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]

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.

Nobody to my knowledge has argued otherwise. My opinion still stand IMO.

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,

Yes I did, and in my last reply to you, I even bolded it for you.
Once again: "Why must they be armed to do this? Why can't militaries be unarmed and make it less risky for those armed foreign governments that might seek to cause harm".
But we digress...

if that was all you were asking, then the answer is because guns are effective tools for stopping armed foreign governments.

There also effective tools for stopping criminals, aliens, zombies, mass shooters, gang members, governments exceeding their duty and on and on and on. Now, I'm certainly not arguing that you need to respect these reasons, but guns are effective tools for potentially stopping/hindering such things.

They might even be effective at maintaining liberty:
"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

Perhaps this is a mentality difference in countries?
Here in the United States of America, it is to be "We the People of these United States".
The citizens are the government, not citizens being governed by a government. This IMO is something great about the US (and something I see us slowly going away from and being more like other governments).

A reasonable 'fear' that those who govern have about those they govern over is a healthy thing IMO. Guns in the hands of civilians provide such a thing.

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 dare say that many law abiding citizens may feel similar when it comes to criminals trying to harm them. If it's good for the goose...

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."

Nowhere in there was anyone called a coward.
Was I incorrect about my guess that you wouldn't pull a weapon to end the shooting? (hypothetically asking of course).
Let's take the hypothetical Marine that would jump on a grenade to save others. You think that person might seek to end the shooting? I do.
This makes you a 'non jumping on a grenade type of Marine', not a coward. I would venture a guess that most Marines wouldn't jump on a grenade either, but some do and that fact should not be ignored.

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.

And that is me. So you can stop suggesting I join the police/military as it doesn't apply.

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 don't know, do they total to be more or less than the lives saved (500,000 to 3 million)?

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.

This same argument applies to taking guns from law abiding citizens. Both foriegn governments and criminals are not going to disarm. Therefore governments need to be armed (we agree) and some law abiding citizens feel like they should be armed as well (and this is where I lose you).

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.

Ordering a weapon kit online is not difficult and you can get the needed Dremel at a local hardware store.

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.

So you admit that banning guns may encourage our mass killers to use more destructive means. IMO, guns in the hands of a mass murderer are bad enough. If their goal is to kill, I would hate to see them be more effective at it.

[AgnosticBoy]

[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.

I have presented logic and evidence. You simply disagree with my logic and evidence as I do with your points. The only points I don't disagree with are the ones where you admitted that guns can be used for self-defense and where you admitted you lack the stats to show if rape victims are armed vs. unarmed. Here is one of your better statements:

Filthy Tugboat admitted the following:

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.

Remember I finally got this out of you after asking a clear cut question that can't be denied. To deny that would've easily exposed denial which any liberal or conservative could've spotted a mile away. Given your own response of which I quoted, you still can't figure out how a potential rape victim can use a gun to prevent a rape?

In any case, I accept that I'm unable to convince at least one person. I would not expect to convince Hillary Clinton of Republicanism either.

One woman scares off 3 male robbers with a GUN:
[youtube][/youtube]
Just this ONE case proves my point that guns are effective at self-defense. The woman in the video avoided a potential robbery and rape.

[Filthy Tugboat]

[Replying to post 102 by AgnosticBoy]

Congratulations, you have confirmed that guns are something to be feared, I have never stated that a gun, if drawn in time, cannot deter a potential attacker. The quote you keep using of me suggesting a gun can be used to protect a good guy from "supposed attackers" is from a paragraph specifically addressing what a "supposed attacker" can look like, such as, family, close friends and acquaintances. These seem to be the more probable victims of gun discharge. I think you are propping up my argument to something that it is not. I have not been saying a gun cannot be used to defend and protect, I have been saying guns, being designed as offensive lethal weapons, have a greater capacity to cause harm than protect and anyone wishing to use them to cause harm is at an advantage when they are easy to access by everyone.

I have repeatedly framed this discussion around the concepts of good guys with guns and bad guys with guns. I did not do so explicitly and I do regret that but I have focused on bad guys with guns from my very first post in this thread. So when I ask you to provide evidence that guns are effective self defence tools I am intending it for that specific discussion. I will concede that if a gun can be drawn in time that it can protect the carrier quite effectively from an unarmed or less armed assailant. It gets murky as the situations change, such as armed attackers and people who specifically intend to kill. Bad guys who want to kill have a vast upper hand if they have a gun, very little power rests with anyone else as is seen in many of the mass shootings around the world. Same as those who use bombs, the more lethal the weapon, someone set to kill one or many people will succeed to greater extents.

I guess the overall gist I am trying to get across is that more people would be better off if the extremely lethal weapons that have been designed to be lethal weapons were not easy to access for the general public. And I do understand that you are not supportive of current gun legislation as it too freely provides this access. I believe that with your propositions the cost would be too high and would divide those who want to be armed, poor people would be economically locked out of a means to protect themselves, a tool the wealthy have no restriction from accessing. I would support a move if it were covered by the state though. Anything is better than the current system.

[Bust Nak]

Nobody to my knowledge has argued otherwise. My opinion still stand IMO.

Wait, it's harder to increase taxes to buy more expensive weapon, doesn't make weapon harder to come by?

Yes I did, and in my last reply to you, I even bolded it for you.
Once again: "Why must they be armed to do this? Why can't militaries be unarmed and make it less risky for those armed foreign governments that might seek to cause harm".

What is going on there? That literally isn't just asking why they must be armed, it's also asking why not make it less risky for those armed foreign governments that might seek to cause harm. It's right there bolded for me.

There also effective tools for stopping criminals, aliens, zombies, mass shooters, gang members, governments exceeding their duty and on and on and on. Now, I'm certainly not arguing that you need to respect these reasons, but guns are effective tools for potentially stopping/hindering such things.

They might even be effective at maintaining liberty:
"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

Well, good, because I am not respecting these other reasons.

Perhaps this is a mentality difference in countries?
Here in the United States of America, it is to be "We the People of these United States".
The citizens are the government, not citizens being governed by a government. This IMO is something great about the US (and something I see us slowly going away from and being more like other governments).

So change the mentality.

A reasonable 'fear' that those who govern have about those they govern over is a healthy thing IMO. Guns in the hands of civilians provide such a thing.

It's people who are being governed by a government who need this fear. In places where the citizens are the government, this fear is irrational.

I dare say that many law abiding citizens may feel similar when it comes to criminals trying to harm them. If it's good for the goose...

Weren't you the one why said

Nowhere in there was anyone called a coward.
Was I incorrect about my guess that you wouldn't pull a weapon to end the shooting? (hypothetically asking of course).

No, you are not wrong. But you are wrong about me not understanding why someone else might want to.

Let's take the hypothetical Marine that would jump on a grenade to save others. You think that person might seek to end the shooting? I do.

Sure, me too, but you don't need a gun to seek to end the shooting.

This makes you a 'non jumping on a grenade type of Marine', not a coward. I would venture a guess that most Marines wouldn't jump on a grenade either, but some do and that fact should not be ignored.

Why not? I say let them try wrestling moves; or join the armed forces.

And that is me. So you can stop suggesting I join the police/military as it doesn't apply.

Again, sorry, out of luck.

I don't know, do they total to be more or less than the lives saved (500,000 to 3 million)?

Less. About 12 / 10000, or about 34,000.

This same argument applies to taking guns from law abiding citizens. Both foriegn governments and criminals are not going to disarm.

But disarming the law abiding citizens makes it harder for criminals to get guns.

Therefore governments need to be armed (we agree) and some law abiding citizens feel like they should be armed as well (and this is where I lose you).

Which is why I said the military and law enforcement can keep their guns.

Ordering a weapon kit online is not difficult and you can get the needed Dremel at a local hardware store.

So do something about that too.

So you admit that banning guns may encourage our mass killers to use more destructive means. IMO, guns in the hands of a mass murderer are bad enough. If their goal is to kill, I would hate to see them be more effective at it.

But there would be less death in general, is that not worth it?

[Clownboat]

Nobody to my knowledge has argued otherwise. My opinion still stand IMO.

Wait, it's harder to increase taxes to buy more expensive weapon, doesn't make weapon harder to come by?

We agreed that governments will be armed. Increasing the price of firearms will increase taxes for our governments to get them.

There also effective tools for stopping criminals, aliens, zombies, mass shooters, gang members, governments exceeding their duty and on and on and on. Now, I'm certainly not arguing that you need to respect these reasons, but guns are effective tools for potentially stopping/hindering such things.

They might even be effective at maintaining liberty:
"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

Well, good, because I am not respecting these other reasons.

You seriously cannot respect that many people feel a government having a healthy fear over those it governs is a good thing? Respect it or not, people feel this way.

So change the mentality.

(I say this only for effect)
Make me! Remember, I'm not defensless though.
People not feeling defenseles will prevent many of them from becoming victims by those making demands on them. This alone will help to prevent tyranny.

A reasonable 'fear' that those who govern have about those they govern over is a healthy thing IMO. Guns in the hands of civilians provide such a thing.

It's people who are being governed by a government who need this fear.

Why do they 'need' this fear? I understand why they would have it, but need it?

In places where the citizens are the government, this fear is irrational.

Not if the divide between citizens and governments is seemingly growing.

Nowhere in there was anyone called a coward.
Was I incorrect about my guess that you wouldn't pull a weapon to end the shooting? (hypothetically asking of course).

No, you are not wrong. But you are wrong about me not understanding why someone else might want to.

I was not addressing your understanding, just defending the claim that I called anyone a coward. I think we can move away from the coward talk now.

Sure, me too, but you don't need a gun to seek to end the shooting.

Agreed, but wouldn't a gun be more effective? Seems to be another benefit to having an armed populace.

This makes you a 'non jumping on a grenade type of Marine', not a coward. I would venture a guess that most Marines wouldn't jump on a grenade either, but some do and that fact should not be ignored.

Why not? I say let them try wrestling moves; or join the armed forces.

For the very same reason our militaries need to be armed and why suggesting that our militaries use wrestling moves instead of arms is not rational or reasonable. Why use wrestling moves when a gun is more effective at stopping a shooter or a foreign government?

I don't know, do they total to be more or less than the lives saved (500,000 to 3 million)?

Less. About 12 / 10000, or about 34,000.

Why sacrifice millions to save thousands?

But disarming the law abiding citizens makes it harder for criminals to get guns.

I cannot respect making people defenseless just so it will be harder for some criminals to get a gun. I understand that you do though, I just don't share this thinking. This is what has prodded the potential 'mentality difference' I'm possibly observing between peoples.

Which is why I said the military and law enforcement can keep their guns.

What about the general populace and their ability to protect themselves?

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

So you admit that banning guns may encourage our mass killers to use more destructive means. IMO, guns in the hands of a mass murderer are bad enough. If their goal is to kill, I would hate to see them be more effective at it.

But there would be less death in general, is that not worth it?

Those whose goal is to kill enmasse will be more effective if they use bombs or slaughter cars over a gun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing
Look at the pic of the devistation caused here. If only he had used a gun instead. So many lives would have been preserved.

...the bombing happened at 9:02am and killed at least 168 people,[2] injured more than 680 others, and destroyed one-third of the building.[3] The blast destroyed or damaged 324 other buildings within a 16-block radius, shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings, and destroyed or burned 86 cars,[4][5] causing an estimated $652 million worth of damage.

IMO it is foolish to think that someone whose goal is to kill enmasse will forfeit said goal just because they don't have a gun. This of course is admittedly ineffective againt those that grab a gun, knife or vehicle and kill out of reaction.

[Bust Nak]

We agreed that governments will be armed. Increasing the price of firearms will increase taxes for our governments to get them.

Or they might make do with fewer weapons.

You seriously cannot respect that many people feel a government having a healthy fear over those it governs is a good thing? Respect it or not, people feel this way.

Seriously. I do not respect that.

(I say this only for effect)
Make me! Remember, I'm not defensless though.

You would hand in your guns, if they become illegal to own, won't you?

People not feeling defenseles will prevent many of them from becoming victims by those making demands on them. This alone will help to prevent tyranny.

Don't care, I do not respect citizens owning guns for defence.

Why do they 'need' this fear? I understand why they would have it, but need it?

Because tyranny might well happen to them and they need to be prepared.

Not if the divide between citizens and governments is seemingly growing.

That's what the voting booth is for. The divide you should be fearing is not between citizens and governments, but between political partisans.

I was not addressing your understanding, just defending the claim that I called anyone a coward. I think we can move away from the coward talk now.

Lets.

Agreed, but wouldn't a gun be more effective? Seems to be another benefit to having an armed populace.

Sure. But you were talking about understanding the mentality here.

For the very same reason our militaries need to be armed and why suggesting that our militaries use wrestling moves instead of arms is not rational or reasonable. Why use wrestling moves when a gun is more effective at stopping a shooter or a foreign government?

Because we don't care as much about dead bodies when it comes to foreign invasion.

Why sacrifice millions to save thousands?

Because you would have less deaths overall.

I cannot respect making people defenseless just so it will be harder for some criminals to get a gun. I understand that you do though, I just don't share this thinking. This is what has prodded the potential 'mentality difference' I'm possibly observing between peoples.

But less deaths is worth making people defenceless.

What about the general populace and their ability to protect themselves?

Sorry out of luck.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

We've already established that the quote does not apply here, you accepted that gun ownership is not an essential liberty, didn't you?

Those whose goal is to kill enmasse will be more effective if they use bombs or slaughter cars over a gun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing
Look at the pic of the devistation caused here. If only he had used a gun instead. So many lives would have been preserved...

You don't seems to be addressing the point that there would be less deaths over all. More devistation here and there is worth the benefit.

IMO it is foolish to think that someone whose goal is to kill enmasse will forfeit said goal just because they don't have a gun. This of course is admittedly ineffective againt those that grab a gun, knife or vehicle and kill out of reaction.

Right, so lets not bring them into the picture, they are going to kill enmasse regardless.

[Clownboat]

I only noticed two questions from you. Addressed below.

You would hand in your guns, if they become illegal to own, won't you?

Yes. I'm a law abiding citizen.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

We've already established that the quote does not apply here, you accepted that gun ownership is not an essential liberty, didn't you?

Here in the US, it is an essential right though. Part of our Constitution in fact.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You may not like it and you may not respect it, but it is what it is here in my country.

lib·er·ty
/ˈlibərdē/Submit
noun
1.
the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.

An authority telling us that we cannot defend ourselves is an assault on this liberty.
An authority removing our right to travel freely or our right to free speech would also be an assault on this liberty.

Giving up your guns, your free speech or your ability to travel freely within your country just to have a feeling of security is foolish IMO. I can protect my family with a firearm, but I cannot protect them with feelings.

Perhaps it's just the way I was raised, but I do have a hard time respecting those that look to others to take care of them.
(Exceptions to every rule of course).

[Bust Nak]

Yes. I'm a law abiding citizen.

Then you would be unarmed, when I come to make you change your mentality.

Here in the US, it is an essential right though.

But earlier you said I have presented a straw man and pointed out you didn't say gun is an essential right, when I implied you thought it was essential.

Part of our Constitution in fact.

So change the Constitution.

Giving up your guns, your free speech or your ability to travel freely within your country just to have a feeling of security is foolish IMO.

It's not just a feeling though, the perferable crime rate of the countries I mentioned backs this feeling up.

I can protect my family with a firearm, but I cannot protect them with feelings.

Perhaps it's just the way I was raised, but I do have a hard time respecting those that look to others to take care of them.
(Exceptions to every rule of course).

But I am not stopping you from protecting your family, just removing your perfered tool for it.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 102 by AgnosticBoy]

Congratulations, you have confirmed that guns are something to be feared, I have never stated that a gun, if drawn in time, cannot deter a potential attacker. The quote you keep using of me suggesting a gun can be used to protect a good guy from "supposed attackers" is from a paragraph specifically addressing what a "supposed attacker" can look like, such as, family, close friends and acquaintances. These seem to be the more probable victims of gun discharge. I think you are propping up my argument to something that it is not. I have not been saying a gun cannot be used to defend and protect, I have been saying guns, being designed as offensive lethal weapons, have a greater capacity to cause harm than protect and anyone wishing to use them to cause harm is at an advantage when they are easy to access by everyone.

I have repeatedly framed this discussion around the concepts of good guys with guns and bad guys with guns. I did not do so explicitly and I do regret that but I have focused on bad guys with guns from my very first post in this thread. So when I ask you to provide evidence that guns are effective self defence tools I am intending it for that specific discussion. I will concede that if a gun can be drawn in time that it can protect the carrier quite effectively from an unarmed or less armed assailant. It gets murky as the situations change, such as armed attackers and people who specifically intend to kill. Bad guys who want to kill have a vast upper hand if they have a gun, very little power rests with anyone else as is seen in many of the mass shootings around the world. Same as those who use bombs, the more lethal the weapon, someone set to kill one or many people will succeed to greater extents.

I guess the overall gist I am trying to get across is that more people would be better off if the extremely lethal weapons that have been designed to be lethal weapons were not easy to access for the general public. And I do understand that you are not supportive of current gun legislation as it too freely provides this access. I believe that with your propositions the cost would be too high and would divide those who want to be armed, poor people would be economically locked out of a means to protect themselves, a tool the wealthy have no restriction from accessing. I would support a move if it were covered by the state though. Anything is better than the current system.

I gotta say your responses are extremely inefficient in that it takes you writing 3 paragraphs to respond to my SIMPLE question/point regarding guns as an effective means of self-defense. You accepted that guns are effective for self-defense but buried that point in the midst of other negative points about guns. This reminds me of how politicians tend to respond to issues that go against their ideology. As an independent, I see right through that tactic. For some, the tactic you used is a way to distract. Or perhaps it's hard for some to provide a simple answer when it clearly goes against their ideology.

Either way I've proven my point with video evidence, with YOUR words, and other valid points showing that guns are an effective means of self-defense. I've taken the liberty of highlighting points of distraction in your post.

Green font = distraction
Red Font= Answers my question.

[Filthy Tugboat]

[Replying to post 109 by AgnosticBoy]

I guess we should end the discussion here since you don't seem to like engaging in civil debate but rather picking and choosing context, responses and questions as you seem fit. Best wishes in your future endeavours.