Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[Toni]

I do not think we should require people to defend their life and property

Me either. We should have a society to do that.

I can understand that you need the ability to react with lethal force to threats, if you live in a shithole with almost zero societal protections, like Somalia or Texas, but in the civilised world, the ability to deploy lethal force is no more necessary to a regular citizen than the ability to knap a flint axe, or build your own home, or grow your own food.

We moved on from this shit a while back.

Grow your own food? Build your own house? I definitely know people who do exactly that. I come from a long line of people who grow their own food. I grow some of my own food. I’m as ordinary as dirt. It’s not that special.

 

[bilby]

I do not think we should require people to defend their life and property

Me either. We should have a society to do that.

I can understand that you need the ability to react with lethal force to threats, if you live in a shithole with almost zero societal protections, like Somalia or Texas, but in the civilised world, the ability to deploy lethal force is no more necessary to a regular citizen than the ability to knap a flint axe, or build your own home, or grow your own food.

We moved on from this shit a while back.

Grow your own food? Build your own house? I definitely know people who do exactly that. I come from a long line of people who grow their own food. I grow some of my own food. I’m as ordinary as dirt. It’s not that special.

It's also not necessary.

And I bet they don't grow ALL of their food.

 

[Elixir]

Unfortunately the US is populated by a lot of cowering weenies whose only source of security is the ability to wield lethal force against others through no strength of their own.

I do not think we should require people to defend their life and property using their body strength alone.
I am glad people can shoot home invaders, carjackers, robbers etc.

Yer jest a cowering weenie hiding behind yer gun!
Take a clue from Home Alone. There are ways to defend your home that don’t require guns. Of course, Republicans flooding the country with firearms makes it more of a challenge, but it can be done.
For more than a half century I have successfully defended my home without having to shoot one single person!

 

[Worldtraveller]

I do not think we should require people to defend their life and property

Me either. We should have a society to do that.

I can understand that you need the ability to react with lethal force to threats, if you live in a shithole with almost zero societal protections, like Somalia or Texas, but in the civilised world, the ability to deploy lethal force is no more necessary to a regular citizen than the ability to knap a flint axe, or build your own home, or grow your own food.

We moved on from this shit a while back.

Grow your own food? Build your own house? I definitely know people who do exactly that. I come from a long line of people who grow their own food. I grow some of my own food. I’m as ordinary as dirt. It’s not that special.

That sound you heard was the point...you missed as it apparently hit hypersonic speed flying over your head.

 

[Toni]

I do not think we should require people to defend their life and property

Me either. We should have a society to do that.

I can understand that you need the ability to react with lethal force to threats, if you live in a shithole with almost zero societal protections, like Somalia or Texas, but in the civilised world, the ability to deploy lethal force is no more necessary to a regular citizen than the ability to knap a flint axe, or build your own home, or grow your own food.

We moved on from this shit a while back.

Grow your own food? Build your own house? I definitely know people who do exactly that. I come from a long line of people who grow their own food. I grow some of my own food. I’m as ordinary as dirt. It’s not that special.

It's also not necessary.

And I bet they don't grow ALL of their food.

Growing your own food is quite necessary for a lot of people. It's not necessary for YOU or most people you know or any people you know. Because other people grow food. Just like being able to drive isn't necessary. Having access to good medical care isn't strictly necessary. Electricity, indoor plumbing, central heating and air conditioning aren't necessary. A great deal of the world's population has these things and depend on these things for their standard of living.

A lot depends on what the standard of living is. Being able to grow more than they need is quite fortunate, especially for city dwellers. It is true that most people do not provide for all of their own needs--most people live in some form of society, after all.

 

[Toni]

I do not think we should require people to defend their life and property

Me either. We should have a society to do that.

I can understand that you need the ability to react with lethal force to threats, if you live in a shithole with almost zero societal protections, like Somalia or Texas, but in the civilised world, the ability to deploy lethal force is no more necessary to a regular citizen than the ability to knap a flint axe, or build your own home, or grow your own food.

We moved on from this shit a while back.

Grow your own food? Build your own house? I definitely know people who do exactly that. I come from a long line of people who grow their own food. I grow some of my own food. I’m as ordinary as dirt. It’s not that special.

That sound you heard was the point...you missed as it apparently hit hypersonic speed flying over your head.

Oh, I got the point. I'm just not willing to allow every instance of urban ignorance and arrogance to slide.

 

[ZiprHead]

Unfortunately the US is populated by a lot of cowering weenies whose only source of security is the ability to wield lethal force against others through no strength of their own.

I do not think we should require people to defend their life and property using their body strength alone.
I am glad people can shoot home invaders, carjackers, robbers etc.

At the price of dead kids by the thousands.

You say if a few kids have to die so I can defend myself that's okay.

I say if a few of you have to die so we can defend kids that's okay.

 

[Oleg]

Unfortunately the US is populated by a lot of cowering weenies whose only source of security is the ability to wield lethal force against others through no strength of their own.

I do not think we should require people to defend their life and property using their body strength alone.
I am glad people can shoot home invaders, carjackers, robbers etc.

At the price of dead kids by the thousands.

You say if a few kids have to die so I can defend myself that's okay.

I say if a few of you have to die so we can defend kids that's okay.

Solzhenitsyn on self-defense under the Soviet Union.

 

[Elixir]

So, that happens to you a lot. does it?
Maybe you should move.

 

[Oleg]

So, that happens to you a lot. does it?
Maybe you should move.

That's how I'd expect you to respond. It's a very privileged viewpoint to say that people don't need to defend themselves. That's because you likely don't live in a high crime area. It doesn't affect you. Though you're perfectly okay with people being victimized so you can display your moral preening.

 

[ZiprHead]

Unfortunately the US is populated by a lot of cowering weenies whose only source of security is the ability to wield lethal force against others through no strength of their own.

I do not think we should require people to defend their life and property using their body strength alone.
I am glad people can shoot home invaders, carjackers, robbers etc.

At the price of dead kids by the thousands.

You say if a few kids have to die so I can defend myself that's okay.

I say if a few of you have to die so we can defend kids that's okay.

Solzhenitsyn on self-defense under the Soviet Union.

Goose, gander, and all that entails.

 

[Oleg]

Unfortunately the US is populated by a lot of cowering weenies whose only source of security is the ability to wield lethal force against others through no strength of their own.

I do not think we should require people to defend their life and property using their body strength alone.
I am glad people can shoot home invaders, carjackers, robbers etc.

At the price of dead kids by the thousands.

You say if a few kids have to die so I can defend myself that's okay.

I say if a few of you have to die so we can defend kids that's okay.

Solzhenitsyn on self-defense under the Soviet Union.

Goose, gander, and all that entails.

Not suprising you'd side with the prosecutor. Self-defense is individualism, and lefties hate that.

 

[Elixir]

Not suprising you'd side with the prosecutor. Self-defense is individualism, and lefties hate that.

Ah yes, you rugged individuals of sniveling coward fame. Lefties hate sniveling cowards.
Shooting people because you feel threatened is not individualism, it's cowardice.
[Removed]

 

[ZiprHead]

Unfortunately the US is populated by a lot of cowering weenies whose only source of security is the ability to wield lethal force against others through no strength of their own.

I do not think we should require people to defend their life and property using their body strength alone.
I am glad people can shoot home invaders, carjackers, robbers etc.

At the price of dead kids by the thousands.

You say if a few kids have to die so I can defend myself that's okay.

I say if a few of you have to die so we can defend kids that's okay.

Solzhenitsyn on self-defense under the Soviet Union.

Goose, gander, and all that entails.

Not suprising you'd side with the prosecutor. Self-defense is individualism, and lefties hate that.

Not surprising you'd be okay with kids getting shot. Kids getting shot is freedom, and righties love that.

 

[Elixir]

So, that happens to you a lot. does it?
Maybe you should move.

That's how I'd expect you to respond. It's a very privileged viewpoint to say that people don't need to defend themselves.

I didn’t say that, I said they don’t need the ability to mow down dozens of people in a matter of seconds in order to defend themselves from any extant threat. But yeah - i fully acknowledge and am grateful for, the privilege I have enjoyed and continue to enjoy.

That's because you likely don't live in a high crime area. It doesn't affect you. Though you're perfectly okay with people being victimized so you can display your moral preening.

Moral preening?? Because I have survived this long without guns? I have had guns stuck in my face, I have lived in high crime areas. I have made choices that led me out of such places. Never loved the city too much in the first place so I didn’t mind the sacrifice of going rural. Nothing moral or immoral about it.
Have you been victimized? Are guns your only solution?

 

[Copernicus]

I've lived in the US all my life and I've never found any of that to be even a little bit true.

i've lived in the US my entire life and i've found it extremely true, though granted i've found it extremely true anecdotally because it's largely one of those things that IMO is like how "anti-abortion people don't care about life, they care about controlling women" is true even though i don't know i could prove it to a standard of scientific scrutiny.

anyways...
obviously our culture pays lip service to the idea that bullying is bad, but if you look at the reality behind how we treat the existence of bullying it proves the lie.
what do we say about bullying? "ignore them and they'll go away" or "don't stoop to their level" or "just go tell an adult" - the narrative about bullying is always about how to respond to it, how to passively defend yourself or how to retreat and beg a higher authority to intervene.
(excepting the single "punch 'em in the nose" cliche but even that is always shown as a radical notion outside of the bounds of accepted behavior)

the narrative in the US is *never* about what a piece of shit you are for bullying and how being an asshole is socially intolerable.
the lessons and the lectures are never about framing life within civilization about cooperation and tolerance, it's always about "well boys will be boys what can ya do"

we love the idea that the scrappy underdog will stand up and take a swing at their oppressors, but the reality is that if you do that what ends up happening is you get suspended for a week for fighting and the kid who was harassing you for 3 months leading up to that is told "oh now be nice" and otherwise left alone.

But you have nothing to back up this impression except "anecdotally". The problem in the US is neither population density nor cultural. Bullies exist in every country, and your impression that Americans tend to hate people who stand up to bullies is utter nonsense. People who feel bullied in other countries do not refrain from committing mass murders because of the fear of social stigma. Mass murders do happen in other countries, albeit much less frequently than in the US. Those who feel bullied in other countries tend to avoid committing mass murders because they can't easily get their hands on guns that kill and injure a lot of people very quickly.

 

[Toni]

Standing up to bullies has nothing to do with mass murders or school shootings.

 

[Gospel]

Unfortunately the US is populated by a lot of cowering weenies whose only source of security is the ability to wield lethal force against others through no strength of their own.

I do not think we should require people to defend their life and property using their body strength alone.
I am glad people can shoot home invaders, carjackers, robbers etc.

At the price of dead kids by the thousands.

You say if a few kids have to die so I can defend myself that's okay.

I say if a few of you have to die so we can defend kids that's okay.

Solzhenitsyn on self-defense under the Soviet Union.

That's an interesting subject. I do believe that fleeing is a great option (when possible) however I don't think its right that folks be forced to flee. It's important for those with the courage and wherewithal to lawfully uphold the peace to have the ability to do so when the situation calls for it. Like civilians that intervene with the appropriate level of force in an attempt to help themselves &/or others.

 

[bilby]

I do not think we should require people to defend their life and property

Me either. We should have a society to do that.

I can understand that you need the ability to react with lethal force to threats, if you live in a shithole with almost zero societal protections, like Somalia or Texas, but in the civilised world, the ability to deploy lethal force is no more necessary to a regular citizen than the ability to knap a flint axe, or build your own home, or grow your own food.

