Florida Gun Ban Proposed

[sail611]

JB, good point about the woman killed by her ex while waiting for a gun permit. Clearly, she needed a gun for protection. What should strike all of us as interesting though is the underlying cause of that need. In this case, a hyper jealous violent ex romantic partner. What drove this guy to turn out the way he did? Did his parents not teach him right from wrong? Did he buy into some ideal he heard around some gas pump somewhere about relationships and women being property? How come he never learned the coping mechanisms that would allow him to deal with a breakup? That is the real problem. This woman should not have needed a gun because this guy shouldn't have been a flaming asshole.

So for now, in some cases I am sure there exists a need for a gun for protection, and gun control may prevent that need from being met. Fair enough. But what we really need to focus on more than anything is creating a society in which people don't feel the need or desire to kill people.

Of course, if people didn't feel the need or desire to kill people, or rob people, or any other shenanigans, it would be really hard to sell people on the idea that they need the latest and greatest in conceal/carry gear. Supply and demand and all that. But when the supply side is used to making very good profits, what is the incentive for them and their lobby body, the NRA, to decrease demand (decreasing demand by supporting legislators who support and promote mental health initiatives, child development initiatives, and other humanistic endeavors).

In reality is far easier and far better for business to say "yeah there is a bogeyman out there who might get you. Yes, we could fix the bogeyman, but then you wouldn't be afraid of him anymore. If you weren't afraid of him anymore, you wouldn't buy our guns to protect yourself. So in the interests of profit and running a business, the bogeyman stays." Perhaps a bit cynical, but is it really that far fetched?

 

[slatfatf]

JB, good point about the woman killed by her ex while waiting for a gun permit. Clearly, she needed a gun for protection. What should strike all of us as interesting though is the underlying cause of that need. In this case, a hyper jealous violent ex romantic partner. What drove this guy to turn out the way he did? Did his parents not teach him right from wrong? Did he buy into some ideal he heard around some gas pump somewhere about relationships and women being property? How come he never learned the coping mechanisms that would allow him to deal with a breakup? That is the real problem. This woman should not have needed a gun because this guy shouldn't have been a flaming asshole.

So for now, in some cases I am sure there exists a need for a gun for protection, and gun control may prevent that need from being met. Fair enough. But what we really need to focus on more than anything is creating a society in which people don't feel the need or desire to kill people.

Of course, if people didn't feel the need or desire to kill people, or rob people, or any other shenanigans, it would be really hard to sell people on the idea that they need the latest and greatest in conceal/carry gear. Supply and demand and all that. But when the supply side is used to making very good profits, what is the incentive for them and their lobby body, the NRA, to decrease demand (decreasing demand by supporting legislators who support and promote mental health initiatives, child development initiatives, and other humanistic endeavors).

In reality is far easier and far better for business to say "yeah there is a bogeyman out there who might get you. Yes, we could fix the bogeyman, but then you wouldn't be afraid of him anymore. If you weren't afraid of him anymore, you wouldn't buy our guns to protect yourself. So in the interests of profit and running a business, the bogeyman stays." Perhaps a bit cynical, but is it really that far fetched?

There are lots of reasons why people become dangerous and abusive. Some of it is mental health, some of it drug or alcohol abuse, some of it cultural or environmental, some of it is just that some people are dangerous assholes. That is not, or should not be, an NRA or gun owner problem, it is an all of us problem. I know the NRA is sometimes viewed as this all powerful entity, but if it were there would not be such onerous gun control in places like NY,NJ, and CA. However, if all of us, not just gun owners, but all of us lobbied for more effective ways to deal with dangerous or abusive people, then we might get somewhere.

 

[Raz'r]

Though no matter how you stack it, banning guns is not the solution. It might appear to help, and it works in other countries where the number of guns was relatively small to begin with. But in the US, there are simply too many guns in circulation, legally and otherwise. The real solution is to create a society in which people don't want to kill other people. There is probably a Nobel Peace Prize for the first SA'er who figures out how to do that.

I think we have. It's called responsibility. If there is a registration chain, and a universal background check process - the last legal owner needs to be held responsible for crimes committed with their tool. Some exceptions for reported theft, etc could be granted BUT that assumes significant security. you have a gun? Lock it up. In something secure.

I have suggested that numerous times as well. But I have an issue with the "significant security" mandate in order to get off the hook. Personally, I do use significant security for my tools. They are in a locked safe behind locked doors in a house with a German Shepard that will eat your face off if he doesn't know you. But that is a personal choice.

I believe that a locked house should be sufficient security against theft. Or even a closed door to a house should be sufficient protection against liability from someone stealing your tools. Last I checked, it was illegal to enter someone's house and take their stuff. I should not have to worry that if I report a theft of a weapon, that I will be held liable if my "security" doesn't meet the DA's standards.

Does that mean if my truck was stolen from my house because I left the keys on the kitchen counter and then the robber deliberately ran it into a crowd of shoppers at the mall and killed 20 - should I be held responsible for their murders? As evadent, vehicles are just as effective a mass murder tool as .22LR semi-auto "assault rifles" are. Probably more so. Are we going to need additional "significant security" for trucks now given they are the new mass murder weapon du jour?

If you have kids in the house, you should be on the hook for their use as well. No prosecutor should be able to say "they've suffered enough". Your kid shoots themselves or others by accident? Orange jumpsuit time.

 

[sail611]

"However, if all of us, not just gun owners, but all of us lobbied for more effective ways to deal with dangerous or abusive people, then we might get somewhere." -Len P

And that should be our new national paradigm. Interestingly enough, its one I see frequently from those who are more left leaning than right. Perhaps if we can get the right on board, then we really could get something done.

 

[Raz'r]

JB, good point about the woman killed by her ex while waiting for a gun permit. Clearly, she needed a gun for protection. What should strike all of us as interesting though is the underlying cause of that need. In this case, a hyper jealous violent ex romantic partner. What drove this guy to turn out the way he did? Did his parents not teach him right from wrong? Did he buy into some ideal he heard around some gas pump somewhere about relationships and women being property? How come he never learned the coping mechanisms that would allow him to deal with a breakup? That is the real problem. This woman should not have needed a gun because this guy shouldn't have been a flaming asshole.

So for now, in some cases I am sure there exists a need for a gun for protection, and gun control may prevent that need from being met. Fair enough. But what we really need to focus on more than anything is creating a society in which people don't feel the need or desire to kill people.

Of course, if people didn't feel the need or desire to kill people, or rob people, or any other shenanigans, it would be really hard to sell people on the idea that they need the latest and greatest in conceal/carry gear. Supply and demand and all that. But when the supply side is used to making very good profits, what is the incentive for them and their lobby body, the NRA, to decrease demand (decreasing demand by supporting legislators who support and promote mental health initiatives, child development initiatives, and other humanistic endeavors).

In reality is far easier and far better for business to say "yeah there is a bogeyman out there who might get you. Yes, we could fix the bogeyman, but then you wouldn't be afraid of him anymore. If you weren't afraid of him anymore, you wouldn't buy our guns to protect yourself. So in the interests of profit and running a business, the bogeyman stays." Perhaps a bit cynical, but is it really that far fetched?

There are lots of reasons why people become dangerous and abusive. Some of it is mental health, some of it drug or alcohol abuse, some of it cultural or environmental, some of it is just that some people are dangerous assholes. That is not, or should not be, an NRA or gun owner problem, it is an all of us problem. I know the NRA is sometimes viewed as this all powerful entity, but if it were there would not be such onerous gun control in places like NY,NJ, and CA. However, if all of us, not just gun owners, but all of us lobbied for more effective ways to deal with dangerous or abusive people, then we might get somewhere.

