Alternatives to arming teachers

Ran out of fingers and was too lazy to take off their shoes.

 

Perhaps if liberals would arrest psycho's instead of turning them loose time after time they wouldn't be able to hurt people.

 

A random number picked by experts. Only in liberal la la land.

 

I guess, to these guys, the bar for "without any incident" is set as low as the bar they set for "President of the United States"

 

Being a psycho is not a crime. Allowing them to buy guns will be, when we get enough people in Congress who are not themselves borderline psychos....

 

Already illegal for a psycho to buy guns, if they're arrested and documented as psychos.

Why was the FL shooter not flagged after dozens of police interventions, history of violence, multiple suicide attempts, multiple requests to have him committed and multiple FBI warnings?

Liberal ideology and the liberal policies that resulted from it.

 

So it's illegal for psychos to buy guns except when it isn't. And from a right-winger's point of view, this is "logic"

Is this the "liberal policy" you speak of?

https://apnews.com/553ff88b430a4334868105f7a943b912

 

No it's always illegal for psycho's who have been adjudicated mentally ill or violent not to be able to buy guns.

It's not our fault liberals in FL had a policy not to arrest violently mentally ill students.

 

Yes clearly a guy with 40 police calls, threats of violence, multiple suicide attempts, two FBI reports, multiple requests to be committed, expulsion from school, not allowed to carry a backpack.....

Clearly not enough there to arrest them, at least for liberals in FL.

I've been up for a while actually. Do you sleep in until 1 or 2 or something?

 

Yes, because not being allowed to carry a backpack, in Florida, is a crime almost as deplorable as wearing long pants in summer.

Look... Libs have no power here in Florida. The Governor is a Republican. House and Senate are Republican. If you want to complain because there is no law to arrest all kids that are expelled from school, you need to blame them. But be sure you're sober before doing that because with a clear head you might decide to reconsider. And I'm pretty sure they won't pay any attention anyway, because they are every bit as lousy as their counterparts in Washington..

Well, that's what I was saying: you started way too early. But that's some party you got going there..

 

Yeah, I'm shocked that the general government is saying it is the sole judge of the extent of its powers.

It's good to be the king, right?

 

Why would he not be allowed to carry a backpack? Let's try some critical thinking there.

The libs in that county that run the Sheriffs office and the school system absolutely have control. They had total control over that extremely violent student, but their liberal policy of not arresting students, apparently for any reason, led to his being able to legally purchase a firearm.

I think it is obvious that he should have been arrested and charged on any of dozens criminal references, or any of dozens of mental health assessments.

Just one of them being applied would have resulted in him not being able to buy a firearm, yet none of them were.

 

Good idea! Let's! You can start by indicating what law is broken by not carrying a back-pack that would warrant arresting him. And then explain how long he should stay under arrest.

Go!

On what charges?

But, more importantly... what's your point?

If you're trying to convince me that the Government of the state of Florida is incompetent, don't bother... We are led by a Republican governor and a Republican Legislature. Of course it's incompetent!

 

Online Schooling....problem solved.

 

Domestic violence, cruelty to animals, discharge of a firearm within five hundred feet of an occupied dwelling, making terroristic threats.

The point is that if the system which in currently in place, was actually utilized, the Parkland incident would not have transpired as it did. But the system in place was not utilized, because law enforcement refused to actually do its job. Law enforcement was alerted numerous times that Nikolas Cruz was a dangerous individual, and law enforcement basically told the community to shut up and mind its own business.

 

And what do you think would be the sentence for a minor who does any of that? How many jails will Florida need in order to harbor all the kids who do that? How much do you think would be OK to increase our taxes to keep all those just so some gun-freaks don't have to give up their assault weapons? And should, in your opinion, taxpayers of the rest of the country be required to pay extra taxes to help Florida implement this? And, let's say you managed to get life in prison for the kid, how many mass shootings would that have stopped.... say... in the last 10 years?

You see, reality, and hindsight are two different things, in the real world. They might not be so in your fantasy world, though....

What system are you talking about? Please provide a reference and link to this "system" you speak of. A version specific to Florida, please....

Bottom line, I don't know if some authority in Florida's Republican government dropped the ball. But your "solution" that he should have been arrested is ridiculous.

 

Nikolas Cruz was not a minor. He is nineteen years old, making him an adult. He was an adult the moment he turned eighteen years old. Even if he was not, there is a long and established history of the united states convicting minors of felony offenses.

It is already done throughout the united states every single day. There is nothing unusual about teenagers being sentenced to prison for various offenses. The only reason it was not done in this case, is because Nikolas Cruz was a school student, and schools are bound by federal guidelines implemented during the administration of Barack Obama to not have troublesome students arrested even when they commit criminal offenses.

Every single mass shooting where the perpetrator acquired their firearms through a legal purchase from a federally licensed firearm dealer. A felony conviction, even if they did not serve any time in prison, would have prevented them from legally acquiring firearms under any circumstances. The only manner in which they could be acquired would be through illegal measures, meaning a crime would have to be committed in the acquisition of the firearm, not just in the use of such.

Insults and use of sarcasm in absence of a genuine response have been noted.

The united states justice system. The courts, law enforcement officers, and the laws themselves. Case in point, the individual responsible for the Tuscon incident. He attempted to join the military, but failed a drug test for illicit narcotic substances. Had he been reported to law enforcement for the use of illicit narcotic substances, and subsequently arrested, he would not have been able to legally purchase the firearm used in the incident. Had the individual responsible for Sandy Hook actually been committed to a mental health facility, he would not have been able to murder his mother, and steal her firearms from the locked safe in which they were secured. Had the individual responsible for the Pulse nightclub incident been arrested by the FBI on domestic terrorism charges for admitting he wanted to kill people, he would not have been able to legally acquire the firearm utilized in the killings, nor would he have continued to remain a licensed security guard.

In a great many mass shooting incidents, the incidents came to pass ultimately because either the public did not speak up when they knew there was a problem, or those they spoke up to dropped the ball, and basically told the public to shut up.

Explain why. Even if Nikolas Cruz served no time behind bars, a conviction for either a felony offense, or domestic violence-related misdemeanor offense would legally preclude him from ever legally purchasing or otherwise possessing a firearm for the duration of his natural life. One doe snot have to serve their sentence to be disqualified, as the sentence will be on their records regardless.

 

He did many of the things you mention as a minor. But that's irrelevant. Answer the question! What would be his sentence? And the sentence of any person who does any of those.

Amazingly naive. I should have guessed before that you might not have yet had the proper life experience.

Not so! Most judges look for alternatives to jailing people, especially young ones, Prisoners are expensive to maintain. And when there is overpopulation in prisons, both judges and law enforcement both try to use the available resources on the ones who have committed the worst crimes.

You have demonstrated that you are unaware of very basic concepts of how our legal system and its shortcomings.

Sarcasm is a perfectly valid rhetorical resource. You obviously have had very little education involving the great debaters in History. Since Aristotle and Socrates (and even before) there are numerous examples of debates that have been settled by a sarcastic remark.

In a perfect system, somebody breaks a law that is punishable with 1 year in prison, they do 1 year in prison. You have yet too much to learn about the problems in our judicial system. So a serious debate with you is impossible.

Except that, in Florida, many gun purchases don't require sellers to check those records. What's more, in Florida it's not just not required... it's even illegal for buyers or sellers to keep a list of gun owners. Such is the "wisdom" of our republican State Government.

But you are confused. My proposal is not meant to stop Nikolas Cruz. That already happened. He's in jail. The intention of what I propose is to make the next mass shootings more difficult, and/or to reduce the number of victims. What history the next shooters will have or how they got their guns.... who knows... But we want to make it as difficult for them as possible.

