School Shootings: The 'Elephant in the Room'

someone234

I was a child who got bullied a lot in childhood even by those who were meant to be kind to me (a parent).

I have known pain and know the courage in overcoming it.

There are some people who are better than others but that also doesn't mean I want any less to see some of my old bullies skinned alive and screaming before me, I'd love every second but won't do as it's illegal.

Nope

someone234 said:

@Nope Are you suggesting I killed them? 

No.
If they have become adults. Their branes would be developed and experiences would change them. Their beliefs, personalty, thoughts, how they act, what they think is right or wrong and all that would have changed. To punish them now would be to punish some one different then the people who bullied you. That is if they have had time to grow up in to adults.

someone234

@Nope To punish a criminal today for what they did yesterday is commonplace and is what justice is entirely based on. If you do a crime  today and it can only be proven in 20 years, you are going ot be fully punished for it.

Try again with your defence in a court of law, we'll see how that goes.

CYDdharta

someone234 said:

@Nope To punish a criminal today for what they did yesterday is commonplace and is what justice is entirely based on. If you do a crime  today and it can only be proven in 20 years, you are going ot be fully punished for it.

Try again with your defence in a court of law, we'll see how that goes.

  The success would depend on the particular crime and the statute of limitations.

someone234

CYDdharta said:

someone234 said:

@Nope To punish a criminal today for what they did yesterday is commonplace and is what justice is entirely based on. If you do a crime  today and it can only be proven in 20 years, you are going ot be fully punished for it.

Try again with your defence in a court of law, we'll see how that goes.

  The success would depend on the particular crime and the statute of limitations.

No, in fact there is no country on Earth where the idea that the past you is not responsible for that the future you deserves to be punished for is accepted. Not even in North Korea is such a idea accepted.

Erfisflat

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/time-limits-for-charges-state-criminal-statutes-of-limitations.html

someone234

Erfisflat said:

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/time-limits-for-charges-state-criminal-statutes-of-limitations.html

The concept you are referring to is that in contract law and things that apply to that, the person is still entirely responsible but no way to repay the one done-wrong can be realistically applied as remedying the wrong of contracts etc is time-based.

with_all_humility

Nope said:

someone234 said:

@Nope Are you suggesting I killed them? 

No.
If they have become adults. Their branes would be developed and experiences would change them. Their beliefs, personalty, thoughts, how they act, what they think is right or wrong and all that would have changed. To punish them now would be to punish some one different then the people who bullied you. That is if they have had time to grow up in to adults.

I understand the case that you are trying to make, but it is not universal.  There are some people who never "grow up" and are bullies all their lives.  Then there are those who were bullied, sometimes those individuals grow up with a spirit of vindictiveness, and become bullies as means of compensation.  As you point, out some grow up and realize the wrong that they have done and would like to take back all that they did.  

Each case is really situational dependent, I have a suspicion the young man who perpetrated the Parkland, FL school shooting was picked on and rejected by most. Obviously he has some kind of mental issue if he was killing animals with no remorse before hand.  I don't know all the facts, but it sound like the perfect storm; he was mentally disturbed, lost those closest to him, I suspect bullied and rejected this type of environment breeds a person who want's to prove something to society.  It appears to me, the signs he was doing, that the neighbor lady picked upon was perhaps his way of crying for help.  

None of those circumstances justify what he did, but they should have been precursors to authorities to take action, and get this person some help.  Verses throwing the hands up in the air and say, "I can't do anything" if that in deed is the case.  Those are the laws we need to change, because banning a weapon will not stop the next person from acting out his/her revenge.

Just my thoughts on the issue, and again, I'm not disagreeing with your points, just expanding upon them.

someone234

@with_all_humility

You're not allowed to admit it, but actually they do justify what he did. People need to stop preying on the mentally weak or the mentally weak will indeed overcompensate and take it out on even weaker people.

with_all_humility

someone234 said:

@with_all_humility

You're not allowed to admit it, but actually they do justify what he did. People need to stop preying on the mentally weak or the mentally weak will indeed overcompensate and take it out on even weaker people.

Oh, I whole heartily agree, mentally weak on not, there in never justification to be abusive to someone (physical or mental).  Especially, with those who are unstable.

They may "justify" it, but he will either be put to death or put behind bars for the rest of his life. Regardless of the justification, the only time a person could get away with killing that many people would be in a war zone.  Then you still may not.

@someone234

someone234

@with_all_humility You will not admit it but the human being has far less free will than we make them out to have.

The bullies are as much to blame for the outcome of their bullying as he is for the outcome of pulling that trigger.

Dumbasses will pick on the weak because they are too scared to conquer the strong.

xMathFanx

Nope said:

someone234 said:

@Nope Are you suggesting I killed them? 

No.
If they have become adults. Their branes would be developed and experiences would change them. Their beliefs, personalty, thoughts, how they act, what they think is right or wrong and all that would have changed. To punish them now would be to punish some one different then the people who bullied you. That is if they have had time to grow up in to adults.

@Nope ;

Actually, I would point out, contact information is now easily accessible public information.  If they ever truly reformed and had a desire to make amends for their misdeeds of the past (in so far as that is possible) it would be quite easy to get a hold of the person they were trying to find.  This highly suggests that if such people fail to do so, then  any regret, shame, guilt, etc. they may feel is minimal and does not pass a threshold point necessary to actually get involved.

MajoMILSdlGMGV

A psychology teacher, a while back, said that bullying begins and ends at home. What she meant was that those who bully usually learn it or experience it at home, while those who are bullied either are also abused or "bullied" at home or (if they have a present and responsible parent) will learn different coping mechanisms to deal with it at home, and will not spiral into depression or into unstable states of mental health because of the support system that surrounds them at home. I know this point of view may not apply to most children, but it is very true in a lot of cases. 

Vaulk

I'd like to point out something that might not have been forgotten but has certainly not been mentioned.  We can put billions and trillions of laws into effect, dump infinite amounts of money on the issue and assign the best experts in the world to fix the problem but at the end of the day...there's still going to be crappy parents making crappy kids who are going to go to school and treat other kids like crap.  You cannot stop it.  You might be able to reduce it but you'll never get rid of them.

That being said...what happened to the days when kids went to school and were literally beaten, bruised, discriminated against...and still made the grades, went to school every day and graduated?  Is anyone here REALLY going to try to say that School atmosphere today is worse than it was 30 years ago?  I'm confident that it's not...it's not even close to being as bad.  That said, kids used to get their A$$ beat on a daily basis and I mean BEAT DOWN.  Black kids were beaten just for being black, kids were shook down for their lunch money and not only assaulted in the process...but then went without eating lunch...and we didn't have School shootings back then...and guns were MORE available back then than they are today!  Kids could bring guns to School and DID bring their guns to school and still we never had issues with School Shootings.

I can't find any logic what-so-ever in trying to push a narrative that includes *Guns* as being the issue or *Bullying*.  We've always had guns (More so in the past) and we've always had bullies (More and worse in the past) and when there were more of these things on a more severe scale...there were somehow no mass School shootings.

I conclude that the real issue here is Resilience.  We don't train our Children to have it anymore...period.  I'd be willing to put my credibility on the line for permanent dismissal on the idea that the overwhelming majority of Children today are raised with little to no resilience and instead are sheltered, coddled and restrained from experiencing the harshness of the real world.  By the time Children realize that the real world is harsh and unforgiving...they're ill equipped to deal with it but mentally mature enough to make a serious decision on what to do about it.  Essentially, they're smart enough to develop a really really bad plan on how to handle their problems because they don't have the skills or experience necessary to get the F$#@ over it.

This essentially stems back to the Parents who are ultimately responsible for the Child.  In today's Society though...you'd be hard pressed to find a set of parents that could take responsibility for their own Child...instead the popular thing to do is blame it all on uncontrollable circumstances or blame it on anyone but yourself.  Blame teachers, blame cops, blame guns, blame the media, blame video games, blame movies, blame music, blame anything and everything that allows you to shuck off the liability of being a parent.

with_all_humility

MajoMILSdlGMGV said:

A psychology teacher, a while back, said that bullying begins and ends at home. What she meant was that those who bully usually learn it or experience it at home, while those who are bullied either are also abused or "bullied" at home or (if they have a present and responsible parent) will learn different coping mechanisms to deal with it at home, and will not spiral into depression or into unstable states of mental health because of the support system that surrounds them at home. I know this point of view may not apply to most children, but it is very true in a lot of cases. 

I'm certainly not any psychology teacher, however, I don't know if I would agree with her assessment. I knew several kids who bullied but had what appeared to be good parents.  I tend to believe bullying is stemmed from a self-esteem issue, bullies have something that they are insecure with about themselves so the way they compensate is by attacking others before they themselves can be attacked. Kind of a type of defense mechanism.

I know a guy who has a complex over his weight, so he goes around pointing out everyone else's flaws and make an annoying joke of it.  At first, people think it's cute, and go along with him, but he is relentless in his attacks on others (verbally) and he end's up alienating everyone.  I've known kids who were bullies because they did not receive the love and attention a child needs at home.  I've known several people at work who have used bullying tactics to divert attention from themselves.  I once worked for a guy who was picked on as a kid and I believe had phycological issues from it. I his adult life, he got his higher education and finally got put into a position of authority and anyone who he perceived as being popular or may perceivably threaten his job position.  He was mean, I would say evil.  He tormented people to tears, threatened their future lively hood. I was 12 months of pure hell.  Thankfully he committed fraud with some funds and was fired.  But you talk about a bully, he went from being picked on to way overcompensating and was horrific towards his people.  

Anyway, I'm not saying your teacher is wrong, not my field of study.  However, my experience in life is it spawns more from low self-esteem.

Thanks for sharing your insight! 

@MajoMILSdlGMGV

with_all_humility

someone234 said:

@with_all_humility You will not admit it but the human being has far less free will than we make them out to have.

The bullies are as much to blame for the outcome of their bullying as he is for the outcome of pulling that trigger.

Dumbasses will pick on the weak because they are too scared to conquer the strong.

"human being has a far less free will than we make them out to have." 

• I'm not quite sure what you're referring to if it's free will from a spiritual standpoint most certainly do have free will.
• If you're referring to a person's reaction from being bullied, unless a person has a mental issue that does not allow them to discern right from wrong, I believe we have the ability to control our response. 
• The difference often between a sain person and someone who is not is the ability to restrain oneself from acting upon our impulses.
• I'm sure we have all been in situations where we envisioned, chocking or killing someone who did not like a given point in time, but our rational mind kept us from acting upon those impulses. 
• Then there are people who are pushed to the brink and end up acting out a flee or fight situation.
• But a sain person will keep their emotions under control and not act upon them.

Bullying is definitely not right, but it is equally not right to seek out revenge, yes in some cases if the bullying had not taken place there may not have been an incident.

But we always have a choice, some make a good choice other not so good.    




@someone234

with_all_humility

@Vaulk
I believe the term Helicopter Parent comes to mind; it could be a part of the issue our society is facing. This is a well known hurtle that the millennial generation have been be facing and resiliency definitely plays into their overall success.  Resiliency enables one ability to recover, learn from, and developmentally mature when confronted with chronic or crisis adversity.

“I believe adaptive capacity or resilience is the single most important quality in a leader, or in anyone else for that matter, who hopes to lead a healthy, meaningful life.” - Warren Bennis

At the core of resiliency is four fundamental pillars, Mental health, Physical heath, Social wellness, and Spiritual well-being

• Metal Resiliency consist of Awareness, Adaptability, Decision Making and Positive thinking
• Physical Resiliency is composed of Endurance, Nutrition, Recovery and Strength 
  
• Social Resiliency comprised of Communication, Connectedness, Social Support and Teamwork 
  
• Spiritual Resiliency is Core Values, Perseverance, Perspective and Purpose
  

The Stress Performance Continuum 

Stress can be both positive and negative, it can enhance and deteriorate performance.  Yerkes-Dodson Law states each individual has an optimal performance range associated with their level of arousal.  Some researchers equate arousal with anxiety or stress.  None of these terms are a negative attribute, rather too little and a person is bored and too much and a person is overwhelmed.  Some people have a small range of optimal performance but it can be expanded using coping mechanisms. 

Research consistently demonstrates the level of a person’s health and wellbeing affects the level of their performance; the healthier and more fit a person is…the better he or she will perform.

Positive events can result in poor performance

• A newly promoted individual at work overwhelmed with additional responsibility
• Moving to a new community
• A new parent struggling with an infant

Negative Events

• Lost of a loved one (Depression)
• Lost of a Job
• Going through a divorce or death of a spouse

Stress is encountered everyday in a variety of ways

Stress can enhance or degrade our performance (eustress and distress)

The Model for Performance Optimization

As you can see in the model above, the way a persons strengthens their resiliency is to accept new challenges in life. Without adequate stimuli a persons resiliency will diminish our tipping points on the Stress Performance Continuum will narrow.  The ideal is have out tipping point at the furthest outer points as possible.  This can only be done by have healthy resilience skills by building up sturdy resilient pillars consisting of Mental, Physical, Social and Spiritual health. 



[1] Warren Bennis, American Psychologist, January 2007, p. 5

Fredsnephew

It's a sad fact of human nature, that there will always be "Elephants in the Room".

It's also a sad fact of U.S. social policy, that lethal weapons are regarded without due respect.

If the Elephant's got the gun, it's eventually going to shoot someone.

Vaulk

@Fredsnephew

More people are killed in the U.S. each year with hands and feet than all rifles combined...not just AR-15s.  Weapons are not the issue...they're just more convenient to target than the real issue: Evil people.

with_all_humility

Fredsnephew said:

It's a sad fact of human nature, that there will always be "Elephants in the Room".

It's also a sad fact of U.S. social policy, that lethal weapons are regarded without due respect.

If the Elephant's got the gun, it's eventually going to shoot someone.

In the past 52 years, there have been 150 shooting, totaling 1,077 killings.  That is an average of about 21 people killed per year. [1]

"Feelings are not supposed to be logical. Dangerous is the man who has rationalized his emotions." - David Borenstein

According to this next chart compiled by data from the FBI, not only did the homicide rate drop to a 51 year low in 2014.  The average number of homicides per year since 1960 is 17,326 per year. With a peak number of homicides in 1981 totaling 24,703 persons. 1,077 death from mass shootings.  If we plug that into our number of an average 17,326 per year for 52 years, Mass Murder/Shootings accounted for 0.12% of total homicides.  That means 99.88% of all murders over the past 52 years have not been a result of a Mass Shooting.  

Sometimes people want to look at overall gun deaths.  This chart (from the CDC) says that from 1999-2013 there was an average of approximately 11,000 homicides by firearms.   What??? Only 11,000, our last chart showed and average of 17,326 per year.  That's correct, the overall homicide rate has been declining over the past 28 years.  While there is a total number of 31,624 people being killed by firearms per year?  Nearly 2/3 of those deaths are from suicide.  Resulting in an average of 11,000 homicides per year involving a firearm, and that number has maintained fairly stable in past few years.  If we talk our 1,077 homicides from the past 52 years and just plug it into one year's homicide rate with a firearm we get a total of 9.8%.  Can we then conclude that in any given year there are 90.2% more homicide than all of the mass shooting deaths in the past 52 years.  

