Shooting

Granted, "blaming society" is probably overly vague. But at the same time, we as a society generally accept all kinds of behaviors and attitudes. We as a society generally raise our kids in an environment with a lot of pretty consistent influences, and there are far more negative ones than positive ones. We as a society tolerate much worse behavior now than we ever did - partly because we don't know how to act on social media, and partly because it just seems easier to be mean to people now than it ever did before.

You can't deny that this has an impact on everyone. Every kid who grows up in this culture bears the mark somehow. And most of them manage to get through it more or less OK. The problem ends up being how it impacts the marginalized.

I don't know that there's a way to fix it other than everyone individually doing their best to treat people well and raise their kids with a minimum of help from the Internet. But the point is that we're kidding ourselves to think that kids on the fringe are ever going to go back to just being the weird, bullied, friendless kids that hang out in the AV room. Some of them are going to fight back.

That's what make this really difficult. The government can't fix the issue of kids who grow up feeling disconnected and left out. It can't fix young boys who don't have anywhere to use their pent-up aggression and frustration. (Actually they can sort of fix that, but that's another argument.) And it can't change the absolute onslaught of divisive, mean-spirited, life-dishonoring discourse with which we talk to each other every day online and in the media.

If parents are not up to the task of dealing with those things, then this isn't going to change no matter what laws we pass. If guns go away, pipe bombs will take their place. There are just too many ways to kill people and it's too easy to learn how to do it. And unless we want to go totalitarian state, we have way too much freedom to keep people from doing horrible things to each other.

 

I'm not sure what we're talking about and what that's addressing is the same thing. But I'd definitely like to hear them make a statement on that specifically. Of course, to do that, we need that blue ribbon panel to suggest it in specific, concrete terms that don't sound like "we want find more ways to keep law-abiding people from getting guns." Considering this kid's background, I'm not buying that anyone would have said, "I don't care that he's threatening to kill people, has severe emotional issues, and everyone's afraid of him. He needs to get a gun!" Maybe I'm wrong.

 

Lynard Skynard says hola.

 

Facebook happened. Twitter happened. It's not that people didn't ***** and gripe in the 70's and 80's they just didn't have a hundred other people weighing in and telling them that their grievances are justified and they should be mad as hell. There wasn't an outlet that let people with troubled mindsets congregate and get validation and even ideas for retribution.

Guns were everywhere when I was a kid. Hell we carried multiple guns in the window rack on every truck we had. Guns aren't new, the ability to go online, the ability to be instantly infamous....that's what is new.

I say we turn off Facebook, Twitter, etc and we outlaw violent video games....cause those are the things that are new.

 

Careful stampede. I care a lot more passionately about the First Amendment than the Second.

 

The problem is that many were NOT actually using an "AK15." The mass media has gotten the masses brainwashed into believing that ANY gunfire with a rifle at a quick rate MUST have been an "AK15." (And I presume you MEANT to have said AR-15, not AK.

One thing I am surprised nobody has picked up on is the image of the kid from one of his social media pages has him holding a 'gun' with an orange tip. Apparently people taking and using that picture fail to realize the significance of that tip...

 

Sadly enough, the Onion has it right.
https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-...tm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing

 

Don't know about the article itself, but the popup adblocker message is fantastic.

 

and much like the 2nd amendment doesn't say that the right to bear arms is ubiquitous and means the right to semi-automatic and large capacity magazines, the 1st amendment doesn't guarantee you the megaphone of Facebook and Twitter. Isn't it still free speech if you still have the good old fashioned soap box on a corner style of speech instead of allowing the megaphone of todays online amplification?

We limit the right to bear arms. We say that certain types of arms are outside the bounds of that amendment, why couldn't we do the same thing with speech?

 

I'm not really advocating a limit to the 1st amendment because I don't think there is a practical way to accomplish it without giving someone (with their own bias and prejudices) the authority to determine what is right and wrong. So now we are going to turn over free speech to the likes of FB, google and Amazon. Nothing could go wrong there.

I think I heard an NPR piece the other days talking about how the UK has developed some software that they think will help them ferret out and curtail online extremism/recruitment. We'll probably be using that system before too long.

Just talking about schools...developing defense systems isn't as hard as it seems(mantraps, fencing, cameras and guards) , it just takes the will and the budget. But where will we ever find the money....Maybe we could divert some of the millions we've been spending on high school football stadiums.

 

Interesting idea:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/456510/gun-control-republicans-consider-grvo

"The great benefit of the GVRO is that it provides citizens with options other than relying on, say, the FBI. As the bureau admitted today, it did not respond appropriately to a timely warning from a “person close to Nikolas Cruz.” According the FBI, that person provided “information about Cruz’s gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting.” In other words, it appears the FBI received exactly the kind of information that would justify granting a GVRO. Just since 2015, the Charleston church shooter, the Orlando nightclub shooter, the Sutherland Springs church shooter, and the Parkland school shooter each happened after federal authorities missed chances to stop them. For those keeping score, that’s four horrific mass shootings in four years where federal systems failed, at a cost of more than 100 lives. In other words, proper application of existing policies and procedures could have saved lives, but the people in the federal government failed. And they keep failing. So let’s empower different people. Let’s empower the people who have the most to lose, and let’s place accountability on the lowest possible level of government: the local judges who consistently and regularly adjudicate similar claims in the context of family and criminal law.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/456510/gun-control-republicans-consider-grvo"

 

That article was a rare pragmatic look at the issue. Not an answer, but a good tool.

 

Just want the record to show that ProdigalHorn is rocking this thread. He is at the top of his game.

 

The coach has been talking to me about getting dialed in more earlier in the game. My outside shot wasn't falling and my transition defense has sucked because of it. So I spent some time in the gym and worked some stuff out.

 

Are you a lawyer? Just asking because like Deez you're very articulate.

 

Nope. Former journalist, though so I've been writing most of my life in some form or another. Thanks though!

 

I think most people would agree with you, but serious question, why do you think the First Amendment is more important? I don't think the founders viewed it as such. Keep in mind that they expressly limited its application to the federal government, while leaving the applicability of the Second Amendment ambiguous.

 

Why couldn't you refer to me as "clean and articulate" so I could compare myself to Obama?

 

I know one thing in the forefront of the minds of former colonists was the stores of weapons and ammo they used to protect themselves from attack by indigenous natives were typically under control of the Crown. Help when attacked by outlaws, pirates, hostile Native Americans, rebelling slaves ... may have been several hours or even a few days ride away. What was on their minds is really different than what we face today. Also, things that today we take for granted: a 200 year tradition of free expression, due process for the accused, a vigorous and unfettered press, the non-establishment of a state religion and non-persecution of religious dissenters, were novel when the Constitution was written. The founders may very well have expected there would be times when citizens would be forced to give up what are perceived as God given rights or take to the streets against an army equipped with bayonets and single shot, muzzle loading muskets accurate to about 50 yard.

Not to discount the prowess of well trained and disciplined armies of the day, but my rough estimate is that it would have taken about 40 or His Majesty's best soldiers to match the firepower and killing potential Nikolas Cruz so casually acquired.

 

Probably because he hasn't seen the clean crease in your dress pants that give away your cool sophistication and imminent qualifications for president.

 

My father began early signs of dementia at the age of 79 and eventually died of full-blown Alzheimers when he was 86. He had a shotgun in his bedroom for years. His wife took it out a couple of years into the dementia. There are various reasons probably for having to have someone manage your affairs. It implies there is some level of impairment. Does it mean they are dangerous? Probably not. Besides, the elderly are not the one's shooting up the schools. It's akin to an old white lady being searched by the airport security while letting the guy with the turbin and big beard walk through because we design our checks not on profiling but instead base it upon some politically correct random process.

 

If you're going to come on here and use that sophomoric insult I'd suggest you find another place because it is very unimpressive and insulting. We don't need you here. We have some Liberal posters who behave like adults. Do you think you have it in you?

 

Great post. Agree strongly with most of it. We absolutely need armed security guards in schools. The reason that schools are targets is because these assailants know they can inflict maximum damage with minimal risk of resistance. That has to change ASAP.

One point that I would differ on is the idea of arming teachers. I certainly would make it voluntary and have strict training requirements. If a responsible teacher wants to carry then I think it would be make an effective deterrent.

 

It seems so easy to say but I don't see how we can arm every teacher. We will then have to worry about them. And to put multiple armed personnel in every school will mean we have to make the investment in highly trained personnel just walking around day in and day out. Maybe that's the investment we must now make in our children. It would have to be a federally funded program in my opinion. Then you have all the gun regulations that currently exist. I think background checks, waiting times, bans on certain weapons (bans currently exist; can anyone here buy an atomic weapon? We just need to drop the bar a bit), a national campaign to identify, treat or lock away those who are mentally ill and treat threats almost as seriously as the act itself. I don't know. It's not going to be easy.

In my opinion it's not the guns. It's the will to kill and today our politicians are egging us on with hate-filled rhetoric. It's on them to tone it down. But will they?

 

There is a decent question of why there's not a picture of Trump singing that thing.

Also, where are these adult liberals?

 

In Oklahoma, thanks to the GOP controlled house/senate/governor's office, teachers have to buy their own supplies to teach our children. We're going to pay for them to be CLEET certified now?

 

Respectfully, the politicians aren't the problem. They talk like this because it works. Voters react well to it. Most of them wish they could just discuss issues, but voters largely don't care about issues. They claim they do, but they don't. That's why politicians who talk issues lose and why politicians who act like "****-flinging monkeys" (one of Lar T. Spider's greatest contributions to this forum) win. Even among party activists who are supposed to be smarter and more nuanced voters, "balance the budget" gets a few tepid claps, while "lock her up!" gets standing ovations and fist pumps.

 

A singing signing event would be interesting to watch.

 

My point is that we should be passionate about the whole Constitution. It has always annoyed me that conservatives get righteous and militant about the Second Amendment and then shrug about the Seventh Amendment. Liberals do the same thing. They get very passionate about the First Amendment (especially when we're talking about speech and religions that reinforce their political and social agendas), but they shrug about the Tenth Amendment and care a lot more about the establishment clause of the First Amendment than the free exercise clause.

The provisions in the Constitution are there for important reasons, and we should be passionate about all of them whenever they are implicated. I understand that people rarely get excited about the Third Amendment (quartering of troops) because our military doesn't have such a need and probably never will. However, if that were to happen, I hope people would get passionate about it.