PDA

View Full Version : Another School Shooting



Harker1440
12-14-2012, 01:14 PM
According to the Associated Press 27 Dead 18 victims are ELEMENTARY SCHOOL students. Where I live the ages of elementary school start at 5 for Kindergarten to age 11 for 5th grade
WOW whats the world coming to ??

]-[ @ n $ 0 |v| a T !
12-14-2012, 01:19 PM
Heartbreaking...

There are no words.

slang05
12-14-2012, 01:20 PM
I honestly feel sick to my stomach. My wife and I were just talking about going to get our kids out of school and we live 1800 miles away. I just can't fathom why someone would murder children.. Absolutely disgusting. Worst part is the guy is dead..I hope someone got to kill him and he didn't just put a gun in his mouth.

Harker1440
12-14-2012, 01:26 PM
Im on my way home now to get my kids from school,

WEDGE
12-14-2012, 01:28 PM
I live less than an hour from there.....

LSchefman
12-14-2012, 01:29 PM
Insanity.

Dirty Bob
12-14-2012, 01:35 PM
My nephew and niece are in lockdown up there right now...my aunt works in the Newtown school district as well...thankfully not in Sandy Hook. I have other friends with their children in the Newtown schools....I spend alot of time in the Bethel/Newtown area...Fairfield County, CT borders Westchester, NY...not an area where you would think stuff like this happens...its peaceful...its quiet....I mean I get ice cream all the time up there from a stand at a dairy farm............absolutely shattering and heartbreaking...very very worried about everyone right now.

newfmp3
12-14-2012, 01:35 PM
Insanity is one thing, this is just Evil.

CoreyT
12-14-2012, 01:39 PM
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/14/15907407-26-dead-after-gunman-assaults-connecticut-elementary-school-official-says?lite

I hope the shooter is alive so he can go to prison and get butt raped by bubba daily.

AP515
12-14-2012, 01:44 PM
I hope someone got to kill him and he didn't just put a gun in his mouth.

Not likely since guns are not allowed, for anyone to defend themselves, on school grounds. If every teacher, administrator and janitor there (who wanted to) was packing, there may have been a different outcome. My heart goes out to those affected.

Shawn@PRS
12-14-2012, 01:49 PM
What is wrong with people? Why can't they just play guitar and mellow the hell out?

iahawk36
12-14-2012, 01:53 PM
So sad....hug you kids a little tighter tonight everyone. :(

sergiodeblanc
12-14-2012, 02:03 PM
Insanity is one thing, this is just Evil.

I try really hard to empathize with people before passing judgement, but with situations like this I just can't do it. Shooting children? What kind of a statement could this twenty year old be trying to make? Nothing but wickedness.

Mikegarveyblues
12-14-2012, 04:01 PM
What's wrong with the world these days?!

I cannot comprehend how someone can commit such an act. My heart goes out to the children, the parents, and teachers at this time.

WEDGE
12-14-2012, 04:04 PM
Heard the shooter was a 20 yr old, went into his mothers class where she was teaching, and shot her dead before going off with the guns.....

CoreyT
12-14-2012, 04:06 PM
Younger brother was involved too.
http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20121214/US.Connecticut.School.Shooting.Suspect/

LSchefman
12-14-2012, 04:25 PM
Insanity is one thing, this is just Evil.

What I meant was the whole situation is insane. A son kills his mother and a bunch of little kids with a gun in a school.

Update: CNN says that three guns were found with the kid, at least 100 rounds were fired, and they found a brother dead at another location that was searched.

Artist
12-14-2012, 05:22 PM
This is just out of control. Extremely sad.

justmund
12-14-2012, 06:08 PM
I want to write something but it's against the forum rules. All I will say is something must be done, this has happened way too many times i.e. more than never.

]-[ @ n $ 0 |v| a T !
12-14-2012, 06:39 PM
Thank you to all of you for expressing your sincere feelings in a way that has allowed this thread to exist without a single deleted or edited post.

John Scrip
12-14-2012, 08:52 PM
Not likely since guns are not allowed, for anyone to defend themselves, on school grounds. If every teacher, administrator and janitor there (who wanted to) was packing, there may have been a different outcome. My heart goes out to those affected.
A somewhat "risky" train of thought when wrapped up in the music industry - but one which I happen to agree with 100%.

"Gun Free Zone" is a fantasy. And in countries where guns aren't the problem, something else always is (Just yesterday in China - AGAIN, a maniac went through an elementary school slashing children with a knife).

Mikegarveyblues
12-14-2012, 09:58 PM
I hope we never have to go down the path where teachers and other school workers carry loaded guns. That thought chills me.

Sadly, upping security at schools, colleges and universities will need to be looked at but I hope there's other options.

There's just been too many tragic stories like this (Worldwide) the past few years. I'll never be able to get my head around the hows and why's. Just senseless.

slang05
12-14-2012, 10:03 PM
Something has to change to stop this kind of thing. I don't know if it's stricter gun laws (I know guns don't kill people, people do..but guns make it a whole lot easier) better treatment and detection of mental illness or arming teachers.. I dont know the answer, but we cant just do nothing. Something has to change. If it means giving up some rights as a gun owner to save a child's life..I'm in.

rugerpc
12-14-2012, 10:35 PM
Sadly, the places where the most innocent are gathered seem to be targeted. There is a reason you don't hear stories about mass shootings at places like bars known to cater to off duty police and gun club meetings.

In the recent theater shooting, the gunman passed up several theaters which were both closer and showing the exact same movie in favor of the theater which had a no legal concealed guns allowed policy posted.

captdg
12-14-2012, 11:52 PM
Well we outlawed liquor, drugs,prostitution,etc...This might sound insane and Im not a gun nut, but Law Enforcement cant be omnipresent...Maybe we have to get on that slippery slope and arm ourselves...At least when one of these idiots who couldnt get a date in High School bust a spring someone can neutralize him...Im at a loss for idea's.. Even in the wild west or the Al Capone days or Crips and Bloods,they didnt just kill everyone without reason. Am I crazy to think we need a citizen police force armed to the teeth?

vchizzle
12-15-2012, 10:59 AM
My heart goes out to all those affected in this tragedy. Hopefully, Bob, or anyone else here isn't directly involved. We have to take a good hard look at ourselves, America, what we're doing isn't working. I don't know the answers, but this has to stop. You can't point a gun at an innocent child and have a soul. To be honest, no law would've probably stopped this.

