Coward Murders Children in Florida

[Magnum_Opus]

Not much braver than shooting a bunch of adults if you're doing in to a gun free zone where people aren't allowed to defend themselves anyway. but did you intentionally miss the point? It's not the act of shootings defenceless people that's brave, but putting yourself at odds with the entirety of the rest of society is not something cowardly.

Mass murder is the coward's way out, they try to deal with their problems (mental ones) by lashing out violently, and with tragic consequences. It takes more courage to talk to someone than pick up a gun.

Jordan Peterson is of the opinion that many mass shooters fundamentally have a problem with human existence and wish to erase it, he generally refers to it as "the spirit of Cain". He references Tolstoy who thought that the bad of human existence outweighed the good, and anyone who didn't act on this realisation by killing himself was a coward. So, seems a lot of these mass murderers are acting on their personal convictions rather than just just surrendering to "mental problems". I think that's why they generally target innocent people, rather than going after Kim Jong Un or another worthwhile target if they were intent on offing themselves.

[Gaidin]

Not much braver than shooting a bunch of adults if you're doing in to a gun free zone where people aren't allowed to defend themselves anyway. but did you intentionally miss the point? It's not the act of shootings defenceless people that's brave, but putting yourself at odds with the entirety of the rest of society is not something cowardly.

This isn't putting yourself at odds with society. This is just ending your life. You want to put yourself at odds with society, face the problem and confront it. Do what the teenagers that went through and survived the shooting are doing and are facing down the politicians and are putting them through a political hell instead of...you know...running into the Florida State Capitol guns blazing to make a...point?

[Magnum_Opus]

It is putting yourself at odds with society, in a very fundamental way too. It's putting yourself at odds with everyone alive who values life and therefore continues living. If you fight society in a political sense, you are doing it because you want to make society better and improve life. Also, who is putting them though "political hell"? If the school shooting survivors want to ban guns, they have to get in to the political arena and fight just like everyone else does to get their way in society.

[Gaidin]

It is putting yourself at odds with society, in a very fundamental way too. It's putting yourself at odds with everyone alive who values life and therefore continues living. If you fight society in a political sense, you are doing it because you want to make society better and improve life. Also, who is putting them though "political hell"? If the school shooting survivors want to ban guns, they have to get in to the political arena and fight just like everyone else does to get their way in society.

Nobody listens to the school shooter. His life is over. He changed nothing. Just like every other school shooter in the past 70 years.

The survivors are tired of living in this environment and within a month have changed the political environment and only maybe half the senior class can vote yet.

[Magnum_Opus]

Don't think you're really understanding my point.

[Heathen Hammer]

Nobody listens to the school shooter. His life is over. He changed nothing. Just like every other school shooter in the past 70 years.

The survivors are tired of living in this environment and within a month have changed the political environment and only maybe half the senior class can vote yet.

Aside form that girl with ugly haircut becoming a 4chan meme they didn't really accomplish much of anything. Of course liberal media made up some crazy BS about how they are "changing society", but its not even the case and their "movement' is inflated by media, not to mention that it is misguided as well. Its like if you get hit by a drunk driver, you don't get a bigger voice if you decide to ban alcohol or cars.

[Gaidin]

Aside form that girl with ugly haircut becoming a 4chan meme they didn't really accomplish much of anything. Of course liberal media made up some crazy BS about how they are "changing society", but its not even the case and their "movement' is inflated by media, not to mention that it is misguided as well. Its like if you get hit by a drunk driver, you don't get a bigger voice if you decide to ban alcohol or cars.

I'm not sure I've ever seen a analogy from you.

[NorseThing]

Aside form that girl with ugly haircut becoming a 4chan meme they didn't really accomplish much of anything. Of course liberal media made up some crazy BS about how they are "changing society", but its not even the case and their "movement' is inflated by media, not to mention that it is misguided as well. Its like if you get hit by a drunk driver, you don't get a bigger voice if you decide to ban alcohol or cars.

Society usually changes with small steps and thus even single events will not stir a great change. There are exceptions, but this school shooting is not one of them. So there will be small steps of change and yes maybe the surviving children will be a part of that small step. Those surviving children are our future -- especially if you live in that neck of Florida.

