• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Everyone sees the difference': Race, sexual orientation and Florida's responses to Parkland and Pul

ttwtt78640 said:
The Parkland shooter was 19 and the Pulse shooter was 29 - which one was under 21?
Click to expand...

That's a sensible answer...though I can imagine proponents of stricter gun laws saying something like this: first, had we raised the age after the Pulse shooting, even though it wouldn't have had an effect on that shooting, it might have prevented the Parkland shooting. Second, the age restriction has to be part of a more general discussion on rational gun policy.

Now, I think those are misguided ideas, because they don't address the real problem. Plenty of people own guns without ever shooting anyone, and some more own guns without ever committing murder, even if they have shot someone (in, say, self defense, or in war). There are quite a few countries where guns are common, but there is almost no gun violence. Government can only do so much here; the real problem, at least as I see it, is that we live in a society in which there are comparatively few bonds of fellowship, and little instinct toward inclusiveness. Government cannot do anything about that.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I have since edited that post. You are under sensitive to any actual definition of school security requirements which were conspicuously missing from the "solution". As long as public money gets tossed for that "stated purpose" then that is all the "accountability" that is needed. My point is that the gun restrictions were immediate, permanent and concrete - the rest was tossing money with absolutely no immediate, permanent or concrete laws stating what school security measures must be in place or by when.
Click to expand...

So your edit was to add this entire paragraph:

ttwtt78640 said:
There was zero mention of why the demorats did not react to the Pulse mass shooting - just the excuse that it happened when the legislature was out of session - when back in session what, exactly, did the demorats then propose in response to Pulse shooting? None of these "solution" measures would have affected the Pulse shooting at all. The title and the last line are intended to make it a republicants don't want to act - when the truth is that "act" means accept even more "gun control".
Click to expand...

The minority Democrats couldn't do anything about Pulse when the legislature reconvened, but I don't understand your partisan interpretation of this article anyway. That is simply not the way it was written. I've asked you for details but gotten little substantive response.

The article's title is: 'Everyone sees the difference': Race, sexual orientation and Florida's responses to Parkland and Pulse.

The last line of it is: “People of color in inner-cities and everywhere have been dealing with this for a despicably long time, and the media cycles just don't cover the violence the way they did here.”

I'm still waiting for you to explain how those are anti-Republican words.

Two of the "solution" points were more gun control (rights restrictions) - no new gun sales to those under 21 and a 3-day delay in receiving a gun purchase. The rest was for more (future?) school security funding - but no law saying what school security standards must be met for that extra money or when.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're talking about related to school security because it doesn't come up much in the OP article. The legislation passed by the FL senate today, though, seems pretty clear.

"In addition to the gun restrictions and arming some school personnel, it would create new mental health programs for schools, improve communication between schools, law enforcement and state agencies, create a task force to look at mistakes made during mass shootings nationally and then make recommendations on how to continue to improve law, and establish an anonymous tip line where students and others can report threats to schools."

Florida Senate passes bill to put restrictions on gun sales in Parkland aftermath - Chicago Tribune

I still need to read the bill, but once again, you're talking about minor details of the point of the OP article and my purpose for this thread. You missed it.
 
Grand Mal said:
What would you do? In practical terms, none of that vague, 'identify and deal with mental health issues' crap, what specifically would you do? That Parkland kid, for example, what, if you were in charge, would you change to prevent that happening again?
Click to expand...

Hmmmm...I'm no "expert," but let me think...:think:

I guess I would start by establishing an agency to investigate the issue consisting of medical, psychiatric, scientific, and social experts to do the research.

I would task it with determining the root causes of gun violence and develop programs to investigate and provide rational solutions.

I would expect this agency to start by separating the various types of "Bad" gun use so we don't lump them all together trying to get a "one-solution-fits-all" quick fix.

Break it all down into workable subsets like suicide, gang-related, crime-related, politically motivated, heat-of-passion, mass-shootings, etc.

Next I expect them to do data collection on each type using different data points like age, sex, education level, physical and mental disabilities, who were the victims, what were the locales, etc.

I would expect them to design methods to interview each perpetrator in as in-depth a manner as possible; as well as their friends, families, acquaintances, teachers, counselors, girlfriends/boyfriends, etc.

Periodically share and collate the data to find similarities and differences that might lead to promising avenues of investigation.

If any specific factors or group of factors are found to link a particular bad use, then develop identification, counseling, training, and other programs to address the problems where they start.

Meanwhile, also develop social reporting systems where people can feel confident of contacting some agency who will investigate and maintain a confidential record of "warning signals."

I also think part of the problem is the paradigm shift in how males are being viewed and trained over the last 30 years.

For example, the trend of diagnosing ADD/ADHD and then drugging them up during early childhood and puberty. Efforts to "calm boys down," behave more like girls, eliminate competitiveness, and impede the natural inclination of males to create a social pecking order so as to present the "best choices" for females to choose from. In short, trying to turn them into "cucks."

I am sure I could think of other things but that's sufficient for now.
 
Last edited:
Evilroddy said:
MMC:

I think that both Columbine and Sandy Hook created a similar political climate in their moments but America was and still is just not ready yet to make the needed changes domestically. It will take more such tragedies to aggregate the societal frustration and resultant grass-roots political will needed to push reform, despite the wilful inertia of money and power, which resists change. I think more young or innocent blood will end up being spilled before the necessary statutory and political changes can begin to be seriously explored, designed, implemented and real changes can be made. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear that much more violence will be tolerated by those in power until public rage Forces power to take the metaphorical bulls by the horns and effect meaningful change at the local, state and federal levels. Money is at play here and when green mixes with red you get blackness. Then you finally, as a society, see the light and tear up the blood-soaked canvas, to start anew.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

As a survivor of Columbine and someone who was consequently interested in Sandy Hook, I don't fully agree that the current political climate existed after either of those incidents. The most I will say is that the federal government was equally impotent in each case. I have no doubt that more innocent people will be mass murdered in public spaces. Whether or not the country ever acts meaningfully to prevent it is yet to be seen and not something in which I have much faith, at least anytime soon. I comprehend the influence of power and money, believe me. I'm just doing what I can to encourage conversations.
 
ashurbanipal said:
That's a sensible answer...though I can imagine proponents of stricter gun laws saying something like this: first, had we raised the age after the Pulse shooting, even though it wouldn't have had an effect on that shooting, it might have prevented the Parkland shooting. Second, the age restriction has to be part of a more general discussion on rational gun policy.

Now, I think those are misguided ideas, because they don't address the real problem. Plenty of people own guns without ever shooting anyone, and some more own guns without ever committing murder, even if they have shot someone (in, say, self defense, or in war). There are quite a few countries where guns are common, but there is almost no gun violence. Government can only do so much here; the real problem, at least as I see it, is that we live in a society in which there are comparatively few bonds of fellowship, and little instinct toward inclusiveness. Government cannot do anything about that.
Click to expand...

I think your last point is sound, but I don't agree that governments can't do anything about it. How can we know until we try?
 
Captain Adverse said:
Hmmmm...I'm no "expert," but let me think...:think:

I guess I would start by establishing an agency to investigate the issue consisting of medical, psychiatric, scientific, and social experts to do the research.

I would task it with determining the root causes of gun violence and develop programs to investigate and provide rational solutions.

I would expect this agency to start by separating the various types of "Bad" gun use so we don't lump them all together trying to get a "one-solution-fits-all" quick fix.

Break it all down into workable subsets like suicide, gang-related, crime-related, politically motivated, heat-of-passion, mass-shootings, etc.

Next I expect them to do data collection on each type using different data points like age, sex, education level, physical and mental disabilities, who were the victims, what were the locales, etc.

