I've always had a problem with them making exceptions to try young persons as adults in court. Either there is a reason to consider young persons less competent than fully grown people or there isn't. What responsibility are we talking about? The shooter has no more responsibility to take. They are dead.
What I want to know is what did America get out of killing those children? Why does America love killing children and puts up no barriers to entry when it comes to annihilating a classroom full of elementary school students? It's practically impossible to make a living as an artist or to create something worthwhile in this country. But if you want to kill a bunch of children, boy, America is the place for you.
Perhaps as the guns that make it so easy will never be controlled and the social care will not be funded, there must instead exist a constant baseline terror of other people. So the people need to be controlled instead. They need to be kept in line. And the more they need help, the less they deserve - the victim is the threat.
Not that I think there's any actual conscious intention there, per-se. More of a general structural disinterest in making healthy people (capitalism being antithetical to the health of the masses) that has various specific manifestations.
Nowhere did I advocate trying them as adults. Were they to be captured alive and tried, their age should have been considered along with every other relevant factor as part of the proceedings. I am all for understanding the larger societal causes of why these things happen, but I and the vast majority of other Americans grew up in the same shitty society yet never committed mass murder of children.
In my school day fantasies, I was the one taking down the mass shooter and saving the school. That was almost 20 years ago now. What a theft of our imagination living in this country has been, to have even spent time considering the possibility.
I've always had a problem with them making exceptions to try young persons as adults in court. Either there is a reason to consider young persons less competent than fully grown people or there isn't. What responsibility are we talking about? The shooter has no more responsibility to take. They are dead.
What I want to know is what did America get out of killing those children? Why does America love killing children and puts up no barriers to entry when it comes to annihilating a classroom full of elementary school students? It's practically impossible to make a living as an artist or to create something worthwhile in this country. But if you want to kill a bunch of children, boy, America is the place for you.
Perhaps as the guns that make it so easy will never be controlled and the social care will not be funded, there must instead exist a constant baseline terror of other people. So the people need to be controlled instead. They need to be kept in line. And the more they need help, the less they deserve - the victim is the threat.
Not that I think there's any actual conscious intention there, per-se. More of a general structural disinterest in making healthy people (capitalism being antithetical to the health of the masses) that has various specific manifestations.
Nowhere did I advocate trying them as adults. Were they to be captured alive and tried, their age should have been considered along with every other relevant factor as part of the proceedings. I am all for understanding the larger societal causes of why these things happen, but I and the vast majority of other Americans grew up in the same shitty society yet never committed mass murder of children.
In my school day fantasies, I was the one taking down the mass shooter and saving the school. That was almost 20 years ago now. What a theft of our imagination living in this country has been, to have even spent time considering the possibility.
deleted by creator