LogFAQs > #926001008

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	If you went back in time to it, how would you stop the Columbine shooting?
Zeeak4444 08/13/19 5:04:32 AM #46:	tri sapphire posted... Zeeak4444 posted... Wouldnt it be more fair to say anyone born within x range of event then though? Like say 6 months to compensate for after shock ripples and shit. But after that point wouldnt things have normalized enough for things to have steadied out along the same timeline? Especially for people with little to no direct impact from it? Sorta but not really like a schrodinger's cat situation. Edit: as for the morality of it see my last post. I dont think I would do it myself. It might have a few pockets of realignment for some people. But odds are that a large majority of people 19 and under would be affected. Especially with the shootings (or lack of shootings) that will follow without Columbine to be brought back into the limelight. Once you get that first wave of new people being born though, that's when the butterfly effect would be taken into account. Everyone that lost generation would have interacted with would now be interacted with differently. Again, it only takes sex being off by an inch or a second to throw that (low end average) 1 in 40 million into jeopardy. Hmm, when you put it that way that makes a lot of sense. My first instinct was to say the people they interact with having new paths which in turn creates news paths for everyone the meet etc etc but then I was thinking about arguing that the odds of those people actually going out of town enough to make a difference on things would be minimal but I also dont know how big of a place Columbine actually is so ya I think youre right. I only mentioned the Santana shooting because barely anyone talks about it and the motivations were very different. I dont even know if any others occurred between the two tbh. But ya so my thoughts were that the national movement would have just been focused on that instead and the result would be a relatively similar result by 2005 or so but who knows lol. I mean in that timeline my life would be drastically different Id assume so everything here would be different but id assume not so much in say Maryland or Iowa. Fun to think about though. I appreciate the fun discussion. --- Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_X <cite>Zeeak4444 posted [p:926001008] in If you wen... [t:77935370]...</cite> <quote>tri sapphire posted...</cite> <quote>Zeeak4444 posted...</cite> <quote>Wouldnt it be more fair to say anyone born within x range of event then though? Like say 6 months to compensate for after shock ripples and shit. But after that point wouldnt things have normalized enough for things to have steadied out along the same timeline? Especially for people with little to no direct impact from it? Sorta but not really like a schrodinger's cat situation. Edit: as for the morality of it see my last post. I dont think I would do it myself.</quote> It might have a few pockets of realignment for some people. But odds are that a large majority of people 19 and under would be affected. Especially with the shootings (or lack of shootings) that will follow without Columbine to be brought back into the limelight. Once you get that first wave of new people being born though, that's when the butterfly effect would be taken into account. Everyone that lost generation would have interacted with would now be interacted with differently. Again, it only takes sex being off by an inch or a second to throw that (low end average) 1 in 40 million into jeopardy.</quote> Hmm, when you put it that way that makes a lot of sense. My first instinct was to say the people they interact with having new paths which in turn creates news paths for everyone the meet etc etc but then I was thinking about arguing that the odds of those people actually going out of town enough to make a difference on things would be minimal but I also dont know how big of a place Columbine actually is so ya I think youre right. I only mentioned the Santana shooting because barely anyone talks about it and the motivations were very different. I dont even know if any others occurred between the two tbh. But ya so my thoughts were that the national movement would have just been focused on that instead and the result would be a relatively similar result by 2005 or so but who knows lol. I mean in that timeline my life would be drastically different Id assume so everything here would be different but id assume not so much in say Maryland or Iowa. Fun to think about though. I appreciate the fun discussion. --- Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_X</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1