Every shooting or other act of violence can bring about a reaction and thus a small change in society at large. And Gaidin in post #484 is correct -- nobody is listening to this or any other violent actor to change society towards the desired outcome of the violent actor's 'ideal'.

[Heathen Hammer]

Society usually changes with small steps and thus even single events will not stir a great change. There are exceptions, but this school shooting is not one of them. So there will be small steps of change and yes maybe the surviving children will be a part of that small step. Those surviving children are our future -- especially if you live in that neck of Florida.

Every shooting or other act of violence can bring about a reaction and thus a small change in society at large. And Gaidin in post #484 is correct -- nobody is listening to this or any other violent actor to change society towards the desired outcome of the violent actor's 'ideal'.

Depends what your ideal is. We can see governments in Western Europe criminalizing criticism of Islam following muslim terrorist attacks there, which is something that terrorists themselves would have approved of, so mass murder clearly "worked" in that case. In case of Florida shooting I doubt shooter really had any "message" aside from likely reason being that he was expelled from that school.
As for the partisan media making scripted events and using those children isn't really anything new here. For example they did the same thing back in 80s and 90s it was more about heavy metal and D&D.

[Gaidin]

Depends what your ideal is.

If you want to listen to the mass shooter we're not stopping you. If you want to follow him we're also not really stopping you. We'll put you(plural) down like the animal you(plural) are. Have at it.

But society at large is ignoring his stupidity and you can't deny it if you want to call yourself at all educated.

For example they did the same thing back in 80s and 90s it was more about heavy metal and D&D.

That's misdirection by lobbyists and the administration just like it was misdirection by lobbyists and the administration in the 90's. This is remarkably neutral and we gamers will get through it because you know what we'll do? We'll point to every other god damn country WITHOUT MASS SHOOTINGS but WITH VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES. And that's some statistical numbers you just can't ing argue with.

[Love Mountain]

Wrong or misleading.

1. Gun control effects responsible citizens more than they effect criminals, thus gun control effects the deterrent more than it effects the perpetrator. Secondly, guns deter all crimes, not just gun-related ones, as most criminals don't want to get killed.

Wrong. The proportion of Fireram crime to non firearm crime easily disproves that. Guns do not deter crimes, their easy availability encourages them to be used in crime instead. Gun control affects firearms more than they affect any citizen, be they responsible or not. Hence why it's called "Gun control" and not "citizen control".

2. Guns do protect you from a tyrannical government, owing to the fact that it's an impossibility for a state to effectively fight a war against its own citizens. Firearms are not just a means to fight tyranny, but the psychology and mentality associated with gun ownership means people are more likely to resist tyranny. Tyrants need widespread corporation of their populace to stay in power.

Guns have never prevented any form of large scale tyranny in this country. Nor will they, because guns aren't what stops governments. It's people who stop governments.

3. This and your first sentence just show your naivety. Guns kill people, so they're inherently bad? I guess things would be hunky dory if all weapons were to disappear - wrong the world would fall apart because there would be no way to maintain peace, current societal structures would fall apart because power could be taken by a bunch of physically strong men. The relative peace of the 21st century as compared to the incessant warfare of all times previous is due to the massive bloody toll the wars of the 20th century took on humanity, and the threat that nuclear confrontation would bring. The sentiment expressed that blame should be placed on murderers and not on inanimate tools seems to have completely escaped you. Or rather, the whole concept of personal responsibility seems completely alien to you in the first place, since you seem to believe that smokers are the victims of inanimate tobacco plants.

This just shows how deluded you are to the functions of a firearm. Peace is not maintained through existence of firearms or any other weapon. Peace is maintained through application of force. Force that existed just fine before firearms ever existed, before weapons ever existed. The only thing weapons have done is make the application of force easier and deadlier. Weapons also did not allow "weaker" men to oppose stronger men. On the contrary, weapons have allowed for mass subjugation. History of firearms shows just how much easier deadly weapons allow very few people to control very many.

Try again.

Indeed, firearms could be regulated in a way to prevent their abuse (this could be done in other ways than federal regulation), problem is that gun grabbers don't respect the second amendment and if you give them an inch they will take a mile. So if gun owners want to keep their guns at all, any sort of compromise is a bad idea.

Hence why my rhetoric targets supply of firearms and no, if gun owners want to lose their right to firearms, keep opposing compromise and discussion. I'm going to be equally pleased with a blanket ban as I am with my ideas of reasonable gun control. The difference? My arguments give gunowners the chance to own guns as a privilege not a right. Gun bans? They'll make it taboo.

By the way, why do people call mass murderers "cowards"? I hardly think that killing a bunch of people knowing the certainty that you yourself will get killed or imprisoned for a very long time is cowardly in any way. The people who call them cowards are probably just subconsciously lashing out at the killers who defy the current social order, since they themselves are too cowardly or impotent to do so in any dimension.

Because they are unable to face everyday life, hence why they act in a barbaric manner. They are cowards, unable to comply with even the most basic demands of society and they lash out at the world.

I mean, the constitution's just the founding document of America, like

And? The founding document did not abolish slavery. It's ambiguity on the topic was deliberate as any cursory research into the Founding Fathers will tell you. The Constitution is an old document that is outdated on several issues. Citing the Constitution is not an argument, its a legal barrier nothing more.

[Aexodus]

.And? The founding document did not abolish slavery. It's ambiguity on the topic was deliberate as any cursory research into the Founding Fathers will tell you. The Constitution is an old document that is outdated on several issues. Citing the Constitution is not an argument, its a legal barrier nothing more.

Citing one single issue the constitution was ambiguous on is rather obstinate. On the whole, without the essentially classically liberal essence of the constitution that particularly defended individual rights, as a pose to an allegiance to a collective; a cornerstone of fascism and communism. The US would not be the same without it, it has largely missed the messy, and radical political history that Europe has had to deal with throughout history. Indeed, it would find itself in the authoritarian mess that Europe currently finds itself in.

Back on topic, the right to bear arms stipulates that no government should have the power to disarm the populace, the people should be able to defend themselves against tyrannical government, which they could never really do in Europe, they were at the mercy of whatever power of the day decided to violate their individual liberties. Take fascist Italy.

It's a sad day when we think the solution is to violate a liberal cornerstone of America, instead of learning to recognise why children are suddenly picking up guns and murdering their classmates.

And indeed it is a legal document, one that has shaped American society and history to this day.

[Magnum_Opus]

What absurd statement is "firearm control effect firearms more than they control citizens"? The existence of the black market easily proves my statement that gun control effect law-abiding citizens than it does criminals. Citizens follow the law, criminals don't. If you want to stop criminals getting firearms, you have to physically limit the supply of guns in a country. Even in Australia, with strong gun control laws, strong customs and being an island, criminals can get guns and there are still shootings. In a large country like America with multiple states, restricting the supply enough to have an effect on criminals is impossible. If you try to impose gun control in America, you end up with Brazil.

If you want to tell me how guns don't stop crime, please explain how it is that criminals have no instinct of self preservation and are willing to risk their life for minor material gain. In Victoria, we have a public order problem with African youths invading homes. The populace wants the state government to do something (fat chance of the PC Labor government doing anything about that). If it were America, these youth would be shot to after half the burglaries. The fact is, that a lone women has zero chance against a gang of criminals if they want to invade her home. The same women with an AR-15 however, can protect herself. As has been shown time and time again in footage, criminals usually flee after the first sign the homeowner has a gun, even if the criminals are armed themselves. They are not willing to risk their lives just to steal some stuff, this is self evident.

#2 Well done, amazing observation that people prevent tyranny, and thanks for completely ignoring the nuance of my argument, and also coming up with some inane statement like "guns haven't prevented tyranny in this country". That's the best outcome, people have guns so they don't need to use them, and the right to bear arms is absolutely essential to prevent the erosion of all other rights, like freedom of speech, which are practically non existent already in Europe, UK and Australia. A disarmed populace is subjects, not citizens, they have already conceded their physical right to defend themselves, and are subject to whatever mandate the state might throw out.

