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?

[ttruscott]

And why civilians without legitimate reasons for such ownership should be denied them.

Many people think that self defense and developing shooting skills for fun and competition to be legitimate reasons to own a firearm. Many believe that the danger of resistance negates all other rights.

Who decides legitimate!!!

[2ndRateMind]

And why civilians without legitimate reasons for such ownership should be denied them.

Many people think that self defense and developing shooting skills for fun and competition to be legitimate reasons to own a firearm. ...

...Who decides legitimate!!!

We all do, for better or worse. That is what democracy, and open societies, and free speech, and 'the great debate', are all about.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

Accordingly, for self-defense matters, my armoury is limited to a bill-hook (originally bought to clear the scrub off my new but over-grown allotment) and kept by my front door. So, even if I ever wanted to commit mass murder, which I don't anticipate, I just wouldn't have that realistic option.

Let's be honest, if mass murder is the end goal, explosions, guns, fire, vehicles or mixing toxic chemicals would be much more effective. What we cannot realistically do is to get rid of these methods unfortunately.

But what we can, and I submit should, do, is reduce the availability of the tools of mass murder to the general public, including but not limited to, and starting with, those tools that are designed for no other purpose than killing.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

= My government could get me to give up my guns as I abide by the law, but criminals, I don't see why they would as they have already shown they don't abide by the law. So I hear you and even agree,..

One of the things I have noticed about law enforcement in the UK, is that since hand guns etc were made illegal, the law enforcement agencies don't have a complicated assessment to make as to who is, and who is not, a law abiding citizen. As far as they are concerned, anyone who has a proscribed gun is illegal, and they come down on them like a ton of bricks. It's safer for us ordinary people, and safer for them, and more dangerous for criminals. What better outcome might you want?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[ttruscott]

But what we can, and I submit should, do, is reduce the availability of the tools of mass murder to the general public, including but not limited to, and starting with, those tools that are designed for no other purpose than killing.

It is the people who have changed, not the guns...

When Guns Were in Schools ... and Nothing Happened:
https://static.pjmedia.com/jchristianad ... x415xt.jpg

[Clownboat]

Accordingly, for self-defense matters, my armoury is limited to a bill-hook (originally bought to clear the scrub off my new but over-grown allotment) and kept by my front door. So, even if I ever wanted to commit mass murder, which I don't anticipate, I just wouldn't have that realistic option.

Let's be honest, if mass murder is the end goal, explosions, guns, fire, vehicles or mixing toxic chemicals would be much more effective. What we cannot realistically do is to get rid of these methods unfortunately.

But what we can, and I submit should, do, is reduce the availability of the tools of mass murder to the general public, including but not limited to, and starting with, those tools that are designed for no other purpose than killing.

Best wishes, 2RM.

This makes no sense to me at all.
Guns are made to kill, therefore lets not let the general populace have them.
Mixing chlorine and bleach were not made to kill, therefore it is OK to allow the general populace to have those even though they can be used in mass killings and most assuradly will be used in mass killings if other preferred options are not available to said person that has decided to kill in mass.

To each their own, I just don't personally understand the mindset of needing others to protect you. I see it as my job to protect my family. I personally may not need a firearm to protect my family from a would be robber, but what about those that could not without a firearm at their disposal? A single mother for example really should not be allowed to own a firearm to protect her and her family from an intruder with let's say, a knife? She is to just attempt to call the cops and hope that they will arrive in time? I will not be raising either of my daughters to be helpless victims personally (not that they will necessarily own guns though).

Getting rid of all guns on the planet would be effective. Only allowing governments and criminals to have them sounds like a recipe for disaster though. Therefore, I cannot get behind what you argue for.

[Bust Nak]

Guns are made to kill, therefore lets not let the general populace have them.
Mixing chlorine and bleach were not made to kill, therefore it is OK to allow the general populace to have those even though they can be used in mass killings and most assuradly will be used in mass killings if other preferred options are not available to said person that has decided to kill in mass.

Why doesn't that make sense? We would be outlawing chlorine and bleach too, if not for their everyday uses.

To each their own, I just don't personally understand the mindset of needing others to protect you...

It's not that I need others to protect me as such; it is because I don't trust you with a gun, to the point where I am willing to give up the ability to protect myself just so you don't have a gun.

Only allowing governments and criminals to have them sounds like a recipe for disaster though.

And yet many countries made it work.

[Clownboat]

= My government could get me to give up my guns as I abide by the law, but criminals, I don't see why they would as they have already shown they don't abide by the law. So I hear you and even agree,..

One of the things I have noticed about law enforcement in the UK, is that since hand guns etc were made illegal, the law enforcement agencies don't have a complicated assessment to make as to who is, and who is not, a law abiding citizen. As far as they are concerned, anyone who has a proscribed gun is illegal, and they come down on them like a ton of bricks. It's safer for us ordinary people, and safer for them, and more dangerous for criminals. What better outcome might you want?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Equal footing. Why stop at removing guns from the general populace? Your point would be better made if all guns were removed, including from governments and criminals.

Now, here in the US, it is suppose to be 'WE THE PEOPLE' who is our government, yet here we have somone from the UK seemingly trying to argue to be less US and more UK. Couldn't a person move to the UK if that is what they wanted?
Odd approach, but let's keep going. Does the UK teach its children to be governed or to be the governors, because it sounds like you are quite content being ruled over. Perhaps this is a common mentality in the UK?

So let's allow the legislating side of our government to have the guns, but the 'people' side of our government, nah, let's treat them more like the populace of the UK. I'm just not super cool with that, sorry.

[ttruscott]

Only allowing governments and criminals to have them sounds like a recipe for disaster though.

And yet many countries made it work.

Hmmm,which countries are you referring too, please?

[Bust Nak]

Hmmm,which countries are you referring too, please?

Here are some examples:
Australia
Denmark
France
Germany
Iceland
Japan
Netherlands
Norway
Singaore
South Korea
Spain
Sweden
Taiwan
United Kingdom