Florida School Shooting

[Cow Poke]

He's a kid. I'd've called him a kid. He's not a little baby who needs his hand held, nor is he blameless for his crimes, and I don't think that was really what carpe was getting at.

Well, he obviously tried walking it back by changing it to "man-child" when called on it.

[Adrift]

Well, he obviously tried walking it back by changing it to "man-child" when called on it.

Eh, I thought that was more or less implied in his original post, honestly, which is why I was a little surprised by your reaction.

[Cow Poke]

Eh, I thought that was more or less implied in his original post, honestly, which is why I was a little surprised by your reaction.

I just have a really hard time thinking of somebody who actually planned and plotted to mow down so many innocent victims as a "child". I think that's nuttier than Post Toasties (if, indeed, they're nutty).

[carpedm9587]

Well, he obviously tried walking it back by changing it to "man-child" when called on it.

I'm walking nothing back. As far as I am concerned, he's a child. The science says he's a child. He has some attributes of a man (his genitals, for example), but he has the brain of a large child. Anyone who has gone through the teenage years knows the ongoing fear of the combination of a child's brain and a man's body - capable of making babies, and lacking the frontal cortex that might make him stop and think.

What is it with you people and "walking it back..."

[carpedm9587]

I just have a really hard time thinking of somebody who actually planned and plotted to mow down so many innocent victims as a "child". I think that's nuttier than Post Toasties (if, indeed, they're nutty).

So, if the criteria is "planning and plotting," then perhaps we should call all of these adults as well? Do a search on "children who kill" and be dismayed by the results. A 12 year old can plot and execute and elaborate scheme to get away for a weekend and party with friends. They don't lack a brain or the ability to plan. They simply lack a significant part of the brain that helps them reason to consequences and outcomes.

Do you have any children, CP?

[Starlight]

Perhaps a little less Monday-morning quarterbacking and a little more time spent looking at how a child, with his clear mental issues, managed to get his hands on firearms?

Yep. It makes a huge difference in outcomes. The headlines in my country the day after the massacre in Florida were about an attempted-massacre here that didn't occur because the disturbed youth couldn't get his hands on weapons:

For comparison the headlines in my country yesterday were about a disturbed youth who was radicalized online and spent 5 months planning a violent terrorist attack, only to give up on it the moment he started to carry it out:

[He] planned to ram a car into a group of people in Christchurch and then stab them... but has since told a psychologist when it began he "decided not to hurt anybody because he did not have the means to kill enough people"...

..."The reason no-one was hurt was that he did not have access to knives," Lange said. But there was significant premeditation, and hostility towards non-Muslims.

.

The average criminal has no access to firearms here, nor to knives that are suitable for stabbing (knives are required to be designed for cutting rather than stabbing or throwing).

And the result is a difference in terms of lives not lost, because this disturbed mass-killer-wannabe was simply unable to carry out the mass killing he'd been planning to perform. The most dangerous weapon he could access was a car, and he concluded that he simply couldn't kill a sufficient number of people with a car for it to be 'worth it'. Whereas, if he'd lived in America and could get guns and knives, he'd have quite happily gone on his killing spree.

The fact is that there are mentally ill people in all countries, and there are people who get radicalized or deeply angry in all countries, and in no country is the police force omniscient and able to stop all attacks before they happen. The difference between countries that have mass killings and those that don't, is not whether people exist who will want to try to commit a mass killing: The difference is whether they actually have the means to carry it out or not. If they do not have the means to commit a mass killing, they will not be able to commit a mass killing. It's pretty simple. Many conservatives in America seem to not understand that basic reality.

...absolving them of personal responsibility. That's just sick.

If it makes you feel better, then I'll note that I don't absolve you or your fellow gun-toting anti-regulation conservatives of personal responsibility for these murders. I consider the children's blood to be on your hands.

plz stop falsely labeling yourself as a moderate when you are a far left loon

From talking to him, I've come to believe he would vote for the major right-wing party if he lived in my country. He does not appear to be at all "far left".

[Cow Poke]

If it makes you feel better...

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a flyin' flip what you think. People like you make Carpe look sane and reasonable. And extremely right wing!

[ke7ejx]

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a flyin' flip what you think. People like you make Carpe look sane and reasonable. And extremely right wing!

Thank you for saying it before I could.

[carpedm9587]

From talking to him, I've come to believe he would vote for the major right-wing party if he lived in my country. He does not appear to be at all "far left".

If one is far enough right - everyone else looks "left." If someone is far enough left, everyone else looks "right."

[ke7ejx]

If one is far enough right - everyone else looks "left." If someone is far enough left, everyone else looks "right."

Pretty much. Yet the universal we throw the labels around like a sack of potatoes.

[carpedm9587]

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a flyin' flip what you think. People like you make Carpe look sane and reasonable. And extremely right wing!

The next time you call me sane or reasonable... we're going to have a problem...

[TheWall]

Wait knives can't have points in new Zealand? Are they all warrencliffe blades?

[Darth Executor]

From talking to him, I've come to believe he would vote for the major right-wing party if he lived in my country. He does not appear to be at all "far left".

Anyone who unironically believes in white privilege is far left. It doesn't matter what parties he would vote for. He might as well have a hammer and sickle tattooed on his forehead.

[Darth Executor]

The most dangerous weapon he could access was a car, and he concluded that he simply couldn't kill a sufficient number of people with a car for it to be 'worth it'. Whereas, if he'd lived in America and could get guns and knives, he'd have quite happily gone on his killing spree.

The Muslim Truck of Peace in France killed more people than Breivik's turkey shoot, which in itself was an outlier because he had the run of an island for hours. In fact he seems to have gotten bored and stopped shooting before the cops finally got there.

[Starlight]

Wait knives can't have points in new Zealand?

My post above linked to the restrictions. Most types of knives are allowed except for those designed as weapons against humans - they can have a sharp point but they can't be double edged if they are short (i.e. daggers for stabbing people are banned). I have a range of knives in my kitchen and you can buy machetes for hunting. While such knives could be used lethally on one person, because they are designed for cutting and not stabbing it would be much slower to use them lethally and then pull them out than it would a knife designed with a double edged blade and sharp point, so in any attempted mass killing situation the victims could pretty easily fight back and overwhelm the attacker.