Parkland parents form lobbying group for safer schools

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


A tight-knit group of parents and relatives of the victims of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, launched a nonprofit group Thursday to push for sensible gun laws, increased school security and mental health intervention for those who might lash out violently.

The group, Stand With Parkland, wants to prevent another massacre like the one that claimed the lives of 14 students and three school employees Feb. 14 at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, northwest of Fort Lauderdale. Authorities say Nikolas Cruz, 19. a former student at the school, has confessed to the shooting.

April Schentrup, mother of Parkland victim Carmen Schentrup, 16, said the group is likely to back universal background checks, raising the minimum age to purchase firearms to 21, installing metal detectors and armed guards at all schools, and taking guns away from the mentally unfit. In an announcement of the group's formation, it called violence in schools "an American epidemic."

"We know this is a complex issue, but we've been dealing with this for nearly 20 years — since Columbine," she told NBC News on Wednesday. "This is a discussion that needs to be had."

Word of the political nonprofit's formation drew a quick response from the National Rifle Association, which stood silent for a week after the mass shooting.

"Let's be clear — there are many Parkland students and families [who] want to focus on school safety and reject holding that important goal hostage to the politics of gun control," Chris W. Cox, director of the NRA's lobbying arm, said via email. "Making it more difficult for law-abiding adults to exercise their constitutional right to self-defense will not improve public safety."

Other gun control groups, like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, welcomed the effort.

"The loss these parents have gone through is immense and unimaginable," Kris Brown, co-president of the Brady Campaign, said in a statement. "We're grateful that they would honor their children's memories in a way that would prevent future tragedies, and we at Brady look forward to reaching out and working with them in any way we can."

The family members, who were influential in the enactment of rare gun legislation in Florida following the Parkman tragedy, are following a tough act — the students themselves, including David Hogg and Emma González, who have become national sensations and gun-control lightning rods. This summer they're following the spring's March for Our Lives demonstrations with a Road to Change nationwide summer tour.

Stand With Parkland isn't girding for war with the NRA, but it does have goals.

Tony Montalto, father of Parkland victim Gina Montalto, 14, said in an interview that the idea is to find common ground for the children's sake. "We're trying to energize the middle," he said.

The group is composed of parents of 13 of the 14 student victims and relatives of all three school staff members killed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas that day, according to organizers. Its 501(c)4 status means it can lobby full time and back political candidates with money and messaging.

The organization will seek online donations from people around the world who have expressed their support for the families, the parents said.

"We hope we can solve this uniquely American problem," Montalto said.




Well I'm glad to see that mental health was at least mentioned.

Maybe also anti bullying stuff for good measures since the 2 faces of Parkland gladly boasted about being bullies too??

Screamingophelia wrote:

Maybe also anti bullying stuff for good measures since the 2 faces of Parkland gladly boasted about being bullies too??

I'm not sure if they were actively bullying Cruz or others. I think that somehow got taken out of context when Emma gave that "You didn't know this kid" speech.

BUT if they stood around and saw people being bullied and did nothing to stop it, then that is almost as bad in my opinion.

ShadowedGoddess wrote:

Screamingophelia wrote:

Maybe also anti bullying stuff for good measures since the 2 faces of Parkland gladly boasted about being bullies too??

I'm not sure if they were actively bullying Cruz or others. I think that somehow got taken out of context when Emma gave that "You didn't know this kid" speech.

BUT if they stood around and saw people being bullied and did nothing to stop it, then that is almost as bad in my opinion.

True. I tend to take it to heart. Then I think of what Devon wrote about walking up and also walking out and about her friendship with Dylan... and I really think you can do both and I don’t know why the left thinks you can’t.

ShadowedGoddess wrote:

"We hope we can solve this uniquely American problem," Montalto said.

Other countries have school shootings too. I wonder if this girl knows about the Erfurt massacre, which was literally the most deadly school shooting before Parkland. Or Winnenden, which was nearly as deadly and also in Germany where the shooter got their gun illegally by stealing it from his dad. Or Dunblane, which has a similar amount of kills.

Why do people even bother with gun control? Shooters can get guns illegally (such as in the Paris attacks, and with Liam Lyburd, Raoul Moat, Dale Cregan and David Sonboly) or just go through the process of getting a gun legally like Derrick Bird and Elliot Rodger both did. There are also 80% lower receivers for AR15s, and 80% frames for Glocks, Sigs and 1911s. An AR15 made with an 80% lower was used by John Zawahri in the Santa Monica shooting. They could convert blank guns, like Dimitris Patmanidis. Or just get their parents to buy them guns like Adam Lanza and Chris Harper Mercer did, or just steal them from their parents like tons of shooters have.

InsaneIntruder wrote:

Why do people even bother with gun control? Shooters can get guns illegally (such as in the Paris attacks, and with Liam Lyburd, Raoul Moat, Dale Cregan and David Sonboly) or just go through the process of getting a gun legally like Derrick Bird and Elliot Rodger both did. There are also 80% lower receivers for AR15s, and 80% frames for Glocks, Sigs and 1911s. An AR15 made with an 80% lower was used by John Zawahri in the Santa Monica shooting. They could convert blank guns, like Dimitris Patmanidis. Or just get their parents to buy them guns like Adam Lanza and Chris Harper Mercer did, or just steal them from their parents like tons of shooters have.

The US has so much guns in circulation now that a stricter gun control would probably not make a great difference. To me one of the best and simplest way to reduce the number of school shooting is to make parents understand that by no means should their children be able to take their guns. It would be interesting to have statistics about how school shooters had their guns, but I think most of them (at least those underage) took their parent's ones.

But you wrote about getting a gun illegally, and I don't agree with you. I think it is easier in the US, but in countries where the gun law is very strict, it is not easy at all to find a gun, especially if you are not close to the criminal environment. Terrorists as in the Paris attacks had an organization to help them, and they were already offenders before the attacks, so they had the good relationships to find a gun. Now imagine a white middle-class teenager, in most countries in Europe it would be very difficult for him to find a gun, especially without making people suspicious. Unlike terrorists, I think he would probably not be motivated enough to keep searching and will eventually give up. You mentioned Dumblane, but don't forget that the attack lead to the UK government making the possession of a handgun illegal. Some mass shootings happened outside the US, but still, it is mainly an American problem. There are not that much mass shootings in other countries, even if we take in consideration that the US has many more inhabitants. Yet, I don't think that it is fair to think that the cause of mass shootings is guns, nor do I think that more gun control would makes a great difference in the US, especially if there is no other measure taken in addition.

InsaneIntruder wrote:

Why do people even bother with gun control? 

They think with their emotions, not their brains.

InsaneIntruder wrote:

Why do people even bother with gun control? Shooters can get guns illegally (such as in the Paris attacks, and with Liam Lyburd, Raoul Moat, Dale Cregan and David Sonboly) or just go through the process of getting a gun legally like Derrick Bird and Elliot Rodger both did. There are also 80% lower receivers for AR15s, and 80% frames for Glocks, Sigs and 1911s. An AR15 made with an 80% lower was used by John Zawahri in the Santa Monica shooting. They could convert blank guns, like Dimitris Patmanidis. Or just get their parents to buy them guns like Adam Lanza and Chris Harper Mercer did, or just steal them from their parents like tons of shooters have.

A shooter could also travel to a country where guns are legal and smuggle them back in like what Breivik did.

Tommy QTR wrote:

InsaneIntruder wrote:

Why do people even bother with gun control? Shooters can get guns illegally (such as in the Paris attacks, and with Liam Lyburd, Raoul Moat, Dale Cregan and David Sonboly) or just go through the process of getting a gun legally like Derrick Bird and Elliot Rodger both did. There are also 80% lower receivers for AR15s, and 80% frames for Glocks, Sigs and 1911s. An AR15 made with an 80% lower was used by John Zawahri in the Santa Monica shooting. They could convert blank guns, like Dimitris Patmanidis. Or just get their parents to buy them guns like Adam Lanza and Chris Harper Mercer did, or just steal them from their parents like tons of shooters have.

A shooter could also travel to a country where guns are legal and smuggle them back in like what Breivik did.

Well, what Breivik tried to do, since he eventually just got guns legally despite the gun control. Barry Prudom also did this. To be honest, nothing could've stopped Breivik except for the police. When someone's so determined to commit a massacre that they set up a fake company just to get materials for explosives, how else can you stop them?

InsaneIntruder wrote:

Tommy QTR wrote:

InsaneIntruder wrote:

Why do people even bother with gun control? Shooters can get guns illegally (such as in the Paris attacks, and with Liam Lyburd, Raoul Moat, Dale Cregan and David Sonboly) or just go through the process of getting a gun legally like Derrick Bird and Elliot Rodger both did. There are also 80% lower receivers for AR15s, and 80% frames for Glocks, Sigs and 1911s. An AR15 made with an 80% lower was used by John Zawahri in the Santa Monica shooting. They could convert blank guns, like Dimitris Patmanidis. Or just get their parents to buy them guns like Adam Lanza and Chris Harper Mercer did, or just steal them from their parents like tons of shooters have.

A shooter could also travel to a country where guns are legal and smuggle them back in like what Breivik did.

Well, what Breivik tried to do, since he eventually just got guns legally despite the gun control. Barry Prudom also did this. To be honest, nothing could've stopped Breivik except for the police. When someone's so determined to commit a massacre that they set up a fake company just to get materials for explosives, how else can you stop them?

Also someone who is determined to commit a massacre will use over methods, for example the deadliest mass murder in American history was committed with a $1 worth of gasoline, should we ban that as well? I mean Timothy McVeigh used a rented truck, fertiliser and racing fuel to kill 168 people and you can still legally own of those. Crossbows and Bow and Arrows are as deadly as guns and you can legally buy those, should we ban them as well? Anti gunners failed to realise that it's a mental health issue and should stop blaming inanimate objects.

Tommy QTR wrote:

InsaneIntruder wrote:

Tommy QTR wrote:

InsaneIntruder wrote:

Why do people even bother with gun control? Shooters can get guns illegally (such as in the Paris attacks, and with Liam Lyburd, Raoul Moat, Dale Cregan and David Sonboly) or just go through the process of getting a gun legally like Derrick Bird and Elliot Rodger both did. There are also 80% lower receivers for AR15s, and 80% frames for Glocks, Sigs and 1911s. An AR15 made with an 80% lower was used by John Zawahri in the Santa Monica shooting. They could convert blank guns, like Dimitris Patmanidis. Or just get their parents to buy them guns like Adam Lanza and Chris Harper Mercer did, or just steal them from their parents like tons of shooters have.

A shooter could also travel to a country where guns are legal and smuggle them back in like what Breivik did.

Well, what Breivik tried to do, since he eventually just got guns legally despite the gun control. Barry Prudom also did this. To be honest, nothing could've stopped Breivik except for the police. When someone's so determined to commit a massacre that they set up a fake company just to get materials for explosives, how else can you stop them?

Also someone who is determined to commit a massacre will use over methods, for example the deadliest mass murder in American history was committed with a $1 worth of gasoline, should we ban that as well? I mean Timothy McVeigh used a rented truck, fertiliser and racing fuel to kill 168 people and you can still legally own of those. Crossbows and Bow and Arrows are as deadly as guns and you can legally buy those, should we ban them as well? Anti gunners failed to realise that it's a mental health issue and should stop blaming inanimate objects.

The thing is to many people it seems easier to implement strict gun control than to solve mental health issues. At least it is a concrete issue. And indeed, how can you fully solve mental health problems? Even if I don't agree with them, I understand that some people think that, since it is not possible to solve mental health issues completely, gun control is a way to mitigate the risk. But to be honest I think none of the issues will be solved, especially if people keep focusing only on gun control.

Neah wrote:

Tommy QTR wrote:

InsaneIntruder wrote:

Tommy QTR wrote:

InsaneIntruder wrote:

Why do people even bother with gun control? Shooters can get guns illegally (such as in the Paris attacks, and with Liam Lyburd, Raoul Moat, Dale Cregan and David Sonboly) or just go through the process of getting a gun legally like Derrick Bird and Elliot Rodger both did. There are also 80% lower receivers for AR15s, and 80% frames for Glocks, Sigs and 1911s. An AR15 made with an 80% lower was used by John Zawahri in the Santa Monica shooting. They could convert blank guns, like Dimitris Patmanidis. Or just get their parents to buy them guns like Adam Lanza and Chris Harper Mercer did, or just steal them from their parents like tons of shooters have.

A shooter could also travel to a country where guns are legal and smuggle them back in like what Breivik did.

Well, what Breivik tried to do, since he eventually just got guns legally despite the gun control. Barry Prudom also did this. To be honest, nothing could've stopped Breivik except for the police. When someone's so determined to commit a massacre that they set up a fake company just to get materials for explosives, how else can you stop them?

Also someone who is determined to commit a massacre will use over methods, for example the deadliest mass murder in American history was committed with a $1 worth of gasoline, should we ban that as well? I mean Timothy McVeigh used a rented truck, fertiliser and racing fuel to kill 168 people and you can still legally own of those. Crossbows and Bow and Arrows are as deadly as guns and you can legally buy those, should we ban them as well? Anti gunners failed to realise that it's a mental health issue and should stop blaming inanimate objects.

The thing is to many people it seems easier to implement strict gun control than to solve mental health issues. At least it is a concrete issue. And indeed, how can you fully solve mental health problems? Even if I don't agree with them, I understand that some people think that, since it is not possible to solve mental health issues completely, gun control is a way to mitigate the risk. But to be honest I think none of the issues will be solved, especially if people keep focusing only on gun control.

Introducing free Health Care would be a start, better diagnosis for mental disorders and a finding out which prescription pills will be better for which person to take and how much they must take.

Tommy QTR wrote:

Neah wrote:

Tommy QTR wrote:

InsaneIntruder wrote:

Tommy QTR wrote:

InsaneIntruder wrote:

Why do people even bother with gun control? Shooters can get guns illegally (such as in the Paris attacks, and with Liam Lyburd, Raoul Moat, Dale Cregan and David Sonboly) or just go through the process of getting a gun legally like Derrick Bird and Elliot Rodger both did. There are also 80% lower receivers for AR15s, and 80% frames for Glocks, Sigs and 1911s. An AR15 made with an 80% lower was used by John Zawahri in the Santa Monica shooting. They could convert blank guns, like Dimitris Patmanidis. Or just get their parents to buy them guns like Adam Lanza and Chris Harper Mercer did, or just steal them from their parents like tons of shooters have.

A shooter could also travel to a country where guns are legal and smuggle them back in like what Breivik did.

Well, what Breivik tried to do, since he eventually just got guns legally despite the gun control. Barry Prudom also did this. To be honest, nothing could've stopped Breivik except for the police. When someone's so determined to commit a massacre that they set up a fake company just to get materials for explosives, how else can you stop them?

Also someone who is determined to commit a massacre will use over methods, for example the deadliest mass murder in American history was committed with a $1 worth of gasoline, should we ban that as well? I mean Timothy McVeigh used a rented truck, fertiliser and racing fuel to kill 168 people and you can still legally own of those. Crossbows and Bow and Arrows are as deadly as guns and you can legally buy those, should we ban them as well? Anti gunners failed to realise that it's a mental health issue and should stop blaming inanimate objects.

The thing is to many people it seems easier to implement strict gun control than to solve mental health issues. At least it is a concrete issue. And indeed, how can you fully solve mental health problems? Even if I don't agree with them, I understand that some people think that, since it is not possible to solve mental health issues completely, gun control is a way to mitigate the risk. But to be honest I think none of the issues will be solved, especially if people keep focusing only on gun control.

Introducing free Health Care would be a start, better diagnosis for mental disorders and a finding out which prescription pills will be better for which person to take and how much they must take.

Yes but still, there will always be isolated people with mental health issues who will not see a doctor by themselves. Recently someone on this forum said that in France and Great Britain the mental health service was better than in the USA and so it was one of the reasons why mass murders are so rare. But even if France sometimes we see troubled people who I don't think receive any help. What prevents them from doing a mass murder is probably more the fact that they are not capable of doing it than our mental health service.

Neah wrote:

Tommy QTR wrote:

Neah wrote:

Tommy QTR wrote:

InsaneIntruder wrote:

Tommy QTR wrote:

InsaneIntruder wrote:

Why do people even bother with gun control? Shooters can get guns illegally (such as in the Paris attacks, and with Liam Lyburd, Raoul Moat, Dale Cregan and David Sonboly) or just go through the process of getting a gun legally like Derrick Bird and Elliot Rodger both did. There are also 80% lower receivers for AR15s, and 80% frames for Glocks, Sigs and 1911s. An AR15 made with an 80% lower was used by John Zawahri in the Santa Monica shooting. They could convert blank guns, like Dimitris Patmanidis. Or just get their parents to buy them guns like Adam Lanza and Chris Harper Mercer did, or just steal them from their parents like tons of shooters have.

A shooter could also travel to a country where guns are legal and smuggle them back in like what Breivik did.

Well, what Breivik tried to do, since he eventually just got guns legally despite the gun control. Barry Prudom also did this. To be honest, nothing could've stopped Breivik except for the police. When someone's so determined to commit a massacre that they set up a fake company just to get materials for explosives, how else can you stop them?

Also someone who is determined to commit a massacre will use over methods, for example the deadliest mass murder in American history was committed with a $1 worth of gasoline, should we ban that as well? I mean Timothy McVeigh used a rented truck, fertiliser and racing fuel to kill 168 people and you can still legally own of those. Crossbows and Bow and Arrows are as deadly as guns and you can legally buy those, should we ban them as well? Anti gunners failed to realise that it's a mental health issue and should stop blaming inanimate objects.

The thing is to many people it seems easier to implement strict gun control than to solve mental health issues. At least it is a concrete issue. And indeed, how can you fully solve mental health problems? Even if I don't agree with them, I understand that some people think that, since it is not possible to solve mental health issues completely, gun control is a way to mitigate the risk. But to be honest I think none of the issues will be solved, especially if people keep focusing only on gun control.

Introducing free Health Care would be a start, better diagnosis for mental disorders and a finding out which prescription pills will be better for which person to take and how much they must take.

Yes but still, there will always be isolated people with mental health issues who will not see a doctor by themselves. Recently someone on this forum said that in France and Great Britain the mental health service was better than in the USA and so it was one of the reasons why mass murders are so rare. But even if France sometimes we see troubled people who I don't think receive any help. What prevents them from doing a mass murder is probably more the fact that they are not capable of doing it than our mental health service.

Yes there are those who slip through the cracks however there is no doubt that an improvement in America's mental services will not only decrease the number of mass shootings but will decrease the murder and suicide rate.

Again if a person is determined to kill people they will find alternate ways to get a gun or use different methods.

Tommy QTR wrote:

Again if a person is determined to kill people they will find alternate ways to get a gun or use different methods.

Sadly this is very true.

ShadowedGoddess wrote:

Tommy QTR wrote:

Again if a person is determined to kill people they will find alternate ways to get a gun or use different methods.

Sadly this is very true.

Yes, but at least different methods might be less effective. I will try to stop commenting about gun control now, because I feel that I keep repeating myself and it makes the discussion go round and round in circles. Especially because I am pro-gun, but with gun control only for those who could be dangerous. I don't think that being able to buy a gun completely freely, without background checks or with no registration at all is a good thing because dangerous people could buy one easily. That's mainly all I think about gun control.

Neah wrote:

I don't think that being able to buy a gun completely freely, without background checks or with no registration at all is a good thing because dangerous people could buy one easily. 

Problem is quite a few shooters either passed the background checks (sometimes when they shouldn't have been able to), or bypassed them altogether.

QuestionMark wrote:

Neah wrote:

I don't think that being able to buy a gun completely freely, without background checks or with no registration at all is a good thing because dangerous people could buy one easily. 

Problem is quite a few shooters either passed the background checks (sometimes when they shouldn't have been able to), or bypassed them altogether.

True, but then, why background checks doesn't work? Do they try to improve that instead of focusing on guns themselves?

Considering the majority of School Shootings are committed with Handguns, I don't see how banning AR-15's and other "Assault Weapons" will do anything in stopping future tragedies from happening.

Tommy QTR wrote:

Considering the majority of School Shootings are committed with Handguns, I don't see how banning AR-15's and other "Assault Weapons" will do anything in stopping future tragedies from happening.

A lot of people don't know what the guns are even called.

There was an anti AR-15 video that showed how fast the AR-15 could shoot and during the voice over they showed the CCTV footage of Eric and Dylan shooting in the cafeteria.... um they did not use AR-15's dude... get it right.

Screamingophelia wrote:

Tommy QTR wrote:

Considering the majority of School Shootings are committed with Handguns, I don't see how banning AR-15's and other "Assault Weapons" will do anything in stopping future tragedies from happening.

A lot of people don't know what the guns are even called.

There was an anti AR-15 video that showed how fast the AR-15 could shoot and during the voice over they showed the CCTV footage of Eric and Dylan shooting in the cafeteria.... um they did not use AR-15's dude... get it right.

I remember a news report calling Eric's Hi-Point an "Assault Rifle", and I was like really? How dumb an you get.

Tommy QTR wrote:

I remember a news report calling Eric's Hi-Point an "Assault Rifle", and I was like really? How dumb an you get.

A LOT of people are seemingly confused by the term "Assault Rifle" and even more so when it comes to which guns actually fall into that category.

ShadowedGoddess wrote:

Tommy QTR wrote:

I remember a news report calling Eric's Hi-Point an "Assault Rifle", and I was like really? How dumb an you get.

A LOT of people are seemingly confused by the term "Assault Rifle" and even more so when it comes to which guns actually fall into that category.

And boatloads of people seem to never understand what the difference between "semi-automatic" and "automatic" is.

QuestionMark wrote:

ShadowedGoddess wrote:

Tommy QTR wrote:

I remember a news report calling Eric's Hi-Point an "Assault Rifle", and I was like really? How dumb an you get.

A LOT of people are seemingly confused by the term "Assault Rifle" and even more so when it comes to which guns actually fall into that category.

And boatloads of people seem to never understand what the difference between "semi-automatic" and "automatic" is.

True.