How To Create a School Shooter

[myth-one.com]

Today it's reached my immediate neighborhood! Ten dead, ten wounded in the school shooting in Santa Fe -- yet we never edge closer to understanding why.

Let me propose an example of how we create school shooters:

A child is routinely bullied because he is different in some way. But schools have a "zero tolerance" for bullying. So the principal separates the student being bullied from those bullying him.

The effect is to ostracize the student even more as he sits alone at an assigned separate table during lunch -- his few "friends" remaining with the crowd.

He consoles himself during lunch and every other spare second with his only true friend -- as he remains bent over his smart phone playing video games.

His favorites are the combat games, in which the basic goal is to kill the most zombies, ghosts, aliens, or whatever. They are the enemy. He learns to excel at these games.

The more he plays, the more he views himself as a winner.

He has two worlds -- the real world and the video world. In one, he's an ostracized failure. In the other, he's always a winner.

If time moves on without some external change in his real world, there will always remain the possibility that he might switch his real miserable world with his pleasurable fantasy world.

Real guns are readily available, he knows the rules of the game, and the definition of winner and loser are well-defined!

It's simply a matter of execution on his part:

Do I have the "courage?" The entire world would be discussing my body count. I would go viral! I would be famous! I would no longer be ignored!

But one simple act by one individual might prevent one of these tragic events.

When you see someone alone, ask if you can join them. Shake their hand, try to say something complimentary, or even hug them!

And now abideth faith, hope, and love; and the greatest of these is love.

Be that external change in someone's life. Love them.

================================================================

Another day, another school shooting.

Guns everywhere, government incompetent to do anything, and education has reached new lows.

I'm just a damn fool, and I had to say something.

We need to discuss this!

Anyone got any new ideas?

[marco]

It may sound trite, but if these people only knew how much God loves and values them. Jesus is always the answer to everything.

The fact they were ignorant of this vast love supply is a fault with the supplier. In any event the goings on in heaven have nothing to do with the problem of human killing human. We can guess at motivation but I would suppose that each individual has a different reason. In America guns are too readily available; it would appear that they are more protected from alcohol than from guns.

[Peds nurse]

[Replying to post 1 by myth-one.com]

I agree wholeheartedly. I wonder though, if it isn't just about rejection in the schools, but rejection by other people that are important as well. We live in such a disconnected world, which seems rather odd. We have all these ways of communicating, but we don't interact with each other. We don't get involved in peoples lives or roll our shirt sleeves up and get dirty. I was talking to my daughter about this very thing the other day. She is on her phone much of the day "talking to people." You can talk to people on the internet, but that does not replace the need for human touch and friends you can hug. The world needs more love, and the only way to do that is to put the phones down, and go love!

[DPMartin]

[Replying to post 1 by myth-one.com]

the schools can't protect themselves from their own fruits.

the state has over the past 30 years or more, taken the parent out of the equation. the guardian has responsibility for financial well being and damages cause by the child but the child is a child of the state. the states policy is always you find one bad apple then treat all as bad apples. a justification for the state to take control.

make no mistake, what that child is to believe is true is enforced by the state.




in todays world get online education one can go from K-12 and then a masters and never enter a school structure.

[2ndRateMind]

We need to discuss this!

Anyone got any new ideas?

Seems to me that all you need do to create 'school shooters' is have lax gun laws and a large population. If everyone has access to guns, and the population is large enough, you can count on the statistical probability that some of that population will be mad enough and/or bad enough to want to manifest their discontent by mass-murdering innocent children.

New ideas? Unnecessary. The UK has a gun murder rate per million head of people around 52 times less than the US, by legislation restricting ownership of guns except to those who can demonstrate a need; the military, the police, farmers, gamekeepers, hunters, sportsmen, etc. Other things equal, that's around 17000 people dieing in the US each year because it does not have the same laws as the UK. That's 41 jumbo jets crashing every year (more than 3 each month) with no survivors. We wouldn't put up with that from the airline industry; why do Americans put up with that from the NRA and its affiliated corporations?

Sooner or later, some president will have enough guts to bite the gun-control bullet. But only if (s)he has the mandate of the people. I truly pray that the people will provide that mandate, and that president will provide that courage and leadership. Until then, I cannot help but think that Americans love their guns more than they love each other.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[ttruscott]

We need to discuss this!

Anyone got any new ideas?

Seems to me that all you need do to create 'school shooters' is have lax gun laws and a large population. If everyone has access to guns, and the population is large enough, you can count on the statistical probability that some of that population will be mad enough and/or bad enough to want to manifest their discontent by mass-murdering innocent children.

Contain too many rats in a small cage and they kill each other.

Most homicides in U.S. occurred in 5 percent of counties, says study: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... ntys-says/
By David Sherfinski - The Washington Times - Tuesday, April 25, 2017
The homicide rate may be rising in some U.S. cities, but slayings are still a localized phenomenon, with most U.S. counties not seeing a single homicide in 2014.

The Rise Of Mass Knife Attacks Around The World Shows The Problem Isn't Guns. It's People: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05- ... BTlJN88nTg

I submit that a focus on guns as THE CAUSE OF CURRENT VIOLENCE is meaningless.

[2ndRateMind]

We need to discuss this!

Anyone got any new ideas?

Seems to me that all you need do to create 'school shooters' is have lax gun laws and a large population. If everyone has access to guns, and the population is large enough, you can count on the statistical probability that some of that population will be mad enough and/or bad enough to want to manifest their discontent by mass-murdering innocent children.

Contain too many rats in a small cage and they kill each other.

Most homicides in U.S. occurred in 5 percent of counties, says study: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... ntys-says/

Oh, OK. Let's spread people out some, then. Give them all 40 acres and a mule. That should solve the problem. Oh, wait...didn't they try that 150 years ago already?

The Rise Of Mass Knife Attacks Around The World Shows The Problem Isn't Guns. It's People...

...I submit that a focus on guns as THE CAUSE OF CURRENT VIOLENCE is meaningless.

No one says gun ownership is the cause. Just that guns are a force multiplier and a facilitating technology. You can, if you are so minded, kill a lot more people, a lot more quickly, at far greater range, with a semi-automatic assault rifle than you can with a knife. That's why we issue them to soldiers, in preference. And why civilians without legitimate reasons for such ownership should be denied them.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Clownboat]

We need to discuss this!

Anyone got any new ideas?

Seems to me that all you need do to create 'school shooters' is have lax gun laws and a large population. If everyone has access to guns, and the population is large enough, you can count on the statistical probability that some of that population will be mad enough and/or bad enough to want to manifest their discontent by mass-murdering innocent children.

Contain too many rats in a small cage and they kill each other.

Most homicides in U.S. occurred in 5 percent of counties, says study: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... ntys-says/

Oh, OK. Let's spread people out some, then. Give them all 40 acres and a mule. That should solve the problem. Oh, wait...didn't they try that 150 years ago already?

The Rise Of Mass Knife Attacks Around The World Shows The Problem Isn't Guns. It's People...

...I submit that a focus on guns as THE CAUSE OF CURRENT VIOLENCE is meaningless.

No one says gun ownership is the cause. Just that guns are a force multiplier and a facilitating technology. You can, if you are so minded, kill a lot more people, a lot more quickly, at far greater range, with a semi-automatic assault rifle than you can with a knife. That's why we issue them to soldiers, in preference. And why civilians without legitimate reasons for such ownership should be denied them.

Best wishes, 2RM.

What civilians are without legitimate reason to be able to defend themselves with a firearm? (Besides a felon of course).

Am I one such citizen that does not have a legitimate reason to defend myself and my family with a firearm if the need ever arose for example?

Perhaps you are the kind of person that would attempt to call the police if an armed robber broke in to your house? That's fine and there is even a small chance they would arrive in time to assist (most likely they will get there in time to fill out paperwork and hopefully not chalk lines though).
Myself, I keep my firearms in one building and rounds in another, so currently I would use other means to defend myself and my family, but when my children move out, I may make my rounds more available. You would find my doing this to be without reason (having a firearm with rounds available)?

[2ndRateMind]

What civilians are without legitimate reason to be able to defend themselves with a firearm? (Besides a felon of course).

I dare say, given the pickle you are in thanks to the NRA, in the US you do need guns to defend yourselves, because everyone else has a gun. In the UK, we thankfully do not have an NRA, and because guns are so rare, we do not seem to have that necessity for them.

I live in inner city Bristol, which has it's fair share of crime rate, and, indeed, local murders. But, to the best of my knowledge over the last twenty years, none of these murders was committed with a gun. Accordingly, for self-defense matters, my armoury is limited to a bill-hook (originally bought to clear the scrub off my new but over-grown allotment) and kept by my front door. So, even if I ever wanted to commit mass murder, which I don't anticipate, I just wouldn't have that realistic option.

For prepping purposes, I also have a cross-bow with an optical sight. That is still in it's box, having been purchased some three years ago. One day, maybe, I will get around to joining the local archery club, and taking the opportunity to zero in said sight. But up 'til now, it hasn't seemed urgent, and I have had other priorities.

Whatever, the point is, you only need a gun to defend yourself if guns are prevalent in society. Remove the prevalence, and you remove the excuse for owning those guns simultaneously.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Clownboat]

What civilians are without legitimate reason to be able to defend themselves with a firearm? (Besides a felon of course).

I dare say, given the pickle you are in thanks to the NRA, in the US you do need guns to defend yourselves, because everyone else has a gun. In the UK, we thankfully do not have an NRA, and because guns are so rare, we do not seem to have that necessity for them.

So US citizens do have legitimate reason to own a gun (if they are so inclined).

Accordingly, for self-defense matters, my armoury is limited to a bill-hook (originally bought to clear the scrub off my new but over-grown allotment) and kept by my front door. So, even if I ever wanted to commit mass murder, which I don't anticipate, I just wouldn't have that realistic option.

Let's be honest, if mass murder is the end goal, explosions, guns, fire, vehicles or mixing toxic chemicals would be much more effective. What we cannot realistically do is to get rid of these methods unfortunately.

If I had the frame of mind that put me in a position as to where I wanted to kill as many people as possible, taking my guns away would not stop this from happening.

For prepping purposes, I also have a cross-bow with an optical sight.

For prepping purposes, this cross-bow obviously offers you a small piece of mind. Right or wrong, what about the peace of mind of a person that owns guns for prepping purposes, whether end of the world scenario, zombie apocalypse, government over stepping their bounds or what have you? Right or wrong, you cannot really prep for an apocalypse or a government takeover with just a cross-bow. I'm not in this crowd myself, but don't they deserve to have that piece of mind? Kind of like how your cross-bow provides you with some piece of mind (even though you may never need/use it).

Whatever, the point is, you only need a gun to defend yourself if guns are prevalent in society.

And in the US, they are.

Remove the prevalence, and you remove the excuse for owning those guns simultaneously.

Agreed, but I only see it as reasonable to remove guns from law abiding citizens, like myself for example. My government could get me to give up my guns as I abide by the law, but criminals, I don't see why they would as they have already shown they don't abide by the law. So I hear you and even agree, I just don't find it to be reasonable and therefore think we should focus on actual causes for people wanting to commit mass murder. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens will do little to prevent gun deaths IMO and in some real scenarios will increase the death tolls in mass shootings.
For example:
"Texas church shooting not the first time a good guy with gun takes down mass shooter"
https://www.foxnews.com/us/texas-church ... ss-shooter
The armed civilian who used his assault rifle to stop Sunday’s mass murder of 26 Texas churchgoers has been hailed, rightly, as a hero, but Stephen Willeford is hardly unique. A number of armed American citizens have also used their firearms to stop or limit mass killings.

Personally, it gives me a piece of mind knowing that we have armed citizens willing to stop such atrocities as mass shootings. Only allowing our criminals and government to have this ability does not provide me with piece of mind.

[2ndRateMind]

What civilians are without legitimate reason to be able to defend themselves with a firearm? (Besides a felon of course).

I dare say, given the pickle you are in thanks to the NRA, in the US you do need guns to defend yourselves, because everyone else has a gun. In the UK, we thankfully do not have an NRA, and because guns are so rare, we do not seem to have that necessity for them.

So US citizens do have legitimate reason to own a gun (if they are so inclined).

I would say so, yes. But only because the gun issue has been mismanaged by your political institutions, in favour of the NRA and it's cynical corporate membership.

There is a piece of game theory known as 'the tragedy of the commons'. Google it, if you're interested. This is basically the situation where each individual, acting in their own best interest, leads to an outcome that is sub-optimal, or even detrimental, to the interests of the whole of society, or 'the common good'. I think, in the US, this is the situation that applies with respect to gun ownership.

So far as the whole society is concerned (indeed, the whole world) we would all be far better off if no civilian owned any guns at all. We could all breath a sigh of relief, and relax, and turn our minds to other matters that require attention, like absolute poverty, or climate change, or the conservation of species. But, we must recognise that as of now, that as the situation currently pertains in the US and many other countries where there is already widespread gun ownership, it is entirely rational for each and every individual to own or aspire to own a gun.

But what is rational for the individual is not necessarily rational or desirable for the whole of society. Indeed, a visiting alien, taking stock and overview of our situation, might well conclude that we are all individually quite sensible, but communally stark raving bonkers.

Best wishes, 2RM.