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?

[Clownboat]

Guns are made to kill, therefore let's 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 assuredly 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.

Both can kill in great numbers. The purpose for their being invented is irrelevant to this fact.

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.

Good thing our paranoias do not dictate how others can live their lives huh?
You're paranoid about people owning guns. Even myself and I don't even keep my guns and ammo in the same building.
Another guy might be paranoid about government over reaching their bounds or a vigilante gang going bonkers. Why would your paranoia trump theirs?

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

And yet many countries made it work.

Now that depends on who you ask!
- Hitler signed the Weapons Law of 1938, which basically said Jews weren’t allowed to own guns. He also issued Weapons Orders in the occupied countries that basically made gun ownership by non-Germans punishable by death. - I guess that worked well for the German government. Not sure how the Jews felt or the occupied countries.
- The aim of an insurgency of this kind (Europeans with their hunting weapons), such as the ones in occupied Europe during the Second World War, was not necessarily to drive out the invaders who had violated their border, but rather to create chaos among Hitler’s goose-stepping goons by assassination, bombings, shootings, arson attacks, etc. - How would this have worked if their government had already taken their guns away?
- All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.�
- Mao Tze Tung, Nov 6, 1938 - I can certainly see how this worked for the Communist Party.
- Adolf Hitler at a dinner talk on April 11, 1942 said:
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.� - I can see how this would have benefited the country of Germany, but what about the occupied countries?
- Josef Stalin, the sole leader of the Soviet Union from 1924 to 1953, said:
“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.� - How would no guns be good in this scenario if the opposition was another country? I see how no guns would be a benefit to Stalin.
- China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. - Not sure how well this worked for the 20 million exterminated Chinese, but perhaps they don't matter much since they are not the Chinese government?
- Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- Pol Pot, who created in Cambodia one of the 20th century's most brutal and radical regimes, was responsible for killing one million of his own ‘educated,’ yet unarmed citizens. - Would things have been different with an armed populace?

- George Washington, our first president, said:

“From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good.� - George Washington was an American president and I dare say a lack of gun control is what has made us different and more free then the rest of the world.
https://freedomoutpost.com/gun-control- ... he-people/

All this to say, there are two sides to your claim that countries have made it work.

[Bust Nak]

Both can kill in great numbers. The purpose for their being invented is irrelevant to this fact.

Sure, but their every day purpose is very relevant in the decision as to whether to ban them or not. Killing power is not the only thing in consideration.

Good thing our paranoias do not dictate how others can live their lives huh?

Well, that depends on how many of us there are, the law of the land is ultimately decided by popularity.

Why would your paranoia trump theirs?

Because only mine, is mine.

Now that depends on who you ask!

Hence "many" instead of "all" countries. Examples where things doesn't work out isn't enough to counter what I stated.

How would this have worked if their government had already taken their guns away?

With chlorine and bleach?

How would no guns be good in this scenario if the opposition was another country?

That why we allow our governments keep guns instead of a blanket no guns.

I dare say a lack of gun control is what has made us different and more free then the rest of the world.

I am not sure you have the cause and effect the right way round. I would suggest lax gun control is more of a symbol of freedom than the cause of freedom.

[Clownboat]

Both can kill in great numbers. The purpose for their being invented is irrelevant to this fact.

Sure, but their everyday purpose is very relevant in the decision as to whether to ban them or not. Killing power is not the only thing in consideration.

We will get nowhere this this line of thought IMO.
Guns have all sorts of everyday purposes. I think you would agree that most people do not own or carry guns so that they can kill people. Therefore, guns every day purpose is not to kill. I would assume most civilian guns are owned for protection/peace of mind or hunting. Not for killing. I sure don't own any guns for the purpose of killing, nor do I own bleach or chlorine for the purpose of killing.
If you want to claim that purpose is important, then you must be consistent and honor other people's purposes for owning guns.

Good thing our paranoias do not dictate how others can live their lives huh?

Well, that depends on how many of us there are, the law of the land is ultimately decided by popularity.

This is known and not in dispute. What is your point?
My point was that peoples paranoia does not dictate how another can live their life. Your paranoia specifically here in regards to me owning a gun is irrelevant. Enough people like you could get changes enacted, which is not in dispute.

Why would your paranoia trump theirs?

Because only mine, is mine.

And theirs is theirs. I find your justification weak and wanting personally and I don't feel that the rest of us should be subjected to your paranoias. Enough people like you, now that would be different.

Now that depends on who you ask!

Hence "many" instead of "all" countries. Examples where things doesn't work out isn't enough to counter what I stated.

There are counters to what you stated though. I'm not willing to let you pretend that a statement like 'something has worked in some countries' is justification for your words. Especially when counter examples are available.

How would this have worked if their government had already taken their guns away?

With chlorine and bleach?

While chlorine and bleach can be used to kill in mass, it is not very adequate for combating soldiers in war on the battle field.
Are you wanting to discuss governments ability to own guns now? I ask because the example I provided was a very specific historical event. You don't seem to be acknowledging that.

That why we allow our governments keep guns instead of a blanket no guns.

So you would argue that governments have reasons to have guns, but 'we the people' that make up said government do not have a reason to own guns? What if to hold ourselves accountable? (Not a reason I would own a gun, but I know of others that would).

I am not sure you have the cause and effect the right way round. I would suggest lax gun control is more of a symbol of freedom than the cause of freedom.

You're not being sure is acknowledged.

[Bust Nak]

I would assume most civilian guns are owned for protection/peace of mind or hunting. Not for killing.

Hunting I can grant you, peace of mind and protection are just functions of the gun's killing power.

This is known and not in dispute... Enough people like you, now that would be different.

But there are lots of people like me.

There are counters to what you stated though.

How? No amount of white swan can counter the claim that many swans are black.

While chlorine and bleach can be used to kill in mass, it is not very adequate for combating soldiers in war on the battle field.

Neither were the hunting weapons of the insurgency back in occupied Europe.

Are you wanting to discuss governments ability to own guns now? I ask because the example I provided was a very specific historical event. You don't seem to be acknowledging that.

Because it's a white swan.

So you would argue that governments have reasons to have guns, but 'we the people' that make up said government do not have a reason to own guns? What if to hold ourselves accountable? (Not a reason I would own a gun, but I know of others that would).

That's what the voting booths are for.

You're not being sure is acknowledged.

But my suggestion wasn't?

[Clownboat]

Hunting I can grant you, peace of mind and protection are just functions of the gun's killing power.

It would seem to me that hunting, peace of mind and protection are all possible functions of a gun then.
Every single gun owner I know owns a gun for one of these reasons. Not one owns a gun so they can kill people.

Why do you think people own guns?

But there are lots of people like me.

I have not argued otherwise. I simply pointed out that fact that your paranoias are not what dictate others rights.

How? No amount of white swan can counter the claim that many swans are black.

Many swans are black.

Neither were the hunting weapons of the insurgency back in occupied Europe.

I'm going to need to see some evidence for this (I obviously can imagine some scenarios where this wouldn't be much of a factor).
Imagine being a soldier that is in occupied land knowing that there could be 1 or dozens of people defending their land and homes hiding with their hunting rifles ready to fire and hide.
I assure, this knowledge would not make anyone comfortable.

Either way, now it seems you are arguing that guns are not effective at killing when before you were arguing about their everyday purpose being to kill. Are guns only effective at killing now in this century, or were they effective back in WW2 for example?

So you would argue that governments have reasons to have guns, but 'we the people' that make up said government do not have a reason to own guns? What if to hold ourselves accountable? (Not a reason I would own a gun, but I know of others that would).

That's what the voting booths are for.

Voting booths are for voting. My words above were phrased in a way to hopefully inform you that I was asking you a question. The first was for clarity and the 2nd to garner your opinion so I may consider it.

You're not being sure is acknowledged.

But my suggestion wasn't?

Correct, mainly because I feel like I have history on my side.
This of course could probably be a debate of its own, but...:

While both James Monroe and John Adams supported the Constitution being ratified, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by state militias, "a standing army ... would be opposed [by] a militia." He argued that state militias "would be able to repel the danger" of a federal army. "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops." He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as "afraid to trust the people with arms," and assured that "the existence of subordinate governments ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition"

[Bust Nak]

It would seem to me that hunting, peace of mind and protection are all possible functions of a gun then.

Killing power on humans then.

Why do you think people own guns?

Either to hunt, or to feel safe.

I have not argued otherwise. I simply pointed out that fact that your paranoias are not what dictate others rights.

Would you accept then, collective paranoias in a great enough volume dictate others rights?

Many swans are black.

Just as many countries have made gun control work.

I'm going to need to see some evidence for this (I obviously can imagine some scenarios where this wouldn't be much of a factor).

Isn't the fact that insurgency back then succeed not by driving out the invaders who had violated their border, but by creating chaos among Hitler’s goose-stepping goons by assassination, bombings, shootings, arson attacks, already evidence for this?

Imagine being a soldier that is in occupied land knowing that there could be 1 or dozens of people defending their land and homes hiding with their hunting rifles ready to fire and hide.
I assure, this knowledge would not make anyone comfortable.

Nor would the knowledge of potential explosive traps.

Either way, now it seems you are arguing that guns are not effective at killing...

Well I am not. I am arguing there are other effective tools should the need arise to fight the government.

Voting booths are for voting. My words above were phrased in a way to hopefully inform you that I was asking you a question. The first was for clarity and the 2nd to garner your opinion so I may consider it.

I am not sure what you are asking then, I thought you were suggesting guns are good at holding our government accountable, which is I responded with voting booth.

I feel like I have history on my side.

And yet both the war of indendence and the civil war was won and lost by traditional armies.

[Clownboat]

It would seem to me that hunting, peace of mind and protection are all possible functions of a gun then.

Killing power on humans then.

Not sure where you are headed now.

I'm not sure what killing power on humans has to do with your initial thought, which was that you don't trust me to own a gun, so much so in fact that you are willing to give up the ability to protect yourself with a gun (and single mothers/rape victims, etc...) just so that I wont have a gun.

You're paranoia is misplaced IMO. I don't even keep guns and ammo in the same building, and I'm the kind of guy you don't trust to own a gun. This reflects 100% on you and only suggests that I'm a responsible gun owner.

Why do you think people own guns?

Either to hunt, or to feel safe.

I believe that the number of hunters and those that like to feel safe will trump the paranoid side for some time to come.
If not... then take my guns as I obey laws.

Would you accept then, collective paranoias in a great enough volume dictate others rights?

Obviously. Many paranoid people own guns themselves. They may be paranoid about governments, aliens or zombie invasions.

It is sad that we are often ruled over because of peoples paranoia rather than due to common sense though. To many people making emotional decisions and not logical ones IMO.

Just as many countries have made gun control work.

This is not an argument itself and I don't see why I should address it. Counter examples will not change your position I assume.

Nor would the knowledge of potential explosive traps.

Yes, both gun owners and explosive owners would make an invading army feel uncomfortable.

Not a reason to own a gun IMO, but others may feel differently.

What I want to better understand is why you would feel better if I, someone that stores guns and ammo in two different buildings had their guns taken from them and instead we only allow governments and criminals to have guns. If there is logic here, it escapes me.

Either way, now it seems you are arguing that guns are not effective at killing...

Well I am not. I am arguing there are other effective tools should the need arise to fight the government.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I believe there are reasons that dictators take guns away from those they are ruling over.

When you have a government ruling over its people, why would such a government want its population to have any power? Once they take your guns, taking your voting booths is just that much easier. Doesn't mean one will follow from the other, but there would have to be a starting spot.

I feel like I have history on my side.

And yet both the war of indendence and the civil war was won and lost by traditional armies.

“If school kids were just taught that the ‘shot heard round the world’ was fired through an American-forged and rifled barrel they might know a damn thing about American ingenuity and how we really won our freedom. That way they might just have a clue what our freedom is all about.�

“School kids—hell, even the adults—often don’t even know what the British were after. The Redcoats were coming to seize a weapons depot. They were coming for the peoples’ guns. They wanted to disarm the colonists before a rebellion began.�
- Phil Schreier, the senior curator for the NRA’s National Firearms Museum, in Fairfax, VA.

[Bust Nak]

Not sure where you are headed now.

Guns are lethal weapon, chlorine and bleach are not.

You're paranoia is misplaced IMO. I don't even keep guns and ammo in the same building, and I'm the kind of guy you don't trust to own a gun. This reflects 100% on you and only suggests that I'm a responsible gun owner.

Nah, that just mean I trust the irresponsible gun owners even less.

I believe that the number of hunters and those that like to feel safe will trump the paranoid side for some time to come.
If not... then take my guns as I obey laws.

Good enough for me.

It is sad that we are often ruled over because of peoples paranoia rather than due to common sense though. To many people making emotional decisions and not logical ones IMO.

Well, one man's prudence is another man's paranoia.

This is not an argument itself...

True, it was presented as an counter-argument: You said strict gun control sounded like a recipe for disaster, I am pointing out counter-examples of where it worked out ok.

Counter examples will not change your position I assume.

No, again, no amount of white swan can change the position that many swans are black.

Yes, both gun owners and explosive owners would make an invading army feel uncomfortable.

Not a reason to own a gun IMO, but others may feel differently.

So stopping an invading army should be an non-issue as far as gun control is concerned.

What I want to better understand is why you would feel better if I, someone that stores guns and ammo in two different buildings had their guns taken from them and instead we only allow governments and criminals to have guns. If there is logic here, it escapes me.

There are two reasons: 1) so you wouldn't be able to shoot me and 2) so criminals and government agents have less reason to use their guns on me.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I believe there are reasons that dictators take guns away from those they are ruling over.

I am not denying that though. I am saying chlorine and bleach is one less reason to allow the public to have guns.

When you have a government ruling over its people, why would such a government want its population to have any power? Once they take your guns, taking your voting booths is just that much easier. Doesn't mean one will follow from the other, but there would have to be a starting spot.

There is still the fall back of chlorine and bleach.

“School kids—hell, even the adults—often don’t even know what the British were after. The Redcoats were coming to seize a weapons depot. They were coming for the peoples’ guns. They wanted to disarm the colonists before a rebellion began.�

"Weapons depot" he says, sounded a lot guns set aside for war, controlled by the authorities, doesn't it?

[Clownboat]

So stopping an invading army should be an non-issue as far as gun control is concerned.

Not for some people I presume.
The gods are a non issue on this planet and we still allow belief. God beliefs kill far more than guns do, so why should a peron not be allowed to own a gun if it makes them feel more secure about the neighborhood they live in? Whether for gang/criminal reasons or competing gods that are causing hatred or what have you?

Your argument needs to be better than 'so Bust Nak will feel safer' IMO.

What I want to better understand is why you would feel better if I, someone that stores guns and ammo in two different buildings had their guns taken from them and instead we only allow governments and criminals to have guns. If there is logic here, it escapes me.

There are two reasons: 1) so you wouldn't be able to shoot me and

I can only assure you that I will never shoot you. Even if you were a burglar and broke into my home, I would not be shooting you though you may receive some holes. If things like that (me shooting you) keep you up at night, I cannot help this.

2) so criminals and government agents have less reason to use their guns on me.

Doesn't follow. I could get rid of my guns today and the likelyhood for a criminal or the government using a gun on you would not change.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I believe there are reasons that dictators take guns away from those they are ruling over.

I am not denying that though. I am saying chlorine and bleach is one less reason to allow the public to have guns.

We both agree that there are reasons for law abiding citizens to own guns and reasons for why this world would be better off without guns it seems.
What I am not for is just allowing governments and criminals to have guns and that is what I see anti gun arguments actually accomplishing and why I tend to appose them.

Yours specifically would be removing a gun from a law abiding citizen who doesn't even store his guns and ammo in the same building. What you have done is removed a potential way for a law abiding citizen (me) to defend himself and his family (if I chose to use a gun), but you have not addressed how the invader in this scenario is now the only armed person. Is it possible that your paranioa about guns doesn't allow you to acknowledge that lives are saved because of guns? Do you acknowledge that mass shootings have been stopped because of a citizen with a gun or how countless rapes/muggings do not take place due to nothing more than having said would be victim brandish their firearm? Chlorine and bleach, even though they can kill in mass, would not deter here and would be ineffective unlike how the firearm is.

“School kids—hell, even the adults—often don’t even know what the British were after. The Redcoats were coming to seize a weapons depot. They were coming for the peoples’ guns. They wanted to disarm the colonists before a rebellion began.�

"Weapons depot" he says, sounded a lot guns set aside for war, controlled by the authorities, doesn't it?

I'm not sure how it sounds to you to be honest, I can only read his words for what they are.

"They were coming for the peoples’ guns. They wanted to disarm the colonists before a rebellion began."


People are going to kill, this is the world we live in. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens will not stop the killing. It seems to me that the end goal for many is to try to stop mass shootings, which will also cause more rapes and muggings mind you. More rapes just so we can have people still dying, just perhaps not by a gun. I'll take less raping personally.

[Bust Nak]

Not for some people I presume.

Well is it an issue for you? You brought the issue of repelling an invading country up after all.

God beliefs kill far more than guns do, so why should a peron not be allowed to own a gun if it makes them feel more secure about the neighborhood they live in? Whether for gang/criminal reasons or competing gods that are causing hatred or what have you?

We do have laws against inciting violence, so "God beliefs" control is a thing.

Your argument needs to be better than 'so Bust Nak will feel safer' IMO.

And yet "so Clownboat will feel safer" is presented as a reason for keeping guns around.

I can only assure you that I will never shoot you. Even if you were a burglar and broke into my home, I would not be shooting you though you may receive some holes.

Where are the holes (presumable bullet holes) coming form then?

If things like that (me shooting you) keep you up at night, I cannot help this.

Sure you can, get rid of your guns.

Doesn't follow. I could get rid of my guns today and the likelyhood for a criminal or the government using a gun on you would not change.

That one less reason for a criminal or the government to think I am armed and hence less likely to use a gun on me.

Yours specifically would be removing a gun from a law abiding citizen who doesn't even store his guns and ammo in the same building. What you have done is removed a potential way for a law abiding citizen (me) to defend himself and his family (if I chose to use a gun), but you have not addressed how the invader in this scenario is now the only armed person.

There is nothing to address as such because I fully acknowledge that would be the likely scenario and I think it's the better alternative. Said invader would be less likely to use his weapon if he is under the impression that his victims is unarmed.

Is it possible that your paranioa about guns doesn't allow you to acknowledge that lives are saved because of guns? Do you acknowledge that mass shootings have been stopped because of a citizen with a gun or how countless rapes/muggings do not take place due to nothing more than having said would be victim brandish their firearm?

I can acknowledge all that, it's just not worth it.

Chlorine and bleach, even though they can kill in mass, would not deter here and would be ineffective unlike how the firearm is.

Sure.

I'm not sure how it sounds to you to be honest, I can only read his words for what they are.

"They were coming for the peoples’ guns. They wanted to disarm the colonists before a rebellion began."

Sure, but it doesn't affect my point - the guns in question are military weapon, meant for armed forces.

People are going to kill, this is the world we live in. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens will not stop the killing.

Sure, not stop but it would lessen the killing.