It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mass Shooting Reported in Bell, Florida

page: 8
24
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Has it been mentioned anywhere else in the thread that a few years back he accidentally shot his son and that is why he has felon status? A hunting accident? I think we can all safely say it was not a hunting accident. This man was ill...sick. to shoot or stab or simply kill a child takes a special kind of person.

This is not about gun control. A mother can drive her kids into a lake and kill them. Should be ban driving? A grandmother in Florida recently stabbed her young grandson to death. Do we ban knives? A child can be attacked by a dog. Do we ban all dogs?

How about we all remember those that were lost, the feelings of those family members and just say a prayer, light a candle, meditate or drink a beer and be thankful you are not planning the funeral of SIX dead kids and a wife/mother/daughter.

He should have just shot himself...


edit on 09pm30pmfu2014-09-19T12:31:36-05:001236 by matafuchs because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: lokin
Wow. Just, wow. I honestly thought my comment about some people being non-feeling and selfish was a little too harsh. It's clear to me know it might not have been strong enough.
I know children die every day. I do "cry a river" when I hear about the loss.
I'm not really sure what this whole Macho thing you have going is trying to prove. I need to tell you, it doesn't make you look like a big strong man (or woman), it makes you look like a heartless bully.
I made my original comment because this thread was getting OFF TOPIC and turning into a gun debate. This WAS about the children who died. reply to: Answer



You deal with death from an emotional standpoint instead of a logical one. It has nothing to do with macho, it has everything to do with how you perceive reality. People die and it is not a great tragedy when it happens... it's the only thing that's 100% certain for all of us. Whether you die at 105 years old or 2 months old, it's part of life. Just because they were children, it somehow makes it more horrible for you... that's your perception of the most common thing in the world. You weren't whimpering about all the other kids that died in the world yesterday but you somehow consider these kids worth mourning over just because they were in the news.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   
I like how the gun control/2nd ammendment issue never touches the fact that 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides. Most people who survive suicide attempts regret it, but most people who attempt suicide with a gun don't live through it. So it's honestly more of a suicide tool than a killing tool in this country.

you can have your pointless debate about who kills people, guns or maniacs, but the undisputable fact of the matter is that mentally unbalanced and potentially violent people, towards themselves or others, have an ease of access to tools which were made solely for killing.

Anyone going to defend the second ammendment rights of a mentally unbalanced guy planning on a suicide or mass shooting? Or do you honestly believe that that everyone should have access to guns, let the cops and the coroner clean up the mess?

How many gun deaths a year happen because morons give kids access to guns?
edit on 19-9-2014 by framedragged because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-9-2014 by framedragged because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: defcon5

originally posted by: Answer
Here's a piece of information that will hopefully settle your incorrect opinion on this issue:

On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:
[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

Every able-bodied citizen is a member of the militia and should thereby be armed in case he is needed. Only an idiot who doesn't understand the nature of a militia could interpret the 2nd Amendment any other way. When the populace is armed, the security of a free state is ensured. If that's not good enough for you, I can keep presenting the same evidence that was used by the Supreme Court.


Today, the term militia is used to describe a number of groups within the United States. Primarily, these are:
• The organized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903, which repealed section two hundred thirty-two and sections 1625 - 1660 of title sixteen of the Revised Statutes, consists of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia.[2] The National Guard, however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked.
• The reserve militia[3] are part of the unorganized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903 as consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.
• Former members of the armed forces are also considered part of the "unorganized militia" per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code.[2

A “well regulated militia” today means the State National Guard, not an “unorganized” militia. If the state needs you to be in the militia they’ll draft you into it and provide you the necessary equipment. If you want to live by that law, then feel free to go buy a Kentucky Long Rifle, but it does not give you the right to buy an Abrahams tank and park it in your garage.

If you know anything about history, then you should know that the state militias became the state national guards, and those weapons are there for the state as a whole to protect itself from an out of control federal government (such as what happened in the Civil War), not for individuals to decide they want to personally protect themselves from the government.


I know plenty about history, including the fact that the Supreme Court decided that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to own firearms. Why are you still arguing this? You are wrong. Accept it. The Amendment clearly says "the right of the people." That statement is independent of the statement about the necessity of a militia therefore one does not HAVE TO BE ACTIVELY SERVING IN THE MILITIA to own firearms. This has been decided by people who know much more than you.

I also see that you didn't bother to read any of the opinions of the judges and legal scholars interpreting the Amendment around the time it was written.


In 1792, Tench Coxe made the following point in a commentary on the Second Amendment:

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.



The earliest published commentary on the Second Amendment by a major constitutional theorist was by St. George Tucker. Tucker wrote:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep, and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4. This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.



William Rawle 1825:

No clause could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.


Some things may be up for debate but the meaning of the 2nd Amendment is not.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: framedragged


most people who attempt suicide with a gun don't live through it

Any statistics to prove this?

Even so, most people that jump from high buildings don't live through it.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: framedragged
I like how the gun control/2nd ammendment issue never touches the fact that 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides. Most people who survive suicide attempts regret it, but most people who attempt suicide with a gun don't live through it. So it's honestly more of a suicide tool than a killing tool in this country.

you can have your pointless debate about who kills people, guns or maniacs, but the undisputable fact of the matter is that mentally unbalanced and potentially violent people, towards themselves or others, have an ease of access to tools which were made solely for killing.

Anyone going to defend the second ammendment rights of a mentally unbalanced guy planning on a suicide or mass shooting? Or do you honestly believe that that everyone should have access to guns, let the cops and the coroner clean up the mess?

How many gun deaths a year happen because morons give kids access to guns?


Gun owners don't want mentally imbalanced people to have guns. The problem is, Liberals don't want to be "insensitive" and point fingers at those people as the core of the problem so they won't push that issue. Mental illness IS THE PROBLEM but it requires a certain level of political incorrectness to address it. Democrats won't touch it because it won't win votes.

The gun doesn't have feelings and can't be offended so it's the easy target. Besides that, the US is 33rd on the list of suicide rates by country... so guns really aren't making a difference like you claim. Lithuania is the top of the list and the method most commonly used is hanging. Don't pretend that fewer guns leads to fewer suicides... that's just asinine and isn't even close to factual.
edit on 9/19/2014 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

I do know that for every 25 'attempts' at suicide only one occurs. Men vs women committing successful is 80/20. 50% of all suicides that succeed are with firearms. Shotguns succeed almost 100% where handguns are about a 50% non success rate.

He should have put it in his mouth and pulled the trigger...



edit on 09pm30pmf0000002014-09-19T13:20:09-05:000109 by matafuchs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: butcherguy

I do know that for every 25 'attempts' at suicide only one occurs. Men vs women committing successful is 80/20. 50% of all suicides that succeed are with firearms. Shotguns succeed almost 100% where handguns are about a 50% non success rate.

He should have put it in his mouth and pulled the trigger...




When a gun isn't available, people hang themselves or jump off of bridges. I guess we'll have to ban ropes, belts, bed sheets, power cords, and gravity after guns.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

BAN GRAVITY!!!



Wait...Ban gravity? But why? It's sooooo alluring. I'm so drawn to it!
Why don't we issue free parachutes, instead?
edit on 9/19/2014 by GoOfYFoOt because: added text



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
So what are the odds that the shooter was on prescription drugs to control depression?
Most of the other mass shooters were,,,

You are right. Guaranteed the shooter was on some form of SSRIs. And people focus on the guns... Ha!



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Char-Lee

Thank you! My point. The entire reason I began carrying was the law. I wanted to be law abiding and able to defend myself and my fellow man. All the while, Im hoping I never...(get this FOLKS!)..NEVER, ever, ever...have to.
Peace MS



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Maybe we need to approach this tragedy and others like it that have occurred lately from another aspect. WTH is going on? Maybe we are looking in one direction when we should be looking deeper into these scenarios. Beyond the gun issue and even the SSRIs. Why so many of these mass killings...not just from guns but all kinds of mass murder and mayhem. What is going on and why are there so many anymore...and I don't think it is the good ole standby that we have more media now so we hear about it more. Perhaps there is something more going on.

Sure, if we go too far relevant to the "Conspiracy Theory" route, we will be called nutters...but maybe we should question and dig deeper. What else has changed? Why are so many people loosing it and in a big way. Years ago, we had some folks going "postal" but not at the rate it is occurring now. Is it something in our food/meds/vaccines/water/air/cell towers/human genes in the food/vaccines or what? What next...cannibalism. Folks are going around in a rage naked and eating "face" and such. WTH.

One can witness the "changes" taking place in people by just going shopping or driving. More folks then not seem dazed/confused/rude and crude/stupid and so forth. Go people watch at the Mall...almost everyone has the 1,000 yard stare...like they are wandering around in a fog or like they are in misery. WTH. These past few years is when I started taking notice in how odd and off the wall people seem. Police are more aggressive then ever, everybody either seems hyper as hell or zombified in the opposite direction. Zoned out.

When families start killing their own to the extent that it is happening now, maybe we ought to take a closer and better look as to what the heck is really going on. Are there just more crazy people in the world now or is there something or a bunch of "somethings" that are causing people to act like a bunch of lunatics. It could be a combination of causes. Maybe we better start trying to figure it all out and not just blame the first "easy" explanation we can think of...things/causes may be more complex than that...perhaps even more sinister then one would think at first glance. Too many of these mass killings...something is very wrong.
edit on 19-9-2014 by shrevegal because: error



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to: bhliberal

Man, lay off the gun issue. These people are very kindly trying to tell you that the core of the problem is mental illness. Anyone with enough drive can use anything to kill. It's not about the weapons, it is about the mentally disturbed not receiving the proper treatment and snapping.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

All of what you said is your own opinion. To be taken with a grain of salt. Apparently, you don't know much about how these discussion boards work. Having only been a contributor to this site for less than a year, its understandable. When someone posts a news topic and does not include anything but the facts of the story itself, a discussion takes place which people interject their opinions and bring up whatever talking points they can think of as long as it in some way relates to the news story. Otherwise, there would be no discussion and this wouldn't be a discussion forum.

It is very wrong to think that when something happens, we shouldn't talk about what we want to talk about until the mainstream media decides that it should be a talking point.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy


Guns and Suicide

"...75% of all suicide attempts are by the use of drugs. These people are found alive 97% of the time. Those who succeed in using drugs to attempt suicide are successful only 3% of the time. By contrast, more than 90% of all suicide attempts by use of firearms are successful. The bottom line is that anyone using a gun to commit suicide is not likely to have their call for help heard and responded to before its too late."

Suicide Gun Death Numbers

"Suicides by gun accounted for about six of every 10 firearm deaths in 2010 and just over half of all suicides, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

Firearm Suicides vs Other Leading Suicides

"Number of deaths: 39,518...
Firearm suicides

Number of deaths: 19,990
Suffocation suicides

Number of deaths: 9,913

Poisoning suicides

Number of deaths: 6,564
Deaths per 100,000 population: 2.1"


You can argue the numbers all you want, but access to guns enables suicide in suicidal populations. Say what you want about suicidal people having access to suicide, only 23% of people reattempt suicide. And most all of those people didn't try with a gun because very few survive that. Attempter's Long Term Survival.



edit on 20-9-2014 by framedragged because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-9-2014 by framedragged because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-9-2014 by framedragged because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-9-2014 by framedragged because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: bhliberal

so what you're positing is that strong gun control would have stopped Jonestown, or Heaven's Gate?

this was a murder/suicide....NOT a "mass shooting".....the ONLY difference (aside from the crazy cult s**t), is the method used to achieve the end...in this case, it was a firearm, in the case of Jonestown, it was poison, and in the case of Heaven's Gate, it was a mixture of Phenobarbital, Vodka, and plastic bags......

this murder/suicide could have just as easily been carried out with poison, or rope, or plastic bags, or pillows....it just so happens that the most effortless tool was chosen....

gun control would not have stopped this.

i don't understand why every time a tragedy takes place, involving firearms, the first reaction from you lot ALWAYS seems to be "we need more laws", or "take away all the guns"...that wouldn't stop things like this from happening...it also baffles me why other forms of violence, and tragedy seem to be so much more palatable to you lot....one or more children gets mowed down by a lunatic in a car; nobody ever hears any cries for restrictions on driving licenses, or an outright ban on cars....kid gets bludgeoned to death with a bat, or crowbar, or a piece of rebar; nobody ever hears any cries to curtail or ban those things...even when someone gets offed with a crossbow, nobody ever freaks out over that...but the MOMENT it's even implied that a gun might have been involved, and every slimy, two-faced, ambulance chaser, freedom-hating lunatic, and hypocrite group oozes out of the woodwork of society, to reinvigorate their movement to attack the people's constitutionally-protected rights, even if they're not a citizen of this country...

it's absolutely stunning....if you lot put as much time, effort, and energy into solving a REAL problem, as you do banging your head against this perceived problem, you might actually do some good in the world..



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

No, that isn't what happens.

Almost all suicide attempts fail if they aren't using a gun.
Almost all suicide attempts succeed if they are using a gun.


Suicide Statistics

"According to the 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Health3, in the US there were 8.3m adults who had serious thoughts of committing suicide, and 2.3m who had actually made plans to commit to suicide. Of those, 1.1m actually attempted suicide, but only just over 33,000 succeeded. Which would make the ratio of failure to success 33 to 1."

Guns and Suicide

"...75% of all suicide attempts are by the use of drugs. These people are found alive 97% of the time. Those who succeed in using drugs to attempt suicide are successful only 3% of the time. By contrast, more than 90% of all suicide attempts by use of firearms are successful. The bottom line is that anyone using a gun to commit suicide is not likely to have their call for help heard and responded to before its too late."

Your average suicide has a success rate of 1/33 = 3%
Your average suicide with a gun has a success rate of 90%.

Guns make suicide far easier and more effective than any other option. Fight the stats all you want.
edit on 20-9-2014 by framedragged because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-9-2014 by framedragged because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-9-2014 by framedragged because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: TechniXcality

well, i mean, what do you expect?

nothing pushes an agenda forward like dead children...

i, personally, find the people who use dead children to push political agendas, to be the lowest, most disgusting among us....completely bereft of any semblance of class, shame, or decorum..



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: bhliberal

ok, so let's say, for argument's sake, that we can magically make every gun in the world suddenly disappear....

right, now that that's out of the way, we now live in a world with no guns....

so when people start killing one another with swords, knives, axes, polearms, machetes, hammers, crowbars, bats, ropes, rocks, pointed sticks, crossbows, regular bows, pencils, planes, trains, and automobiles, will you speak out against those things, as strongly as you have about firearms?



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

because that would make too much sense....and we can't have that, now can we?

let's just ignore the legal druggies, and their dealers, and continue trying to claim that treating a symptom will cure the disease...




top topics



 
24
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join