Florida School Shooting - at least 17 dead — Page 2

ErikJ972 said: "So doesn't stockpiling weapons of war and ammunition fall into that same category?"

Not if their owners aren't planning to use them to harm innocent people. Again, I have a few people in my family like this. I don't really like them or see them very often, but I believe their intent - misguided but not criminal - is to prepare for some kind of apocalypse rather than plan a massacre. Otherwise I'd report them to the authorities.

I like the ‘libertarian principles’ and the consistency in your viewpoints kdogg but I see them working best when it is around issues where people aren’t hurting others. Even if it feels annoying to be ‘nannyd’ or to have an authoritarian power forcing you not to buy or discard something designed for the purpose of killing large amounts of people, does it actually matter? There are a whole host of other ventures/hobbies people can undertake and even other weapons, including guns that are effective but safer to use for defense purposes.

Life does not need the possession of an automatic assault rifle to be fulfilling. I don’t think it’s worth these needless deaths. The majority of responsible gun owners need to take one for the team of humanity and see there is a greater good to be served here. It seems a bit selfish

Updated On: 2/16/18 at 04:58 PM

Wow, this thread was on fire while I was away for a few days down in Georgia and the Carolinas.

I'm still a lil' spent so I'm going to shamelessly lift a snippet from one of kdogg's post as a blanket reply.

kdogg wrote: "I know (or know of) a few people who own an AR-15 and will never use it to harm anyone (except maybe under extreme circumstances)."

That pretty much sums up my current situation as well. I even got in some target practice with a Winchester Model 94 Sporter .30-30 while on a cousin's farm in Georgia. He owns a AR-15 but I told him emphatically that I had no interest in seeing or firing it.

Back at kdogg who questioned why I'm done with the 2nd amendment as-is and the connection to the war on drugs. There are some products that are simply too dangerous to circulate within the commons. I consider military-grade assault rifles weapons of mass destruction that should be illegal for acquisition by civilians. The rationale for banning non-military exports of strong encryption technology considered munitions to certain terrorist nations is sufficient to gain my support for the regulation of the manufacture and/or distribution of assault rifles domestically, including an outright ban. It was done to various degrees before from the Reagan to Clinton administrations so I'm convinced that the American people can countenance another ban.

There are so many private gun sales, unregistered guns, and stolen guns down south that the notion of gun control is all but a joke. And gunrunning is still big business. A few months ago, Philip Bump of WaPo traced the origins of the guns used in crimes in Chicago which Trump likes to put up as the poster child of a failed city.

How Guns Used In Crimes Got to Chicago

The Founders were not always as prescient or fair-minded as some in their wake have claimed. At this stage in my life I'm no longer convinced that private citizens are any better at self-governance than corporations. However, despite not being a fan of 2nd amendment as-is, I worry that a repeal of the part applicable to private gun ownership would lead to unbridled civil disobedience and a return to Prohibition-era gang violence. The war on drugs arguably is an abject failure. An infringement of the right of the People to keep and bear arms is a bridge too far toward Venezuelan-style totalitarianism. Private gun ownership is part of the nation's DNA. The best we can strive for is a ban on domestic weapons of mass destruction, strengthened background checks, and strict liability imposed on manufactures and importers of fire arms.

As a friend of mine from Spain says, "some things are unequivocally American". Great Britain has the Crown...we have god, guns, and gunts.

Updated On: 2/17/18 at 02:12 PM

I'm so tired of hearing the narrative that when you're white you're 'mentally ill' and when you're brown you're a 'terrorist'. It isn't about skin colour - this is an incidental issue. When you go and shoot and kill 12 people at the Charlie Hebdo office because their paper decided to print photos of the prophet Mohammad, peace be upon him, the motivation is very, very different than this shooting or other shootings. To conflate all mass shootings as if they have the same motivations is an idiotic thing to do. Maybe we should just not use the word terrorist and instead opt for "violent jihadist" (a bit of a tautology) in Islamic terrorist attacks.

Updated On: 2/18/18 at 06:17 PM

qolbinau said: "I'm so tired of hearing the narrative that when you're white you're 'mentally ill' and when you're brown you're a 'terrorist'. It isn't about skin colour - this is an incidental issue. When you go and shoot and kill 12 people at the Charlie Hebdo office because their paper decided to print photos of the prophet Mohammad, peace be upon him, the motivation is very, very different than this shooting or other shootings. To conflate all mass shootings as if they have the same motivations is an idiotic thing to do. Maybe we should just not use the word terrorist and instead opt for "violent jihadist" (a bit of a tautology) in Islamic terrorist attacks."

Yeah, that's why when a white guy opened fired in an African American church full of innocent people because of his white supremacist ideologyi he was widely called a terrorist...oh wait no he wasn't.

so, it's only terrorism if it's done specifically in the name of Islam?

Updated On: 2/19/18 at 10:57 AM

ssimpson86 said: "qolbinau said: "I'm so tired of hearing the narrative that when you're white you're 'mentally ill' and when you're brown you're a 'terrorist'. It isn't about skin colour - this is an incidental issue. When you go and shoot and kill 12 people at the Charlie Hebdo office because their paper decided to print photos of the prophet Mohammad, peace be upon him, the motivation is very, very different than this shooting or other shootings. To conflate all mass shootings as if they have the same motivations is an idiotic thing to do. Maybe we should just not use the word terrorist and instead opt for "violent jihadist" (a bit of a tautology) in Islamic terrorist attacks."

Yeah, that's why when a white guy opened fired in an African American church full of innocent peoplebecause of his white supremacist ideologyi he was widely called aterrorist...oh wait no he wasn't.

so, it's only terrorism if it's done specifically in the nameof Islam?

"

Well it’s always terrorism when it’s done to forward the interests of Islam, and it may or may not be terrorism in other instances depending on the specific motivations and reason behind the attack. I agree the example you give seems quite close to what we think of as ‘terrorism’ - though some people may want to reserve that word exclusively for attacks that are attempting to forward political and religious movements (e.g., religious jihadists) rather than attacks that seem like pure 'hate crimes'. And perhaps because the word has become synonymous with Islamic terrorism the public only want to reserve that word for one kind of attack.


Needless to say, regardless of the term used the shooter you refer to and their ideology is almost universally condemned and not getting a ‘free pass’ if that's what you're afraid of. In fact the opposite is happening - Islam is the only far far far right conservative belief system that continues to be an unstoppable force of homophobia (especially) and sexism across the world - and in some cases violence. And yet so called progressives seem very concerned with defending this far far far far far right belief system at every turn, and trying to excuse the human right atrocities committed from its doctrine. Progressives only care about Muslims if they are straight males, it seems. Not the poor Muslims that are being oppressed, imprisoned, socially isolated, beaten or killed because of this far far far far right belief system. The left is so conservative today they might as well vote Trump. People need to stop calling themselves progressives if they don't want to defend progressive values and criticise conservative values.

Updated On: 2/19/18 at 04:02 PM

James885 said: "If you want another example, look no further thanDzhokharTsarnaev, the Boston bomber (another white terrorist) who was featured on the cover of Rolling Stone shortly afterward, as if he were some kind of celebrity. I can guarantee that if Tsarnaev was black or Hispanic, or Muslim, he wouldn't be appearing on a magazine cover.
"

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was/is a Muslim.

qolbinau wrote: "I just find it odd that we have a list of 'white, black, hispanic, muslim'..."

It's very easy to do that when your identity group doesn't constitute the majority. Intentionally or not, many members of the majority appear predisposed to regard those outside the mainstream as "other". Those of us who make up the "other" receive the message loud and clear. I have a number of non-black associates who still can't fathom the commercial success of Tyler Perry as a movie director/writer. I'm not a fan of his oeuvre despite sharing a similar background. But, I have a keen understanding of his target audience and business model.

And not to split hairs or anything, but in the states there are still popular questionnaires that place respondents in boxes like white non-Hispanic or black non-Hispanic. So, it's safe to assume that most of us here are aware that Muslims, like other religion-based identity groups in the US, run the gamut color-wise from Gigi Hadid to Iman. I'm hopeful you didn't mean to come across as pedantic.

Updated On: 2/20/18 at 08:43 PM

And now it's being reported that the Resource OFFICER (A police officer assigned to the school) stood outside the building during the shooting and DID NOTHING. (And no, his protocol didn't include waiting for back up). He was placed on unpaid leave, but then he resigned. 2 other officers are being investigated for the handling (or not handling) of infor received about the shooter previous to the event.

Triple post

Updated On: 2/23/18 at 09:06 PM