Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Annoyed]

And now we have a glimpse into what is probably the motive.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/20/us/te...ing/index.html

Santa Fe, Texas (CNN)One of the 10 people killed in the Texas school shooting was a girl who had rejected the suspect's advances for months, and stood up to him a week ago in class, the victim's mother said.
Sadie Baze said her daughter, Shana Fisher, 16, was gunned down during art class at Santa Fe High School on Friday.
Police arrested the suspect, Dimitrios Pagourtzis, 17, who was also a student at the school in the southeastern Texas city of Santa Fe.
Baze said the suspect had pestered her daughter to go out with him for months. A week ago, her daughter stood up in class and told Pagourtzis that she wouldn't go out with him.

Young ball of hormones publicly humiliated by a girl who wouldn't go out with him.

What are we gonna do now? Take away the right to be selective about whom we date?

On a more serious nature, This story has played out billions of times in schools across the world, and I'm sure revenge has entered the minds of many a rejected suitor.
What has changed is that our society has degraded to the point where acting out such thoughts is becoming common. What might be responsible for these changes?

[Annoyed]

Ok, lets take the "device" out of the equation.

That leaves you 2 options.
Intent and access.
Your argument is consistently that you can't change a criminal, or potential criminal from doing horrible things.
So, you are left with access. Remember when you flipped when I mentioned some chemicals and asked me not to do it?
That's access.
Why did you flip on access to that information (which any idiot could find out given time and inclination) on how to make a bomb. It's not like I told people how to put one togeather, or did it for them, the mere -thought- of people having -access- to that knowledge made you appeal DIRECTLY to me. THIS is exactly the argument of people who are for gun control use, ACCESS. Now, my counter to that would be, "first ammendment bro, I am on a US site, telling all and sundry how to make a bomb is protected, it's just speech, I didn't make it, I didn't do anything. Basically, my knowledge is just a tool (like a gun, just a tool, and the tool is never responsible), and I have no responsibility for what people do with it. Now, Gateworld would rightly ping that post in a heartbeat, and I wouldn't make it, even though I have amendment protect right to do so, I engage in self censorship.

Until people in the USA understand that there are consequences to having rights, and that you don't need to abuse those rights, nothing will change, you will go on, your kids being killed at school at a rate of more than one a week and you guys don't care enough to do anything about it, for whatever reason, quite frankly, a royal wedding is more interesting. Caring about the banal way America deals with this week in and week out is simply that, banal, boring and uninteresting anymore.

First, I requested that you not discuss the specifics of how a bomb might be constructed, I choose not to participate in disseminating information of that nature. Absolutely, anyone has the right to access such information, and it is readily available, but I am under no obligation to provide it.

And as you yourself have pointed out in other discussions, freedom of speech says the govt. cannot restrict someone's right to speak. Gateworld is a private business and is under no such restrictions. If it so chooses, it can disallow any discussion that it wants to. It might not have many users if it does, but that's not govt. restriction.

[SoulReaver]

And now we have a glimpse into what is probably the motive.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/20/us/te...ing/index.html


Young ball of hormones publicly humiliated by a girl who wouldn't go out with him.

What are we gonna do now? Take away the right to be selective about whom we date?

On a more serious nature, This story has played out billions of times in schools across the world, and I'm sure revenge has entered the minds of many a rejected suitor.
What has changed is that our society has degraded to the point where acting out such thoughts is becoming common. What might be responsible for these changes?

murder sounds like overkill ( ) for something like that

the fact he was bullied around is much more plausible an excuse I'd be surprised if his lawyers don't bring that up

That really pisses me off. We have a story of this nature and it's pushed to the side by a wedding in Great Britain. Maybe it's just me, but who gives a damn about some wedding?

especially with a damn merican outsider :/

[Annoyed]

murder sounds like overkill ( ) for something like that

the fact he was bullied around is much more plausible an excuse I'd be surprised if his lawyers don't bring that up

I've yet to see any confirmed reports of actual bullying. The closest is one kid has been reported in several media outlets saying he was emotionally bullied, and the coaches picked on him, but the school admin is denying that.

If so, maybe, this expanded definition of bullying that everyone is accepting these days is a contributing factor? Rather than having learned to cope with it under the old "sticks and stones" rules, maybe the coddling the modern definitions result in prevented his developing more acceptable coping mechanisms?

[aretood2]

My point is that banning guns won't stop this crap. How many nut jobs kill by motor vehicle? Bombs?
Let me ask you something. Just for the sake of discussion, if either your or I go 'round the bend and decide to kill a bunch of people. Don't you think either one of us could kill far more people via bombs, cars, fire, poison or some other tool? We live in a technical society; as a result almost any common homeowner has a wide variety of tools and substances that could be used to kill people. You can't possibly ban all the things that could be used for evil purposes.

Banning a tool will only force the nut jobs to select a different tool. To stop the killings, you must change the heart & mind of the killer, not the tool.

Your argument boils down to stating that the only reason you oppose regulation or downright banning is because it wouldn't work. This isn't a good argument since it presupposes that if such regulation or outright banning were to somehow magically solve this issue, you'd then be in favor of such action.

On the flip side, access to guns isn't the issue. I wholeheartedly agree that a kid going on a killing spree with a glock 26 is a hundred times more preferable to that same kid going on their killing spree with an "AR-10". However, take note at all the guns and violence in Mexico and then ask yourselves why concerts, schools, movie theaters, and churches are rarely (if ever) the sites of mass shootings.

And now we have a glimpse into what is probably the motive.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/20/us/te...ing/index.html


Young ball of hormones publicly humiliated by a girl who wouldn't go out with him.

What are we gonna do now? Take away the right to be selective about whom we date?

On a more serious nature, This story has played out billions of times in schools across the world, and I'm sure revenge has entered the minds of many a rejected suitor.
What has changed is that our society has degraded to the point where acting out such thoughts is becoming common. What might be responsible for these changes?

Kids rarely think about homicide when they get rejected.

I've yet to see any confirmed reports of actual bullying. The closest is one kid has been reported in several media outlets saying he was emotionally bullied, and the coaches picked on him, but the school admin is denying that.

If so, maybe, this expanded definition of bullying that everyone is accepting these days is a contributing factor? Rather than having learned to cope with it under the old "sticks and stones" rules, maybe the coddling the modern definitions result in prevented his developing more acceptable coping mechanisms?

Kids who are bullied rarely if ever go on shooting sprees as a result. They tend to just kill themselves.

[Annoyed]

Your argument boils down to stating that the only reason you oppose regulation or downright banning is because it wouldn't work. This isn't a good argument since it presupposes that if such regulation or outright banning were to somehow magically solve this issue, you'd then be in favor of such action.

I didn't say that was the only reason I oppose it, I just said that it won't work.

[Coco Pops]

I'm not sure where I should put this but just saw a story saying a Federal informant was outed on TV in the USA to do with the Trump investigation.

Isn't that a serious crime to out someone like that?

[Gatefan1976]

First, I requested that you not discuss the specifics of how a bomb might be constructed, I choose not to participate in disseminating information of that nature. Absolutely, anyone has the right to access such information, and it is readily available, but I am under no obligation to provide it.

You choose not to?
Why?
Why do you choose not to do it?
Think hard on what motivates you NOT to do that.

And as you yourself have pointed out in other discussions, freedom of speech says the govt. cannot restrict someone's right to speak. Gateworld is a private business and is under no such restrictions. If it so chooses, it can disallow any discussion that it wants to. It might not have many users if it does, but that's not govt. restriction.

Correct, but you are missing the point.
Speech, access, motivations are all a part of the puzzle, but you are stuck on one part of the puzzle and can't seem to get yourself out of that.
Let's say I wanted to off someone. I have access to car's, the knowledge to make bombs and a gun.
Which of these options is easier to use?
A car or truck might not get me to my target, or ensure lethality of my attack.
A bomb requires preparation and gathering of components to make it.
A gun requires neither, I can go where I want, get to who I want, and kill who I want.

Guns serve no function besides dealing death, they are the ultimate tool for the job, weather that be a musket, or a particle beam weapon.

[Gatefan1976]

On the flip side, access to guns isn't the issue. I wholeheartedly agree that a kid going on a killing spree with a glock 26 is a hundred times more preferable to that same kid going on their killing spree with an "AR-10". However, take note at all the guns and violence in Mexico and then ask yourselves why concerts, schools, movie theaters, and churches are rarely (if ever) the sites of mass shootings.

So, what you are saying is that even with equal access to firearms, Americans are crazier than other nations?
That's an interesting approach...……

[SoulReaver]

I've yet to see any confirmed reports of actual bullying. The closest is one kid has been reported in several media outlets saying he was emotionally bullied, and the coaches picked on him, but the school admin is denying that.

if the staff was in on it then it's even worse

Americans are crazier than other nations?

common knowledge by now the A in USA stands for Asylum

[Coco Pops]

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...hingya-myanmar

Do you think they should take her Nobel Peace Prize away? She's basically now sticking her head in the sand after so many years of fighting for freedom.

[Gatefan1976]

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...hingya-myanmar

Do you think they should take her Nobel Peace Prize away? She's basically now sticking her head in the sand after so many years of fighting for freedom.

No.
If trump achieved US peace, or world peace, he deserves the award, no matter what I or others think of him, or what happened later, or how he changed.
This should not be a partisan, or ideological issue.

The only questionable act here is method.

[Annoyed]

You choose not to?
Why?
Why do you choose not to do it?
Think hard on what motivates you NOT to do that.

Correct, but you are missing the point.
Speech, access, motivations are all a part of the puzzle, but you are stuck on one part of the puzzle and can't seem to get yourself out of that.
Let's say I wanted to off someone. I have access to car's, the knowledge to make bombs and a gun.
Which of these options is easier to use?
A car or truck might not get me to my target, or ensure lethality of my attack.
A bomb requires preparation and gathering of components to make it.
A gun requires neither, I can go where I want, get to who I want, and kill who I want.

Guns serve no function besides dealing death, they are the ultimate tool for the job, weather that be a musket, or a particle beam weapon.

You're talking about a single target, rather than a mass killing. Different ballgame.

[LtColCarter]

You're talking about a single target, rather than a mass killing. Different ballgame.

Pluse night club shooter had killed multiple targets. Parkland shooter killed multiple targets. Santa Fe shooter killed multiple targets. So, yeah...guns can be used in mass killings as well.

[Annoyed]

Pluse night club shooter had killed multiple targets. Parkland shooter killed multiple targets. Santa Fe shooter killed multiple targets. So, yeah...guns can be used in mass killings as well.

Yes, they can. But they are not the best tool for that job.