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?

[Filthy Tugboat]

[Replying to post 80 by AgnosticBoy]

But as I have expressed at length, the intuition of the matter simply doesn't hold to statistics, and we don't even have most of the statistics thanks to gun lobbyists like the NRA.

The intuition is that having a gun gives you an option to defend yourself effectively but it ignores that criminals also have these guns, almost all of them, thanks to the current laws. We get situations like Trayvon Martin where a man stalks another man he deemed to be suspicious because he knows that if this "shady character" has a weapon, someone has to be watching him and ready to stop him with their own weapon because the criminal has the upperhand.

If someone wants to cause harm with a gun, they have a massive advantage over their potential victims whether they are armed or not. The criminal can wait until their victim(s) is(are) secluded and vulnerable and then ambush them. If no-one has a gun, the criminal loses a lot of their power. The odds are higher for the potential victims.

Like the rape example written about earlier, most rapists are normal people who attack someone they know when they are vulnerable, guns either don't stop rapists or America is full of rapists because the amount of it's citizens who get raped is just as high as countries without guns. So if a gun stops a rapist half of the time, then Americans are twice as likely to be rapists as people from Australia and Canada. Do you think this is true or do you agree that guns are not effective tools at preventing rape?

Can we at least agree that suicide and accidental shootings are exacerbated greatly by easy gun ownership?

[AgnosticBoy]

The intuition is that having a gun gives you an option to defend yourself effectively but it ignores that criminals also have these guns, almost all of them, thanks to the current laws. We get situations like Trayvon Martin where a man stalks another man he deemed to be suspicious because he knows that if this "shady character" has a weapon, someone has to be watching him and ready to stop him with their own weapon because the criminal has the upperhand.

As I mentioned before, the problems is "access" to guns. The criminals can use loopholes, places that don't do background checks, and perhaps many other means to get weapons.

If someone wants to cause harm with a gun, they have a massive advantage over their potential victims whether they are armed or not. The criminal can wait until their victim(s) is(are) secluded and vulnerable and then ambush them. If no-one has a gun, the criminal loses a lot of their power. The odds are higher for the potential victims.

I wouldn't say if no one has a gun, but rather if the criminals don't have guns then the criminals will lose a lot of power.

Like the rape example written about earlier, most rapists are normal people who attack someone they know when they are vulnerable, guns either don't stop rapists or America is full of rapists because the amount of it's citizens who get raped is just as high as countries without guns. So if a gun stops a rapist half of the time, then Americans are twice as likely to be rapists as people from Australia and Canada. Do you think this is true or do you agree that guns are not effective tools at preventing rape?

Well there are a lot of factors to consider. First off, despite any stats, it is very logical to accept that a person who is armed will fare better at defending themselves against a criminal than an unarmed person. The very simple reason is that you have an effective means of self-defense. Put a sign out in front of your house that says you are armed.

IN the case of rape, it's safe to say that it's mostly women who are getting raped. Is there a large percentage of women carrying concealed compared to men? I'd also want to know, out of those who were raped, how many of them had a concealed firearm.

Can we at least agree that suicide and accidental shootings are exacerbated greatly by easy gun ownership?

Please offer actual numbers of suicide as opposed to likelihoods. Sure having a gun makes it much more likely to accidentally fire it than someone without a gun, but if the actual number of times this happens is 3,000 times a year, or a few hundred more than suicide by other weapons, is that a big problem? Especially one worth giving up an effective means of self-defense? I think not.

[Filthy Tugboat]

[Replying to post 82 by AgnosticBoy]

Is it an effective means of self defence? I haven't seen any data to show that it is. Considering crime statistics, it doesn't appear that more guns equates to more effective self defence, it does equate to more suicides, more accidental deaths and more homicides with no difference in robberies or rape. More guns seems to mean more lethal crime, this is not very surprising to me.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... aps-charts

“A series of specific comparisons of the death rates from property crime and assault in New York City and London show how enormous differences in death risk can be explained even while general patterns are similar,� Zimring and Hawkins wrote. “A preference for crimes of personal force and the willingness and ability to use guns in robbery make similar levels of property crime 54 times as deadly in New York City as in London.�

“Within the United States, a wide array of empirical evidence indicates that more guns in a community leads to more homicide,�

the US does not, contrary to the old conventional wisdom, have more crime in general than other Western industrial nations. Instead, the US appears to have more lethal violence — and that’s driven in large part by the prevalence of guns.