We moved on from this shit a while back.

Grow your own food? Build your own house? I definitely know people who do exactly that. I come from a long line of people who grow their own food. I grow some of my own food. I’m as ordinary as dirt. It’s not that special.

It's also not necessary.

And I bet they don't grow ALL of their food.

Growing your own food is quite necessary for a lot of people. It's not necessary for YOU or most people you know or any people you know. Because other people grow food. Just like being able to drive isn't necessary. Having access to good medical care isn't strictly necessary. Electricity, indoor plumbing, central heating and air conditioning aren't necessary. A great deal of the world's population has these things and depend on these things for their standard of living.

A lot depends on what the standard of living is. Being able to grow more than they need is quite fortunate, especially for city dwellers. It is true that most people do not provide for all of their own needs--most people live in some form of society, after all.

Congratulations, you have arrived at the exact point I was making when you decided to condescendingly contradict something I never said.

If you feel like being embarrassed at your failure to understand why your derailing posts here are utterly foolish, feel free to read all the nested quotes here, and note the context of my original comment about why people today don't need to grow their own food.

You might be shocked at how it was to highlight the importance of living in a society, which renders such rugged individualism totally unnecessary.

Oh, I got the point. I'm just not willing to allow every instance of urban ignorance and arrogance to slide.

No such instance exists; The only ignorance and arrogance here is your abject disregard for context, before berating me for something I only did in your imagination.

 

[Toni]

I do not think we should require people to defend their life and property

Me either. We should have a society to do that.

I can understand that you need the ability to react with lethal force to threats, if you live in a shithole with almost zero societal protections, like Somalia or Texas, but in the civilised world, the ability to deploy lethal force is no more necessary to a regular citizen than the ability to knap a flint axe, or build your own home, or grow your own food.

We moved on from this shit a while back.

Grow your own food? Build your own house? I definitely know people who do exactly that. I come from a long line of people who grow their own food. I grow some of my own food. I’m as ordinary as dirt. It’s not that special.

It's also not necessary.

And I bet they don't grow ALL of their food.

Growing your own food is quite necessary for a lot of people. It's not necessary for YOU or most people you know or any people you know. Because other people grow food. Just like being able to drive isn't necessary. Having access to good medical care isn't strictly necessary. Electricity, indoor plumbing, central heating and air conditioning aren't necessary. A great deal of the world's population has these things and depend on these things for their standard of living.

A lot depends on what the standard of living is. Being able to grow more than they need is quite fortunate, especially for city dwellers. It is true that most people do not provide for all of their own needs--most people live in some form of society, after all.

Congratulations, you have arrived at the exact point I was making when you decided to condescendingly contradict something I never said.

If you feel like being embarrassed at your failure to understand why your derailing posts here are utterly foolish, feel free to read all the nested quotes here, and note the context of my original comment about why people today don't need to grow their own food.

You might be shocked at how it was to highlight the importance of living in a society, which renders such rugged individualism totally unnecessary.

No, I got your point. I understand your Australia-urban centric POV. It’s simply neither universal nor universally desirable, however much you appreciate your particular way of life. Lots of people live totally different t lives that actually make your way of life possible. And your life abd tgey way you earn your living helps make other people’s lives possible and even desirable for them ax yours is for you.

If your point is that most people in first world nations do not need firearms for personal protection: I agree even as I know that there are plenty of rural dwellers in some fairly remote areas who do have reason to have firearms for personal protection and to protect livestock and family from predators and from some kinds of pests. So, for some people, owning firearms for personal protection is definitely a sensible decision. Just as for some people being able to hunt and fish is a sensible way to provide food for their families as is maintaining extensive gardens, raising poultry, sheep, hogs and/or cows is a desirable and sensible way to live.

You do not need to convince me that plenty of people manage to live their entire lives with zero sense of individualism or self reliance or ruggedness. I’m aware.