Leftists owe the rest of us an explanation for the Florida shooting

[Pogo]

Of course you did. Classic Association Fallacy. Two pieces of circumstance in the same place "must" mean one causes the other. Wellllllllllllll no, it does not.

Doesn't begin to essplain the shootings that led to the signs being put up in the first place, now does it?



It's being logical. You have a causation theory --- prove the causation exists.

Pogo: Why would a shooter go to a gun free zone? I don't get it

Sure you do, Pogo

Now you're just reiterating over and over that you CAN'T prove the causation. Nor can you answer the pre-sign shootings that spurred the signs --- without which causation no signs would have existed or ever been contemplated.

We seem to have doubled down on an Association Fallacy with the good ol' reliable Everybody Knows Fallacy on top of it.

Theory is thus dismissed.

Yes, shooters go to gun free zones where they don't run into other guns because the gun free zones are working for honest citizens.

Pogo: WTF causes that? It's a total mystery. Maybe it's ice cream stands?

I don't think most of the students (or former student) mass murderers target their schools because of the gun free zone laws at all.

The shooter shot freely until the timer in his head went off that the cops could be arriving, he ditched his guns and went out with the other students.

But you don't see any connection with it being a gun free zone.

Of course you do, you're just intellectually dishonest like the rest of the leftists. The more stupid a leftist argument is, the more proud you are of believing it

Once AGAIN you have utterly FAILED to prove that such correlation is in fact a causation. Nothing in that failure has changed. But do tell us more about chasing balls.

 

[Pogo]

You know, there is one part of this discussion that NOBODY has hit on yet.

It's the fact that kids are pretty observant, and if they are told that there are armed teachers in school, one of the FIRST things they are going to do is to try to figure out who is and isn't armed. And, chances are, after about two to three months, they will have it figured out which teacher is carrying and which ones aren't.

After that? Then you will probably have some delinquents who will try to see if they can steal the teachers gun while they aren't looking.

That is a formula for disaster.

Exactly. Just one reason, not to mention that you've increased rather than decreased the chances of crossfire, of bad snap decisions, of accidents and the general culture of violence that feeds all this in the first place. Not to mention you've also painted a big bright bullseye target on every teacher, since in that sick world the nearest teacher, whether armed or unarmed, would be a shooter's first target regardless where a shooter sources his weapons.

 

[kaz]

Pogo: Why would a shooter go to a gun free zone? I don't get it

Sure you do, Pogo

Now you're just reiterating over and over that you CAN'T prove the causation. Nor can you answer the pre-sign shootings that spurred the signs --- without which causation no signs would have existed or ever been contemplated.

We seem to have doubled down on an Association Fallacy with the good ol' reliable Everybody Knows Fallacy on top of it.

Theory is thus dismissed.

Yes, shooters go to gun free zones where they don't run into other guns because the gun free zones are working for honest citizens.

Pogo: WTF causes that? It's a total mystery. Maybe it's ice cream stands?

I don't think most of the students (or former student) mass murderers target their schools because of the gun free zone laws at all.

The shooter shot freely until the timer in his head went off that the cops could be arriving, he ditched his guns and went out with the other students.

But you don't see any connection with it being a gun free zone.

Of course you do, you're just intellectually dishonest like the rest of the leftists. The more stupid a leftist argument is, the more proud you are of believing it

Once AGAIN you have utterly FAILED to prove that such correlation is in fact a causation. Nothing in that failure has changed. But do tell us more about chasing balls.

1.4 million CCs in Florida. The shooter goes to a gun free zone and there are no guns.

But you don't see causality? That's hilarious

 

[Pogo]

Now you're just reiterating over and over that you CAN'T prove the causation. Nor can you answer the pre-sign shootings that spurred the signs --- without which causation no signs would have existed or ever been contemplated.

We seem to have doubled down on an Association Fallacy with the good ol' reliable Everybody Knows Fallacy on top of it.

Theory is thus dismissed.

Yes, shooters go to gun free zones where they don't run into other guns because the gun free zones are working for honest citizens.

Pogo: WTF causes that? It's a total mystery. Maybe it's ice cream stands?

I don't think most of the students (or former student) mass murderers target their schools because of the gun free zone laws at all.

The shooter shot freely until the timer in his head went off that the cops could be arriving, he ditched his guns and went out with the other students.

But you don't see any connection with it being a gun free zone.

Of course you do, you're just intellectually dishonest like the rest of the leftists. The more stupid a leftist argument is, the more proud you are of believing it

Once AGAIN you have utterly FAILED to prove that such correlation is in fact a causation. Nothing in that failure has changed. But do tell us more about chasing balls.

1.4 million CCs in Florida. The shooter goes to a gun free zone and there are no guns.

But you don't see causality? That's hilarious

Actually you've already played the "everybody knows" fallacy card on top of your "correlation equals causation" card. Now you can't even come up with a new fallacy. NOR have you yet explained the shootings that preceded and precipitated the signs in question either.

Once again --- causation has to be proven. It doesn't just take life because you post a wacko idea on a message board. Theory remains dismissed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We banned guns from schools, just like you wanted. Even people with concealed carry permits trained to use their guns safely didn't have them. And your plan worked. No one had a gun and was able to defend themselves and shoot back. And 17 people died because of it.

You owe us an explanation. What is wrong with your plan? Why isn't it working?

Maybe you can ask your drug dealer why banning guns doesn't work the next time you buy a doobie ...

As already correct noted, your thread premise fails as a fallacy.

There's no evidence that mass shooters target schools because they're perceived to be 'gun free' zones.

Indeed, there's no evidence that guns in schools would act as a deterrent to school shootings.

 

[Faun]

Now you're just reiterating over and over that you CAN'T prove the causation. Nor can you answer the pre-sign shootings that spurred the signs --- without which causation no signs would have existed or ever been contemplated.

We seem to have doubled down on an Association Fallacy with the good ol' reliable Everybody Knows Fallacy on top of it.

Theory is thus dismissed.

Yes, shooters go to gun free zones where they don't run into other guns because the gun free zones are working for honest citizens.

Pogo: WTF causes that? It's a total mystery. Maybe it's ice cream stands?

I don't think most of the students (or former student) mass murderers target their schools because of the gun free zone laws at all.

The shooter shot freely until the timer in his head went off that the cops could be arriving, he ditched his guns and went out with the other students.

But you don't see any connection with it being a gun free zone.

Of course you do, you're just intellectually dishonest like the rest of the leftists. The more stupid a leftist argument is, the more proud you are of believing it

Once AGAIN you have utterly FAILED to prove that such correlation is in fact a causation. Nothing in that failure has changed. But do tell us more about chasing balls.

1.4 million CCs in Florida. The shooter goes to a gun free zone and there are no guns.

But you don't see causality? That's hilarious

Actually, he went to shoot up a school he attended... same as other school shooters. That seems to be the determining factor, not that it was a gun free zone; which it wasn’t really since there was an armed officer at the school.

 

[dblack]

We banned guns from schools, just like you wanted. Even people with concealed carry permits trained to use their guns safely didn't have them. And your plan worked. No one had a gun and was able to defend themselves and shoot back. And 17 people died because of it.

You owe us an explanation. What is wrong with your plan? Why isn't it working?

Maybe you can ask your drug dealer why banning guns doesn't work the next time you buy a doobie ...

As already correct noted, your thread premise fails as a fallacy.

There's no evidence that mass shooters target schools because they're perceived to be 'gun free' zones.

Indeed, there's no evidence that guns in schools would act as a deterrent to school shootings.

Indeed. Given that many of these shooters are suicidal, and looking to go out in a blaze of glory, the thought of a shootout might actually attract them.

 

[kaz]

Yes, shooters go to gun free zones where they don't run into other guns because the gun free zones are working for honest citizens.

Pogo: WTF causes that? It's a total mystery. Maybe it's ice cream stands?

I don't think most of the students (or former student) mass murderers target their schools because of the gun free zone laws at all.

The shooter shot freely until the timer in his head went off that the cops could be arriving, he ditched his guns and went out with the other students.

But you don't see any connection with it being a gun free zone.

Of course you do, you're just intellectually dishonest like the rest of the leftists. The more stupid a leftist argument is, the more proud you are of believing it

Once AGAIN you have utterly FAILED to prove that such correlation is in fact a causation. Nothing in that failure has changed. But do tell us more about chasing balls.

1.4 million CCs in Florida. The shooter goes to a gun free zone and there are no guns.

But you don't see causality? That's hilarious

Actually you've already played the "everybody knows" fallacy card on top of your "correlation equals causation" card. Now you can't even come up with a new fallacy. NOR have you yet explained the shootings that preceded and precipitated the signs in question either.

Once again --- causation has to be proven. It doesn't just take life because you post a wacko idea on a message board. Theory remains dismissed.

Actually, I never said "everybody knows," You just committed the you pulled it out of your ass fallacy.

I said it's butt obvious. Roughly 7.5% of Florida residents have CC permits. Probably more than that in schools, but let's say it's not. If there are 100 administrators and teachers in the building of 2,000 students, that would be 7 or 8 guns in the building.

According to you, that didn't occur to him other than "strategy." The butt obvious is beyond your comprehension.

Statistically, shootings are way disproportionately in gun free zones. Just coincidence. Shooters just don't care about people shooting back at them. Sure Pogo, you just go with that

 

[kaz]

We banned guns from schools, just like you wanted. Even people with concealed carry permits trained to use their guns safely didn't have them. And your plan worked. No one had a gun and was able to defend themselves and shoot back. And 17 people died because of it.

You owe us an explanation. What is wrong with your plan? Why isn't it working?

Maybe you can ask your drug dealer why banning guns doesn't work the next time you buy a doobie ...

As already correct noted, your thread premise fails as a fallacy.

There's no evidence that mass shooters target schools because they're perceived to be 'gun free' zones.

Indeed, there's no evidence that guns in schools would act as a deterrent to school shootings.

I bet shooters don't even know that there is such a thing as a gun free zone. Why would a shooter care anyway? People shooting back at them? People not shooting back at them? What difference would that make to them?

 

[kaz]

We banned guns from schools, just like you wanted. Even people with concealed carry permits trained to use their guns safely didn't have them. And your plan worked. No one had a gun and was able to defend themselves and shoot back. And 17 people died because of it.

You owe us an explanation. What is wrong with your plan? Why isn't it working?

Maybe you can ask your drug dealer why banning guns doesn't work the next time you buy a doobie ...

As already correct noted, your thread premise fails as a fallacy.

There's no evidence that mass shooters target schools because they're perceived to be 'gun free' zones.

Indeed, there's no evidence that guns in schools would act as a deterrent to school shootings.

Indeed. Given that many of these shooters are suicidal, and looking to go out in a blaze of glory, the thought of a shootout might actually attract them.

Yeah, they want to get caught by being shot by someone who doesn't kill them. That's what they are after

 

[Pogo]

Actually, I never said "everybody knows," You just committed the you pulled it out of your ass fallacy.

I said it's butt obvious.

And here within two sentences you confirm what you just denied.

"Butt obvious" --- whatever that's supposed to mean --- IS an "everybody knows" fallacy. That's exactly what Argumentum ad populum means.

"It's butt obvious" is not an argument. It's an opinion, and a close-minded one. Once AGAIN you're ass-suming that you've got it figured out and that no other explanation is possible. And all this even though all you have is a correlation without a causation. Which, again ---- you cannot prove.

Which is what I've noted all along.

Roughly 7.5% of Florida residents have CC permits. Probably more than that in schools, but let's say it's not. If there are 100 administrators and teachers in the building of 2,000 students, that would be 7 or 8 guns in the building.

Once AGAIN you're ass-suming the very tenuous twin ass-sumptions that (a) your (unlinked unsourced) percentage applies in academia in the same proportion as the general population, and (b) that said CC educators would automatically bring a firearm into a school, as if they're all part of some Borg that thinks the way you do.

NEITHER of those is a given.

NOR does it address the points about pouring more rather than fewer firearms into schools, NOR does it address raising risks of accidents, stolen arms, or the giant target it paints on all teachers' backs.

 

[Pogo]

We banned guns from schools, just like you wanted. Even people with concealed carry permits trained to use their guns safely didn't have them. And your plan worked. No one had a gun and was able to defend themselves and shoot back. And 17 people died because of it.

You owe us an explanation. What is wrong with your plan? Why isn't it working?

Maybe you can ask your drug dealer why banning guns doesn't work the next time you buy a doobie ...

As already correct noted, your thread premise fails as a fallacy.

There's no evidence that mass shooters target schools because they're perceived to be 'gun free' zones.

Indeed, there's no evidence that guns in schools would act as a deterrent to school shootings.

I bet shooters don't even know that there is such a thing as a gun free zone. Why would a shooter care anyway? People shooting back at them? People not shooting back at them? What difference would that make to them?

It's quite possible they don't. That's hardly his purpose in going in there, is it.

This (latest) kid had been expelled. FROM THAT SCHOOL. Think THAT might be a fucking factor?

Holy shit, some people ya just wanna reach through the computer screen and shake them....

 

[Cecilie1200]

I didn't assume shit. Google the top 30 mass shootings and count how many of them were in gun free zones.

Of course you did. Classic Association Fallacy. Two pieces of circumstance in the same place "must" mean one causes the other. Wellllllllllllll no, it does not.

Doesn't begin to essplain the shootings that led to the signs being put up in the first place, now does it?

That you think causation between gun free zones and shootings isn't established is just being ODD, there is no virtue in that.

It's being logical. You have a causation theory --- prove the causation exists.

Pogo: Why would a shooter go to a gun free zone? I don't get it

Sure you do, Pogo

Now you're just reiterating over and over that you CAN'T prove the causation. Nor can you answer the pre-sign shootings that spurred the signs --- without which causation no signs would have existed or ever been contemplated.

We seem to have doubled down on an Association Fallacy with the good ol' reliable Everybody Knows Fallacy on top of it.

Theory is thus dismissed.

Yes, shooters go to gun free zones where they don't run into other guns because the gun free zones are working for honest citizens.

Pogo: WTF causes that? It's a total mystery. Maybe it's ice cream stands?

I don't think most of the students (or former student) mass murderers target their schools because of the gun free zone laws at all.

So you think they would still go there if they knew they were going to get shot as soon as they pulled out their gun?

 

[kaz]

Actually, I never said "everybody knows," You just committed the you pulled it out of your ass fallacy.

I said it's butt obvious.

And here within two sentences you confirm what you just denied.

"Butt obvious" --- whatever that's supposed to mean --- IS an "everybody knows" fallacy. That's exactly what Argumentum ad populum means.

"It's butt obvious" is not an argument. It's an opinion, and a close-minded one. Once AGAIN you're ass-suming that you've got it figured out and that no other explanation is possible. And all this even though all you have is a correlation without a causation. Which, again ---- you cannot prove.

Which is what I've noted all along.

Roughly 7.5% of Florida residents have CC permits. Probably more than that in schools, but let's say it's not. If there are 100 administrators and teachers in the building of 2,000 students, that would be 7 or 8 guns in the building.

Once AGAIN you're ass-suming the very tenuous twin ass-sumptions that (a) your (unlinked unsourced) percentage applies in academia in the same proportion as the general population, and (b) that said CC educators would automatically bring a firearm into a school, as if they're all part of some Borg that thinks the way you do.

NEITHER of those is a given.

NOR does it address the points about pouring more rather than fewer firearms into schools, NOR does it address raising risks of accidents, stolen arms, or the giant target it paints on all teachers' backs.

What's your theory as to why ... shooters ... keep going to ... gun free zones ... ???

Is it because of ice cream stands? Maybe it's the library, they want to read books in any free time they have during the shooting. Oh, I know. Schools have chocolate milk, maybe they want a brown mustache!

 

[Cecilie1200]

We banned guns from schools, just like you wanted. Even people with concealed carry permits trained to use their guns safely didn't have them. And your plan worked. No one had a gun and was able to defend themselves and shoot back. And 17 people died because of it.

You owe us an explanation. What is wrong with your plan? Why isn't it working?

Maybe you can ask your drug dealer why banning guns doesn't work the next time you buy a doobie ...

As already correct noted, your thread premise fails as a fallacy.

There's no evidence that mass shooters target schools because they're perceived to be 'gun free' zones.

Indeed, there's no evidence that guns in schools would act as a deterrent to school shootings.

Indeed. Given that many of these shooters are suicidal, and looking to go out in a blaze of glory, the thought of a shootout might actually attract them.

Not if they don't first get to cause a lot of terror and bloodshed.

 

[kaz]

We banned guns from schools, just like you wanted. Even people with concealed carry permits trained to use their guns safely didn't have them. And your plan worked. No one had a gun and was able to defend themselves and shoot back. And 17 people died because of it.

You owe us an explanation. What is wrong with your plan? Why isn't it working?

Maybe you can ask your drug dealer why banning guns doesn't work the next time you buy a doobie ...

As already correct noted, your thread premise fails as a fallacy.

There's no evidence that mass shooters target schools because they're perceived to be 'gun free' zones.

Indeed, there's no evidence that guns in schools would act as a deterrent to school shootings.

I bet shooters don't even know that there is such a thing as a gun free zone. Why would a shooter care anyway? People shooting back at them? People not shooting back at them? What difference would that make to them?

It's quite possible they don't. That's hardly his purpose in going in there, is it.

This (latest) kid had been expelled. FROM THAT SCHOOL. Think THAT might be a fucking factor?

Holy shit, some people ya just wanna reach through the computer screen and shake them....

Of course it's a factor. Never said it wasn't. But that the school is guaranteeing his safety is also a factor, and you say it's not. That's what we're disagreeing on

 

[kaz]

Of course you did. Classic Association Fallacy. Two pieces of circumstance in the same place "must" mean one causes the other. Wellllllllllllll no, it does not.

Doesn't begin to essplain the shootings that led to the signs being put up in the first place, now does it?



It's being logical. You have a causation theory --- prove the causation exists.

Pogo: Why would a shooter go to a gun free zone? I don't get it

Sure you do, Pogo

Now you're just reiterating over and over that you CAN'T prove the causation. Nor can you answer the pre-sign shootings that spurred the signs --- without which causation no signs would have existed or ever been contemplated.

We seem to have doubled down on an Association Fallacy with the good ol' reliable Everybody Knows Fallacy on top of it.

Theory is thus dismissed.

Yes, shooters go to gun free zones where they don't run into other guns because the gun free zones are working for honest citizens.

Pogo: WTF causes that? It's a total mystery. Maybe it's ice cream stands?

I don't think most of the students (or former student) mass murderers target their schools because of the gun free zone laws at all.

So you think they would still go there if they knew they were going to get shot as soon as they pulled out their gun?

Yes, he actually does. He thinks that shooters aren't even aware of the school being guaranteed to be gun free and if they did it wouldn't matter

 

[Pogo]

Of course you did. Classic Association Fallacy. Two pieces of circumstance in the same place "must" mean one causes the other. Wellllllllllllll no, it does not.

Doesn't begin to essplain the shootings that led to the signs being put up in the first place, now does it?



It's being logical. You have a causation theory --- prove the causation exists.

Pogo: Why would a shooter go to a gun free zone? I don't get it

Sure you do, Pogo

Now you're just reiterating over and over that you CAN'T prove the causation. Nor can you answer the pre-sign shootings that spurred the signs --- without which causation no signs would have existed or ever been contemplated.

We seem to have doubled down on an Association Fallacy with the good ol' reliable Everybody Knows Fallacy on top of it.

Theory is thus dismissed.

Yes, shooters go to gun free zones where they don't run into other guns because the gun free zones are working for honest citizens.

Pogo: WTF causes that? It's a total mystery. Maybe it's ice cream stands?

I don't think most of the students (or former student) mass murderers target their schools because of the gun free zone laws at all.

So you think they would still go there if they knew they were going to get shot as soon as they pulled out their gun?

I don't think it's a factor. They're not there because the building has or does not have a particular sign. They're there to boil over whatever their frustrations are. And if we're talking arming teachers --- one assumes we're not extending it to the nine-year-olds ---- then exactly who the shooter needs to pick off first is blatantly obvious. Such a shooter, carrying the element of surprise, always gets off the first shot by definition. Therefore he targets the one adult in a room with 20 kids, probably from behind. After that he's got a roomful of victims with no adult to protect or shield them. And that's the scenario even if the teacher is unarmed but the shooter figures she might be.

Again, all that does is paints a big fat target on the teachers' backs. ALL of them, whether they participate in the gun nuttery or not.

 

[kaz]

We banned guns from schools, just like you wanted. Even people with concealed carry permits trained to use their guns safely didn't have them. And your plan worked. No one had a gun and was able to defend themselves and shoot back. And 17 people died because of it.

You owe us an explanation. What is wrong with your plan? Why isn't it working?

Maybe you can ask your drug dealer why banning guns doesn't work the next time you buy a doobie ...

As already correct noted, your thread premise fails as a fallacy.

There's no evidence that mass shooters target schools because they're perceived to be 'gun free' zones.

Indeed, there's no evidence that guns in schools would act as a deterrent to school shootings.

Indeed. Given that many of these shooters are suicidal, and looking to go out in a blaze of glory, the thought of a shootout might actually attract them.

Not if they don't first get to cause a lot of terror and bloodshed.

dblack is actually arguing that shooters go to gun free zones contrary to their wanting to shoot outside gun free zones. He's taking the leftist argument to a whole another level of stupid

 

[kaz]

Pogo: Why would a shooter go to a gun free zone? I don't get it

Sure you do, Pogo

Now you're just reiterating over and over that you CAN'T prove the causation. Nor can you answer the pre-sign shootings that spurred the signs --- without which causation no signs would have existed or ever been contemplated.

We seem to have doubled down on an Association Fallacy with the good ol' reliable Everybody Knows Fallacy on top of it.

Theory is thus dismissed.

Yes, shooters go to gun free zones where they don't run into other guns because the gun free zones are working for honest citizens.

Pogo: WTF causes that? It's a total mystery. Maybe it's ice cream stands?

I don't think most of the students (or former student) mass murderers target their schools because of the gun free zone laws at all.

So you think they would still go there if they knew they were going to get shot as soon as they pulled out their gun?

I don't think it's a factor. They're not there because the building has or does not have a particular sign. They're there to boil over whatever their frustrations are. And if we're talking arming teachers --- one assumes we're not extending it to the nine-year-olds ---- then exactly who the shooter needs to pick off first is blatantly obvious. Such a shooter, carrying the element of surprise, always gets off the first shot by definition. Therefore he targets the one adult in a room with 20 kids, probably from behind. After that he's got a roomful of victims with no adult to protect or shield them. And that's the scenario even if the teacher is unarmed but the shooter figures she might be.

Again, all that does is paints a big fat target on the teachers' backs. ALL of them, whether they participate in the gun nuttery or not.

Of course, and they will aim at other teachers and administrators. The key is that he won't know which ones do and don't have guns. There had to have been at least 100 administrators and teachers for the 2000 students in Florida. Even based on average Florida CC rates, that's 7 or 8 CC's. And he has no idea who has the guns.

That you think directing a shooter who's going to indiscriminately shoot everyone and make them pick out the most dangerous supports the point, doesn't it? Up until now you've been arguing that he doesn't care it's a gun free zone. You just conceded that he does.

And aiming will take more time while the other armed people realize he's there and come from any direction