School Shooting, More Red Flags

113 posts / 0 new
Last post
sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1924
School Shooting, More Red Flags

A long-time PP member sent me this today and I believe that it deserves posting and its own discussion area.

The original Twitter Thread is here: 

https://twitter.com/JohnBouchell

It can be read in a thread reader app here:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/966396341877342208.html

The author is a school security administrator with an extensive background in security and police work. 

My name is John Bouchell and I am not a bot. I was in school administration after spending a stint in the military. Let me explain: As usual, I was a teacher, a coach and later became an administrator. I worked at all three levels of public school in administration.

Like most athletic males I was assigned as a part of a school security team- at all three levels. Eventually, I was trained by the Department of Homeland Security, Several sheriff's departments, and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, GBI. Prior, I was trained the military.

I was a Combat Crew member and a certified marksman with both rifles and pistols (M-16, and .40 Cal Colt) with an Oak Leaf Cluster (Multiple awards). I was a likely person to help with school security and had an extensive background in technology and video surveillance as well.

I held an SCI security clearance which is the very highest we have in America. I say these things to help you to understand my background to weigh my opinion as to the events in Parkview [Parkland] Florida, (30 minutes from my home where I live, now retired from School administration).

As an administrator in charge of a large High School of 1,800 students and 140 employees, I held tabletop exercises and wrote publications & power points presentation, & helped with both multiple school & mult-jurisdiction school systems training as developer and presenter.

Never did I hear from, receive information from, or was contacted by, read any publications, or gathered statistics from the United States Secret Service. Not once- EVER. Yet, 3 weeks prior to the shooting in Florida, the USSS was not only at the Parkland school, they held training.

I have also, despite actually thwarting a school shooting by an armed predator at my school, causing both Code Red, total lockdown, 911calls and arrests and conviction of the potential shooter, [never] saw, spoke with, or was interviewed or contacted by the FBI, or the USSS.

Its worthy to note the 911 response time was in excess of 20 minutes. In fact, I was only contacted by a few reporters. The incident was basically ignored and squashed in fear of damaging the political establishment, school board, school superintendent, et.al.

NO REPORTERS EVER CONTACTED MY STUDENTS for interviews or opinions. I never spoke to a national law enforcement agent much less the USSS.

So, to hear the FBI were the first responders only beating CNN by minutes in a wealthy Florida area saturated with Law Enforcement shocked me.

Seeing the amazing amount of CNN coverage so well organized and all espousing one message and only one message is equally troubling. Seeing a student saying she actually walked with the shooter while evacuating and HEARD shots shocked me.

Seeing video of a student telling us she was told they would have a drill that day with actors deeply troubles me. Seeing the same young man over and over who visited CNN that day and whose father is an FBI agent troubles me.

Seeing and hearing the same narratives over and over that conflict with every aspect of training and experience I have is extremely unsettling. I saw video interviews of students claiming multiple shooters. This is troubling as well.

I realize that the shooter apparently pulled the fire alarm to create chaos and provide a richer target environment (that alarm would have sent a signal to its precise time and location by the way) and tossing smoke bombs in a stairwell to drive the victims to the shooter's local

BUT: At least one interview I watched was a student saying her doorknob was rattled and she heard a voice say "Go try another door". This needs exploration. I can sit here and tell you who I think failed miserably but it is fruitless. I'll save that opinion for future reference.

In my utterly qualified, expert opinion, there are several troubling "Facts" being dispensed that I refuse to accept prima facia. Some of them are: Why was the shooter visited 39 times by local LE but never placed on a watch list and their right to a firearm flagged and denied.

Why was his extensive school discipline not compiled and presented to the school board for total expulsion from the schools? What was the FBI the first response when the school is so close to the PD and an officer with a radio was supposedly on campus?

How did CNN have so many "Kids" in place to echo their exact verbiage and focus on the actual weapon and not the shooter? Why isn't the alleged USSS involvement in a public school being examined? Who is this reoccurring "Student" that has family in the FBI?

Why are the interviews that do NOT agree with the one shooter or the narrative that CNN is pushing being heard? Why aren't the multiple videos available (With the floor plan I have seen I would have had approx 22 cameras in that building and had over 140 in my school) being seen?

I realize that some of the videos will be used for the trail of the shooter; however, it is in the interest of the public to see some of the unused footage that is available. Why was the USSS at a this school providing training 3 weeks prior?

And how was the weakest, sloppiest, and most often NOT on REAL location news company all over this son of the FBI agent with an amazing and uncanny ability to find a news camera in multiple sates [sites?] in the last six months?

Did this infamous teenager actually graduate already? Has the USSS ever been to any other schools to supervise and provide training for an active shooter situation? How could the USSS possibly visit all 22,000 High Schools in the US? And how would they be chosen?

Who identified this shooter and how did L.E. track him to the retail store he was arrested at? Why has the entire CNN narrative to attack the second amendment when at least THREE government institutions (possibly FIVE if you count DFACS) failed miserably to help the mentally ill

Why has the school district decided to demolish this building (like they did Sandy Hook) if their narrative is true and correct? Why not allow the forensics to be published and explored completely? Make it the offices of school safety as a monument even- But I digress.

All in all my PROFESSIONAL opinion is this stinks to high heavens. Either we are surrounded by the most incompetent news people in the world, who don't ask questions or give a damn about these murders, or they have NO concept of why this happened will happen again soon.

I for one am SICK TO DEATH of fake news outlets pretending this is about a rifle- its not. Its about a mentally ill person, totally abandoned and discarded and politically expediently ignored, by multiple agencies allowed to commit inhumane acts of terror due to incompetence. END

 

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1924
Quercus Bicolor asked (a year ago)...

Coming from memory here as this question was raised a long time ago....

Why would the deep state fake an incident and not really kill lots of school children.  (I think we were talking about Sandy Hook.)  Aren't they sociopaths and unbothered by killing children?

The answer is that the family of someone who is killed will not let go of a stories with inconsistencies.  A loved one died, and if the story doesn't clearly add up, they will not stop demanding answers.  So if you are going to stage an incident, you really don't want bereaved and furious family members on your case.

We saw this with the families of the 9/11 victims.

thc0655's picture
thc0655
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 27 2010
Posts: 1628
I'm waiting for more information, but so far this STINKS!

Apparently, the school's camera system wasn't displaying on its monitors what was happening at the moment during the shooting.  Inexplicably, the cameras were on a 20 minute delay.  So when responding officers went to the office to try to gain some valuable tactical intelligence about what was happening and where, they were confused because they didn't know what they were seeing on the monitors had happened 20 minutes earlier.  The shooter had already snuck out of the building by then. That could easily have caused all kinds of confusion, including reports of multiple shooters and allowing the actual shooter to escape undetected when he heard police arriving.  I can't think of a good reason to have the camera system on a 20 minute delay.

http://nbc4i.com/2018/02/22/parkland-school-shooting-tape-delay-blamed-for-confusion-that-allowed-suspect-to-escape/

The first YouTube video of a student claiming multiple shooters I tried to watch has already been taken down. YouTube isn't helping clean up reports of the chaos so only one narrative gets through, are they?  That's just crazy talk.  YouTube is so fair and objective.  Same with CNN: completely trustworthy.

