School Shooting in Cleveland

[Exeson]

Well, I just heard about this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7038532.stm

And I'm shocked, thats all I can say, I am shocked and totally appalled.
This is going on my list of 'why allowing people to carry guns is crazy and downright stupid'

Anyway, whats your view on this?

[SurlySeraph]

I pity both the shooter and his (it's always a boy) victims. The victims for obvious reasons, the shooter because most of the time violent kids were harassed, mocked, and angered until they stopped caring about the people around them and starting looking for vengeance. I understand what that kid must have been going through. I'm very glad that I didn't have access to weapons when I was 14, because with the level of stress I was under and the sheer evil of some of the people around me, I would have ended up like that kid.

[Roland St. Jude]

Well, I just heard about this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7038532.stm

And I'm shocked, thats all I can say, I am shocked and totally appalled.
This is going on my list of 'why allowing people to carry guns is crazy and downright stupid'

Anyway, whats your view on this?

Sheriff of Moddingham: My view is that a gun control debate is sufficiently political to be inappropriate here and that one should proceed carefully in discussing this story here, generally.

I'm going to leave this thread open, but people would be wise to remember where they are.

[landadmiral]

{Scrubbed}

[Ego Slayer]

Yeah, I LIVE near Cleveland, yet I find out about Cleveland news from the BBC. =P
He was 14? That's really sad. I think I feel bad for that kid not having his head screwed on right, more than anyone else involved. :smallsigh:

[Samiam303]

Holy cow... I was really worried that it was the school my dad teaches at because there have been a TON of violent incidents happening there. I feel really bad for everyone involved, but right now I'm just really relieved to know that it was a different school... :confused:

[Trog]

3- In most cases, the students that go on a shooting rampage have been medicated on either Vicadin or Zanax. They develop an explosive personality - they are slow and lethargic but explode very violently when they get pushed to far.

Any documentation to back this claim up? :smallconfused:

[SurlySeraph]

{Scrubbed}

Roland just said not to discuss gun control. Obey the mod.

However, Vicodin and Xanax should be slightly less divisive, and therefore acceptable topics of discussion.

[thubby]

well that sucks...
my thoughts when these things happen always drift to "why". not the grieving "why did they have to die", but the simple "why did he do it?". what happened to him that he became so desperate? why are some kids so sick as to push others to this point? you'd think by now we'd learn to get along, or at least leave each other alone, you know?

[Ego Slayer]

Roland just said not to discuss gun control. Obey the mod.

In his defense, I think Roland posted while he'd be typing that. Best if we just avoid replying to it?

[Lord Iames Osari]

:smallsigh:
Roland: "No debating gun control. It's political."
landadmiral: "A topic the post directly above mine is warning me against pursuing? CHARGE!"

landadmiral, Marx had nothing to do with leading the Russian Revolution. I'm pretty sure he was dead. That was Lenin. Check your facts before you go lecturing people about what they do and don't know about history.

Also, Exeson is from England; therefore, the Constitution of the United States does not apply to him.

That's all I'm going to say.

[PlatinumJester]

At least no one was killed...yet. The kid was probably some wacked up guy with mental problems.

[landadmiral]

Any documentation to back this claim up?

School shootings related to prescription drugs (http://www.newstarget.com/020394.html)

Another example (http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/2000-05-16-School-Shootings-Psychotropic-Drugs.htm)

[landadmiral]

landadmiral, Marx had nothing to do with leading the Russian Revolution. I'm pretty sure he was dead. That was Lenin. Check your facts before you go lecturing people about what they do and don't know about history.

Also, Exeson is from England; therefore, the Constitution of the United States does not apply to him.

Thanks for the correction with Lenin.

So Exeson is from England, shooting was in america, so what. nothing changes the context.

[smellie_hippie]

Be careful of lumping people with "mental problems" all in the same boat.... :smallannoyed:

Kids on anti-depressants who act out explosively or sucidally are entirely different from kids hooked on their first shot of meth-amphetamines or schizophrenics who suddenly stop their medication.

It is fairly safe to say that anyone who brought a gun to school to settle anything has an emotional problem. That's where talking about your problems comes in... it's always better to talk.

If one person doesn't listen, find another, or another, or another. If you have enough of an emotional issue that shooting someone seems like the most viable solution, you haven't tried talking to enough people yet.

EDIT: Ok, you have found a couple of articles talking about kids on meds are more likely to commit acts of violence. That's still a very sketchy piece of ground to stand on. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't blame the medicaitons... that's not the issue here.

If you have an indiviudal with a mental health issue (depression, anxiety, etc), they sometimes need chemical assistance to cope and gather the strength they need to get through the day. The kids who are on meds and end up committing an act like those mentioned are likely NOT pursuing a complete treatment program. MEDS ARE NOT THE ONLY ANSWER!! But you frequently find people who look for the miracle pill, but don't talk about the issue. If you don't talk through the problem that brought you to medication, it will not go away!!

[StickMan]

Very sad and tragic. Scary for me seeing as how I want to be a high school teacher.

On a historical note Marks was not a Markist and is quoted as saying such on at least one occasion. Ironic hu.

[thubby]

School shootings related to prescription drugs (http://www.newstarget.com/020394.html)

Another example (http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/2000-05-16-School-Shootings-Psychotropic-Drugs.htm)

those sites use shaky arguments.
if these kids are so depressed that they are on medication for it, obviously they have problems. so perhaps depression is why they do it.

[Exeson]

Sheriff of Moddingham: My view is that a gun control debate is sufficiently political to be inappropriate here and that one should proceed carefully in discussing this story here, generally.

I'm going to leave this thread open, but people would be wise to remember where they are.

Sorry, my bad, won't happen again.

Anyway, now that it has had time to sink in, I really pity the shooter, I mean, something must have been really bad to force him to want to kill people, whether it be medical, social, etc.

[landadmiral]

If one person doesn't listen, find another, or another, or another. If you have enough of an emotional issue that shooting someone seems like the most viable solution, you haven't tried talking to enough people yet.

I completely agree. Do what we can to help!
---

So what do I think without getting political?
I find it horrific that things like this happen. Gut wrenching fear of children, possibly mine, dying in a situation where a kid loses rational thought and starts killing.
That being said, I'm not going to live in fear. I'm not going to remove my capability to defend myself or my children. I'm going to teach my children how to fight back instead of teaching pacification. I'm also going to teach them responsibility on how to use any power gained.
I'd rather not see any of this take place, but it does. So...I would then rather see my child die fighting than die cowering.

[A Rainy Knight]

That's just plain awful. I wonder what it was that drove the kid to do such a horrible thing. It was probably a lot of little things stacked up, if you want to know my opinion. Now, this may make me sound a little bit uncaring, so let me clarify that I do indeed have sympathy for those involved. But something I do think is, "Great, yet another reason for adults not to trust people my age." :smallannoyed: It just seems to me that high schoolers are given less and less privacy in order to stop anything like this from happening. It's a good motive, but it can become annoying for all of the non-shooters among us. Of which there are plenty. I know that I've noticed the constant monitoring that we receive.

[landadmiral]

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't blame the medicaitons... that's not the issue here.

I'm not blaming the medications. However there has been evidence to showing that they've played a role in multiple shootings. I can provide more evidence if need be. Not to mention, our local "ambulance chasing" lawyer has been showing zanax class action lawsuits lately. Again, medication is just 1 facet of a larger problem - school shootings.

My answers have obviously been unpopular in the past and I'm not surprised at the flames from this one. And my answer to this one is empowerment, not pacification.

