I dont know who John Wick is, sorry.

Im not trying to sound like anyone, just expressing my honest feelings. I guess I am supposed to apologize if they are different from yours?

It just amazes me how so many people cant comprehend how different this country is. Like the previous post referencing malls and movie theaters.

I live 50 miles from the nearest mall. My kids (17 and 14) have probably been to see 4 movies combined in their lives. Its just not how we live.

But carry on, Rainmaker, insult me some more maybe it will make your point more real....

I'm not insulting you. I'm just telling you that the faux-machismo posts aren't being taken the way you think they are. You aren't living in Caracas. You aren't a Navy Seal entering a firefight. You're a guy from rural South Carolina.

Nothing wrong with that. But the "I run toward danger" and "prepared to battle with my enemies" is stuff people who have never done either say. You're not coming across tough, you're coming across as someone who is terrified while living in one of the safest parts of the country.


I agree with all this. I wasn't arguing with you on the points. Just that neither party wants these changes. The right doesn't want to even discuss gun regulations and definitely doesn't want to put effort into reducing crime. The left doesn't want to punish criminals.

It's this weird catch-22.

Again, I guess I am supposed to apologize because you don't like what I'm saying?

There isn't a fake machismo intent in my post. Frankly I don't give 2 shits what you think of me. Yep I live in a safe rural town, by design. I grew up in government housing, foster care and boarding schools I understand dangerous neighborhoods as well.

Think of me what you will....

Not too much info yet, other than confirmation and that it's "contained".

Officials: Shooting at Great Mills HS in Maryland, incident contained

You say it's a safe town, but your actions indicate otherwise.

The country isn't the same everywhere either. I live about as isolated as you are and the only firearm I have is a .22 in my farm office for putting down sick cows.

Now.... I don't have a wife or kids so my thought process is admittedly different but I have absolutely no need to have a firearm in my house. I'll go borrow one of my dad's guns if I want to shoot a deer from my bedroom window. For protection, I've never felt the need.

Short version that appears to be coming out: shooter was a HS kid, he hurt two other people and was shot dead by an armed officer on site. Shooter is the only fatality.

Since we know that events do power this policy debate, for better or worse, this will add some flavor to whatever national discussion we are theoretically having now.

In the state capital, things are abuzz. Thoughts and prayers today, but also apprehension about what's going to happen in the next 21 days, the wrap-up of our state legislation session for the year. Our governor (R) had already been pushing school safety measures including facility improvements and more armed personnel... now I'd guess the legislative leadership (D) will end up going along at least to some degree.

Not advancing an agenda here, just noting a substantial consequence of this.

The bottom line question for control advocates needs to remain.

"who was he?"
"how was the firearm acquired?"
"would other means have prevented today's incident?"

The fact that an armed guard dispatched the shooter is good. However, it can't be recognized as the bottom line and end all of safety. It's one layer, that was successful in this incident, but just because there were no other fatalities, doesn't end it there. Two people were injured and that might have been managed through other means, maybe prior to the shooter getting a gun to the school.

In aviation we deal with massive layer, upon layer of safety. Most safety protocols come from someone else dying or getting injured. The result is the safest aviation system in the world. Gun control needs to be approached in the same manner.

There's also a dead shooter, who may or may not have acted out in some other way, may or may not have matured/grown up to be a normal functioning adult if he doesn't have access to a gun.

(Shooter may well have grown up to be a piece of crap, but we really don't know.)

Don't think it'll happen anytime soon so not too worried about it but doesn't help the taking small steps approach to get more gun control.

I am not educated enough re: the 2008 case referenced below but the article (I think) says JPS wants to get rid of the 2nd amendment because of the 2008 case seems "off" to me.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/27/polit...ent/index.html

My sister-in-law is close friends with the mother of Jaelynn Willey, the girl who was shot and later died in the Maryland school. If you're interested in making a donation to help them cover medical/funeral expenses, here's a link.

https://www.youcaring.com/melissawil...ngcom%3Adonate

Done.

Thanks. I just donated too.

"A concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment," Stevens wrote an op-ed published in The New York Times Tuesday, adding, "today that concern is a relic of the 18th century."

I don't remember Stevens being an originalist

Crazed girls flood Parkland school shooter Nikolas Cruz with fan mail

So this guy kills a bunch people and gets love letters. I haven't even killed anyone and I can't get a date.

Someone is going to have to explain women to me.

Bad boys. Girls love them.

Mass murderers. Girls love 'em!

I think it's really off. You don't have to look any further than the fact that Heller was about handguns, and current brouhaha isn't.

Bump

YouTube

Shooter identified:

YouTube shooter told family members she 'hated' the company

If she wasn't a vegetarian I'd probably fall in love with her.

Vegetarian and dead?

Yeah, that girl's videos were crazy AF and I don't think I could stand being on the same city bus as her.

You a Frida Kahlo guy?

I bet Kate Micucci never thought she'd have a shot to get cast as a mass shooter for a made-for-TV movie.

Pats Justin Edelman helps stop a potential school shooting:

Julian Edelman of New England Patriots helps stop potential school shooter

Surprised not already in this thread.

Kudos to the resource officer. Also, the kid had a shotgun.

I do think its fair to say its likely, in most situations, an AR-15 can do more damage and quicker than a shotgun but it bears saying that if the AR is outlawed/greatly restricted, there will be other weapons that will be used.

Ocala, Florida school shooting: 1 injured; suspect in custody after shooting at Forest High School today - CBS News

4 dead, others wounded in shooting at Tennessee Waffle House; suspect on the loose


Surprised they haven't caught the guy yet

So does anyone else have the nightmare where you show up to commit a mass shooting at a Waffle House and you suddenly realize you're naked?

Flippant comments aside, this sounds like the poster child situation for somebody who should not have had access to guns. Multiple incidents in which the police were called to incidents with him acting erratically, including at least one in which he had a rifle and threatened somebody. And an officer on record telling his father to lock the guns up until he got help.

If i am not mistaken, those guns were even seized/confiscated originally. Logically those guns simply should have not been returned to anybody, not him nor his father. And if that logic isn't supported by law, then it might be worth looking into ways to change it. Worst case, reimburse them if they can produce a receipt of legal purchase ...



That is an absolutely idiotic way of thinking, sorry. And it's been used as an "argument" before ...
Don't restrict anything, because you can't restrict everything ???

Sure, if it makes you feel better. If it's not AR15 it's a shotgun, so no point in limiting risk ? If it's not a shotgun it's a handgun, if no handgun it's a knive, if no knive it's someone cracking skulls on the pavement. Ban humans, i guess ? (and yes, part of the problem obviously is human nature. But that factor is the same pretty much everywhere. The factor unique to the US is the amount of guns and the "grade" of guns available as well as stuff like much to loosely regulated magazine sizes etc).

You can also kill a pedestrian or hurt yourself in an accident driving under 30 miles an hour, yet (far as i can tell for the US) this has been determined as the sensible speed limit in many states for driving in urban areas to reduce chances of any such thing happening, while still not restricting peoples freedom of movement overly much. And nobody really questions the governments decicion to restrict people's freedom to operate any damn vehicle they choose, either (which was the case 150+ years back).

So, why the fuck are people unwilling to accept the same logic for guns ? Yes, a 200+ year old documents determines that part of everyones personal freedom somehow in the 21st century includes guns.

And saying that the route of implementing some (more) restrictions shouldn't be taken because you can't restrict everything ? That just plain whacky, because it is the way the world works in every walk of life in a modern 21st century society. That's the whole point of a civil and democratic society: Weigh personal freedom against the freedom and safety of all citizens, then come up with the best possible compromise.

Well they caught the Waffle House shooter.

Some people are saying that his father will be lucky not to be charged with anything after he gave the guns back to his son.

But yeah this kid is a poster child for red flag laws.

Yeah, the father should be up on murder charges based on the info being released so far being accurate. System seems like it worked relatively as designed here, the father is just criminally irresponsible.

Father should definitely be charged.

It sounds like this guy may have been a sovereign citizen nutter. Although they are basing that off of one line of a police report from when he tried to get on the White House grounds.

After that little rant, you use the word compromise? Bwahahaha.

That's comedy gold.

James Shaw Jr.,

I understand what you are saying and why you are saying it but...

You ARE a hero.

Thank you!

Yup, I would agree with that.

I can see why you are saying that but that is not my position at all. I am for more gun control/laws (devil's in the details) per my numerous commentary in this thread.

I think he's even more of a hero BECAUSE he's admitted he's acted out of self interest and is seeking mental health help afterwards ... in the environment of the US that is almost sacrilege because of the cult of the hero and lack of admission that such actions still have repercussions afterwards ... the NRA and such always present it as a 'good guy' stopping a gun man and then walking into the sunset without any issues, even in a best case scenario that is rarely the case.

I thought if everyone had guns everybody was safer?

Parkland students criticise NRA for gun ban at Pence event - BBC News

Edit: obviously this just one event, and assue there are 1000’s that don't have a ban, but this is terrible PR and should (in theory, but in actuality I’m sure it won’t) further diminish the NRA’s credibility and influence on the gun control debate, which IMHO would allow a more rational discussion and some progress.

It's not just one event. Guns were also banned at the Republican National Convention too.

And there was a petition to allow weapons into Razorback stadium, it got turned down. Good call - liquor, emotions and guns don't mix.

But let's be fair. Plenty of important, liberal, gun control folks that have bodyguards with guns to protect them and their property.

This is terrible journalism, and it only helps Trump supporters scream "FAKE NEWS!"

When the President or Vice President speak at an event--any event--guns are banned....by the Secret Service, not the NRA.

NRA members can bring their guns during most of the annual meeting in Dallas – but not while Trump and Pence are speaking. The Secret Service has barred them during their speeches. https://t.co/cqEWzw0b3N

— The Associated Press (@AP) April 30, 2018

Dola:

Look, I'm in favor of increased reasonable restrictions on firearms, but when far-left gun-control hysteria gets so over-the-top that neither the media nor its consumers stop to think for 5 seconds before spreading such an *obvious* distortion of the truth, it doesn't help.

(And I haven't bothered to look it up, but I'd say it's also pretty obvious that an event where the presumptive nominees for President and Vice President are in the same room at the same time, the Secret Service is going to require that no one other than them have a weapon, too.)

Maybe a few armed teachers should be allowed in the room too. Just for safety's sake. ;)

My take on the article wasn’t ‘Guns banned because VP is speaking’ but ‘Guns banned to make it safer’.

The identity of the speaker is not relevant to the ban - the point (I took) from the article is that the ban is at ideological odds with the NRA’s overall message that the best way to make people safer is that good guys to have guns.

This ban (and similar for other speakers, events, etc) suggest that they tacitly acknowledge that the safest solution is zero guns.

First off, I've highlighted the "they" here. I don't see the NRA acknowledging that at all. The NRA and Secret Service are two entirely separate entities. In fact, the AP article indicates that if they're meeting in an open carry state, then there's open carry at their meetings.

That said, this is clearly apples and oranges. The Secret Service and the NRA are two entirely different entities. The Secret Service--though I'm sure it's composed of fine people who care about everyone in general--is not making decisions based on "the safest solution {overall}" or to "make people safer." They make decisions to make the one or two people they're protecting in a given venue safer. It's a completely different argument. (Well, and of course the gun ban doesn't apply to the Secret Service, so if someone wants to try to make that argument, the truth is that the Secret Service's position actually ia"good guys having guns makes the President safer. We just define 'good guys' a lot more narrowly than the NRA does.")

There have been several articles with headlines, like this one, that try to make it sound like the NRA banned guns at their meeting. That's simply false. There are solid arguments to be made about expanding background checks, eliminating some particularly dangerous accessories, etc., but this is not one of the them. This is just a dumb and counter-productive red herring.

I disagree

This is an NRA event where guns are typically allowed. The secret service says no guns for the safety of the Vice President so no guns. Do you think if any other guest speaker had security with a similar requirement that the NRA would allow them to speak? By allowing anyone to speak under those conditions, secret service or not, the NRA sends mixes messages on whether or not less guns means more safety.

Part of the blow back on this has also been because some of their own members were questioning it and others were pushing for increased background checks to enter in exchange for being allowed to carry. A hypocritical stance by NRA members.

Ummm. No. Nuanced arguments like that are meaningless when the MUCH bigger-picture issue is that several news outlets...including the AP...falsely claimed that "THE NRA BANNED GUNS."

AP corrects earlier report that NRA banned guns at Pence speech | TheHill

And again I say...how completely unthinking and/or ignorant do you have to be to write or pass along that story??? Once that has happened, retreating to "oh...well.....um...ok....THEY'RE SENDING MIXED MESSAGES" does not help.