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2018/02/parkland-school-shooting-survivor-we-were-told-the-police-would-do-a-fake-code-red-with-fake-guns-3595861.html

CNN seems to have been ready and waiting to take this incident and run with it to get the gun control they've always wanted.  And they seem to be OK with presenting scripted shows disguised as news and interviews. So in this case, did they have advance notice or is it just that they are primed and ready to respond to the next incident with a full court press for gun control?

http://ibankcoin.com/zeropointnow/2018/02/22/jrotc-shooting-survivor-cnn-gave-me-scripted-question-after-refusing-to-air-his/#sthash.0iPD1ITP.dpbs

And there are a lot of unanswered questions about this David Hogg character.  He told media he recorded interviews of students hiding in a closet during the shooting, but he himself states the recording is at 9:30 am, but the shooting starts at 2:21. It's entirely possible he's just the son of an FBI agent, loves CNN and wants to be a "journalist," and has a knack for getting in front of cameras (his and MSM's, in FL and CA). And maybe the MSM loves to interview him over and over because he says everything they want him to say.

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/crime/article200242224.html

http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2018/02/crisis-actor-david-hogg/

http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/161339759/david-hogg-faked-victim-interviews-during

https://heavy.com/news/2018/02/david-hogg-florida-school-shooting-california-video/

I am particularly intrigued about the claims made by the retired school administrator you cite (that I haven't heard anywhere else) that FBI agents were the first to respond to the scene and that the Secret Service had been at the school doing a training three weeks earlier.  Highly unusual, even unheard of or unprecendented.  I'm going to try to confirm those assertions elsewhere.  (BTW, apparently there was an active shooter drill or "fire drill" at the school on the morning of the attack which started at 2:21 pm.  Why are there drills so close in time and place to some of these events, like the Boston Marathon bombing?!)  In nearly 20  years in the police department I've only heard of FBI agents arriving first at the scene of a crime in progress in one instance: at a bank robbery on the main north/south street in Philadelphia.  There had been a pattern of bank robberies on and near that street (Broad St) and they had been out doing something unusual for FBI agents: patrolling, looking for the suspect.  We have a major FBI field office in Philadelphia, so it would be easy for agents to go out looking for a bank robbery suspect.  Parkland doesn't have it's own field office so Miami is the nearest field office, 24 miles away. It sure is interesting that agents just happened to be in Parkland when the shooting started AND they just happened to be listening to police radio bands (not routine) AND they just happened to be so close they arrived before local police.  Statiscally highly improbable, but not impossible.  Maybe they were interviewing someone in town on an unrelated case, or conducting surveillance on somebody. I'm having difficulty using Google's (massaged) search engine finding evidence that the US Secret Service had been at the school in the weeks before the shooting.

At this early juncture, there have been some improbable events claimed to have occured. Time will tell. Or maybe not.  Maybe everything will be covered up, all the loose ends disappeared, and the FBI will take over and won't give out any more information for a year (ala Mandalay Bay).

 

ezlxq1949's picture
ezlxq1949
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 29 2009
Posts: 225
Alternative to Google, the MSM's friend

thc0655 wrote

I'm having difficulty using Google's (massaged) search engine finding evidence that the US Secret Service had been at the school in the weeks before the shooting.

Try duckduckgo, the search engine which (it claims) doesn't track you and keep a record of what you search for and find. It's not quite as good as Google at finding stuff, but it is getting better. Until the day it's co-opted...

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2839
Door #3
Quote:

All in all my PROFESSIONAL opinion is this stinks to high heavens. Either we are surrounded by the most incompetent news people in the world, who don't ask questions or give a damn about these murders, or they have NO concept of why this happened will happen again soon.

There's a third possibility here, that this "event" is manufactured legal propaganda under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 and that the press are effectively in on it and complicit.

thc0655's picture
thc0655
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 27 2010
Posts: 1628
Sheriff's Office didn't make mistakes or miss clues

There is a politically correct way police and school personnel now operate together to hide criminal incidents at schools and attempt to deal with it by applying social work and psychology.  This enabled the Florida shooter to go from bad to worse and then commit an atrocity.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/02/23/broward-county-sheriffs-office-did-not-miss-warning-signs-or-make-mistakes/

The Broward County Sheriff’s Office (BSO) didn’t “miss warning signs” or make “mistakes” in not writing up reports. The Sheriff’s office did exactly what their internal policies, procedures and official training required them to do, they intentionally ignored the signs, and intentionally didn’t generate documents. Example:

Miami Herald […] In November, a tipster called BSO to say Cruz “could be a school shooter in the making” but deputies did not write up a report on that warning. It came just weeks after a relative called urging BSO to seize his weapons. Two years ago, according to a newly released timeline of interactions with Cruz’s family, a deputy investigated a report that Cruz “planned to shoot up the school” — intelligence that was forwarded to the school’s resource officer, with no apparent result. (read more)

It is important to understand the policy here. Broward County law enforcement (Sheriff Israel), in conjunction with Broward County School Officials (Superintendent Runcie and School Board), have a standing policy to ignore any criminal engagement with High School students.

When the police are hiding current, actual and ongoing unlawful conduct as a matter of standard procedure on a regular basis, what do we expect the police would do with reports of potential unlawful conduct? Of course they would ignore them.

♦ Secondly, the 27 minute tape-delay in the CCTV system is not an “accident”, “flaw” or “mistake”. It is entirely by design.

As a standard Broward and Miami-Dade practice, when school law enforcement need to cover-up or hide behavior, they need time (when that behavior happens) to delete the evidence trail. As such the school policy -as carried out in practice- is more efficient with a 30 minute tape delay affording the school officer enough time to deal with the situation, then erase the possibility of a recording of the unlawful activity surfacing.

Building in a 30 minute delay on the CCTV system was one of those pesky add-on items that happened a few years ago when the School and Law Enforcement officials established the policy of intentionally not arresting students.

With modern technology it’s tough to hide criminal behavior, especially the violent stuff, when it is being recorded. Duh. Ergo the tape-delay was the best-practice workaround.

Lastly, when the county education policy is intentionally constructed to ignore criminal behavior in schools, the Sheriff and School superintendent cannot rely on “law-and-order-minded” school police officers to carry out the heavily nuanced policy.  The county officials need the people closest to the work, the officers, to be able to think quickly on their feet to safeguard their prized district-wide statistics.

2013 – Broward announced broad changes designed to mitigate the use of harsh punishments for minor misbehavior at the beginning of this school year. While other districts have amended their discipline codes, prohibited arrests in some circumstances, and developed alternatives to suspension, Broward was able to do all these things at once with the cooperation of a group  that included a member of the local NAACP, a school board member, a public defender, a local sheriff, a state prosecutor, and several others. In early November, The Miami Herald reported that suspensions were already down 40 percent and arrests were down 66 percent. (2013 article link)

A Broward County SRO must carry a political hat and be able to intercept behavior, modify his/her action based on a specific policy need, falsify documents, hide evidence, manipulate records and engage inside the system with an understanding of the unwritten goals.

Broward County school law enforcement are given political instructions, and carrying out political objectives.  They are not given law-enforcement instructions.

The school officers are the primary foot soldiers carrying out county political policy. Physical security of school students is not their role, they don’t have time for that. The Broward County SRO is in place to protect the school system “policy” and ensure students are not arrested for criminal conduct.

