• 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.
MikeG said:
I thought you'd given up on this semantic nonsense, cullennz. It really isn't doing you any favours to stretch this point as far as it will go for page after page, day after day, when there are some actual real issues to discuss here. You're doing a great job of deflecting the spotlight away from a mass murderer, a Nazi, a hater.......onto his victims. I can understand gun nuts clinging to anything that could possibly deflect the attention away from this killing, but I really don't understand what your incentive is. Why are you doing your level best to steer this conversation away from the killer?
Click to expand...
That's also a fair call

If it is any defence, which it probably isn't.

I just made one point and people either asked stuff or flat out accused me of things I didn't say, so I couldn't really dodge it.

All good though.

At the end of the day just hope the survivors can hopefully live lives as normal as possible and the US works out guns shouldn't be so easy to get
 
cullennz said:
Missed this

If Jack makes everyone ostracise one person due to his experience then Jack would be a bit awesome, but someone I wouldn't like
Click to expand...

But how many of Jack's friends have to avoid the bully until Jack and his friends become the bullies?
 
CaptainHowdy said:
Your challenge that I responded to was: "Or, you are just trying to deflect from the fact that regardless of why, how, or if he was bullied, "He couldn't have killed seventeen people with a knife." If you meant at that high school, you should have said so.

But that's not important. I think the point you want to make is that it Parkland wouldn't have happened if Cruz was armed with a knife. I'll concede that it would be likely that he would be overpowered after stabbing a few students and the death toll wouldn't have reached seventeen. But if he had a machete I think it's believable.
Click to expand...

Seventeen with a machete? (Disregarding the additional 15 wounded?) That would be some mighty fine knife work. Give that boy a trophy before you hang him.

For my part, if I were inclined to go on a murderous spree where I wanted a high body count, I would pick an AR-15 over a machete. I wouldn't even take the machete as the close range backup weapon. I'd go with a Glock or something. Machetes are better for hacking through stubborn vegetation you want removed. And if you didn't want to go on a murderous killing spree, you can always use your rapid fire semi-automatic rifle for.........what exactly?


But, I'm glad to see the argument put forward, because it shows just how empty the arguments are. I don't just mean you and the people who share your views on this little corner of the internet, but even on the national stage, people are spouting the same old tired nonsense about why AR-15s and their ilk ought to be legal, and people across the country are responding with "We call BS."
 
cullennz said:
* I still haven't seen quotes saying he had all these friends you said he had
Click to expand...

I have provided that information twice already (I'm on my mobile now and I'm not good at posting links off it). Go back and read my comments, look at the video I posted, my comments tell you which part of the video to look at. Maddie King, one of the survivors stated that she tried to befriend him, that she and him had a number of mutual friends.

Another forum member provided a link from a student who tutored him in good faith, despite being previously harrassed and assaulted by him.

Despite what Gonzales says, he does not seem to have been completely ostracized. Some kids did, some didn't.
 
Meadmaker said:
Seventeen with a machete? (Disregarding the additional 15 wounded?) That would be some mighty fine knife work. Give that boy a trophy before you hang him.

For my part, if I were inclined to go on a murderous spree where I wanted a high body count, I would pick an AR-15 over a machete. I wouldn't even take the machete as the close range backup weapon. I'd go with a Glock or something. Machetes are better for hacking through stubborn vegetation you want removed. And if you didn't want to go on a murderous killing spree, you can always use your rapid fire semi-automatic rifle for.........what exactly?


But, I'm glad to see the argument put forward, because it shows just how empty the arguments are. I don't just mean you and the people who share your views on this little corner of the internet, but even on the national stage, people are spouting the same old tired nonsense about why AR-15s and their ilk ought to be legal, and people across the country are responding with "We call BS."
Click to expand...

Schodinger's AR: Rifles with the capabilities of an AR aren't any more dangerous than knives, but we definitely need rifles as capable as them to protect us from the government and gangs.
 
MikeG said:
I thought you'd given up on this semantic nonsense, cullennz. It really isn't doing you any favours to stretch this point as far as it will go for page after page, day after day, when there are some actual real issues to discuss here. You're doing a great job of deflecting the spotlight away from a mass murderer, a Nazi, a hater.......onto his victims. I can understand gun nuts clinging to anything that could possibly deflect the attention away from this killing, but I really don't understand what your incentive is. Why are you doing your level best to steer this conversation away from the killer?
Click to expand...

cullenz isn't trying to steer the conversation away from the killer. People doing that are those who for some inexplicable reason believe that if Cruz was bullied, shooting all those students was appropriate but if he was merely ostracized then mass murder was an overreaction. No matter how Cruz was treated by his peers, killing seventeen of them is not justified.

Emma said he was ostracized. Other students have said he was bullied. I don't know exactly what these students mean when they say he was bullied. But if they say he was bullied, it's reasonable to think that he was bullied. Why are you so quick to dismiss the opinions of these children who have suffered such an unimaginable tragedy?

Edited by jsfisher: 
...SNIP... Edited for compliance with Rules 0 and 12 of the Membership Agreement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CaptainHowdy said:
...libtard...
Edited by jsfisher: 
Moderated content redacted.
Click to expand...

I'm English. I don't understand some of your phrases. Could you help me with "libtard"?

Could you point out the conspiracy theory you're talking about. I can't imagine for a second what that would be.

Once again, there is nothing that anyone can say to excuse this mass murderer his actions. I cannot for the life of my understand why one section of the American right would sully themselves by coming out in his defense. Could you explain your motivation?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CaptainHowdy said:
cullenz isn't trying to steer the conversation away from the killer. People doing that are those who for some inexplicable reason believe that if Cruz was bullied, shooting all those students was appropriate but if he was merely ostracized then mass murder was an overreaction. No matter how Cruz was treated by his peers, killing seventeen of them is not justified.

Emma said he was ostracized. Other students have said he was bullied. I don't know exactly what these students mean when they say he was bullied. But if they say he was bullied, it's reasonable to think that he was bullied. Why are you so quick to dismiss the opinions of these children who have suffered such an unimaginable tragedy?

...libtard...
Edited by jsfisher: 
Moderated content redacted.
Click to expand...
What conspiracy do you think "libtards" (whatever they are) are pushing?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Meadmaker said:
Seventeen with a machete? (Disregarding the additional 15 wounded?) That would be some mighty fine knife work. Give that boy a trophy before you hang him.

For my part, if I were inclined to go on a murderous spree where I wanted a high body count, I would pick an AR-15 over a machete. I wouldn't even take the machete as the close range backup weapon. I'd go with a Glock or something.
Click to expand...
Personally I would pick an assault rifle like an AK-47 over the AR-15. But if no assault rifles were available I would settle for an AR-15. If the AR-15 was banned, I would choose one of the other rifles available that can do exactly what an AR-15 can do.

Machetes are better for hacking through stubborn vegetation you want removed.
Click to expand...
And wood fueled fire pits are better for keeping you warm at a beach party but they can also be used to reduce hundreds of thousands of dead bodies to ash. So what if there are better methods to accomplish something? About half the victims of the Rwandan Genocide were killed with machetes. Don't act like a machete can't be used for mass killings just because a better weapon is available.

And if you didn't want to go on a murderous killing spree, you can always use your rapid fire semi-automatic rifle for.........what exactly?
Click to expand...

Taking down a deer that you missed or merely wounded with your first shot. Killing the bear who is charging at you because the first bullet just made him angry. Disabling or killing the second and third burglar in your house.

And you changed AR-15 to semi-automatic rifle. Do you want to ban ALL semi-automatic rifles or just the AR-15?

But, I'm glad to see the argument put forward, because it shows just how empty the arguments are. I don't just mean you and the people who share your views on this little corner of the internet, but even on the national stage, people are spouting the same old tired nonsense about why AR-15s and their ilk ought to be legal, and people across the country are responding with "We call BS."
Click to expand...
I'm happy to see your argument as well. I personally don't think that foul mouthed children who are in a fragile emotional state should be dictating public policy on a topic that they know nothing about. But if it works for you.
 
cullennz said:
Not very good arguements and you seem to be very keen to avoid the issue that others have said he was actually bullied any way, which kind of makes the argument a bit moot.
Click to expand...

Your bare assertions continue to be uncompelling argumentation.

And that other people said he was bullied doesn’t make ostracization and bullying the same thing. This has been repeatedly explained to you.

On a side note, you should be aware that the one person agreeing with you is a conspiracy theorist who calls these kids “crisis actors”. Maybe reflect on that for bit.
 
MikeG said:
I'm English. I don't understand some of your phrases. Could you help me with "libtard"?
Click to expand...
Edited by jsfisher: 
...SNIP... Edited for compliance with rules 0 and 12 of the Membership Agreement.


Could you point out the conspiracy theory you're talking about. I can't imagine for a second what that would be.
Click to expand...
Edited by jsfisher: 
...SNIP... Edited for compliance with rule 12 of the Membership Agreement.

Once again, there is nothing that anyone can say to excuse this mass murderer his actions. I cannot for the life of my understand why one section of the American right would sully themselves by coming out in his defense. Could you explain your motivation?
Click to expand...
I haven't heard anybody excusing his actions or defending his actions in any way
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CaptainHowdy said:
Personally I would pick an assault rifle like an AK-47 over the AR-15. But if no assault rifles were available I would settle for an AR-15. If the AR-15 was banned, I would choose one of the other rifles available that can do exactly what an AR-15 can do.

And wood fueled fire pits are better for keeping you warm at a beach party but they can also be used to reduce hundreds of thousands of dead bodies to ash. So what if there are better methods to accomplish something? About half the victims of the Rwandan Genocide were killed with machetes. Don't act like a machete can't be used for mass killings just because a better weapon is available.



Taking down a deer that you missed or merely wounded with your first shot. Killing the bear who is charging at you because the first bullet just made him angry. Disabling or killing the second and third burglar in your house.

And you changed AR-15 to semi-automatic rifle. Do you want to ban ALL semi-automatic rifles or just the AR-15?
Click to expand...

It would seem, from your writing, that you don't believe in controlling any item or substance the effects of which can be poorly replicated by some other, uncontrolled item or substance.

Is this the case?
 
3point14 said:
It would seem, from your writing, that you don't believe in controlling any item or substance the effects of which can be poorly replicated by some other, uncontrolled item or substance.

Is this the case?
Click to expand...
No, that is not the case. From your writing, it would seem that if Nikolas Cruz had run down seventeen students in a Buick Regal, you believe that banning the Buick Regal would be an effective way to prevent further automobile fatalities.

Is that the case?
 
CaptainHowdy said:
And you changed AR-15 to semi-automatic rifle. Do you want to ban ALL semi-automatic rifles or just the AR-15?
Click to expand...

I would ban all weapons that are capable of firing lots of bullets in a very short amount of time. I will leave it to legislative staffs to provide the exact definitions of "lots" and "very short".

Come to think of it, I will also leave it to them to define "ban". I wouldn't take away any existing, legally owned, guns.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom