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 90 by AgnosticBoy]

Your opinion on what is a worthwhile reason for "giving up guns" is noted and not at all unexpected, considering the debate. I'm glad we are at a consensus on many of the facts.

Why would you describe the native Americans as "unarmed"? Why would you discuss how effective fists are? Why would you compare modern day mass shooting events to historical warfare? Guns were very different and far far far less effective back then. Warfare is different to the mass shooting events of unarmed non-combatants.

If we are using intuition to decipher many of these events, why are you drawing such unequivocal comparisons?

I would consider it to be incredibly poor researching to think that the single largest contributing factor which is the plague is not worth mentioning but the technological differences are. Do you think the Europeans would have won and successfully settled north America if their chosen enemy were at their full strength? Do you really think guns mattered much in comparison to this deadly event?

[AgnosticBoy]

Your opinion on what is a worthwhile reason for "giving up guns" is noted and not at all unexpected, considering the debate. I'm glad we are at a consensus on many of the facts.

Yes, I admit that it is my opinion at which number of suicides we should give up guns but I'm also getting the same from you. There is no objective number that would really tell anyone at which point we should stop guns, whether it be guns being used just ONE more time to commit suicide than suffocation or 10,000 more. 10,000 more suicides via gun than strangulation is not enough for me especially when there are OTHER things that can be done besides banning guns (or banning an effective means of self-defense.)

Why would you describe the native Americans as "unarmed"? Why would you discuss how effective fists are? Why would you compare modern day mass shooting events to historical warfare? Guns were very different and far far far less effective back then. Warfare is different to the mass shooting events of unarmed non-combatants.

Why? You're forgetting that the point of my argument is that guns are an effective means of self-defense. Did you see my point about mass shootings? You clearly *dodged* it and chose to only answer the weaker example.

You at least agree that guns can be used for self-defense, correct?

Furthermore, the "effective" part of guns has to do with being able to minimize injury to yourself while inflicting injury to someone who is a physical threat. Even grandmothers would appreciate this instead of relying on fists, knives, and other types of close combat which she would surely lose against a male attacker. This is why the gun is called the "equalizer".

As I also asked you to do and up till now you haven't done it, please prove that all of the rapes done in the US were done against ARMED victims. If you can't show that then your point is moot because having a lot of guns in the US does not equal everyone being armed, and the unarmed ones wouldn't be effective "gun" users. I think that's a very fair point.

[otseng]

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

Moderator Comment

Please note profanity of any kind is not allowed on the forum.

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.

[Filthy Tugboat]

[Replying to post 92 by AgnosticBoy]

Apologies I mistook your argument for something more reasonable. Yes indeed guns are effective lethal weapons, this is their sole purpose, their engineered design. This is why the terrible mass shooting event that happened in Christchurch occurred two days ago even with a relatively gun friendly community. A man who wanted to murder as many people as possible was legally allowed to acquire weapons to achieve this end at quite great efficiency. He then took them to places of worship where guns are not welcome and effectively carried out this crime. He slaughtered 50 people at two different mosques. Would you recommend people start bringing weapons to religious services as the best means of defence from this kind of heinous crime?

Guns are not built for self defence, they are built to be offensive weapons. Their most effective means of protection are when they are brandished and ready to fire at the drop of a hat, a very dangerous situation for everyone involved. If the guns are in the hands of a good guy are you suggesting he will kill 50 bad guys with guns? I don't understand how you can take a mass shooting event and swap the mass shooter for a "good guy" with a gun.

Yet again as per our debate this recent Christchurch shooting was done by a "good guy" who decided to stop being a "good guy".

Yes a gun in the hands of someone who feels physically threatened often can protect that good guy, usually by lethal means against his supposed attackers. Guns are also used this way in domestic altercations between family members and friends that otherwise may not have even been a conflicted and very rarely ends in death. Unfortunately guns change these scenarios terribly.

The easy comparison between American colonisation and mass shootings is that often, with their superior fire power and expert military tactics, experience and training the Europeans would sneak in and slaughter unarmed women and children at opportune moments when the men were not home, possibly due to other combat engagements or even hunting. It does show that guns being used against non-combatants/civilians, they are extremely effective. Good guys usually don't do this kind of thing so I don't know how you could possibly be using this as a pro-gun argument.