We can also say that an average of 20.7 people die per year as the result of a Mass Shooting. Accounting for .19% of all homicides involving a firearm.  With an average US population of 333,000,000 your odds of being killed in any give year is 1 in 6.21621e-8



Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to make the argument that there’s no problem out there.  There obviously is, from 1982 to 2017 there has been 34 total mass shooting incidents[2].  Accounting for 739 total deaths[3].  However, banning weapons will not solve the issue.  The data is there to prove it, below is the 2016 FBI Violent Crime Stats for Murder.  I made a convenient chart to show the total number and percentages.[4]

As you can see the FBI throughs all rifles in together, whether semi-auto, bolt action, assault weapon style, they are all lumped together.  In the 15,070 homicides in 2016 only 374 were committed by a rifle.  1,604 were committed with knives or cutting instruments.  Should we march on Washing DC to ban kitchen knives?  If no, why not?  I'm not trying to smart with anyone, but the number above, looking at a macro level view.  Assault weapons are not the issue. Firearms in general are not the elephant in the room

---

In fact, according to the Mises Institute[5] while gun ownership has gone up exponentially, the murder rates have actually seedily declined over the last two decades.  

---

Look at the total number deaths caused by drugs, The total number of homicides in 2016 equated to the deaths as a result of drug overdose, a person is 4x's more likely to die of drug overdose as a posed to being murdered.  You are nearly 6X more likely to die of drugs than by a firearm and a 171.5X more likely than being killed with an assault weapon rifle.  

Just to recap: Your odds of being killed in a Mass Shooting is 1 in 6.21621e-8, rifles of all types count for 2% of all homicides, and your 171.5 time more like to die of a drug overdose than being killed with an assault weapon style rifle.  I'm sorry, I'm not seeing the elephant in this room.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/mass-shootings-in-america/?utm_term=.b1a5b7c6f965  
[2] http://www.macleans.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/mass-shootings-chart-1.png
[3] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-12 ;
[4] http://time.com/4965022/deadliest-mass-shooting-us-history
[5] https://mises.org/blog/pew-homicide-rates-cut-half-over-past-20-years-while-new-gun-ownership-soared

Fredsnephew

Vaulk said:

@Fredsnephew

More people are killed in the U.S. each year with hands and feet than all rifles combined...not just AR-15s.  Weapons are not the issue...they're just more convenient to target than the real issue: Evil people.

Are we not discussing school shootings here?

There is only one "real issue".

That is to say. Kids in schools with easy access to lethal weaponry.

Murder statistics are irrelevant.

 

Evil is simply a word we use to represent a state of mind.

with_all_humility

Fredsnephew said:

Vaulk said:

@Fredsnephew

More people are killed in the U.S. each year with hands and feet than all rifles combined...not just AR-15s.  Weapons are not the issue...they're just more convenient to target than the real issue: Evil people.

Are we not discussing school shootings here?

There is only one "real issue".

That is to say. Kids in schools with easy access to lethal weaponry.

Murder statistics are irrelevant.

 

Evil is simply a word we use to represent a state of mind.

That is to say. Kids in schools with easy access to lethal weaponry.

Murder statistics are irrelevant.

Are you saying school shooting should drive our policy, or kids having access to firearms?

I do believe we need to look at statistics and do some cross-data analysis to try and identify some trends.  It can't be a firearm issue only, as an inanimate object just does not kill on its own. I've had access to firearms since the age of nine, many children both male and female enjoy hunting with their parents, as well as hunting on their own.  The masses should not have their rights infringed upon due to a few bad actors.  

While it is horrific to think about the killing of innocent children being killed, there are may other counter measures that can be taken to secure their safety.  I myself believe the 24/7 news coverage have a large portion of the blame. I believe mentally unstable individuals see this stuff on TV and then come to the conclusion that I get others to pay attention to or listen to me know.  

We don't see these acts taking place at police stations or in court houses were there is security and other countermeasures in place.  I believe gun free zones are a magnet for such people. But maybe this was not your question.  

Fredsnephew

School Shootings: "The Elephant in the room" 

So: A person most likely to gun down their classmates and teachers is someone with social and mental health issues.

I don't think anyone would argue with this.


The point I was trying to make was.

It is also an unarguable fact that: Easy access to lethal weaponry in a society with a lax attitude towards gun control will inevitably lead to an extreme conclusion.


