15 year old gay kid, killed

[Deejay]

Do you really think the kid would have died in the middle of a school classroom had he not been shot?

If they kid wanted to kill him he would have killed him. I mean, no such house has anything like a steak knife... etc etc that could be placed into a neck or other areas that would result in death.

To which I agree. But killing via another weapon is 100x less likely because they're a million times harder to conceal, and take more know-how than aiming and pulling a trigger.

Do you really think a kid could just walk up metal gear style with a knife (in the middle of a classroom, mind you) and just stab someone without anyone stopping/helping?

I agree that having a gun debate is trivial, but it doesn't make it any less relevant to the discussion.

[Kuya]

Do you really think the kid would have died in the middle of a school classroom had he not been shot?

If they kid wanted to kill him he would have killed him. I mean, no such house has anything like a steak knife... etc etc that could be placed into a neck or other areas that would result in death.

It is incomprehensible to me how they go right for the gun, instead of saying oh, say school security, seeing as how you could argue he could have easily just brought in a knife and whatever else. Yet, out of all the possible ways to kill someone, they presume that have the gun not existed, somehow Brian's intent to kill him would have dissapeared along with it, and that he would have not used other methods. It is probably that the gun increases the chances of sucess, but that's all they are, chances, not certanties.

It's amazing to me that they profess to want to argue the hows and speculate on it, yet they go for the gun instead of the most efficient part of the equation which would have been tigher school security. Hell if you had argued that, then those who argue for stricter dress codes would have even more legitimicy in what they said, which is paradoxical considering some people who want to add in a gun debate in here, also argued agaisnt the dress code argument.

Me thinks my assumption on their intentions might be probable.

[Doofus]

Do you really think the kid would have died in the middle of a school classroom had he not been shot?

If they kid wanted to kill him he would have killed him. I mean, no such house has anything like a steak knife... etc etc that could be placed into a neck or other areas that would result in death.

To which I agree. But killing via another weapon is 100x less likely because they're a million times harder to conceal, and take more know-how than aiming and pulling a trigger.

Do you really think a kid could just walk up metal gear style with a knife (in the middle of a classroom, mind you) and just stab someone without anyone stopping/helping?

I agree that having a gun debate is trivial, but it doesn't make it any less relevant to the discussion.

Um.. yes? You act like its amazingly hard to hold a knife and poke someone with it.
And a knife would be easy to conceal...

[Deejay]

I'm not saying he isn't capable, i'm saying it's not as easy as it sounds. Especially with a teacher watching.

Edit: The gun isn't the reason why Larry died, but his chance of surviving is extremely higher had it been any other type of weapon.

[Kuya]

Then i am asking nicely now. Please make a different thread if you want to discuss the gun side of the issue, if you're so inclined. There's no reason to not make one, if you notice it bothers me that you're dragging a gun debate in a thread that i made when i find it to be trivial to the issue i called into question. I'd like my thread to die a virgin without having felt the grizzly embrace of a derail. Thank you.

I know asking for respect on the internet might be a dumb idea, but it would be nice if i'd be humbled.

[Plow]

Do you really think the kid would have died in the middle of a school classroom had he not been shot?

If they kid wanted to kill him he would have killed him. I mean, no such house has anything like a steak knife... etc etc that could be placed into a neck or other areas that would result in death.

It is incomprehensible to me how they go right for the gun, instead of saying oh, say school security, seeing as how you could argue he could have easily just brought in a knife and whatever else. Yet, out of all the possible ways to kill someone, they presume that have the gun not existed, somehow Brian's intent to kill him would have dissapeared along with it, and that he would have not used other methods. It is probably that the gun increases the chances of sucess, but that's all they are, chances, not certanties.

It's amazing to me that they profess to want to argue the hows and speculate on it, yet they go for the gun instead of the most efficient part of the equation which would have been tigher school security. Hell if you had argued that, then those who argue for stricter dress codes would have even more legitimicy in what they said, which is paradoxical considering some people who want to add in a gun debate in here, also argued agaisnt the dress code argument.

Me thinks my assumption on their intentions might be probable.

You are just utterly and completely missing the point.


That, or you're just ignoring it.


It is *possible* that the kid was sitting around going "Man, what am I going to do about this kid he's going to ruin my reputation for life and everyone's going to hate me. I know, I'll get my dad's gun!"

*PERHAPS* if the gun had not been available he would have taken a different approach entirely to handling it, there's no way to know. It's all speculation, like the entire thread pretty much.

[Koga]

Kuya, Maxx is saying that not allowing gun debate in a thread about a child shooting another child in the back of the head in the middle of a classroom as dumb as not allowing debate over why the kid was killed.

His argument is that the "how" is just as important as they "why". Allowing debate over one and not the other (just because you don't like it) is kinda silly.

But the "how" isnt the issue here, as it was said eariler, the "how" was just a medium which has no purpose in the reason "why" he was killed. The gun didnt make the kid do anything, so it is unimportant unless this was a gun debate which last I checked the title it isnt.

Why? .....why?
The kid was gay and was getting picked on, he fought back, and then they fought back harder. If the kid was straight and did the same thing (refering to the hitting on the bully which supposedly was the straw that broke the camels back) then it would have been laughed at.

Also, why wouldnt the gun be allowed to be talked about? The gun is what enabled him to kill the kid. What were you trying to say about it not being important.

[Woozie]

Deejay and the others have a valid point. The easier a plan is to execute, the more likely a person is to attempt it. I'm not saying the gun would have "certainly" made a difference or even that it should take precedence over the other issues you're bringing up. But it certainly shouldn't be ignored, and there is the possibility that it could have made the difference.

Yeah, I know, "guns don't kill people, people kill people", but the availability of guns (a tool that makes murder much easier) does increase the likelihood that people will attempt to kill people.

[Kuya]

Conclusion 1: People lack perspective. The very same people who attacked those who tried to bring up the dress code issue, were attacked for trying to divert attention from the most important issue, and now the very same people who criticized that, are bringing in a gun debate into the thread, and when they are called out for trying to divert attention away from the most important issue, they somehow do not remember they did the same thing to the others earlier in the thread. I see Deejay arguing about the chances of him dying being lower if there were no gun. Deejay said that had the kid not retaliated like that, the chances of him dying would have practicaly droped to zero. Guess which one they agreed with, and which one they didn't.

Conclusion 2: If you tell people not to do something, they're really going to want to do it more.

Conclusion 3: Somehow, the idea that homophobia had something to do with this is speculation, like the gun debate. Somehow.

edit: wait that's an observation lol

[Infiltrator]

Even though the gun makes a difference in the thought process leading to the action- fuck it.

So you're criminal psychologist now?

In cases of pre-meditated murder, the suspect have already formed their intent before they even begin to select their method.

Yeah, I know, "guns don't kill people, people kill people", but the availability of guns (a tool that makes murder much easier) does increase the likelihood that people will attempt to kill people.

Uh, no it doesn't. You're attempting to claim that this kid had a method well before he ever had intent. Which is akin to putting on your pants then attempting to put on underwear.

[Plow]

Conclusion 1: People lack perspective. The very same people who attacked those who tried to bring up the dress code issue, were attacked for trying to divert attention from the most important issue, and now the very same people who criticized that, are bringing in a gun debate into the thread, and when they are called out for trying to divert attention away from the most important issue, they somehow do not remember they did the same thing to the others earlier in the thread. I see Deejay arguing about the chances of him dying being lower if there were no gun. Deejay said that had the kid not retaliated like that, the chances of him dying would have practicaly droped to zero. Guess which one they agreed with, and which one they didn't.

Conclusion 2: If you tell people not to do something, they're really going to want to do it more.

Conclusion 3: Somehow, the idea that homophobia had something to do with this is speculation, like the gun debate. Somehow.

edit: wait that's an observation lol

So what do you want? Another 15 pages of "well the gay guy shouldn't have acted so gay lulz!"


No one said you can't argue that the gay guy brought it on himself, we just said people are really dumb and self-centered jerks for suggesting that.


You want BG's perspective on tolerance? I can sum it up in one sentence:

Rainbows aren't gay, and if you say they are, http://www.bluegartr.com/forum/images/ranks/banned.gif.



Edit: I digress, I'll go back to a topic you specifically mentioned.

I think it's a hard line to judge where you become an adult in any scenario, but when you take it upon yourself to take a person's life, you are taking more than even an adult's responsibility, and I'm pretty sure killing someone and thinking about it for a while will grow a person up real quick.

As far as murder, yeah, I think someone that's old enough to make the decision and "man" enough to follow through with it should be charged as an adult.

[Deejay]

Conclusion 1: People lack perspective. The very same people who attacked those who tried to bring up the dress code issue, were attacked for trying to divert attention from the most important issue, and now the very same people who criticized that, are bringing in a gun debate into the thread, and when they are called out for trying to divert attention away from the most important issue, they somehow do not remember they did the same thing to the others earlier in the thread. I see Deejay arguing about the chances of him dying being lower if there were no gun. Deejay said that had the kid not retaliated like that, the chances of him dying would have practicaly droped to zero. Guess which one they agreed with, and which one they didn't.

Wow lol, give me a fucking break.

Agreeing with Kuya on that topic. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If our society didn't raise children to be so against homosexuals (especially at that age, when boys are just learning *how* to be men) then this would have never happened. People don't fucking shoot each other in the back of the head because it's cloudy outside. There has to be a particularly strong motive...

Never have I seen someone take their selective reading to such a great lengths in my 3 years of visiting this forum. I said this just on the previous page for crying out loud. You do such a good job at skewing people's arguments Kuya that I can't help but /facepalm sometimes.

[JoOeetheplatypuS]

Then i am asking nicely now. Please make a different thread if you want to discuss the gun side of the issue, if you're so inclined. There's no reason to not make one, if you notice it bothers me that you're dragging a gun debate in a thread that i made when i find it to be trivial to the issue i called into question. I'd like my thread to die a virgin without having felt the grizzly embrace of a derail. Thank you.

It's not a derail, it is directly related to the subject that you brought up, you didn't make a homophobia thread. How did he get the gun, what can we do to prevent it?

The argument could be made that somebody like this was a ticking bomb and anything that pissed him off would have resulted in a murder. I don't think such an argument is especially relevant because it's not what happened.

Using the same logic, I think the gun is relevant.

But that being said, this isn't going to get anywhere because what you are wanting is the thread to be what you want instead of what you posted. Whether or not a thread should be what its maker wants IS a derail.

So whatever. Keep discussing the same homophobia questions ad nauseum. Yes, it's bad. Yes, it would be better if it wasn't there. Yes, humans have a fear of the unknown.

[Kuya]

I concede, go ahead with the gun debate. I think it's a travesty that in essense is only going to try and take the blame away from what is really the issue, but no point in fighting it if people are have already dragged it in here in the sense that they've placed me in a position where i essentially am defending pro-gun laws by saying they are irrelevant as they defend the idea that the guns have some blame in this situation. I could just ask a mod to lock this thread to further avoid this crap, but i don't feel like being a dick today. I just hope people do keep in mind that, behind the gun issue, the school's security, and the parent's poor security meassures for keep the gun away from their kid(good luck with that), practicaly take precedence.

So, have at it.

[Kuya]

Conclusion 1: People lack perspective. The very same people who attacked those who tried to bring up the dress code issue, were attacked for trying to divert attention from the most important issue, and now the very same people who criticized that, are bringing in a gun debate into the thread, and when they are called out for trying to divert attention away from the most important issue, they somehow do not remember they did the same thing to the others earlier in the thread. I see Deejay arguing about the chances of him dying being lower if there were no gun. Deejay said that had the kid not retaliated like that, the chances of him dying would have practicaly droped to zero. Guess which one they agreed with, and which one they didn't.

Wow lol, give me a fucking break.

Agreeing with Kuya on that topic. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If our society didn't raise children to be so against homosexuals (especially at that age, when boys are just learning *how* to be men) then this would have never happened. People don't fucking shoot each other in the back of the head because it's cloudy outside. There has to be a particularly strong motive...

Never have I seen someone take their selective reading to such a great lengths in my 3 years of visiting this forum. I said this just on the previous page for crying out loud. You do such a good job at skewing people's arguments Kuya that I can't help but /facepalm sometimes.

Edit: The gun isn't the reason why Larry died, but his chance of surviving is extremely higher had it been any other type of weapon.

I guess i should have also concluded that you don't know how to stay consistent either. By the way, that original quote of mine wasn't an attack on you, but of course, you've already made quite a spectacle of yourself in this thread, what with the constant misreading.

[Ryko]

You want BG's perspective on tolerance? I can sum it up in one sentence:

Rainbows aren't gay, and if you say they are, http://www.bluegartr.com/forum/images/ranks/banned.gif.

How in the fuck are you still bitter over that?

[Plow]

It's called sarcasm. I believe you've used it, once or twice.

[Ryko]

Nope, never. To use a literary device I'd have to be literate.

[Deejay]

I guess i should have also concluded that you don't know how to stay consistent either.

Gun's don't kill people...

...

The gun isn't the reason why Larry died...

What part of those statements are inconsistent? In the instance where Larry was attacked, any other type of weapon may not have resulted in death because it's hard for a 14 year old who isn't particularly skilled with a knife to kill in the time it takes to pull it out and squeeze a trigger. Larry's death may have been preventable had the weapon just been a kitchen knife. You can't just run up to a 14 year old while he's pointing a gun because all he has to do is shoot it, and people die. However, you can stop an attacker while he's holding a knife at someone.

Context Kuya.... context.

Editted cuz I suck at posting fast.

[Kuya]

Inconsistent was the wrong word to use there, it was more like "I don't know what the fuck you're talking about". Seeing as how i mentioned something you've said, yet you posted about, something.

edit: here we go:

I see Deejay arguing about the chances of him dying being lower if there were no gun. Deejay said that had the kid not retaliated like that, the chances of him dying would have practicaly droped to zero. Guess which one they agreed with, and which one they didn't.

I'm using something you said as an example, and you said it here:

Edit: The gun isn't the reason why Larry died, but his chance of surviving is extremely higher had it been any other type of weapon.

I wasn't attacking you directly, but using something you said for my argument. So i presume you, once again, misread what i posted, unless you meant something else.