Florida school board shooting

[cherdano]

That "typical American" comment and subsequent comments are surprising to me. It is definitely typical of some Americans to respond that way. But hardly "typically American".

It's "typically German" to respond to such a shooting by asking for video games to be censored.

Well, of course strictly speaking it's only typical of some Germans. But there are many more such Germans (at least in the public debate) than there are Brits or Americans. So I think it's accurate to describe that as a "typically German".

[blackshoe]

yeah and everyone has the rights to have nuclear missiles in his home for the same reasoning lol.

 

Yes. Provided they can afford it, have room for it, have met all the safety requirements, and have completed all the paperwork that would allow them to buy the nuclear material (among other things) legally*.

 

Let's not get stupid, okay?

 

*This last, btw, ain't gonna happen.

[blackshoe]

I'm not a gun nut. I don't own one. I favor far more control.

 

I'm not a gun nut. I don't currently own one. I favor far more training in how to use a gun, if you're going to own one, than most people get.

[luke warm]

I'd far rather make it a very serious offence to carry a gun unless specifically authorized to do so ...and I'd severely limit the right to do so....and I'd enact very harsh punishments for people importing or selling illegal guns.

just curious, do you think the founders of the country erred in including the 2nd amendment? (forget for a moment the argument over what it actually means, let's try to focus on their reasons)

 