[PlatinumJester]

I completely agree. Do what we can to help!
---

So what do I think without getting political?
I find it horrific that things like this happen. Gut wrenching fear of children, possibly mine, dying in a situation where a kid loses rational thought and starts killing.
That being said, I'm not going to live in fear. I'm not going to remove my capability to defend myself or my children. I'm going to teach my children how to fight back instead of teaching pacification. I'm also going to teach them responsibility on how to use any power gained.
I'd rather not see any of this take place, but it does. So...I would then rather see my child die fighting than die cowering.

Plus the chances of your child be killed in a campus masacre are extremely low which is a consolodation.

Also a you could by them a bullet proof vest which is a good investment for prolonged life.

Martial arts also fall under that catergory though you would have to be quite foolish to use it against a gunman (unless you had some form of tactical advantage).

[Trog]

School shootings related to prescription drugs (http://www.newstarget.com/020394.html)

Another example (http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/2000-05-16-School-Shootings-Psychotropic-Drugs.htm)

The first link the guy claims that ADHD isn't real. Which the medical field at large disagrees with. He claims diet is to blame. Notice in his accredations he started a web site on nutrition. Seems kind if self-serving. Plus his "evidence" is all circumstantial.

The second link had a link to an old story that now is broken. So no way to tell what the original findings were.

Sorry, I know you tried... but I do not find this documentation to hold much water. It's an interesting theory though and I imagine many would be interested to hear of the scientific proof of this sort of link... should it actually exist.

[Emperor Ing]

:smalleek: NOOOO!!!! More paranoia in schools around the country!!

[zeratul]

*sigh* well it looks like the kids dead if you check the link here (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/10/cleveland.shooting/index.html). Man this stuff just makes me depressed, what drove the kid to it and all that, and as I have a tendency to do, I leave you with a realevant song Jeremy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4pFyOSAar4)

RIP kid.

[Exeson]

EDIT: Ok, you have found a couple of articles talking about kids on meds are more likely to commit acts of violence. That's still a very sketchy piece of ground to stand on. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't blame the medicaitons... that's not the issue here.

If you have an indiviudal with a mental health issue (depression, anxiety, etc), they sometimes need chemical assistance to cope and gather the strength they need to get through the day. The kids who are on meds and end up committing an act like those mentioned are likely NOT pursuing a complete treatment program. MEDS ARE NOT THE ONLY ANSWER!! But you frequently find people who look for the miracle pill, but don't talk about the issue. If you don't talk through the problem that brought you to medication, it will not go away!!

You have my complete agreement, talking really does help, and no, I'm sorry to break it to people but drugs can only get you so far. You also need human interaction. Why else do you think we need clinical psychologist?:smalltongue:

[DraPrime]

*sigh*

Another shooting. Not as bad Virginia Tech or Columbine, but still sad.

[PhoeKun]

*sigh*

Another shooting. Not as bad Virginia Tech or Columbine, but still sad.

Not being a particularly big fan of school shootings, I'm hesitant to call any one "worse" than any other. This may not have the same scale as other incidents, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily better. I guarantee you it's not how the students/teachers/parents at that school see it...

[Closet_Skeleton]

(it's always a boy)

Yay for sexist comments :smallmad:


I'm very glad that I didn't have access to weapons when I was 14, because with the level of stress I was under and the sheer evil of some of the people around me, I would have ended up like that kid.

Me too. Though I usually think of it as "I'm glad I didn't have telekinesis when I was 14" but I watch too many Carrie rip-offs.

Drugs can increase Paranoia, it's a fact.

It's also true that lack of sleep and certain diets can make people restless, irritable and hyperactive. This doesn't mean it's the only way those symptoms can arise however.

It's also a fact that people who get put on drugs are dangerous to start with. You can't choose between "drugs failed to save him" or "drugs drove him over the edge" without a lot of research.

[heretic]

Yay for sexist comments :smallmad:

I read a book written by John Douglass, the FBI's leading Serial Killer Profiler, where he says explicitly that serial killers are ALWAYS male.

Granted, school shooters are not motivated the same way, although there are some similarities. However, school shooters are always boys.

We just completed a unit in our psychology class comparing the male brain to the female brain. The male brain is a lot more aggressive and likely to take action, whereas the female brain internalizes problems and is more likely to think than act.

[tannish2]

Scrubbing Bubbles!

[Lilly]

If you're going to blame a medication, at least blame the ones that your evidence backs up. Vicodin is a pain medication and Xanax is for anxiety. Even though it's psychoactive, it works on a different neurotransmitter than the drugs your link blamed (Xanax works on GABA, those anti-depressants work on Serotonin).

I will also re-remind the thread that politics (including any current wars) are off limits

[de-trick]

I fell bad for the victim and the shooter, If the kid shoot random people who never deserved it i would feel sorry for them, but if the people who got shot harassed the shooter and made his life a living hell than they sorta deserved it, (poking at the bear fun and games till the bear snaps) I know who that kid felt annoyed, no way to get them to stop, best advice just stay away from them, I would have fought my bullies but they were in a higher grade and talker and stronger than me, this year I'm happy i have no one to pick on me (never took shop classes). Anyways i think that if people were nicer to each other that this kind of thing would not happen

[thubby]

I read a book written by John Douglass, the FBI's leading Serial Killer Profiler, where he says explicitly that serial killers are ALWAYS male.

Granted, school shooters are not motivated the same way, although there are some similarities. However, school shooters are always boys.

We just completed a unit in our psychology class comparing the male brain to the female brain. The male brain is a lot more aggressive and likely to take action, whereas the female brain internalizes problems and is more likely to think than act.

while those things are generally true, serial killers are NOT always male, and i seriously doubt every shooting in school shooting history was perpetrated by a male.

[landadmiral]

We just completed a unit in our psychology class comparing the male brain to the female brain. The male brain is a lot more aggressive and likely to take action, whereas the female brain internalizes problems and is more likely to think than act.

It's called Testoterone.

my 2 favorite examples that come to mind are from animal planet. male lions fighting each other to take over a new pride and a buck trying to mate a doe while a mountain lion was stalking them (the doe tries to get away and the buck is like - we've got time baby...we've got time)

[SurlySeraph]

while those things are generally true, serial killers are NOT always male, and i seriously doubt every shooting in school shooting history was perpetrated by a male.

Yes, there have been female serial killers, such as Aileen Wuornos. But there have been far more male serial killers. As for school shooters, I haven't done the research, but I don't remember ever hearing about a female one. Or one who wasn't described as a "troubled loner," for that matter. :smallyuk:

[StickMan]

You know I hate the fact that people are looking for something to blame here. Why are we always trying to find something to blame. People use to just be crazy, why can't anyone just be crazy anymore. No we have to find a reason they went crazy. Lets see the kid played GTA that is a violent video game there for he learned violence from video games, watched violent VT shows and movies, the comic books he read were violent, he read a book with a cereal killer, ect... People some times people are just nuts.

Some times people are just plain crazy it happens.

Now that I got that off my chest, plz feel free to disagree.

[thubby]

You know I hate the fact that people are looking for something to blame here. Why are we always trying to find something to blame. People use to just be crazy, why can't anyone just be crazy anymore. No we have to find a reason they went crazy. Lets see the kid played GTA that is a violent video game there for he learned violence from video games, watched violent VT shows and movies, the comic books he read were violent, he read a book with a cereal killer, ect... People some times people are just nuts.

Some times people are just plain crazy it happens.

Now that I got that off my chest, plz feel free to disagree.

i agree its stupid to keep placing blame, but reason makes sense to me. this guy's bullies aren't to blame for his rampage, but they were probably the reason.
even the most insane people have a reason, even if it is crazy.

[SurlySeraph]

Very few people are "just crazy." Going insane is, like everything else, a reaction to circumstances. In experiments, researchers determined that if mice get an electric shock whenever they do a specific action they learn not to do that action. However, if they are shocked at random, they eventually either go catatonic and stop moving or essentially go insane. This is a simplified but accurate model of what happens when people go insane. When bad things happen to you and you can't find any way to stop them or predict when they'll happen, you stop acting rationally because acting rationally isn't helping you. Some people are definitely predisposed to mental illness from early childhood if not from birth, and genetics can contribute to mental illness, but people only truly become crazy as the result of stresses they can't cope with. Therefore, it is a good idea to try to find something to blame when people go insane, as it lets you know under what circumstances someone will need help before their mental health is compromised.

Of course, in school shootings, usually the perpetrator isn't actually insane, just somewhat disturbed. In such cases, blaming a specific factor like video games makes some sense because whatever factor it was affected their worldview just enough to stop them from acting completely sane.

[Semidi]

i agree its stupid to keep placing blame, but reason makes sense to me. this guy's bullies aren't to blame for his rampage, but they were probably the reason.
even the most insane people have a reason, even if it is crazy.

I don't understand the logic, please clarify. I find that Reason and Blame walk hand in hand. If something is the reason for something ergo it is blamed for the occurrence. If I have a leaky faucet and it floods my house, I blame the faucet because it is the reason for the flood.


In this case, a bully may or may not be the reason for the incident. Psychological problems and so on may be the additional reason though that’s aside from the point. I am not a psychologist nor do I know the complete story of the incident.

However, if something caused the incident, whether it is a person, video game, or messed up drugs then by my definition—it’s to blame. Why is blame important? By placing blame, accurate blame not scapegoat, we can avoid repetition and fewer kids die.

Someone or something is always accountable. Ignoring or refusing to identify what is accountable and saying, “crazy just happens” is akin to sticking my head in the sand. Or to use the above example, sometimes flooded houses just happen…

[StickMan]

Very few people are "just crazy." Going insane is, like everything else, a reaction to circumstances. In experiments, researchers determined that if mice get an electric shock whenever they do a specific action they learn not to do that action. However, if they are shocked at random, they eventually either go catatonic and stop moving or essentially go insane. This is a simplified but accurate model of what happens when people go insane. When bad things happen to you and you can't find any way to stop them or predict when they'll happen, you stop acting rationally because acting rationally isn't helping you. Some people are definitely predisposed to mental illness from early childhood if not from birth, and genetics can contribute to mental illness, but people only truly become crazy as the result of stresses they can't cope with. Therefore, it is a good idea to try to find something to blame when people go insane, as it lets you know under what circumstances someone will need help before their mental health is compromised.

Of course, in school shootings, usually the perpetrator isn't actually insane, just somewhat disturbed. In such cases, blaming a specific factor like video games makes some sense because whatever factor it was affected their worldview just enough to stop them from acting completely sane.

I think you may be missing the point of my post.

I was in no way posting what I did as a serious argument, it was more of a general point that the witch hunts people go on after these things tend to turn up nothing logical. There could be and most likely is a million things that pushed the kid over the edge each one in some way responsible. But then we try to find one thing that we can condemn as a society so we can sleep well at night. Some times the things are quite logical like abusive parents, tons of bullying, or something else. Other times we blame video games, movies, comics, books, or who knows. Some people will go through any of these things and do not end up snapping. Other people clearly do snap.

This is why I like to make the point that we try to find one thing to blame we miss the point, some people just snap.

[Aereshaa_the_2nd]

I find that there are several reasons why a person might go insane. Most common one is drugs, medical or otherwise. I have never (and would never, ever) taken a drug more complex than a steroid. But when you start mixing up stuff and prescribing drugs to change peoples' personalities, I think that you start getting a risk of making them insane.

I have been diagnosed with oppositional defiance syndrome disorder (read: stubborn), and my mother could have given me all sorts of weird crap. but she didn't, and yes, I'm stubborn and defiant and an individualist. But I will never let anyone tell me that's a disease.

EDIT: Here is a list of traits that constitute ODD:
Losing temper
Arguing with adults
Refusing to follow the rules
Easily annoyed
Angry and resentful
Spiteful or even vengeful

I do all these things sometimes, but that doesn't make me crazy, and certainly doesn't mean I need to take bastardized drugs. It just means that I know how idiotic the rules and the adults in question really are. If I took drugs to change me so I didn't, then I wouldn't be me.

I have also been diagnosed with ADHD. This label is wrong and damaging on so many levels, it's hard to know what to criticise first. Okay...
First of all, I don't have an attention deficit. An attention deficit would be a lack of attention. In fact I can focus on a single thing until I am oblivious to all others. This is not a 'deficit'. Second, 'hyperactivity'? A large amount of activity? I don't see how being able to do things faster and with more ease is a bad thing. I have never, and will never, take drugs to get rid of such great gifts.

In all, some drugs are being prescribed to people because they're different.

[thubby]

I don't understand the logic, please clarify. I find that Reason and Blame walk hand in hand. If something is the reason for something ergo it is blamed for the occurrence. If I have a leaky faucet and it floods my house, I blame the faucet because it is the reason for the flood.
(cut for length)

gladly. in the end, it was his decision, he took the gun, brought it to school, and used it on people. nothing short of mind control or straight jacket lunacy changed that he did it of his own free will.
he may have said "im going to get those bullies who hurt me" or anything else, thats why he did it, his reason.
to use your sink example, things get water damaged, we blame the faucet for the water being there, but in the end the water did the damage, we dont call it "leaky faucet damage"

[Lemur]

I agree that going on a witch hunt to find blame can only hurt us in the long run. Whenever something like this happens, people rarely act rationally. Although undeniably tragic, school shootings aren't some epidemic plaguing the nation. If anything, sensationalistic media coverage increases the risk of it occuring again.

Tons of kids get bullied every day, but how many actually go around shooting people? The events are so rare and isolated that finding a definite reason for them is impossible. You could find every single thing in the kid's environment, and you could go somewhere else where another kid is in the same situation, but that doesn't mean he's also going to get a gun and shoot people.

Try as we might to find a reason, with our current understanding of ourselves, it isn't possible to find one that really rings true.

[Solo]

Let us not lose our perspective. School shootings are very rare statistically, and children are more likely to die from drowning than from being shot. (National Center for Health Statistics)

Guns, medications, video games etc, are not the real problem here, in my opinion. Rather, I'd be more inclined to blame the person behind the trigger.

Far be it for me to say whether guns are bad or good, but from a strictly pragmatic point of view - no politics involved -, you can't prevent people from getting illegal things if they try. (Drugs, for example, are pretty widely available despite being illegal.)

Medication, too, most likely does not cause people to become mentally unstable, otherwise they wouldn't keep issuing it.

Correlation does not equal causation. Just because there is a correlation between school shooters and medication does not mean one causes the other.

There are alternate explanations; for example, it could be that because school shooters are mentally unbalances to begin with, they are given medication!

And as for video games, let me just say that the crime rate has been declining since 1993, even as violent videogames have become more prevalent in modern society.

It has been confirmed that violence in videogames and media will cause people to become temporarily more aggressive, but there is no proof as to any long term effects.

(I sincerely hope that I'm not violating the 'no political discussion' rule. I wanted to discuss some facts of the situation that I felt people should keep in mind.)

What we need more security at school, and we need to pay more attention to potential problem students.

What irks me is that he was reportedly discussing shooting up the school, but his friends didn't report him.

Stupid! So stupid.:smallfurious:


What a horrible thing for the school to have gone through. Damn.

[Skippy]

Sorry if I'm interrupting your discussion about this. I just wanted to come by and say I'm really sorry for all of this. Hope it never happens again.

[Lucky]

Try as we might to find a reason, with our current understanding of ourselves, it isn't possible to find one that really rings true.
I disagree completely, in that I think the reason is quite clear.

