Not that it holds much scientific value, but my impression from reading news stories about school shootings is that the perpetrators usually were already known in their social circles as bullies, not bullying victims.

So now it's groups of bullies, not just one? That wasn't part of the problem statement.

Also firearms: that wasn't part of it until you brought it up, either.

So bullies are people that stress the societal boundaries of acceptable behavior.

The advocacy of violence in response is a further stepping over of a societal boundary, essentially the same one used by bullies.

So the boundaries are crossed, both legal, institutional, and societal.

But you want to be pedantic about "problem statements"? That firearms and school shootings are some boundary that is fantastical and doesn't get crossed in the real world (that is, the USA conception of the real world)?

You want boundaries on the problem statement, which is about using violent extralegal means to address violent extralegal threats?

What a bizarre comment. Like, you don't think gangs exist? You don't think bullies who crave power and strength don't crave strength in numbers? You don't think gun violence exists, exists at schools?

Are you in some fantasy land where BJJ is the solution for world peace? Are you some gun nut scared that this will cross into gun control? Are you just some spectrum resident pendant/troll?

Weird.

Lots of people on this thread advocate for fighting back. I don't know why you have a problem with it.

"Bullying" on the original article had nothing to do with firearms & school shootings, as you would know if you read it. It has to do with one nasty kid picking on another one. It very rarely makes the news.

If you need to have the last word, go ahead. I'm not replying any further.

Those boundaries exist because they're mutually beneficial. If the state is derelict in its duty to enforce them, it's not obvious to me why the individual has a moral duty to either the state or the bully to simply endure injustice.