btw, you're gonna hate this article

 

~~~ isn't it odd that many of those who most loudly proclaim their 'right' to guns want to stop others from smoking marijuana? or from having abortions?

yes it is odd... different people have different views on which different 'freedoms' to allow

[hotShot]

How would the non-Americans engaging in this debate feel if one of the councilmembers was a retired police officer or retired military that happened to have a weapon? Why do the 'no guns' group assume that everyone that has a gun is going to use it incorrectly or wrongly, and that the situation would become like a scene from Scarface?

I can't speak for all, but if you are dealing with somebody who lost his emotional and mental balance, what is working with one could make another one explode.

Bringing a 2nd gun into the situation will usually make things more unpredictable.

 

Why is having an innocent person getting shot (or shot and missed here) such an acceptable outcome? I can guarantee you that if I were on that board and some loony came flailing a gun, aside from saving my own ass, one of the things that I would be wishing is that I had a very large caliber weapon sitting in my lap.

 

Please do not give me the crap about if guns were outlawed, this would not happen. Are other illegal things in Europe available on the black market for people? If a sufficiently motivated nutcase wanted to go on a spree, couldn't he acquire a weapon?

Sure you can get an illegal weapon, but there is a chance that you came to your senses before you get one.

 

What if the doofus that attacked the councilmembers had a knife?

Assuming that the doofus has the guts to try that with a knife, the same thing could happen.

But running away very effective would have been very effective for most people in the room or if the cooperated they would have a chance to overpower the doofus.

[JLOGIC]

Who knew this would become a gun control debate and an american/non american debate because of the youtube comments! Only in the water cooler lol. I guess it was predictable.

 

Suggestion: Can we split the water cooler into 2 threads, one where posts about politics are not allowed and one where they are? I'm sure I'm not the only one who basically never posts here because every thread gets politarded up.

[kenberg]

I'm not a gun nut. I don't currently own one. I favor far more training in how to use a gun, if you're going to own one, than most people get.

 

You get no argument from me.

[gwnn]

If he had gotten a training, he would have killed three or four people from the board at least.

[kenberg]

 

Meanwhile, the effect of adrenalin on the physiology of both gun wielding people is to cause their peripheral vision to shut down, their hands to shake, and a fight or flight reflex to take over. The result is that even police officers trained and qualified as marksmen on the range become, usually, very bad shots. So bullets start flying everywhere.

 

 

 

In its basic form, this has to do with why I stopped hunting. For some, hunting is a way of life and hopefully they know what they are doing (not always true). Me, I went out maybe once one year and not at all for the next year or two. Pulling a trigger, when you are not sure (and you never are) of just who/what might lie in the direction that you are shooting, is an emotional decision. At least I found it so. I decided to stop before I made a mistake. We have to know who we are, and Daniel Boone I am not.

[blackshoe]

My father grew up on a West Virginia farm. Hunting was part of what they did. Then he became a doctor. Somewhere along the line, he decided hunting was not for him, so he quit doing it. From my early years, I was aware that he didn't hunt, and also that he owned three long guns: a .22, a .410 shotgun, and a beautifully crafted 8 mm Mauser hunting rifle that was a gift from one of his patients, a gunsmith. I don't know what happened to his .22, the one currently in the house was my younger brother's (a birthday gift when he was a teenager). The .410 is still at the house. Dad gave the Mauser to my brother in law, who sold it for the cash. :angry:

 

As for hunters knowing what they're doing, folks who grow up in the country usually do. Folks who grow up/live in cities and come out to hunt once a year (if that) generally don't. Or so it seems to me, anyway.

 

There was a time when folks hunted because they couldn't afford to buy meat at the market. For most, that time is long gone.

[mike777]

Where I live the city and county council meetings always have security present, like a sheriff's deputy. And I don't know what the time frame for this incident was but where were the police? I know a security person eventually shot at him but where was he while all this was happening? Just seems he had a lot of time.

 

 

He said on tv that he went out to his car to get his vest and more ammo and then came back.

[blackshoe]

Meh. Fire him, his judgement is poor. He should have been wearing the vest and carrying the extra ammo to begin with, or he should have left them in the car and taken care of business. No doubt he didn't expect to need either until the excrement hit the rotating air circulator, but that is not the time to be making such decisions. How would he feel (and what would the legal system say) if while he was out "gearing up", some of those people had actually been shot — or killed?

[Fluffy]

Let's not get stupid, okay?

Never my intention, was just exagerating to point out how stupid your logic was, no need to go nuclear: gas, bombs, tanks would work the same way.

[Fluffy]

The debate seems to be that some peopele belive high crime in USA is because of guns, and some other people believe it is just because of americans.

 

I would love to see 1 estate banning them for a decade or so and see if it affected crime or not. The same way I'd love to teach basic contract bridge to some uncomunicated people and see what bidding systems they develop 30-40 years later. both are kinda uthopic sadly.

[mgoetze]

