Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Another School Shooting

Page 4 of 4 [ 63 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Previous topic | Next topic

staremaster
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,628
Location: New York

15 Dec 2013, 6:39 am

Maybe it was the "Colt Peacemaker" that threw him off...



Magneto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,086
Location: Blighty

15 Dec 2013, 8:31 am

There's no point having guns to fight against tyrants with if you're not going to use them the instant government oversteps it's bounds, even by a little amount. That is to say, the Second American Revolution(R) should have happened back in the 1800s, and indeed sort of did - see "War of Northern Aggression/War Between the States"...



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

15 Dec 2013, 10:11 am

WintersTale wrote:
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?

It's just you.

"Why" is now irrelevant - he pulled the trigger, not the teacher.



Mike1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jul 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 710

15 Dec 2013, 10:50 am

WintersTale wrote:
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.

If that was really the only reason why he did it, he probably had Intermittent Explosive Disorder. It's not a very good idea to discriminate against people for having a disorder characterized by extreme anger control problems, but the media will probably do it anyways, if he was intermittent explosive and they find evidence confirming it.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,659
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

15 Dec 2013, 11:07 am

Magneto wrote:
There's no point having guns to fight against tyrants with if you're not going to use them the instant government oversteps it's bounds, even by a little amount. That is to say, the Second American Revolution(R) should have happened back in the 1800s, and indeed sort of did - see "War of Northern Aggression/War Between the States"...


The rest of us call that the Civil War.
And who's to say that black slaves couldn't have taken up arms against the tyranny oppressing them in the south?


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Sherlock03
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Oct 2012
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 594
Location: Virginia

15 Dec 2013, 2:44 pm

Jaden wrote:
micfranklin wrote:
Sherlock03 wrote:
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.


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.
I am starting to wonder if this could be a motive for some of the recent mass murderers. Wouldn't it be ironic if the main objectives of these crimes was to push a political philosophy.


_________________
"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." - Marcus Aurelius


chris5000
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Aug 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,599
Location: united states

15 Dec 2013, 2:52 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Magneto wrote:
There's no point having guns to fight against tyrants with if you're not going to use them the instant government oversteps it's bounds, even by a little amount. That is to say, the Second American Revolution(R) should have happened back in the 1800s, and indeed sort of did - see "War of Northern Aggression/War Between the States"...


The rest of us call that the Civil War.
And who's to say that black slaves couldn't have taken up arms against the tyranny oppressing them in the south?

the civil war had little to do with slaves, also there were tons of free blacks in the south and slave owners were a small minority because you had to be rich to own slaves, there were more slave owners in the north. the civil war was about tariffs more than anything. also there was a black regiment in the confederate army, so they did rise up against the tyranny the tyranny of the north.



Magneto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,086
Location: Blighty

15 Dec 2013, 3:59 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Magneto wrote:
There's no point having guns to fight against tyrants with if you're not going to use them the instant government oversteps it's bounds, even by a little amount. That is to say, the Second American Revolution(R) should have happened back in the 1800s, and indeed sort of did - see "War of Northern Aggression/War Between the States"...


The rest of us call that the Civil War.
And who's to say that black slaves couldn't have taken up arms against the tyranny oppressing them in the south?

Wherever you stand on the matter, calling it a civil war is woefully inaccurate. A civil war is a war fought between two sides for control over a single political unit. What happened in America was a secession, and an invasion by the state which was seceded from...

Oh wait, that sounds familiar.



Jaden
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,867

15 Dec 2013, 4:16 pm

Sherlock03 wrote:
Jaden wrote:
micfranklin wrote:
Sherlock03 wrote:
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.


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.
I am starting to wonder if this could be a motive for some of the recent mass murderers. Wouldn't it be ironic if the main objectives of these crimes was to push a political philosophy.


lol indeed, though it would make sense from their perspective. There are, of course, better ways to go about pushing a political viewpoint :lol:


_________________
Writer. Author.


staremaster
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,628
Location: New York

16 Dec 2013, 10:04 am

chris5000 wrote:
the civil war had little to do with slaves, also there were tons of free blacks in the south and slave owners were a small minority because you had to be rich to own slaves, there were more slave owners in the north. the civil war was about tariffs more than anything. also there was a black regiment in the confederate army, so they did rise up against the tyranny the tyranny of the north.


Blacks outnumbered whites in the South. The South was worried that if "Free States" came to outnumber "Slave States" their way of life would eventually be voted out existence. As it became clear that the western territories were not all going to become slave states, the southerners began to resort to violence. Pro-slavery activists engaged in guerilla warfare and terrorism in Kansas as the new state was determining its "free-or-slave" status, and eventually formed the Confederacy.



staremaster
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,628
Location: New York

16 Dec 2013, 10:35 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Kansas



micfranklin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,272
Location: Maryland

16 Dec 2013, 11:32 am

Sherlock03 wrote:
Jaden wrote:
micfranklin wrote:
Sherlock03 wrote:
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.


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.
I am starting to wonder if this could be a motive for some of the recent mass murderers. Wouldn't it be ironic if the main objectives of these crimes was to push a political philosophy.


It would still be hypocritical to use guns to cause problems in school despite being anti-gun yourself. Guess rules are made to be broken.



Sherlock03
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Oct 2012
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 594
Location: Virginia

16 Dec 2013, 12:05 pm

micfranklin wrote:
Sherlock03 wrote:
Jaden wrote:
micfranklin wrote:
Sherlock03 wrote:
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.


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.
I am starting to wonder if this could be a motive for some of the recent mass murderers. Wouldn't it be ironic if the main objectives of these crimes was to push a political philosophy.


It would still be hypocritical to use guns to cause problems in school despite being anti-gun yourself. Guess rules are made to be broken.

Yes, very hypocritical. However, also effective if the murderer masked their true political intent. Imagine a fanatical anti gun nut who looks at all the gun related murders that take place a year and concludes that they could save thousands by horrifically murdering defenseless innocent children. The public and the media would react just as anticipated and the monstrous act of the murderer would receive it's desired goal.


_________________
"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." - Marcus Aurelius


Jaden
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,867

16 Dec 2013, 7:43 pm

micfranklin wrote:
Sherlock03 wrote:
Jaden wrote:
micfranklin wrote:
Sherlock03 wrote:
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.


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.
I am starting to wonder if this could be a motive for some of the recent mass murderers. Wouldn't it be ironic if the main objectives of these crimes was to push a political philosophy.


It would still be hypocritical to use guns to cause problems in school despite being anti-gun yourself. Guess rules are made to be broken.


All of history is made by making hypocritical choices, I'm pretty sure being called a hypocrite wasn't a big worry for the shooters since they obviously felt nothing for their victims.


_________________
Writer. Author.


sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

17 Dec 2013, 10:27 am

chris5000 wrote:
the civil war had little to do with slaves, also there were tons of free blacks in the south and slave owners were a small minority because you had to be rich to own slaves, there were more slave owners in the north. the civil war was about tariffs more than anything. also there was a black regiment in the confederate army, so they did rise up against the tyranny the tyranny of the north.


Check your facts:

Quote:
Distribution of slaveholders

As of the 1860 Census, one may compute the following statistics on slaveholding:[158]

Enumerating slave schedules by county, 393,975 named persons held 3,950,546 unnamed slaves, for an average of about ten slaves per holder. As some large holders held slaves in multiple counties and are thus multiply counted, this slightly overestimates the number of slaveholders.

Excluding slaves, the 1860 U.S. population was 27,167,529, yielding about 1 in 70 free persons (1.5%) being slaveholders. By counting only named slaveowners, this approach does not acknowledge people who benefited from slavery by being in a slaveowning household, e.g. the wife and children of an owner. Only 8% of all US families owned slaves,[159] while in the South, 33% of families owned slaves.

According to recent research by historian Joseph Glatthaar, the number of soldiers of the Confederacy's Army of Northern Virginia who either owned slaves or came from slave owning households is "almost one of every two 1861 recruits". In addition he notes that, "Untold numbers of enlistees rented land from, sold crops to, or worked for slaveholders. In the final tabulation, the vast majority of the volunteers of 1861 had a direct connection to slavery."[160


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche