Robb Elementary School shooting

marke

Well-known member
Well, my contention is that nobody should be issued with or allowed to own a gun until stringent background checks have been carried out to ascertain whether they're fit to have one.
There were background checks and red flag laws in Florida before the disturbed mental patient killed all those kids at the Parkland school. There was an armed guard at the school who ran and hid when Cruz showed up with the gun in his illegal backpack. Cruz bought the gun legally, so how did that happen with his track record? He was not listed as a mental case or dangerous in spite of dozens of evidence because of school and government policies that kept his disturbing trends under wraps.

So how should we fix the laws to prevent future similar attacks? Add background checks? No, those laws were already there. Add red flag laws? No. those laws are useless in cases where schools or the government conceal the crimes and disturbances of mental cases. Cruz was not allowed to carry a backpack to school because of his known mental illness and yet the mentally ill student entered the school unchallenged with his illegal backpack. That tells us that adding more gun laws would not have stopped a disturbed law-breaking mental case like Cruz.



Florida Shooting Suspect Nikolas Cruz Bought His AR-15 Legally (businessinsider.com)

  • Nikolas Cruz, the 19-year-old suspected of killing 17 in a shooting spree at Florida high school, legally purchased the AR-15 he allegedly used in the crime.
  • Florida wouldn't require fingerprints, a special permit, or even a waiting period before Cruz bought his gun. Anyone over 18 can buy a rifle in Florida if they pass a background check.
  • At 19 with no criminal background — despite Cruz's disciplinary record at school — all he needed was a few hundred dollars to buy the rifle.
 

ffreeloader

Well-known member
That's not owner responsibility...That's restricting ownership. Not the same thing. :rolleyes:
When AB says tighter restrictions he's talking. in his head, about making people responsible by taking away their constitutional rights. If someone can't buy a gun then that gun can't get out of lock down and go shoot someone. :rolleyes:
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
That's not owner responsibility...That's restricting ownership. Not the same thing. :rolleyes:
Restricting ownership is responsible and it affects a lot more than the right to bear firearms. If you're responsible then you have the right to own a gun, a dog, to work in the care sector etc etc. If you have a record of irresponsibilty, animal abuse, assault then you shouldn't own a gun, a dog or work in care. If you want to think that's akin to people's rights being trampled on then your prerogative but it's common sense AFAIC.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
When AB says tighter restrictions he's talking. in his head, about making people responsible by taking away their constitutional rights. If someone can't buy a gun then that gun can't get out of lock down and go shoot someone. :rolleyes:
You can't "make people responsible" as if they can be programmed or something so once again, way off the mark there dude.
 

marke

Well-known member
Restricting ownership is responsible and it affects a lot more than the right to bear firearms. If you're responsible then you have the right to own a gun, a dog, to work in the care sector etc etc. If you have a record of irresponsibilty, animal abuse, assault then you shouldn't own a gun, a dog or work in care. If you want to think that's akin to people's rights being trampled on then your prerogative but it's common sense AFAIC.
Where have any gun laws in the US prevented crooks from using illegal guns to illegally murder people? What is the current weekly death count of children gunned down in Chicago? Ten per week? Chicago has gun laws. How are those gun laws working?
 

TomO

Get used to it.
Hall of Fame
Restricting ownership is responsible and it affects a lot more than the right to bear firearms. If you're responsible then you have the right to own a gun, a dog, to work in the care sector etc etc. If you have a record of irresponsibilty, animal abuse, assault then you shouldn't own a gun, a dog or work in care. If you want to think that's akin to people's rights being trampled on then your prerogative but it's common sense AFAIC.
I wasn't arguing that restrictions should or should not exist, I was trying to keep you focused on the subject.

Thank you for reminding me where I am. :rolleyes:
You can't "make people responsible" as if they can be programmed or something so once again, way off the mark there dude.
Not his point....Again, thanks.

 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
I wasn't arguing that restrictions should or should not exist, I was trying to keep you focused on the subject.

Thank you for reminding me where I am. :rolleyes:

Not his point....Again, thanks.

I don't need your "help" in focusing thanks. His "point" as usual had no bearing in reality. Where have I stated or come close to stating anything about making people more responsible by taking away their constitutional rights?

Hint: Never happened and the guy is a hamper short of a picnic frankly.
 

marke

Well-known member
I don't need your "help" in focusing thanks. His "point" as usual had no bearing in reality. Where have I stated or come close to stating anything about making people more responsible by taking away their constitutional rights?

Hint: Never happened and the guy is a hamper short of a picnic frankly.
What part of 2nd amendment logic do you not like?

1656340074712.jpeg
 
Top