Mass shooting in Florida high school; 17 dead

Yahoo News wrote:Sheriff: At Least 17 Dead In Florida High School Shooting; Ex-Student In Custody, ID’d  
Lisa de Moraes•February 14, 2018

UPDATED, 3:25 PM: Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel said at least 17 people are dead and more than a dozen wounded in the school shooting in Parkland, FL. He said 12 bodies were found inside the school, two outside the building, another on a street near the school and two died at a hospital.

The suspect has been identified as Nikolas Cruz, 19, a former student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School who was expelled for disciplinary reasons. He is in police custody. Israel said police have recovered an AR-15 assault rifle they believe was used in the attack and that the suspect had “multiple magazines.”

PREVIOUSLY, 2:13 PM: Campus building are not safe to be cleared until the SWAT team on site says it’s safe and clear, he added. Students are still in the school building; Israel instructed parents looking for their child to go to a nearby Marriott, to which students are being transported as they are evacuated.

A male suspect, about 18 years old is in custody; he was apprehended without incident off campus in a nearby community, Israel said. The shooting suspect was, at various times during the shooting, outside and inside the building. He is a former student at the school.

Fox News Channel’s Shep Smith reported the suspect, who “knew the lay of the land” at the campus, was taken to a local hospital and was  “being treated for we don’t know,” and will then be taken for processing.

TV news outlets abruptly dropped Washington-centric coverage Wednesday afternoon when a shooter attacked students and staff at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida on Wednesday afternoon. Quick word of at least 20 shot in the school or on the campus triggered TV news pundit talk of Columbine High School massacre of 1999 in which 12 students and one teacher were murdered, and another 24 injured, by two heavily armed students who then committed suicide.

Cable news networks showed helicopter footage of ambulances swarming the area, victims being tended to on sidewalks, and a SWAT team heading with weapons drawn toward the high school attended by about 3K students. Dozens of teens could be seen running or walking from the building, some with hands raised over their heads to signal they did not have a weapon.

More than an hour after first reports of the shooting, local sheriff tweeted to warning the gunman, who had shot into the school from outside the building, still was at large:

Follow @browardsheriff for latest info on the #stonemanshooting. Shooter still at large.

Multiple students interviewed on CNN said students began running out of the building after someone pulled a fire alarm in the school about 10 minutes before end of school day; one reported they were told over the school’s intercom system to evacuate the building. As they exited, shots were heard,  students told the network affiliate’s reporter.

One distraught mother marveled the network the city had just been named safest place to live in Florida.

White House said Failing Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon had been alerted:

From Deputy Press Secretary Lindsay Walters:

The President has been made aware of the school shooting in Florida. We are monitoring the situation. Our thoughts and prayers are with those affected.

Donald Trump Finally Breaks Silence, Scolds Press For Not Knowing He's "Totally Opposed To Domestic Violence"
https://www.yahoo.com/news/tv-networks-jump-florida-high-210531879.html

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


And for the 3rd time hunters do use them and its the need for guns and argued off hunters that is the problem.

Seriously, learn to find a better hobby, which is the main problem here. I mean seriously, what idiot gets their kicks out of killing anyway. Its not a sport, its barbarity

The fact is, what would be real sport here is to use weapons that would be difficult, but you are not concerned about that or how you do have a gun problem in the US. All you care about is yourself and your supposed freedoms

How many more are going to have to die for that?

You don't know what an automatic rifle is.  

Quill sorta explained it.

And you are obsessed about hunting.  You could ban hunting in the US tomorrow and the the AR would still be legal because the 2nd Amendment is about having a tool  to shoot people, not animals.  At least not animals unless they are attacking you.  

Cass wrote:It’s time to repeal the 2nd amendment. I’m sick of seeing masses of dead children. But until the NRA is neutralized nothing will be done.

Thoughts and prayers do fuck all.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You don't know what an automatic rifle is.  

Quill sorta explained it.

And you are obsessed about hunting.  You could ban hunting in the US tomorrow and the the AR would still be legal because the 2nd Amendment is about having a tool  to shoot people, not animals.  At least not animals unless they are attacking you.  

Where did I state to ban hunting?

Never did. What I did say is views on why people hunt or feel the need to kill.