The one common factor in the large majority of these school shootings, with an exception (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/09/14/gunman-shooting.html) every now and then, is bullying. Yes, tons of people get bullied get bullied every day, and yes, this is a very rare incident relative to the amount of bullying in schools. However, we are all wired differently, no two minds work exactly the same way, no two minds respond the exact same way to every problem. Naturally, the same applies to bullying, in that everyone responds to it differently. In a similar sense, bullying varies significantly from case to case. I'm sure just about everyone has experienced bullying directed at them in some way, but the actual severity ranges greatly.
The thing that always seems to come up in these cases is that the shooter was heavily bullied. Couple that with the fact that everyone has their own unique mind, and you can get a case like this.
The reason is that schools continue to harbour bullies, and it's next to impossible to stop every case of bullying.

[Solo]

The reason is that schools continue to harbour bullies, and it's next to impossible to stop every case of bullying.

Again, correlation does not imply causation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation)

[Lucky]

Again, correlation does not imply causation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation)Yes, but at the same time, how many cases do you need for it to prove to be a cause? Are we just going to sit here and naively say that bullying has nothing to do with the issue? Bullying clearly isn't the only thing at play in these situations, but it is almost certainly a contributing factor.

[Solo]

Yes, but at the same time, how many cases do you need for it to prove to be a cause? Are we just going to sit here and naively say that bullying has nothing to do with the issue? Bullying clearly isn't the only thing at play in these situations, but it is almost certainly a contributing factor.

It would seem so, but I object to people declaring that it is the cause without having enough evidence!

Virtually everyone gets bullied, but not everyone goes nuts over it, do they?

Look, there's a positive correlation between ice cream sales, sales of short sleeved shirts, sandals, and drowning deaths, but none of them cause the chance in the others. They're all due to a confounding variable, namely, the weather.

Proving something is not as simple as saying A and B are related, so one must contribute to the other, even if they seem to be related.

Are bullying and school shooting related? They might be, but I can offer no solid evidence to back it up. Therefore, the hypothesis is a bit weak.

As for cases, I must say that a flaw of case studies is that they tend to rely on interpretation of a subject's life, and that interpretation is often biased.

People's views on reality is subjective.

If Freud and Skinner analyzed the same patient's case study, they would come up with different reasons as to the cause of the patient's problem.

Freud would interpret the patient's problems in accord with the tenets of psychoanalysis, while Skinner would go for a Behavioristic approach.

If you want to blame bullying for the school shooting, you are biased, and will interpret the shooter's history in a way that suggest to you that bullying caused him to go psycho.

Not that I necessarily disagree with your POV, I just think you should know about these logical fallacies and etc.

[Lucky]

It would seem so, but I object to people declaring that it is the cause without having enough evidence!

Virtually everyone gets bullied, but not everyone goes nuts over it, do they?

Look, there's a positive correlation between ice cream sales, sales of short sleeved shirts, sandals, and drowning deaths, but none of them cause the chance in the others. They're all due to a confounding variable, namely, the weather.

Proving something is not as simple as saying A and B are related, so one must contribute to the other, even if they seem to be related.

Are bullying and school shooting related? They might be, but I can offer no solid evidence to back it up.
“Stop Bullying It’s not only the bully’s fault you know!! It’s the teachers and principals fault for turning a blind eye, just cuz it’s not their job. You ****ers are pathetic. It’s the police’s fault for not doing anything when people conplain (oops, my mistake, the cops are corrupt sons of whores, so it’s not like they can do anything about it.) **** THE POLICE It’s society’s fault for acting like it’s normal for people to be *******s to each other. Society disgusts me. It’s everyone’s fault for being so apathetic towards ****ing everything that doesn’t affect them personally. **** YOU SOCIETY.”
These are the words of Kimveer Gill, taken from his diary, ironically the shooter in the article I presented earlier as an exception. Upon further research, it seems that it would support my idea.
While the cause of one case does not hold true to every other, it is a strong possibility that bullying played a role in driving Gill over the edge. This is supported by his own words.

[Serpentine]

Yes, but at the same time, how many cases do you need for it to prove to be a cause? Are we just going to sit here and naively say that bullying has nothing to do with the issue? Bullying clearly isn't the only thing at play in these situations, but it is almost certainly a contributing factor.
Not really disagreeing with you here, but consider this (plausable but made-up) statistic:
80% of the perpetrators of armed robberies eat bread.
It could easily be used in a campaign against baked wheat products. More relevant, but admittedly not related to your specific argument:
Many people involved in school shootings (it's depressing that that's such an ingrained term now...) played violent games.
Now, did they shoot people because they played the games, or did they play the games because they were angry, angry enough, as it turned out, to kill other people? For that matter, is the number of shooters who play such games disproportionate to the number of their peers also playing said games?
I don't disagree with you, specifically, Lucky, about bullies being a prominent issue. This is more a general caution to people to think about the actual orders of cause-and-effect, especially with regards to the media.

[Solo]

These are the words of Kimveer Gill, taken from his diary, ironically the shooter in the article I presented earlier as an exception. Upon further research, it seems that it would support my idea.
While the cause of one case does not hold true to every other, it is a strong possibility that bullying played a role in driving Gill over the edge. This is supported by his own words.

The plural of evidence is not anecdotes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence)


Anecdotal evidence is bad. It does not qualify as scientific evidence because its nature prevents it from being investigated using the scientific method.

If you want to prove something, you must analyze all cases of school shooters, something which I am sure that you have not done, as you most likely do not have either the time nor the resources.

Say, do you know much about Psychology or Statictics? Taken courses in them for example? Just curious.

[Serpentine]

Anecdotal evidence is bad. It does not qualify as scientific evidence because its nature prevents it from being investigated using the scientific method.
It's not bad, per se. It's just not as good or reliable as experimental or statistical evidence, but all evidence is useful. Some parts of the biological sciences have to rely entirely an anecdotal and observational evidence. As for analysing all cases... Well, I suppose this is actually one of the few situations where that might be possible, but it's still limited by how much data was obtained from each one.

[Solo]

It's not bad, per se. It's just not as good or reliable as experimental or statistical evidence, but all evidence is useful. Some parts of the biological sciences have to rely entirely an anecdotal and observational evidence.

All I know is that if I used anecdotal evidence to prove anything in a Psych paper, I'd fail. Badly.

[Serpentine]

Ah. I'm concentrating on animal sciences on one side and history on the other. Bit harder to do careful analysis on wild animals and dead people than living humans, I suppose.

[Lucky]

The plural of evidence is not anecdotes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence)


Anecdotal evidence is bad. It does not qualify as scientific evidence because its nature prevents it from being investigated using the scientific method.

If you want to prove something, you must analyze all cases of school shooters, something which I am sure that you have not done, as you most likely do not have either the time nor the resources.I am well aware of logical fallacies, and I would appreciate if you stopped simply referencing wikipedia every time I commit one.
I am well aware that I cannot solidly prove anything, as you are correct in saying I have neither the time or the resources. However, there are many who have experienced severe bullying, and they understand the emotions it causes. I would also offer the fact that every year, many students commit suicide due to the stress and pain caused by bullying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_High
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn-Marie_Wesley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ritcheson

These are just a few cases of suicide directly linked to bullying. If someone is willing to go so far as to take their own life, it's by no means a stretch to say that other individuals with different minds, different attitudes, take that extra step, and instead of turning a gun on themselves, they turn it on their peers.

I will admit I was hasty in my original post, and by no means meant to say that there is one reason for every single case. However, in many cases, there are clear reasons that have led to the incidents. Not all of them have been bullying, with some of them often being mental disorders or depression from non-bullying related causes. In many cases, one of the reasons has been bullying.

[Solo]

Noted.

Look, I don't disagree with your point of view, I just don't think you can really prove it.

And look, you're continuing to cite anecdotes. I know some students commit suicide because of bullying, but it does not necessarily follow that all who commit suicide do so because of bullying.

Same with school shootings.




These are just a few cases of suicide directly linked to bullying. If someone is willing to go so far as to take their own life, it's by no means a stretch to say that other individuals with different minds, different attitudes, take that extra step, and instead of turning a gun on themselves, they turn it on their peers.

Plausible, but unprovable.

Ultimately, my issue here is that your position relies too much on speculation and not enough on cold, hard fact.


I am well aware of logical fallacies, and I would appreciate if you stopped simply referencing wikipedia every time I commit one.

Why does it bother you? You don't have to follow the links, you know.

Besides, knowing a logical fallacy is different from being aware that you are committing one.

[Lucky]

Noted.

Look, I don't disagree with your point of view, I just don't think you can really prove it. Understood?
I am fully aware of that. Doesn't stop me from arguing. :smalltongue:

Anyways, I would offer that it's wrong to wait until it's "proven" that bullying can lead to shootings. With as many people playing Devil's Advocate as there are, proving something to be a general cause when dealing with unique individuals is next to impossible. Bullying is difficult, and next to impossible to eradicate completely. However, I'm sure there are many cases in which specific individuals could have stepped up and unknowingly prevented catastrophe by simply doing the right thing. How long it will take for this message to get across to people it impossible to tell, I just hope one day it does.



Plausible, but unprovable.

Ultimately, my issue here is that your position relies too much on speculation and not enough on cold, hard fact.The issue at hand is that cold, hard fact is not always available. You can't just hold 100 test shootings and find out what percentage had bullying as a cause. This doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to debate it. Sure, speculation won't hold up in court, and it can't be measured on a graph. Sometimes, however, it's all you have to go on.




Why does it bother you? You don't have to follow the links, you know.

Besides, knowing a logical fallacy is different from being aware that you are committing one.The manner in which you did it I found condescending. I'm sorry, I know it wasn't, but I would appreciate that if you were to call me out in my arguments, that you actually put some effort in it.

[Solo]

I'm going to quote my psych. text book for the general benefit of all who view this thread. (This isn't necessarily related to my debate iwth Lucky)

"Despite a public for efforts to identify adolescents who are likely to lash out with violence at school, the offenders do not have unique characteristics that would permit reliable prediction of these rare outbursts of violence. (Steinberg, 2000)

That's not to say that nothing can be done in the way of psychological interventions. Programs that strive to reduce student alienation and foster health, supportive school environments appear to have some value in reducing school violence. But programs designed to single out perpetrators in advance who have not made any overt threats are doomed to failure."

I would like to point out that

"Programs that strive to reduce student alienation and foster health, supportive school environments appear to have some value in reducing school violence."

Is not stated definitively as working, though I'd like to think it would.

Note: it could work because of less bullying, which causes emotional problems, or by taking care of kids who have emotional problems to start with, via a third unknown factor, or by a combination of factors.


The manner in which you did it I found condescending. I'm sorry, I know it wasn't, but I would appreciate that if you were to call me out in my arguments, that you actually put some effort in it.

I felt like being lazy at the time.

I could have just copy and pasted parts of the wikipedia article, but I felt that if I was going to do that, I might a well give you the entire article in context.


This doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to debate it.
I'm not saying you shouldn't debate it, but be aware that what you say isn't well supported by anything at present.

[Closet_Skeleton]

It's called Testoterone.

That's a commonly used arguement that isn't entirely correct.

The connection between Testosterone and violence is a disputed subject.

Men are often subject to more pressure and higher expectations than women.

Men are also less subtle than women. If a boy is given an action man and a girl is given a barbie, which is going to be more likely to think of guns when they're wondering how to solve a problem? There's evidence that women have a preference to commit psychological abuse rather than physical abuse.

More men than women serial killers have been identified. The perception that men are more likely to be serial killers may cause people to overlook dangerous women rather than arrest them.

[Serpentine]

In response to this thread, Goff and I looked up some serial killers. Interestingly, most of the female ones were either poisoners or child-killers. Subtlety again,I suppose.

[smellie_hippie]

There are some interesting discussions going on here. If nobody objects, I'd like to toss out my $0.02 worth as a child therapist... who has worked in a school setting... and bullying.... and bullying victims... and since you can't edit my post, you really can't stop me. :smalltongue:

Alrighty, let's come right out and make several statements that I'll leave open for agreement or disagreement...
1. Guns in school are bad.
2. Bullying kids is bad.
3. Adolescent children are unpredictable.

That being said, where do we go from here and what else can complicate these matters......
1. Adolescents with mental health issues and/or medications are even more unpredictable.
2. Violent video games & television desensitize empathic responses.

These last two are a little more controversial and bring up a more significant amount of debate. They really can't be "predicted", be determined as a "cause", or be summarized as "the reason" for violent behavior.

Kids that bully other kids cause mental harm. Adolescents go through a horribly awkward transition of raging emotions, fragile egos, dependant and independant behaviors all at the same time. Victims of bullying frequently have self-esteem issues, depression, social isolation problems and other setbacks. Given those concepts, it's pretty safe to say that they will be more likely to react differently than those who are bullying others.

Maybe the direction this debate should be going is this...
Is it better to "treat" the bullies to reduce the harm they cause, or treat the "victims" to help reduce the emotional backlash?

Ok... rant over. Let me know what you think.

[Solo]

1. Guns in school are bad.
Well, this needs more clarification.

Having kids with guns in school is bad. Cops/security guards with guns, on the other hand, would be better.


Btw, does anyone know how the kid acquired his guns? Did he steal them or buy them illegally, or what?

[Trog]

Is it better to "treat" the bullies to reduce the harm they cause, or treat the "victims" to help reduce the emotional backlash?

Can't we do both? :smallconfused:

[Solo]

Can't we do both? :smallconfused:

Maybe we're restricted due to lack of funding?

[banjo1985]

I've only heard about this fairly recently, its made the news over here in the UK, but details are pretty sketchy.

All I can really say is that my condolences go out to all those affected by the tragedy.

I wanted to say a lot more but I read it back and saw I was just waffling. I don't have very muchuseful to attach to the debate except that I think bullying and/or abuse are often behind these tragedies. If these are cracked down upon then I would assume these happenings would get rarer, which would be one hell of a blessing.

[Trog]

Maybe we're restricted due to lack of funding?

Ah. Good point.

Well, kids are always going to pick on other kids, whether they are told not to or not. I think that is much more difficult to stop. Building up kids' self esteem to not take getting picked on without it having a great effect (it will always have some, face it) on their emotional stability, I think, is the better route. Raise their emotional AC.

There is no good and no bad... but thinking makes it so.

[Serpentine]

Cops/security guards with guns, on the other hand, would be better.
I cannot stress enough how very very much I disagree with this. I find the idea of waving guns around innocent kids incredibly horrible. A school is not and should not even remotely resemble a prison. The... fact, I suppose, that anyone feels that such measures are necessary I think indicates a problem far wider than merely the school yard. I'll leave it at that. As pointed out, "gun control" is not to be discussed here. Of course, it's not exactly a political issue here... We have it, and that's that.

[CrazedGoblin]

its horrible these things happen.

[smellie_hippie]

I cannot stress enough how very very much I disagree with this. I find the idea of waving guns around innocent kids incredibly horrible. A school is not and should not even remotely resemble a prison. The... fact, I suppose, that anyone feels that such measures are necessary I think indicates a problem far wider than merely the school yard. I'll leave it at that. As pointed out, "gun control" is not to be discussed here. Of course, it's not exactly a political issue here... We have it, and that's that.

Yeah, I'm kinda with you on this one Serp. Officers in a school setting have (or should be) trained in effective means of restraint or intervention. These are trained officers who are much larger than the juveniles they are monitoring. They're also vested at all times.

The best first approach to handle an impending outbreak is having the other students feel confident and safe enough to report it to staff or the authorities. It's more important to feel SAFE than to worry if someone thinks you're a narc. If you hear something about a threat... TELL SOMEONE!

[CrazedGoblin]

if you hear something about a threat... TELL SOMEONE!

If you get it wrong you will be in serious trouble, it isent as easy you think

[Closet_Skeleton]

Well, kids are always going to pick on other kids, whether they are told not to or not.

It's basic primate behavior to pick on other animals.

Also very annoying.

[smellie_hippie]

If you get it wrong you will be in serious trouble, it isent as easy you think

That may be... but I'd rather get in trouble for reporting what I thought was a threat, than carry the guilty conscience of not reporting what turned into an actual incident.

I don't want that to sound harsh (too late) but making every effort to avoid a confrontation is always the best solution.

[Solo]

I cannot stress enough how very very much I disagree with this. I find the idea of waving guns around innocent kids incredibly horrible.

Since when do police officers go around "waving guns" in front of kids?


Do you have any data available that would indicate that the presence of police officers on campus has a detrimental effect on the student body? Or are you basing your opinion on emotion rather than fact?

If you want to answer me, but feel that it would be too political, feel free to PM me.


A school is not and should not even remotely resemble a prison.
Police and security do not a prison make.



You seem to be against police officers in schools for reasons that are not quite clear, and do not seem to be especially logical. Would you please elaborate so that I may understand your position more?



If you get it wrong you will be in serious trouble, it isent as easy you think
Praytell how I would be in serious trouble if I reported that a fellow student mentioned that he was going to shoot up the school.

I told no lies, nor am I making threats, nor am I intentionally causing panic at the school. I simply report what he said to me that I found suspicious.

What is wrong?

[Lemur]

If you get it wrong you will be in serious trouble, it isent as easy you think

It's not only that, but identifying an actual threat from a nonserious one isn't exactly a cakewalk. Idle "threats" and jokes about violence are quite common- it only becomes "obvious" what was really meant until after the fact. Everything makes sense in hindsight.

It's not just about risking getting yourself in trouble, but also getting an innocent person in trouble. Not just in trouble, the kid's life (which probably wasn't peachy keen to start with) will basically become hell as parents and teachers crack down on them, and their peers become suspicious of them, all because of what may have been an offhand comment. You have to be damn certain that someone really means it if you're going to risk mucking up their life so badly.

[Solo]

It's not only that, but identifying an actual threat from a nonserious one isn't exactly a cakewalk. Idle "threats" and jokes about violence are quite common- it only becomes "obvious" what was really meant until after the fact. Everything makes sense in hindsight.

It's not just about risking getting yourself in trouble, but also getting an innocent person in trouble. Not just in trouble, the kid's life (which probably wasn't peachy keen to start with) will basically become hell as parents and teachers crack down on them, and their peers become suspicious of them, all because of what may have been an offhand comment. You have to be damn certain that someone really means it if you're going to risk mucking up their life so badly.

Perhaps they should have had the foresight to not make casual jokes about school shootings in school, especially considering the social climate?

[Lemur]

Perhaps they should have had the foresight to not make casual jokes about school shootings in school, especially considering the social climate?

Well, yeah, right after a school shooting occurs, anyone who does that sort of thing is just stupid. But that's because people become paranoid and start interpreting minor things as serious dangers (also such things simply aren't funny in close proximity to the real thing). Without a backdrop of tragedy, however, nonserious comments involving violence are common in ordinary life for many people, and I don't think it's fair to treat them like murderers for doing so.

[Solo]

Well, yeah, right after a school shooting occurs, anyone who does that sort of thing is just stupid. But that's because people become paranoid and start interpreting minor things as serious dangers (also such things simply aren't funny in close proximity to the real thing). Without a backdrop of tragedy, however, nonserious comments involving violence are common in ordinary life for many people, and I don't think it's fair to treat them like murderers for doing so.
Clearly, you and I differ greatly in our opinion of the matter.

[thubby]

What is wrong?
it doesn't have to make sense, you do, simple fact.

[Solo]

it doesn't have to make sense, you do, simple fact.
I'm fairly certain you have something wrong with your sentence's grammar.

What are you trying to say?

[Saithis Bladewing]

I think it's bad that my first reaction to this wasn't "that's horrible" but "oh, another one..."

[CrazedGoblin]

It's not only that, but identifying an actual threat from a nonserious one isn't exactly a cakewalk. Idle "threats" and jokes about violence are quite common- it only becomes "obvious" what was really meant until after the fact. Everything makes sense in hindsight.

It's not just about risking getting yourself in trouble, but also getting an innocent person in trouble. Not just in trouble, the kid's life (which probably wasn't peachy keen to start with) will basically become hell as parents and teachers crack down on them, and their peers become suspicious of them, all because of what may have been an offhand comment. You have to be damn certain that someone really means it if you're going to risk mucking up their life so badly.

i agree, yup



I think it's bad that my first reaction to this wasn't "that's horrible" but "oh, another one..."

i know i thought this aswell :smallfrown:

[PlatinumJester]

In the Metro today there was a 5 sentence paragraph on this and an entire full page article on the different types of dog at a dog show.


That kind of pissed me off.

[Exeson]

In the Metro today there was a 5 sentence paragraph on this and an entire full page article on the different types of dog at a dog show.


That kind of pissed me off.

Its the Metro, its free, please tell me you didn't expect it to be good or even the slightest bit relevant.

[PlatinumJester]

Its the Metro, its free, please tell me you didn't expect it to be good did you?

No but still. You would expect it to focus abit more on that then on dogs. Though the TMNT dog was quite cool but thats not the point. I'm complaining about it in socialogoy tomorrow.

[CrazedGoblin]

I'm complaining about it in socialogoy tomorrow.

make sure it ISENT in politics, the last time you bought something up the guy wouldnt shut up....

[A Rainy Knight]

3. Adolescent children are unpredictable.
I don't really think of myself as such, but I agree that it's much safer to assume the worst. It just gets tiring being profiled by my age, even if it is true for many others.

[Gygaxphobia]

No but still. You would expect it to focus abit more on that then on dogs. Though the TMNT dog was quite cool but thats not the point. I'm complaining about it in socialogoy tomorrow.

I'm praising it in Economics today! Off topic but still the Metro is a masterpiece in delivery and target marketing.


1. Adolescents with mental health issues and/or medications are even more unpredictable.

And while I'm here, the point of medication is that it stabilises, not creates further problems.

[Exeson]

I'm praising it in Economics today! Off topic but still the Metro is a masterpiece in delivery and target marketing.

Thats is because pretty much the whole thing is advertisements.

But anyway, I really hope that with this and all the other shootings that have happened recently people start getting clued up about it.

[thubby]

I'm fairly certain you have something wrong with your sentence's grammar.

What are you trying to say?

thats what i get for rushing. xP

im saying that if you report something like you suggest, and turn out to be wrong, you will get in trouble. it makes no sense but its the truth.
no one listens to kids, anything they say is automatically dismissed as childish no matter how good a point or how important it may be. its sad to watch really.

[Gygaxphobia]

Thats is because pretty much the whole thing is advertisements.

But anyway, I really hope that with this and all the other shootings that have happened recently people start getting clued up about it.

If that was it, then no one would read it and the adverts would be worthless. Actually what it does best is short, 'soft' news so commuters with short attention spans.

To bring us back... why are school shootings so much more common than other massacres?
Commuters get tired and frustrated, they have the same influences and medical/mental issues. Even more access to money and weaponry.
Youngsters have one more thing, self-absorption and one less thing, coping.

And also, why only in the US? Does it happen anywhere else?

[smellie_hippie]

Rainy Knight: Thank you for pointing that out... everyone's unpredictable! It's just that everyone assumes that raging hormones make adolescents even more unpredictable. That's why it was a questionable belief... I agree with you, stereotyping = BAD.

Gygaxphobia: Medications are indeed designed to help create more stability, just also pointing out the flawed logic that a "kid on meds are a problem". No... a kid on meds probably has problems, but is working on correcting them.

[Crow]

Interesting that landadmiral's post was scrubbed, but the original post where the OP throws out their own inflammatory "gun conrol" statement is ignored.

How about a scrub on that particular line, Roland? Let's see some even-handed moderation.

[Solo]

If that was it, then no one would read it and the adverts would be worthless. Actually what it does best is short, 'soft' news so commuters with short attention spans.

To bring us back... why are school shootings so much more common than other massacres?
Commuters get tired and frustrated, they have the same influences and medical/mental issues. Even more access to money and weaponry.
Youngsters have one more thing, self-absorption and one less thing, coping.

And also, why only in the US? Does it happen anywhere else?

Well, very few other countries have guns, so they don't really have school shootings.

That's not to say that those countries don't have school violence problems of their own.

And school shootings are really rare crimes. Its just that the media blows them out of proportion. Read the excerpt from my psychology text book that I posted a while back.

[Serpentine]

Since when do police officers go around "waving guns" in front of kids?
What, you haven't seen that footage? The image of a police officer with his gun drawn and pointed at cowering teenagers was pretty horrific to me.


Do you have any data available that would indicate that the presence of police officers on campus has a detrimental effect on the student body? Or are you basing your opinion on emotion rather than fact?
No. Where's your data to indicate that it doesn't? I think it's much more likely to have a bad effect than a good one, though. Unless, of course, the gun culture has become so ingrained, and the idea that you need guns to protect from guns so widely accepted that even students can only feel safe from guns when they're surrounded by them... I don't think that reflects very well on the society, though.


If you want to answer me, but feel that it would be too political, feel free to PM me.
I may do so, if this is scrubbable.



Police and security do not a prison make.
No, but it makes a damn good impersonation.



You seem to be against police officers in schools for reasons that are not quite clear, and do not seem to be especially logical. Would you please elaborate so that I may understand your position more?
Possibly this is simply a difference in societies. At my high school, they had a security guard once. The night before Muckup Day. To stop students from coming in and vandalising the place. The idea that anyone could think that children require guarding, that they're dangerous beasts that need to be restrained and watched and protected from each other, furthermore that they this needs to be done with deadly weapons, is absolutely horrific to me. If there were ever a shooting here (and I don't believe I've ever heard of one. There was a ruckus because one kid got caught with a hitlist, but that's it), there would be an inquiry into how the person got his hands on a gun, someone would be punished for his acquisition, students would be counselled, and there would probably be a push for further control over bullying etc. Throwing ever more fear into the mix is not a good answer.
By the way, so far as I can tell, violence is much less a feature of school life here (Australia). I have heard of some nasty stuff, but people getting beaten up doesn't seem to happen anywhere near as regularly. Occasional fights are about it.

[Solo]

What, you haven't seen that footage? The image of a police officer with his gun drawn and pointed at cowering teenagers was pretty horrific to me.

In ordinary practice, a police officer does not go around waving his weapon around unless there is someone doing illegal activities. I have never heard of case where a school police officer went about waving his weapon in front of students or making them feel uncomfortable.

From my experience, most students felt safer around the campus police officer.

If you went to a US high school, I'd ask for the student opinion on campus police officers where you go to school, but since you go to Austrailia...



No. Where's your data to indicate that it doesn't? I think it's much more likely to have a bad effect than a good one, though.

You claim that police officers have a detrimental effect in schools. It is up to you to provide proof.

If you're just going along with your gut feeling, then you do not have anythign solid to stand on. Your own feelings are biased, and are therefore not objective enough to be counted on.


Unless, of course, the gun culture has become so ingrained, and the idea that you need guns to protect from guns so widely accepted that even students can only feel safe from guns when they're surrounded by them... I don't think that reflects very well on the society, though.

Question: How do you protect from guns without guns, in your opinion?

I'd ask you what's wrong with guns, but that would be too poltical, I suspect.

You seem to think that a civilization without weapons is better than one with them. Let me assure you that this is not true.

You can have a society wtih a lot of guns that is peaceful (Swizerland), a society with guns that is violent (Well, the US is more violent than many other countries, so I'll put that here), a society without guns that is peaceful (Japan, post WW2), and a society without guns that is violent (the main weapons used in the Rwandan Genocide were matchetes and clubs, not AK-47s, according to my history teacher. Rwanda, however, is not a First World country, so a better example would probably be Europe (http://www.nationmaster.com/article/Crime-Rates-Around-the-World) whose crime rates are in fact rising, even as the US crime rates are declining. ).

Having guns doesn't make a country more violent, being berift of guns doesn't make a country peaceful.

Crime is a complex socio-cultural phenomina that has a variety of causes, none of which is simple to explain. (Got that gem from my psychology text book too.)



No, but it makes a damn good impersonation.

I honestly never felt that way. I personally feel comfortable around the police. They are, in general, good people who are here to help and protect us.

I likewise feel comfortable around weapons, as I understand a great deal about them, how they work, and how they are used.

Knowledge prevents fear.



Possibly this is simply a difference in societies. At my high school, they had a security guard once. The night before Muckup Day. To stop students from coming in and vandalising the place. The idea that anyone could think that children require guarding, that they're dangerous beasts that need to be restrained and watched and protected from each other, furthermore that they this needs to be done with deadly weapons, is absolutely horrific to me.

The police officer is there to protect students from threats to their safety, not because people think students are bad and untrustworthy. I have never said that I find students to be "dangerous beasts". Nothing on the thread has suggested that anyone mistrusts students to that degree. You are the first person to use the term "dangerous beasts" or anything of the sort. (Or did I miss something? Its entirely possible there's a post in this thread that refers to students poorly, but I missed it. If so, could you quote it?)

Where you get that idea that I consider students dangerous is beyond me.

(You know, I am reminded of Projection. Psychological projection is a defense mechanism in which one attributes to others one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the ego recognize them.)

The police (in the US at least) do not exist to control ordinary citizens. They are here to protect people.

In addition, I would like to point out there is a difference between blindly fearing something, and instituting policies out of fear, and responding to the situation in a rational and appropriate manner. I advocate a greater police presence in schools because doing so would make kids safer, and not out of blind fear.



By the way, so far as I can tell, violence is much less a feature of school life here (Australia). I have heard of some nasty stuff, but people getting beaten up doesn't seem to happen anywhere near as regularly. Occasional fights are about it.

School shootings, let me remind you again, are rare occurrences. This comes from my psychology text book, which was written by experts who are, as I understand it, more knowledgeable than you and I in this field.

The data is a few years old, but it would seem that school violence in the US is in fact declining. (http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu/violence-in-schools/national-statistics.html)

(I am sorry if I am being condescending again, but I don't think you have all the facts right in this case. Not that I'm saying you should be an expert on US problems: being Australian, you obviously have other, more important things to worry about than problems in foreign schools.)

[LCR]

There are school shootings in other countries, too. Maybe it's just not as present in your news. Also, guns are not as widely or easily available in other countries as they are in the US. Suggesting that pupils have the same problems all around the world, it is likely that, if they don't have access to firearms, they choose "ordinary" suicide, knives or even bombs.

[Solo]

There are school shootings in other countries, too. Maybe it's just not as present in your news. Also, guns are not as widely or easily available in other countries as they are in the US. Suggesting that pupils have the same problems all around the world, it is likely that, if they don't have access to firearms, they choose "ordinary" suicide, knives or even bombs.

School knifings happen in Japan, though they seem about in frequent there as school shootings here. Perhaps moreso.

[LCR]

Well, Japan sure has a rich tradition of stabbing.
My own personal (totally unscientific) theory is that it is easy to run amok with a gun in your hand, yet kind of hard to do so with a knife (limited reach, considerable skill required once you have to face opponents ...).
So, why does it seem like most school shootings happen in America?

- The US are a large country with a large population. Of course there is an overall greater number of crimes.
- America seems somewhat overrepresented in our (German) press. While we don't have much news in the mainstream media from, say, Poland, every tabloid seems to cover the downfall of a Senator who happened to look for some fun in the airport bathroom.
- Gun access is easier in the US than it is in other countries. While there might be an equal number of potential school shooters, incidents in Europe (or elsewhere) are less common, because guns are hard to come by.

[Solo]

Well, Japan sure has a rich tradition of stabbing.
My own personal (totally unscientific) theory is that it is easy to run amok with a gun in your hand, yet kind of hard to do so with a knife (limited reach, considerable skill required once you have to face opponents ...).


Don Diego de la Vega: Do you know how to use that thing?
Alejandro Murrieta: Yes. The pointy end goes into the other man.

[LCR]

What I mean is that you can easily take on 3+ people with a firearm while you cannot do the same with a knife unless you're skilled.

[Solo]

"The Mask of Zorro" was quoted for humor purposes.

[Kitya]

Ok, living as close as I do to Ohio, I get all my newscasts from Ohio, so, as you can imagine, this event has been in the news a lot.

First off, the parents of the students of this school had been trying to get extra security, metal detectors, etc, for their school for the past 2 years. The Board didn't think it was necessary.

There were students who informed teachers that this particular student had been heard making threats. Those students were ignored.

The student in question was under suspension when he decided on this course of action... which explains why he was targeting teachers. He wasn't even supposed to be on school grounds. This wasn't as much a case of a boy being bullied, as a boy being ticked that his teachers suspended him for bad behavior.

What I find even more disturbing is the case in Pennsylvania where, school authorities were notified by a student, and the authorities actually listened.. police showed up at the boy's home and discovered a multitude of BB guns in different sizes, grenades, and actual handguns and assault weapons... He was planning a "Columbine type" attack. I am thankful that the authorities found him before he was able to pull this off, but what is disturbing is that, his MOTHER bought the handguns and assault rifle for him. She is being charged.

http://www.wcpo.com/news/national/story.aspx?content_id=29340a23-13ed-4a32-9894-9a6206cecc08

this article has a photo of all the weaponry found in his room... oh yeah.. forgot all the knives too...
http://www.wcpo.com/news/national/story.aspx?content_id=40d5a750-df36-4ec4-8943-20821d079f28

[Solo]

Ok, living as close as I do to Ohio, I get all my newscasts from Ohio, so, as you can imagine, this event has been in the news a lot.

First off, the parents of the students of this school had been trying to get extra security, metal detectors, etc, for their school for the past 2 years. The Board didn't think it was necessary.

There were students who informed teachers that this particular student had been heard making threats. Those students were ignored.

The student in question was under suspension when he decided on this course of action... which explains why he was targeting teachers. He wasn't even supposed to be on school grounds. This wasn't as much a case of a boy being bullied, as a boy being ticked that his teachers suspended him for bad behavior.

I hope the school learned its lesson.

Wonder if they'll get enough funding to tighten up security?




What I find even more disturbing is the case in Pennsylvania where, school authorities were notified by a student, and the authorities actually listened

Bravo. At last, something positive happens.

Would anyone who previously said it was a bad idea to report suspicious individuals care to comment on this case?


As for the rest,

What kind of mother makes a straw purchase to get her underaged son firearms?

Geez, talk about bad parenting.


Ok, now for the article and photo: It says they found



Police found a 9mm assault rifle, hand grenades, air guns, knifes, a bomb-making book, videos of the 1999 Columbine school attack and violence-filled notebooks. No ammunition was found for the assault rifle.

The other article says



The boy's mother was charged today with buying her son a .22-caliber handgun, a .22-caliber rifle and a 9-millimeter semiautomatic rifle.

An assault rifle is an automatic firearm, highly regulated, and extremely expensive as a result of regulation (unless bought illegally, but I don't think the parents bought the gun illegally).

I find it highly unlikely that the boy has a real automatic weapon bought by his parents. More likely, it was a semiautomatic weapon that looked like an automatic one.

The rest of the stuff in the photo is therefore airguns (unimportant, but he sure had a lot of them. Don't let them throw you off) and knives.

So in conclusion, the boy had a pair of .22 caliber weapons, a semi automatic 9mm rifle, and knives he was planning to use, but no ammo for any of them, though ammo could probably have been acquired somehow.


It appears his father is a felon. Don't know about his mother, but I think it safe to say she's pretty dumb, judging by her actions.

To quote, "Worst parents ever."

[SurlySeraph]

Would anyone who previously said it was a bad idea to report suspicious individuals care to comment on this case?

I think you misinterpreted them a bit. Everyone agrees that, overall, it's good to report people who are likely to commit a school shooting. However, since you WILL get in a lot of trouble if you incorrectly accuse someone of plotting a shooting, a lot of people would not report anyone for making threats, because the odds that the person isn't actually dangerous and that they'll get suspended/ called an idiot/ lose all their friends outweigh the odds that the person is dangerous and they're saving lives. Yes, it's much smarter to take the risk of making a false accusation and getting in trouble than taking the risk of getting someone killed, but not everyone has the courage to do that.



An assault rifle is an automatic firearm, highly regulated, and extremely expensive as a result of regulation (unless bought illegally, but I don't think the parents bought the gun illegally).

I find it highly unlikely that the boy has a real automatic weapon bought by his parents. More likely, it was a semiautomatic weapon that looked like an automatic one.

Well, the Assault Weapons Ban has expired so you can buy weapons that are officially considered assault weapons, but that's just a matter of semantics. You're right that it's probably semiautomatic.


It appears his father is a felon. Don't know about his mother, but I think it safe to say she's pretty dumb, judging by her actions.

To quote, "Worst parents ever."

Well, given the number of airsoft guns that kid has it seems that his parents were trying to indulge his hobby/ love of violent weapons. .22s SEEM pretty innocuous because the bullets are so small - they're usually used for target shooting and a single .22 bullet is unlikely to kill someone if it doesn't hit a major artery or an organ. Still, they should have known better.

[Solo]

The assault weapons banned by the 1994 ban were semiautomatic. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_assault_weapons_ban)

Automatic weapons are regulated by the National Firearms Act. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act)

[Crow]

"Assault Weapon" is a misleading term. The majority of the criteria used to determine if a weapon is an "assault weapon" is asthetic rather than functional.

[Abracadabra]

Yes, there have been female serial killers, such as Aileen Wuornos. But there have been far more male serial killers. As for school shooters, I haven't done the research, but I don't remember ever hearing about a female one. Or one who wasn't described as a "troubled loner," for that matter. :smallyuk:

I have actually done the research. I'm working on a book involving the topic. There have been 2 females involved in a shooting on a school campus. However, they do not fit the (what you might call) profile of a school shooter.

The first one was in 1979 by a 16 year old female named Brenda Ann Spencer. She shot up the playground of an elementary school from across the street in her residence. So in this case she did not attend the school, nor was she targeting any one specifically. She was however on drugs, abused as a child, and suffered severe mental problems.

The second I didn't collect as much data on. From what I remember, however, it was early to mid 80s and the woman was pushing 40. Didn't even come close to the "profile" as it were.

And yes I realize there is no profile, but the term school shooting evokes a certain mental image and stereotype.

I hope this was helpful.

[Solo]

Please let us know when the book comes out. It sounds interesting.