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 130 by AgnosticBoy]

Where did you post this? I've looked over our exchanges and cannot find any posts at all regarding this let alone evidence supplied. No links or quotes or anything.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 130 by AgnosticBoy]

Where did you post this? I've looked over our exchanges and cannot find any posts at all regarding this let alone evidence supplied. No links or quotes or anything.

I posted the evidence in post 119. After reading it, I expect all claims of banning guns leading to violent crime reduction to stop because that is a big fat falsehood.

For the record:
I never said guns cannot be used in self defence

Sure you did. I already pointed out several times throughout the forum where you've said it.

Since guns have not been shown to be effective tools at self defence, I'll take your opinions on how effective any tool is for self defence with a grain of salt.
.

Pray tell, when did criticising someone not supporting their claims become an affirmative position or statement?

I will assume that since this is the only thing you chose to respond to that this is also the only thing you will stick by? Will you admit that the rest of it was unfounded accusations and retract or are you going to stand by your comments?

If you knew that guns were an effective form of self-defense, then what is the point in asking someone to prove that assertion? Do you believe it or not? If you did, then you wouldn't have called it "my" opinion, correct?

Maybe this will help..

No, I think, on the whole scale of things guns are not effective means of self-defence.

[AgnosticBoy]

Can you answer my straight-forward question, FilthyTugboat?

How many LEGAL and/or qualified gun owners in your country commit gun crime? And I appreciate the acknowledgement that banning guns is not the only way to reduce gun crime. Your country proves that. I'd only argue that guns for "protection" should be another reason to allow gun ownership in your country. Its certainly something more important than guns for "hunting" esp. when you have defenseless people getting stabbed up to 30 times as you described.

[Filthy Tugboat]

[Replying to post 133 by AgnosticBoy]

You directed this comment to "Bust Nak", so the reason why I reasserted my position and continued the same line of inquiry without responding to your "evidence" was because you did not add it to our discussion. Could you please tell me why you capitalise the word "your" towards me and "my government"?

The rate of aggravated assault appears to have contributed to the marked rise in recorded assault, and for both assault and sexual assault the rate of increase was greater for children aged under 15 years, with increases almost double that of the older age group. Neither population changes among young adult males nor rates of offending seem to explain the trends in recorded violent crime, and indicators of change in reporting to police provide only a partial explanation. Based on self-reported victimisation and reporting to police, it would seem increased reporting of assault is somewhat responsible for the rise in recorded assault rates against adult victims.

From your source. How does increased gun ownership prevent children, who cannot own guns for any reason, from being assaulted?

If homicide is the yardstick by which the level of violence in society is measured, then the belief that violence is increasing in Australia cannot be substantiated. The significant increase in recorded assault and sexual assault potentially contradicts this view, but without supporting evidence from other sources of information, such an interpretation can only remain provisional. Further research will need to examine how much of the increase in recorded violent crime against children relates to current or past events. Further refinement of crime data sources to improve their comparability, and longer-term assessment of crime patterns, may also offset future problems in interpreting and understanding trends.

Also from your source explicitly stating that the conclusions you have drawn from this are only provisional and, possibly, unsubstantial.

What does it matter what I believe? We are debating here, we can hold any number of beliefs that we do not choose to debate. You made a claim and didn't back it up, not my fault.

Yes, I expressed my opinion, something I made very clear with "I think". In the context of what I was saying, it is very clear that I was not saying, "Guns cannot be used for self defence."

I will ask again, will you retract the other claims I referenced in post 123? Or are you still willing to argue I did claim all of those things?

[Replying to post 134 by AgnosticBoy]

Why must I support your arguments? Do your own research.

I don't believe I ever claimed the man with 30 stab wounds was "defenceless"

[AgnosticBoy]

You directed this comment to "Bust Nak", so the reason why I reasserted my position and continued the same line of inquiry without responding to your "evidence" was because you did not add it to our discussion. Could you please tell me why you capitalise the word "your" towards me and "my government"?

The main point being that you claimed something without evidence. You have been given evidence from your own government that conflicts with your claim so you should retract or discontinue making the claim that less guns equal less crime. It does NOT equal less crime.

The rate of aggravated assault appears to have contributed to the marked rise in recorded assault, and for both assault and sexual assault the rate of increase was greater for children aged under 15 years, with increases almost double that of the older age group. Neither population changes among young adult males nor rates of offending seem to explain the trends in recorded violent crime, and indicators of change in reporting to police provide only a partial explanation. Based on self-reported victimisation and reporting to police, it would seem increased reporting of assault is somewhat responsible for the rise in recorded assault rates against adult victims.

From your source. How does increased gun ownership prevent children, who cannot own guns for any reason, from being assaulted?

It doesn't, but then how does taking guns away from adults, which would also leave them just as defenseless as a child, make it better? In terms of self-defense, it would make it worse!

[

If homicide is the yardstick by which the level of violence in society is measured, then the belief that violence is increasing in Australia cannot be substantiated. The significant increase in recorded assault and sexual assault potentially contradicts this view, but without supporting evidence from other sources of information, such an interpretation can only remain provisional. Further research will need to examine how much of the increase in recorded violent crime against children relates to current or past events. Further refinement of crime data sources to improve their comparability, and longer-term assessment of crime patterns, may also offset future problems in interpreting and understanding trends.

So it's hard to imagine that criminals would resort to other weapons when you ban guns?

Knife attacks in Australia:
- The most recent NHMP report (Virueda & Payne 2010) indicated that in 2007–08, more homicide victims died from stab wounds than from any other single cause of death. The number of homicides involving knives had remained relatively unchanged since 1989–90, although due to the decline in firearm homicides, knife-related homicides comprised a larger proportion of homicides recorded in the more recent data. In both 2006–07 and 2007–08, knives/sharp instruments were involved in 43 percent of homicides; by way of comparison, in 2000, knives and other sharp instruments accounted for only 30 percent of homicides.
source: https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi417
Also from your source explicitly stating that the conclusions you have drawn from this are only provisional and, possibly, unsubstantial.

[Replying to post 134 by AgnosticBoy]

Why must I support your arguments? Do your own research.

I don't believe I ever claimed the man with 30 stab wounds was "defenceless"

[AgnosticBoy]

You directed this comment to "Bust Nak", so the reason why I reasserted my position and continued the same line of inquiry without responding to your "evidence" was because you did not add it to our discussion. Could you please tell me why you capitalise the word "your" towards me and "my government"?

The point here is that your claim that violent crime is decreasing in Australia is unsubstantiated. "Homicides" are decreasing, but homicide is not the only type of violent crime. This is what you need to acknowledge instead of bringing up other unrelated issues.

From your source. How does increased gun ownership prevent children, who cannot own guns for any reason, from being assaulted?

The kids obviously can't defend themselves, but then how would not allowing adults to own guns help this situation? You're simply making adults just as defenseless as children.

If homicide is the yardstick by which the level of violence in society is measured, then the belief that violence is increasing in Australia cannot be substantiated. The significant increase in recorded assault and sexual assault potentially contradicts this view, but without supporting evidence from other sources of information, such an interpretation can only remain provisional.

If homicides were the only stat for violent crime then my claim would be unsubstantiated. But as my referenced article rightly brings up, the increase in violent attacks, such as rapes, shows that homicides are not the only type of violent crime and therefore decreases in homicides does NOT equal decrease in violent crime.

While the article mentions that my interpretation is "provisional" but it is at least a conclusion drawn from the best available evidence. There is an indeed an increase in documented violent crimes. Your claim that violent crime is decreasing is completely unsubstantiated.

Lets look at the United Kingdom where guns are largely banned:

- Violent crime recorded by police in England and Wales has risen by 19% in a year, latest Home Office figures show.

The number of homicides - including murder and manslaughter - rose from 649 to 739, an increase of 14%, in the 12 months to the end of September 2018.

It is the the highest total for such crimes since 2007.

Robbery went up by 17%, as did recorded sexual offences, according to the data released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

Overall crimes recorded by police went up by 7% with a total of 5,723,182 offences recorded.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46984559

And at least according to one or two sources, the rate of violent crime is higher in the UK than the US eventhough the US has many more guns in circulation:

For the United States, we used the FBI’s four standard categories for violent crime that Bier cited. We came up with a rate of 383 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

This calculation suggests that there is a higher rate of crime in England and Wales, but the discrepancy is not anywhere near as wide as the one cited in the meme.

Source: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... violent-c/

I will ask again, will you retract the other claims I referenced in post 123? Or are you still willing to argue I did claim all of those things?

You claimed that guns would not be effective at preventing rape. You claimed that guns were not effective for self-defense, in general. I used logic and evidence to shoot down both of your claims. There's nothing to retract here.

[Filthy Tugboat]

[Replying to post 136 by AgnosticBoy]

You claimed that guns would not be effective at preventing rape. You claimed that guns were not effective for self-defense, in general. I used logic and evidence to shoot down both of your claims. There's nothing to retract here.

You can continue making these claims over and over again but they are simply untrue, as I have pointed out on numerous occasions. This will have to be my last reply, I refuse to engage someone who behaves this way. Good day.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 136 by AgnosticBoy]

You claimed that guns would not be effective at preventing rape. You claimed that guns were not effective for self-defense, in general. I used logic and evidence to shoot down both of your claims. There's nothing to retract here.

You can continue making these claims over and over again but they are simply untrue, as I have pointed out on numerous occasions. This will have to be my last reply, I refuse to engage someone who behaves this way. Good day.

The simple fact is that you changed your view which means that the current view you hold now is not the one you started with. You simply softened your extreme view after it was exposed to very strong logic and evidence. You've pretty much conceded to all of my major points - guns being effective means of self-defense and how allowing guns can coexist with low gun crime. There's not much more to debate at this point.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 136 by AgnosticBoy]

You claimed that guns would not be effective at preventing rape. You claimed that guns were not effective for self-defense, in general. I used logic and evidence to shoot down both of your claims. There's nothing to retract here.

You can continue making these claims over and over again but they are simply untrue, as I have pointed out on numerous occasions. This will have to be my last reply, I refuse to engage someone who behaves this way. Good day.

It is not all for loss.
You have convinced me that Australians should not be allowed to own guns.