Discussion Parkland shooting, the Sheriff's responsibility, and preventing Active Shooters. (1 Viewer)

[Kyle]

I would like to keep this discussion post troll, and insult free.

I'm not to much in to reddit so I'd rather post here and gather opinions and ideas.

What we have is a 19 year old, whose residence received 18 calls of service and 16 of the calls of service were documented properly by the book while 2 were not. A School Resource Officer (SRO) failed to act properly when an active shooter threat is real you aren't to wait for back up your job is to go and eliminate the threat. I question if the SRO has actually gone through proper active-shooter training and this I can definitely see as being the Sheriff's fault.

But what I'm reading online (and please correct me if I'm wrong), is that it's the Sheriff's fault because out of the 18 calls of service to this residence, nothing was done to prevent the shooting... So, what actually should have been done in this scenario? Please keep in mind that the County has 1.9 million residents so 18 calls of service over three years may sound like a lot, but in a county with that population it's not. I do see the Sheriff liable for any lack of training, or the fact that the officer didn't act and eliminate the threat. But I don't see the Sheriff responsible for not preventing the shooting.

Police Officers cannot predict the future (most of the time) and they can't arrest someone for thinking of a crime unless it's planned out and premeditated.

So I ask:

(1) What if any responsibility did the Sheriff have?

(2) What are your thoughts on eliminating/preventing an Active Shooter threat?

 

[Ganuvien]

Honestly the kids could've been better at getting him prosecuted or at least identified as a risk as well. He sent that 1 guy photos of him with his guns and threatening him, all he had to do was show that but kids don't take social media threats seriously. There was a failure on all sides for identifying him as a psycho. Their is also video of the sheriff teaching a mosque gun safety and procedures but yet he doesn't want Americans to own guns . Idk if the sheriff even actively trains their officers by running active shooter scenarios and all that to at least prevent them from locking up in fear and doing nothing which can attribute to his failure as a sheriff.

 

[Kyle]

Honestly the kids could've been better at getting him prosecuted or at least identified as a risk as well. He sent that 1 guy photos of him with his guns and threatening him, all he had to do was show that but kids don't take social media threats seriously. There was a failure on all sides for identifying him as a psycho. Their is also video of the sheriff teaching a mosque gun safety and procedures but yet he doesn't want Americans to own guns . Idk if the sheriff even actively trains their officers by running active shooter scenarios and all that to at least prevent them from locking up in fear and doing nothing which can attribute to his failure as a sheriff.

I know here in North Carolina the State Highway Patrol leads the training in Active Shooter excercises and paintballs are used. This training is usually only 1x a year but every Law Enforcement officer is trained the exact same response and rolling 'T' formation to execute without planning. Because if an all-call goes out, Highway Patrol may be arriving at the same time as a Deputy Sheriff they've never met and a Wildlife Officer, however all three of these officers should have received the exact same training.

But there is nothing you can do with mentally unstable patients anymore. Not in my experience. Psycho or not, there's nothing that I'm aware of other than involuntary commitments which last up-to 72 hours and unless they're completely 'out of their mind' they get released.

 

[MaxD]

As far as it goes when a single officer or school resource officer is hesitant to confront an active shooter I completely understand. Even with the proper training there's that voice in their head saying "this motherfucker is going to kill you". Yes Police officers should be doing their job and protecting people but they're non military average people and people get scared.

Who's at fault? Thats hard to say, obviously he's a nutjob. He made it known he was a nutjob. Everyone knew he had screws loose. The problem is unless you try to commit suicide its hard to get committed to some kind of mental facility. Part of the problem with committing crazies is where do you draw the line because it's not much different from prison.

 

[Sum1]

As far as it goes when a single officer or school resource officer is hesitant to confront an active shooter I completely understand. Even with the proper training there's that voice in their head saying "this motherfucker is going to kill you". Yes Police officers should be doing their job and protecting people but they're non military average people and people get scared.

