Please start by reading
if you haven't already. It's been updated.
When Columbine happened, it had me wondering if the two murderers were "Manchurian Candidates", being it happened only two weeks before the NRA Convention here in Denver and really stepped hard on that event. In other words, were these two guys brainwashed - programmed and triggered by the left, to help advance their gun control agenda?
But then later, they told us that the Columbine murderers were victims of bullying in the school. Well, lots of kids get bullied in the schools, but how many of them turn into mass murderers because of it?
Yet I do wonder if the dots have been completely connected on that issue.
Here's a scenario. These things haven't been done by young women, and likely won't, so I'll use this example:
A young male is in high school. He's at his hormonal peak, filled with testosterone, likely more so than he ever will be again in his life. He gets bullied, and bullied badly. He reports this to the school principal, who is a liberal pacifist, and who tells him that if he even defends himself, it will be considered "violence", the school has a zero tolerance for "violence", and he will be in as much trouble as the bullies.
This is a very typical reaction these days, as the Marxist pacifists have taken over the school systems for decades and are moral relativists, that is, they see all "violence" as being morally equivalent, offensive violence ( bullying ) in which force is essentially initiated against one student by one or more others, and defensive violence - the act of the bullying victim defending themselves against people who have initiated force against them. ( If they even know how to defend themselves.) When we were growing up, many of the boys in liberal families were taught "don't fight, you'll just get in trouble", again not differentiating between the initiation of force and defensive force.
"The necessary consequence of man's right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation & only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative. If some 'pacifist' society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the 1st thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage & reward it." - Ayn Rand "The Nature of Government" ( 1961 )
So think about this. Male teenager, pumped with testosterone, and being bullied mercilessly. He reports it, and is told that if he dares to defend himself, he will be punished for it, possibly as much as the bullies, and possibly only by himself, if the bullies outnumber him and lie and say that he did it.
And it goes on and on, and he has to keep going to school and taking it.
What is that a recipe for?
So it will be interesting to see if the Sandy Hook murderer was also someone who was mercilessly bullied, and told by the Marxist pacifist moral relativists in charge, that he had to just keep taking it, and it eventually developed such a seething rage in him, that he could do something this heinous.
I'm certainly not excusing his acts, merely suggesting that it might help to prevent future ones, if such policies are examined and changed.
It may not just be that the teachers need to be armed and trained against this sort of thing. There may be another component at work that could be a great deal of the contributing cause, and stopping the moral relativistic treatment of these kids might go a long way towards preventing events like this in the future.