 

Regardless of the duration of the sentence for such an offense, even if it is suspended and the convicted individual is allowed to remain free on parole, they would still be disqualified from legal firearms ownership ever again.

https://www.aclu.org/end-juvenile-life-without-parole

Which does not change the fact that judges are all too willing to give minors extensive sentences in prisons for crimes they committed.

It is not necessary on the part of myself to possess a perfect, factually correct understanding of the justice system of the united states, in order to demonstrate the system that is in place to prevent certain individuals from legally acquiring firearms that they will utilize in the commission of a mass shooting, or some other criminal offense.

Matters of fact are of far more importance than sarcastic responses when a rebuttal to facts is not possessed.

How does such change the fact that one does not need to actually serve a prison sentence, for the conviction to disqualify them from legal firearms ownership?

Factually incorrect. Go back and reread the passage that was replied to by yourself. Legal purchases were specifically mentioned on the part of myself. Meaning purchases that are in accordance with all applicable state and federal regulations on the matter. When an individual has been convicted of a felony, or a domestic violence-related misdemeanor, they are legally prohibited from ever acquiring or otherwise possessing a firearm ever again, regardless of the avenue utilized. Even if they attempt to purchase a firearm from a private individual, the acquisition is still a felony offense, and can still be prosecuted. Legally it is no different than breaking into a private residence to steal a firearm from the rightful owner.

And what exactly is the so-called "wisdom" of keeping list of those who legally purchase firearms? Ultimately what public good is served by keeping and maintaining such a database, made up of individuals who are complying with the law?

Which does no good for his victims. And why is that? All because the law enforcement of the united states simply refused to do its job. How many more lives are going to be lost because law enforcement refuses to get involved in a matter similar to this? They have failed in numerous mass shootings so far.

And there is not a shred of evidence, absolutely none whatsoever, that anything that is being proposed by either yourself, or the countless thousands of other individuals who support the same proposals, will actually do what is desired of them. There is nothing to suggest that these particular restrictions will do anything to lower the annual number of mass shootings, or decrease the body count of a successful incident. It is nothing more than blind, panicky speculation, guided by an overwhelming hatred for both firearms, and the legal ownership of such by the public. It is a deliberate exploitation of the dead, the wounded, and their families for selling a politically-motivated narrative at the expense of the truth. It is nothing more than a bill of goods sold to the public through outright lies, and when those proposals fail to prevent the next mass shooting, which has already been admitted to by yourself, even more firearm-related restrictions will be proposed by yourself and countless others, because focusing on the firearms is easier than focusing on the individuals who commit the crimes, and admitting that it is a societal problem rather than a hardware problem.

 

Not in Florida. Here he would be disqualified from voting ever again, but not from buying firearms.

Did I mention that Florida is governed by Republicans who have managed to enact the most radical and crazy laws you can think of?

And facts can be expressed in a sarcastic manner. So don't discard a response just because it's sarcastic.

Oh... I dunno... .Maybe so that authorities can verify that nobody sold a firearm to somebody who is not allowed to purchase it, for example. Or to trace a gun used in a crime. Or to look up if of all the kids kids who have been "cruel to animals" any is, by chance, also accumulating a voluminous cash of assault weapons.... I can think of much "wisdom" in it.

There are several things that might suggest just that.. Australia did the experiment when it had too many cases of mass shootings with assault weapons. None since then. And the number of such assaults here was almost unheard of before Republicans refused to renew it. And there is, of course, reason and logic. But I'm sure you wouldn't want to have anything to do with those....

 

Factually incorrect. If someone is convicted of a felony but serves no time, regardless of what state they reside in, they are legally disqualified from firearms ownership under any circumstances.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons

The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person:

• convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
• who is a fugitive from justice;
• who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802);
• who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
• who is an illegal alien;
• who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
• who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
• who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or
• who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

The GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 992(n) also makes it unlawful for any person under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship, transport, or receive firearms or ammunition.


Further, the GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) makes it unlawful to sell or otherwise dispose of firearms or ammunition to any person who is prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing firearms or ammunition.

Note the key word, convicted. Meaning one does not have to serve a sentence to be legally disqualified from firearms ownership.

Show what these aforementioned "crazy laws" are.

Which does not change the fact that nothing was presented on the part of yourself except for sarcasm.

The state of California has already attempted such for years. According to trace data provided by the ATF, approximately half of all firearms found in the possession of criminal individuals were originally sold within the state of California to begin with. This means each and every one of those firearms purchased were subject to background checks, permits to own, registration to the owner with the state, subject to mandatory background checks if resold to another individual, and various other restrictions that the state has implemented over the years. And despite all of that, the majority of firearms found in criminal possession still come from the state of California, rather than any other state.

Even with firearms registered, it is quite easy to dispose of one through an illegal sale. All one must do is report the firearm as being stolen, and it absolves them of any responsibility in the matter, as law enforcement will not be looking at them as a suspect, but rather as a criminal. Even if law enforcement finds and apprehends the individual who purchased the firearm, the one who sold it still cannot be charged with a crime, as there will be no evidence, none whatsoever, other than the word of the individual in possession of what is officially regarded as being stolen property.

And what does this tell anyone that in any way benefits the public? If the firearm was reported as being stolen, what then? If no firearm is found at the scene of the crime, thus leaving nothing to actually trace, then having a list of names does nothing. If the serial number has been obliterated, then there is nothing to actually trace, and nothing can be done about such.

Tracing firearms back to the last known legal owner does not provide any benefit to the public.

And law enforcement would still have refused to arrest Nikolas Cruz, just as they did numerous times in the past.

The number of mass shootings was decreasing long before the firearm-related restrictions inspired by the Port Arthur incident ever came into existence. And the nation of Australia has failed to account for the vast majority of now-prohibited firearms, because as the member Bowerbird has admitted, the owners refused to surrender them and instead hid them, meaning they are still available for use if one is so motivated.

Since the law being referred to by yourself did not actually outlaw the ownership of any semi-automatic firearms, or magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition, that were possessed prior to the law coming into existence, it cannot be attributed with contributing to anything relating to an absence of mass shootings, assaults, or any other criminal offense committed with certain firearms and accessories.

Beyond that, both Columbine, and the North Hollywood incident, occurred during the ten year period in which the law in question was in effect.

 

That's the point! They are banned from gun ownership. But there is no ban to sell them guns.

That's certainly the kind of craziness that would facilitate mass shootings.

My proposals are meant to be adopted at a Federal level. Otherwise they won't work.

Stolen? What the hell are you talking about? We're talking about sales. Focus man!

According to you it doesn't provide a clue to investigators? Man!

I'll leave it there because it's not even the point, and you are making zero sense on this too.

Why are you still obsessed with preventing that guy's shooting spree? Hate to break it to you, but that's in the past. It's impossible to prevent no matter what. You would need a time machine. We can, however, learn from it and mitigate future ones.

And where zero after it was enacted. It's not rocket science. Potential killers couldn't get one. It's the same reason why there are no murders with Star Trek-style phasers set to "kill": people can't get them. And this is why it needs to be done at a federal level.

At this point you might want to read carefully what I proposed. You might notice that it's not to ban hiding these weapons. It's to ban their sale.

,
Bingo!

Not only that,.. my proposal doesn't outlaw ownership either.

Not sure what else I can say to explain to you that the objective of my proposals is not to stop shootings that happened in the past. It's to stop the ones that can occur in the future.

I guess the only thing I can say to you is that once we invent time-machines I will modify my proposals appropriately for you.

 

Which President enacted it is, in fact, irrelevant, how long it has been in place is.pretty significant, though

.
How should I know. It depends on what it is you want to prove. And besides, most are interwined. Just pick a random number between 1 and 9

 

One has to love the classic arguements that nothing can possibly be done to prevent mass gun murders so we just have to accept them as the price for our right to possibly participate in a well organized militia.

 

Careful with open flames near that straw man of yours...