Another School Shooting

Post Reply New Topic

Isn't that the message that is spread by having a government anyway - if you've got a problem, the men with guns will solve it?

I'm sorry, do I know you? I think I'd remember someone who made a habit of using pejoratives for people they don't know.

If you'd actually bothered to read the exchange in question, you'd have noticed that I simply asked another poster to back up a claim they'd made with a citation, which caused Blabby to state that the specifics were not important, which I called him on by way of a counter example that I know he'd demand more than someone's word on. Perhaps you should pay attention to what people are actually saying before hitting the 'post' button.

Did I say that? No? Then kindly don't act as if I did, I don't put words in your mouth, and I don't like having them put in mine.

From what I read the kid was an "anti" gun nut. Personally I have never understood why these types of murderers don't use bombs. Easy to make, use, deploy, and absolutely horrendous effects.

Sure ... let's enact legislation that will keep firearms out of the hands of 'madmen' (and 'madwomen', while we're at it).

But how shall we define 'madness'?

• Voting a straight Republican ticket?
  
• Signing up for Obamacare?
  
• Displaying a love for sashimi and sushi?
  
• Driving a foreign car?
  
• Joining a labor union?
  
• Believing in evolution?
  
• Teaching creationism?
  
• Other: _______________? (Please explain)

The 'Devil', after all, really IS in the details!

Strange, we had been doing so well without many school shootings in a while.

And how might anyone go about doing that?
The problem with controlling who can get their hands on weapons is that no matter what the situation, no matter what is done, there will always be a back alley solution for people who look for them hard enough. You restrict gun access through normal channels, they find it illegally. You try to enforce law against gun runners, there's always another to replace them, it's a never ending quest for control that will never be attained.
The real step to keeping kids from acting out in violence is to teach them how to act, how to manage their problems, give them someone who will mentor them, something. Because it's clear that whatever is pushing them over the edge is causing them to think that their actions are their only solution, they feel pressured by society and because they've never been taught how to handle their stresses, problems, etc. they act out in the most primal of ways: violence, because they don't know how to manage their problem acceptably. There is a solution, but until current generations start wising up and realizing that our lack of teaching future generations how to properly act is actually exacerbating the problem, it'll never end. The problem isn't treating the instrument, it's treating the user of the instrument.

Schools should be made to teach kids a specific set of human values, because if the parents aren't going to, then that's just one more thing that could contribute to the kids growing up without them, and without human values, they don't care about what they're doing to others, and that makes them potentially dangerous.

We can either take drastic action to treat the real problem and prevent such atrocities, or we can stand by our own convictions and let them continue. I don't find the latter an acceptable solution.

Sure.

Maybe they feel like using the first thing they can reach for, in this case guns. Or that maybe they don't think bombs are all that easy and they have to put in work to make one.

If the kid was an anti-gun nut, maybe they were trying to force people to want an anti-gun legislation. Who knows in the end.

People who are driven to do physical harm to others really don't care much about what is "legal".
And hasn't the historical record shown that making something "illegal" doesn't make that thing go away.

Take away guns from the people and tyranny has a blank check.

Tyranny is a wolf deciding what to have for lunch.

Liberty is a lamb with a gun contesting the decision.

From what I understand, he got enraged by being kicked off the debate team.

Maybe it's just me, but I hardly understand how someone can get that upset at being kicked off a team? Was he mocked and humiliated? What did this teacher do to him?

Reminds me of a scene from The Shining, but I simply don't understand how someone who is well liked, social, and anti-gun can get so upset that he would rather die than accept that he's off a team.

maybe that was his only bright shiny place in life, the only place where he felt he belonged and was effective. when a person has everything taken from him he truly has nothing left to lose.

We have to remain eternally vigilant.
As we we're forewarned by the founding fathers.

But I guess sharing a presidential birthday (I share with Jefferson) I have always taken his words seriously.

Perhaps he misunderstood the proper usage of a Mossberg Pursuader?