#3 Ah yes, peace is maintained through the application of force, thus we have the prosperous and peaceful time in medieval Europe before the advent of the firearm. Weapons alter the power dynamic; they increase the lethality of confrontation, which is not inherently bad. As I have mentioned, it allows a lone women to defend herself against a gang of men. It prevents nations from going to war all the time due to the enormous toll total war with modern weapons takes on the economy and human life.

#4 thankfully you have no means of disarming gun owners (they have guns, by the way)

[Love Mountain]

What absurd statement is "firearm control effect firearms more than they control citizens"? The existence of the black market easily proves my statement that gun control effect law-abiding citizens than it does criminals.

Except it doesn't. Where is the black market in Europe? In Canada? In UK? There isn't. Once you strictly control the supply of arms the black market dries up. It's hard to smuggle weapons in, hence why you see a "black market" in countries with weak border control and war torn areas where its hard to exert state influence.

Citizens follow the law, criminals don't. If you want to stop criminals getting firearms, you have to physically limit the supply of guns in a country. Even in Australia, with strong gun control laws, strong customs and being an island, criminals can get guns and there are still shootings. In a large country like America with multiple states, restricting the supply enough to have an effect on criminals is impossible. If you try to impose gun control in America, you end up with Brazil.

Except you won't. Unless you're telling me that people in Europe are somehow more civilized and less violent than Americans which is absurd.

If you want to tell me how guns don't stop crime, please explain how it is that criminals have no instinct of self preservation and are willing to risk their life for minor material gain. In Victoria, we have a public order problem with African youths invading homes. The populace wants the state government to do something (fat chance of the PC Labor government doing anything about that). If it were America, these youth would be shot to after half the burglaries. The fact is, that a lone women has zero chance against a gang of criminals if they want to invade her home. The same women with an AR-15 however, can protect herself. As has been shown time and time again in footage, criminals usually flee after the first sign the homeowner has a gun, even if the criminals are armed themselves. They are not willing to risk their lives just to steal some stuff, this is self evident.

America has plenty of burglaries and plenty of guns. Your claim that guns "stop crime" don't match up at all. This is barring the fact that most burglaries occur when the occupants are not home. So whoa re you trying to kid?

#2 Well done, amazing observation that people prevent tyranny, and thanks for completely ignoring the nuance of my argument, and also coming up with some inane statement like "guns haven't prevented tyranny in this country". That's the best outcome, people have guns so they don't need to use them, and the right to bear arms is absolutely essential to prevent the erosion of all other rights, like freedom of speech, which are practically non existent already in Europe, UK and Australia. A disarmed populace is subjects, not citizens, they have already conceded their physical right to defend themselves, and are subject to whatever mandate the state might throw out.

Right to bear arms isn't essential to revolution or rebellion or insurgency or protest. Check out all of the resistance movements around the world, they didn't have guns nor did they have a right to them. Where there's a will there's a way.

#3 Ah yes, peace is maintained through the application of force, thus we have the prosperous and peaceful time in medieval Europe before the advent of the firearm. Weapons alter the power dynamic; they increase the lethality of confrontation, which is not inherently bad. As I have mentioned, it allows a lone women to defend herself against a gang of men. It prevents nations from going to war all the time due to the enormous toll total war with modern weapons takes on the economy and human life.

It is inherently bad if you consider death to be bad. Firearms are instruments of death. They are specifically designed with the purpose of hurting people and being as efficient at killing as possible. Hence why the popular discussion in the gunowner community between 5.56 vs 7.62 vs .300 Black. 9mm vs 10mm vs .45 vs .40 SW. I like guns quite a bit and I am well acquainted with gunowner culture. 99% of you are incapable of carrying on a normal discussion of the 2nd amendment. Being a gunowner and occasional shooter myself I can relate to how fun it is to shoot firearms. But even gunowners are obsessed with having an effective firearm. Effective meaning your ability to incapacitate someone meaning killing them. And yes killing is the most effective way of stopping a threat so stop pretending that guns are anything except tools designed to maximize an individual's killing power.

