I'm finding it hard to hate Nikolas Cruz

kingstonlake wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Sorry, dude, but fuck that.  Didn't have a chance, my ass.  His mom's funeral was a couple months ago.  Most of these reports of issues existed long before then.  Yeah, he was autistic.  So maybe that led to him being a social outcast and being bullied.  Or, you know, maybe he was a social outcast because he was a fucking racist pro-Nazi piece of shit that would kill animals for fun.  Pretty sure racism and Nazism isn't an outgrowth of autism.

Boo hoo for the poor kid growing up on a million dollar property in rich, suburban South Florida.  Never had a chance.  GTFO.  

I'm fairly confident the property value of the area he grew up in doesn't play a role in how he was raised or treated. Didn't take the GTFO personally. BTW.

DWags wrote:Sucks that the kid only had four people come to his moms funeral, feel horrible about that.  I absolutely understand where his anger comes from.  i don't know his mental health at this point, haven't heard enough about it.  But i do know i understand some outside stimuli that might make him crazy.   However there are limits to my sympathy "Empathy"?   We need better mental health programs.   I don't know, I'm not for killing this kid, but I don't see how you could ever let him walk among the free again.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:I’m not agreeing with Kingston lake because of course it’s very easy to hate him. However, this article and particularly this quote rose my ears a little bit.

“Five days before the shooting, Kimberly Snead took Cruz to the office of a therapist she has been seeing. Cruz said he was open to therapy but didn’t like medication. He took a business card and was figuring out what his health insurance would cover.”


Wonder what maybe could have been if he didn’t live in a country where he had to concern himself with what insurance would have covered at 19 years old with deceased parents.


https://www.google.com/amp/www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/fl-school-shooting-family-helped-nikolas-cruz-20180217-story,amp.html


Instead we live in a place where we have a number of indoctrinated individuals who have moved on from “its mental illness” to “its the media’s fault” as if it’s not 100% obvious that they’re playing right into their totalitarian dictator wanna be leaders hands. And that they’re doing anything that they can in the universe to blame anything but their precious gun that keeps them safe from imaginary boogeymen

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:I’m not agreeing with Kingston lake because of course it’s very easy to hate him. However, this article and particularly this quote rose my ears a little bit.

“Five days before the shooting, Kimberly Snead took Cruz to the office of a therapist she has been seeing. Cruz said he was open to therapy but didn’t like medication. He took a business card and was figuring out what his health insurance would cover.”


Wonder what maybe could have been if he didn’t live in a country where he had to concern himself with what insurance would have covered at 19 years old with deceased parents.


https://www.google.com/amp/www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/fl-school-shooting-family-helped-nikolas-cruz-20180217-story,amp.html


Instead we live in a place where we have a number of indoctrinated individuals who have moved on from “its mental illness” to “its the media’s fault” as if it’s not 100% obvious that they’re playing right into their totalitarian dictator wanna be leaders hands. And that they’re doing anything that they can in the universe to blame anything but their precious gun that keeps them safe from imaginary boogeymen

The Snead family also said they had not seen any of the red flag behavior that others had seen.  So while they saw something to take him to the therapist, it wasn't any potentially violent issues that they saw.  Did the therapist pick up on any?  I don't believe we've heard.  So maybe the medication they discussed wouldn't have anything to do with curtailing this behavior. And there's also a good chance that he already had this planned, at least in concept, prior to that appointment.  If so, it would make sense that he would tell Snead and the therapist what they want to hear.  Refusing it would just raise flags.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:I’m not agreeing with Kingston lake because of course it’s very easy to hate him. However, this article and particularly this quote rose my ears a little bit.

“Five days before the shooting, Kimberly Snead took Cruz to the office of a therapist she has been seeing. Cruz said he was open to therapy but didn’t like medication. He took a business card and was figuring out what his health insurance would cover.”


Wonder what maybe could have been if he didn’t live in a country where he had to concern himself with what insurance would have covered at 19 years old with deceased parents.


https://www.google.com/amp/www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/fl-school-shooting-family-helped-nikolas-cruz-20180217-story,amp.html


Instead we live in a place where we have a number of indoctrinated individuals who have moved on from “its mental illness” to “its the media’s fault” as if it’s not 100% obvious that they’re playing right into their totalitarian dictator wanna be leaders hands. And that they’re doing anything that they can in the universe to blame anything but their precious gun that keeps them safe from imaginary boogeymen

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Well yeah. Of course not. Of course this is only one kid in a terrible soup of mass shootings. But that said, who knows about his availability to mental health help prior to two weeks ago. Maybe he had all sorts of access. Maybe he didn’t. Personally I’d prefer we spend 1.5 trillion on making sure kids like him get help instead of lining billionaires pockets but I guess I’m a bit of a nut like that

LooseGoose wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

This post is why I don't care to even try to have a discussion with you. Do better.

I know, refuting facts with emotion is a bitch. Let me point out one more thing that's changed. And it was a "do something" improvement to our gun laws. Gun free zones.

I probably had a gun in my car for 1/2 the school year, between pheasants and deer in the fall and rabbits in the winter I hunted often before and after school. I purchased guns from teachers IN the school. I've told people those stories forever, laughing how you sure couldn't do that today.

Well guess what? Some bastard couldn't have walked into a school in the 1940s - 1970s and been sure that everyone there was properly disarmed for them. And before you start squealing about how this wouldn't have made a difference there ARE instances of people running out to parking lots and getting a gun to STOP a school shooter.

So Congress "did something" - they passed a law outlawing guns on school property and probably succeeded in getting kids killed. But all the Emotional Eddies and Emilies felt better because something had been done.

How many school shooters would you estimate have walked up to a school with murder on their mind, seen this sign:

then turned around and went home? My guess is zero.

kingstonlake wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:+

OK - how do you do that? Be specific, better yet tell me how any solution you propose would have stopped a mass killing had it been in place.

Mass shootings in the CNN only era 1980-1996: 21

Mass shootings in the CNN/FOX/MSNBC era 1997-2018: 77

Copycats and wall to wall publicity have contributed. It used to be "I'll make the cover of Time" now it's that EVERYONE will know my name. For some worthless fucks that's all they want.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

Goose unfortunately there is no solution that doesn't start or at least include looking at regulations on the availability of guns. And since it's a non starter for many gun sick Americans maybe there isn't a solution. This country has a sick obsession with guns and a sick dismissal of mental health care. You only have to look at the common denominator of countries with very low gun crime. We both know what it is. Wether you want to put in words or not.

The country’s cultural attachment to firearms resembles America’s in some ways, though it has no constitutional right to bear arms—it has the third-highest rate of private gun ownership in the world, behind the United States and Yemen. Yet Switzerland has a low rate of gun crime, and hasn’t seen a mass shooting since 2001, when a gunman opened fire in the legislative body in the Canton of Zug, killing 14 people, as well as himself.

So it’s possible to have widespread gun ownership without so frequently seeing the kinds of incidents that the U.S. saw on Wednesday, when a gunman killed 17 people at a high school in Florida. But how?

NigelUno wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

lol, nice dodge.

I would be interesting to see what the mass shooting #'s were prior to CNN. Back then you had the 3 networks with 30 minutes each a night. They rarely ever cut into regular programming. My guess is that the mass shooting incidents were even lower.

Steve can blame it on the gun culture but that ignores that we've had millions of guns in this country forever more. The NRA gets blamed but maybe some wants to point to a single mass shooting done by an NRA member?

It could be copycats, it could be a wish for fame of any kind, it could be kids with rough lives - etc, etc but none of those things is really new either. For me the question is what changed? The biggest answer is the news coverage. I'd be wide open to hearing any other ideas. And please don't start with "assault weapons" being more lethal because that's just not true.

Don't bump stocks make weapons more lethal?

kingstonlake wrote:Goose, of the ten lowest countries with gun related violent crime, CNN is broadcast in 9 of them. China being the exception.

Now that we've eliminated gun violence in the U.S being the fault of CNN, what other factor do you think it could be that accounts for the low violent gun crime?

kingstonlake wrote:Tell me about gun laws in Japan, Iceland, South Korea, Romania, UK, and Singapore. Anybody?

NigelUno wrote:Huh.

Goose seems to have disappeared.

kingstonlake wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

Yes, I've read it. It can be done. Maybe not here, but others have proven it can be.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Also, goose, in regards to your lovely analysis of media availability. Well.... maybe there were other things to and that wasn’t a box you wanted to open    

LooseGoose wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:

Yes, I've read it. It can be done. Maybe not here, but others have proven it can be.

Go back to a question that NO one will answer - why aren't you all pissed at the Dems? In 2009-10 they had the House/a filibuster proof Senate and the Presidency and passed no gun laws at all. Why not? Where is their blame? None of you will touch that.

kingstonlake wrote:Want to make sure I'm understanding this right goose. Think about how many fights have broken out in schools since the gun free zone thingy. What would you guess? 100,000? And you think removing guns from that senerio hasn't saved lives?

Wow.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

I know, refuting facts with emotion is a bitch. Let me point out one more thing that's changed. And it was a "do something" improvement to our gun laws. Gun free zones.

I probably had a gun in my car for 1/2 the school year, between pheasants and deer in the fall and rabbits in the winter I hunted often before and after school. I purchased guns from teachers IN the school. I've told people those stories forever, laughing how you sure couldn't do that today.

Well guess what? Some bastard couldn't have walked into a school in the 1940s - 1970s and been sure that everyone there was properly disarmed for them. And before you start squealing about how this wouldn't have made a difference there ARE instances of people running out to parking lots and getting a gun to STOP a school shooter.

So Congress "did something" - they passed a law outlawing guns on school property and probably succeeded in getting kids killed. But all the Emotional Eddies and Emilies felt better because something had been done.

How many school shooters would you estimate have walked up to a school with murder on their mind, seen this sign:

then turned around and went home? My guess is zero.

I guess we're done discrediting your talking points? I'm here all day if you want to talk more.

LooseGoose wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:Want to make sure I'm understanding this right goose. Think about how many fights have broken out in schools since the gun free zone thingy. What would you guess? 100,000? And you think removing guns from that senerio hasn't saved lives?

Wow.

Steve? How many guns were pulled during school fights when you were in school?

LooseGoose wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

I guess we're done discrediting your talking points? I'm here all day if you want to talk more.

LMAO.....none of you have answered the sign question. I'm already tired of this shit. It's the same thing time after time.


The kid is a fucked up piece of shit - but it's the NRA and the guns' fault.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

LMAO.....none of you have answered the sign question. I'm already tired of this shit. It's the same thing time after time.


The kid is a fucked up piece of shit - but it's the NRA and the guns' fault.

Triggered. So sorry you can't have an honest discussion about gun control. Until you state otherwise, you are on the side of doing nothing. You are the problem.

But to what end? The assault weapons ban proved of little value where it counted most: on the street. The legislation prohibited the manufacture, possession, transfer, and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips, yet it defined assault weapons in a manner that would allow gun manufacturers to skirt the ban without much trouble. It exempted 650 firearms and grandfathered in weapons and ammo clips produced or purchased before the enactment of the ban. “It was better to get what we got than nothing,” the former Justice Department official says. And the measure’s prohibition on high-capacity clips was probably its most effective provision. “Ultimately, the 1994 ban was almost meaningless because it was so defectively drafted,” says Tom Diaz, a senior policy analyst at the Violence Policy Center, who worked for the House subcommittee on crime in 1994.

The law did little to affect gun violence. Prior to the ban, nervous gun owners and dealers stocked up on assault weapons and the high-capacity clips, and afterward gun manufacturers made cosmetic changes to semi-automatic weapons so these guns would not violate the new law.

LooseGoose wrote:

NigelUno wrote:Huh.

Goose seems to have disappeared.

Only Nigel and the village idiot would be shocked that I might go to bed, but I repeat myself.

LooseGoose wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:

Goose unfortunately there is no solution that doesn't start or at least include looking at regulations on the availability of guns. And since it's a non starter for many gun sick Americans maybe there isn't a solution. This country has a sick obsession with guns and a sick dismissal of mental health care. You only have to look at the common denominator of countries with very low gun crime. We both know what it is. Wether you want to put in words or not.

Read about Switzerland and then tell me this again.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/02/swiss-guns/553448/

The country’s cultural attachment to firearms resembles America’s in some ways, though it has no constitutional right to bear arms—it has the third-highest rate of private gun ownership in the world, behind the United States and Yemen. Yet Switzerland has a low rate of gun crime, and hasn’t seen a mass shooting since 2001, when a gunman opened fire in the legislative body in the Canton of Zug, killing 14 people, as well as himself.

So it’s possible to have widespread gun ownership without so frequently seeing the kinds of incidents that the U.S. saw on Wednesday, when a gunman killed 17 people at a high school in Florida. But how?

LooseGoose wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

Don't bump stocks make weapons more lethal?

#1 Bump stocks aren't on all of what are called "assault weapons"
#2 Bump stocks are a fairly new phenomenon so don't really affect this debate since to my knowledge only 1 mass shooter has used them.
#3 Not really a debate since the NRA agrees they should be more heavily regulated.
#4 And back to your question - not necessarily - they only allow you to spray more rounds out that doesn't equal more lethal.

LooseGoose wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Also, goose, in regards to your lovely analysis of media availability. Well.... maybe there were other things to and that wasn’t a box you wanted to open    

Go dig up an analysis.....any study done will tell you it had no effect.   If you require me to do it I will.

LooseGoose wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:Want to make sure I'm understanding this right goose. Think about how many fights have broken out in schools since the gun free zone thingy. What would you guess? 100,000? And you think removing guns from that senerio hasn't saved lives?

Wow.

Steve? How many guns were pulled during school fights when you were in school?

LooseGoose wrote:And with that I'm out of here....no sense in beating my head on the wall of stupidity.

Let me know if someone answers my questions for once. Until then I'm under no obligation to answer yours.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Anything to not blame his precious gun you guys. Anything to not ultimately blame himself and his friends for the insane road they led the country down in so many regards. Anything. He’s going to start shitting on the students like his dear leader taught him how to soon enough.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:Just saw some right wing talking head hit all of Goose's points in this thread. I ask Goose again, have you ever had an original thought when it comes to politics? I haven't seen it.