Daniel
12-15-2012, 08:32 PM
The murderer's weapon of choice is irrelevant and any discussion wasted on it is just a mask to hide the real problem. America is a country that glorifies murder. It is plastered all across the airwaves everyday and most young adults have grown up with it. Cop shows, serial killer shows, movies of the week. That nutjob grew up seeing parents, government officials and news anchors cheer and high-five each other while watching gun-camera footage of so-called "precision" bombing level houses full of innocent people. If the question is even asked, the answer is always "there are unconfirmed reports of civilian casualties", and it's never mentioned again. The images show men and women clutching their dead children but the sound bite is that the "suspected" were thought to be in the house (or school) and the mission was a success. Our society places no value on the lives of others or their children. How can children growing up here be expected to get it right? Parents? No, they're too busy out working to pay for that new flatscreen, cellphone, golf membership, BMW or McMansion to be bothered with their children. Besides, they have the latest x-box , Halo and Call of Duty, what else could they need?

Dirty Bob
12-15-2012, 10:02 PM
My heart goes out to all those affected in this tragedy. Hopefully, Bob, or anyone else here isn't directly involved. We have to take a good hard look at ourselves, America, what we're doing isn't working. I don't know the answers, but this has to stop. You can't point a gun at an innocent child and have a soul. To be honest, no law would've probably stopped this.

My family members are all ok....thank you. Like everyone in civilized society they are extremely shaken up. As I mentioned my Aunt works in the school district. My cousin was in the same class and went through school with the guy. I'm up in that area with my family a lot....just pure craziness...last place you ever would think something like this would happen.

I have been focused on talking to people about and buying teddy bears...for the teddy bear drives among other things...which seem very paltry given what occurred....children though need to feel like they are doing something to help....something to make an impact on those who are suffering...innocence shattered is terrible....And if a teddy bear can make the kids feel as if they are doing some good for others then so be it. We are seeing my niece and nephew tomorrow...there is talk of the students all convening going forward at my Aunt's school....or a school in a neighboring town....crazy stuff....I mean who the heck would want to go back to that building? All the other talk for the moment at least for now is a bit removed from the realities of what their community is currently faced with in trying to pick up the pieces...it is all sickening...and heart wrenching.

LSchefman
12-15-2012, 10:56 PM
I'm not a gun owner. I have no dog in the gun control hunt. But it's obvious that the magic wand of a law controlling gun sales is incapable of solving this mass killing problem because the gun control genie left the bottle a long, long time ago. We already have 270 million guns out there in homes in the US today. Guns can be maintained in working order for a very long time. To think that a law governing gun sales is going to solve this problem is wishful thinking.

At the same time, the idea that a group of armed elementary school teachers could successfully go after an armed gunman in a school like a trained SWAT team does with flash-bangs and assault rifles, and actually accomplish anything is well, good luck with that. Even the cops that responded didn't shoot a single bullet. This stuff happens quickly. It takes time to find a shooter in a building and clear the building. Ask someone in the military with experience doing this. Especially when children are around. In the time it takes to find out what's going on, the shooter's rampage can easily be completed.

So maybe we should focus on another side to this discussion: how do you identify and stop people from acting on violent impulses like this particular shooter? Is it possible to learn what makes people do this? Sure, we can label them as evil, crazy, or both. But what do we really know? I submit, too little.

This is the real problem. We don't know why people do this. We don't know who is likely to do this. We lack understanding of these most basic questions, and moreover, we don't know how to stop them. Yet they are a clear, present danger to our society. They are out there as surely as terror cells, or foreign enemies, or other folks we want to find and keep an eye on. For us to focus on their weapons is not going to help. Regardless of how we feel about weapons, the most basic problem will persist, and may simply manifest itself differently.

We can't stop violence with ignorance, and it's not likely that we stop it by strapping guns on teachers, clergymen, department store clerks, etc, where a lot of the violence seems to be taking place. Rooting these people out is going to take study, time, and patience.

It's just my two cents, but I don't see this problem being solved unless the country is serious about identifying the shooters before they act. And I don't know how you do that. We need to find out.

swede71
12-16-2012, 05:19 AM
Today the so called market dictates a reality the way it is supposed to be not the way it is.Cutting down the way to go including mental institutions.Legalizing drugs an important issue but helping addicts and people gettin sick from drugs soon gone.Its up to us they say.Democracy something we fight for in the middle east.In sweden we have strict weapon laws but still alot of shootings in the past 10 years.Globalisation also means the same problems everywhere.

captdg
12-16-2012, 09:46 AM
The murderer's weapon of choice is irrelevant and any discussion wasted on it is just a mask to hide the real problem. America is a country that glorifies murder. It is plastered all across the airwaves everyday and most young adults have grown up with it. Cop shows, serial killer shows, movies of the week. That nutjob grew up seeing parents, government officials and news anchors cheer and high-five each other while watching gun-camera footage of so-called "precision" bombing level houses full of innocent people. If the question is even asked, the answer is always "there are unconfirmed reports of civilian casualties", and it's never mentioned again. The images show men and women clutching their dead children but the sound bite is that the "suspected" were thought to be in the house (or school) and the mission was a success. Our society places no value on the lives of others or their children. How can children growing up here be expected to get it right? Parents? No, they're too busy out working to pay for that new flatscreen, cellphone, golf membership, BMW or McMansion to be bothered with their children. Besides, they have the latest x-box , Halo and Call of Duty, what else could they need?


Its like people have children as an afterthought, to round out their Curiiculum Vitae..And if and problems come up send them to a counselor or get them a new toy, that will make the problems go away...Daniel you have a sailient point.

LSchefman
12-16-2012, 10:22 AM
Its like people have children as an afterthought, to round out their Curiiculum Vitae..And if and problems come up send them to a counselor or get them a new toy, that will make the problems go away...Daniel you have a sailient point.

I agree that there are a minority of people who probably don't make good parents. But it's also true that there are genetic factors and physical causes for certain kinds of mental illness that are barely understood.

We tend to look for blame in our society, and what we need to do is look for solutions.

docbennett
12-16-2012, 10:49 AM
Anyone ever wonder why there is such a high rate of autism these days? Not saying the shooter had this, but clearly he had severe social problems as are now being documented after the fact.

Anyone think it might have anything to do with the fact that lots of parents have no concept of how to socialize a child...they think that putting them in front of a PBS TV program...or having them listen to "Baby Einstein" is going to rear their children for them?? And play dates that are designed as status props for the parents as opposed to actual opportunities for the child to socialize.

I am of the opinion that the high rate of autism and Asbergers and other "funny looking kid" syndromes has A LOT to do with the indifferent parenting that I see on a daily basis.

Mikegarveyblues
12-16-2012, 12:34 PM
I had a brother with Aspergers Syndrome and other mental issues. Although it can be genetic it seems he was an unfortunate one off. My parents did everything they could for him but it proved too much and he spent a large part of his childhood and early adult life in special schools and care homes. Eventually, the government changed how it dealt with people with mental issues. Once again we had to deal with a now grown man and where not really equipped to do so.

What I will say is this. His condition meant he could at times be a little agressive. Brought about by frustration. He dealt with abuse from people in society who saw him as an easy target. Ultimately, he only hurt one person and that was himself.

What this guy did was wholly different. It was cold and methodical. It seems he may have had some personality disorder. Did that lead him to do what he did? Who knows. Lets not start a witch hunt on those with mental disorders or their parents who may have done everything they could.

I do see a lot of bad parenting these days, there's no doubt. It quite possibly is contributing to societys ills.

You can't take someone with a form of autism and just 'socialise' them. That is their main disability. You can't bloody well cure it by being a perfect parent.

The rate of autism is growing. Aspergers is still a fairly new and not veryu well understood type of autism. Are rates rising becaue they're getting better at diagnosing it? Is it environmental?

People with mental problems are a heck of a lot more likely to be victims than be the ones who carry out attacks of some decription.

It's all too easy to point and blame.

Really... We seem to be good at trying to cure the symptoms but ignore the cause. Although, it seems we think the cure is to ignore. Perhaps it's because when we dig deep we don't like what we see. Attaching blame and pointing fingers is just an easy way of dealing with a situation. We can go "Hey, he had autism, schizophrenia, bi-polar, whatever, that's why he did it" and move on because we think we had an easy answer. And that's what'll happen to the averge person. They'll forget about it and move on. Until it happens again. And then they'll look for the next excuse.

Shawn@PRS
12-16-2012, 12:39 PM
Two siblings can be raised with the same parents and the same household and yet one becomes a neurosurgeon and one becomes a bum. It that poor parenting? Like Mike said, mental issues cannot be overcome with"perfect parenting".

LSchefman
12-16-2012, 01:24 PM
Two siblings can be raised with the same parents and the same household and yet one becomes a neurosurgeon and one becomes a bum. It that poor parenting? Like Mike said, mental issues cannot be overcome with"perfect parenting".

Totally agree.

docbennett
12-16-2012, 01:35 PM
Don't think there is such a thing as "perfect parenting". But I do believe that there is an increase in "impaired parenting". And I'd never imply that an illness that one has a genetic predisposition to is the fault of the parents. It's just that there is such a dramatic increase in the incidence of the illness that you try to seek the variables involved. Seems to be another situation in which both "nature' and "nurture" play a role.

Shawn@PRS
12-16-2012, 02:20 PM
The same arguments you are making have been made against the parents of every generation. looked at the "kids" from the roaring '20's or the Bobby Soxers or the hippie kids in the '60's people were saying "bad parenting" when they say the behavior of those young people too. Why are we see ing more instances of mental issues? First we have to ask, are we really seeing an increase or has a 24 hour news cycle made this behavior more apparent? Or perhaps some people would like us to believe that we need to ingest more pharmaceuticals so they create more "conditions" for us to treat? For the sake of argument let's just say we are seeing an increase in mental issues. Maybe there are some environmental issues at play? Has anyone done a study on the effect our food chain has on our minds? Artificial flavors and colors and chemicals I can even pronounce. Have we really looked into what these do to our mental health, because we know they are killing our bodies. Also, we live in a much more sedentary world. We sit most of our lives, while our ancestors were for the most part doing phusical labor or before that hunting and farming to survive. Exercise does amazing things for ones mental health. The lackadaisical parenting argument doesn't hold water.

Dirty Bob
12-16-2012, 02:29 PM
Gentlemen please keep in mind that the autistic spectrum denotes a neurodevelopmental condition from birth as opposed to a mental illness...two very very different conversations and not really related. I actually think the autistic spectrum even being associated with this incident is way off base.

Shawn@PRS
12-16-2012, 03:00 PM
Gentlemen please keep in mind that the autistic spectrum denotes a neurodevelopmental condition from birth as opposed to a mental illness...two very very different conversations and not really related. I actually think the autistic spectrum even being associated with this incident is way off base.

Hi Bob,

I'm not trying to disparage autism or any other condition, I'm simply stating that we need to look at the cause and effect and we cannot simply say that any kid with an issue is because they have parents who are not trying hard enough.

docbennett
12-16-2012, 03:51 PM
Shawn...I think he's more critical of my comments, and more in agreement with yours. I will agree that autism is a pervasive developmental disorder, but I will disagree with the comment that it is purely a neurodevelopmental condition. There is copious evidence and research to support the fact that there are non-genetic (environmental) markers in many cases, and there is still quite a bit that is unknown with regard to the etiology of this condition. As Shawn stated, if we find out in 10 years that autism is statistically more prevalent in households that used a certain type of toothpaste, it will demonstrate the huge array of possibilities that can be attempted to be accounted for.

