School shooting in Texas (shooter arrested)

[Ken]

You completely missed what I meant by that. You do realize there are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of law abiding gun owners in that age range, right? All this does is not help them protect their life, liberty, and property.

Okay, in fairness, maybe I did miss the point. I can admit that.

But why would stricter gun laws increase or decrease those crimes? People would still find ways to defend themselves and kill each other.

The point, no matter what we as a nation or a world, gun laws won't do jack 🤬. It won't change a damn thing. The world is a scary place and will continue to be with our without guns in the hands of citizens. Focusing on guns in cases like this boggles my mind. So does trying to reach every precious snowflake out there. The only thing that will ever work is focusing on the real problem. Us.
You, me, our kids, and parents It's all boils down to how we treat each other. And let's be serious, that will never change.

 

[TexRex]

“Raising the minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18-25.”
Well that’s an excellent way to surge the number of rapes/violent crime victims in that specific age range.

Would arming children prevent them from being victimized by pedophiles? Well...there's a significant chance...but not in any way that people can be happy about.

About his "surge," though. Is that based on the [presumably, based on the assertion] staggering number of [fire]armed 18-to-24-year-olds who manage to suppress perpetrators of violent acts against them before the act can be completed?

Edit:

You completely missed what I meant by that. You do realize there are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of law abiding gun owners in that age range, right? All this does is not help them protect their life, liberty, and property.

What about the thousands upon thousands of rule abiding schoolchildren who start their day passing through metal detectors only to be watched all day like pigs in a pen before leaving to start the next day in exactly the same manner? All because a few ne'er-do-wells caused problems?

 

[Ken]

Now that this kids name is out there, there happens to be a lot of articles stating the kid wasn't bullied. He was a football player. He danced for his church. The worst thing anybody can say about him is that he wore a trench coat with an iron cross and a hammer and sickle, had a shirt made that said "Born to kill", and was maybe a racist. From what I can gather, we should be putting up red flags for people wearing anything but American Eagle clothing.

Source: the internet. Seriously. It's everywhere.

 

[DDastardly00]

Some people are just evil bastards.

"Students who knew Pagourtzis described him as a quiet teen who kept to himself and who appeared to "believe in evil."

I wonder what gave it away? Could it be that HEAD OF BAPHOMET on his trench coat because the Nazis sysmbols weren't enough? Gee, I wonder? Sounds like the dude may have been into the occult too. I'm sure his parents are so proud of him though.

 

[Ken]

Just a question. When did the Iron Cross become solely a Nazi symbol?

 

[TexRex]

Clearly some one is going to have to invent the Food Replicator soon.

I'm by no means a Trekkie, but Gene Roddenberry, man.

Just a question. When did the Iron Cross become solely a Nazi symbol?

It seems just about everything that can be attributed to the Nazi regime becomes Nazi-only.

 

[TexRex]

Disregard.

 

[DDastardly00]

I'm by no means a Trekkie, but Gene Roddenberry, man.

I'm not either but that man was a visionary that also happened to write some pretty great science fiction. It's amazing, the correlation between science fiction and actual science, Gene was way ahead of his time.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Just a question. When did the Iron Cross become solely a Nazi symbol?

Its most recent use (and arguably most famous) was as a decoration for Nazi officers - that's why most people identify it with Nazism even though it's not purely a Nazi symbol. It's actually been around since the early 1800s as a decoration and it's still the symbol of the Luftwaffe today,

 

[TexRex]

Obviously driven by a Nazi sympathizer.

 

[TetsuKobura]

Obviously driven by a Nazi sympathizer.

#NotAllVWBeetles

 

[Ken]

Its most recent use (and arguably most famous) was as a decoration for Nazi officers - that's why most people identify it with Nazism even though it's not purely a Nazi symbol. It's actually been around since the early 1800s as a decoration and it's still the symbol of the Luftwaffe today,

It's older than yet. About 600 years older

 

[TenEightyOne]

It's older than yet. About 600 years older

Nope, that's the Teutonic Cross that the Iron Cross (specifically a medal) represents. A quick googling gives 1813 as the first time the award was struck. From around the beginning of the 20th century the term "Iron Cross" became interchangeable with "Teutonic Cross" (hence the Luftwaffe reference) but not before.

 

[Biggles]

But why would stricter gun laws increase or decrease those crimes? People would still find ways to defend themselves and kill each other.

The point, no matter what we as a nation or a world, gun laws won't do jack 🤬. It won't change a damn thing. The world is a scary place and will continue to be with our without guns in the hands of citizens. Focusing on guns in cases like this boggles my mind. So does trying to reach every precious snowflake out there. The only thing that will ever work is focusing on the real problem. Us.
You, me, our kids, and parents It's all boils down to how we treat each other. And let's be serious, that will never change.

In reality, the world as a whole is a LESS violent place than at almost any time in recent history. Specifically, the US crime & homicide rates are the lowest they have been since the 1960's ... and this is in spite of the presence of more & more guns. So, in fact it HAS changed & in general it has changed for the better.

Actually one of the most successful civilian mass killings in the history of the US was carried out by a moving truck with some fertilizer. Even if you got rid of all gun deaths we'd still kill each other at a rate that far exceeds most other "developed" nations. Fewer guns in the hands of violent people is an excellent goal, but I think an even better one is fewer violent people.

While it's true that that the Oklahoma bombing killed the most people, that was more than 20 years ago & appears as something of an abberation in US history as an act of extreme, domestic, political terrorism. On the other hand, these random, pointless mass shootings occur with great regularity. These shooters are not simply wanting to kill people ... they are wanting to SHOOT them - in other words the act of shooting has a special kind of appeal. And the more it happens, the more it happens, because mentally unstable, angry men are "inspired" by similar previous incidents to act out their own violent fantasies. It's a vicious cycle.

The problem of gun violence in the US is not a single problem, it is several, barely linked problems - gang & drug violence is not the same as domestic violence, or gun suicides & not the same as these random mass shootings. The only thing they have in common is the use of guns. However, I will admit that it's not impossible to imagine that if a number of incidents occurred using an another method of mass killing - like mowing people down with a vehicle - this method could start to have its own sick appeal.

 

[Danoff]

While it's true that that the Oklahoma bombing killed the most people, that was more than 20 years ago & appears as something of an abberation in US history as an act of extreme, domestic, political terrorism. On the other hand, these random, pointless mass shootings occur with great regularity. These shooters are not simply wanting to kill people ... they are wanting to SHOOT them - in other words the act of shooting has a special kind of appeal. And the more it happens, the more it happens, because mentally unstable, angry men are "inspired" by similar previous incidents to act out their own violent fantasies. It's a vicious cycle.

The problem of gun violence in the US is not a single problem, it is several, barely linked problems - gang & drug violence is not the same as domestic violence, or gun suicides & not the same as these random mass shootings. The only thing they have in common is the use of guns. However, I will admit that it's not impossible to imagine that if a number of incidents occurred using an another method of mass killing - like mowing people down with a vehicle - this method could start to have its own sick appeal.

The OK city bombing is certainly removed from the recent school shootings in a number of respects. I don't bring it up because it is the same, I bring it up because people assume (incorrectly) that guns are the only way to kill lots of people. Right now they're probably the easiest way to kill lots of people in the US, especially for a 17 year old. But cars (see Australia, France, and NYC) are also pretty easy ways to kill and maim lots of people, as are bombs (see Boston Marathon).

Human beings in society are very vulnerable... that's almost impossible to prevent. You certainly hear about people who fantasize about pushing someone off of a subway platform. You also hear about people who contemplate pushing someone off of a cliff at a national park when there are no witnesses ("he was messing around and just fell off officer"). I bring these examples up not because they're parallel to school shootings, but because they're examples of vulnerability. Vulnerability is good though, it means that we have some level of autonomy in public - which makes life bearable.

Given that vulnerability is here to stay, we should be addressing the problem of violence, especially among teenage boys. I'm not particularly obsessed with mass murder as the main crime that I want to fight. I'm also interested in preventing individual murders, attempted murders, battery, rape, domestic abuse, child abuse, police brutality, and any other violent acts that aren't jumping to mind. Any of these can change your life forever, they're all important.

I agree that the school shooting trend is probably feeding on itself. Reacting with renewed calls against the 2nd amendment and protests is not calming that feedback either. The more obsessed the nation becomes with it, the more we're going to see it happen. As that trend continues I'm afraid schools are going to start looking even more like prison.

 

[baldgye]

Would arming children prevent them from being victimized by pedophiles? Well...there's a significant chance..

This is a completely absurd statement... haven’t you heard of grooming and how often the child will defend the actions of the abuser and blame themselves?
How would arming them protect them in anyway?

 

[eran0004]

Just a question. When did the Iron Cross become solely a Nazi symbol?

It didn't. It's a symbol for the German army and air force. It's associated with nazism, since it was awarded as a medal during WWII and since those medals had a swastika in the center.

In the context of wearing one together with the hammer and the sickle it's most likely supposed to be a nazi symbol, since "communism and nazism" makes more thematic sense than "communism and the german army". It could be a less stigmatized option to wearing the swastika.

The next question of course is why a person would be wearing those symbols. Does it mean that he is a nazi? Highly unlikely, since he's also wearing the communist symbol. It's probably just meant to be provoking.

 

[Ken]

I keep forgetting that some people can't read previous posts fully and don't understand what a rhetorical question is.

Of course I know what the Iron Cross is and represents to most of the world. I did say earlier that my father collected Nazi memorabilia. I grew up around the stuff. I did a book report on Mein Kampf in the seventh grade because I thought the idea of educating my follow students would be a good idea. I didn't know any better.

The real question is are we as a people are so quick to jump to conclusions given very little facts in the face of tradegy. Everybody jumps to Nazism and racism just on the fact that the iconography is there. Now, it may be true that he is a racist. Of course that might be true. Or, to him, maybe it represented something different. The news is guilty of this to. Everybody needs and easy explanation. It's easier to say "he is racist bigot" then it is to say that maybe there isn't a reason. This kid could have just as easily have no real motive. Or, his home life was horrible. There's a million questions to be truly asked, but we accept the first thing we see and here. Nobody has truly been able to get into the mind of this kid yet. Especially not hours after he blew away 10 innocent people and injured more.

 

[_ApexPredator]

Focusing on guns in cases like this boggles my mind

Seriously?

 

[Ken]

Seriously?

Yes. Seriously. Did you not read my all of my previous posts or did you just get pick that one line to get offended by?

 

[Northstar]

Seriously?

Look at the situation like lung cancer. If someone has lung cancer they tend to cough quite a bit. Now putting all the focus on guns is like focusing on the cough when you should be focusing on the cancer. Yes, steps should be taken to remedy the coughing bit, but that's far from the main issue. So yes, gun laws need some work (let's start by enforcing the ones we already have!), but until we focus on the "why", we will still have an alarming number of people that want to kill as many people as they can.

 

[_ApexPredator]

Yes. Seriously. Did you not read my all of my previous posts or did you just get pick that one line to get offended by?

Yes I read all of your previous posts, and I agree, there are many, many problems in the world and we've been killing one another long before guns were around and we'll be doing so long after they're gone.
I'm not offended in the slightest, I'm just surprised by what you wrote, let me quote it again:

Focusing on guns in cases like this boggles my mind.

All I can say to that is you must have a fragile mind For the record I'm pro gun rights, and I don't think banning guns in the US would make much of an impact on the amount of shootings; you've gone far too far down that path and unlike Australia (often cited as an example of a country that had a lot of problems with guns and now does not) it's far too deeply rooted in your culture, your problem with gang violence is far greater, and the black market is far larger.

All that being said, to not focus on the guns in yet another school shooting is just stupid.

Look at the situation like lung cancer. If someone has lung cancer they tend to cough quite a bit. Now putting all the focus on guns is like focusing on the cough when you should be focusing on the cancer. Yes, steps should be taken to remedy the coughing bit, but that's far from the main issue. So yes, gun laws need some work (let's start by enforcing the ones we already have!), but until we focus on the "why", we will still have an alarming number of people that want to kill as many people as they can.

and that will never change, which is why I find it so surprising that in the aftermath of yet another school shooting you're eager to shed light on literally everything apart from the implement itself.
You're not the only country in the world that suffers from humans being humans, you are the only country in the world to have more school shootings than months of the year - but yes, let's not focus on the guns.

 

[Northstar]

and that will never change, which is why I find it so surprising that in the aftermath of yet another school shooting you're eager to shed light on literally everything apart from the implement itself.

Did you not understand my analogy?

You can focus on guns all you want, it won't solve the problem though.

You're not the only country in the world that suffers from humans being humans,

True, but that doesn't explain away our horrendous health care, incompetent government and a whole list of other issues that need far more attention than gun control.

you are the only country in the world to have more school shootings than weeks of the year

Exaggerations have no place in serious debate.

- but yes, let's not focus on the guns.

Where did I say that? I said it shouldn't be the primary focus, there is a difference.

 

[TexRex]

This is a completely absurd statement...

About as absurd as I intended it to be, which isn't quite as absurd as what it was in response to.

haven’t you heard of grooming and how often the child will defend the actions of the abuser and blame themselves?

Yes, I'm far too familiar with the ease with which pedophiles and child molestors (because it's often just about violence and power, and not necessarily a twisted form of attraction) are able to operate without getting caught.

How would arming them protect them in anyway?

I never suggested (or asked if) it would. Look at the entire sentence--including the bit you left out--and take a moment to ponder the implications. It'd even help to consider the cynical bent that I've revealed in my response to the statement regarding absurdity.

 

[_ApexPredator]

Did you not understand my analogy?

No not really. In the case of this incident I understand the school shooting to be the "cough" and the guns used to be the "cancer" - so it didn't really work for me.

You can focus on guns all you want, it won't solve the problem though.

Depends on the problem. I understand your position to be that the problem is human nature.
I understand the problem (in this case) to be school shootings, as every country suffers the worst aspects of human nature but without the school shootings.

Exaggerations have no place in serious debate.

* Sorry, realized I said weeks not months in the earlier post. Correcting it now.
We're five months into the year, how many school shootings have there been?

Where did I say that?

You didn't, which is why my reply wasn't to you.

Look I'm with you, all facets should be examined, but that does include the guns.

 

[eran0004]

I keep forgetting that some people can't read previous posts fully and don't understand what a rhetorical question is.

What makes you think that a statement is true just because you phrase it as a rethorical question?

I disagree with what it implied, which is why I gave it a reply. Your question implied that it doesn’t have to be a Nazi symbol, since the cross have other meanings as well, but in the context of wearing it together with the hammer and sickle it certainly is.

The follow-up question is: do you have to be a Nazi to wear a Nazi symbol? No.

 

[Northstar]

No not really. In the case of this incident I understand the school shooting to be the "cough" and the guns used to be the "cancer" - so it didn't really work for me.

You have it reversed.

The cough is the guns.

The cancer is the fact there are a relatively large number (compared to other countries) of individuals who for whatever reason, feel their only option is killing as many people as they can.

as every country suffers the worst aspects of human nature but without the school shootings.

Both parts are true, even in countries with a fair amount of guns. That's why lots of people, myself included don't feel the need to solely focus on gun control.

but that does include the guns.

And it should (I think Canada's gun laws would be a good foundation), I just think it's one piece of the puzzle instead of the entire thing like quite a few people (not you) make it out to be.

 

[McLaren]

* Sorry, realized I said weeks not months in the earlier post. Correcting it now.
We're five months into the year, how many school shootings have there been?

Around 5-7.

The media however, has been so desperate to pump up that number, CNN included an incident where a student shot another with a BB gun. Other shootings seem more like personal altercations that happened on a campus or nearby as some victims/shooters were not students or affiliated with the school.

 

[Biggles]

The cancer is the fact there are a relatively large number (compared to other countries) of individuals who for whatever reason, feel their only option is killing as many people as they can.

I'm dubious about this. I think the difference is that Americans who feel alienated (for whatever reason) seem more likely to act out their alienation by actually killing people, & the ready availability of guns, whether legally purchased or obtained some other way, is a big reason. Added to that is the "copycat" nature of these shootings. These shooters are inspired by the actions of previous shooters in the US, so it becomes a self-perpetuating cycle.

Both parts are true, even in countries with a fair amount of guns. That's why lots of people, myself included don't feel the need to solely focus on gun control.

I just think it's one piece of the puzzle instead of the entire thing like quite a few people (not you) make it out to be.

I'm pretty sure NOBODY thinks gun control should be the sole focus.

 

[Northstar]

I'm pretty sure NOBODY thinks gun control should be the sole focus.

It sure seems like that's the only thing a good chunk of people want to talk about whenever one of these things happen. I haven't seen any rallies demanding mental healthcare reform, however there's already been gun control rallies since the Texas shooting.