I have no objection to people that hunt to eat for example

What I am rightly saying is that its not a sport, with a gun.

With a bow and arrow it is

The point is, you do have a gun problem in the US and there is no need for the kind of weapons that you do have for sale

In the Uk we do not have a problem like you, because we have strict laws

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


Where did I state to ban hunting?

Never did. What I did say is views on why people hunt or feel the need to kill.

I have no objection to people that hunt to eat for example

What I am rightly saying is that its not a sport, with a gun.

With a bow and arrow it is

The point is, you do have a gun problem in the US and there is no need for the kind of weapons that you do have for sale

In the Uk we do not have a problem like you, because we have strict laws

How often have you engaged in this sport?  

Maddog wrote:

Cass wrote:It’s time to repeal the 2nd amendment. I’m sick of seeing masses of dead children. But until the NRA is neutralized nothing will be done.

Thoughts and prayers do fuck all.

I don't think that's going to happen. Millions of Americans that are not in the NRA would freak out if you tried to repeal the 2nd Amendment. You do realize how hard amending the constitution is don't you.

Then you have to start the confiscation process. That will be exciting to say the least.    

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

How often have you engaged in this sport?  

Relevance?

Cass wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I don't think that's going to happen. Millions of Americans that are not in the NRA would freak out if you tried to repeal the 2nd Amendment. You do realize how hard amending the constitution is don't you.

Then you have to start the confiscation process. That will be exciting to say the least.    

Yes I realize.

And by this time people need to grow the fuck up and turn in their guns. The 2nd amendment is no longer relative. I’ve lived in quite a few other civilized countries where every Tom, Dick or Harry doesn’t have access to guns except under very strict and enforced laws. Will bad things still happen? Yes. You will never be able to stop bad shit from going down, but enough is enough.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


Relevance?

Generally, experience in a sport helps someone grasp how the sport works.

It's why I don't comment on the ballet.  

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Generally, experience in a sport helps someone grasp how the sport works.

It's why I don't comment on the ballet.  

Really?

So understanding thousands of year of human history, where people used and still do today. With indegeneous groups, who use the bow and arror, spear, blowpipe etc to hunt. Does not provide me an understanding?

Are you seriously saying people have to play a sport to understand it?

I dont think so

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


Really?

So understanding thousands of year of human history, where people used and still do today. With indegeneous groups, who use the bow and arror, spear, blowpipe etc to hunt. Does not provide me an understanding?

Are you seriously saying people have to play a sport to understand it?

I dont think so

Not in the modern scheme of hunting where certain animals are harvested based on the population of the species. Not where some deer are legal and others are not. Not where many of the practices used by primitives is not legal nor considered fair chase. If you actually had some experience, you would know all of this. But you're a Brit who has watched documentaries and figures you're an expert now.  

We are no longer caveman and just killing everything that we can get close to won't work any more. It's not scientific game management.  

Maddog wrote:

Cass wrote:

Yes I realize.

And by this time people need to grow the fuck up and turn in their guns. The 2nd amendment is no longer relative. I’ve lived in quite a few other civilized countries where every Tom, Dick or Harry doesn’t have access to guns except under very strict and enforced laws. Will bad things still happen? Yes. You will never be able to stop bad shit from going down, but enough is enough.

What is the second amendment for?

Cass wrote:

Maddog wrote:

What is the second amendment for?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

We have an army, navy, marines, Air Force, coast guard and the reserves and national guard. We don’t need a militia now.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Not in the modern scheme of hunting where certain animals are harvested based on the population of the species. Not where some deer are legal and others are not. Not where many of the practices used by primitives is not legal nor considered fair chase. If you actually had some experience, you would know all of this. But you're a Brit who has watched documentaries and figures you're an expert now.  

We are no longer caveman and just killing everything that we can get close to won't work any more. It's not scientific game management.  

Again where did I claim I am an expert?

I never did.

Again indegenious people hunt using far harder methods, so no argument you can give me, will work here.

Like I say, the gun is a copout.

In fact they have far more ingenious ways than you.

Like some South American tribes have developed indepently Curare. Which considering there is thousand upon thousands of plants and then to combine many to develope this is asounding. They would use this with arrows or darts.

We now even use it medically

So please spare me the babble on hunting

You simple pale into comparrison, when it comes to skill in huting compared to them

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


Again where did I claim I am an expert?

I never did.

Again indegenious people hunt using far harder methods, so no argument you can give me, will work here.

Like I say, the gun is a copout.

In fact they have far more ingenious ways than you.

Like some South American tribes have developed indepently Curare. Which considering there is thousand upon thousands of plants and then to combine many to develope this is asounding. They would use this with arrows or darts.

We now even use it medically

So please spare me the babble on hunting

You simple pale into comparrison, when it comes to skill in huting compared to them

They use methods, that we don't consider fair chase.

It's illegal for us to dart animals, and for a very good reason. Hopefully I don't have to explain to you why we don't do that.  

Maddog wrote:

Cass wrote:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

We have an army, navy, marines, Air Force, coast guard and the reserves and national guard. We don’t need a militia now.

Read the federalist papers. They go into far more detail. They explain what the framers meant, in the event there was some confusion about each amendment.

Maddog wrote:By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.824212e4c926

Not a bad article by a statistician that has studied this.

Too many facts in here, so I imagine most folks will give it a pass so that they can emote instead.  

Cass wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Read the federalist papers. They go into far more detail. They explain what the framers meant, in the event there was some confusion about each amendment.

Yes I know them. And no we do not need them as a check on the federal government. They were written for a completely different time period.

Maddog wrote:By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.824212e4c926

Not a bad article by a statistician that has studied this.

Too many facts in here, so I imagine most folks will give it a pass so that they can emote instead.  

Maddog wrote:

Cass wrote:

Yes I know them. And no we do not need them as a check on the federal government. They were written for a completely different time period.

So the Trump administration is less of a threat than the Washington administration was?

Seems to me, if we ever needed them, it's with Trump in charge.  

And the 2nd amendment wasn't only for a check on our government.  

Cass wrote:

Maddog wrote:By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.824212e4c926

Not a bad article by a statistician that has studied this.

Too many facts in here, so I imagine most folks will give it a pass so that they can emote instead.  

Yeah I just read this. It’s an opinion piece. The data is awful and what a complete load of bullshit apart from the ideas about mental health issues. It’s possible to do that in other countries where potential perpetrators do not have access to guns.

And no I’m not just “emoting”. You’re being passive aggressive. But when did emoting over too many dead kids become a bad thing?

So Einstein, what’s your solution?

The Washington Post’s viral anti–gun control piece gets a lot wrong.

It’s certainly an eye-catching headline: “I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.” And after the Las Vegas mass shooting on Sunday, it went viral: As of Wednesday afternoon, it had thousands of shares on social media, and more than 5,000 comments on the Washington Post page.

But despite the article’s headline and author Leah Libresco’s data journalism credentials, the column is surprisingly thin on studies and data. In fact, it cites no specific studies on gun control whatsoever.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/4/16418754/gun-control-washington-post

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.824212e4c926

Not a bad article by a statistician that has studied this.

Too many facts in here, so I imagine most folks will give it a pass so that they can emote instead.  

Maybe you should read the following

The Washington Post’s viral anti–gun control piece gets a lot wrong.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/4/16418754/gun-control-washington-post

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

Maybe you should read the following

The Washington Post’s viral anti–gun control piece gets a lot wrong.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/4/16418754/gun-control-washington-post

I've read the Vox piece. I read that trash every day, and I read it the day Vox published it.

I'm familiar with all the parties involved, and I'll stick with the Washington Post story about a FiveThirtyEight study. Vox is known for it's hyperbole. The previous two are for more reputable. I'm sure you've heard of Woodward and Bernstein. Maybe even Nate Silver the statistician who started FiveThirtyEight. No one at Vox is in their league.  

Maddog wrote:German Lopez
Senior Reporter

I have written for Vox since it launched in 2014, with a focus on drugs, guns, criminal justice, race, and LGBTQ issues. Previously, I worked at CityBeat, a local newspaper in Cincinnati, covering politics and policy at the local and state level.


He's a kid, with very little experience. He's basically a blogger, not a reporter. Stick with FiveThirtyEight or the Washington Post for facts. Vox is not even close to their league.

Maddog wrote:Didge, if you were not so arrogant, you could learn something from me about this country. Your swollen head and immeasurable pride precludes you have taking a little advice from a local.

Go ahead and keep reading Vox and suggesting that Americans should harvest animals with knives and blowdarts.  

Ciao!

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:Didge, if you were not so arrogant, you could learn something from me about this country. Your swollen head and immeasurable pride precludes you have taking a little advice from a local.

Go ahead and keep reading Vox and suggesting that Americans should harvest animals with knives and blowdarts.  

Ciao!

It may have escaped your attention, but I have many relatives and friends in the US and Canada.

I come from a very big family

So why would i need to learn from you, when i can learn from them and more importantly research myself?

I am not bothered if you do not like the VOX article, I am more interested how you have dismissed countless studies listed on gun control within the article

All the best

eddie wrote:Okay I have to ask.  What is “unk”?

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:And yet they seem to do just that in other countries. Funny how it is they can get so many things right that we deem "impossible."

It's not about preventing every single mass shooting. It's about making them a rarity instead of something we expect every few months.

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Okay I have to ask.  What is “unk”?

unk
used when refering to crackheads in the D.C metro area.

lets go smash on some unks man.

lets throw some rocks at them unks sleepin at the bus stop son.

by james at rhode island and 31st bitch August 01, 2004


unk
Usually refers to a crackhead; can also be used when talking to someone(not a crackhead) with crackhead characteristics or tendencies.

Ay son, this unk trying to sell me a PS2 for a dub. U trying to go half?

Man, why you throw away my carryout. Nigga you a unk.

#crackhead#stupid#dumb#drugged out#stoned

by The real DeAndra September 27, 2005

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:

The police went to that kids house 39 times.  The FBI was notified by people based on his comments.  

The only thing lacking was he didn't have school shooter tattooed across his forehead.  The laws worked. The people who are supposed to apply those laws didn't.  More laws won't fix that.  

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Okay I have to ask.  What is “unk”?

unk
used when refering to crackheads in the D.C metro area.

lets go smash on some unks man.

lets throw some rocks at them unks sleepin at the bus stop son.

by james at rhode island and 31st bitch August 01, 2004


unk
Usually refers to a crackhead; can also be used when talking to someone(not a crackhead) with crackhead characteristics or tendencies.

Ay son, this unk trying to sell me a PS2 for a dub. U trying to go half?

Man, why you throw away my carryout. Nigga you a unk.

#crackhead#stupid#dumb#drugged out#stoned

by The real DeAndra September 27, 2005

Wanna be my Unk-daddy?  

#crackhead#stupid#dumb#drugged out#stoned; deriv: #cracker#southerner; orig: primarily southeast US.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:And yet they seem to do just that in other countries. Funny how it is they can get so many things right that we deem "impossible."

It's not about preventing every single mass shooting. It's about making them a rarity instead of something we expect every few months.

Yup. I'm guessing in other countries they do something after maybe 15 calls for the same house.  

Maybe we should use that ASBO thing or whatever the Limeys have when teenage boys act like anti social little pricks?

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:And yet they seem to do just that in other countries. Funny how it is they can get so many things right that we deem "impossible."

It's not about preventing every single mass shooting. It's about making them a rarity instead of something we expect every few months.

Yup. I'm guessing in other countries they do something after maybe 15 calls for the same house.  

Maybe we should use that ASBO thing or whatever the Limeys have when teenage boys act like anti social little pricks?

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yup. I'm guessing in other countries they do something after maybe 15 calls for the same house.  

Maybe we should use that ASBO thing or whatever the Limeys have when teenage boys act like anti social little pricks?

No disrespect, but how about learning simple mathematical risks on numbers?

Numbers and fatalities on the number guns here in the US?

Lurker wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Lurker wrote:

They're all for sale. They just have different buyers.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

They're all for sale. They just have different buyers.

Why do you put up with it?

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

It may have escaped your attention, but I have many relatives and friends in the US and Canada.

I come from a very big family

So why would i need to learn from you, when i can learn from them and more importantly research myself?

I am not bothered if you do not like the VOX article, I am more interested how you have dismissed countless studies listed on gun control within the article

All the best

I dismiss studies in VOX because they are cherry picked for their leftist agenda.  It's blog of leftists for Christs sake and your using their cherry picked studies to refute real studies, done by statisticians published in one of the leading journalistic publications on the planet.