Florida School Shooting

[demi-conservative]

A game changer in the sense that it tells us the obvious: That a probably-not-particularly-well-paid and probably-not-particularly-well-trained security guard is unlikely to want to put his own life in danger by running in and getting shot?

Obviously there is problem when deputy of sheriff not obliged to defend children even though it's job of his.

[Adrift]

Yes, you do want that. You just don't think it's an existential threat. It's why I said "what they consider", but like with the "waah you claim i wanna massacre people" BS you'll do anything to try to cast yourself as a victim. I think you're a dunce and a goof, which I guess really bothers your narcissistic ego so you rewrite everything in a way that makes you look like I'm accusing you of something more badass like wanting to massacre entire schools so you can debate about it afterwards. Funny stuff.

What I think is funny is that you have a tendency of ramping up the ad hom shtick whenever your badly thrown together posts, and their ridiculous logic, are checked and thrown back in your face. Typically the same ol' "you're an idiot/retard/moron" line, or making sure that to point out what a genius you are compared to the lowlifes you're bothering to engage with. No one buys the tough guy act, dude. All it does is make you look like the little man you are.

[demi-conservative]

As long as you're willing to do a "post-incident-debrief" then what of the fact that Cruz was part of a school system that had idiotic progressive policies which essentially tied the hands of the local police and shielded Cruz from facing the legal consequences of previous crimes -- including at least one assault committed a year ago. The school's mantra was "Keep kids out of the courtroom and in the classroom," which ignores the very real fact that some kids deserve to be in a courtroom.

Ignored by carped, big surprise!

They want you to 'face facts about guns!!!' but don't actually want to face facts themselves. Sad!

[Darth Executor]

What I think is funny is that you have a tendency of ramping up the ad hom shtick whenever your badly thrown together posts, and their ridiculous logic, are checked and thrown back in your face. Typically the same ol' "you're an idiot/retard/moron" line, or making sure that to point out what a genius you are compared to the lowlifes you're bothering to engage with. No one buys the tough guy act, dude. All it does is make you look like the little man you are.

not every insult is an ad hominem, but like the narcissist I exposed you for you gotta pretend you're smarter than you are by throwing in some latin into casual conversation. a verbal mohawk so to speak

[Darth Executor]

A game changer in the sense that it tells us the obvious: That a probably-not-particularly-well-paid and probably-not-particularly-well-trained security guard is unlikely to want to put his own life in danger by running in and getting shot?

He wasn't a security guard, he was a cop. You know, the guys paid by the state to do combat with criminals in lieu of the civilians you want to disarm?

[Darth Executor]

They're not the same thing.

Ok.

Yes you have been. You rashly went from accusing me of wanting massacres for my "debate repertoire" to pretending that what you really meant was that I'm apathetic about the issue. It's textbook downplaying. I got you pegged and you know it.

No, I accused you of not really caring about massacres because you propose "solutions" that are nearly impossible to implement. I explicitly argued that you don't care:

"If you cared about stopping shootings you wouldn't pick the issue that antagonizes conservatives the most to push the hardest."

The reason why all our debates end in "ad hominem" is because you are a slimy toad that has to obfuscate and strawman to survive one.

Nah, I'm not going to sit back and allow some to tell lies about me.

What a hero.

I'm like talking to a tree stump, but you'll debate me on the subject for four hours. Ok.

The conversation spans 4 hours but a post takes a couple minutes to write. For me anyway. Funny how you keep exposing more and more of your inadequacies with every post

[Adrift]

not every insult is an ad hominem, but like the narcissist I exposed you for you gotta pretend you're smarter than you are by throwing in some latin into casual conversation.

No...the accusation that I rewrite everything in a way to make it look like I'm being accused of something "more badass" like wanting a massacre, because I'm a dunce, goof, and a narcissist is pretty much a text book ad hom.

a verbal mohawk so to speak

I don't know what a verbal mohawk is, or what sort of picture you think that's supposed to paint.

[Starlight]

He wasn't a security guard, he was a cop. You know, the guys paid by the state to do combat with criminals in lieu of the civilians you want to disarm?

Here the cops don't carry weapons and so aren't expected to immediately intervene in shooting incident if they happen to be on-site. Rather in rare cases of gun violence, a specially trained and equipped unit is dispatched to deal with the situation. It is an interesting observation to see a cop in trigger-happy America be unwilling to unload on a suspect though, I don't quite know what to make of it.

[Psychic Missile]

The only ones who offer impotent answers that have already failed are the liberal gun grabbers.

How have gun ownership restrictions failed? Plenty of other countries have them and also have less shootings. That sounds like a success to me.

[Tassman]

I'm not led by the NRA, Trumpman, and I don't believe it's reasonable that everyone has the right to own assault weapons. In fact, I doubt you'll find a single NRA member who believes it's reasonable for a mentally ill person to own any firearm at all. You're so goofy.

And so incredibly wrong.

Why do you believe it is right for ANYONE to own military style assault weapons?

[Jedidiah]

How have gun ownership restrictions failed? Plenty of other countries have them and also have less shootings. That sounds like a success to me.

I don't live in other countries, and the gun issue is particularly a liberal gun grabber issue. The controls we see in the various parts of the US have failed miserably.

[lilpixieofterror]

So your theory is the government prosecutor was lying to the court? (Linked article was quoting his words in court) And I'm the one supposedly in a 'thick bubble that is miles from actual reality' for failing to disbelieve the truth of what the prosecutor told the court and instead make up my own set of pop-psychology facts about why the kid "really" did what he did, the way you do?

That’s a lovely strawman that you constructed there to refute, but why assume lying when simple stupidity is an equally likely answer? The past 5 years alone is full of stores of dozens being killed and injured by bombs, knives, and cars/trucks in a single attack. The answer seems that this kid is incompetent and doesn’t know how to use a computer, that he didn’t want to carry out an attack and found a way not to, or both. It isn’t that hard to find web sites that explain how to build bombs, knife restrictions in NZ are not any different than here in the US, and hitting the gas towards a group isn’t that hard. Simple incompetence and/or excuse making is the likely answer. I understand that you don’t like that answer because you prefer the narrative, but the narrative is pretty dumb with even applying the slightest amount of reasoning. The reality is that I don’t live in fear of mass shooters because they are so rare that very few will ever see them. Hundreds of millions of us went and go to school with zero fear of a mass shooter showing up because the odds are none will show up. Mass fear and emotional rants will not change that little fact.

[Tassman]

He wasn't a security guard, he was a cop. You know, the guys paid by the state to do combat with criminals in lieu of the civilians you want to disarm?

It nevertheless puts the lie to the argument that armed personnel on campus would be a solution to the problem.

[Adrift]

No, I accused you of not really caring about massacres because you propose "solutions" that are nearly impossible to implement. I explicitly argued that you don't care:

"If you cared about stopping shootings you wouldn't pick the issue that antagonizes conservatives the most to push the hardest."

And then you went on to state, "you just like to argue and actually ending massacres would remove a topic of debate from your repertoire". The implications is clearly that I want massacres to continue so that I have something to argue about. That's not apathy.

The reason why all our debates end in "ad hominem" is because you are a slimy toad that has to obfuscate and strawman to survive one.

No, the reason you end debates in ad hom is because it's your natural response to having your back to a wall.

What a hero.

Oh, you're cool with people telling falsehoods about you. Got it.

The conversation spans 4 hours but a post takes a couple minutes to write. For me anyway. Funny how you keep exposing more and more of your inadequacies with every post

And here you are still replying to a tree stump. Ok.

[lilpixieofterror]

How have gun ownership restrictions failed? Plenty of other countries have them and also have less shootings. That sounds like a success to me.

Gun restrictions already exist. They didn’t stop the Texas church shooter because incompetent government officials didn’t file the paper work that might have stopped it. Perhaps we should spend time getting already existing laws working right before we make new ones.