Every Single Government Authority Failed In Parkland. And They Expect Americans To Forfeit Our Self-Defense Rights To Them?

Why in the world would a single law-abiding gun owner hand over his or her weapon to the same authorities that did nothing to protect the children of Parkland?

BOOM! There it is!

Every Active Shooter since Sandy Hook had big RED FLAGS that could have prevented their carnage.  Yet our bureaucracy failed to stop them.  And you people want to add more laws to hinder the law abiding citizen?  What happens when the bureaucracy fails to enforce that new law? 

Every Active Shooter since Sandy Hook had big RED FLAGS that could have prevented their carnage.  Yet our bureaucracy failed to stop them.  And you people want to add more laws to hinder the law abiding citizen?  What happens when the bureaucracy fails to enforce that new law?

The laws says that they are law abiding citizens until they commit a crime.  Just what exactly did you want them to do to these people that have not committed any crime (yet)?  Should the government have taken their guns away? 

Sure there were reports of them that may have indicated something, but nothing illegal had happened yet, and they do not have the budget for 24/7 babysitters based on a simple accusation.  So would you like to explain the steps they should have taken against an innocent American citizen?  Remember, prior to the occurrences, they hadn't done anything illegal.

Oh I am so glad you posted this comment Ozzwald.  Hell, I'm even gonna thumbs up it.  Because it shows that when it comes to rights, you are all for protecting them, except for the rights under the 2nd Amendment.

There were credible reports made to the authorities that this guy had threatened to shoot up a school.  That is grounds for detainment, and arrest for 72 hours.  And while arrested, his guns could have been seized as part of the investigation.  Those are legal avenues that the courts have allowed.  

But keep going on about the rights of the shooters, vs the rights of the Law abiding citizen to own a Semi-Automatic rifle.

The laws says that they are law abiding citizens until they commit a crime.

All the more reason to put our attention on 'Protecting the Children' first and then tackle new gun laws afterwards because all the new gun laws in the world won't have any effect on next weeks mass murder, but providing protection will make a difference.

Now that was an admission with that comment Ozzwald.  Yes it is innocent until proven guilty, but as Bruce educated you they didn't do their jobs.

Because it shows that when it comes to rights, you are all for protecting them, except for the rights under the 2nd Amendment.

Care to sow a single instance where I opposed the 2nd Amendment?  Even 1?  What a mor o on ....

There were credible reports made to the authorities that this guy had threatened to shoot up a school.

No there weren't.  There WERE credible reports that he was about to explode and do something, but no specifics .  Once again you feel it necessary to ADD to the facts in order to justify your beliefs.

That is grounds for detainment, and arrest for 72 hours.

No its not...  He legally purchased the guns, the claims about what he was "about to do" were opinion only.  You can't arrest someone because someone else thought he MAY do something.

And while arrested, his guns could have been seized as part of the investigation.

Moot point since he had not committed any offense to be arrested at that point.

Those are legal avenues that the courts have allowed.  

Maybe on your favorite 60 minute TV show, not in real life.  I'll repeat myself for you again, PRIOR TO THE SHOOTING HE HAD NOT BROKEN ANY CRIMES TO BE ARRESTED FOR, HE HAD ALSO NOT DONE ANYTHING TO JUSTIFY A 73 HOUR MENTAL HEALTH HOLD.

But keep going on about the rights of the shooters, vs the rights of the Law abiding citizen to own a Semi-Automatic rifle.

And you keep going on about  the rights of the Law abiding citizen to own a Semi-Automatic rifle, versus the FACT that it is that same Law abiding citizen that cracks and starts using that same Semi-Automatic rifle to commit mass murder.

All the more reason to put our attention on 'Protecting the Children' first and then tackle new gun laws afterwards

Ahhh, the call of the NRA owned GOP, "Now is not a good time to address it". 

Name one time, after a shooting, that the GOP addressed new gun laws.  Other than after Reagan was shot, and the Brady law (which has expired thanks to the GOP), go ahead and name once that they accomplished anything?

There isn't one.  Because unlike the dipshit Liberal dogma of Gun Control, the GOP realize that no new gun law would have stopped any of the previous killings.  IN fact, they realize that just about every one of the previous killings, including the one in Fl happened because of a failure of the government, or a failure of Law Enforcement to enforce THE CURRENT LAWS.

No there weren't.  There WERE credible reports that he was about to explode and do something, but no specifics.  Once again you feel it necessary to ADD to the facts in order to justify your beliefs.

Ozzwald, Google Baker Act.  Or Florida Baker Act.  Come back when you're better informed to argue with me.

Because unlike the dipshit Liberal dogma of Gun Control, the GOP realize that no new gun law would have stopped any of the previous killings.

Do you believe in time travel?  If you don't your claim is nonsense.  You CANNOT PROVE that new gun laws won't stop some mass shootings.  Is that any reason not to try?

Have homicide laws stopped any homicides?  Probably, but you can't prove it, so is that a reason to not have any laws against homicide?

Come back when you're better informed to argue with me.

Have you read it?  Apparently not...

Clarification of Baker Act criteria
Specific criteria must be met in order to initiate involuntary examination. Among those criteria are the following elements, that by themselves, do not qualify an individual as having met or meeting the criteria:

Reason to believe that the person has a mental illness; refusal of voluntary examination; the person is unable to determine whether examination is necessary. Criteria are not met simply because a person has mental illness, appears to have mental problems, takes psychiatric medication, or has an emotional outburst. Criteria are not met simply because a person refuses voluntary examination. Criteria are not met if there are family members or friends that will help prevent any potential and present threat of substantial harm.

The criteria, as stated in the statute, mentions a substantial likelihood that without care or treatment the person will cause serious bodily harm in the near future. ("Substantial" means ample, considerable, firm or strong.)

To further clarify this point of substantial likelihood, there must be evidence of recent behavior to justify the substantial likelihood of serious bodily harm in the near future. Moments in the past, when an individual may have considered harming themselves or another, do not qualify the individual as meeting the criteria. ("Near" means close, short, or draws near.)

You just had a gigantic FAIL........  Hearsay does not qualify, neither do random accusations.

FLORIDA IS NOT A RED FLAG STATE!

No, the failure is you.  Again, you need to come back when you are more informed.  The question of why this guy was not Baker Acted has been put forth to law enforcement many times in the  past week.  And every time, law enforcement has not answered.  The certainly have not trotted out ambiguity in the law as you have, because they know that's not an excuse.  

Perhaps if you read the law a few more times, in connection with the warnings that were reported to law enforcement, you will see the folly in your argument.  But I doubt it.  

At any rate, I repeat:  Come back when you're better informed to argue with me.

You CANNOT PROVE that new gun laws won't stop some mass shootings.

Name one proposed gun law that would have stopped any of the mass shootings in the last 5 years.  And before you whine a bump stocks and Las Vegas, that wouldn't have stopped him.  It may have prevented such a high number of deaths, but it wouldn't stop.

So the criteria is STOP.  Not reduce.  Stop.

Go ahead.  I'll wait.  I need more coffee anyway.

Name one proposed gun law that would have stopped any of the mass shootings in the last 5 years.

Skirting the CoC [ph]

• How many of the assault style rifles used in mass shootings were legally purchased?
• If those assault style rifles were illegal to purchase, how many of those law abiding citizens would have purchased them illegally?

Remember, also that most weapons that have been used in this style of killing, were purchased legally.  

Skirting the CoC [ph]

So the criteria is STOP.  Not reduce.  Stop.

Moving the goalposts?  No that is NOT the criteria, that is an impossibility.  For you to claim that, you must also claim that you do not believe in any laws whatsoever.  No law has ever stopped any crime by 100%, to claim otherwise is simply 100% ignorance, comrade.

Off topic [ph]

On a side note, I have to ask how the weather is in St. Petersburg today?

Wouldn't know.  I live in Missouri.

So you can't name one single proposal eh?  Yeah, I thought as much.

Moving the goalposts?

No, but apparently you have no clue where the goalpost is.  But at least your honest enough to admit your position is an impossibility.

And there we go.  That's a CoC.

So you can't name one single proposal eh?  Yeah, I thought as much.

Okay, I guarantee that if all assault style weapons are banned, every mass shooting involving those weapons would be prevented. 

Now it's your turn...prove me wrong.

But at least your honest enough to admit your position is an impossibility.

You haven't answered my question.  Do you feel homicide should be against the law???

Okay, I guarantee that if all assault style weapons are banned, every mass shooting involving those weapons would be prevented. Prove me wrong.

Weird request....but easy !

Drugs that have been made Illegal BY LAW......are banned , yet............... 

I'll guarantee your guarantee is void of reality .

Do you feel homicide should be against the law???

You are aware that not all homicides are against the law now. All homicide mean is a death at the caused by a human. That includes suicide,  some accidental deaths,  self defense deaths, manslaughter and murder. Not all of those are criminal  acts 

Weird request....but easy !

So you can't prove it.  I guess that means I win.  Old examples do not qualify as PROOF , so if that's the best you can do.....I'll take the win.

You are aware that not all homicides are against the law now. All homicide mean is a death at the caused by a human. That includes suicide,  some accidental deaths,  self defense deaths, manslaughter and murder. Not all of those are criminal  acts

I see someone flunked out of law school.

Nope! 

Old examples do not qualify as PROOF

Still "In-Place" examples.....On going....never stopped.....still enforced.....Still Banned..... still a Banned substance problem.  

Still "In-Place" examples

In place examples of comparing apples to oranges.  You failed again.

"ILLEGAL" is "ILLEGAL". "BANNED" is "BANNED". Still going strong, even though "ILLEGAL" and "BANNED" !

So your ......"guarantee"..... is worthless ! 

So your ......"guarantee"..... is worthless !

So is your opinion.  Yet you cannot prove me wrong.

There is a report today that a number of cops failed to enter the building. 

Nonetheless, what is being proposed in this seed is vigilantism, or taking the law into one's own hands. The solution is to correct the mistakes and shortcomings of law enforcement, not to replace those people with a tsunami of amateurs. 

Yeah, I'm not seeing that either John.

At Columbine, a Deputy Sheriff drove up to the school, after having gone to lunch.  When he got out of his car, Klebold and Harris shot at him, while they were making their way into the cafeteria.  He retreated to his car and sat there, waiting for backup.

The take away for law enforcement was to change the dynamic when dealing with Active Shooters.  All law enforcement agencies were urged to update their training to teach officers to "Run to the Sound of the Guns".  This can be seen in the amateur video of the shooting in Dallas.  The cops are running to the sound of the shooting.

Either this deputy, or this department has not changed their training in this respect.  

Actually, the Sheriff announced that after suspending Peterson,

he also suspended two others who arrived and waited for instructions - by then the shooter had already escaped.

I believe the two other deputies were named in the original Reuters link 

I wonder if The deputies involved were originally trained  to set up a perimeter and contain the situation and keep it more localized rather than rush in headlong and get a larger situation. As it was the suspect managed to flee the scene. 

The police can't be everywhere at once. By the time they arrive, in almost all cases, the emergency has already occurred.

Our laws are set to punish the guilty if convicted, as a result, you can commit crimes but have to take the punishment.  That is the system we have.  

I’m lucky to live in a make my day law state.  

that is a good law

The left is obsessed with going after the completely wrong targets and change their tune on a whim. Now the left wants to disarm private citizens and tell them to just trust in cops after vilifying the police for years and calling them killers with badges.

I agree with most of what Bruce has said, but not all. IMO the negligent FBI and Police, the incompetent medical staff that examined him, and his mother who MUST have known his intentions or at least the possibility of them are all as much to blame as the perpetrator himself. I would not be surprised if the parents of the kids who were killed or injured sued all of them, and if they did, I wish them success in those efforts, although even such success will not reverse their losses.

I don't know why you would need to give up your weapons. That said, I also don't see how limiting or eliminating the sale of assault weapons impacts your ability to own home defense or hunting weapons, since they aren't the same weapons.

However, as I mentioned before elsewhere, I actually don't think any guns need to be removed from sale. Want an assault rifle? Buy one. However, there needs to be reform as to how you would go about doing so. Longer waiting periods that include ALL firearms. 30 days feels right. Gives far more time to do your due diligence as far as background checks go. During those 30 days, the prospective owner needs to take some sort of classes, get licensing for that specific gun, and interact with people so much that you as a buyer are completely visible throughout the process.

I think that last part might actually be the most important one. I really doubt people buying weapons to use directly on other people as offensive rather than defensive weapons are likely to want everybody to know they are buying said weapon(s), and so are unlikely to carry through with their plans as too many people have had access to them during the process and can note behavioral peculiarities and such that might aid a background check or prompt further vetting. Plus, the prospective terrorist or mass shooter (same though really) will know that there is a good chance other people now suspect their intent.

I'd also say that there is really never a time where a person so desperately needs a gun that they have to have it right then, where they can't instead seek out law enforcement to arbitrate/act for them.

So, owning your guns isn't stripped away despite the overwhelming evidence that validates that more guns=more gun deaths. Better regulation and oversight is required though. You definitely shouldn't be able to walk out of a gun show, a Wal Mart, pawn shop, etc...with a gun the day you go in to buy it.