Active shooter situation at Florida high school, at least 20 injured so far

[Wyrt]

So if a group for clean water donates to a politician they are corrupting a politician?

Only private citizens should be allowed to donate and there should be a limit to how much they can donate.

[zenkai]

Only private citizens should be allowed to donate and there should be a limit to how much they can donate.

I don't disagree with that, I think campaign laws that allowed business to donate should be reversed.

[Keosen]

We are averaging a new Mass Shooting (that makes it into the news) every ~3 months, I don't think they will forget, unless something changes, or they change it because they are sick and tired of having their friends shot.

You are going for a new personal best in 2018 it seems.

Atotal of 30 mass shooting incidents have occurred as of February 14, including Wednesday's school shooting in Florida.
In 2017, the U.S. saw a total of 346 mass shootings.

GoGo Amurica.

The only way to stop gun madness in USA is to start valuing human life above money, which frankly not gonna happen, so don't hope for a change, you should just get used to innocent people dying by the hand of your own people, to whom you sell the gun.

Only 6 year passed since 20 innocent children between six and seven years old got massacred and here we are again.
If Sandy Hook tragedy didn't change a thing i seriously doubt anything will.

[PACOX]

I don't disagree with that, I think campaign laws that allowed business to donate should be reversed.

The NRA is smart with the way it contributes to candidates. Money rarely goes "directly" to a candidate. For instance, Rubio is one of their biggest recipients but only receives $9k in "direct" contributions. They spend $3 million on "in his name" though. Theres a reason why Rubio couldnt wait to open his mouth after the shooting.

- - - Updated - - -

You are going for a new personal best in 2018 it seems.

GoGo Amurica.

The only way to stop gun madness in USA is to start valuing human life above money, which frankly not gonna happen, so don't hope for a change, you should just get used to innocent people dying by the hand of your own people, to whom you sell the gun.

Only 6 year passed since 20 innocent children between six and seven years old got massacred and here we are again.
If Sandy Hook tragedy didn't change a thing i seriously doubt anything will.

Sandy Hook shouldve definitely changed something but what we got were people mocking the President for being emotional.

Sandy Hook, San Bernardino, Orlando, Vegas, those are just the biggest incidents since then. Bump stocks still arent banned...

[Draco-Onis]

Billions of people don't even get their basic human rights so your point is weak.

I was referring people who live in modern democracies I didn't know I had to spell it out for you.

[Slant]

It's disgusting that people have to pay to defend against these politically motivated attacks.

Blood money would be what shillary was given.

It's clear that you're posting from a quite deranged point of view. The truth is, your position is so untennable that you have to pay big money to keep it alive at all. While nobody in the civilised western world has to pay for freedom. See, that is an actual basic human right. Not guns. Freedom. And these kids have their freedoms be fucked in the butthole by politicians that get paid to put them in danger.

It's paradoxically comic that you argue a gun = safety. While no gun = attack. You have it backwards. It's so glaringly obvious just how much backwards you got it that it's painful to even type it out without thinking I'm talking to an utter imbecile that tries to argue black is white and white is black.

So, there are enough people, even gun fanatics, that see the need to change and they are openly discussing (more or less, depending on taste) sensible rules to prevent these things from happening.

And you come into this thread demanding that your weekly shooting entertainment gets endorsed by the NRA. That's pretty sad. I'm not American, but if I was, I'd exercise my free speech and give you a heartfelt "Fuck you!"

As it stands, I'll just sit here watching with amazement how evolution takes place.

[Spiffums]

Only private citizens should be allowed to donate and there should be a limit to how much they can donate.

No one should be allowed to donate to a politician.........because then they'd only really represent the ones who gave them money.

[Slant]

No one should be allowed to donate to a politician.........because then they'd only really represent the ones who gave them money.

As good as it is, democracy unfortunately has some corruption built into the core design. Let's assume we somehow find a way to stop donations or "favours" to politicians completely. You still have the problem of politicians catering to polls rather than making prudent decisions more and more the closer you get to election day. To a point, even, where in the last half year before an election, they are absolutely uneffective at doing their job.

