Ft. Lauderdale Airport Shooting

[Revoltingest]

More Controls looks like a better way to go......

Typical Brit....always wanting more government control.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I'll take your word for it, although some of your posts elsewhere do make me wonder if you lean toward the conservative argument.

On the topic of the thread in general, is there any indication as to what kind of legal penalty such a shooting carries? I'm not familiar enough with U.S. law to know.

I heard, but have not checked in recently on the aftermath, that the individual may have been suffering from a mental illness, which would affect the charges and sentencing under US and/or Florida laws.

 

[Neo Deist]

I'll take your word for it, although some of your posts elsewhere do make me wonder if you lean toward the conservative argument.

As a Libertarian, I don't pick one side or the other. I look at individual issues and judge accordingly, based on the law and Constitution. I may lean conservative on certain issues like gun ownership, abortion, smaller government and healthcare, while leaning liberal on civil rights, foreign relations, military involvement and religion.

 

[oldbadger]

Typical Brit....always wanting more government control.

There you go again, putting all Brits into the same mindset.

Sometimes we can overdo it here. For your info, on 1st Jan, last Sunday, a new law came into effect in Scotland. Anybody who owns or uses any airgun, pistol or rifle with any muzzle force greater than 1 jule (jewl?) has to be licensed. Licenses cost £75.00 and last for 5 years.

Exclusions cover clubs where guns are kept permanently and kids' cadet force institutions.

I'll give it 5 years before that extends across Britain, but I figured on this back in 68' when laws gave foreshore rights to adjacent landowners, thus ending wildfowling on salt marshes as I knew it back then. I learned to be very very good with a sling and slingshot, although I couldn't beat that famous American guy who puts films on u-tube. There isn't any point in me having an airgun because my slingshot produces more than 12ft/lbs.

 

[Aquitaine]

Typical Brit....always wanting more government control.

Hey, it can work depending on the country/culture.
Not having to worry about mass shootings and having universal healthcare are big advantages.

 

[Revoltingest]

There you go again, putting all Brits into the same mindset.

You Limeys are always over-generalizing!

Sometimes we can overdo it here. For your info, on 1st Jan, last Sunday, a new law came into effect in Scotland. Anybody who owns or uses any airgun, pistol or rifle with any muzzle force greater than 1 jule (jewl?) has to be licensed. Licenses cost £75.00 and last for 5 years.

Exclusions cover clubs where guns are kept permanently and kids' cadet force institutions.

I'll give it 5 years before that extends across Britain, but I figured on this back in 68' when laws gave foreshore rights to adjacent landowners, thus ending wildfowling on salt marshes as I knew it back then. I learned to be very very good with a sling and slingshot, although I couldn't beat that famous American guy who puts films on u-tube. There isn't any point in me having an airgun because my slingshot produces more than 12ft/lbs.

I've heard that you need a license to have testosterone.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hey, it can work depending on the country/culture.
Not having to worry about mass shootings and having universal healthcare are big advantages.

No doubt.
I don't tell him he's wrong...only that I have a different preference.


OK, OK....I do tell Oldbadger he's wrong...but that's cuz that pompous powdered
wig wear'n, tea sip'n, Lord Granholm type needs to be taken down a peg or two!

 

[oldbadger]

You Limeys are always over-generalizing!

We're very reasonable folks, mostly, and quite good lookin'.

I've heard that you need a license to have testosterone.

...... not if you've only got 1.5 testicles.

 

[Aquitaine]

No doubt.
I don't tell him he's wrong...only that I have a different preference.


OK, OK....I do tell Oldbadger he's wrong...but that's cuz that pompous powdered
wig wear'n, tea sip'n, Lord Granholm type needs to be taken down a peg or two!

I agree with you there, down with that mongrel!

 

[Debater Slayer]

As a Libertarian, I don't pick one side or the other. I look at individual issues and judge accordingly, based on the law and Constitution. I may lean conservative on certain issues like gun ownership, abortion, smaller government and healthcare, while leaning liberal on civil rights, foreign relations, military involvement and religion.

What makes you oppose strict gun laws? That is, what makes obtaining a gun a legal right for civilians?

 

[Revoltingest]

We're very reasonable folks, mostly, and quite good lookin'.


...... not if you've only got 1.5 testicles.

That's a lot...almost two!

 

[Neo Deist]

What makes you oppose strict gun laws? That is, what makes obtaining a gun a legal right for civilians?

1. The US Constitution's 2nd Amendment. It has been defined by the Supreme Court as the citizens having the right to own guns. I agree with their decision, as it was citizens that made up the militias during the US Revolutionary War, not soldiers in the standing army. The amendment was put in place as a safeguard against a tyrannical government.

The difference is that today, the government has stealth bombers and fighters, aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, tanks and a massive standing army. Joe Citizen does not stand a chance with his little AR15 and Jeep Wrangler. However, until the 2nd changes, it is the law and thus the right.

2. I am not opposed to having strict gun laws as far as background checks, waiting periods, training classes, mandatory storage lockers, etc. What I do oppose are laws that are passed because of a knee jerk reaction to an event that happened. What many liberals do not seem to understand is that criminals do not give two flips about any gun law that is passed. You can make it dang near impossible to buy a gun legally, but that won't stop a criminal from obtaining theirs illegally and using it. Disarming the law abiding citizens only makes them easy prey for criminals with a gun.

There is this misconception that conservatives think that everyone and their grandmother should own a gun. That we all should tote a rifle slung across our back, and have a bandoleer of shotgun shells strapped to our chest. That is no where near the truth. It is common sense that violent felons should not be allowed to legally own a gun. Or the mentally ill. Or any number of other people.

There is truth in the analysis that the some of the highest crime rated cities in the US (like Chicago) have some of the toughest gun laws...but the criminals IGNORE those laws. That's why they are criminals.

3. If I could change history with a magic wand, gun powder would never have been invented. Self defense would mean being the better swordsman. Alas, that is not an option.

 

[Revoltingest]

3. If I could change history with a magic wand, gun powder would never have been invented. Self defense would mean being the better swordsman.

We'd just switch to airguns, phasers, tasers & razors.

 

[Debater Slayer]

1. The US Constitution's 2nd Amendment. It has been defined by the Supreme Court as the citizens having the right to own guns. I agree with their decision, as it was citizens that made up the militias during the US Revolutionary War, not soldiers in the standing army. The amendment was put in place as a safeguard against a tyrannical government.

The difference is that today, the government has stealth bombers and fighters, aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, tanks and a massive standing army. Joe Citizen does not stand a chance with his little AR15 and Jeep Wrangler. However, until the 2nd changes, it is the law and thus the right.

2. I am not opposed to having strict gun laws as far as background checks, waiting periods, training classes, mandatory storage lockers, etc. What I do oppose are laws that are passed because of a knee jerk reaction to an event that happened. What many liberals do not seem to understand is that criminals do not give two flips about any gun law that is passed. You can make it dang near impossible to buy a gun legally, but that won't stop a criminal from obtaining theirs illegally and using it. Disarming the law abiding citizens only makes them easy prey for criminals with a gun.

There is this misconception that conservatives think that everyone and their grandmother should own a gun. That we all should tote a rifle slung across our back, and have a bandoleer of shotgun shells strapped to our chest. That is no where near the truth. It is common sense that violent felons should not be allowed to legally own a gun. Or the mentally ill. Or any number of other people.

There is truth in the analysis that the some of the highest crime rated cities in the US (like Chicago) have some of the toughest gun laws...but the criminals IGNORE those laws. That's why they are criminals.

3. If I could change history with a magic wand, gun powder would never have been invented. Self defense would mean being the better swordsman. Alas, that is not an option.

1) Should the law dictate the right, or should the right dictate the law? If we hypothetically agree that gun ownership isn't a legal right for regular citizens, shouldn't the law change according to that as opposed to our stance changing according to the law?

2) How do you explain the statistics that show that the U.S. has a higher prevalence of gun-related violence than other developed countries, if not the relative ease with which regular citizens can obtain guns?

3) I'm not sure about that, since death by swords and other ancient weapons could be even more painful than death by guns, and it's not like swords stopped large-scale, bloody wars from occurring as opposed to guns.

 

[Neo Deist]

1) Should the law dictate the right, or should the right dictate the law? If we hypothetically agree that gun ownership isn't a legal right for regular citizens, shouldn't the law change according to that as opposed to our stance changing according to the law?

The 2nd Amendment gives citizens the right to own guns. That has been upheld at SCOTUS, so the buck stops there. There are restrictions on who can legally purchase/own a gun.

2) How do you explain the statistics that show that the U.S. has a higher prevalence of gun-related violence than other developed countries, if not the relative ease with which regular citizens can obtain guns?

Demographics. Regular, law abiding citizens are usually not the ones out there committing the violence. Can a law abiding citizen commit a crime? Absolutely.

Blacks make up ~13% of the US population but are responsible for ~50% of the murders each year. I'd start with finding out what their problem is and why they are ultra violent. That is not a racist statement, just a factual one. You can fact check me at US Census Bureau and FBI Crime Stats.

USCB: Population estimates, July 1, 2016, (V2016)

(scroll down to race origin)

FBI Crime Stats - Murder: Expanded Homicide Data

(scroll down to Overview, look at race of offender)


That being said, is every black person a murderer? No, of course not, and that is not what I insinuated. I am merely quoting statistical facts. People don't like facts for some reason.

If you take that 13% and factor out most women and then males under 16 and over 60, you are left with around ~5%. So that 5% is responsible for 50% of the murders each year. Most of those murders are black on black (gangs, drugs).

The WHY is the bigger question and issue.

3) I'm not sure about that, since death by swords and other ancient weapons could be even more painful than death by guns, and it's not like swords stopped large-scale, bloody wars from occurring as opposed to guns.

It was hyperbole.

 

[idav]

At least 5 dead, 8 hospitalized after shooting at Ft. Lauderdale airport

Fort Lauderdale airport shooting: Multiple people killed - CNN.com

Summary: a lone gunman opened fire on people at the airport. Several dead, many more injured. Gunman in custody.

That's was quite the tragedy.

Mainly conservatives are about making more rules not liberals. What about the definition of a liberal is about tighter regulatione? Tell you what though, criminals would have a hard time getting weapons if they were banned, but Americans typically don't want that. Conservatives don't want to ban guns they would rather ban entire ideologies.

 

[Neo Deist]

That's was quite the tragedy.

Mainly conservatives are about making more rules not liberals. What about the definition of a liberal is about tighter regulatione? Tell you what though, criminals would have a hard time getting weapons if they were banned, but Americans typically don't want that. Conservatives don't want to ban guns they would rather ban entire ideologies.

No, in the USA it is the liberals/democrats that want ridiculous gun laws that do NOTHING to deter a criminal from committing a crime. The only ones those laws punish are the law abiding citizens.

 

[idav]

No, in the USA it is the liberals/democrats that want ridiculous gun laws that do NOTHING to deter a criminal from committing a crime. The only ones those laws punish are the law abiding citizens.

Like wanting guns kept safe from children, boy dems really have some nerve.

 

[Curious George]

No, in the USA it is the liberals/democrats that want ridiculous gun laws that do NOTHING to deter a criminal from committing a crime. The only ones those laws punish are the law abiding citizens.

Yet I know so many liberal/Democrats that are pro gun. Just like I know many conservatives/Republicans that are progressive roe v. Wade. The issues are not cut and dry for any grouping.

 

[Neo Deist]

Like wanting guns kept safe from children, boy dems really have some nerve.

Anyone with half a brain wants to keep guns away from children. That is not exclusive to democrats. Any responsible gun owner keeps theirs locked up in a safe or uses trigger locks.

Unfortunately, this is not what the Dems push for. If they had it their way, no one but the military and law enforcement would have guns, 2nd Amendment be damned.