A society that thinks that the appropriate response to a plethora of gun-wielding criminals is to arm everyone and to encourage people to shoot back is a society in which I would truly hate to live. I'd far rather make it a very serious offence to carry a gun unless specifically authorized to do so ...and I'd severely limit the right to do so....and I'd enact very harsh punishments for people importing or selling illegal guns. I'd far rather see illegal gun dealers and owners in jail than I would people who deal in marijuana, for example....altho, admittedly there is currently a significant overlap between those categories due to the truly alice-in-wonderland 'war on drugs'...which is another story altogether....tho isn't it odd that many of those who most loudly proclaim their 'right' to guns want to stop others from smoking marijuana? or from having abortions?

 

Congratulations, you may qualify as an honorary European! Call today to apply!

 

How would the non-Americans engaging in this debate feel if one of the councilmembers was a retired police officer or retired military that happened to have a weapon? Why do the 'no guns' group assume that everyone that has a gun is going to use it incorrectly or wrongly, and that the situation would become like a scene from Scarface? Why is having an innocent person getting shot (or shot and missed here) such an acceptable outcome? I can guarantee you that if I were on that board and some loony came flailing a gun, aside from saving my own ass, one of the things that I would be wishing is that I had a very large caliber weapon sitting in my lap.

 

So therefore you should have a very large caliber weapon sitting in your lap all the time just in case? Come on Phil, even if one of them had a gun, it would probably be in their jacket or something. And reaching into your jacket to pull out a gun is definitely wrong because you will immediately increase the probability that shots will be fired to about 99.99%. OK, fine, maybe you will hit him and he won't hit anyone. I won't speculate on the probabilites involved there. But I would much prefer any solution where no shots are fired at all.

 

Please do not give me the crap about if guns were outlawed, this would not happen. Are other illegal things in Europe available on the black market for people? If a sufficiently motivated nutcase wanted to go on a spree, couldn't he acquire a weapon?

 

Please do not give me the crap about sufficiently motivated nutcases who calmly, rationally plan their shooting spree. They don't exist. The guy in this video is a prime example - he was obviously in a pretty messed-up state. I think you don't appreciate how difficult it is to obtain a gun in some places. Here in Germany, I have no idea whatsoever how I could get a gun. I suppose with careful planning and anonymised research on the internet I could find out - but if I was not thinking clearly and just went out on the street to try and get a gun I would be more likely to end up with a police officer than an illegal arms dealer.

 

The ready availability of guns is a necessary precondition for the kind of incident depicted in this video.

[blackshoe]

Never my intention, was just exagerating to point out how stupid your logic was, no need to go nuclear: gas, bombs, tanks would work the same way.

 

In what way is my logic "stupid"? For that matter, what is "my logic"?

[blackshoe]

Sure you can get an illegal weapon, but there is a chance that you came to your senses before you get one.

 

Assuming that the doofus has the guts to try that with a knife, the same thing could happen.

But running away very effective would have been very effective for most people in the room or if the cooperated they would have a chance to overpower the doofus.

 

And of course there's no chance that someone could "come to his senses" if he buys a gun legally.

 

Why do you assume that anyone with a gun in his hand is necessarily insane?

 

You ask me, trying to "overpower" a guy with a gun, from behind a desk, is insane, four to one odds or no. That would be true even if the four were young and fit, which these guys were not.

[blackshoe]

So therefore you should have a very large caliber weapon sitting in your lap all the time just in case? Come on Phil, even if one of them had a gun, it would probably be in their jacket or something. And reaching into your jacket to pull out a gun is definitely wrong because you will immediately increase the probability that shots will be fired to about 99.99%. OK, fine, maybe you will hit him and he won't hit anyone. I won't speculate on the probabilites involved there. But I would much prefer any solution where no shots are fired at all.

 

Any rational person would prefer a solution where no shots are fired.

 

Your "Come on, Phil" is precisely why I talked about training. I wasn't just talking about training in how to point and shoot the gun, but in when to use it, how to carry it, when not to use it, and a hundred other things that it's apparent you haven't even considered. You assume that simply having a gun pumps up the ego, grants some kind of assumed invulnerability and "rightness", and will induce "cowboy" behavior. That may happen with someone who picks up a gun with no training, but not with someone well trained.

[mikeh]

Any rational person would prefer a solution where no shots are fired.

 

Your "Come on, Phil" is precisely why I talked about training. I wasn't just talking about training in how to point and shoot the gun, but in when to use it, how to carry it, when not to use it, and a hundred other things that it's apparent you haven't even considered. You assume that simply having a gun pumps up the ego, grants some kind of assumed invulnerability and "rightness", and will induce "cowboy" behavior. That may happen with someone who picks up a gun with no training, but not with someone well trained.

Wait a second.....I don't understand your argument.

 

The gun-lovers argue that having a gun makes one safer. This can only be if one is going to use it in response to threats of violence. Carrying a gun but being unwilling to use it when threatened sort of defeats the purpose, don't you think? What kind of deterrent is it if one has been trained to NOT pull it when there may be a risk that pulling it will anger or frighen the person who presents the threat?

 

And it seems that you recognize that pulling a gun in response to a threat is a stupid thing to do....which appears to be the consensus of virtually everyone who has actually studied the subject in real life as opposed to getting their understanding of gun use from hollywood.....in hollywood, good guys generally hit their targets, with handguns from 100 feet while falling through the air while being shot at by dozens of bad guys armed with automatic weapons....good guys are about 100,000 times as accurate as bad guys.....altho the good guy is often wounded, the bad guys are always killed.

 

Undergoing training in the use of guns does not equip anyone with the ability to alter the emotional state of an assailant...other than in a detrimental way through pulling the gun...so I don't see how your post makes any sense at all. In addition, my posts about the effect of adrenalin (and stress in general) applies to people who have undergone police training...including certifies marksman.....the only people who undergo more intensive training in firearm use are the military...and don't get me started on the implications of military training, and the psychological reshaping of personalities involved therein :P

 

So training ordinary citizens even to the standard of police officers won't solve anything.

[gwnn]

In what way is my logic "stupid"? For that matter, what is "my logic"?

Fluffy replied to this post (in fact he quoted it in his reply):

Guns exist. So long as they exist, some people will have them (legally or not). So long as some people have them, it is folly to deny others that right.

I admit that I don't understand, just because some things exist and some people have them, why is it folly to deny others the right of possessing them? I am not going to note any counterexamples, but I just don't understand the train of thought.

[mike777]

I agree that gun owners argue that having a gun or even the legal right to own a gun makes one safer.

 

I agree that many on the other side argue that banning the ownership or possession of guns makes one safer.

 

They use the word safer in a broad sense of the word; safer from evil guys, evil governments, hunger, etc.

 

If gun owners are not willing to use or even threaten to use it for food or protection, that argument goes away.

 

If, if pulling a gun against any kind of threat at all is a stupid thing to do, gun owners on the face of it lose the argument.

[y66]

It's "typically German" to respond to such a shooting by asking for video games to be censored.

Well, of course strictly speaking it's only typical of some Germans. But there are many more such Germans (at least in the public debate) than there are Brits or Americans. So I think it's accurate to describe that as a "typically German".

If you take "xyz is typically American" to mean trait xyz is more characteristic of people living in America than other countries, I get your point. If you say it means trait xyz is characteristic of more Americans than not, which is how I took it, then I think you are mistaken in this case.

 

Fortunately, for the less-adverbially-inclined, phrases like "typically <insert nationality>" appear to be on the wane.

[blackshoe]

Wait a second.....I don't understand your argument.

 

The gun-lovers argue that having a gun makes one safer. This can only be if one is going to use it in response to threats of violence. Carrying a gun but being unwilling to use it when threatened sort of defeats the purpose, don't you think? What kind of deterrent is it if one has been trained to NOT pull it when there may be a risk that pulling it will anger or frighen the person who presents the threat?

 

And it seems that you recognize that pulling a gun in response to a threat is a stupid thing to do....which appears to be the consensus of virtually everyone who has actually studied the subject in real life as opposed to getting their understanding of gun use from hollywood.....in hollywood, good guys generally hit their targets, with handguns from 100 feet while falling through the air while being shot at by dozens of bad guys armed with automatic weapons....good guys are about 100,000 times as accurate as bad guys.....altho the good guy is often wounded, the bad guys are always killed.

 

Undergoing training in the use of guns does not equip anyone with the ability to alter the emotional state of an assailant...other than in a detrimental way through pulling the gun...so I don't see how your post makes any sense at all. In addition, my posts about the effect of adrenalin (and stress in general) applies to people who have undergone police training...including certifies marksman.....the only people who undergo more intensive training in firearm use are the military...and don't get me started on the implications of military training, and the psychological reshaping of personalities involved therein :P

 

So training ordinary citizens even to the standard of police officers won't solve anything.

 

First off, can we move away from "gun-lovers" and "gun-nuts", please?

 

I did not say one should carry a gun but be unwilling to use it. I said if one is going to carry a gun, one should be capable of rational decision as to when to use it.

 

Pulling a gun in response to a threat may be a stupid thing to do. It may not. It depends on the threat.

 

Hollywood is bullshit, and we both know it, so let's leave that out of the discussion, okay?

 

There is more to gun training, IMO, than "the bullet comes out here, so make sure this end is pointed at the target."

 

But here's a simple question: Do you have the right to defend yourself against aggression? If so, why should you not have the tools required to do so — at least to match the level of aggression against which you're defending?

 

BTW, the police won't defend you, unless they happen to be around and see what's happening.

[blackshoe]

Fluffy replied to this post (in fact he quoted it in his reply):

I admit that I don't understand, just because some things exist and some people have them, why is it folly to deny others the right of possessing them? I am not going to note any counterexamples, but I just don't understand the train of thought.

 

Perhaps I should have argued this way: Every individual has the right to self defense (not to mention defense of others, such as family). In order to defend oneself or one's family, one will need the same tools as the aggressor(s). Therefore, everyone has a right to bear arms. It is not only folly, it is immoral to deny that right.

[Fluffy]

In what way is my logic "stupid"? For that matter, what is "my logic"?

Guns exist implying someone will have them implying nobody should be denied the right to have them.

 

I don't wanna see people planting minefields on their garden to protect their families from bomb terrorists or having a tank in the garage in case the army turns over and rebels.

 

About self defence, there are many non lethal weapons that are able to defend yourself.