• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

School shooting Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.
So your saying for example kids shunning/ostracising say the red head isn't bullying.

Interesting

I think there's a bit of a difference between red heads and nazis. And whilst there are red jokes, I've never actually seen one shunned because of that.

In fact I find red heads particularly attractive, in lady form anyway.

Although there is a rumour they have no souls. I saw it on the internet.
 
So your saying for example kids shunning/ostracising say the red head isn't bullying.

Interesting

There is a universe of difference between shunning/ostracizing some for their appearance (or race, or origin, and so on) and doing it due to their non-religious bigoted beliefs.
 
That's either a complete misunderstanding of statistics and how the UK figures are compiled or it's willful misrepresentation of the data. (you might also want to google Harold Shipman.)
I recognize that a large amount of a countries homicides committed by one individual is something to take into consideration and would skew the numbers. When that information was brought to my attention, I asked if all of those homicides were added in the year 2003. I also asked if anybody had a revised graph of UK homicides with these homicides removed.

I'm not aware how the UK (or every country) compiles homicide figures. The recognition that I'm pointing out disparities in how the data is complied in different countries and accepting criticisms of graph should act as a tiny indication of me attempting to engage in honest debate.

Also why are you focusing solely on homicides. The US also has a significantly higher suicide rate than the UK or Australia for example. According to the WHO firearm suicide is one of the 2 biggest methods of suicide and should be one of the most preventable. In the UK there were 5 965 suicides 571 homicides. (10.4:1)

In 2016 in the USA there were 44 965 suicides in the US and 15 696 homicides. (2.8:1)
I'm focusing on homicides because of the title of the thread we're in; where we discuss the homicides that occurred in Parkland.

If you are suggesting that the science confirms that restricting access to firearms reduces suicides, then I am going to take issue with that assumption. It only takes one bullet to kill an individual who is contemplating suicide. Can we agree on that? If we can I'd like to move on to what I believe is the logical progression of how more firearm legislation could reduce the rate of suicides. Since one bullet is all that is required to kill oneself, you must be advocating for reducing the private possession of firearms. This is what Australia has done. In Australia you have to have a reason for owning a firearm; and self-defense is not an acceptable reason. They are a 'may issue' country.

Ten years after the implementation of this law, Baker, J and McPhedran, S (2007) attempted to answer the simple question "does reducing the stockpile of firearms in civilian hands result in a reduction in firearm or overall suicide death rates." I'll let you read the report. The results from the authors of that study are only further supported by the current rate of suicides that Australia is currently wrestling with. While suicides by firearm have decreased, suicide by hangings have increased. One method was replaced by another. I guess Australia's next move is to ban assault ropes. It's not the guns.

It kind of depends on how you define mass killing. If we use Smartcookys list of the 13 mass killings that you reference and then filter that by the gun violence archive definition:

and just go with killings rather than shootings.. that trims it to eight (8) mass killings.

If we use the narrowest definition which is:

Now we are down to four (4) attacks.

Whatever way you slice this you're wrong. Ready access to firearms increases the number of homicides and suicides and, most pertinent to this thread, mass shootings.

In 2016 according to here there were four hundred and seventy seven (477) mass shootings in the US. That data is using the "more than 1 person was shot" criteria which looks to be a similar criteria for your list of 13 (which has no entries for 2016 btw)

Though lets stop arguing over semantics.

Now we're getting somewhere.

If we put aside all the extreme points of view I firmly believe that most people in the US agree that there ought to be some further restrictions of firearms in the US.

The US has the 2nd amendment and a long (relatively speaking) history of gun ownership. It's possible to bring in further gun control measures that greatly reduce easy access to powerful guns, while still permitting most of the people access to a lot of guns, which could go a long way to reducing mass shootings (and possibly other homicides and suicides) in the US.

It'll never happen though until everyone sits down around the table and works out the best "common sense" approach.

I'd suggest that both the "cold dead hands" brigade and the "ban all guns brigade" were excluded from such negotiations until they grow up.

In the US and the UK and in Australia the number of homicides and suicides and mass killings is too damn high!

I don't know how we might reduce these figures in the UK. I'm open to suggestions. Increased gun control in the US I think would go some distance to reducing these deaths in the US and bringing the figures per capita more in line with other western nations.

It doesn't have to be gun control like we have in the UK or in Australia, but it'd be a good thing if the policy makers in the US could sit down and talk about some common sense regulations that could be brought in, that would make a significant difference.
I perceive that continually re-defining the meaning of mass killings (Moving the goal posts) is an effective tool to custom mold the data fit your conclusion. A few restrictions here, and there that make country A's data look worse, and country B's data look better and viola! If restricting private access to firearms reduced the amount of mass killings in Australia, then the homicide rate would also be effected because mass killings are included in the homicides data. As of yet, the homicide rate has not been statistically proven to have been reduced since the implementation of strict firearms laws in Australia. Ergo, it's nice to think that lives have been saved, but there is a lot of hand-waving that has occurred to come to that conclusion.
 
There is a universe of difference between shunning/ostracizing some for their appearance (or race, or origin, and so on) and doing it due to their non-religious bigoted beliefs.

Of course

But the act is the same

Shunning/ostracizing has been used as a form of punishment for as long as we have lived in groups
 
And I love the victim blaming going on in this thread right now.

Pretty much the same as "she wore a short skirt and got drunk, so it's her own fault she ended up getting raped."

Fantastic. Top notch stuff.
 
Seems tackling the root causes of both the bullying and reaction would stop suicide and murder. While banning an object would at beast reduce the severity of the attempts to harm others.

But only one of the options let's us be ******** to conservatives so I wonder which one puerile will tend to pick.

Tackling the root cause of bullying? You mean "being human"? Because bullying is a part of the human condition.

Schools have done a pretty good job of getting rid or real, undoubtable, physical, bullying, of the sort that was pretty common when I was a kid ('70s), and very common when my dad was a kid ('40s). Anti=bullying programs are very much a part of today's school experience. Curiously, to the extent that these programs face any criticism at all, it usually comes from the right wing. I'm glad that conservatives are taking this important issue more seriously, or at least paying lip service to it.

However, no program will make it go away, because it's just a part of the human condition. How about if, instead, when we see a kid who seems anxious or upset about being the target of psychological bullying, of the sort that still remains and always will, we don't sell him an AR-15?
 
Kids are usually bullied because something about them makes them different. The reaction of some people here is that Cruz wasn't bullied because he was a Nazi or that he was bullied but he deserved to be bullied because he was Nazi. So bullying a Nazi is OK. I just wonder what other characteristics a person could possess that would make bullying them acceptable.

There is a logical disconnect going on here.

Since when does choosing not to associate with someone mean that you are bullying them? If you choose not to associate with the school drug dealer, does that mean you are bullying him/her. How about members of the football team, or the basketball team? Are you bullying them just because you don't like their sport and you choose to have nothing to do with them?
 
There is a logical disconnect going on here.

Since when does choosing not to associate with someone mean that you are bullying them? If you choose not to associate with the school drug dealer, does that mean you are bullying him/her. How about members of the football team, or the basketball team? Are you bullying them just because you don't like their sport and you choose to have nothing to do with them?

I don't know, but sometimes I wonder about those stamp collectors. Now, that's a weird hobby.
 
Kids are usually bullied because something about them makes them different. The reaction of some people here is that Cruz wasn't bullied because he was a Nazi or that he was bullied but he deserved to be bullied because he was Nazi. So bullying a Nazi is OK. I just wonder what other characteristics a person could possess that would make bullying them acceptable.
You missing a vital part of your argument. You need to support your premise!
 
Saying "Hey Nazi, get the **** out of here!" would be a type of bullying. Choosing not to socially associate with someone because their Nazi views disturb you, isn't.

Nobody here is saying that bullying him was OK SOLELY BECAUSE HE WAS A NAZI, no matter how many times you willingly misinterpret it.
Indeed and as I said above anyone claiming he was bullied needs to first of all provide evidence that he was bullied . So far no such evidence has been put forward.
 
Last edited:
Kids are usually bullied because something about them makes them different. The reaction of some people here is that Cruz wasn't bullied because he was a Nazi or that he was bullied but he deserved to be bullied because he was Nazi. So bullying a Nazi is OK. I just wonder what other characteristics a person could possess that would make bullying them acceptable.

Keeping away from a nutter isn't bullying, however badly you want it to be. All your leading comments on the issue assume the existence of bullying, but provide no evidence or logic to back this up. Stand back a second, and take a good look at yourself. You're excusing a mass murderer.
 
Of course

But the act is the same

Shunning/ostracizing has been used as a form of punishment for as long as we have lived in groups
If a community shuns someone then it could be considered a form of bullying, but that isn't what we are discussing. Remember he had friends at school, it was merely some people didn't want to interact with him, not an entire community shunning him.

Are you really trying to claim that choosing not to interact with someone because you don't like them is bullying?
 
If a community shuns someone then it could be considered a form of bullying, but that isn't what we are discussing. Remember he had friends at school, it was merely some people didn't want to interact with him, not an entire community shunning him.

Are you really trying to claim that choosing not to interact with someone because you don't like them is bullying?
Depends how many are doing it.

I haven't seen any quotes saying he had all these friends you mention he had
 
In the event that there weren't enough friends - who draws the short straw and has to try to befriend the Nazi ? :confused:
No one

I never said they had to

I said I wouldn't either

All I ever said was I think it laughable to pretend it isn't bullying
 
You think ostracising a single student isn't bullying

At the end of the day it wouldn't have made a difference given his issues

It's a side argument any way, which is a tool to discredit them

Just thought I would say my view

When I was at school, ostracising would have been an improvement to my day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom