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

[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] Not really. While the gun cannot function without ammo the amount of rounds someone goes through on a range is going to be way and above anything some mass murder uses. Plus again, people are very concerned about the governments motives whenever it comes to guns or anything relating to guns. The people that reload the ammo need obviously everything but the casing itself. Though how much they can source without going to a store I don't know. Ultimately, I feel the best solution is the one tackling the motives of why someone commits murder or mass murder. Its obvious to me the person in this case was looking to be infamous. For his name to be known by as many people as possible. And that was his primary motive in my view based on the currently available evidence. The guy was trouble and was throwing red flags all over the place which were ignored by law enforcement for one reason or another. The fact that those red flags were ignored is the biggest thing that needs fixing immediately. Because if they had done their due diligence and got him before he even stepped onto the school's ground this could have been prevented. Banning guns or limiting the ammo at most would have only resulted in fewer deaths. But still deaths none-the-less. Solving the the motives or catching them before they act is way more effective. Because then there would be no deaths at all.

[QUOTE=Craigewan;53136646]Which demonstrates it is possible. We stand as your example.[/QUOTE] You aren't a great example when [URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-39578500"]gun crime went up 42% in London last year[/URL], and [URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41822965"]violence in general saw an upturn last year[/URL]; it's almost as if there are many factors of violent crime beyond the tool used.

[QUOTE=Kigen;53137557]Not really. While the gun cannot function without ammo the amount of rounds someone goes through on a range is going to be way and above anything some mass murder uses. Plus again, people are very concerned about the governments motives whenever it comes to guns or anything relating to guns. The people that reload the ammo need obviously everything but the casing itself. Though how much they can source without going to a store I don't know. Ultimately, I feel the best solution is the one tackling the motives of why someone commits murder or mass murder. Its obvious to me the person in this case was looking to be infamous. For his name to be known by as many people as possible. And that was his primary motive in my view based on the currently available evidence. The guy was trouble and was throwing red flags all over the place which were ignored by law enforcement for one reason or another. The fact that those red flags were ignored is the biggest thing that needs fixing immediately. Because if they had done their due diligence and got him before he even stepped onto the school's ground this could have been prevented. Banning guns or limiting the ammo at most would have only resulted in fewer deaths. But still deaths none-the-less. Solving the the motives or catching them before they act is way more effective. Because then there would be no deaths at all.[/QUOTE] the case itself is reusable, and while not a lot of people do it it is technically possible to rebuild the primers at home (primers are just super cheap so nobody bothers). many reloaders cast their own bullets so there's no way to regulate that. the only part thats unreasonably difficult to produce small scale is gunpowder, but I can guarantee that if there was a restriction on gunpowder I'd learn to make my own real quick.

[QUOTE=Kigen;53137557] The people that reload the ammo need obviously everything but the casing itself. [B] Though how much they can source without going to a store I don't know.[/B][/QUOTE] Most reloaders could easily overcome the problem. It'd take about six months, but once someone sources a method too produce the nitrates needed, it's pretty easy to get by. Just a few methods off the top of my head: 1. Going to bridges and scrape pigeon excrement up. Turn into nitrates via leeching. 2. Start a few fertilizer bins/methane generators, use leeching method on some of the black dirt. 3. Producing potassium nitrate from nitric acid, with the Ostwald and Harber Process. Lead can be found by simply going too local gun ranges and just digging and sifting for a bit. The other chems for gunpowder are just hardwood charcoal and sulfur, both of which are very easily found in just about everything. Realistically speaking, trying too monitor bullets will just lead to an explosion in reloaders and the DIY community. Hell, people have been producing their [url=https://sharpshooter-22lr-reloader.myshopify.com/products/22-reloader-kit]own .22LR[/url] since the scare in 2012 ~ 2014.

The American Psychological Association released a study back in 2016 about what drives these mass murders. [url]https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2016/08/media-contagion.aspx[/url] [quote]The prevalence of these crimes has risen in relation to the mass media coverage of them and the proliferation of social media sites that tend to glorify the shooters and downplay the victims, Johnston said. “Unfortunately, we find that a cross-cutting trait among many profiles of mass shooters is desire for fame,” she said. This quest for fame among mass shooters skyrocketed since the mid-1990s “in correspondence to the emergence of widespread 24-hour news coverage on cable news programs, and the rise of the internet during the same period.” “If the mass media and social media enthusiasts make a pact to no longer share, reproduce or retweet the names, faces, detailed histories or long-winded statements of killers, we could see a dramatic reduction in mass shootings in one to two years,” she said. “Even conservatively, if the calculations of contagion modelers are correct, we should see at least a one-third reduction in shootings if the contagion is removed.”[/quote] I just found this. I figured it was related to the narcissism of the perpetrators.

[QUOTE=butre;53137574]the case itself is reusable, and while not a lot of people do it it is technically possible to rebuild the primers at home (primers are just super cheap so nobody bothers). many reloaders cast their own bullets so there's no way to regulate that. the only part thats unreasonably difficult to produce small scale is gunpowder, but I can guarantee that if there was a restriction on gunpowder I'd learn to make my own real quick.[/QUOTE] [url=http://www.compoundchem.com/2014/07/02/the-chemistry-of-gunpowder/]It's not even all that complex in terms of ingredients,[/url] it's just the time and the know-how. Anyone who's serious about the prospect and has completed college-level Gen Chem can probably make black powder that would at least not [I]fail[/I] to function. I think when it comes to restricting access to ammunition, or a similar bill that would serve as more of an inconvenience or a temporary hampering, what needs to be taken into account is what kind of impact that would actually have. Limiting buyers to a certain amount of ammunition [I]per transaction[/I] probably wouldn't have much of an effect. If one was serious about going after ammo rather than guns, maybe lump ammo purchases under the same umbrella as guns themselves and require a NICS check? I could definitely see the logic behind mandating that online ammo sales be sent to an FFL for release to the buyer, same as online or catalog gun purchases. With [I]those,[/I] NICS still needs to be passed and the FFL can choose to deny if they get a bad feeling about the buyer. I doubt many spree killers and potential spree killers do their own reloading, though. That takes time and dedication, like you said, and unless there's a link that can be proven, pursuing that angle seems kinda pointless.

Fox News has managed to spin this tragedy into a new platform to continue their attacks on the Department of Justice, saying that the FBI knew about this and did nothing, and that a purge of the FBI is needed. [media]https://twitter.com/trish_regan/status/964643074562379776[/media] I shouldn't be surprised at the depravity of these people, but honestly.

[QUOTE=butre;53136142]if you want to ban semi-automatic rifles I'm gonna need a better suggestion for hog hunting from you. the easiest and most humane way to kill them without spending $250 a round thus far has been semi-automatic fire if you want to ban hunting rifles then I have nothing to say to you, because banning hunting rifles is essentially telling the poor "no fuck you you're not allowed to eat meat"[/QUOTE] Why do conservatives always act like their way of life is literally unchangeable in any way, shape, or form?

Something that concerns me is that everybody already knows this goblinoid prick's name and face. He is already a media icon, in a way. If you want to be remembered, just take a shot at someone. I've studied mass shooting incidents before as part of a paper I was writing on the 1990s 'angry white guy' zeitgeist so I can't do this test myself, but honestly, can you tell me that the names of the last five mass shooters aren't ingrained in your mind? Can you tell me that their faces are distant from your mind's eye? Doesn't that trouble you?

[QUOTE=phygon;53137660]Why do conservatives always act like their way of life is literally unchangeable in any way, shape, or form?[/QUOTE] Are you confused what the definition of conservative is? [editline]16th February 2018[/editline] "why aren't conservatives more liberal?"

[QUOTE=phygon;53137660]Why do conservatives always act like their way of life is literally unchangeable in any way, shape, or form?[/QUOTE] Why do liberals always act like anyone who doesn't live like them is a retard? Moronic generalizations sure helped this discussion, that was a good idea you had there.

[QUOTE=Chris Morris;53137673]Something that concerns me is that everybody already knows this goblinoid prick's name and face. He is already a media icon, in a way. If you want to be remembered, just take a shot at someone. I've studied mass shooting incidents before as part of a paper I was writing on the 1990s 'angry white guy' zeitgeist so I can't do this test myself, but honestly, can you tell me that the names of the last five mass shooters aren't ingrained in your mind? Can you tell me that their faces are distant from your mind's eye? Doesn't that trouble you?[/QUOTE] I genuinely cant but I don't dwell on them much. I remember Adam Lanza and the bowlcut kid that shot a church up but that's pretty much it. The topic of not allowing the media to release information on the perpetrators has come up a lot but it will never happen because conservative types would instantly shoot it down by saying its the media trying to cover stuff up unfortunately.

