Disabled, queer, poor teens are not shooting up schools. The profile of a school shooter is overwhelmingly white, male and middle/upper class. A shooting is an ultimate tantrum for which the perpetrator is never held accountable.
Because 1. there's support networks for them, and 2. they don't have the resources themselves.
The "white upperclass male" has the resources to do harm, and don't get supported.
I keep thinking of Elliot Rodgers, who had a thought that girls owed it to him to date him. I don't think any of that was because he was white, male, or upper class. It was because he was lonely. And without proper socialisation and support he got further and further into the deep end. Males are violent but it can be channelled into positivity.
It drives home why such divisive language doesn't help the situation.
Obviously the whole "everything supports them every other day" isn't true, because of they were supported, they wouldn't be going through this mess. Or you can believe that it is due to inherent "whiteness", or "maleness", if you would like to continue to divide these kids further.
Elliot Rogers did not kill young women because he was lonely. He did it because he felt entitled to do that and lacked awareness into his own contribution to his loneliness.
> Or you can believe that it is due to inherent "whiteness", or "maleness", if you would like to continue to divide these kids further.
If whiteness and maleness doesn't contribute to this issue, how come this crime has such a distinctive perp profile? As far as I know, young women in the US are not banned from going to a gun shop and getting an AR-15 as soon as they turn 18, and have equal capacity to contract mental illness. The difference is they don't feel like they are owed something that the world hasn't given to them. This is behavioral issue, not a mental health issue.