What A Coward - Parkland Armed School Resource Officer Never Went Into The School During Shooting

[ForsbergTheGreat]

1 hour ago, kingofsurrey said:

 

 

I used to like to play with pretend guns when i was a  9 yr old in my neighbourhood.....

 

So what like last year? JK, i know you're at least 14

 

Quote

Handguns and assault rifles are  for guys that have not matured  / grown up.........

Ah, so you're ok with an AR-15....Cool, glad to see you change your stance.

[Lancaster]

2 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

How would you know about the guns? Unless you somehow had inside information, you'd have no way of knowing whether there were guns in the house or not. That being the case, having a gun would offer zero deterrent in the vast majority of cases. They might offer some protection once the intruder has gained access, but that's not the same as a deterrent.

 

Locks and lights, OTOH...

 

BTW: I disagree that it's "extreme" to advocate the prohibition of weapons that are completely unnecessary for hunting, or personal protection. 

I'm referring to jurisdictions where guns in the home are prevalent vs places where guns are more restricted.  If I had to choose to rob a home in Texas or California.... I'd choose the latter.  Probability/stats will dictate which homes will more likely to have a firearm.  

 

It is extreme in the sense that for some, it's the emotion rather than fact that is guiding their course of action.  As a firearm license individual (I still feel I have lots to learn), I see firearms as a tool and equipment.  Shooting is as much of a discipline as someone who is learning fencing or other martial arts.  "It's a weapon" isn't a valid argument as there are many weapons available that can be purchased without any difficulty.  Why is a gun disapproved of but a sword fine?  Is it just simply due to the ability to cause greater harm?  Then the argument has changed..... since it's now based on devastation.  If that's the case, there's way more discreet ways to cause massive damage with items from Home Depot or from "Cars from Mars".   

 

 

Of course, we can agree to disagree.  It's good that you asked a few questions regarding firearms earlier in the thread.  Knowing more and learning more is good, regardless of which side of the issue you're on.  Make decisions and arguments based on what you know, not what you feel.  

[Mustapha]

8 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

 Make decisions and arguments based on what you know, not what you feel.  

Whoa, slow down there. That statement makes too much sense for a place like this. You might trigger someone.

[RUPERTKBD]

1 hour ago, Lancaster said:

I'm referring to jurisdictions where guns in the home are prevalent vs places where guns are more restricted.  If I had to choose to rob a home in Texas or California.... I'd choose the latter.  Probability/stats will dictate which homes will more likely to have a firearm.  

It is extreme in the sense that for some, it's the emotion rather than fact that is guiding their course of action.  As a firearm license individual (I still feel I have lots to learn), I see firearms as a tool and equipment.  Shooting is as much of a discipline as someone who is learning fencing or other martial arts.  "It's a weapon" isn't a valid argument as there are many weapons available that can be purchased without any difficulty.  Why is a gun disapproved of but a sword fine?  Is it just simply due to the ability to cause greater harm?  Then the argument has changed..... since it's now based on devastation.  If that's the case, there's way more discreet ways to cause massive damage with items from Home Depot or from "Cars from Mars".   

 

 

Of course, we can agree to disagree.  It's good that you asked a few questions regarding firearms earlier in the thread.  Knowing more and learning more is good, regardless of which side of the issue you're on.  Make decisions and arguments based on what you know, not what you feel.  

But this doesn't really support the argument.

 

If I lived in Texas and decided to invest in a home security system, I'd enjoy the benefit of both the added difficulty in gaining access to my home, plus the benefit of your assumption that as a resident of Texas, that I'd be armed,even if I weren't.

 

Conversely, your assumption that I'd not be armed if I lived in California would ensure that being armed would not serve as a deterrent.

 

I hope we can at least agree that the majority of break-in artists aren't traveling between states, looking for the easiest target. It seems obvious to me that most criminals would consider the homes lacking in any type of extra visible security to be the easier target.

[Lancaster]

16 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

But this doesn't really support the argument.

 

If I lived in Texas and decided to invest in a home security system, I'd enjoy the benefit of both the added difficulty in gaining access to my home, plus the benefit of your assumption that as a resident of Texas, that I'd be armed,even if I weren't.

 

Conversely, your assumption that I'd not be armed if I lived in California would ensure that being armed would not serve as a deterrent.

 

I hope we can at least agree that the majority of break-in artists aren't traveling between states, looking for the easiest target. It seems obvious to me that most criminals would consider the homes lacking in any type of extra visible security to be the easier target.

Assumption of being armed only works for places where people are actually armed in greater numbers.  

Using the California scenario where you may be armed, but criminal is working under the assumption that you're not armed..... why not just have that state allow greater access to firearms?  Then you have the same protection as someone living in Texas.  

 

Let me reiterate, gun doesn't solve crime.  Removing guns doesn't solve crime either.  You can save way more lives by funding better schools in the inter-cities, by emphasis better morality/personal responsibility,  more outreach programs, etc.  If Chicago's homicide rate decrease by 50%... that's the same as preventing the death of 20 Florida school shootings or 6 LVS shootings.  It doesn't garner the same headlines or have the same emotional impact... but it's about creating a better society as a whole and making a real difference.  

[RUPERTKBD]

6 hours ago, Lancaster said:

Assumption of being armed only works for places where people are actually armed in greater numbers.  

Using the California scenario where you may be armed, but criminal is working under the assumption that you're not armed..... why not just have that state allow greater access to firearms?  Then you have the same protection as someone living in Texas.  

 

Let me reiterate, gun doesn't solve crime.  Removing guns doesn't solve crime either.  You can save way more lives by funding better schools in the inter-cities, by emphasis better morality/personal responsibility,  more outreach programs, etc.  If Chicago's homicide rate decrease by 50%... that's the same as preventing the death of 20 Florida school shootings or 6 LVS shootings.  It doesn't garner the same headlines or have the same emotional impact... but it's about creating a better society as a whole and making a real difference.  

Again, that doesn't support your argument. If someone is going to assume that you're armed, based on where you live, there is no benefit to actually being armed. You get the benefit of the doubt on the part of the intruder, coupled with the elimination of risk associated with having a firearm in the house, so you're actually better off not being armed.

 

As far as "removing guns doesn't solve crime either", at no point have I said that I have a solution. My goal is and has always been the lessening of the frequency of firearm deaths and to mitigate the damage done when firearms are used in the commission of a crime.

 

I completely agree that better school funding and more outreach programs are the best step forward, however I disagree that the limiting of certain types of weapons and ammunition, better background checks, training and licensing, would not also have a positive effect. I also disagree with those who would claim that such restrictions are an infringement of their 2nd amendment rights.

 

As you said earlier, we can agree to disagree on that point.

[Monty]

9 hours ago, Lancaster said:

Make decisions and arguments based on what you know, not what you feel.  

[Tortorella's Rant]

Congress looking to pass legislation that enables teachers to carry firearms in school.


Just kidding. It's a colossal distraction from the true reasons this continues to happen. There's no serious action being taken here because mass murders are good for gun businesses.

[Dral]

Not sure if it was posted.... but some interesting news out of Florida...

 

Quote

Florida passes new gun legislation, votes down assault weapons ban

 

By Daniel Uria  |  Feb. 26, 2018 at 10:43 PM

 

5 Comments

 

 

 

 

 

Florida's Senate passed a bill imposing new restrictions on gun purchases, while voting down several amendments from Democratic senators to ban assault weapons and remove a program allowing some teachers to carry firearms. Photo by Gary Rothstein/UPI

| License Photo

 

 

Feb. 26 (UPI) -- Florida's Senate approved a bill Monday imposing new restrictions on gun purchases, but voted down an assault weapon ban and other measures.

The bill -- which requires a three-day waiting period for all gun purchases, increases the age limit for buying a semi-automatic weapon from 18 to 21, bans the sale of bump stocks and makes it easier for law enforcement to take firearms from a potential threat -- was approved by a vote of 9 to 4.

 

 

https://www.upi.com/Florida-passes-new-gun-legislation-votes-down-assault-weapons-ban/9941519699506/

 

 

[Lancaster]

6 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Again, that doesn't support your argument. If someone is going to assume that you're armed, based on where you live, there is no benefit to actually being armed. You get the benefit of the doubt on the part of the intruder, coupled with the elimination of risk associated with having a firearm in the house, so you're actually better off not being armed.

 

As far as "removing guns doesn't solve crime either", at no point have I said that I have a solution. My goal is and has always been the lessening of the frequency of firearm deaths and to mitigate the damage done when firearms are used in the commission of a crime.

 

I completely agree that better school funding and more outreach programs are the best step forward, however I disagree that the limiting of certain types of weapons and ammunition, better background checks, training and licensing, would not also have a positive effect. I also disagree with those who would claim that such restrictions are an infringement of their 2nd amendment rights.

 

As you said earlier, we can agree to disagree on that point.

Well.... assumption of being armed actually works if there's a high chance of being actually armed.  But it appears we're just having a chicken vs egg argument.  I'm not disagreeing that having more lights and a home security system isn't effective, just it simply isn't the be all end all.  Plus, they are usually kind of expensive, significantly more than a simple firearm.  

Of course, if the police were extremely competent, and people and neighbours more respectful/willing to look out for each other, a return to the "good ol' days" where people left their doors unlocked.... we wouldn't need to pay more for extra security or require a weapon.  

 

As for the 2nd amendment argument.... once there are more restrictions, it's just easier to keep limiting them until it's too late.  I common hear anti-guns people sprout that during the 1770's, guns were just muskets and blunderbuss... thus more advance weaponry shouldn't be afforded the same protection.  That's a completely careless argument as the same principle can be applied to the 1st amendment.... that back in the days, free speech only applies to public speaking, printing presses and carrier pigeons... that it doesn't apply to television, the radio, social media, etc., since they didn't exist in the 1770's.  

 

In any case, I'm not completely 100% against guns being restricted in the future in some way shape or form, if it need be... but there has to be more solutions done before automatically jumping into the conclusion that guns are problem.  If all the social ills are taken care of successfully....  with good schools, drug problems being minimized, parity in socio-economic opportunities, poverty eliminated, sufficient mental health access to all, outreach to counter bullying, the level of respect and morality skyrockets.... but shootings are still happening, then sure, maybe look at firearms as the very last issue to address.  Until then, it's just soapbox politicking going after firearms.  

[Mr.DirtyDangles]

On 2/22/2018 at 8:27 PM, CBH1926 said:

All these gun nuts that want everyone armed are clueless.

Imagine being in that Orlando club and shooting starts and you have 10 other dudes shooting.

More people would have been killed from “friendly fire” because they would shoot at each other.

Exactly what they want. Total Chaos so the Gov can sweep in a save everyone from themselves.

 

I have no problem with guns, its the lunatics that get a hold of them that is the problem.    How hard can it be to actually start a dialogue about changing the dam constitution ? Are Americans so dam pig headed that they will not accept change on the issue ?   Gun ownership should be a PRIVILEGE NOT A RIGHT. 

[Dral]

5 minutes ago, Mr.DirtyDangles said:

Exactly what they want. Total Chaos so the Gov can sweep in a save everyone from themselves.

 

I have no problem with guns, its the lunatics that get a hold of them that is the problem.    How hard can it be to actually start a dialogue about changing the dam constitution ? Are Americans so dam pig headed that they will not accept change on the issue ?   Gun ownership should be a PRIVILEGE NOT A RIGHT. 

 

They are so polarized right now, it's affecting us up here... WE can't even have a dialogue about American policy and most of us aren't Americans

[Tre Mac]

You know what they say about bringing a gun to an automatic rifle fight. 

[RUPERTKBD]

1 hour ago, Lancaster said:

Well.... assumption of being armed actually works if there's a high chance of being actually armed.  But it appears we're just having a chicken vs egg argument.  I'm not disagreeing that having more lights and a home security system isn't effective, just it simply isn't the be all end all.  Plus, they are usually kind of expensive, significantly more than a simple firearm.  

Of course, if the police were extremely competent, and people and neighbours more respectful/willing to look out for each other, a return to the "good ol' days" where people left their doors unlocked.... we wouldn't need to pay more for extra security or require a weapon.  

