[boxus]

I do not think it will change Florida politics, only those candidate who are weak and in danger of losing it might have an impact.

As for this specific incident; overall gun violence rates and homicides by guns rates (and all together) are at historic lows, so while these mass shootings are tragic especially considering who the victims are, the overall picture is that there is a downward trend on gun violence. If public safety is the goal, this goal is being met.

In the Parkland case, the FBI dropped the ball. All other parties did their duty except the FBI.

What I would support is a a better, more elaborate check, maybe even a CCW type permit, for high capacity firearms, in which more than a criminal conviction is a factor in the issuance of such permit. A person still is not denied their right to a firearm, they can obtain low capacity weapons if not granted a permit, yet everyone can still obtain the firearms if pass a check. I am also for raising the age for ownership to 21 for certain classes of firearms.

As a firearm owner, I do not think people with such a background as Cruz had should have access to firearms as he did. Sure, he could get them illegally, but that would be even more cause for law enforcement to get involved (assuming they do not drop the ball).

Edit: and while the focus is an semi-auto rifles, handguns can and do the same damage, look at the V-Tech shooting and the fact handguns are responsible for most gun violence.

[dfwuno]

If banning assault weapons is an infringement of the Second Amendment how do you explain the conservative SCOTUS
never taking up a case about it? Last I knew the Constitution over rules and protects anything a state passes. They all know and respect that......except Thomas.......and most know about that one.

[Dd714]

Originally Posted by chopchop0

It was a tongue in cheek comment.

Honestly, AR15s and similar weapons are really good at killing lots of people quickly.

It's a different animal than a shotgun or a small handgun which can be used for home defense.

Again, why should the AR be the easier gun to buy in fl?

There is no inherent "evilness" of an AR15 over any other gun. It has it's origins in the M16 military rifle, but really every gun does. It's military design in the late 50s was not based on lethality but logistics - light weight, smaller round. The benefits of an AR15 is it's adaptability, not in it's effective use as a weapon of mass murder - modular design with the ability to change out various components, various usage because of this modular design (hunting small game, target shooting, plinking, home defense), reliable, accurate. It's black colored, for some it's scary because users put scary "things" hanging off it like scopes and red dot sights. Arguably - shotguns and handguns are more lethal - shotguns for just the impact of a 12 guage shell on a human body, and the ability to spread out pellets and hit multiple targets at once (which is why the Police call them "riot guns"), handguns for the ability to conceal and maneauver the weapon in closed in spaces. Certainly, handguns are much more used in crime, while AR15s almost never.
I own an AR, and AK, and various other weapons. I am a member of a gun club, I have a concealed carry permit, I have a class 3 ATF license. Why do you want to punish me and my fellow gun owners that are using weapons responsibly for the crimes of a nut?
And, once again, there was a federal assault weapons ban. It was passed in good intention, even Ronald Reagan was for it. But it didn't work. It was ineffective. Time to address the root cause and not look for ineffective solutions.

[boxus]

Originally Posted by dfwuno

If banning assault weapons is an infringement of the Second Amendment how do you explain the conservative SCOTUS
never taking up a case about it? Last I knew the Constitution over rules and protects anything a state passes. They all know and respect that......except Thomas.......and most know about that one.

When have they been banned? The Court can only take up a case from someone who has standing, and for someone to have standing, they would have to be banned.

[dfwuno]

[quote=boxus;51088664]When have they been banned? The Court can only take up a case from someone who has standing, and for someone to have standing, they would have to be banned.[/QUOTE

Do you mean like the current assault weapons bans in Calif, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Mass and New Jersey as well as several cities. There has been several cases come before SCOTUS with those locations all of which have not been heard. If it were a Second Amendment they would have taken the case do you not think. Unless they are not doing their job.

[BBMW]

The SCOTUS does what it wants. It never really addressed the 2nd Amendment for almost 200 years. Then it popped out two decisions in short succession that very strongly back it as conferring an individual right to keep and bear arms (Heller and McDonald). Now it's gone back to sleep.

What will likely have to happen is that two different federal court circuits will have to come up with conflicting precedents on AWB cases, which would then force the SCOTUS to clear the conflict. This hasn't happened yet.

Originally Posted by dfwuno

If banning assault weapons is an infringement of the Second Amendment how do you explain the conservative SCOTUS
never taking up a case about it? Last I knew the Constitution over rules and protects anything a state passes. They all know and respect that......except Thomas.......and most know about that one.

[boxus]

[quote=dfwuno;51088862]

Originally Posted by boxus

When have they been banned? The Court can only take up a case from someone who has standing, and for someone to have standing, they would have to be banned.[/QUOTE

Do you mean like the current assault weapons bans in Calif, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Mass and New Jersey as well as several cities. There has been several cases come before SCOTUS with those locations all of which have not been heard. If it were a Second Amendment they would have taken the case do you not think. Unless they are not doing their job.

I glanced at California and Hawaii, did not find anything regarding bans. Can you provide the reference?

[Corrie22]

The politics that needs to change...
The policies were called “diversionary programs” and were essentially about stopping High School students from being arrested. Law enforcement was instructed to avoid arrests and defer criminal conduct to school administrators.

Students who engaged in violence, drug sales, robberies, burglaries, theft and other various crimes were intentionally kept out of the criminal justice system. County administrators and School Superintendents told local and county law enforcement officers to stop arresting students.

"Broward’s Collaborative Agreement on School Discipline was announced in early November. Instead of suspensions, students can now be referred to the PROMISE program, where they receive counseling for several days and then return to school. A host of non-violent misdemeanors no longer require an arrest, though officers can sometimes override that if they feel it is necessary. The school district’s Office of Minority Male Achievement reviews data to ensure that punishments for minor infractions and racial disparities are on the decline. "

If Nikolas Cruz had been arrested for his prior criminal behavior he would not have passed a background check for a firearm purchase. The issue was/is not the background check; the issue was/is the lack of a prior arrest. Hence, the Broward County school and law enforcement policy is ultimately what failed.

[chopchop0]

Originally Posted by BBMW

These types of weapons should be protected by the Second Amendment.

Were those types of weapons available when the 2nd amendment was crafted? Again, I have no problems with handguns, shotguns etc. But the fact is, an AR15 with a 30+ round mag is basically good at one thing. And we all know what that is

[chopchop0]

Originally Posted by Dd714

And, once again, there was a federal assault weapons ban. It was passed in good intention, even Ronald Reagan was for it. But it didn't work. It was ineffective.

That's a pretty blanket judgement, the reality is more nuanced.

https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/di...pons-ban-work/

Originally Posted by boxus

Edit: and while the focus is an semi-auto rifles, handguns can and do the same damage, look at the V-Tech shooting and the fact handguns are responsible for most gun violence.

Yup, requires more skill to get the body count higher. The AR15 does it far more easily.