Mr Cruz, who had links with a white supremacist group, reportedly commented on YouTube last year that he would be a professional "school shooter." A user alerted authorities to the post.
Teachers were also warned about Mr Cruz, who was not allowed on campus with a backpack, US media report.
The FBI confirmed on Thursday that they were made aware of the comment, adding that they had conducted "checks" but were unable to identify the person behind it.
Meanwhile maths teacher Jim Gard told the Miami Herald newspaper that school authorities had emailed teachers about Mr Cruz's behaviour. "We were told last year that he wasn't allowed on campus with a backpack on him," Mr Gard told the Miami Herald. "There were problems with him last year threatening students, and I guess he was asked to leave campus."
So the FBI was "unable to identify the person" who said he wanted to be a professional school shooter, signed his name, and under that name had a history of violence at his school.
Mr Cruz, who had links with a white supremacist group, reportedly commented on YouTube last year that he would be a professional "school shooter." A user alerted authorities to the post.
Teachers were also warned about Mr Cruz, who was not allowed on campus with a backpack, US media report.
The FBI confirmed on Thursday that they were made aware of the comment, adding that they had conducted "checks" but were unable to identify the person behind it.
Meanwhile maths teacher Jim Gard told the Miami Herald newspaper that school authorities had emailed teachers about Mr Cruz's behaviour. "We were told last year that he wasn't allowed on campus with a backpack on him," Mr Gard told the Miami Herald. "There were problems with him last year threatening students, and I guess he was asked to leave campus."
So the FBI was "unable to identify the person" who said he wanted to be a professional school shooter, signed his name, and under that name had a history of violence at his school.
Was he using a pseudonym? Here he is online with a mask over his face and a Red Trump Hat.
Themis wrote:In order to be taken seriously you would need to make an argument why tighter restrictions and betters laws would increase the number of people killed in mass shooting. Especially when arguments for why they would go down has already been made, and seen in other countries.
I said it's possible. That does not mean I'm arguing that if one puts in greater restrictions that more mass killings will occur. I don't need "an argument" to say it's possible.
It's impossible to ensure zero access, but you can lower it more then enough to significantly reduce the number of events involving more deadly weapons. Also, when something is much harder to obtain, the likelihood of being caught before the event goes up.
nevermind.
I have repeated this multiple times in this thread, but in the US this is a big problem. It results in a lot more deaths then we see in other western countries with more restrictions and laws governing who can own guns. It seems to main issue is all these innocent people dying or being horribly wounded. Guns play a crucial role in how many get killed and wounded, so guns are a crucial issue.
Themis wrote:In order to be taken seriously you would need to make an argument why tighter restrictions and betters laws would increase the number of people killed in mass shooting. Especially when arguments for why they would go down has already been made, and seen in other countries.
I said it's possible. That does not mean I'm arguing that if one puts in greater restrictions that more mass killings will occur. I don't need "an argument" to say it's possible.
Well no, you don't need an argument to simply assert something. But you do need an argument to persuade people that there's a reason to believe what you're asserting.
Darth J wrote:Well no, you don't need an argument to simply assert something. But you do need an argument to persuade people that there's a reason to believe what you're asserting.
Sure, if I were into that. If someone doesn't think it's possible, then what would be the point of me trying to convince them it is possible? I suppose there might be a reason to do that, at that point, but it seems kind of like a waste. The possibility of it is so blatantly obvious...not sure there'd be much point in trying to convince someone of the obvious possibility.
Darth J wrote: I said it's possible. That does not mean I'm arguing that if one puts in greater restrictions that more mass killings will occur. I don't need "an argument" to say it's possible.
Everyone will of course remember all the nuclear wars we have had with Russia ever since the U.S. signed SALT II and START.
Darth J wrote:Well no, you don't need an argument to simply assert something. But you do need an argument to persuade people that there's a reason to believe what you're asserting.
Sure, if I were into that. If someone doesn't think it's possible, then what would be the point of me trying to convince them it is possible?
I'll take "To Convince Them That It's Possible" for $200, Alex.
I suppose there might be a reason to do that, at that point, but it seems kind of like a waste. The possibility of it is so blatantly obvious...not sure there'd be much point in trying to convince someone of the obvious possibility.
Ok. Then it's impossible that more killings could occur if the country put in more gun restrictions. I can drop it, if you're intent on playing it this way.
Ok. Then it's impossible that more killings could occur if the country put in more gun restrictions. I can drop it, if you're intent on playing it this way.
You seem to have forgotten your original point, such as it was, so I'll remind you. On page 2 of this thread, you said that you did not believe more restrictions were the best solution to gun violence because, among other things, that it would somehow lead to even more violence. In context, you were not saying it was "possible" in a banal, Russell's Teapot kind of way. You were implying that it was likely. Otherwise, it wouldn't support your claim to say it.
On the other hand, if you did mean that it was "possible" in a banal, Russell's Teapot kind of way, then it adds nothing to what you're claiming, so who gives a crap?
candygal wrote: That being said..this is a society and mental health issue. You find a kid that has no real home life...always in trouble for attention...and he/she is ripe for brainwash filled with ...we are your family...we got your back...kind of thing..let alone an issue where someone is just hearing voices...we need to do something else..I hope because this shooter is still alive and did not shoot himself..(which is rare) that he can provide a profile of what we can be looking for and for heaven's sakes use those police lines that are available.
Yeah. Like, what if the profile was white nationalism, and the voice in his head belonged to Donald Trump?