#4 thankfully you have no means of disarming gun owners (they have guns, by the way)

Actually no. Gunowners are right, people are coming for their guns. Every year the debate gets more and more heated, especially as the percentage of gunowners goes down and the number of outraged people goes up. Regulations will come except the refusal of gunowners to negotiate and compromise means they won't be on the table. Their representatives will be, and once gunowners are simply a vocal minority instead of a powerful political bloc (which is already happening its in the numbers) their needs will be ignored. Thus, the window to act is sooner rather than later. Especially when the leverage is on the Republicans instead of Democrats.

[Vanoi]

Citing one single issue the constitution was ambiguous on is rather obstinate. On the whole, without the essentially classically liberal essence of the constitution that particularly defended individual rights, as a pose to an allegiance to a collective; a cornerstone of fascism and communism. The US would not be the same without it, it has largely missed the messy, and radical political history that Europe has had to deal with throughout history. Indeed, it would find itself in the authoritarian mess that Europe currently finds itself in.

Back on topic, the right to bear arms stipulates that no government should have the power to disarm the populace, the people should be able to defend themselves against tyrannical government, which they could never really do in Europe, they were at the mercy of whatever power of the day decided to violate their individual liberties. Take fascist Italy.

It's a sad day when we think the solution is to violate a liberal cornerstone of America, instead of learning to recognise why children are suddenly picking up guns and murdering their classmates.

And indeed it is a legal document, one that has shaped American society and history to this day.

Well part of the Constitution or not the right to bear arms is limited like most of the Bill of Rights. The bill that passed in Florida isn't going to do much but focusing on mass shootings isn't going to work.

[Aexodus]

Except it doesn't. Where is the black market in Europe? In Canada? In UK? There isn't.

There is a black market in Europe. The IRA were able to smuggle in -

250 Soviet-made small arms, 240 rifles, anti-tank mines and other explosives.

- from Libya in the 70s, as well as America. Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army_arms_importation and due to the EU's near dissolution of sovereign borders these same weapons are much more easy to smuggle around.

That's not to mention the massive arms trade throughout Europe of old Soviet and/or WWII weaponry. If someone wants to get a gun, a ban doesn't stop them. It did make the IRA's victims defenceless, hence the deployment of the army being as urgent as it was.

[Love Mountain]

There is a black market in Europe. The IRA were able to smuggle in -

- from Libya in the 70s, as well as America. Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army_arms_importation and due to the EU's near dissolution of sovereign borders these same weapons are much more easy to smuggle around.

That's not to mention the massive arms trade throughout Europe of old Soviet and/or WWII weaponry. If someone wants to get a gun, a ban doesn't stop them. It did make the IRA's victims defenceless, hence the deployment of the army being as urgent as it was.

That's not indicative of a thriving black market. That's indicative of a black market that only the most resourceful organization can access.

[Heathen Hammer]

If you want to listen to the mass shooter we're not stopping you. If you want to follow him we're also not really stopping you. We'll put you(plural) down like the animal you(plural) are. Have at it.

But society at large is ignoring his stupidity and you can't deny it if you want to call yourself at all educated.

That's not what I even said, I just pointed out how some Western governments literally enforce part of mass murders agenda following such mass murders. Ironically, often same countries (like UK) that anti-gun nutjobs use as an example for US.

That's misdirection by lobbyists and the administration just like it was misdirection by lobbyists and the administration in the 90's. This is remarkably neutral and we gamers will get through it because you know what we'll do? We'll point to every other god damn country WITHOUT MASS SHOOTINGS but WITH VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES. And that's some statistical numbers you just can't ing argue with.

Blaming video games is just as irrational as blaming guns, since obviously there are plenty of examples of countries with mass murders and gun control.


Edit:
Speaking of "students bravely protesting against evil NRA" narrative, apparently students are literally forced to participate in the "walk outs". As I pointed out above, this whole narrative was nothing but a big media bubble, where such events were scripted by mass media and non-elected officials, who are, suprise, the biggest proponents of limiting gun rights.

[Admiral Piett]

All current research and data suggests that there is no link between a semi-auto rifle ban and a reduction in gun violence. Overwhelmingly, gun violence is committed via handgun - often times not purchased through an FFL dealer. Mass shootings are also not the main source of gun homicide at all. Most gun violence in the US has roots in gangland violence, the drug war, and bad divorces to some extent. There are state laws on the latter issue which can extend to a federal level banning purchases from those convicted of domestic violence.

If anyone wants to actually have realistic solutions to the overall issue and not just showboat because of white middle classers now demanding action, then a much more controlled license system for any kind of concealable weapon like handguns would yield greater results than a blanket ban on rifles. Overwhelmingly, conceal carry permit holders are the least likely to commit crimes due to the processes already in place for obtaining a license in most states. Just make the state permit systems mandatory on the federal level for handgun purchases. Then launch an ATF program to go after illegal handgun sales especially in drug zone and gangland cities like Chicago and DC. High capacity magazines also are a negligible regulation as the Parkland shooting was committed with the short 10 round magazines because they conceal easier. Perhaps have a similar licensing system for semi-auto rifles? I can get on board with this. Not blanket "bans" on any type of firearm. Keep responsible Americans with the right to arm if they need to for any reason, but everyone must prepare themselves for training, safety, and thorough background checks. This alone would do far more than an "assault weapons ban" which failed to prevent the Columbine shooting that started the whole fad.

[HannibalExMachina]

then a much more controlled license system for any kind of concealable weapon like handguns would yield greater results than a blanket ban on rifles.

theres is no contesting that.however, mass shootings are still more devastating with semi-automatics, why do you think capacity isnt an issue either, just because in one instance, concealment may have been the issue? also, columbine alone doesnt invalidate the 1994 assault weapons ban. what about 5 cases?

http://www.lagrangenews.com/2018/02/...t-weapons-ban/

Of the 23 shootings with ten or more deaths, two took place during the national government’s Assault Weapons Ban: Columbine and the shooting spree by an Atlanta day trader, both in 1999. Connecticut had an Assault Weapons Ban in place during the Sandy Hook Massacre in 2012. The San Bernardino shooters conducted their terror attack on an office party in 2015, long after California passed an Assault Weapons Ban (back in 1989). And Washington D.C. had an Assault Weapons Ban as the Washington Naval Yard shooter went on his killing rampage in 2013.

That’s five cases. In the other 18 cases where ten or more people were killed in rampage shootings, there was no Assault Weapons Ban in that state, city, or across the country. These include (1) the Las Vegas hotel and Country Western concert massacre, (2) the Orlando nightclub shooting in 2016, (3) the Virginia Tech shooting in 2007, (4) the Sutherland Springs church shooting in 2017, (5) the 1991 Luby’s Cafeteria shooting in Texas, (6) the San Ysidro McDonald’s massacre of 1984 in California, (7) the University of Texas tower shooting, (8) the Douglas High School killing spree in Florida, (9) the Edmond Post Office shooting in Oklahoma in 1986, (10) the Binghamton shooting in 2009 in New York, (11) the Camden shootings of 1949, (12) the Wilkes-Barre shootings of 1982 in Pennsylvania, (13) the Ft. Hood shooting in Texas in 2009, (14) the Aurora Theater shooting in 2012 in Colorado, (15) the Geneva County massacre in Alabama in 2009, (16) the GMAC shooting in Jacksonville, Florida in 1990, (17) the Red Lake rampage in 2005 in Minnesota, and finally, (18) the Umpqua Community College shooting of 2015 in Oregon. That’s also 371 deaths from these 18 cases of no Assault Weapons Ban, and 82 deaths from the other five cases with an Assault Weapons Ban.

There’s also a push to have signs posted at schools in the wake of the Florida shooting, announcing that those inside will kill any shooter. But that wouldn’t necessarily deter a killer any more than the threat of death stops an ISIS bomber. That’s because in 18 of the cases, the shooter took his life. The killer’s own is part of the evil plan.

so, i still dont see any justification to allow assault weapons. concealment clearly isnt the major issue. as you said yourself, i and havent checked the numbers here, concealed handguns are less likely to cause problems, so where is the sense in gun jesus speaking to the conceal pharisees, instead of the semi-auto thieves and high capacity tax collectors?

ban both assault guns and tighten regulations, everything else is a half measure. as is so often pointed out, cars kill more people, but every responsible American still goes to the same licensing process. thats the reason cars dont kill even more people. unless you believe unlicensed drivers are safer.