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]

delete

[Filthy Tugboat]

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.

I am so tired of these impetuous and rude comments. Why must you be so petty every time you seem to think I have conceded some point you think is significant? This is a place of civil debate yet you are out here trumpeting as if you are winning something. This is unreasonable and as a you have been warned on the way you go about "calling me out" for what you perceive to be some significant point, perhaps you would think on a change in attitude.

For the record:
I never said guns cannot be used in self defence.
I never said guns cannot prevent assault.
I never said guns cannot prevent rape.
I never said I was a "liberal".
I never denied you said anything you said.
I never claimed that all rapes in the US were against armed victims.

I just wanted to collect a bunch of the statements you felt it was appropriate to pretend I made and then celebrate when I confirmed that these are not statements I support. You accused me of dishonest debate tactics and a simple reread of our exchanges shows that the shoe is on the other foot sir.

So for the last time, please, good luck in all of your future endeavours.

[AgnosticBoy]

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

Overall, it’s 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 Hanson’s statement about violent crimes – including bombings, stabbings and murders – “growing worse� is wrong on the most recent official data.

I just read your posts but nothing you posted takes away from the points of my last post. I also hope that you didn't think that taking long to reply to my post would've made me forget about you changing from your extreme position. I specifically asked you a while ago WHY did you change your position. Your points are consistent with societies that "regulate" guns (just like your own country) as opposed to banning them so that does not justify your previous extreme position. As I stated before, banning guns is not the only way to reduce gun crime. Regulations in the form of standards/restrictions can be put in place to identify people who are good to own guns. That's been addressed throughout our discussion.

In regards to homicides in Australia, I noticed that the homicide rate started decreasing before the gun buyback program and the implementation of stricter gun laws (source). But as I mentioned in my last post, "homicides" are not the only types of violent crimes which is why the rate of violent crime has increased despite your country restricting guns.

It also seems as if your side is okay with doing away with an effective means of self-defense (a gun) just as long as "homicides" are decreasing. You brought up a story about someone being stabbed 30 times but since he survived then that showed it better to get stabbed than to allow guns post 94. The reality is that no one should have to suffer from violent crimes of any form. Your side lacks a good response to this which is where the pro-gun side tends to corner you as they should.

An effective means of self-defense would be one where the victim is able to minimize harm to him or herself while maximizing harm (or being able to effectively neutralize) the threat. Giving someone something where they have to be in close proximity to the criminal, especially if it's an old lady in close proximity to a criminal, simply increases the risk of both the victim getting hurt.

[Filthy Tugboat]

[Replying to post 122 by AgnosticBoy]

I just read your posts but nothing you posted takes away from the points of my last post.

Opinion noted.

I also hope that you didn't think that taking long to reply to my post would've made me forget about you changing from your extreme position.

Yet more epithets against my character and intentions. Please stop.

Your points are consistent with societies that "regulate" guns (just like your own country) as opposed to banning them so that does not justify your previous extreme position....It also seems as if your side is okay with doing away with an effective means of self-defense (a gun) just as long as "homicides" are decreasing.

Self defence is not considered a "genuine reason" when applying for a gun license in Australia. This is where the big knuckle exists between your propositions on why guns should be permissible to own and why Australia doesn't let you own them for that purpose. Guns for the entire purposes that we have debated are not legal to own in Australia. That is pretty meaningful when I express my thoughts on why guns should not be available to the wider public.

[AgnosticBoy]

Self defence is not considered a "genuine reason" when applying for a gun license in Australia. This is where the big knuckle exists between your propositions on why guns should be permissible to own and why Australia doesn't let you own them for that purpose. Guns for the entire purposes that we have debated are not legal to own in Australia. That is pretty meaningful when I express my thoughts on why guns should not be available to the wider public.

The point is how many of those gun owners are committing gun crimes? So clearly, gun ownership can go hand-in-hand with low gun crime. Your country doesn't ban guns but rather uses standards/regulations to identify the good reasons and/or people that should own guns. From there I'd only argue that guns should be allowed for other reasons as well.

[Filthy Tugboat]

[Replying to post 126 by AgnosticBoy]

You can argue any reason you want as to why "guns should be allowed". Guns were largely removed from the public and following that buying guns for the purpose of self defence was discontinued and access to guns for other purposes was heavily restricted and monitored. Following this, gun crimes dramatically decreased, Homicides dramatically decreased, all violent crimes somewhat decreased. It is impossible to prove one way or another that this directly led to that, we don't have access to an alternate timeline where the gun buy backs did not occur to then compare and see if these things would happen anyway. We can compare to countries that do not have these restrictions and attempt to make sense of a worse homicide rate and higher gun crimes and in fact more violent crimes in general but that's it. If you were expecting me to come with some proven conclusions that were absolute and obvious, I'm sorry, I cannot provide them.

[Zzyzx]

.
Moderator Intervention

All involved, kindly STOP the back-and-forth personal chit chat / remarks / insinuations / accusations, etc. Debate the TOPIC, not the personality.

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[AgnosticBoy]

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.
.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 126 by AgnosticBoy]

You can argue any reason you want as to why "guns should be allowed". Guns were largely removed from the public and following that buying guns for the purpose of self defence was discontinued and access to guns for other purposes was heavily restricted and monitored. Following this, gun crimes dramatically decreased, Homicides dramatically decreased, all violent crimes somewhat decreased. It is impossible to prove one way or another that this directly led to that, we don't have access to an alternate timeline where the gun buy backs did not occur to then compare and see if these things would happen anyway. We can compare to countries that do not have these restrictions and attempt to make sense of a worse homicide rate and higher gun crimes and in fact more violent crimes in general but that's it. If you were expecting me to come with some proven conclusions that were absolute and obvious, I'm sorry, I cannot provide them.

You said violent crimes decreased. I posted evidence showing otherwise. Can you tell me why you made your claim despite the evidence I posted which happens to be from YOUR government?

Also, how many of those gun owners in your country commit gun crimes? If the US were able to do just as good identifying good guys (the ones who they think should own guns) then I'm sure that would reduce our gun crime rate, although the US also has an accessability problem since even unqualified people can get their hands on guns.

[Filthy Tugboat]

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?