Two Children Killed In School Shooting

It’s always a good idea that anytime a driver is stopped or pulled over for the driver to keep their hands on top of the steering wheel where the approaching Trooper or Officer can see them. Cop killing today is more rampant than in the past.
I wanted to quickly follow up with this: My son did indeed get pulled over within a week, and he told me he'd been respectful to the officer and even stammered. I'd clearly overdone it. I tried not to laugh, but I told him he didn't need to get anxious and stammer, just be respectful. I told him about how, more than once, a law enforcement officer has walked up to the car only to be ambushed and shot. A local officer in our small city was killed just a few years ago that way.

I clarified what I'd meant, and all was OK after that.
 
Well I have lived in both the US and Canada and feel freer here in Canada!

Your sense of freedom in Canada is subjective and not universally shared by all Canadians. Ezra Levant, for example, was dragged through Canada’s Orwellian "human rights" system for publishing the Danish cartoons. Jordan Peterson pushed back hard against compelled speech under Bill C-16. And Mark Steyn was hauled before tribunals for things he wrote.

These are Canadian voices saying that freedom in Canada has very real limits. So while you may feel freer, others in your own country have experienced the opposite. That contrast proves my point that, unlike Canada, the U.S. has a Bill of Rights that places free expression and self-defense beyond the reach of shifting government preferences.
 

Your sense of freedom in Canada is subjective and not universally shared by all Canadians. Ezra Levant, for example, was dragged through Canada’s Orwellian "human rights" system for publishing the Danish cartoons. Jordan Peterson pushed back hard against compelled speech under Bill C-16. And Mark Steyn was hauled before tribunals for things he wrote.

These are Canadian voices saying that freedom in Canada has very real limits. So while you may feel freer, others in your own country have experienced the opposite. That contrast proves my point that, unlike Canada, the U.S. has a Bill of Rights that places free expression and self-defense beyond the reach of shifting government preferences.
How about some dates?
BTW I know what I have read about western men in Thailand.
 
Last edited:
Tossing around lists of school shootings doesn’t make Europe, Canada or China models of freedom. So, if we look closely at those countries you listed, we will see that in France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and Belgium writers, historians, and comedians are fined or jailed for speech the government decides is unacceptable.

Also, Canada has its Orwellian Human Rights Commission that has dragged editors and writers into costly proceedings simply for publishing controversial content, like the Danish cartoons. They weren’t criminal trials, but the process itself was the punishment. As for China, it needs no explanation. It’s a dictatorship where free speech exists only if it serves the Party.

So, yes, the USA has more violence, but unlike those countries it has a Bill of Rights that guarantees both free expression and the right to self-defense.

Free expression for some but not all where retaliation is rampant.
 
Free expression for some but not all where retaliation is rampant.

Retaliation happens everywhere, sometimes from governments, sometimes from mobs. The difference is that in the U.S.A. retaliation can’t be codified into law the same way it is in Europe, Canada, or China. A writer in Germany or France can be fined or jailed because the government decides their words are "unacceptable". In Canada, a bureaucratic tribunal can drag someone through years of hearings simply for publishing cartoons. In China, you vanish if you criticize the Party.

In the Unite States, by contrast, the First Amendment forbids the government from punishing speech. Yes, individuals or groups may react harshly, but that’s social retaliation, not state power. The key point is that the Constitution prevents government retaliation. That’s the real guarantee of freedom, even if it doesn’t shield anyone from public criticism or private backlash.
 
We need to quit giving these people their 15 minutes of fame. It just encourages the next crazy one.
All the news coverage just feeds their need for attention. And eggs on the next crazy who craves the spotlight.

JMO. I think it should be a crime to show their face or print their name or any identifying info.
We need to make them totally anonymous.
 
We need to quit giving these people their 15 minutes of fame. It just encourages the next crazy one.
All the news coverage just feeds their need for attention. And eggs on the next crazy who craves the spotlight.

JMO. I think it should be a crime to show their face or print their name or any identifying info.
We need to make them totally anonymous.
I think the opposite. Call them what they are. A killer or murderer. In this case Robin Westman is a child killer or Robin Westman is a cowardly pos child killer.

Using the term 'shooter' is only partially accurate and puts an aura or mystic around the heinous act along with making it seem like a game to these cowardly p'sos.
 
We need to quit giving these people their 15 minutes of fame. It just encourages the next crazy one.
All the news coverage just feeds their need for attention. And eggs on the next crazy who craves the spotlight.

JMO. I think it should be a crime to show their face or print their name or any identifying info.
We need to make them totally anonymous.

Yes that was one thing the shooter of Australia's worst mass shooting said - he wanted to be famous as the biggest one in Australia.

The site where it occurred at Port Arthur has been made into a memorial garden and the plaque lists the victims by name but the shooter only as ' a crazed shooter' with no name.

to that end, i am deliberately not mentioning his name either.

Gun reforms were brought in after that, ( in 1996) and no such event has occurred here since

There was one a few years ago in New Zealand, in 2019. shooter was Australian but couldn't get the gun to do it here so he did so in NZ.
Within a month the NZ parliament voted 119 to 1 to implement gun reforms similar to Australia's
 
GOOD GRIEF! I’m really not interested in your fantasies about being my little slave girl. I suggest you share those with a trained professional.
You think way too highly of yourself!
GOOD GRIEF! I’m really not interested in your fantasies about being my little slave girl. I suggest you share those with a trained professional.
You seem to have illusions of grandeur!
 
You are a very nasty person so like another poster here I will say goodbye to you.

You went down into the gutter with your "12-year-old" smear, and when I slapped it back, you switched to the old "you’re nasty, I’m leaving" routine to save face. Bottom-line, any objective reader can see who the nasty one is here...........and it’s not me.
 
The latest threat to Australians is coming from 3D printed firearms. They are not covered by existing legislation.

You say the latest threat to Australians is from 3D-printed firearms, but here’s the irony, law-abiding citizens remain disarmed while criminals will ignore whatever laws you pass. And with China throwing its weight around in the region, wouldn’t it make more sense to have an armed citizenry skilled in the use of firearms, instead of a population forced to rely entirely on the government to protect them? As an American, I can’t help but notice that this leaves Australians not pulling their weight as allies. In fact, it’s outright irresponsible to depend on the U.S. to carry the full burden of defense while your own population is deliberately kept unarmed.
 
You say the latest threat to Australians is from 3D-printed firearms, but here’s the irony, law-abiding citizens remain disarmed while criminals will ignore whatever laws you pass. And with China throwing its weight around in the region, wouldn’t it make more sense to have an armed citizenry skilled in the use of firearms, instead of a population forced to rely entirely on the government to protect them? As an American, I can’t help but notice that this leaves Australians not pulling their weight as allies. In fact, it’s outright irresponsible to depend on the U.S. to carry the full burden of defense while your own population is deliberately kept unarmed.
Now you've done it. I cannot ignore this post.

#1. Law abiding citizens are not disarmed, as you put it. We are within the law to buy firearms provided we have a good reason to have them. Farmers, for example, need firearms and they have guns. What they do not have are military style weapons.

Another reason for wanting a gun is membership of a gun club. Allowed.

As far as I am concerned, the last thing we need is an armed citizenry. What we need is good strategic planning and intelligent diplomacy, and that is what we rely on. It is not like we haven't been at war before.

We have our own militias, referred to as the CMF (Citizens Military Forces) and they train to defend the country at short notice should the regular army need more soldiers.

#2. You insult Australians when you suggest that we are not pulling our weight as allies. Australia has joined with US forces in just about every war since the Korean war. We have aligned our military equipment with the US to be more effective in joint operations. We engage in joint training exercises at sea with the US navy. We have contracted to buy new nuclear powered subs and are paying for them now even though there is some chance that they will not be delivered to us. The money we have sent is to be used to build them in US by expanding production.

I await your sincere apology.
 
The child killer Robin Westman blames his mom and weed for being messed up.

Minneapolis gunman Robin Westman blamed massacre on mom warning him not to change gender— and discouraged people from letting their kids transition

Wonder if he was smoking pot at the time of the killings and/or how much. Excess pot can lead to pot psychosis.

As an underage teen I can see him blaming his mom but he was a 23 year old 'adult'. Part of the issue may be that many teens/youth are being cow towed to by their parents and society in general. This is why parents at times just have to be parents and not a friend or cheerleader. It also must be emphasized the older one get the more responsibility they will have.

Once 18 one should/will have to accept as a legal adult the consequences of their decisions. But as an adult one can make their own decisions.
Thank you for the link to the article.
The statements of the shooter (some prefer 'killer') are such contradictory that I think there is an underlying mental insanity, not to mention the smoking of weed, which may have led to a psychosis.

It is true, that some people regret transitioning later. But they don't kill people.

For instance in Germany it was necessary to live in the role of the other gender for one year (full-time real-life experience) with permanent supervision by a experienced psychologist in the field of gender transitioning. Then the person could begin hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and later (sexual reassignment) surgery.

I doubt that Robin had a psychologist to talk about problems and doubts.

I hope that such cases don't do harm to how people look upon the TG community in general.
 
I wanted to quickly follow up with this: My son did indeed get pulled over within a week, and he told me he'd been respectful to the officer and even stammered. I'd clearly overdone it. I tried not to laugh, but I told him he didn't need to get anxious and stammer, just be respectful. I told him about how, more than once, a law enforcement officer has walked up to the car only to be ambushed and shot. A local officer in our small city was killed just a few years ago that way.

I clarified what I'd meant, and all was OK after that.
All good advice.
 
I think the opposite. Call them what they are. A killer or murderer. In this case Robin Westman is a child killer or Robin Westman is a cowardly pos child killer.

Using the term 'shooter' is only partially accurate and puts an aura or mystic around the heinous act along with making it seem like a game to these cowardly p'sos.
Well since you brought up what names we call them, I always wonder why you and many others always call them "cowards." Murderous, heartless, evil, vile and many other negative adjectives would come to my mind before "cowardly," which isn't even that bad a thing. Shooter is a correct term and I certainly don't see anything mystical about it. He is the perpetrator of a crime and he was the person shooting the gun.
We need to quit giving these people their 15 minutes of fame. It just encourages the next crazy one.
All the news coverage just feeds their need for attention. And eggs on the next crazy who craves the spotlight.

JMO. I think it should be a crime to show their face or print their name or any identifying info.
We need to make them totally anonymous.

Although this mass-murderer is dead and isn't enjoying his fame, I agree with you. Several of the most recent school shooters have been fans of the previous ones. Robin Westman was obsessed with them.
 
Now you've done it. I cannot ignore this post. #1. Law abiding citizens are not disarmed, as you put it. We are within the law to buy firearms provided we have a good reason to have them. Farmers, for example, need firearms and they have guns. What they do not have are military style weapons. Another reason for wanting a gun is membership of a gun club. Allowed.
As far as I am concerned, the last thing we need is an armed citizenry. What we need is good strategic planning and intelligent diplomacy, and that is what we rely on. It is not like we haven't been at war before. We have our own militias, referred to as the CMF (Citizens Military Forces) and they train to defend the country at short notice should the regular army need more soldiers. #2. You insult Australians when you suggest that we are not pulling our weight as allies. Australia has joined with US forces in just about every war since the Korean war. We have aligned our military equipment with the US to be more effective in joint operations. We engage in joint training exercises at sea with the US navy. We have contracted to buy new nuclear powered subs and are paying for them now even though there is some chance that they will not be delivered to us. The money we have sent is to be used to build them in US by expanding production. I await your sincere apology.

No apology is due, disagreement is not an insult. You took offense where none was intended. My point is simply this: laws that restrict firearms ownership disarm ordinary citizens far more effectively than they disarm criminals or hostile powers. Farmers with a few rifles, or hobbyists at gun clubs, are not the same as a citizenry broadly skilled in the use of arms. That distinction matters.

As for alliances, yes, Australia has fought alongside the U.S., no one denies that. But my criticism isn’t about the valor of Australian soldiers, it’s about policy. If your entire defense posture is, "leave it to the government and hope for the best", then when a major threat arises, America shoulders the ultimate burden. That is the imbalance I’m pointing out.

And regarding militias, the CMF you mention has been folded into the regular reserves for decades. It’s not the same thing as an armed citizenry. My argument remains: strategic planning and diplomacy are good, but they fail quickly without the deterrent of an empowered, armed population.
 


Back
Top