Literally braver than every cop in Uvalde.
Honestly, good on the relative for at least having enough interest in the child to know there was a problem before they did it.
I wonder what led the kid to try this, if there are reasons.
The standard is bad parents, hatred for society and school (honestly normal for many teens/adolescents, esp if bullied), echo chambers that reinforce the hatred (abnormal), easy access to guns (abnormal but often concurrent with bad parents and ofc the US).
This is of course an oversimplification and not every shooter has all of these but there’s been more than enough occurences by this point to know what the majority “reasons” are. The two ways for society to fix this would be to make gun ownership more difficult, and to have parents positively involved with their children.
Republicans dont want to do anything to limit guns until its the “other side” that has them see the lack of anything in the multiple events since Columbine including Uvalde vs Regan as CA governor and Black Panthers having AKs. And in our stage of capitalism the companies do not care about parents spending time with their kids and the unions are weak (though theres been some recent limited improvements there).
Thanks for the explanation, I was thinking along those lines that the kid hated school and maybe he’s been bullied but I didn’t think about echo chambers
Let’s seriously consider requiring potential parents to get a licence to have children. It is not a personal matter as it impacts every single person that child comes in contact with for the rest of their lives.
This is absolutely trying to solve the problem from the wrong end.
My toddler is hitting other toddlers, so, et’s bind their arms? No, let’s understand why this is happening and help them understand and learn to manage their emotions.
Licensing for procreation invites eugenics. Better to require free, secular, and culturally diverse parenting classes led by licensed teams of child psychologists and social workers.
It doesn’t invite eugenics; it is eugenics.
I understand the prosocial context of the suggestion, but you’re right; licensing would always result in eugenics.
The secular aspect is important. The effort must be based on reason. I wasn’t suggesting a genetic solution to social ills but an appeal to rationality.
The problem with such requirements is that it’s extremely easy to abuse them.
Take voting tests. It sounds like a good idea on paper to require people know how the government works and the candidate platforms before being able to vote.
But all it takes is a few ambiguous questions to give the person grading it the ability to deny you based on skin color or other demographics, as we’ve seen in the past.
Adoption is a great example of this. There are some wonderful people who adopt. Then there’s my adoptive parents. On paper, an absolute dream. Everything data and statistics and psychology would lead you to think would be the foundation of a stable, economically viable, well adjusted, healthy, mindful, moral environment.
I met my bio mom and the half-siblings she’d had later and raised when I was 40. She’s had her ups and downs through her life; addictions, on her 4th marriage. But that family is loving and a “family” in spite of all their struggles. When I reappeared it was just “oh, hey, you, welcome back!”. The perfect on paper parents; emotionally, physically, and sexually abusive behind closed doors but shielded by their social standing even when it leaked out. I haven’t spoken to them in two decades and wouldn’t piss on them if they were on fire. I hope they die alone.
The idea that “worthiness” could ever be determined by metrics is a joke. They should have been worthy, but then they got the chance and exposed why “on paper” does not match “in flesh”.
Oh, yeah, that won’t be a problem at all. You want MAGA deciding who gets to have kids, and who doesn’t? What if they determine someone is “underbabied,” and they are ordered to breed? What if someone gets pregnant who isn’t licenced?
The boy was en route to nearby Grand Prairie Elementary School.
According to a Yahoo article the boy was a high school freshman. It would obviously be terrifying if the boy was a fifth grader or younger. Even for a freshman to be attempting a shooting with all of this gear—
…a Glock handgun, a backpack which contained multiple loaded magazines, knives, an accelerant, gloves, and other items…
—this is noteworthy. High schoolers doing a shooting have happened before, but for a freshman, I suspect there’s something more behind the scene. 15 year olds can’t plan out mass shootings alone. Maybe ChatGPT coerced the kid into it and helped with the planning?
I could have 100% gotten that far at 15 and the Internet wasn’t even as good back then.
Stop making excuses for psychopaths.
Stop boiling down information to something you can lash out at.
No one is excusing anything. The shooter being a high school freshman is unusual, even in a country where school shootings are tragically normalized. My ChatGPT suggestion isn’t just pulled out of nowhere. Just this April, Florida’s attorney general launched an investigation over messages between ChatGPT and the Florida State Uni shooter.
