Cont: School shooting Florida - pt 2

[Dave Rogers]

OK. Then what do you call the kids who were killed?

Also victims. If a gang holds up three people, kills one of them, stabs the second who subsequently survives, and tries to stab the third but fails because he runs away, do we now need different words to describe what level of victim each one of them is? Not particularly; a reasonable person would simply agree that all three are victims of a hold-up.

Dave

 

[Dr. Keith]

It doesn't give them any special insight into gun control policy nor does it give them the right to deflect the blame for Nikolas Cruz away from the government entities and policies that are responsible.

Just as Candace Lightner had no special insight into drunk driving laws. And yet she seems to have made a real positive impact in our country. I hope this survivors have a similar impact.

 

[Meadmaker]

Just as Candace Lightner had no special insight into drunk driving laws. And yet she seems to have made a real positive impact in our country. I hope this survivors have a similar impact.

Very good analogy. I had used Rosa Parks in an earlier reference, but it isn't quite the same. Candace Lightner is a much better example of someone who played the same role that these kids were playing. Before Candy Lightner, everyone was anti drunk driving, but she lit a fire under the politicians that actually changed the laws.


Now that the march is over, they've gone much lower profile. I suppose we'll see in November if this burst of activity actually produces results where others did not. There have been a few baby steps so far, but nothing really substantial. Will they have enough impact to affect the elections? Of course, one possibility is that the only effect will be a "get out the vote" campaign for pro gun folks.

One thing about that. I don't know what to call the factions in this debate. I said "pro gun" in the previous paragraph, but that's not really accurate. There are plenty of people, myself included, that are not anti-gun, but want much tighter restrictions on guns, including complete bans on new sales of some types of guns. That isn't "anti-gun", but "anti-assault-weapon" sounds awkward, and "pro gun restriction" isn't much better. I suppose "pro gun control" describes me fairly well, although even that could be easily misinterpreted (perhaps deliberately) to make it seem like I want to take away your handgun.

 

[Dave Rogers]

One thing about that. I don't know what to call the factions in this debate. I said "pro gun" in the previous paragraph, but that's not really accurate. There are plenty of people, myself included, that are not anti-gun, but want much tighter restrictions on guns, including complete bans on new sales of some types of guns. That isn't "anti-gun", but "anti-assault-weapon" sounds awkward, and "pro gun restriction" isn't much better. I suppose "pro gun control" describes me fairly well, although even that could be easily misinterpreted (perhaps deliberately) to make it seem like I want to take away your handgun.

That may be the most important thing to address. If the NRA has managed, as it seems to have, to take away the language that its opponents can use to define their position, then the debate's over before it starts.

Dave

 

[crescent]

One thing about that. I don't know what to call the factions in this debate. I said "pro gun" in the previous paragraph, but that's not really accurate. There are plenty of people, myself included, that are not anti-gun, but want much tighter restrictions on guns, including complete bans on new sales of some types of guns. That isn't "anti-gun", but "anti-assault-weapon" sounds awkward, and "pro gun restriction" isn't much better. I suppose "pro gun control" describes me fairly well, although even that could be easily misinterpreted (perhaps deliberately) to make it seem like I want to take away your handgun.

I lean towards "Pro-regulation", or "Pro increased regulation" for my side.

I usually lean towards just accepting whatever terms the other side wants to use for itself, even if those terms seem geared towards creating false distinctions.

For example, those who favor fewer regulations sometimes call themselves "Pro-2A", or even "pro-constitution". They are in favor of the Second Amendment, so it is accurate in that regard. However, many of us who want much stronger regulation also have no problem with the 2A, and only support solutions that comply with it. I want much, much stronger regulations of firearms in the U.S., but that can be done well within the confines of the 2A, I am not anti-second amendment by any stretch.

That said, no term is perfect.

The most rabid pro-gun people on this forum, for example, mostly seem to favor at least some regulations, at least some things that are thought of as "gun control". We've maybe got one or two uber-libertarians who want no regulation whatsoever, but that's it - one or two people.

We've got a couple of forum members who want to ban or confiscate guns, but that's it - one or two people. Most of us who favor strongly increased regulations still don't want a full ban.

Any term will be hijacked and mist-stated by opponents in an attempt to create strawmen and false dichotomies anyway. That's true of most anything controversial, not unique to the debate over firearms regulations and laws.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

He didn't exactly admit it, more like "OK they weren't crisis actors, but they were plants"

I didn't call them "plants." 'Tools' or 'stooges' is a more appropriate word. They're students who are being used by the media to promote an anti-gun agenda.

Read what else he posted in the previous part of this thread.



Exactly.

There are posters who are more pro-gun than me, but who are obviously sincere and rational. They don't promote conspiracy theories about mass shootings.

Mockery is all it's worth.

I have never promoted "conspiracy theories" about Parkland or any other mass shooting. My theory was only a "conspiracy theory" to the vast numbers of people who believed they were witnessing the birth of a nation wide movement built from the ground up by an extraordinary group of teenagers.

There are some people who think that Parkland, like Sandy Hook, was faked footage with actors playing the role of grieving parents and that nobody really died. There are some people who think that the shooting was real and that kids really did die but that law enforcement was working with Nikolas Cruz to create an incident that would justify taking all our guns. Those people are conspiracy theorists. My theory that anti-gun people in the media jumped at this opportunity and organized some photogenic teenagers who are comfortable in front of the camera to promote their agenda is what happened. Anybody who knows anything about how the news media works could see this happening in real time.

Some of you are now pretending you always knew that anti-gun nutters exploited these kids to promote their agenda from day one. But see, here's the thing, we can look at what you were saying a month ago or two months ago to see that you fell for it. Only when the media started admitting that these kids weren't really doing it all themselves did you change your tune.

 

[jimbob]

I didn't call them "plants." 'Tools' or 'stooges' is a more appropriate word. They're students who are being used by the media to promote an anti-gun agenda.


I have never promoted "conspiracy theories" about Parkland or any other mass shooting. My theory was only a "conspiracy theory" to the vast numbers of people who believed they were witnessing the birth of a nation wide movement built from the ground up by an extraordinary group of teenagers.

There are some people who think that Parkland, like Sandy Hook, was faked footage with actors playing the role of grieving parents and that nobody really died. There are some people who think that the shooting was real and that kids really did die but that law enforcement was working with Nikolas Cruz to create an incident that would justify taking all our guns. Those people are conspiracy theorists. My theory that anti-gun people in the media jumped at this opportunity and organized some photogenic teenagers who are comfortable in front of the camera to promote their agenda is what happened. Anybody who knows anything about how the news media works could see this happening in real time.

Some of you are now pretending you always knew that anti-gun nutters exploited these kids to promote their agenda from day one. But see, here's the thing, we can look at what you were saying a month ago or two months ago to see that you fell for it. Only when the media started admitting that these kids weren't really doing it all themselves did you change your tune.

That's somewhat ambiguous - Are you saying that some people believe that both Sandy Hook and Parkland are fake, or are you saying that Sandy Hook was fake, and that some people believe that Parkland was too?

 

[smartcooky]

OK. Then what do you call the kids who were killed?

Victims.

victim
ˈvɪktɪm/
noun
noun: victim; plural noun: victims

1. a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.
"victims of domestic violence"
"a victim of violent crime"
"the victim was traumatised by their experience"

2 a person who is tricked or duped.
"the victim of a hoax"
"they intended me to be the victim of a confidence trick"

3. a person who has come to feel helpless and passive in the face of misfortune or ill-treatment.
"I saw myself as a victim"

I have highlighted the word "harmed". Harm" can be physical, emotional or psychological...you don't have to be shot or killed to be a victim.

It doesn't give them any special insight into gun control policy nor does it give them the right to deflect the blame for Nikolas Cruz away from the government entities and policies that are responsible.

They are, nonetheless, in a country that prides itself on free speech, ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINION....that is written in your constitution too!!!

 

[johnny karate]

I have never promoted "conspiracy theories" about Parkland or any other mass shooting.

Haha... yeah, okay:

I said unambiguously that Emma and David are "crisis actors.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12239557#post12239557

 

[Meadmaker]

My theory that anti-gun people in the media jumped at this opportunity and organized some photogenic teenagers who are comfortable in front of the camera to promote their agenda is what happened.

If that's literally what you believe, then I believe you are wrong. These kids organized themselves in Cameron Kamsky's bedroom.

Of course, if that had been the end of it, we would have never heard of it. What the media did was give them a lot of publicity, that's what the media does. That publicity led to a lot of donations, and a lot of organization for things that couldn't have been done by some 17 year olds in their bedroom. These kids were a good story, and the media promoted them. Are these kids media creations? Certainly. Isn't everyone you have ever heard of? How did you hear of them if it were not for the media?

However, there's one other thing that you got wrong. You think the media's agenda is to promote gun control. That's wrong. The media's agenda is to sell toothpaste, and these kids are doing a bang-up job at it.

So, if you think that these kids would have just remained insignificant kids had it not been for media exposure, you are right. They said so themselves in some of those "39 Days" clips. However, if you think the media invented this group and got them together to do the media's bidding, you're wrong. The media is along for the ride, and giving them as much exposure as possible, because in between soundbites they can run commercials.

There are politicians, one in particular I can think of, who understand that and play it for all it's worth. Do you think when they gave that dude so much free air time in 2015 and 2016 that it was part of their agenda to get him elected? Not a chance, but he attracted the crowds and they could sell toothpaste, so they did it.

My theory was only a "conspiracy theory" to the vast numbers of people who believed they were witnessing the birth of a nation wide movement built from the ground up by an extraordinary group of teenagers.

Literally no one believed this.

However, some of us did find what these kids were doing inspiring. It got us off our butts to do at least a tiny bit. I bought a T-shirt. My wife went to a rally. It's not much, but it's a little. It's not that we suddenly witnessed this "movement". We had believed the same way for a long time, and we had pretty much given up on making change, but there was something about this time that made us think this might be the one. Was it the kids? Was it the media who gave them all the attention? Who cares? It doesn't matter. We were there before they were, but we needed a little incentive to do something.

But here we are again talking about these kids. Is that all you'e got?

There are substantive proposals in play. Ban assault weapons. Universal background checks. Age restrictions. Registration of existing weapons. Do you want to talk these substantive issues, or do you want to continue attacking some teenagers.

My guess is you will do the latter, because that is, in fact, all you've got.

 

[quadraginta]

OK. Then what do you call the kids who were killed?


It doesn't give them any special insight into gun control policy

Sure it does. More than other kids who weren't victims of a mass shooting at their middle school.

And it certainly gives them an extra impetus to gain more insight.

nor does it give them the right to deflect the blame for Nikolas Cruz away from the government entities and policies that are responsible.

It looks more to me like it is exactly "the government entities and policies that are responsible" which they are aiming their protests at.

What, exactly, are you finding fault with?

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Some of you are now pretending you always knew that anti-gun nutters exploited these kids to promote their agenda from day one.

I haven't noticed anyone at all here who is doing that.

Well ... aside from you, that is.

But see, here's the thing, we can look at what you were saying a month ago or two months ago to see that you fell for it.

This is where you get to offer links supporting the claim you are making. Shouldn't be hard, with all the examples you seem to be claiming you have.

Only when the media started admitting that these kids weren't really doing it all themselves did you change your tune.

There's another one that would be well accompanied with some links supporting your claim.

Which may be problematic, since no one was saying the things you claim they have been.

 

[tyr_13]

I lean towards "Pro-regulation", or "Pro increased regulation" for my side.

I usually lean towards just accepting whatever terms the other side wants to use for itself, even if those terms seem geared towards creating false distinctions.

For example, those who favor fewer regulations sometimes call themselves "Pro-2A", or even "pro-constitution". They are in favor of the Second Amendment, so it is accurate in that regard. However, many of us who want much stronger regulation also have no problem with the 2A, and only support solutions that comply with it. I want much, much stronger regulations of firearms in the U.S., but that can be done well within the confines of the 2A, I am not anti-second amendment by any stretch.

That said, no term is perfect.

The most rabid pro-gun people on this forum, for example, mostly seem to favor at least some regulations, at least some things that are thought of as "gun control". We've maybe got one or two uber-libertarians who want no regulation whatsoever, but that's it - one or two people.

We've got a couple of forum members who want to ban or confiscate guns, but that's it - one or two people. Most of us who favor strongly increased regulations still don't want a full ban.

Any term will be hijacked and mist-stated by opponents in an attempt to create strawmen and false dichotomies anyway. That's true of most anything controversial, not unique to the debate over firearms regulations and laws.

Very good points. I tend to say I want better gun regulation, or effective gun regulation.

Doesn't help that I'm a legal gun owner, I'm still told I'm anti-2nd Amendment and want a ban. (And that I don't know anything about guns, but they tell me that when I extol the virtues of a bolt action in .243 too.)

 

[Aridas]

Literally no one believed this.

I want to agree with you, but one can find people who believe all kinds of crazy things. I certainly never believed it, though. That somewhat leads to -

Some of you are now pretending you always knew that anti-gun nutters exploited these kids to promote their agenda from day one. But see, here's the thing, we can look at what you were saying a month ago or two months ago to see that you fell for it. Only when the media started admitting that these kids weren't really doing it all themselves did you change your tune.

Some of us are pretending to have had a modicum of common sense and understanding of how the world works all along and didn't feel the need to constantly explain all the blatantly obvious and generally irrelevant details? What a shock!

I'm curious about which people you're referencing, either way, CaptainHowdy. Perhaps you could provide some examples?

 

[Dave Rogers]

I lean towards "Pro-regulation", or "Pro increased regulation" for my side.

One of the things that's been established in the aftermath of this and many other shootings is that a big part of the problem is that there are laws and regulations on gun sale and ownership which might well have prevented them, had they actually been enforced. Would it be a good idea, then, to describe yourself as "Pro-enforcement to a proper standard of existing laws"? I suspect it would be at least a little more difficult for the NRA to rubbish a stance that could be so conveniently abbreviated to "Pro-law enforcement."

Dave

 

[Kestrel]

One of the things that's been established in the aftermath of this and many other shootings is that a big part of the problem is that there are laws and regulations on gun sale and ownership which might well have prevented them, had they actually been enforced. Would it be a good idea, then, to describe yourself as "Pro-enforcement to a proper standard of existing laws"? I suspect it would be at least a little more difficult for the NRA to rubbish a stance that could be so conveniently abbreviated to "Pro-law enforcement..

The Florida School shooter did show signs of being disturbed. But did those prior incidents rise to the level that clearly justified felony charges or involuntary commitment to a mental health facility?

Or does it only look that way with 20/20 hindsight?

 

[crescent]

One of the things that's been established in the aftermath of this and many other shootings is that a big part of the problem is that there are laws and regulations on gun sale and ownership which might well have prevented them, had they actually been enforced. Would it be a good idea, then, to describe yourself as "Pro-enforcement to a proper standard of existing laws"? I suspect it would be at least a little more difficult for the NRA to rubbish a stance that could be so conveniently abbreviated to "Pro-law enforcement."

Dave

The Florida School shooter did show signs of being disturbed. But did those prior incidents rise to the level that clearly justified felony charges or involuntary commitment to a mental health facility?

Or does it only look that way with 20/20 hindsight?

I admit I've been quiet on the interactions between the Florida shooter and the police prior to the shooting.

We hear about regulations not being enforced, with the 20+ interactions the police had with the shooters house. What I have not heard, however, is if the police actually would have had the legal authority to do anything - did any of the things that precipitated the calls have actually been serious enough to create legal justification for arrest, or to confiscate his guns?

It is easy to say that they should have done something. I have not seen anyone actually show what legal options they actually had, or what the calls were actually about. I have heard rumors (unsubstantiated) for example, that many of the calls were due to complaints about the shooter's brother, not the shooter himself.

Can someone tell me what complaints there were that were serious enough or had enough evidence for the police to hold him, or to take his guns away?

 

[bruto]

I was looking in one of our local free arts-and-events papers today, and came across this cartoon strip, which of course is meant to be a satire, except that I found it eerily resembling some of the posts here. I had to laugh a bit when it mentioned the fine slicing of what is a victim, the buzz words, and even George Soros.

"The real victims are the ones who died - and they're not out marching against guns!"

 

[CaptainHowdy]

Very good analogy. I had used Rosa Parks in an earlier reference, but it isn't quite the same. Candace Lightner is a much better example of someone who played the same role that these kids were playing. Before Candy Lightner, everyone was anti drunk driving, but she lit a fire under the politicians that actually changed the laws.


Now that the march is over, they've gone much lower profile. I suppose we'll see in November if this burst of activity actually produces results where others did not. There have been a few baby steps so far, but nothing really substantial. Will they have enough impact to affect the elections? Of course, one possibility is that the only effect will be a "get out the vote" campaign for pro gun folks.

One thing about that. I don't know what to call the factions in this debate. I said "pro gun" in the previous paragraph, but that's not really accurate. There are plenty of people, myself included, that are not anti-gun, but want much tighter restrictions on guns, including complete bans on new sales of some types of guns. That isn't "anti-gun", but "anti-assault-weapon" sounds awkward, and "pro gun restriction" isn't much better. I suppose "pro gun control" describes me fairly well, although even that could be easily misinterpreted (perhaps deliberately) to make it seem like I want to take away your handgun.

If the goal is reducing the death toll from mass shootings, not just school shootings, taking away assault rifles won't cut it. You'll need to take away handguns as well.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

That's somewhat ambiguous - Are you saying that some people believe that both Sandy Hook and Parkland are fake, or are you saying that Sandy Hook was fake, and that some people believe that Parkland was too?

Some people think both are complete fabrications. I think that Sandy Hook and Parkland and every other mass shooting that's been reported in the media actually happened.