• 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!

A high school teacher's thoughts on Florida shooting

BreadConqueror said:
You lied when you suggested they were caused by narcotics violence. So you're projecting and you're boring.
Click to expand...

no i didn't and you were caught lying when you claim most firearms deaths are accidental
 
BreadConqueror said:
I explained this very simply for you. I'll do so again, but just once more. If you believe we have a right to arm ourselves, but you draw a line beyond guns, then you believe we should regulate arms. So to argue any regulation will lead to a slippery slope indicates a misunderstanding of your own position. That or an unwillingness to acknowledge you favor regulation, but seek to limit the scope of it, which is more legitimate, but not something you have argued. Your last line is just pedantry.




Your arbitrarily setting the boundaries of debate. You don't get to do that. Arms are arms. If you think all people can be armed without regulation, then we must consider the arms you are allowing for. If you believe otherwise, that guns are arms, but not subject to regulation where other arms are subject to regulation, then you should establish that position, rather than dance around it using semantics and pedantic statements.



Oh its quite intentional that you refuse to admit you favor regulation of some arms. Because it is a significant hole in your illogical argument that guns are not subject to regulation, yet other arms must be. Unless you favor the deregulation of all arms? Then you would need to establish that position. What is your position?
Click to expand...

OK. You're just being intentionally dishonest, pretending I said a whole slew of things I did not.

I can only point it out. But I'm not going to bother with this, because it IS intentionally dishonest.


And your misrepresenting my statement, which was that I would willingly choose to give up all of my guns if that would save a life. I didn't suggest it would, only that I would be willing to do so if it could be demonstrated that in doing so it would save a life. This is called a rhetorical statement, used to illustrate that I value the lives of children over the ownership of arms.
Click to expand...

I did not misrepresent you. Note what I said originally:

Harshaw said:
Both can't be true. You can't be an "anarchist" yet willingly surrender your rights for the sake of a few people. You can't actually believe in resistance, especially violent resistance, yet be willing to give up your means to do so for the sake of a few people.
Click to expand...

Not that you won't just make up something else up now. Oh, wait; you already did that:

It certainly wasn't an endorsement of government mandated gun grabbing. To say otherwise demonstrates dishonesty.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was.

You lie freely and habitually.


Individual expression is essential for an anarchist system. It is only through the free associations we form with one another that we are truly able to learn, grow and change. No person can be informed in a vacuum. It is only through our dealings with one another that we gain knowledge and develop. So individualism is imperative, as is cooperation and association. That's basic anarchism.
Click to expand...

So what? I said individualist anarchists criticized your own brand of anarchism. Why? Because you asked who did. I didn't say anything about any of this.


This is a pretty common misconception of Anarchism. When the people, as in all of the people, have a hand in crafting policy, rather than having it dictated to them by elites, they are the masters of their own authority. This requires participation from the populace not apathy and subservience. It is not about shifting authority to new individuals, it is about crafting a system in which authority is delegated to the democratic whole, through the associations made by communities. This is pure conservative decentralization. Towns and states dictating their own policies, goals and initiatives. The removal of private tyrannies and replacing them with worker-owned and operated facilities which benefit those workers and their communities, not the shareholders states away.
Click to expand...

Like I said, shifting authority from one to the other. "Democracy" isn't anarchy. Democracy is democracy.


Claiming I would surrender my guns was an easy example and a misunderstanding of my initial argument.
Click to expand...


I didn't "claim" it. You said it:

BreadConqueror said:
I would give up every gun I had, every future morning on the lake or in the woods, if it meant one of these 17 kids would still be alive today.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
BreadConqueror said:
Again a strawman, I have not suggested violent revolution. I suggested violence may be necessary in cases to preserve liberty. You mistook that as a suggestion of violent revolution.
Click to expand...

I didn't say you said "violent revolution." I'm not even going to bother to explain it; your craven dishonesty speaks for itself.

Also:

Do we not live in a free society where one might voice views others see as radical? Or do you want to police people's opinions and ideas? That doesn't seem very Constitutional.
Click to expand...

I never said you didn't have the right to say anything. I merely said you were presenting yourself dishonestly.

Which you continue to do.

You have misrepresented literally everything I've said that you've responded to. And you're doing it to other people, too.

You are not willing to engage on anything, anything at all, honestly. As such, it is a waste of time even to read what you write. I will not make that mistake again. You bring nothing but lies to the table.
 
TurtleDude said:
no i didn't and you were caught lying when you claim most firearms deaths are accidental
Click to expand...

Nothing but lies from that one. It really is a spectacle.
 
Harshaw said:
OK. You're just being intentionally dishonest, pretending I said a whole slew of things I did not.

I can only point it out. But I'm not going to bother with this, because it IS intentionally dishonest.
Click to expand...

You support the right to bear arms. What are arms? If you say any regulation of guns is a slippery slope, then any regulation of arms must be as well, because that's the Constitutional definition of guns. So do you not support the right to bear arms? I'm literally asking you.

Harshaw said:
I did not misrepresent you. Note what I said originally:

Not that you won't just make up something else up now. Oh, wait; you already did that:
Click to expand...

This is actually a confirmation of my point. You conflate a willingness to sacrifice a tool for safety with an endorsement of government taking my right to own that tool away. That's a fallacy and a dishonest representation of my views. But you know this. I'm getting bored repeating myself for clarity.

Harshaw said:
I didn't say it was.
Click to expand...

You did in the very post I'm quoting. That's some severe cognitive dissonance.

Harshaw said:
So what? I said individualist anarchists criticized your own brand of anarchism. Why? Because you asked who did. I didn't say anything about any of this.
Click to expand...

So you can't give me an example of one? Then why should I believe you speak with any authority about Anarchist theory?


Harshaw said:
Like I said, shifting authority from one to the other. "Democracy" isn't anarchy. Democracy is democracy.
Click to expand...

If you actually knew any Anarchist theory, you would know it is essential that any system under Anarchist principles be democratic in nature. To say otherwise is just incorrect



Harshaw said:
I didn't "claim" it. You said it:
Click to expand...

You chose not to bold the end of the sentence. IF it would preserve a life, I'd give up all of my guns. I would need to be convinced it would, however. This statement simply illustrates I am willing to examine the issue with an open mind. So you're either misunderstanding, which is possible, or you're misrepresenting, which is likely. Either way it's a strawman and a red herring.
 
BreadConqueror said:
I explained this very simply for you. I'll do so again, but just once more. If you believe we have a right to arm ourselves, but you draw a line beyond guns, then you believe we should regulate arms. So to argue any regulation will lead to a slippery slope indicates a misunderstanding of your own position. That or an unwillingness to acknowledge you favor regulation, but seek to limit the scope of it, which is more legitimate, but not something you have argued. Your last line is just pedantry.
.
Click to expand...

Nice strawman argument there. Who is stating the guns can't be regulated? Who here.. or anywhere.. including the NRA has stated that a 6 year old should be able to walk into walmart and buy a glock. Or that its a fundamental right that violent felon in prison must be allowed a firearm?

You have created a strawman fallacy..
 
jaeger19 said:
Nice strawman argument there. Who is stating the guns can't be regulated? Who here.. or anywhere.. including the NRA has stated that a 6 year old should be able to walk into walmart and buy a glock. Or that its a fundamental right that violent felon in prison must be allowed a firearm?

You have created a strawman fallacy..
Click to expand...

Literally the guy I was replying to, Harshaw. Read the thread.

And talk about strawmanning. No one has mentioned 6 year-olds or felons, so perhaps you didn't reply to the right thread.
 
Last edited:
BreadConqueror said:
Literally the guy I was replying to, Harshaw. Read the thread.

And talk about strawmanning. No one has mentioned 6 year-olds or felons, so perhaps you didn't reply to the right thread.
Click to expand...

Wrong.. Harshaw did not make any statement that guns can't be regulated at all.

