Florida high school students stage second amendment support walkout

[cnm]

no one - and i repeat NO ONE has said our safety isn't important.

About six posters in this thread, why-can-us-gun-nuts-not-accept-the-facts-of-the-matter, have agreed that school kids' lives are an acceptable price to pay for easy access to handguns and military style semi-automatic rifles. They are the only ones with the balls to come out and admit it, the rest hide behind silence.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Fast and Furious was the only way those expensive weapons could get to Mexico, the American taxpayer PAID for them.

OMG...no you fool...those guns were getting into Mexico prior to the program. The entire point of the program was to find out how. Wow. Imagine how damaged your brain must be to think that no guns were getting into Mexico prior to F&F and that Venezuela (!) was the one supplying them.

Secondly, we've learned that 70% of all guns used in crimes in Mexico are traced back to the USA...so much for your Venezuela conspiracy theory.

hey also claim that 200,000 some odd weapons are trafficked from the US, but provide no evidence to support that claim. There is no doubt that weapons are trafficked to Mexico, from the USA. But that number, based on observed data, is much lower than the claim.

Well, considering that the GAO said 70,000 guns were recovered from crime scenes in Mexico that were traced back to the US, the 200,000 number isn't that hard to believe. 70% of all gun crimes in Mexico are done with US-made weapons. That's what the Government Accountability Office said in the article I linked.

But..but..guns are banned in Mexico.

 

[iceberg]

no one - and i repeat NO ONE has said our safety isn't important.

At least six posters in this thread, why-can-us-gun-nuts-not-accept-the-facts-of-the-matter have agreed that school kids' lives are an acceptable price to pay for easy access to handguns and military style semi-automatic rifles. They were the only ones with the balls to come out and admit it, the rest hid behind silence.

point out the specific posts please. i'm not wading through 22 pages to try and figure out what YOU are not happy with.

 

[iceberg]

No ones making it up:

Antidepressants Are a Prescription for Mass Shootings – Citizens Commission on Human Rights, CCHR

From the link:

Subsequently, mass shootings and other violent incidents started to be reported. More often than not, the common denominator was that the shooters were on an antidepressant, or withdrawing from one. This is not about an isolated incident or two but numerous shootings. The question is, during the past twenty years is the use of antidepressants here a coincidence or a causation?

There have been too many mass shootings for it just to be a coincidence. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed twelve students and a teacher at Columbine High School. Eric was on Luvox, an antidepressant. The Virginia Tech shooter killed thirty-two people and he was on an antidepressant. While withdrawing from Prozac, Kip Kinkel murdered his mother and stepmother. He then shot twenty-two classmates and killed two. Jason Hoffman wounded five at his high school while he was on Effexor, also an antidepressant. James Holmes opened fire in a Colorado movie theater this past summer and killed twelve people and wounded fifty-eight. He was under the care of a psychiatrist but no information has been released as to what drug he must have been on.

Psychiatrists generally will tell you that these people were mentally ill and they weren’t treated in time or didn’t get enough help to prevent the tragedy. However, Dr. Peter Breggin, who is a psychiatrist, stated that depression rarely leads to violence and that it’s only since the SSRI’s came on the market that such mass shootings have taken place.

In a study of thirty-one drugs that are disproportionately linked to reports of violence toward others, five of the top ten are antidepressants. These are Prozac, Paxil, Luvox, Effexor and Pristiq. Two other drugs that are for treating ADHD are also in the top ten which means these are being given to children who could then become violent. One could conclude from this study alone that antidepressants cause both suicidal thoughts and violent behavior. This is a prescription for mass shootings.

No one can talk their way out of explaining how a person who is previously non-violent and given antidepressants suddenly becomes violent or suicidal. There are multiple cases of children who have committed suicide days after starting to take an antidepressant. In a YouTube video, various parents tell their story about what the antidepressants did to their kids.


My Son came to live with us when he was 15. He was on ADHA meds and was a complete basket case. Angry was not even close to the word anyone would use. Our Doctor weened him from them and within months he became a model young man.