I would expect them to design methods to interview each perpetrator in as in-depth a manner as possible; as well as their friends, families, acquaintances, teachers, counselors, girlfriends/boyfriends, etc.

Periodically share and collate the data to find similarities and differences that might lead to promising avenues of investigation.

If any specific factors or group of factors are found to link a particular bad use, then develop identification, counseling, training, and other programs to address the problems where they start.

Meanwhile, also develop social reporting systems where people can feel confident of contacting some agency who will investigate and maintain a confidential record of "warning signals."

I also think part of the problem is the paradigm shift in how males are being viewed and trained over the last 30 years.

For example, the trend of diagnosing ADD/ADHD and then drugging them up during early childhood and puberty. Efforts to "calm boys down," behave more like girls, eliminate competitiveness, and impede the natural inclination of males to create a social pecking order so as to present the "best choices" for females to choose from. In short, trying to turn them into "cucks."

I am sure I could think of other things but that's sufficient for now.
Click to expand...

I think this is all great. Except for that bit about "cucks".
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
I think this is all great. Except for that bit about "cucks".
Click to expand...

It's a new term (for me anyway) but I find the definition apropos:

A man who is desperate for acceptance, approval, and affection from women. This desperation has led to the compromise of his beliefs and values, the desecration of his dignity and self-worth, and his inability to stand up for himself and what he deserves as a human being, eg. loyalty, fidelity, and honesty in a romantic relationship.
Click to expand...
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cuck

I am seeing a lot of that type of male respondent popping up in video after video on YouTube.

Of course, on the other extreme we have the wife-beaters....I guess it all balances out. ;)
 
Captain Adverse said:
It's a new term (for me anyway) but I find the definition apropos:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cuck

I am seeing a lot of that type of male respondent popping up in video after video on YouTube.

Of course, on the other extreme we have the wife-beaters....I guess it all balances out. ;)
Click to expand...

You think that the social decision to drug boys was meant to emasculate them? I don't. Also, urbandictionary is not a great source for intelligent debate.

https://www.gq.com/story/why-angry-white-men-love-calling-people-cucks

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuckold
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
You think that the social decision to drug boys was meant to emasculate them? I don't.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do.

Boy's tend to be boisterous, with short attention spans for sitting around trying to pay attention to "boring" things. They tend to prefer activities, things they can see and do while following along. IMO teachers who can make math, social science, and science "Fun" and active tend to do better with boys than teachers who prefer lectures, reading in class, and calling on people for answers, which girls tolerate better than boys do.

There are too many boys on attention disorder drugs...so much so they often share them with peers like other drug users for the "high" after school, or even in school. Then deal with withdrawal if they don't get them.

Our culture is too much into prescription drugs IMO, and I think we were better off with fewer prescribed mood modifiers affecting our youth, preferring to leave that to recreational use when one is old enough to make an informed decision.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
Yes, I do.

Boy's tend to be boisterous, with short attention spans for sitting around trying to pay attention to "boring" things. They tend to prefer activities, things they can see and do while following along. IMO teachers who can make math, social science, and science "Fun" and active tend to do better with boys than teachers who prefer lectures, reading in class, and calling on people for answers, which girls tolerate better than boys do.

There are too many boys on attention disorder drugs...so much so they often share them with peers like other drug users for the "high" after school, or even in school. Then deal with withdrawal if they don't get them.

Our culture is too much into prescription drugs IMO, and I think we were better off with fewer prescribed mood modifiers affecting our youth, preferring to leave that to recreational use when one is old enough to make an informed decision.
Click to expand...

So you have no support that anti-psychotic, stimultant, cognitive-enhancing, and antihypertensive drugs are prescribed to American boys in order to emasculate them?

Don't misunderstand me. I am a grown-up boy who remembers what school was like. I also was never prescribed any drugs to alter my mood or behavior; and I can talk for days about the negative effects of misdiagnosing children with disorders that were invented by pharmaceutical companies and a social behavioral structure that wants workers bees to buzz in prescribed productive ways.

What I don't get is how you relate any of that to cuckolding and how any of that relates to mass violence, which is the subject of this thread. Please expound.
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
So your edit was to add this entire paragraph:



The minority Democrats couldn't do anything about Pulse when the legislature reconvened, but I don't understand your partisan interpretation of this article anyway. That is simply not the way it was written. I've asked you for details but gotten little substantive response.

The article's title is: 'Everyone sees the difference': Race, sexual orientation and Florida's responses to Parkland and Pulse.

The last line of it is: “People of color in inner-cities and everywhere have been dealing with this for a despicably long time, and the media cycles just don't cover the violence the way they did here.”

I'm still waiting for you to explain how those are anti-Republican words.



I have no idea what you're talking about related to school security because it doesn't come up much in the OP article. The legislation passed by the FL senate today, though, seems pretty clear.

"In addition to the gun restrictions and arming some school personnel, it would create new mental health programs for schools, improve communication between schools, law enforcement and state agencies, create a task force to look at mistakes made during mass shootings nationally and then make recommendations on how to continue to improve law, and establish an anonymous tip line where students and others can report threats to schools."

Florida Senate passes bill to put restrictions on gun sales in Parkland aftermath - Chicago Tribune

I still need to read the bill, but once again, you're talking about minor details of the point of the OP article and my purpose for this thread. You missed it.
Click to expand...

If you agree that race and sexual orientation were the driving factors in not passing school security legislation for the Pulse nightclub mass shooting or that or did not receive press coverage then I really can't have any debate with you - because it's not about the gun control according to you.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
A huge difference was the crime scene - a pubic school rather than a prvate business. The pubic has every right to expect better government provided security in a public building that they, by law, must send their children to.

Would it have made any sense to raise the age for buying a long gun to age 21 or having a 3 day waiting period to buy a gun in response to the Pulse nightclub shooting? How about adding taxpayer funded security for (all?) private businesses?

EDIT: I did not reference the shooter's or the victim's race, affluence, timing, sexual orientation or political calculations. What makes these mass shootings be treated differently by the government is location alone - a public vs. private establishment. Trying to make this into a republicants hate gay folks and Muslims "story" is pure and simple partisan hackery.
Click to expand...

Freudian slips? Stormy Daniels on the brain?
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
And what cause would that be? Don't generalize about "leftists". Address your response to me in the context in which I started the thread. If things that don't kill enough people to matter to you are not worth addressing, then we may as well give up medical research as well as consideration about mass violence.
Click to expand...
You are just another leftist. And you 'care' just like all the other leftists...in causes...as long as they are convenient.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
If you agree that race and sexual orientation were the driving factors in not passing school security legislation for the Pulse nightclub mass shooting or that or did not receive press coverage then I really can't have any debate with you - because it's not about the gun control according to you.
Click to expand...

So is the article anti-Republican as you claimed or not? If it is, please pick out the language that makes you think that.

I never said that race and sexual orientation were the driving factors in anything. Certainly not school security legislation, which has nothing to do with Pulse. For the tenth time (or more), no, it's not about gun control.
 
VanceMack said:
You are just another leftist. And you 'care' just like all the other leftists...in causes...as long as they are convenient.
Click to expand...

None of those words mean anything. Again, what cause do you think I'm promoting?
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
So is the article anti-Republican as you claimed or not? If it is, please pick out the language that makes you think that.

I never said that race and sexual orientation were the driving factors in anything. Certainly not school security legislation, which has nothing to do with Pulse. For the tenth time (or more), no, it's not about gun control.
Click to expand...

The title for sure - which implies (states?) that the Floriduh Parkland school shooting response differed from the Pulse bar shooting response primarily because of race and sexual orientation of the victims.

Republican and GOP-led are mentioned (held responsible for racial and sexual orientation response differences?) in the first two sentences.

How about "As the Florida Legislature crafts a $400 million gun bill..." which places gun control first (and foremost?) as the response to what you claim is not about gun control.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
The title for sure - which implies (states?) that the Floriduh Parkland school shooting response differed from the Pulse bar shooting response primarily because of race and sexual orientation of the victims.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with Republicans? You're inventing a connection that doesn't exist.

Republican and GOP-led are mentioned (held responsible for racial and sexual orientation response differences?) in the first two sentences.
Click to expand...

No. These are the first two sentences:

"A mass shooter murders 49 people in Orlando in 2016, and Florida lawmakers do nothing.

Another man with a gun murders 17 people outside Fort Lauderdale in 2018 — but this time, protests erupt and Florida Republicans, for the first time in modern memory, propose limited gun-control measures."

Your sensitivity about FL Republicans and this article is ridiculous.

How about "As the Florida Legislature crafts a $400 million gun bill..." which places gun control first (and foremost?) as the response to what you claim is not about gun control.
Click to expand...

I linked an article as the forum rules require and then I made my own point that has nothing to do with guns. I've done this many times. Your obsession with guns has nothing to do with this thread even if you insist on mentioning it every time you post.
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
What does that have to do with Republicans? You're inventing a connection that doesn't exist.



No. These are the first two sentences:

"A mass shooter murders 49 people in Orlando in 2016, and Florida lawmakers do nothing.

Another man with a gun murders 17 people outside Fort Lauderdale in 2018 — but this time, protests erupt and Florida Republicans, for the first time in modern memory, propose limited gun-control measures."

Your sensitivity about FL Republicans and this article is ridiculous.



I linked an article as the forum rules require and then I made my own point that has nothing to do with guns. I've done this many times. Your obsession with guns has nothing to do with this thread even if you insist on mentioning it every time you post.
Click to expand...

OK, the first two sentences after "the story continues below" (I missed the bit between the lead photo and the ads). The forum rules do not change the OP link - it states that gun control was a big deal and that the difference in response (used as the "news" title) was due to the race and sexual orientation of the victims.

The opinion piece labeled as news, from a biased source, takes the title from a demorat quote blaming republicants for not acting based on the Pulse mass shooting as "the news". Had the story taken the republicant quote, issued in reply as "the news", then the title would be timing and location explain the difference in Floriduh legislative action between the Pulse and Parkland shootings.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
OK, the first two sentences after "the story continues below" (I missed the bit between the lead photo and the ads).
Click to expand...

OK. Here are those two sentences based on the newest version of your story.

"Many lawmakers — particularly those who represent gay and minority communities — say Tallahassee’s disparate responses to the Feb. 14 massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and the 2016 Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando aren’t coincidental, and speak to the intersection of race, privilege, sexual orientation and the priorities of the GOP-led Legislature in the nation's third-largest state.

"Put simply: The Parkland high school students hailed from a heavily white and affluent community. The Pulse victims didn’t."

Still waiting for you, for like the fourth time, to substantiate the Republican hating that you keep claiming.

The forum rules do not change the OP link - it states that gun control was a big deal and that the difference in response (used as the "news" title) was due to the race and sexual orientation of the victims.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with Republicans? For the fourth (or so) time.

The opinion piece labeled as news, from a biased source, takes the title from a demorat quote blaming republicants for not acting based on the Pulse mass shooting as "the news". Had the story taken the republicant quote, issued in reply as "the news", then the title would be timing and location explain the difference in Floriduh legislative action between the Pulse and Parkland shootings.
Click to expand...

It's not an opinion piece, although it apparently turned you into a self-identified victim. It might be a biased source, but get real. You are too. You just don't agree with the piece because you're overly sensitive about guns and have completely missed the point of both the article and the thread. Also, learn how to spell Republican and Florida.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom