Mass shooting in the middle school Vladislav Ribnikar in Belgrade

[Belacqua]

What do you guys think, was there really a mass shooting in the middle school Vladislav Ribnikar in Belgrade? Or was it faked by politicians who push for more gun control?

The story sounds just so unbelievable. Why would Kosta Kečmanović, a 13-year-old boy, be willing to kill his classmates? Not just one classmate, but 8 of them?

I think a conspiracy to fake that is more believable than the story. The largest conspiracy ever discovered was the Operation Snow White, it included around 5'000 people. The conspiracy to fake the mass shooting would not need to be nearly as big as that, right?

I agree with you that the media are full of lies. There's propaganda, false flag operations, and just every kind of dishonesty. 

That said, there are also lots and lots of mass shootings. Most of them are in the US, but there have been copycats elsewhere. There is no reason to doubt that a mass shooting may be what it appears to be.

You can treat it as you would a scientific explanation: the most obvious explanation seems the most likely, until there is falsifying evidence. If a reliable source (i.e. not Alex Jones) shows us evidence that the shooting was a conspiracy, then we should be willing to consider that. Jumping to that conclusion too quickly would be irresponsible. 

Sad to say, a boy shooting his classmates sounds all too believable in the world today.

[Irreligious Atheist]

@Irreligious Atheist

Probably not the best forum for this post you just made. I think questioning events like this might be against the rules. Called questioning historical events or something to that effect, which got people banned for talking about Sandy Hook. Could be the other (dot com) atheist forum I'm thinking of, though and maybe I'm mixing the two forums up.

There is no such rule.

To the best of my recollection, no one has EVER been banned from AF for this kind of thing.

Boru

Sorry. Yeah, it was AF.com then. They have a rule about questioning historical events, which is the rule brought up whenever someone comes in about Sandy Hook or the holocaust.

[Irreligious Atheist]

What do you guys think, was there really a mass shooting in the middle school Vladislav Ribnikar in Belgrade? Or was it faked by politicians who push for more gun control?

The story sounds just so unbelievable. Why would Kosta Kečmanović, a 13-year-old boy, be willing to kill his classmates? Not just one classmate, but 8 of them?

I think a conspiracy to fake that is more believable than the story. The largest conspiracy ever discovered was the Operation Snow White, it included around 5'000 people. The conspiracy to fake the mass shooting would not need to be nearly as big as that, right?

I agree with you that the media are full of lies. There's propaganda, false flag operations, and just every kind of dishonesty. 

That said, there are also lots and lots of mass shootings. Most of them are in the US, but there have been copycats elsewhere. There is no reason to doubt that a mass shooting may be what it appears to be.

You can treat it as you would a scientific explanation: the most obvious explanation seems the most likely, until there is falsifying evidence. If a reliable source (i.e. not Alex Jones) shows us evidence that the shooting was a conspiracy, then we should be willing to consider that. Jumping to that conclusion too quickly would be irresponsible. 

Sad to say, a boy shooting his classmates sounds all too believable in the world today.

Good points. There are false flags, and many here on the forum like to equate acknowledging that there are conspiracies in the world to believing all conspiracy theories are true, when there is a big difference. I am a conspiracy theorist, technically, because I acknowledge  that people conspire together sometimes to do things. Not the same as me believing in all conspiracies, although of course, many online do seem to fall for basically every single conspiracy theory thrown out there. This is a trick of the normies though, to equate us with those nutcases, because that makes it way easier to argue against the strawman that they have built up and to pretend that they've won the argument, and that we are crazy for thinking Western governments might be up to some sketchy things, and it's always going to be a mix of good and bad with the actions of any government.

Here's why no government needs to fake a school shooting. They just need to be a little patient, and a shooting like this will happen naturally sooner or later, and then they can do what they're going to do with gun rights in said country or state. Faking a school shooting just to get the new laws on the books a couple years sooner is just too risky, and there's no need for the government to take any risk when they can just sit there and wait for something to happen, to give them the excuse they've been waiting for.

[FlatAssembler]

Why?

You know why. Fuck off and go write a program that doesn’t work.

Boru

And you think that people advocating gun prohibitions in response to the supposed mass shooting shouldn't be ashamed?
Advocating gun prohibition is about as irresponsible as being against COVID-19 vaccinations. It's estimated that COVID-19 vaccinations saved around 300k people in the US in 2021, and the Gary Kleck's study in 1995 estimated that guns save around 300k lives per year in the US.
And even advocating gun control, as opposed to gun prohibition, is irresponsible, for about the same reason. Gun control prevents mentally ill people from owning guns for self-defence, even if mentally ill people are significantly more likely to be a victim of a violent crime.

[The Grand Nudger]

 I am a conspiracy theorist, technically, because I acknowledge  that people conspire together sometimes to do things. 

Not what the term means, though I have no doubt that you are a conspiracy theorist nevertheless.

For once, otoh, you manage to get something right. There's just no need to fake shit that will happen anyway.

[Belacqua]

This is a trick of the normies though, to equate us with those nutcases

Yes, I think the nutcases -- Alex Jones and QAnon types -- are very useful to those who want us to believe the lies of the government. (Though this is entirely unintentional on Alex Jones's part.) 

It's really not the same to say that 1) Sandy Hook was a hoax and that 2) the US blew up the Nordstream pipeline. Each case has to be examined on its merits, and the former fails while the latter stays far more believable. But as you say, there are many who want us to lump them together.  

This happens even when events which were loudly declared to be hoaxes and disinformation are quietly, later on, proved to be true. Hunter Biden's laptop was real, and his dad lied about it to millions -- this has been proven, but very few people seem to care. It's still "conspiracy." 

there's no need for the government to take any risk when they can just sit there and wait for something to happen, to give them the excuse they've been waiting for.

This seems quite sure. They never let a tragedy go to waste. 

Whatever war or attack or hurricane happens, the legislative reaction is the same: more surveillance, more control, more money for the same well-connected corporations.

[The Grand Nudger]

Hunter Biden's massive Hog.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

You know why. Fuck off and go write a program that doesn’t work.

Boru

And you think that people advocating gun prohibitions in response to the supposed mass shooting shouldn't be ashamed?
Advocating gun prohibition is about as irresponsible as being against COVID-19 vaccinations. It's estimated that COVID-19 vaccinations saved around 300k people in the US in 2021, and the Gary Kleck's study in 1995 estimated that guns save around 300k lives per year in the US.
And even advocating gun control, as opposed to gun prohibition, is irresponsible, for about the same reason. Gun control prevents mentally ill people from owning guns for self-defence, even if mentally ill people are significantly more likely to be a victim of a violent crime.

No, I don't think people advocating restrictions on firearms should be ashamed. I think they should be proud and happy about the lives they've saved. It has been shown time and time again, in various places around the world, that having restrictions on who should own firearms (and enforcing those restrictions) reduces gun violence. In fact, there is a direct correlation between how restrictive gun laws are, how well they're enforced, and incidents of gun violence. This is so glaringly true that it can't be sensibly debated.

We've already discussed the problems with Kleck's study and methodology. You need to stop bringing that up.

Experience has shown that when mentally ill people get their hands on a firearm, they don't use it for self-defense. They use it to shoot up a school or an office or the family that asked them to stop shooting so their baby could sleep.

Boru

[The Valkyrie]

I'm going to stay out of this one because I'm likely to ban some fuckwit who brings up conspiracies over the bodies of DEAD FUCKING CHILDREN without discussing it with others.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Boru