I actually could have seen him go off half cocked one day. If he had been bullied during that time, all bets would have been off.

I understand where you're coming from now, Pop. It is absolutely true that those drugs can have side effects including suicidal/homicidal just-plain-nuts behavior. I saw it happen a couple of times to teen clients that had been switched to one of those anti depressants from the recommended one due to cost (Medicaid didn't want to pay for it). Every psychiatrist who has spoken about school shootings references the common denominator of depresssion; that's no secret and everyone is aware of it. Suicide and homicide are two sides of the same coin. I don't necessarily think the meds alone are the cause, though. The meds are present, if they are present, in an attempt to address the depression or behavior (trauma often manifests as ADHD) and it didn't work. When someone dies of cancer, they have chemo in their system, but the chemo didn't cause the death. You see what I mean?
If Cruz, Lanza and the Columbine shooters were on meds, please link to that.

Yet, per the link, depression rarely causes violence. I think when you medicate a young, not fully developed brain, and that brain is affixed to someone undergoing years of bullying, you then have a recipe for murder.

For all the uproar, there have been how many school shootings involving teens? Three in ten years? Quite rare, I'd say.
Were Cruz, Lanza and the Columbine shooters on meds or coming off meds?

Yes. So why do you wanna take away everybody's guns OldLady ?

What kind of fuckery is this?

I DON'T really want to take everyone's guns, Marion. Iceberg makes me nuts.

then just show some facts behind what you claim. i *am* insistent in that regard because you say a lot of things like the rate of shootings that goes up after the ban was lifted and never "showed your work" to use math teacher terms.

or that the AR15 is the preferred weapon of shooters when the handgun is used almost twice as often.

just back up what you say and things are cool. i *AM* most certainly hard headed here cause i DO give links to you so we can have a point of reference in where i'm coming from.

and finally - i can't control you - you make yourself nuts i suppose.

MORNING SUNSHINE!!!

 

[cnm]

Here's one. That's one more than 'no one'. The others are there if you want to look.

Am I willing to live with the occasional mass shooting to keep my rights? Yes, about as much as I'm willing to keep cars and planes legal despite the occasional deaths.

 

[Pop23]

Here's the derps problem.

He thinks getting rid of legal ownership will somehow limit those with criminal intent from getting guns.

Do you realize Derp (and god that is an incredibly appropriate name), that there actually are manufacturers outside the united states? and that criminals really don't care if they follow import/export laws. And you do know that just about any highly trained machinist can make a really good gun. Hell, soon you'll be able to 3D print a reasonably lethal gun.

Give it a rest boy, my ribs are aching from the laughter you're providing.

The 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries and 33,636 deaths would certain be reduced substantially by limiting the availability of firearms. The drug cartels, career criminals, and deranged mass murders would certainly find ways to arm themselves. However these people are not responsible for most of the gun violence.

The 22,000 suicide victims, the accidents and the shootings in fits of rage or under emotional stress would certainly be reduced considerable with less firearms.

No matter what this nation does with gun laws, people will still get shot, but it can certainly be reduced significantly if the nation is willing to restrict the availability of guns.

Ban anything and you reduce their risks. So?

Ban cars, or reduce their top speed to 20 and you reduce deaths to nearly zero.

The point is, a murderous animal doesn’t care what the tool is, they simply want to kill. And there are far more effective ways to kill then an AR.

The most appropriate gun depends on the target and location.

In general, guns are very effective ways to kill. That's what they are designed to do. They are easily available, relatively easy to use, and don't require the skills of knife fighting, marital arts, or bomb making. The gun is the perfect weapon for the weak of body and mind and the coward. It is the perfect weapon for killing unarmed children and adults from close up to far away.

Cowards?

Ok, your wife is attacked by three men who want to rape her.

I’m sure she’d appreciate the fact you think she was a coward for drawing her gun.

Yes, we are cowards for wanting to defend our own families. Flopper is a hero who would call the cops and plead for them to come direct traffic. Come fast! There's a real snarl up where his family is being murdered!

If everyone was 6’ 3”, 220 of optimal age and fitness, then Flopper would have a reasonable argument. But we aren’t.

 

[Pop23]

The 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries and 33,636 deaths would certain be reduced substantially by limiting the availability of firearms. The drug cartels, career criminals, and deranged mass murders would certainly find ways to arm themselves. However these people are not responsible for most of the gun violence.

The 22,000 suicide victims, the accidents and the shootings in fits of rage or under emotional stress would certainly be reduced considerable with less firearms.

No matter what this nation does with gun laws, people will still get shot, but it can certainly be reduced significantly if the nation is willing to restrict the availability of guns.

Ban anything and you reduce their risks. So?

Ban cars, or reduce their top speed to 20 and you reduce deaths to nearly zero.

The point is, a murderous animal doesn’t care what the tool is, they simply want to kill. And there are far more effective ways to kill then an AR.

The most appropriate gun depends on the target and location.

In general, guns are very effective ways to kill. That's what they are designed to do. They are easily available, relatively easy to use, and don't require the skills of knife fighting, marital arts, or bomb making. The gun is the perfect weapon for the weak of body and mind and the coward. It is the perfect weapon for killing unarmed children and adults from close up to far away.

Cowards?

Ok, your wife is attacked by three men who want to rape her.

I’m sure she’d appreciate the fact you think she was a coward for drawing her gun.

Yes, we are cowards for wanting to defend our own families. Flopper is a hero who would call the cops and plead for them to come direct traffic. Come fast! There's a real snarl up where his family is being murdered!

American gun owners are far more likely to injure themselves or someone else with their firearm than to stop a criminal. Even attempting to defend themselves or their family is rare. Purchasing a gun may help enrich the firearms industry, but the facts show it is unlikely to increase your personal safety. In fact, in a nation of more than 300 million firearms, it is striking how rarely guns are used in self-defense.

Using Guns In Self-Defense Is Rare, Study Finds | HuffPost

You seem to have missed the point that the reason they are rare is that criminals must accept the possibility that their prey may be armed.

 

[Pop23]

Here's one. That's one more than 'no one'. The others are there if you want to look.

Am I willing to live with the occasional mass shooting to keep my rights? Yes, about as much as I'm willing to keep cars and planes legal despite the occasional deaths.

And?

 

[cnm]

And Iceberg showed a temporary interest in facts.

 

[iceberg]

And Iceberg showed a temporary interest in facts.

so you can't show your examples here?

got it.

continue your bullshit.

 

[Pop23]

And Iceberg showed a temporary interest in facts.

So then, I take it you disagree with the quote you referenced.

Then you must then be saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you would support banning cars (if you want guns banned), or regulating them (common sense regulations) in such a way that they can't travel fast enough to cause the death of the driver, passenger or others. That would be a reasonable. What do you suggest? I've posted that, to meet the qualification that cars can no longer be used as effective weapons, or harm others via accidents, that that would be a maximum speed of 20 mph.

Are you willing to accept this, or are the number of deaths to retain this freedom acceptable to you?

 

[The Derp]

No...crime causes poverty, poverty doesn't cause crime....you have it backwards.

There is not a single social scientist that agrees with you. Not a single one.

 

[The Derp]

We have always known how..

No, we haven't. That's the point.

The supposed "idea was to track the guns. The problem being there was no effort to actually track the guns from point of source to cartel.

That was the entire program. It seems to me you know nothing about that which you speak. You're just making this shit up as you go, aren't you? Improvising is what your tactics seem to be here. The F&F program, that started with Bush, had the effort to track the guns. That was the program's entire purpose, function, and point.

There was no attempt at a chain of evidence. It was a farce. it was merely an effort to flood the cartels with US weapons so that the obummer admin could scream "we have to ban guns in america so that the mexicans won't get killed by them".