This is of course assuming that prudent decisions sometimes are unpopular. Like the guy inventing taxes... he probably didn't have a big fanbase, but the general idea is a good one and adopted by virtually all nations.

[Wyrt]

No one should be allowed to donate to a politician.........because then they'd only really represent the ones who gave them money.

It should only be people who are from the community they are representing. And that's why it needs to have a firm limit on how much can be donated by 1 individual.

[alturic]

GoGo Amurica.

The only way to stop gun madness in USA is to start valuing human life above money, which frankly not gonna happen, so don't hope for a change, you should just get used to innocent people dying by the hand of your own people, to whom you sell the gun.

Only 6 year passed since 20 innocent children between six and seven years old got massacred and here we are again.
If Sandy Hook tragedy didn't change a thing i seriously doubt anything will.

Sandy Hook shouldve definitely changed something but what we got were people mocking the President for being emotional.

Sandy Hook, San Bernardino, Orlando, Vegas, those are just the biggest incidents since then. Bump stocks still arent banned...

The thing I don't get, is why after a shooting are people up-in-arms over guns, and talks of banning/restricting ArmaLite Rifles (oh, sorry "Assault Rifles") is all the rage. I understand, to an extent, to people directly affected by the death of a loved one at the hands of another pers... I mean gun, they are a little emotional over it.

However, I AM "one of those" people who would say Alcohol is just as dangerous, when not used responsibly. Ok, sure 9/10 times (pulled out of thin air) a drunk driving accident doesn't involve a fatality. In 2015 10,265 people died at the hands of a driver who decided to drink irresponsibly.

That doesn't mean that of the 372 "mass shootings" (no idea what's the definition of that on this BBC article) in 2015, 475 people weren't killed and 1,870 people weren't injured. HOWEVER, you are MUCH more likely to be hit (and then injured, or die) from someone who was drinking and driving, then someone shooting you. When you factor in someone shooting you with an AR the percent-chance would be SIGNIFICANTLY lower than someone hitting you while they were drinking and driving.

What's that you say? Guns inherently kill things? Well duh, so does a bomb. That doesn't mean you can't buy all the materials to make one. Ok, extreme case. However, I can just as easily come up with a host of other things that inherently kill things.

Back to the point, while I would of course be utterly devastated if someone killed one of my family members with a gun, I would more question what was wrong with the person that they decided they needed to do that? I wouldn't say we need to ban guns. It was a person who decided, for whatever reason, that they wanted to shoot at someone in my family. It wasn't the gun. I know another "guns don't kill people, people kill people", but it's so true!

What it utterly hilarious (in a sarcastic manner of thought-process) is how there is ZERO talk about ANYTHING other than "terrorism is bad" (even when the "terrorist" isn't what the general population deem a "terrorist" i.e. domestic) when someone decides to do a mass killing with a car, or bomb, or knife (it happens).

So, as you can tell I don't believe any type of semi-automatic gun should be banned or restricted, nor do I think bump stocks should be banned or restricted. I really fail to see why people can't comprehend that the person committing the act is the one who had the issue (and therefor "caused it"). You are CLEARLY not a normal person if you decide to take a life, when that life wasn't endangering your well-being.

I will say, as much as I do think people carrying a gun for self-defense is perfectly acceptable, you have to at least admit that 99.8%(?) of the population does not walk around carrying a gun like it's the wild west. So it's always amusing when people get stopped and questioned about their open-carry because other people call 911 or a cop sees you walking downtown with that rifle strapped to your shoulder and you cry foul. Be honest with yourself at the very least, that it's not something 99.8%(?) of the population does, therefore rights or not, you do indeed deserved to be stopped and at least questioned to see your state of mind. I was at a chinese buffet once with my family, guy across from us was OC a 9mm. I somewhat felt uneasy, but purely because (again) a.) the majority of the population does not carry like it's the wild west and b.) I had zero idea what his intentions were and THAT is truly the scary thought. What's that? It's your right to carry a gun? Absolutely. However, don't cry foul when someone calls 911 saying you are carrying a gun when the Vegas, Orlando, Parkland, etc shooter could have been just like you carrying that gun openly (if their state allows it) and ends up using that gun to kill others.

[Kallisto]

The thing I don't get, is why after a shooting are people up-in-arms over guns, and talks of banning/restricting ArmaLite Rifles (oh, sorry "Assault Rifles") is all the rage. I understand, to an extent, to people directly affected by the death of a loved one at the hands of another pers... I mean gun, they are a little emotional over it.

However, I AM "one of those" people who would say Alcohol is just as dangerous, when not used responsibly. Ok, sure 9/10 times (pulled out of thin air) a drunk driving accident doesn't involve a fatality. In 2015 10,265 people died at the hands of a driver who decided to drink irresponsibly.

That doesn't mean that of the 372 "mass shootings" (no idea what's the definition of that on this BBC article) in 2015, 475 people weren't killed and 1,870 people weren't injured. HOWEVER, you are MUCH more likely to be hit (and then injured, or die) from someone who was drinking and driving, then someone shooting you. When you factor in someone shooting you with an AR the percent-chance would be SIGNIFICANTLY lower than someone hitting you while they were drinking and driving.

Firstly it is because Alcohol has a design that is seperate from killing, this is coming from someone that doesn't touch the stuff. But Alcohol as a design is made for social drinking where some people may abuse it.

Guns are designed for one thing only. To kill people are quickly and efficiently as possible. Also people get up in arms because they look outside the US, see different forms of gun control put in from outright banning, to strict lisencing where you have to prove your sound enough to own a gun. Or something in between. Then see that when these things are put in they fucking work. Each and every country the US should be compared to end up having either no or extremely little amount of shootings. These are not some third world nation the far right in the US wants to compare the US to and go "See we're not so bad." it is first world, westernized nations that are comparable to the US and actually show that gun control works.

What is that satire headling from The Onion "There's nothing that could be done, says the only place where this happens often." that's satire yet the Republicans somehow fucking believe that line even though there is so much evidence out there that you have to either say these guys have the head in the sand or their fucking bought.

The US is NOT some super unique special country. It's just another western country like every other western country. What works in other western countries will work there.

As for your comments on bomb making most of the stuff used to make bombs are illegal.

But back to guns. Anyone who thinks or says that gun control doesn't work is either a fool, part of the NRA (Which is really having the hallmarks of a terrorist group now), bought by the NRA or just a dumbfuck who simply put is on some other reality. All of which are showing themselves to have blood on their hands becoming more and more soaked with each mass shooting.

[alturic]

Firstly it is because Alcohol has a design that is seperate from killing, this is coming from someone that doesn't touch the stuff. But Alcohol as a design is made for social drinking where some people may abuse it.

Guns are designed for one thing only. To kill people are quickly and efficiently as possible. Also people get up in arms because they look outside the US, see different forms of gun control put in from outright banning, to strict lisencing where you have to prove your sound enough to own a gun. Or something in between. Then see that when these things are put in they fucking work. Each and every country the US should be compared to end up having either no or extremely little amount of shootings. These are not some third world nation the far right in the US wants to compare the US to and go "See we're not so bad." it is first world, westernized nations that are comparable to the US and actually show that gun control works.

What is that satire headling from The Onion "There's nothing that could be done, says the only place where this happens often." that's satire yet the Republicans somehow fucking believe that line even though there is so much evidence out there that you have to either say these guys have the head in the sand or their fucking bought.

The US is NOT some super unique special country. It's just another western country like every other western country. What works in other western countries will work there.

As for your comments on bomb making most of the stuff used to make bombs are illegal.

But back to guns. Anyone who thinks or says that gun control doesn't work is either a fool, part of the NRA (Which is really having the hallmarks of a terrorist group now), bought by the NRA or just a dumbfuck who simply put is on some other reality. All of which are showing themselves to have blood on their hands becoming more and more soaked with each mass shooting.

See, you had zero to say about "what to do" about irresponsible people who drink and then drive, killing someone. I'm not saying the car is the gun, not at all. But Alcohol causes far more fatalities (purely from DD accidents) than guns cause.