Dirty Bob
12-16-2012, 04:35 PM
Hi Bob,

I'm not trying to disparage autism or any other condition, I'm simply stating that we need to look at the cause and effect and we cannot simply say that any kid with an issue is because they have parents who are not trying hard enough.

Shawn the Doc is correct I was not disagreeing with you. I took issue with the autistic spectrum being lumped in with standard psychological disorders. I have seen a tremendous amount of misinformation in the media regarding autism. There are more questions than answers in relation to the spectrum(the very definition of it is in a state of relative flux...with lines constantly being redefined). I also took issue with the indifferent parenting comment Doc. I am not looking for an argument here but that would be a pretty tough pill for a lot of Parents who dedicate their lives to their children's early intervention efforts in hoping And working toward and for a solution.

AP515
12-16-2012, 04:39 PM
In my view we are all struggling to find the same answers. It isn't gun control, thought something regarding easy access is needed. It is a miserable condemnation of how we have treated out mentally ill. I have seen the alarming increase in Autism, but so has the medical community and still no answers. I too agree that our food chain is not healthy. There are so many things hidden in these problems that need changing, it is nearly an impossible task. The one thing that is possible is to raise your own family in love and with the expectation of responsibility, and one at a time we can change world. It is by no means a quick solution, but without it we continue the decline.

sergiodeblanc
12-16-2012, 05:16 PM
All of the answers we seek are available here. http://www.davidicke.com/articles/reptilian-agenda-mainmenu-43

docbennett
12-16-2012, 05:17 PM
Shawn the Doc is correct I was not disagreeing with you. I took issue with the autistic spectrum being lumped in with standard psychological disorders. I have seen a tremendous amount of misinformation in the media regarding autism. There are more questions than answers in relation to the spectrum(the very definition of it is in a state of relative flux...with lines constantly being redefined). I also took issue with the indifferent parenting comment Doc. I am not looking for an argument here but that would be a pretty tough pill for a lot of Parents who dedicate their lives to their children's early intervention efforts in hoping And working toward and for a solution.


I will agree with your comments to the extent that it is an ongoing debate and topic of research. And clearly, the outcome of an impaired child despite the best efforts of truly dedicated parents is not only a tragedy, but it underscores the bitterness that would be expected to be directed towards anyone who attempted to correlate an impaired child (that was essentially "born that way") with indifferent parents.

However, that being said, I will stick by my assertion that there is a definitely strong connection between "Impaired parenting" and an "Impaired child".
Case in point..the topic of this thread. While the evidence is still being gathered, there appears to be a great deal of information which is basically labeling the shooter as a "troubled child/adolescent/young adult" and a mother who not only collected firearms (including assault rifles???) but who apparently regularly brought her "troubled son" to the range for target practice.

Impaired parenting? The evidence will be forthcoming, and perhaps at this point I have become too subjective to make further comments.

Dirty Bob
12-16-2012, 05:41 PM
I agree not only with strong correlation but also causation in many many instances of impaired parenting and the tragic outcomes that filter down to their offspring neuronormal or not. In terms of that generalization I had no argument and have no issue. Bad parenting is bad parenting. My original reaction had to do with a causation statement in relation to autism. We can only hope further research will help the many families that have been impacted by the difficulties that come with the spectrum disorder.

LSchefman
12-16-2012, 05:59 PM
A lot of good and useful comments have been made.

With more study, we might be able to learn things, and improve our society in numerous ways. It certainly wouldn't hurt to add to our body of knowledge about human beings.

Human beings are complex. And our minds are intricate mechanisms. I think the salient point is that a combination of efforts - scientific, educational, diagnostic, and perhaps legal, is something worth looking at.

Here's a personal observation: Maybe 25 years ago Michigan closed most of its mental hospitals. I was on the Michigan Bar's Committee on the Mentally Disabled, formed to advise the legislature regarding mental health laws at the time. Some patients were put into privatized group settings, and others were simply put out on the streets. At the same time, Michigan's legal system made involuntary commitment more difficult to obtain by concerned families.

This of course reduced access to the mental health system. And most of those who were simply released from hospital care that didn't make it into privately financed group homes simply became homeless, and wandered the streets.

This was not a good outcome, as far as I'm concerned. Often public policy and legal intentions, however much lip service is given to protecting rights, or saving the state money, create additional problems that are not desired by anyone. However desirable certain goals are, it doesn't improve the quality of life in a community for people to be homeless, and many of those folks had no ability to be anything else.

So it is with great care that we should tinker with mental health. In any case, studying the problem does not hurt, and what we learn may help save lives.

LSchefman
12-17-2012, 10:30 AM
Here's an interesting article from one of the Deans at Johns Hopkins who has researched and written a book about school shootings:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/17/opinion/newman-school-shooters/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

swede71
12-17-2012, 11:25 AM
Can anyone over 18 buy an assault rifle in USA.How does it work?As a swede i dont know much about USA and the american people,sure i know the Kardashians and The real housewives so i have to ask.

rugerpc
12-17-2012, 11:57 AM
I have been thinking about the prevention aspect of this. And I'm sad to report that we will never have 100% prevention.

The problem is not the availability of weapons.We may be more efficient about it now, but humans have always had the capacity to kill, even when the only weapons available were our fists and rocks. Discussions about removing the weapons from society are moot. Several nations have tried and failed. 100% removal is not possible and there is some validity to the argument that it leaves the law-abiding even more vulnerable. It is also an impossible task. Criminals will keep their weapons no matter what law we pass - they are the tools of their trade. And the number of law-abiding citizens who will give up their weapons is highly debatable. Some will. Some will passively refuse, convincing themselves that since they are not a threat, their particular guns should not be taken - making them criminals on paper. Some will actively resist enforcement. The number of dead on both sides in those scenarios could easily outstrip the numbers of dead to this point at the hands of serial and spree killers. We cannot change this part: the guns, knives, poisons, fists and rocks are here. They will always be here.

The problem is not books, movies, TV or video games either. Depictions of violence have always been part of every society's story telling and entertainment. From the earliest bushmen telling the story of how a young hunter saved the tribe by killing a raiding tribe's scout to the slow-motion carnage of ridding the Earth of mutants, aliens and zombies. Violence is within all of us. And before you say you are immune to the urges, ask yourself what you would have done if you had a chance to confront any of the latest shooters mid-spree. I'll make it easier for you. Ask yourself what you would do to protect your child. Knowing that the violence is inside us, but we aren't all serial killers or spree-murderers proves that our total immersion in violence from all sides is not slowly nudging us all to become murderous. It is an easy reaction to blame the images around us, but it doesn't wash because with a world population of 6,973,738,433 (and counting), the incidences of murder and mass murder are still rare enough to make the news. My argument here is is that if the violence around us is the source of unleashing the violence within us, we would soon wipe ourselves out and societies would collapse. (not that I don't think we are headed that way eventually for much different reasons).

The problem cannot be solved by increasing security. Ask anyone who deals with security on a regular basis - policemen, insurance adjusters, the military - if security can ever be 100%. You can increase the difficulty of violent interaction, but only by degrees. The answer only approaches yes with complete and utter person to person isolation. Only when every human is locked away, unable to interact with any other human in any way will there be anything like 100% security and safety from each other. Note that we would still be vulnerable to lots of other things. So, short of complete interpersonal isolation, each increasing degree of interpersonal contact increases the chances of violence and decreases security.

The concept of hardening one target to violence by adding more and more security necessarily weakens all other nearby targets. After our home was broken into, we added more security. Our goal was simple. Make our house less of a target when compared to other houses. That puts the onus on both the neighbor and the criminal to respond. Smart neighborhoods band together and make the whole neighborhood less attractive to criminals. The same concepts apply to hardening our schools against gunmen. What about the mall? The stadium? The PARKS! Hardening targets only shifts the danger to new targets. And universal hardening imprisons the innocent. Anything short is not 100% prevention. The gunman at this school bypassed the locked doors by shooting out a window. It was harder for him to gain entrance, but not impossible.

So, the weapons are here and will remain so. The targets are impossible to make 100% safe. What is left.

The shooter in this case, and in almost all of the most recent cases, planned this event. He interacted with people during this planing. If even one person had seen the signs or detected a shift in behavior, perhaps this incident and others, could have been prevented in it's entirety. Please understand that this next bit should not be construed as blame - it is conjecture. The mother had hobbies, among them sport shooting. If there came a time when her son showed any tendency towards violent actions, what should have been the disposition of her personal firearms? Locked up securely? Certainly. Removed from the home entirely? Perhaps. I conjecture this only as an example of what i feel our ultimate path forward to be.

Recognition, prevention, treatment.

We used to house our mentally ill. Many of the institutions were cruel places - prisons for the mentally ill with abuse and neglect. Now we medicate them until they are stable and then return them to society. With poor to no followup systems in place, many are soon off their meds by choice, unfounded reasoning or poverty and right back into their illness. If persons who are at or near a mental break who are or reasonably could expect to be violent were monitored with the same attention we give to other know dangerous situations, how different would this problem be? After the fact we consistently find that the shooters were troubled, that there was a triggering stressor, that they had made threats to themselves or others. I'm sure there were just as many who were on the path to violence and gave no apparent warning signs. And I believe that is the true difficult task at hand.

But what we are going to get instead is feel-good legislation. The laws which will be proposed and probably passed in the wake of this last shooting will be reactionary and visceral. Most likely they will seek to eliminate the weapons. We tried that once. The Assault Weapons Ban of the 80s banned whole classes of firearms and limited magazine capacity. The result - the law abiding had fewer guns, but the number of guns in America did not go down. Crime in America did not go down. Net effect on murder - zero. But people felt better.

We don't need a visceral response/ We don't need an emotional response. We need a true reasoned response. We are not going to get it.

A more reasoned response might be to control weapons better - not by banning whole classes of them - shooters would just shift their interest to the unbanned classes. But what if we expanded the background checks to include the criminal and mental stability of everyone in a gun buyer's household, not just the buyer. No sales to wives of felons, (sorry Mr Liddy), no sales to parents or spouses of mentally ill without strict lockup requirements. (The current regulations for unannounced inspections linked to Class III ownership could be a model for that one.)

While we are controlling the weapons, we could harden the most precious of targets. Schools become prisons. Schoolyards get high masonry walls with concertina wire and guard towers. Buses are armored and get armed security guards. Go ahead laugh. I can see this happening.

Any person who threatens another in any way is institutionalized. Speech and demeanor become as microscopically scrutinized as though we are continuously going through security at the airport.

Let's not forget our culture of violence. Every book, TV show, movie, video game, newspaper, etc. becomes one of the few episodes of Leave It To Beaver or My Three Sons where there was not even the insinuation of discord.

And we'd still miss detecting most of the shooters until it was too late.

I don't know how to fix it. I just know that it sucks.



edit - I posted this before I read Les's posts above. My apologies if I seem to have covered much of the same ground.

rugerpc
12-17-2012, 12:19 PM
Can anyone over 18 buy an assault rifle in USA.How does it work?As a swede i dont know much about USA and the american people,sure i know the Kardashians and The real housewives so i have to ask.

Please, please, please do not equate any TV show or movie with the culture which produced it. How would Swedes feel if we based our view of their peoples on Wallander?

LSchefman
12-17-2012, 12:42 PM
edit - I posted this before I read Les's posts above. My apologies if I seem to have covered much of the same ground.

I think what you posted is really food for thought and good for the discussion.

]-[ @ n $ 0 |v| a T !
12-17-2012, 01:01 PM
I took my daughter to school this morning. I stood there in the cold with my 5-year-old and watched the Mom's as they were catching up with one another - laughing - drinking their coffee from overpriced, thermally superior, coffee mugs - getting ready for another week. It was business as usual. The children were also carefree - also laughing - screaming with delight as they saw each of their friends pull up. No doubt the parents have shielded their children from the news - as I have. I was struggling to maintain my composure the whole time - wondering how so many people could be so casual this day. Didn't they hold their kids a little closer, all weekend, like I did? Perhaps the other parents were struggling as well -- but were doing a much better job of it than I was.

I asked myself this question... "Do I gather up my child, take her home, huddle in the corner of our home, and arrive, safely, eventually, at death? Or do I accept the risks, swallow my fear, and choose to live a way of life so many have died to defend?" I even wondered if carrying my gun more often (legally, of course) was the right answer, despite the fact that I am repulsed at the sight of it. I will most certainly never relinquish my ability... my right... to keep and bear arms. It is the very thing (IMO) that ensures we remain a government of the people, by the people. But at what cost? If I relinquish my right will it finally bring an end to the mistreatment of our precious children in this country? The world?

Last night I watched President Obama's speech in Newtown on YouTube. As he read the names of those beautiful little kids and the teachers who tried to protect them, I lost it. Not just because of the horror they experienced in their last moments, not just for the unspeakable pain their parents must now endure, but because there appears to be no end to the depravity of humanity. Globally, the horror of Shady Hook is just another story in a long line of atrocities - regardless of the weapons used to commit them. And that begs a greater question for me; questions that go well beyond the argument for free will. But... we cannot discuss religion here.

My bottom line: The only thing standing between the wolves of the world and my daughter is me. All I have to do now is figure out how best to do that job. That will be no small feat. Shielding her from the real world is not the answer. At least for today, for me, giving total control to our elected officials (such that we can no longer guarantee we remain a government of the people, by the people) is not the answer either.

swede71
12-17-2012, 01:18 PM
Please, please, please do not equate any TV show or movie with the culture which produced it. How would Swedes feel if we based our view of their peoples on Wallander?
Thats exactly what i meant.We dont know anything about USA.Thats why i asked about the weapons law.Many just say people in USA have weapons without any permits or restrictions.

rugerpc
12-17-2012, 02:06 PM
Thats exactly what i meant.We dont know anything about USA.Thats why i asked about the weapons law.Many just say people in USA have weapons without any permits or restrictions.

All sales of any kind of firearm from a dealer to a citizen are subject to a Federal background check. That is true for all long guns. The sales of hand guns fall under the same requirement with additional restrictions which vary from state to state. Additional restrictions may include waiting periods, training requirements, storage requirements and limitations on how many firearms may be purchased in a certain time period (example: 1 gun per month). some states apply the same restrictions to long guns as well.

18 is the general cutoff for long guns.
21 is the general cutoff for handguns.

At the moment, single shot firearms and semi-automatic firearms are not treated any differently. There was a Federal 'assault weapons ban' in the 80s which banned some semiautomatic long guns based on what was ultimately cosmetic appointments (they appeared more deadly than firearms of the exact same capabilities which were not banned). Magazine capacity was limited to a maximum of 10 rounds with the same law. The law had a 'sunset' provision which allowed it to expire after 10 years. The Federal legislators could have renewed it or made it permanent at the time of the sunset, but did not under overwhelming pressure by gun owners pointing to overwhelming evidence that the law did nothing to reduce or deter gun violence.

Fully automatic firearms (machine guns) have been extremely closely regulated since 1934. There is constant reference to them by the media as though they are in the hands of every gun owner and criminal - without any basis in fact.

Today, the airways are flooded with the visceral reaction I posted about above. there is a renewed cry for another 'assault weapons' ban. I see it as likely because Federal and State governments find it easier to demonize the gun than to deal with the real causes of crime, serial murders and spree shooting.

Those who do not read history (and those who have read it and dismissed it) are doomed to repeat it.

docbennett
12-17-2012, 02:10 PM
I have been thinking about the prevention aspect of this. And I'm sad to report that we will never have 100% prevention.

The problem is not the availability of weapons.We may be more efficient about it now, but humans have always had the capacity to kill, even when the only weapons available were our fists and rocks. Discussions about removing the weapons from society are moot. Several nations have tried and failed. 100% removal is not possible and there is some validity to the argument that it leaves the law-abiding even more vulnerable. It is also an impossible task. Criminals will keep their weapons no matter what law we pass - they are the tools of their trade. And the number of law-abiding citizens who will give up their weapons is highly debatable. Some will. Some will passively refuse, convincing themselves that since they are not a threat, their particular guns should not be taken - making them criminals on paper. Some will actively resist enforcement. The number of dead on both sides in those scenarios could easily outstrip the numbers of dead to this point at the hands of serial and spree killers. We cannot change this part: the guns, knives, poisons, fists and rocks are here. They will always be here.

The problem is not books, movies, TV or video games either. Depictions of violence have always been part of every society's story telling and entertainment. From the earliest bushmen telling the story of how a young hunter saved the tribe by killing a raiding tribe's scout to the slow-motion carnage of ridding the Earth of mutants, aliens and zombies. Violence is within all of us. And before you say you are immune to the urges, ask yourself what you would have done if you had a chance to confront any of the latest shooters mid-spree. I'll make it easier for you. Ask yourself what you would do to protect your child. Knowing that the violence is inside us, but we aren't all serial killers or spree-murderers proves that our total immersion in violence from all sides is not slowly nudging us all to become murderous. It is an easy reaction to blame the images around us, but it doesn't wash because with a world population of 6,973,738,433 (and counting), the incidences of murder and mass murder are still rare enough to make the news. My argument here is is that if the violence around us is the source of unleashing the violence within us, we would soon wipe ourselves out and societies would collapse. (not that I don't think we are headed that way eventually for much different reasons).

The problem cannot be solved by increasing security. Ask anyone who deals with security on a regular basis - policemen, insurance adjusters, the military - if security can ever be 100%. You can increase the difficulty of violent interaction, but only by degrees. The answer only approaches yes with complete and utter person to person isolation. Only when every human is locked away, unable to interact with any other human in any way will there be anything like 100% security and safety from each other. Note that we would still be vulnerable to lots of other things. So, short of complete interpersonal isolation, each increasing degree of interpersonal contact increases the chances of violence and decreases security.

The concept of hardening one target to violence by adding more and more security necessarily weakens all other nearby targets. After our home was broken into, we added more security. Our goal was simple. Make our house less of a target when compared to other houses. That puts the onus on both the neighbor and the criminal to respond. Smart neighborhoods band together and make the whole neighborhood less attractive to criminals. The same concepts apply to hardening our schools against gunmen. What about the mall? The stadium? The PARKS! Hardening targets only shifts the danger to new targets. And universal hardening imprisons the innocent. Anything short is not 100% prevention. The gunman at this school bypassed the locked doors by shooting out a window. It was harder for him to gain entrance, but not impossible.

So, the weapons are here and will remain so. The targets are impossible to make 100% safe. What is left.

The shooter in this case, and in almost all of the most recent cases, planned this event. He interacted with people during this planing. If even one person had seen the signs or detected a shift in behavior, perhaps this incident and others, could have been prevented in it's entirety. Please understand that this next bit should not be construed as blame - it is conjecture. The mother had hobbies, among them sport shooting. If there came a time when her son showed any tendency towards violent actions, what should have been the disposition of her personal firearms? Locked up securely? Certainly. Removed from the home entirely? Perhaps. I conjecture this only as an example of what i feel our ultimate path forward to be.

Recognition, prevention, treatment.

We used to house our mentally ill. Many of the institutions were cruel places - prisons for the mentally ill with abuse and neglect. Now we medicate them until they are stable and then return them to society. With poor to no followup systems in place, many are soon off their meds by choice, unfounded reasoning or poverty and right back into their illness. If persons who are at or near a mental break who are or reasonably could expect to be violent were monitored with the same attention we give to other know dangerous situations, how different would this problem be? After the fact we consistently find that the shooters were troubled, that there was a triggering stressor, that they had made threats to themselves or others. I'm sure there were just as many who were on the path to violence and gave no apparent warning signs. And I believe that is the true difficult task at hand.

But what we are going to get instead is feel-good legislation. The laws which will be proposed and probably passed in the wake of this last shooting will be reactionary and visceral. Most likely they will seek to eliminate the weapons. We tried that once. The Assault Weapons Ban of the 80s banned whole classes of firearms and limited magazine capacity. The result - the law abiding had fewer guns, but the number of guns in America did not go down. Crime in America did not go down. Net effect on murder - zero. But people felt better.

We don't need a visceral response/ We don't need an emotional response. We need a true reasoned response. We are not going to get it.

A more reasoned response might be to control weapons better - not by banning whole classes of them - shooters would just shift their interest to the unbanned classes. But what if we expanded the background checks to include the criminal and mental stability of everyone in a gun buyer's household, not just the buyer. No sales to wives of felons, (sorry Mr Liddy), no sales to parents or spouses of mentally ill without strict lockup requirements. (The current regulations for unannounced inspections linked to Class III ownership could be a model for that one.)

While we are controlling the weapons, we could harden the most precious of targets. Schools become prisons. Schoolyards get high masonry walls with concertina wire and guard towers. Buses are armored and get armed security guards. Go ahead laugh. I can see this happening.

Any person who threatens another in any way is institutionalized. Speech and demeanor become as microscopically scrutinized as though we are continuously going through security at the airport.

Let's not forget our culture of violence. Every book, TV show, movie, video game, newspaper, etc. becomes one of the few episodes of Leave It To Beaver or My Three Sons where there was not even the insinuation of discord.

And we'd still miss detecting most of the shooters until it was too late.

I don't know how to fix it. I just know that it sucks.



edit - I posted this before I read Les's posts above. My apologies if I seem to have covered much of the same ground.

You nailed it, in essence. In the mental health field, all providers and all who interact with the mentally ill must take a course in CRPI....depending on the venue, the acronym may change...but the initials stand for Crisis Recognition, Prevention, Intervention. In that order...first recognize the pending or escalating problem. Then try to Prevent it via Intervention.

I guess this is where my prior concept of impaired parenting comes into play. The parents are those who are best positioned to engage in CRPI with their offspring. Not to paint with an overly broad brush...but the preliminary evidence would indicate that this mother actually may have facilitated the problems by taking her "problem child" son to the target range so he could become an expert marksman. Sorry...but to me, that is a hobby and a privilege you give to a kid who doesn't have a lot of emotional baggage...not to a kid with problems already well documented. Apparantly the mother had already had run ins with the school district and was home-schooling her son. So, give him guns as a hobby. Go figure.

rugerpc
12-17-2012, 02:20 PM
You nailed it, in essence. In the mental health field, all providers and all who interact with the mentally ill must take a course in CRPI....depending on the venue, the acronym may change...but the initials stand for Crisis Recognition, Prevention, Intervention. In that order...first recognize the pending or escalating problem. Then try to Prevent it via Intervention.

I guess this is where my prior concept of impaired parenting comes into play. The parents are those who are best positioned to engage in CRPI with their offspring. Not to paint with an overly broad brush...but the preliminary evidence would indicate that this mother actually may have facilitated the problems by taking her "problem child" son to the target range so he could become an expert marksman. Sorry...but to me, that is a hobby and a privilege you give to a kid who doesn't have a lot of emotional baggage...not to a kid with problems already well documented. Apparantly the mother had already had run ins with the school district and was home-schooling her son. So, give him guns as a hobby. Go figure.

Thanks, Doc. But we both know that this will not be the course of action. It requires our society to work harder at things far too many would shirk off on the government.

captdg
12-18-2012, 09:18 PM
Shawn...I think he's more critical of my comments, and more in agreement with yours. I will agree that autism is a pervasive developmental disorder, but I will disagree with the comment that it is purely a neurodevelopmental condition. There is copious evidence and research to support the fact that there are non-genetic (environmental) markers in many cases, and there is still quite a bit that is unknown with regard to the etiology of this condition. As Shawn stated, if we find out in 10 years that autism is statistically more prevalent in households that used a certain type of toothpaste, it will demonstrate the huge array of possibilities that can be attempted to be accounted for.


Doc.. over my lifetime, I have known three women with children who had Autistic/Asbergers syndrome.. They had several traits in common. One they all had above average I.Q.'s Two, they got bored with any mate they had and used any excuse to move on . Three, they used babysitters excessively and liked being a popular mom down at the nightclub. One that I knew even looked like Casey Anthony.. Now.. Im NOT saying that this is the cause of of any of it, Im sure there are autisic children that have 2 loving caring well adjusted parents ..But boy they were in denial at first and wanted their kid to be in the general population at school.. Is this me being stero typical or is their any correlation? I have always believed that when one has a child...The party is OVER.

]-[ @ n $ 0 |v| a T !
12-18-2012, 10:08 PM
Is this me being stero typical or is their any correlation?
It's just you. I don't even think my sister, little Suzie home-maker (who goes to church every Sunday), has even tasted beer.


I have always believed that when one has a child...The party is OVER.

Not over. Better.

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd272/hansomatic/General_Photos/EdenFlying.jpg

Dirty Bob
12-18-2012, 10:23 PM
Correlation does not equal causation.

Great photo Hans.

and I agree...better beyond your wildest dreams.

and this from all angles is just one of the many reasons that makes this event and others like it so tragic

JMintzer
12-18-2012, 11:46 PM
-[ @ n $ 0 |v| a T ! ;35800']Not over. Better.

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd272/hansomatic/General_Photos/EdenFlying.jpg


That pic brings me tears of joy. You are lucky man... (as am I...)


Jamie

captdg
12-19-2012, 12:23 AM
-[ @ n $ 0 |v| a T ! ;35800']It's just you. I don't even think my sister, little Suzie home-maker (who goes to church every Sunday), has even tasted beer.



Not over. Better.

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd272/hansomatic/General_Photos/EdenFlying.jpg
That is they way it should be....But you are not self centered....

Mikegarveyblues
12-19-2012, 01:34 AM
Doc.. over my lifetime, I have known three women with children who had Autistic/Asbergers syndrome.. They had several traits in common. One they all had above average I.Q.'s Two, they got bored with any mate they had and used any excuse to move on . Three, they used babysitters excessively and liked being a popular mom down at the nightclub. One that I knew even looked like Casey Anthony.. Now.. Im NOT saying that this is the cause of of any of it, Im sure there are autisic children that have 2 loving caring well adjusted parents ..But boy they were in denial at first and wanted their kid to be in the general population at school.. Is this me being stero typical or is their any correlation? I have always believed that when one has a child...The party is OVER.

No.

There is no correlation whatsover. You can be a great parent or a terrible parent it's not going to have ANY bearing on whether a child is born with a form of Autism.

Just curious... Do you guys (in the US) spell Aspergers differently? I noticed you and Docbennett both refer to it as 'Asbergers'. No biggie, just curious.

Hans... great pic!

docbennett
12-19-2012, 07:10 AM
Correlation does not equal causation.


As my statistics professor taught me many many years ago...it does, when the correlation is 1.0. :biggrin: A correlation of 1.0 = "de facto causation"

You can never infer causation from correlation analysis...but, as the .r approaches 1.0 and exceeds .9....you have virtual causation, although you can never actually state that Variable A results in Effect B.

Dirty Bob
12-19-2012, 01:27 PM
As my statistics profession taught me many many years ago...it does, when the correlation is 1.0. :biggrin: A correlation of 1.0 = "de facto causation"

You can never infer causation from correlation analysis...but, as the .r approaches 1.0 and exceeds .9....you have virtual causation, although you can never actually state that Variable A results in Effect B.

I spend much of my day performing distribution analytics, dynamic correlation analysis, hedging and tail risk truncation functions. Correlations are limited by a wide degree of factors the most common include the impact of outliers, the potential for spurious correlation, the confusion of exogenous and endogenous variables, and the limitations of correlation to measure relationships beyond the linear. To avoid some of the problems with simple linear regression you can attempt to use multiple regression in which lagged terms, control variables, and nonlinear terms can all be included as independent variables to better specify the relationship...however I would be extremely careful with the notion of assuming de facto causation. Assumption in my world is the mother of all ****ups.:top:

:biggrin:In addition have I mentioned how much I hate the tendancy of gaussian based functions to creep up everywhere? especially where they don't belong?:mad::D

docbennett
12-19-2012, 01:53 PM
I spend much of my day performing distribution analytics, dynamic correlation analysis, hedging and tail risk truncation functions. Correlations are limited by a wide degree of factors the most common include the impact of outliers, the potential for spurious correlation, the confusion of exogenous and endogenous variables, and the limitations of correlation to measure relationships beyond the linear. To avoid some of the problems with simple linear regression you can attempt to use multiple regression in which lagged terms, control variables, and nonlinear terms can all be included as independent variables to better specify the relationship...however I would be extremely careful with the notion of assuming de facto causation. Assumption in my world is the mother of all ****ups.:top:

:biggrin:In addition have I mentioned how much I hate the tendancy of gaussian based functions to creep up everywhere? especially where they don't belong?:mad::D

My sentiments exactly. ;)



(I have no idea what you're talking about) :flute::biggrin:

Dirty Bob
12-19-2012, 02:47 PM
My sentiments exactly. ;)



(I have no idea what you're talking about) :flute::biggrin:

That made me laugh!!!:rofl: It was a longwinded way of saying there are lies...damn lies and statistics!

captdg
12-20-2012, 01:28 PM
My sentiments exactly. ;)



(I have no idea what you're talking about) :flute::biggrin:



Trying to calculate an exact value for an area under a curve, will lead to a life under a bridge...My quote from trying to understand statistics.

docbennett
12-20-2012, 01:58 PM
Trying to calculate an exact value for an area under a curve, will lead to a life under a bridge...My quote from trying to understand statistics.

That's an easy one....calculating the area accounted for within bell-shaped curve using the formula for standard deviations above and below the mean is relatively easy...you've got T-scores and related parametric stats. It's those non-parametric statistics, or worse...any attempt to extract differentials in calculus or to do factorials that leads directly to my sitting in a squatting position under said bridge with a syringe, a dirty spoon, a PRS Zippo lighter, and a copy of Bruning and Kintz's Computational Handbook of Statistics.

captdg
12-20-2012, 03:23 PM
brother..could you pass the Sterno, please?