20 Kids Stabbed

Actually, no, there probably isn't.

School violence is at an all-time low. Talk to your parents or grandparents about how often there were fights and beatdowns. That stuff is largely gone. You'd never know it from watching media coverage of these events that have escalated into the stratosphere of child violence, though.

About the only thing that can really be done (short of drugging everyone so hard that we all commit suicide before the .00000001% snap and attack someone) is try to sort out why the escalation has hit this point and how to tone it back. Getting the ***kicked out of you for being a sissy or Jewish or whatever in 1955 was "normal," but bringing a weapon and indiscriminately attacking wasn't.

In spite of my objections to this assessment, I do seriously wonder if it has to do with the enshrinement of ultra-violence in movies and video games. The other day I was talking to a co-worker (who is an ex-con in his early 20s, so he's clearly not a good everyman) about TV. He watches those true crime shows and was complaining that they never show the bodies or recreate the murders anymore. I pointed out that he wouldn't want to see his daughter's grisly murder acted out on TV but I don't think he grasped the point. I don't think the desensitization argument applies to most people, but the nutjobs who are one inch from snapping may be dragged over the edge by thinking no one is real and/or will just respawn after they've been tea-bagged for a minute.

I'm going to assume your question is rhetorical.

Apparently Alex Hribal and the Vice Principal live on the same street, I wonder if there is more to the story that isn't public yet.

Are you hoping for some sensational late-breaking news?

Usually cases like these aren't completely random. If the VP knew something and didn't take action then that would be something.

Yeah. He's definitely the villain here.

When bad stuff happens, it's always someone's fault. And they're BAD!

It is completely the assailant's fault. All of the damage done and all of the panic was directly caused by his actions. However, if the VP and knew that he could have attempted something like this and didn't take action then he didn't do his job very well then now did he?

People turn a blind eye all the time, especially in schools.

Yes.

And when we find out that the student was being bullied then we can agree that the bullies were bad too!

And then we'll consider the students that stood by and watched the bullies bully the assailant. They let bad things happen too!

If you sign up for a job, in which the description is keeping your student body safe, then you have the responsibility to take action to fulfill those duties. People need to be held accountable for their actions or inaction even. If the VP knew something was going to happen then he needs to be held accountable to that inaction. If a student stabs 20 kids with kitchen knives then he should be accountable.

But who am I to judge? It's much easier to turn a blind eye and let things play out. Apathy and inaction never help any situations get resolved.

You're right! This is certainly a simple case of the VP neglecting his responsibilities! He's/She's accountable for the actions of everyone under his/her charge unquestionably.

Of course, the media is telling us all we need to know on the situation. We can definitely rely on them to keep us informed.

I'm so glad this is just so simple!

Why are you assuming the VP knew anything?

There's unsourced claims flying around from students of the HS

He didn't say that at all, there's no need to be obtuse about it.

That being said, even if he did know something was going to happen, I doubt you could prove it, and it's silly to go on a witch hunt for "people responsible" over something as insignificant as them living on the same street.

Are you stupid or just really determined to cling to a stupid idea? Culpability isn't something that needs to be applied to one person and one person alone.

While it may not be fruitful to wander around placing blame on everything from Trix cereal up to President Obama, figuring out what the hell happened is a big part of both attempting to prevent a future occurrence and providing closure for those affected.

It sure does seem like people keep forgetting there were actual people involved in this and it isn't just some hypothetical in a university ethics or sociology class.

It seems I didn't lay it on thick enough.

Or maybe too thick?

To stick a knife in this ***.


[Image Removed - Profanity]

Get real liberals, do you think -criminals- will just walk up and turn their guns in when/if the second amendment gets repealed?

No it will not happen, and you know who you just screwed over? The honest citizen. "Oh a cop should be making sure that doesn't happen"

A cop isn't an all knowing being, they can't know what happens as it happens, otherwise there wouldn't be crime...

Oh boy, this argument. Again. Like always.

Go read up on countries that have instituted bans on firearms. Australia and Great Britain will be the easy ones.

Edit:
Also, it's pretty facile to imagine that all crimes are committed by "criminals."

I love how you think that criminals would follow the law, even after they break it.

I also love how you think that criminals don't commit crime.

I'd be interested in seeing statistics for legal registered firearm crimes vs legal unregistered firearm crimes vs illegal unregistered firearm crimes, can't seem to find anything though

God damn, you're reliably dumb as a rock.

Well even more so, there is actually lots of legal issues with just busting in and trying to take arrest people for things they have no proof of... That is the reason gangs still exist is the leader finds more and more people to get picked off for small crimes while always hiding the big stuff that can never get them caught. Including criminals that are "known criminals" in large cities where this is problem that actually happens where tons of people know somebody is a criminal but no legal action can be taken.

You're not getting the point. Of course laws arn't going to totally prevent something from happening, but they generally do a pretty good job of reducing it, otherwise you're basically arguing that we might as well live in an anarchic society.

This is why I hate politics a lot of the time. So often everyone argues in meaningless hypotheticals. You all should go write novels about plucky sociopathic architects.

Said the man who thinks that criminals don't commit crime.

Or are you going to say you didn't say that?

Should I bold your own roads, or do you need it colored for you?

Maybe I should hold your hand while you read what you typed, and tell you that you did a good job afterwards.

I would assume you are referring to crimes of passion, and in that case, most of the killings aren't with guns and even if they are, they would've done it regardless because they did it with a sense of great emotion and were determined to commit that crime...

That wasn't his point. His point was to say that, by outlawing guns, there would be a large decrease between gun related violence pre-ban to post-ban.

My point was what you are saying. So, basically you have told me that I didn't get my own point....

criminal
noun

: a person who has committed a crime or who has been proved to be guilty of a crime by a court


Not to rain on your parade but:

1) You don't have to commit a crime to be a "criminal." (hi2u legal system)

2) "Criminals" don't necessarily commit crimes after becoming "criminals."

KingOfNobody, I realize it's just a word but this is a forum. Words are everything.

You are right in general, like the ban of illegal substances and the like... However, in this case where there is a downside as well as an upside, you will surely reduce it some, but you will always cause the side effect of lack of protection. And like stated before this is about criminal violence and has nothing to do with crimes of passion because there is nearly nothing you can do to effect that.
With most people needing protection being law-abiding, they will give up their weapons and therefore near 100% be affected. So you have the ratio of some help and some hurt... So it kinda evens out making this law grayer than others...

You really are an idiot. When erecting a straw man, you don't serve yourself well by doing it so obviously.