Shooting in High School 17 dead
What have the democrats done since this shooting?
Maybe you know or have heard what the democrats are doing about trying to make it more difficult for this type of mass shooting to happen? I ask you because I don't see them or hear of them doing anything these days.
What I have seen the left AKA the Anti Trump people do is to change tacks from their gun control to their new attack. That attack is immigration, illegal alien children, and their parents. This is another issue like gun control where when they had a change to legislate changes they wanted but didn't do anything. The issue is headed by those that just want to nail president Trump for something. They have found a niche in the illegal aliens seeking asylum. They are using the procedure of ICE separating parents from children, and have tagged president Trump. It doesn't matter that this process wasn't created by president Trump, or that it existed under Barack Obama.
No one made this much of an issue before Trump became president. So it is more proof that the issue is we don't like Trump as our president. It is a means to their end of getting rid of a duly elected sitting president. A president that has accomplished more for the country and the people in his first 500 days, than president Obama did in his 8 years.
The US is flooded with homeless people, and the democrat, anti Trump people want to keep the borders open to anyone and wipe out the sovereignty of the US. President Trump tossed this ticking time bomb back to the anti Trumpers by signing and EO to keep children and parents together. He then said, this problem is a legislature problem, and you are the legislature, so legislate your solution to this issue.
There are some people that are still going through the motion of making Gun Control the solution or reduction in school shootings, and I guess in shootings in general.
They have been asked to estimate how many lives these gun control regulations will save. To answer the question we have to use the existing gun control laws, and how they are being enforce to provide a baseline. The baseline is the raw date of shootings. Pick a range of years and go through the data to come up with the quantified baseline of shooting under the current regulations.
Then fully described the proposed New Gun Regulations and apply it to the baseline. Factor, the type of weapon, or weapons used and see if the New Regs would have had any impact on the result. And do this for all the factors in the new regulations that were not covered by existing regulations,. And that will roughly provide the number of lives that could have been saved. This should also include gun deaths that were suicides. Certainly, the regulations on Assault rifles, large magazines, automatic versus semiautomatic wouldn't really be a factor in suicide.
Also include the issue of how Federal and Local Law Enforcement aided in the gun deaths. For example in Parkland, both the local and the FBI FAILED to do their job and as a result 17 students were killed. Forget about arming the teachers, or providing trained guards assigned to the school because Parkland did have a special officer. And the officer and his three fellow deputies listened to the gun shots that killed the students while hiding behind their patrol cars. They never went into the school while the shooting was going on there.
The FBI never investigated Cruz even with credible information.
The Question here is why aren't the Gun Control people making that a major issue in school shooting deaths? How many lives could have been saved, if the Broward Sheriff Deputies, four of them would have actually done their job and went inside the school and confronted Cruz, the shooter? Yet all the gun control people want to do is ignore the failure of the sheriff and the FBI and talk about MORE gun control laws. How are these laws going to stop people from committing Suicide with a handgun. The law doesn't have that kind of filter to detect and stop them from purchasing them, or using ones that they already own!
Are we treating Alcohol, Illegal drugs, and vehicles any more effectively than we do guns?
February 21, 2018 Update
While a forum on the same subject as this article has over 300 posts, none of those posts has a real answer. It is all about party lines
And the one party line is the democrat cry for gun control, or I should say more gun control because we already have gun control laws in the US.
Here is the question that NO Democrat can answer.
If the Democrat version of Gun Control is a solution, then why didn't they create that solution back in 2009-2011. That is when the Democrats under president Barack Obama controlled the congress. In fact, they had a super majority with their 60 votes.
What did they do with that advantage?
Nothing that solved the Gun Issue that is now being blamed on president Trump. Like many things that weren't the fault of president Trump but the failures of the last presidencies, and congresses to not act.
Any Democrats, or anyone that believes that more gun control is the solution to the high school shootings, or any of the mass shootings like the one in Las Vegas, why didn't the Democrats when they had the chance make those gun control laws
February 18. 2018 update
Apparently, I wasn't clear about the Alcohol and Tobacco examples and how they are not really any different when they result in the deaths of their users, and those that were their victims.
While the purpose of Alcohol or Tobacco is pleasure for the user, there is no doubt that they are both deadly in both their normal use, and abnormal use.
- But when their use and abuse result in death and injury to not only the user, but their victims, then they are the same as guns.
Yes, the reason that guns were invented was as a deadly force to protect as well as be an offensive weapon in war. But that doesn't mean that the gun owners buys guns as an offensive weapon, or that they would even shoot them in a defensive situation. There are more than two million events in the US where guns have been used defensively to protect the gun owners. And only have of them actually fired their gun.
Having the government infringe on the gun owners rights under the 2nd amendment is exactly why we have the 2nd amendment. The founders having gone through the Revolutionary War had some real insight into the problems of large federal government. They wanted a limited federal government, and no standing military, only the home Militia. And that spawned the 2nd Amendment. The 3rd amendment was about your right not to have troops quartered on your property.
Unfortunately, SCOTUS misinterpreted the Interstate Commerce Clause which is only 2 lines in length. That misinterpretation along with them removing apportionment allowing the 16th Amendment to pass. Gave the government the ability to fund the increase in government, and support a large standing military.
Now, the liberals want to finish the job and put holes in the rights of gun ownership of the 2nd amendment.
What has the US done with the increase in government. They have put the US into continual and losing wars for the past 100 years. And that was what the founders tried to protect the country from doing with the 2nd Amendment.
- The Bill of Rights was added to the US Constitution for a reason, a well thought out and experienced reasons of the founders.
- The US government today doesn't want to be bound by that constitution.
- The is a major problem for our Democratic Republic.
What does the shooting in Parkland Florida mean today?
As with all mass shooting deaths, and especially when it involves school children, it means grieve for all the families that were tragically touched by it. This is followed by rage, and anger because it is thought that there must have been ways to have stopped it. Or there would have been some kind of warning.
Some people mostly on the left, always point to the guns. But what other deaths that don't involve guns result in the recall of the product used in those deaths. When someone dies as a result of drunk or drunk influenced driver, do people come out and demand that the alcohol and the vehicle need to be taken away from all the other people that don't drive drunk and kill innocent people.
Of course not.
For very different reasons, groups of people have tried to take away alcohol use from the country. They were so adamant about removing the temptation of alcohol use they even pass an amendment to the US constitution to make it a federal crime. The eighteenth amendment on the prohibition of alcohol lasted from 1920 and ended with the passing of another amendment, the twenty first amendment.
The point here is that you cannot take away, even by federal law created by a US Amendment, what the public wants from them.
During the time that the eighteenth amendment was in effect, the Mafia supplied more alcohol to the public than was available before prohibition. This was thirteen years of wasted law enforcement, and a leap in crimes. The crime of prohibition was eclipsed by the crimes of murder, and other felonies that supported the violation of supplying alcohol.
Today, we still have a problem with Alcohol caused deaths, injuries, and even medical problems. Yet, even Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) have been unable to get people to stop driving under the influence, or getting rid of the alcohol.
MADD even got the criminal laws changed so that deaths, and injuries caused by drunk drivers were made strict liability. That means that the criminal element of Intent or Mens Rea was imputed by the fact that the person was drunk.
It didn't matter than whether the driver intended to drive when they were drunk. And it also removed the mitigation of their crime through the use of diminished capacity because they were drunk. Even if someone got drunk from someone giving more alcohol than they thought they were getting, it didn't matter, it was still a felony of vehicular manslaughter.
Now to parallel the gun deaths, the gun control argument is that it is not the person, it is the gun. Therefore, the solution is to take away not only their guns but everyone's guns. When one person causes vehicular death, and even multiple mass deaths does that encapsulate either taking away the access to alcohol or even access to vehicles of anyone else.
The answer is NO.
Then why are guns different? The alcohol and the vehicular are one unit, and the guns are the other unit. But out of these three units, the focus and the overreach to the rest of the public is to the guns.
The gun control argument is faulty, and it is not a solution at all.
Look at the contrast to the prohibition of alcohol, even to the extent of making it an amendment. It didn't stop or even slow down alcohol consumption in the US. And alcohol didn't even have a constitutional amendment to give it a right. It was a very strong popular desire of the people in the country.
The taking of any number of illegal drugs is also a federal crime, and we have lost the war on drugs. This also causes deaths and injuries. Half of the gun deaths are the result of suicides. And it doesn't matter to the gun control people as they bury the most important issue and the is suicide. And suicide is accomplished using many different methods and just one of them is using a gun.
We already have tough drug laws, but the access to illegal drugs is ubiquitous for the same reason that alcohol was plentiful during prohibition. The criminal element is always out there ready to add another criminal product to their list.
We have over twenty billion dollars of illegal drugs coming across our open border every years from the Mexican and other drug cartels. BTW, they also deal in gun running and human trafficking. But these gun control advocates don't care about the border. And that is something that they could actually make work.
These illegal drugs also cause more crimes as the cartel has to protect and enforce their criminal drug industry. Then there is the indirect mental and physical hazard to the illegal drug user. These side effects like suicide, committing felonies to support their habit, and health care for those that get sick physically and mentally. And how many other deaths are they responsible for in their drug induced states?
Now, it is just come out that the mass gun killer Nicholas Cruz may have been a fan of the Islamic Terrorists. Looking at his computer activity it has been found they he was out there on the Internet with his guns and knives, and in a depressed stated.
He even made a statement on one cyber site that he wanted to be a professional Mass School Shooter. The site turned in that information to the FBI. the FBI came out and contacted the site owner, and then apparently did nothing.
Maybe that is the lead that could have saved the dead students at Parkland?.
The 2nd Amendment is our protection against a Government that is trying to take the people out of the government
The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution was intelligently put there by the founders of the country. It was to be able to protect the people and the country against a government that turned against the people.
Taking the guns away from the people would allow that bad government to easy take over the people. It would also allow a foreign government from doing the same thing.
That is why owning even military grade weapons doesn't seem as bad as the liberal want it to sound. We currently have that kind of problem at the US Border, as the drug cartel has better arms, and technology than the border agents. The cartel also has more people than there are border agents.
That is why the border patrol has a difficult job in protecting the border. It is the same government that doesn't want the border patrol to be adequately armed, that don't want the citizen militia to be armed at all.
Many of the gun control people say they don't want our guns, but that is not true. Their knee jerk reaction to these kind of events is always gun control. And that is controlling the guns ownership of law abiding citizens.
Remember how the government Totally Failed their primary duty to protect the country and its people on 911. Can we really count on them or even trust them in the future.