Sure we should always try and address social and mental health problems in children.

But we will never be able to make these problems completely go away.

Burying ones head in the sand every time gun control is mentioned, certainly isn't going to make the problem go away either. 

Nor is arming all the persons we presume to be the good guys.

someone234

@Fredsnephew Actually this is one of the few things I can understand the right-wing on. If the cops aren't going to put a huge effort into removing the supply of guns, you are best off arming the populace.

It's less about fighting the government (they penetrate your mind from birth, your guns aren't going to win), it's more about being a threat to potential criminals.


Lazy cops at least need to admit they are lazy and hand out guns, otherwise they should remove guns form the bad guys as has been extremely efficiently done in most of western Europe, Australia, China etc.

Erfisflat

someone234 said:

@Fredsnephew Actually this is one of the few things I can understand the right-wing on. If the cops aren't going to put a huge effort into removing the supply of guns, you are best off arming the populace.

It's less about fighting the government (they penetrate your mind from birth, your guns aren't going to win), it's more about being a threat to potential criminals.


Lazy cops at least need to admit they are lazy and hand out guns, otherwise they should remove guns form the bad guys as has been extremely efficiently done in most of western Europe, Australia, China etc.

Governments of the world are collectively responsible for the largest number of murders, why should we give them ALL of the guns, you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

someone234

@Erfisflat in a war between the entire population of usa and the military, and police they'd lose even if they all had guns. They are conditioned to not want to fire then.

Erfisflat

someone234 said:

@Erfisflat in a war between the entire population of usa and the military, and police they'd lose even if they all had guns. They are conditioned to not want to fire then.

I'm not talking about a war between the state and the government, I'm talking a war on citizens. You've never heard of democide? Here, you should read this. asap.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.planetebook.com/free-ebooks/1984.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj0v82zzavaAhWNwFMKHRcsBQ8QFjAAegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw1CGblG2F9BL-DC615YR-MW

Erfisflat

"they penetrate your mind from birth, your guns aren't going to win"

There are ways to stop the mind control. 

Erfisflat

And you want to take the guns away because the government told you a school got shot up?
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4715329/florida-shooting-false-flag-op-robert-kentucky

with_all_humility

It is also an unarguable fact that: Easy access to lethal weaponry in a society with a lax attitude towards gun control will inevitably lead to an extreme conclusion.

So, your recommendation is to do what?  Take guns away? When you do that people just start using different means of killing one another.  Look at London they took guns away and they are dealing with stabbings. 

The British capital also suffered 22 fatal stabbings and shootings in March, higher than the 21 in New York.  There have been 10 fatal stabbings in London in the last 19 days, following on from the 80 fatal stabbings recorded in the city last year.

52 PHOTOS

The most dangerous cities in America, ranked

London's murder rate has grown by nearly 40 percent in three years

We have to learn to distinguish the homicidal maniac before he/she acts or figure out a means to stop them.  Because they are still going to keep coming. 

@Fredsnephew

Fredsnephew

@with_all_humility ;

Yes. Sadly gang violence has become a popular pastime in London these days.

Another Elephant in a different Room I would suggest and not directly related to the subject in question.

Vaulk

@someone234

someone234 said:

@Erfisflat in a war between the entire population of usa and the military, and police they'd lose even if they all had guns. They are conditioned to not want to fire then.

Where exactly are you getting this conclusion from?  

Allow me to square you away for a moment:

1. The Entire U.S. Military (Approximately 2,008,895) makes up less than 1% of the total population of the United States (325,000,000).
2. The United States civilian population is what allows the U.S. Military to operate, Military service members don't grow their own food or provide themselves with much of anything, it's all provided by the civilian populace.

So you contend that the U.S. Military, while leaning completely and totally upon the logistics provided by the civilian population...could put up enough combat strength in order to topple the absolutely most heavily armed civilian population with the largest and most heavily armed State Militias in the entire World?

I respectfully disagree.

someone234

@Vaulk You're not gonna fire. You're gonna hold your hands up the first chance you get to not be framed as the instigator or a bandwagoner of treason.

Fear is a weapon more powerful than the gun you hold. If you're dumb enough to be that brave to shoot, you'll be the first they make an example of. They'll use the media to their entire advantage.

Vaulk

Fredsnephew said:

Vaulk said:

@Fredsnephew

More people are killed in the U.S. each year with hands and feet than all rifles combined...not just AR-15s.  Weapons are not the issue...they're just more convenient to target than the real issue: Evil people.

Are we not discussing school shootings here?

There is only one "real issue".

That is to say. Kids in schools with easy access to lethal weaponry.

Murder statistics are irrelevant.

 

Evil is simply a word we use to represent a state of mind.

We are discussing school shootings, but in order to understand how "Bad" the problem is, we have to acknowledge that we're talking about a relative term.  In order to evaluate how "Bad" the problem is, we have to make a comparison.  Hence the comparison to other types of murders.

I understand that your conclusion is that the real issue here is school age children with easy access to deadly weapons.  I happen to disagree.  Firearm laws have actually increased incredibly over the past 70 years and firearms have subsequently become more and more difficult to obtain.  Yet school shootings have increased in the past 70 years from an average of 15 per decade from 1930 to 1960...to a major crisis.  So what happened?  By your logic, school shootings should have been rampant 70 years ago when kids could take their guns to school, gun laws were virtually non-existent compared to today's standards and there was no background check to purchase a gun.

Gun Control Debate

Pro: Children having easy access to firearms equals mass shootings.

Con: Children had more access to firearms 70 years ago than they do today and we had SIGNIFICANTLY fewer school shootings then than now.

My conclusions: The scales are tipped heavily in one direction...and guns are one of the issues on the scales.  Unfortunately when you remove guns from the scales (Remove the variable)...the scales remain tipped.  Guns are not the issue.  If guns WERE the issue...we'd be seeing a decline in school shootings because of the increase in gun control legislation.

Vaulk

@someone234

someone234 said:

@Vaulk You're not gonna fire. You're gonna hold your hands up the first chance you get to not be framed as the instigator or a bandwagoner of treason.

Fear is a weapon more powerful than the gun you hold. If you're dumb enough to be that brave to shoot, you'll be the first they make an example of. They'll use the media to their entire advantage.

Which part of this is the rebuttal to my argument?

someone234

@Vaulk I needn't explain myself. 

The urge to shoot is the key to winning. The urge is where they will hit the hardest on top of their superior strategy and weaponry.

Vaulk

@someone234

I wonder where they get their equipment, weapons and ammunition from.

CYDdharta

someone234 said:

@Vaulk I needn't explain myself. 

The urge to shoot is the key to winning. The urge is where they will hit the hardest on top of their superior strategy and weaponry.

Do you really think US soldiers have an urge to shoot US civilians?!?  You must not have served.

someone234

@CYDdharta 'served' They serve the elite whether the elite are good or bad.

CYDdharta

someone234 said:

@CYDdharta 'served' They serve the elite whether the elite are good or bad.

There's a BIG difference between firing on an enemy on the other side of the world versus firing on your neighbors and family.

someone234

@CYDdharta No, there isn't objectively. The difference is who you are told is an enemy combatant and who you are told is a fellow soldier or a civilian worth protecting.

CYDdharta

someone234 said:

@CYDdharta No, there isn't objectively. The difference is who you are told is an enemy combatant and who you are told is a fellow soldier or a civilian worth protecting.

Yes, there is.  The military is prohibited from carrying out combat operation within US borders.  Any such orders would be illegal, thus would not be followed.

Vaulk

@someone234

I truly feel like you're making factual statements concerning what differences Military personnel would or wouldn't perceive without any qualifications to make those statements.  There's no appeal to authority here but to say that a Soldier will or won't do something is to make a claim from authority as you're talking about a Human being in a specific profession.