“Time is really key to preventing suicide in a suicidal person,� Harkavy-Friedman said. “First, the crisis won’t last, so it will seem less dire and less hopeless with time. Second, it opens the opportunity for someone to help or for the suicidal person to reach out to someone to help. That’s why limiting access to lethal means is so powerful.�

She added, “f we keep the method of suicide away from a person when they consider it, in that moment they will not switch to another method. It doesn’t mean they never will. But in that moment, their thinking is very inflexible and rigid. So it’s not like they say, ‘Oh, this isn’t going to work. I’m going to try something else.’ They generally can’t adjust their thinking, and they don’t switch methods.�

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... nce-shows/







I agree that mass shootings are not a significant portion of homicides in America but they aren't irrelevant to the debate, the incidents spell out exactly how guns do and don't work, how much more effective they are in the hands of criminals than in the hands of people planning to use them for self defence purposes. They allow us to spell out what is intuitive. Less access to guns for everyone will save lives.

As I mentioned before, the problems is "access" to guns. The criminals can use loopholes, places that don't do background checks, and perhaps many other means to get weapons.

Agreed, there are many legal loopholes that allow anyone to possess a firearm in America, this is a bad thing that I think we agree should not exist.

I wouldn't say if no one has a gun, but rather if the criminals don't have guns then the criminals will lose a lot of power.

Absolutely, but it should be important to note that regular people can use guns and become criminals. Repeat offenders are not the only danger when it comes to guns.

Well there are a lot of factors to consider. First off, despite any stats, it is very logical to accept that a person who is armed will fare better at defending themselves against a criminal than an unarmed person. The very simple reason is that you have an effective means of self-defense.

You would think that but considering guns need to have the safety on and holstered properly it isn't that easy to get a gun out and ready to fire when someone is, say, assaulting you. Unless you advocate that we should remove standards for safe concealed/open carrying laws as well. If someone has the intent to cause harm they tend to attempt to catch their desired victim off guard and vulnerable. This is true, whether either party is armed or not.

IN the case of rape, it's safe to say that it's mostly women who are getting raped. Is there a large percentage of women carrying concealed compared to men? I'd also want to know, out of those who were raped, how many of them had a concealed firearm.

You can do the research on that yourself, I am not supporting any claim regarding firearms being a good prevention method for rape. I only know that the statistics do not indicate that more gun ownership reduces rape by any measurable extent.

[Bust Nak]

I see this as an ineffective way to make militaries have less firepower, so this point is lost on me currently. We both know why militaries are armed afterall, and my shotgun is not one such reason.

Less people buying guns, less gun produced; less gun produced, higher cost per unit; higher cost per unit, less firepower for militaries.

Militaries coming to steal from their population would be a reason to have armed civilians Bust Nak.

Nah, that's what our own military is for.

Why must they be armed to do this? Why can't militaries be unarmed and make it less risky for those armed foreign governments that might seek to cause harm (like you argue for law abiding citizens to do so criminals will feel less risk)?

Because fewer causalities is less of a concern than foreign occupation.

Once again you refuse to acknowledge this mentality difference that I continue to put forward.

Or you can just look a few lines below to see that I gave you a straight up "sure" when you asked me to acknowledge this difference in humans?

Please provide evidence that I have called you a coward or that you have a coward mentality or kindly retract this claim.

But I did not claim you have called me a coward or that I have a coward mentality though. What I did say, is referred to this "talk of victim and coward mentality." Would you like me to provide evidence that you have spoke of such things instead?

I'm trying to have a real discussion about a very real difference in mentalities and how that plays in to self preservation. Ironically, if you are trying to show that you don't have a victim mentality (nothing to do with cowardess) you have failed miserably and have only strengthened what I'm putting forward as being a real thing. IMO, we need to analyze gun control through this lenz. It is a very good reason as to why not everyone needs or should own a firearm.

But that's kinda my point, only the police and military need or should own (own isn't right word, it's more have access to when we are talking about issued weapon) a firearm. If you have the right mentality, then join either of these forces.

Therefore, taking away the ability for those that would protect their fellow humans with a firearm would cause more gun deaths.

How? Fill in the blanks for me:

1) Some people have a victim mentality.
2) Some people are cowards.
3) Some people have a hero mentality.
4) Some people are brave.
5) Guns are no longer available to civilians.
...
n) There are more gun deaths.

I submit that in the world we live in where a felon can order a gun kit online, it is incorrect to think that disarming law abiding citizens will prevent criminals from being armed.

So lets change the world and get rid of online stores that sell gun kits.

Perhaps we should suggest this to our militaries as well? Put your armaments away and try wrestling moves! Such a suggestions seems silly, no? You don't bring a knife to a gun fight, nor would it be wise to bring wrestling moves.

The idea is, it would be a wrestling match instead of a gun fight.

Being killed by a gun or a knife has the same end result and "don't bring a knife to a gun fight" is a saying for a reason.

Right, but's it's much harder to use a knife to do mass killing.

[AgnosticBoy]

Is it an effective means of self defence? I haven't seen any data to show that it is. Considering crime statistics, it doesn't appear that more guns equates to more effective self defence, it does equate to more suicides, more accidental deaths and more homicides with no difference in robberies or rape.

What determines if it's an effective means of self-defense is based on what it can do and not necessarily on stats. You bring up robberies and rapes but you failed to consider the evidence in light of my point regarding if the robberies and rapes are mostly occurring in places where there's low gun ownership or to people who are less likely to own guns compared to men (i.e. women). You seem to think that the US having a lot of guns means that everyone has one, and that they'll have them on themselves all the time. That's far from the case. I have a couple of firearms and I don't always carry them.

More guns seems to mean more lethal crime, this is not very surprising to me.

Not surprising to me either but then I figured out doing a better job at keeping guns away from bad guys and mimicking some of the training that armed law enforcement goes through would go a long way towards improvement.

She added, “f we keep the method of suicide away from a person when they consider it, in that moment they will not switch to another method. It doesn’t mean they never will. But in that moment, their thinking is very inflexible and rigid. So it’s not like they say, ‘Oh, this isn’t going to work. I’m going to try something else.’ They generally can’t adjust their thinking, and they don’t switch methods.�

The reason why I asked for the an actual number of suicides, because when articles say something is two, or three times more likely to happen, it sounds scary. But in 2015 there were only 44,965 suicides. That's not even 1 percent of the population. Only 22,938 of those suicides were firearm related. Again, this is not a "big" problem as people tend to think it is.

[Filthy Tugboat]

[Replying to post 85 by AgnosticBoy]

What determines if it's an effective means of self-defense is based on what it can do and not necessarily on stats. You bring up robberies and rapes but you failed to consider the evidence in light of my point regarding if the robberies and rapes are mostly occurring in places where there's low gun ownership or to people who are less likely to own guns compared to men (i.e. women). You seem to think that the US having a lot of guns means that everyone has one, and that they'll have them on themselves all the time. That's far from the case. I have a couple of firearms and I don't always carry them.

This is why I tend to compare with entire countries with low ownership of guns because the alternative is impossible to research. The data doesn't exist and this is intentional. Pro-gun lobby groups are against keeping track of information on guns and how dangerous they are. If statistics were likely to support these groups agendas I doubt they would be so against collecting it. But ultimately I can't base an argument on how bad the NRA are as an organisation, even if the NRA are awful and stand for awful things guns being generally accessible to the public may still be a good thing. Intuitively and from the statistics available guns seem to be a bad thing, the more there are the worse off the general public are.

Not surprising to me either but then I figured out doing a better job at keeping guns away from bad guys and mimicking some of the training that armed law enforcement goes through would go a long way towards improvement.

Unfortunately gun lobby groups who play almost the largest role in gun laws disagree with you. Less checks, less preventative methods and less concern. If firepower exists, it should be available to the maximum extent to the most people. It seems obvious to me that this would be better than the current system but even still I can't say I've seen any evidence to support the notion that this would be better than removing access all together from the greater population.

The reason why I asked for the an actual number of suicides, because when articles say something is two, or three times more likely to happen, it sounds scary. But in 2015 there were only 44,965 suicides. That's not even 1 percent of the population. Only 22,938 of those suicides were firearm related. Again, this is not a "big" problem as people tend to think it is.

I guess I can't help you to understand that that is a "big" problem. If 20,000 of those 22,938 suicides didn't work out because without firearm other methods are far less likely to succeed, and these people go on to live successful lives and make great contributions to society as a whole and within their communities, this is a good thing. Do you disagree? Statistically speaking, this is the reality of easy access to guns and the nature of suicide.

[AgnosticBoy]

This is why I tend to compare with entire countries with low ownership of guns because the alternative is impossible to research. The data doesn't exist and this is intentional. Pro-gun lobby groups are against keeping track of information on guns and how dangerous they are. If statistics were likely to support these groups agendas I doubt they would be so against collecting it. But ultimately I can't base an argument on how bad the NRA are as an organisation, even if the NRA are awful and stand for awful things guns being generally accessible to the public may still be a good thing. Intuitively and from the statistics available guns seem to be a bad thing, the more there are the worse off the general public are.

When you say a gun is not an effective means of self-defense, you make it sound as if a person would be better defending themselves with bows/arrows or fist than with a gun. How did that work out for the Native Americans? Which military would you want defending your country, one with guns or one without them?

You also mention that some stats are intentionally left out but I'd rather say that at times they are impossible to gather. This is a complex issue, and States do have the option of tracking these things for themselves.

I guess I can't help you to understand that that is a "big" problem. If 20,000 of those 22,938 suicides didn't work out because without firearm other methods are far less likely to succeed, and these people go on to live successful lives and make great contributions to society as a whole and within their communities, this is a good thing. Do you disagree? Statistically speaking, this is the reality of easy access to guns and the nature of suicide.

Forgot to post the source for my stats in my last post: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

Again, you're using language like "far less likely". I'll refer to the actual numbers. From the link I just posted it says there were 22,938 suicides by firearm and 11,642 suicides via suffocation. That's only about 10,000 difference. The difference is of course even less than that when you add together other means used for suicide like poisoning. Sorry, but this is not convincing me that there's a "big" problem of suicide with guns over other forms of suicide.

Another point to consider is that these stats don't consider some of the standards that I suggested, like routine psych evals.

[Filthy Tugboat]

[Replying to post 87 by AgnosticBoy]

If you think half of all suicides is not a considerable amount, yet again, I can't help you. This is simply a matter of basic understanding of percentages. 50% is significant whether you like it or not. Less guns means less suicides whether you like it or not.

The native Americans suffered an apocalyptic level plague event in the decades before European settlers landed. 70-90% of the native American population were wiped out. The Europeans didn't win because of guns, they won because they were slaughtering an already broken enemy. They didn't even work hard in doing the settling, the land was mostly already cleared for them and the soil was great for planting crops because they were living on a graveyard before they went ahead and slaughtered the living indigenous community. It's embarrassing for the Europeans that they struggled as much as they did and even feared their combatants. If they had tried 50 years earlier they would have had their ass handed to them like the vikings did almost a millennia beforehand.

It is not my claim that guns being generally accessible to the public helps with self defence, it is yours, so go ahead and back it up, stop asking me to support a statement I vehemently oppose.

Yes the NRA has stood in the way of actively collecting data. I'm surprised you weren't aware of this

https://abcnews.go.com/US/federal-gover ... d=50300379
https://www.npr.org/2018/04/05/59977391 ... e-research

Family members can easily access the guns from those who are "approved" to own them, this is an issue for criminal use as well, not to mention accidental gun deaths of which there are thousands. Who would have thought that tools specifically engineered to cause human death are effective at causing human death in any and every way they are used.

[Clownboat]

Less people buying guns, less gun produced; less gun produced, higher cost per unit; higher cost per unit, less firepower for militaries.

Nope, just higher taxes to pay for the increased price IMO. Far to easy to do when you're spending other people money.

Militaries coming to steal from their population would be a reason to have armed civilians Bust Nak.

Nah, that's what our own military is for.

I disagree that the purpose of our military is to steal from their population.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army
- Preserving the peace and security and providing for the defense of the United States, the Commonwealths and possessions and any areas occupied by the United States
- Supporting the national policies
- Implementing the national objectives
- Overcoming any nations responsible for aggressive acts that imperil the peace and security of the United States

Why must they be armed to do this? Why can't militaries be unarmed and make it less risky for those armed foreign governments that might seek to cause harm (like you argue for law abiding citizens to do so criminals will feel less risk)?

Because fewer causalities is less of a concern than foreign occupation.

I asked why they must be armed. There is a reason and that reason may very well extend to why law abiding citizens should be allowed to be armed like criminals are. I assume that is why you dodged acknowledging the 'why' they must be armed.

But I did not claim you have called me a coward or that I have a coward mentality though. What I did say, is referred to this "talk of victim and coward mentality." Would you like me to provide evidence that you have spoke of such things instead?

I have mentioned victim mentality as it is a real thing it seems. I'm not aware of this coward mentality you accuse me of.
Strategies to Deal with a Victim Mentality (Just as an example)
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... -mentality

But that's kinda my point, only the police and military need or should own (own isn't right word, it's more have access to when we are talking about issued weapon) a firearm. If you have the right mentality, then join either of these forces.

What about family men and women (those not in the armed forces) with this mentality? Or those that have this mentality and recognize that the purpose of the military is not to protect your familiy from criminals (for example).

Therefore, taking away the ability for those that would protect their fellow humans with a firearm would cause more gun deaths.

How? Fill in the blanks for me:

1) Some people have a victim mentality.
2) Some people are cowards.
3) Some people have a hero mentality.
4) Some people are brave.
5) Guns are no longer available to civilians.
...
n) There are more gun deaths.

The evidence for my claim once again is:
"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008."

So lets change the world and get rid of online stores that sell gun kits.

Now you are on to something IMO.

Perhaps we should suggest this to our militaries as well? Put your armaments away and try wrestling moves! Such a suggestions seems silly, no? You don't bring a knife to a gun fight, nor would it be wise to bring wrestling moves.

The idea is, it would be a wrestling match instead of a gun fight.

I love this idea! Now tell me, why is it that our militaries will not disarm and resort to wrestling? Perhaps something to do with an un-even playing field. Similar to why some law abiding citizens do not want to be disarmed.

Right, but's it's much harder to use a knife to do mass killing.

This I agree with.
Something to consider though. If guns are not available, what if those whos goal is to kill enmasse start resorting to vehicles full of fertilizer bombs like have been used already. Bombs are more destructive then guns and harder to defend against. Is it possible that removing guns as the way to commit some violent crimes will incure an entirely new and more deadly way to kill enmasse?
(I'm not making the argument that we need guns to prevent this by the way, just pointing out a potential).

[AgnosticBoy]

If you think half of all suicides is not a considerable amount, yet again, I can't help you. This is simply a matter of basic understanding of percentages. 50% is significant whether you like it or not. Less guns means less suicides whether you like it or not.

My disagreement with you is not a problem of understanding percentages but rather it's a matter of how they tend to appear to the average reader when the actual numbers are not offered. I can use the same tactic in reverse. Less than ONE percent of the population commit suicide. Reading just that statement sounds insignificant. When you throw in the numbers, then people get a better idea or at least it catches the eye more.

But still in my case, I'm not saying 20,000 suicides via firearm is not important but it's not something worth giving up guns for. The other means used to commit suicide are not too far behind and these other means would surely increase if guns are banned, although not likely to the same level that guns were used. Also, requiring routine psych evals for gun ownership would help keep guns (even if temporary) out of the hands of suicidal people.

The native Americans suffered an apocalyptic level plague event in the decades before European settlers landed. 70-90% of the native American population were wiped out. The Europeans didn't win because of guns, they won because they were slaughtering an already broken enemy.

I would amend your statement to say that guns were one reason why the Europeans were able to defeat American natives. The gun is obviously a much more superior technology compared to sticks and stones. If you think you would fare well being unarmed vs. an armed person than more power to you. But there are stories of ONE person being able to slaughter and injure many with a gun (unfortunately in mass shootings cases) whereas I hear of no one being able to do that with their fist. Now imagine a gun in the hands of a good guy and apply the logic above with unarmed bad guys trying to mess (trying to physically injure) with this good guy. So going by all common sense and reason, I reject your argument.

If they had tried 50 years earlier they would have had their ass handed to them like the vikings did almost a millennia beforehand.

Keep in mind that some Native American tribes had guns as well since they traded with some Europeans. The natives probably didn't know how to maintain the guns and make ammo and that was to the Europeans advantage.