I've repeatedly informed you that it is not I who is making a claim regarding guns being used as effective means of self defence, I am trying really hard to get you to support your own positive claims despite how hard you seem to be avoiding the matter. Please, support the claim that guns are an effective means of defence against rape. I have never claimed that all rapes in the US happened against armed men and women.

I noted that the reported rape rate in America is no different than other nations of similar economic and social means and due to the increased presence of guns it would be expected that if guns made a difference in preventing rapes then the only conclusion is that America has a lot more rapists. Obviously this is a silly statement so the more reasonable statement is that increased gun accessibility is not an effective means of preventing rape.

Why do you keep asserting that guns are an effective means of self defence? The more guns are around, criminals have jut as easy if not more easy access to them and a gun in the hands of a bad guy is more devastating and more potent than in the hands of a good guy because they are offensive weapons. Or do you disagree, do you think that an armed person with no intent to harm others is more capable at protecting people than an armed person with the intent to harm others? How does that work out in reality? Statistically? Can anyone hold this position with any confidence at all?

No, I think, on the whole scale of things guns are not effective means of self-defence. They escalate situations into lethal circumstances that otherwise would not have been. Homicide rates drop when guns are significantly harder to access. Suicides drop. Accidental deaths drop. Mass shootings drop. Terror attacks are less effective. Things get worse when anyone can access weapons built for killing. It's not that easy to kill someone with other means, by that I mean it isn't like the films, strangulation takes a lot longer and often people let go when the victim passes out even though they are still alive, beating someone to death, again takes a lot more force and effort and time usually than is shown in films. Stabbings are a fraction as effective as films show it. I worked in a hospital and a man came in with over 30 stab wounds and he survive. he had 2 in his throat. Obviously he is lucky and 30 is a usual definitely dead number but most people don't get stabbed that many times in physical altercations or during robberies, that is a personal attack done in private where he is lucky but any weapon would have been effective under those circumstances.

Guns are offensive weapons and very effective lethal tools. Everyday people suffer when guns are easy to get a hold of.

[AgnosticBoy]

Yes indeed guns are effective lethal weapons, this is their sole purpose, their engineered design. This is why the terrible mass shooting event that happened in Christchurch occurred two days ago even with a relatively gun friendly community. A man who wanted to murder as many people as possible was legally allowed to acquire weapons to achieve this end at quite great efficiency. He then took them to places of worship where guns are not welcome and effectively carried out this crime. He slaughtered 50 people at two different mosques. Would you recommend people start bringing weapons to religious services as the best means of defence from this kind of heinous crime?

Well while you're so narrowly focused on "guns", you don't realize that almost anything can be used as a weapon. Are you aware of the truck attack in Nice, France, where terrorists drove over 100 people, 85 dead? https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/france-truck-attack

Ban trucks and cars too? Why not? Because they are very necessary and that's how I view guns. Security, as in self-defense, is very necessary. In fact, I'm okay with banning guns just as long as you can offer an effective means of self-defense that would minimize injury to the victim while injuring the attacker.

As for the Mosque attacked in New Zealand I would say all religious places of worship should have security, and I'd even say armed security.

Yes a gun in the hands of someone who feels physically threatened often can protect that good guy, usually by lethal means against his supposed attackers.

I'm glad you've finally acknowledged this. This was one of my main arguments.

For everything else, factor in the model I gave you about cops and their low crime rate involving guns. Apply that same model to the rest of the population and you should see similar results.

[Filthy Tugboat]

[Replying to post 95 by AgnosticBoy]

Trucks are not purpose built lethal weapons, they simply also have that capacity, as do other vehicles and even some industrial machinery. If you don't see the difference between purpose built lethal weapons and tools that have a lethal capacity, let's end the discussion now, it would be a waste of both of our time.

Their are other forms of non-lethal self defence but the problem is misuse can be catastrophic, this would be capsicum spray and tasers. I'm not sure how legal they are depending on where you live in the world or even what state of America.

Unfortunately not everyone is happy with lethal weaponry having an increased presence in our day to day lives.

In regards to the cop model, if a significant portion of people are banned from having guns due to poor coordination, poor psych evaluations and other failures to meet the standards of the police force is OK? That isn't infringing on anyone's right to protect themselves? How do you plan to have the costs met? Should the payer have to afford psych evaluations, extensive training, etc.? Or should it be subsidised by taxes? If it is several thousands of dollars or even tens of thousands are we yet again at a crossroads where poverty is now a grounds for which people are no longer entitled to defend themselves to the capacity of the wealthy? Or, since guns are apparently the most effective form of self defence and everything else pales in comparison, perhaps it would be inferred that poor people are not entitled to self defence at all. If it is subsidised by taxes, would it be taken out of the military budget? I'm all for that. Otherwise, is it state based? Federal based? Where would the money be sourced?

Feeling physically threatened is not the same as being attacked. Which is why I specified under the terms firearms are often discharged which is often against family members or friends/acquaintances during disagreements and heated arguments, if this is considered a point in your favour, I cannot imagine how. Please provide some actual evidence that guns are effective means of defending yourself when being attacked. I am still waiting for some evidence to support the notion that guns are an effective means of preventing rape. Or have you given up with that line of inquiry. Are you happy to establish that there is no indication that guns effectively prevent rape?

[AgnosticBoy]

Trucks are not purpose built lethal weapons, they simply also have that capacity, as do other vehicles and even some industrial machinery. If you don't see the difference between purpose built lethal weapons and tools that have a lethal capacity, let's end the discussion now, it would be a waste of both of our time.

Trucks do not simply have the capacity to kill many. While their original use is not as a weapon, but when it's used as a weapon then it becomes a weapon - that is, as a means of killing people intentionally. If trucks start becoming a common means of killing people, a lot of people even, then I doubt many would care about your distinction.

Their are other forms of non-lethal self defence but the problem is misuse can be catastrophic, this would be capsicum spray and tasers. I'm not sure how legal they are depending on where you live in the world or even what state of America.

Well I'd question the ability of the two options you mentioned to be able to incapacitate an attacker. I've seen people walk through tasers and pepper sprays. Not to mention you have to be closer to the attacker and you don't get an opportunity to fire twice or at least not as fast as a gun. So I would say your options are not as effective as guns as neutralizing a threat.

[AgnosticBoy]

. I have never claimed that all rapes in the US happened against armed men and women.

Then I fail to see how you can say that guns are not effective at preventing rape, when by your own admission you don't have the evidence that it would take to show that. If most of the rapes are happening to unarmed people, then of course, the victim doesn't have gun (is not armed) to defend themselves against it. You can't judge the effectiveness of a gun when there is no gun present. This is common sense.

[Filthy Tugboat]

[Replying to post 97 by AgnosticBoy]

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.

I'm yet to see a call for a ban on trucks, have you? So your point is only hypothetical. I would rather debate facts than make up stories on what you think people will do and when.

[Bust Nak]

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

But increasing taxes is politically harder than not increasing taxes.

I disagree that the purpose of our military is to steal from their population.

I was referring to stopping other militaries from stealing from this population.

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.

You didn't just ask why though, if that was all you were asking, then the answer is because guns are effective tools for stopping armed foreign governments. The reason why we don't want to make it less risky for them, is we don't care about causalities than we do about foreign occupation.

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.

I am referring to "Take the movie theater scenario that I mentioned. Hypothetically, if you or Bust Nak were in the theather and happened to be carrying, I wouldn't guess that either of you would actively seek to end the shooting.

Myself and others... we would act. I wouldn't expect either of you guys to understand this."

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).

Sorry out of luck.

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."

What about all the other gun deaths?

I love this idea! Now tell me, why is it that our militaries will not disarm and resort to wrestling?

Because other government aren't going to disarm.

Perhaps something to do with an un-even playing field. Similar to why some law abiding citizens do not want to be disarmed.

Sure, but disarming the citizen will make it harder for criminals to get hold of guns. Disarming your militaries will hardly affect opposing nations.

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?

Sure, but it's much harder to ban bomb making ingredients and trucks.