[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;53137698]I genuinely cant but I don't dwell on them much. I remember Adam Lanza and the bowlcut kid that shot a church up but that's pretty much it. The topic of not allowing the media to release information on the perpetrators has come up a lot but it will never happen because conservative types would instantly shoot it down by saying its the media trying to cover stuff up unfortunately.[/QUOTE] I lean more to the left than a man who's just had his left leg blown off, but I can't say it's entirely the conservatives. I've had my political compatriots shoot me down for the same sort of shit, saying that I'm trying to censor the media.

[QUOTE=Chris Morris;53137700]I lean more to the left than a man who's just had his left leg blown off, but I can't say it's entirely the conservatives. I've had my political compatriots shoot me down for the same sort of shit, saying that I'm trying to censor the media.[/QUOTE] That's definitely true and censoring any media is a valid point of contention, but I can see in my head the outrage over supposed MSM censoring muslim liberal antifa terror attacks. More fuel for the fake news train. The Republican strength in government at the moment is what has me worried at the backlash.

[QUOTE=Chris Morris;53137700]I lean more to the left than a man who's just had his left leg blown off, but I can't say it's entirely the conservatives. I've had my political compatriots shoot me down for the same sort of shit, saying that I'm trying to censor the media.[/QUOTE] The PRC has no qualms about freedom of the press. I believe one of their solutions to a rise in mass stabbings a couple of years back was to minimize reporting to help prevent copy-cat incidents. I could be talking out my ass of course, who knows if it was successful or not.

[QUOTE=Richardroth;53137144]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] I don't know. In the middle of it I'm also seeing him describing how [url=https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/7xzpac/im_sid_fischer_a_student_who_was_in_the_third/ducx5cd/]every time he recalls or tells his experience he starts uncontrollably shaking[/url] and how he witnessed to people dying in close proximity to him. I can't manage to get upset over him "using this for attention." Like really? Come on. That's such a petty thing to mention. Edit: Shit man, still reading this thread, haven't been following up on all the information but he took an Uber to school? Jesus Christ, imagine being that fucking driver and finding out after. That's the kind of shit you never forget and agonize over for the rest of your life.

if i was a high schooler who just had their school shot up and watched people die i wouldn't be doing an AMA on Reddit two days later. although pretending like everything is fine is a coping mechanism and a side effect of emotional shock and/or PTSD

[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;53137452]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] Here you're either someone who thinks guns are the most evil things ever invented, or you're a crazy redneck gun nut that takes his AR15 to mcdonalds every day. There's no in-between with these people. The parties are so radically against each other now that any legislation that benefits both parties will never be passed because it benefits the other party and not just them.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;53136575] There have been [url="http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/"]over 6700 incidents this year ALONE in the US[/url]. So in two months, the US has more than tripled that years gun crime incident total in the UK. Of course, population is a factor, but even when accounting for that the US' rates are excessive. It's clearly not comparable, even when considering a year that was, for the UK, a deviation enough that it was worth reporting on (an increase of 42%, from your source). And the US is on pace for a lower-than-average year in terms of gun crime anyway if my math is right. In 2017, there were almost 62000 incidents. Anyway, I think that it's great that rural populations have systems in place for gun ownership. My question now is; do these same standards and systems apply to all populations? Or just those rural populations that need it for protection/pest control? If you have any additional information about these systems I'd be appreciative of learning more.[/QUOTE] I'm a bit late but did you read anything he wrote? Those incidents are in a single city, in a nation the fraction the size of the US. Of course a larger nation is going to have more.

[QUOTE=download;53138244]I'm a bit late but did you read anything he wrote? Those incidents are in a single city, in a nation the fraction the size of the US. Of course a larger nation is going to have more.[/QUOTE] Genuine mistake on my end, I missed the "London" part. Sorry!

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53136556] Many people seem to think the UK has completely eliminated gun crime but the Met reported around 2500 incidents from April 2016 to April 2017 involving guns (if I'm recalling correctly - I posted the article a few pages back) in London ALONE. It's just that there's not a lot of noise being made about them there, and people end up thinking they just aren't a factor. But they are. e: Here's that article: [URL]http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-39578500[/URL][/QUOTE] If you look at the stats from that article ([URL]https://public.tableau.com/profile/metropolitan.police.service#!/vizhome/MPSFY201617CrimeStatistics/NOTES[/URL]) that stat is actually a bit deceptive. That's gun crime as an umbrella term, where the Policing and Crime Act 2017/Firearms Act 1968 defines firearm to include some air rifles ([URL]https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/firearms[/URL]), weapon attachments, among other crimes. So that gun crimes stat would include people using air rifles illegally or having tools that could be suspected for use in conversion of firearms the two stats that are more interesting are Gun Crime Lethal Barrelled Discharged, Gun Crime Personal Robbery and Homicide, which are 306, 567 and 110 respectively. I think it would be uncontroversial to say that 306 events of a lethal, barreled firearm being discharged in a year for a city the size of London is pretty outrageously low. (0.000034 per person in London on the first count) - and that homicide statistic is a grouped one, so it includes all other homicides, not just gun related homicides Depending on your definition of where London stops, it's either 8.8 million or 12 million, so London "alone" is a bit deceptive, because London can encapsulate 1/5-6th of the population of England, or 1/7-8th of the population of the UK in total - it's nearly an order of magnitude larger than the next biggest city (Birmingham) - so saying london "alone" to someone from the UK comes across as a bit weird.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;53138402]If you look at the stats from that article ([URL]https://public.tableau.com/profile/metropolitan.police.service#!/vizhome/MPSFY201617CrimeStatistics/NOTES[/URL]) that stat is actually a bit deceptive. That's gun crime as an umbrella term, where the Policing and Crime Act 2017/Firearms Act 1968 defines firearm to include some air rifles ([URL]https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/firearms[/URL]), weapon attachments, among other crimes. So that gun crimes stat would include people using air rifles illegally or having tools that could be suspected for use in conversion of firearms the two stats that are more interesting are Gun Crime Lethal Barrelled Discharged, Gun Crime Personal Robbery and Homicide, which are 306, 567 and 110 respectively. I think it would be uncontroversial to say that 306 events of a lethal, barreled firearm being discharged in a year for a city the size of London is pretty outrageously low. (0.000034 per person in London on the first count) - and that homicide statistic is a grouped one, so it includes all other homicides, not just gun related homicides Depending on your definition of where London stops, it's either 8.8 million or 12 million, so London "alone" is a bit deceptive, because London can encapsulate 1/5-6th of the population of England, or 1/7-8th of the population of the UK in total - it's nearly an order of magnitude larger than the next biggest city (Birmingham) - so saying london "alone" to someone from the UK comes across as a bit weird.[/QUOTE] This is it. Some seem to forget that our gun control policy is pretty much zero tolerance to the point where if you're caught by the Police in a public place even with an imitation, you'll be summonsed to court, given a large fine [I]and[/I] a conviction under the Firearms Act 1968. I had it happen to me in 2004, I was messing with some mates on a bit of derelict land near a park doing some target shooting with a pretty convincing imitation air pistol, somebody calls the rozzers and boom, I have a [URL="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/19"]Section 19[/URL] firearms offense on my criminal record. This would have been recorded as a gun crime offense, I imagine shit like this happens in London every other day.

[QUOTE=El Burro;53138698]This is it. Some seem to forget that our gun control policy is pretty much zero tolerance to the point where if you're caught by the Police in a public place even with an imitation, you'll be summonsed to court, given a large fine [I]and[/I] a conviction under the Firearms Act 1968. I had it happen to me in 2004, I was messing with some mates on a bit of derelict land near a park doing some target shooting with a pretty convincing imitation air pistol, somebody calls the rozzers and boom, I have a [URL="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/19"]Section 19[/URL] firearms offense on my criminal record. This would have been recorded as a gun crime offense, I imagine shit like this happens in London every other day.[/QUOTE] Out of curiosity, would that conviction bar you from owning firearms at all in the future? Here in the US, having a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction or a felony conviction of any type on your record puts you on Prohibited Person status for the rest of your life.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;53138793]Out of curiosity, would that conviction bar you from owning firearms at all in the future? Here in the US, having a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction or a felony conviction of any type on your record puts you on Prohibited Person status for the rest of your life.[/QUOTE] According to one of my family in the Police, after a certain amount of time and depending on the severity of the offense you can ask to the courts to scrub the offense from your record, but this doesn't happen automatically, you need to appeal in writing. If I tried to get myself a Firearms License with the offense on my record, I'd be denied without hesitation. I've also been told that it might affect my ability to travel to the US, though I haven't since the offense so I'm not sure how true that is.

[QUOTE=PrusseLusken;53138841]but then you just say "nah never been convicted never smoked pot and surely not a felon" and you still buy guns..[/QUOTE] Those are the sorts of things that are supposed to show up on NICS though. It doesn't matter what you say about it, the FBI should have if you're a convicted felon. Sadly, there seems to be something wrong on their end of the system considering it's failed multiple times and there are steps the FBI could have taken to stop multiple shootings at this point (ie Dylann Roof. He had been caught illegally with a prescription about a month before his gun purchase, FBI didn't have that information in NICS for some reason).

[QUOTE=PrusseLusken;53138841]but then you just say "nah never been convicted never smoked pot and surely not a felon" and you still buy guns..[/QUOTE] Only if the NICS check doesn't do its job. That's why it should be tightened in its current application, and opened to private sellers. Optional for private sellers of course, but if the gun they sell is used in a crime, they would be convicted of being an accessory to the crime and everything that would go with that. Even now though, it's not that simple. If you have one of those convictions, NICS will pick you up and spit you out. And fun fact, it's technically a felony to attempt to buy a gun if you're barred from doing so. NICS has stopped on the order of a million individuals who were barred, but only a hundred have ever actually been convicted of anything. [editline]17th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=bdd458;53138891]Those are the sorts of things that are supposed to show up on NICS though. It doesn't matter what you say about it, the FBI should have if you're a convicted felon. Sadly, there seems to be something wrong on their end of the system considering it's failed multiple times and there are steps the FBI could have taken to stop multiple shootings at this point (ie Dylann Roof. He had been caught illegally with a prescription about a month before his gun purchase, FBI didn't have that information in NICS for some reason).[/QUOTE] Didn't that have something to do with HIPAA? I seem to recall there was at least one murderer of some kind whose relevant info didn't go through because of confidentiality laws.

[QUOTE=OvB;53137678]Are you confused what the definition of conservative is? [editline]16th February 2018[/editline] "why aren't conservatives more liberal?"[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;53137685]Why do liberals always act like anyone who doesn't live like them is a retard? Moronic generalizations sure helped this discussion, that was a good idea you had there.[/QUOTE] Arguments like "If you want to take away my semi automatic rifles then you [I]don't want me to eat meat[/I]" are extremely commonplace. These arguments are made from the right with extreme frequency when it comes to banning or regulating anything. There's a difference between not wanting change and acting like any change will literally end your way of life. [editline]17th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=ilikecorn;53138906]Why are liberals so suprised that trump won, when they've been putting themselves on a pedestal and having a massive superiority complex? The simple fact of the matter is, the 2nd amendment is embedded in the constitution, and confirmed by scotus. It is up to YOU to present evidence as to why it should be removed. And yet, the evidence you present suggests that your arguments are completely baseless, emotional arguments, with NO grounds in reality. [/QUOTE] ..Who are you arguing against? I didn't say that the second amendment should be removed. My comment was solely based around the idiotic statement that if the poor didn't have access to semi-automatic rifles that they wouldn't be able to eat meat. Also, honestly, if you think politics works as a function of "you argue until one side gets fed up and then that side wins", you're delusional.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53138906]The simple fact of the matter is, gun owners are fed up with this bullshit rhetoric coming from the left of "you like guns? Then you must HATE children". We're fed up of people suggesting ""simple"" solutions, that would do NOTHING, and I mean flat out NOTHING to stop or reduce crime. [/QUOTE] Gun owners are fed up? I imagine the parents who lost their children to gun violence are probably more fed up. But ya know, I'll keep gun owners in my thoughts and prayers.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53138934]Your right, you haven't. You're just arguing that it should be such a convoluted process that only the rich will bother going through it. You don't want it removed, you want its teeth cut out, you want it to be so ineffective that its purpose couldn't ever be fulfilled.[/QUOTE] :sbhj: what the fuck are you talking about, where did I say any of that?

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53138934]And yet the statistics don't prove any of your emotional arguments. Rifles are used in less than 1% of crime, and removing them from the population would merely move the tool of violence to pistols, or shotguns. (Both of which are protected as well)[/QUOTE] Something I never even brought up. It really sounds like you are just arguing with yourself.