Posted on Feb 14, 2018
What part of our society is ultimately responsible for the shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL?
39.4K
800
342
71
71
0
Beyond my utter shock and dismay at this latest school shooting, I ask myself why? Who failed “us”. why?
Do we need a ‘police state’ to moniter and report eveyone with an personality abberation?
Do too many of our citizens choose to look the ‘other way”’ rather than accept the responsibilty of reporting “deranged members of society”?
At age 12, in 1945, I was cleared to ‘fire at will’ on the farm. I possessed a 22 caliber rifle and the 410 shotgun arrived soon after.
Positive action is needed, your thoughts?
Do we need a ‘police state’ to moniter and report eveyone with an personality abberation?
Do too many of our citizens choose to look the ‘other way”’ rather than accept the responsibilty of reporting “deranged members of society”?
At age 12, in 1945, I was cleared to ‘fire at will’ on the farm. I possessed a 22 caliber rifle and the 410 shotgun arrived soon after.
Positive action is needed, your thoughts?
Firearms and Guns
Children
Responsibility
Family
Edited 6 y ago
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 119
1
1
0
CSM,
In descending order:
1) The gunman. Period.
2) The armed security officer on site who did nothing to intervene. (I don't care about any arguments about policies, procedures, blah.. blah... blah...) He had a weapon and could have stepped in. He didn't. End of discussion.
3) The host of people well informed about this kid's issues, ranging from the police who responded to numerous domestic issues at his home, to the school and other mental health professionals who received reports as to his mental issues, and others who did nothing more than was required of them to raise a red flag.
Outside of that?
No one and nothing else is responsible for what occurred at that school.
In terms of gun legislation and the current spate of bellyaching taking place? Mass punishment is neither the correct nor the logical response to this situation. There are such an overwhelmingly large number of privately registered firearms, that if law-abiding citizens owning them was as bad as the far left attempts to make it seem? You'd know it. There wouldn't be this intersectional quibbling over a percentage issue between one chart and another. There'd be mass death in the streets. Mass shootings wouldn't make up a paltry sum of the graph, it'd be "the graph." I'm a political centrist, meaning I'm not fond of extremes on either side of the aisle. But we're treading closer and closer to violating and/or doing away with the rights afforded to our citizens under the 2nd Amendment.
When you see these people on the news, on social media, etc whining about assault weapons (which aren't even a "thing"), remember that the reason they're going after AR-15s first is because this is all a steady build-up to eventually coming after handguns. It's the only logical reason they'd be going after a weapon which itself is used in a paltry percentage of gun-related crimes. I know, I know, there will be disagreements. Got it. But the good thing about facts, in this situation - is that they don't care about your feelings. The graphic below shows the percentage of gun-related crimes by weapon type used. Now, I ask... if the aim of these rallies and marches, and encroachments on our 2nd Amendment rights are all because "we want to save people from gun violence..." then why is it we're going after AR-15s?
You see, that didn't make sense to me. In CI, things have to fall into a particular order to start to paint a picture of the reality of a situation. So, like most of you I sat here and I read a bit and watched a bit and didn't really get too deep in debates over this subject. I tend to avoid debating this topic as I see no reason to have a discussion with someone about a constitutional right, nor do I take most of the major leftist arguments seriously enough to engage in meaningful discussion over (as Dawkins says about certain groups: "It would lend credibility that they are undeserving of.")
But hey. Whatever. I figured - yeah - kind of saw the AR-15 thing coming, but we wouldn't push the insane notion of handgun bans as well, would we?
But then I found this:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5087/text
I'm going to say this right now, in a public forum, without regard for differing opinions on the matter.
We are not going to turn our handguns over to anyone. We are not going to turn our AR-15s over to anyone. We are not going to allow any element of this country to remove, edit, or mitigate the rights afforded in the 2nd Amendment. Any attempt to do so will constitute a direct violation of the US constitution and at that time, any political leader or organization who publicly pushes or supports this will reveal themselves to be enemies of the state.
In descending order:
1) The gunman. Period.
2) The armed security officer on site who did nothing to intervene. (I don't care about any arguments about policies, procedures, blah.. blah... blah...) He had a weapon and could have stepped in. He didn't. End of discussion.
3) The host of people well informed about this kid's issues, ranging from the police who responded to numerous domestic issues at his home, to the school and other mental health professionals who received reports as to his mental issues, and others who did nothing more than was required of them to raise a red flag.
Outside of that?
No one and nothing else is responsible for what occurred at that school.
In terms of gun legislation and the current spate of bellyaching taking place? Mass punishment is neither the correct nor the logical response to this situation. There are such an overwhelmingly large number of privately registered firearms, that if law-abiding citizens owning them was as bad as the far left attempts to make it seem? You'd know it. There wouldn't be this intersectional quibbling over a percentage issue between one chart and another. There'd be mass death in the streets. Mass shootings wouldn't make up a paltry sum of the graph, it'd be "the graph." I'm a political centrist, meaning I'm not fond of extremes on either side of the aisle. But we're treading closer and closer to violating and/or doing away with the rights afforded to our citizens under the 2nd Amendment.
When you see these people on the news, on social media, etc whining about assault weapons (which aren't even a "thing"), remember that the reason they're going after AR-15s first is because this is all a steady build-up to eventually coming after handguns. It's the only logical reason they'd be going after a weapon which itself is used in a paltry percentage of gun-related crimes. I know, I know, there will be disagreements. Got it. But the good thing about facts, in this situation - is that they don't care about your feelings. The graphic below shows the percentage of gun-related crimes by weapon type used. Now, I ask... if the aim of these rallies and marches, and encroachments on our 2nd Amendment rights are all because "we want to save people from gun violence..." then why is it we're going after AR-15s?
You see, that didn't make sense to me. In CI, things have to fall into a particular order to start to paint a picture of the reality of a situation. So, like most of you I sat here and I read a bit and watched a bit and didn't really get too deep in debates over this subject. I tend to avoid debating this topic as I see no reason to have a discussion with someone about a constitutional right, nor do I take most of the major leftist arguments seriously enough to engage in meaningful discussion over (as Dawkins says about certain groups: "It would lend credibility that they are undeserving of.")
But hey. Whatever. I figured - yeah - kind of saw the AR-15 thing coming, but we wouldn't push the insane notion of handgun bans as well, would we?
But then I found this:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5087/text
I'm going to say this right now, in a public forum, without regard for differing opinions on the matter.
We are not going to turn our handguns over to anyone. We are not going to turn our AR-15s over to anyone. We are not going to allow any element of this country to remove, edit, or mitigate the rights afforded in the 2nd Amendment. Any attempt to do so will constitute a direct violation of the US constitution and at that time, any political leader or organization who publicly pushes or supports this will reveal themselves to be enemies of the state.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I have to think it is how kids are raised these days. Instead of disciplining kids (ie spanking, grounding,) it's easier to prescribe kids into submission. I find it hard to believe that every kid has A.D.D. Parents want to be their children's friend. If you blame the so called Disease and not the action the child never learns of consequences. Some people will say it's different times now, things were different. B.S.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/19/fbi-under-siege-top-brass-agents-slammed-as-bureau-fights-to-overcome-scandals-and-blunders.html
The leadership at the FBI should explain how the ball was dropped, who dropped it and who ordered it dropped.
I hope Sessions has the balls to find the individuals that knew Cruz was going to go postal and allowed it.
Who benefits from that act. What kind of globalist wanted it to happen.
It was the same dam thing with 9-11. They learned to fly, but not land? WTF?
Over
The leadership at the FBI should explain how the ball was dropped, who dropped it and who ordered it dropped.
I hope Sessions has the balls to find the individuals that knew Cruz was going to go postal and allowed it.
Who benefits from that act. What kind of globalist wanted it to happen.
It was the same dam thing with 9-11. They learned to fly, but not land? WTF?
Over
FBI under siege: Top brass, agents slammed as bureau fights to overcome scandals and blunders
From the executive offices of the J. Edgar Hoover building to its rank-and-file working in the field, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is entering yet another week scrambling to figure out a way to navigate itself out of a series of scandals and blunders that is increasingly jeopardizing the agency’s reputation in the minds of the public.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Nothing will be done and the pile of dead children will get larger. Everyone has an excuse why they can't go potty without an AR-15. As far as I am concerned I will be voting against all incumbents
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I have spent my whole life since I was seventeen years old in the military and law enforcement and I have lost count of the number of times I have been shot at and missed and shot at and hit. Down here we have so many retired law enforcement officers and retired military veterans that you could get them to do the protection for the kids for free! THE WIVES WOULD BE SAYING PLEASE GET HIM OUT OF THE HOUSE HE IS DRIVING ME STARK RAVING MAD!!!!!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Good question. What are the current drivers in society that would propel someone to open fire on the innocent as a means of redress? Are stricter gun laws the answer? Couldn't hurt, but it's not the answer. Remember Columbine? How did a group of children gain access to weapons and ammunition? Sandy Hook, family and friends all seemed to know of the shooters mental illness, and still he was allowed weapons and ammunition. Is it copy-cat syndrome, hey they did it, why not me/us. This recent loon, posted on FB that he wanted to do commit such the act, certainly law enforcement, but were there no others that closer to the individual that could have acted? We've had private gun ownership in the U.S. for over two century's, but it's only recently that these acts are taking place. I've got no answer.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Asked myself the same question: do we need to monitor and report everyone with a personality aberration? That is what it might come to. Kinda like Nazi Germany, Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, etc where everyone reports on everyone no matter how slight the observation may be. There aren't enough cops or resources to respond to and evaluate all the reports which could result from the philosophy of 'report it to someone'. With this latest slaughter, the perp was reported numerous times and there was not a 'system' or process in place to deal with those reports, or if there was one, it did not work.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
All of us collectively. If tomorrow, there was a news story that a toddler opened fire into a crowd with a machine gun, despite how horrible that is, I'm not going to be mad at the toddler. It's a toddler. It doesn't possess the mental faculties to understand the consequences of it's actions. I'm upset at the person or persons that thought it was ok for toddlers to have access to a machine gun.
The same is true of the mentally impaired. When we collectively decided to slash funding and medical availability of treatment for the mentally incompetent, in a weapons saturated nation, we all assumed collective responsibility for the ensuing fallout...
The same is true of the mentally impaired. When we collectively decided to slash funding and medical availability of treatment for the mentally incompetent, in a weapons saturated nation, we all assumed collective responsibility for the ensuing fallout...
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google