school shooting in Noblesville (home, middle school, living in)

[49erfan916]

What in the hell is wrong with these kids?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/25/us/in...red/index.html

[Serious Conversation]

Originally Posted by 49erfan916

What in the hell is wrong with these kids?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/25/us/in...red/index.html

It's sad, but it really doesn't reflect on the community in any way. It could happen in a good or bad place.

[CGab]

I like in Indiana but 2.5hrs North of there. From what I know Nobelsville is a good area, but like "Serious conversation" has said, it can happen anywhere! I think a lot of it now if copy cats. I have 2 kids, both in Middle school now and we are also in a very good area; however, it is quite scary to think something like that can happen! I don't agree with arming teachers that scares me quite frankly) but I do agree with an armed security guard or police in every school. I also agree with metal detectors. What ever the schools decide I hope they are all proactive and do something quick!

[MortonR]

I was wondering what the mayor was thinking. Is this guy a total idiot?

Noblesville Mayor Asked to Leave Gun Store After Criticizing NRA Tent - The Truth About Guns

RM

[indy_317]

Originally Posted by MortonR

I was wondering what the mayor was thinking. Is this guy a total idiot?

Noblesville Mayor Asked to Leave Gun Store After Criticizing NRA Tent - The Truth About Guns

I never saw that part of the story. The entire gun issue is one that is going to work itself out in the coming years. Assault weapon bans are pretty much coming, at least on a local level. Until the USSC rules otherwise, most of the lower courts are saying banning a certain type of firearm is allowable. Additionally, we are talking about a thirteen year old kid here. All the facts have have yet to be released. If this kid got his parents gun, why does the NRA stand in the way of prosecuting such gun owners? The NRA is OK with leveling maximum charges against criminals when they use guns. The NRA is good about teaching safety, but not everyone cares about safety. I think there is a fine line between a kid getting a gun and accidentally shooting themselves, intentionally shooting themselves (suicide) vs an intentional or accidental shooting of a friend/family member. Should there be a time when parental negligence with a firearm in the home becomes criminal when the kid gets a hold of it and something bad happens? There are plenty of comments on gun owners forums where guys have $3,000+ invested in ARs, handguns, ammo, yet they refuse to even consider a basic gun safe and/or home alarm system and they act all upset and surprised all there guns are now gone.

[MortonR]

Originally Posted by indy_317

I never saw that part of the story. The entire gun issue is one that is going to work itself out in the coming years. Assault weapon bans are pretty much coming, at least on a local level. Until the USSC rules otherwise, most of the lower courts are saying banning a certain type of firearm is allowable. Additionally, we are talking about a thirteen year old kid here. All the facts have have yet to be released. If this kid got his parents gun, why does the NRA stand in the way of prosecuting such gun owners? The NRA is OK with leveling maximum charges against criminals when they use guns. The NRA is good about teaching safety, but not everyone cares about safety. I think there is a fine line between a kid getting a gun and accidentally shooting themselves, intentionally shooting themselves (suicide) vs an intentional or accidental shooting of a friend/family member. Should there be a time when parental negligence with a firearm in the home becomes criminal when the kid gets a hold of it and something bad happens? There are plenty of comments on gun owners forums where guys have $3,000+ invested in ARs, handguns, ammo, yet they refuse to even consider a basic gun safe and/or home alarm system and they act all upset and surprised all there guns are now gone.

I am a firearm owner. I am not an NRA member, as the NRA espouses some things I don't agree with. However, that being said, I do fully embrace the NRA's stance on safety and education, which is, in my opinion, one of the foundations of responsible firearm ownership. My firearms and ammunition are stored safely under lock and key at all times, and when they're out, it's for immediate use before they are returned to a safe condition and secured storage. I have no children in the house, only adults, but that doesn't matter. I would secure my firearms and ammunition the exact same way no matter who is living in the house. Safety is not defined by age.

I agree that if the owner (parent) was not responsible in the way that they stored or maintained the firearms(s) used, they should be held liable.

I have to chuckle every time I see someone on TV railing about the banning of "automatic weapons". It's pure ignorance and nothing else. If "automatic weapons" were banned, you would eliminate a good number of the firearms currently in use today. We would be down to revolvers and breakdown type shotguns pretty much. But - they would be just as deadly.

Anyway, back to the original subject....

The mayor going in and telling the business to comply with his request smacks of real heavy handedness, sort of a mafia protection thing such as, "It would be a terrible thing if something bad happened to your business, you know..."

If Mothers Against Drunk Driving were protesting at car dealerships, would he go in and tell them to stop selling cars?

RM

[W & C]

Originally Posted by MortonR

I have to chuckle every time I see someone on TV railing about the banning of "automatic weapons". It's pure ignorance and nothing else. If "automatic weapons" were banned, you would eliminate a good number of the firearms currently in use today. We would be down to revolvers and breakdown type shotguns pretty much. But - they would be just as deadly.

Really ?

So let's imagine the Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock with a revolver or a shotgun perched up in his room at Mandalay Bay. Still same count of deaths/injuries ?

[MortonR]

Originally Posted by W & C

Really ?

So let's imagine the Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock with a revolver or a shotgun perched up in his room at Mandalay Bay. Still same count of deaths/injuries ?

How about a bolt action rifle? That would do the trick. And it's certainly not a semiautomatic firearm. No way I could list all of the possibilities, but there are plenty of them.

RM

[W & C]

Originally Posted by MortonR

How about a bolt action rifle? That would do the trick. And it's certainly not a semiautomatic firearm. No way I could list all of the possibilities, but there are plenty of them.

RM

What about the question that I asked ? As deadly or nah ?

[MillennialMaverick]

Originally Posted by W & C

Really ?

So let's imagine the Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock with a revolver or a shotgun perched up in his room at Mandalay Bay. Still same count of deaths/injuries ?

The student who shot up Sante Fe High School in Texas used a pump-action shotgun and a .38 revolver. No semi-auto weapons to speak off, still killed 10 people, injured a dozen more. That's 22 direct victims in a short amount of time. Point being; a motivated and deranged individual who has adequately planned for such an event can cause an extensive amount of damage no matter his choice of weaponry.



If the Vegas shooter was using a revolver or shotgun, he wouldn't have planned to carry out his plan in that setting. These killers know what they're doing. The Vegas shooter specifically picked that area and those firearms--designed for long range--because of his vantage point.



Let's not pretend that the tool results in amount of damage caused as opposed to the setting, planning, and execution of that plan by the murderers.