If you begin reviewing the downstream consequences with a correct understanding of the originating policy objectives then everything begins to make sense. Again, from the Miami Herald:

[…] on Nov. 30, an unidentified caller from Massachusetts called to say Cruz was collecting guns and knives. The caller said “Cruz will kill himself one day and believes he could be a school shooter in the making.”

BSO, however, never even wrote a report on the tip. Internal affairs detectives are now trying to figure out what happened. Deputies Edward Eason and Guntis Treijs are on restricted duty while detectives examine their handling of the two potential school shooter tips. After the shooting, the tipster was re-interviewed and said BSO told him to report Cruz to the Palm Beach Sheriff’s, as the teen was then living in the neighboring county. (read more)

Of course the Broward County Sheriff’s Office didn’t write a report.  Writing a report would not be in line with the goals of hiding student criminal behavior.

Additionally, it seems odd to see the Miami Herald reporting on Nikolas Cruz in 2018; when the same editorial staff conspicuously avoided any aspects of Trayvon Martin’s student criminal behavior in 2012 and 2013. I wonder why there’s such a difference now?

I digress…

[School Police Officer Scot] Peterson is mentioned as part of a 2016 social services agency investigation into Nikolas Cruz, the 19-year-old identified by police as the gunman. According to a Florida Department of Children and Families report detailing that investigation, Peterson was approached by investigators and “refused to share any information … regarding [an] incident that took place with” the teenager.

That same year, the sheriff’s office revealed Thursday, it was told about “third hand information” from a “neighbor’s son” suggesting that Cruz “planned to shoot up the school,” although the specific school was not listed. The sheriff’s office said a deputy contacted the caller, determined that Cruz had knives and a BB gun and sent the information to the school resource officer — presumably Peterson. It is unclear whether he investigated.  (Washington Post Link)

▪ Feb. 5, 2016: A Broward Sheriff’s Office deputy is told by an anonymous caller that Nikolas Cruz, then 17, had threatened on Instagram to shoot up his school and posted a photo of himself with guns. The information is forwarded to BSO Deputy Scot Peterson, a school resource officer at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

▪ Sept. 23, 2016: A “peer counselor” reports to Peterson that Cruz had possibly ingested gasoline in a suicide attempt, was cutting himself and wanted to buy a gun. A mental health counselor advises against involuntarily committing Cruz. The high school says it will conduct a threat assessment.

▪ Sept. 28, 2016: An investigator for the Florida Department of Children and Families rules Cruz is stable, despite “fresh cuts” on his arms. His mother, Lynda Cruz, says in the past he wrote a racial slur against African Americans on his book bag and had recently talked of buying firearms.

▪ Sept. 24, 2017: A YouTube user named “nikolas cruz” posts a comment stating he wants to become a “professional school shooter.” The comment is reported to the FBI in Mississippi, which fails to make the connection to Cruz in South Florida.

▪ Nov. 1, 2017: Katherine Blaine, Lynda Cruz’s cousin, calls BSO to report that Nikolas Cruz had weapons and asks that police recover them. A “close family friend” agrees to take the firearms, according to BSO.

▪ Nov. 29, 2017: The Palm Beach County family that took in Cruz after the death of his mother calls the Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office to report a fight between him and their son, 22. A member of the family says that Cruz had threatened to “get his gun and come back” and that he has “put the gun to others’ heads in the past.” The family does not want him arrested once he calms down.

▪ Nov. 30, 2017: A caller from Massachusetts calls BSO to report that Cruz is collecting guns and knives and could be a “school shooter in the making.” A BSO deputy advises the caller to contact the Palm Beach sheriff.

▪ Jan. 5, 2018: A caller to the FBI’s tip line reports that Cruz has “a desire to kill people” and could potentially conduct a school shooting. The information is never passed on to the FBI’s office in Miami.

▪ Feb. 14, 2018: Nikolas Cruz attacks Stoneman Douglas High. Peterson, the school’s resource officer, Scot Peterson, draws his gun outside the building where Cruz is shooting students and staff.  He does not enter.

thc0655's picture
thc0655
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 27 2010
Posts: 1628
sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1924
William Cooper wrote a book

William Cooper wrote a book "Behold, a Pale Horse" that is sort of a cult classic in the global conspiracy theory niche.  Obviously, you will never find his views corroborated from "reputable and authoritative news sources," and he simply may have been completely wrong.  It is the kind of stuff that becomes more clear in hindsight.

Cooper predicted that school shootings would be used to induce the public to disarm themselves "to protect the children."

The government encouraged the manufacture and importation of military firearms for the criminals to use. This is intended to foster a feeling of insecurity, which would lead the American people to voluntarily disarm themselves by passing laws against firearms. Using drugs and hypnosis on mental patients in a process called Orion, the CIA inculcated the desire in these people to open fire on schoolyards and thus inflame the antigun lobby. This plan is well under way, and so far is working perfectly. The middle class is begging the government to do away with the 2nd amendment.
 
Cooper, William. Behold a Pale Horse (Kindle Locations 3572-3574). Kindle Edition. 
Cooper is most famous for predicting a major attack on US soil and that Osama bin Laden would be blamed for it.  His prediction was made June 28, 2001.
 
sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1924
Bracken's Twiitter Post

I will post the photo Tom linked as there is quite a bit of information here.

It is kind of like the atypical behavior of parents watching the kids be evacuated from Sandy Hook.  Doesn't PROVE anything, but isn't what you would normally expect, either.  If you are already suspicious, this kind of thing ratchets it up another notch.  (But if you start from a place of trust in the story, it is inconclusive, tangential, "disrespectful of the murdered children" and wacko ....)

Bankers Slave's picture
Bankers Slave
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 26 2012
Posts: 523
Keeping me updated

and informed like no other "approved" news outlet!

Thanks for taking the time to do this! 

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2839
Naomi Wolf

American author, journalist, and former political advisor to Al Gore and Bill Clinton speaks to "overly theatrical" events and their coverage in the Main Stream Media.

fionnbharr's picture
fionnbharr
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 27 2012
Posts: 87
The End of America: A Letter of Warning ...

Thank you Time2Help, for your timely reminder : -

The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot by Naomi Wolf

We are seeing each of the basic ten steps being put into place here in the United States today — more quietly, more gradually, and sometimes more elegantly; but each is underway. 

My sense of alarm comes from the clear lessons from history that, once certain checks and balances are destroyed, and once certain institutions have been intimidated, the pressures that can turn an open society into a closed one turn into direct assaults; at that point events tend to occur very rapidly, and a point comes at which there is no easy turning back to the way it used to be.

The fascist shift does not progress like a diagonal line rising steadily across a chart. Rather, it progresses in a buildup of many acts assaulting democracy simultaneously, that then form a critical mass — what writer Malcolm Gladwell would call a "tipping point." The pressure from this set of assaults suddenly pushes the nation into a new and degraded reality. The turning points can be mapped as vertical lines — the point at which prisoners lost the right to habeas corpus, for instance, is one—which then plateau into the nation's new normal. The nation acclimates; then this process begins again at that greater level of suppression.

Finn

thc0655's picture
thc0655
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 27 2010
Posts: 1628
Some deputies waited outside the school, others rushed in

I know that excessive use of force by police almost always gets played up in the media, but I have said before on PP.com that inadequate use of force by police is just as big a problem (though it is largely ignored). Here's a perfect example of what I mean: it is being reported that some Broward County deputies waited outside the Parkland High School behind cover while some Coral Springs police officers rushed into the school to confront the shooter and attend to the wounded.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-23/shocked-and-outraged-four-broward-deputies-waited-outside-school-children-were

What a travesty!!  What the public doesn't realize is that there are many men and women wearing badges and uniforms who have no business in police work because they are afraid and timid, and will not risk their lives for the public.  But this is exactly what they are paid to do!  When you see this kind of disgusting display of self-interest and cowardice it should make you appreciate more the officers who DO risk their lives for strangers. Broward County deputies's salaries range from $51,000 to $79,000 per year.  With overtime, that can easily exceed $100,000.  That's plenty for us to be able to expect and demand a more professional and courageous performance than was exhibited by some at this atrocity.

What's the lesson from all of this?  You can't depend on the government to protect you.  You have to be armed and prepared to defend yourself until REAL help can arrive.  And this is exactly why we won't surrender our Second Amendment rights.

"Welcome to the Hunger Games. And may the odds be ever in our favor."

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2839
borderpatrol's picture
borderpatrol
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 21 2017
Posts: 8
thanks for sharing, great synopsis of situation

You don't want to believe William Cooper's "Story". Can people really be this cruel? They have in the past and will be in the current.  

New_Life's picture
New_Life
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 18 2011
Posts: 334
Chris or Adam have an opinion?

I'd be very interested to see Chris or Adam's level headed analytical views on some of the suggestions above...

Personally, from my perspective of being on the outside looking in, I do not see any evidence for such conspiracy theories.  What I do see is way too many people in the US having way too easy access to machines deliberately designed for mass killing.  Why does the system allow an 18 year old (with questionable history) to have such a deadly assault weapon? 

I find it fascinatingly bizarre its legally easier for an 18 year to buy a AR-15 than a cold beer, what kind of world are we living in?

Meanwhile David Hogg is on the defence...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/florida-shooting-david-hogg-nra-latest-updates-we-will-outlive-you-survivor-student-crisis-actor-a8227501.html

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5458
engineered aftermath

I saw an article on my facebook feed, with a friend of mine (a very enthusiastic "no guns in private hands" person) who said, roughly, that "it doesn’t matter who may be supporting or directing the kids.  Their message is what's important, and that a majority of Americans hear, understand, and agree with that message."  Even he is tacitly admitting the whole thing is orchestrated.  Let no crisis go to waste.

How much are "true believers" like my friend, and how much is the rough nexus of people at the top who feel that effective top-down control can really only be imposed on a disarmed population?  I don't know.

At the same time, I am in favor of competency and background checks for gun ownership.  I mean, we license people who drive cars - and require basic competency, and take cars away from proven drunks - why not deadly weapons?  Cars aren't designed to kill people, but they sure do if used improperly.  Guns, if used properly, are designed to kill people.

Apart from the actual issues, which don't really seem to be front and center, it does seem pretty apparent that a well-oiled persuasion machine sprang into action immediately after the shooting.  It felt similar to what happened with the Patriot Act following 9/11.  Even if 9/11 wasn't actually implemented by those who wanted the Patriot Act passed, those who prepared the Act ahead of time - at a minimum - made sure to milk the situation to get what they wanted through Congress.  I think the same thing is true here.

My sense of the 'Anti-Trump MSM": people at the top are convinced for the need for gun control, but they believe that they have failed to make hay while the sun shines during the past few shootings.  Prior to the current event, they vowed that "the next time will be different."

The Plan:

* Unlimited budget for coverage. 

* Parachute in investigators who identify kids who are left-leaning, outspoken, have acting or public relations ability, and mentor them in how they can help "make sure this never happens again" and to make sure that "your friends didn't die in vain."  Along with that, hint that maybe this will be their big break into the business.

* Scripted "town hall meetings" stacked with partisans

* Unlimited exposure and opportunity for the kids that go along - as well as shutting off access for those that don't go along.

It really does all feel engineered to me.  Not the shooting, perhaps (was the shooter taking any psych meds - or coming down off them?), but definitely the events that happened afterwards.  And it fits right into the MSM's new self-appointed mission: editorializing replaces reporting "for the good of the country" with the apparent goal being: to outdo Fox News at every turn.

We see this in youtube, in google "news", facebook's censorship - the digital and MSM machine for manufacturing consent is steadily being formed - "for the good of the country" - by those who were traumatized by HRC's defeat in 2016.

The larger implications - the blowback, if you will - are widening divisions in the country, which, if it continues, will probably lead ultimately to civil war.

thc0655's picture
thc0655
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 27 2010
Posts: 1628
Civil War II is in progress

Civil War II is in progress right now, though the body count is relatively low and the whole thing is being kept on the downlow, for now.  It's a cultural war and the Marxists and globalists are playing for keeps. However, the potential for going kinetic is high and the tension palpable.  A bubble in search of a pin.  As you wrote:

The larger implications - the blowback, if you will - are widening divisions in the country, which, if it continues, will probably lead ultimately to civil war.

And I agree that we're seeing an engineered aftermath:

Apart from the actual issues, which don't really seem to be front and center, it does seem pretty apparent that a well-oiled persuasion machine sprang into action immediately after the shooting.  It felt similar to what happened with the Patriot Act following 9/11.  Even if 9/11 wasn't actually implemented by those who wanted the Patriot Act passed, those who prepared the Act ahead of time - at a minimum - made sure to milk the situation to get what they wanted through Congress.  I think the same thing is true here.

But here is where I disagree:

At the same time, I am in favor of competency and background checks for gun ownership.  I mean, we license people who drive cars - and require basic competency, and take cars away from proven drunks - why not deadly weapons?  Cars aren't designed to kill people, but they sure do if used improperly.  Guns, if used properly, are designed to kill people.

But Dave, don't we only take cars away from "proven drunks" AFTER they commit the offense of DUI? Do you advocate taking cars away (actually licenses only, because you can own a car without a driver's license or any competency in driving) from "proven drunks" BEFORE they commit an offense? But you do advocate preventing access to guns BEFORE an offense has occurred.  And remember the difference: the right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right granted to all people by our Creator and driving a car is not.  Does that make any difference?  How many other inalienable rights do you propose we have training and competency required before granting a license to exercise them?  How about a poll tax or literacy test before being allowed to vote (not to mention a test of knowledge of current events and critical thinking). As it is, any old idiot can vote (and often do). Dang, you don't even have to be an American citizen to vote here!  How about the freedom of religion? All religions or just the approved ones?  Do you need a license to practice a religion (again, proving critical thinking abilities would be good)? The Islamic jihadi's (not to mention the cultists of all stripes) might make a thinking person believe such a license might be a good idea. And should religious books be kept under lock and key, and only sold to those who are not on the government's list of people who can't have them, and purchases limited to one per month?  How about the freedom of the press (and would CNN, the Washington Post and the NY Times have had their licenses yanked by now for incompetency and insurrection against a democratically elected government)? In Britain and elsewhere in Europe now they are arresting and jailing people for "mean" posts on social media (ie. thoughts not approved by government).  I wonder if it's just a coincidence that they have no weapons with which to resist a tyranny like that?  The freedom to assemble, or not assemble?  How about the right to trial by a jury of my peers?  Or the right to petition my government for a redress of grievances? 

NEW_LIFE wrote:

 What I do see is way too many people in the US having way too easy access to machines deliberately designed for mass killing.  Why does the system allow an 18 year old (with questionable history) to have such a deadly assault weapon? 

I find it fascinatingly bizarre its legally easier for an 18 year to buy a AR-15 than a cold beer, what kind of world are we living in?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you are a subject of the British Commonwealth where it is not widely believed that people have an inalienable right to anything not granted by the Crown, much less weapons which in a worst case scenario might be used in defiance of the Crown (again).  We had this debate with you in 1776 and we went our separate ways.  We won the right to become citizens and go our separate ways only because we were armed to the teeth and motivated to throw off that tyranny. And remember the pin that popped that bubble was British troops moving to confiscate arms and powder owned by the colonists.  Try to respect our beliefs and culture, even if it's hard to understand for you. While we're at it, can you explain to me why nearly everyone is required to keep a true assault weapon and ammunition (not a mere AR15) in their homes in Switzerland, and yet they never have a mass shooting? That might get us to the real underlying issues, which does NOT include the availability of weapons.

I'll listen to the opinions of the MSM when they voluntarily institute the following three standards of professional journalism as it pertains to mass shootings: 1) never show the shooter's face in video or photos; blur his face out; 2) never say the shooter's name, use initials only; and 3) never discuss in any detail the shooter's motivation; give only brief, generic descriptions like "motivated by Islamic jihad," "motivated by revenge for bullying," or "an unknown motive mixed with serious mental health issues."  These mass shooters are very disturbed individuals who are highly motivated to become mass shooters as a way to get the fame and "glory" they want, usually right before they die (either suicide or suicide by cop).  So far the MSM has been giving them all the motivation they crave, so the incidents and the copycats multiply endlessly.  So I say we rob them of their motivation and leave them in eternal obscurity. I estimate we would prevent about 90% of these atrocities. 

My prediction is that there will be no additional restrictions placed on firearms, or if there are new restrictions they will essentially be "feel good" laws that satisfy the silly vague demand that "someone do something" without having any measurable effect on any problem (not to mention being unenforceable). But if "they" were to somehow pass some large restriction like repealing the Second Amendment or beginning to confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens, then the pin will find the bubble. In that case we will have to decide in the streets, again, if there is or is not an inalienable right to keep and bear arms. Since the gun banners generally don't have any guns and the patriots do, I don't see how that works out for the gun banners.  

And if someone could help me with this mystery: the gun grabbers are the same people who say Trump is a dictator  the same as Hitler.  If so, why are they going to give him the power to confiscate guns and make sure only his goons have guns? You know what Hitler did with German gun laws, right? First, registration of all guns.  Second, confiscation of guns in the hands of anyone not approved by the government. Third, the wholesale killing began.  Same with Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. I dare say, the killing will start here in the US at registration or confiscation, at the latest. We're not going to meekly and willingly get in the train cars.

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5458
guns & cars

I'm going to observe that we agree on a great deal more than we disagree, and that in my post, you had a problem with one small paragraph - but you spent the vast majority of your energy on replying to that paragraph.  It appears that the glass is 7/8 full, and you went on, and on, and on, whining about that missing 1/8!

With that in mind...

I'm from California.  In California, in order to operate a car legally, you have to have a license.  And in order to get a license, you have to demonstrate competency in driving.  I had to take an actual driving test, where I (allegedly) demonstrated this competency. It was a while ago, so my memory of the particulars is vague, but I remember going through this exercise.  In addition, every 8 years I have to pass a written exam where I demonstrate that I have some level of familiarity with driving and the law.

Of course, people drive without licenses all the time.  As a society, we choose to penalize the people who do this by tacking on an extra charge whenever we catch them.  And, we impound the car, which can only be retrieved when someone appears with a valid DL.  Furthermore, we make it difficult for people to buy a car if they don't have a DL.  Its not impossible, but its difficult - you can't get insurance easily, you can't get financing easily, and so on.  Someone involved in the purchase has to present a DL for it to go through.  If you have cash, and its a private party, you can - but I'm pretty sure you have to show proof of insurance to register it, and to get insurance the DL has to appear once more, and in most places its not legal to drive a car w/o insurance.

I know you don't feel the same way, but I feel that we should do the same thing with guns.  Maybe we can use an analogue: someone has to flash a "gun license" during the purchase.   And if the person buying the gun does anything stupid, the gun licensee who vouched for them will be held liable.  Perhaps a bond could be involved - or insurance again.  I don't know.  Are there liability issues with guns?  Seems like there might be.

What do we think about liability issues & insurance and cars?  Should people be required to have insurance?  That's become more strict over the years.  What do we think about that?  Is prior restraint reasonable if people choose not to demonstrate responsibility in advance?

As I understand it, the "libertarian" way is to handle all this with legal liability.  A kid goes and shoots up a school killing 17 people.  If the owner of that gun and the shooter are different people, they are jointly liable for damage inflicted.  But if the owner doesn't have financial resources to make the victims whole, then liability as a mechanism for societal self-regulation doesn't work.  Indigent people are judgment-proof. That suggests that the buyer of a gun should have to purchase liability insurance, just as with a car.  Presumably, assault rifles would have higher premiums than handguns.  How else to assure that the owner will be able to compensate victims for damages done?

If you have to pay a premium in advance for all the bad stuff that might happen down the line...I think it would encourage responsible ownership.  I suspect you think that such a thing would immediately precede an all-expenses-paid train ride to Dachau.  That's what makes PP such a fun place to be.

Last point.  Maybe look at the 7/8, focus less on the 1/8?  :)

thc0655's picture
thc0655
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 27 2010
Posts: 1628
I wasn't whining. I was ranting. :)

Agreed: I agreed with you on 7/8's (by volume) of your post.  I particularly liked the idea that regardless of whether somebody was behind the shooting for nefarious reasons there certainly has been an engineered response (from the Left - you never see the Center or the Right dancing in the blood minutes after these events).  Probably everybody can agree with that, whether they like the engineering or not.

I focused on the 1/8 because that's where the most volume and ink are being generated in our society in the aftermath of Parkland. I also focused on that because, if I'm right that the ultimate goal of the Left and the globalists (and their "useful idiots," to use a line from Stalin) is to mostly disarm Americans, then that is an issue that may eventually result in millions of deaths under the current or a future federal political machine.  That's worth spending some debating time before we go down that road any further. How could I focus on the 7/8's agreement if the 1/8 disagreement could have such dire consequences?

You did not directly address the issue of prior restraint of civil rights which I raised, but it seems clear by your original post and then your response you definitely don't have any problems with the prior restraint of Second Amendment rights.  Your only concern seems to be that the prior restraint be "reasonable."  I'm going to hazard a guess that this is the ONLY inalienable right you advocate for prior restraint of, though you didn't say. Isn't that a glaring inconsistency?  What would Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Patrick Henry or George Washington say?  They've already said it (repeatedly, in writing) and I'm on their side.

 Indigent people are judgment-proof.

Indigent people would, in your system, also be barred from owning a gun because they couldn't afford the insurance. Good luck explaining that to Madison or Jefferson or Francis Marion, or to this Detroit mother with her rusty, old HiPoint rifle (or to poor and working people in any high crime location):

And weren't you whining about my ranting without discussing my proposed contribution to preventing 90% of these incidents?  Let's all agree to rob these monsters of their motivation for committing these atrocities.  That wouldn't cost anything nor restrict anyone's inalienable rights. Remember the media would follow my three rules voluntarily "for the good of the children" just like they voluntarily withhold the names of sex crime victims today. Are you on-board with my three media rules?

Afridev's picture
Afridev
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 11 2013
Posts: 144
Black-or-white?

Taking the logic of 'complete freedom' to the extreme; would it be OK for someone to own (at home) 2kg of Semtex, how about 50kg? A precursor to a dodgy chemical compound? An SA-7 SAM? An extremely potent toxin? Is it OK, in an appartment block, for your neighbours 'chemically gifted' son to start making his own nitroglycerin (just below your daughters sleeping room)? Did this paragraph trigger some alarms somewhere wink

Very little things are binary; total control is bad, but so is total freedom. There has to be a sweet spot of what one can own, carry, use and how to get to a point where personal liberty is balanced against the potential to do collective harm. It's not black or white, there has to be a spot somewhere in the grey where a common-sense approach would find the balance.

From ZH: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-25/states-most-gun-laws-see-fewes...

New_Life's picture
New_Life
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 18 2011
Posts: 334
thc0655: confusion over Swiss Gun laws?
thc0655 wrote:

NEW_LIFE wrote:

 What I do see is way too many people in the US having way too easy access to machines deliberately designed for mass killing.  Why does the system allow an 18 year old (with questionable history) to have such a deadly assault weapon? 

I find it fascinatingly bizarre its legally easier for an 18 year to buy a AR-15 than a cold beer, what kind of world are we living in?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you are a subject of the British Commonwealth where it is not widely believed that people have an inalienable right to anything not granted by the Crown, much less weapons which in a worst case scenario might be used in defiance of the Crown (again).  We had this debate with you in 1776 and we went our separate ways.  We won the right to become citizens and go our separate ways only because we were armed to the teeth and motivated to throw off that tyranny. And remember the pin that popped that bubble was British troops moving to confiscate arms and powder owned by the colonists.  Try to respect our beliefs and culture, even if it's hard to understand for you. While we're at it, can you explain to me why nearly everyone is required to keep a true assault weapon and ammunition (not a mere AR15) in their homes in Switzerland, and yet they never have a mass shooting? That might get us to the real underlying issues, which does NOT include the availability of weapons.

  

I do try and respect all beliefs, cultures, history and more importantly understand the emotional attachment to them and the motivations for perpetuating them.

Please do not confuse my astonishment and critical thinking with a lack of respect. 

Whilst we are talking about respect, I also believe you should try and respect the right of free speech. 

I also believe any culture or belief system should be open to and accept scrutiny and constructive criticism, especially in areas where it's societal norms fail innocent people that happen to live there.

Current US Gun controls are failing many innocent people day after day after day, the fatality statistics are plain to see and very grim.    

The UK does allow citizens to legally apply for and to own a firearm safely and securely in their own home, I feel the various checks and balances around this are appropriate and these safe guards save many people's lives.  

Regarding the comments about Swizterland, its seems you are conflating different subjects. Can you quote evidence;

1) Why you believe that's its a fact that owning an assault rifle is mandatory? 

2) They never have fatal shootings. 

A brief search on this allowed me to find a relatively high gun ownership, sensible gun controls, a mandatory national military service, but no mention of a legal requirement for nearly every home to own an assault rifle.... 

They do have fatal shootings, albeit at a much less rate per capita than the US, and again the UK has far less gun deaths per capita than many nations...

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/society/bearing-arms_how-gun-loving-switzer...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21379912

For what its worth, I believe the US needs gun reforms to ensure qualified, sane, rational, mentally stable individuals to continue to have access to appropriate firearms to defend their family and home or for their work or sporting interests.  I also believe this should be licenced & reviewed/renewed on a regular basis. 

This would be very much aligned with the system in place in Switzerland and to some extent the UK.

thc0655's picture
thc0655
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 27 2010
Posts: 1628
From TIME magazine (not a bastion of gun rights)

http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/

It appears my knowledge of Swiss gun laws hasn't kept up with one or two developments in the last 10 years. Yes, military service is mandatory, adult reservists do keep their assault rifles at home, but since 2008 the official government ammunition for those guns is kept at military armories.  That seems like a formality though since they are allowed to buy their own ammunition for the frequent shooting sports events.

Unlike some other heavily armed nations, Switzerland’s gun ownership is deeply rooted in a sense of patriotic duty and national identity. Weapons are kept at home because of the long-held belief that enemies could invade tiny Switzerland quickly, so every soldier had to be able to fight his way to his regiment’s assembly point. (Switzerland was at risk of being invaded by Germany during World War II but was spared, historians say, because every Swiss man was armed and trained to shoot.)

But the “gun in every closet” tradition was challenged in 2001, after a disgruntled citizen opened fire with his army rifle inside a regional parliament, killing 14 and injuring 14 others — the only mass shooting in Switzerland’s recent history. The subsequent opposition to widespread gun ownership spearheaded a push for stricter arms legislation. The government and pro-gun groups argued, however, that the country’s existing laws regulating the sale, ownership and licensing of private guns, which includes a ban on carrying concealed weapons, are stringent enough. The law allows citizens or legal residents over the age of 18, who have obtained a permit from the government and who have no criminal record or history of mental illness, to buy up to three weapons from an authorized dealer, with the exception of automatic firearms and selective fire weapons, which are banned. Semiautomatics, which have caused havoc in the U.S., can be legally purchased.

The authorities made one concession, though: since 2008, all military — but not private — ammunition must be stored in central arsenals rather than in soldiers’ homes. The debate culminated in a nationwide referendum last year, when 56% of voters rejected the proposal initiated by anti-gun organizations to ban army rifles from homes altogether.

I wrote that the Swiss "never have a mass shooting."  My bad.  A mass shooting is defined in the US as a shooting incident that causes the deaths of four or more people.  According to the article, in 2001 a Swiss citizen used his government rifle stored at home to kill 14 thereby qualifying as a mass shooting.  The author, relying on Swiss sources, is unable to cite ANY OTHER instances.  Of course there are a few rare shootings, but MASS shootings like we're discussing are almost unheard of.

The UK does allow citizens to legally apply for and to own a firearm safely and securely in their own home, I feel the various checks and balances around this are appropriate and these safe guards save many people's lives.  

One person's "appropriate" is another person's "inappropriate." We'll agree to disagree on this one.

Whilst we are talking about respect, I also believe you should try and respect the right of free speech. 

I also believe any culture or belief system should be open to and accept scrutiny and constructive criticism, especially in areas where it's societal norms fail innocent people that happen to live there.

If I go to the effort to engage you in a discussion (as I am doing here), then for me that means I respect you and your right to free speech and that I am open to and accept scrutiny and constructive criticism.  I'm showing by my actions that I am open to you and am willing to engage your ideas seriously.  If that wasn't the case I might be calling you names, ignoring you, telling you to go away and let me talk, or attempting to have some authority shut down your side of the discussion.  This is how I often see the Left in the US when they get going on gun control: "Shut up and do what we say."

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21379912

All healthy Swiss men aged between 18 and 34 are obliged to do military service and all are issued with assault rifles or pistols which they are supposed to keep at home.

Twenty years ago the Swiss militia was a sizeable force of around 600,000 soldiers. Today it is only a third of that size but until recently most former soldiers used to keep their guns after they had completed their military duties, leading to lots of weapons being stored in the attics or cupboards of private Swiss households.

In 2006, the champion Swiss skier Corrinne Rey-Bellet and her brother were murdered by Corinne's estranged husband, who shot them with his old militia rifle before killing himself.

Since that incident, gun laws concerning army weapons have tightened. Although it is still possible for a former soldier to buy his firearm after he finishes military service, he must provide a justification for keeping the weapon and apply for a permit.

Back to the first article from TIME, the author points to culture in Switzerland as the difference in gun crime rates even though the presence of guns in homes is very high in Switzerland and the US:

One of the reasons the crime rate in Switzerland is low despite the prevalence of weapons — and also why the Swiss mentality can’t be transposed to the current American reality — is the culture of responsibility and safety that is anchored in society and passed from generation to generation. Kids as young as 12 belong to gun groups in their local communities, where they learn sharpshooting. The Swiss Shooting Sports Association runs about 3,000 clubs and has 150,000 members, including a youth section. Many members keep their guns and ammunition at home, while others choose to leave them at the club. And yet, despite such easy access to pistols and rifles, “no members have ever used their guns for criminal purposes,” says Max Flueckiger, the association’s spokesperson.

And who's fault is it that American culture is so violent?  All of ours I guess, and that includes Hollywood "do-gooders" who want to ban guns but keep making their fortunes portraying the worst features of an evil gun culture on TV and movies.  But if you look at the statistics, you'll find that most murders in the US (and most are committed with firearms) are committed in a small percentage of counties where I would argue that cultural differences are quite pronounced in comparison to the counties that have very few or no murders.  

The United States can really be divided up into three types of places. Places where there are no murders, places where there are a few murders, and places where murders are very common.

In 2014, the most recent year that a county level breakdown is available, 54% of counties (with 11% of the population) have no murders.  69% of counties have no more than one murder, and about 20% of the population. These counties account for only 4% of all murders in the country.

The worst 1% of counties have 19% of the population and 37% of the murders. The worst 5% of counties contain 47% of the population and account for 68% of murders. As shown in figure 2, over half of murders occurred in only 2% of counties.

Murders actually used to be even more concentrated.  From 1977 to 2000, on average 73 percent of counties in any give year had zero murders. Possibly, this change is a result of the opioid epidemic’s spread to more rural areas. But that question is beyond the scope of this study.  Lott’s book “More Guns, Less Crime” showed how dramatically counties within states vary dramatically with respect to murder and other violent crime rates.

https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/

That's one thing I'm saying. It would be unwise and unfair to subject the whole country to draconian laws in order to make a desperate and probably futile attempt to stop gun crime in a small percentage of US counties where I dare say the culture is quite different than it is where there is very little violent gun crime. Parts of Chicago and Baltimore have Third World gun crime rates and very strict gun laws (by US standards), but in other places guns are a normal part of law-abiding life (like in Switzerland) and gun crime is almost unheard of.

BTW, what do you think of my idea of starving the lunatics' desire to commit a mass shooting by having the media deny them the notoriety they can get from it?  I think that would be a big step in the right direction culturally, that is if we quit glorifying these monsters and making them celebrities.

Afridev's picture
Afridev
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 11 2013
Posts: 144
Independent of whether it is

Independent of whether it is a false-flag op. or not, the discussion about gun control often seems to be one-dimensional back-and-forth where in reality gun violence seems to be the symptom of multi-dimensional underlying issues.

Shootings would probably be very rare in a society where there is trust, connection, belonging, respect, openness and hope. This is a symptom of a complex set of problems, and the solution will need to be multi-dimensional too. And should (I think) include a common-sense approach to limit access to guns by 'unhinged' persons who potentially are a risk to others. This obviously opens up a can of worms of who this would be (and who would be able to define this), but that seems to be the next step (as long as checks and balances are in place to avoid abuse of power). But I expect that this last point is the real issue here...

 

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5458
prior restraint

Ok, rant then.  :)  Glad we cleared that up.

Yes you're right, I'm on the side of reasonable prior restraint.  I honestly think you are too.  I'm sure I could push the envelope far enough so that even you would say "well sure, THAT weapon is just not reasonable for private citizens to own."  A 1-megaton fusion bomb, for instance.  Or a battleship.  Maybe a missile sub with 20 missiles, each with 8 500kt warheads.  Heck, how about just a tank?  Should people be able to own operational tanks, complete with ammunition?  How about a 50-cal?  A tank full of sarin gas?  Where do we draw the line?

I don't honestly care.  The point is, we would both draw the line somewhere - we would say that "of course in THIS case, it makes sense to exercise prior restraint" in order to protect society.  So you don't get to take a victory lap by proving I'm for prior restraint.  You are for prior restraint too.  We just draw the line at different places.  Now that we're both whores, we're just talking about prices.  :)

My issue is just one of liability.  Whomever buys the weapon needs to be able to compensate the victims if it causes damage.  That's just common sense.  People are careful with dangerous things only if there are serious consequences if they screw up.  That's both human nature, and standard libertarian doctrine.  Liability forces everyone to pay much closer attention to what they are doing.

And yes, poor people may not be able to own assault rifles (or battleships, or nukes) because they don't have the capacity to compensate the victims if their kid swipes the gun (or nuke) and shoots up the local high school (blows up the city).  By that same token, unless they pay for liability insurance, they shouldn't be allowed to buy a car that this same kid uses, after he gets drunk, to crash into the family of 4 coming home from a PTA meeting.

Here's the primary difference between us.  You are thinking about the perps, while I'm thinking about the victims.

You also see guns as a special thing.  I don't.  I see them as a potential for inflicting societal harm - just like a car.  If you don't have insurance, then you can't drive.  No gun insurance = no gun.  Gun insurance fixes a large number of problems.  People would suddenly become a lot more careful.  As they should be.

The key here really is being able to compensate the victims if your negligence (or deliberate act) hurts people.

Glad you liked my approach on the aftermath engineering.  This was my main point.  Gun control is a lot like abortion, prayer in schools, wars on christmas, gay wedding cakes, transgender bathrooms.  These are all trigger/wedge issues exploited by the manipulators to divide the country so they can keep looting.

While we fight about gun control, the cartel gang will work behind the scenes to push sickcare extraction up to 19%, as they are banking their 100 million dollar salaries.  The stuff we COULD agree on goes unnoticed when we have knock-down-drag-out fights over stuff that will never resolve.

Ultimately, that's why I'm encouraging you to focus on 7/8.  Not because I want my way (I don't believe my opinion is any better than anyone else's - it's just mine), it is just because it will end up with a better situation overall.

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1924
The multiple axes of the firearm issue

This is a complex topic.  Lets get more precise in teasing out the axes of the firearm issue.

Gun Deaths ≠ Murders

Gun Deaths = Homicides + Suicides + Accidents  + Self defense (good) + system sized competition for power (wars and civil uprisings)

Axes of the "guns issue"

1.  citizen on citizen violence in affluent areas where people must obey laws.  (People have professional licenses, own homes and any criminal gun conviction or prison sentence would be devastating)

2.  citizen on citizen violence in settings / neighborhoods where people have nothing to lose and gun laws have little effect (Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, troubled teens)

3.  state on citizen violence at individual level, (race based enforcement, violent arrests, prevention of “hot tub and nail gun accidents” by political dissidents)

4.  state on citizen violence at group level (like snipers on roof tops in Ferguson, Occupy rallies, Kent State shootings, National (Spanish) Police beating up Catalonian separatists before the vote….)

5.  citizen on state violence (shooting of police officers, political protests transforming into civil war)

6.  children’s accidents with discovered guns

7.  self harm (suicide)

8.  citizen’s use of gun to defend self from attempted murder

9.  use of gun by a citizen to enable non-fatal crime against another citizen (rape, robbery, mugging, car jacking, abduction of a child)

10.  Use of gun by citizen to disrupt non-fatal crime by another citizen (rape, robbery, mugging, car jacking, abduction)

11.  differential weapon distribution to groups to influence political power -- one faction is armed and another disarmed to tip the balance of power—

  • White/black gun laws essential to slave ownership structure in GA during slave era,  (Thom Hartmann does not emphasize that it was a capitol office for a black to posses a gun and any block found with a gun could be executed by anyone on the spot, legally.)
  • Armed “settler” Jews destroying homes and olive groves of unarmed Palestinians in Israel’s West Bank, here and here and here
  • Arming Serbs and not arming Muslims during the Yugoslavia civil war.

12.  citizen use of weapons against a state sponsored "thug class" to disrupt Naomi Wolf’s fascist transformationSee also  Ordinary Violence in Musolini’s Italy

My own primary concern is MORE about issue #12.  When RED Meme wishes to establish a reign of terror and has its “thug class” beating political dissidents or forcing them to drink urine or castor oil, I want to be armed enough that I can say “absolutely not.”

The main concern is that Axis #1 will be used to justify the disarming of citizens that enables Axis #12 to proceed.  

During a collapse, Ferfal says Axis #8 and #10 will rise to prominence.

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1924
Parkland Fla shooter in full military garb

From Intellihub, a teacher reported:

Shooter was in full metal garb, helmet, face mask, bullet proof armor, shooting this rifle I've never seen before.

Police maintain the suspect Nikolas Cruz arrived via an Uber ride at 2:19 p.m. and initiated his attack within 1 minute. If true, that would mean that Cruz would have had to suit up into full metal body armor, put on a full helmet and the whole nine yards, all the while assembling an AR-15 rifle which was purportedly packed into a duffel bag with a number of fully-loaded magazines.

He pulled the fire alarm, so the timing of this event will be recorded in the school fire system and the fire department logs.

After shooting students, the shooter 

proceeding to the third floor, where he ditched his rifle and backpack [and changed out of his military garb]... He then ran down the stairs and outside, where he blended in with hundreds of terrified students... and eluded officers as he left campus [on foot].

Amid the chaos he’d left behind at the school, Cruz made his way to a Walmart store, bought a drink at its Subway restaurant...

Well, if this is true, then the security camera footage from the school will confirm the arrival, suiting up, pulling the fire alarm, un-suiting back to civilian clothes and departure on foot.  Right?  And the log of the Uber driver and fire alarm system.

And the US Secret Service records arriving on campus as the first responder (if true?)

Full military combat gear costs about $10,000.  I would like to see the records of his purchases (or a determination of who gifted these items to him).

State of the Nation is even more doubtful of the story here.

-------------

And you gotta love ZH comments:

The teacher may have a sewing machine accident.

Did they find his passport in the rubble yet?

I’ve been Demanding the release of all Surveillance Video Footage since day one. Where are the Surveillance Video Footage?  Outlaw & abolish all Law "Drills" on all College, University & School grounds.

I hope Gene Rosen and Robby Parker were not injured.

Her quote will be easily confirmed or denied by video footage.

These [incidents] all look real for an hour or two. Vegas looked real for about 10 minutes until that 'my buddy shot 3 times in the chest by a high powered rifle but is doing fine' crisis actor came out.

News flash!! The high school just collapsed in its own footprint as if it had been demolished with explosives.

There were ~ 900 kids in there and probably most of them had cell phones with cameras.

 

Tycer's picture
Tycer
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 26 2009
Posts: 610
Check your data sets

When formulating an opinion on guns and their use in crime and death please check your data. For instance, several data sets use 24 year olds in their “children” category. Another common mistake is using either/both law enforcement shoots/citizen legal defensive shoots in their homicide data. 

Although John Lott is against most gun control (makes it hard to read for me), as far as I can tell, his data has not been refuted and might be a good source to check your presumptions with. 

 

 

By the way Dave, it is legal to own tanks and the associated rounds that function in them. The same goes for all sorts of weapons of war that you might think aren’t legal to own. 

I read and have read much on both sides of this issue. I try to take a longer time frame view of this than most I speak with. It is my opinion that these weapons are not “needed” in our current state of being. Do the 3E’s or some other change present rational arguments that at some future time these weapons might be integral to the survival of my progeny? I’ve read several that do. Enough so that I am hesitant to hamstring those that might truly need them because it might make me “feel” safer today. I have yet to see where the thousands of existing gun restrictions have made the US a safer place. I find it hard to see how anything short of outright bans and door-to-door searches of every home will do anything to shift the violence to another weapon of choice (I say this last part as my friends and family across the pond have seen the bans on firearms and the weapons of choice shifted to knives which got banned which shifted to blunt instruments which got banned...) I know that comparing the US to other countries is rather useless in that no other country has the on scale societal challenges that mirror its. 

Wow. Sorry for the long rant. 

New_Life's picture
New_Life
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 18 2011
Posts: 334
Media's role...

 

Skipping the other parts in my reply because in general after reading your detailed reply, apart from a few minor points I feel we are closer to agreement in our thinking than we may of first thought, appreciate your thoughtful response.

Regarding..

thc0655 wrote:

BTW, what do you think of my idea of starving the lunatics' desire to commit a mass shooting by having the media deny them the notoriety they can get from it?  I think that would be a big step in the right direction culturally, that is if we quit glorifying these monsters and making them celebrities.

I do feel acts of terror like this should be classed equally by the media, regardless of the attacking perpetrator or target victim group.  Right wing Media do seem to jump on and focus on ethnic religious related groups committing such crimes way more than when whites do, but I feel all should be treated with the same contempt.  And yes with holding names is a good idea, treating them all as a deluded/deranged pathetic male/female suspects is probably enough.  Problem is the media would still try and publish details even if there were laws against it.  News blackouts are rare but do happen in the UK, but normally for civil privacy cases.

 

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2839
PressForTruth take on Stoneman Douglas

New_Life's picture
New_Life
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 18 2011
Posts: 334
Peterson's statement in response

That video is clearly attempting to build a strawman argument in its conclusion by just giving the viewer two options of LiHoP or MiHoP?

Or how about PoSSI?? ie Plain Old Simple Stupid Incompetence?

It's not like law enforcement organisations have a flawless history in reacting to potential threats now do they?

Again this just shows why gun reform is needed and licences to have access to a firearm should be reviewed along with an assessment of the individuals behaviour and background.  People that display hate and offer threats to carry out violence against innocents should not have access to firearms.

Meanwhile Scott Peterson has responded to the media reporting on his inaction.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/florida-officer-scot-peterson-defen...

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments