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?

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 109 by AgnosticBoy]

I guess we should end the discussion here since you don't seem to like engaging in civil debate but rather picking and choosing context, responses and questions as you seem fit. Best wishes in your future endeavours.

The gun debate is a hot political issue, as in it attracts a lot of politics. Whenever I sense a liberal (or someone on one end of extreme - banning all guns) I tend to not only want to disprove but to also expose. Plenty of liberals put political ideology before facts and truth as do some conservatives so its fairly easy to catch them on straightforward facts as well as the various tactics that they use to duck, dodge, and DISTRACT from these straightforward simple facts. You clearly employed one of the three D's, as I explained in my last post, and I simply exposed it.

[Filthy Tugboat]

[Replying to post 109 by AgnosticBoy]

I guess we should end the discussion here since you don't seem to like engaging in civil debate but rather picking and choosing context, responses and questions as you seem fit. Best wishes in your future endeavours.

The gun debate is a hot political issue, as in it attracts a lot of politics. Whenever I sense a liberal (or someone on one end of extreme - banning all guns) I tend to not only want to disprove but to also expose. Plenty of liberals put political ideology before facts and truth as do some conservatives so its fairly easy to catch them on straightforward facts as well as the various tactics that they use to duck, dodge, and DISTRACT from these straightforward simple facts. You clearly employed one of the three D's, as I explained in my last post, and I simply exposed it.

I volunteered information freely, your disingenuous conceptions of my behaviour are meaningless epithets and rather uncivil. I'm not even American so don't fit any of the descriptions you so happily attempt to denigrate me with. So as I said before, best wishes in your future endeavours.

[Zzyzx]

.
Moderator Comment

I gotta say your responses are extremely inefficient in that it takes you writing 3 paragraphs to respond to my SIMPLE question/point regarding guns as an effective means of self-defense. You accepted that guns are effective for self-defense but buried that point in the midst of other negative points about guns. This reminds me of how politicians tend to respond to issues that go against their ideology. As an independent, I see right through that tactic. For some, the tactic you used is a way to distract. Or perhaps it's hard for some to provide a simple answer when it clearly goes against their ideology.

Kindly debate the TOPIC " NOT what you dislike about posting by other members.


Please review the Rules.

______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 109 by AgnosticBoy]

I guess we should end the discussion here since you don't seem to like engaging in civil debate but rather picking and choosing context, responses and questions as you seem fit. Best wishes in your future endeavours.

The gun debate is a hot political issue, as in it attracts a lot of politics. Whenever I sense a liberal (or someone on one end of extreme - banning all guns) I tend to not only want to disprove but to also expose. Plenty of liberals put political ideology before facts and truth as do some conservatives so its fairly easy to catch them on straightforward facts as well as the various tactics that they use to duck, dodge, and DISTRACT from these straightforward simple facts. You clearly employed one of the three D's, as I explained in my last post, and I simply exposed it.

I volunteered information freely, your disingenuous conceptions of my behaviour are meaningless epithets and rather uncivil. I'm not even American so don't fit any of the descriptions you so happily attempt to denigrate me with. So as I said before, best wishes in your future endeavours.

It's not about being American but rather about having what is considered an extreme view on the political side of the debate. One side wants unrestricted access to guns and another side wants to ban guns. I'm against both sides. You accept one of those sides.

As for another point you made...I'm simply pointing out a fallacy. In regards to the question of if guns are an effective means of self-defense, when the response to that involves about a million topics that don't answer the point then that does not bolster or prove your case. The unrelated points and topics are a distraction.

[AgnosticBoy]

The problem that I have with a lot of these political debates is that there's a lack of an objective conclusion and a objective criteria/standard to base that conclusion on.

When it comes to guns, the conclusions tend to be based on how bad or good we think guns are. There is no one standard (esp. objective standard) that we can agree on to establish if guns should be allowed or not. One side points to all the negatives, i.e., suicides and gun crime while the other side points to the positives which are guns used for self-defense (which isn't recorded/reported nearly as much as guns used for crime are), sport, etc. If I say guns being an "effective" means of self-defense matters more in deciding the debate, then someone else might say that the suicides and gun crime matter more. This tends to be what these debates turn into. Even each factor considered by itself can be subjected to personal evaluation, like on suicides. For instance, at what number of suicides with guns is it worth banning guns over? This shows me that our conclusions tend to be nothing more than our personal weighing of each factor (the positives and negatives).

I believe that arguments that stay away from extreme positions is a good start. By that I mean arguments or viewpoints that factor in and implement points from BOTH sides. We have a position like that already, i.e. "regulated" gun access. And of course, many like myself argue for more regulations/requirements, similar to those that any armed law enforcement personnel would go through (psych evals, training, more extensive background checks, etc). Non-extreme positions like these are what most people can accept and in that sense it would be a "winning" position in the gun debate.

[Filthy Tugboat]

[Replying to post 115 by AgnosticBoy]

I'm from a country that widely banned guns and saw a massive drop in homicides, suicides and accidental shootings as a result, it's been 23 years now and it has been great. This is why I support the "extreme" position of restricting firearm access.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 115 by AgnosticBoy]

I'm from a country that widely banned guns and saw a massive drop in homicides, suicides and accidental shootings as a result, it's been 23 years now and it has been great. This is why I support the "extreme" position of restricting firearm access.

What country is that? Can you give us actual numbers for your claim - homicide numbers comparing pre gun ban vs. post gun ban?

Also, keep in mind that "restricting" firearms is not an extreme position because the US already does this by regulating guns. Restricting does not necessarily mean banning. Banning is the extreme position. So are you backing away from your position to ban guns?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 117 by AgnosticBoy]

http://crimestats.aic.gov.au/NHMP/1_trends/

"Homicide occurred at a rate of one incident per 100,000 persons in 2013-14, a 44 percent decrease from that recorded in 1989-90 (1.8 per 100,000)."

"The number of homicide incidents involving a firearm decreased by 57 percent between 1989-90 and 2013-14. Firearms were used in 13 percent of homicide incidents (n=32) in 2013-14. In 1989-90 it was 24 percent (n=75) of incidents."

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 117 by AgnosticBoy]

http://crimestats.aic.gov.au/NHMP/1_trends/

"Homicide occurred at a rate of one incident per 100,000 persons in 2013-14, a 44 percent decrease from that recorded in 1989-90 (1.8 per 100,000)."

"The number of homicide incidents involving a firearm decreased by 57 percent between 1989-90 and 2013-14. Firearms were used in 13 percent of homicide incidents (n=32) in 2013-14. In 1989-90 it was 24 percent (n=75) of incidents."

Australia doesn't ban guns. I asked Filthy Tugboat about his country and in the context of his extreme position involving gun bans.

Btw, I already agree that banning guns would lower gun crime. My response to him would've been two points:

1. Banning guns is not only an extreme position but it's also not the only way to reduce gun crime.

2. Banning guns does not necessarily reduce violent crime. The bad guys can simply use other weapons or fists to commit violent crime.

Assault is the most common form of violent crime; rates of recorded assault have been increasing steadily over the past 10 or more years. Between 1995 and 2006,the rate of recorded assault rose significantly from 562.8 to 829.4 per 100,000 people

https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi359

Filthy Tugboat ,

I'd really appreciate it if you could defend your own view and explain why you changed your position, which conveniently happened AFTER I posted on the problem of extreme positions.

[Filthy Tugboat]

[Replying to post 117 by AgnosticBoy]

https://theconversation.com/factcheck-q ... alia-85836

Overall, its clear that the gun buybacks in 1996 and 2003 and related firearm restrictions were followed by decreases in overall gun deaths, including firearm related homicides and suicides.

https://theconversation.com/three-chart ... ates-79654

The national homicide rate has decreased from 1.8 per 100,000 people in 1989-90 to 1 per 100,000 in 2013-14.

https://theconversation.com/election-fa ... alia-60119

Pauline Hansons statement about violent crimes " including bombings, stabbings and murders " growing worse is wrong on the most recent official data.

I am from Australia and we have among the strictest gun control legislation in the world but you are correct, they are not completely banned. I think "widely banned" is a reasonable description but apologies if that was unclear. The gun buy back schemes did have a noticeable effect on gun deaths and total deaths did decrease and still continue to do so.

I would also like to add that removing guns from most equations results in less death and severe injury. So though many criminals who currently use guns to commit crimes now will be forced to use a different weapon or no weapon at all, what tends to happen is that less people die and potential victims have more of a fighting chance. Because guns are designed to kill and usually "criminals" are the ones that want to kill, a gun in the hands of a criminal has more capacity than a gun in the hands of good guys.