BREAKING>> Active Shooter Florida High School... Developing... Multiple victims...

[Smokin Joe]

How about we put some limits on what sickos can buy when it comes to acquiring deadly weapons?

Why is it one needs a license to drive a car, but not to own a firearm?

Because the requirement for a drivers license has not stopped people from driving without one, nor has it stopped vehicles from being stolen nor misused.

[INVAR]

Because the requirement for a drivers license has not stopped people from driving without one, nor has it stopped vehicles from being stolen nor misused.

True enough - but you will behold that cars are not manufactured for the purpose of killing - even though they kill far more people in this country than guns ever have.

We should apply similar silly arguments the Left makes with guns over vehicles.  Due the result of so many fatalities, we cannot ignore the crisis of vehicular deaths in this country therefore the proposed reasonable restrictions are offered: While driving is a privilege and not a right - we think no one needs a car because there is public transportation available and we have to cut down on global warming; the government should regulate what kind of car you are permitted to purchase and own with a 30 day waiting period before being allowed to get behind the wheel; mandated insurance before you can drive it under police supervision;  there is absolutely no need whatsoever for the general public to own assault trucks and self-driving automatic SUVs - we have professional truckers and utility companies that are the only ones who should be permitted to operate those; keys to your vehicle will need to be kept under lock and key at your local police station; and absolutely no person should be permitted to own a car if children under 26 live in the home, that is a form of child abuse and an inherent danger to every child in the neighborhood.

[DCPatriot]

What's this, the fourth school shooting this year?    Yeah, you're right, tighter restrictions on guns are coming,  that are only the act of a majority of the peoples' representatives away.   Registration.  Insurance.  The regulation of markets.  All Constitutional, based on the say so of Justice Scalia.    Those who want those laws to be reasonable, limited and efficacious should consider being part of the solution.

Meh.....seems to me the first thing that will be suggested by Pres. Trump will be to hired armed personnel to protect the 'assets'....just like any bank does since Jesse James.

Any school construction going forward should have a secure, fenced campus and choke points to enter with vehicles.

IMO, that's a lot more sensible than gun control.

Dan Bongino....talks about how to protect schools here.   http://www.facebook.com/dan.bongino/videos/1688152734610814/

[verga]

This right here is why I dislike the cops. They bust into wrong peoples houses serving warrants late at night and shoot them and their dog because they can't read numbers on a mailbox, yet this piece of human debris is perfectly intact when they arrest him......

Where's the split lip, busted up eye, broken limbs and fingers? They could have taken this MoFo down harder than hell and roughed him up. Utter bullshit.

@Frank Cannon And with all the cameras been charged with "Police Brutality" by the liberal media and we would have had another Rodney King trial taking the focus off the real issue. Comments like this are why no one takes you seriously.

[Neverdul]

DEMOCRAT!

http://www.bcpa.net/RecInfo.asp?URL_Folio=494222AA0120

First of all the link you posted doesn't support the voter registration info you posted, Can you provide a link to that? Next the perp's name is Nikolas Cruz not Nicholas Cruz.

 

[Restored]

First of all the link you posted doesn't support the voter registration info you posted, Can you provide a link to that? Next the perp's name is Nikolas Cruz not Nicholas Cruz.

 

My Facebook types say his name is Nikolas De Jesus Cruz.

[edpc]

Mugshot of Cruz

[Gefn]

4 brothers - all served, none drafted, 3 retired from the military.  Mom retired as a Col.  Both sons served, one Marine and one Airman, who will retire from the military in due time.  I'm the widow of a Viet Nam combat vet.  Also not drafted.  That do it for you?

Oh wow @Sanguine. Thank your family for their service, give them big hugs from me. I'm truly sorry about your husband, I didn't know you were a widow.
 

[Cyber Liberty]

I agree, but that's not the point.  It's that his obsession with guns facilitated this.  If you cannot prevent an unstable mind, the best you can do is take away the tools he uses.

Leave it to you to use a tragedy to push your political agenda of disarming everybody who didn't commit the crime.  What a despicable ghoul you are.  The bodies aren't even cold yet.

[Gefn]

My two cents- if you ban guns, they will use knives in the next attacks, or make up something more lethal like the gas they put in the Tokyo subway system. Or use fire....

Mankind has always found ways to slaughter. Someone who is disturbed will find a way to do it,

I'm not qualified to have a gun because of my eyes (depth perception) but I'll fight for my friends right to bear them. Because I know people have been killing each other since Cain slew Abel. How do you think they did it before gunpowder was invented?

I'm just heartbroken about the 17 people who died though. This was senseless. Prayers for them are at the prayer thread

[Cyber Liberty]

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.   Unless, of course, you count yourself among those with unstable minds.

I read you perfectly because your lust is transparent as Hell, and calling me a psycho does not strengthen your case for tyranny.  This is your standard MO.  You are a gun-grabber, and you cannot resist using a tragedy to push your favorite policy goal.  I have more descriptive words for you than "ghoul," but I resist out of respect for the good people of TBR.

[oldno7]

 This pretty well sums it up for me.

[Jazzhead]

I read you perfectly because your lust is transparent as Hell, and calling me a psycho does not strengthen your case for tyranny.  This is your standard MO.  You are a gun-grabber, and you cannot resist using a tragedy to push your favorite policy goal.  I have more descriptive words for you than "ghoul," but I resist out of respect for the good people of TBR.

This wasn't a tragedy.  This was a deliberate killing by a disturbed individual that the kids at school apparently suspected would do something mad like this.   We didn't "wait until the bodies were cold" before declaring war after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.   Do we fight madness like this or is fealty to your own peculiar and selfish obsessions more important?   

I haven't proposed a single "policy goal" in response to these killings.   I don't know enough yet to do so.  But I know enough to realize that guns are going to be subject to more restrictions, and Oceander's right that you better damn well know what way the wind is blowing.   Be part of the solution or be marginalized. 

[Frank Cannon]

@Frank Cannon And with all the cameras been charged with "Police Brutality" by the liberal media and we would have had another Rodney King trial taking the focus off the real issue. Comments like this are why no one takes you seriously.

Yeah. The guy who murdered 17 kids at school is the same as Rodney King. You are genuinely the stupidest person to be posting on a forum and that includes people at DU.

[Frank Cannon]

Because the requirement for a drivers license has not stopped people from driving without one, nor has it stopped vehicles from being stolen nor misused.

 

[Restored]

This wasn't a tragedy.  This was a deliberate killing by a disturbed individual that the kids at school apparently suspected would do something mad like this.   We didn't "wait until the bodies were cold" before declaring war after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.   Do we fight madness like this or is fealty to your own peculiar and selfish obsessions more important?   

I haven't proposed a damn thing in response to these killings.   I don't know enough yet to do so.  But I know enough to realize that guns are going to be subject to more restrictions, and Oceander's right that you better damn well know what way the wind is blowing.   Be part of the solution or be marginalized.

The shooter ignored the restrictions. He was banned from the school, banned from bringing a gun to school, banned from buying a weapon, banned from opening fire on people, banned from threatening to shoot up a school. There is no point having restrictions if you aren't going to enforce them.
All the kids knew he was going to do this but no one wanted to stop him from doing it. It was just another example of weaponized Autism.

[Oceander]

My two cents- if you ban guns, they will use knives in the next attacks, or make up something more lethal like the gas they put in the Tokyo subway system. Or use fire....

Mankind has always found ways to slaughter. Someone who is disturbed will find a way to do it,

I'm not qualified to have a gun because of my eyes (depth perception) but I'll fight for my friends right to bear them. Because I know people have been killing each other since Cain slew Abel. How do you think they did it before gunpowder was invented?

I'm just heartbroken about the 17 people who died though. This was senseless. Prayers for them are at the prayer thread

So why have any limitations on any weapons whatsoever?  I mean, geez, what’s the point of making it illegal to possess a nuclear bomb; after all, if that’s illegal, they’ll just use something else, like a gun. 

[driftdiver]

This wasn't a tragedy.  This was a deliberate killing by a disturbed individual that the kids at school apparently suspected would do something mad like this.   We didn't "wait until the bodies were cold" before declaring war after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.   Do we fight madness like this or is fealty to your own peculiar and selfish obsessions more important?   

I haven't proposed a damn thing in response to these killings.   I don't know enough yet to do so.  But I know enough to realize that guns are going to be subject to more restrictions, and Oceander's right that you better damn well know what way the wind is blowing.   Be part of the solution or be marginalized.

@Jazzhead @Oceander
I've already asked several times but will ask again.  What law would have prevented the deaths?   Banning ARs?   He would have used something else.   Banned all guns?  Setting aside the Constitutional factors, how would you do that?  We have over 300 million guns in the US and I can make a simple 1 shot gun from about $5 of material from Home Depot. 

You lack the intellectual honesty to see beyond your preconceived notions.   Everywhere that has tight gun control has a high violent crime rate.  The prohibition of self defense also accompanies gun control so then we'll see victims prosecuted for defending themselves, even if they only used a pen.

Why do Chicago and Baltimore have such a high crime rate?  They have very strict gun control laws.  Why, unless you don't really give a crap about people or their safety, but do care about prohibiting freedom and self-protection.

Look at England or Australia and explain their increase in violent crime after guns were banned.  Look at all the other cases in history which show that when people are prohibited arms to protect themselves there are severe repercussions caused by the government.

How many have to die violent deaths before people like you give up your religious fervor against self-defense?    Explain what law would have prevented this and why the other 20,000 gun laws didn't?

You can't.  This is a case where the person was sick and he was intent on committing murder.   The only way to prevent it was to stop him based on the multitude of signs he was dangerous.

[driftdiver]

So why have any limitations on any weapons whatsoever?  I mean, geez, what’s the point of making it illegal to possess a nuclear bomb; after all, if that’s illegal, they’ll just use something else, like a gun.

@Oceander
Wow thats original.  What number is that on the communist list of talking points for gun control?

[Oceander]

@Oceander
Wow thats original.  What number is that on the communist list of talking points for gun control?

m

That’s right, when you don’t have an argument, lead with an insult. 

Like I said before, more restrictions on guns are coming.  Are you going to be proactive and have a hand in developing the laws that will come, for the purpose of protecting core second amendment rights, or are you simply going to insult me, deny reality, and then cry in your tea when liberals get laws passed simply confiscating all weapons?

You seem to think that no restrictions whatsoever should apply, so you’re choosing the latter.  Enjoy the tears in your tea; but don’t say you weren’t warned.

[txradioguy]

@Jazzhead @Oceander
I've already asked several times but will ask again.  What law would have prevented the deaths?   Banning ARs?   He would have used something else.   Banned all guns?  Setting aside the Constitutional factors, how would you do that?  We have over 300 million guns in the US and I can make a simple 1 shot gun from about $5 of material from Home Depot. 

You lack the intellectual honesty to see beyond your preconceived notions.   Everywhere that has tight gun control has a high violent crime rate.  The prohibition of self defense also accompanies gun control so then we'll see victims prosecuted for defending themselves, even if they only used a pen.

Why do Chicago and Baltimore have such a high crime rate?  They have very strict gun control laws.  Why, unless you don't really give a crap about people or their safety, but do care about prohibiting freedom and self-protection.

Look at England or Australia and explain their increase in violent crime after guns were banned.  Look at all the other cases in history which show that when people are prohibited arms to protect themselves there are severe repercussions caused by the government.

How many have to die violent deaths before people like you give up your religious fervor against self-defense?    Explain what law would have prevented this and why the other 20,000 gun laws didn't?

You can't.  This is a case where the person was sick and he was intent on committing murder.   The only way to prevent it was to stop him based on the multitude of signs he was dangerous.

Couldn't have said it better myself.  That is spot on.

[Restored]

Not to mention that if terrorists bring a nuke in a ship into Boston harbor, that ban on nukes ain't gonna mean squat.

This school shooting proved one thing: Gun Control doesn't work. The only thing stopping a school shooting is another gun. The best you can do is lock up people before they open fire.

[Oceander]

@Jazzhead @Oceander
I've already asked several times but will ask again.  What law would have prevented the deaths?   Banning ARs?   He would have used something else.   Banned all guns?  Setting aside the Constitutional factors, how would you do that?  We have over 300 million guns in the US and I can make a simple 1 shot gun from about $5 of material from Home Depot. 

You lack the intellectual honesty to see beyond your preconceived notions.   Everywhere that has tight gun control has a high violent crime rate.  The prohibition of self defense also accompanies gun control so then we'll see victims prosecuted for defending themselves, even if they only used a pen.

Why do Chicago and Baltimore have such a high crime rate?  They have very strict gun control laws.  Why, unless you don't really give a crap about people or their safety, but do care about prohibiting freedom and self-protection.

Look at England or Australia and explain their increase in violent crime after guns were banned.  Look at all the other cases in history which show that when people are prohibited arms to protect themselves there are severe repercussions caused by the government.

How many have to die violent deaths before people like you give up your religious fervor against self-defense?    Explain what law would have prevented this and why the other 20,000 gun laws didn't?

You can't.  This is a case where the person was sick and he was intent on committing murder.   The only way to prevent it was to stop him based on the multitude of signs he was dangerous.

Baltimore and Chicago have high rates of gun violence in part because any yo-yo who wants to can buy a gun in one of the permissive states and bring it across state lines and into the city.  Their gun control laws are ineffective in large part because they cannot control the importation of guns into the city from out of state.

You need a better analogy.

[driftdiver]

m

That’s right, when you don’t have an argument, lead with an insult. 

Like I said before, more restrictions on guns are coming.  Are you going to be proactive and have a hand in developing the laws that will come, for the purpose of protecting core second amendment rights, or are you simply going to insult me, deny reality, and then cry in your tea when liberals get laws passed simply confiscating all weapons?

You seem to think that no restrictions whatsoever should apply, so you’re choosing the latter.  Enjoy the tears in your tea; but don’t say you weren’t warned.

@Oceander
Actually fewer restrictions are coming.   Even Judge Nap on Fox said the only thing that would have stopped this guy is someone with a gun.

Stop living in fear and take responsibility for yourself.   

Oh and nothing I said was an insult.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead @Oceander
I've already asked several times but will ask again.  What law would have prevented the deaths?   Banning ARs?   He would have used something else.   Banned all guns?  Setting aside the Constitutional factors, how would you do that?  We have over 300 million guns in the US and I can make a simple 1 shot gun from about $5 of material from Home Depot. 

You lack the intellectual honesty to see beyond your preconceived notions.   Everywhere that has tight gun control has a high violent crime rate.  The prohibition of self defense also accompanies gun control so then we'll see victims prosecuted for defending themselves, even if they only used a pen.

Why do Chicago and Baltimore have such a high crime rate?  They have very strict gun control laws.  Why, unless you don't really give a crap about people or their safety, but do care about prohibiting freedom and self-protection.

Look at England or Australia and explain their increase in violent crime after guns were banned.  Look at all the other cases in history which show that when people are prohibited arms to protect themselves there are severe repercussions caused by the government.

How many have to die violent deaths before people like you give up your religious fervor against self-defense?    Explain what law would have prevented this and why the other 20,000 gun laws didn't?

You can't.  This is a case where the person was sick and he was intent on committing murder.   The only way to prevent it was to stop him based on the multitude of signs he was dangerous.

I don't know enough about the facts of this case to propose anything specific.  And I have no problem whatsoever with a person owning a gun to protect himself and his family. 

More generally,  I support a registration and  insurance regime for legal gun ownership,  similar to what we require with cars.   A lawful driver must carry insurance - typically no-fault insurance - that pays the medical bills of those harmed by the dangerous implement he chooses to own.   I don't have time this morning to go into how a registration/insurance regime would work for guns, but I've written about it before.   I'm not interested in feel-good laws that aren't efficacious.   But if you want to own a gun - go right ahead! - but then be willing take legal responsibility for the damage it may cause.