And the reason is that no one things that 6 year olds or felons should be able to trot into a store and buy guns.. and thus.. it means that people do understand that guns can be regulated.

I understand the thread.. you just are making a strawman argument.
 
jaeger19 said:
Wrong.. Harshaw did not make any statement that guns can't be regulated at all.
Click to expand...

Neither did you. No one has. Hence your strawmanning. You're boring and wasting time.

jaeger19 said:
And the reason is that no one things that 6 year olds or felons should be able to trot into a store and buy guns.. and thus.. it means that people do understand that guns can be regulated.
Click to expand...

Lol wut? This is barely even a cogent series of statements. You look silly and you're still wasting time.

jaeger19 said:
I understand the thread.. you just are making a strawman argument.
Click to expand...

Your statement is a perfect example of how one can be completely devoid of useful things to say, yet still believes they should speak.
 
BreadConqueror said:
Neither did you. No one has. Hence your strawmanning. You're boring and wasting time.

.
Click to expand...

Exactly. none of has made the statement that guns can't be regulated at all. And yet you keep claiming that folks like Harshaw.. ARE claiming that there should be no gun regulation.

Lol wut? This is barely even a cogent series of statements. You look silly and you're still wasting time.
Click to expand...

Actually its pretty easy to understand.

you just choose not to because you know realize that your claims that pro gun people don't support gun regulation are false.
 
mike2810 said:
I should have been more clear. The problem is not with the parents doing a good job. It is the ones that are not. Shouldn't a parent be the first to recognize their kid has a problem/issue?

What we should not look at is for the "government" to be the only source to solve the issue. Passing a new law or regulation does not always fix the issue. If it did we would not have robberies, murders, speeding, etc.

I stand by my point. The solution starts with the parents.
Click to expand...

How exactly do you propose to correct this? The Florida shooting is a great example of why no matter what you may suggest doing to parents of shooters, wouldn't apply. The shooter had his father die when he was very young (I think 5), and his mother die within the last year. Would you go after those who agreed to take him in, even if they only had guardianship of him for a very short time?
 
apdst said:
Start executing more murderers.
Click to expand...

The majority of mass shooters are more than willing to die during their crime, and several who have survived have been given or faced the death penalty. There are a few exceptions, but the death penalty would not dissuade someone who is planning a mass shooting or simply commits one.
 
roguenuke said:
How exactly do you propose to correct this? The Florida shooting is a great example of why no matter what you may suggest doing to parents of shooters, wouldn't apply. The shooter had his father die when he was very young (I think 5), and his mother die within the last year. Would you go after those who agreed to take him in, even if they only had guardianship of him for a very short time?
Click to expand...

Your missing my point. I stated the problem is with the parents/guardian who are not doing a good job. I have no idea if the adults the shooter was living with were good or not. From the few news broadcasts they seem to be good guardians.

So basically it seems you are giving those responsible to raise a kid a free pass. So tell me, what law should the govt pass to stop all school shootings?
 
jaeger19 said:
No.. guns don't teach kids..

A school system does.
I have been to plenty of sporting events in which elementary age children up to middle school that there is no score kept.

there is no strawman here. I don't list any myths. you simply don't want to debate since you know you have no logical argument.
Click to expand...

This is anecdotal at best. I have two sons in elementary school and the schools do teach keeping scores. They also have family nights where students and/or family members can win stuff (we did a Bingo night this year) as well as getting various awards throughout the year (only small numbers of students get these awards, not all). The students are awarded more, but they definitely compete for the prizes. That is what I have seen at the 3 schools my children have attended so far (and one was in San Diego).

So please show some evidence that most schools are doing this, not just some small isolated group of schools that you happen to be near.
 
mike2810 said:
Your missing my point. I stated the problem is with the parents/guardian who are not doing a good job. I have no idea if the adults the shooter was living with were good or not. From the few news broadcasts they seem to be good guardians.

So basically it seems you are giving those responsible to raise a kid a free pass. So tell me, what law should the govt pass to stop all school shootings?
Click to expand...

A free pass? They're dead. How do you force them to raise children a "right" way? Who decides which way is "right"? Who gets to decide that it was the parents' teaching/raising, rather than the kid himself/herself? Or maybe anti-psychotics that the parents were trying in order to "help" their child? Or that it wasn't genetic or environmental (nature)? You? Some small group of like minded people? Who? That is the problem with what you posted. You said "parents are to blame", when you really don't know that. Hell, most serial killers have been said to have been raised in very good homes, with well to do parents and little problems in school. Where exactly do you draw the line when it comes to parental responsibility? Always responsible or only if they have been shown to not have tried multiple things? What if they try multiple things and all of those things failed? Who gets to determine that it was their raising instead of some other factor?
 
roguenuke said:
A free pass? They're dead. How do you force them to raise children a "right" way? Who decides which way is "right"? Who gets to decide that it was the parents' teaching/raising, rather than the kid himself/herself? Or maybe anti-psychotics that the parents were trying in order to "help" their child? Or that it wasn't genetic or environmental (nature)? You? Some small group of like minded people? Who? That is the problem with what you posted. You said "parents are to blame", when you really don't know that. Hell, most serial killers have been said to have been raised in very good homes, with well to do parents and little problems in school. Where exactly do you draw the line when it comes to parental responsibility? Always responsible or only if they have been shown to not have tried multiple things? What if they try multiple things and all of those things failed? Who gets to determine that it was their raising instead of some other factor?
Click to expand...

Excuse me. It seem you do not understand general comments. I have not mentioned any specific parent. Nor have I mentioned the deceased parents. What I am saying is the home environment is a place to start to help end the school violence. Do you disagree? If so, what is your solution to the problem?
 
Last edited:
mike2810 said:
Excuse me. It seem you do not understand general comments. I have not mentioned any specific parent. Nor have I mentioned the deceased parents. What I am saying is the home environment is a place to start to help end the school violence. Do you disagree? If so, what is your solution to the problem?
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that parents can be a part of the problem, a part that is almost impossible to identify until after the incident. I don't doubt that Adam Lanza's mother (who practically worshipped guns and indulged her son and his behavior problems rather than addressing them at all) was a big part of the problem. But how exactly do we address these types of things? At what level would we even begin to identify a mass shooter level bad parent vs. a parent who is simply different (whether conservative or liberal, strict or indulgent, authoritarian or friend)? Those are things that are almost impossible to identify.

Many of the shooters have been identified as autistic. This doesn't mean though that autism is an actual cause or that autistic kids should be treated as if they will be mass shooters. And as a parent of an autistic child, I can say that there are a lot of additional things that can become an issue when raising such a child. Children do not come with manuals on how to raise them to not be killers, criminals. The best we can do is try our best. Most parents do this. But it isn't so easy to identify which ones actually aren't doing their best or harming their kids.
 
Rucker61 said:
What does this mean, and how do you know this?
Click to expand...

That she really liked guns and encouraged that adoration in her son, who had behavioral issues and anxiety problems even before she encouraged him to learn about guns.

And it comes from reports about her after the shooting.

https://nypost.com/2012/12/16/mother-shared-her-gun-obsession-with-school-shooter-adam-lanza/

Gun-loving Nancy Lanza's huge arsenal of weapons revealed in police images from Newtown shooter's home - including family snap of Lanza boy gnawing on a handgun as a toddler | Daily Mail Online

I'm not even against her owning the guns. I'm against the level of obsession those close to her said she had, including basically ignoring her sons behavior problems and teaching him adamantly how to use weapons without addressing those things first. It's like getting reports that your child is bullying other students at school, and then signing them up for martial arts lessons at Cobra Kai dojo ("sweep the leg").
 
roguenuke said:
That she really liked guns and encouraged that adoration in her son, who had behavioral issues and anxiety problems even before she encouraged him to learn about guns.

And it comes from reports about her after the shooting.

https://nypost.com/2012/12/16/mother-shared-her-gun-obsession-with-school-shooter-adam-lanza/

Gun-loving Nancy Lanza's huge arsenal of weapons revealed in police images from Newtown shooter's home - including family snap of Lanza boy gnawing on a handgun as a toddler | Daily Mail Online

I'm not even against her owning the guns. I'm against the level of obsession those close to her said she had, including basically ignoring her sons behavior problems and teaching him adamantly how to use weapons without addressing those things first. It's like getting reports that your child is bullying other students at school, and then signing them up for martial arts lessons at Cobra Kai dojo ("sweep the leg").
Click to expand...

Isn't there a difference between "worshiping guns" and ignoring her son's obvious problems to allow him access to guns?

Edit: That's not a huge arsenal. That's a trip to the range.
 
roguenuke said:
That she really liked guns and encouraged that adoration in her son, who had behavioral issues and anxiety problems even before she encouraged him to learn about guns.

And it comes from reports about her after the shooting.

https://nypost.com/2012/12/16/mother-shared-her-gun-obsession-with-school-shooter-adam-lanza/

Gun-loving Nancy Lanza's huge arsenal of weapons revealed in police images from Newtown shooter's home - including family snap of Lanza boy gnawing on a handgun as a toddler | Daily Mail Online

I'm not even against her owning the guns. I'm against the level of obsession those close to her said she had, including basically ignoring her sons behavior problems and teaching him adamantly how to use weapons without addressing those things first. It's like getting reports that your child is bullying other students at school, and then signing them up for martial arts lessons at Cobra Kai dojo ("sweep the leg").
Click to expand...

HUGE arsenal to a bannerrhoid BRITISH left wing tabloid is probably what I have in the trunk of my car when my son and wife and I go to a Steel shoot or a 3G match. Did you read the drivel you cited?
 
Rucker61 said:
Isn't there a difference between "worshiping guns" and ignoring her son's obvious problems to allow him access to guns?

Edit: That's not a huge arsenal. That's a trip to the range.
Click to expand...

its fun watching leftwing journalists abusing their first amendment rights far more times with far greater abuses than honest gun owners abuse their second amendment rights
 
Rucker61 said:
Isn't there a difference between "worshiping guns" and ignoring her son's obvious problems to allow him access to guns?

Edit: That's not a huge arsenal. That's a trip to the range.
Click to expand...

She definitely "worshiped" her guns (or at least ownership of them). She let her toddler chew on a handgun, while he was draped in ammo. Pretty obsessive. So I'd say both descriptions fit her just fine.
 
TurtleDude said:
HUGE arsenal to a bannerrhoid BRITISH left wing tabloid is probably what I have in the trunk of my car when my son and wife and I go to a Steel shoot or a 3G match. Did you read the drivel you cited?
Click to expand...

Did you? Do you consider her a responsible gun owner? Or are you just upset that someone is pointing out that not everyone is responsible when it comes to gun ownership and people can become obsessed with weapons? I don't care how many weapons you own. And just being obsessive about guns or worshiping guns isn't going to really be an issue in and of itself. But when you add that to bad parenting, ignoring your son's very obvious mental problems, it does become an issue. Because the guns then become more important than other people's safety, and in this case, her own even.
 
roguenuke said:
Did you? Do you consider her a responsible gun owner? Or are you just upset that someone is pointing out that not everyone is responsible when it comes to gun ownership and people can become obsessed with weapons? I don't care how many weapons you own. And just being obsessive about guns or worshiping guns isn't going to really be an issue in and of itself. But when you add that to bad parenting, ignoring your son's very obvious mental problems, it does become an issue. Because the guns then become more important than other people's safety, and in this case, her own even.
Click to expand...

I am not in a position to judge her parenting based on 20/20 Hindsight. Its easy to sit back and castigate the mother but I have known people who have raised several wonderful children who have another child end up a complete nutcase or thug. The claims of an arsenal is so incredibly stupid that I cannot take anything said in that lefty bannerrhoid tabloid as having any merit. To me, many of the people who were so quick to whine about a murder victim, were whining because in their hoplophobic mind-ANY mother who allows any child to shoot is a criminal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom