Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

News-watch: yet another incident of mass violence in FL, USA — where is this nihilism coming from?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

First, condolences and prayers for victims and families.

Daily Mail has a useful header that seems to capture key themes to ponder as we head into the weekend:

These was of course — within minutes — the usual talking point exchange on firearms, gun-free [= target-rich] zones, mental illness and effects of certain antidepressants, affiliations (Antifa and Islamism have also been suggested and there is a picture of him in a MAGA hat) and the like, etc.

U/D: My email inbox has a link to Townhall that points to a claim that “Leon County law enforcement sources told the Tallahassee Democrat that they could not find information linking Cruz, 19, to the Republic of Florida Militia, as first reported by the group’s self-proclaimed leader Jordan Jereb.” So, that one is a bit of a mystery.

My own view is that there need to be mental illness facilities that can effectively detain potentially violent inmates, that we do need to look at effects of drugs and that schools, organisations and public meetings need oversight by an organised, armed civilian marshal corps. Including churches. I have even suggested the Tavor in semi-automatic form and a 6.5 mm Grendel loading, and would add 9 mm pistols where such would be a better fit. That coach should never have been forced to try to use his body as a shield. Obviously, one guard was not enough. Where, too, four or five people (at least two armed), would credibly be able to take down such a would-be shooter in a case where “when seconds count, the police are minutes away.”

While I am at it, if he was repeatedly reported (including to the FBI), was expelled and in a school for the troubled, how was he able to organise and carry out such an attack?

However, we need more.

What is it that is eating out our civilisation and is sending the message to those on the fringes that instead of cherishing one’s neighbour one can view and treat one’s neighbour as little more than a target. Perhaps, all too literally.

Let me add a remark by Pat Buchanan, which points to a further factor:

>>While this massacre may be a product of mental illness, it is surely a product of moral depravity. For this was premeditated and plotted, done in copycat style to the mass killings to which this country has become all too accustomed.

Nikolas Cruz thought this through. He knew it was Valentine’s Day. He brought his fully loaded AR-15 with extra magazines and smoke grenades to the school that had expelled him. He set off a fire alarm, knowing it would bring students rushing into crowded halls where they would be easy to kill. He then escaped by mixing in with fleeing students.

The first ingredient, then, was an icy indifference toward human life and a willingness to slaughter former fellow students to deliver payback for whatever it was Cruz believed had been done to him at Douglas High.

In his case, the conscience was dead, or was buried beneath hatred, rage or resentment at those succeeding where he had failed. He had been rejected, cast aside, expelled. This would be his revenge, and it would be something for Douglas High and the nation to see – and never forget.

Indeed, it seems a common denominator of the atrocities to which we have been witness in recent years is that the perpetrators are nobodies who wish to die as somebodies.

If a sense of grievance against those perceived to have injured them is the goad that drives misfits like Cruz to mass murder, the magnet that draws them to it is infamy. Infamy is their shortcut to immortality.>>

Maybe, we need to ponder a point raised by Bryan, in the 1920’s — though it will doubtless excite ire in some quarters:

>>Darwinism leads to a denial of God. Nietzsche carried Darwinism to its logical conclusion and it made him the most extreme of anti-Christians . . . . As the [First World] war [of 1914 – 1918] progressed I [William Jennings Bryan was from 1913 – 1915 the 41st US Secretary of State, under President Wilson] became more and more impressed with the conviction that the German propa-ganda rested upon a materialistic foundation. I se-cured the writings of Nietzsche and found in them a defense, made in advance, of all the cruelties and atrocities practiced by the militarists of Germany. [It didn’t start with the Nazis!] Nietzsche tried to substitute the worship of the “Su-perman” for the worship of God. He not only re-jected the Creator, but he rejected all moral standards. He praised war and eulogized hatred because it led to war. He denounced sympathy and pity as attributes unworthy of man. He believed that the teachings of Christ made degenerates and, logical to the end, he regarded Democracy as the refuge of weaklings. He saw in man nothing but an animal and in that animal the highest virtue he recognized was “The Will to Power”—a will which should know no let or hin-drance, no restraint or limitation . . . . His philosophy, if it is worthy the name of philos-ophy, is the ripened fruit of Darwinism — and a tree is known by its fruit . . . .

The corroding influence of Darwinism has spread as the doctrine has been increasingly accepted. In the American preface to “The Glass of Fashion” these words are to be found: “Darwinism not only justifies the sensualist at the trough and Fashion at her glass; it justifies Prussianism at the cannon’s mouth and Bol-shevism at the prison-door. If Darwinism be true, if Mind is to be driven out of the universe and accident accepted as a sufficient cause for all the majesty and glory of physical nature, then there is no crime or vio-lence, however abominable in its circumstances and however cruel in its execution, which cannot be justi-fied by success, and no triviality, no absurdity of Fash-ion which deserves a censure: more — there is no act of disinterested love and tenderness, no deed of self- sac-rifice and mercy, no aspiration after beauty and excel-lence, for which a single reason can be adduced in logic.” [The Menace of Darwinism, pp. 52 – 54. Emphases and explanatory parentheses added.]>>

Is this one root of what we are seeing? This is worth pondering, too. For, nihilism, surely, is not distilling itself out of thin air and imposing itself on us. END

PS: As it has come up, some BBC numbers, c 2007 when policy on holding the 50 rounds at home changed:

PPS: Here is an illustration on how Israeli Teachers protect their charges in loco parentis:

Are Israeli Teachers armed? Notice two adults, one on obvious overwatch for an outing carrying an instantly recognisable US WW2 issue/era M1 carbine [not a likely equipment for a security guard or a soldier on active duty], the other interacting more closely with the children. And of course we do not know if the second adult has a concealed weapon. This image is of course scoffed at, but it makes the point — armed overwatch, some open, some not.
Comments
MB, There are many issues that are highly relevant and go well beyond what is currently being pushed. Some are discussed above. I am also going to suggest global systems interaction. Because the US is as it is, that shifts dynamics elsewhere. So, if the US were to materially shift, that would greatly empower power elite networks at expense of the ordinary man or woman. I am by no means convinced that the relevant elites have a high value on liberty and the way that huge issues of government and policing failures are seeping out on the surface but are being side-stepped speaks volumes. I have also pointed out that any major confiscation effort would trigger a civil war in the US as millions would take it that this is an index of a new long train of abuses and usurpations. Which, BTW is precisely what the US framers intended -- and this is a context where access to weapons sufficient to defeat paramilitary assault is material. Yes, I know this is hard to swallow, but it needs to be reckoned with. Frankly, I think those pushing right now are doing so to hype up polarisation, by playing with fire. KFkairosfocus
March 1, 2018
March
03
Mar
1
01
2018
09:06 PM
9
09
06
PM
PDT
Charles@154, yup. Twenty years from now teens will save their paper route money to buy antique cars. If you know anything about root cause analysis, which you obviously don’t, the corrective action should eliminate the root cause (aka, texting while driving). Banning teens from owning cell phones won’t eliminate texting while driving because this practice isn’t limited to teens. Building cars with signal blockers will do this. But you are just trying to demonstrate that banning certain types of guns, or placing more restrictions on gun ownership, will not eliminate mass shootings. But nobody has suggested that it will. However, countries that have invoked stringent and enforced gun access laws do not have more mass shootings than there are days in the year. Trying to divert the subject to texting while driving does not change this fact.Molson Bleu
March 1, 2018
March
03
Mar
1
01
2018
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT
Molson Bleu @ 150
I can see the cell phone use problem being resolved with technology. I’m sure that car companies can install signal blockers in cars if pressured by government. This would remove the problem by making cell phone access impossible while in a car.
Yes, you can ask car companies to install signal blockers in new cars, and I am not saying that we shouldn’t do this, but that is just a bandaid. It does absolutely nothing to solve the root cause. The teens will no longer text from new cars, instead they'll just continue to text from older cars, or trucks, or on bicycles or along roads without paying attention. Alteratively, we could make it more difficult for teens to get their cell phones in the first place. This won’t eliminate texting while driving deaths, unfortunately the cat is out of the bag on that, but it will reduce them.Charles
March 1, 2018
March
03
Mar
1
01
2018
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT
U/D: Troubling questions on juvenile delinquency and govt alternatives to arrest programmes in Broward County, here. KFkairosfocus
March 1, 2018
March
03
Mar
1
01
2018
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
MB, there are accurate, objective terms that can and should be used; e.g. contrast assault rifle, a selective fire weapon using an intermediate power round which allows for better control on fully automatic fire (and developed i/l/o the 300 - 400 m most firefights evidence). As for relevant scenarios, I suggest you look at the incident at a church in Texas where there was a neighbour who happened to be an NRA instructor and intervened with his own AR-15. I am also going to suggest that one who breaks a home (especially when people are home) cannot be presumed to be "only" interested in violating property. In the relevant context I have raised, organised, armed overwatch is relevant protection. I am not suggesting the AR-15, I think the Tavor bullpup in semi-auto form and using the 6.5 mm Grendel is a better package.For close-range, confined area work and where concealment would be relevant, I suggest 9 mm semiauto. KFkairosfocus
March 1, 2018
March
03
Mar
1
01
2018
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT
“The definition of “Assault Weapon” is itself a skewing, as it is a politically motivated term with emphasis on cosmetic factors.“ What term would you prefer? Defensive weapon? Hunting weapon? Target shooting weapon? High speed lead delivery system? It seems to me that automatic and semi-automatic rifles that can fire rapidly are best for two functions. Assaulting or defending against a large group or a small group with similar fire power. You don’t need these to protect yourself in your home. In fact, there is very little need to protect yourself in your home. Someone breaking into your home is not likely doing so to do you harm. He wants your TV. Or your jewelry. I have been doing some reading about Canada. Apparently, unlike here, a Canadian is not allowed to use force to protect his property. In fact, people have been charged for using force against someone that has broken into their homes. That may seem strange to us but it seems to work there. Break-ins are no higher than in the US, but we have a much higher rate of violence as the result of break-ins.Molson Bleu
March 1, 2018
March
03
Mar
1
01
2018
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
Charles@148. These are certainly chilling numbers. But we are very good at addressing most problems when we first encounter them. When car fatalities were getting out of hand, we mandated car companies to install seat belts and air bags. Made them perform safety tests. Redesigned roads to be safer. I can see the cell phone use problem being resolved with technology. I'm sure that car companies can install signal blockers in cars if pressured by government. This would remove the problem by making cell phone access impossible while in a car.Molson Bleu
March 1, 2018
March
03
Mar
1
01
2018
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT
Charles @ 148: Fascinating statistics. I am sure the a/mat leftists (not all a/mats are leftists) will try their best to debunk your analysis. They will fail.Truth Will Set You Free
March 1, 2018
March
03
Mar
1
01
2018
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
For those concerned about the “single greatest threat to American public safety.”.... http://www.textinganddrivingsafety.com/texting-and-driving-stats
Texting While Driving Causes: 1. 1,600,000 accidents per year – National Safety Council 2. 330,000 injuries per year – Harvard Center for Risk Analysis Study 3. 11 teen deaths EVERY DAY – Ins. Institute for Hwy Safety Fatality Facts 4. Nearly 25% of ALL car accidents
Teens have no consitutional right to cell phones or driving. Not one more teen death!!! Banning teens from having cells phones would save 4000+ teen lives every year, plus whatever additional adult accident victims.Charles
March 1, 2018
March
03
Mar
1
01
2018
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
F/N: Cross-complaining tactic by Stacey Patton, an assistant professor of multimedia journalism at Morgan State University, in WaPo:
President Trump wants to arm teachers to prevent, or reduce the carnage from, future school shootings like the one at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., this month. “A teacher would have shot the hell out of him before he knew what had happened,” Trump said last week about the attacker in Florida. He’s not the only one who thinks this is a good idea: Several states are already considering legislation to allow guns to be carried into schools, ostensibly to protect kids. But putting guns into the hands of schoolteachers would be extraordinarily dangerous for black and Latino students, who are already often forced to try to learn in hostile environments where they’re treated as threats. How long would it be, if Trump’s plan became reality, before a teacher shoots a black student and then invokes the “I feared for my life” defense we continually hear from police officers who misinterpret young black people’s behavior with deadly consequences?
It seems evident that there is a spiral of polarisation being pursued. I am fairly sure that were someone to blanket accuse black teachers in a similar manner, there would be a huge outcry. Something is seriously wrong. KFkairosfocus
February 28, 2018
February
02
Feb
28
28
2018
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT
F/N: Larry Correia [an expert], 2012:
So now that there is a new tragedy the president wants to have a “national conversation on guns”. Here’s the thing. Until this national conversation is willing to entertain allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons, then it isn’t a conversation at all, it is a lecture. Now when I say teachers carrying concealed weapons on Facebook I immediately get a bunch of emotional freak out responses. You can’t mandate teachers be armed! Guns in every classroom! Emotional response! Blood in the streets! No. Hear me out. The single best way to respond to a mass shooter is with an immediate, violent response. The vast majority of the time, as soon as a mass shooter meets serious resistance, it bursts their fantasy world bubble. Then they kill themselves or surrender. This has happened over and over again. Police are awesome. I love working with cops. However any honest cop will tell you that when seconds count they are only minutes away. After Colombine law enforcement changed their methods in dealing with active shootersIt used to be that you took up a perimeter and waited for overwhelming force before going in. Now usually as soon as you have two officers on scene you go in to confront the shooter (often one in rural areas or if help is going to take another minute, because there are a lot of very sound tactical reasons for using two, mostly because your success/survival rates jump dramatically when you put two guys through a door at once. The shooter’s brain takes a moment to decide between targets). The reason they go fast is because they know that every second counts. The longer the shooter has to operate, the more innocents die. However, cops can’t be everywhere. There are at best only a couple hundred thousand on duty at any given time patrolling the entire country. Excellent response time is in the three-five minute range. We’ve seen what bad guys can do in three minutes, but sometimes it is far worse. They simply can’t teleport. So in some cases that means the bad guys can have ten, fifteen, even twenty minutes to do horrible things with nobody effectively fighting back. So if we can’t have cops there, what can we do? The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started. The teachers are there already. The school staff is there already. Their reaction time is measured in seconds, not minutes. They can serve as your immediate violent response. Best case scenario, they engage and stop the attacker, or it bursts his fantasy bubble and he commits suicide. Worst case scenario, the armed staff provides a distraction, and while he’s concentrating on killing them, he’s not killing more children. But teachers aren’t as trained as police officers! True, yet totally irrelevant. The teacher doesn’t need to be a SWAT cop or Navy SEAL. They need to be speed bumps. But this leads to the inevitable shrieking and straw man arguments about guns in the classroom, and then the pacifistic minded who simply can’t comprehend themselves being mandated to carry a gun, or those that believe teachers are all too incompetent and can’t be trusted. Let me address both at one time. Don’t make it mandatory. In my experience, the only people who are worth a darn with a gun are the ones who wish to take responsibility and carry a gun. Make it voluntary. It is rather simple. Just make it so that your state’s concealed weapons laws trump the Federal Gun Free School Zones act. All that means is that teachers who voluntarily decide to get a concealed weapons permit are capable of carrying their guns at work. Easy. Simple. Cheap. Available now. Then they’ll say that this is impossible, and give me all sorts of terrible worst case scenarios about all of the horrors that will happen with a gun in the classroom… No problem, because this has happened before. In fact, my state laws allow for somebody with a concealed weapons permit to carry a gun in a school right now. Yes. Utah has armed teachers. We have for several years now.
Food for thought. KFkairosfocus
February 28, 2018
February
02
Feb
28
28
2018
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
Molson Bleu @ 140 Here's a bit more on Klarevas' book (the basis for the WashPo stats you cited) that I've excerpted from a review on Amazon Author exaggerates; does not take his opposition seriously.: Klarevas states several times in his book:
"...I examine how and why the United States has evolved into a rampage nation where mass shootings now pose the single greatest threat to American public safety."
That is a patently asinine and fraudulent claim. The reviewer goes on to excerpt one of Klarevas' own stats, that "mass shootings" category results in 438 deaths per year. The reviewer's own research into other causes of death indicates:
From what I could gather from Google, drunk driving claims about 10,000 lives per year in the USA. Accidental drowning claims 3000 to 4000 lives per year. Accidental falls, about 30,000 lives. Accidental poisoning (must be children primarily, I should think) claims around 38,000 lives per year. Flu deaths and medical mistakes are hard to pin down exactly, but the most solid number for flu seemed to be 23,000 deaths per year, while estimates for medical mistakes vary from 100,000 to 400,000 deaths per year depending on the sympathies of who is doing the estimate.
Plainly, 438 mass shooting deaths per year pales in comparison to tens of thousands of deaths from other causes, and "mass shootings" are not the "single greatest threat to American public safety." The reviewer also cites Klarevas' claim that:
"it's even hard to commit mass murder when running people down with vehicles weighing thousands of pounds."
Yet on Bastille Day (July 14, 2016) in Nice, France a terrorist killed 84 people with a truck. 84 deaths by truck is second only to the 89-90 shooting deaths at Bataclan, France. These are glaring errors that cast doubt on Klarevas' credibility.Charles
February 28, 2018
February
02
Feb
28
28
2018
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT
F/N: The definition of "Assault Weapon" is itself a skewing, as it is a politically motivated term with emphasis on cosmetic factors. Between WW1 and WW2, it was recognised that standard 0.30 or so calibre infantry rifles were over-powered for most cases, and attempts to create an effective automatic rifle failed; even the BAR turned into a relatively heavy squad automatic weapon or light machine gun, replacing the Lewis. The US for instance seriously contemplated moving to an intermediate round, for which the Garand semi-auto rifle was actually designed. The top brass rejected and it was reworked around the cartridge used in the Springfield 1903. In Germany, they developed a reduced power round effective at 300 - 400 m, the upper range for almost all infantry engagements and a rifle to fire it, the MP44. This, defined the new category: selective fire, intermediate power weapons. Hitler gave the term: assault rifle. Postwar, the UK developed the EM rifle, a bullpup using an intermediate power round, but with continued US insistence of the US leaders on full power rounds, the FN FAL and an upgraded Garand, the M14 were standardised on the 7.62 NATO round and were deemed battle rifles. They turned out to be hard to manage on full auto. (The UK issue version of the FN FAL was semiauto.) Subsequently the US went to the 5.56/ 0.223 round and the M16 family. In this context, rifles on the whole are not well suited to criminal purposes due to size; in the US they actually account for fewer homicides than knives and IIRC blunt instruments and hands/fists. Most homicides by shooting are with handguns, as are most suicides. However, given a current series of soft target mass shootings, the AR-15 family of semi-auto rifles are a handy target to polarise the public debates -- not least by setting up a framework that would implicitly ban semiautomatic (one trigger pull one round) weapons as a category; currently the overwhelming majority of firearms in the US. This family is popular for many reasons, including its low recoil characteristics. Since 1934 most fully automatic weapons were banned from civilian ownership, and this was strengthened in IIRC 1986. Lost somewhere in the noise is the evidence that firearms are used defensively in the face of real or intended crime millions of times per year in the US. A serious gun confiscation initiative would likely trigger civil war as it would be taken by millions to be a step of tyranny. Short of that, political suicide as people will vote on the issue. That cannot be a serious target, so we need to focus on who hopes to benefit from polarised, ill-informed debates over guns rather than the clear government and policing failures several incidents have highlighted. KFkairosfocus
February 28, 2018
February
02
Feb
28
28
2018
03:04 AM
3
03
04
AM
PDT
"In the case of the USA, there was a moderate association between a decline in mass shootings and the temporary 1994-2004 Federal Assault Weapon Ban. The period following the cessation of the ban saw an increase in incidents and fatalities." --- Lemieux F, Bricknell S, Prenzler T, (2015) "Mass shootings in Australia and the United States, 1981-2013", Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice, Vol. 1 Issue: 3, pp.131-142, https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRPP-05-2015-0013Quaesitor
February 27, 2018
February
02
Feb
27
27
2018
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT
Molson Bleu @ 140 The Washington Post article you linked cites a book "Rampage Nation: Securing America from Mass Shootings" by Louis Klarevas. But Klarevas doesn't breakout in his "gun massacre" incidents and deaths due to assault weapons vs other rifles/handguns. So his conclusions that the AWB was effective is unsupported. He's just arguing a statistical correlation (which isn't the same as causation), and that correlation is skewed by his choice of massacre definition. His definition of a massacre as 6+ deaths, which tends to sharpen differences from one interval to the next. The other definition of 4+ deaths results in less variation over time. A study An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban conducted by the DoJ in 2004 concluded: [p. 96]
9.4. Summary Although the ban has been successful in reducing crimes with AWs, any benefits from this reduction are likely to have been outweighed by steady or rising use of nonbanned semiautomatics with LCMs, which are used in crime much more frequently than AWs. Therefore, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury, as we might have expected had the ban reduced crimes with both AWs and LCMs.
Charles
February 27, 2018
February
02
Feb
27
27
2018
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT
That supposed ban was nonsense - the differences were strictly cosmetic and the idea it affected anything is preposterous. And the WaPo is a lousy source. Try Bureau of Justice Statistics.gooshy
February 27, 2018
February
02
Feb
27
27
2018
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT
“Cite your sources.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/15/its-time-to-bring-back-the-assault-weapons-ban-gun-violence-experts-say/?utm_term=.fb0f2a7b2a37Molson Bleu
February 27, 2018
February
02
Feb
27
27
2018
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT
Molson Bleu @ 138 Cite your sources. I want to see 43% and 239% as compared to what and when. I would also note that "deaths" and "mass shootings" are not the same. A mass shooting is generally defined as 4 or more casualties, but you are counting deaths, which vary greatly from mass shooting to mass shooting. Further, you have not cited what weapons were used to cause those deaths. You imply they were assault weapons but pistols and revolvers are often used in mass shootings as well, and you haven't actually been specific. I'm also aware that in 1999 there were five mass shootings while the "1994 assault weapons ban" was in effect, and that those incidents exceeded the numbers both prior to the ban and then after the ban expired, except for 2012. I.e. when looking at numbers of mass shootings (rather than "deaths" from all types of weapons), the ban was largely ineffective. So, cite your sources (publication, issue and page no, ideally post some links) so your claims can be checked.Charles
February 27, 2018
February
02
Feb
27
27
2018
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT
Charles@136. In 1994, assault weapons were banned and mass shooting deaths dropped by 43%. In 2004 the ban was lifted and mass shooting deaths increased by 239%.Molson Bleu
February 27, 2018
February
02
Feb
27
27
2018
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT
F/N: Glenn Reynolds in USA Today is sobering, by particularly telling contrast to the "the Gov't will take care of us" mentality that is being promoted through selective emphasis, use of a highly select cross section of survivors as spokesmen and much more:
The chief problem facing America today is the decline of its institutions, coupled with the denial of that decline by the people in charge of its institutions. The latest example of this problem is the Parkland school shooting in Florida. From the FBI, to local law enforcement, to the schools, everyone failed. There was failure early, there was failure in the middle, and there was failure late. And no one has taken responsibility . . . . Despite Broward Sheriff Scott Israel’s all-out attack on the NRA the night before Peterson's inaction became public, this debacle illustrates why so many Americans want to own guns, and aren’t comfortable relying solely on “trained professional law enforcement officers” like Scot Peterson. As Jim Geraghty writes in National Review, “the Parkland shooting is proving to be a colossal cascading failure of both local and federal law enforcement. We know the world has plenty of good cops and good FBI agents. But as American citizens, we never know when we’re going to roll snake-eyes and find that the threat in our midst was missed by cops and that they will not come quickly to our rescue. This is why we need the option to protect ourselves — a right which is in the Constitution. What is the point of changing our laws if the police cannot rise to the challenge of enforcing them?” In Sheriff Israel’s case — as with Harvey Weinstein's promise to "give the NRA my full attention" after he was exposed as a sexual predator — blaming the NRA is an attempt at deflection, and a way of rallying Democrats to his side. It didn’t work for Weinstein and it’s not likely to work for Israel, either. But the bigger question is this: We have more government, at all levels, than we’ve ever had before. Yet failures like this keep happening. The FBI, after all, missed the Tsarnaevs (who committed the Boston Marathon bombing) despite being warned by the Russian government. It missed the 9/11 attacks even though it was investigating Zacarias Moussaoui — agents investigating Moussaoui hit so many roadblocks that they joked that Osama bin Laden must have had a mole in the Bureau HQ. And, of course, the San Bernardino shooters and Pulse nightclub shooter Omar Mateen escaped the net as well. People are being asked to trust the government to keep them safe, when the government is patently unable to do so. And then, when the government fails, it engages in blame-shifting deflection. Why should people listen?
KFkairosfocus
February 27, 2018
February
02
Feb
27
27
2018
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT
Molson Bleu @ 133:
Yes, you can harden soft targets like schools, and I am not saying that we shouldn’t do this, but that is just a bandaid.
Yes you did argue against hardening schools @ 113 and @ 118:
@113: Hardening soft targets only has the effect of shifting the shootings to other soft targets, often to areas of congregation outside the secure zone of hardened targets. If we do as KF suggests, to be effective it would turn us into an armed camp, little different than a police state. We would be giving up all sorts of freedom so that Billy-Bob can keep his gun. That’s not the country I want to live in. @118:
“I’d rather my kids were schooled in an armed camp, than be returned home in body bags, just so you can virtue-signal.”
I would rather my kids not experience either.
You continue with:
Charles, the difference is that the Israelis were dealing with different types of shooters. They were dealing with organized terrorists who oppose the very existence of their country. We are dealing with home-grown crazies, usually loners, who are obtaining their guns legally because of our lax and poorly enforced laws.
Whether terrorist or home grown crazies, they all bleed red. It doesn't matter how they got their guns, once they begin attacking a school; shooters of any and all motivations can be stopped by killing them - it works.
[Hardening schools] does absolutely nothing to solve the root cause. The crazies will no longer shoot up the schools. Instead, they will shoot up the theatres, hospital waiting rooms, subways, theatres, church picnics, church services, New Years celebrations, college graduation ceremonies, pro life rallies, fall fairs, scout jamborees, and the like.
Hardening schools will stop the mass school shootings, Israeli schools are proof of that. But as long as criminals are allowed to have guns, gun violence will continue. Chicago is proof that the strictest gun control in the US regardless has the most gun violence. And before you circle around and argue that gun control needs to be country wide, Bataclan, France is proof that country-wide gun control doesn't stop mass shootings either.
Alteratively, we could make it more difficult for the crazies to get their guns in the first place.
Well duh!!! How about enforcing the laws already on the books? Cruz obtained guns because his "craziness" was deliberately kept out of the system by Broward County School District and Sheriffs office - they literally hid Cruz's prior offenses that should have gone into his background check. And the FBI ignored credible tips about Cruz including one from a concerned gun dealer. And then the Broward County Sheriffs refused to engage Cruz after he started shooting. There's your trouble.
This won’t eliminate mass shootings, unfortunately the cat is out of the bag on that, but it will reduce them.
As long as there are gun free zones, they will remain the target of choice for illegal shooters. That includes Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan, Pulse nightclub shooter Omar Mateen, San Bernardino Inland Regional Center shooters Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik - all gun free zones, all soft, inviting targets, all shooters previously flagged for questionable attitudes and actvities - all ignored until after they started shooting. The only people that can be relied upon to defend themselves and others are the armed law-abiding citizens who are on-site. The FBI, police, school administation, military police, none can be trusted to come to anyones defense. Reduce the gun free zones and reduce the mass shootings. As an example, Jeanne Assam, an armed volunteer security guard for New Life Church, killed Matthew Murray before he could shoot more than four other church attendees. President Trump is advocating allowing military personnel to carry while on base and arming school teachers and staff. That's a good start to eliminate some of the gun free zones.Charles
February 27, 2018
February
02
Feb
27
27
2018
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
F/N: I have added an illustration of students in Israel under armed, open carry overwatch. I note that armed, murderous enemies "foreign and domestic" manifesting a clear threat to target "soft" zones such as schools and churches etc must peoperly be answered. Where the Beslan Siege alone should be warning enough that the Islamist terrorist threat extends to schools also. Remember, a fatwa was issued calling out permission for nuclear war scale casualties against the USA. If Office Christmas parties, Night Clubs, Theatres, Cafes, promenades and Marathons have been targetted, the threat is far wider than many are willing to acknowledge. And yes, I recall the shock of bringing my young family to Jamaica and going to the supermarket then as the trolley went around the corner of an aisle there was a police man with an M-16 in his trolley doing some shopping. We got over the shock, recognising the alternative. KFkairosfocus
February 27, 2018
February
02
Feb
27
27
2018
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
N/W U/D: I see reports indicating that Fox News' Laura Ingraham -- cf. video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFSHLHyaSR4 -- is stating that the Broward Deputies were on a stand down order on account of not having on body cameras:
“Now, our sources near the Broward County sheriff’s department are telling us that the deputies who arrived at the scene of the shooting were told not to enter the school unless their body cameras were turned on, and then we found out that the deputies did not have body cameras so they did not enter the building or engage the shooter . . . . Curiously, police also lost radio communications during the Parkland shooting. And our source claims that radio communication also went dead during the Fort Lauderdale airport shooting in 2017 that he also got a lot of criticism for.”
Can this be confirmed? This would be yet more breakdown of law enforcement -- but is obviously driven by responses to anti-police activism. Actions and agit prop agendas have consequences. KFkairosfocus
February 27, 2018
February
02
Feb
27
27
2018
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT
Charles, the difference is that the Israelis were dealing with different types of shooters. They were dealing with organized terrorists who oppose the very existence of their country. We are dealing with home-grown crazies, usually loners, who are obtaining their guns legally because of our lax and poorly enforced laws. Yes, you can harden soft targets like schools, and I am not saying that we shouldn’t do this, but that is just a bandaid. It does absolutely nothing to solve the root cause. The crazies will no longer shoot up the schools. Instead, they will shoot up the theatres, hospital waiting rooms, subways, theatres, church picnics, church services, New Years celebrations, college graduation ceremonies, pro life rallies, fall fairs, scout jamborees, and the like. Alteratively, we could make it more difficult for the crazies to get their guns in the first place. This won’t eliminate mass shootings, unfortunately the cat is out of the bag on that, but it will reduce them.Molson Bleu
February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT
Molson Bleu @ 131
School shootings were never common here, and Israel should not be invoked as ostensible proof of need for more weapons, experts say.
True, they were never "common" because the Israelis learn a lot faster than US liberals. Israel made changes immediately after the 1st school shooting some 40 years ago. They hardened their schools. There haven't been any school shootings since because the shooters (or bombers) can't get close or are killed trying. So the terrorists look for softer targets. Israel is proof that arming people in schools works.Charles
February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT
“How the Israeli’s guard their schools is what has been claimed/discussed on this thread, not Israeli gun owenership.” I agree. That is why I provided the link. The first paragraph of which is:
School shootings were never common here, and Israel should not be invoked as ostensible proof of need for more weapons, experts say.
The other example often used is the Swiss experience. But even this is questionable at best. Yes, they have a high gun ownership rate. But it is still only 1/4 that of the US. And decreasing. 50% of guns are those of ex servicemen who purchased them after their service finished. At one time a large percentage of service men purchased their weapons. It is now down to 11%. And the idea of an armed citizenry being able to respond more quickly that the police is a great concept except that it isn’t reflected in reality. Obtaining a licence to carry a gun in Switzerland is restricted to police and those in the security field. Others are allowed to transport their weapons from home to shooting ranges, or to hunting areas, but they are not allowed to be loaded, and you are not allowed to make side trips. This makes them useless with respect to rapid response. And even Switzerland has experienced increased legal restrictions on guns over the last couple of decades. And, surprize, they have seen a reduction in the incidence of gun deaths.Molson Bleu
February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT
Molson Bleu @ 129
If this is accurate, it casts serious doubt on what is frequently claimed with regard to Israel and gun access.
This is you again trying to move the goal posts. Copy and paste "what is frequently claimed with regard to Israel and gun access" and compare each against your Facebook paste @ 129. How the Israeli's guard their schools is what has been claimed/discussed on this thread, not Israeli gun owenership.Charles
February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT
Given the frequent mention of Israel in this thread, I thought I would post something posted by someone named Nuri McBride on FB. Just for honesty sake, I have to say that I can’t voich for the accuracy. But it does correspond with this other article from 2012. https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.timesofisrael.com/israel-dismisses-us-gun-lobbys-inaccurate-claim-about-gun-laws/amp/ If this is accurate, it casts serious doubt on what is frequently claimed with regard to Israel and gun access.
I've noticed several people in my feed mention Israel concerning armed citizens and guns, quoting [another word for nonsense] put out by the NRA, so let me set a few things straight. If you want to own a gun in Israel you must consider the following: 1. 40% of applications for firearms permits are rejected. There are only 170,000 active permits currently (population 8.5 million) 2. Only a small group of people are eligible for firearms licenses. Primarily licenses go to high ranking retired military personnel, police officers, prison guards, security guards, and animal control officers. There are a small number of licences for settlers in the West Bank and hunters. 3. You must be at least 21 years old for those who completed military service otherwise you have to wait till you are 27 or 45 for non-citizen residents. 4. Applicants must be a resident of Israel for at least three consecutive years. 5. You must pass an extensive background check (including criminal check, national security check, health exam, and mental health evaluation) 6. You must establish a genuine reason for possessing a firearm. I like guns is not an option. If you say you need a gun for self-defence, you can only have one gun, and you are limited to an annual supply of 50 bullets 7. You have to justify every gun you possess separately. Owning more than two guns is extremely rare. 8. You must pass a multi-week weapons-training course. 9. You have to renew your license and pass a shooting course every three years. 10. You have to undergo a psychological assessment every six years. 11. You must have a safe at your residence in which to keep the firearm. 12. There is 100% VAT on firearms, and you will pay thousands of shekels to qualify for your license and hundreds of shekels each year to keep it. 13. There are enormous legal repercussions should your gun be miss-handled, miss-fire, injure anyone unjustly, or be used in a crime. Even if you are not the one that committed these acts. 14. You are not allowed to sell your gun to anyone but a registered dealer or the police. In Israel, gun ownership is a privilege, not a right. It is illegal to own an assault rifle. The photo below is not an open carry gun enthusiast. It's an off-duty soldier that has to carry her weapon while in basic training. Know that when you see young Israelis carrying assault rifles, those are soldiers. I have yet to meet a single Israeli that liked doing this. It is basically a punishment. Don't believe what the NRA says. Gun violence and gun death in Israel is low, not because we all have to carry guns in our youth, but because of gun regulation, enforcement, and not breeding a culture of fear around personal protection.
Molson Bleu
February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
mistake - deletejerry
February 25, 2018
February
02
Feb
25
25
2018
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT
KF, Not here much any more but saw this thread today. You may be interested in http://slate.me/2CljCKz They did everything wrong. This is from 9 years ago and apparently it was all forgotten in Florida.
In the 10 years since Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold struck, numerous teenagers have plotted to blow up their high schools, and several have proceeded to the action stage. But none has succeeded. Others have sought to kill with automatic weapons, both in and outside of schools. Some succeeded, but most of them, too, have been thwarted. Part of the reason why there has not been another Columbine is that the police, school administrators, parents, and children learned the four most important lessons of Columbine (in some cases, a little too well).
The first lesson is really one that we have unlearned, which is that there actually isn’t a distinct psychological profile of the school killer. The second, and perhaps most important, lesson learned from Columbine: what the FBI calls “leakage.” Gunfire in the classroom is the final stage of a long-simmering attack. The Secret Service found that 81 percent of shooters had explicitly revealed their intentions. The third key lesson of Columbine: We need to prepare students and teachers better for an emergency. Harris and Klebold caught their high school unprepared. We’re less naive now. The final practical lesson of Columbine is a revolution in police response tactics. Cops followed the old book at Columbine: surround the building, set up a perimeter, contain the damage. That approach has been replaced by the “active shooter protocol.”jerry
February 25, 2018
February
02
Feb
25
25
2018
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 8

Leave a Reply