 

As for the 2nd amendment argument.... once there are more restrictions, it's just easier to keep limiting them until it's too late.  I common hear anti-guns people sprout that during the 1770's, guns were just muskets and blunderbuss... thus more advance weaponry shouldn't be afforded the same protection.  That's a completely careless argument as the same principle can be applied to the 1st amendment.... that back in the days, free speech only applies to public speaking, printing presses and carrier pigeons... that it doesn't apply to television, the radio, social media, etc., since they didn't exist in the 1770's.  

 

In any case, I'm not completely 100% against guns being restricted in the future in some way shape or form, if it need be... but there has to be more solutions done before automatically jumping into the conclusion that guns are problem.  If all the social ills are taken care of successfully....  with good schools, drug problems being minimized, parity in socio-economic opportunities, poverty eliminated, sufficient mental health access to all, outreach to counter bullying, the level of respect and morality skyrockets.... but shootings are still happening, then sure, maybe look at firearms as the very last issue to address.  Until then, it's just soapbox politicking going after firearms.  

Seems like we are more or less in agreement, with the exception being the "slippery slope" argument. It's one that is heavily touted by those opposed to regulation and I really see it as nothing more than fear mongering.

 

As long as it can be demonstrated that a weapon has a practical use and fills an area of need. I don't see a move to eliminate ownership as something that is likely to ever gain any traction. However, there are certain weapons out there that are a "want", rather than a need and I believe that it makes sense to at least limit access to them.

 

Something you're not going to convince me otherwise on, but as you said, "chicken and egg".

[Lancaster]

Just now, RUPERTKBD said:

Seems like we are more or less in agreement, with the exception being the "slippery slope" argument. It's one that is heavily touted by those opposed to regulation and I really see it as nothing more than fear mongering.

 

As long as it can be demonstrated that a weapon has a practical use and fills an area of need. I don't see a move to eliminate ownership as something that is likely to ever gain any traction. However, there are certain weapons out there that are a "want", rather than a need and I believe that it makes sense to at least limit access to them.

 

Something you're not going to convince me otherwise on, but as you said, "chicken and egg".

The problem with demonstrating practicality..... who can and who will determine practicality?  I can't prove the practicality of a katana, but I doubt anyone will choose to ban them.  

Can the "practicality" rule be applied to everything else?  Is a Ferrari "practical"?  I get the "it's different, it's a car" argument, but for something promoting speeding and reckless driving, both which are a crime, it doesn't sound like a good idea to allow on our streets.  

 

"Want" and "Need" is also relative.  If I go hunting every X amount of years.... does it mean I should be allowed to use an AR-15?  I probably want a shotgun to go into the back-country and maybe even an additional handgun for emergency purposes.  What caliber is allowed?  Bring a bolt-action .22LR to go bear hunting is the same as asking for a death wish.... so I probably need at least semi-auto or something with a lot more stopping power like a 30-06 bullet... way bigger than the .223 commonly used for AR15.  My handgun for emergency situations isn't going to be shooting 9mm, I'd probably need to be like Dirty Harry and get myself a .44 magnum.  

If I'm deer or ram hunting, then I may need a different gun.  Something long-range and powerful, since you want to make sure to kill the prey as quick as possible, as relatively painless as possible.  A .50BMG is very powerful and long-range (used in Call of Duty: MW1, where you blow off the guy's arm and shoot down a helicopter).... maybe excessive or too powerful, but never been used in a crime before.... or must I cheap out by using 7.39x54r round gun?  

 

What if I don't go hunting, but instead of learning Kendo or Kung-Fu, I want to do target shooting.  I like to head to the range to practice my accuracy.... with a bolt-action, with a semi-auto, a shotgun, and a handgun.  It's good for my vision, it helps promote my stance, my finger control, my breathing, discipline, etc.  

Will there be a requirement on how often I go the range to be qualified to own a gun?  What if I'm injured and unable to shoot as often?  Suddenly money got tight and I don't feel like spending money on ammo for a recreational activity?  What if I'm just lazy and I feel like watching the entire Game of Thrones for the next little while instead?

 

It's a slippery slope and it does sound like fear mongering, but it has been done in Canada before.  Suddenly the people in power just goes, "Well.... that CZ858 looks scary.... doesn't matter if they're already legal, sold for years now, and never been used in a crime before, lets ban them!", and they did.  Eventually the decision got reversed, but when the government has too much power, it will abuse them.  There are CZ858 that were manufactured with a different company logo... and it was deemed a "variant" and thus became a prohibited weapon.  

[CBH1926]

On 2/26/2018 at 9:02 PM, RUPERTKBD said:

Oh, I still disagree that a gun is a "need" for protection. I think there are better options that offer better protection and a lot less risk to family members. 250 self defense uses per year isn't likely going to change my mind on that.

 

But that's just opinion. That a gun in the home is more of a danger to the family than in intruder is a statistical fact.

Just to be clear it’s around 67.000 cases of self defense with a gun per year.

Number that you used is actually number of times when deadly force has been used.

 

Regardless, I think you made up your mind about the guns long time ago.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this topic.

 

 

[CBH1926]

5 hours ago, Mr.DirtyDangles said:

Exactly what they want. Total Chaos so the Gov can sweep in a save everyone from themselves.

 

I have no problem with guns, its the lunatics that get a hold of them that is the problem.    How hard can it be to actually start a dialogue about changing the dam constitution ? Are Americans so dam pig headed that they will not accept change on the issue ?   Gun ownership should be a PRIVILEGE NOT A RIGHT. 

Gun in a hands of untrained person, is almost as bad as gun, in the hands of a mentally ill person. 

[Junkyard Dog]

There are millions of law-abiding citizens that own guns in the US. There are over 300 million guns in the US. Not too mention the millions upon millions of illegal guns out there. 

Let me ask you this. Why would any law-abiding citizen give up their guns to the authorities that have proven in Parkland that they failed to keep them safe? No one in their right mind would, that's outrageous. You would incite even more conflict and potential violence if you tried.

 

Do you want to stop mass shootings? For one FBI and local police departments need to take calls and tips seriously, given the fact that the FBI had 2 calls and the local police department had 39 on this murderer. For two you have to crack down on these mentally deranged individuals. Anyone who's deemed as a dangerous due to any mental issue should be involuntarily rehabilitated until they show any sort of improvement and kept tabs on by the authorities.

 

Banning guns won't prevent deranged sociopaths from shooting up a school. If they're committed and driven then they will find a way to acquire what they need in order to cause substantial damage to wherever they see fit. American is too expansive to ban guns. It would literately be impossible to do so since A: Millions of people are not going to give up that right and rightfully so, and B: There are too many, it would be impossible to regulate. If people want guns they're going to find a way. When they wanted alcohol when there was a prohibition they found a way. It is literately impossible.

 

Make no mistake. The authorities failed on every level. Do NOT buy into this bullcrap. They're just hiding from the fact that they failed by passing it on elsewhere. They FEEL the consequences of their misactions, they need to to be held RESPONSIBLE for their mistake, And people need to know that THEY are the ones to blame.

[RUPERTKBD]

49 minutes ago, CBH1926 said:

Just to be clear it’s around 67.000 cases of self defense with a gun per year.

Number that you used is actually number of times when deadly force has been used.

 

Regardless, I think you made up your mind about the guns long time ago.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this topic.

Yes, I realize the distinction. However, I could find no corroboration in the FBI link that you posted, for those "self defense" numbers that you cited. Moreover, I think it would be exceedingly difficult to verify cases where the mere possession of a weapon thwarted a criminal act, but if you have a reliable source, by all means, post it.

 

That being said, I doubt either of us is going to change the other's mind, so perhaps your final sentence is the way to go.

 

 

[CBH1926]

58 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Yes, I realize the distinction. However, I could find no corroboration in the FBI link that you posted, for those "self defense" numbers that you cited. Moreover, I think it would be exceedingly difficult to verify cases where the mere possession of a weapon thwarted a criminal act, but if you have a reliable source, by all means, post it.

 

That being said, I doubt either of us is going to change the other's mind, so perhaps your final sentence is the way to go.

 

 

The link is from department of justice that keeps a track of guns used for self defense amongst other things.

Page 12 and table 11

 

 

 

 

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf