4 ms·

I agree. The people who pound the table about guns, but refuse to pound the table about the countless failures of the system to protect these kids, are cynical

I agree. The people who pound the table about guns, but refuse to pound the table about the countless failures of the system to protect these kids, are cynically using this event for political gain. The FBI not picking up the kid after being tipped off, the sheriff's department not picking up the kid after 39 visits, or the Sheriff Deputy that did not engage the shooter, but waited for backup, all point to already existing policy that failed to be followed properly. Even the principal himself, who evacuated a school based on an unsubstantiated fire alarm (every fire control panel tells you what switch was pulled, so he could easily have called a teacher near that station for confirmation) shares some of the blame here. Also, the fact that he evacuated multiple buildings, rather than only the building where the alarm was pulled, was a confusing mistake. There are people who are actually trying to fix a very broken system, and they are not the ones using this to advance a political agenda.

rhizome 9y ago
The people who pound the table about guns, but refuse to pound the table about the countless failures of the system to protect these kids Who is doing this? Not very many, I estimate. Even allowing your premise, they're separate issues. Gun control is about more than school shootings, and one could turn your ire back onto you for focusing only on school shootings when there are many more kinds of mass shootings out there, not to mention interpersonal fights escalating to firepower.
- robotrout 9y ago
  The number of posters who harp on gun control, without even mentioning the failings that allowed this kid to carry out his attack approaches 100% on certain sites. I would say it's 80% even on this site. As somebody who personally had (and witnessed others) fights in high school parking lots with rifles in the pickup windows of the combatants (yep, I'm over 40), and never heard of anybody ever considering escalating to firepower, I have to call BS on that. I expect to be down voted, but unless you feel that people have become more evil since your father was a kid, I don't know what to tell you. As for gang violence and other crime, I invite you to look at Mexico (or Chicago), which have strict gun control.
  - rhizome 9y ago
    never heard of anybody ever considering escalating to firepower I'm referring to domestic violence and partner homicide.
openasocket 9y ago
Serious question, what does "FBI not picking up the kid" mean? Were they supposed to arrest him? Confiscate his guns? My understanding is they were tipped off that he introducing himself as a school shooter and acting suspiciously. If they had followed up on that tip, is that grounds for arrest? If it is, would they be able to either keep him in jail until trial or confiscate his guns until trial? Same question for the sheriff's department.
- robotrout 9y ago
  I agree that it was not a slam dunk (you post crap on the internet, we take your guns). However, as this Miami Herald article [1] points out, there were just so many scary events that the authorities (Sheriff and FBI) were aware of in this kids history, that starting the process of mental health evaluation most certainly should have occurred. [1] http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article201887629.html http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/arti...
  - openasocket 9y ago
    I don't think it is likely that a mental health evaluation would have demonstrated much. The law only bars those who have been involuntarily committed from getting firearms, a diagnosis of mental illness is not sufficient. And an involuntary commitment is a pretty high bar. My Dad is a clinical psychologist who evaluates people for the courts, and he can go on and on about how the severely mentally ill often do not qualify for involuntary commitment. Unless you are actively trying to hurt yourself or others you will not be committed, which basically limits it to people who are either attempting suicide, or assaulting people. I'd also like to point out that there are a number of issues with the current system besides what you've mentioned that could improve things. For starters, even if this person was involuntarily committed, he would fail a background check, but would still be able to purchase guns online or at a gun show without a background check. There are red flag laws, which allow people to petition the court to temporarily seize guns from someone acting in a disturbing way, which would have been ideal for this case, but these are only in some states.
s73v3r_ 9y ago
What could the FBI actually have done in this case? What law did the shooter break?
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Given post-9/11 history, they could have enticed him into overt preparation for the crime they were tipped off that he might be prone to commit, arrested him for it, and claimed it as a foiled terrorist plot. But regardless of whether it would have actually been a something-like-accurate claim in this case, he wasn't Muslim, so the resulting headline wouldn't fit with the acceptable narrative, so there was no motivation to expend the required resources.

rhizome 9y ago

The people who pound the table about guns, but refuse to pound the table about the countless failures of the system to protect these kids Who is doing this? Not very many, I estimate. Even allowing your premise, they're separate issues. Gun control is about more than school shootings, and one could turn your ire back onto you for focusing only on school shootings when there are many more kinds of mass shootings out there, not to mention interpersonal fights escalating to firepower.

robotrout 9y ago
The number of posters who harp on gun control, without even mentioning the failings that allowed this kid to carry out his attack approaches 100% on certain sites. I would say it's 80% even on this site. As somebody who personally had (and witnessed others) fights in high school parking lots with rifles in the pickup windows of the combatants (yep, I'm over 40), and never heard of anybody ever considering escalating to firepower, I have to call BS on that. I expect to be down voted, but unless you feel that people have become more evil since your father was a kid, I don't know what to tell you. As for gang violence and other crime, I invite you to look at Mexico (or Chicago), which have strict gun control.
- rhizome 9y ago
  never heard of anybody ever considering escalating to firepower I'm referring to domestic violence and partner homicide.

openasocket 9y ago

Serious question, what does "FBI not picking up the kid" mean? Were they supposed to arrest him? Confiscate his guns? My understanding is they were tipped off that he introducing himself as a school shooter and acting suspiciously. If they had followed up on that tip, is that grounds for arrest? If it is, would they be able to either keep him in jail until trial or confiscate his guns until trial? Same question for the sheriff's department.

robotrout 9y ago
I agree that it was not a slam dunk (you post crap on the internet, we take your guns). However, as this Miami Herald article [1] points out, there were just so many scary events that the authorities (Sheriff and FBI) were aware of in this kids history, that starting the process of mental health evaluation most certainly should have occurred. [1] http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article201887629.html http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/arti...
- openasocket 9y ago
  I don't think it is likely that a mental health evaluation would have demonstrated much. The law only bars those who have been involuntarily committed from getting firearms, a diagnosis of mental illness is not sufficient. And an involuntary commitment is a pretty high bar. My Dad is a clinical psychologist who evaluates people for the courts, and he can go on and on about how the severely mentally ill often do not qualify for involuntary commitment. Unless you are actively trying to hurt yourself or others you will not be committed, which basically limits it to people who are either attempting suicide, or assaulting people. I'd also like to point out that there are a number of issues with the current system besides what you've mentioned that could improve things. For starters, even if this person was involuntarily committed, he would fail a background check, but would still be able to purchase guns online or at a gun show without a background check. There are red flag laws, which allow people to petition the court to temporarily seize guns from someone acting in a disturbing way, which would have been ideal for this case, but these are only in some states.

s73v3r_ 9y ago

What could the FBI actually have done in this case? What law did the shooter break?

dragonwriter 9y ago
Given post-9/11 history, they could have enticed him into overt preparation for the crime they were tipped off that he might be prone to commit, arrested him for it, and claimed it as a foiled terrorist plot. But regardless of whether it would have actually been a something-like-accurate claim in this case, he wasn't Muslim, so the resulting headline wouldn't fit with the acceptable narrative, so there was no motivation to expend the required resources.