available as a self defense option. Keep in mind almost nobody engaged in this debate on the legislative level has a vested interest in being fully honest and selling biased information to people who are looking for it [url=http://www.foxnews.com/]is a[/url] [url=https://www.cnn.com/]big[/url] [url=https://www.vice.com/en_us]industry.[/url]

[QUOTE=Hilton;53136655]God damn it is so nauseating to keep watching this same circular pointless discussion every fucking time this shit happens man, worry about problems that can actually be changed you will never take guns out of America. School reform please.[/QUOTE] Fucking this, jesus christ.

Here is the FBI's homicide data: [url]https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls[/url] I believe I came to the conclusion that "other" was being factored in when someone showed me an "FBI homicide gun rate statistic" that seemed way off, by manually adding up all the related firearm statistics. That increases the gun homicide rate by quite a bit, so it's a big deal. When I called it out the response was effectively "guns are prevalent enough in this country that their use is implicit so "other" must be mostly firearms." e: At first I said "increases by nearly 33%" but I realized I was looking at the chart wrong just now :v: It's not quite that big but it's still a big chunk. Just wanted to get that in in case someone read my post before I fixed it.

[QUOTE]PARKLAND, Fla. (Reuters) - A person close to the 19-year-old accused of killing 17 people at a Florida high school warned the Federal Bureau of Investigation in January of his desire to kill people and investigators mishandled the tip, the FBI said in a statement on Friday. A caller on Jan. 5 warned the bureau that accused shooter Nikolas Cruz owned guns, had made disturbing social media posts and had the potential to conduct a school shooting, the FBI statement said. ... "Under established protocols, the information provided by the caller should have been assessed as a potential threat to life," the FBI said in its statement on Friday. [B]"The information then should have been forwarded to the FBI Miami field office, where appropriate investigative steps would have been taken. We have determined that these protocols were not followed."[/B][/QUOTE] [url]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/breakingnews/fbi-was-warned-that-accused-florida-shooter-could-attack-school/ar-BBJdTCk[/url]

So whats this, two mass shootings in the past year that should have been prevented but werent due to incompetence?

The authorities had plenty of cause for investigation multiple times, but they failed to act. Now they're admitting they fucked up.

[QUOTE=Hilton;53136655]God damn it is so nauseating to keep watching this same circular pointless discussion every fucking time this shit happens man, worry about problems that can actually be changed you will never take guns out of America. School reform please.[/QUOTE] "make schools better" isn't really even controversial. Just politicians prefer to use funding elsewhere and not put in effort making reforms.

Just saw this AMA on reddit: [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/7xzpac/im_sid_fischer_a_student_who_was_in_the_third/[/url] Is it just me or does this make anyone else's skin crawl? It's only been 2 days and this kid is already using this tragedy for attention

[QUOTE=Maeber2;53137131]Just saw this AMA on reddit: [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/7xzpac/im_sid_fischer_a_student_who_was_in_the_third/[/url] Is it just me or does this make anyone else's skin crawl? It's only been 2 days and this kid is already using this tragedy for attention[/QUOTE] Yeah idk..if I were him I'd want to distance myself from that exp as fast as possible. It almost looks like he's enjoying the attention.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;53136847]So whats this, two mass shootings in the past year that should have been prevented but werent due to incompetence?[/QUOTE] I think it's three, but I can't remember what the other was. There was this one, the Airman, and another.

Hunting in the United States is a cultural thing here that doesn't relate to European countries. Even in the 1900s there were people who hunted to survive. There are still people in Alaska that hunt to survive by choice. Europe has been living comfortably in their developed cities and quaint villages. I can grant Europeans a pass in that it's easy to forget that the United States is young and it wasn't that long ago that half the country looked like a western movie. When you think about cowboys and cattle rustlers and wagons and whatnot you gotta realize that stuff existed less than 100 years ago, at least until 1940 in some parts. (Until Industry bought out the cattle industry and industrialized it all) People born into that are still alive. We got miles of countryside where farmers are the only humans for hours. These people depend on their firearms to take care of pests. It's part of their livelihood. Guns and hunting are a cornerstone of American culture and if you want to make progress on this issue you gotta be sensitive to that fact. lol ban guns? And lol is hunting worth it? Are non-starters. If you try to tell rural Americans they don't need their guns you're gonna get backlash. This doesn't mean we can't make progress with common sense control. Hell even in the real wild west guns generally weren't allowed in town. Not as wild in that regard.

[QUOTE=Maeber2;53137131]Just saw this AMA on reddit: [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/7xzpac/im_sid_fischer_a_student_who_was_in_the_third/[/url] Is it just me or does this make anyone else's skin crawl? It's only been 2 days and this kid is already using this tragedy for attention[/QUOTE] When you've just been through an unbelievable traumatic experience like that, honestly anything you're doing which isn't outright destructive is okay - we don't get to judge how someone who had to experience that responds.

[QUOTE=OvB;53137165][B]Hunting in the United States is a cultural thing here that doesn't relate to European countries. Even in the 1900s there were people who hunted to survive. There are still people in Alaska that hunt to survive by choice. Europe has been living comfortably in their developed cities and quaint villages. I can grant Europeans a pass in that it's easy to forget that the United States is young and it wasn't that long ago that half the country looked like a western movie.[/B] When you think about cowboys and cattle rustlers and wagons and whatnot you gotta realize that stuff existed less than 100 years ago, at least until 1940 in some parts. (Until Industry bought out the cattle industry and industrialized it all) People born into that are still alive. We got miles of countryside where farmers are the only humans for hours. These people depend on their firearms to take care of pests. It's part of their livelihood. Guns and hunting are a cornerstone of American culture and if you want to make progress on this issue you gotta be sensitive to that fact. lol ban guns? And lol is hunting worth it? Are non-starters. If you try to tell rural Americans they don't need their guns you're gonna get backlash. This doesn't mean we can't make progress with common sense control. Hell even in the real wild west guns generally weren't allowed in town. Not as wild in that regard.[/QUOTE] It is like this in likely several European countries as well. Hunting with rifles & shotguns is very common in Norway, and has been for a long time. And I'm pretty sure some of the Sami people still choose to hunt for survival. (Nordic indigenous people) Norway has pretty strict gun laws compared to the US, but they allow you to own many guns, and go to the gun range to shoot them as a hobby - Or hunt, of course. Personally I've got a fairly big interest in guns, and I've gotten to shoot a few handguns recently (rifles & shotguns eventually), but regardless of my enjoyment and interest, I think the US needs a big change regarding guns, but obviously they have their use in society. I just wish home defence wasn't a necessary one in US.

[QUOTE=Maeber2;53137131]Just saw this AMA on reddit: [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/7xzpac/im_sid_fischer_a_student_who_was_in_the_third/[/url] Is it just me or does this make anyone else's skin crawl? It's only been 2 days and this kid is already using this tragedy for attention[/QUOTE] To be honest who cares if he's doing it for attention? He's answering questions and giving insight to what happened from the perspective of someone who was actually there and that's all that really matters.

[QUOTE=Maeber2;53137131]Just saw this AMA on reddit: [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/7xzpac/im_sid_fischer_a_student_who_was_in_the_third/[/url] Is it just me or does this make anyone else's skin crawl? It's only been 2 days and this kid is already using this tragedy for attention[/QUOTE] Reading this, showing the event from his perspective/his eyes makes this just... It gets to you really bad. I don't see this as him trying to get attention, moreso giving us insight of how it went down, and it puts it into reality of just how devastating this shit is and that this can't keep happening every year. These are teenagers losing their lives to senseless violence, something needs to happen and this shit needs to stop.

[QUOTE=Rocko's;53137233]Reading this, showing the event from his perspective/his eyes makes this just... It gets to you really bad. I don't see this as him trying to get attention, moreso giving us insight of how it went down, and it puts it into reality of just how devastating this shit is and that this can't keep happening every year. These are teenagers losing their lives to senseless violence, something needs to happen and this shit needs to stop.[/QUOTE] The more aware people are of how it feels to experience this firsthand the better. Far too many people don't understand how tragic stuff like this is without experiencing it themselves. There's complacency until it personally affects them.

[QUOTE=Paul-Simon;53137193]It is like this in likely several European countries as well. Hunting with rifles & shotguns is very common in Norway, and has been for a long time. And I'm pretty sure some of the Sami people still choose to hunt for survival. (Nordic indigenous people) Norway has pretty strict gun laws compared to the US, but they allow you to own many guns, and go to the gun range to shoot them as a hobby - Or hunt, of course. Personally I've got a fairly big interest in guns, and I've gotten to shoot a few handguns recently (rifles & shotguns eventually), but regardless of my enjoyment and interest, I think the US needs a big change regarding guns, but obviously they have their use in society. I just wish home defence wasn't a necessary one in US.[/QUOTE] We have that in Denmark too where we have licenses. Like regular, hunting, and collectors (I believe) and works rather well for us

These modern times just make me so sad... From what my professors are telling me, you used to be able to bring your gun to school and just throw it in your locker because people assumed you were just going hunting after school, and you used to be able to walk around airports and visit the ATC tower, or in the plane say hi to the pilots as a kid and they would show you what all the cool buttons do and give you a little badge. Now there is just so much fear and paranoia, it's so depressing. It's sad that people can't trust their fellow man anymore.

