City attorney charges parents of teens who reportedly threatened schools

[Loren Pechtel]

Keeping your guns secured at all times should be necessary condition for being allowed to keep weapons. A constitutional right does not mean that there can't be any restrictions.

Disagree--"proper" storage requirements are generally restrictive enough they preclude self-defense guns.

Furthermore, what's needed is situational.

Now, I do agree that not securely locking up firearms when you have a troubled teen in the house is unacceptable. However, a gun in the nightstand when all you have are competent adults isn't a problem to me. And putting it in a simple lockbox is enough if there are young kids about.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's a fair point. I'm just thinking, the guns that Cruz used were under lock and key but Cruz had a copy of the key which his guardians did not know about. The NRA bang on about gun safety but there are so many dimwits that leave their loaded guns lying around for kids to get their hands on. How often do we hear about little Johnny shooting his sibling after finding his parent's gun lying around. It's weird, every bottle of paracetamol has a child proof cap but guns are kind of neglected.

And there's no regulation for a gun lockbox.

Some time back I saw a video where little kids were opening certain models of lockbox. It's obvious they were following steps but they weren't doing anything that a kid investigating the box wouldn't do. (For example, rolling some boxes end over end could cause them to unlock.)

That's a serious product deficiency that should cause a mandatory recall. Nothing was done.

I don't think they even need to set minimum standards. Rather, they simply need to make manufacturers test and document how their product behaves vs various attacks. The market will mandate the boxes stand up to kids. (Think of automobile crash testing. Getting a bad rating doesn't keep you from selling a car but it will chase away buyers. I think the effect will be far bigger with products that are basically purely about safety.)

 

[TSwizzle]

In the Parkland 17 shooting, Cruz legally (thanks to the NRA) owned the guns he used for his mass murder. He didn't need to hide a spare key; the key was his. The family he lived with had him lock up his guns for the safety of the younger children in the household.

I thought it strange that the father said he didn't know Cruz had a key to the gun storage. The father thought he had the only key. Which make me wonder why that would be, why wouldn't the father let Cruz have a key ?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In the Parkland 17 shooting, Cruz legally (thanks to the NRA) owned the guns he used for his mass murder. He didn't need to hide a spare key; the key was his. The family he lived with had him lock up his guns for the safety of the younger children in the household.

I thought it strange that the father said he didn't know Cruz had a key to the gun storage. The father thought he had the only key. Which make me wonder why that would be, why wouldn't the father let Cruz have a key ?

You mean why did someone else's father not let Cruz have a key to his gun safe? Cruz's adopted parents had died.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Isn't the distinction to draw between the OP and the Parkland shooting that law enforcement in this instance actually did its job? The Broward Police Department and the school R.O. were Keystone incompetent cowards. No need for new laws. Just enforce the laws we already have. Fire the incompetents.

Good idea. Oh... what law did the teenager break again that would have prohibited him from buying an AR-15?

I think it odd how right-wingers want to support minimal gun restrictions, but then blame the police, school administration, FBI for not having clairvoyance regarding the real world dangers that would permit the teen to obtain the AR-15 thanks to all that minimal restriction.

 

[RavenSky]

In the Parkland 17 shooting, Cruz legally (thanks to the NRA) owned the guns he used for his mass murder. He didn't need to hide a spare key; the key was his. The family he lived with had him lock up his guns for the safety of the younger children in the household.

I thought it strange that the father said he didn't know Cruz had a key to the gun storage. The father thought he had the only key. Which make me wonder why that would be, why wouldn't the father let Cruz have a key ?

I don't know what your source is, but every article I have ever read says the family knew he had a key to the gun safe.

Unhappy there, Nikolas Cruz asked to move in with a friend's family in northwest Broward. The family agreed and Cruz moved in around Thanksgiving. According to the family's lawyer, who did not identify them, they knew that Cruz owned the AR-15 but made him keep it locked up in a cabinet. He did have the key, however.

http://www.wfla.com/news/florida/su...as-cruz-arrives-at-broward-co-jail/1030542283

 

[TSwizzle]

I don't know what your source is, but every article I have ever read says the family knew he had a key to the gun safe.

Actually, that article doesn't say that James Snead knew Cruz had a key to the gun cabinet, just that Cruz had a key.

From an interview James Snead had with the Miami Herald;

Cruz had five or six guns, including the legally purchased AR-15 that was later used in the massacre. But Snead — a longtime gun owner — insisted the weapons be locked in a cabinet. Snead said that Cruz asked to get them only twice. Once, he said no. Another time, about four weeks ago, he allowed Cruz to clean one of the firearms for about 15 minutes. “I thought I had the only key,” Snead said.

Miami Herald

 

[Wiploc]

A constitutional right does not mean that there can't be any restrictions.

"... Shall not be infringed."

 

[Juma]

Keeping your guns secured at all times should be necessary condition for being allowed to keep weapons. A constitutional right does not mean that there can't be any restrictions.

Disagree--"proper" storage requirements are generally restrictive enough they preclude self-defense guns.

Furthermore, what's needed is situational.

Now, I do agree that not securely locking up firearms when you have a troubled teen in the house is unacceptable. However, a gun in the nightstand when all you have are competent adults isn't a problem to me. And putting it in a simple lockbox is enough if there are young kids about.

There are many possible solutions for safe boxes that are fast and silent to open.
Create the demand (by creating laws) and the products will appear.

 

[bilby]

There are no 'self defence guns'. As I have said elsewhere, a bulletproof vest is what you need if your objective is self defence.

A gun only works offensively; it can defend you against another person's gun only if used preemptively.

Standoffs are for movies. In real life, the first to fire wins, so there's no motive not to shoot first.

Where's the defence? If someone knows you are armed, he knows he must kill you to defend himself against you.

In a fistfight, the first person to throw a punch is in the wrong, and landing the second punch is (in most jurisdictions) considered reasonable self defence.

You cannot assume that you will be around to fire the second shot in a gunfight. Guns are not defensive weapons, and pretending that they are has caused more than enough grief in America.

It's time to grow up and stop pretending.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Isn't the distinction to draw between the OP and the Parkland shooting that law enforcement in this instance actually did its job? The Broward Police Department and the school R.O. were Keystone incompetent cowards. No need for new laws. Just enforce the laws we already have. Fire the incompetents.

Good idea. Oh... what law did the teenager break again that would have prohibited him from buying an AR-15?

I think it odd how right-wingers want to support minimal gun restrictions, but then blame the police, school administration, FBI for not having clairvoyance regarding the real world dangers that would permit the teen to obtain the AR-15 thanks to all that minimal restriction.

I've already pointed out that his wrongdoings were being swept under the rug. We don't know what crimes he might have committed.

Personally, I would like to see something like conviction for any act of violence keeps you from buying a gun for say 3 or 5 years. Troublemakers rarely keep their nose clean.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Keeping your guns secured at all times should be necessary condition for being allowed to keep weapons. A constitutional right does not mean that there can't be any restrictions.

Disagree--"proper" storage requirements are generally restrictive enough they preclude self-defense guns.

Furthermore, what's needed is situational.

Now, I do agree that not securely locking up firearms when you have a troubled teen in the house is unacceptable. However, a gun in the nightstand when all you have are competent adults isn't a problem to me. And putting it in a simple lockbox is enough if there are young kids about.

There are many possible solutions for safe boxes that are fast and silent to open.
Create the demand (by creating laws) and the products will appear.

I certainly agree it's possible--if the laws are written sensibly. Unfortunately, the right is afraid of giving an inch and the left is determined to push it as far as possible rather than be reasonable.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Isn't the distinction to draw between the OP and the Parkland shooting that law enforcement in this instance actually did its job? The Broward Police Department and the school R.O. were Keystone incompetent cowards. No need for new laws. Just enforce the laws we already have. Fire the incompetents.

Good idea. Oh... what law did the teenager break again that would have prohibited him from buying an AR-15?

I think it odd how right-wingers want to support minimal gun restrictions, but then blame the police, school administration, FBI for not having clairvoyance regarding the real world dangers that would permit the teen to obtain the AR-15 thanks to all that minimal restriction.

I've already pointed out that his wrongdoings were being swept under the rug.

What wrong doings? What laws did he break?

We don't know what crimes he might have committed.

Umm... that would be the problem. Due Process and all.

Personally, I would like to see something like conviction for any act of violence keeps you from buying a gun for say 3 or 5 years. Troublemakers rarely keep their nose clean.

Good point. That asshole in Las Vegas was a real badass. Just like Dylan Roof.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are no 'self defence guns'. As I have said elsewhere, a bulletproof vest is what you need if your objective is self defence.

Keeping saying so doesn't make it reality.

A bulletproof vest simply gives you a better chance when lead is heading your way. If you can't shoot back it's basically worthless. (Note: In protection situations you often see vests on unarmed people--but they have guards that can shoot back.)

A gun only works offensively; it can defend you against another person's gun only if used preemptively.

So? Self defense does not require you wait until they have actually used a weapon on you. The threat is enough. Real world, here, a few years ago: A woman wakes up to find her stalkerish ex in her bedroom. Said ex is now 6 feet under.

Real world, someone I used to know who carried a gun when doing yardwork. The neighbors had an aggressive dog, it had already bitten him once. If the dog came for him it would have been perforated. The neighbors finally got serious about containing the dog, he never had to shoot. There would have been no obligation to wait for the dog to bite before shooting.

Standoffs are for movies. In real life, the first to fire wins, so there's no motive not to shoot first.

Where's the defence? If someone knows you are armed, he knows he must kill you to defend himself against you.

In a lawful self defense situation he can surrender or run away.

In a fistfight, the first person to throw a punch is in the wrong, and landing the second punch is (in most jurisdictions) considered reasonable self defence.

You cannot assume that you will be around to fire the second shot in a gunfight. Guns are not defensive weapons, and pretending that they are has caused more than enough grief in America.

1) Your scenario moves the goalposts. You are equating throwing a punch and landing a punch. The last time someone threw a punch at me I stepped backwards, they only hit air. I could legally have hit back, though--and I would have been the first one to land a punch. (As it was, he was controlled by others, I took no action.)

2) The law doesn't require that you actually be attacked in order to defend yourself. Threatened is enough.

It's time to grow up and stop pretending.

You're the one that's pretending.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So? Self defense does not require you wait until they have actually used a weapon on you. The threat is enough. Real world, here, a few years ago: A woman wakes up to find her stalkerish ex in her bedroom. Said ex is now 6 feet under.

Real world, a bunch of people were slaughtered in a dark movie theater... even if they were armed, self defense would have been incredibly difficult.

Standoffs are for movies. In real life, the first to fire wins, so there's no motive not to shoot first.

Where's the defence? If someone knows you are armed, he knows he must kill you to defend himself against you.

In a lawful self defense situation he can surrender or run away.

*rushes to hospital after irony meter bursts on his desk*

In a fistfight, the first person to throw a punch is in the wrong, and landing the second punch is (in most jurisdictions) considered reasonable self defence.

You cannot assume that you will be around to fire the second shot in a gunfight. Guns are not defensive weapons, and pretending that they are has caused more than enough grief in America.

1) Your scenario moves the goalposts. You are equating throwing a punch and landing a punch. The last time someone threw a punch at me I stepped backwards, they only hit air. I could legally have hit back, though--and I would have been the first one to land a punch. (As it was, he was controlled by others, I took no action.)

Loren is on the verge of understanding why guns are dangerous!

2) The law doesn't require that you actually be attacked in order to defend yourself. Threatened is enough.

Of course, the guy who is shooting you up, has made the danger pretty clear. REAL WORLD, the guys in Las Vegas and Parkland didn't walk around with a brandished weapon and a sign saying "I'm going to kill people".

It's time to grow up and stop pretending.

You're the one that's pretending.

Thanks Trump.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Real world, a bunch of people were slaughtered in a dark movie theater... even if they were armed, self defense would have been incredibly difficult.

I've already shown that guns almost certainly save many more than die due to mass shootings.

It's just the saves are generally one at a time and don't make the news.

In a lawful self defense situation he can surrender or run away.

*rushes to hospital after irony meter bursts on his desk*

Next time get an actual irony meter. I'm pointing out the reality: The attacker can clearly cease their attack, that will protect them.

In a fistfight, the first person to throw a punch is in the wrong, and landing the second punch is (in most jurisdictions) considered reasonable self defence.

You cannot assume that you will be around to fire the second shot in a gunfight. Guns are not defensive weapons, and pretending that they are has caused more than enough grief in America.

1) Your scenario moves the goalposts. You are equating throwing a punch and landing a punch. The last time someone threw a punch at me I stepped backwards, they only hit air. I could legally have hit back, though--and I would have been the first one to land a punch. (As it was, he was controlled by others, I took no action.)

Loren is on the verge of understanding why guns are dangerous!

You're still utterly missing the point.

2) The law doesn't require that you actually be attacked in order to defend yourself. Threatened is enough.

Of course, the guy who is shooting you up, has made the danger pretty clear. REAL WORLD, the guys in Las Vegas and Parkland didn't walk around with a brandished weapon and a sign saying "I'm going to kill people".

Once again, you're focused on the rare cases: mass shootings.

Scenario A: 100 people die in one incident.

or

Scenario B: 1,000 people die one at a time.

By focusing on what makes the news you think A is worse.