15 year old gay kid, killed

[Tour]

._. You know, I was actually going to mention that I support the elimination of handguns and stricter gun control laws, but I simply forgot when it came time to post.

Do you really believe that the situation would have been resolved without violence, had the aggressor not had a handgun?

[Woozie]

._. You know, I was actually going to mention that I support the elimination of handguns and stricter gun control laws, but I simply forgot when it came time to post.

Do you really believe that the situation would have been resolved without violence, had the aggressor not had a handgun?

No one's saying that the handgun would have completely resolved the situation. No one. Not a single person has said that. Every single person who's even mentioned the handgun said that it was simply a part of a much larger problem. It frustrates me so much when people argue like this - argue against a point that no one has made and then pretend that they debunked the oppositions argument when in reality, they haven't.

The point is that his chances of survival would have been greater had it not been for the handgun. No one can deny that (in before someone denies it). Sure, this doesn't solve the problem, but increasing peoples chances of living is always a good thing.

And yes, the arguments against gun accessibility is relevant here. Yeah, I know that's not the whole point of the topic, but it's still relevant.

Edit: Took out the "retard" part. I rarely do any name calling and it's not necissary here (and no, the retard comment wasn't directed at you, Tour).

[Maxxthepenguin]

._. You know, I was actually going to mention that I support the elimination of handguns and stricter gun control laws, but I simply forgot when it came time to post.

Do you really believe that the situation would have been resolved without violence, had the aggressor not had a handgun?

No idea, but the situation would have been different and I tend to think that a different situation could be no worse. I refuse to take a hypothetical as an absolute, no matter how well constructed it is or possible. That's why I think Handguns shouldn't be around, it won't get any worse.

[Tour]

Thing is, I didn't think anyone -would- argue that the whole thing could have been avoided without handguns, then Plow went and did just that. The very idea seems absurd and absolutely insupportable to me.

Hrm ._. I guess I'm taking differently because I'm not viewing this as a single incidence of horrific violence, but a more sensational example of a systemic issue that very few people are actively facing, myself included.

[Woozie]

Thing is, I didn't think anyone -would- argue that the whole thing could have been avoided without handguns, then Plow went and did just that. The very idea seems absurd and absolutely insupportable to me.

Hrm ._. I guess I'm taking differently because I'm not viewing this as a single incidence of horrific violence, but a more sensational example of a systemic issue that very few people are actually facing, myself included.

I didn't read through Plow's arguments, so maybe he did suggest that. Did he say "the whole situation could have been avoided" or did he say "Larry may still be alive"? There's a difference in these two statements. I guess I need to go back and reread a bit.

[Howard Roark]

s is in the media is because it was a young homosexual murdered as a result of events originating in a public school

I'll give you a dollar to tell me you honestly believe that if some kid gets shot in the back of the head in a classroom, but isn't gay, it's not going to be in the media.

well i guess no dollar for me

i'm glad you kept the public school bit in the quote, as it it is just as relevant as the fact that he was homosexual/transgender in terms of its newsworthiness

if this happened off school grounds, did not originate in school, the kid was not gay, and god forbid both kids were both of a race that (as most media outlets would see it) often kill each other anyway, then we would not be hearing about this

restricting people's freedoms for their own protection is a pretty pathetic approach

Maybe I'm taking this somewhat out of context but... let's make murder legal worldwide!

even taking this out of context I fail to see how you could believe this is a reasonable conclusion from the quoted statement; the legality of murder has nothing to do with freedoms or protection--unless you took the oddball reading that i was commenting on restricting people's right to murder? if so /facepalm

and I was pointing out that you shouldn't have to watch how you dress (or institute a dress code) for fear of getting murdered

edit: good point re: guns = killing someone faster i guess, woozie, but i think all people see when reading about this is GAY bla bla GUN bla bla SCHOOL and have serious diffcilty removing themselves enough to look at what really matters in this situation

[Plow]

Thing is, I didn't think anyone -would- argue that the whole thing could have been avoided without handguns, then Plow went and did just that. The very idea seems absurd and absolutely insupportable to me.

Hrm ._. I guess I'm taking differently because I'm not viewing this as a single incidence of horrific violence, but a more sensational example of a systemic issue that very few people are actually facing, myself included.

I didn't read through Plow's arguments, so maybe he did suggest that. Did he say "the whole situation could have been avoided" or did he say "Larry may still be alive"? There's a difference in these two statements. I guess I need to go back and reread a bit.

Really didn't say either, it's what the guy explained a few posts ago where he takes an argument I didn't even make and refutes it and thinks he's somehow proving me wrong or something.

i'm glad you kept the public school bit in the quote, as it it is just as relevant as the fact that he was homosexual/transgender in terms of its newsworthiness

if this happened off school grounds, did not originate in school, the kid was not gay, and god forbid both kids were both of a race that (as most media outlets would see it) often kill each other anyway, then we would not be hearing about this

So basically what you're saying is that if it was a completely different situation it wouldn't be in the news...

How bout if a white kid walked up to a mexican kid that hit on his girlfriend in the middle of a mall and shot him in the back of the head?

And how exactly would what would happen then matter in the least little bit?

[Tour]

A kitchen knife is not made for killing people. A random blunt object is not made for killing people. A pistol that's accurate for 100 yards, big enough to do a ton of damage to a person but not strong enough to be useful for huntig, is made for killing people.

How do you know that he decided "I'm going to kill this guy," and then decided the gun was the method with which he did it?

How do you know he wasn't sitting there going "what am I going to do about this?" and then thought of the gun?


You don't, the fact of the matter is a 14 year old kid has absolutely no business having easy access to something made for the sole purpose of killing people. Regardless of if some might find some other way, it's ridiculous that that can happen so incredibly easily.

Maybe I'm interpreting your argument incorrectly, then? The above hypotheticals were presented in response to my suggestion that possession of a gun was irrelevant to the situation resulting in violence. It seemed like your point in asking the order of his decision-making process was to imply that the gun enabled the violence, rather than vice versa.

[Plow]

A kitchen knife is not made for killing people. A random blunt object is not made for killing people. A pistol that's accurate for 100 yards, big enough to do a ton of damage to a person but not strong enough to be useful for huntig, is made for killing people.

How do you know that he decided "I'm going to kill this guy," and then decided the gun was the method with which he did it?

How do you know he wasn't sitting there going "what am I going to do about this?" and then thought of the gun?


You don't, the fact of the matter is a 14 year old kid has absolutely no business having easy access to something made for the sole purpose of killing people. Regardless of if some might find some other way, it's ridiculous that that can happen so incredibly easily.

Maybe I'm interpreting your argument incorrectly, then? The above hypotheticals were presented in response to my suggestion that possession of a gun was irrelevant to the situation resulting in violence. It seemed like your point in asking the order of his decision-making process was to imply that the gun enabled the violence, rather than vice versa.

The final event is only a small part of the situation. Removing the gun would not remove the situation, it would however likely end with an entirely different result.

[Viena]

unless you took the oddball reading that i was commenting on restricting people's right to murder? if so /facepalm

I did not read it like that, but I extrapolated your reasoning to that situation, hence the obvious taking the thing out of context statement. While I don't support the idea of dress code (nor I think it would have been a solution to the factors that caused this death), the reasoning behind your argument against it is quite flawed, given that you could say the same just about anything (read: murder). The only point I was trying to make, basically, is that I disagree with the content of your post, and I'm not only talking about the statement I quoted, also the rest of it, like the willingness to ignore many of factors that led the issue to this outcome.

Well, the point could also be that I don't believe that everyone should have the freedom to do everything.