Active shooter situation at school in Parkland, FL; reports of victims

[Expat]

I am starting to smell Russian rabble rousing....

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...edy-unfolds-russian-agents-sow-discord-online

 

[actaeon277]

I am starting to smell Russian rabble rousing....

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...edy-unfolds-russian-agents-sow-discord-online

The Russians don't need to "rile" us up.
We have our own media for that.

 

[jamil]

I honestly am surprised that people would question the motives of survivors, after so recent a tragedy. I really am. I think their passion is understandable, and heartfelt, regardless of whether or not I agree with their logic.

That's fair. I wouldn't call what they're using logic though. You said it. It's passion. If it were logic, the conversation would sound much colder. That doesn't mean the people making the logical arguments are cold. But a logical, objective conversation, generally sounds much different from an emotional one. Right now, and not surprisingly, we're mostly hearing the emotional side of the conversation. And after something like this, it's normal for people to talk emotionally about this. It's a horrible thing that happened. An emotional response is expected.

However, it's unfortunate that we have to try to bring in reason at a stage where we're still in morning, when we just want to be emotional as we try to process what happened. But because of emotional attacks from people who manipulate the natural emotion of the circumstances, to push an ideological outcome, we have to be put on the defensive. And that means we have to try to bring logic and reason into it, because we're the side which will lose in such an outcome. We feel we have to engage an emotional argument with a logical one.

I wouldn't say that the victims are being coached, at least not in this moment. But they are being paraded in front of cameras a very one-sided way. The pro-gun side is not fairly represented because the other side is more interested in an ideological outcome than the reasoned one. And I'm not saying they're being paraded involuntarily. But once again, after such a tragedy, we're not having "a national conversation" about what happened. We're being lectured about what horrible people we are for not agreeing to the emotional solution over the logical one. The victims are are being used to help ensure the conversation is a 24/7 rebuke of people who disagree with the solution.

They call us horrible for daring to say that the real problem is not guns; that the real cause of mass shootings is a society that is producing too many people who are willing of doing this kind of thing, and a media which is hell bent on perpetuating the enticing reward of eternal fame for such people.

 

[churchmouse]

That's fair. I wouldn't call what they're using logic though. You said it. It's passion. If it were logic, the conversation would sound much colder. That doesn't mean the people making the logical arguments are cold. But a logical, objective conversation, generally sounds much different from an emotional one. Right now, and not surprisingly, we're mostly hearing the emotional side of the conversation. And after something like this, it's normal for people to talk emotionally about this. It's a horrible thing that happened. An emotional response is expected.

However, it's unfortunate that we have to try to bring in reason at a stage where we're still in morning, when we just want to be emotional as we try to process what happened. But because of emotional attacks from people who manipulate the natural emotion of the circumstances, to push an ideological outcome, we have to be put on the defensive. And that means we have to try to bring logic and reason into it, because we're the side which will lose in such an outcome. We feel we have to engage an emotional argument with a logical one.

I wouldn't say that the victims are being coached, at least not in this moment. But they are being paraded in front of cameras a very one-sided way. The pro-gun side is not fairly represented because the other side is more interested in an ideological outcome than the reasoned one. And I'm not saying they're being paraded involuntarily. But once again, after such a tragedy, we're not having "a national conversation" about what happened. We're being lectured about what horrible people we are for not agreeing to the emotional solution over the logical one. The victims are are being used to help ensure the conversation is a 24/7 rebuke of people who disagree with the solution.

They call us horrible for daring to say that the real problem is not guns; that the real cause of mass shootings is a society that is producing too many people who are willing of doing this kind of thing, and a media which is hell bent on perpetuating the enticing reward of eternal fame for such people.

+10.

I do believe they are finding well articulated young folks and guiding them. You see the same faces far to often. The message is far to calculated.

We are under attack. Again. Some more. We are the easy targets. To make the real changes needed people will have to do some serious work on what/who they are. That will not happen.

 

[jamil]

So what I think I've seen you say several times is that even though the people...we'll use the latest Crazy as an example...made suggestions on the 'net that they were going to do or wanted to do something evil...the police couldn't do anything? The postings on the 'net wasn't 'probable cause'? <--IANAL or Police

Would this start to venture in to the 'yelling fire in a theater' limit on free speach so to speak?

Just trying educate myself.

No. We don't really have pre-crimes. And we don't want that. The reason we have things like reasonable suspicion, and probable cause, is that's part of due process. We have those protections to help ensure innocent people aren't harassed. I would rather a guilty person go free than an innocent person goes to jail. That's the price of a free society.

But certainly, to the extent possible, we want a system which is capable of both protecting innocent citizens from harmful ones. To accomplish that the system must be sufficiently selective to correctly identify the people who are harmful from the people who aren't. That's not easy to do consistently. And to that difficulty add in human error. And so we get the Dylann Roof's and the Omar Mateen's. On that list, some were not selected because of human error. Some were not selected because the laws which protect us from being prosecuted for something we didn't do, were not sufficiently selective. Is the line in the wrong place? I don't know. When it comes to dangerous mental instability, maybe not.

And about yelling "fire" in a theater, people keep misusing the context in which that was said. The context was not in prescribing laws against specifically yelling "fire" in a theater. I was that one couldn't use the 1A to avoid being held responsible for damages caused by the ensuing panic. In other words, you can't use constitutional rights to justify abusing them in a way that causes harm to others. So. Yell "fire" in a theater shouldn't itself be against the law. Inciting the panic is the violation. Not the speech.

 

[jamil]

+10.

I do believe they are finding well articulated young folks and guiding them. You see the same faces far to often. The message is far to calculated.

We are under attack. Again. Some more. We are the easy targets. To make the real changes needed people will have to do some serious work on what/who they are. That will not happen.

That's actually what pisses me off most about it. Because we have to have this "national conversation about guns", which isn't a conversation at all, it's a lecture, we don't get to talk about the underlying problem. The underlying problem is not guns. It's that we produce people capable of doing this. Well. I say capable. We all have the same algorithms that Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Mao, Dylann Roof, etcetera. So we're all capable, given the exact circumstances which created all of those monsters. So I should say, "willing". So why has our society produced the circumstances in which more people execute those algorithms?

The answer to that question question isn't guns. Guns don't cause the circumstances under which those algorithms get executed by people, though they admittedly do make executing them more deadly. The point is, the answer to the right question will lead to a lasting solution. But we can't even ask the question, or talk about that because we have to talk about guns. The answer for every question, to them, looks like gun control. When all you have is a hammer...

 

[churchmouse]

That's actually what pisses me off most about it. Because we have to have this "national conversation about guns", which isn't a conversation at all, it's a lecture, we don't get to talk about the underlying problem. The underlying problem is not guns. It's that we produce people capable of doing this. Well. I say capable. We all have the same algorithms that Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Mao, Dylann Roof, etcetera. So we're all capable, given the exact circumstances which created all of those monsters. So I should say, "willing". So why has our society produced the circumstances in which more people execute those algorithms?

The answer to that question question isn't guns. Guns don't cause the circumstances under which those algorithms get executed by people, though they admittedly do make executing them more deadly. The point is, the answer to the right question will lead to a lasting solution. But we can't even ask the question, or talk about that because we have to talk about guns. The answer for every question, to them, looks like gun control. When all you have is a hammer...

Control being the key word in all of this. Gain a better foothold on what we do. They are steering us towards the Euro model and this is a great opportunity to make great strides in that. I am starting to fear they allow the collateral damage to further agenda's and I am not in the tin foil hat crowd. So much of this crap is by design. PC thought control.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The Russians don't need to "rile" us up.
We have our own media for that.

Now you're just repeating yourself.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

That's actually what pisses me off most about it. Because we have to have this "national conversation about guns", which isn't a conversation at all, it's a lecture, we don't get to talk about the underlying problem. The underlying problem is not guns. It's that we produce people capable of doing this. Well. I say capable. We all have the same algorithms that Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Mao, Dylann Roof, etcetera. So we're all capable, given the exact circumstances which created all of those monsters. So I should say, "willing". So why has our society produced the circumstances in which more people execute those algorithms?

The answer to that question question isn't guns. Guns don't cause the circumstances under which those algorithms get executed by people, though they admittedly do make executing them more deadly. The point is, the answer to the right question will lead to a lasting solution. But we can't even ask the question, or talk about that because we have to talk about guns. The answer for every question, to them, looks like gun control. When all you have is a hammer...

Fixing things is easy compared to fixing people. We generally like to do the easy stuff until there's no more easy stuff to do. At least that's what I've learned as an engineer for years. Seems to pretty well be analogous to issues like this as well.

 

[OutdoorDad]

Control being the key word in all of this. Gain a better foothold on what we do. They are steering us towards the Euro model and this is a great opportunity to make great strides in that. I am starting to fear they allow the collateral damage to further agenda's and I am not in the tin foil hat crowd. So much of this crap is by design. PC thought control.

I spent most of this weekend in my online pursuits trying to understand the anti gun rights position. Tons of Facebook friends posting hateful inflammatory memes.

So I tried to engage in conversation, since that was what they claimed was needed. It’s not what they wanted.

One friend was sure that if we just limited mag capacity to 10, all would be ok. She then reverse negotiated her maximum to three and couldn’t define why other than her daddy’s hunting rifle.

Just one example of dozens.

A very smart lady I've never met told me in all sincerity that her intention was to hold the potus accountable for fixing. I guess she’s going to write a strongly worded letter. But she had no practical ideas. As a matter of fact, no one had ANY ideas that addressed the issue of children being murdered. Even with firearms. Well, one guy who wants to “tax the **** out of bullets”. Didn’t have the heart to estimate the number of rounds in my basement.

So so if this were organized; they would have a message. But they don’t. Just a sense of fear, a lack of understanding of the basic current reality and much anger.

“Change things” is a great campaign slogan, but the group asking for change is as splintered as the group defending the 2a.

The young people I saw on TV were there because they were photogenic and not complete idiots. They have no plan and no platform to gain consensus.

If they drop out and get hired to a consulting position, be careful. They will be well coached.


But for now, I’m less concerned about gun grabbers than I am about school violence.

 

[saintnick81]

This one feels different to me for some reason. I can't really put my finger on why, it just does. I think we are going to find out exactly where the NRA stands on the 2nd amendment very soon. Again, i can't really explain my reasoning other than to say my gut is telling me that something is coming. I really hope i'm wrong.

I read an article where a major republican donor from Florida is not giving any more donations unless the politician supports an "assault weapons ban". I know it is just one person, but if anything will get a politician behind something, it will be money, or the threat of not receiving it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/...onor-issues-ultimatum-on-assault-weapons.html

 

[CHCRandy]

This one feels different to me for some reason. I can't really put my finger on why, it just does. I think we are going to find out exactly where the NRA stands on the 2nd amendment very soon. Again, i can't really explain my reasoning other than to say my gut is telling me that something is coming. I really hope i'm wrong.

I read an article where a major republican donor from Florida is not giving any more donations unless the politician supports an "assault weapons ban". I know it is just one person, but if anything will get a politician behind something, it will be money, or the threat of not receiving it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/...onor-issues-ultimatum-on-assault-weapons.html

Yeah, I tried finding that "huge" donor on the net worth list and could not find him....I got a feeling his donations are chump change compared to all the 2A donors. SO he gets 20-30 big spenders to join him, we have millions of donors waiting to contribute to the 2A fight. I don't think he wants to get into a who's bigger match. God, Guns and Guts made America, we will fight to keep all 3!

 

[spencer rifle]

Ie(QUOTE)I spent most of this weekend in my online pursuits trying to understand the anti gun rights position. Tons of Facebook friends posting hateful inflammatory memes.

So I tried to engage in conversation, since that was what they claimed was needed. It’s not what they wanted.

One friend was sure that if we just limited mag capacity to 10, all would be ok. She then reverse negotiated her maximum to three and couldn’t define why other than her daddy’s hunting rifle.

Just one example of dozens.

A very smart lady I've never met told me in all sincerity that her intention was to hold the potus accountable for fixing. I guess she’s going to write a strongly worded letter. But she had no practical ideas. As a matter of fact, no one had ANY ideas that addressed the issue of children being murdered. Even with firearms. Well, one guy who wants to “tax the **** out of bullets”. Didn’t have the heart to estimate the number of rounds in my basement.

So so if this were organized; they would have a message. But they don’t. Just a sense of fear, a lack of understanding of the basic current reality and much anger.

“Change things” is a great campaign slogan, but the group asking for change is as splintered as the group defending the 2a.

The young people I saw on TV were there because they were photogenic and not complete idiots. They have no plan and no platform to gain consensus.

If they drop out and get hired to a consulting position, be careful. They will be well coached.


But for now, I’m less concerned about gun grabbers than I am about school violence. s

^ This. Lots of "do something," no clue as to what. Tough to have a conversation about the position that either doesn't exist or keeps mutating.

Long ago I heard a frightening statistic. In each population there is a certain percentage of crazy evil people. While the percentage doesn't change much, as the population increases the absolute number of crazy evil people goes up. It's only a matter of time before one is in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[BigRed]

Trump was for the "assault weapons ban" before he was against the "assault weapons ban".

 

[jamil]

Fixing things is easy compared to fixing people. We generally like to do the easy stuff until there's no more easy stuff to do. At least that's what I've learned as an engineer for years. Seems to pretty well be analogous to issues like this as well.

There's a saying I like about engineering that's related to this. It's easier to engineer hard than it is to engineer easy.

 

[4651feeder]

...So so if this were organized; they would have a message. But they don’t. Just a sense of fear, a lack of understanding of the basic current reality and much anger.

“Change things” is a great campaign slogan, but the group asking for change is as splintered as the group defending the 2a...

To believe the activities we saw on CNN this weekend were not organized by the same anti-gun factions is underestimating the opposition. Their message was pretty clear, everyone from President Trump down to those who support him are to blame. This weekend was precisely choreographed with intent to change the overall mood in America.

Perhaps I'm just as insensitive as those I accuse, however I wonder about the character of those willing to video the chaos of this event from within the school for benefit of television while others were being slaughtered. I was born into a society that believed in dignity and mourning and now find myself among those who believe there is no time for either before promoting their cause. Where have we gone and where are we headed?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yeah, I tried finding that "huge" donor on the net worth list and could not find him....I got a feeling his donations are chump change compared to all the 2A donors. SO he gets 20-30 big spenders to join him, we have millions of donors waiting to contribute to the 2A fight. I don't think he wants to get into a who's bigger match. God, Guns and Guts made America, we will fight to keep all 3!

1 guy "compared to all the 2A donors?" Well I can't disagree, lol... but I don't think it is wise to dismiss him so easily.

Here's a profile of him from 2004:

Fort Myers, 70, Founder/CEO, WCI Communities
In addition to being one of the premier developers in the state, Hoffman is the Bush family's main money man. He raised $1.7 million for the president's re-election campaign at a single tent party at his home last year. Hoffman has served as national finance chairman of the Republican National Committee for 2001 and 2003-04 and as finance chairman for Gov. Jeb Bush's 1998 and 2002 gubernatorial campaigns. Hoffman had a seat on the dais at George W.'s inauguration four years ago, and he's got the ear of the governor on issues ranging from water policy to state efforts to lure more retirees to Florida.

Given his apparent influence, and in particular the state he resides, he doesn't seem light a guy to underestimate.

 

[Dead Duck]

There's a saying I like about engineering that's related to this. It's easier to engineer hard than it is to engineer easy.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

BIG difference between robbing a pharmacy and murdering our kids.

Tough to imagine that anyone see's this as similar?

You do understand what an example is, yes? Simply saying you are going to do something illegal absent something else isn't a crime unless Intimidation or the like can be made. If you read the whole post, I went on to say that people routinely say they are going to murder cops, post about it, etc. yet they aren't arrested. Care to accuse me of something related to that? Want me to be able to arrest someone for threatening to shoot a school? Get a law passed against it. Until then it's EXACTLY the same from an enforcement perspective, nothing I can do about it. I can only enforce the law, not your feels.

Police arrest 15-year-old after violent social media threat directed at southern Indiana schools | FOX59

In this case, probable cause for Intimidation was apparently met, and he was arrested. Most likely due to the specifics of the threats, but that's just an educated guess. It'll be interesting to see if the charges stick.

 

[SMiller]

Trump was for the "assault weapons ban" before he was against the "assault weapons ban".

I love Trump and voted for him, he is a business man and cares zero about firearms, he simply wants the majority of votes, if banning long guns gets him more votes he would do it in a second, he needed the NRA and white Christian conservatives to become president so he went the 2A route, that can change...

God willing it will not!




I am glad I own every fighting weapon I will ever need or desire and enough ammo for a lifetime. Makes this a lot less stressful.