Can you at least answer why the "answer" to mass shootings is banning/restricting guns? If you stop the root of the problem, the people having the thought of killing another human for anything other than self-defense, I think it would go much further. Guns banned/restricted. Great. People will still have the thought of killing. Nothing solved.

[Deleted]

See, you had zero to say about "what to do" about irresponsible people who drink and then drive, killing someone. I'm not saying the car is the gun, not at all. But Alcohol causes far more fatalities (purely from DD accidents) than guns cause.

Can you at least answer why the "answer" to mass shootings is banning/restricting guns? If you stop the root of the problem, the people having the thought of killing another human for anything other than self-defense, I think it would go much further. Guns banned/restricted. Great. People will still have the thought of killing. Nothing solved.

He didn't say anything about it, because, i don't know, it doesn't have anything at all to do with any of this and is one big whataboutism.

Because mass shootings are done with guns, so, logically, if you remove said guns you will not have mass shootings.

[alturic]

He didn't say anything about it, because, i don't know, it doesn't have anything at all to do with any of this and is one big whataboutism.

Because mass shootings are done with guns, so, logically, if you remove said guns you will not have mass shootings.

If you remove Alcohol, you will not have drunk driving accidents. I'm not trying to be silly about it, it's a legitimate argument and you know it.

People who drink and drive aren't in a normal state of mind.

People who use a gun to shoot and kill other people aren't in a normal state of mind.

[Deleted]

If you remove Alcohol, you will not have drunk driving accidents. I'm not trying to be silly about it, it's a legitimate argument and you know it.

People who drink and drive aren't in a normal state of mind.

People who use a gun to shoot and kill other people aren't in a normal state of mind.

No it is not, it is wataboutism, this has nothing to do at all with gun control, you are basically saying "what about cars and alcohol that is dangerous too". Classic whataboutism, just because other things might kill people too doesn't mean that it is a valid argument to have guns for everyone.

Poeple who drink and drive aren't in a normal state of mind because they have been drinking alcohol which is a mind altering drug.

And you are still ignoring the point that a gun is made to kill stuff, and a car is made to transport stuff, there is a big difference.

[Deletedaccount1]

I don't think people should just up to conclusions so quickly on this issue. If a completely non-biased person did a review of all the best research on gun control, it would be difficult to draw a conclusion one way or another on its effectiveness. Non-partisan studies generally support the view that the current body of research isn't sufficient to draw any conclusions with.

https://www.nap.edu/read/10881/chapter/4#48

None of the existing data sources, by itself or in combination with others, provides comprehensive, timely, and accurate data needed to answer many important questions pertaining to the role of firearms in violent events. Even some of the most basic descriptive questions cannot be answered with existing data.

https://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

https://www.rand.org/blog/2013/01/fi...e-answers.html

[PACOX]

I don't think people should just up to conclusions so quickly on this issue. If a completely non-biased person did a review of all the best research on gun control, it would be difficult to draw a conclusion one way or another on its effectiveness. Non-partisan studies generally support the view that the current body of research isn't sufficient to draw any conclusions with.

https://www.nap.edu/read/10881/chapter/4#48



https://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

https://www.rand.org/blog/2013/01/fi...e-answers.html

All research is null and void until the CDC is allowed to research gun control. Wonder why the CDC isn't allowed to research gun control? Couldn't be the NRA has politicans in their pocket? Noooooo.

[Deletedaccount1]

All research is null and void until the CDC is allowed to research gun control. Wonder why the CDC isn't allowed to research gun control? Couldn't be the NRA has politicans in their pocket? Noooooo.

I agree they should be allowed but it is hard to imagine that it could significantly differ from findings in previous rigorous studies like Lott and Mustard 1996.

[Travis B]

I agree they should be allowed but it is hard to imagine that it could significantly differ from findings in previous rigorous studies like Lott and Mustard 1996.

"Rigorous" is the last word I'd use to describe a study done by John Lott. The guy is considered a complete joke within academic circles, not because of his political views, but because of his flawed methodologies.

[Deletedaccount1]

"Rigorous" is the last word I'd use to describe a study done by John Lott. The guy is considered a complete joke within academic circles, not because of his political views, but because of his flawed methodologies.

That study was supported by many academics.