[QUOTE=Paul-Simon;53137193]It is like this in likely several European countries as well. Hunting with rifles & shotguns is very common in Norway, and has been for a long time. And I'm pretty sure some of the Sami people still choose to hunt for survival. (Nordic indigenous people) Norway has pretty strict gun laws compared to the US, but they allow you to own many guns, and go to the gun range to shoot them as a hobby - Or hunt, of course. Personally I've got a fairly big interest in guns, and I've gotten to shoot a few handguns recently (rifles & shotguns eventually), but regardless of my enjoyment and interest, I think the US needs a big change regarding guns, but obviously they have their use in society. I just wish home defence wasn't a necessary one in US.[/QUOTE] Same in Sweden. The Nordic countries have a hunting culture that goes back hundreds of years. In Sweden the earliest regulations on hunting appeared in the [B]13th century.[/B] We have 300,000 registered hunters here. I'm very very slowly working towards my license, taking proper range courses in spring. Take a look here and you'll see Finland, Sweden and Norway among the countries with most guns per capita. [url]http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/small-arms-survey-countries-with-the-most-guns-1.3392204[/url]

Just got news that the school is gonna tear down the building where all those kids died, can’t blame them

[QUOTE=Craigewan;53136646]Which demonstrates it is possible. We stand as your example.[/QUOTE] If prohibition and the war on drugs is anything to go by, it’s going to end very badly. Also I’d rather not have shit like this happening throughout the country: [media]http://youtube.com/watch?v=kf8trl69kzo[/media] Sorry but I’m out of patience and done trying to explain things to the willfully ignorant. Several posters have been around this topic long enough to know better by now because they’ve been present every time it’s been explained why gun confiscation and assault weapons bans won’t work in this country. (You know who you are) At this point I’m just going to start ridiculing people who continue to be this thick. In fact since I’m done with niceties today, I’d like to respond to this question. [QUOTE=Grenadiac;53135413]I noticed that, uh, very few of the 44 people who agreed with this post which claims I'm unwilling to offer solutions actually came back to [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1593721&p=53132671&viewfull=1#post53132671]see me offer solutions,[/url] let alone discuss them with us. [B]Are we just going to continue to pretend that no gun owners want to talk solutions next time this happens?[/b] Don't make this a "cares about ratings" issue... I'm just pointing out that 44 people apparently share this sentiment and I'm trying to get them to engage in a better discussion than the "u suck" "no u" that these usually start, progress, and end as.[/QUOTE] Pretty much. The reason is simple; You’re not a stereotypical hard right gun owner AND you actually come up with solutions which don’t fuck over anyone which would benefit all parties involved. The fact that you aren’t a caricature doesn’t suit their narratives, so they have no rebuttal which doesn’t make them eat a mountain of boxes.

[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;53137452] Sorry but I’m out of patience and done trying to explain things to the willfully ignorant. Several posters have been around this topic long enough to know better by now because they’ve been present every time it’s been explained why gun confiscation and assault weapons bans won’t work in this country. (You know who you are) At this point I’m just going to start ridiculing people who continue to be this thick. In fact since I’m done with niceties today, I’d like to respond to this question. Pretty much. The reason is simple; You’re not a stereotypical hard right gun owner AND you actually come up with solutions which don’t fuck over anyone which would benefit all parties involved. The fact that you aren’t a caricature doesn’t suit their narratives, so they have no rebuttal which doesn’t make them eat a mountain of boxes.[/QUOTE] Im not even a gun owner (to be frank i get paranoid and nervous whenever i've been around one in real life) and this still annoys the hell out of me to no end because of the amount of people who show up to throw shade with no intention of actually trying to understand the situation or hold a conversation. Not to mention how completely pointless the argument is to begin with. It may as well be purely hypothetical.

Idk how you could possibly restrict how much ammo someone has at a time without invading their privacy. If I by two boxes of bullets, how do you know if I shot them off the next time I buy two boxes of bullets? If you restrict how much people can buy at a time, mass shooting intent people will just stock up over time. Not to mention non-gun people don't realize how quick you can burn through ammo at a range.

[QUOTE=Fort83;53137516]Not a gun owner nor America so excuse my ignorance but how realistic would it be to put heavy/heavier restrictions of the amount of ammunition people can purchase/keep at a time? Let them keep their guns but restrict how much ammo they are allowed to keep for each gun/type. Though I understand that there are some that make the ammo in their own homes but how often do people get their ammo from someone who made it in their basement compared to official purchases? Is it even possible to track down those that make it from home? And would restricting ammo even help the situation?[/QUOTE] I would estimate that about a third of serious gun owners load their own ammo, and being that the equipment to do so is inexpensive and an idiot could operate it, I'd imagine itd spike to near 100% if any ammo restrictions came about. by serious gun owners I mean anyone who does competitive shooting and anyone who has anything resembling a collection, not just some guy who has a few hunting guns and a hand gun [editline]16th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=OvB;53137544]Idk how you could possibly restrict how much ammo someone has at a time without invading their privacy. If I by two boxes of bullets, how do you know if I shot them off the next time I buy two boxes of bullets? If you restrict how much people can buy at a time, mass shooting intent people will just stock up over time. Not to mention non-gun people don't realize how quick you can burn through ammo at a range.[/QUOTE] theres that too, I usually dump about 1000 rounds in a single range trip. it's even worse for machine gun owners, it's easy to dump 1000 rounds in a couple minutes with one of them.