Another Monster Attacks a School

[impartialobserver]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You kind of kick that ball off by immediately talking smack about how everybody was going to make it political  It's not like you actually just said hey guys we should wait for all the facts  

As with every shooting I am a proponent of waiting for the facts, and the one fact we knew. To have been borne out by her confession which is that a disturbed young girl got it into her head that it was okay to kill people and that that needed to happen.

And why use a gun? It gets headlines. And if bad people want guns they're going to find them and if they can't they're going to use something else.

There's no way this girl got to this date without sending out some red flags and warning signals that she was in trouble. America wants to get serious about addressing this kind of thing they need to tackle that issue head-on with education and resources for people and parents to recognize when someone's in distress and get them real help, and for a reasonable version of red flag laws that allow the police to investigate and take appropriate action rather than just heavy-handed action or no action when they're dealing with someone who may be emotionally unstable and possibly a threat

That would solve a significant portion of the state's problems. Gun control will not

Making it political is another way of jumping the gun. Making it political in the absence of verifiable information shows a lack of honesty and critical thinking. 

I have been saying the same thing for over a decade when it comes to mental health and recognizing someone in distress. Gun control.. simply does not make sense. It is not because I am liberal or conservative. Think of any issue in the human world. If you let something progress along a timeline and then try to stop it at the proverbial 1 yard line, of course it is not going to work. 

[WestCanMan]

55 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Well the assumptions put forth on here were all wrong.

• She was not trans nor was she a leftist. Also, not a social justice warrior of any kind. Just someone who was deeply disturbed and did not want to live any longer. The point of my posts yesterday was to say that maybe you should wait until you have actual information before blasting away and this affirms that point. 
  
  About  the shooters manifesto
  
  "The author also writes that they acquired weapons "by lies and manipulation, and my father's stupidity" and describes wanting to die by suicide, but feeling like carrying out a shooting was "better for evolution rather than just one stupid boring suicide."
  
  https://abcnews.go.com/US/abundant-life-christian-school-shooter-wisconsin/story?id=116847316

You don't see any kind of a message in there? You don't think that she had some f'd up leftard drivel floating around in her head? 

[impartialobserver]

7 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

• She was not trans nor was she a leftist. Also, not a social justice warrior of any kind. Just someone who was deeply disturbed and did not want to live any longer. The point of my posts yesterday was to say that maybe you should wait until you have actual information before blasting away and this affirms that point. 
  
  About  the shooters manifesto
  
  "The author also writes that they acquired weapons "by lies and manipulation, and my father's stupidity" and describes wanting to die by suicide, but feeling like carrying out a shooting was "better for evolution rather than just one stupid boring suicide."
  
  https://abcnews.go.com/US/abundant-life-christian-school-shooter-wisconsin/story?id=116847316

You don't see any kind of a message in there? You don't think that she had some f'd up leftard drivel floating around in her head? 

Can you prove this assertion of "leftard"? Actually the limited info there is about her points to her having an affinity for Neo-Nazism.. that is not liberal in the least. 

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Making it political is another way of jumping the gun.

LOL i see what you did there  YOU're going to pun hell for that.   

Quote

Making it political in the absence of verifiable information shows a lack of honesty and critical thinking. 

I agree but your very comment was political so of course the response is going to be political. 

 

Quote

I have been saying the same thing for over a decade when it comes to mental health and recognizing someone in distress. Gun control.. simply does not make sense. It is not because I am liberal or conservative. Think of any issue in the human world. If you let something progress along a timeline and then try to stop it at the proverbial 1 yard line, of course it is not going to work. 

This is the conclusion that sensible and same people on either side will tend to come to

In Canada through extensive experimentation beginning in the late sixties to this very day we have discovered the laws around firearms can significantly impact accidents, but do very little to impact crime. In fact they saw some reason seem to make crime worse. 

The very basics of having a method to make sure that people who have been diagnosed with a severe dangerous mental health state or who are convicted criminals are limited in their ability to buy a gun immediately probably has some benefit although I can't actually prove it statistically, but after that there really isn't anything that works. What does work and what has worked in Canada is what you and I have both described

[WestCanMan]

11 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Can you prove this assertion of "leftard"? Actually the limited info there is about her points to her having an affinity for Neo-Nazism.. that is not liberal in the least. 

In what way do you mean "neo-Naziism"? 

Like a 1) Jew-hater or a 2) fascist?

1) The only overt Jew-haters in politics in NA right now would be Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, etc. Those guys are as far left as can be. 

2) The only party to exhibit serious fascist tendencies in NA lately have been leftists. In Canada they had total control of the media, gave out vax-passports (like the gesundheitspass), martial law, they beat protesters, stole from protesters, froze people's bank accounts, and called the unvaxed "racists and misogynists" right on TV.

[impartialobserver]

18 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

In what way do you mean "neo-Naziism"? 

Like a 1) Jew-hater or a 2) fascist?

1) The only overt Jew-haters in politics in NA right now would be Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, etc. Those guys are as far left as can be. 

2) The only party to exhibit serious fascist tendencies in NA lately have been leftists. In Canada they had total control of the media, gave out vax-passports (like the gesundheitspass), martial law, they beat protesters, stole from protesters, froze people's bank accounts, and called the unvaxed "racists and misogynists" right on TV.

"Social media accounts believed to be Rupnow’s show signs of a growing interest toward neo-Nazi violence and engagement in forums glorifying mass shooters. Minutes before the shooting, Rupnow posted a photo of a hand making an “OK” sign — sometimes used to signal white power."

As I said, there is limited info but this does not point to someone who is leftist. 

https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/madison-police-to-give-update-on-wisconsin-school-shooting-that-killed-2-wounded-6/

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

"Social media accounts believed to be Rupnow’s show signs of a growing interest toward neo-Nazi violence and engagement in forums glorifying mass shooters. Minutes before the shooting, Rupnow posted a photo of a hand making an “OK” sign — sometimes used to signal white power."

As I said, there is limited info but this does not point to someone who is leftist. 

https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/madison-police-to-give-update-on-wisconsin-school-shooting-that-killed-2-wounded-6/

honestly that really could actually go either way As far as political leadings go

Although to me it's sort of suggests that you didn't have a political leaning and was just interested in the effect and subject of multiple killings. For sure someone of that mentality will do what they can to try and maximize the discussion about them afterwards.

[impartialobserver]

39 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

LOL i see what you did there  YOU're going to pun hell for that.   

I agree but your very comment was political so of course the response is going to be political. 

 

This is the conclusion that sensible and same people on either side will tend to come to

In Canada through extensive experimentation beginning in the late sixties to this very day we have discovered the laws around firearms can significantly impact accidents, but do very little to impact crime. In fact they saw some reason seem to make crime worse. 

The very basics of having a method to make sure that people who have been diagnosed with a severe dangerous mental health state or who are convicted criminals are limited in their ability to buy a gun immediately probably has some benefit although I can't actually prove it statistically, but after that there really isn't anything that works. What does work and what has worked in Canada is what you and I have both described

I find that in these shootings.. folks make it political first and then lets worry about actual details (who, what, when, why). I would think that we would care about the victims and try to think about having this not happen again. Playing the blame game does not actually solve anything. 

On the surface, it would seem that gun control would work. I found myself buying into it early on (early 2000's). But all of the assumptions behind it are... ahem BS. Could go on for pages after pages and put everybody to sleep (hmm.. devious plan could work) but the one that really stands out is the idea that criminals know the gun laws. Pardon me while I laugh at that one. 

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

I find that in these shootings.. folks make it political first and then lets worry about actual details (who, what, when, why). I would think that we would care about the victims and try to think about having this not happen again. Playing the blame game does not actually solve anything. 

Absolutely, but the way you phrased it in the initial post that we were discussing was a lot more political than the way you just explained it here. You are of course correct and I'm not arguing with your underlying premise

 

Quote

On the surface, it would seem that gun control would work. I found myself buying into it early on (early 2000's). But all of the assumptions behind it are... ahem BS. Could go on for pages after pages and put everybody to sleep (hmm.. devious plan could work) but the one that really stands out is the idea that criminals know the gun laws. Pardon me while I laugh at that one. 

Sure, but haven't we been down this road before? Remember when we could solve North America's problems if we just banned alcohol ? Banning weed would stop children from doing it for sure. etc

I get the intuitive belief that if you have a problem with gun violence that banning the gun rather than worrying about the violence would solve the problem. There is a certain logic to it on a superficial level.

But as you dig down it turns out that the person is the problem and not the tool just was as was in the case with alcohol bans etc. 

Which is fine and all, but my problem is is that it has evolved to a point where it is extremely difficult to even have a conversation anymore about real solutions. The democrats want to ban guns and so they won't talk about effective solutions and the republicans don't want their guns banned so they won't listen to anything the other side has to say because they are aware that they are hostile.

Which leaves about like 50 people in the middle and the entire country who then get pounded by both sides 

 

 

[gatomontes99]

49 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Your country is almost 100 years older than mine and you still haven't grown up, How many kids need to die to justify your fantasies.

I gave you a great list of things we can do that will save lives and won't cost anyone any rights. But you chose to ignore those. The only logical conclusion, regarding your actions, is that you aren't interested in solving the problem. Rather, you are interested in restricting rights and gaining more government control over private lives.

[impartialobserver]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Absolutely, but the way you phrased it in the initial post that we were discussing was a lot more political than the way you just explained it here. You are of course correct and I'm not arguing with your underlying premise

 

Sure, but haven't we been down this road before? Remember when we could solve North America's problems if we just banned alcohol ? Banning weed would stop children from doing it for sure. etc

I get the intuitive belief that if you have a problem with gun violence that banning the gun rather than worrying about the violence would solve the problem. There is a certain logic to it on a superficial level.

But as you dig down it turns out that the person is the problem and not the tool just was as was in the case with alcohol bans etc. 

Which is fine and all, but my problem is is that it has evolved to a point where it is extremely difficult to even have a conversation anymore about real solutions. The democrats want to ban guns and so they won't talk about effective solutions and the republicans don't want their guns banned so they won't listen to anything the other side has to say because they are aware that they are hostile.

Which leaves about like 50 people in the middle and the entire country who then get pounded by both sides 

 

 

It is like decision tree. Make decision y and you go to the right and up. At the first fork is repeal the 2nd Amendment or not. There is a 0% chance of that happening so lets take choice B (not repeal) and then start from there. How to curtail these incidents without banning private gun ownership. You have to be a special kind of stupid to think that the 2nd Amendment will go away anytime soon. 

Finally, if someone is going to be violent they will find a way ( I know that you know this.. but for the audience). Knife, large object, vehicle, chemicals, etc... all inflict pain, suffering, or death on the victim. Can't ban all of these items. 

[NAME REMOVED]

4 hours ago, Aristides said:

Your country is almost 100 years older than mine and you still haven't grown up, How many kids need to die to justify your fantasies.

According to @User, far more children are butchered, and have their genitals forcefully removed. So I guess we should feel ashamed of even bringing the issue with children being murdered in school shootings up, when thousands of children are being tortured by bloodthirsty Trans people.

[User]

10 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

According to @User, far more children are butchered, and have their genitals forcefully removed. So I guess we should feel ashamed of even bringing the issue with children being murdered in school shootings up, when thousands of children are being tortured by bloodthirsty Trans people.

Not according to me. It is a simple fact that more kids are in the gender-affirming care pipeline and getting surgery every year than are getting shot in school. 

You ignore the kids getting butchered because that isn't a big enough problem for you to care about, when you are not outright claiming it is not happening at all. 

 

[User]

13 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

It is like decision tree. Make decision y and you go to the right and up. At the first fork is repeal the 2nd Amendment or not. There is a 0% chance of that happening so lets take choice B (not repeal) and then start from there. How to curtail these incidents without banning private gun ownership. You have to be a special kind of stupid to think that the 2nd Amendment will go away anytime soon. 

This is what I constantly try to explain to the crowd on the left that hates guns and argues against gun ownership. 

The cat is out of the bag. 

Hell, even if you could somehow repeal the 2nd Amendment, it would take years AND then you have some 80 to 100 Million adults who own some 400 Million firearms lawfully. Not even including all the illegally held firearms. 

Guns are not going away in our lifetime, maybe not even for several generations to come... even if you could repeal the 2nd Amendment. 

So, maybe, lets talk about something more realistic. 

[NAME REMOVED]

23 minutes ago, User said:

Not according to me. It is a simple fact that more kids are in the gender-affirming care pipeline and getting surgery every year than are getting shot in school. 

   I never said there were more children getting killed in schools, than there were tennis getting "gender-affirming surgeries." Here are the statistics:

The study found no gender-affirming surgeries performed on TGD youth ages 12 and younger in 2019. This was expected, the researchers said, as current international guidelines do not suggest any medical or surgical intervention for TGD individuals prior to puberty. For teens ages 15 to 17 and adults ages 18 and older, the rate of undergoing gender-affirming surgery with a TGD-related diagnosis was 2.1 per 100,000 and 5.3 per 100,000, respectively. A majority of these surgeries were chest surgeries.

https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/gender-affirming-surgeries-rarely-performed-on-transgender-youth/#:~:text=For teens ages 15 to,these surgeries were chest surgeries.

 

In other words, 2.1 of 100,000 children 15-17 receive this. The majority only received breast implants. When it comes to genitals, the number drops to less than 1 in 100,000. 

23 minutes ago, User said:

You ignore the kids getting butchered because that isn't a big enough problem for you to care about, when you are not outright claiming it is not happening at all. 

 

It's not a big problem. Aside from that, it's consensual surgery. The teenager has to want the surgery for it to be performed. I know of no children to be "butchered." I think it's obvious that you have a hatred of LGBTQ people in general.

Edited December 18, 2024 by DUI_Offender

[NAME REMOVED]

22 minutes ago, User said:

This is what I constantly try to explain to the crowd on the left that hates guns and argues against gun ownership. 

Do you have any proof that anyone hates guns. Arguing for gun control, is not "Hating" guns. Millions of Canadians own guns, and most people who support gun control are fine with that, as long as they use them responsibly. 

[User]

27 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

Do you have any proof that anyone hates guns. Arguing for gun control, is not "Hating" guns. Millions of Canadians own guns, and most people who support gun control are fine with that, as long as they use them responsibly. 

Yeah, read the thread. 

If you are talking more globally, I am not even going to bother with your ignorance routine as if no one in America or Canada hates guns or gun ownership. 

 

[User]

42 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

 I never said there were more children getting killed in schools, than there were tennis getting "gender-affirming surgeries."

No... you just played dumb over and over again. 

Thanks for providing the statistics to back up my point, that you will downplay and ignore this as not being large enough to care about but then turn around and care far more about the problem of school shootings which is even less. 

44 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

Aside from that, it's consensual surgery.

Children can't consent. They are children. This BS is pushed on them by so called "doctors" and then their parents when their parents are lied to by those same "professionals"

I have already provided you the story of one detransitioner who went through this as a child. 

These children are not LGBTQ, they are just children, they are lied to and convinced to do something to butcher and drug them up. 

Its so people like you can feel good about yourselves as if you are an ally of the LGBTQ folks. You don't give a shit how many kids are butchered. You just ignore it when you are not outright lying and saying it doesn't happen. 

 

[NAME REMOVED]

5 minutes ago, User said:

Yeah, read the thread. 

If you are talking more globally, I am not even going to bother with your ignorance routine as if no one in America or Canada hates guns or gun ownership. 

 

OK then. 

1 minute ago, User said:

No... you just played dumb over and over again. 

Thanks for providing the statistics to back up my point, that you will downplay and ignore this as not being large enough to care about but then turn around and care far more about the problem of school shootings which is even less. 

Children can't consent. They are children. This BS is pushed on them by so called "doctors" and then their parents when their parents are lied to by those same "professionals"

I have already provided you the story of one detransitioner who went through this as a child. 

These children are not LGBTQ, they are just children, they are lied to and convinced to do something to butcher and drug them up. 

Its so people like you can feel good about yourselves as if you are an ally of the LGBTQ folks. You don't give a shit how many kids are butchered. You just ignore it when you are not outright lying and saying it doesn't happen. 

 

You are getting on my nerves. You are also a bigot against the LGBTQ community. I am placing you on ignore again, until you deal with your prejudice. 

[Aristides]

15 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

Making it political is another way of jumping the gun. Making it political in the absence of verifiable information shows a lack of honesty and critical thinking. 

I have been saying the same thing for over a decade when it comes to mental health and recognizing someone in distress. Gun control.. simply does not make sense. It is not because I am liberal or conservative. Think of any issue in the human world. If you let something progress along a timeline and then try to stop it at the proverbial 1 yard line, of course it is not going to work. 

All countries have issues with mental health, only the US makes it easy for people with mental health issues to get guns.  The US is the only first world country where mass shootings in their schools, churches and other public places are a normal occurrence.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, User said:

This is what I constantly try to explain to the crowd on the left that hates guns and argues against gun ownership. 

The cat is out of the bag.

Just one? There's a whole clowder of them boiling up out of the bag these days. They're boiling mad too.

Guns...drugs... immigrants...climate change...pronouns...and above all, lefties...

The crowd on the right has had enough...finally.

Got popcorn? It should be a really big show!

[User]

2 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

You are getting on my nerves. You are also a bigot against the LGBTQ community. I am placing you on ignore again, until you deal with your prejudice. 

LOL, you run away like a coward every time I have you backed into a corner. 

 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

   I never said there were more children getting killed in schools, than there were tennis getting "gender-affirming surgeries." Here are the statistics:

The study found no gender-affirming surgeries performed on TGD youth ages 12 and younger in 2019. This was expected, the researchers said, as current international guidelines do not suggest any medical or surgical intervention for TGD individuals prior to puberty. For teens ages 15 to 17 and adults ages 18 and older, the rate of undergoing gender-affirming surgery with a TGD-related diagnosis was 2.1 per 100,000 and 5.3 per 100,000, respectively. A majority of these surgeries were chest surgeries.

https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/gender-affirming-surgeries-rarely-performed-on-transgender-youth/#:~:text=For teens ages 15 to,these surgeries were chest surgeries.

 

In other words, 2.1 of 100,000 children 15-17 receive this. The majority only received breast implants. When it comes to genitals, the number drops to less than 1 in 100,000. 

It's not a big problem. Aside from that, it's consensual surgery. The teenager has to want the surgery for it to be performed. I know of no children to be "butchered." I think it's obvious that you have a hatred of LGBTQ people in general.

So what you're saying is he's right and the stats prove it.  Yeash. 

What is with you always posting proof that OTHER people that you disagree with are correct?

[Aristides]

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Neither can. And neither should

Republicans firmly believe that neither of them should be endangered. Democrats believe that one of them absolutely should and that is fine if the others are provided it allows them to virtue signal about guns.

It's a shame that democrats don't care as much as republicans do about people or violence. If they did we could have conversations