Yet another school shooting in the US

[papafarang]

Christian,

Quote, "Your body is a vessel a ship a corporation dead in the water of the sea of commerce.
That's why you are in a relationSHIP etc,etc

I'm afraid that your whole arguement re: SHIP is based on an incorrect supposition. The suffix -SHIP comes from old & middle English. The most important thing, in terms of its origin, is that it is unrelated to the word ship meaning 'a vessel, especially a large seagoing vessel'. -SHIP is a suffix used to form nouns of state or condition, chiefly added to nouns and especially personal nouns.

Check it out.

Aha that explains shipshape, state or condition (in good order; trim and neat:)

[tamada]

Christian,

Quote, "Your body is a vessel a ship a corporation dead in the water of the sea of commerce.
That's why you are in a relationSHIP etc,etc

I'm afraid that your whole arguement re: SHIP is based on an incorrect supposition. The suffix -SHIP comes from old & middle English. The most important thing, in terms of its origin, is that it is unrelated to the word ship meaning 'a vessel, especially a large seagoing vessel'. -SHIP is a suffix used to form nouns of state or condition, chiefly added to nouns and especially personal nouns.

Check it out.

Unrelated wrong again, I should have saved the 6,000 years studying history and how words were constructed and just looked up the meaning in the Oxford dictionary my bad I'll throw it out on Udonmap next time save me a lot of time.

Or you can PM fellow off-the-wall board-member felixcat, arrange to meet and debate this until the cows come home.

Not so much about saving time as saving bandwidth.

But 'afore ye go', do you think L. Ron Hubbard was onto something with his Sea Org?

[tamada]

Christian,

Quote, "Your body is a vessel a ship a corporation dead in the water of the sea of commerce.
That's why you are in a relationSHIP etc,etc

I'm afraid that your whole arguement re: SHIP is based on an incorrect supposition. The suffix -SHIP comes from old & middle English. The most important thing, in terms of its origin, is that it is unrelated to the word ship meaning 'a vessel, especially a large seagoing vessel'. -SHIP is a suffix used to form nouns of state or condition, chiefly added to nouns and especially personal nouns.

Check it out.

Aha that explains shipshape, state or condition (in good order; trim and neat:)

A bit "loose around the bilges" myself this morning after last nights beer and spicy witchety grubs.

[papafarang]

Christian,

Quote, "Your body is a vessel a ship a corporation dead in the water of the sea of commerce.
That's why you are in a relationSHIP etc,etc

I'm afraid that your whole arguement re: SHIP is based on an incorrect supposition. The suffix -SHIP comes from old & middle English. The most important thing, in terms of its origin, is that it is unrelated to the word ship meaning 'a vessel, especially a large seagoing vessel'. -SHIP is a suffix used to form nouns of state or condition, chiefly added to nouns and especially personal nouns.

Check it out.

Aha that explains shipshape, state or condition (in good order; trim and neat:)

A bit "loose around the bilges" myself this morning after last nights beer and spicy witchety grubs.

Hey Tam.. is it me or has UM turned into Bedlam .... chaos or madness. why is everyone shouting abuse at each other ? best thing I read this week was "Then there's always the chance that the Aussie is avoiding you." that was funny, that's only thing that made sense

[vlad]

Its the old gun debate Dean with all the American members defending there right to bear arms. Even though the answer to the problem is staring them in the face they cannot and will not accept it. Most members are bored with it now so dont bother posting on it but they have to keep the thread going. l will be be accused again and ridiculed by you know who on the other site now as he likes to read on here then go tittle tattling over there.

[Lone Star]

I hear the WAAAAAmbulance again.

Legal facts will always trump the opinions of non-citizens. It's just how things work in the real world. The insistence of America-haters to alter the US society and US law with their opinions is certainly their right to do so, but it's a rather hopeless endeavor that has been hashed over quite a bit on this forum.

A shooting happens. A Hater gets on with his opinions. An American provides facts. The Haters keep providing opinions that don't trump the facts, and on and on and on. And then it's "the American members defending there right to bear arms. Even though the answer to the problem is staring them in the face they cannot and will not accept it." So Americans should just get in that long gray line with their heads down and shut up. 55555 I get it. I dare say that if any American attacked the society in England that not may Englishmen, or anyone else on this forum, would stand for it. But it's those pesky Americans who defend their Constitution. Damn them! 555

And now to another related issue regarding guns ...

Trump had a little bipartisan meeting talking about gun control recently. The Left is absolutely giddy about some comments that he made, but if they understood the law, they wouldn't be getting too excited.

The federal government of the United States of America lacks the authority to have Congress "ban" any gun in America. The power of the Congress lies only in its ability to tax, regulate interstate trade, track ownership and licensing and regulate manufacturing standards. There is no power to ban any firearm short of amending the Constitution. Yes, we're back to that pesky Constitution of inalienable Rights.

Also, there is no federal law currently in existence on the matter of guns that pertains to anything other than taxation, interstate trade and tracking. Some high grade firearms just require more paperwork than others along with a higher price tag and a permit from ATF along with an extensive background check from the FBI, etc. For example, you can purchase a M134 fully automatic minigun for about $40,000 USD with a $250 permit tax/stamp. Now I'm sure that there will be Gaggle Members and fans of the Gaggle who are looking for an opening here and will find some Huffpo, MSNBC, Snopes or Gizmodo Sci-Fi article that says that costs are different, etc. Suffice to say that it is significantly more expensive to own these types of weapons.

Even though there are laws that prevent felons and those with psychological/violence issues from purchasing or possessing a firearm, that action does not ban the firearm. It bans the specific individual from ownership. That banning is based on "due process" (also in the Constitution). Someone's rights cannot be altered without "due process". In other words there has to be some legal reason for those rights to be altered or taken away. You can do your own research on this.

A higher age requirement for purchasing certain firearms can be enacted, but that will open a whole new can of worms on other issues -- like voting, driving, etc. "You mean I am old enough to vote, but can't purchase a firearm to defend myself?" I can hear it already.

By the time any legislation is written, I doubt that it will contain much of what was discussed in Trump's bi-partisan meeting. There will be citizen dissent and there will be court challenges. If I had to bet, I'd say it won't do much more than what is already in effect.

Teachers are already volunteering to train and arm themselves in schools in different states in the US. Hardening the target will happen much more quickly and will be extremely effective. Future nutcases will pick a school that is still a "gun free zone" (instituted by LIBs) and a soft target.

NOTE 1: A very large number of those with psychological issues are not in the database to prevent them from purchasing a firearm because their states are not mandated to enter the data. These psychos could purchase a firearm tomorrow if they so desired. That can be changed by the US Congress in 24 hours if they wanted to do so.

NOTE 2: If current laws had been enforced by government agencies, the shooting in Parkland would not have happened. The firearm would have been confiscated and the subject arrested LONG before it ever happened.

NOTE 3: When the Left in America is successful in demanding more background checks on those who want to purchase firearms, I hope they use the same due diligence on America's borders and with illegal voters at our voting booths. But they won't. While they run around with their hair on fire over Russia trying to alter the elections, they don't much care about Illegal Aliens voting or others voting multiple times without ID. It's that Swamp of Hypocrisy in which they live that prevents it.

[tamada]

I hear the WAAAAAmbulance again. ...

Oops! There goes the bandwidth (again).

[Doodoo]

Lonestar

NOTE 2: If current laws had been enforced by government agencies, the shooting in Parkland would not have happened. The firearm would have been confiscated and the subject arrested LONG before it ever happened.

You now have a Crystal Ball
If you want to make a few extra $$$ you could hire yourself out to school districts as a Assistant to the Assistant to the Main Whatever

Or just sit there and tell the Bad guys they should reread the 2nd Amendment to stop anymore shootings

[Lone Star]

Lonestar

NOTE 2: If current laws had been enforced by government agencies, the shooting in Parkland would not have happened. The firearm would have been confiscated and the subject arrested LONG before it ever happened.

You now have a Crystal Ball
If you want to make a few extra $$$ you could hire yourself out to school districts as a Assistant to the Assistant to the Main Whatever

Or just sit there and tell the Bad guys they should reread the 2nd Amendment to stop anymore shootings

Aren't you aware that there were more than 20 reports to authorities on this perpetrator? To both the Sheriff's Office and the FBI? From both family members and friends -- and even a threat carried out verbally and online by the perpetrator himself by name?

No one needs a crystal ball to act on real time evidence. You need to expand your research beyond hate-America and hate-gun sources. It's out there.

There are laws in place in Florida that would have allowed local police to take action against him based on the threats and the reports.

[Lone Star]

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/c ... 87629.html

Miami Herald - Shooter could have faced charges before massacre — had cops done their job, experts say

Nikolas Cruz threatened classmates, posted photos of himself holding guns, made violent statements online and was repeatedly described to authorities as a potential “school shooter.”

His troubling behavior gave law enforcement plenty of opportunities to investigate and arrest him — and even take away his guns — long before he shot up Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland last week, according to interviews with former South Florida prosecutors and legal experts.

In recent years, South Florida police detectives have arrested a slew of young men in unrelated cases who exhibited similar, troubling behavior on a variety of charges. Cops took them seriously.

Read on ... no crystal ball required.

[Bonanza]

Lone Star, I'm with you on your logic and reasoning. But the haters aren't. Unfortunately, the old adage is true that
"There are none so blind as those who will not see; and none so deaf as those who will not hear".

If the haters believe it, then it must be true. Facts must not be allowed to get in the way of political beliefs.

[felixcat]

HaHa, I see you are using the word "Haters", that I have been using for a long time.
Yes, they are Haters......haters of Truth.
Thats all I got to say..you Truth people are doing a great job. !!

[christian_2013]

Sheriff Scott J Israel did his job and got a good payoff for a job well done.
WHY school shootings?
What is more precious than our children?
Emotional pull.
Distraction event.
Gun grab event.
D security.
WHY would locals go along w/such a sick organized event?
{ THEY must control local police/school/county officials/etc to work}.
WHY??
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Federal aid + donations
These people are SICK.
Follow the MONEY.
It's always about the MONEY.

Poor old Nickolas Cruz(pawn) About to be RE PRENSENTED to the COURT, heading to the DOCK with a DOCK ET number.
BONANZA look that up in your farang English book or Oxford Dictionary or your 6 week TEFL course and throw it back in my COURT, you gotta love a know ALL. Maybe you prefer to use a RACKET!

I would love to RE PRESENT you in COURT BONANZA, should you need someone to speak on your BE HALF at the DOCK if you need someone who RE PRESENTS Morons, imbeciles and idiots of course.

[vlad]

Its your thread lonestar so crack on enjoy it. I've got better things to focus on then the wild west.

[747man]

Its your thread lonestar so crack on enjoy it. I've got better things to focus on then the wild west.

Well Crack On & Get Me Fu**in' Corned Beef to Nongers....

[stattointhailand]

BREAKING .........BREAKING ...........BREAKING

Shipments of Corned beef to the Nogers area are being seriously delayed due to the local FED EX agent joining a posse to hunt down a local crackhead ........ when questioned he stated he couldn't give a damn if people were dying of starvation he just wanted to go and play with his guns.

[vlad]

corned beef all gone ett it in my loom

[tinpeeba]

Some problems involved in arming teachers:
1. The fear and chaos caused by a threatening situation can produce involuntary physical responses, such as a racing heart and loss of fine motor skills. A New York City Police Department study, http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/ ... uation.pdf, noted that police involved in gunfights shoot with an accuracy rate of just 18%. Even if teachers could achieve the same level of accuracy as police, one in five or six bullets would hit the shooter and the other four or five bullets would hit something or someone else.
2. The risk of mistaking an innocent person for an assailant.
3. Being targeted by an assailant who sees that you are armed. If arming teachers became commonplace, shooters might target teachers first, further decreasing teachers’ firing ability and accuracy.
3. Most shooters at high school and middle school incidents are current students. Recognizing the shooter as a student could inhibit a well-intentioned teacher from rapidly and accurately firing at him.
4. The risk of an armed teacher being mistaken for an assailant by law enforcement officers who respond to the incident.
5. The risk of teachers unnecessarily drawing or firing their gun in a moment of fear.
6. Someone taking the teacher's gun to injure others.
7. Teachers could unintentionally discharge their firearm or have their gun taken by an angry student while trying to break-up a fight.

[Stantheman]

Must agree with tinpeeba with one clarification. Supposedly the armed teacher would be concealed carry so number 6 less likely to happen, but it could happen if somehow info on what teacher had gun got out.

[Lone Star]

One armed staff member in a high school population of 1500 to 3000 students is folly.

1. There is a risk of involuntary physical responses in any escalated situation with even the best trained individuals.
These staff volunteers should be carefully chose for that reason.

2. Rules of engagement help eliminate mistaking an innocent person for an assailant. "Shoot, Don't Shoot" training is excellent for this.

3. Being targeted is a risk, but that comes with the volunteering. School shooters are lazy and cowards. They want soft targets. They will choose an off-campus venue to attack their targets instead.

4. Vet the staff members well to exclude those who may have inhibitions to act.

5. Rules of identification prevent armed teachers from being mistaken for assailants.

6. Vet the staff members well to prevent staff who will not perform well.

7. Secure lockers prevent theft of staff members' firearms.

8. Staff with firearms should NOT be engaged in breaking up fights.

At the last high school at which I taught (1700 students), I can think of at least 8 staff members who had military and/or law enforcement backgrounds who would be excellent volunteers.