school shooting at marshall county, kentucky.

[Sunshine Jesse]

It's strange to me because I see the same people who will pity this boy because he got bullied but will look at the poor and impoverished and you say "lace up your bootstraps".   And while both of those things are fine, when someone else wants to create a safe place for students, it's shot down because "kids should be thick skinned".  And I just don't understand it.  He can be bullied and shoot up a school and we'll pity him because he suffered, but if someone steals a loaf of bread to feed their hungry family, funk 'em?

 

Why?  

I don't actually think there's much if any overlap between people who pity bullied kids and tell others to lace up their bootstraps. People who spout the bootstraps rhetoric are generally the kind of people who think bullying isn't a big deal.

 

Pity requires no energy or effort, so the moment you ask people to put in effort towards fixing the problems beyond simple virtue signalling, they all conveniently vanish, leaving behind the people who say those kinds of things.

 

The truth (that I don't think anyone intelligent needs to be reminded of) is that the poor, downtrodden, and unfortunate are just convenient political fodder for those who benefit from pretending to care, and those who get mad over the fact that they have the audacity to think they need help.

[vla1ne]

It's strange to me because I see the same people who will pity this boy because he got bullied but will look at the poor and impoverished and you say "lace up your bootstraps".   And while both of those things are fine, when someone else wants to create a safe place for students, it's shot down because "kids should be thick skinned".  And I just don't understand it.  He can be bullied and shoot up a school and we'll pity him because he suffered, but if someone steals a loaf of bread to feed their hungry family, f*** 'em?

 

Why?  

is there really a connection between those two groups of people? i mean, i've seen both types, but i'm not so sure there's too much of an overlap between them.

[Dad]

is there really a connection between those two groups of people? i mean, i've seen both types, but i'm not so sure there's too much of an overlap between them.

 

Might just be the people I've had the unfortunate company of coming across I suppose.  Then again Louisiana education is pitiful so it's no surprise.

[vla1ne]

Might just be the people I've had the unfortunate company of coming across I suppose.  Then again Louisiana education is pitiful so it's no surprise.

that might be something interesting to look into, from just bouncing it around in my head, those two types of people shouldn't really be in the same category. they're both generally based on empathy, and understanding one, and empathizing with them, should allow you to better understand why you should help the other.

 

it's not a direct link though, so i could be overthinking it.

[VCR_CAT]

I think what Dad might be trying to get across is that when a student is bullied to the point of shooting someone and killing them, some people will pity them; but when someone on the street is pushed to a point of desperation and mugs someone just so they can get by, some of those same people will want nothing more than to see them rot away in a cell for the rest of their lives.

 

If that's not the sentiment, please let me know. Otherwise, I can see where that comes from. For this situation, I think it's very important to know why the kid was pushed to this point and what was behind his actions, because in a case like this it really looks like it's pointing towards a bigger problem that needs to be addressed.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Nobody is bullied to the point of shooting someone; there is no point at which shooting someone is inevitable. 

 

Some people shoot others because they looked at them the wrong way. Some people shoot others because they were in the way. Some people shoot others because they were paid to do it. Some people shoot others because they were told to do it. Some people shoot others because they cheated on them. Some people shoot others because they owe them money. Some people shoot others because of differences in interpretation of Kantian ethics. In all of these cases I'd consider shooting another person to be an extremely harmful and dumb thing to do and this case is no different. 

 

MANY people are bullied and very few are stupid enough to rain down bullets of disproportionate vengeance in response. If you'd consider it to be an appropriate response as this boy did, then there's nothing to be gained in my hearing out or pretending to appreciate the thought process that got you there, for I will always adamantly disagree. 

[vla1ne]

MANY people are bullied and very few are stupid enough to rain down bullets of disproportionate vengeance in response. If you'd consider it to be an appropriate response as this boy did, then there's nothing to be gained in my hearing out or pretending to appreciate the thought process that got you there, for I will always adamantly disagree. 

nobody considers it an appropriate response to shoot up a school, merely an understandable, or comprehensible one. we can grasp the train of thought that lead to that becoming the chosen solution. in the same way some who are bullied kill themselves, some who are bullied will lash out instead. of course the action itself is wrong, that's not an argument, but it is unfortunately true, that it is one of the many conclusions that a bullied kid can come to on the roulette of choices.

 

school shooting's one of the strongest reasons to stop bullying anywhere possible. for the safety of the bullied, the bully, and any unlucky enough to be near the person who's roulette landed on that choice.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Your metaphor of a "roulette of choices" suggests that choices are beyond our control and responsibility. They're not, that's what makes them choices. 

 

The shooter's choices to bring a gun to school, point it at 16 different people and open fire are by no means indicative of his being bullied particularly badly, it's indicative of how badly he's capable of bullying others. We should not make any assumptions about wrongdoing from those he shot based solely on their being shot, that's blaming the victims. 

[VCR_CAT]

Your metaphor of a "roulette of choices" suggests that choices are beyond our control and responsibility. They're not, that's what makes them choices. 

 

The shooter's choices to bring a gun to school, point it at 16 different people and open fire are by no means indicative of his being bullied particularly badly, it's indicative of how badly he's capable of bullying others. We should not make any assumptions about wrongdoing from those he shot based solely on their being shot, that's blaming the victims. 

 

I can't really agree with this point of view.

 

For one, you're speaking in a lot of absolutes, acting like everyone holds the same perspective and values about everything. When you say "Nobody is bullied to the point of shooting someone", all it takes is for one person to break that norm for your statement to become completely false.

 

And just as we can't make any assumptions about the wrongdoing of those he shot, we can't make any assumptions of the wrongdoing of the person who shot (besides what we currently and clearly can see and know). That's why these things were worth looking into and observing, because you won't know why someone went about doing what they did, and if you can't know the "why" then you can't know of any bigger problems lying behind those actions.

 

One example being Charles Whitman, a mass murderer in the 1960's who, during his autopsy, was found to have the tumor the size of a pecan in his brain. While the limitations of medical science of that era prevented them from making any very concrete conclusions, there is an implication that the tumor affected his ability to control his emotions as well as his actions. Beyond that, there are so many cases of murders having similar problems, mental health issues, or any number of things behind their actions. None of this justifies what they did, but it helps to bring a greater understanding of what drives people to do what they are doing, which gives us a much better ability to see the signs of future cases and help these people before anything dangerous happens, or for the justice system to be able to make more fitting and constructive sentences, or any number of better applications I can't think of on the spot.

 

The shooter's choices aren't indicative of either the actions of the other people in the school, or his own actions, but this doesn't mean we jump to conclusions, toss this kid in jail and forget about it. That's why we have police that investigate these things.

[.Rooster]

nobody considers it an appropriate response to shoot up a school, merely an understandable, or comprehensible one. we can grasp the train of thought that lead to that becoming the chosen solution. in the same way some who are bullied kill themselves, some who are bullied will lash out instead. of course the action itself is wrong, that's not an argument, but it is unfortunately true, that it is one of the many conclusions that a bullied kid can come to on the roulette of choices.

 

school shooting's one of the strongest reasons to stop bullying anywhere possible. for the safety of the bullied, the bully, and any unlucky enough to be near the person who's roulette landed on that choice.

 

Fk this shite...

 

Bullying → School Shooting?!?!

 

How is this thought process normal or understandable in any way, shape or form? Of course... He's a psycho... 

The school shooter is a freak who deserves a painful death for his crimes. He is not a poor little 'bullied kid'. He is an entitled piece of shite that thinks his life is more important than everyone else's. Who fking cares if he gets bullied or harassed? He has to make the first move - people have other things to do. Students shouldn't be worried that if some kid gets bullied, they will be ripped to shreds by gunfire. The fk?

 

 

The shooter's choices aren't indicative of either the actions of the other people in the school, or his own actions, but this doesn't mean we jump to conclusions, toss this kid in jail and forget about it. That's why we have police that investigate these things.

 

Who cares if he's mentally ill or not, he is a murderer. Don't jail him, kill that piece of shite ASAP.

 

 

It's strange to me because I see the same people who will pity this boy because he got bullied but will look at the poor and impoverished and you say "lace up your bootstraps".   And while both of those things are fine, when someone else wants to create a safe place for students, it's shot down because "kids should be thick skinned".  And I just don't understand it.  He can be bullied and shoot up a school and we'll pity him because he suffered, but if someone steals a loaf of bread to feed their hungry family, f*** 'em?

 

Why?  

 

Come on dude... Feel sorry for the school shooter, he got bullied a little... 

[vla1ne]

Your metaphor of a "roulette of choices" suggests that choices are beyond our control and responsibility. They're not, that's what makes them choices. 

 

The shooter's choices to bring a gun to school, point it at 16 different people and open fire are by no means indicative of his being bullied particularly badly, it's indicative of how badly he's capable of bullying others. We should not make any assumptions about wrongdoing from those he shot based solely on their being shot, that's blaming the victims. 

no, they aren't beyond control, but roulette was still a proper metaphor. when i say roulette, i mean for each situation.

 

each incident can resolve a number of different ways, and the observers (in this case us) do not know who will react in what way when bullied, until they are placed in said situation. but VCR gave a better wording to describe my roulette statement than i have here.

 

 

Fk this shite...

 

Bullying → School Shooting?!?!

 

How is this thought process normal or understandable in any way, shape or form? Of course... He's a psycho... 

The school shooter is a freak who deserves a painful death for his crimes. He is not a poor little 'bullied kid'. He is an entitled piece of shite that thinks his life is more important than everyone else's. Who fking cares if he gets bullied or harassed? He has to make the first move - people have other things to do. Students shouldn't be worried that if some kid gets bullied, they will be ripped to shreds by gunfire. The fk?

 

 

Who cares if he's mentally ill or not, he is a murderer. Don't jail him, kill that piece of shite ASAP.

 

 

 

Come on dude... Feel sorry for the school shooter, he got bullied a little... 

it's called snapping. a rather close relative of cause and effect. ever been in a situation, lost your temper, and upon reflection thought "i could have handled that better" this is that, in the form of the worst possible outcome.

 

why yes! Bullying → Shooting! you are starting to get it! bulling, can lead to school shootings! you can understand it after all!

 

it's not normal, that's why it's called a tragedy. a kid who was by all means normal before, by some means or another, (the assumed main cause being bullying if OP's suspicions are correct) ended up at the worst possible choice. it is called the worst possible outcome, but it remains a possible outcome. and he reached it, the rest of the details have yet to surface, so my own judgement is that if it was bullying, his reaching said outcome, while not justifiable, is understandable. 

 

 

but that's where this point can stop, because that's all that needs to be said to make my point. next up is your own mindset. to make the point properly, i'm going to borrow your words, and replace a few key points, just to make the base for my argument: 

 

The mugging victim is a freak who deserves a painful death for his crimes. He is not a poor little 'mugging victim'. He is an entitled piece of shite that thinks his life is more important than everyone else's. Who fking cares if he gets mugged or beaten? He has to make the first move - people have other things to do. Students shouldn't be worried that if some kid gets mugged, they will be ripped to shreds by gunfire. The fk?

 

simple change, but you see why your argument holds so little water? if not, let me go further, and then throw it back to you. these students watched what is essentially a crime take place, and did nothing to stop it. do they deserve to be ripped apart? no, not at all, and just as a small note, nobody here, me or otherwise ever said they deserve it, that's beating a dead straw horse there. what i am saying is they merely watched on in silence as somebody was being tormented, are they allowed to give no f***s? sure, as you've said, they have better things to do, but there is a large flaw in this kind of argument though. by using this argument, you simultaneously kill any empathy that the shooter or those kids, may be due, because by your same logic, why should i give a f*** that they got shot? i have better things to do. and to take this one step further, why should the bullied kid give a f*** about them if they don't give a f*** about him? if he's entitled for wishing they'd helped him when he was bullied, then how are they not just as entitled for wishing that he give a s*** about them, or that somebody helps them when said kid rips them a new one? he may have escalated the issue, but his base principles in this action are not so different from your own argument. your lack of empathy is in the same category as his, just at the opposite end of the spectrum. your empathy is to the victims of the shooting, though you didn't care till the problem went down the worst route, which implies you still wouldn't have cared no matter the outcome. had he killed himself instead of them, how would your argument change? my empathy is to the victim because the problem, as op's description goes, is rampant throughout the school. no matter the end, my issue remains with the cause itself. yours is an argument that can be flipped back at the event in question, and you'd have no legitimate defense no matter the outcome, because your key point (nobody has to care about the one kid being bullied) is based upon a lack of empathy for the cause. meaning that when said kid responds in kind, and grants no empathy for the people that ignored the cause, your argument lacks solid footing to stand on. you've made no strides in removing the issue, you've merely added another body to the pile, the once bullied kid turned killer. and ignored the core of the issue here, which is that whether you or i like it or not, pushing people past the edge, in the case of bullying, can lead to this outcome. this isn't the first bullied kid to shoot back in response, it probably won't be the last. and preventing them, is in part, something that everybody present should be helping, not because they might get shot, i agree that nobody should have to have that worry, but because bullying itself is a terrible act that can damage younger kids and destroy friendships from fear. please, try to understand at least this much.

 

 

 

then again, this entire argument is based on the presumption that the kid was bullied. if he really did flip out of nowhere, then nothing in my prior statements will actually apply. and i'll agree that the kid is likely a psycho.

[ShimoHkun1]

Fk this shite...

 

Bullying → School Shooting?!?!

 

How is this thought process normal or understandable in any way, shape or form? Of course... He's a psycho... 

The school shooter is a freak who deserves a painful death for his crimes. He is not a poor little 'bullied kid'. He is an entitled piece of shite that thinks his life is more important than everyone else's. Who fking cares if he gets bullied or harassed? He has to make the first move - people have other things to do. Students shouldn't be worried that if some kid gets bullied, they will be ripped to shreds by gunfire. The fk?

 

 

Who cares if he's mentally ill or not, he is a murderer. Don't jail him, kill that piece of shite ASAP.

 

 

 

Come on dude... Feel sorry for the school shooter, he got bullied a little...

 

This also kinda ignores the fact that bullying is an issue in the first place, because to be fair when people are pushed to their emotional, psychological, and physical limits, there is no telling what someone will do, people are very finicky. This also in respect to the fact that when talking about a kid, a student of some kind, who haven’t actually gotten a full course of development in their mental state.

 

no, they aren't beyond control, but roulette was still a proper metaphor. when i say roulette, i mean for each situation.

 

each incident can resolve a number of different ways, and the observers (in this case us) do not know who will react in what way when bullied, until they are placed in said situation. but VCR gave a better wording to describe my roulette statement than i have here.

 

 

it's called snapping. a rather close relative of cause and effect. ever been in a situation, lost your temper, and upon reflection thought "i could have handled that better" this is that, in the form of the worst possible outcome.

 

why yes! Bullying → Shooting! you are starting to get it! bulling, can lead to school shootings! you can understand it after all!

 

it's not normal, that's why it's called a tragedy. a kid who was by all means normal before, by some means or another, (the assumed main cause being bullying if OP's suspicions are correct) ended up at the worst possible choice. it is called the worst possible outcome, but it remains a possible outcome. and he reached it, the rest of the details have yet to surface, so my own judgement is that if it was bullying, his reaching said outcome, while not justifiable, is understandable. 

 

 

but that's where this point can stop, because that's all that needs to be said to make my point. next up is your own mindset. to make the point properly, i'm going to borrow your words, and replace a few key points, just to make the base for my argument: 

 

The mugging victim is a freak who deserves a painful death for his crimes. He is not a poor little 'mugging victim'. He is an entitled piece of shite that thinks his life is more important than everyone else's. Who fking cares if he gets mugged or beaten? He has to make the first move - people have other things to do. Students shouldn't be worried that if some kid gets mugged, they will be ripped to shreds by gunfire. The fk?

 

simple change, but you see why your argument holds so little water? if not, let me go further, and then throw it back to you. these students watched what is essentially a crime take place, and did nothing to stop it. do they deserve to be ripped apart? no, not at all, and just as a small note, nobody here, me or otherwise ever said they deserve it, that's beating a dead straw horse there. what i am saying is they merely watched on in silence as somebody was being tormented, are they allowed to give no f***s? sure, as you've said, they have better things to do, but there is a large flaw in this kind of argument though. by using this argument, you simultaneously kill any empathy that the shooter or those kids, may be due, because by your same logic, why should i give a f*** that they got shot? i have better things to do. and to take this one step further, why should the bullied kid give a f*** about them if they don't give a f*** about him? if he's entitled for wishing they'd helped him when he was bullied, then how are they not just as entitled for wishing that he give a s*** about them, or that somebody helps them when said kid rips them a new one? he may have escalated the issue, but his base principles in this action are not so different from your own argument. your lack of empathy is in the same category as his, just at the opposite end of the spectrum. your empathy is to the victims of the shooting, though you didn't care till the problem went down the worst route, which implies you still wouldn't have cared no matter the outcome. had he killed himself instead of them, how would your argument change? my empathy is to the victim because the problem, as op's description goes, is rampant throughout the school. no matter the end, my issue remains with the cause itself. yours is an argument that can be flipped back at the event in question, and you'd have no legitimate defense no matter the outcome, because your key point (nobody has to care about the one kid being bullied) is based upon a lack of empathy for the cause. meaning that when said kid responds in kind, and grants no empathy for the people that ignored the cause, your argument lacks solid footing to stand on. you've made no strides in removing the issue, you've merely added another body to the pile, the once bullied kid turned killer. and ignored the core of the issue here, which is that whether you or i like it or not, pushing people past the edge, in the case of bullying, can lead to this outcome. this isn't the first bullied kid to shoot back in response, it probably won't be the last. and preventing them, is in part, something that everybody present should be helping, not because they might get shot, i agree that nobody should have to have that worry, but because bullying itself is a terrible act that can damage younger kids and destroy friendships from fear. please, try to understand at least this much.

 

 

 

then again, this entire argument is based on the presumption that the kid was bullied. if he really did flip out of nowhere, then nothing in my prior statements will actually apply. and i'll agree that the kid is likely a psycho.

All of this. Couldn’t have put it much better myself. I don’t think the calling of any person’s death is ok in almost every instance, and I doubt highly that this logic would be used in any circumstances like these or others.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

When you say "Nobody is bullied to the point of shooting someone", all it takes is for one person to break that norm for your statement to become completely false.

 

No, because correlation does not imply causation. I will never accept "I shot up my school because I was bullied" to be a rational or true statement because there are many choices between getting bullied and shooting up a school that a shooter necessarily has to make, choices that they could've avoided and chose not to. 

 

One example being Charles Whitman, a mass murderer in the 1960's who, during his autopsy, was found to have the tumor the size of a pecan in his brain. While the limitations of medical science of that era prevented them from making any very concrete conclusions, there is an implication that the tumor affected his ability to control his emotions as well as his actions. 

 

People certainly can't control their emotions or actions once they've been murdered by a menace to society with a pecan in their brain and are rendered a corpse. Believe it or not, it's possible for a person to have a brain tumour and not murder several people. Whether the brain tumour made them do it or not (and it uncategorically didn't) shouldn't have any bearing on whether that person should be allowed the opportunity to continue murdering people. 

 

The shooter's choices aren't indicative of either the actions of the other people in the school, or his own actions, but this doesn't mean we jump to conclusions, toss this kid in jail and forget about it. That's why we have police that investigate these things.

 

Whatever an investigation takes place will not change the fact that the shooter will be detained. I don't think the gravity of what he did has made an impression on you but he murdered two 15-year-old children (Bradey Nicole Holt and Preston Ryan Cope, may they rest in peace) and maimed many others, all of whom were also children. 

 

It is unacceptable not to detain this menace to society who has bereaved two families of a child they will never see again and traumatized many more. The shooter's actions demand that he be brought to justice and a failure to do so would be an injustice to the people he scarred, physically and otherwise.  

 

Who cares if he's mentally ill or not, he is a murderer. Don't jail him, kill that piece of shite ASAP.

 

The trails of blood and tears left in a murderer's wake need not flow any further. By killing him where other options exist to neutralize the threat he poses, we'd stoop to his level. 

[VCR_CAT]

 

No, because correlation does not imply causation. I will never accept "I shot up my school because I was bullied" to be a rational or true statement because there are many choices between getting bullied and shooting up a school that a shooter necessarily has to make, choices that they could've avoided and chose not to. 

 

People certainly can't control their emotions or actions once they've been murdered by a menace to society with a pecan in their brain and are rendered a corpse. Believe it or not, it's possible for a person to have a brain tumour and not murder several people. Whether the brain tumour made them do it or not (and it uncategorically didn't) shouldn't have any bearing on whether that person should be allowed the opportunity to continue murdering people. 

 

Whatever investigation takes place will not change the fact that the shooter will be detained. I don't think the gravity of what he did has made an impression on you but he murdered two 15-year-old children (Bradey Nicole Holt and Preston Ryan Cope, may they rest in peace) and maimed many others, all of whom were also children. 

 

It is unacceptable not to detain this menace to society who has bereaved two families of a child they will never see again and traumatized many more. The shooter's actions demand that he be brought to justice and a failure to do so would be an injustice to the people he scarred, physically and otherwise.  

 

First paragraph: It doesn't seem you understood what I was saying. I'm saying your statement has a very weak foundation, considering you based it on a baseless absolution. All it takes is one contrary example and your entire argument is rendered objectively false. I don't think either of us have the knowledge to know the cause of every situations, or even every situation, so I don't think you're in any position to be saying "Nobody who commits a school shooting did so because of bullying". You don't know that. I don't know that it's false, but I certainly don't know that it's true, as neither do you.

 

Second: It doesn't seem like you're getting what I'm saying. I'm saying that there's much deeper reasons to things that can happen, I'm not saying "The tumor did it" (please, please read more carefully before just assuming that's what I'm saying). I'm saying that there's so much more to how and why a person commits a murder, and yes something like a small tumor, placed at just the right spot in the brain, can affect behavior in just the right way that it removes that sense of self-control and leads someone to doing something very regrettable. But that's only one example. The magical thing about people is that everyone is different, from their physical and mental health, to their upbringing, to their current circumstances, everything. Thankfully we live in a world where people aren't murdering people on a random or disorganized basis at a majority scale. But it's still important to look into this people, their health, their backgrounds, and see what may have lead up to what they did. Maybe it was a mental health issue with subtle yet telling signs, and maybe knowing something like that more acutely can help prevent future situations. Maybe it uncovers a greater social problem in an area that can be worked at fixing, who knows. But none of that can be accomplished if it's just left and ignored.

 

As for those last two directed at me, I don't quite follow what you're trying to tell me. You disagree that any sort of investigation should be gone through, or that you think that I'm saying that police shouldn't detain the culprit? If the latter, then yeah it would seem you're not following what I'm saying, or you think I'm saying things I'm not.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

First paragraph: It doesn't seem you understood what I was saying. I'm saying your statement has a very weak foundation, considering you based it on a baseless absolution. All it takes is one contrary example and your entire argument is rendered objectively false. I don't think either of us have the knowledge to know the cause of every situations, or even every situation, so I don't think you're in any position to be saying "Nobody who commits a school shooting did so because of bullying". You don't know that. I don't know that it's false, but I certainly don't know that it's true, as neither do you.

 

If you were to actually live by this stance of extreme lack of conviction, you'd have long ago died of thirst failing to assume the truth value of whether it'd be good for you to drink a cup of water in front of you. I know you don't actually think that way because you're still alive, so please stop wasting your time and mine.

 

I know for an absolute fact that it is always possible for anyone who is bullied not to respond by bringing a gun to school and pulling the trigger. That's an absolute statement I'm taking with me to the grave. It's an option not to commit a mass shooting, and anyone with a shred of human decency doesn't. 

 

I sincerely hope that if ever others' lives depend on your willingness to act, that you cast your absurd adherence to abstract truth values aside and step up.

 

Second: It doesn't seem like you're getting what I'm saying. I'm saying that there's much deeper reasons to things that can happen, I'm not saying "The tumor did it" (please, please read more carefully before just assuming that's what I'm saying). I'm saying that there's so much more to how and why a person commits a murder, and yes something like a small tumor, placed at just the right spot in the brain, can affect behavior in just the right way that it removes that sense of self-control and leads someone to doing something very regrettable. 

 

There aren't any "deeper reasons" as to why this school got shot up VCR. It was a shallow, pointless and stupid thing to do resulting in losses all around with no victors. Nor is there anything appreciable to me in how or why a person commits a murder, it's something I uncategorically oppose.

[vla1ne]

There aren't any "deeper reasons" as to why this school got shot up VCR. It was a shallow, pointless and stupid thing to do resulting in losses all around with no victors. Nor is there anything appreciable to me in how or why a person commits a murder, it's something I uncategorically oppose.

gotta poke this, and i'm gonna make a hell of a lot of assumptions with this tell me, do you consider this event a tragedy? i'd assume as much, but i'd like to know if you do.

 

and assuming (and making an ass of myself) that you do consider a school shooting a tragedy, wouldn't you agree that the one of, if not the first step to preventing similar tragedies would be to understand what caused it? if you can agree to that, then i'd say that this entire argument is, in essence, arguing over nothing but how to go about it. which is where i think we're all disconnecting. the opinion of myself, and likely VCR, among others, is that understanding the mentality that the shooter had, is the first step to understanding what to look for, and what to do to help prevent anybody from ever having such a mindstate where they would believe that shooting up a school is the best course of action. (we can all at least agree that shooting up a school is not good right? then the rest is just semantics, so we can overlook that to continue the discussion)

 

to pile yet another assumption on top of this, the assumed cause, as per the course of this discussion, is bullying, and unless i'm mistaken, you're opposed to bullying as well right? now, assuming we're still in agreement. wouldn't you also agree that working backwards from the shooting, if bullying is indeed one of the main things that lead the shooters mind down the path, then we can say that preventing bullying where and whenever possible would be beneficial no matter the side right? and it would close up one of the potential motivations for people who shoot up schools right?

 

i've got more assumptions to go through, but that's the first wave, so i'm just asking if you agree with the above logic, and if not, why?

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

I agree that this is a tragedy and that bullying is wrong.

 

What I disagree with strongly is that this event was caused by the shooter being bullied rather than the shooter himself. This narrative is dangerous for a few reasons:

 

1) That because the shooter was willing to go to extremes, changes should be enacted on their behalf. They shouldn't. Giving the shooter agency incentivizes others to do the same. 

 

2) That those who are shot necessarily wronged the shooter and/or had it coming. If any of the 16 children who were shot treated the shooter particularly badly, it's clear to me that the shooter treated them disproportionately worse. 

 

3) That where bullying exists, a school shooting is a logical response. It isn't. Bullying isn't right but it is normal, and there is nothing rational or logical about perpetuating a mass shooting in response. There are so many better ways someone can respond to being bullied, like relocating, telling a teacher, speaking out for themselves, avoiding their antagonists, or even fighting if they have to. All of these would obviously be preferable responses to lethal force.

 

4) That the school, parents, or anyone else involved in the shooter's conditioning somehow failed the shooter. This isn't necessarily true either, and the assignment of guilt by association by media and victims' parents to the shooter's parents and teachers tasked with roles his upbringing is entirely unfair when they weren't the ones to commit the atrocity.

 

Blaming external factors and people for a shooting other than the person pulling the trigger is exactly what the shooter wants, isn't fair, isn't acceptable to me, and downplays the gravity of the shooter's wrongdoing. It is placing the blame squarely on the shoulders of the shooter and the emphasis of the shooter's thinking as wrong, irrational, stupid, senseless and fruitless each time that discourages the act, rather than gestures to sympathize with or appease those who'd consider doing the same. 

[.Rooster]

gotta poke this, and i'm gonna make a hell of a lot of assumptions with this tell me, do you consider this event a tragedy? i'd assume as much, but i'd like to know if you do.

 

and assuming (and making an ass of myself) that you do consider a school shooting a tragedy, wouldn't you agree that the one of, if not the first step to preventing similar tragedies would be to understand what caused it? if you can agree to that, then i'd say that this entire argument is, in essence, arguing over nothing but how to go about it. which is where i think we're all disconnecting. the opinion of myself, and likely VCR, among others, is that understanding the mentality that the shooter had, is the first step to understanding what to look for, and what to do to help prevent anybody from ever having such a mindstate where they would believe that shooting up a school is the best course of action. (we can all at least agree that shooting up a school is not good right? then the rest is just semantics, so we can overlook that to continue the discussion)

 

to pile yet another assumption on top of this, the assumed cause, as per the course of this discussion, is bullying, and unless i'm mistaken, you're opposed to bullying as well right? now, assuming we're still in agreement. wouldn't you also agree that working backwards from the shooting, if bullying is indeed one of the main things that lead the shooters mind down the path, then we can say that preventing bullying where and whenever possible would be beneficial no matter the side right? and it would close up one of the potential motivations for people who shoot up schools right?

 

i've got more assumptions to go through, but that's the first wave, so i'm just asking if you agree with the above logic, and if not, why?

 

OFC everyone's opposed to bullying, who wants bullying to happen? School shooters are always the one in the wrong though, bullying can't lead to mass shootings. Bullying very much pales in comparison to removing 2 people from this world and maiming 18 others; that's what we keep trying to say. Bullying causes a lot of mental damage, I know, but if think that some anti-bullying lessons or whatever you want are going to prevent school shootings; then you have another thing coming. And anti-bullying procedures are overrated; do you think some detentions/assemblies are going to prevent people from bullying? Even a school shooting most likely won't change anything; they'll just find another target. IMO, students who are antisocial/get bullied the ones that need to be focused on; it's not about the bully. A normally functioning child can survive bullying and even improve themselves in the process (happens all the time). Bullying is not an excuse...

 

TBH, potential school shooters should just be sent to special school if we just want to prevent these atrocities from happening.

[Sunshine Jesse]

On an unrelated note, I don't like how this thread was moved into debates. Like I know it turned into a debate, but it didn't start as one and it's starting to seem like almost every thread in general/misc that spawns a substantive discussion is being moved here.

 

I don't think there's anything super wrong with that per se but I'd much prefer it if Debates was reserved for targeted debate on a subject that's evident from the first post. It really gives off the impression that meaningful discussion doesn't belong anywhere else.

[Dad]

On an unrelated note, I don't like how this thread was moved into debates. Like I know it turned into a debate, but it didn't start as one and it's starting to seem like almost every thread in general/misc that spawns a substantive discussion is being moved here.

I don't think there's anything super wrong with that per se but I'd much prefer it if Debates was reserved for targeted debate on a subject that's evident from the first post. It really gives off the impression that meaningful discussion doesn't belong anywhere else.

This is something I'd like to touch on. I'll open a thread tonight.

[vla1ne]

OFC everyone's opposed to bullying, who wants bullying to happen? School shooters are always the one in the wrong though, bullying can't lead to mass shootings. Bullying very much pales in comparison to removing 2 people from this world and maiming 18 others; that's what we keep trying to say. Bullying causes a lot of mental damage, I know, but if think that some anti-bullying lessons or whatever you want are going to prevent school shootings; then you have another thing coming. And anti-bullying procedures are overrated; do you think some detentions/assemblies are going to prevent people from bullying? Even a school shooting most likely won't change anything; they'll just find another target. IMO, students who are antisocial/get bullied the ones that need to be focused on; it's not about the bully. A normally functioning child can survive bullying and even improve themselves in the process (happens all the time). Bullying is not an excuse...

 

TBH, potential school shooters should just be sent to special school if we just want to prevent these atrocities from happening.

yes, it can, and i've explained exactly why. you don't have to like it, but it is a fact.

 

bullying can lead to fights when the victim snaps correct? and bullying can lead to suicide if the victim breaks correct? if you get to that much,  then you should be capable of understanding that bullying can also, if prolonged enough, and serious enough, lead to far worse outcomes. instead of killing themselves, or instead of attempting to fight fairly, or even to contain the reaction to the person(s) directly involved, or to just confront the onlookers verbally, they might reach the conclusion of lashing out at everybody who was present, is the best course of action. introduce a pistol, and you've got a school shooting in the making.

 

 Bullying very much pales in comparison to removing 2 people from this world and maiming 18 others; that's what we keep trying to say.

 

please get this through your head: NOBODY HERE DISAGREES WITH YOU ON THAT. you got it yet? i've said it multiple times, in multiple ways, and you keep bringing up this same dead horse. of course bullying pales in comparison to murder, that does not matter, the fact is, murder as a response, whether or not it's disproportionate, is still a possible response to bullying. you don't have to sympathise, you don't have to like it, you don't have to anything at all, it is simply a fact. 

 

 

as for anti bullying measures, each case is different, each approach is different, but while one size does not fit all, that is no excuse for not trying at all to solve the problem. in this case, we don't know what measures were taken, and we don't know all the details, but that does not change the fact that in this, or any case, and before there may even be a case, attempts should be made to lessen any amount of bullying, and help those who may be victims of it. sure, the attempts may not always succeed, but you will only ever know as much if you actually try it in the first place. and even knowing there are people willing to attempt to stop it, just might help the victim somewhat. preventing what could be a suicide, or another school shooting.

 

I agree that this is a tragedy and that bullying is wrong.

 

What I disagree with strongly is that this event was caused by the shooter being bullied rather than the shooter himself. This narrative is dangerous for a few reasons:

 

1) That because the shooter was willing to go to extremes, changes should be enacted on their behalf. They shouldn't. Giving the shooter agency incentivizes others to do the same. 

 

2) That those who are shot necessarily wronged the shooter and/or had it coming. If any of the 16 children who were shot treated the shooter particularly badly, it's clear to me that the shooter treated them disproportionately worse. 

 

3) That where bullying exists, a school shooting is a logical response. It isn't. Bullying isn't right but it is normal, and there is nothing rational or logical about perpetuating a mass shooting in response. There are so many better ways someone can respond to being bullied, like relocating, telling a teacher, speaking out for themselves, avoiding their antagonists, or even fighting if they have to. All of these would obviously be preferable responses to lethal force.

 

4) That the school, parents, or anyone else involved in the shooter's conditioning somehow failed the shooter. This isn't necessarily true either, and the assignment of guilt by association by media and victims' parents to the shooter's parents and teachers tasked with roles his upbringing is entirely unfair when they weren't the ones to commit the atrocity.

 

Blaming external factors and people for a shooting other than the person pulling the trigger is exactly what the shooter wants, isn't fair, isn't acceptable to me, and downplays the gravity of the shooter's wrongdoing. It is placing the blame squarely on the shoulders of the shooter and the emphasis of the shooter's thinking as wrong, irrational, stupid, senseless and fruitless each time that discourages the act, rather than gestures to sympathize with or appease those who'd consider doing the same. 

 

okay then, we're on the most common of common ground, and we can keep it going from there.

 

what i disagree with is your exclusion of external factors entirely. i do not disagree that the shooter is responsible, what i mean is that the external factors, are not insignificant.

 

1)the changes required are changes that should exist from the start, they are worth enacting on their merit alone. the shooter, merely brought them to the front of the page. he is not the (only) argument that they have going for them.

 

 

2) i'm not going to continue to argue that any of the people actually shot, knew anything, or did anything, that is beyond my ability to argue, because the discussion already sits on a hypothetical. that was an argument I used merely as an example of why rooster's own argument had major flaws. yes, he treated them worse, that is not something anybody here is serious in arguing about, bullets beat noninvolvment 9/10 times. the argument here is that while he is a criminal, the environment created by bullying, is capable of causing people like him to emerge at a higher rate than they would otherwise. it simply twists people in ways that they shouldn't be twisted. which is why you have to look at the criminal as a human (yes they're a criminal, but they are still human. humans have that within them, if they didn't, we'd never have wars in the first place), if you want to prevent another one from emerging, you have to understand what factors accelerate growth in that area. one of them being bullying. yes, i agree that the final decision is that of the shooters, but i also stand by my stement that leading them up to it, is something that bullying can, and has done in the past. it's easier to push the button when you have people behind you pushing you towards it.

 

 

3)...you and rooster make the exact same mistake here. school shooting is not logical. nobody is arguing that. what we are arguing is that is understandable. school shootings are not natural progressions, but they are possible outcomes nonetheless. they are exactly as viable as suicide from bullying, they simply affect more people, and are thus more easily noticed. and for that same reason, are less readily sympathized with. but just to make a point, place them side by side; a school with no bullying, and a school with high bullying rates, which one do you think would have a school shooting or a school suicide first? you get me? there are obviously better ways, and some people chose those, some sit quietly ad endure, others try to get help, some fight back on their own, ect. but just because you can think of other options, does not mean they all hold the same value at all times. sometimes punching the bully in the face might seem to be the better option, sometimes just quitetly getting through it might seem to be the better option, sometimes removing the bully from existence, so they never bother another person again, might seem to be the better option, and sometimes making an example of the bystanders as well as a bully or two might seem to be a better option, stress makes options look different from time to time. and reasoning is not always flawless under stress. you know that.

 

 

4)they did. it's also not blaming to say that the parents/ teachers/ other guardians messed up, it's a statement of fact. it doesn't mean they are unfit to be parents, or unfit to be teachers, it simply means that they couldn't stop this one from occurring. and while it is a tragedy that they could not solve the problem, unless they actively encouraged said child to shoot up the school, it should not be held against them. nobody hits every ball thrown their way. and nobody's a hero who can save every person from themselves or others. it's not blaming them to say that they should learn from this, and use it as both motivation try harder, and experience to use in the future, should a similar situation arise. it's a fair assessment. 

 

 

do you not understand what including is? you can do much better than this. it is not blaming, it is including, they are two different things. i am not saying that bullies pull triggers, i'm saying they create environments where pulling the trigger can seem like the best option. the gravity is the shooting victims, they deserve, and have, my sympathy. but we're not talking gravity here, we're talking influences. and i assume you've been a kid in puberty before. influences are one hell of a thing when you're in high school. stop acting like anybody here is saying the shooter was in the right, or that the shooter did nothing wrong, or that the shooter does not deserve jailtime, or that the shooter isn't a criminal, or other such ignorance. you can comprehend words, we both know this, start reading back and looking for a single time we've said the shooter didn't A) commit a crime worthy of jailtime B) caused more harm than the bullies or C) choose the worst possible option available (tied only with suicide). you cannot. we are not blaming the bullies for the shooting (though we are blaming them for any bullying), we are saying that they are related to the end result. we are not negating autonomy, we are saying it's possible to influence it. the end choice to pull the trigger was indeed the shooter's, but we are saying there may be more reasons for him doing so than just "he's a psycho, put him under the jail"

 

those who would consider doing the same, have not done the same. that is why you want to help them, so that they are less likely to do the same. and sympathizing with somebody who is bullied (which is the assumed position of those considering doing the same) is something i will never consider wrong.

 

 

those who would consider doing the same, have not done the same. that is why you want to help them, so that they are less likely to do the same. and sympathizing with somebody who is bullied (which is the assumed position of those considering doing the same) is something i will never consider wrong.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

He didn't kill himself, so I somewhat question that he was put in a place where he hated living and wanted to just lash out

[vla1ne]

He didn't kill himself, so I somewhat question that he was put in a place where he hated living and wanted to just lash out

killing yourself and killing others are two sides of the same worst conclusion. clearly he values his life still, but what exactly happened to help tip the scales is still in question.