Who's at fault? Thats hard to say, obviously he's a nutjob. He made it known he was a nutjob. Everyone knew he had screws loose. The problem is unless you try to commit suicide its hard to get committed to some kind of mental facility. Part of the problem with committing crazies is where do you draw the line because it's not much different from prison.

Problems in play:
1. Stupid easy access to guns and ammo
2. System in America takes a reactive vs proactive approach to mental health. Preventative care for a plethora of ailments just isn’t part of our risk calculus.
3. Silly little thing called “Due process” and the presumption of innocence. Magnifies the effects of things like #1 and #2 above. The FBI and the Sheriffs Office had no reason to apprehend, and even if they had the guy hadn’t committed a crime, yet. And even if he HAD threatened another student, if he had already purchased the guns there was no way to track what he had, thanks to Florida’s abysmal laws. No requirement to get a license or register firearms. Just a three day waiting (“cooling off”) period.

I’m active duty military (for the last 16 or 17 years), and I’m appalled we, as Americans, can’t do better to protect our citizens by closing all those loopholes above. I’m also a big proponent of strict gun laws. I’ve lived in Europe, and I would take their laws over ours any day of the week. This John Wayne “hero” argument for gun ownership is horseshit.

 

[Capriirecords]

Problems in play:
1. Stupid easy access to guns and ammo
2. System in America takes a reactive vs proactive approach to mental health. Preventative care for a plethora of ailments just isn’t part of our risk calculus.
3. Silly little thing called “Due process” and the presumption of innocence. Magnifies the effects of things like #1 and #2 above. The FBI and the Sheriffs Office had no reason to apprehend, and even if they had the guy hadn’t committed a crime, yet. And even if he HAD threatened another student, if he had already purchased the guns there was no way to track what he had, thanks to Florida’s abysmal laws. No requirement to get a license or register firearms. Just a three day waiting (“cooling off”) period.

I’m active duty military (for the last 16 or 17 years), and I’m appalled we, as Americans, can’t do better to protect our citizens by closing all those loopholes above. I’m also a big proponent of strict gun laws. I’ve lived in Europe, and I would take their laws over ours any day of the week. This John Wayne “hero” argument for gun ownership is horseshit.

Win. Clueless as to why the discussion is incessantly over the minutia of the topic, versus addressing the core of the issue. I guess thats what we get with lobbying dollars at work. I'm a gun owner, a concealed carry permit holder, lifelong hunter - certainly understand and support the original framework of the 2nd Amendment - however when I think about the security of my 2 and 4 year-olds in public places, I'm going to take the unalienable Right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence.

 

[Hambam]

Win. Clueless as to why the discussion is incessantly over the minutia of the topic, versus addressing the core of the issue. I guess thats what we get with lobbying dollars at work. I'm a gun owner, a concealed carry permit holder, lifelong hunter - certainly understand and support the original framework of the 2nd Amendment - however when I think about the security of my 2 and 4 year-olds in public places, I'm going to take the unalienable Right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence.

Curious, so you really think banning "Assault rifles" is going to cure the violence issue or even mass killing spree's in schools?

You can't just take away freedoms to cure problems.

 

[da Man]

armed resistance is the only course of action to armed assault, to get a bad guy with a gun u have to have a good guy with a gun. now that being said if u strip a portion of rights from a citizen over another citizen who HAS NOT broken a law then thats wrong. the second ammendment without modern revisions says the rights of gun ownership shall not be infringed <<<pretty absolute. read the federalist papers guns were not only for hunting, but to overthrow a corrupt government, personal protection, and in a last defence of our country by unregulated fighters through (in that time) gorilla warfare. no ammount of banning a certain type of gun will stop this and no ammount of confiscation will stop it, all u do in both instances is stop law abiding ppl from defending theirselves. oh and u also increase the demand and price of said weapons. a criminal will get a gun no matter what even if its breaking into any weapons cache anyone has, at least if i have a gun i have a defense against such. back to my first statement, get guns in schools eliminate gun free zones. the threat of ppl having guns in these places are deterrents unto themselves

 

[mudbug]

My issue is the School Resource Officer (SRO) did not fulfill his oath to serve and protect. Justified or not, the kid will be labeled a coward.

How could this have been prevented? Is the same as asking what should have been done before Sept. 11, 2001. Americans have never been proactive until after the fact. The biggest reason for this is Americans dont like the idea of losing their freedoms. (What it really comes down to is they dont like being inconvenienced.) The bottom line, there is no simple answer to your question. But what ever the answer is will either be too extreme or not extreme enough. Getting rid of guns will not solve the issue of crazy people. They will just find another way to create chaos.

 

[ncellular]

The supreme court has ruled countless times the police do not need to risk their lives to protect citizens. You do not have to be brave or a hero to be a police officer. Everyone is a armchair commando after the fact but when you hear rifle fire and you are standing there in body armor that will not stop it looking at your pistol you would probably hesitate as well bringing a handgun to a rifle fight.

 

[Hbk123]

1. When you're in public, whether it's at a school, a concert, or even in line at the supermarket, you're vulnerable. People don't like to acknowledge it, but one of the sacrifices of "freedom" while engaging in and with a society is safety. Bad actors, whether they're acting with guns/cars/knives will always abuse this vulnerability - crazy people will always hold the advantage in this scenario. Gun's aren't 100% the issue here, but access to both them and ammunition, certainly is a contributing factor.

2. As much as I agree with plain statement of the second amendment, you're crazy you think it's historical context has 100% application to the modern context, and that alone should not be used to justify not modifying it or creating additional safety measures. Good lord, one of the main reasons for the amendment was for whites to have adequate firearms to suppress SLAVE REVOLTS. The constitution is a living, breathing document, and it should reflect the will of the people - that's why it's amendable. It's not a sacred text handed down by God and our founders hardly imagined a world where AR-15s existed and teenagers would use them to kill other teenagers in school.

4. No one's coming for your hunting rifles...ever. No one is coming for your shotgun. You're not picking off Coyotes and protecting your farm with a modified AR-15, and if you are, you don't need to. Handguns have little application outside of killing people and self-defense. Irrespective of any of that, there are currently 200+ million guns in circulation at the moment (300+ in some estimates). We could effectively end production on the last gun tomorrow, and we'd still be dealing with these issues for the next 30-50 years (not that the manufacturers'/NRA lobbyists would ever allow that). The answer obviously isn't to pump more guns into that already saturated market, but both sides of the argument tend to deal poorly with this reality. Pro-gun for failing to realize that if you can't overthrow the Government with 200M+ guns, you were probably going to lose anyways, and anti-gun people that simply stopping production won't do shit.

5. I'd be in support of gun insurance and personal liability as a reasonable compromise - maybe even a 48 hour hold on ammunition or no ammunition sales to anyone 21 or under. Want to purchase some ammo? Insurance card please. Your little shithead kid got access to your gun because you didn't protect it well enough or you bought him one? Enjoy the next 30-life in federal prison. You sold a gun or ammunition to some teen with no insurance and the requisite training/waiting periods (which clearly need to be increased/modified)? Enjoy your trip and stay at Attica. Caught selling guns illegally to uninsured/without license - PRISON!

- - - Updated - - -

Curious, so you really think banning "Assault rifles" is going to cure the violence issue or even mass killing spree's in schools?

You can't just take away freedoms to cure problems.

Banning pipe-bomb sales clearly doesn't stop the occasional idiot from making one, but I don't think we should exactly start selling them at Walmart.

 

[scotsbiker]

answer is simple ban guns Every body knows that is the answer.

but i have to ask wtf is this question even doing being raised in this forum on these boards?

 

[Sum1]

Curious, so you really think banning "Assault rifles" is going to cure the violence issue or even mass killing spree's in schools?

You can't just take away freedoms to cure problems.

I just moved back to the U.S. after living in Europe for three years. I was in Germany.

You know what a "mass killing spree" looks like in Germany? A crazy dude with a knife/machete. Don't get me wrong, that's pretty fucked up, too, but there are plenty of armed police around who are empowered to fuck someone up if you even look at them cross-eyed. You know what doesn't happen? Mass shootings in schools that kills dozens of kids. The best part is hunting and sportsmanship in Germany is 100% legal, so gun-related activities are completely okay. The catch is you have to go through a pretty rigorous process to get permission to do that stuff, and you have to be a member of a gun/hunting club. It raises the barrier of entry from anyone with $800 and a pulse to something that's costly and requires a lot of time and effort to get.

We need a system like that. The 2nd Amendment wasn't put in to guarantee that everyone could arm themselves to the teeth. It was put in to ensure states who were skeptical of a brand new standing federal army could raise and train militias (just in case). And there's primary documents that suggest the reason why militias were so important wasn't because they were afraid of the feds, but rather southern states used standing militias to act as a police force to put down slave revolts.

So the "right" to keep and bare arms isn't as cut and dry as the NRA would have you think today.

 

[Hambam]

I just moved back to the U.S. after living in Europe for three years. I was in Germany.

You know what a "mass killing spree" looks like in Germany? A crazy dude with a knife/machete. Don't get me wrong, that's pretty fucked up, too, but there are plenty of armed police around who are empowered to fuck someone up if you even look at them cross-eyed. You know what doesn't happen? Mass shootings in schools that kills dozens of kids. The best part is hunting and sportsmanship in Germany is 100% legal, so gun-related activities are completely okay. The catch is you have to go through a pretty rigorous process to get permission to do that stuff, and you have to be a member of a gun/hunting club. It raises the barrier of entry from anyone with $800 and a pulse to something that's costly and requires a lot of time and effort to get.

We need a system like that. The 2nd Amendment wasn't put in to guarantee that everyone could arm themselves to the teeth. It was put in to ensure states who were skeptical of a brand new standing federal army could raise and train militias (just in case). And there's primary documents that suggest the reason why militias were so important wasn't because they were afraid of the feds, but rather southern states used standing militias to act as a police force to put down slave revolts.

So the "right" to keep and bare arms isn't as cut and dry as the NRA would have you think today.

I was a medic for 7 years with 3/75. Spent my time in and out of Europe As a RN now I kind of have my shoes in both sides.

Take away the tool (AR-15 in this case) and this kid had serious issues that NEEDED addressing whether or not this massacre happened. Do we see school shootings with kids with problems? Or a bunch of adults out to shoot a bunch of kids?

Taking away the tool that this happened with isn't going to solve anything-but our kids DO need to be protected. You should know better then anyone what first line defense means being in the army. It matters.

A good friend of mine who was actually Army's soldier of the year, Tom Block, actually works in a veteran program now that captures child predators. I can 100% tell you that in just a couple years they have taken some huge issues out of our society. We need more programs for our kids and development issues, not taking away guns. Why not actually invest into federally funded programs (omg dare i say more job creation) that work for our kids.

Invest in our youth. That's the issue.

 

[Capriirecords]

Curious, so you really think banning "Assault rifles" is going to cure the violence issue or even mass killing spree's in schools?

You can't just take away freedoms to cure problems.

I'm sorry - could you quote the portion of my post that says "banning assault rifles will cure the violence issue or mass killing sprees in schools"?

Oh, I didn't say that? Oh, OK - do you want to have a discussion that involves critical thinking, or do you want to just throw around bumper sticker slogans and fall back to "if you're not with me you're against me" tag-lines? If you want to solve a problem, you need to stop with knee-jerk reactions, and functionally think about solutions.

Also, no one is advocating taking away freedoms. That was exactly my point, but if you want to have that type of discussion, then lets have that type of discussion. Have you read the 2nd Amendment? Let me offer you a refresher:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That is from 1789. Are you currently a member of a well regulated militia? In order to purchase an AR-15, does someone check the status of your regulation? Regulation connotes legal or statutory verification, who's monitoring the Militia? In 1789, did the framers foresee tanks, M4s and F-35s? In that line of thinking - what did the framers have to say about the automobile, or nuclear fission, or the Internet? Oh, they didn't foresee that? Okay, then they probably didn't foresee a citizen uprising against tanks, M4s and F-35s using civilian purchasable AR-15s. The very idea that a Militia can hold any ground against a modern military is only evidence of video game and Hollywood fantasy - seen any footage of Syria lately? And Syria's military is 30 years behind ours. If the government wants your guns and your liberty and the military backs it, your "collection" isn't going to save your freedom.

Bottom line: The Constitution was designed as a "living document" specifically to account for situations like this. The framers understood the need to modernize governance to fit society. Ever wonder why the Declaration of Independence only states "unalienable Rights"? If people are unwilling to have reasonable discussions in a reasonable frame, reflective of modernity - then these types of things are going to continue to happen. If these things happen enough, eventually all the hyperbole will come to pass, and we will get some sort of legislative uprising significant enough to ban guns, and make us like Australia. The point is, reasonable discussion results in reasonable resolution - the safe assumption is that if crazy militant conservatives are pissed about it and liberals are pissed about it - the resolution is probably the correct one.

 

[Hambam]

[MENTION=74957]Capriirecords[/MENTION]

I quoted your whole post, and asked you a question. I know quite well the systems that are out there-and what is capable of them all. I have called in a couple air-strikes and one too many casevacs.

So if you want a pissing match, I'm all for that in private messages.

Once again, banning anything, isn't a solution. Its a bandaid for the real problem.

Edit: And yes once its banned, that is a freedom taken away. Once it's gone, it's not coming back. Legally of course. Banning is the "kneejerk" reaction.

 

[MaxD]

I think banning assault rifles and such is appeasement to the public that doesn't understand much about weapons.

I'm Canadian and I'm not really a big gun guy though I have enjoyed hunting, we also have the "scary black guns" up here in Canada we just can't get large capacity magazines up here legally (though if you're so inclined you can get anything you want)

Because I am not a big gun guy I can just google guns canada and I can buy a "scary black gun" at cabellas if we want to go super cheap we can get this https://www.cabelas.ca/product/96077/soviet-sks-semi-automatic-rifle-w-tapco-stock do people here think this is an assault rifle? it even has a bayonett and I think this ones even non restricted. If we want the more classic scary look we can get this but it needs the restricted possession license still easy to get though : https://www.cabelas.ca/product/8733...port-ii-223-rem-semi-automatic-tactical-rifle

Sure we could ban that weapon but even then if you banned large capacity magazines and scary black guns and managed to get every legacy gun off the street what next. Do we ban normal hunting rifles too? Sure if you dont have a large capacity magazine its not good for shooting up a school but then the psycho can do what the washington DC snipers did in 2002 and terrorize a city for a few weeks. This is a less scary looking gun: https://www.cabelas.ca/product/76995/mossberg-mvp-scout-bolt-action-rifle its bolt action nice big .308 round.

Really though, people illegally buy and sell guns on facebook according to forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattdr...-on-facebook-despite-recent-ban/#2219be8a70a3




Edit:
In the end I think it's a culture problem, take away the guns and people will just get them illegally. Or they might just rent a cube truck and drive through a school track event

 

[Capriirecords]

[MENTION=74957]Capriirecords[/MENTION]

I quoted your whole post, and asked you a question. I know quite well the systems that are out there-and what is capable of them all. I have called in a couple air-strikes and one too many casevacs.

So if you want a pissing match, I'm all for that in private messages.

Once again, banning anything, isn't a solution. Its a bandaid for the real problem.

Edit: And yes once its banned, that is a freedom taken away. Once it's gone, it's not coming back. Legally of course. Banning is the "kneejerk" reaction.

This whole conversation is a devil's advocate for me - because I don't really support banning weapons - but there is no freedom that states civilians get to own semi-auto and modifiable auto weapons. That's my point. If there is going to be a discussion about a solution, the discussion needs to be based upon a mutual set of facts - and the fact is the 2nd amendment makes no statement about freedom to own specific types of weapons - which is essentially what I was saying in my novel above.

 

[Hambam]

Once banning starts, where will it stop? That's the point. With weapons there is no "line" there will always be new, shiny shit to fuck people up with whether its printed with a 3d printer or smuggled in from somewhere else piece by piece.

There will always be weapons, there will always be killing. Protect the kids, do what we can.

 

[MaxD]

Just wanted to add why I think it's a culture problem, look at this graph. Most of those deaths are not mass shootings, less than 2% are mass shootings. In Canada sure you need a license to go buy a gun but it's easy to get the license, the license course is actually a safety course. http://www.howtogetagun.ca/






- - - Updated - - -

Once banning starts, where will it stop? That's the point. With weapons there is no "line" there will always be new, shiny shit to fuck people up with whether its printed with a 3d printer or smuggled in from somewhere else piece by piece.

There will always be weapons, there will always be killing. Protect the kids, do what we can.

People will always find a way, even if everything gets banned. If all guns got banned the only people with guns would be the criminals.

 

[plure]

I would really prefer this not be on these forums.

That being said I can't help myself, limiting guns isn't about preventing all bad shit, it is about lowering the number of people dead/injured through murder/accidents/suicides. It is clear from how our country acts (democrats and republicans), that we find it acceptable the number of firearm homicides/suicides/accidents that occur each year.

 

[Capriirecords]

Once banning starts, where will it stop? That's the point. With weapons there is no "line" there will always be new, shiny shit to fuck people up with whether its printed with a 3d printer or smuggled in from somewhere else piece by piece.

There will always be weapons, there will always be killing. Protect the kids, do what we can.

I agree with protecting the kids, but loading overworked and underwhelming teachers up with more guns isn't a viable alternative. Saying once banning starts, it won't stop - isn't in any way accurate. It is law and it is regulation, it is pretty clear where it will stop - that's the point of having laws and regulations. If something changes, we may need a new set of laws and regulations. That's how democratic society progresses - be that Ancient Greece, or the US.

Oddly, there was a huge push against laws and regulations for vehicles in the 1940s - with legislators saying we couldn't have safety regulations for vehicles because once we started, where would it end. It would destroy transportation, innovation, vehicle manufacturing.... that ended up OK.

 

[MaxD]

Giving guns to teachers is going to result in a police officer shooting a teacher.

 

[nookiecookie]

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4...CY0QtwIIKzAB&usg=AOvVaw2qEJk4z6qKoD-5j0R_wgUH


Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[da Man]

capriirecords as i said in my post, go check out the federalist papers u will see exactly what the founding fathers ment in reguards to weapons. and yes everyone in this board thats of age is a militia member, a well regulated militia according to the constitution is a non-governmentally controlled citizen bearing arms either against government, in protection of self, or from a foreign invader.... furthermore this right shall not be infringed

 

[Kyle]

The supreme court has ruled countless times the police do not need to risk their lives to protect citizens. You do not have to be brave or a hero to be a police officer. Everyone is a armchair commando after the fact but when you hear rifle fire and you are standing there in body armor that will not stop it looking at your pistol you would probably hesitate as well bringing a handgun to a rifle fight.

This is inaccurate, I haven't seen those 'cases' but in an active-shooter situation you must react even if you're the only officer. You can't "freeze" up.

 

[Capriirecords]

capriirecords as i said in my post, go check out the federalist papers u will see exactly what the founding fathers ment in reguards to weapons. and yes everyone in this board thats of age is a militia member, a well regulated militia according to the constitution is a non-governmentally controlled citizen bearing arms either against government, in protection of self, or from a foreign invader.... furthermore this right shall not be infringed

I've read the Federalist Papers - I don't think you have, or you lack a structuralist understanding of what you're reading, and who the "founding fathers" were. The Federalist Papers are a composition of essays reflective of appeals to the ratification of the Constitution. The Federalist Papers were also written by 3 people as essays, and actually opposed the Bill of Rights - and had no inclusion of Jefferson and Adams. Any idea how many signatures are on the Constitution, da Man? It isn't just Hamilton, Madison and Jay. Do you know which Federalist Paper even referenced Militia? In what state was the paper published? You might want to read 29 - since it basically contradicts everything that you're saying, and clearly states a Militia is used in time of insurrection and invasion and must have an appointment of officers, duties and training as prescribed by Congress. So actually, you're not a member of a Militia - as stated by the Federalist Papers.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp *Second paragraph for your reference*

da Man, if you just revert back to the Federalist Papers for your discussions, you're not actually interested in understanding the structure of the Constitution - you just want to believe what you believe. Try a civics class - it is fundamentally important to understand why you believe what you believe, and whether or not your beliefs are supported in law and structure.

 

[ncellular]

This is inaccurate, I haven't seen those 'cases' but in an active-shooter situation you must react even if you're the only officer. You can't "freeze" up.

No it is not inaccurate, there is no law that requires police to endanger themselves unwillingly. Further, every department can have a different policy on how to handle an active shooter situation. I doubt the officer who responded first to the Parkland incident was sitting in his patrol car frozen up. He was more than likely defaulting to his level of training, which was to wait for SWAT.

Please cite any law that says "you must react even if you're the only officer". If you google "are police required to protect me" you will find numerous cases of police not being liable for standing by not intervening when people are killed in homicide or suicide.

 

[Akatora]

This is inaccurate, I haven't seen those 'cases' but in an active-shooter situation you must react even if you're the only officer. You can't "freeze" up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/p...ot-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

 

[da Man]

go back and look at the definition of the time of militia. it was a cival recruit that had the choice to refuse and when there they had the choice to leave or stay of their own accord. quite unlike the regulars. go reread the stuff and use the time to define what u read, dont put modern meanings to the words

 

[plure]

go back and look at the definition of the time of militia. it was a cival recruit that had the choice to refuse and when there they had the choice to leave or stay of their own accord. quite unlike the regulars. go reread the stuff and use the time to define what u read, dont put modern meanings to the words

Couldn't that same arguement be made for the definition of firearms? Muskets for all!

 

[da Man]

plure yes the exact same argument can be made and if u make that exact same argument i want my machine gun over my semi-auto. the kentucky long rifle in its day was a better gun than the army regulars (accuracy and range) and civilian owned. also the tactics of the civilians were better than the regulars (hide behind a tree then shoot).

 

[plure]

The orginalist argument would say it gives you the right to own a musket or a long rifle. The reason orginalist arguments are stupid is they pick and choose which parts of the text they want to apply it too. You should apply it to what a militia means, but nooo don't apply it to firearms.

 

[ChatWithThisName]

All firearms at the time were essentially "military" grade weapons. Currently our government's military grade weaponry far outweighs that of our list of weaponry we have access. I intend to keep and maintain my right to bare arms and I expect that it shall not be infringed upon. I served and currently am a disabled veteran. Just as I deployed to other countries that would seek to do harm to our, I expect that in my own capacity I'd be able to protect myself. In basic training you are taught that fire superiority is invaluable in ensuring victory. The standard as taught to me in 2006 was a 3 to 1 ratio. Meaning your worse case scenario should land you with 3x the firepower of the enemy. So if my enemy happens to be some psycho who's lost their fucking mind and they're running around with a pistol, I expect that I should be able to engage with my AR-15 without fear of reprisal for my actions due to the type of weapon that is used.

Banning a certain type of weapon may prevent the media broadcasted tragedies from being as severe. However, the amount of deaths from firearms which are considered mass shootings were quite limited compared to total firearm related deaths. Of the mass shootings that occured from 09 to 13 (iirc) less than 1% of them were conducted with an AR Style rifle with a high capacity magazine. Of that less than 1%, 40% were domestic incidents involing a person killing members of their household/family members. Each of these cases were documented.

The article I'm referencing was from https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog.../02/mass_shootings_2009-13_-_jan_29_12pm1.pdf

It is a pdf document. It is obviously posted by washingtonpost, they cite their references. While I was unable to gather any statistics since 2013 for comparison, or prior to 2009 (when the ban on the purchase/sell of AR Style rifles expired) I believe that banning a weapon that accounts for less than 1% of mass shooting deaths will not solve the fundamental issue surrounding mass shootings. I cannot pretend to know the thought process of a mass shooter. I imagine that each one arrived at their decision to conduct the shooting for their own reasons. It is the person behind the weapon that is committing the crime that should be held accountable for their actions.

A 2016 report found at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus16.pdf#019 reflects that deaths from opioids far outweighed the deaths caused by homicide (from any source) While the statistics cover from 1950 to 2015, all data is not filled in where the information was not complete or unavailable. Being as death by auto accidents outweighed deaths from drugs, it would stand to reason that while mass shootings are tragic it's not the most likely cause of death in the US. Also, drugs were made illegal and yet....there are still a large amount of deaths from them. Death rates from suicide are higher than death rates for homicide.

A lot of things to take into consideration other than what you read in the media. Tragic? Yep. But is it really a problem that warrants taking away my right to own a firearm of any type? Nah. I didn't do anything. Take the rights away from those that don't off themselves when they commit these crimes. I haven't so much as got a speeding ticket since I was 19 (when I was 19 I got a speeding ticket for doing 83 in a 65, my bad) and I would prefer not to be treated as though I have. If they outlawed the ownership of such weapons, exactly how do they expect to compensate me for my legal purchase prior to the incident? My guess is by applying some "depreciation" value to the weapon and obligating me to take some asinine amount in exchange. But it goes beyond the purchase price of the weapon as now I no longer have my rifle. If it's me versus three armed thugs breaking into my home because they intend to take what's mine less the hard work I have put into owning it, I intend to lay down a field of fire that none shall survive. Yes, years of my life working for my things is worth more than their life if they enter my home uninvited. If I don't have my rifle I will have my shotgun, if I don't have my shotgun I will have my pistols, if I don't have my pistols I will make any of the three previously mentioned items and use them anyway. I joined the military and served this country in defense of the people and their rights and I expect to maintain those rights as a citizen of the country. Start literally burning people alive for crimes of this nature, start arming the people instead of taking away their right. Those that would commit these cowardly crimes will start getting shot before it can escalate. The re-activeness of the police would be limited to retrieving the body of the suspect and any initial victims instead of crowds of bodies left in the wake of an undefended school being shot up by one person. Bullets kill from a pistol or an AR. One has longer range and more accuracy. Modified magazines can be purchased for pistols to make it just as useful in short range firing scenario's as an AR 15.

bleh, rant over.

 

[Akatora]

to those who state this was about muskets ill leave this with you

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun

they knew of the technology of *machine guns* but the technology had not caught up with the times to be as fast as they are today, to think the 2A only applies to muskets shows ignorance.

btw this was 50 some odd years before the constitution was even written

https://www.ammoland.com/2014/06/look-at-thomas-jeffersons-assault-rifle/#axzz58X2gXu8t

or even this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper-box

can you please stop saying they didnt know what machine guns or assault rifles were, they had advanced technology above muskets at the time, your argument is invalid.

FBI states according to the firearm related death there is about 350 on average a year for ALL rifles, including ARs and AKs. Pistols range between 8-11k deaths a year.. you are also more likely to be killed by someone using their hands and feet which come in on average about 750 per year total.

The problem with society is the fact that all these individuals were aware of the sick minded individual and DID NOTHING! The therapist, the FBI dropped the ball twice, the local police dropped the ball 26 or so odd times from what Ive read.
The Local police that refused to go in and protect people proves the very point that they have no obligation to help you which also came down from the supreme court in a ruling back in 05
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/p...ot-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

you can read it there, can we start focusing on the problem at hand which is society and not the tools.

 

[da Man]

^^^well stated