Florida shooting ...

Jimbro66

crunchman said:

VimFuego said:

joeyowen said:

axisus said:

Pretty shocked to hear that there was a security guy there with a gun and he was to cowardly to go in .... 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43164634

Is it fair to say he acted cowardly?  I'd love to say i'd go straight in, but unless it happens I don't really know.

I suppose he did get that job

this, it's difficult to judge the guy, I'm not sure I'd be willing to put my life on the line for what is a job. 

From what I read he was the police liaison officer in the school.  He'd been there since 2009.  It looks like more of a community role than a security role.

He is/was a School Resource Officer (SRO) of which there are up to 20,000 assigned to schools across the USA. There is no nationally defined role for SROs but generally they deal with minor crime in schools and report more serious crime (drug dealing, gang culture, etc) to their police department. They also educate in crime prevention. They are responsible for ‘security’ but their role is normally not like, for example, an Air Marshall’s. How many police officers would have gone into that building single-handed without first calling for backup? One man with a hand gun against a person or persons with automatic weapons? Maybe if he was Bruce Willis.

He didn’t seem to have been at the school when the shooting started, arriving some minutes later. If he had been there he may well have been the first victim. No doubt an inquiry will determine the facts. Whatever, he is now branded a coward by President Trump.

VimFuego

yeah, it was reassuring to see the don not ramp up the rhetoric and inflame already hot running passions. His statesmanship is remarkable to see. 

fob

Whatever, he is now branded a coward by President Trump.

He probably just had a 'foot thing'.

seany65

digitalscream said:

seany65 said:

I'm just wondering how anyone could ban legal guns for non-criminal people if they don't also disarm the criminals?

AKA...

"We're totally ineffective at enforcing laws which stop criminals getting guns, so I guess we'd better just give everyone guns and make it a shooting gallery."

No, I was merely asking the question. If so many criminals have guns and have them when breaking into houses or robbing people, how will disarming the 'law-abindig people' help that situation?

Also, if a 'law-abiding' citizen decides to go on a shooting spree, how easy would it be for them to buy guns from criminals?

HAL9000

Jimbro66 said:

 Whatever, he is now branded a coward by a man who avoided the draft five times.

FTFY

jonnyburgo

Well now Trumps just as good as called him a coward and police are guarding his house. I see a suicide on the cards. What a fucking mess

underdog

seany65 said:

digitalscream said:

seany65 said:

I'm just wondering how anyone could ban legal guns for non-criminal people if they don't also disarm the criminals?

AKA...

"We're totally ineffective at enforcing laws which stop criminals getting guns, so I guess we'd better just give everyone guns and make it a shooting gallery."

No, I was merely asking the question. If so many criminals have guns and have them when breaking into houses or robbing people, how will disarming the 'law-abindig people' help that situation?

Also, if a 'law-abiding' citizen decides to go on a shooting spree, how easy would it be for them to buy guns from criminals?

Very weak excuse. Criminals in the UK can get their hands on guns, but we still have far fewer mass shootings because the effort and connections needed to get a gun means you can't just shoot a group of people when the mood takes you.

Criminals breaking in to houses in the states carry guns because a) they are easy to get and b) because there is a good chance the the homeowner is armed.

When everyone can have a gun they are no longer a deterrent, the criminals need to make sure they have more or bigger guns, which becomes a vicious circle.

stimpsonslostson

This video was posted after Sandy Hook, sadly nothing has changed. 

(There are two parts) 

Teetonetal

underdog said:

seany65 said:

digitalscream said:

seany65 said:

I'm just wondering how anyone could ban legal guns for non-criminal people if they don't also disarm the criminals?

AKA...

"We're totally ineffective at enforcing laws which stop criminals getting guns, so I guess we'd better just give everyone guns and make it a shooting gallery."

No, I was merely asking the question. If so many criminals have guns and have them when breaking into houses or robbing people, how will disarming the 'law-abindig people' help that situation?

Also, if a 'law-abiding' citizen decides to go on a shooting spree, how easy would it be for them to buy guns from criminals?

Very weak excuse. Criminals in the UK can get their hands on guns, but we still have far fewer mass shootings because the effort and connections needed to get a gun means you can't just shoot a group of people when the mood takes you.

Criminals breaking in to houses in the states carry guns because a) they are easy to get and b) because there is a good chance the the homeowner is armed.

When everyone can have a gun they are no longer a deterrent, the criminals need to make sure they have more or bigger guns, which becomes a vicious circle.

The issue for America is that the criminals already have guns and people are afraid of that.

 I can't ever recall any "good guy with a gun" scenes where a random bystander saves the day... I wonder if it ever happens? 

ICBM

Teetonetal said:

I can't ever recall any "good guy with a gun" scenes where a random bystander saves the day... I wonder if it ever happens?

There apparently have been a small number, but it’s in the single figures or low tens - vanishingly small compared to the total number of mass shootings... which is on average more than one every day.

Flink_Poyd

I doubt the tide is turning but there may be a very tiny wave coming over the horizon 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43173753

Jimbro66

HAL9000 said:

Jimbro66 said:

 Whatever, he is now branded a coward by a man who avoided the draft five times.

FTFY

Now that's a bit unfair because, as @fob already reminded us, President Trump (aka Donald-Duck-The-Draft) had a 'foot thing'

p90fool

Flink_Poyd said:

I doubt the tide is turning but there may be a very tiny wave coming over the horizon 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43173753

"The firms include car rental giants Hertz and Enterprise, which had offered discounts for NRA members."

They're really not like us are they?

Nitefly

NRA claims membership of 5 million.  That leaves 320 million people who are not members.  How can they wield such disproportionate power?

ICBM

Nitefly said:

NRA claims membership of 5 million.  That leaves 320 million people who are not members.  How can they wield such disproportionate power?

Money, and focus. They apply their resources where it counts - in lobbying Washington politicians.

It's actually about time their bluff was called - their spokesman complained about them being "attacked". If the majority of Americans stood up and said, yes we are attacking you - because you're an at best amoral organisation which uses its money and influence to override the wishes of the majority of the people who *do* want tighter gun controls, perhaps things would change.

If businesses are starting to boycott them it could be beginning to happen.

VimFuego

Nitefly said:

NRA claims membership of 5 million.  That leaves 320 million people who are not members.  How can they wield such disproportionate power?

I was wondering that, seems an awful small number of people to be causing so much harm, very much a tyranny of the (extremely vocal) minority. 

Nitefly

ICBM said:

Nitefly said:

NRA claims membership of 5 million.  That leaves 320 million people who are not members.  How can they wield such disproportionate power?

Money, and focus. They apply their resources where it counts - in lobbying Washington politicians.

It's actually about time their bluff was called - their spokesman complained about them being "attacked". If the majority of Americans stood up and said, yes we are attacking you - because you're an at best amoral organisation which uses its money and influence to override the wishes of the majority of the people who *do* want tighter gun controls, perhaps things would change.

If businesses are starting to boycott them it could be beginning to happen.

Let's hope the Florida kids can keep the pressure up.  

Looks like the Florida governor will try to at least get the ownership age up from 18 to 21 - as you said, it's a start.

Jimbro66

The tactic of using social media to target companies with business links with the NRA seems to be having some small effect. If it can be intensified and sustained over a long period it might, just might, start to weaken the NRA so that those with influence cease to be intimidated by them. Is that just wishful thinking?

Incidentally, NBC today reported that not only the SRO but also three other deputies from the same police dept remained outside the school while the shooting was in progress. They are said to have had guns drawn but they stayed behind their vehicles. Is it perhaps normal in these situations to await the arrival of heavily armed SWAT teams? Surely there have been enough of these school massacres for there to be a national rapid response procedure in place?

ICBM

Jimbro66 said:

Is it perhaps normal in these situations to await the arrival of heavily armed SWAT teams? Surely there have been enough of these school massacres for there to be a national rapid response procedure in place?

If so it will never work. Mass shootings like this are typically over in minutes. Even a SWAT team waiting fully armed on standby with a helicopter ready to take off from wherever they’re based can’t hope to get there that quickly.

Emp_Fab

They didn't vote for Trump exclusively.  In fact, fewer than 28% of the electorate voted for him.

What was that about "liberal outsiders" ?

FFS.