Some of us have been on that line, some of us understand the common mentality and general perspective that Service Members hold when it comes to the idea of potentially firing on U.S. citizens...and yes the conversation does get brought up and it's generally discussed in great detail so that everyone knows where everyone stands on the subject.  Any service member with half a brain knows that it's not a matter of being told what to do and then doing it...whatever movie reference you might have that makes you think otherwise is fictional.  Unless of course your argument is somehow rooted in facts, evidence or experience of course.

someone234

@Vaulk There's nothing super special about US citizens compared to the citizens of other nations. They deserve to be shot no less than the citizens of other nations. Yet, if the order is made a difference is suddenly 'seen'.

Erfisflat

someone234 said:

@Vaulk You're not gonna fire. You're gonna hold your hands up the first chance you get to not be framed as the instigator or a bandwagoner of treason.

Fear is a weapon more powerful than the gun you hold. If you're dumb enough to be that brave to shoot, you'll be the first they make an example of. They'll use the media to their entire advantage.

I will most assuredly fire, if, and that's a huge if, the American military is turned against their own people, and they intend to wage war upon their own family and friends.

Erfisflat

someone234 said:

@Vaulk There's nothing super special about US citizens compared to the citizens of other nations. They deserve to be shot no less than the citizens of other nations. Yet, if the order is made a difference is suddenly 'seen'.

Maybe you're referring to the U.N. military.

someone234

Erfisflat said:

someone234 said:

@Vaulk You're not gonna fire. You're gonna hold your hands up the first chance you get to not be framed as the instigator or a bandwagoner of treason.

Fear is a weapon more powerful than the gun you hold. If you're dumb enough to be that brave to shoot, you'll be the first they make an example of. They'll use the media to their entire advantage.

I will most assuredly fire, if, and that's a huge if, the American military is turned against their own people, and they intend to wage war upon their own family and friends.

Since this is typed online with my IP identity attached etc, I'm going to go ahead and say I wouldn't. When the time comes, what you or I said we'd do may not be what we end up doing but they can easier frame you as something for saying that than me.

Please don't feel I am threatening you, the threat isn't me.

Erfisflat

someone234 said:

Erfisflat said:

someone234 said:

@Vaulk You're not gonna fire. You're gonna hold your hands up the first chance you get to not be framed as the instigator or a bandwagoner of treason.

Fear is a weapon more powerful than the gun you hold. If you're dumb enough to be that brave to shoot, you'll be the first they make an example of. They'll use the media to their entire advantage.

I will most assuredly fire, if, and that's a huge if, the American military is turned against their own people, and they intend to wage war upon their own family and friends.

Since this is typed online with my IP identity attached etc, I'm going to go ahead and say I wouldn't. When the time comes, what you or I said we'd do may not be what we end up doing but they can easier frame you as something for saying that than me.

Please don't feel I am threatening you, the threat isn't me.

There would be an assault rifle behind every tree in my state. 

Erfisflat

someone234 said:

Erfisflat said:

someone234 said:

@Vaulk You're not gonna fire. You're gonna hold your hands up the first chance you get to not be framed as the instigator or a bandwagoner of treason.

Fear is a weapon more powerful than the gun you hold. If you're dumb enough to be that brave to shoot, you'll be the first they make an example of. They'll use the media to their entire advantage.

I will most assuredly fire, if, and that's a huge if, the American military is turned against their own people, and they intend to wage war upon their own family and friends.

Since this is typed online with my IP identity attached etc, I'm going to go ahead and say I wouldn't. When the time comes, what you or I said we'd do may not be what we end up doing but they can easier frame you as something for saying that than me.

Please don't feel I am threatening you, the threat isn't me.

I'm not going to cower in fear. The powers that be have little power over a free mind.

Vaulk

@someone234

Again you ignore my argument and shift conclusions.  I'm still getting some amusement from your "I don't have to argue logically, I can just throw up arguments until one sticks that you can't refute conclusively".

That said, since the vast majority of the U.S. Military forces are stationed within the United States...if they decided to attack U.S. citizens...exactly where would the front line be?