Completely, 100% wrong and based on nothing.

 

[The Derp]

Not even close dude. Not even close. Latin America has 9% of the worlds population but is responsible for 27% of the worlds murders. That is culture dude, and nothing more.

A culture of poverty that is flooded with US-made guns.

 

[The Derp]

Fast and Furious was the only way those expensive weapons could get to Mexico, the American taxpayer PAID for them.

OMG...no you fool...those guns were getting into Mexico prior to the program. The entire point of the program was to find out how. Wow. Imagine how damaged your brain must be to think that no guns were getting into Mexico prior to F&F and that Venezuela (!) was the one supplying them.

Secondly, we've learned that 70% of all guns used in crimes in Mexico are traced back to the USA...so much for your Venezuela conspiracy theory.

hey also claim that 200,000 some odd weapons are trafficked from the US, but provide no evidence to support that claim. There is no doubt that weapons are trafficked to Mexico, from the USA. But that number, based on observed data, is much lower than the claim.

Well, considering that the GAO said 70,000 guns were recovered from crime scenes in Mexico that were traced back to the US, the 200,000 number isn't that hard to believe. 70% of all gun crimes in Mexico are done with US-made weapons. That's what the Government Accountability Office said in the article I linked.

Wrong....Fast and Furious was intended to plant American guns at Mexican crime scenes.....but they got caught doing it.

That number about American guns is wrong...those are guns that can actually be tracked, the majority can't be traced back anywhere.....

Here...Central America...

The 90% myth....

Mexico's Gun Supply and the 90 Percent Myth

By the Numbers
As we discussed in a previous analysis, the 90 percent number was derived from a June 2009 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report to Congress on U.S. efforts to combat arms trafficking to Mexico (see external link).

According to the GAO report, some 30,000 firearms were seized from criminals by Mexican authorities in 2008. Of these 30,000 firearms, information pertaining to 7,200 of them (24 percent) was submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for tracing. Of these 7,200 guns, only about 4,000 could be traced by the ATF, and of these 4,000, some 3,480 (87 percent) were shown to have come from the United States.

This means that the 87 percent figure relates to the number of weapons submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF that could be successfully traced and not from the total number of weapons seized by Mexican authorities or even from the total number of weapons submitted to the ATF for tracing. In fact, the 3,480 guns positively traced to the United States equals less than 12 percent of the total arms seized in Mexico in 2008 and less than 48 percent of all those submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF for tracing. This means that almost 90 percent of the guns seized in Mexico in 2008 were not traced back to the United States.

The remaining 22,800 firearms seized by Mexican authorities in 2008 were not traced for a variety of reasons. In addition to factors such as bureaucratic barriers and negligence, many of the weapons seized by Mexican authorities either do not bear serial numbers or have had their serial numbers altered or obliterated. It is also important to understand that the Mexican authorities simply don't bother to submit some classes of weapons to the ATF for tracing. Such weapons include firearms they identify as coming from their own military or police forces, or guns that they can trace back themselves as being sold through the Mexican Defense Department's Arms and Ammunition Marketing Division (UCAM). Likewise, they do not ask ATF to trace military ordnance from third countries like the South Korean fragmentation grenades commonly used in cartel attacks.

Of course, some or even many of the 22,800 firearms the Mexicans did not submit to ATF for tracing may have originated in the United States. But according to the figures presented by the GAO, there is no evidence to support the assertion that 90 percent of the guns used by the Mexican cartels come from the United States — especially when not even 50 percent of those that were submitted for tracing were ultimately found to be of U.S. origin.

Report: Guns recovered in Central America traced to non-U.S. sources

Agents traced the majority of these recovered guns to foreign countries — or no source at all.

Over 71 percent of the 2,182 guns recovered in Honduras came from non-U.S. manufacturers, according to the report. Likewise, 60 percent of the 152 guns found in Panama, 53 percent of the 623 guns from Honduras and 51 percent of the 2,718 the guns recovered in El Salvador were traced to foreign manufacturers.

So right here is a perfect example of what Conservatives always do; they always conflate two or more things together because they know their specific argument is bullshit and can't do anything about it.

I was speaking about the guns in Mexico, not the ones anywhere else. Secondly, I never said that 90% of the guns in Mexican crimes came from the US, I said that 70% of them did and that was based on the GAO's report from 2014 that found 70,000 guns in Mexico are traced back to the US, which represents 70% of the guns used in gun crimes during the period of 2009-2014.

What you're doing is just throwing nonsense and bullshit into the debate because you cannot reconcile what the GAO said with your own personal biases. That's why you have to use bullshit sources, obfuscate the subject, and pretend people said things that they never said.

You don't have very good listening or comprehension skills and abilities, which is why you can't formulate an argument on your own, and why you think spamming the board with your propaganda will carry water for your weak argument.

 

[The Derp]

It wasn't even a plan.

There was a plan, you even said so yourself. The plan was to figure out how US guns end up in Mexican Cartels. There is no other way to do that than to track guns from the US going into Mexico. And it started with Bush the Dumber.

It was merely sending guns south so they could collate deaths.

No, it was to track guns as they cross the Southern border to figure out how and where those guns were going. But the constant is that the guns all came from the US, not Venezuela as you tried to say before.

And then with the GAO's report in 2014 that 70% of the guns used in crimes in Mexico came from America, there is no doubt that what's fueling the gun crime in Mexico are American guns. I know it's hard for you to hear that, but it's the same thing that's fueling gun crime here; guns that are easily accessible for criminals because "responsible gun owners" make it that way.

That's all it was. They used taxpayer money to foment murder. How fucked up do you have to be to think that that was a good idea?

There is no other way to figure out how US guns keep getting into Mexico unless you plant guns in that system to track. 70,000 guns from 2009-2014 were traced back to the US from Mexico and that represents 70% of all gun crimes there. That's what the GAO says. So I don't know why you are fixating on F&F when it's obvious that US guns are getting to Mexican cartels and are providing the bulk of their firepower.

 

[The Derp]

Try again. Long, long, long before ANY guns form the USA got to Latin America that murder rate existed.

No, it didn't actually. The murder rate only started soaring in the 80's because we were fueling a counter-revolutionary fascist uprising in multiple Latin American countries like Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Panama, Colombia, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua.

Remember the Contras? That was all you guys and Reagan who did that shit. You're the ones who created all that instability in Latin America because you were waging half-brained, corrupt and covert wars, funded by drug money, against Socialists and Communists who posed no threat to anything other than narrow private business interests. Remember who raped those nuns in Latin America? It was the same people you armed to fight the Communists. YOU and your shitty Conservatism are responsible for the instability in Central America. YOU created that chaos when YOU supported and funded fascist and authoritarian strongmen like the Contras, like Noriega, like the Guatemalan death squads. You gave them guns. You flooded them with guns...guns you gave them in exchange for drugs which you brought into the US, turned into crack, and flooded the minority communities with in order to enrich private prison companies and empower police to come down hard on those communities with mass incarceration.

Latin America isn't inherently crime-ridden...YOU made it that way when YOU supported and encouraged a covert CIA war, funded by drug money, that flooded the region with US guns.

 

[The Derp]

No....Fast and Furious was a completely different program from the Bush era "Wide Receiver" program......they ended Wide Reciever when they lost control of a few of the guns.......Fast and Furious lost control of aboutr 3,000 guns..

It was the same idea and virtually the same program. You just admitted it in the above.

 

[The Derp]

"The statistics for commercial thefts show that nearly 25,000 guns per year are lost or stolen "
Whoah there, wtf ever you are! That's a tenfold increase, wtf is going on here? Can you pin it down to a number or no?

OMFG, you are the biggest fucking idiot in the world.

A "Commercial theft" is when a gun store or retailer is robbed. That's different and separate from the property thefts, which occur against individuals and aren't commercial.

YOUR OWN LINK MAKES THAT DISTINCTION. But because you sloppily rushed your way through your response for no other reason than to spare your own ego of the embarrassment, you completely missed that.

Goddamn, what a fucking numbskull.

 

[The Derp]

We have always known how. The supposed "idea was to track the guns. The problem being there was no effort to actually track the guns from point of source to cartel. .

I'm not saying it was a good plan, just that it was a plan. It was enough of a problem that they tried to figure out how it was happening. You can disagree with the tactics, but the goal was to figure out how US guns end up in Mexican cartels, and there's really no better way to figure that out than by trying to trace guns on their way there. If you have a better idea, I'd love to hear it.

There was no attempt at a chain of evidence. It was a farce. it was merely an effort to flood the cartels with US weapons so that the obummer admin could scream "we have to ban guns in america so that the mexicans won't get killed by them".

Will you stop with these whackadoo conspiracy theories. Firstly, the program started with Bush the Dumber, not Obama. Secondly, you may disagree with the tactics, but the goal was to find out how US guns end up in Mexican cartels.

Fast and Furious was not the Bush Era Wide Receiver operation...

Reasoned Politics: Wide Receiver vs. Fast and Furious

Let’s compare the two programs:

Cooperation with Mexico:
Wide Receiver: Mexican Law Enforcement notified, Mexico consented and was a full partner.
Fast and Furious: Mexico intentionally kept in the dark. No coordination or consent.

Surveillance of Firearms:
Wide Receiver: Agents attempted to keep track of the guns at all times.
Fast and Furious: Agents were ordered not to track the guns after they were purchased.

Use of Tracking Devices:
Wide Receiver: Extensive – placed in every lot of guns purchased
Fast and Furious: One “agent built” device in one gun

Performance of Tracking Devices:
Wide Receiver: Smugglers figured out how to defeat trackers
Fast and Furious: Smugglers didn’t have to do anything

Number of Firearms Sent to Cartels:
Wide Receiver: About 250
Fast and Furious: Exact number unknown, but over 2,500

Actions at the Border:
Wide Receiver: Attempted to hand off surveillance to Mexican law enforcement
Fast and Furious: ATF worked with Customs to make sure guns were not stopped at border

Reaction to guns “getting away”:
Wide Receiver: Program terminated. William Newell wrote memo saying “never again”
Fast and Furious: Program continued – recovered guns tracked and mapped.

Ironically, Wide Receiver provides an excellent example of a truly “botched sting operation”. The purpose of the Bush era programs was to track the guns to and over the border where Mexican law enforcement would make arrests. It was poorly planned and executed – but it at least has some potential to work and serve a law enforcement purpose. Make no mistake – Wide Receiver should result in heads rolling – but the program was not designed to send guns to the cartels.

Another point: Since the Phoenix ATF had experience with this kind of operation, why would they think that a program with many less safeguards would ever work?Why was such an operation begun with months of President Obama taking office and immediately after their bogus numbers on US retail sourced guns going to Mexico were exposed as false? Sadly, the answer is obvious.

In contrast, Fast and Furious was designed to pump guns into Mexico, without the knowledge of the Mexican government. Without their knowledge and cooperation, their was no chance of making arrests as a result of allowing guns to cross the border. Therefore, there was no law enforcement purpose. It was designed and executed for the purpose of sending guns from US retail outlets to the cartels. It was not a “botched sting operation” – it was a correctly executed plan with a very evil purpose.

This begs the question: What was the purpose of sending these guns into Mexico, where they were used to kill hundreds of Mexicans?

If one looks at what this could accomplish, the only answer on the table is the same one named by both the whistle blowing agents and the former head of the Pheonix DEA office who was “in the loop”: The passage of new gun control laws in the US.

So all you did here was say that both plans were to track and trace guns from the US to Mexico.

Your contention, originally, was that US guns weren't going into Mexico. You've since reversed that position to now try to make a distinction without difference between two virtually identical programs.