Another School Shooting, this time in Florida

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

I don't think you can really make the case that one mass shooting is proof that restrictions on weapons don't work AT ALL. If that's our standard of evidence, then I could easily point out the shooting that took place on a military base, which is most emphatically not a gun-free zone.

I really want to find that article again. >_<

I appreciate your acknowledgement that we have similar goals, if very different ideas about practical implementation.

[excalibur]

Columbine wasn't on a military base. It's a school in Colorado. And also all schools are Gun free School Zones as stated in the Gun-free School Zones Act of 1990. The fact that this happened during the time period of the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban already shows how this kind of thing does not work. This incident happened in 1999, half way into the ban. These punk ass kids also planted nearly a hundred explosive devices and car bombs.

And military bases and houses for families of servicemen, also have specific rules about firearms ownership. On base, no one, who is on duty, is actually armed aside from guards and guys doing drills and training.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

I wasn't referring to columbine, although I should have specified that for clarity.

[excalibur]

Then, to reiterate what I just said, military bases are not what you think. Serviceman are not always armed and those who do walk around with their issued weapons on duty, do not have them loaded. The only people that have loaded weapons on any military base state side are guards and MPs.

[Admiral X]

I could easily point out the shooting that took place on a military base, which is most emphatically not a gun-free zone.

Actually, yes, they are. The only people allowed to carry on base are the security forces, and I'm pretty sure even personal weapons have to be stored in the armory.

[Admiral X]

I've seen a few people virtue signalling by cutting the barrel off of their AR-15, apparently not understanding that this not only doesn't prevent the gun from firing, but actually might be seen as creating a short-barreled rifle, and is thus actually an illegal act. I found this on Facebook as a response to one example of this, and thought I'd share.

Apparently the ATF is actually looking into this.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Then, to reiterate what I just said, military bases are not what you think. Serviceman are not always armed and those who do walk around with their issued weapons on duty, do not have them loaded. The only people that have loaded weapons on any military base state side are guards and MPs.

Well then, I've learned something new about military bases. Huh.

[excalibur]

I've seen a few people virtue signalling by cutting the barrel off of their AR-15, apparently not understanding that this not only doesn't prevent the gun from firing, but actually might be seen as creating a short-barreled rifle, and is thus actually an illegal act. I found this on Facebook as a response to one example of this, and thought I'd share.

28782806_10156108064968149_1863560306217023324_n.jpg

Apparently the ATF is actually looking into this.

This dumb ass is trying to defend herself by saying she's already broken it down before cutting off the barrel into an illegal SBR....still doesn't understand how gun laws work. These are the kinds of people that think they can represent us.

[Admiral X]

I'm sure nothing will come of it, though. Some animals are more equal than others, after all.

[SuccubusYuri]

Nah if we didn't move after Sandy Hook where kids who hadn't even felt the touch of puberty got shot, no way we're going to act on it for at least twenty years.

Maybe when the Boomers die off. Maybe.