Active shooter situation at school in Parkland, FL; reports of victims

[T.Lex]

If one didn't know better, they would think that those who make it their daily mission to antagonize INGOers were actually playing for the other side???

Believe me, I am often reminded on INGO that gun owners can be our own worst enemies....

At worst? Nothing at all. At a minimum, He and the typical INGOer are on an even playing field with respect to expertise regarding gun violence. And that alone is a problem - and the problem to which most are reacting - because HE is unjustifiably being given a national platform and conferred moral high ground.

Heya chip,

First, IMHO it is an even playing field in terms of right of expression. That's my sub-point in the post you quoted.

But, he is JUTIFIABLY being given the pulpit, and his fellow victims. That's how this works. That's what we have to understand to weather this storm.

Same reason Susanna Hupp was able to bring attention to CC rights.

If any of us are in a position to be a GGWG, it is that same dynamic that would allow us to get that story out.

ETA:
I'm not addressing the "moral high ground" point because I think that's a rabbit hole of a discussion that's not really worth having.

 

[chipbennett]

What part of "viewed as violent thugs" makes you think I'm calling INGOers violent thugs?

This isn't about intelligence, it is about both appearing reasonable and - ideally - BEING reasonable.

Who gets to be the arbiter to determine what does and does not constitute being reasonable?

By and large, I trust my own judgment in this regard. And I dismiss, out of hand, 99% of what the other side asserts as constituting "reasonable."

 

[T.Lex]

Who gets to be the arbiter to determine what does and does not constitute being reasonable?

By and large, I trust my own judgment in this regard. And I dismiss, out of hand, 99% of what the other side asserts as constituting "reasonable."

Ok. What percentage of our side do you see as reasonable?

 

[chipbennett]

Believe me, I am often reminded on INGO that gun owners can be our own worst enemies....


Heya chip,

First, IMHO it is an even playing field in terms of right of expression. That's my sub-point in the post you quoted.

That changes the subject. You asked about expertise, and I responded regarding expertise. "Right of expression" is a separate matter entirely, and not germane to the question of expertise.

But, he is JUTIFIABLY being given the pulpit, and his fellow victims. That's how this works. That's what we have to understand to weather this storm.

Bovine excrement. He is not a victim, for one. And for another, the victims of the atrocity for which he was present represent an extreme minority of victims overall. Why does his victimhood claim justify a pulpit, while the victimhood claim of the family and friends of the people murdered using knives, hammers, bare hands and feet - much less, pistols - not justify a pulpit?

He is given a pulpit because he represents an appeal to emotion that fits an agenda. Nothing more.

 

[chipbennett]

Ok. What percentage of our side do you see as reasonable?

I do not believe I am qualified to speculate. I defer to my original question: who gets to be the arbiter?

 

[wtburnette]

Bovine excrement. He is not a victim, for one. And for another, the victims of the atrocity for which he was present represent an extreme minority of victims overall. Why does his victimhood claim justify a pulpit, while the victimhood claim of the family and friends of the people murdered using knives, hammers, bare hands and feet - much less, pistols - not justify a pulpit?

He is given a pulpit because he represents an appeal to emotion that fits an agenda. Nothing more.

Agreed. The left and MSM is giving him the pulpit, but don't confuse that with him being given that pulpit justifiably. I don't think he has any value, other than to further inflame the left. Calling for weapon bans because of a shooting is like calling to ban all automobiles due to drunk driving fatalities. Actually, at least the banning of autos would prevent those fatalities where banning guns will not prevent mentally disturbed people from causing violence to others.

 

[T.Lex]

That changes the subject. You asked about expertise, and I responded regarding expertise. "Right of expression" is a separate matter entirely, and not germane to the question of expertise.

Fair enough.

Ultimately, my intent was to agree that it is a level playing field when it comes to gun violence as to that kid and the usual INGOer. To the extent either has expertise or perspective, they have an equal right to express it. That's why I brought up the right of expression.

That a given audience might value one or the other's expertise or perspective depends on the audience.

Bovine excrement. He is not a victim, for one.

Whoa hoss.

He may not have been shot, but in the vernacular, being in the building during a shooting... or fire or other calamity... typically makes one a victim of that same calamity. That's just English.

And for another, the victims of the atrocity for which he was present represent an extreme minority of victims overall. Why does his victimhood claim justify a pulpit, while the victimhood claim of the family and friends of the people murdered using knives, hammers, bare hands and feet - much less, pistols - not justify a pulpit?

That's the way the world works.

The mom and daughter who shot at the robber recently. They got a pulpit.

The guy who used an AR to stop a knife attack. He got a pulpit.

I'm not sure why this is controversial.

I do not believe I am qualified to speculate. I defer to my original question: who gets to be the arbiter?

We all do.

You seemed qualified to speculate on the reasonableness of the other side, why not do the same for our side?

 

[BugI02]

I'm not sure I follow.

I haven't had an opportunity to on INGO to correct anyone brushing gun owners with a "blood on your hands" brush. In real life, I certainly have.

[Ahhh, perhaps I understand now. You are not correcting the general behavior, just specific instances that you personally find objectionable. Carry on]

But, I will readily concede that I use my mental ignore button on a bunch of threads lately. Not just related to the Florida shooting.

I trust that you've been able to come out of your shell long enough to correct anyone painting with such a broad brush.



I'm the guy that's defended Ed Delaney on gun issues because of the attack on him.

So, yeah, people who have been victimized by illegal immigrants get a pass from me on almost all vitriol.

I just don't see any of them here on INGO. [Ten ring. I will allow it]



My point is that I don't see that working. What I see working is STFUing and let this blow over.

[You don't see that working based on what evidence, how well "sit there and take it" worked in the past? Something, something definition of crazy. As a Trumper, I see fixing bayonets and closing with the enemy as working better than just about any alternative strategy. Those kids, wittingly or not, are complicit in an attack on my rights. They need to know that this will always be met with righteous indignation. Do you seriously think that if Trump had simply lain there and taken it, rather than hammering back at the whole Russia! Russia! Russia! thing, that that situation would have worked out better for him? If one side is lobbing unsubstantiated charges onto your position, that is a propaganda war and calls for counter-battery fire]

You know, like we did after Sandy Hook. Back when Obama was president and we could trust that we knew where POTUS was on this issue.

[Funny, people have a pretty good idea where Trump stands on immigration but that doesn't seem to engender shuts to the ****. Advocating assymmetrical warfare again?]

Yeah, the kind of cure that kills the patient a little at a time.

So you're saying like chemo-therapy. Rooting out the cancer of progressivism is not without collateral damage.

 

[T.Lex]

[You don't see that working based on what evidence, how well "sit there and take it" worked in the past? Something, something definition of crazy. As a Trumper, I see fixing bayonets and closing with the enemy as working better than just about any alternative strategy. Those kids, wittingly or not, are complicit in an attack on my rights. They need to know that this will always be met with righteous indignation. Do you seriously think that if Trump had simply lain there and taken it, rather than hammering back at the whole Russia! Russia! Russia! thing, that that situation would have worked out better for him? If one side is lobbing unsubstantiated charges onto your position, that is a propaganda war and calls for counter-battery fire]

I don't equivocate riding out the initial tsunami on high ground as sitting around taking it. Well, yes, we should have developed thicker skin when it comes to being called all sorts of stuff. Any gun owner over the age of about what... 25?... has been around long enough to suffer those welts.

Reacting in kind, to the extent it EVER does any good, is particularly a bad idea after a mass casualty event like this.

For instance, the proposed AWB should be procedurally fought at every turn. That doesn't require a pulpit whatsoever. No more than prior efforts did.

Righteous indignation right now plays VERY poorly. Ask Marco Rubio.

Since you brought up Trump and Russia - absolutely. If he'd let that investigation play out in the shadows, and fought it there, that's where it would've stayed. He's been a complete idiot about that. Let them indict Manafort and whoever, and let it end there.

 

[chipbennett]

Fair enough.

Ultimately, my intent was to agree that it is a level playing field when it comes to gun violence as to that kid and the usual INGOer. To the extent either has expertise or perspective, they have an equal right to express it. That's why I brought up the right of expression.

That a given audience might value one or the other's expertise or perspective depends on the audience.

I'll argue all day long for his right of expression.

The problem arises when his exercise of that right of expression is then held sacrosanct, and, on the basis of his victimhood status, protected from disagreement by others who exercise their right of expression.

He has every right to exercise freedom of expression. He has every right to use that freedom to express logical fallacy and bull****. He does NOT, however, have the right not to be called on his logical fallacy and bull**** by others equally exercising their freedom of expression.

Whoa hoss.

He may not have been shot, but in the vernacular, being in the building during a shooting... or fire or other calamity... typically makes one a victim of that same calamity. That's just English.

It is also appeal to emotion logical fallacy.

That's the way the world works.

The mom and daughter who shot at the robber recently. They got a pulpit.

The guy who used an AR to stop a knife attack. He got a pulpit.

I'm not sure why this is controversial.

It is controversial because he is using that platform to espouse policy positions that adversely impact millions of law-abiding people.

We all do.

You seemed qualified to speculate on the reasonableness of the other side, why not do the same for our side?

I consider myself qualified to speculate on the reliability of the other side's determination of MY reasonableness. I consider myself qualified to speculate on the reasonableness of ostensibly "reasonable" policy positions espoused by the other side. I do not necessarily consider myself qualified to speculate on the reasonableness of any particular individual, on the other side or on INGO. Such speculation would depend on how well I know the person.

If pressed for numbers, on the whole, I would speculate that 90% or more of INGOers are reasonable, and 10% or fewer of the other side are reasonable.

 

[chipbennett]

Why is that a problem?

Is it no different than the oft-repeated charge on INGO that all of Islam is complicit in terrorism for not denouncing it strongly enough?

People should not take offense at being hoisted on their own petards.

Wait: what?

Radical Islamic terrorism is, by definition, a subset of Islam. As such, the adherents of Islam bear some non-zero responsibility for dealing with that subset, and for the actions of that subset. And while some may say that all of Islam is complicit in radical Islamic terrorism, such an assertion certainly isn't a majority view. By contrast, mass shooters are not a subset of the NRA. NRA bears no responsibility whatever for dealing with mass shooters, or for the actions of mass shooters, who are not in any way affiliated with NRA. To make the claim that NRA is complicit in the acts of mass shooters is nothing short of slander.

The analogy simply does not hold.

 

[wtburnette]

I'll argue all day long for his right of expression.

The problem arises when his exercise of that right of expression is then held sacrosanct, and, on the basis of his victimhood status, protected from disagreement by others who exercise their right of expression.

He has every right to exercise freedom of expression. He has every right to use that freedom to express logical fallacy and bull****. He does NOT, however, have the right not to be called on his logical fallacy and bull**** by others equally exercising their freedom of expression.

Very well said. Just because someone survives something or is a victim of something, doesn't mean we have to agree with what they say or can't have a different opinion.

 

[BugI02]

That changes the subject. You asked about expertise, and I responded regarding expertise. "Right of expression" is a separate matter entirely, and not germane to the question of expertise.



Bovine excrement. He is not a victim, for one. And for another, the victims of the atrocity for which he was present represent an extreme minority of victims overall. Why does his victimhood claim justify a pulpit, while the victimhood claim of the family and friends of the people murdered using knives, hammers, bare hands and feet - much less, pistols - not justify a pulpit?

He is given a pulpit because he represents an appeal to emotion that fits an agenda. Nothing more.

Agreed. I would still like to know Hogg's position (hiding in the media room) relative to the shooters location (the freshman building, building 12). Building 12 is at the north edge of the campus. I suspect the media room is likely next to the auditorium, which is more than half the campus away

When you tell Marco Rubio you can't look at him without looking down the barrel of an AR-15 but you were half of the (very large) campus away from events, you have not looked down that barrel and are making a naked play to emotion. Hogg actually took out his cell phone (this is according to him) and made a video interviewing fellow students hiding with him about gun violence. That doesn't sound to me like someone particularly worried that the wolf was at the door.

Someone who was actually at that congressional baseball field when Hodgkinson opened fire is a "survivor", someone who just happened to be in the same park at a different diamond is a "media whore"

 

[T.Lex]

Wait: what?

Radical Islamic terrorism is, by definition, a subset of Islam. As such, the adherents of Islam bear some non-zero responsibility for dealing with that subset, and for the actions of that subset. And while some may say that all of Islam is complicit in radical Islamic terrorism, such an assertion certainly isn't a majority view. By contrast, mass shooters are not a subset of the NRA. NRA bears no responsibility whatever for dealing with mass shooters, or for the actions of mass shooters, who are not in any way affiliated with NRA. To make the claim that NRA is complicit in the acts of mass shooters is nothing short of slander.

The analogy simply does not hold.

Gun violence is, by definition, committed by a subset of gun possessors. As such, gun possessors bear some non-zero responsibility for dealing with that subset, and, for the actions of that subset. And while some may say that all gun possessors are complicit in gun violence, that certainly isn't the majority view.

(I didn't claim the NRA as the larger set, but since you brought it up....)

The NRA has advocated policies that allow more guns to be possessed by more gun possessors. Arguably, they've spent more money on that than any other political contributor (I think big pharma is the only group that's spent more, but I could be wrong).

Look, I do not agree with what I just said above.

What I'm saying is that the fallacy cuts both ways.

And, importantly, enough people DO believe the statements above that it needs to be dealt with. Not with name calling, labeling and marginalization, but with reason and facts.

 

[Route 45]

What I'm saying is that the fallacy cuts both ways.

No, it doesn't. The only fallacy is the notion that a group with violence at its core, though it's holy text, bears no responsibility for the actions of those that take such tripe seriously. There is no such comparison to be made with the NRA, or even gun possessors in general.

Bang on the table some more, counselor. Doesn't make it so.

 

[chipbennett]

Gun violence is, by definition, committed by a subset of gun possessors. As such, gun possessors bear some non-zero responsibility for dealing with that subset, and, for the actions of that subset. And while some may say that all gun possessors are complicit in gun violence, that certainly isn't the majority view.

Law-abiding gun owners commit crime at a rate an order of magnitude less frequently than even LEO. Violent criminals are not a subset of law-abiding gun owners, by definition, by act, or by intent. Conflating violent criminals with law-abiding gun owners is an equally untenable analogy.

(I didn't claim the NRA as the larger set, but since you brought it up....)

The NRA has advocated policies that allow more guns to be possessed by more gun possessors. Arguably, they've spent more money on that than any other political contributor (I think big pharma is the only group that's spent more, but I could be wrong).

NRA has never advocated for more guns to be possessed by more violent criminals, and has never advocated for policies that allow for more guns to be possessed by more violent criminals.

In a typical year, NRA isn't even in the top 50 of lobbyists, in terms of money contributed.

Look, I do not agree with what I just said above.

I assumed not, since everything you wrote above is easily refuted nonsense.

What I'm saying is that the fallacy cuts both ways.

What fallacy, exactly, are you claiming cuts both ways?

And, importantly, enough people DO believe the statements above that it needs to be dealt with. Not with name calling, labeling and marginalization, but with reason and facts.

I agree with you on this last point, at least insofar as ad hominem goes. David Hogg and his ilk should be labeled and marginalized, because their views, and the policies they espouse, are abhorrent to a free people.

 

[churchmouse]

Wow. I believe T Lex has become or is Kut.

 

[T.Lex]

Wow. I believe T Lex has become or is Kut.

In your defense, people get us confused all the time because we look so much alike....

 

[bwframe]

Wow. I believe T Lex has become or is Kut.

You're the last one to know...

 

[miguel]

So, I've fallen behind in this thread a little. Been busy.

If this hasn't been stated earlier, I'd like to be the first to say, let's end publicly-mandated education. Let the weak go under and those with academic proclivities rise above. Now we have no concerns about school security and governments can spend less. And tax less.