Mass shooting of the week, high school in parkland, FL.

[volfanCLT]

in my informed opinion more ways in/out is better than fewer.

I would think its more important to have internal check points than external. keep the control you mentioned, but if its an open door beyond that one hard point?

I am interested to hear what you mean by that.

Like a poster mentioned earlier bulletproof doors/windows, doors that lock from the inside, etc? I don’t think that would be a bad idea at all.

So more access points into the school but harder to get into an actual classroom? My only concern would be changing classes, lunch time, etc when students aren’t in classrooms but, like most suggestions, there are gonna be some flaws.

 

[FLVOL_79]

If I had a haircut that bad I'd probably snap too.

 

[luthervol]

Oh you damn sure eluded to a total ban agenda.

Your first stance was “eliminate ARs and keep shot guns and deer rifles”.

I immediately jumped that and pointed out you were picking the wrong for lethality.

Then after getting thru to you that I could still kill over 10 people a minute with my deer rifle you finally acknowledged that and state “well we have to look at those too then!”

If you don’t own those statements then you are a liar!

You have zero intent at stopping at the AR. The “intelligent” ones in your camp (read: not you) have a plan to work towards total disarmament and realize the AR actually isn’t the issue. The issue to them is any gun and thus we must have zero private ownership. That is the “ultimate solution”!

To much stupid in that post to respond to it all.

I have said SINCE THE BEGINNING of this debate that any gun that fires more than x rounds per y seconds should be banned. That is nothing new.

The paranoid schizophrenia among the gun nuts is more frightening than the obsession with guns.

No one is coming for your guns. People want REASONABLE gun laws, regulations, and restrictions. That's really a rather simple concept.

 

[NorthDallas40]

To much stupid in that post to respond to it all.

I have said SINCE THE BEGINNING of this debate that any gun that fires more than x rounds per y seconds should be banned. That is nothing new.

The paranoid schizophrenia among the gun nuts is more frightening than the obsession with guns.

No one is coming for your guns. People want REASONABLE gun laws, regulations, and restrictions. That's really a rather simple concept.

You’re full of ****.

 

[lawgator1]

“A 2016 Florida Department of Children and Families says that following a breakup with a girlfriend, Cruz began cutting his arms. He also announced plans to buy a gun, put racial slurs and hate symbols on his backpack and suffered from depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism, the report said. Despite Cruz's behavior, the report concluded the "final level of risk is low."”

Considering this and the FBI’s response, why do people continue to put such unwarranted faith in the government to protect them? They’ve made it clear when the chips are down there’s a great chance they will fail at their job.

You say that knowing the final outcome. For every one like this guy with that level of disturbing behavior and that actually eventually acts out, there are thousands of people with equally disturbing backgrounds that do nothing.

I'd be hesitant to judge how they acted with the knowledge they had then by viewing it through the lens of what you know now.

 

[hog88]

you say that knowing the final outcome. For every one like this guy with that level of disturbing behavior and that actually eventually acts out, there are thousands of people with equally disturbing backgrounds that do nothing.

I'd be hesitant to judge how they acted with the knowledge they had then by viewing it through the lens of what you know now.

wtf?

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

I can understand why you, Hog, DTH and others are concerned about a UBC system being abused and turned into a registration list. So, think out of the box and take the fear out of it by still achieving what the gun control proponents want in the end. They want to cut out the "gun show loophole" (although not a one can explain it) and require a background check. Got it.

So, take the firearms identification out of it to an extent. Sure, run the serial to make sure it isn't stolen, but the background check should be about the individual, not the item. Records get deleted within a reasonable period (I say 15 days) and everyone should be happy.

Gun grabbers won't be though.

Do I need to remind you about the no fly, no buy fiasco?

 

[Squints]

I looked and couldn't find it; but I'm the one that's hiding. Cute.

I have never supported a total ban. Your delusions must be comforting.

I expected no different from a liberal. When deflection doesn’t work, resort to lying. You didn’t look, numbnuts. If you did, you’d know my stance. This is how you operate, you don’t want to have an honest debate, only muh guns.

Here, chew on this one and see if it grows on you:

 

[ACvol3]

The ban of suppressors and sbrs without a stamp is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of.. it's a stupid government money scheme that makes no sense.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

There is no need for further background checks or anything like that. The public school system needs to learn to protect their students, simple as that.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

The ban of suppressors and sbrs without a stamp is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of.. it's a stupid government money scheme that makes no sense.

The best and most hypocritical thing about it is police and federal agents can have whatever they want, on our dime.

 

[golfballs]

The ban of suppressors and sbrs without a stamp is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of.. it's a stupid government money scheme that makes no sense.

Agree. Just subjecting law-abiding gun owners to potential hearing loss because people sees movies and think silencers are SCARY! Military grade!

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

To much stupid in that post to respond to it all.

I have said SINCE THE BEGINNING of this debate that any gun that fires more than x rounds per y seconds should be banned. That is nothing new.

The paranoid schizophrenia among the gun nuts is more frightening than the obsession with guns.

No one is coming for your guns. People want REASONABLE gun laws, regulations, and restrictions. That's really a rather simple concept.

Who decides what is reasonable? Someone like you who doesn’t know the first thing about firearms?

 

[ACvol3]

Agree. Just subjecting law-abiding gun owners to potential hearing loss because people sees movies and think silencers are SCARY! Military grade!

Exactly.. and they are nothing like the movies.. but why does that even matter?? It's ridiculous. And sbrs.. so u don't want me to shoot farther away with better accuracy? But I can put a blade as a stock and it's ok? Wtf is that??9

 

[ACvol3]

Who decides what is reasonable? Someone like you who doesn’t know the first thing about firearms?

It's funny that those are always the ones with that stance.

 

[ACvol3]

Agree. Just subjecting law-abiding gun owners to potential hearing loss because people sees movies and think silencers are SCARY! Military grade!

But I can own a Barrett .50 with no problem... or a Lapua.. give me a break...

 

[NorthDallas40]

But I can own a Barrett .50 with no problem... or a Lapua.. give me a break...

No you can’t. You can fire more than X rounds in Y minutes thus Luther says you cant have that

We’re still waiting on values for X and Y but I’m pretty sure Luther will think your items fail his interpretation

 

[DancingOutlaw]

No you can’t. You can fire more than X rounds in Y minutes thus Luther says you cant have that

We’re still waiting on values for X and Y but I’m pretty sure Luther will think your items fail his interpretation

I think the x and y will be however long it takes to load an 1863 Springfield.

 

[ACvol3]

No you can’t. You can fire more than X rounds in Y minutes thus Luther says you cant have that

We’re still waiting on values for X and Y but I’m pretty sure Luther will think your items fail his interpretation

Right.. but me taking people's heads off at 7500 yards with a .50 is legit. There's no way to police that.

 

[ACvol3]

I think the x and y will be however long it takes to load an 1863 Springfield.

Sounds about right. Muskets and pellet guns only.

 

[zeppelin128]

"A White House official told The Washington Post that coverage of the mass shooting at a Florida high school last week gave the administration “a reprieve” from dealing with overwhelming negative news.

“For everyone, it was a distraction or a reprieve,” one administration said in a story posted Monday. “A lot of people here felt like it was a reprieve from seven or eight days of just getting pummeled.”

What a scumbag.

Washington Post: Official called Fla. shooting coverage a 'reprieve' for White House | TheHill

 

[GreyWolf1129]

"A White House official told The Washington Post that coverage of the mass shooting at a Florida high school last week gave the administration “a reprieve” from dealing with overwhelming negative news.

“For everyone, it was a distraction or a reprieve,” one administration said in a story posted Monday. “A lot of people here felt like it was a reprieve from seven or eight days of just getting pummeled.”

What a scumbag.

Washington Post: Official called Fla. shooting coverage a 'reprieve' for White House | TheHill

Sickening if true, but the source is WaPo. If somebody farts on the subway, they'll find a way to blame the White House. More believable if they named the official.

 

[GreyWolf1129]

So...where'd we end up on the debate? On this end, I need new mower blades. Trying to find ones that don't rotate more than x times in y seconds so I don't make luther mad.

 

[zeppelin128]

So...where'd we end up on the debate? On this end, I need new mower blades. Trying to find ones that don't rotate more than x times in y seconds so I don't make luther mad.

Seems like we are leaning toward allowing muskets.

 

[GreyWolf1129]

Seems like we are leaning toward allowing muskets.[/QUOTE

Yeah, nothing we do is going to make everyone (yours truly included) happy, but I think we all agree that it's time to do something.

Personally, I'm in the "make schools a hard target" camp. There are pros and cons, and it won't be cheap or easy, but (my opinion) it's the quickest way to make schools as safe as we can. Gotta start somewhere.

Alright, don't want to re-start the topic. Looks like it's winding down for now.

Now, off to find those muzzle-loading mower blades.....