There is no onerous gun control in California. Folks outside Cali may think it's unreasonable, too bad. Last time I was at a gun store there were lots of customers buying weapons. No issues.

 

[sail611]

Though no matter how you stack it, banning guns is not the solution. It might appear to help, and it works in other countries where the number of guns was relatively small to begin with. But in the US, there are simply too many guns in circulation, legally and otherwise. The real solution is to create a society in which people don't want to kill other people. There is probably a Nobel Peace Prize for the first SA'er who figures out how to do that.

I think we have. It's called responsibility. If there is a registration chain, and a universal background check process - the last legal owner needs to be held responsible for crimes committed with their tool. Some exceptions for reported theft, etc could be granted BUT that assumes significant security. you have a gun? Lock it up. In something secure.

I have suggested that numerous times as well. But I have an issue with the "significant security" mandate in order to get off the hook. Personally, I do use significant security for my tools. They are in a locked safe behind locked doors in a house with a German Shepard that will eat your face off if he doesn't know you. But that is a personal choice.

I believe that a locked house should be sufficient security against theft. Or even a closed door to a house should be sufficient protection against liability from someone stealing your tools. Last I checked, it was illegal to enter someone's house and take their stuff. I should not have to worry that if I report a theft of a weapon, that I will be held liable if my "security" doesn't meet the DA's standards.

Does that mean if my truck was stolen from my house because I left the keys on the kitchen counter and then the robber deliberately ran it into a crowd of shoppers at the mall and killed 20 - should I be held responsible for their murders? As evadent, vehicles are just as effective a mass murder tool as .22LR semi-auto "assault rifles" are. Probably more so. Are we going to need additional "significant security" for trucks now given they are the new mass murder weapon du jour?

If you have kids in the house, you should be on the hook for their use as well. No prosecutor should be able to say "they've suffered enough". Your kid shoots themselves or others by accident? Orange jumpsuit time.

An interesting idea, but what would that accomplish? Would it be a punishment to the parents who have lost a child? Would it serve as a deterrent to others? What exactly is the outcome to society if such a policy were implemented?

I am not saying I disagree, just questioning your reasoning.

 

[Guest]

JB, good point about the woman killed by her ex while waiting for a gun permit. Clearly, she needed a gun for protection. What should strike all of us as interesting though is the underlying cause of that need. In this case, a hyper jealous violent ex romantic partner. What drove this guy to turn out the way he did? Did his parents not teach him right from wrong? Did he buy into some ideal he heard around some gas pump somewhere about relationships and women being property? How come he never learned the coping mechanisms that would allow him to deal with a breakup? That is the real problem. This woman should not have needed a gun because this guy shouldn't have been a flaming asshole.

So for now, in some cases I am sure there exists a need for a gun for protection, and gun control may prevent that need from being met. Fair enough. But what we really need to focus on more than anything is creating a society in which people don't feel the need or desire to kill people.

Of course, if people didn't feel the need or desire to kill people, or rob people, or any other shenanigans, it would be really hard to sell people on the idea that they need the latest and greatest in conceal/carry gear. Supply and demand and all that. But when the supply side is used to making very good profits, what is the incentive for them and their lobby body, the NRA, to decrease demand (decreasing demand by supporting legislators who support and promote mental health initiatives, child development initiatives, and other humanistic endeavors).

In reality is far easier and far better for business to say "yeah there is a bogeyman out there who might get you. Yes, we could fix the bogeyman, but then you wouldn't be afraid of him anymore. If you weren't afraid of him anymore, you wouldn't buy our guns to protect yourself. So in the interests of profit and running a business, the bogeyman stays." Perhaps a bit cynical, but is it really that far fetched?

Well, you're either new here or you haven't been paying attention. The most vocal of us "gun nutz" here in SA - the SA Gun Club as joke-fuck calls us - have been saying for literally years that the focus of attention needs to be on behavior modification and societal change that makes this kind of violence unacceptable.

In other words, a MADD approach for gun violence or more precisely for violence in general. When the scourge of DUI was at its peak and MADD started up, they did not take a prohibitionist approach to the problem by banning or highly regulating alcohol and cars - they instead went after the behavior itself as the root cause. Naming and shaming, changing societal attitudes, and pushing for stricter enforcement and harsher penalties all combined to really change the game. It took a while to see these effects, and that is the problem here.... everyone wants the simple quick solution. Politicians, unfortunately, don't get elected making promises about something that will take a decade or more to see results. But that is absolutely what is needed here.

I'm an NRA lifetime member and I agree with this message.

 

[Guest]

Though no matter how you stack it, banning guns is not the solution. It might appear to help, and it works in other countries where the number of guns was relatively small to begin with. But in the US, there are simply too many guns in circulation, legally and otherwise. The real solution is to create a society in which people don't want to kill other people. There is probably a Nobel Peace Prize for the first SA'er who figures out how to do that.

I think we have. It's called responsibility. If there is a registration chain, and a universal background check process - the last legal owner needs to be held responsible for crimes committed with their tool. Some exceptions for reported theft, etc could be granted BUT that assumes significant security. you have a gun? Lock it up. In something secure.

I have suggested that numerous times as well. But I have an issue with the "significant security" mandate in order to get off the hook. Personally, I do use significant security for my tools. They are in a locked safe behind locked doors in a house with a German Shepard that will eat your face off if he doesn't know you. But that is a personal choice.

I believe that a locked house should be sufficient security against theft. Or even a closed door to a house should be sufficient protection against liability from someone stealing your tools. Last I checked, it was illegal to enter someone's house and take their stuff. I should not have to worry that if I report a theft of a weapon, that I will be held liable if my "security" doesn't meet the DA's standards.

Does that mean if my truck was stolen from my house because I left the keys on the kitchen counter and then the robber deliberately ran it into a crowd of shoppers at the mall and killed 20 - should I be held responsible for their murders? As evadent, vehicles are just as effective a mass murder tool as .22LR semi-auto "assault rifles" are. Probably more so. Are we going to need additional "significant security" for trucks now given they are the new mass murder weapon du jour?

If you have kids in the house, you should be on the hook for their use as well. No prosecutor should be able to say "they've suffered enough". Your kid shoots themselves or others by accident? Orange jumpsuit time.

Yep, I 1000% agree with this and have said so numerous times here if you bothered to pay attention. But we are not talking about kids getting guns and having an "accident", now are we?

 

[Guest]

There is no onerous gun control in California. Folks outside Cali may think it's unreasonable, too bad. Last time I was at a gun store there were lots of customers buying weapons. No issues.

That's because there has never been a gun control law you have ever thought was unreasonable.

 

[Guest]

If you have kids in the house, you should be on the hook for their use as well. No prosecutor should be able to say "they've suffered enough". Your kid shoots themselves or others by accident? Orange jumpsuit time.

An interesting idea, but what would that accomplish? Would it be a punishment to the parents who have lost a child? Would it serve as a deterrent to others? What exactly is the outcome to society if such a policy were implemented?

I am not saying I disagree, just questioning your reasoning.

Nope, I actually agree with mitch on this one. I don't think the gov't should mandate that you have a gunsafe or specific ways to store a weapon. But if you have kids, you'd better damn well make sure your tools are secure OR you completely trust them to always do the right thing. But that is a huge gamble. And if you roll the dice and they come up craps - then you go to jail for being stupid. Its child endangerment, pure and simple. If enough parents end up behind bars for being stupid, then the word will get out and gun owners with kids will buy safes and lock up their gunz.

 

[slatfatf]

There is no onerous gun control in California. Folks outside Cali may think it's unreasonable, too bad. Last time I was at a gun store there were lots of customers buying weapons. No issues.

I think onerous is in the eye of the beholder. Every one of the Californians we met in Utah thought the laws there were unreasonable and onerous.

 

[slatfatf]

"However, if all of us, not just gun owners, but all of us lobbied for more effective ways to deal with dangerous or abusive people, then we might get somewhere." -Len P

And that should be our new national paradigm. Interestingly enough, its one I see frequently from those who are more left leaning than right. Perhaps if we can get the right on board, then we really could get something done.

As a left leaning gun owner living in a blue state that voted for Trump, I see it a bit differently. I think both parties have decided to tell everyone they disagree with to fuck off that they are not important.

 

[sail611]

Some very good insight there guys. I too am a left leaning gun owner, though not as much as I used to. Once the kids came along I parted with several of my tools. Competitive shooting is too expensive when one is raising a child on a teacher's salary, and still wants to sail. Not complaining at all. Just the finances would allow either sailing or shooting sports. Sailing won. Though I am starting to get back into some informal stuff. My basement has just enough free space to set up a 10m air gun range. There are a few decent plinkers out there for not much scratch, so I can at least get some trigger time. And while some readers may ask why do need trigger time...I find it relaxing and challenging all at the same time. The focus required to shoot well on the international 10m air rifle target is immense. That and the air rifle has only slightly (sarcasm) less report than my old .308 so I can shoot after the kids go to bed. I am fortunate enough to live about an hour from Camp Perry, and they host a 10m air gun shoot on a monthly basis, so there is an inexpensive (enough) competitive venue should I decide to go that route.

Keep on keeping on and fighting the fight. And thanks for being sane, or at least capable of sane discourse re. guns and gun control. So many people are nuts when it comes to guns, both left and right, it is almost depressing.

On another note, I think we should adopt a marksmanship program as part of phys ed curriculum. Just use air guns, both rifle and pistol. Teach every student how to respect them, use them, and shoot. Those who already like shooting will enjoy it. Those who don't know about shooting will learn something. And maybe, just maybe, people won't be as scared of guns as they are. Guns, by themselves don't scare me at all. It is some of the people that have/use them that I really worry about.

 

[Raz'r]

Though no matter how you stack it, banning guns is not the solution. It might appear to help, and it works in other countries where the number of guns was relatively small to begin with. But in the US, there are simply too many guns in circulation, legally and otherwise. The real solution is to create a society in which people don't want to kill other people. There is probably a Nobel Peace Prize for the first SA'er who figures out how to do that.

I think we have. It's called responsibility. If there is a registration chain, and a universal background check process - the last legal owner needs to be held responsible for crimes committed with their tool. Some exceptions for reported theft, etc could be granted BUT that assumes significant security. you have a gun? Lock it up. In something secure.

I have suggested that numerous times as well. But I have an issue with the "significant security" mandate in order to get off the hook. Personally, I do use significant security for my tools. They are in a locked safe behind locked doors in a house with a German Shepard that will eat your face off if he doesn't know you. But that is a personal choice.

I believe that a locked house should be sufficient security against theft. Or even a closed door to a house should be sufficient protection against liability from someone stealing your tools. Last I checked, it was illegal to enter someone's house and take their stuff. I should not have to worry that if I report a theft of a weapon, that I will be held liable if my "security" doesn't meet the DA's standards.

Does that mean if my truck was stolen from my house because I left the keys on the kitchen counter and then the robber deliberately ran it into a crowd of shoppers at the mall and killed 20 - should I be held responsible for their murders? As evadent, vehicles are just as effective a mass murder tool as .22LR semi-auto "assault rifles" are. Probably more so. Are we going to need additional "significant security" for trucks now given they are the new mass murder weapon du jour?

If you have kids in the house, you should be on the hook for their use as well. No prosecutor should be able to say "they've suffered enough". Your kid shoots themselves or others by accident? Orange jumpsuit time.

An interesting idea, but what would that accomplish? Would it be a punishment to the parents who have lost a child? Would it serve as a deterrent to others? What exactly is the outcome to society if such a policy were implemented?
I am not saying I disagree, just questioning your reasoning.

Deterrence. It seems folks aren't all that deterred by risk to their kids. Maybe risk of jail will work.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

If you have kids in the house, you should be on the hook for their use as well. No prosecutor should be able to say "they've suffered enough". Your kid shoots themselves or others by accident? Orange jumpsuit time.

An interesting idea, but what would that accomplish? Would it be a punishment to the parents who have lost a child? Would it serve as a deterrent to others? What exactly is the outcome to society if such a policy were implemented?

I am not saying I disagree, just questioning your reasoning.

Nope, I actually agree with mitch on this one. I don't think the gov't should mandate that you have a gunsafe or specific ways to store a weapon. But if you have kids, you'd better damn well make sure your tools are secure OR you completely trust them to always do the right thing. But that is a huge gamble. And if you roll the dice and they come up craps - then you go to jail for being stupid. Its child endangerment, pure and simple. If enough parents end up behind bars for being stupid, then the word will get out and gun owners with kids will buy safes and lock up their gunz.

We have such a law in Florida.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.174.html

Typically, the grabbers want to amend it so that owners are responsible for stolen guns.

Sail611, you seem to have lots of ideas for what gun owners should do. What we're busy doing is fighting off nonsense from grabbers.

Nonsense like making owners liable for guns that have been stolen.

Nonsense like calling ordinary .22's, even ones with fixed magazines, "assault weapons" in order to ban them.

If we were a little less busy with such nonsense, we might be a bit more receptive.

You've seen what happens when someone like me asks that the nonsense stop: it just gets called "reasonable" and I get called names.

Obviously, someone who is not a gun nut is going to have to get their attention. I nominate you.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Let's not lose focus on the people whose loss the call for banning .22's is exploiting. Here's another:

Five people had their second amendment rights taken away from them in FLL, along with some other rights not as important as the 2nd. Among them was:

Olga Woltering

Olga Woltering and her husband, Ralph, had traveled from their home in Cobb County, Georgia, outside Atllanta, to Fort Lauderdale for a cruise.

The 84-year-old great-grandmother and loyal church member died and her husband escaped serious injury, according to posts on social media.
"Olga was one of the most joyful, loving, caring and committed people I have ever met," the Rev. Fernando Molina-Restrepo of the Catholic Church of the Transfiguration in Marietta, Georgia, told CNN. The Wolterings had been members of the church since 1978, Molina-Restrepo said.
"This is a horrible tragedy for everyone here at Transfiguration, especially because Olga was so loved," he said.
A posting on the church's website said the couple "could always be found at 5 p.m. Mass," and it added, "Olga was so charming, calling everybody 'Lovey' or 'Love' in her unmistakable British accent."

 

[jocal505]

Tom Ray, The .22 Caliber Wanker

The sky is falling as usual. Zzzzz.

 

[jocal505]

Interest in banning battlefield .22's seems pretty thin.

The topic article notes that the murders in Fort Lauderdale are motivating the proposal to limit sales of tools, so perhaps it's time for a parade of the victims whose loss has made this a propitious time to talk about reasonable proposals to limit sales of tools and make tool owners responsible for what criminals do with stolen tools.

Shirley Timmons, the Ohio woman killed in the Fort Lauderdale airport shooting, was warmly remembered by her family in a statement released Monday.

Timmons was slain, and her husband Steve Timmons was critically injured, during Friday's airport attack.

"Shirley Timmons was an amazing daughter, wife, mother and grandmother," her family said in a statement provided by Broward Health Medical Center. "For Shirley, it was all about family. She and her husband of 51 years met when they were in the 8th grade.

"They were high school sweethearts with the perfect love story. She was a cheerleader and Homecoming Queen with the man of her dreams. Together they built a close, loving family with their three daughters, three son-in-laws and eight grandchildren. For Shirley, family meant vacations, football games and holiday traditions.

The couple had flown to Fort Lauderdale on Friday to join the rest of their family for a cruise, WILE-FM reported over the weekend.

Timmons' grandson Steve Reineccius confirmed over Facebook that his grandmother was one of the victims and that his grandfather Steve Timmons was wounded. They were both 70 years old.

Timmons was shot in the head and underwent emergency surgery at a Fort Lauderdale hospital, the station reported.

Broward Health, citing patient privacy, isn't releasing the names of those hospitalized. So a Broward Health spokeswoman on Monday said she had no information about Steve Timmons' condition.

The couple's 51st wedding anniversary was in three weeks. They're from Senecaville, about 90 miles east of Columbus.

The Timmons family, in Monday's statement, said Shirley Timmons was the "most loving, passionate mother who had a love for life and truly sparkled. She will continue to sparkle through her husband, mother, three daughters and eight grandchildren. She touched many and was loved by all. She will live in our hearts forever and will be truly missed. We love you Mom and Grandma."

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fort-lauderdale-hollywood-airport-shooting/fl-shirley-timmons-airport-shooting-20170107-story.html

This is in poor taste, and in poor form as well.

Let them RIP you loathsome fool, don't use them to peddle the instrument that killed them.

 

[jocal505]

Hi random. Mine shot through three layers of plywood and chipboard, each 3/4". Not a toy.

And Tom is confusing the issue by tossing in his wife's ,22, which has an LCM setup.

But how about Pooplius posting pictures of the recently slain to peddle more gun mayhem, after how they died?

Priceless.

 

[Guest]

Interest in banning battlefield .22's seems pretty thin.

The topic article notes that the murders in Fort Lauderdale are motivating the proposal to limit sales of tools, so perhaps it's time for a parade of the victims whose loss has made this a propitious time to talk about reasonable proposals to limit sales of tools and make tool owners responsible for what criminals do with stolen tools.

Shirley Timmons, the Ohio woman killed in the Fort Lauderdale airport shooting, was warmly remembered by her family in a statement released Monday.

Timmons was slain, and her husband Steve Timmons was critically injured, during Friday's airport attack.

"Shirley Timmons was an amazing daughter, wife, mother and grandmother," her family said in a statement provided by Broward Health Medical Center. "For Shirley, it was all about family. She and her husband of 51 years met when they were in the 8th grade.

"They were high school sweethearts with the perfect love story. She was a cheerleader and Homecoming Queen with the man of her dreams. Together they built a close, loving family with their three daughters, three son-in-laws and eight grandchildren. For Shirley, family meant vacations, football games and holiday traditions.

The couple had flown to Fort Lauderdale on Friday to join the rest of their family for a cruise, WILE-FM reported over the weekend.

Timmons' grandson Steve Reineccius confirmed over Facebook that his grandmother was one of the victims and that his grandfather Steve Timmons was wounded. They were both 70 years old.

Timmons was shot in the head and underwent emergency surgery at a Fort Lauderdale hospital, the station reported.

Broward Health, citing patient privacy, isn't releasing the names of those hospitalized. So a Broward Health spokeswoman on Monday said she had no information about Steve Timmons' condition.

The couple's 51st wedding anniversary was in three weeks. They're from Senecaville, about 90 miles east of Columbus.

The Timmons family, in Monday's statement, said Shirley Timmons was the "most loving, passionate mother who had a love for life and truly sparkled. She will continue to sparkle through her husband, mother, three daughters and eight grandchildren. She touched many and was loved by all. She will live in our hearts forever and will be truly missed. We love you Mom and Grandma."

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fort-lauderdale-hollywood-airport-shooting/fl-shirley-timmons-airport-shooting-20170107-story.html

This is in poor taste, and in poor form as well.

Let them RIP you loathsome fool, don't use them to peddle the instrument that killed them.

I don't recall you admonishing Sol for using them to peddle his agenda in this thread or in the Charleston thread. Hypocrite!