Alternate history: What if Lanza killed 26 high schoolers instead?

This is a LOT of what ifs, but bear with me here:
What if instead of shooting up Sandy Hook, A.L shot up his old high school in an identical fashion (body count, savagery, etc)? Would he be as hated as he is today, or infamous (fangirls and sympathizers) like Harris and Klebold?
Discuss

Oh he'd be showered with sympathy. Because to some people shooting teenagers is somehow morally better than shooting six year olds.

QuestionMark wrote:

Oh he'd be showered with sympathy. Because to some people shooting teenagers is somehow morally better than shooting six year olds.

Well, it is, relatively speaking of course. Children are more innocent, less able to defend themselves, have experienced less of life than high-schoolers have, etc. Therefore it is more immoral to murder them.

But i get what you're saying, people don't realize how horrific mass murder is even when the victims are high schoolers because they see it as some kind of game, people have been desensitized to the idea of mass murder. And because of that, they're able to see mass murder as some sort of "temper tantrum" rather than a calculated, cold, murder of innocent people.

What you're saying is best exemplified by the Nikolas Cruz apologists. "Oh, he was just an innocent boy who was sad and lost and blah blah..", is wrong, Nikolas Cruz was shooting kids in classes as they screeched at the top of their lungs in horror, and he kept shooting without hesitation. When Nikolas Cruz shot Chris Hixon, Hixon dropped to the floor and hid behind a corner, a minute later after Cruz finished shooting into other classes on the first floor, Cruz walked to the corner and AGAIN shot Chris Hixon, who was lying bleeding, motionless, on the floor. But Cruz shot him again to make sure he was dead. Cruz is evil, as evil as Ted Bundy if not more-so, I have no sympathy for him whatsoever.

If Lanza shot up a high school, he wouldn't have killed 26 people, that's all I know, someone would have jumped him and stopped him from shooting, or, he would be predicting he would get jumped and would have to be more tactful when he went into a classroom to shoot, thus preventing more kills.

Also, Newtown High School has a cop that's always at the school, so he'd have to deal with that as well, there would also be better security I'd imagine.

Oh, and something else, Lanza's Glock 10mm jammed when he shot it, and his Bushmaster XM15 suffered a failure to feed multiple times while he was in Classroom 10, causing him to have to reload multiple times, if the jams and errors that the firearms had happened at a High School, it would be much more of a problem for Lanza

I wonder if people would still think it was a false flag event?

hvernon wrote:

I wonder if people would still think it was a false flag event?

Yeah it still would, people said that Parkland was a false flag and that Nikolas Cruz wasn't the shooter the FBI was, and other batshit crazy stuff. And then the police released videos of Nikolas Cruz literally saying he wanted to kill people lol, and they shutted up.

People were even calling a "false flag" on robert hawkins mall shooting, they're crazy.

Spanky wrote:

QuestionMark wrote:

Oh he'd be showered with sympathy. Because to some people shooting teenagers is somehow morally better than shooting six year olds.

Well, it is, relatively speaking of course. Children are more innocent, less able to defend themselves, have experienced less of life than high-schoolers have, etc. Therefore it is more immoral to murder them.

I don't see it that way. Murder is murder. If we say killing a eighteen month old is worse than killing an eighteen year old, then I feel that's an implicit endorsement of the idea that some lives have more value than others, which is wrong, IMO.

QuestionMark wrote:

Spanky wrote:

QuestionMark wrote:

Oh he'd be showered with sympathy. Because to some people shooting teenagers is somehow morally better than shooting six year olds.

Well, it is, relatively speaking of course. Children are more innocent, less able to defend themselves, have experienced less of life than high-schoolers have, etc. Therefore it is more immoral to murder them.

I don't see it that way. Murder is murder. If we say killing a eighteen month old is worse than killing an eighteen year old, then I feel that's an implicit endorsement of the idea that some lives have more value than others, which is wrong, IMO.

No, that's not what its saying, its saying that, for example, punching an 18 yr old in the face is less cruel than punching an infant in the face. Killing younger people is more cruel, thus more immoral.

Spanky wrote:

No, that's not what its saying, its saying that, for example, punching an 18 yr old in the face is less cruel than punching an infant in the face. Killing younger people is more cruel, thus more immoral.

I'm not sure that makes any difference to what I said. Regardless this isn't really a debate I want to drag out for a variety of reasons, so I'm just going to close it here.

Not trying to be nit picky or anything like that but I already made this type of thread

Adam can kill not so many people. This was "lucky" for him, that in class in toilet was so many people. I don't think that he kill so many people, if they just hidden under tables and not were in toilet.

It would just be yet another infamous shooting.