Slashdot Mirror
The Public & The Internet: Open Forum
brent_clements writes "With the recent shootings in colorado, and other recent shootings around the country, I have been seeing articles such as this one, touting that these kids used the "internet", played games such as DOOM or Duke Nukem and were general geeks who were picked on in school. The articles that I am reading give me the impression that by using the internet or playing these games the kids were somehow provoked by them. " I'm overstepping my usual bounds a bit, posting what's sort of an AskSlashdot, but given the constant coverage, here in the US of the Colorado Massacre, and the fact that the murderers are being styled as geeks and hardcore Internet people, I'm wondering what everyone thinks. Is the perception of this prevasive? Or, more honestly, does the Internet make things like this easier for people? What about socialization of people? Let 'er rip folks-because geeks are getting blasted out there right now.
Well geeks are getting a bum rap because most people don't understand us. Yes the internet does make quite a few things easier, but that's not what brought this tragedy about. Something like this could have happen even if their wasn't an internet. People tend to blame things they don't understand, this is common throughout history.
I've known quite a few people who play Doom and have been (picked) on in school and they never turned into murders. Doom and Heavy metal and being picked on may be to this situation what shaking is to nitroglycerin it may not have helped but it isn't the root cause.
Good point... It happens often that a correlation is mistaken for causality. It's like the classic example of the study that finds a large correlation between students with large feet having high test scores. Students with smaller feet did worse. Data looks good, but the problem is that the students who did better were in general older (thus had larger feet) than the students who were younger.
The article implies that the Internet and computer games somehow contributed to this tragedy. But think of it -- how many white, middle class students have computers and can use the internet? How many of these go on shooting rampages?
Or think of this -- many lower income children do not have computers. There is a high correlation between students without computers and those that commit crimes. Does this mean that not having a computer leads to crime and delinquency?
Kwan
Boy is this a crock. All this is a result of some lawyers trying to find a way to make money. They are alleging that Doom, Quake and the lot were what trained these kids to be killers. Well I have to say that I play more than my fair share of Quake (oh like an hour a day or so) but I still haven't grabbed an automatic weapon and shot people up. As for them being geeks? I doubt it. Face it, geeks usually view war and killing in general as stupid things done by stupid humans. The closest thing most geeks have to a war is a nerf war.
From what I've head of the Colorado case these kids were a gang. What we need to be doing is looking at the parents who allowed their kids to become this way and the school who claims to have not known a problem was starting. Excuse me, but when kids are walking around with Nazi symbols on, there is probably a problem in the making. The schools I came from didn't tolerate bullshit like that nor did the tolerate any gang related behaviour.
And, this may not be the best place for this, but I just put this up and I was hoping some people could read it.
A (slightly) different perspective
Doom is kinda like a Kill Simulator, as a flight simulator would be for a pilot, making is easier to get used to the idea of spraying people with bombs, and machine guns. I agree with you in that there are a lot of other factors invloved here, but, hey, it's only a game, right??
People seem too accepting of the foibles of the news media.
One of the above posters is right. It is time to "circle the wagons" and start an organized boycott of all traditional media such as T.V. and Newspapers.
They have realized for some time it is "us" versus "them". They know they can't win based on technology, so they must do it by generating confusion. At every possible opportunity THEY must attack US.
I've had the chance to be quoted once or twice in national publications such as newsweek.
The experience blew my mind and forced me to question my entire world-view.
The quotes/stories were so warped/mishapened that they did little to convey the reality I was trying to communicate.
At first I was pissed, then terrified as I realized that EVERYTHING you hear or read from traditional media MAY be just as warped.
WOW.
We rely on "the news" and "news papers" to paint a picture of the world for us. An inaccurate picture designed not to convey information, but to sell bubblegum, perfume and beer.
Back to the "Try this at Home!"
What is the alternative?
For one of my friends it is refusing to watch any T.V. if you turn one on while he is in the room, he won't say anything, but will get up and politely leave.
For me it is "watching" interesting stories on the news with the sound turned off.
It gives me the high bandwidth video, so lacking on the web.
For text and details I go to the web. No it is not necessarily more accurate then TV/newspapers, BUT it is random access (unlike T.V.) so I can skim over the B.S., and it is timely (unlike newpapers (who cares what happened yesterday))
Obviously YOU do not have a misbehaving 13 to 17 year old kid !!!
I do not think that is fair comparison. Both Bugs Bunny and Space Invaders are easily distinguished from reality. But as technology advances, games and movies can depict violence in a very realistic manner (i.e. show blood spurting out of a bullet hole as opposed to the 2 ton weight falling on someone's head). For some people (possibly already disturbed), reality and the games become harder to tell apart.
Notice I said some people. Obviously most people will still be able to tell the difference. The problem is that it only takes one disturbed person to kill many normal people.
My prediction is that as games become more realistic (virtual reality, etc) you will see more acts of violence that mimic the games.
Kids nearly everywhere in the world play games like DOOM or Duke but excessive violence like this only seem to happen in the States only. At least, I never heard of something similar happening in France, Germany or the UK. ... *gosh* ...
."
How much does it take to make people see what the problem really is ?
That there are voices opposing stricter laws on firearms and guns make me shiver. Especially this guy who said something like "if only a teacher had a gun, this wouldn't have happened"
I sometimes wonder how stupid americans can be
Now, don't come talking about your RIGHT to bear arms - you don't - go and READ your constitution.
Amendment II (1791) says: " A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed
That DOES NOT say EVERYONE has the right.
I would like to point out the fact that when I was about 12 years old, playing Dungeons & Dragons with my friends, a few instances like this happened. They immediately blamed D&D as the root of the problem.
I guess what they are looking for is a simple answer to the question, "Why did this happen?"
Make sure to be on the lookout for possible issues regarding the Internet. Don't let the government start to get involved in issues that they don't understand or care about!
This tragedy is yet another instance of what appears to be a detachment from society.
But who do we blame for this? The people who did it are already dead, and in north america today, when something bad happens, someone or something HAS to take the blame. If you watched any of the news casts following this event in Colorado, you may have noticed that one of the more dominant comments was: Why/How did this happnen? What could have driven two people to commit such attrocities? People want to be able to point the finger and have one quick "fall guy" to blame for all of their troubles, and for this instance, the Internet is a prime target.
Why? It's simple. Most people fear what they do not understand, and despite the Internets unrelenting growth, a vast majority of people all over the world don't know what it is, where it came from, how it works, or what it can do for you. They just hear the buzz words from the media, fail to comprehend their meaning, and in turn grow more and more ignorant to the facts.
When the media jumped on the point that these two individuals had a website that foreshadowed the events that took place Last Tuesday, people finally had something to point a finger at. Somewhere to place the blame -- a way to ease their conciense. People don't want to think that maybe they contributed to this disaster.
"No; segregating, humiliating, ostricizing, and outcasting people won't drive them to insane acts of terror, we aren't responsible, the Internet is. After all, there's no law on the Internet. Only geeks, pedophiles and other rejects of scociety use that thing...."
Those aren't my views, but they could easily be those based on someones ignorance.
I think that people are too damned scared to look in the mirror and realise that maybe WE need to re-evaluate how we treat others. Maybe we could have done something to prevent this. Maybe we can prevent this from happening again.
But no, they'll blame computers and the Internet. And some politician looking to score points, will use that in turn to support more legislative control of the internet via sensorship and monitoring.
It makes me sick to think about all the hypocracy associated with such an ignorant notion as: "The internet is to blame for this tragedy."
Next they'll tell us that Sadam Hussien is behind a secret plot to take over Europe, and that his first move was to start the war in Yugoslavia to Distract NATO.
Perhaps we need to take a long hard look at how North Amercian's "Success is everything" culture is the primary culprit, and each and everyone of us must take some responsibility for what happened here.
I couldn't agree with you more. This is the first intelligent comment I have found about this.
This is fun. We blame guns, the internet, and computer games. I guess we should outlaw all of them. Maybe fire too. God knows what one could do with an old can of hairspray and a bic..
American society has lost any sense of responsibility for our own actions. How can we expect our children to be responsible? More laws won't solve basic morality issues and the tools (guns and internet) are just that tools; not the cause.
and what happens when they start knocking on your door, ready to take YOU to the gas chambers?? If guns were allowed in that school (s), would this be happening to the extent that it is?
You don't see us US Americans being constantly trampled by any passing fasist/nazi governments do you? Maybe having everybody armed IS the answer. Or maybe you Euro's didnt learn anything from the Nazi's????? What happens when they come a knockin'?
Finally, geek culture permeates every strata of our society, even those of psychopaths and serial killers. At long last, geeks too can be seen as murderous machines bent on chaos and destruction.
Nerds are constantly ridiculed throughout highschool, and this permeated into adulthood when a new form of ostracism is performed: nerds are constantly portrayed as gentle, sensitive and kind, denied of the ultimate freedom, that of senseless murder and deep sociopathia.
But finally, the latest in geek fashion has been brought to the world, live from Colorado: two apparently normal geeks, playing online games, feeding on pizza, hacking AOL, drooling over Pamela Anderson's, er, talents; two typically standard nerds stand up and claim, "we too can be senseless psychopaths who murder fellow human beings without a valid reason!"
All geeks will agree, tis a good time to be a nerd. Linux stands up to Microsoft, Quake III is about to hit the shelves (target practice!), Rushmore is playing in cinemas, and the last bastion of ignorance is toppled down: we too can be cold-blooded killers.
DonKatz
(P.S.: Sarcasm. Look it up.)
I believe there was a shooting in a London suburb school about 1994-95 where ~16 kids were killed along with a teacher...
That was very distasteful given the situation. I cannot believe that someone would post such a comment. Creating humour out of something so blatantly evil, that in itself is a tragedy
Why??
Simple, because guns don't kill people, it is people that kill people.
If someone does someting like this it is not because guns are available, it is because they are mentally disturbed and that can have someting to do with society. Right??
Let's see now, HOW many times have your countries been taken over by dictator-killing machines??? Oh, ya, and WHO always seems to save your ASS???
Again, I stress, HOW many times has your country been run over by a dictator killing machine??? And school shooting arent just happening here in the states, you just happen to hear of them, cause we have the most media- types.
and what happens when the government comes a knockin' at your door? You gonna go peacefully to the gas chambers???
Most Americans (at least that I know) don't want gun control because we don't trust the government. We want to be able to defend ourselves. That is part of our Bill of Rights.
Everyone who played those games (half life, quake,doom...) knew sooner or later there would be a monster which would kill them. That's what the save option is all about. Let's assume that the violence in those games and the info they found on the internet compelled them to do this.
Why would they kill themselves and let the game end ? They haven't even fought the police and got into real gun fights. They quited when they were winning.
They planned suicide and took a couple of people with them. Suicide isn't provoked by games, it's provoked by people.
I was once a misbehaving 13 to 17 year old kid and my parents were able to control me.
The problem is there are way too many people having kids that have no parental skills. There are actually people in this world who believe that it is expected of them to have children. Instead of these people thinking about what they are doing, they fall to the presure of society and start procreating.
It sad that you have to have a license to drive but anyone can become a parent. Instead of schools trying to put armed guards in schools, they should start teaching parenting skills to teenagers. They could make this a prerequisite to getting your drivers license and anyone who fails gets sterilized.
I agree that it is people that kill people. There is something inherently wrong with someone who kills someone else, but we as Americans allow guns everywhere. We obviously can't keep people from killing people, but what if those people didn't have the easy access they have to guns?
I can't see two high school students killing a bunch of people with only the use of steak knives.
Whoever thinks that every American should be carrying a gun is basically asking for trouble. How many murders do you think would occur when someone got cut off on the highway?
Jason
Americans are still living off wave after wave of social and technological advances. We still believe that if we put our minds to it, we can solve anything. So we look at the idealistic goal that if nobody wanted to go on killing sprees, it wouldn't matter if guns were legal, and think we can actually do so. So we try to "fix" everyone while not realizing that making guns harder to get would likely drop the frequency of these events by 50% or more, which is a damn sight better than nothing.
You can't be serious.
In America today, guns are more controlled and harder to get than ever before. Yet school shootings didn't happen an hundred years ago, not even a generation ago. If this is simply an effect of availability of guns, why is it starting to happen in the late 1990's?
...And some childred in Colorado were killed with some sort of bomb, and not guns.
nortonbl at ids.net
It remembers me the movie "Scream" when kids where doing the same murders as they saw in horror films.
...
I think that a kid -CAN- be influenced by some medias to commit murders. But this media could be a game, a newspaper, an horror film, a lot of things
I think the problem comes from the kid himself, not from the medias...
just for clarity, a militia is not the same as the military. a militia, as defined by Congress back in the early days of the U.S. is considered to be every able-bodied adult male. in more equal times, a militia could probably considered to be every able-bodied adult.
Things like this only happens in america , all you americans should take some time to think about why, Since most of your culture already have sperad throughout the world, what is it you and only you have to make school children shoot their classmates?. I cant tell, I don't live in the USA and don't know so much about your system but the world got the same Internet, Music, DrugProblems(not the netherlands though) Games and Capitalism and lots more...
What make you americans different?
You do got very liberal laws conserning guns, and you are and seems to want to be the "World Police", bomb the countries you don't like; Kosovo, Irak and of not to forget Vietnam !!! and other so called terrorists
And you shure seems to have lots of culture-conservatism
Don't flame me, you got good things but what is the point of talking about them in this thread!
I agree with you, games now are more realistic. But it's not the point. I mean, violence is now part of our culture. Take a look over the action movies. We see a nice-looking guy in a high position, he kills everyone which are in his way without any other consideration, he kisses the beautiful girl and... bingo! He is a WINNER, not a LOSER.
Maybe that kind of person feels that being violent is a way to reach his "beautiful" girl.
And people still say that Internet may be the problem. I could suggest another way to them use their guns.
Ya, and if it weren't for us gun-swingin' Americans, you Brits would be goose-steping and speaking German....
Uh, reading comprehension time, folks. "the right of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Let's say that again. "The right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Where does this say that the right does not belong to every individual person? The, like, people, you know? Like every other amendment where the words "the people" are used?
Christ, I knew American education was bad, but I didn't realise it was this bad.
Oh, and BTW, last time I checked the number of crimes committed with guns in the UK was more than 100 times higher than before the first gun laws were introduced back in 1920. So much for victim disarmament making the world a safer place.
And, second BTW, I guess you're telling the Israelis that they're stupid too, given that Israeli teachers -- for that matter, Israelis in general -- regularly carry Uzis and other guns. Oddly enough, this kind of thing doesn't happen in Israel any more.
This kind of shootings almost never occur in
European Countries... However, the proportion
of kids educated with violent videogames an
the Internet is equivalent to the one in the
USA. Perhaps everybody should start thinking
about more serious problems like the absurd
gun law that prevail in the USA and insist
on the importance of education (I'm not
talking about videogames, I'm talking about
school and the parents' role). Also, how
can you seriously educate kids about violence
and weapons where the government finds
pride in using them?
When I was in school I was an outcast just like these kids.. More intelligent than most of my teachers let alone my "peers".. cast out because I wasn't cool.. didn't party, drink, do drugs..
I could find valid support of Hitler's military strategy as well as his social and propaganda methodologies.. This made me evil and a Nazi of course rather than just a thinker..
I never had access to a gun, but I had those thoughts.. I knew how to do very bad things.. luckily I also had very good friends who could steer my in times like that.. had they supported me I may have made history first..
I understand these kids.. on some level.. I don't condone what they did but I understand why.. We've all had those days.
NATO, Please bomb elementary schools here until the general populace realizes how bad being bombed is.
I don't see that these kids had any problem distinguishing between fantasy and reality. Read the reports: story after story of how they were treated like shit for years by the other kids in the school. Why is anyone surprised that they finally decided to get their own back?
The real issue as I see it is that Americans have a self-esteem problem. Not in the normally claimed sense of too little self-esteem, but in the sense of too much, with nothing to base it on. Because they're told for so long that they're great and important without any reason for it, they have to support their self-esteem by picking on others and running them down. The 'normal' kids are the ones who have a problem distinguishing fantasy from reality.
But, of course, let's just ban some guns and go back to sleep until the next shooting, 'cause that's a lot easier than dealing with the real problems.
Firstly, banning guns is the easy option, not the hard one.
Secondly, why has the Australian murder rate gone *up* significantly since you banned them?
Thirdly, these kids broke numerous laws in bringing guns and bombs onto school premises. Why should they care about breaking a few more?
Britian and Sweden, to mention a few, has never been invaded (while firearms has existed).
Isn't it true, that most people that are murdered in the US, are shot with their own weapon?
Since you're in Ireland, maybe you can nip down the road and tell the IRA just how successful the laws are at keeping guns and bombs out of their hands.
BTW, the largest mass murder at a school in the US was committed with explosives; killed around 40 people, if I remember correctly. The largest mass murder in the US ever was committed with gasoline and a match; killed more than 80 people.
I precieve that the games that people play while violent and often inappropriate for kids under the age of 13 are not the root of the increase in violence in our society. These games may be a contributing factor, but the jury is still out on that aspect.
The basic underlying problem seems to be an under socialization of the people involved. The differences between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour are not always clear in all situations and the only way to learn them is by going out and being social. While I personally am a real life female geek and a bit of a loner, I have found that within myself and for many of my friends social interaction is difficult. I therefore believe that it is this difficulty with interpersonal relationships that occurs with many geeks that actually creates the high levels of fustration which occasionally bubble up into these violent outburts that we have seen within the last few years.
This said, it is easy to see how non-geeks, lusers, and the like have difficulty pinning down this as one of the major causes. These news media types really do not understand how some one can become ostricised from society due to their poor social skills because their social skills are excellent more often then not. So don't blame them, inform them.
--telosphilos
Very, very well put. Sums up most of the opinion I've heard on this, in a lot less words ;-).
I think this is well put.
The majority of people posting agree that
- The internet or video games are not the sole cause here.
- There are a variety of variables in combination that caused this.
- Frequent violent imagery+ social torture + high frustration = Violent outburst.
I know I've missed much in this equation, and it's not that simple. We're trying to put a rational explanation to something irrational.
We all played video games, and actually WERE these people in one form or another during high school. We should ask ourselves: 'What stopped us from doing what they did?'
In high school I was very much like these kids. I wore a trenchcoat yada yada. . . But I also had the support of teachers, my family, and some semi-sane friends who were there. We watched out for each other. We also valued self discipline.
All who post on this board have pieces to the puzzle that all fit together to form a solution and defuse this form of violence. We are these geeks, and we might actually be the best to solve the ills. We know what is wrong.
I'm tired of hearing pet theories from social scientists, and psychological pundits. They are detached from the social arena that our the high schools each day. Heck, I'm 25! Every year I grow more detached from what is the new social structure. The teenagers (not kids!) know more about it. Ask them! Change the social order of the schools. Uniforms won't do it.
I've been hearing alot of talk radio about it. Educators are SO close to figuring it out. There was mention of teaching kids social skills at an elementary level. Also, teaching anger resolution. Technically, this is what parents SHOULD be doing. And to their credit most do.
Also, banning guns might not a plausible solution either. I agree with others that it is a 'knee jerk' reaction. Anyone who wants a gun will find it. The gun industry doesn't make a defective product. It does what it is designed to do. Only too well. We need to decrease our desire for these things. In the meantime, fingerprint trigger recognition seems to be a short term solution on the gun industry end. If only ONE person can be tied to a gun. He can't sell it, trade it or give it illegally to someone else.
*Please feel free to flame me mercilessly if this doesn't seem like a workable idea.*
Folks, the real bombs in Colorado weren't the incindiary devices found. They were the gunmen and co-conspirators involved. The combination of the media, society, lack of family, and most of all themselves are to blame in conjunction. There are more people bombs out there waiting to go off. The media and the government should get off the geek community's back, and continue their efforts to a solution.
Yawn. Hitler disarmed the German people so they couldn't defend themselves against him. The Brits disarmed themselves, then ran screaming to the US asking for guns when Hitler's armies arrived on the other side of the Channel. The UN embargo disarmed the Kosovans, so that the Serbs could kill them at will.
Disarmament is always just a transfer of power from the people to authoritarian thugs in government, and nothing to do with reducing crime rates. Which is lucky, since the British armed crime rates are more than a hundred times higher than they were before the first anti-gun law in 1920 (passed to prevent communists getting guns, not criminals, though of course that wasn't admitted until the cabinet papers were declassified decades later).
There always seemed to be a focus on guns as the sole problem and gun control as the obvious solution. Then there are those that encourage allowing guns in the school. And there are those that say crime is lower in country and the response to those is "Look at Switzerland and Finland". After doing some research, I thought the following sites might help answer questions from those interested.
n et/talk-politics-guns/pro-gun-faq/part1/fa q.html
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypertext/faq/use
http://www.hci.org
http://www.gunowners.org
http://www.nra.org
Enjoy!
I am a devoted Geek, proud and resolute. I am also a devote Punk Rocker. All through high-school I was abused and beat down by the jocks and so-called "good" kids in the private school I went to. I am now 20 and in recent years I have promoted concerts and been very involved with high-school kids in the same situations I was in trying to help them through this. This situation brings me to the same point of fear I for kids in high school who are like I was. This gives kids and parents another reason to beat-down on those who are already looked down upon. Recent events like this one in Colorado give a close-minded society more reasons to hype us up as the bad guys in the media.
Obviously the media love the Internet link because it's still kind of glamorous and helps to sell newspapsers. But there are a couple of other things to consider with regard to this story:
1. The media hate guns. They're currently losing their battle to disarm America, as numerous states are rolling back their gun laws and passing must-issue concealed carry laws. By putting this kind of story on the front pages they can do their bit to help the anti-gun Jihad. It hasn't worked, but hey, they'll fight to the bitter end to get their way.
2. The war in Yugoslavia is going badly. Clinton needed it as a way to keep his other problems out of the media, and now he needs something else to keep the war out of the media. This works well for that too; he can ban a few more guns and get brownie points with the disarmament crowd, and quietly end the failed war while people are looking the other way.
The Internet has existed in some form for the greater part of thirty years. The Internet as we "know it" came into being in the early/mid 70's with the advent of an IP-based TCP. It's really only in the last five years that people have gotten with it and jumped on the band-wagon, but as much as they try, they STILL DON'T GET IT. I wish the media pundits would for just this once take their upper extremities out of their lower extremities and come to the point that the Internet is NOTHING NEW.
Maintaining that the Internet is condusive to crime, murder, civil disorder, etc. is just as absurd as claiming the phone system is. Of course it is--but only because crime, murder, civil disorder, terrorism, and the like all involve some degree of communication, and the Internet is architectured for that purpose.
As for the role of Duke 3D, DOOM, and other fine games, just stop sniffing the glue. Plenty of people, myself included, have enjoyed these games and haven't killed anyone (yet...) Besides, who the hell thinks that "Monopoly" convinced Bill Gates to drop out of college, squeeze some *nix source and CP/M architecture into an operating system, get lucky with IBM, and go for the gold?
There is no excuse or group of people that you can point your finger at to make sense of senseless tragedy--no matter how hard you look for one, you will never find it. I suggest that if we are to blame anything, it should be our weak, chaotic American family structure. Let's move on.
But I play games and don't own guns, therefore games are good and guns are evil! I got mine, screw you, it's the American Way!
What do you mean by:
"in more equal times"
Crap. The largest mass murder in US history was committed with gasoline and a match: more than 80 people killed. Or if you count Oklahoma City as murder rather than terrorism, that's more than 130 people with fertilizer and fuel oil.
God, we're damn lucky those guys didn't have guns, aren't we? Just think how many they could have killed.
Hitler disarmed the German people so they couldn't defend themselves against him.
Is this meant to be a serious remark? Please!
The UN embargo disarmed the Kosovans,
You don't have even the vaguest notion of what the word "embargo" means, do you? Nope. An embargo is when people stop selling you stuff. This has no effect on the stuff you've already got. To "disarm" somebody is to take away his or her weapons. Please, learn to read.
Disarmament is always just a transfer of power from the people to authoritarian thugs in government, and nothing to do with reducing crime rates.
This hysterical nonsense is what comes of latching onto a theory before having seen any facts, and then ignoring any facts that don't fit the theory. Look at the violent crime statistics for England and France. Then look at similar statistics for Somalia.
the British armed crime rates are more than a hundred times higher than they were before the first anti-gun law in 1920
This is an hysterical lie. It's pure nonsense. It's the most bizarre and hilarious denial of reality I've ever seen in my life. Even crack won't do that to somebody -- what are you on? Holy shit. I hope you're not operating any heavy machinery.
No, without access to guns they would have blown it up or burnt it down, and far more people would have died.
I'm 16 years old and i've been watching violent movies and playing violent games all the way from wolfenstein 3d to quake2, and it sure as hell hasn't influenced me to kill anyone. I think that people should focus more on the fact that the kids can GET the guns than what they think is causing the kids to USE the guns.
I can understand that if someone got made fun of constantly and had a screwed up childhood, the media could influence them... but it certainly isn't the presiding factor in violence in kids and teenagers.
"a vastly greater amount of americans die from shooting relating deaths than europeans"
Does this include BOTH world wars?!?!? I think not.
If the Constitution is wrong, there's a simple solution. Change it.
Go on, the means to repeal the Second Amendment are right there in the Constitution. Just do it.
Why don't you?
Because the majority of Americans don't want guns banned, as is demonstrated by the way that so many states are busily removing their anti-gun laws at the moment.
I have a theory. The brain is made up of billions of neurones interacting in a highly complex system. Modern societies are made up of millions (billions in the world) interacting in a highly complex system. Brains develop mental illnesses therefore societies develop mental illnesses.
Accepting the above as true, then most modern societies are in need of treatment. The Guns / Internet / Right Wing stuff are just how the illness expresses itself.
I do not know how far this metaphor will go but many mental illnesses are caused by suppression of natural behaviour and inconsistent behaviour of role models / leaders. If you look at the TV system that can show people being killed, but not a naked body let alone sex; or look at the moral leaders like Clinton, church men etc who get caught with their trousers around their ankles; then its not hard to see part of the problem.
To blame this tragedy on guns, DooM and even the kids is simplistic.
DooM was nothing more than an escape for these kids. It can probably be said that had they not played DooM this might have happened sooner.
Over and over in the interviews we hear that these teens were outcasts and were picked on by their classmates. Outcasts by definition are rejected by society. Their solution was to form their own peer group. This further isolated them from the mainstream kids in the school and probably resulted in increasing antgonism from the other mainstream students who don't like anything that isn't the norm.
I am suprised that during these countless interviews none of the students have stepped forward and admitted to intimidating or abusing these kids at some point. One wonders now if the football jocks around the country are considering the potential consequences before they punch the nearest 100 pound weakling. Perhaps the police should be visiting the homes of the "jocks" that bullied these boys, gathering evidence as to what causes one student to abuse another.
Violence escalates. These kids weren't bad kids. They were obviously the brunt of emotional and probably physical abuse from their peers. Nearly every person at some point in their life experiences the trauma associated with being bullied. Because no matter how big you are there is someone bigger or more threatening who can intimidate you. Think back to how you felt. Did you want to kill that person? Probably. Did you act on it? Probably not. But what would it have taken for you to act on that impulse?
Schools today are less about real education than containment and control. They are the state's baby sitter so that Mom and Dad can both work to make more tax dollars. Violence towards students is ignored until it reaches extreme proportions. What can we expect when we spend more money on prisons than education?
Schools waste a lot of time on things that are essentially useless in our daily lives. Important lessons would be communication skills, conflict resolution, anger management these would be the tools that we could use every day of our lives.
Uh, laws against carrying guns in school are part of the problem, not the solution. At least one such shooting was stopped by a teacher who illegally had a gun in his car and used it against the shooter. Of course he was not praised for his initiative and for saving the lives of numerous kids, but charged by the cops for breaking the law. Can't have those pesky civilians defending themselves now, can we?
The other point is that restricting access to guns for kids is a problem, not a solution. As you point out yourself, kids who grow up with guns understand them and what they can do, and rarely use them against other people. Kids who are restricted from owning and using guns are the kind who think it's cool to get a gun and shoot other kids.
Laws solve nothing. Mentality is what matters.
Go away, silly foreign liberal. Anybody with a brain knows that every single American needs to have a fully-automatic assault rifle on the wall in the family room to protect his/her house. Bazookas, too. Anybody who says otherwise is a commie. If children cannot handle firearms, then we must get rid of them. (By "them", I mean "children"
OK, these things don't just happen in the US. I live in Scotland and remember all too well the Dunblane killings. In the same year I was in Australia where 36 people died in Port Arthur.
However, just how many people die each year from gunshots? In 1996, including Dunblane and Port Arthur, the UK suffered 77 deaths from gunshots; Australia 50-odd.
In the US the annual figure regularly tops 30,000
Is that not the strongest possible argument for much stricter control of firearms? Why is this so hard for Americans to understand?
It's that crazy jazz music!
Yes. Obviously. These children had no control over themselves after they were exposed to the pagan, sensuous rhythms and wailing trumpets of the Negroes.
:)
. . . every person is responsible for their own words and actions, and their own words and actions only. . . .
. . . kids that were raised correctly would never think that it was OK to take guns and 30 pipe bombs to school.
Well, which is it? The kids or their parents? I'm not a parent, but all the parents I've known have felt that regardless of what you do, kids have minds of their own and will turn out the way they turn out. Parents do indeed have a lot of influence, but at the end of the day they're not programming their kids like little robots. They're not infallible, either. Good parents can do the wrong thing sometimes.
It makes conventional-wisdom sense to hold people responsible for their actions. Extrinsic influences may have led them to desire to do certain things, but unless they're insane (and IMHO this is how "insane" is best defined, circularly enough), they are capable of resisting those desires.
But conventional wisdom also tells us this: If those around them consistently hold them responsible for what they do (in a just and reasonable way), they're a lot more likely to learn to control themselves. I mean, this is pretty generic behaviorism, but it makes sense. Now, those who do the holding may be unreasonable or unjust; some parents punish their kids wildly out of proportion to what the kids did "wrong", and some parents punish kids for no good reason at all. When that happens, you've got a kid who sees no point in being "good", because s/he has always been punished regardless of whether s/he was "good" or not. People carry their early training with them for the rest of their lives, for good or ill. The individual is responsible, but the individual is formed by his/her environment. Part of that process of forming is the habit of holding that the individual responsible for things.
So which is it? The kids, or their parents? Both. The question, in any case, is not who to blame -- at this point, the killers are dead and their parents are grieving. Are we going to throw their parents in jail? Should we? I doubt it. No, at this point the question is what to do with our own kids.
Blame and punishment as vengeance or disembodied "justice" are nonsensical (IMHO. You will probably disagree), but blame and punishment as behavior modification -- as "teaching" -- make a great deal of sense indeed.
(By the way, I don't think that they thought it was "OK" to bring 30 pipe bombs to school. Rather, I think they didn't give a damn about "OK" any more.)
Finally: Blaming these events on "this modern society" seems goofy and johnbirchish, but how often did this happen in the nineteenth century? A lot of people had guns then, in most of the country. I don't think kids pulled stunts like this. If so, it's probably documented, and we can find out, but I doubt it. So. What changed?
Guns are not the problem. People is.
Kill yourselves if you want, but stop exporting your stupid "culture".
Yay! That's the most intelligent comment so far on this thread, and far more than you'd ever see in the media... most of whom probably come from the groups who hated the 'geeks'.
Doom is only _one_ factor amongst many. My initial rant did mention this.
It's all about the way kids are brought up, IMHO. If you at least _try_ to bring your offspring up with a sense of what a human life is and means, then surely that is at least a good basis for thier opinions/thoughts about other humans?
I do also think that "the Bad Guy" in the movies does rather seem to be made into some kind of hero (Die Hard, for example). This type of glamorisation of what are basically psychopaths, is definately _not_ a good thing for children to absorb.
The Media, and parents, as has been stated in other posts in this forum, have an _awful_ lot to answer for - it's no good blaming _just_ the Internet/Doom/Geek culture.
And as for mentioning things like Goth culture! That's quite frankly ridiculous. In London there are many Goths, who are actually very charming, caring, intelligent people. It is not my experience to meet Goths that are "evil" in any way whatsoever. This is _not_ their philosophy.
"One of the subjects in the book was on the training of soldiers to kill. Humans have a powerful, innate aversion to killing people and getting people to overcome this aversion is very difficult. It's also the prime purpose of any Army training cadre."
This is somewhat true, but misleading. The purpose of any basic training program is to force everyone discard their peacetime socialization and to rely on each other and work as a unit for survival. "Unit cohesion" means that the members of the unit will fight and die for each other. Hardly anyone dies for their country, except in the movies. Furthermore, the vast majority of veterans, once discharged, have an even STRONGER aversion to killing than before. Many I know who were avid hunters before service simply quit. Beware the "army veteran" who brags in detail about all the firefights he's been in. Chances are excellent that the only warfare he saw was in the movies.
"In WWII, a study showed that a very small percentage of soldiers in a given battle actually fired their weapons, and an even smaller percentage of those soldiers fired aimed shots."
This "study" is an urban legend and has been exploded. The individual in question made up his data for somewhat obscure reasons. Actually the problem is not lack of firing, but excessive fire (straining resupply and logistics). Given the huge number of fire casualties in WWII and every subsequent conflict, it's amazing that anyone ever took the study seriously.
There is really NO connection between warfare, military training and the recent spate of mass killings.
OTOH, there is certainly reason to believe that, for the small number of people who are already emotionally unstable, interactive games of violence, magic and evil are extremely dangerous.
For the rest of us, these games may be temporary fun, but I suspect they leave a scum of paranoia, fear, hatred and indifference to suffering that has got to have some long term effect. Garbage in. Garbage out.
Why would you do that? Why not home-school or send them to a private school which will teach them properly, only takes people who want to learn, and has armed security just in case any idiot decides they want to shoot the place up? Home-schoolers don't have to worry about other students killing their kids, and their kids normally do much better academically.
US schools will continue to worsen until people say 'no more' and mean it. If you want to fix them, then you need to eliminate tax-funded schools completely. Personally I think you need to eliminate schools completely, but I'm willing to be convinced that they have some value.
I am perfectly willing to cede that the net does
make it easier to obtain this info. Any kid
can sit in the comfort of his own home and
learn to make a pipe bomb (tho...if they can't
figure that out on their own they arn't too bright)
Compare this to going out to the library...
searching piles of books, probably even having
to ask the librarian to order the book from one
of the other libraries....takes more time.
However...this has nothin gto do with the problem.
A pipe bomb and even some fairly good devices
can easily be re-invented by anyone. When I was
screweing around with my cousins out in the
country...we didn't need diagrams to crimp
1 end of the old tubing we found...fill with
powder and a fuse...crimp and throw
The difference here is between reading about these
and makeing them. Then the differnce between
makeing them for fun...and making them to harm
someone.
We made our little "tubing bomb" (for lack of pipe) for fun...out in the country where noone
cares. Noone was hurt....we just had some fun.
This is certainly very differnt from going
out and throwing a pipe bomb in someones face.
Now...violent games. I dunno about you but when
I play violent games...in my mind I convince myself at least partially that it is real (much
the same way that a person watching a movie
is emotionally effected and may cry.
I think if anything these games give us an outlet
to indulge our fantasies and release some agression in a safe environment. I mean really
who here has never had a single fantasy about
killing? never held a gun and gotten a little
rise from realizing all you have to do is pull
the trigger and you decide life and death?
There will always be a certain segment of the
population that can't handle these normal
fantasies and realizations. They will act out
on them.
The simple fact is that most of us understand why these kids did what they did. We understand it
because we have the same impulses...we know, at
least in our imagination, what ecstacy they
felt each time they brought down a classmate
Most of us refuse to admit it...the very idea
scares us. It frighens us to even think that
someone else may feel the same way and may
actually act on it.
HELLOOO!!! anyone in there... this was a suicide mission. Under normal circumstances someone with a gun would think twice. However in this case, these kids went in, shot the place up, then killed themselves.
It had nothing to do with games, gun laws, being taunted, they were just a couple of screwed up teenagers who had access to weapons. If anyone is to blame, blame there parents, or the people who own guns but cannot keep them in a safe place.
I have one thing to say. Public Execution, for each and every person involved, from the people who were part of this so called gang, to the idiots who supplied the weapons (directly or out of stupidity).
Bleh-of-the-huns who forgot his passwd
Most of the new concealed carry laws that are being passed say just that: you take a class, you pay a fee, you get a license to carry. I have my doubts about the legality of requiring licenses, but it's a step in the right direction. There is no valid reason to require licenses to own guns in the privacy of your own home, just as in most places you can own a car without a license provided you don't drive it on a public highway.
As for why licenses are probably legal for cars and probably not for guns -- and note that most license systems are legally just tax measures -- there is an explicitly stated right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution, arguably passed on to the States through the 14th Amendment, and no explicitly stated right to keep and drive cars.
Suspects favored 'death match' computer games
Harris and Klebold reportedly played computer games often, spending hours trying to kill each other with digital guns and explosive devices.
The two got their own home computers and linked them with modems.
"They had death matches with violent computer games, matching computer to computer," said Nick Baumgart, 17, a senior who met Klebold in grade
school.
"I don't believe violent video games lead to violence, but this was different.
They'd play these games for hours and hours and hours," Baumgart said.
It is not that simple. My first reaction was the horible news was the same: bad parenting.
But when I get home and find out I know part of the extended family, this hit really close to home. I do not know the parents personally, but today I find this excuse very difficult to believe.
Remember these parents lost a child too, and have much grieving to do and that does not include worrying about some new nut "getting even with them."
I think as the authorities invesigate, there could be plenty of blame to pass around. Perhaps the police ignored some clues, or the school, or the parents.
`All cutures raise people' OK. The problem
is that yours raises way too much people.
And the economic system is based on a "fuck them" culture.
Skinheads get the same type of bad media that Goths and computer geeks will probably get now. Most of them are not racist, but the racist ones spoil it for everyone.
If it weren't for the anti-racist and SHARP skins out there, Nazis would be killing minorities instead of just fighting other skinheads.
Media tries to look for answers, but it better be quick because there'll be another story tomorrow.
For more Skinhead info try www.skinheads.net.
You do realize you're quoting him, right?
Isn't that a good argument against dumbocracy? it seems highly unlikely that having guns would have prevented anything.
Tell that to the Jews they disarmed. Oh wait, you can't, because they killed them. At least the armed Jews in the Warsaw ghettos took plenty of Nazis with them.
Why do you think that Israel is one of the most heavily armed countries in the world?
Funnily enough, we don't have many random shootings in Britain either. Could there be a cause / effect relationship here?
Funnily enough, you didn't have many random shootings in Britain before the first anti-gun laws were passed either. But since then your armed crime rate has gone up dramatically. Could there be a cause/effect relationship here?
Well, you seem to think it is outrageous that people blame the video games for what happened. I totally agree. Video games don't kill people, people kill people. Therefore, blaming guns is bullshit. Guns did not mastermind this terrible event. The two kids did. There seems to be a lack of responsibility in this era, (ironic Clinton is President) people blaming tabacco companies because they got cancer is a prime example. No one forced those people to smoke!! They chose to. So if they get cancer its their fault, not Phillip Morris or whoever. Just because these two kids did this horrific action doesnt give anyone the right to punish us law abiding gun owners.
Also, any disarmed nation is ripe for conquering. One of the first thing Hitler did was confiscate all firearms.
First of all Our Bill of Rights is old and outdated.
You're exactly correct! And while we're at it, we should chop out those troublesome parts about "free speech" and "all men being created equal"
Take a deep breath and repeat after me: "Simple solutions only work for the simple-minded".
You must admit as a Quake player that the link
between running through the Quake corridors and shooting down anything that moves must be very similar to what those guys saw when they slaughtered their way through the school's halls blasting their shotguns & throwing their pipebombs..
It chills me a bit I must say. Now of course these guys were mentally unstable and prone to doing something stupid anyway.
Let me try some amateur psychology on you guys:
From what I read about this these guys were not very popular in school. No captains of the football team. Now maybe they were real Quake wizards, feared and respected by their opponents. What if they wanted to show the people that looked down on them IRL their wizardhood?
IMO a sick obsession with firearms and the opportunity to play with them is an important factor in these kind of incidents. I understand the fascination because I recognize it in myself (not in a sick quality though).
I like Quake and I would hate to see it banned but I do see a connection.
Just some thoughts...
My point was I believe it's the other way around. Since they planned on commiting suicide why not kill those people.
Think I'm the only person who doesn't want to give up my only realistic form of self protection?
I think you're not the only one who may very well end up with a dead child someday because of your foolishness.
Most murders happen in the home, at the hand of somebody the victim knows well. This talk about protecting oneself from intruders is nonsensical. There may be neighborhoods where that's a realistic concern, but when I lived in West Philadelphia for five years (a far "worse" neighborhood than you've ever even seen), I never heard of it happening to anybody.
And yet for some strange reason that noone can fathom, a greater number of people (per-capita) are murdered
in some European countries than are murdered in the pro-gun States in America, such as New Hampshire and Vermont. Eliminate the biggest cities with the worst social problems, and most of America has a murder rate no higher than most of Europe.
Why should I care that people in those countries are more likely to have their brains smashed out of their skulls with blunt objects than to be shot, if more people are murdered overall?
Most of the murders in America occur in a few cities such as LA and DC. Oddly, for some reason noone can quite fathom, DC has regularly had the highest murder rate in the country most years in the last couple of decades, yet guns were banned there decades ago. How can this be? Surely DC must be a safe, gun-free paradise where no-one is murdered? How can banning guns be followed by an increase in crime? Damn, this is so confusing I think my brain is going to explode.
Of course there is no cause effect relationship between DOOM and the killings, Marilyn Manson (sp?) and the Killings, even Hitler worship and the killings.
However, television, video games, movies, books and music that glorify killing and hatred likely contribute to the desentization that lets kids do things like the killings in Co.
Similarly the internet didn't make these kids kill, but it makes it a lot easier for them to get information on how to build a bomb. No I do not know if the two boys from Co. found instructions for building a bomb on the internet. They certainly could have found a copy of the Anarchist Cookbook in a library or bookstore, but the internet makes this easier for everyone.
Bad economy -> Jews
Bad culture -> Geeks/Internet/Games
As a Brit, I have to say I find Americans generally much more polite than the locals. I rarely get accosted by drunken American thugs in America, whereas several times drunken Brits have decided they wanted to beat me up, so far unsuccessfully. Presumably because if an American tried that they'd be likely to go home in a body-bag. I feel far safer in Florida, where most of my friends carry guns, than I do in much of Britain.
Unfortunately the cult of disarmament is so ingrained in the UK that it's very hard to get out of it. I'm leaving in a year or two, particularly if the Americans keep rolling back those gun laws the way they are at the moment.
Exactly. ... etc when if the children were taught properly they would have been able to deal with the issues and not gone house on their school.
Also we're missing some issues here,
for example - the parents.
Of course they were good people, they are always good people. The populace do not want to believe that issues in the house can have end results like this. I personally have been through some serious 'issues' with home, and who hasn't, but I developed early on how to make moral descisions. This is the one good thing I ever learned from my parents. This ability has kept me from going to get my fathers gun -he's a police officer- and going to town with it on others or even myself.
I don't see the point of blaming Computer Games, Music, Movies
(my two cents)
An armed citizen is the ultimate protection against tyrrany because as long as the common man can defend himself and his country, no domestic enemy can easily sieze power.
. . . unless enough of the "common men" either vote for that enemy, or shoot the enemy's opponents. This happens a lot. It's called a "revolution", a "putsch", a "coup", or a number of other things.
In fact, armed citizens are tyrrany's wet dream, provided they can be easily led. Given that they're human, they can be led very easily indeed.
Life is dangerous. Nothing is permanent, nothing is guaranteed. Your "armed citizens" are as bad as the disease they purport to cure.
But a kid with a can of gas can killed dozens. Guns are not the problem, kids who want to kill are the problem.
It should be legal to shoot bullies. If these
were smart kids, how come they go ruining their lives by giving victimizers what they deserve?
Maybe that's where the US thing comes:
the evil were TOO evil.
Even with what I had to endure, I'm happy
I did not go to school there.
The media is making a big deal out of this. I can't help but wonder if they would be making such a big deal if it was an inner city school consisting of mostly minority students. I have a feeling it wouldn't be considered such an tragedy, but would be explained away as a "realitY" of city life. A few senators would call for aid to the poor, some activists would protest etc, and it would dissappear in a few days.
But these were relatively wealthy white kids. The New York Times quoted one father who said he moved to that town because "Stuff like this doesn't happen here." Yet, where it does happen, we accept it and ignore it, because most Americans don't live in poor urban areas. The minute urban problems extend out of the ghetto, it becomes a tragedy. Nevermind the fact that these problems exist to begin with... it's not a tragedy aslong as we never see it.
The tragedies here extend much deeper than the surface... will the media realize that?
Oh, I don't know...maybe we're smarter, or less easily swayed by emotion, or a little more leery of government holding all the power.
We have plenty of "blame the guns" bozos over here, mind you. We just slow them down a little. But they'll try the same stupid, matriarchal, knee-jerk, emotional "solutions" here; it's just a matter of time.
When will people face the fact that there isn't necessarily a solution to every problem?
If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have them. Personally, if a robber pulls in my drivway, jumps out of his rusty truck, and bashes down my door, I'd rather have a gun under the bed than have to call the cops and wait....
Not only this, but who's to say that only the "bad guys" are bad? Governments themselves go sour, and we need guns to protect ourselves against their tyranny. It was for this reason that the US Constitution acknowledged the freedom of Americans to bear arms.
While it would not have prevented them from starting the shootings, it would have put a quick end to it. If an adult in the buliding had a gun they could have returned fire, killing the shooters before more people died. It was a suicide mission, they went there to die (at least, that's the story.. maybe they just didn't want to go to jail.."death first"). However, the point still stands that if someone had a gun they would have been able to fight back and probably save many lives.
Keep in mind, even a gun safe is openable if you know how. Holding people responsible because someone stole thier guns and shot someone is plain stupid. There is ONE and ONLY ONE party responsible for a shooting, the person who pulled the trigger.
Ummm - that was an interesting comment. What country are you from? Germany, where they attack immigrants? UK - with the peace and love between you and Ireland? Maybe France, who sells weapons to Iraq and others. Maybe a mid eastern country that supports killing tourists in Egypt. Please spare us the 'US is spreading their violent culture crap' Try reading a history book.
Yes, Brits prefer to bash people's brains out of their skulls with blunt objects, or to blow them up. Americans have the benefit of more humane technology, and can shoot people instead.
Note, also, that the American figure you quote is an anti-gun fantasy, which includes suicides, it is most definitely not the murder rate.
Oh, and the British murder rate was low before you passed the first anti-gun laws decades ago. It's still low after passing them. You think there might be some connection here? Like Brits don't like to murder each other and Americans do?
Nah, too complicated, all that thinking. Let's just ban guns and go back to sleep.
Instead of focusing exclusively on guns, I'd be very interested to see a per-capita comparison of the overall murder rates between the two countries. Sure, the US has an astronomically higher murder-rate from guns, but I'd bet the UK beats the US hands down in bomb-related fatalities each year.
It all depends on the numbers you use. Anybody can come up with their own little subset of statistics to "prove" their point, but they almost always like to ignore the big picture's tendency to discredit their spin on events.
A society filled with armed citizens fearing each other is not a good foundation for a democracy.
"Democracy" is an excuse. What you describe is precisely what the gun nuts want, because they fantasize about people fearing them. They are, for the most part, weak, unsuccessful, inneffectual people. They tend to be at the low end of the socio-economic scale, or at best to have only recently clawed their way out of it (in which case they live their lives in fear of somebody "seeing through" them, and sending them back whence they came). That's why they need the psychological crutch of a gun. It makes them feel "strong" and "powerful".
As for the observation above about class, you could make a good case for American gun-nuttery being the result of a putatively "classless" society. The problem is that no society is truly classless. In the U.S., class is more tightly linked to wealth than elsewhere, and wealth is slightly easier to accumulate. So we have a lot of apparent mobility, but wealth is not the only determiner of class. You're comfortable in the group in which you were born. Outside of that group, you don't ever quite know all the signs and symbols. You're out of place, and you know it (this says absolutely nothing about your worth as a person, by the way). But Americans try desperately to deny that fact. This is idealistic and nice, and in theory it's a great thing: We try to deny that anybody is "born better" than anybody else, and in fact that's true (or so I believe, but I'm an American
These people have been told endlessly that anybody can be anything, but they find that nothing they do will ever change them in certain "important" respects. That cognitive dissonance fucks people up royally. In a nutshell, guns are for people who don't feel comfortable ordering wine. They are, of course, responsible for their own behavior, but the rest of us aren't helping any by making such a big f*cking la-di-da pretentious deal about goddamn wine, now are we? (Especially since Americans who actually do know anything about wine are as rare as hens' teeth).
!
:)
I'm not from any of those.
My point is not about independence/arms
export, but about a rotten value system leading to community violence. Arms export might be inmoral,
but we are talking about _local_ quality of life
here (and BTW, Irak was cool for the US until they fucked up).
About racism, you might have had a point,
but unfortunately the US is much worse
than civilized countries (including France/Germany).
Population doesn't come into play.
Look at Japan, there population density is incredibly high, and they have very little gun violence.
Nah, just that americans are barbarians, setup to be the next regime.
I say, give them all the guns they want, and let them kill eachother, sure thats bad, i'd lose a lot of friends.
But we'd be free of AOL! We just gotta ship a few good ones out like Linus or Alan Cox and stuff =P~
Can't agree more!!!
It has been 10 years but I feel that I still to this day bear the deep emotional scars of jr/sr high school in the form of reduced self-esteem and a vulnerable air of uncertainty.
The REAL issue that the media will never dissuss is the sickeningly flawed system which encourages the ridicule and humiliation of those willing and capable of thinking on their own.
Secondary education in amerika is all about conformity, and training for competitive agression under the guise of athleticism. Those who do not belive the hype are subject to mental and physical torture on a daily basis.
Not at the hands of administrators, but not behind their backs either. There is a tacet approval of such activities by the "in crowd".
Only now do I seethe with anger when I recall the consistent shame and emabarassment which I endured for being myself...for having technical interests, ambition, some kind of reasonable intelligence. Perhaps the most dangerous issue for the (any) establishment is the ability of people in the information age to easily share their feelings on these issues and therefore gain a sense of validation, reassurance that they are not alone. Of course the danger then comes from the fact that these groups must remain hidden for their own self-preservation and therefore have no outside influences to moderate their (well justified) anger and it is allowed to fester and distort into the kinds of incidents we are seeing these days. Gun control cannot stop people with half a brain and a knowledge of basic science, not to mention access to information. IMHO a little public understanding and acceptance would have prevented this situation more certainly than any laws concievable.
Admit it. How many of you out there were shocked, dismayed...but at the same time deep down felt a distinct sense of revenge for all of the years of endless teasing, torture, ridicule imposed during your high school years when you heard "kill all of the jocks" repeated on the news. It is the human condition, but my second reaction was an almost uncontrollable "That will show 'em". What a shame that my experiences have conditioned me to feel this way !
MGM
The problem is that many people in the US have no manners, respect, or self control. In all likelihood those people tageted (jocks) were the ones who prompted such action. Themselves and their parents are the ones indirectly responsible for the violent outlash. If people are given the respect they deserve by their peers things like this would be much rarer than they are now.
It was formally at http://www.trenchcoat.org/ but the InterNIC quickly pulled their records, you can still get it at http://165.90.187.70/) No offense, but I think that site's an after-the-fact joke thing. Kinda funny if you've got a sick sense of humor.
I agree with the title of your post but I must say that for :
"I never heard of something similar happening in France, Germany or the UK."
I'm french and I can say that you're wrong. A few years ago their was two young people (a boy and his girlfriend) who made a "natural born killer"-like trip and were shooting at everybody.
Ok this wasn't about videogames but about a movie, ok people were saying the same thing about horror books and things like that before. I don't think we can blame video games, movies, or books for these slaughters because they don't cause these kids to be mad, these kids are mad for other reasons and video games are acting like detonators (I don't know the english word (starter maybe???)).
You can censure every things that are violent in the world (you can begin by the news) and there still would be people getting mad and shooting other people. The only thing you can do is educate your children the best you can to be tolerant with other people's oddity (from their point of view) and teach them to love and enjoy life.
And why shouldn't population come into play? Not population desisity, raw population. We have more people. Thus we have more people that can go insane. This is a small percentage in any country, but it is typicaly a percentage. So if there are more people to draw from, the percentage with a mental problem will be higher.
The fact is, if people want to kill people, they will find a way. If they can't use guns, use a bow and arrow. Or a knife, explosives (they are EASY to make, if you know how), or a number of other things. Hell, just put a roll of quarters in your fist and beat someone to death. You going to call to outlaw money now? Just coins? How about a knife?
This can get rediculous real fast. Not to mention, a gun is a very simple thing. If you can't buy one, a little skill at metalworking and chemistry can build you one. Sure, it's not going to be a machine gun, but most crimes are don't require big firepower anyway.
Well, how do you suppose a society gets to such
a sorry state? Aliens just land and take over? It happens when ordinary people opt out of the political process (i.e. "too busy", "too much hassle", "not my thing") and leave it to extremists.
The premise that a well armed public being the guarantor of freedom and the bulwark against tyranny is dubious. In fact, your best defense against tyranny is a participatory democracy where everyone takes a measure of responsibility, rather than moan about their rights in chat rooms on the Internet.
Finally, the second amendment was written during a time when large standing armies were the exception rather than the rule. (It also bears mentioning that slavery was legal, and women and white men without property couldn't vote.) People had a responsibility to hold arms because they might be called upon to help defend the community as part of a militia. Jefferson, Madison, and the rest of the founders never dreamed of the kind of ordinance at the disposal of even the most deranged individual today. Regulation of firearms are most certainly constitutional, and there is a lot of case law that backs this up.
So if you're worried about "the guvment" taking over, just take a moment and realize that YOU are part of the process. Log off the Internet, and start talking face-to-face with your neighbors. Go to a town council meeting. You'd be surprised how much influence you can wield on the local level if you get involved.
Sorry, I must disagree with the statement that psychos do this because they know most citizens are unarmed.
These are not rational, clear-thinking human beings. In this particular case, the two shooters took their own lives... they don't seem particularly concerned about any life, including their own.
I don't think it's realistic to state that had they been worried about armed bystanders, they would not have committed this brutal act... they sought death, at their own hand or at the hand of the police.
Most people who commit crimes of senseless violence are not rational. Simply put, their minds do not work like our minds, for one reason or another. You or I may imagine, "I would never commit murder, because I do not want to be sentenced to death," but most actual murderers either never consider the consequences or are too egotistical to consider the possibility of being caught.
An armed populace (and don't we already have one, anyway?) is no deterrent to a demented mind intent on violence. The wide availability of handguns just makes it easier to carry out violent, impulsive whims...
I think that the only way to prevent these school shootings is to try harder to identify these children before they're beyond reaching.
Of course, that's not an easy solution, and the public in general would probably rather hear a politician talking about "getting tough on juvenile crime," which sounds very nice in a 15-second sound bite, than hear the same politician talking about "education, outreach, counseling, rehabilitation" or anything else that sounds like higher taxes.
Sorry for rambling toward the end, I hadn't planned on making my reply this long.
Oh yes they do. Here in the UK we had a history or gun control. After a masacure in 1987 all semi-automatic rifles where banned and tighter controls about storage were enforced. In 1997 there was a masacure in a school. After that all pistols where banned because there is no justifcation in the UK for having a small, easy to hide weapon. Also all weapons now have to be stored at licenced gun clubs except shotguns for farmers.
These two controls have taken over 100,000 weapons out of circulation.
Gun control has worked in UK. I not suggesting that an absolute ban should be placed in the US. That as you say would be impossible to enforce. But the US needs to start down the road of gun control. Make it hard to get licences and buy weapons but still allow law abiding, sensible citizens to buy them. The culture must change slowly over time. Not changing will lead to an endless cycle of violence. Changing too fast with cause a backlash.
you trust your fellow fucked in the head Americans MORE than the government
Yep! Sure do! Absolutely. You should meet some of the people that are actually IN the government. Just imagine even crazier people Writing Laws!
Personally I'm SCARED to own a gun and I'm scared that other people around me could legally own guns
As an owner of firearms, I feel that I have a Responsibility to educate others who have similar fears to yours. What I have seen most often is that someone who makes a statement such as yours is generally somebody who has never been PROPERLY introduced to firearms, or has just seen them in movies, in TV, and the nightly news. I have found by first explaining everything I know about how a firearm works then making sure that they understand what I just explained to them makes great strides towards improving their feelings in the matter.
This is usually followed up by an invitation to an outdoor gun range. I will lay several firearms out, explain what each one is. A general history of the firearm if I know it, differences in operation from other types of firearms, and above all else: safety! This is to be done before they get to TOUCH any of the firearms.
After a few hours of shooting, starting with smaller calibur rifles, and ending with politically incorrect handguns, I have found that everybody says, "thanks. Its not at all what I expected!"
And in the United States a day like that is our right. If people are given the opportunity to approach the matter with reason and to be informed, they will be a lot more comfortable with the idea of owning their own firearm and with the idea of their neighbor owning one. It is about respect.
You should respect the power of a firearm, not be afraid of it.
Finally, I believe that more firearm owners should try to educate others about firearms. Not politically ranting about this piece legistlation or that and how it will hurt their freedoms. But making a tolerant environment and allowing people to learn about what it is they are trying to ban. If you do that, more people will see the ridiculousness in the myriad of gun laws that are on the books already, and the ones that will be coming about from incidents like the Colorado shooting.
It is easy to lose your rights, but damn near impossible to get them back.
Rosie_bhjp
Didn't Hitler's Germany have gun laws... It took me forever to understand why the Jews in nazi Germany didn't just fight back... hmm... Speaking of "Ethnic Cleansing......"
The very point is the uncertainty factor. It's not so much is YOU have a gun, it's who ELSE does! For example, let's use a school.
For this to be of any effect, it needs to be well known that anyone who passes a test on gun safty and handling can have a permit.
Most criminals don't want to be shot. Most people don't want to. As a criminal you would not want to attack someone who could fight back. But what if you knew the victim couldn't? So you may attack them. What if, say, 10 other people in the building COULD? It makes crime that much more dangerous.
As an example, there is an area in Flordia that publicised relaxed concealed cary laws. Crime went down dramaticly in that area, continuing to go up in the rest of the nation. I don't have the refference with me, but I can provide one.
Of course; that's why it's so important that the people own guns to prevent the majority infringing on their rights. It's the disarmers who keep telling us the world is just hokey-dorey and we can trust them to look after us and hand over all those nasty, evil guns.
I don't think most of the US gun owners are members of "A well-regulated militia". A rational interpretation might be that members of a well-regulated militia have the right and need to keep fire-arms.
Look, either that's plain and simple gun-banner bullshit or you should have spent a lot more time at school studying comprehension. It says, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Read that? "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." See? The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Understand?
The founders were not as stupid as the kids coming out of schools today. If they'd meant "the right of the well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms" (and note that at the time well-regulated meant well-trained) then they would have said it. Or would you argue that when they said "the people" in other amendments they meant "the militia"?
Times change. Laws can change. It's time for this one to change.
Then change it. Repeal it. But you can't, because you don't have the political support, and if you were successful against the will of the people you'd start another civil war.
Best of all, there's finally a case heading to the Supreme Court on precisely this issue; this time they almost certainly can't refuse to judge it, and given that almost every constitutional lawyer agrees that it's an individual right -- since they can, like, read -- there's little the court can do but agree.
Oh, the future's looking fun, as we tear down centuries of authoritarian crap around the world...
"In WWII, a study showed that a very small percentage of soldiers in a given battle actually fired their weapons, and an even smaller percentage of those soldiers fired aimed shots."
> This "study" is an urban legend and has been
> exploded.
By whom?
However, it's irrelevant if it has - there are several independant other events that confirm the observations it made.
For example, a large number of Civil War weapons recovered from Civil War battlefields were found to have been loaded 2, 3 or even more times - the reason being that you can fake firing in all the din of battle, but you cannot fake going through the motions of reloading a muzzle loader. Soldiers that could not bring themselves to kill could still "save face" by reloading their rifles along with everyone else.
The "urban legend" is "give a man a weapon, and put him in danger, and he will fight and kill" - It's simply not true. Soldiers must be _trained_ to kill, most will not do it on their own.
> The individual in question made up his
> data for somewhat obscure reasons.
Proof?
> Actually the problem is not lack of firing, but > excessive fire (straining resupply and
> logistics).
This is covered in the book. It's "posturing" (firing without actually intending to hit anything, and thus avoiding the shame of "cowardice" without actually having to kill anyone)
There is a very famous film clip from Vietnam that demonstrates this: a soldier taking cover in a ditch raises his M-16 above his head, and sprays 20 rounds over the edge without once looking to see where his fire was going. This man is not fighting, he is posturing.
> Given the huge number of fire casualties in
> WWII and every subsequent conflict, it's
> amazing that anyone ever took the study
> seriously.
The leading cause of death in WWII was disease. The second leading cause of death (by a large margin) is artillery fire. Machine gun fire (from crew served weapons) is next. The amount of casulties from direct rifle fire is very small in comparison.
Having run basic training courses, I agree that building unit cohesion and teaching recruits to rely on each is a primary objective. However, you are also preparing those recruits for the possibility that they may have to kill, and ways of conditioning them to kill are working into the training regimen.
It's NOT a question of converting them into sociopaths - quite the contrary, we want our soldiers to THINK - but we also want, in the correct situation, the action of killing to be a reflex action, not one that takes concious thought.
That's why so much time is spent on drills, like the advance to contact drills, or the firefighting drills. Not only do the drills enhance the effectiveness of the unit and increase the odds of survival, they also don't give a soldier much time to ponder the moral ramifications of shooting.
At least, not until later. (Which is why - as you have noted - real vetrans don't brag about firefights)
DG
Put kids in a class and they will live out their lives in an invisible cage, isolated from their chance at community...Interrupt kids with bells and horns all the time and they will earn that nothing is important; force them to plead for the natural right to the toilet and they will become liars and toadies; ridicule them and they will retreat from human association; shame them and they will find a hundred ways to get even."
I'm quoting the whole thing because it's all true, and I like it. However: What he describes is not called "education"; it's called "industrial society". You can only get rid of that crap by living in small, relatively self-sufficient communities where everybody knows everybody else. When you do that, you lose a lot of other things, not the least being privacy. The result of that, of course, is that people run around and enjoy themselves anyway, but the neighbors know -- but, since it's such a small community, what can they really do? Not much in most cases, because you can't afford to alienate people in that situation. So there's a lot of generic public condemnation of "immoral behavior", coupled with specific tolerance in private. Another word for that is "hypocrisy", but then again a little lubricative bullshit always makes the wheels of human relations turn more smoothly anyway. It's like what Heinlein said (I don't quite know what an "anarcho-capitalist" is, but I'm willing to bet it intersects with "Heinlein fan", am I right?
So, anyway. Any culture will limit you, one way or another. There are large subcultures thriving in the broad light of day in this great nation of ours, which were simply not possible before we were all anonymous and alienated. It's not all bad. You pays your money and you takes your choice.
I've only looked at a small area of the relevant issues here, of course. I'm reading a book of Hugh Kenner essays, and one of them is about Emily Dickinson's brother, who for decades had an affair with a woman in Amherst, in the 19th century (small-town Massachussetts in the 19th century being pretty well definitively what we think of as repressed, you know?). This woman and her husband were what we'd now call "swingers", and apparently most of Amherst knew about it. They kept it quiet and showed up in church on Sunday, and everybody was happy. There must have been gossip, but, fortunately, everybody was hypocritical enough not to make a public issue of it. This is not the only such case I've read about. So, anyway, that was on my mind.
Britain is not a free society in any sense of the word -- it's one of the few still proposing to ban encryption on the Net for 'national security' -- there are more than a hundred times as many crimes committed with guns today as there were before the first anti-gun law in 1920. How is this supposed to be a win?
Oh yeah, and those laws really went a long way to stopping the IRA getting guns, didn't they?
As for Australia, well, I'm not at all surprised to see that a few stories up from this one the Australian government are about to impose Internet censorship. First the guns, then free speech. What a shock.
Uh no, you can have an industrial society without schools. At school I learnt to turn up when I was told to, do what I was told to, ask before I went to the toilet, eat when I was told to, go home when I was told to and, well, to do what I was told to or be punished for it.
When have I ever worked for a company where I did any of that? Uh, never, in more than a decade outside the Glorious Socialist Education System. Few companies these days want people who do what they're told and nothing else; most want people who weren't crippled by the education system into becoming little cogs in the wheels of industry.
School sucks. The sooner we eliminate it the better.
> but I'd bet the UK beats the US hands down in
> bomb-related fatalities each year.
Well you be wrong then, wouldn't you?
If you're thinking about the IRA, they tend to
blow up buildings more than people. (They give
evacuation warnings). I doubt they
killed more than 20 people a year with bombs.
Last year was a bit disastrous with 29 dying in
the Omagh bomb, but this was the worst ever
bombing in Irish history.
Anyway, they're on ceasefire now.
It's for the same reason that virulent disarmers refuse to put up neon signs on their houses saying "This house is disarmed, come on in!"
If I have a gun carried openly and you don't, then the crook will ignore me and attack you.
If I have a gun carried concealed and you don't, the crook doesn't know which of us is armed and which of us isn't armed. Hence they don't attack either of us.
Why do you think that the crooks started attacking tourists in Florida after the concealed carry law was passed? Because they couldn't attack native Floridians any more since many were armed, whereas tourists were safely disarmed for them.
Not to the tune of 30k deaths I'm sure. Besides, the IRA have stopped blowing people up (for now).
Plus, guess where most of their funding comes from...
Of course, it's not like militias are actually tolerated in the US. Any time a group of people gets together independent of the government and stockpiles weapons, regardless of how far away from 'civilization' they are or how much they keep to themselves, are labeled as a cult or fanatics, and the feds take them out...
Maybe it only applies to 'free states' that aren't under federal control. I'm sure there are PLENTY of those...
Then you should learn to read. The "well-trained militia" clause is subsidiary to the main point that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I'm not the only one to understand this, as almost all constitutional lawyers agree with me; not to mention the published comments from the Founders. But hey, they were probably confused, they didn't have tax-funded schools back in those days.
In this day and age, with the technology available to us and the size of our "well regulated" armed forces, the 2nd amendment is hopelessly out of date.
So we can just argue that the 1st amendment is "out of date" and ban free speech? The 4th amendment is out of date, so cops can search us at will? Either the constitution is the law or it isn't. If you don't like it, change it.
And, BTW, not only did people at the time own private warships, but the Constitution implicitly assumes that people would continue to do so. If the Founders were happy for people to own warships, why would they care about a few wimpy assault rifles and grenade launchers?
Geez, they're clearly no better at teaching history in schools than teaching comprehension. They do seem pretty damn good at teaching anti-gun bullshit though.
Oh, and if you want to argue about the inviolability of the amendments to the constitution, might I remind you of the amendment which outlawed liquor... repealed in about 15 years.
Yes, repealed. The second amendment can also be repealed; so go do it. In the meantime, it's the law, and it's tough luck to the disarmers.
This is very much a peripheral issue surrounding this whole tragedy, but I think it bears addressing in the face of what I'm reading...
In the wake of the Columbine High tradegy, a lot of people on-line are talking about their own high school experiences, past and present. One thing I'm picking up on is the constant conflict among "jocks," "preps," "pop-tarts," "geeks," "goths," "fashion club girls," and whatever other cliques manage to form around each high school.
Would these sort of divisions exist at this divisive a level if everyone wore school uniforms?
Anyone who has seen the Joe Clark biopic "Lean on Me" with Morgan Freeman will remember a scene early on in the film where Clark, then a high school teacher, is so incensed that the school board is eliminating its school uniform policy that he walks out of the school and doesn't look back. "Discipline is not the enemy of enthusiasm," he argued.
Perhaps he has a point. Much of the culture of high school has fostered a gang-like mentality among students, where each group is expected to look, act and dress a certain way, and each group has to put down the other in some way, else they won't be accepted. It's becoming clear that these sorts of walls between students are not healthy and affect students for the rest of their lives. If it helps even a little bit to break down those walls by making all students dress the same, wouldn't that be a worthy ounce of prevention?
A lot of people argue for diversity training, but even the slightest bit of that training won't help until we recognize that in a sense, we're all the same. We're all human beings, and we need to be instilled with and reminded of that basic respect for human life throughout our own lives. Sadly, Harris and Klebold didn't see that, and they took 13 others with them when they died. Would school uniforms have stopped them? Who's to say? But maybe, just maybe, it'll instill a sense of discipline and pride in some other kid out there who feels just as powerless as those kids did. Maybe they'll see that they're just the same as everyone else, going through the horrors of high school and adolescence together, and they won't be so afraid of the differences between people that they'll learn to hate anything that's different -- or want to kill it.
As a piece of anecdotal evidence, Japanese students have lived with school uniforms for decades, and their school systems have topped U.S. school systems consistently for a while now. Has it eliminated cliques entirely? I would doubt it, and it probably won't eliminate cliques here, either, in the short run. In the long run, though, it might be one of the small things that put the kibosh on the much bigger problem of murder in our schools.
What do you think, sirs?
"The above is nothing more than my opinion on this day. Had this been biblical truth, your bushes would be on fire." - Warren Ellis
I agree 100%. I was a geek in high school. The only thing that protected me from problems was my 6'2" height and 220 pounds. I was encouraged to play football, but choose more academic interests.
I've been a geek of my life, played DOOM, Quake, and watch awful lot of violent movies. I was using the Internet (I still don't like that name) before most people even heard of it. I like movies with lots of action (which usually means violence), I play cool games like DOOM and Quake all the time (hmm, maybe too much now that I think about it). But I have never killed anyone! In fact I am a Christian, and go to Church! I think the fu*king media should do a little research on the background of the person(s) that did the killing before they start making things up. It's not what kind of games they played or what web sites they visited, it's how they where raised as children, what happened just before, how they where treated/thought of by other students!!!
I hope the number of people posting on this story/form will get the medias attention, but I feel that it wont.
You people miss the whole point of why this
takes place. Gun Control can't keep the guns out
of the hands of criminals, let alone kids. It is
10-20 times easier to get an illegal gun than it
is a legal one. Attacking guns does no good. Guns
do no harm by themselves. People are the problem,
I know way too many "parents" who don't care where
they're kids are, or what there doing as long as
the kid isn't bothering them. PARENTS are part of
the problem. Learn to discipline your damn kids.
Well, there are the theory and the reality.
Theory : killing someone is easy, guns or not
Reality : US has a very high rate of people killed, mostly by guns. In other western nations (where everywhere guns are banned), violent death are much less common.
So instead of discussing about banning or not, look at what US neighbours do and try to imitate the ones who do better. And those have banned guns.
Yeah, in your fucking precious Canada, Europe, and Japan there are fewer murders by firearm, but your economically normalized murder RATES are pretty close to ours, often WORSE.
You retort and whine "but with guns someone can kill so many more people". True, but guess what, while these "spree shootings" are too bad, they make nearly zero impact on the real murder rate, they just play well on TV.
You trust your government too much. I would have thought the Europeans would have learned better. But I guess not. The Canadians will get their turn. The Japanese "fixed" their problem by being profoundly xenophobic and homogenious, crushing their minority populations out of existance, and indoctrinating themselves in obedience and getting along at all costs. But they are no longer a threat, what with a birthrate that would give the Club Of Rome a giggle fit and a sexually imbalanced brain-drain of amazing scope.
Hitler DISARMED the private gun-owners amongst the German people, and ARMED the German army. There's a rather obvious difference between private ownership and military, don't you think? No, I guess you've been smoking too much crack to work that out.
You don't have even the vaguest notion of what the word "embargo" means, do you? Nope. An embargo is when people stop selling you stuff. This has no effect on the stuff you've already got.
Back when Yugoslavia was a united country, they had an army and -- AFAIK -- a small number of privately owned weapons. When it fell apart, the Serbs grabbed most of the military weapons and the other groups were left with what little they could scrounge. They could have bought weapons on the free market, but no, no, the disarmers in the UN knew that letting people have guns was far, far too dangerous. Much better to let them die than to let them buy guns to defend themselves.
To "disarm" somebody is to take away his or her weapons. Please, learn to read.
Right. So refusing to let people buy weapons which they could otherwise have bought to defend themselves against better armed adversaries isn't disarmament. And white is black, and freedom is slavery.
This is an hysterical lie. It's pure nonsense. It's the most bizarre and hilarious denial of reality I've ever seen in my life. Even crack won't do that to somebody -- what are you on? Holy shit. I hope you're not operating any heavy machinery.
Ok, you go and find the figures and post them. Back in 1920 there were around 20 armed crimes in London each year committed with guns. By the mid-nineties that figure was up to around 4500, most of the increase in the previous twenty years. That's more than a hundred times increase, despite more and more anti-gun laws. I think the national figures were more like 100 to 12000.
You want to prove me wrong? Then get the figures and prove me wrong. Go on, I dare you. Go get them. Post them. You're so damn sure, then you must be right, mustn't you?
But you'll have a hard time, because I'm right, and you're wrong. That you think it's a "hysterical lie" says more about the teaching of history in British schools than about reality.
The reason they weren't playing Q2 or even 1 is because they COULDN'T. This is also the reason they can not be appropriately labeled as 'geeks'...what true geek is running a p75 with winblows, and a Packard Bell one at that???
I probably should have said "suporters," instead of "Nazis," where "suporters" is the union of "Nazis" and people who supported Hitler in fear for there life.
True, there were people like that. But when you read contemporary accounts, it's not that simple. Bear in mind that it's only in hindsight that a swastika is a unique symbol of unimaginable evil. In 1932, it was just a doohickey. Many people who were not maniacs or killers saw the Nazis as a very positive force. The violence was "regrettable", but the "contstructive" parts really appealed to them. These guys wanted to rebuild Germany, they wanted to make Germany proud again! This was after the Versailles treaty, with the reparations and all. Pride was at a premium. The Nazis wanted Germans to be strong, steadfast, clean, hardworking, and moral. They were sharp dressers! They were brisk and efficient, and they had no patience with whiners and parasites, nor with defeatism. They were doers, not complainers. Everybody else was sitting around moaning, or else snorting coke and staying up all night in cabarets hanging out with transvestites -- but the Nazis had goals.
It's only in retrospect that we can see the Nazi party in 1932 as so profoundly, loathsomely evil that for many of us, they've poisoned the very idea of dressing sharply, or of emphasizing action over talk. Saying that the majority was deceived doesn't militate against my point at all. So what? So they were deceived. They will be deceived again. Guns can't stop that.
Yes, there were people who read the warning signs very early on. There was a newspaper in Munich which editorialized against them relentlessly. But the doubters were few in number, and the believers were many. I don't care how many guns you have; when it's 100 to 1 against you, you lose. (I'm not dogging those who fight against those odds -- to the contrary, the Warsaw Ghetto uprising is in my opinion just about the finest and most admirable thing that human beings have ever done, regardless of the fact that they lost. Winning isn't everything, though of course I wish the uprisers had won militarily, in addition to winning morally and personally).
The difference between the people would like to rebuild or dismantle parts of the US government and Hitler is their platform.
Don't bet on that. Look at some militia web sites. Do you know what "ZOG" stands for? "Zionist Occupation Government". The Montana Freemen have a racial ideology straight out of Hitler's greatest hits. A fat, clumsy, and occasionally dangerous bureaucracy (the U.S. gov't as-is) makes me nervous, but it makes me a lot less nervous than those guys do.
You can't overthrow a government with the government. There has to be some point where you just dismantle everything, throw it all out and rebuild it.
It doesn't necessarily happen all at once. The Nazis spent years morphing the Weimar Republic into the the Third Reich, and most of the political work was done without very much violating the law, nor altering it. It was often ignored, though. Did you know that during the war, there were German soldiers who refused to kill Jews? There were. They were not punished, but merely reassigned, because killing prisoners was still in violation of German military law -- the same military law that had been in force for decades. The general staff members who plotted against Hitler did so because they were old-line Prussian aristocrats who despised these "white-trash" (god, what an unpleasant term) jumped-up Nazi bounders. They were the same military-caste Prussians who'd been in the German general staff since the country was unified.
Hitler did not make the government vanish and impose a new one. He modified what he had.
[Hitler] didn't mention the fact that he wanted to become a dictator and kill all the Jews, Gypsies, Gays, and anyone else he didn't like.
Yes he did. He was violently chauvinistic right from the start, and that's how he got a lot of his support. Anti-semitism and other racial nonsense in Germany goes way back. When Hitler was imprisoned in the 1920's, the prosecution called an "expert witness" who testified as to Hitler's "inferior" and "criminal" "racial type" based on the shape of Hitler's skull. I am not making this up. I should also make it abundantly clear that I don't consider the German people to be irredemably evil or intrinsically bigoted or anything like that ("Some of my best friends are Germans", ha ha ha
The libretarian and other such parties platforms is the partial or total destruction of government.
"The state will wither away", as the man said. I don't trust such intentions. They never seem to work out very well.
They're honest about what they want.
So was Lenin, most likely. So are the pro-term-limits Republicans in Congress who are now violating their pledges not to run for a third term. (BTW, many do seem to be honoring those pledges, incl. Chenoweth and some others that I won't mind losing, though I now respect them a lot more for their integrity). People enter government with high ideals, and then they get swamped by details. Implementation is never as clear and simple as design. Frankly, anybody who thinks government can be gotten rid of, is IMHO a bit too starry-eyed to be trusted with power. Starry-eyed idealists have a bad habit of driving screws with hammers.
And what if (not "if", "when" !) it's the armed teacher that goes berserk ? Then he will be able to kill -at least- all his pupils.
A gun is made to kill - period ! There's no other use for it, it's designed, built and sold to kill, not to open bear bottles or cut beef. Whoever owns it, it's made to kill. No civilians should have access to a specialised killing device.
Or do you advocate selling gillotines, torture equipement ? Think of how safer this country would be if anybody could have his/her own private torture room, that would sure stop all crimes from happening.
Hmmm...easy availability of guns is what caused this? And I suppose they picked up the pipe bombs at their local gun show as well? C'mon. If they wanted to do this, they'd have pulled it off without guns.
It's frustrating that this incident is being turned into a gun control argument. They could have achieved the same results by using pipe bombs and a bow and arrow, knife, hatchet, baseball bat, or whatever.
The media is making a big deal out of this. I can't help but wonder if they would be making such a big deal if it was an inner city school consisting of mostly minority students. I have a feeling it wouldn't be considered such an tragedy, but would be explained away as a "realitY" of city life. A few senators would call for aid to the poor, some activists would protest etc, and it would dissappear in a few days.
But these were relatively wealthy white kids. The New York Times quoted one father who said he moved to that town because "Stuff like this doesn't happen here." Yet, where it does happen, we accept it and ignore it, because most Americans don't live in poor urban areas. The minute urban problems extend out of the ghetto, it becomes a tragedy. Nevermind the fact that these problems exist to begin with... it's not a tragedy aslong as we never see it.
The tragedies here extend much deeper than the surface... will the media realize that?
But why is it moral in the US when a judge decide somebody has to die, but for another citizen it's not moral ? What makes the judge so much more superior to other humans that He can decide who can live and who can't ? Is he God or what ?
I'm sorry but as long as death penalty exist, killing will BE moral for people. Not consciously, but death penalty shows that in the US killing someone can be moral. A judge is still a human being, and if he can kill, then others will think they have somewhat the same right too.
And again, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Federal regulation of any kind is unconstitutional. If the intent had hinged on the idea of a militia, then they would have specified militia and not people.
Look, this kind of crap is what started the militia movement, then the disarmers turn around and wonder why that happened. Well-meaning idiots cause these problems, then utterly refuse to accept any responsibility for it. No wonder America is fucked.
Society "should" do a lot of things. Really the issue here is
socialization of teenagers who happen to be regarded as "geeks"
and / or who are tormented for that. The issue of violence regarding
the specific incident in Colorado is something I can't address,
but some creative action can help such people (and others,
most of whom are not violent) to feel better and get through
those difficult years. Usually, if "geeks" can get through that
period, they find themselves much more popular and socially
adept than the jocks in high school who stalled out at an early
stage of development.
I went to school 35 years ago, before the internet and before
video games and pc's. It is true that many students who are
inclined to be "intellectual" will be driven in a different direction
from the norm - and it was true then as well. Video games,
pc's and the internet has nothing to do with it.
Why not use the internet to help such people engage in
social pursuits more. It has already been pointed out how
the internet can become an antisocial or asocial addiction.
Well, sites like Slashdot can help, and others which are less
technically oriented but still appeal to "geeks" in their teenage
years. I'd even go so far as to suggest "personals" for geeks
like what AOL provides for others. There is always the risk
of abuse by perverts, but that risk is present in AOL contacts
as well.
Many geeks do not date in high school - some are not inclined
to until later (which is fine) but others feel so put down that
they just give up until they find themselves in a different setting,
usually in college, where they are more respected. Simply having
a girlfriend, even if it is in the form of email correspondence with
somone one never will meet, can help teenage boys feel very
good about themselves and they no longer care what some
others might think of them. It's a little different with female
geeks who rarely have these issues to deal with.
That's a very concrete suggestion . Hint, hint, Rob and Hemos.
I'm sure you can get some paying advertisers who are in the
"personal" business and might specialize in geeks.
over 40
Uh no, you can have an industrial society without schools.
I don't buy that. Are your parents going to teach you electrical engineering at home? Or nuclear physics? Or are you gonna buy the O'Reilly book? (Or worse yet, Sams: Teach Yourself Brain Surgery For Dummies in 21 Days
An industrial society requires a greater degree of specialization than can be achieved without schools. It's a price you pay. TAANSTAFL, right? You pays your money and you takes your choice. If it turns out to be a bad bargain, cut your losses and start over.
At school I learnt to turn up when I was told to, do what I was told to, ask before I went to the toilet, eat when I was told to, go home when I was told to and, well, to do what I was told to or be punished for it.
Oh. I learned how to strike a balance between my desires and the desires of the culture I lived in. I also learned some chemistry, physics, geology, French, math, etc. I got a good enough basic grounding in English literature that I could continue on my own with a reasonable sense of what it was about, and which books to start with. I got a good enough grounding in the structured programming paradigm that I could go from there without having to reinvent the wheel. Both lit. and CS are a bitch to bootstrap, if you're ever to have a solid general mastery of the fields. Mastery is gained on one's own, of course. It always is. Schools give us enough of everything to decide what we're passionate about, and then passion drives us to stay up late, give ourselves ulcers, and ruin our eyesight becoming ass-kickers in the few fields that really grab us.
Of course school isn't magical, and you don't get any more out than you put in (generally somewhat less, it's true). And some of the discipline is a crock of shit, too. Some of everything is a crock of shit. Everything can use improvement. You can shoot the puppy, or you can train it. Pick one. Prices reasonable.
When have I ever worked for a company where I did any of that? Uh, never, in more than a decade outside the Glorious Socialist Education System.
Then (in addition to taking me far too literally) you've been working at the wrong company. A lot of places are like that. There's an company near where I live where they do contract tech support for Microsoft, and the employees there are specifically required to ask permission to go to the bathroom. Assembly-line factory jobs are the same way. Hey, I'm a developer. I show up when I get there and I leave late. If I wander off for an hour, it's no big deal. Some days I oversleep and arrive forty-five minutes after when I should (nominally) be there -- and the door is locked, because everybody else overslept too!
Glorious Socialist Education System.
Save your hysterical paranoid fantasies for people who care. The Soviet Union actually did have such a school system, and in fields which got ideologized, their science (hence industry) went belly up. Just like what will happen to biology and geology in the U.S. if the Christians succeed in ramming the Bible down our childrens' throats.
Wait a second here. Is anyone who owns a PC and is a bit of a misfit a "nerd"? Back in high school we had all kinds of misfit cliques. Most of them were not nerd cliques. Now virtually everyone has a PC. So suddenly the potheads and all the groups have been lumped into our category simply because they had a PC and played games on it?
No, I don't buy this.
You mention that when kid's "lose it" in Japan they often stab their teachers. That is just the point though, it's true that a kid in Japan might be just as likely to go a little nutty as one in the U.S., but the potential to create harm is way greater in the U.S. The sad event of one teacher being stabbed is incomparable to the miniture massacres which is a phenomena that only occurs in the U.S.
> 1 - Largest militia in the world...
Yeah, and when 11000 russian nuclear warheads will head to your nice country, do you think your pathetics guns will save you ? Wake up ! The 18th century is over. Militia was good for the time the constitution was written... but the constitution is obsolete on this thing.
> 2 - overthrown governement.
Same thing, that was usefull centuries ago, now it's a pathetic idea. If the US governement turns into a dictature (very highly unlikely), then part of the army will turn against the governement, and part of the population will pillage munitions depots. that's the way it happens in other country when there's a civil war.
You sound like a pretty paranoid person... get some holidays !
My perception of the media's perception is that they really are not blaiming the internet, games, or any other youth subculture. Of course most of my information reguarding teh event has originated from CNN, so I'm not sure how other media outlets are portraying the tragedy.
Hitler DISARMED the private gun-owners amongst the German people, and ARMED the German army. There's a rather obvious difference between private ownership and military, don't you think?
This is a convenient and standard "libertarian" fallacy: To pretend that the government and the military are in some way extrinsic to the population as a whole. I don't think it's deliberately dishonest, but it's certainly a gross distortion of reality. It's an attempt to define the government as "other", preparatory to using it as a scapegoat for the actions of the people who voted for it, formed it, direct it, and support it. We're all responsible for what our government does. We created it, we maintain it, and we'd best face up to that fact. If you don't like it, then change it, but don't pretend that it descended from heaven on a flying saucer and somehow magically imposed itself on a nation of free men who just stood there and watched.
So refusing to let people buy weapons which they could otherwise have bought to defend themselves against better armed adversaries isn't disarmament. And white is black, and freedom is slavery.
It's a subtle point, but the meanings of words do matter whether you like it or not. "Taking away" differs from "not giving". It just does, regardless of the fact that most Americans nowadays seem to believe that anything not handed to them for free, has been somehow "stolen" from them.
I'm not favorably impressed by the fact that you deal only in vague generalities and half-comprehended slogans. These are the signs of somebody who has a fine contempt for fact and logic, or else a congenital inability to think in even the most primitive manner.
You want to prove me wrong? Then get the figures and prove me wrong. Go on, I dare you. Go get them. Post them. You're so damn sure, then you must be right, mustn't you?
Heh. If you weren't lying, you wouldn't be so hysterically defensive about it. Anyhow, the burden of proof is on the nut who tells the lie (you), not on the guy who calls him on it. So provide a link to the militia web site where you scrounged up this gibberish, okay? Or did you just make it up off the top of your head? The fact that the numbers keep changing is very suspicious.
Disclaimer - I'm a Yank, and my perspective is distinctly Yankee.
1) Ever read Bret Easton Ellis' book? The first thing you notice is the narrator's obsession with superficial details, especially with clothes.
Now - go and read the media coverage. All the surviving teenagers talk about when they're done bemoaning their unspeakable trauma is who wears what clothes and drives what car.
People are dead, and all these kids want to talk about is how rich kids wear Abercrombie and poor kids don't. Blech.
2) I don't know about you guys, but I desensitized and ashamed of it. I live in NYCity, wherein one either achieves a necessary distance, gets worn out trying to fix it all, or goes insane. I am not proud of the devices I maintain to keep my sanity - I also know for a fact that if I gave money to every beggar on the subway, I'd cause as much harm as help. But I digress.
The fact is, I'm fully capable of watching a movie like "Natural Born Killers", seeing past the gratuitous violence, and finding it somewhere between artful and playfully funny. I have to *work* to be outraged about a war in Kosovo in which the armies supposedly protecting *me* needlessly kill civilians with casual disregard. If I saw a person running for help away from someone bent on killing them, I wonder seriously if I'd have the courage or the care to do anything but zone it out.
I am like this, and I know of many who feel the same way.
Homicide is an unspeakable act, and it should be unthinkable. The fact that we as a culture have allowed ourselves to think about homicide so casually scares and shames me to no end.
Bzzzz you fallen prey to Myth No. 9
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/guns/aiming.html
Myth No. 9: Gun control laws are especially needed to prevent gun
accidents in the home. "Gun-control advocates have sought to create the
impression that firearm accidents involving children are a large and
growing problem," writes the Independence Institute's David Kopel. "Many
people mistakenly conclude that children die frequently in gun accidents
and that sharp restrictions on gun ownership are necessary to address the
problem." In fact, however, the number of gun accidents involving both
children and adults has fallen dramatically.
In 1970, 2,406 Americans died from firearms accidents. By 1991, that
number had fallen to 1,441--even as the number of guns increased
dramatically. Between 1970 and 1991, the annual rate of fatal gun
accidents was cut in half, from 1.2 to 0.6 per 100,000 Americans. The
death rate from firearms accidents is lower than that from accidental
drowning (1.6 per 100,000 in 1991), inhalation and ingestion of foreign
objects (1.3), and complications from medical procedures (1.0).
>Even in the UK. You are not citizens, you are
>"Subjects of the Crown". If your government
>want to oppress you, oh well...
This is pretty rich, coming from the country of
McCarthy, incidents like Waco and possibly the
most brutal and corrupt police force in the
developed world, not to mention a civil service
that seems to behave as though it is at war with
the populace it's supposed to serve.
What's even worse is that, given all this, you
dare to presume to lecture someone from the
Worlds's longest established parlimentary
democracy; a country where, if many US laws and
practices (e.g. fining someone for crossing the
road in the "wrong" place) were attempted,
civil liberties groups would go ballistic.
Land of the Free, my arse.
Bzzzz you fallen prey to Myth No. 6
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/guns/aiming.html
Myth No. 6: Guns don't work as self-protection against criminals. In fact,
guns are about as valuable to civilians as they are to police officers,
and for the same reason. According to criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc
Gertz, every year adults use guns for protective purposes 2.5 million
times. As many as 65 lives are protected by guns for every life lost to a
gun. Each year, potential victims kill between 2,000 and 3,000 criminals;
they wound an additional 9,000 to 17,000. Moreover, mishaps are rare.
Private citizens mistakenly kill innocent people only thirty times a year,
compared with about 330 mistaken killings by police. Criminals succeed in
taking a gun away from an armed victim less than 1 percent of the time.
The real utility of defensive firearms, moreover, must surely be far
greater, and would be measured not by how many people were shot or even
how often a gun was fired, but rather by the deterrent effects of a
civilian being armed.
Disclaimer - I'm a Yank, and my perspective is distinctly Yankee.
1) Ever read Bret Easton Ellis' book? The first thing you notice is the narrator's obsession with superficial details, especially with clothes.
Now - go and read the media coverage. All the surviving teenagers talk about when they're done bemoaning their unspeakable trauma is who wears what clothes and drives what car.
Their classmates are dead, and all these kids want to talk about is how rich kids wear Abercrombie and poor kids don't. Blech.
2) I don't know about you guys, but I desensitized and ashamed of it. I live in NYCity, wherein one either achieves a necessary distance, gets worn out trying to fix it all, or goes insane. I am not proud of the devices I maintain to keep my sanity - I also know for a fact that if I gave money to every beggar on the subway, I'd cause as much harm as help. But I digress.
The fact is, I'm fully capable of watching a movie like "Natural Born Killers", seeing past the gratuitous violence, and finding it somewhere between artful and playfully funny. I have to *work* to be outraged about a war in Kosovo in which the armies supposedly protecting *me* needlessly kill civilians with casual disregard. If I saw a person running for help away from someone bent on killing them, I wonder seriously if I'd have the courage or the care to do anything but zone it out.
I am like this, and I know of many who feel the same way.
Homicide is an unspeakable act, and it should be unthinkable. The fact that we as a culture have allowed ourselves to think about homicide so casually scares and shames me to no end.
That's one of the stupidiest comment I have ever read ! Of course they are addicted to pornography, they don't see a living woman in a year ! They are humans too, they have hormones in their blood. What do you think monks do ? That they are completely free of all sex ? They are humans too !
And in countries where guns are banned the number of people shot is close to nil.
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics... and worse, the statistics of the NRA !
Oh yes, here it comes.
Everyone wants an EXTERNAL SOURCE to hang the blame on. For some it will be "the media", for some it will be "the guns", for others it will be "the net". I want you to look at 90% of the postings here and elsewhere and see if everyone isn't trying to hang blame on their favorite hated topic. If you hate guns, this is the big chance. If you hate the media, now you have a horse. If you are scared of the net, here's your shot to whip on those nerds. Etc, etc, etc.
Ad nauseum.
Now, consider that this *didn't* happen when I was in high school in the 80's. We had if anything freer access to firearms when I was a kid. Every boy had parents who kept unlocked firearms around the house where I grew up, or had a friend who did. There were no shortages of pyromaniacs or misfits. And yet, we didn't build 30 pipe-bombs and set out to kill our classmates like in Heathers. Why? What has changed? It's not "easy access to guns", which if anything is less easy now with the prevalent usage of trigger locks and lockboxes. Everyone had access to a copy of the black books on home-made explosives, actual print books did precede the shoddy Internet copies. And yet, this didn't happen then and it does now. WHAT has changed? Most people cannot do this simple before and after comparison and come up with a sensible answer. So stop leaping to answers because you like the answers and start LOOKING for the answers. This is IMPORTANT. A bunch of dead people should not be used as fuel for your personal pre-existing vendetta fires, which is mostly what we are seeing right now. STOP LEAPING TO ANSWERS BECAUSE YOU LIKE THE ANSWERS AND START LOOKING FOR THE REAL ONES!
Personally I have to wonder about parents with kids who have a Nazi fascination deep enough to know Hitler's 110th birthday. Give *that* some thought. Were they raised by wolves? But I'm not going to try to assign BLAME to them, because I really don't know enough about their situation to do so, unlike 99% of the people running around now who think because they heard someone on TV talk that they know all about it now.
Oh yes, you can bet that the planes will be packed with lawyers flocking to Colorado. And each and every lawsuit is going to name about 50 defendants, from the school administrators, to Id Software, etc. etc. They will of course name everybody they feel they *can* punish, whether they deserve it or not. The sick bastards who actually *deserve* the punishment are unfortunately dead, so they will accept any and all scapegoats.
Britian and Sweden, to mention a few, has never been invaded (while firearms has existed).
I personally dont know the history of Sweeden and its rights, but I do know that Britain actually had a provision in their own bill of rights that allowed, and actually required citizens to maintain weapons for the defense of the nation. That right was slowly evolved over time and no longer exists. Our second amendment was actually based upon the british version, but was modified to prevent it from evolving, much like the other *core* freedoms we have in this nation.
Isn't it true, that most people that are murdered in the US, are shot with their own weapon?
I have heard that one to. Nobody seems to be able to point to the data that this came from. "Research" in this country is pretty interesting. you can get a figure on anything you want. You just gotta say you "researched" it. In this country there is a law that is going through our congress or at least being considered by it. It would require people who say, "I have research saying x causes y" to actually show proof of their research and to have it made public. Some people are actually against this legislation if you could believe such a thing! And guess who they are? I'll give you a hint. The same people who say, "most people that are murdered in the US, are shot with their own weapon."
rosie_bhjp
Bzzzzt you fallen prey to several Gun Control Myths...
Myth No. 1: Guns cause crime. A review of the academic literature shows
that there is no relationship between the number of guns and the amount of
crime in the United States. Criminologists Gary Kleck and E. Britt
Patterson reported in 1993 their finding that gun ownership had no
significant effect on the rates of murder, assault, robbery, or rape in
the U.S. Between 1973 and 1992, the rate of gun ownership in the U.S.
increased by 45 percent (from 610 guns per 1,000 people to 887). The
homicide rate during that period fell by nearly 10 percent (from 9.4
homicides per 100,000 people to 8.5).
Myth No. 2: Gun control laws reduce crime. Firearms have been regulated
with increasing stringency in the United States for most of the past
thirty years. Nevertheless, the number of firearms in private hands has
increased continuously by many millions per year; handguns have become an
increasing proportion of privately owned firearms; and rates of crime,
violent crime, and homicide have shown no relationship to the passage or
enforcement of gun laws. In their 1993 research, Kleck and Patterson
analyze the impact of 19 gun control measures on six categories of
violence. In ninety of the resulting 102 relationships, they found no
significant correlation between gun laws and violence.
Myth No. 4: Gun control laws keep criminals from obtaining guns. In
surveys of prisoners, a majority report that they had owned a handgun
prior to their imprisonment. But only 7 percent of criminals' handguns are
obtained from legitimate retail sources. Three-fourths of felons surveyed
report they would have no trouble obtaining a gun when they were released,
despite legal prohibitions against firearms ownership by convicted felons.
From watching television and reading articles on the internet, most of the outlets are unsure of what caused this violent act to occur. I think the media has gotten over blaimming something that does not effect 99.99999% of the population at all. Although, I'm pretty sure the internet did facilitate their bomb production, it would have stil been possible without the internet. I have seen some people call for tighter gun control, however I do not think that is really going to solve anything. The perpetrators could have still proceeded just with pipe bombs and tenis ball bombs.
As for the incident being unexpected, that is just ridiculous. The two kids practically worshiped Hitler and publically mimiced nazi salutes. They publically touted their aresnol of weapons. In addition, numerous people knew of their excessive bomb production. COME ON. UNEXPECTED? Give me a god damn break. While the aforementioned acts aren't illegal, they definetely warrent an investigation into the psychological stability of teh child. Face the facts, school officials were blind and the parents didn't care. Plain and simple.
You've fallen prey to several Gun Control Myths:
Myth No. 1: Guns cause crime. A review of the academic literature shows
that there is no relationship between the number of guns and the amount of
crime in the United States. Criminologists Gary Kleck and E. Britt
Patterson reported in 1993 their finding that gun ownership had no
significant effect on the rates of murder, assault, robbery, or rape in
the U.S. Between 1973 and 1992, the rate of gun ownership in the U.S.
increased by 45 percent (from 610 guns per 1,000 people to 887). The
homicide rate during that period fell by nearly 10 percent (from 9.4
homicides per 100,000 people to 8.5).
Myth No. 2: Gun control laws reduce crime. Firearms have been regulated
with increasing stringency in the United States for most of the past
thirty years. Nevertheless, the number of firearms in private hands has
increased continuously by many millions per year; handguns have become an
increasing proportion of privately owned firearms; and rates of crime,
violent crime, and homicide have shown no relationship to the passage or
enforcement of gun laws. In their 1993 research, Kleck and Patterson
analyze the impact of 19 gun control measures on six categories of
violence. In ninety of the resulting 102 relationships, they found no
significant correlation between gun laws and violence.
Myth No. 4: Gun control laws keep criminals from obtaining guns. In
surveys of prisoners, a majority report that they had owned a handgun
prior to their imprisonment. But only 7 percent of criminals' handguns are
obtained from legitimate retail sources. Three-fourths of felons surveyed
report they would have no trouble obtaining a gun when they were released,
despite legal prohibitions against firearms ownership by convicted felons.
". . . kill him."
If that's not a general incitement to violence, I don't know what is -- so it's really the Buddhists who are at fault!
Yeah, you made a very good point !
Heroin should be legal ! After all, you usually only kill yourself with it, while guns are usually used to kill somebody else. So heroin is safer than guns ! Let's legalise heroin (and other drugs).
Well, if you get insane (anybody can at one moment in his/her life), then yes I WOULD BE SCARED. I prefer an insane person with a knife than with an assault rifle, mind you.
No, people don't think about the consequences of their actions; we've spent decades telling people they're too irresponsible to own guns, watch porn, drive more than 55mph, or pretty much anything else, then wonder why people act irresponsibly.
Geez.
I agree; the 3rd world should be eliminated tomorrow. However, only the US has enough nukes to do so, and I don't think even Sick Willy would be up to using them unless it was going to buy him some votes.
In France we make our consitution evolve too, and we still have free speech in it. If you are so affraid of your governement, then vote and change it. It's as simple as that. Being always paranoid about politician is not a good policy.
Three-fourths of felons surveyed report they would have no trouble obtaining a gun when they were released, despite legal prohibitions against firearms ownership by convicted felons.
Absolutely! If only there were a lot more guns in the system, and if it were a lot easier for those guns to slip out of sight into the cash economy, then the criminals would have a much harder time obtaining them!
I'm being needlessly sarcastic, but it's a worthwhile thought.
The point you neglect is that we're not talking about guns made by hand at home. We're talking about guns that were manufactured legally, or imported (sometimes) legally. We don't have a lot of nuclear weapons in private hands -- despite stringent controls on them. How could that be?! I thought that stringent controls made things proliferate, right? Er, no. It's a hell of a lot more complicated than that.
Gun control in the U.S. has always been a matter of locking the barn door a little while after the horse reaches the next county. IMHO guns are a plague that we'll just have to learn to live with.
You should also bear in mind that the "gun laws" of which you speak are extremely mild (e.g., it is legal to own a damn gun, okay?), and the strictest of them don't even try to prevent non-felons from owning them. They just impose waiting periods and paperwork and so forth. These are annoying, but in no way shape or form are they barriers to gun acquisition.
Actually the same type of thing happens in Europe and everywhere else. However, as societies are different the people in those societies go about their deadly tasks in different ways.
In Europe where "individualism" is much less important culturally than in the U.S., people get together in groups and think up reasons to hate and kill people from other groups. As usually the most effect method to kill groups of people is with bombs, bombs are usually the method used in Europe. These events are called "terrorism" when they occur.
In the U.S., however, where "individualism" is stronger, the killing is done on a one-by-one basis. People stay alone and think up reasons to hate and kill people one-on-one. As guns are much better at targeting specific people than bombs, guns get used more in the U.S. These events are not called "terrorism" though -- I guess because the individual is presumed to go mad personally instead of going mad politically.
Americans kill and die; Europeans kill and die. Everyone everywhere kills and dies. The methods vary, what's illegal somewhere can be got elsewhere or even made in a halfway decent home toolshop. It's not American, it's not European... it's all too sadly human.
You don't know what you're talking about.
I was physically assaulted for 8 years through
grade school and Junior high. This was hell. The only thing that stopped me from going crazy was my
access to computers and modems - not the internet,
that was 12 years ago now - but bulletin boards,
and phreaking to talk to other people like me.
I didn't go to a big school. I had the same 32 people in my class for all of those 8 years of hell. My parents couldn't do anything, and the school didn't want to. Just high school? I'll bear those scars for the rest of my life, and I'll be fucked if my kids are going to have to deal with that.
People stopped beating the crap out of me when I
started carrying knives and showed people what some pool chlorine and brake fluid in a bottle could do to them. Sad, huh? The only thing that kept me from blowing some people away was that connection I made through computers and a respect for weapons taught to me by my dad, who showed me how to shoot when I was 12.
I knew that I had to live through it, and that I'd have the last laugh - I drive a kick ass car, I moved somewhere I could associate with other "smart" people, and I have a nice job. The kids that made my life hell work at a gas station.
That doesn't change things. I felt the shock when the news came in, but I too had that "stick it to 'em" feeling when I heard "shot all the jocks".
Dealing with this instutionalized torture that public school has become will prevent futher shootings. I'm amazed there aren't more. I know what those kids were feeling, and I emphathize with them.
I wear the geek badge with pride now - it's a kind of empowerment used by other communities (like the gay/bisexual communities).
My condolances to the families affected, and I'm sure there's many people out there that share similar experiences. The system sucks. Maybe this will make them change something.
This situation is happening somewhere right now...
:) ) but sometimes sacrifices can be make for the good of the people.
:)
Two people are extremely pissed off at each other. It might be on a playground, or on the front steps of an office building. There's a lot of yelling, then the pushing and shoving begins. A fist is raised and --- FREEZE.
Options are now available -
A) They are in Britain, Canada, or one of many European countries. They will likely use fists. In situations of extreme rage, a blunt object or knife has the highest probability of the weapon to be used. Survivability of such an attack: HIGH
B) They are in the United States. Again, they will likely use fists. But one is angrier, and is carrying a handgun. In his anger he fires on and kills the other person. A moment later, the gun drops from his hand, and in shock he looks down into the dead face of another human being.
Why is this an arguement for gun control?
It's because we don't have people control...
People aren't any more violent or aggressive than they were 500 years ago. Remember how barbaric we could be back then? Torture, burnings, all kinds of fun stuff.
The problem is that people are erratic, and operate on emotion. In countries where guns are heavily restricted, crime rates are much lower, and incidents of person-to-person rage usually incur only minor injuries.
The US has more than 3 guns for every citizen alive in the country today. This isn't to say that guns are bad, or that everyone who owns a gun is bad.
People get upset, they lose control.
If you lose control with a knife, you CAN run out and kill people. The same with a car. These tend to be up close and personal methods of killing, and it's very rare to hear of someone achieving a high body count using either method.
With a gun, killing is disassociative. When the blood isn't on your hands, and you weren't close enough to get sprayed with brains, if you've already entered a state where your emotions are in charge, there's a lot of damage you can do.
Should the US impose strict gun legislation or outlaw firearms altogether? Yes. We should ALL do it. I like shooting a gun or hunting as much as anyone (well, except for some of you Southerners
Can a law like that actually work? No, I don't think so. With the proliferation of firearms within American society, you could never hope to eliminate the huge number of firearms that would move in Black Market circles.
Is there a solution in firearms education? No. Being educated that guns are dangerous doesn't matter to you when you find your next door neighbor in bed with your wife. What matters then is if you still have that box of shells in your closet.
That was more of an editorial on what's been happening than an opinion...
I'd like to own a pistol for target shooting, but I'm one of those hotheads who shouldn't...
So I favor strict gun legislation.
Some of you are going to call me names for leaning that way, but I think the right to live is more important than the right to bear arms.
That's my opinion
Your statistics (without even a figure...) are completely irrelevant. You could say that there are less people shot in the sahara desert than in Europe, so that means Europe is unsafe... WRONG ! The fact is that per-capita, there are MUCH (order of magnitude) less killed in Europe than in the whole US (don't try to use "Little town, Kansas, 200 inh." statistics as US statistics, it's not!).
Sure you can live safely in the US : in a bunker. But per-capita, it's the most unsafe western country in the world, thanks to guns (and the weirdo morality you teach your kids)
This is a serious point, because what you probably meant to say is that you think it's worth giving up weapons for an increased life expectancy, which has absolutely nothing to do with rights.
The "Guns will set you free" crowd seems to forget
a very inconvenient "fact" regarding the supposed
ineffectiveness of gun control laws: there are
many, many examples of free and democratic societies out there (Britain, Canada, and Japan come to mind) who have strict and effective gun control regimes. They also have dramatically lower instances of gun violence.
You are living in a fantasy world.
Go read:
10 common Gun Control Myths
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=99/04/22/11102 51&threshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread &cid=7723
"...the point being that by the only comments that have been attributed to named sources, these were reasonably normal people, that were pissed on
long enough to get pretty mad at everyone."
How shocked can we be that this happens from time to time?
A certain proportion of kids don't fit in for whatever reason (usually unattractive, not as wealthy, or bad at sports) and tough sh_t for them. They'd better learn to just take it,
day after day.
Being mean to the unpopular is fun, it relieves stress, and it helps you climb the social ladder into some clique or another.
You can't blame the Internet or television for this. It's more a byproduct of the American ideals of competition and self-reliance, and the idea that results are completely proportional to effort, talent, and character.
Life is a competitive sport, and the losers are losers by flawed character or lack of effort. The only hazard is when the losers figure out some games are fixed and it's more effective to run something that's not in the playbook. Scoreboard's all that matters.
Yes, why don't you express this sentiment to the parents of all of those dead children as an explanation of why nothing was done to remedy the situation, asshole.
Guns are not the problem at all. Way back when, when people used to hunt with guns, their kids were not shooting one another. THE Problem is the breakdown of morality and the family. The family is the basic unit of society. If these kids parents would have disciplined and taught their children morals and what is right and wrong, this incident could (and probably would have been prevented). But outlawing guns certainly isnt the answer, and the government will get my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers. (Oh, and blaming DOOM is crap.)
x_draco@intrex.net
I wonder if you have'nt hit 'pon a possible
solution, sir! Lots and lots of sex in the
media. You know what teenagers are like,
show them all the sex and they won't be
interested in violence.
Mind you, you might get a teenage pregnancy
problem....(like the UK)...
Yup, your correction has a valid point.
The implied intent of the phrase would be
"the right to live with considerably less fear of someone with emotional issues picking up one of the 750 million guns in the US and shortening that life in a rude and unconstitutional matter"
I knew I should have worded it more carefully.
Of course they don't mention anything about foreign countries, where gun are banned and and people don't get shot all the time.
But considered the bible & gun biggots at the NRA, they probably don't even know that there are foreign countries. In fact I'm surprised they can read and write. At least their arguments are 100% biased and only take into accounts facts that fit their views (which means few facts, as this document fails to give any serious statistics at all).
Yuck, I think you did a good sum up of the problem. Some gun advocates are going to get angry and get their old arguments again, but your viewpoints sounds pratical and sensible to me.
I can hardly wait to live in a society were everone around me might be carrying a firearm. I'll feel so much safer then.
If you don't know how to teach a subject, you help your child find someone who can, and locate sources they can use to learn on their own, or with you and/or their siblings.
That's not a bad notion. In time, a network of mutual assistance (via barter, or Ayn-Randishly thorough bookkeeping, or whatever) will grow up. Ultimately, the market will encourage those solutions which have the greatest efficiencies and which are most effective. In about 1000 years, you'll get back where you are now, having also re-invented the crossbow and the steel plough somewhere along the way.
This culture didn't just pop into being out of the ether last week. It came from somewhere. Not by chance, it came from the place where you're trying to go. If you take it back there, it will end up here again. Have you ever tried to redirect a creek with a shovel? It's an educational process. (As well as good exercise. And if you've got a dog, it's gonna have the time of its life -- splash splash!
"...it's nice when young people learn how good it can feel to help others, out of the goodness of our hearts. But the lessons learned by slave laborers -- shirking, sabotage, resentment, and escape -- are quite different."
So we should train them to be Darwinian little carnivores? I guess it all depends on how you take your Darwinism, straight or with ideological blinders. Cultures that don't encourage voluntary good-samaritanism just don't last. TANSTAAFL. You want the advantages of living in a human society, you pay for them. Part of the cost is learning to recognize the fact that helping others is, in fact, pleasant and rewarding in non-financial ways. We're not machines. In childhood, that learning process involves some coercion, as do all learning processes in childhood. Bummer. TANSTAAFL again.
We're social animals, anyway. Why in God's name do you think we live in cities? Why do we go to bars, beaches, and amusement parks to have fun? We're like that. And for all its drawbacks, it has great survival value for a gang of naked apes in a cold climate (or for a gang of kids in a "bad neighborhood"; such cultures always place a premium on helping each other without any reward other than the certainty of reciprocation if the need ever arises. If it doesn't arise, hey, that's life. See also Arab customs regarding hospitality and road companions). If the climate doesn't force us to cooperate, population pressure eventually will -- see China and India.
If you peruse misc.education.home-school.misc on Usenet, you will find that increasing numbers are finding how rewarding this approach can be, for themselves and their children.
It does have a certain romantic appeal. Furthermore, people who don't want to spend time with their kids depress and baffle me -- why have kids?! Personally, I like kids, godawful annoying though they may often be.
The problem is that if all you want your kids to know is what Jesus said in the Bible (or at least the very few parts that don't contradict modern "Christian" dogma), home schooling is fine. The purpose of home schooling is not to educate kids. Far from it. The purpose is to keep them so thoroughly ignorant and provincial that they'll never, ever be able to think for themselves. The purpose is to "protect" them from views that the parents don't approve of, so that they kids will (hopefully) be trapped in a narrow ideological prison for the rest of their lives. Raise them on an endless stream of insane lies about "ZOG", and you can count on them to shoot first when the revenooers show up. So much for an informed electorate, eh?
Contrary to popular belief among right wingers, a "free man" is not one who's been trained, parrotlike, to bark the word "freedom" at ten-minute intervals throughout the day while shooting at strangers. A "free man" is one who's got the intellectual tools to learn, change, admit that he's wrong when the time comes, and otherwise interact successfully with his environment and with his fellow human beings -- whether they agree with his religion or not.
HELEN SMITH: Is school violence the fault of outcasts or their tormentors?
(April 22, 1999 10:12 a.m. EDT http://www.nandotimes.com)
- A 13-year-old is tortured, teased and ridiculed by classmates. Boys spit at him and push him, knowing that he will not fight back. Cheerleaders gift-wrap used tampons and give them to this "nerd" as mock presents.
This social outcast's only comfort is going with his grandfather to the shooting range for target practice on weekly expeditions.
Wait a minute, you might be saying at this point: This sounds like our next potential school killer, ready to take revenge on his classmates toward the
end of a hellish school year. But this year is 1978 and this "nerd" thought of no other plan of action except to commit suicide, fall into deep
depression or just go "plain crazy."
He survived, but his even more unpopular friend succumbed to the torture. Unlike the "Trench Coat Mafia," whose members' names will be shouted around the electronic village, no one remembers the name of a boy at that small-town high school in Tennessee in 1978 who was bullied and teased so
regularly that he finally doused himself with gasoline and set himself on fire. It never made the national news.
Fast forward to 1999. Gone are the days of the long-suffering nerd who turned his feelings of rage inward and committed suicide. Today's kids have obviously learned that as long as they are the only ones in pain, little is done to improve the situation. Taking others with you, on the other hand, gets attention and even inspires emulation. As one survivor of the Springfield, Ore., school shooting said: The only time that society pays attention to 16-year-olds is when they pick up a gun.
The rest of the time, teachers and school administrators mostly want kids to not make waves. In my work as a forensic psychologist, I have talked with many adult patients who tell me that teachers and parents often just told them to ignore the bullies and not to fight back. I have seen how this solution works firsthand.
A few years ago, I was a consulting psychologist at a high school where one of my first patients was a depressed girl. This 14-year-old was a self-described nerd and "social outcast" who informed me she was depressed because a gang of girls at the school were bullying and threatening her on a regular basis. When I informed the school authorities of these findings, their reaction was, unfortunately, typical: Rather than go after this gang of girls, their solution was to send the depressed girl to an "alternative"
school to finish out her high school years.
The girl gang, meanwhile, got off scot-free, ready to find another victim. They, along with the school administration, didn't have to change a thing. Only the victim suffered - and, quite obviously, nobody cared about her so long as she represented the path of least resistance. This of course, has been the fate of nerds since time immemorial.
But something has changed.
Nowadays, for whatever reason, these same nerds and social outcasts no longer feel they must suffer through their adolescent years in depression and humiliation and anonymity. They no longer have to feel that they are "nobodies" who desperately want to be "somebodies."
Finally, they can let others know the extent of their feelings by taking an arsenal of guns to school and "blowing their classmates away" in a
Stallone-like scene of mayhem and firepower. When a depressed teen commits suicide, it barely makes the local news. But their classmates, the whole
town - with the help of the media - the nation will never forget the names of these school killers: Luke Woodham, Kip Kinkel, Michael Carneal, and, now, the "Trench Coat Mafia."
I remember the trial of Woodham, who opened fire at his high school in Pearl, Miss. At his trial, Woodham told jurors he "didn't have much of a
home life after his parents separated and was something of an 'outcast' at school." He said the first acceptance he had found was with a classmate, Christina. When they broke up a year before the shootings, he was devastated. He finally became involved with Satanism to gain some control over his feelings of loss. "One second I was some kind of heartbroken idiot and the next second I had power over many things."
From powerlessness to power, from despised outcast to national celebrityhood in a culture where celebrityhood is everything. It's easy to see what these school killers get out of their outrages.
But without suggesting that their actions are justified - because they're absolutely not - it isn't hard to understand their actions.
Tragedy, yes.
Senseless tragedy, no.
As the 13-year-old nerd I mentioned at the beginning - now a successful professional with bad memories of junior high - notes: "What's amazing isn't how many of these shootings there are, but how few."
These high-profile national tragedies mask a much lower profile tragedy of equal or greater proportions: Thousands, maybe millions, of ruined lives and miserable teen years.
As our schools try "zero tolerance" programs to keep out weapons, maybe they should consider zero tolerance for bullying, teasing and ostracism.
Not only would such a program probably do more to prevent school killings than the zero-tolerance program that failed to stop Kip Kinkel and the
"Trench Coat Mafia," but also it would also improve the lives of the vast majority of nerds and outcasts who will never be killers.
Surely they deserve some attention too.
----
Helen Smith is a forensic psychologist in Knoxville, Tenn. She is writing a book about kids who kill. Her violentkids Web site contains information and advice about school killers, cult killers and other kids who kill.
These kids played DOOM over the internet? Funny, all the copies of DOOM I have only support IPX, not TCP/IP...
Internet Inspired Violence... it's the 90's version of Reefer Madness!
No such luck.
Pope Innocent (phah!)
Phah, indeed. Whatta bunch of buttheads the Renaissance popes were. Don't forget Leo X, or better yet his jackass nephew a few years later, who let England to leave the church because he was too busy fighting a war to respond to a letter from Henry XIII.
Then there's Pius VI, who wore chain-mail under his robes (or was that another Pius?).
Bleah.
That would be an option. The problem is that most people see two political parties to choose from. They make a big show about being different, then get elected and DO THE EXACT SAME THINGS! They take away freedoms, steal more money (taxes), make the government bigger and even more wastefull, and generally make a mess of things.
As a result, a very small percentage of us accually vote anymore.
Of course, there are other parties. Libertarian for example. I know they get a bad rep on here, but they stand for freedom and responsibility. You are free to do as you wish, as long as you don't restrict the freedom of others or harm others. The government is limited to protecting it's people from harm, and thus needs little money and low/no taxes.
The very principles that candidates have won office running on, only to turn arround and do otherwise.
Uh, I just wanted to say that.
Back to you, Brian.
:)
Yeah, you're right. I would have much rather seen these kids with two tons of explosive fertilizer in the back of Ryder truck. They couldn't have done any damage then...
I would be shocked if the church did not do their part. There was a need for some place to grieve.
. . . this is why we have churches, and why we have religion: Because there are some things that we simply can't bear on our own.
I wish I could think of something less trite than to say that my thoughts are with you (and with Ms. Bernal's family), but they are and I'm not feeling very clever since I read your post.
Would you dump your children in the middle of New ..every day after school?
York City, Singapore, or Belgrade & let them play
with and be influenced by whomever and whatever
they find?
Your children do not have unrestricted internet
access unless you give it to them. As a parent,
you must KEEP YOUR CHILDREN AWAY FROM HARMFUL
INFLUENCES, and that requires alot of time &
effort on your part --the world does not make
this at all easy, and the world is not able to
adapt to fit your shortcomings as a parent, so
please do not breed unless you are truly up to
the task, or seek help.
You have the right idea, but start now. Don't wait 11 years. I managed to raise four healthy, non-killing boys to adulthood and I started the day they came home from the hospital.
You can blame the parents for the actions of children yonger then around 11 or 12, but after that - - especially by the time they are 16 or 17 - - you must blame the children themselves.
I wouldn't go as far as you have. I'm just saying
a gun at home is no problem. I have had guns around
me all my life. I knew at an early age, younger than
the two suspects, that if I got into the gun cabinet
without being supervised, i'd have a VERY sore ass.
I never got into the gun cabinet unsupervised. I also
learned to respect guns. The thought of taking a gun
to school never crossed my mind for two reasons.
If the school, didn't punish me, my parents would.
I would be A LOT more afraid of the punishment I'd get at home.
The need to disarm criminals and the irresponsible is clear.
But it is often claimed that gun ownership causes violence among
ordinary people as well. This seems plausible to Americans since
in the l960s crime drastically increased simultaneously with gun
ownership. But investigation fails to validate this as more than
a coincidence which fails to hold over time: though we know that
gun ownership increased during the the 1960s we have no specific-
beyond the estimate that, as of 1968 Americans owned 24 million
handguns; in contrast some 25,096,536 handguns were added to the
American gunstock in the period 1973-84. If more gun ownership
causes crime this l00%+ increase in handguns should have caused a
substantial increase in handgun crime from 1974 through 1984. But
in fact, those years saw: a 34% decrease in the rate of handgun
murders; a l4% decrease in the number of aggravated assaults with
firearms; and a l7.6% decrease in the number of gun robberies.
>
Moreover, though crime had increased in the pre-WWII period when
handgun ownership was very low, the large increase in handguns
which immediately followed WWII coincided with a sharp decline
from pre-war homicide rates. The view quoted above of the English
analyst Greenwood is echoed by Kleck, based on his application of
modern computer-assisted statistical techniques to analyze the
relationship between our massive l960s increases in guns and in
violence: increased gun use by criminals did contribute to crime,
but the vast increase in ownership (particularly of handguns)
among ordinary citizens was only reactive to this increase in
crime and not a cause of it. [6]
Finally, the differentials between American gun ownership
and crime patterns contraindicates the claim that gun ownership
causes even law-abiding citizens to murder. Sociological studies
establish that, while "violent crime is much more prevalent in
big cities than in rural areas," with gun "ownership just the
opposite is true..."; that c. 503a of those having guns for
defense (rather than sport) are women; and that, "private weapons
owners of all types are disproprortionately "affluent and middle
class" Protestants; "weapons ownership tends to increase with
income, or occupational prestige, or both." [7] Yet violence is
either no greater or markedly less among these groups than among
others which have less gun ownership. Thus extreme measures that
go beyond disarming the criminal and irresponsible to attempt to
confiscate firearms from good citizens portend massive diversion
of police resources for little gain in crime reduction. [4]
There is no single causation for abberrant behavior that deviates from "normal" society. In fact, the factors can be different in every case. In my opinion, the video games and the internet were only a microcosm of a macrocosm.
Some of the factors (again in my opionion) are:
- rejection from society (the school being a society in itself with its own rules)
- lack of control over their own lives. Hence, they joined a group called the "trenchcoat mafia" to at least identify with others in that group, but that resulted in them being ridiculed as a "bunch of losers"
- interest in violence as an option in restoring balance. Equity theory states that there is an expectation to be treated equally. When that innate sense of equity and fair play is violated, victims tend to choose a strategy or technique which will most easily enable them to restore balance as they perceive it. Simple examples suffice: If he hits you, just hit him back. If she does it again, tell the teacher. If he blasts that horn at me one more time, I swear I'll slam on my brakes. When techniques such as these are employed, the availability of possible recourse, as well as perceived cost to the user is made. In the examples above, for instance, hitting back may not be in my repertoire of perceived socially acceptable behavior.
- the Internet could possibly be a factor in allowing them to absorb nazi idealogy which put them on the wrong path. this also got them interested in war which is also inherently wrong from the perspective of a "moral society". They also got the bomb plans from the internet. However, you can also get bomb plans from books such as the anarchists handbook and other books which are in paper form. Don't kill the messenger (excuse the cliche). It is likely that their ability to get plans to pipe bombs is not a major factor in making them do it. If you're looking for things such as that you can find them easily -- wether the internet exists or not.
- they were in a downward spiral and this caused them to not value their own or others lives. It is this devaluation of life that allowed them to cross the line where morality and logic were defied.
- accessibility of guns. We have strong anti-gun legislation in canada and our crime rate is 1/3 of what it is in the us (and yes, this is per capita)
- where the hell were their parents through all this?
Questionable factors include:
- selfish gene theory. In other words, our underlying purpose in life is the propogation of our DNA. In applying that to this case, and under this theory, we could say that the "jocks" were on top of their high school society and they rejected this and reacted. This is most likely invalidated by the fact that they killed themselves.
- social ineptness. SOME (yes some) people who spend a vast amount of time on the internet and on computers lack social skills, and also do not learn social abilities such as how to accept rejection, how to interact with others, etc.
- humanity's natural inclination towards aggression. It's in the media, it's in books, it's on the street, it's in your home. However, video games are NOT a major factor. That which made them misalign their view of reality with that of normal society are probably the largest contributing factors.
However close social evolution moves towards harmony, it is an unattainable goal. In the end, we can only accomodate human nature, not control it.
-Dennis Potechin (forgot my login again)
In July, 1984 an unemployed, apparently deranged, security
guard killed 21 people in a California MacDonalds restaurant.
Naturally such incidents, and/or terrorist attacks and political
assassinations generate gun prohibitionist sentiment. Yet Japan,
Britain, Germany etc. are far more beset with political terrorism
than is the U.S. and those countries have experienced apolitical
massacres as well. Realistically, even those who are optimistic
of anti-gun policies concede them useless against professional or
political criminals or, indeed, anyone who really wants a gun.
>
A contrasting policy alternative is exemplified by what
occured at a Jerusalem cafe some weeks before the California
MacDonalds massacre: three terrorists who attempted to machine-
gun the throng managed to kill only one victim before being
downed by handgun'carrying Israel is. The surviving terrorist
complained to the press the next day that his group had not
realized that Israeli civilians were armed. They had planned to
machinegun a succession of crowd spots, thinking that they would
be able to escape before the police or army could arrive to deal
with them. [1]
Thus in the massacre situation anti-gun policies may even be
detrimental by precluding any chance victims might have to defend
themselves before police can arrive. I hasten to add that this
does not mean other nations should follow Israeli policy. It is
because terrorism is a crucial problem that Israel maximizes the
presence of armed citizens by firearms training and encouraging
gun ownership and carrying by almost the entire populace (i.e. Jews
of both sexes and the Druze and other pro-Israeli Arabs). The
value of such a policy for countries where terrorism is rare and
universal military training is not required even for males is far
more dubious. What is not dubious is that gun controls offer no
solution to problems of massacre or terrorism.
Throughout this paper I have distinguished rational measures
to disarm the irresponsible -- and control guns even in the hands
of responsible citizens -- from the extreme measure of generally
prohibiting gun ownership. Though irksome to gun owners, rational
control is justified by common sense and criminological research
alike. But the extremist call for general prohibition, however
cloaked in pseudocriminological garb, represents little more
than vituperative intolerance toward, and an illiberal desire to
suppress, a life-style and values anti-gunners vilify. If this
assertion seems itself unduly pejorative, consider: that it is
well established that gun owners tend to be middle class and more
affluent and well employed than the average American [7] and it
is easily calculable that 99.9%+ of them never misuse a gun; [2]
-- yet anti-gun literature extravagantly traduces all gun owners
as morally obtuse, intellectually and educationally retarded and
sexually maladjusted "demented and bloodthirsty psychopaths
whose concept of fun is to rain death on innocent creatures, both
human and otherwise."
>
In sharp contrast, review of studies of American gun owner
psyches and attitudes shows "no sharp or distinctive differences
between gun owners and non-owners" except that gun owners appear
to be less frightened of crime. [7] As to whether gun owners are
sexually maladjusted, this is really more of an epithet than a
psychological theory as is indicated by the failure of any of its
proponents to even try to validate it. [2] The three detailed
evaluations reject it as untenable.>
In fact, Freud, from whom this theory supposedly originated,
actually seems to associate neurosis and sexual immaturity not
with ownership of weapons but with revulsion and fear of them.
>
Prof. Berkowitz claims his laboratory tests proved that guns
enhance aggression. But these experiments (in which subjects who
were deliberately annoyed supposedly were more angry when the
annoyers were associated with guns than when they were not) are
dubious. Other social psychologists have been unable to replicate
Berkowitz's results; indeed, some found subjects less willing to
express hostility against persons whom they associated with
weapons. More important than the specific results, the very
design of these experiments precluded Berkowitz's conclusion that
aggressiveness among gun owners. For his work did not involve a
weapon being possessed by the subjects; i.e. those whose anger
was being tested. Rather the weapon was always associated only
with those against whom the hostility would run. When Buss et al.
tested actual gun owners (and hostility levels of non-owners
after actually firing a weapon) they found "no evidence that the
presence, firing, or long-term use of guns enhances subsequent
aggression." [12]
Other empirical efforts to brand gun owners "violence prone"
rely on a survey showing that they approve of "violence", defined
not in terms of illegal violence but of using force necessary to
stop crime or aid its victims. [13] A subsequent study of 1976,
1980 and 1984 national surveys inquired into "defensive" as well
as "violent" attitudes. Gun owners differed from non-owners only
in exhibiting the former, i.e. approving force directed against
violent attackers. In contrast, those who exhibited "violent
attitudes" (defined by their approval of violence against social
deviants or dissenters) were not more likely to be gun owners
than non-owners. Nor did they necessarily approve of defensive
force, perhaps because it would be directed against people like
themselves. [13] A study of "Good Samaritans" who rescued crime
victims or arrested criminals found that 8l% of them "own guns
and some carry them in their cars. They are familiar with
violence, feel competent to handle it, and don't believe they
will be hurt if they get involved." [14]
It is sometimes suggested that belief in the defensive value
of firearms is so foolish as to indicate neurosis. But American
data show: a) that handguns are more often used by good citizens
to repel a crime than by criminals to commit one (c. 645,000
defensive uses yearly vs. c. 581,000 criminal attempts); and b)
that victims who resisted with guns were much less likely to be
injured than those who did not resist at all (c. l5% to c.
30%)[l5]
This survey evidence from victims is further confirmed by a
recent National Institute of Justice survey of c. 1,800 felons in
10 prisons across the U.S. Some 34% of them said they had been
"scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim,
[quoting the actual question asked] and about two-thirds (69%)
had at least one acquaintance who had had this experience." In
response to two other questions: 34% of the felons said that in
contemplating a crime they either "often" or "regularly" worried
that they "Might get shot at by the victim"; and 57% agreed that
"Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim
than they are about running into the police." [16]
(I emphasize that none of this suggests that a gun makes it
safe for victims to resist regardless of circumstances. In fact,
what is suggested differs startlingly from both pro- and antigun
stereotypes: it is that keeping a gun for defense may induce
sober pre-consideration of the dangers of reckless resistance;
their low injury rate suggests that gun owners are not only more
able to resist when they decide to do so, but also to decide when
it is imprudent to do so.)
Truly this is another wonderful example of how statistics can be interpreted nearly any damn way one wishes to.
Statistically, how many people do you believe use the Internet? Statistically, wouldn't you say it is reasonable to assume that a large number of felons have used the Internet? Does this imply the Internet drove them to felony? No more than the fact that 100% of felons pee implies that urination causes criminal behavior.
As for violent games, it would seem more likely that a violent person could be attracted to violent games. Does this mean every person who plays violent games is likely to commit some crime? Obviously not. Look at the crowd in this discussion. I'm sure the vast majority of us have played quite a bit of Doom or some other gory game and I'm sure the vast majority of those people are disgusted with murder and other crimes.
Perhaps the next most unfortunate part of this situation, aside from the fact that so many people lost their lives, is the fact that such a large part of this population is willing to believe anything that the television, radio, or paper news throws their way. Dammit, let's think critically once in a while!
Take care y'all
A gun can't influence a mind. A gun is nothing more
than a molded piece of metal. For arguement's sake
say all guns are banned, and they're all destroyed.
If someone wants to kill, they still will. Say they
use a knife, ban and destroy all knives. You can
keep doing for everything used to kill. Then a person
is killed with a rock. Destroy all the rocks...
wait that won't work... It all comes down to a gun
being a tool. Yes its misused occansionally, but
the same applies to cars, axes, just about everything.
"Christ, I knew American education was bad, but I didn't realise it was this bad."
Just as a little note, we, the Americans, just so happened to be the world's leading power as well as the most technologicly advanced civilization in the world. But not only that, we have to (pretty much) baby-sit the rest of the world and be the police of it to keep everyone in order. I'd say we're the one of the best educated on Earth. But that's just my opinion....
Then if no politican do what you want, be a politican yourself. Any citizen can be a candidate. That's the beauty of democracy : you don't need a gun to change the governement politics. If you base your politic life on the fact that if it's not good, people will make riot and shoot on everything, then it's not really a democracy. No democracy needs its citizen to be armed against its governement.
If you read the group for yourself, you can see that most Christians who home school are not the ones who seek to enslave others
I wasn't talking about enslaving others. I was talking about withdrawing from society and limiting ones children to one single rather limited window on the world. I honestly don't think that's gonna do the kids a damn bit of good. In no way do I think I'm wise enough to tell them everything they need to know -- and I don't mean about brain surgery, either. I mean "what it all means". As we withdraw, it becomes easier to ignore everybody's interpretations but our own, and it becomes much easier to ignore factual information that might conflict with our beliefs. When you hole up with a half-dozen other like-minded families, you end up with a serious bunker mentality. The less familiar you are with the viewpoint of mainstream society (whether you agree with it or not; I myself am more "with" than "of"), the more mainstream society will begin to seem strange and threatening. This is how our minds work. At some point it probably had a lot of survival value (for genes, not for individuals), but in the context of the current discussion it's not at all good. You can "hole up" right in the middle of town, too. Simply not owning a television has separated me in a lot of ways from mainstream society. I have no clear idea who "Seinfeld" is. I get the impression that this is considered important information by many Americans. It's one respect in which I have turned myself into an expatriate in my own country, while living in the midst of a city of millions. So I follow the news, at least, on the web, because I don't want to break contact completely. I've drawn a line, but hopefully a reasonable one. Actually, I guess you're just drawing a different line, aren't you?
growing numbers of secular, atheistic, agnostic or just plain "semi-spiritual, non-organized" religious folks are also discovering the benefits of freedom in this area.
IMHO (a propos of your Zappa quote about wings and flapping) an homogeneous diet of left-wing claptrap is just as toxic as an homogeneous diet of any other flavor of claptrap. I mean, it all seems to turn out to be claptrap sooner or later, though I'll admit to a certain enthusiasm for Roland Barthes right at the moment.
"Free your mind, and your ass will follow." (George Clinton)
I can't tell you how many times I've had people at various jobs ask me to remove that line from my screensaver. Fortunately, I now work at a place where nobody minds.
:)
Voluntary cooperation becomes much easier when forced cooperation is abolished.
These things encourage so much wild rhetoric in some people that I hesitate to comment without getting some concrete examples of what's being referred to.
The right wing has learned a lot from Mao. Wacko "Christian" comic artist Jack Chick got the idea for comic-book propaganda tracts from Mao. Hey, Mao successfully turned a vast nation into a depressing, mindless, ideologically dominated tyranny. Since that's what the right wing has in mind for the U.S., why not learn at the feet of the master?
Pat Buchanan and Chairman Mao are soulmates under the skin.
That's something sick in the US : the local christian moral has made the equation that sex=violence. I'm sorry, but sex is about love, respect and pleasure, not shooting people ! I'm always amazed that there's hardly any sex in hollywood movies (they hardly show people kissing and then - fade to black), but so much violence ! So showing people shooting innocent is OK, but showing two adults making love is very immoral ? I'm sorry, but this is REALLY sick.
If americans were more open about sex and less easy with guns, things would be much better. But of course that means thinking but yourself, which is too hard for the majority of the population.
Your comments concerning the psychology of killing are quite fascinating. I'd never heard that about the target shapes/post-tramatic stress syndrome connection. Good post.
But concerning your position on guns, isn't there another group of people to consider? Is it really accurate to lump everyone not like you into the same group? There are the disaffected souls like these boys from Colorado, but there are also individuals who obey the laws, start businesses, hold jobs, and raise good families who will fight tooth and nail should someone threaten to take away their life or the lives of someone they love. Yes, it is risky, but are you prepared to tell these folks that they are no longer capable of protecting themselves, even under extreme circumstances? Such tenacity is one of the things that makes this country strong.
"The second amendment was drafted and ratified over 200 years ago, coming off the heels of the war to gain independence from England."
Which proves the point of those of us who believe in gun ownership.
It was precisely because the Americans were rebelling against what was then the governing authorities that they needed their own *non government-sanctioned* militia!
The purpose of the Second Amendment in historical context is to allow the people have the means at their disposal to overthrow an opressive government. In other words, the Second Amendment is there to guard the rights of those who would fight wars against our own government.
And as to the "well-regulated" phrase, an organization need not be government-sanctioned to be "well-regulated."
They still skew and warp the statistics to adapt their ideas. This is flawed logic : they say that because statistics don't proove guns are bad, then it must be that they are good. Sorry, but it's all FUD. Do 15 of internship into any big US cities emergencies, then you'll know why guns are bad. In Europe people who arrive at emergencies have been beaten. Here they are almost dead and full of bullets.
Not only is European crime level lower, crimes are also less serious because everybody doesn't carry a gun, which seriously limit the ways you can kill someone.
Also this document is funny because it start by saying the death penalty is inneffective, and then by saying the opposite....
Teach your daugher(+yourself and others) to:
1.) Respect all others.
Never belittle another person.
Realize that by stepping on someone with your
power(phys. strength, money, popularity), you
are challenging them to show their power.
And Realize that every person can be powerfull
when pushed.
Last resort deadly power is easily obtainable in this age of guns, bombs and nuclear
weapons.
2.) Respect yourself.
Realize that there are some people will not
follow rule 1.
Don't get too pissed about this.
3.) Help your friends no how important respect is.
Make it clear how dangerous lack of respect
in todays world.
These apply to racisim, geekism, and world politics.
... so it's completely biased. It also fails to prove anything.
Well... Do we *really* know it was a suicide mission? It could be, however unlikely, that the kids thought they might be able to get away. In any case, they had the guns, they were the ones in control. They chose to take their lives rather than give that control up when police arrived. I think that the poster who talked about the "humiliation" of being gunned down has a good point. These kids felt they had something to prove (to themselves or to their classmates), and they did. They did not lose, just because they died. They got to choose hoe to end it. They won. As for the comment about public execution, I would have to disagree in this case. Normally, I am in favor of capital punishment. However, with the terror involved in the way they carried out this crime, I think death is too good for them. They should have been made to suffer for a long, long time. Maybe death eventually, but not a quick injection or electrical jolt.
You've never heard of anyone getting shot in Ireland!? I may be mistaking your country for Scotland.. you're the guys that drink the green beer and stuff right? Does the name IRA mean anything to you? Last time I checked, it wasn't legal for anyone to (easily) own automatic weapons and you certainly don't, as a teenager, have the ability to walk into a store and BUY them. Get your head out of your ass already. In fact, I have no idea where I'd even begin looking for one. I wouldn't mind having a nice semi-auto for the fuck of it but I certainly wouldn't go around killing people with it unless they really pissed me off. Perhaps these jocks deserved what they got? I know in high school that if I had had a gun or a bomb there were a lot of people I would have loved to have been able to waste. Gun the pitiful motherfuckers down right in their happy little cliques. Spray the football field during practice with bullets. This should be a lesson to those fuckers. Stop bullying and picking on people or it may be YOU next that gets a cap in your fucking ass.
Oh my god ! I'm French and I don't have the right to buy guns ! That means my governement is crushing me !!!! Help !! They are all after me !
So your argument is stupid, I don't need a gun to be respected by my governement, I vote, my fellow citizens vote, and our vote makes a democracy. We don't need a gun to be heard. "Violence is the refuge of the incompetents" (I. Asimov). What are guns but a mean of violence ?
Having grown up in a country (New Zealand) where probably 90% of schools require uniforms, I can assure you that they do nothing substantial to break down the divisions to which you are referring.
The high school I attended had a 120 year tradition, of which our uniform was a symbol. Did we have pride and discipline as a result? No. Any pride we had in our school was the result of teachers and parents making us feel good about the school. Did we have discipline? Only that supplied by the teachers and ourselves. A uniform does not make a child disciplined, good parenting and teachers who have the ability to enforce the school rules do.
The uniform did give us an effective tool for spotting kids from other schools, so there was even stronger interschool rivalry than there might otherwise have been. This did not prevent the jocks from picking on the geeks, although they would by preference pick on geeks from other schools instead of their own. I don't really think this is a better situation.
The degradation of the American school system (which the New Zealand school system seems to be emulating) is not something that that can be isolated from the problems of society in general. For decades there has been a growing lack of respect for intellect and responsibility. I don't profess to know why, only that it is happening.
We live in a world that discourages thought and encourages disregagrding the consequences of our actions (and shifting the blame if the consequences are bad). This isn't going to be fixed by banning violent movies, or video games. It isn't going to be fixed by banning guns. It isn't going to be fixed by throwing money at the problem. Again, I don't claim to know how to fix the problem either, although perhaps the following quote from Confucius gives some insight. We can only hope that the growth of the internet will aid in the extension of knowledge. (This quote appears in Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age, so it is vaguely relevant to /. )
"The ancients who wished to manifest their clear character to the world would first bring order to their states. Those who wished to bring order to their states would first regulate their families. Those who wished to regulate their families would first cultivate their personal lives. Those who wished to cultivate their personal lives would first rectify their minds. Those who wished to rectify their minds would first make their wills sincere. Those who wished to make their wills sincere would first extend their knowledge. The extension of knowledge consists in the investigation of things. When things are investigated, knowledge is extended; when knowledge is extended, the will becomes sincere; when the will is sincere, the mind is rectified; when the mind is rectified, the personal life is cultivated; when the personal life is cultivated, the family will be regulated; when the family is regulated, the state will be in order; when the state is in order, there will be peace throughout the world. From the Son of Heaven down to the common people, all must regard cultivation of the personal life as the root or foundation. There is never a case when the root is in disorder and yet the branches are in order."
Confucius. The Great Learning.
-Allan
The reaction to this tragedy frightens me nearly as much as the tragedy itself. The press, in its search to find what caused this horror, has placed part of the blame on video games and the media where it does not belong.
It would truly be nice if video games were the major contributing force to these shootings. However, the real fault is in the parenting. When I grew up (lets not discuss chronology), I was constantly harassed by my peers. It did not help that we moved often and I rarely got a chance to form friendships. When I had problems at school, when I felt like an outcast, and when I had no friends to help me out, it was my mother's job to find out what was going on, no matter how distraught I was. This is no job for some guidance counselor, social worker, or school program. This is what a family is for.
Another strategy adopted by the schools here has been to provide mass sensitivity training in the form of various district-wide assemblies. This is not going to solve the problem either. It lacks effectiveness and is regularly mocked by the students forced to participate in it. Acceptance of diversity is not something that can be learned in school by watching an hour long presentation. Kids will be kids, and part of life is learning to deal with one's problems in an appropriate manner.
Another local incident that further disproves the above strategies effectiveness is that of a middle-school aged girl who was not allowed to wear black lipstick and nailpolish to school after a fight broke out about it. The parents attempted legal action against the school, though nothing ever came of it from what I know. In cases like this, the kids are just acting out and chose to distance themselves from their classmates. When a child chooses to stand out and make a fuss, it is time for the parents to step in and help the child with whatever problem he or she may be having. It is not time to plead with the other students to accept this kid. Nor is it a time for the parents to attempt to force everybody to get along either.
In the US you get a quick bullet to the head, in Europe you're treated much more humanely by criminals and simply beaten to death. Ummm.. ooookey.
Hey, I spent six years in college. Then I was unemployed for 18 of my first 24 months after graduation. Now I'm a developer. I'm adequately paid and reasonably responsible. I write some cool code, and I don't drink in the mornings, not even on weekends
If I'm doing something that interests me, I'll rip the problem to shreds. . . . Give me a paper to write? aahhh... I'll do it later.
That is so me. Not just "when I was your age", but to an extent right now. I'm better, but I'm still a lot like that.
Here's what I think, and I'm probably full of shit, but it's worth a thought:
1. Clinical depression happens. Sometimes it happens to smart people who, when something catches their eye, can still "rip it to shreds" -- and then after finishing, immediately sink back into despair and apathy without missing a beat. I'm like that, and it doesn't seem inconsistent with what you describe. The thing to bear in mind is that it's probably your brain chemicals. Prozac is supposed to help, but I've never had the energy to get off my ass and get a prescription (too depressed
2. You're going to live to be eighty. A few "wasted" years won't matter worth a damn. When you turn thirty you may panic if you haven't yet caught up with the pack, but you'll get over that soon enough. Life is really goddamn long.
3. Unlike me, my brother went straight through high school, college, masters, PhD without getting less than a B+ in anything, ever -- until he almost had the PhD done, and he suddenly realized that he'd carelessly squandered his youth on good grades. He got really depressed over this. At the time he actually told me he envied me, the fuck-off/drunk/loser. He decided to take some time off to drink and fuck around, then went back and finished. He still regrets wasting all those years when he could have been waking up at 1 PM with a hangover, but instead he was pissing his time away building a solid foundation for a rewarding career.
Okay, first off, yes, I think it was wrong they killed everyone at the school. However, everyone's looking at the situation the wrong way. Yes, its true, the Eric kid had DOOM2 on his computer. Get the file "thebook.doc" and look through the Microsoft Word junk. It was saved as "c:\doom2\thebook.doc". This is not why they did it. The world just can't blame themselves so they blame it on what the kids interests are. First off, most media-type persons were probably not ridiculed every day in school and harassed by their peers every day. Most people who are covering this story have never been in their situation. I myself have few friends in school at this time, and am harassed constantly. Almost every day. I play Duke Nukem 3d on the 'net all the time. I have Delta Force, Doom, Wolfenstien and Unreal. If I were to shoot someone at this point, it'd be the people who harass me the most. The popular kids-- the jocks. I'm not saying I'm going to kill anyone, nor do I want to. I don't have the balls to kill a person, let alone an animal. However, if I were to kill someone, they'd look past the constant problems I have in school and go straight to my computer. Look! It's an anti-social kid who plays violent computer games and listens to rap music and hangs out on the Internet during most of his free time! That's why he killed people! Those damn games, that damn Internet and that damn rap music! They won't say, Look! That kid was ridiculed in school all the time! He has no friends! He hates his life! No, they wont. People are afraid to admit that they're the cause of problems and it's a damn shame.
You take the problem in the wrong way. Those state have a ban on guns BECAUSE there's an increasing violence, not the opposite ! And banning guns in one state is useless, because you can get one in another states. The ban has to be as global as possible to be effective.
From reading other's descritptions of their high schools, I have to wonder if the bullshit the administration feeds us (the students at my school) about our school being a good place is actually not complete bullshit. While there are cliques at my school, I can honestly say, that no one really falls under continous belittlement (at least in the senior & junior classes). People do joke about other people, but it is usually in a friendly maner, and the person being joked about usually laughs or plays along or something. While it is hard to jump cliques, there are couple of cliques that intermingle and even several people in multiple cliques. Its not like someone would ignore you if you went up to talk to them or just brush you off though. While I have no doubt there are people alienated by school, this is not due to belittlement from other kids. Having only attended one high school in my life, I really don't konw how others are like. Are others really as bad as people are making them out to be? Or is it hyperbole?
Beating to death somebody is difficult. Usually people who get beaten are drunk people fighting with their fist. If those guys had guns then it would be more than a few bruised faces in the end. I prefer to be beaten and spend 1 hour in the hospital than shot and spend the rest of my life in a wheelchair.
Err, well, according to several internationnal studies, US students are rather bad. In fact most bright US scientist are foreigners who come here because that's where the money is. But a lot of them were raised in a foreign country. Look in a modern high-tech lab : how many people are Americans, from American parents and raised in America ? Not such a big proportion...
Chicks with clues.
This has been a good day!
I know this won't be very popular on slashdot, gamers love this place...
Any Psychologist will tell you Video games and media that contains violence will absolutely contribute to increasing agression.
Simulation is always used in any serious training to prepare a person for unusual situtations, especially in combat.
the availability of guns makes everything possible. After all, you can only kill this many people with a baseball bat or a knife in twenty minutes.
Face it, there will be bad parents, there will be troubled youngsters. we cannot control the human nature. Incidents like this will happen again. guarranteed! Some already heiled the two shooters as heros.
it's the price we pay for the freedom we get. I personally think they should SUE DOOM and DUNE and movie makers("natural born killers") out there for damage. You can write popular, tasteless games, but you have to take the responsibility when the consequences comes in.
I seriously doubt T. Jefferson had the slightest idea of what a berserker with an Uzi can do... they didn't had problem with people entering a Taco Bell and emptying it definitively with an assault rifle. They had no idea that a governement could dispose of tactical nuclear weapon either, which makes owning guns pointless against such a governement.
If you are right, then every citizen has the right to buy a nuke bomb in case the governement is wrong. After all, nuke don't kills, it's the people who kill, right ?
What abour a flamethrower ? Is it usefull for self defense ? And a bazooka ? An assault rifle then ? An M16 is so convenient to carry into a woman purse, in case you get assaulted....
A well regulated Milita, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
And, what about when those weapons make your state hostage and unsafe?.
Just ask those poor kids.
Can you think by yourself or has the NRA replaced your critical mind ?
I wonder how they managed to compile those statistics... it is materially NOT possible to make them, at least not scientifically (of course if you are a lobby financed by Smith & Wesson you don't care about science...)
Do you think a group of untrained unorganised citizen would have stopped the whole German army ? Guns against tanks, planes and flamethrower, all managed by trained soldiers ?
Don't you think people in Kosovo don't have guns ? Well, they have, but it's useless against a well trained and organised army. That's why there's an army : because it's much more effective that a bunch of average citizen.
As for myself, I'm a computer scientist. The army takes care of invasions, I will take care that the computers still work. Would you let a soldier run your servers ? Then why would a soldier let you defend the country ?
I agree, but don't you see how these sorry boys were just projecting all of the hate the received onto someone else (Races,Religions,etc) ? I'm no shrink but I seems like a coping mechanism to me...
I collect WWII firearms. It is a hobby of mine.
Once in a while I even fire them (at paper). But it is the history of the firearms that drives my passion. They are know as "Curios and Relics"
I'm an NRA member because they protect my right to
do this. The anti-gun lobby wishes to make all
fireown ownership illegal (even though they may
say otherwise). I can obviously read and write.
Most people don't realize that guns are harder to
obtain today than in the past. The Gun Control
Act wasn't passed until 1968. Guns were easier
to obtain prior to that. But to my recollection, there weren't high school students commiting mass
murder. Is guns really the problem here?
This text attacks the study, but through it manage to find some holes in it (which I concede), it fails to demonstrate anything except that there are holes. Which is easy... now I would like to see a study showing that guns AREN'T generating crimes... difficult to do !
For example, a large number of Civil War weapons recovered from Civil War battlefields were found to have been loaded 2, 3 or even more times - the reason being that you can fake firing in all the din of battle, but you cannot fake going through the motions of reloading a muzzle loader. Soldiers that could not bring themselves to kill could still "save face" by reloading their rifles along with everyone else.
The reason the Civil War weapons were recovered with multiple loads in them was because of the involved loading method. If you are surrounded by the noise of gunfire(and muzzleloading rifles are quite loud) and you are trying to load and fire as fast as possible it is possible to either forget the primer(the small amout of powder that is ignited by the flint to set off the loaded powder) or miss when loading it into the priming pan. This was a common occurance as you mentioned, what you failed to mention was the recovery of rifles that had been blown open at the breech when the firer had finally gotten the loading proccess right.
As to not being able to fake the loading process that is very easy and you would know this if you have ever loaded a muzzleloading weapon. All you have to do to fake loading the gun is palm the ball (not hard to do) and pour the powder behind your hand while gripping the end of the barrel to load and very little ends up in the rifle. All you have to fake is the ramming process which is easy, grab the ram-rod and push it down the barrel once or twice and you're all set. Also an even better way to fake it is just forget the ball, do the other steps and when you fire all you get is a big cloud of smoke, which everyone else get when thewy fire so no one can tell that you haven't fired an actual bullet.
There is a very famous film clip from Vietnam that demonstrates this: a soldier taking cover in a ditch raises his M-16 above his head, and sprays 20 rounds over the edge without once looking to see where his fire was going. This man is not fighting, he is posturing.
If by fighting you mean standing up in a firestorm and by posturing you mean trying to lay down some cover fire for whoever might be in the same area as him then no he is not fighting and yes he's posturing, but couldn't it have been possible that he was trying to get off a lucky shot or force the guerillas to get some of their heads down so he could get a second to try to spot where the gunfire was coming from?
Just my humble opinion based on growing up with a father who has been a Civil War buff ever since I can remember, and who happened to have an interest in Vietnam because of a lost relative.
Oh no, more of that biased based-on-nowhere logic: is family a Good Thing? What's the base? (don't say the bible - it can be used for almost anything.)
Answering this is left as an exercise for the readers.
Let the flamewars begin.
Yeah, keep in mind that the Goth movement is so losely defined, there is no way to tell whether they are or not. (but goth's relationship to neo-nazi is a first one to me.)
i would call myself a half-goth... i also hate the media portrait of the idea that goths are psychopaths. but i'm sure none of the goths care.
Also, I'm sure that, thirty years from now, you'll see goths all over them Big-American-Town.
I heard someone on the news last night suggest putting a tax on "violent" types of media (movies, games, etc) that would go towards paying for the damages of "violent" crime.
(I know there may be a question of who determines what is violent, but other than that obvious issue, what about some of the other +'s or -'s?)
The argument went something like this: We tax alchohal and tobacco, why not violent media? We could then use the $$$ toward cleaning up after this kind of fallout...
Sounded good to me... (novel, creative, I might vote for it. What about you?)
You are SO right...
People seem to forget that they also had pipe-bombs, should we also out-law pipe?
Were were these kids parents?
Who are these kids parents (Drug users? Abusers?)
McCarthy? That was a bit ago. Turns out he was right about a lot of the commies he went after BTW
I sure hope you're not suggesting (as David Horowitz does) that because they may actually have been Communists, therefore it was okay to come down on them? I mean, by the same logic, you could say that the Salem witch trials were justified because an old woman really did try to put a curse on somebody -- therefore hang 'em all! You know what I'm saying?
The problem was never that Dalton Trumbo wasn't a Communist; at some point (at the very least) he indeed was (IIRC -- if not, substitude somebody who was indubitably as red as red can be). The problem is with treating those beliefs as if they were a crime. The "look, they were guilty after all!" line is a red herring. "Guilt" is beside the point when the "crime" is not a crime.
Then again, maybe you're not saying that?
What about that extridition thing recently?
Pinochet was a good guy. He was good for business, and he only tortured leftists. He's gotten a lot of bad press, all thoroughly unfair. IMHO it's just pathetic how the ungrateful people who he tortured simply refused to recognize what great things he was doing for business.
And...we drive on the RIGHT side of the road
Yes, dammit!
The two buttheads who killed them obeyed your royal whim on the following two issues: They broke the law, and they were prepared to defend themselves. This makes them HEROES OF THE NRA, and therefore anything they did was good! Right? Right! Aw, hell, you're insane anyway, who cares what you think . . . if indeed you do think, which is not at all likely . . .
They all obeyed the laws saying "No guns in school"
They were all unprepared to defend themselves.
The laugh line here is the fact that you're blaming the victims, not the perpetrators, just like the little fascist you are. It's a classic right-winger move: Never let responsibility rest where it belongs, always push it off on somebody else -- but distract attention from that move by howling loudly about "responsibility" the whole time. Listen, stupid: There's more to "accepting responsibility for one's acts" than just chanting "responsibility!" over and over. It's not a magic spell. There's a lot more to it than that, not that your church hitler-youth group or your militia cell ever told you so.
Likewise, there is more to freedom than chanting the word "freedom!" over and over. But you wouldn't know about that, because you're hiding in your bunker with your guns, scared to move, afraid to go outside and interact with reality. This is your "freedom": Locked in a box. You're welcome to it.
If you ever read anything besides Soldier of Fortune, if you ever leave the house unarmed, you may have some hope of becoming a member of the human race. Good luck.
Many people are talking about how bad these kids were but I understand them.
They were unpopular outcasted students like so many of us are. Day after day then were insulted and ostracized. Rumors would spread about them (which were false) and would be said so much that they had to be true.
These kids had lots of enemies especially jocks who would probably terrorize them the most.
These kids were pissed off that sports seemed to get a higher priority over more important things in life and due to their dislike of sports less people liked them.
These kids grouped together because they didn't get treated as badly among themselves as they did among the population.
These kids are like many kids in school today and their life is hell. They see the shiny happy jocks and resent how stupid they seem and how happy the jocks are.
I know, like many of you I am outcasted by the shiny happy people. And being outcasted you start disliking these people. If they actually pick on you it makes matters worse. It gets even worse when jocks get somewhat physical, this is what usually ignites the flames of hatred. oppression.
Now a group of people together like that often come up with some pretty bad rationalization and it can end up like this. Which it did. I am dismayed it did but I know those people could have people I know committing or being victimized. I feel sorry for both sides and am angered by the media demonization and scape goating. The real issue is group bullying by classes. If this problem isn't dealt with more bad things are too follow.
If you watch homocide and you've seen the episode where the geek shoots the star basketball player who was tormenting him you'd understand what these kids probably went through.
Another scenario (sorry for poor organization) is when you are more intellegent and have different opinions from people and they treat you badly because they resent your abilities and dislike your opinions.
I also find that at school I am constantly harassed because I'm some form of christian. Now the bible doesn't have too much in the way of kill the disbelievers (as does that Koran) so I just have to say that respect is the problem.
The descriptions of the students by the media is also biased to people who dont really know the kids and these people probably only know things through false rumors. Just imagine what these kids must have gone through to come this far.
I shall end it now as whatever more I say shall be redundant.
Of course he has no knowledge of history. The weird thing is, there's some wacko above (see a thread that degenerates into something about "Hitler & Lenin") who said precisely the same thing, but I don't think it was the same guy. It may be this moron just read that thread and got it from there, of course.
Still, it makes me wonder: These people (extremist right-wing wackos) generate an incredible amount of "documentation" and "evidence" and "explanations of history" to justify their fears. Take for example the Holocaust-deniers. They've got volume upon volume of "evidence". Likewise the creationists. I wonder if this isn't some newly-minted revisionist history of Germany that we're seeing here. Similarly, I've recently heard people claiming that FDR caused the Depression with "big government" -- which is odd, since the Depression started in October 1929, and FDR took office in January (or is it February?) 1933. Heh. Never mind the inconsistencies! It's only the Bavarian Illuminati clouding your mind . . .
Here's how it works:
It's easy to recognize facts: The facts are the things that are easy and convenient to believe. Anything that is untrue will make you uncomfortable by conflicting with your prejudices. That is the sign of "bad information", which must be expelled from the mind before it causes damage, possibly leading to tolerance, or even (in extreme cases) to simple human decency.
Bleah. These right-wingers annoy me. They're not all inherently vicious and dishonest, but by God it sure is most of 'em . . .
Let me give you an analogy.
Someone regularly beats a neighborhood dog with a stick.
One day, the dog is loose, and sees a young child with a similar stick. It tears off and rips the child to shreds, seriously maiming or killing her.
Who's at fault?
The dog? Perhaps, but it can't be treated as a sane person.
The dog's owner, for not keeping the dog on a leash? Probably, but it may be that the dog has not shown a propensity to be vicious, and is not a species that is known to be vicious (think poodle, or dashund here, not pit bull).
The person who beats the dog? YES! Perhaps not in entirety, but certainly in a contributory manner.
Those who drive people to respond in an irrational manner must be held accountable for the fact that they increase the liklihood of such a response, espescially when what they are doing is ALREADY considered wrong.
What do you think this will do with KMFDM?
Do you think that MORE people will buy their music?
Or the sales will decline?
Personally since it's more offensive now I can see it's sales increase.
I like KMFDM lots of the songs are actually upbeat and motivating. Although somewhat violent I don't see how they could really incite murderous rampage on anyone other than politicians.
Most people who are covering this story have never been in their situation.
True. They just have no goddamn idea what happened there, absolutely no damn idea. I've been scaring myself since it happened, because I do have something of an idea . . . Not a real crystal clear idea, but enough. Enough to recognize myself from a few years ago in your post, and to a lesser extent in those two "trenchcoat" kids.
It's also horribly easy, once you're a few years out of high school, to forget entirely just how bad it was. This whole thing has refreshed some very bad memories for me, and (after looking around this discussion) a lot of others as well.
it's a damn shame.
I hear you.
http://www2.christianity.net/ct/8T9
If it were not for our tremendous imprisonment rate (the highest of any industrialized nation), the aggravated assault rate and the murder rate would undoubtedly be even higher.
Holy shit. He's bragging about it. He doesn't see the prison population as a problem at all. He's not even bothered by it. "The highest of any industrialized nation" -- and he's pleased by this. What the fuck is wrong with this man?
Anyhow, if we train kids to kill, it's all to the good. They NEED to kill, because they have to kill incessantly to protect themselves. It's a known statistical fact that every year in the United States 400 million murders are attempted. And more than half of them are successful! But if our citizens were better trained to kill and provided with better weapons, they could all kill each other -- thereby reducing this murder rate drastically!
And if you don't like my logic, you must be a communist. Nya, nya, nya.
This is what scares me then.
you coming home and getting out of your vehicle, not realising its in neutral and it rolls back and kills my 2yr old playing in our yard.
Your 16 yr old son learning how to drive, accidentally running over his friend when "cruising" one night.
You coming home from a six hour bender, while driving your vehicle.
You hearing crappy noise coming out of your radio. You reach down to change the station, when you realize traffic is stopped in front of you. Hitting the cars in front of you at 65Mph.
Someone stealing your car, going on a joy ride, getting chased by cops and causing a fatal car collision.
Absurd? In all of my fears, and all of yours, it is someone not following basic safety procedures.
As for someone stealing something and then using it for ill purposes? Not much you can do about it. you can put locks on the guns and locks on the cars, but the end result is the same... Those determined simply cut the locks or hotwire the car.
So before we ban the guns lets ban the cars first. Crime studies show conclusively that crime soared with the invention of the automobile! Cars are produced that easily travel faster than the posted speed limits which suggests the car companies should be held liable for those who speed.
Lawn darts kllled just about every kid I know.
The others were killed by non-safety lighters.
Never walk with a loaded gun.
Always check, double check, and triple check that the breech is empty and the magazine removed from the firearm before transportation.
Never point the firearm at anything you dont intend to shoot.
Always keep your firearm locked when you are not at home.
If in a defensive situation, resort to pulling the trigger only as a last resort.
Only shoot when you know exactly what you are shooting at.
Have a good night.
Rosie_bhjp
While games and/or guns don't make you do the killing, they can trigger that. It's hard to say what made them do it, they're dead. That's not the reason to ban games/movies with violence though. Having a few people killed is a fair price to pay for entertainment we're getting. It's just the same with cars - sure we can all commute by feet and save 10th of thousands of lives each year, but do you see anyone asking to ban cars? heh..
- Rainy-Day
It would be interesting to know how many of the contributors to these threads are themselves parents of young children...
Whereas high school- and college-age individuals can [probably] distinguish violent reality from depictions of violence, 15 minutes with a pre-adolescent will dispel any illusions that children have that ability. To an alarming degree, these kids' self-images are shaped by what they see depicted on the big or small (including computer) screen.
E.g.: Young children exposed to audio and video of musicianship tend to see themselves as musicians; those exposed to sports see themselves as athletes. How do those exposed to extreme violence see themselves?
And a primary concern of many parents: the very images they see as most harmful to their children are those most available over the Internet. It's no wonder that many parents (who otherwise may be quite open-minded) will listen when talk of Internet censorship is discussed.
My conclusion: Despite the protestations of Rush and numerous other talk shows in the past few days, they ARE to blame (indirectly) in that they along with the rest of us comprise a society whose development precipitated these behaviors.
To paraphrase an attitude that's frequently espoused, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem," society desparately needs individuals that are part of the solution, not passing blame to others or denying that blame exists.
--REMOVE THE NOSPAM--
jwalteriiNOSPAM@aol.com
this all is good and true but try to bring a rock in your school or to your work and kill 20 people with it.. you know?
- Rainy-Day
People with strong beliefs of any kind -- political, religious, anti-religious, anti-political -- get harassed, because mainstream adolescent culture dislikes ideas and values. If you have them, then you're weird.
any self-esteem lowering measures you would recommend?
No. I'm not equating guns and manliness. What I am saying is that our society, has become mainly a matriarchy, which is observable if you look at its values. In the US at least, things like liberty, justice, independence, etc., used to be highly valued. Now, our society is obsessed with safety, security, "feelings", etc. Very matriarchal values.
None of us who advocate for tighter gun control laws is claiming that such laws "solve" the problems that lead to school shootings. Nor are we trying to diminish individual responsibility. The only claim is that with tighter laws, those problems wouldn't have led to shootings.
And the claim is demonstrably false. These teens broke many existing laws obtaining and possessing the guns as well as the bombs. Didn't stop 'em. You know why? You cannot stop people who are intent on killing with laws. They simply don't care about laws, especially when they are willing to kill themselves.
I don't have the answer; I don't think there is an answer. Somehow, you've got to try instilling values in kids, but it doesn't seem to be happening. Used to be, kids grew up using guns, and they didn't do these kinds of things. It's obvious that the guns aren't the problem; it's just difficult and complicated to explain the real reason. I guess that's why people grasp at the simple explanation.
Maybe sending thousands of kids to the same gov't institution, with no real capacity for discipline isn't such a hot idea...
i don't buy that. when you are faced with an armed terrorist and you start running at him unarmed, hoping that others will follow.. then I'll belive that but right now you're just saying that and saying is easier than doing.. in this case its ALOT easier.
- Rainy-Day
You have quite a moving response full of factual rebuttals.
The best you can do is regurgitate what you "personally think".
Thank you for informing us that not everybody who watched violent movies and played doom went on a killing spree. This was a surprise to me personally. I never watched TV or went to a theater.. again, thanks.
- Rainy-Day
You'd like soviet media.. it was all like "New plant built, all rejoice.. farmers double the crops this year, YAY." Don't get me wrong, I don't watch news here either.
- Rainy-Day
nah.. stuff like that doesn't usually happen in the ghetto's.. i was in a brooklyn school, we had a few students killed but it was all gang warfare, not a massacre liek that one..
- Rainy-Day
The impossibility of the police preventing endemic crime, or protecting every victim, has become all too tragically evident over the past quarter century.
The issues are illustrated by the on- going phenomenon of pathological violence against women by their mates or former mates{67}:
Baltimore, Md.
Daonna Barnes was forced into hiding with her children because, since making threats is not a crime, police could not arrest her former boyfriend
for his threats to kill her. On August 11, 1989 he discovered the location of her new apartment, broke in and shot and stabbed her and a new
boyfriend. Released on bail while awaiting trial on charges of attempted murder, he continues to harass Ms. Barnes who says: "I feel like there is
nobody out there to help me. It's as if [I'll have to wait until he kills me] for anyone to take this seriously...."
Mishawaka, Ind.
Finally convicted of kidnapping and battery against her, Lisa Bianco's husband was sentenced to seven years imprisonment. On March 4, 1989 he
took advantage of release on an 8 hour pass to break into her house and beat her to death.
Los Angeles, Ca.
On Aug. 27, 1989 Maria Navarro called the Sheriff's Office to report that her former husband was again threatening to kill her, despite a
restraining order she had obtained against him. The dispatcher instructed her "If he comes over, don't let him in. Then call us." Fifteen minutes
later he burst in on her 27th birthday party and shot her and three others dead. Noting that Ms. Navarro's call was part of a perennial overload
of 2,000 or more 911 calls the Sheriff's Office receives daily, a spokesman frankly admitted "Faced with the same situation again, in all
probability the response would be the same."
Denver, Colo.
On February 16, 1989, nine days after she filed for divorce, Lois Lende's husband broke into her home, beat and stabbed her to death and then
shot himself to death.
Connecticut
Late last year Anthony "Porky" Young was sentenced to a year in prison for stripping his girlfriend naked and beating her senseless in front of
her 4 year old son. "He says next time he's going to make my kids watch while he kills me", she says. Despite scores of death threats he has
written her while in prison, the prison authorities will have to release him when his year is up.
Literally dozens of such newspaper stories appear each week around the U.S. Even extreme anti-gun advocates must wonder if a society that cannot
protect its innocent victims should not leave them free to choose to own a handgun for defense.{68} This section of the paper is devoted to analyzing the
arguments offered for denying that choice.
1. Police protection vs. the capacity to defend oneself--
Perhaps the single most common argument against freedom of choice is that personal self defense has been rendered obsolete by the existence of a
professional police force.{69} For decades anti- gun officials in Washington, D.C., Chicago, San Francisco and New York have admonished the citizenry
that they don't need guns for self-defense because the police will defend them. This advice is mendacious: when those cities are sued for failure to
provide police protection, those same officials send forth their city attorneys to invoke
[the] fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police
protection, to any individual citizen.{70}
Even as a matter of theory (much less in fact), the police do NOT exist to protect the individual citizen. Rather their function is to deter crime in general
by patrol activities, and by apprehension after the crime has occurred. If circumstances permit, the police should and will protect a citizen in distress.
But they are not legally duty bound even to do that, nor to provide any direct protection -- no matter how urgent a distress call they may receive. A
fortiori the police have no duty to, and do not, protect citizens who are under death threat, e.g. women threatened by former boyfriends or husbands.
An illustrative case is Warren v District of Columbia in which three rape victims sued the city under the following facts: Two of the victims were
upstairs when they heard the other being attacked by men who had broken in downstairs. Half an hour having passed and their roommate's screams
having ceased, they assumed the police must have arrived in response to their repeated phone calls. In fact, their calls had somehow been lost in the
shuffle while the roommate was being beaten into silent acquiesence. When her roommates went downstairs to see to her, as the court's opinion
graphically describes it, "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each
other, and made to submit to the sexual demands" of their attackers.
Having set out these facts, the District of Columbia's highest court exonerated the District and its police, because (to reiterate) it is
a fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police
protection, to any individual citizen.{71}
In addition to the caselaw I have cited, this principle has been expressly enunciated over and over again in statute law.{72}
The fundamental principle that the police have no duty to protect individuals derives equally from practical necessity and from legal history. Historically
there were no police, even in large American or English cities, before almost the mid-19th Century. Citizens were not only expected to protect themselves
(and each other), but legally required in response to the hue and cry to chase down and apprehend criminals. The very idea of a police was anathema,
American and English liberalism viewing any such force as a form of the dreaded "standing army."{73} This view yielded only grudgingly to the fact that
citizens were unwilling to spend their leisure hours patrolling miles of city streets and incapable even of chasing fleeing criminals down on crowded city
streets -- much less tracing and apprehending them or detecting surreptitious crimes.
Eventually police forces were established to augment citizen self-protection by systematic patrol to deter crime and to detect and apprehend criminals
if a crime occurs. Historically there was no thought of the police displacing the citizen's right of self- protection. Nor, as a practical matter, is that
remotely feasible in light of the demands a high crime society makes on the limited resources available to police it. Even if all 500,000 American police
officers were assigned to patrol they could not protect 240 million citizens from upwards of 10 million criminals who enjoy the luxury of deciding when
and where to strike. But there are nothing like 500,000 patrol officers: to determine how many police are actually available on any one shift the
550,000 figure must be divided by four (three shifts per day, plus officers on days-off, sick leave etc.). After this calculation, the resulting number
must be cut in half to take account of the officers assigned to investigations, juvenile, records, laboratory, traffic etc., rather than patrol.{74}
Doubtless the deterrent effect of the police helps assure that many Americans will never be so unfortunate as to live in circumstances requiring personal
protection. But for those who do need such protection the fact is that police do not and cannot function as bodyguards for ordinary people (though in
New York and other major cities police may perform bodyguard services for the mayor and other prominent officials). Consider the matter just in terms
of the number of New York City women who each year seek police help, reporting threats by ex-husbands, ex-boyfriends etc.: to bodyguard just those
women would exhaust the resources of the nation's largest police department, leaving no officers available for street patrol, traffic control, crime
detection and apprehension of perpetrators, responding to emergency calls etc., etc.{75}
Given what New York courts have called "the crushing nature of the burden"{76}, the police cannot be expected to protect the individual citizen.
Individuals remain responsible for their own personal safety, with police providing only an auxiliary general deterrent. The issue is whether those
individuals should be free to choose gun ownership as a means of protecting themselves, their homes and families.
2. The defensive utility of victim firearms ownership -- pre-1980s analysis
Until recently a combination of problematic data, lacunae and legerdemain allowed anti-gun advocates to claim "The handgun owner seldom even gets the
chance to use his gun" -- "Guns purchased for protection are rarely used for that purpose."{77} The evidence to support this came from selective and
manipulative rendition of pre- 1980s city-level figures on the number of violent felons whom civilians lawfully kill. Due to lack of any better data these
lawful homicide data were the best available before the 1980s. But anti-gun discussions did not mention the grave lacuna involved in judging the amount
of defensive gun use from the number of such killings: the vast majority of civilian defensive gun uses are excluded since they do not involve killing
criminals but only scaring them off or capturing them without death. Thus failure to mention this fact speciously minimizes the extent of civilian
defensive gun use. Data now available shows that gun-armed civilians capture or rout upwards of 30 times more criminals than they kill.{78}
Exacerbating this problem of minimization was the highly misleading way in which opponents of handgun ownership selected and presented the pre-1980s
lawful homicide data. Some big cities had been keeping lawful homicide data since the 1910s. Naturally, many more felons were killed by victims in high
crime eras like the 1970s and 1980s, or the 1920s and 1930s (when victims tended to buy and keep guns loaded and ready) than in the low crime era
1945-65. For instance, Chicago figures going from the 1920s show: that lawful civilian homicide constituted 31.4% of all homicides (including fatal
automobile accidents); that for decades the number of felons killed by civilians roughly equalled those killed by police; and that by the 1970s civilians
were lawfully killing about three times as many felons as were police. Yet no mention of Chicago or this data (or comparable Washington, D.C. figures)
will be found in the anti-gun literature.{79}
Instead, that literature concentrated on Detroit. Even so it somehow omitted the following pertinent facts: that in the 1920s felons killed by civilians
constituted 26.6% of all homicide in Detroit{80}; that, as crime rose after 1965, civilian killings of felons rose 1350% (by 1971) and continued rising so
that, by the late 1970s, twice as many felons were being lawfully killed by civilians as police.{81}
Without mentioning any of this, even the most scrupulous of the anti-gun analysts, Newton & Zimring, advanced the highly misleading claim that in the
five years 1964-8 only "seven residential burglars were shot and killed by" Detroit householders and there were only "three cases of the victim killing a
home robber".{82} This is highly misleading because Newton & Zimring have truncated the lawful homicide data without informing readers that they are
omitting the two situations in which the great majority of lawful defensive homicides occur: robbers killed by shopkeepers and the homicidal assailant
shot by his victim (e.g. the abusive husband shot by the wife he is strangling). Had these two categories not been surreptitiously omitted, Newton &
Zimring's Detroit lawful civilian homicide figure would have been 27 times greater -- not 10, but rather 270 in the 1964-8 period.{83}
3. 1980s data on the defensive efficacy of handguns
In any event, all pre-1980s work has been eclipsed by more recent data which allows estimation not only of how many felons armed citizens kill annually
but also of those they capture or scare off. This evidence derives from private national surveys on gun issues. Though sponsored by pro- or anti-gun
groups the polls were conducted by reputable independent polling organizations and have all been accorded credibility by social scientists analyzing gun
issues.{84} Further evidencing the polls' accuracy, is that their results are consistent (particularly their results on defensive gun use), regardless of
their sponsorship.{85} Moreover, because the different surveys' data are mutually consistent, any suspicion of bias or falsification may be precluded by
simply not using the data from the NRA-sponsored polls.
Based therefore only on the anti-gun polls, it is now clear that handguns are used as or more often in repelling crimes annually as in committing them, c.
645,000 defense uses annually vs. c. 580,000 criminal misuses.{86} Handguns are used another 215,000 times annually to defend against dangerous
snakes and animals. As to their effectiveness, handguns work equally well for criminals and victims: in about 83% of the cases in which an victim is
faced with a handgun, he (or she) submits; in 83% of the cases in which a victim with a handgun confronts a criminal the criminal flees or surrenders.
This victim survey data is confirmed by complementary data from a survey among felons in state prisons across the country. Conducted under the
auspices of the National Institute of Justice, the survey found 34% of the felons saying that
they had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim," [quoting the actual question asked] and about two-thirds (69%) had
at least one acquaintance who had had this experience.{87}
In response to two other questions: 34% of the felons said that in contemplating a crime they either "often" or "regularly" worried that they "Might get
shot at by the victim"; and 57% agreed that "Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the
police."{88}
In sum: the claim that "Guns purchased for protection are rarely used for that purpose" could not have been maintained by a full and accurate rendition
of even the pre-1980s data; and that claim is definitively refuted by the comprehensive data that have been collected in the 1980s under the auspices of
the National Institute of Justice and both pro- and anti-gun groups.
3. Anti-gun obliviousness to women's defensive needs: (a) the case of domestic and spousal homicide
My point here is not that opponents of precautionary handgun ownership are oblivious to domestic homicide, but only that they are oblivious (or worse) to
the situation of the woman in such homicides. That obliviousness (or worse) is epitomized by the failure to differentiate men from women in the
ubiquitous anti-gun admonition that: "the use of firearms for self-protection is more likely to lead to
of an intruder."{89} This admonition misportrays domestic homicide as if it were all murder and ignores the fact that c. 50% of interspousal homicides
are committed by abused wives.{90} To understand domestic homicide it is necessary to distinguish unprovoked murder from lawful self-defense against
homicidal attack -- a distinction which happens to correlate closely with the distinction between husband and wife.
Not surprisingly when we look at criminal violence between spouses we find that "91% were victimizations of women by their husbands or
ex-husbands...."{91} Thus, the 50% of interspousal homicides in which husband kills wife are real murders -- but in the overwhelming majority of cases
where wife kills husband, she is defending herself or the children.{92} In Detroit, for instance, husbands are killed by wives more often than vice versa,
yet men are far more often convicted for killing a spouse -- because three- quarters of wives who killed were not even charged, prosecutors having
found their acts lawful and necessary to preserve their lives or their childrens'.{93}
In the vast majority of cases a woman who kills a man requires a weapon (most often a handgun) to do so. Eliminating handguns from American life would
not decrease the total number of killings between spouses. (If anything, it would increase it since, as we have seen, gun armed victims may ward off
25-30 attack without killing for every time they have to kill.) To eliminate handguns would only change the sex of the decedents by assuring that in
virtually every case it would be the abused wife, not the murderous husband. After all, a gun is of far more use to the victim than her attacker.
"Husbands, due to size and strength advantages, do not need weapons to kill."{94} Having a gun is not necessary to attack a victim who is unarmed,
alone, small, frail
because everyone knows that a gun has these attributes, the mere display of a gun communicates a highly effective threat.{95} Of course it is tragic
when an abused woman has to kill a current or former mate. But such killings can not be counted as if they were costs of precautionary handgun
ownership; rather they are palpable benefits, from society's and the woman's point of view, if not from the attacker's. Thus it is misleading to the point
of wilful falsehood for critics of handgun ownership to misrepresent such lawful defensive killings as what, instead, they prevented -- domestic murder.
A final tangential, but significant, point emerges from the statistics on use of guns in domestic self-defense. Those statistics strongly support the
defensive efficacy of firearms. As noted above, "Men who batter [wives] average 45 pounds heavier and 4 to 5 inches taller than" their victim.{96} If
guns were not effective for defense, a homicidal attack by a husband upon his wife would almost invariably end in the death of the wife rather than in
his death c. 50% of the time.
5. Anti-gun obliviousness to women's defensive needs: (b) attacks by male acquaintances.
In arguing against precautionary handgun ownership, anti-gun authors purport to comprehensively refute the defensive value of guns, i.e., to every kind
of victim. Yet, without exception (and without mentioning the omission), those authors omit to analyze the acquaintance crime to which women are most
often subjected. The empirical evidence establishes that "women are more likely to be assaulted, more likely to be injured, more likely to be raped, and
more likely to be killed by a male partner than by any other type of assailant."{97} Yet, to a man (and, invariably, they are men) anti-gun authors treat
self-defense in terms of the gun owner's fears "that a hostile stranger will invade his home".{98}
It is only by turning a blind eye to cquaintance crime that the Chairman of Handgun Control Inc. can claim that "The handgun owner rarely even gets the
chance to use his gun." That assertion restates the argument of Newton & Zimring and the Handgun Control Staff. They emphasized the unexpectedness
of stranger attacks -- from which they characterized it as "ludicrous" to think a victim "will have sufficient time to retrieve" her handgun.{99}
As discussed above, even as to stranger crime, this view is supported only by Newton & Zimring's inaccurate and misleading rendition of pre-1980s data
which is further discredited by subsequent data available today. Moreover, in relation to violence against women, the assertion that they would almost
invariably be too surprised by violent attack to be able to use a handgun in self-defense is insupportable. On the contrary, in the clear majority of
instances, the man who beats or murders a woman, and often even the rapist, is an acquaintance who has previously assaulted her on one or more
occasions.{100} Such crimes commonly occur after protracted and bellicose argument over a long-simmering dispute. The women's defensive homicide
literature shows that such a victim is almost uniquely positioned for self-defense: knowing the mannerisms and circumstances that triggered or preceded
her attacker's prior attacks, she has
"a hypervigilance to cues of any kind of impending violence... [She is] a little bit more responsive to situations than somebody who has not been
battered might be." A woman who has [previously] been battered and then is threatened with more abuse is more likely to perceive the danger
involved faster than one who has not been abused. {101}
In this connection consider a point that anti-gun crusaders make in another context, but ignore in this one. They (rightly) warn victims that a defense gun
may be of little use if attacked by robber who is himself using a gun. The fact is that a gun is so dangerous a weapon that it is extremely risky for a
victim to resist even if the victim him/herself has a gun. A basic dictum of police and martial arts training is that even a trained professional should never
attack a gun-armed assailant unless convinced that he is about to shoot (in which case there is nothing to lose).{102}
The very strength of this point about the overwhelming power of one who wields a gun should have provoked academic anti-gun crusaders into at least
considering a correlative question: where does the balance of power lie between a victim who has a gun and an attacker armed only with a knife or some
other lesser weapon? Under those circumstances it seems that the victim will usually have the clear advantage (remembering Kleck's finding that in 83%
of cases in which a victim has a handgun the criminal surrenders or flees). But anti-gun crusaders avoid the embarrassment of admitting that a victim
with a gun might have the advantage over a lesser-armed by either ignoring the issue or assuming it away. Those anti-gun analyses that expressly deal
with the situation in which a victim tries to use a gun against an attacker wantonly assume that in any such situation the attacker will have a gun
himself.{103} In fact, however, in 89.6% of the violent crimes directed against women during the ten years 1973-82, the offender did not have a
gun{104}; only 10% of rapists used guns{105} and only 25% of non-strangers who attacked victims (whether male or female) had any weapon
whatever.{106} In sum, the same strong arguments anti-gun analysts offer against the wisdom of a victim resisting a gun-armed attacker suggest that
women with handguns will have the advantage since the vast majority of rapists and other attackers do not have guns.{107}
(At this point it may be appropriate to address the old bugaboo that a woman who seeks to resist a male attacker will have her gun taken away and used
against her. It bears emphasis that this is only a theoretical bugaboo: the rape literature contains no example of such an occurrence.{108} Moreover
police instructors and firearms experts strongly reject its likelihood. Not only do they aver that women are capable of gun-armed self-defense{109} they
find women much easier to properly train than men, since women lack the masculine ego problems which cause the men to stubbornly resist accepting
instruction. Viz. the experience of a police academy instructor who simultaneously trained a male police academy class and a class of civilian women
"most of [whom] had never held a revolver, much less fired one"; after one hour on the range and two hours classroom instruction in the Chattanooga
Police Academy combat pistol course the women consistently outshot police cadets who had just received eight times as much formal instruction and
practice.{110})
6. Anti-gun obliviousness to women's defensive needs: (c) rape.
Anti-gun academics necessarily neglect to analyze the value of a gun in defending against rape because, almost to a man, they eschew any mention of
rape.{111} This surprising omission cannot be explained as a mere side effect of ignoring acquaintance crimes. After all, many rapists are strangers
rather than acquaintances; indeed, many rapes are committed in the course of the kinds of crimes the anti-gun literature does address, robbery and
burglary.{112} But, almost invariably, the "intruder" whom anti-gun authors discuss is not rapist but a "robber" whom they represent as "confront[ing] too
swiftly" for rape or a "burglar" whom they represent as breaking only into unoccupied homes.{113}
This obliviousness to women's self-defense in general, and to rape in particular, leaves anti-gun authors free to deprecate the defensive utility of guns
on grounds that don't apply to most circumstances in which women use guns defensively. Anti-gun works correctly stress that it is illegal to shoot to
prevent mere car theft, shoplifting or trespass on land (i.e. not involving entry into the home itself).{114} In contrast, the law allows a woman to shoot a
rapist or homicidal attacker.{115} Also, in some cases, a man attacked by another man of comparable size and strength may be hard put to justify his
need to shoot; but this is far less of a problem for a female victim of male attack.{116}
In short, to the extent academic anti-gun crusaders have made valid point about armed self-defense these points do not apply to women. The anti-gun
crusaders avoid acknowledging this by the simple device of never mentioning rape, or women's armed self- defense, at all. One anti-gun writer, Drinan,
did discuss rape, albeit not entirely voluntarily; he was responding to an article in which I highlighted the issue as a justification for allowing women the
freedom to choose to own guns for self-defense. Drinan responded, in essence, that women detest guns and don't want to own them for
self-defense.{117} This response is both factually and conceptually erroneous. It is factually erroneous because the evidence shows that currently
(though not necessarily when Drinan wrote) women constitute one half of purely precautionary gun owners. It is conceptually erroneous because
freedom of choice is a residual value even as to things that many or most people do not now want to choose, and even if they may never want to.
Newton & Zimring's chapter on self-defense dismisses women's concerns about self-defense against rape (or, presumably, other kind of attack) in one
contemptuous sentence to the effect that "women generally are less capable of self-defense [than men] and less knowledgeable about guns."{118}
Feminist outrage about this derisive comment may account for the fact that Prof. Zimring's subsequent writings, including the chapter on self-defense in
a 1987 book, prudently eschew any attempt to deal with women's right to, or capacity for, self-defense with guns.{119}
Other anti-gun treatments do not specifically address rape beyond their general position that victims should always submit to criminals unless flight is
possible: the best way to "keep you alive [is to] put up no defense -- give them what they want or run" advises Handgun Control, Inc.{120} However
unacceptable that advice may be to feminists, at least it avoids the confusion that marks the discussion of gun-armed defense against rape by the
Handgun Control Staff of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. For the first 31 of its 36 pages the HANDGUN CONTROL STAFF pamphlet harps on the
prohibitive dangers of any kind of physical resistance to crime. Throughout, the Handgun Control Staff's argument against precautionary gun ownership
consists in warning against handguns or any other form of physical resistance -- the risk of any kind of physical resistance is so high that victims should
always submit to attackers.{121}
But when the Handgun Control Staff finally get to rape, it offers a startling volte face -- all the more startling because it lacks even an explanation,
much less a justification of its contradicting all that has preceded it. The Handgun Control Staff just blithely announces that women don't need
handguns to resist rape because of "the effectiveness of other means of resistance such as verbal and physical resistance".{122} Yet, if the authors
believe their own prior warnings, "physical resistance" is prohibitively dangerous; e.g. the Pamphlet's twice-repeated point (each time in italics) that "a
victim is more than eight times as likely to be killed when using a self-protective measure" of any kind;{123} or its more general admonition (again in
italics) that "victims who resist experience much higher rates of fatality and injury."{124}
The HANDGUN CONTROL STAFF pamphlet also points out that many rapes do not occur in the victim's home but in other locations where she presumably
would not be legally entitled to carry a gun. But this highlights the fact that the majority of rapes do occur in the victim's home where she is entitled to
have a gun (in all but the few jurisdictions like Washington, D.C. where victims are not permitted to have guns for self-defense). In short, the majority of
rapes occur where a woman may legally have a gun and the empirical evidence is that in 83% of the cases it will protect her from being raped.
7. Incidence of injury to handgun-armed victims who resist criminal attack.
Some readers may object that the preceding section of this paper shirks the crucial issue of victim injury by veering off onto the side-issue of
intellectual honesty. Yes (they may say) the Handgun Control Staff's discussion of rape is inconsistent to the point of dishonesty; nevertheless, the
pamphlet does marshall impressive data that victims who resist are often seriously hurt or killed.{125} Does that data not validate Zimring, Hawkins and
Handgun Control, Inc. in teaching that victims ought to submit to rapists, robbers or other violent criminals: the best way to "keep you alive [is to] put up
no defense -- give them what they want or run."{126}
The short answer is that the data the HANDGUN CONTROL STAFF pamphlet presents is irrelevant to the risk of injury to victims who resist with a
handgun. This pre-1980s data does not deal with guns specifically. It gives only a conglomerate figure for the percentage of victims injured or killed
when resisting physically in any way whatever. This conglomerate figure includes some few victims who resisted with a gun, many more who used knivee,
clubs or some makeshift weapon, and many who resisted totally unarmed. It is crucial to distinguish resistance with a gun from all other kinds of
resistance, because a gun differs qualitatively from all other weapons in its defensive value. Criminals generally select victims who are weaker than
themselves. Only a gun gives weaker, older, less aggressive victims equal or better chances against a stronger attacker; as even Zimring and Hawkins
state, guns empower "persons [who are] physically or psychologically unable to overpower [another] through violent physical contact."{127}
The difference is evident in post-1978 National Crime Survey data which do allow us to distinguish victim injury in cases of gun-armed resistance from
victim injury where resistance was with lesser weapons, and from cases of non-resistance. Ironically, the results validate the anti-gun critics'
danger-of-injury concerns as to every form of resistance except with a gun. The gun-armed resister was actually much less likely to be injured than the
non- resister, who was, in turn, much less likely to be injured than those who resisted without a gun. Only 12-17% of the gun armed resisters were
injured. Those who submitted to the felons' demands were twice as likely to be injured (gratuitously); those resisting without guns were three times as
likely to be injured as those with guns.{128}
(It bears emphasis that these results do NOT mean that a gun allows victims to resist, regardless of circumstances. In many cases submission will be the
wiser course Indeed, what the victim survey data suggests differs startlingly from both pro- and anti-gun stereotypes: keeping a gun for defense may
induce sober consideration of the dangers of reckless resistance; their low injury rate may show that gun owners are not only better able to resist, but
to evaluate when to submit, than are non-owners who, having never seriously contemplated those choices, must suddenly decide between them.)
8. The "submission position" in white, male academia
By the "submission position", of course, I mean the view embraced by various anti-gun scholars that victims should submit to felons rather than offering
forcible resistance of any kind; if an attacker cannot be "talked out" of his crime, the victim should comply in order to avoid injury.{129} Not
insignificantly, the academic proponents of the submission position are all white males.{130}
This is significant insofar as the submission position is conditioned by the relative immunity to crime its proponents enjoy due to their racial, sexual and
economic circumstances. In general, the submission position literature does not eve mention rape. Equally significant, it treats robbery as the
once-in-a-lifetime danger it is for a salaried white academic. His risk of meeting a robber is so low that he is unlikely to keep a gun ready for that
eventuality. Moreover, submitting once in his life to the loss of the money in his wallet may well be "the better part of valor" for the kind of victim who
can replace that money by a trip to his ATM and can minimize the loss by taking it off his taxes. A very different calculus of costs and benefits of
resisting may apply to
an elderly Chicano whom the San Francisco Examiner reports has held onto his grocery by outshooting fifteen armed robbers [while] nearby
stores have closed because thugs have either bankrupted them or have casually executed their unresisting proprietors... [Or] welfare recipients
whom robbers target, knowing when their checks come and where they cash them [or] the elderly trapped in deteriorating neighborhoods (like the
Manhattan couple who in 1976 hanged themselves in despair over repeatedly losing their pension checks and furnishings to robbers).{131}
Regrettably, for many victims crime is not the isolated happenstance it is for white male academics.{132} Let us hypothesize a Black shopkeeper; perhaps
a retired Marine master sergeant who has invested the life savings from "20-years-and out" in the only store he can afford. Not coincidentally, it is
located in an area where robbery insurance is prohibitively high or unobtainable at any price. In deciding whether to submit to robbery or resist, he and
others who live or work in such areas must weigh a factor which finds no place in the submission position literature: that to survive they may have to
establish a reputation for not being easily victimized.{133} The submission position literature is equally oblivious to the special factors that may have
importance for rape victims; even one rape -- much less several -- may cause catastrophic psychological injury that may be worsened by submission,
mitigated by even unsuccessful resistance.{134}
By no means am I arguing that resistance with guns (or without) is optimum for crime victims in any or all situations. I am only noting additional factors
that really ought to be considered by well-salaried white, male intellectuals presume (as I certainly would not) to tell the kind of people who are most
often crime victims what is best for them. It is presumptuous for scholars, however learned, to pontificate as to what course is best for an individual
victim whose values and situation they may not share. Consider the reflections of a woman who (without a gun) successfully resisted rape:
I believed he would kill me if I resisted. But the other part was that I would try to kill him first because I guess that for me, at that time in my
life, it would have been better to have died resisting rape than to have been raped.
I decided I wasn't going to die. It seemed a waste to die on the floor of my apartment so I decided to fight.{135}
I hope god makes amends for doom players.. I mean, it was a bit easier to be moral when movies weren't so violent and there were no video games, right? its hardly fair from the God's side to judge us all equally. But then again, since when is God fair?
- Rainy-Day
DEFENSIVE GUN OWNERSHIP VS. CRIME
- ----------------------
... death among family and friends
...[But] Even in the hands of a weak and ... without much risk of effective ... [and] because everyone knows that a gun has these
The impossibility of the police preventing endemic crime, or protecting
every victim, has become all too tragically evident over the past quarter
century. The issues are illustrated by the on- going phenomenon of
pathological violence against women by their mates or former mates{67}:
Baltimore, Md.
Daonna Barnes was forced into hiding with her children because, since
making threats is not a crime, police could not arrest her former
boyfriend for his threats to kill her. On August 11, 1989 he discovered
the location of her new apartment, broke in and shot and stabbed her
and a new boyfriend. Released on bail while awaiting trial on charges
of attempted murder, he continues to harass Ms. Barnes who says: "I
feel like there is nobody out there to help me. It's as if [I'll have
to wait until he kills me] for anyone to take this seriously...."
Mishawaka, Ind.
Finally convicted of kidnapping and battery against her, Lisa Bianco's
husband was sentenced to seven years imprisonment. On March 4, 1989 he
took advantage of release on an 8 hour pass to break into her house and
beat her to death.
Los Angeles, Ca.
On Aug. 27, 1989 Maria Navarro called the Sheriff's Office to report
that her former husband was again threatening to kill her, despite a
restraining order she had obtained against him. The dispatcher
instructed her "If he comes over, don't let him in. Then call us."
Fifteen minutes later he burst in on her 27th birthday party and shot
her and three others dead. Noting that Ms. Navarro's call was part of a
perennial overload of 2,000 or more 911 calls the Sheriff's Office
receives daily, a spokesman frankly admitted "Faced with the same
situation again, in all probability the response would be the same."
Denver, Colo.
On February 16, 1989, nine days after she filed for divorce, Lois
Lende's husband broke into her home, beat and stabbed her to death and
then shot himself to death.
Connecticut
Late last year Anthony "Porky" Young was sentenced to a year in prison
for stripping his girlfriend naked and beating her senseless in front
of her 4 year old son. "He says next time he's going to make my kids
watch while he kills me", she says. Despite scores of death threats he
has written her while in prison, the prison authorities will have to
release him when his year is up.
-------------------------------------------------
Literally dozens of such newspaper stories appear each week around the U.S.
Even extreme anti-gun advocates must wonder if a society that cannot protect
its innocent victims should not leave them free to choose to own a handgun
for defense.{68} This section of the paper is devoted to analyzing the
arguments offered for denying that choice.
1. Police protection vs. the capacity to defend oneself--
Perhaps the single most common argument against freedom of choice is that
personal self defense has been rendered obsolete by the existence of a
professional police force.{69} For decades anti- gun officials in
Washington, D.C., Chicago, San Francisco and New York have admonished the
citizenry that they don't need guns for self-defense because the police will
defend them. This advice is mendacious: when those cities are sued for
failure to provide police protection, those same officials send forth their
city attorneys to invoke
[the] fundamental principle of American law that a government and its
agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as
police protection, to any individual citizen.{70}
Even as a matter of theory (much less in fact), the police do NOT exist to
protect the individual citizen. Rather their function is to deter crime in
general by patrol activities, and by apprehension after the crime has
occurred. If circumstances permit, the police should and will protect a
citizen in distress. But they are not legally duty bound even to do that,
nor to provide any direct protection -- no matter how urgent a distress call
they may receive. A fortiori the police have no duty to, and do not, protect
citizens who are under death threat, e.g. women threatened by former
boyfriends or husbands.
An illustrative case is Warren v District of Columbia in which three rape
victims sued the city under the following facts: Two of the victims were
upstairs when they heard the other being attacked by men who had broken in
downstairs. Half an hour having passed and their roommate's screams having
ceased, they assumed the police must have arrived in response to their
repeated phone calls. In fact, their calls had somehow been lost in the
shuffle while the roommate was being beaten into silent acquiesence. When
her roommates went downstairs to see to her, as the court's opinion
graphically describes it, "For the next fourteen hours the women were held
captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each
other, and made to submit to the sexual demands" of their attackers.
Having set out these facts, the District of Columbia's highest court
exonerated the District and its police, because (to reiterate) it is
a fundamental principle of American law that a government and its
agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as
police protection, to any individual citizen.{71}
In addition to the caselaw I have cited, this principle has been expressly
enunciated over and over again in statute law.{72}
The fundamental principle that the police have no duty to protect
individuals derives equally from practical necessity and from legal history.
Historically there were no police, even in large American or English cities,
before almost the mid-19th Century. Citizens were not only expected to
protect themselves (and each other), but legally required in response to the
hue and cry to chase down and apprehend criminals. The very idea of a police
was anathema, American and English liberalism viewing any such force as a
form of the dreaded "standing army."{73} This view yielded only grudgingly
to the fact that citizens were unwilling to spend their leisure hours
patrolling miles of city streets and incapable even of chasing fleeing
criminals down on crowded city streets -- much less tracing and apprehending
them or detecting surreptitious crimes.
Eventually police forces were established to augment citizen self-protection
by systematic patrol to deter crime and to detect and apprehend criminals if
a crime occurs. Historically there was no thought of the police displacing
the citizen's right of self- protection. Nor, as a practical matter, is that
remotely feasible in light of the demands a high crime society makes on the
limited resources available to police it. Even if all 500,000 American
police officers were assigned to patrol they could not protect 240 million
citizens from upwards of 10 million criminals who enjoy the luxury of
deciding when and where to strike. But there are nothing like 500,000 patrol
officers: to determine how many police are actually available on any one
shift the 550,000 figure must be divided by four (three shifts per day, plus
officers on days-off, sick leave etc.). After this calculation, the
resulting number must be cut in half to take account of the officers
assigned to investigations, juvenile, records, laboratory, traffic etc.,
rather than patrol.{74}
Doubtless the deterrent effect of the police helps assure that many
Americans will never be so unfortunate as to live in circumstances requiring
personal protection. But for those who do need such protection the fact is
that police do not and cannot function as bodyguards for ordinary people
(though in New York and other major cities police may perform bodyguard
services for the mayor and other prominent officials). Consider the matter
just in terms of the number of New York City women who each year seek police
help, reporting threats by ex-husbands, ex-boyfriends etc.: to bodyguard
just those women would exhaust the resources of the nation's largest police
department, leaving no officers available for street patrol, traffic
control, crime detection and apprehension of perpetrators, responding to
emergency calls etc., etc.{75}
Given what New York courts have called "the crushing nature of the
burden"{76}, the police cannot be expected to protect the individual
citizen. Individuals remain responsible for their own personal safety, with
police providing only an auxiliary general deterrent. The issue is whether
those individuals should be free to choose gun ownership as a means of
protecting themselves, their homes and families.
2. The defensive utility of victim firearms ownership -- pre-1980s analysis
Until recently a combination of problematic data, lacunae and legerdemain
allowed anti-gun advocates to claim "The handgun owner seldom even gets the
chance to use his gun" -- "Guns purchased for protection are rarely used for
that purpose."{77} The evidence to support this came from selective and
manipulative rendition of pre- 1980s city-level figures on the number of
violent felons whom civilians lawfully kill. Due to lack of any better data
these lawful homicide data were the best available before the 1980s. But
anti-gun discussions did not mention the grave lacuna involved in judging
the amount of defensive gun use from the number of such killings: the vast
majority of civilian defensive gun uses are excluded since they do not
involve killing criminals but only scaring them off or capturing them
without death. Thus failure to mention this fact speciously minimizes the
extent of civilian defensive gun use. Data now available shows that
gun-armed civilians capture or rout upwards of 30 times more criminals than
they kill.{78}
Exacerbating this problem of minimization was the highly misleading way in
which opponents of handgun ownership selected and presented the pre-1980s
lawful homicide data. Some big cities had been keeping lawful homicide data
since the 1910s. Naturally, many more felons were killed by victims in high
crime eras like the 1970s and 1980s, or the 1920s and 1930s (when victims
tended to buy and keep guns loaded and ready) than in the low crime era
1945-65. For instance, Chicago figures going from the 1920s show: that
lawful civilian homicide constituted 31.4% of all homicides (including fatal
automobile accidents); that for decades the number of felons killed by
civilians roughly equalled those killed by police; and that by the 1970s
civilians were lawfully killing about three times as many felons as were
police. Yet no mention of Chicago or this data (or comparable Washington,
D.C. figures) will be found in the anti-gun literature.{79}
Instead, that literature concentrated on Detroit. Even so it somehow omitted
the following pertinent facts: that in the 1920s felons killed by civilians
constituted 26.6% of all homicide in Detroit{80}; that, as crime rose after
1965, civilian killings of felons rose 1350% (by 1971) and continued rising
so that, by the late 1970s, twice as many felons were being lawfully killed
by civilians as police.{81}
Without mentioning any of this, even the most scrupulous of the anti-gun
analysts, Newton & Zimring, advanced the highly misleading claim that in the
five years 1964-8 only "seven residential burglars were shot and killed by"
Detroit householders and there were only "three cases of the victim killing
a home robber".{82} This is highly misleading because Newton & Zimring have
truncated the lawful homicide data without informing readers that they are
omitting the two situations in which the great majority of lawful defensive
homicides occur: robbers killed by shopkeepers and the homicidal assailant
shot by his victim (e.g. the abusive husband shot by the wife he is
strangling). Had these two categories not been surreptitiously omitted,
Newton & Zimring's Detroit lawful civilian homicide figure would have been
27 times greater -- not 10, but rather 270 in the 1964-8 period.{83}
3. 1980s data on the defensive efficacy of handguns
In any event, all pre-1980s work has been eclipsed by more recent data which
allows estimation not only of how many felons armed citizens kill annually
but also of those they capture or scare off. This evidence derives from
private national surveys on gun issues. Though sponsored by pro- or anti-gun
groups the polls were conducted by reputable independent polling
organizations and have all been accorded credibility by social scientists
analyzing gun issues.{84} Further evidencing the polls' accuracy, is that
their results are consistent (particularly their results on defensive gun
use), regardless of their sponsorship.{85} Moreover, because the different
surveys' data are mutually consistent, any suspicion of bias or
falsification may be precluded by simply not using the data from the
NRA-sponsored polls.
Based therefore only on the anti-gun polls, it is now clear that handguns
are used as or more often in repelling crimes annually as in committing
them, c. 645,000 defense uses annually vs. c. 580,000 criminal misuses.{86}
Handguns are used another 215,000 times annually to defend against dangerous
snakes and animals. As to their effectiveness, handguns work equally well
for criminals and victims: in about 83% of the cases in which an victim is
faced with a handgun, he (or she) submits; in 83% of the cases in which a
victim with a handgun confronts a criminal the criminal flees or surrenders.
This victim survey data is confirmed by complementary data from a survey
among felons in state prisons across the country. Conducted under the
auspices of the National Institute of Justice, the survey found 34% of the
felons saying that
they had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed
victim," [quoting the actual question asked] and about two-thirds (69%)
had at least one acquaintance who had had this experience.{87}
In response to two other questions: 34% of the felons said that in
contemplating a crime they either "often" or "regularly" worried that they
"Might get shot at by the victim"; and 57% agreed that "Most criminals are
more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into
the police."{88}
In sum: the claim that "Guns purchased for protection are rarely used for
that purpose" could not have been maintained by a full and accurate
rendition of even the pre-1980s data; and that claim is definitively refuted
by the comprehensive data that have been collected in the 1980s under the
auspices of the National Institute of Justice and both pro- and anti-gun
groups.
3. Anti-gun obliviousness to women's defensive needs: (a) the case of
domestic and spousal homicide
My point here is not that opponents of precautionary handgun ownership are
oblivious to domestic homicide, but only that they are oblivious (or worse)
to the situation of the woman in such homicides. That obliviousness (or
worse) is epitomized by the failure to differentiate men from women in the
ubiquitous anti-gun admonition that: "the use of firearms for
self-protection is more likely to lead to
than to the death of an intruder."{89} This admonition misportrays domestic
homicide as if it were all murder and ignores the fact that c. 50% of
interspousal homicides are committed by abused wives.{90} To understand
domestic homicide it is necessary to distinguish unprovoked murder from
lawful self-defense against homicidal attack -- a distinction which happens
to correlate closely with the distinction between husband and wife.
Not surprisingly when we look at criminal violence between spouses we find
that "91% were victimizations of women by their husbands or
ex-husbands...."{91} Thus, the 50% of interspousal homicides in which
husband kills wife are real murders -- but in the overwhelming majority of
cases where wife kills husband, she is defending herself or the
children.{92} In Detroit, for instance, husbands are killed by wives more
often than vice versa, yet men are far more often convicted for killing a
spouse -- because three- quarters of wives who killed were not even charged,
prosecutors having found their acts lawful and necessary to preserve their
lives or their childrens'.{93}
In the vast majority of cases a woman who kills a man requires a weapon
(most often a handgun) to do so. Eliminating handguns from American life
would not decrease the total number of killings between spouses. (If
anything, it would increase it since, as we have seen, gun armed victims may
ward off 25-30 attack without killing for every time they have to kill.) To
eliminate handguns would only change the sex of the decedents by assuring
that in virtually every case it would be the abused wife, not the murderous
husband. After all, a gun is of far more use to the victim than her
attacker. "Husbands, due to size and strength advantages, do not need
weapons to kill."{94} Having a gun is not necessary to attack a victim who
is unarmed, alone, small, frail
unskilled assailant a gun can be used
counterattack
attributes, the mere display of a gun communicates a highly effective
threat.{95} Of course it is tragic when an abused woman has to kill a
current or former mate. But such killings can not be counted as if they were
costs of precautionary handgun ownership; rather they are palpable benefits,
from society's and the woman's point of view, if not from the attacker's.
Thus it is misleading to the point of wilful falsehood for critics of
handgun ownership to misrepresent such lawful defensive killings as what,
instead, they prevented -- domestic murder.
A final tangential, but significant, point emerges from the statistics on
use of guns in domestic self-defense. Those statistics strongly support the
defensive efficacy of firearms. As noted above, "Men who batter [wives]
average 45 pounds heavier and 4 to 5 inches taller than" their victim.{96}
If guns were not effective for defense, a homicidal attack by a husband upon
his wife would almost invariably end in the death of the wife rather than in
his death c. 50% of the time.
5. Anti-gun obliviousness to women's defensive needs: (b) attacks by male
acquaintances.
In arguing against precautionary handgun ownership, anti-gun authors purport
to comprehensively refute the defensive value of guns, i.e., to every kind
of victim. Yet, without exception (and without mentioning the omission),
those authors omit to analyze the acquaintance crime to which women are most
often subjected. The empirical evidence establishes that "women are more
likely to be assaulted, more likely to be injured, more likely to be raped,
and more likely to be killed by a male partner than by any other type of
assailant."{97} Yet, to a man (and, invariably, they are men) anti-gun
authors treat self-defense in terms of the gun owner's fears "that a hostile
stranger will invade his home".{98}
It is only by turning a blind eye to cquaintance crime that the Chairman of
Handgun Control Inc. can claim that "The handgun owner rarely even gets the
chance to use his gun." That assertion restates the argument of Newton &
Zimring and the Handgun Control Staff. They emphasized the unexpectedness of
stranger attacks -- from which they characterized it as "ludicrous" to think
a victim "will have sufficient time to retrieve" her handgun.{99}
As discussed above, even as to stranger crime, this view is supported only
by Newton & Zimring's inaccurate and misleading rendition of pre-1980s data
which is further discredited by subsequent data available today. Moreover,
in relation to violence against women, the assertion that they would almost
invariably be too surprised by violent attack to be able to use a handgun in
self-defense is insupportable. On the contrary, in the clear majority of
instances, the man who beats or murders a woman, and often even the rapist,
is an acquaintance who has previously assaulted her on one or more
occasions.{100} Such crimes commonly occur after protracted and bellicose
argument over a long-simmering dispute. The women's defensive homicide
literature shows that such a victim is almost uniquely positioned for
self-defense: knowing the mannerisms and circumstances that triggered or
preceded her attacker's prior attacks, she has
"a hypervigilance to cues of any kind of impending violence... [She is]
a little bit more responsive to situations than somebody who has not
been battered might be." A woman who has [previously] been battered and
then is threatened with more abuse is more likely to perceive the
danger involved faster than one who has not been abused. {101}
In this connection consider a point that anti-gun crusaders make in another
context, but ignore in this one. They (rightly) warn victims that a defense
gun may be of little use if attacked by robber who is himself using a gun.
The fact is that a gun is so dangerous a weapon that it is extremely risky
for a victim to resist even if the victim him/herself has a gun. A basic
dictum of police and martial arts training is that even a trained
professional should never attack a gun-armed assailant unless convinced that
he is about to shoot (in which case there is nothing to lose).{102}
The very strength of this point about the overwhelming power of one who
wields a gun should have provoked academic anti-gun crusaders into at least
considering a correlative question: where does the balance of power lie
between a victim who has a gun and an attacker armed only with a knife or
some other lesser weapon? Under those circumstances it seems that the victim
will usually have the clear advantage (remembering Kleck's finding that in
83% of cases in which a victim has a handgun the criminal surrenders or
flees). But anti-gun crusaders avoid the embarrassment of admitting that a
victim with a gun might have the advantage over a lesser-armed by either
ignoring the issue or assuming it away. Those anti-gun analyses that
expressly deal with the situation in which a victim tries to use a gun
against an attacker wantonly assume that in any such situation the attacker
will have a gun himself.{103} In fact, however, in 89.6% of the violent
crimes directed against women during the ten years 1973-82, the offender did
not have a gun{104}; only 10% of rapists used guns{105} and only 25% of
non-strangers who attacked victims (whether male or female) had any weapon
whatever.{106} In sum, the same strong arguments anti-gun analysts offer
against the wisdom of a victim resisting a gun-armed attacker suggest that
women with handguns will have the advantage since the vast majority of
rapists and other attackers do not have guns.{107}
(At this point it may be appropriate to address the old bugaboo that a woman
who seeks to resist a male attacker will have her gun taken away and used
against her. It bears emphasis that this is only a theoretical bugaboo: the
rape literature contains no example of such an occurrence.{108} Moreover
police instructors and firearms experts strongly reject its likelihood. Not
only do they aver that women are capable of gun-armed self-defense{109} they
find women much easier to properly train than men, since women lack the
masculine ego problems which cause the men to stubbornly resist accepting
instruction. Viz. the experience of a police academy instructor who
simultaneously trained a male police academy class and a class of civilian
women "most of [whom] had never held a revolver, much less fired one"; after
one hour on the range and two hours classroom instruction in the Chattanooga
Police Academy combat pistol course the women consistently outshot police
cadets who had just received eight times as much formal instruction and
practice.{110})
6. Anti-gun obliviousness to women's defensive needs: (c) rape.
Anti-gun academics necessarily neglect to analyze the value of a gun in
defending against rape because, almost to a man, they eschew any mention of
rape.{111} This surprising omission cannot be explained as a mere side
effect of ignoring acquaintance crimes. After all, many rapists are
strangers rather than acquaintances; indeed, many rapes are committed in the
course of the kinds of crimes the anti-gun literature does address, robbery
and burglary.{112} But, almost invariably, the "intruder" whom anti-gun
authors discuss is not rapist but a "robber" whom they represent as
"confront[ing] too swiftly" for rape or a "burglar" whom they represent as
breaking only into unoccupied homes.{113}
This obliviousness to women's self-defense in general, and to rape in
particular, leaves anti-gun authors free to deprecate the defensive utility
of guns on grounds that don't apply to most circumstances in which women use
guns defensively. Anti-gun works correctly stress that it is illegal to
shoot to prevent mere car theft, shoplifting or trespass on land (i.e. not
involving entry into the home itself).{114} In contrast, the law allows a
woman to shoot a rapist or homicidal attacker.{115} Also, in some cases, a
man attacked by another man of comparable size and strength may be hard put
to justify his need to shoot; but this is far less of a problem for a female
victim of male attack.{116}
In short, to the extent academic anti-gun crusaders have made valid point
about armed self-defense these points do not apply to women. The anti-gun
crusaders avoid acknowledging this by the simple device of never mentioning
rape, or women's armed self- defense, at all. One anti-gun writer, Drinan,
did discuss rape, albeit not entirely voluntarily; he was responding to an
article in which I highlighted the issue as a justification for allowing
women the freedom to choose to own guns for self-defense. Drinan responded,
in essence, that women detest guns and don't want to own them for
self-defense.{117} This response is both factually and conceptually
erroneous. It is factually erroneous because the evidence shows that
currently (though not necessarily when Drinan wrote) women constitute one
half of purely precautionary gun owners. It is conceptually erroneous
because freedom of choice is a residual value even as to things that many or
most people do not now want to choose, and even if they may never want to.
Newton & Zimring's chapter on self-defense dismisses women's concerns about
self-defense against rape (or, presumably, other kind of attack) in one
contemptuous sentence to the effect that "women generally are less capable
of self-defense [than men] and less knowledgeable about guns."{118} Feminist
outrage about this derisive comment may account for the fact that Prof.
Zimring's subsequent writings, including the chapter on self-defense in a
1987 book, prudently eschew any attempt to deal with women's right to, or
capacity for, self-defense with guns.{119}
Other anti-gun treatments do not specifically address rape beyond their
general position that victims should always submit to criminals unless
flight is possible: the best way to "keep you alive [is to] put up no
defense -- give them what they want or run" advises Handgun Control,
Inc.{120} However unacceptable that advice may be to feminists, at least it
avoids the confusion that marks the discussion of gun-armed defense against
rape by the Handgun Control Staff of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. For the
first 31 of its 36 pages the HANDGUN CONTROL STAFF pamphlet harps on the
prohibitive dangers of any kind of physical resistance to crime. Throughout,
the Handgun Control Staff's argument against precautionary gun ownership
consists in warning against handguns or any other form of physical
resistance -- the risk of any kind of physical resistance is so high that
victims should always submit to attackers.{121}
But when the Handgun Control Staff finally get to rape, it offers a
startling volte face -- all the more startling because it lacks even an
explanation, much less a justification of its contradicting all that has
preceded it. The Handgun Control Staff just blithely announces that women
don't need handguns to resist rape because of "the effectiveness of other
means of resistance such as verbal and physical resistance".{122} Yet, if
the authors believe their own prior warnings, "physical resistance" is
prohibitively dangerous; e.g. the Pamphlet's twice-repeated point (each time
in italics) that "a victim is more than eight times as likely to be killed
when using a self-protective measure" of any kind;{123} or its more general
admonition (again in italics) that "victims who resist experience much
higher rates of fatality and injury."{124}
The HANDGUN CONTROL STAFF pamphlet also points out that many rapes do not
occur in the victim's home but in other locations where she presumably would
not be legally entitled to carry a gun. But this highlights the fact that
the majority of rapes do occur in the victim's home where she is entitled to
have a gun (in all but the few jurisdictions like Washington, D.C. where
victims are not permitted to have guns for self-defense). In short, the
majority of rapes occur where a woman may legally have a gun and the
empirical evidence is that in 83% of the cases it will protect her from
being raped.
7. Incidence of injury to handgun-armed victims who resist criminal attack.
Some readers may object that the preceding section of this paper shirks the
crucial issue of victim injury by veering off onto the side-issue of
intellectual honesty. Yes (they may say) the Handgun Control Staff's
discussion of rape is inconsistent to the point of dishonesty; nevertheless,
the pamphlet does marshall impressive data that victims who resist are often
seriously hurt or killed.{125} Does that data not validate Zimring, Hawkins
and Handgun Control, Inc. in teaching that victims ought to submit to
rapists, robbers or other violent criminals: the best way to "keep you alive
[is to] put up no defense -- give them what they want or run."{126}
The short answer is that the data the HANDGUN CONTROL STAFF pamphlet
presents is irrelevant to the risk of injury to victims who resist with a
handgun. This pre-1980s data does not deal with guns specifically. It gives
only a conglomerate figure for the percentage of victims injured or killed
when resisting physically in any way whatever. This conglomerate figure
includes some few victims who resisted with a gun, many more who used
knivee, clubs or some makeshift weapon, and many who resisted totally
unarmed. It is crucial to distinguish resistance with a gun from all other
kinds of resistance, because a gun differs qualitatively from all other
weapons in its defensive value. Criminals generally select victims who are
weaker than themselves. Only a gun gives weaker, older, less aggressive
victims equal or better chances against a stronger attacker; as even Zimring
and Hawkins state, guns empower "persons [who are] physically or
psychologically unable to overpower [another] through violent physical
contact."{127}
The difference is evident in post-1978 National Crime Survey data which do
allow us to distinguish victim injury in cases of gun-armed resistance from
victim injury where resistance was with lesser weapons, and from cases of
non-resistance. Ironically, the results validate the anti-gun critics'
danger-of-injury concerns as to every form of resistance except with a gun.
The gun-armed resister was actually much less likely to be injured than the
non- resister, who was, in turn, much less likely to be injured than those
who resisted without a gun. Only 12-17% of the gun armed resisters were
injured. Those who submitted to the felons' demands were twice as likely to
be injured (gratuitously); those resisting without guns were three times as
likely to be injured as those with guns.{128}
(It bears emphasis that these results do NOT mean that a gun allows victims
to resist, regardless of circumstances. In many cases submission will be the
wiser course Indeed, what the victim survey data suggests differs
startlingly from both pro- and anti-gun stereotypes: keeping a gun for
defense may induce sober consideration of the dangers of reckless
resistance; their low injury rate may show that gun owners are not only
better able to resist, but to evaluate when to submit, than are non-owners
who, having never seriously contemplated those choices, must suddenly decide
between them.)
8. The "submission position" in white, male academia
By the "submission position", of course, I mean the view embraced by various
anti-gun scholars that victims should submit to felons rather than offering
forcible resistance of any kind; if an attacker cannot be "talked out" of
his crime, the victim should comply in order to avoid injury.{129} Not
insignificantly, the academic proponents of the submission position are all
white males.{130}
This is significant insofar as the submission position is conditioned by the
relative immunity to crime its proponents enjoy due to their racial, sexual
and economic circumstances. In general, the submission position literature
does not eve mention rape. Equally significant, it treats robbery as the
once-in-a-lifetime danger it is for a salaried white academic. His risk of
meeting a robber is so low that he is unlikely to keep a gun ready for that
eventuality. Moreover, submitting once in his life to the loss of the money
in his wallet may well be "the better part of valor" for the kind of victim
who can replace that money by a trip to his ATM and can minimize the loss by
taking it off his taxes. A very different calculus of costs and benefits of
resisting may apply to
an elderly Chicano whom the San Francisco Examiner reports has held
onto his grocery by outshooting fifteen armed robbers [while] nearby
stores have closed because thugs have either bankrupted them or have
casually executed their unresisting proprietors... [Or] welfare
recipients whom robbers target, knowing when their checks come and
where they cash them [or] the elderly trapped in deteriorating
neighborhoods (like the Manhattan couple who in 1976 hanged themselves
in despair over repeatedly losing their pension checks and furnishings
to robbers).{131}
Regrettably, for many victims crime is not the isolated happenstance it is
for white male academics.{132} Let us hypothesize a Black shopkeeper;
perhaps a retired Marine master sergeant who has invested the life savings
from "20-years-and out" in the only store he can afford. Not coincidentally,
it is located in an area where robbery insurance is prohibitively high or
unobtainable at any price. In deciding whether to submit to robbery or
resist, he and others who live or work in such areas must weigh a factor
which finds no place in the submission position literature: that to survive
they may have to establish a reputation for not being easily
victimized.{133} The submission position literature is equally oblivious to
the special factors that may have importance for rape victims; even one rape
-- much less several -- may cause catastrophic psychological injury that may
be worsened by submission, mitigated by even unsuccessful resistance.{134}
By no means am I arguing that resistance with guns (or without) is optimum
for crime victims in any or all situations. I am only noting additional
factors that really ought to be considered by well-salaried white, male
intellectuals presume (as I certainly would not) to tell the kind of people
who are most often crime victims what is best for them. It is presumptuous
for scholars, however learned, to pontificate as to what course is best for
an individual victim whose values and situation they may not share. Consider
the reflections of a woman who (without a gun) successfully resisted rape:
I believed he would kill me if I resisted. But the other part was that
I would try to kill him first because I guess that for me, at that time
in my life, it would have been better to have died resisting rape than
to have been raped.
I decided I wasn't going to die. It seemed a waste to die on the floor
of my apartment so I decided to fight.{135}
REFERENCES
67. As exemplified by the examples given in the text I use the terms
"husband", "wife", "mate" and "spousal" to include not only actual,
on-going and legal marriages, but also "common law" marriage (which is
legal in some states, but not others) and "boyfriend-girlfriend", as
well as estranged and former versions of all these relationships.
68. All discussion of gun-armed self-defense in this paper is directed to
handguns because they are infinitely more efficacious for defense than
rifles or shotguns. In contrast to the unwieldy long gun, the short
barrelled handgun is much easier to bring into play at close quarters
and much harder for an assailant to wrest away. Consider the situation
of a woman holding an intruder at bay while trying to dial the police.
With a rifle, this is difficult and hazardous at best. Given only the
two inch barrel of a snub- nosed handgun to grasp, not even the
strongest man can lever it from a woman's grip before she shoots him.
M. Ayoob, THE TRUTH ABOUT SELF-PROTECTION (N.Y., Bantam: 1983) 332-3,
341-2, 345-55.
69. Thus Ramsey Clark denounces precautionary gun ownership as an atavistic
insult to American government: "A state in which a citizen needs a gun
to protect himself from crime has failed to perform its first
purpose."; it is "anarchy, not order under law -- a jungle where each
relies on himself for survival." R. Clark, CRIME IN AMERICA 88 (1971).
For similar views, see also Wills, "Handguns that Kill", WASHINGTON
STAR, Jan. 18, 1981, "John Lennon's War", CHICAGO SUN TIMES, Dec. 12,
1980 and "Or Worldwide Gun Control" PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, May 17,
1981; WASHINGTON POST editorial: "Guns and the Civilizing Process",
Sept. 26, 1972.
70. Warren v District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981). For
similar cases from New York and Chicago, please see Riss v City of New
York, 22 N.Y. 2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E. 2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap.
1958), Keane v City of Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321
(1968). See also the cases cited in the next two footnotes and Bowers v
DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7 Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional
requirement that state or local agencies provide sufficient police
protection).
71. 444 A.2d at 6; see also Morgan v District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306
(D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983). To the same effect, please see Calogrides v
City of Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (S.Ct. Ala. 1985), Morris v Musser, 478
A.2d 937 (1984), Davidson v City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.
Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S. Ct. Cal. 1982), Chapman v City of
Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup. Ct. Penn. 1981), Weutrich v Delia, 155
N.J Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978), Sapp v City of
Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Ct. of Ap. Fla. 1977), Simpson's Food Fair
v Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ct. of Ap., Ind.), Silver v City of
Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969) and the other
authorities cited in the footnotes preceding and following this one.
72. See, e.g. Cal. Gov't. Code ^F^F 821, 845, 846 and 85 Ill. Rev. Stat.
4-102, construed in Stone v State, 106 C.A.3d 924, 165 Cal. Rptr. 339
(Cal. Ct. of Ap. 1980) and Jamison v City of Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 567
(Ill. Ct. of Ap. 1977) respectively; see generally 18 McQUILLIN ON
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS sec. 53.80.
73. See generally 82 MICHIGAN L. REV. above at 214-6. and F. Morn,
"Firearms Use and the Police: A Historic Evolution of American Values",
in D. Kates (ed.), FIREARMS AND VIOLENCE (1984).
74. See the extended discussion in Bowman, "An Open Letter", POLICE
MARKSMAN, July-August, 1986.
75. Silver and Kates, "Handgun Ownership, Self-defense and the Independence
of Women in a Violent, Sexist Society" in D. Kates (ed.), RESTRICTING
HANDGUNS at 144-7. Prof. Leddy, formerly a N.Y. officer, cites personal
experience:
The ability of the state to protect us from personal violence is
limited by resources and personnel shortages [in addition to
which] the state is usually unable to know that we need protection
until it is too late. By the time that the police can be notified
and then arrive at the scene the violent criminal has ample
opportunity to do serious harm. I once waited 20 minutes for the
New York City Police to respond to an "officer needs assistance"
call which has their highest priority. On the other hand, a gun
provides immediate protection. Even where the police are prompt
and efficient, the gun is speedier.
-- "The Ownership and Carrying of Personal Firearms", forthcoming in
INT'L. J. VICTIMOL. (emphasis added). Cf. the Riss and Silver cases
cited above, as well as Wong v City of Miami, 237 So.2d 132 (Fla.,
1970), all emphasizing the need for judicial deference to
administrators allocating scarce police resources as a reason for
denying liability for failure to protect.
76. Weiner v Metropolitan Transit Authority, 433 N.E. 2d 124, 127, 55 N.Y.
2d 175, 498 N.Y.S. 2d 141 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982). 77. The first
quotation is from a book by the Chairman of Handgun Control, Inc.,
Nelson "Pete" Shields, GUNS DON'T DIE, PEOPLE DO 49 (1981) (emphasis in
original); the second is from Meredith, "The Murder Epidemic", SCIENCE,
Dec. 1986 at p. 46. The point appears as a leit motif throughout the
HANDGUN CONTROL STAFF pamphlet). To the same effect, please see Newton
& Zimring, above, at 68 and F. Zimring & G. Hawkins, THE CITIZEN'S
GUIDE TO GUN CONTROL (1987)(hereinafter Zimring & Hawkins-1987) at 31.
77. Reserved.
78. In 68-75% of instances the attacker is scared off without being shot at
all. SOCIAL PROBLEMS, above, at 4. See results reported and analyzed in
NIJ Evaluation above at 146 and Hardy, "Firearms Ownership and
Regulation: Tackling an Old Problem with Renewed Vigor", 20 WM. & M. L.
REV. 235 (1978). See generally "Policy Lessons", above, at 44. Even
where attackers are shot, in more than 5 out of 6 instances they are
wounded rather than killed. Id., Cook, "The Case of the Missing
Victims: Gunshot Woundings in the National Crime Survey" 1 J. QUAN.
CRIM. 91, 94-96.
79. For the civilian-police comparisons see Silver and Kates, "Handgun
Ownership, Self-defense and the Independence of Women in a Violent,
Sexist Society" in D. Kates (ed.) RESTRICTING HANDGUNS (1979) at 156.
Robin, "Justifiable Homicide by Police Officers" at p. 295, n. 3 of M.
Wolfgang, STUDIES IN HOMICIDE (1967) notes that 1920s justifiable
civilian homicides comprised 26.6% and 31.4% of all homicides in
Detroit and Chicago respectively and 32% of the total homicides in
Washington, D.C. in the period 1914-8.
80. Zahn, "Homicide in the 20th Century" in T. Gurr (ed.) 1 VIOLENCE IN
AMERICA 221-2 (1989).
81. M. Dietz, KILLING FOR PROFIT: THE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF FELONY
HOMICIDE (Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1983), Table A.1 at 202-3.
82. Newton & Zimring above at p. 63 -- my emphasis.
83. Computation from the yearly Detroit homicide figures for "Excusable"
and "Justifiable: Civilian" homicides in Dietz, above. Because about
10% of excusable homicides are non-culpable accidental killings, in
computing from the excusable column I have reduced its total by 10%.
See discussion of justifiable and excusable homicide in Policy Lessons,
above at 44.
84. See, e.g. SOCIAL PROBLEMS at 7-9, Wright, "Public Opinion and Gun
Control: A Comparison of Results from Two Recent National Surveys" 455
ANNALS OF THE AM. ACAD. POL. & SOC. SCI. 24 (1981), Hardy above and
Bordua, "Adversary Polling and the Construction of Social Meaning", 5
LAW & POLICY Q. 345 (1983).
85. SOCIAL PROBLEMS at 7-9.
86. Id.
87. The survey was released by the National Institute of Justice in summary
form only. The entire survey with exhaustive analysis has been
privately published by Aldine de Guyter Press as J. Wright & P. Rossi,
ARMED AND CONSIDERED DANGEROUS: A SURVEY OF FELONS AND THEIR FIREARMS
(1986). The survey question and results cited appear at p. 154.
88. Id. at 145 and Table 7.2.
89. Emphasis added. This particular wording derives from the HANDGUN
CONTROL STAFF pamphlet at p. 1 and from the other Handgun Control Staff
publication, Alviani & Drake above at p. 8. But the same theme, often
expressed in virtually identical language, will be found in almost all
critical treatments of precautionary gun ownership. See, e.g.
Rushforth, et al. "Violent Death in a Metropolitan County" 297 NEW
ENGLAND J. MED. 531, 533 (1977), Drinan, "Gun Control: The Good
Outweighs the Evil", 3 CIVIL LIBERTIES REV. 44, 49 (1976) Shields above
at 49-53 and 124-5.
90. U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics release "Family Violence" (April,
1984), table 1. See generally Straus, "Domestic Violence and Homicide
Antecedents", 62 BULL. N.Y. ACAD. MED. 446 (1986), "Current Research"
at 203-4 and sources there cited.
91. Figures reported for the period 1973-81 in U.S. Bureau of Justice
Statistics release "Family Violence" (April, 1984) at p. 4 (emphasis
added).
92. See, e.g. Straus, above Saunders, "When Battered Women Use Violence:
Husband Abuse or Self-Defense?" 1 VIOLENCE AND VICTIMS 47, 49 (1986)
(hereinafter cited as Saunders-1), Barnard et al., "Till Death Do Us
Part: A Study of Spouse Murder", 10 BULL. AM. ACAD. PSYCHI. & LAW 271
(1982) D. Lunde, MURDER AND MADNESS (San Francisco, 1976) 10 (in 85% of
cases of decedent-precipitated interspousal homicides the wife is the
killer and the husband precipitated his own death by abusing her), M.
Daly & M. Wilson, HOMICIDE (N.Y., Aldine: 1988) at p. 278 ("when women
kill, their victims are...most typically men who have assaulted
them."), E. Benedek, "Women and Homicide" in B. Danto et al., THE HUMAN
SIDE OF HOMICIDE (N.Y., Columbia, 1982).
It must be noted, however, that not all female defensive killings of
husbands are legal. The legality depends on whether the wife reasonably
anticipated that the husband's beating would cause her death or great
bodily harm. Even where the statutes classify wife beating as a felony
her proper resort is to seek prosecution; absent imminent danger of
death or great bodily harm, she must submit to beating rather than
resist with deadly force. People v Jones, 191 C.A.2d 478 (Cal. Ct. of
Ap., 1961); see generally Kates and Engberg, "Deadly Force Self Defense
Against Rape" 15 U.C.-DAVIS L. REV. 873, 876-7 (1982). When a wife
kills only after surviving numerous prior beatings it may be
particularly difficult to convince police or jury that she reasonably
believed this time was different -- even though the pattern of men who
eventually kill their wives is generally one of progressively more
severe beatings until the final one. Howard, above.
93. Daly & Wilson above at p. 15 and table 9.1 at p. 200.
94. Howard at 82-3, above; see also Saunders-1, above: "Men who batter
[wives] average 45 pounds heavier and 4 to 5 inches taller than" their
victim.
95. Cook, "The Role of Firearms in Violent Crime: An Interpretative Review
of the Literature" in M. Wolfgang and N. Weiler (ed.) CRIMINAL VIOLENCE
269 (1982) 247, Wright "Second Thoughts About Gun Control" 91 THE
PUBLIC INTEREST 3, 32 (1988) ("Analysis of the family homicide data
reveals an interesting pattern. When women kill men, they often use a
gun. When men kill women, they usually do it in some more degrading or
brutalizing way -- such as strangulation or knifing.") and Saunders,
"Who Hits First and Who Suffers Most? Evidence for the Greater
Victimization of Women in Intimate Relationships", a paper presented at
the 1989 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology
(available from Daniel Saunders, M.D., Department of Psychiatry,
University of Wisconsin).
96. Saunders-1 above at 49.
97. Browne & Williams, above.
98. Zimring & Hawkins-1987 at 32 (emphasis added), Rushforth, Hirsch, Ford
& Adelson, "Accidental Firearm Fatalities in a Metropolitan County
(1958-73)" 100 AM. J. EPIDEM. 499, 502 (1975) (deprecating value of
gun-armed self-defense, based only on analysis expressly limited to
shootings of "burglars, robbers or intruders who were not relatives or
acquaintances" -- emphasis added); Conklin & Seiden, "Gun Deaths:
Biting the Bullet on Effective Control", 22 PUB. AFFAIRS REP. (U. Cal.
Inst. of Gov't. Stud., 1981) 1, 4 (same: "burglars or thieves" entering
home), J. Spiegler & J. Sweeney, GUN ABUSE IN OHIO 41 (same: "burglars,
robbers or intruders"). See also two publications by the National
Coalition to Ban Handguns: its undated, unpaginated pamphlet, "A
Shooting Gallery Called America" and Fields, "Handgun Prohibition and
Social Necessity", 23 St.L.U.L.J. 35, 39-42 (1979), Handgun Control
Staff (Alviani & Drake, above at 5-7 considering defense only against
the "robber or burglar") and GUNS DON'T DIE, PEOPLE DO by Handgun
Control Inc. Chairman Nelson "Pete" Shields, as well as Teret &
Wintemute, "Handgun Injuries: The Epidemiologic Evidence for Assessing
Legal Responsibility", 6 HAMLINE L. REV. 341, 349-50 (1983), Riley,
"Shooting to Kill the Handgun: Time to Martyr Another American 'Hero'"
51 J. URB. L. 491, 497-9 (1974), I. Block, GUN CONTROL: ONE WAY TO SAVE
LIVES 10-12 (pamph. issued by Public Affairs Committee, 1976) and
Drinan, above.
99. HANDGUN CONTROL STAFF pamphlet at 35 and Alviani & Drake, above, at p.
6 (paraphrasing almost identically Newton & Zimring at p. 68):
The handgun is rarely an effective instrument for protecting the
home against either the burglar or the robber because the former
avoids confrontation [by only striking unoccupied premises] and
the latter confronts too swiftly [for the victim to get his gun].
Compare Zimring & Hawkins-1987 at p. 31 (emphasis added): "it is rare
indeed that a household handgun actually stops the burglar [because he
strikes when the home is unoccupied], or the home robber who counts on
surprise and a weapon of his own." See also Riley and I. Block, above.
100. Saunders-1, at 51, 56, Saunders-2, Benedek, "Women and Homicide" at
155-6, 162, Browne & Williams, Browne & Flewelling, and sources there
cited.
101. People v Aris C.A.3d [89 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8505, 8509 (Cal. Ct. of
Ap., Nov. 17, 1989)] (citing and adopting the testimony of expert
witness, Dr. Lenore Walker, the leading American authority on battered
wife syndrome). See also State v Kelly, 478 A.2d 364, 378 (1984),
Schneider, "Describing and Changing: Women's Self-Defense Work and the
Problem of Expert Testimony on Battering" 9 WOMEN'S RTS. L. R. 195
(1986) and authorities there cited.
102. This is particularly true against a handgun whose short barrel makes it
both much harder to wrest away than a long gun and much easier to bring
into play at close quarters. See note above.
103. For instance, although less than 10% of burglars carry guns, Riley
conceptualizes what will ensue if householders with guns confront
burglars in terms of "'bedroom shootouts' [which will be] won by alert
desperadoes with drawn guns rather than the usually unwarned,
sleepy-eyed residents.", "Shooting to Kill the Handgun: Time to Martyr
Another American 'Hero'", 51 J. URBAN LAW 491, 497- 8; see also Zimring
& Hawkins-1987 at 31, I. Block, GUN CONTROL: ONE WAY TO SAVE LIVES
10-12 (pamph. issued by Public Affairs Committee, 1976). Neither these
nor any other anti-gun treatment ever consider the possibility of a
victim with a gun being attacked by a felon without a gun.
104. U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics release "The Use of Weapons in
Committing Offenses (Jan. 1986) Table 6.
105. U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics release "The Crime of Rape" (March,
1985).
106. U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics release "Violent Crime By Stranger
and Non-Strangers" (Jan. 1987). Note that this is a different sample
(covering the period 1982-4) and that the figure for armed
victimizations applies to all victims, not just women.
107. Kleck & Bordua, "The Factual Foundation for Certain Key Assumptions of
Gun Control" 5 LAW & POLICY Q. 271, 290 (1983).
108. Silver & Kates above at 159-61.
109. P. Quigley, ARMED AND FEMALE (1988), M. Ayoob, IN THE GRAVEST EXTREME
38 (1980). Cf. J. Carmichel, THE WOMEN'S GUIDE TO HANDGUNS (N.Y.,
Bobbs-Merrill, 1982) 3-4: "...when it comes to shooting women are not
the weaker sex", noting that the leading woman's score equalled the
leading man's in recent Olympic handgun competition and that in college
shooting where "no distinction is made between men and women", women
are coming more and more to dominate...because women have certain
physical and mental characteristics that give them an edge over men.";
viz. patience, "excellent hand-eye coordination" and the concentration
to perform delicate motor functions time after time.
110. Hicks, "Point Gun, Pull Trigger", POLICE CHIEF, May 1975. See also
Quigley, Carmichel and Ayoob above.
111. See, e.g. Riley, "Shooting to Kill the Handgun: Time to Martyr Another
American 'Hero'" 51 J. URB. L. 491, 497-9 (1974); Fields, "Handgun
Prohibition", 23 St.L.U.L.J. 35, 39-42 (1979); Teret & Wintemute,
"Handgun Injuries: The Epidemiologic Evidence for Assessing Legal
Responsibility", 6 HAMLINE L. REV. 341, 349-50 (1983).
112. See generally the U.S. Bureau of Criminal Justice releases "The Crime
of Rape" (March, 1985), Robbery Victims (April, 1987) and Household
Burglary.
113. HANDGUN CONTROL STAFF pamphlet at 35 and Alviani & Drake, above, at p.
6 (paraphrasing almost identically Newton & Zimring at p. 68):
The handgun is rarely an effective instrument for protecting the
home against either the burglar or the robber because the former
avoids confrontation [by only striking unoccupied premises] and
the latter confronts too swiftly [for the victim to get his gun].
Compare Zimring & Hawkins-1987 at p. 31.
114. Newton & Zimring at 68.
115. Cf. Kates & Engberg, "Deadly Force Self-Defense Against Rape", 15
U.C.-DAVIS L. REV. 873, 877-8ff.
116. Id. at 879 and 890-4. See also Saunders "When Battered Women Use
Violence: Husband-Abuse or Self-Defense?" 1 VICTIMS AND VIOLENCE 47, 49
(1986) ("Men who batter [their mates] average 45 pounds heavier and 4
to 5 inches taller than" the victim.)
117. Drinan, "Gun Control: The Good Outweighs the Evil", 3 CIVIL LIBERTIES
REV. 44, 50-1 (1976).
118. Newton & Zimring, above, at 64.
119. Zimring & Hawkins-1987, ch. 4.
120. GUNS DON'T DIE, PEOPLE DO by Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Shields (pp.
124-5). To the same effect, see e.g.,Riley, "Shooting to Kill the
Handgun: Time to Martyr Another American 'Hero'", 51 J. URBAN LAW 491,
497-8 (1972), Zimring & Hawkins-1987, Newton & Zimring and the HANDGUN
CONTROL STAFF pamphlet, above.
121. As discussed infra, the primary problem with the HANDGUN CONTROL STAFF
pamphlet is that the evidence upon which it posits the rate of injury
to gun-armed resisters is fundamentally flawed because it applies to
resistance with all kinds of weapons and does not allow breaking
gun-armed resistance out.
122. HANDGUN CONTROL STAFF pamphlet at 33. The pamphlet cites no statistics
to show that rapists are less likely than robbers or burglars to injure
or kill victims who resist; nor could they be since rapist, robber and
burglar are often one and the same. See, e.g., Bureau of Justice
Statistics releases HOUSEHOLD BURGLARY (Jan. 1985) and ROBBERY VICTIMS
(1987).
123. HANDGUN CONTROL STAFF pamphlet at 18; also at p. 2 (also in italics).
124. HANDGUN CONTROL STAFF pamphlet at 17. See also pp. 16 and 18
respectively for the admonitions (again in original italics) that
"victims who take self-protective measures are more likely to be
injured than victims not using such measures." and that "a victim is
three times more likely to be injured when taking a self- protection
measure than when not." See also p. 11 ("the likelihood of being
seriously injured during a robbery is directly related to taking a
measure of self-protection" rather than submitting), 14 ("running away
or reasoning with the offender... are less likely to result in injury
to the victim."), p. 19 ("those taking a self- protective measure
accounted for 58% of the emergency room treatments and their injuries
were twice as serious, judged by the mean days of hospitalization") and
again on p. 19 (of victims hospitalized after rape, mugging or assault,
compared to non- resisters, "the seriousness of injury was five times
as great for those using a weapon for self-protection"), p. 30
(injuries in aggravated assault are "more likely to be serious if the
victim physically resists the offender.").
125. A point that the pamphlet never makes -- but which emerges quite
forcefully from neutral evaluations of the evidence -- is that
submission does not assure that the victim will escape injury or death.
Felons may injure victims at the outset to assure compliance with their
demands and foreclose resistance or may injure or execute them
gratuitously. See. e.g. Cook, "The Relationship Between Victim
Resistance and Injury in Non-Commercial Robbery", 15 J. LEGAL STUD.
405, 406 (1986).
126. To avoid confusion, it should be noted: that Handgun Control, Inc.,
currently the most important organization in the anti-gun lobby, has no
direct link to the Handgun Control Staff, a non- lobbying "research"
organization that fell into desuetude in the 1970s; and that Professors
Zimring and Hawkins are academic gun control advocates with no direct
link to either organization. The "give them what they want" language is
from GUNS DON'T DIE, PEOPLE DO by Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Shields
(pp. 124-5) which relies heavily on the Handgun Control Staff's
research. Zimring, Hawkins and Newton take the same position; see also
Riley, "Shooting to Kill the Handgun: Time to Martyr Another American
'Hero'", 51 J. URBAN LAW 491, 497-8 (1972).
127. Zimring & Hawkins-1987 above at 15. Curiously they make this point in
discussing how guns aid weaker people to victimize stronger ones -- a
crime pattern that is comparatively rare, to say the very least. The
point is unaccountably missing from their later chapter on "Guns for
Self Defense" to which it is far more relevant.
128. SOCIAL PROBLEMS at 7-9. The National Crime Surveys are conducted under
auspices of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). Census Bureau
interviewers contact a nationally representative sample of about 60,000
households every six months and record information from personal
interviews concerning the crime victimization experience of all
household members aged twelve or older. Cook "The Relationship Between
Victim Resistance and Injury in Non-Commercial Robbery", 15 J. LEGAL
STUD. 405, 406 (1986).
129. The preeminent submission exponents include Zimring & Zuehl, "Victim
Injury and Death in Urban Robbery: A Chicago Study", 15 J. LEGAL STUD.
1 (1986), Skogan & Block "Resistance and Injury in Non- Fatal
Assaultive Violence" 8 VICTIMOLOGY 215 (1983) and Wolfgang, "Victim
Intimidation, Resistance and Injury: A Study of Robbery" (paper
presented at the Fourth International Symposium on Victimology, Tokyo
1982). Prof. Wolfgang's ethically based support for banning guns is
detailed in Benenson, "A Controlled Look at Gun Controls" 14 N.Y.L.
FOR. 718, 723 (1968). As to Prof. Zimring's pragmatically based
anti-gun views (which Prof. Block shares) see generally Newton &
Zimring & Zuehl at 37-8.
130. Their views have been strongly criticized by a female criminologist
(who is, nevertheless, not pro-gun) on the ground that for victims to
submit encourages crime. Ziegenhagen and Brosnan,
Better writing than I could ever do on the subject
I disagree. I've seen enough of your writing today to have a far higher opinion of your prose (and of your integrity) that I have of that nut.
Specifics, from "Buring of the Schools . .
. . . real books without pictures -- not dumbed down "anthologies."
Somebody please tell this guy what "anthology" means.
Mom's out working full time just to pay the taxes on dad's paycheck
I don't think this one requires comment.
(effective combined tax rates on the middle class are now literally 10 times higher than they were in 1953, up from 5 percent till they're pushing 50
Try "up" from 70% in the fifties to about 40% now. These figures are available, guys.
-- mostly to pay for the temples to full-service social work which the "public schools" have now become.)
That's profoundly untrue. Most taxes are federal, and are used to pay for the military, social security, medicare, etc. Some of it goes to "welfare" type social programs as well. Schools are paid for by local property taxes, which are peanuts compared to the rest of it. As for the "full-service social work", he carefully refrains from defining it, because it doesn't exist.
He's ranting about schools, so he blames schools for everything. Next week, when he rants about welfare, he'll say all your taxes are paying for that. This "demon-of-the-week" mentality underlies the entire article. He blames absolutely everything on the educational system. Huh? This society has changed in a hell of a lot of ways in the last century. To arbitrarily choose one of those changes and blame it for all of the others is simpleminded at best.
No one [in the Good Olde Days] who saw a youth walking along the road with a rifle over his shoulder had the slightest concern that he might be intending to shoot any of his schoolmates.
Richard Brautigan has a nice line about that in So the Wind Won't Blow it All Away. It also happens to be true, a rare thing in this article.
Geography and history? Grandpa would help you start a collection of coins, stamps, or guns, all of which teach geography and history.
Please tell me this is a joke. Please. Not only do guns, stamps, and coins teach nobody anything about geography, history or anything else other than guns, stamps, and coins, but it's bizarre to assume that kids ever generally had grandfathers who were into stamps and coins. Sure, the world is full of grandfathers, but they don't all share the same interests. It's just downright wacky to make a claim like this. Guns, sure. That much I'll buy. In some times and places in this country's history, everybody was into guns, like they're into cars now.
IMHO collecting stamps'n'coins is just mindless, magpie acquisitionism. Why not collect beer cans, or paving stones? How about used condoms? If you must collect something, collect records, collect books -- those things at least contain information.
The wet dreams of the education bureaucrats have finally come fully, hideously true. . . . if the kid goes home in the afternoon he finds nothing but an echoing, empty subdivision.
This is a bit of a nit-pick, but, leaving out the part I elided (which is valid), I really doubt that "education bureaucrats" are responsible for the rise of suburbs in the U.S. I think cars had more to do with it, which is the fault of the engineers (who, in turn, are the product of a good educational system).
Education and "socialization" are now fully in the hands of the government bureaucrats with their ed school Ph.D.s.
This is a bit of a canard, IMHO. Parents are out of the loop only if they choose to be. Given the fact that kids generally turn out like their parents anyway, I'm not sure how seriously to take this at all.
And what has been the result? Two generations of functionally illiterate psychopaths.
The "semi-literate" part is often true in poorer communities, with lousy schools. It is emphatically not true in "nicer", more affluent communities with "good" schools (remember: Schools are funded with property taxes, so the poor kids get short shrift). All those kids at MIT and Hopkins are coming from somewhere. I've met quite a few. These kids are neither illiterate nor psychopathic. In fact, the remark about psychopaths is a bit odd in general, regardless of class.
The fact is that the heavily emotionalized description of "mandatory government youth propaganda camps" is a crock. This guy talks a lot about bells, but that's all we get for concrete factual information about the "evils" we're supposed to be fighting. Is he aware of the fact that kids in the Goode Olde Days were subjected to discipline as well? Is he aware that "learning" back then was mostly rote memorization? They'd memorize poems to recite in front of the class. They memorized everything. That's the only way to learn multiplication tables, but it's not much use with The Waste Land.
In his edenic educational paradise, I'd've never graduated from high-school, because I can't memorize worth a damn. Well, I guess back then I'd've deserved what I got, but instead I'm a productive, educated member of society, writing computer programs for a living. What a shame.
Few "facts" are presented, and most of those are either wholly imaginary, or else romanticized feel-goodism. He also neglects to examine anything which might possibly shed any sidewise light on the issue, like for example the fact that the British "public school" system has for a long, long time (200 years? Does anybody know?) been a lot more regimented, depersonalized, etc. than the public schools in the U.S. And for most of that time, it hasn't been turning out "generations of semi-literate psychopaths". No, it's been turning out latinists and overeducated, pacifistic types like George Orwell and J. R. R. Tolkien. This in addition to the ruling class of the British Empire, who in their heyday were depressingly well-behaved and well-educated.
This is preaching that only the converted would love.
Oh, yeah: Bill Clinton is . . . the moral and emotional equivalent of one of those human-looking androids in the science fictions movies
Oh, god. Really. Is this journalism? Commentary? Or free-associative beatnik poetry? And then he goes on to quote Ayn Rand on the subject of child development. Ayn Rand never set foot within thirty feet of a child in her entire life. Children didn't fit into her worldview, because they don't have checking accounts, so she wished them away.
The teacher's mechanical crib-side manner -- the rigid smile, the cooing tone of voice
What bullshit! I've known a couple of preschool teachers. They loved kids. They got paid shit but they did it anyway -- because they loved kids. But what does Ayn Rand care about that? She's making it up as she goes along. Her political agenda outweighs silly things like facts.
A small child is mildly curious about, but not greatly interested in, other children of his own age.
Pure bullshit. No connection with reality whatsoever. Sure, kids like adults, but when they're in a room with both adults and other children, they divide their time between the two when they're very young. As they get older, they become increasingly absorbed in each other.
He begins to believe his own fantasies.
Why is Rand asking US this question? She's admirably equipped to answer it, seeing that she spent her entire adult life doing just that.
The stronger his fear, the more aggressive his behavior; the more uncertain his assertions, the louder his voice.
Heh. That settles it. She's describing herself and assuming that it must apply to the rest of us.
As for the insane, hysterical outbursts about Clinton, I've heard it before. Adding more emotion doesn't fix the broken logic, nor make the imaginary "facts" true. This "Libertarian" guy isn't just a moron, he's a pig. He's lying and he knows it. He's a vicious lunatic. It really makes me sick to see that kind of mindless, purposeless destructive impulse played out in public. This guy is morally and intellectually damn near identical to those trenchcoat kids in Colorado.
1. Fatalities among children.
To emphasize accidental handgun fatalities among children, Handgun Control,
Inc. runs nationally an advertisement which pictures an infant playing with
a pistol. An academic-produced video for schools and libraries solemnly
asserts that "a child is accidentally killed by a handgun every day" (i.e.,
365 per year).{179} Two academic anti-gun crusaders put the accidental death
toll at "almost 1,000 children" per year.{180}
Fortunately these assertions are grotesque exaggerations. In fact, the
National Safety Council figures of identifiable handgun accidental fatality
average only 246 people of all ages per year.{181} For children alone, the
identifiable handgun average was: 10-15 accidental fatalities per year for
children under age five; and 50-55 yearly for children under age
fifteen.{182}
Obviously it is a terrible tragedy when a child dies in a an accident,
whether with a handgun or otherwise. But that does not justify falsifying
statistics in order to concoct an argument for banning handguns. As
discussed in the next section of this paper, fatal gun accidents (including
those involving children) are largely attributable to gun possession among
the same kinds of irresponsible aberrant adults who are responsible for
murders. Some feasible controls proposals for reducing child (and other)
accidental firearms deaths are offered in the penultimate section of this
paper. As to the advisability of going beyond controls to banning handguns,
the 13 children under 5 who died in handgun accidents may be compared to the
381 such children who in 1980 drowned in swimming pools. Yet nobody would
demand even a ban on new swimming pools -- much less that all those who
currently own pools be required to fill them in.
Anti-gun fanatics are wont to exclaim that even if a gun ban saves only one
life it is worth it. That has special appeal if the lives being saved are
those of very young children. But if they feel prohibiting/confiscating
upwards of 70 million handguns is justifed to save 13 young children's lives
(and confiscating upwards of 200 million guns of all types to save 34
children), why does saving 381 annually not justify banning swimming pools,
or at least prohibiting their proliferation? Is it possible that anti-gun
fanatics are motivated more by hatred of guns and their owners than by
saving lives? Of course, handguns and swimming pools are very different
things that may merit very different policy responses. Among the relevant
differences are that, unlike handguns, pools are not used to defend against
c. 645,000 crimes each year and do not save thousands of innocent lives.
The disparity is even more striking in regard to fatalities caused by
cigarettes. Compare the 10-15 children under age five who die in handgun
accidents annually to the 432 who die in residential fires caused by adults
who doze off while smoking.{183} Not only do we not not forbid smoking in
the home, the federal government actually pays tobacco farmers subsidies to
grow their crops. Yet cigarettes, which have absolutely no social utility
(except perhaps for the subjective pleasure they give smokers), take
hundreds of times more lives than do handguns in accident, murder and
suicide combined. In that connection, it may be noted that we also do not
ban alcoholic beverages, though people under their influence commit more
murders and suicides than occur with handguns -- and hundreds of times more
fatal accidents and non-fatal violent crimes.{184} (If it be suggested that
we repealed Prohibition only because it proved unenforceable, the short
answer is that a handgun ban is less enforceable yet.{185})
2. The Aberrance of Gun Accident Perpetrators.
My reason for limiting the preceding discussion primarily to children is
that the issues that arise with adults who perpetrate serious accidents are
much the same as with murderers. This kind of person is just as atypical as
the murderer; indeed, he closely resembles the murderer in attitudes and
life history of singular irresponsibility and indifference to human life and
welfare.{186} This similarity is marked in fatal gun accident perpetrators:
as compared to cars (which take 190 times as many lives{187}), handguns are
simple mechanisms that are entirely safe for any owner who is responsible
enough to observe elementary precautions. Empirical studies show that "A gun
becomes involved in a fatal accident through misuse." -- for, unlike the
average gun owner, those "who cause such accidents are disproportionately
involved in other accidents, violent crime and heavy drinking."{188} Given
their background of serious felony, substance abuse, automobile and other
dangerous accidents, often irrational assaults on family, etc. the question
as to these reckless and/or irresponsible people is not whether they will
kill themselves or others, but when they will eventually do so.{189} Indeed,
a very large portion of child gun accidents may be attributable to these
people who are likely to irresponsibly leave loaded guns unsecured.
It is a category error to apply to the general citizenry gun accident
fatality statistics that are actually accurate only for idiosyncratic gun
misusers.{190} But, once again, this highlights the imperative for gun
controls to forbid such misusers having access not only to the relatively
accident-free handgun but to any kind of firearm. Feasible gun control
proposals to deal with the problem of accidental fatalities are offered
below.
REFERENCES:
179. VIOLENCE: Kids with Guns" produced by Films for the Humanities and
Sciences, Inc., Princeton, N.J.
180. Teret & Wintemute, above at 346.
181. The National Safety Council only began breaking handgun accidents out
of the total number of accidental gun fatalities in 1979. The 246
figure given in the text represents the average for identifiable
accidental handgun for 1979 and succeeding years.
182. Kleck-Aldine, above, Table 7.5 (figures for 1980 derived from Prof.
Kleck's review of Public Health Service computerized detail tapes).
Compare the Center for Disease Control's figure that accidents with
handguns and long guns combined killed 34 children under age five in
1984. "Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report" for March 11, 1988 at p.
145. It should be noted that, while the number of accidental long gun
fatalities is clearly substantially higher, the figures given for
handgun deaths may understate the phenomenon since in many accidental
gun fatalities it is undetermined whether the weapon was handgun or a
long gun.
183. See the Centers for Disease Control, "Mortality and Morbidity Weekly
Report" for March 11, 1988 at pp. 144-5.
184. U.S. Public Health Service, ALCOHOL AND HEALTH (1978), p. 4; see
discussion and citations in Kates, "Handgun Banning and the Prohibition
Experience" in FIREARMS AND VIOLENCE, above at pp. 143-4.
185. To analyze enforceability requires analyzing two sub-issues: the
likelihood of voluntary compliance; and the ease with which a handgun
ban can be enforced against the non-compliant. As to the first
sub-issue, massive resistance can be expected since people believe
(whether rightly or not is irrelevant) that they urgently need a
handgun for their family's defense and that a handgun ban would itself
be illegal as against the constitutional right to arms. In contrast, no
one but alcoholics "need" liquor and Prohibition was clearly legal,
having been enacted as a constitutional amendment. As to enforcement
against the non- compliant, liquor is consumed by use so continuing to
use it required violators to take relatively high viability step to buy
more liquor. In contrast, it would require unconstitutional house-
to-house searches to find and confiscate the upwards of 70 million
extant handguns. For those who do not already own one buying it
requires only a single purchase -- and if handguns were smuggled in at
the rate at which marijuana is estimated to be, 20 million new handguns
would be available for purchase each year. See discussion in "Handgun
Banning and the Prohibition Experience", id at 144-166.
186. "... the psychological profile of the accident-prone suggests the same
kind of aggressiveness shown by most murderers." Lane, "On the Social
Meaning of Homicide Trends in America" in T. Gurr VIOLENCE IN AMERICA
v. 1, p. 59 (1989). See also J. Wilson & R. Herrnstein, CRIME AND HUMAN
NATURE (1985): "Young men who drive recklessly and have many accidents
tend to be similar to those who commit crimes."
187. Motor vehicle crashes in 1986 resulted in 46,056 deaths." Center for
Disease Control, Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, March 11, 1988.
188. Cook, "The Role of Firearms in Violent Crime: An Interpretative Review
of the Literature" in M. Wolfgang and N. Weiler (ed.) CRIMINAL VIOLENCE
269 (1982).
189. Kleck-Aldine, above ch. 7. For further evidence that fatal gun accident
perpetrators and murders differ "rather dramatically" from the general
population; see Cook above at 270-1 and Danto, "Firearms and Violence",
5 INT'L. J. OFFENDER THER. 135 (1979).
190. Cf. Bruce-Briggs, "The Great American Gun War", 45 THE PUBLIC INTEREST
37, 40 (1976):
The calculation of family homicides and accidents as costs of gun
ownership is false. The great majority of these killings are among
poor, restless, alcoholic, troubled people, usually with long criminal
records. Applying the domestic homicide rate of these people to the
presumably upstanding citizens whom they prey upon is seriously
misleading.
Anti-gun crusaders are addicted to the making of foreign comparisons which
.7 29.4 (1984)
.9 21.2
.67 9.28
constitute probably the single most pernicious source of misinformation and
misunderstanding of gun regulation issues. This misinformation and
misunderstanding (which are also involved in comparisons made across time)
result from a grotesque mix of statistical misrepresentation with partisan
selection and presentation, and sheer historical ignorance.
Such comparisons are used to argue that gun ownership causes crime -- a
causation that supposedly results in the U.S. having more homicide per
capita (i.e., a higher rate of murder) than do selected other countries
which virtually prohibit gun ownership. In fact, the determinants of the
relative amounts of violence in nations are socio-cultural and
institutional. The effects of such basic determinants cannot be offset by
any gun control strategy, no matter how well-crafted and rigorous. Reducing
availability of any other particular kind of weapon, including guns, in
general cannot radically decrease crime because the number of guns that are
illegally available will always suffice for those who are determined to
obtain and misuse them.
1. Do international homicide rate differentials reflect gun availability or
socio-cultural differences?
Two examples of socio-cultural differences that result in widely different
murder rates come immediately to mind. The first is the unknown (to
Americans) fact that each year hundreds of men in Japan murder their
families and then kill themselves. This is so much a tradition of Japanese
culture that it was not even a crime until fairly recently. Japanese murder
rates remain admirably low because they exclude these "family
suicides".{136}
Second, compare America's high murder rate to Europe's far higher suicide
rates: sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset has suggested that cultural factors
cause disturbed Americans to strike out against others whereas disturbed
Europeans tend to turn their violence on themselves. This helps explain the
details of American and European statistics set out in the International
Intentional Homicide Table, below.
In contrast, blaming gun ownership explains nothing because that
interpretation is flatly inconsistent with the international statistical
evidence. If gun ownership were a major "cause" of crime and gun
availability a major factor in the amount of criminal homicide: a) nations
where gun availability is as or more widespread than in the U.S. would
uniformly have appreciably higher murder rates than the norm for
demographically comparable nations;{137}; and b) nations which ban or
severely restrict gun ownership would have appreciably lower homicide rates
than the U.S. at least. Yet, as the International Intentional Homicide Table
set out below shows, the homicide rates in nations where gun availability
exceeds the U.S. (e.g., Israel, New Zealand and Switzerland{138}) are as low
as those of the highly gun-restrictive Western European and British
Commonwealth countries to which America is frequently adversely compared.
Moreover, the two nations which very severely restrict gun ownership (and
punish violation with death), Taiwan and South Africa, both have far higher
apolitical murder rates than the U.S.
2. Historical ignorance and the anti-gun crusade
Likewise, the historical evidence refutes the attribution of differential
international violence rates to differences in gun laws rather than
socio-institutional and cultural differences. Those who attribute low
European violence rates to banning guns are apparently unaware that those
low rates long preceded the gun bans.{139} In fact, stringent gun laws first
appeared in the U.S., not Europe -- despite which high American crime rates
persisted and grew.{140} Ever-growing violence in various American states
from the 1810s on, led them to pioneer ever more severe gun controls.{141}
But in Europe, where violence was falling, or was not even deemed an
important problem, gun controls varied from the lax to the non- existent.
During the 19th Century in England, for instance, crime fell from its high
in the late 18th Century to its idyllic early 20th Century low -- yet the
only gun control was that police could not carry guns.{142}
In considering reasons for the differentials between U.S. and British
homicide historically, Prof. Monckkonen rejects the conventional
explanations includiung gun ownership, remarking:
Virtually every analysis put forward to explain the [comparatively]
very high United States homicide rate has been ahistorical.... Had they
been proposed as historical, they would have foundered quickly for the
explanatory inadequacy of these "pet" theories becomes immediately
apparent in a historical context.{143}
When most European countries finally began enacting gun laws in the post-WWI
period, the motivation was not crime (with which those countries had been
little afflicted) but terrorism and the political violence from which they
have continued to suffer to the present day far more than the U.S. ever
has.{144} This difference is reflected in a practice that helps to keep
official English murder rates so admirably low: English statistics do not
include "political" murders, e.g. those by the IRA, whereas the American
statistics include every kind of murder and manslaughter.) The different
purposes of European versus American laws is evidenced by their
diametrically opposite patterns: many of the "Saturday Night Special" laws
American states enacted to deal with 19th Century crime banned all but
standard military- issue revolvers, i.e. the very expensive large, heavy
Colt. In stark contrast, such military caliber arms were the first guns
banned in post-WWI Europe, the purpose being to disarm restive former
soldiers and the para- military groups they formed.{145}
Moreover, if greater American gun relative availability were the cause of
international crime differences, the difference in crime would only be as to
crimes with guns. Yet American rates for robbery, rape and other violent
crimes committed without guns are enormously higher than the rates for such
crimes (with and without guns, combined) which are uniformly low among
Western European, British Commonwealth etc. countries regardless of whether
they allow or ban gun ownership. England's leading gun control analyst
sardonically disposes of the issues with two rhetorical questions: 1) How do
those who blame "lax American gun laws" for the far higher U.S. rate of gun
crime explain its also having far more knife crime: do they think that
Englishmen have to get a permit to own a butcher knife?; and 2) How do those
who attribute U.S. gun murders to greater gun availability explain the far
higher U.S. rate of stranglings and of victims being kicked to death: do
they think that Americans "have more hands and feet than" Britons? Flatly
asserting that, no matter how stringent the gun laws, there will always be
enough guns in any society to arm those desiring to obtain and use them
illegally, he attributes grossly higher American violence rates "not to the
availability of any particular class of weapon" but to socio-cultural and
institutional factors which dictate
that American criminals are more willing to use extreme violence[;
quoting a report of the British Office of Health Economics:] "One
reason often given for the high numbers of murders and manslaughters in
the United States is the easy availability of firearms.... But the
strong correlation with racial and linked socio-economic variables
suggests that the underlying determinants of the homicide rate relate
to particular cultural factors."{146}
3. If increasing gun ownership caused American murder rates to rise in the
1960s, did it also cause them to stabilize in the 1970s and fall in the
1980s?
The theory that widespread gun ownership causes murder seemed plausible to
Americans in the 1960s when ever-increasing gun sales went hand-in-hand with
(actually, were a reaction to) ever- increasing crime rates. But this
interpretation is exploded when the time frame is expanded to include
statistics from the 1970s and 1980s. In those decades, handgun ownership
continued to rise by c. 2 million per year, so that the American
handgun-stock increased from 24-29 million in 1968 to 65-70 million in 1988.
Yet homicide actually fell somewhat and handgun (and other gun) homicides
decreased markedly.{147} The point is even more striking in comparison to
the English homicide rate: in 1974 the American rate was 40 times the
English; 15 years (and 30 million more American handguns) later, the
American rate was only ten times greater.{148} Since this trend occurred in
decades in which English gun law severity increased, both administratively
and by added legislative rstrictions, it cannot be explained by attributing
murder to widespread gun availability.
The attribution is further undermined if violent crimes are differentiated
by type. Anti-gun academic crusaders do not claim that buying a handgun
suddenly turns otherwise law abiding people to rape, robbery and burglary.
Yet it was such crimes (and murder in the course of them) that grew
spectacularly from the mid-1960s on. In contrast, there was no increase in
the domestic homicides the sages theorize guns cause. (Indeed, the c. 100%
increase in handguns in the era 1968-79 was followed by a 26.6% decrease in
domestic homicide from 1984 on -- despite the addition of another c.
2,000,000 handguns in 1980 and each succeeding year.{149})
4. Concealing the declining American murder trend by combining suicide and
murder statistics
Anti-gun sages have seized on a new device in order not to have to deal with
these embarrassing facts. They conceal the fact of declining American
homicide (particularly gun homicide) by adding in suicide figures, producing
a combined "Intentional Homicide" rate which they then claim to be "caused"
by widespread gun ownership.{150} Yet these same anti-gun academics continue
to compare the American murder rate (alone) to the murder rates of specially
selected foreign countries -- without mentioning that virtually every
country they select to compare has enormously higher suicide rate than the
U.S. For instance, Prof. Baker, the originator of the combined
homicide-suicide approach, compares American and Danish murder rates,
placing great emphasis on the fact that the American rate is higher by about
7 per 100,000 population. Yet Baker somehow forgets to mention that making
the same comparison as to suicide rate would show the Danish rate to be much
higher yet than the American: higher by 16.5 deaths per hundred thousand.
Nor, of course, does Baker mention that when suicide and murder figures are
combined according to the Baker method, the Danish death rate per 100,000
population is almost 50% higher than the American.{151}
Despite their reliance on international murder comparisons, none of the
anti-gun academics who apply the combined murder- suicide figure approach
(in describing American figures) follow the combined figure approach when
making those international comparisons. Could that have anything to do with
the following facts which emerge from the International Intentional Homicide
Table (below): that of 18 nations for which figures were available, the U.S.
ranks only 11th in intentional homicide; that its combined homicide/suicide
rate is less than half of the suicide rate alone in gun-banning Hungary and
less than 1/3 the suicide rate alone of gun-banning Rumania; that New
Zealand ranks 16th despite a rate of gun ownership that far exceeds the
U.S.'; and that the lowest rate on the Table is for Israel, a country that
actually encourages and requires almost universal gun ownership.
INTERNATIONAL INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE TABLE
Table is based on figures from two different sources (as further specified
below): insofar as they are given therein, all figures are from the 1983-6
averages in Killias' Tables 1 & 2;{152} insofar as Killias does not give
figures they are from the latest year listed for the country in U.N.
DEMOGRAPHIC YEARBOOK-1985 (published, 1987). Figures from Killias are in
bold face; all other figures are in ordinary type.
Country Suicide Homicide TOTAL
RUMANIA 66.2 n.a. 66.2 (1984)
HUNGARY 45.9 n.a. 45.9 (1983)
DENMARK 28.7
AUSTRIA 26.9 1.5 28.4 (1984)
FINLAND 24.4 (1983) 2.86 27.2
FRANCE 21.8 (1983) 4.36 26.16
SWITZERLAND 24.45 1.13 25.58
BELGIUM 23.15 1.85 25.
W. GERMANY 20.37 1.48 21.85
JAPAN 20.3
U.S. 12.2 (1982) 7.59 19.79
CANADA 13.94 2.6 16.54
NORWAY 14.5 (1984) 1.16 15.66
N. IRELAND 9.0 6.0 15.0
(Homicide rate may not include "political" homicides)
AUSTRALIA 11.58 1.95 13.53
NEW ZEALAND 9.7 1.6 24.5
ENGLAND/WALES 8.61
(Homicide rate does not include "political" homicides)
ISRAEL 6. 2. 8.
The evidence from international comparisons is confirmed by the various
neutral attempts to determine whether gun ownership causes violence
footnoted earlier and by the most extensive and methodologically
sophisticated study, Kleck's application of modern, computer-assisted
statistical techniques to post-World War II American crime rate data. The
interactive cause and effect result he found contradicts that posited by
anti-gun crusaders. Kleck concludes that from the 1960s on fear engendered
by violent crime sparked enormously increased gun ownership among the
general populace. This increased gun ownership did not itself increase crime
of any kind (if anything, it dampened it); but an increase in gun ownership,
or at least in gun use, by criminals helped cause the post-1960 increases
violent crime, including murder.{153}
It may be of interest that Kleck simultaneously investigated the possible
effect of the cessation of capital punishment of the 1960s and '70s in
causing the crime wave. He concludes that the increased violence was also
not attributable to the cessation of capital punishment caused. Note also
that this criminological evidence does not support the gun lobby's myopic
opposition to gun controls. On the contrary, Kleck endorses sweeping,
strongly enforced laws against possession of any kind of firearm by persons
convicted of any kind of felony.{154}
Guns are more lethal than some other means of death, though less lethal than
others such as hanging, certain poisons and falls from great heights.
Because of their lethality guns may facilitate murder or suicide among those
inclined to them anyway. On the other hand, they are also incomparably the
most effective means by which a victim may resist violent attack.
REFERENCES:
136. R. Markman & D. Bosco, ALONE WITH THE DEVIL 342ff., (1989); indeed, 17%
of all Japanese homicide consists in children so killed by their
parents. Jameson, "Parent-Child Suicides Frequent in Japan", March 28,
1981 HARTFORD COURANT.
137. Likewise studies of geographical areas within the U.S. should show
those with higher gun ownership having more murder. Yet the consistent
result of studies attempting to link gun ownership to violence rates is
either no relationship or a negative one, i.e. that urban and other
areas with higher gun ownership have less violence than demographically
comparable areas with lower gun ownership. See, e.g. Murray, "Handguns,
Gun Control Law and Firearm Violence", 23 SOCIAL PROBLEMS 81 (1975);
Lizotte & Bordua and Bordua & Lizotte, above; Kleck, "The Relationship
between Gun Ownership Levels and Rates of Violence in the United
States" in D. Kates (ed.) FIREARMS AND VIOLENCE (1984); McDowall, Gun
Availability and Robbery Rates: A Panel Study of Large U.S. Cities,
1974-1978, 8 LAW & POLICY Q. 135 (1986); Bordua, "Firearms Ownership
and Violent Crime: A Comparison of Illinois Counties" Kleck &
Patterson, "The Impact of Gun Control and Gun Ownership Levels on City
Violence Rates", a paper presented to the 1989 Annual Meeting of the
American Society of Criminology (available from the authors at Florida
State University School of Criminology). See also Eskridge, "Zero-Order
Inverse Correlations between Crimes of Violence and Hunting Licenses in
the United States", 71 SOCIOLOGY & SOCIAL RESEARCH 55 (1986).
138. For discussion of U.S, Swiss and Israeli law and practice see Kates,
"Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment",
82 MICH. L. REV. 204 at n. 193 and 264ff.; cf. "Swiss Army: A Privilege
of Citizenship" LOS ANGELES TIMES p. 1, Oct. 1, 1980, "Israeli Official
Urges Firearm in Every Home, GUN WEEK, June 29, 1979; "Order by Israel
Puts Even More Guns on the Street", LOS ANGELES TIMES, July 5, 1978.
The anti-self-defense basis of Anglo-American gun control theory is so
unique that it produces profound differences not only in policy and
administration from those prevailing in other countries but also in
understanding superficially similar gun laws. One such deceptive
similarity is that the laws in New York City, England, Switzerland and
Israel all require a permit to own a handgun. Indicative of the
profound differences between those requirement is that: permit issuance
for the purpose of personal defense is routine in Israel and
Switzerland, administratively discouraged by New York City and
non-existent in England. In 1984 an attack on a Jerusalem cafe by three
terrorists armed with automatic weapons was terminated when
handgun-carrying Israeli civilians shot them down. THE ECONOMIST, Ap.
7, 1984, p. 34.
Equally significant are differences in policy re civilian possession of
automatic weapons. Either an ordinary rifle or an assault rifle or
other fully automatic weapon requires a permit in England; since 1934
possession of a fully automatic weapon in the United States has
required registration and been subject to a prohibitive tax and as of
1986 purchasing new assault rifles or other fully automatic weapons is
totally forbidden in the United States. But in Switzerland and Israel
the government distributes automatic weapons to the general population
by the millions. I was once asked by a puzzled Israeli why Americans
think they have to personally own guns: "if they have to live or be in
dangerous areas why don't they just check a handgun or submachine gun
out of the police armory?" The idea that American law would seek to
prevent law-abiding citizens threatened by violence from arming
themselves had never occurred to him and, on explanation proved
incomprehensible.
139. See generally Gurr, "Historical Trends in Violent Crime: A Critical
Review of the Evidence", in 3 ANNUAL REVIEW OF CRIME AND JUSTICE
(Beverly Hills: Sage, 1981), C. Greenwood, FIREARMS CONTROL: A STUDY OF
ARMED CRIME AND FIREARMS CONTROL IN ENGLAND AND WALES ch. 1-3 (London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1971), Morn, "Firearms Use and Police: An
Historic Evolution of American Values" in FIREARMS AND VIOLENCE above
at 496-501.
140. Morn, id., Kates, "Toward A History of Handgun Prohibition in the
United States" in RESTRICTING HANDGUNS above at 13-4.
141. For instance, in the South, the region of the United States which from
earliest times had the highest murder rates, gun law experimentation
included: the only state law that completely banned handgun sales
(S.C., 1902; repealed 1966); the earliest bans on "Saturday Night
Specials" (Tennessee, 1870; Arkansas, 1881; Alabama, 1893; Texas, 1907;
Virginia, 1925); the earliest registration laws (Mississippi, 1906;
Georgia, 1913; N.C., 1917); and three states in which a permit was
required to purchase a handgun (N.C. 1917; Missouri, 1919; Arkansas,
1923).
142. Greenwood, Morn, above.
143. Monckkonen, "Diverging Homicide Rates: England and the United States"
in T. Gurr, VIOLENCE IN AMERICA v. 1 at 81 (1989). He rejects gun
ownership as a reason for the homicide differential citing a point that
it made below in greater detail: even those who see guns as the reason
do not contend that their removal could reduce American homicide by
more than 50%; yet if American homicide were reduced by 50%, its rate
would still be 500% greater than the British rate.
144. Naturally, anti-gun academic crusaders do not credit the availability
of guns in the U.S. for its relative lack of political violence. They
(quite correctly) attribute that to socio-cultural and institutional
differences between the U.S. and Europe. Yet it does not occur to the
anti-gun academic crusaders to attribute international crime
differentials to socio-cultural and institutional differences rather
than differential gun ownership.
145. L. Kennett and J. L. Anderson, THE GUN IN AMERICA: THE ORIGINS OF A
NATIONAL DILEMMA 213 (Westport, Ct.: Greenwood, 1976), M. Josserand,
LES PISTOLETS, LES REVOLVERS ET LEURS MUNITIONS (Paris, Crepin-Leblond
& Cie, 1967) [in English transl., with co-authorship and additional
material by J. Stevenson, PISTOLS, REVOLVERS AND AMMUNITION (New York,
Bonanza, 1967)], ch. 9.
146. Greenwood & Magaddino, "Comparative Cross-Cultural Statistics" in
RESTRICTING HANDGUNS, above; see also Greenwood, above.
147. For instance, in 1974, when the total U.S. population was 211 million,
handguns were involved in c. 11,125 murders (54% of all murders). By
1988 the total U.S. population was 245 million and handguns were
involved in c. 8,275 murders (45% of all murders), a 27% decline in
handgun homicide. Homicide by all means had declined almost 10%. In the
20 year period 1966-1985 murders with guns declined from 64.8% of the
total murder rate to 58.7%.
148. Compare Monckkonen, above at 81 to the International Intentional
Homicide Table, below.
149. Browne & Flewelling, "Women as Victims or Perpetrators of Homicide" a
paper presented to the 1986 Annual Meeting of the American Society of
Criminology (available from the Family Res. Lab., U. of New Hampshire).
Straus, "Domestic Violence and Homicide Antecedents", 62 BULL. N.Y.
ACAD. MED. 446, 450 (1986), Brown & Williams, above.
150. See, e.g. Teret, "Public Health and the Law", 76 AMER. J. PUB. HEALTH
1027, 1028 (1986), S. Baker et al, THE INJURY FACT BOOK (1984) 90-1,
Teret & Wintemute, "Handgun Injuries: The Epidemiologic Evidence for
Assessing Legal Responsibility", 6 HAMLINE L. REV. 341 (1983).
151. Compare Baker, "Without Guns Do People Kill People?", 75 AM. J. PUB.
HEALTH 587 (1985) (comparing U.S. and Danish murder) to International
Intentional Homicide Table, below.
152. Killias, "Gun Ownership and Violent Crime: The Swiss Experience in
International Perspective", a paper presented at the 1989 Annual
Meeting of the American Society of Criminology.
153. Kleck, "Capital Punishment, Gun Ownership and Homicide", 84 AM. J. SOC.
882 (1979) and Kleck, "The Relationship Between Gun Ownership Levels
and Rates of Violence in the United States" in D. Kates (ed.) FIREARMS
AND VIOLENCE (Cambridge, Ballinger: 1984).
154. Policy Lessons, above.
The basic regulatory principles may be grouped under the concepts: Realism,
Favorable Trade-Offs, Parity, Accomodation, Avoiding Unfavorable Trade-Offs
and Affirmative Benefits.
Realism
The first point under realism is that of the English analyst Greenwood: no
matter how stringent the controls, there will always be enough guns in any
society that anyone determined to have a gun will be able to do so, whether
for crime or self-defense. Thus, after nearly 80 years of ever more
stringently administered state handgun ban, New York City police estimate
the number of illegally owned guns there at 2-3 million. Anti-gun crusaders
attribute this to the fact that handguns are legally obtained in most other
states. But even in peaceful England where very few people think it urgent
to have a gun for self-defense, Greenwood has shown that the number of guns
illegally smuggled in off-sets the number confiscated yearly. In other
words, 70 years of ever more strictly administered ban has not even
diminished the illegal gunstock.
Moreover, the more closely one looks, the more absurd it is to blame the
lack of a ban in other states for the failure of New York's handgun ban. It
turns out that the rate at which handguns are (illegally) owned for defense
in New York City is more than double the rate of defensive ownership in the
states where it is legal. The fact is that, if people feel it is urgent to
have a gun for family defense they are going to get one, regardless of any
law. With upwards of 200 million guns in the U.S. (70 million of them
handguns), there is no hope of reducing crime by banning and confiscating
guns. Such a policy would actually reduce the cost of new guns. Any
machinist can manufacture basic revolvers and automatic pistols out of pot
metal to be sold more cheaply than commercially made guns are now -- just as
rotgut sold for less during Prohibition than good liquor had before it. Of
course, pot metal guns would not safely fire more than 100-200 shots. But
that would far more than suffice to meet the demand for new and additional
guns for crime or self-defense purposes.
Gun policies ought not to be designed or adopted according to unrealistic
expectations. The inevitable failure only creates gun lobby propaganda. The
basic determinants of violent crime are fundamental socio-cultural,
institutional and economic factors that no gun law can overcome. So long as
perhaps 1 out of every 300 persons who grow up in the U.S. is inclined
toward violent crime, our society will be far more violent than either
gun-banning England or gun-loving Switzerland, where only 1 out of 30,000
inhabitants is so inclined.
Favorable Trade-offs
But that does not justify the gun lobby's myopic rejection of all new
controls. Gun controls can have net marginal value if carefully tailored to
produce value that exceeds the costs they involve. For instance, burglars
rarely carry guns. Doubtless the primary reason for this is that burglars
expect to avoid confrontation by striking only when they think the premises
are unoccupied. But their eschewal of gun carrying is reinforced by the
knowledge that in most states they will face much stiffer punishment if they
are caught with a gun in a burglary.
If gun crimes are more to be feared overall, this is a law that does some
good and is virtually cost-free: if burglars obey it, we are all better off;
insofar as they are caught disobeying, the law focusses imprisonment on
those who are most dangerous and, therefore, most desirable to incapacitate.
The same point underlies laws severely punishing ownership of any kind of
gun by people who have been convicted of felony. Of course, the most violent
felons (robbers, rapists, hit men) will be the least likely to obey; but
when they disobey, the law allows them to be incapacitated by long
imprisonment for just owning a gun -- without having to wait until they
actually hurt someone with it.
Parity
It is trite, but necessary, to emphasize that in evaluating gun law
strategies negative as well as positive effects must be considered. The
ineluctable fact is that control strategies that produce long gun
substitution for handguns in any substantial proportion of problematic
situations will greatly aggravate the dangers of gun misuse. Thus any good
control strategy involves parity of regulation between long guns and
handguns to avoid the danger of promoting substitution of the former for the
latter. Concomitantly, if controls broad enough to provide such parity are
not now politically feasible, adoption of the strategy must wait until
parity becomes feasible.
Accomodation
Only with strong cooperation from owners can broader federal gun controls be
established. Absent such cooperation, to require a license to own guns, for
instance, would be, at best a dead letter, at worst a source of enforcement
costs that would vastly exceed any possible benefit. Whether cooperation can
be achieved, given the decades of scorn, contempt and hatred that anti-gun
extremists have heaped upon gun owners, is very doubtful.
At a minimum, gun owners would need the reassurance of a U.S. Supreme Court
decision squarely recognizing that the Bill of Rights gives every law
abiding, responsible adult the freedom to choose to own guns for the
protection of home and family. Also, gun owners would have to be convinced:
that any proposed gun law is formulated in recognition of their legitimate
interests and represents an honest attempt to accomodate those interests
within the social necessity of rational control over deadly instruments; and
that the law's administration would not be so hostile and/or arbitrary as to
deny law-abiding, responsible adults the freedom to choose to own guns for
home and family defense.
Avoid Unfavorable Trade-Offs
Some anti-gun crusaders have their own, predictably onerous proposal for
avoiding the need for any accomodation. Their plan is for Congress to ban
handguns and command their confiscation by a law imposing a mandatory
mimimum year prison sentence on every violator. Much the same proposal was
made to the New York State Legislature in 1980. It was tabled when the
Prison Commissioner testified that the state prison system would collapse if
just 1% of the illegal handgun owners in New York City (where ordinary
citizens cannot get a permit) were caught, tried and imprisoned.
So also would the federal prison system collapse if it tried to house even
100th of 1% of the tens of millions who would not obey a federal handgun
ban. Fortunately, they would not get to prison because the federal court
system would collapse under the burden of trying them.
Affirmative Benefit
Widespread ownership of handguns for defense of self, home or family is only
natural in a nation beset with endemic crime. The empirical evidence
establishes that such victim gun ownership results in the interruption and
frustration of c. 645,000 crimes each year. (Another 280,000 handgun uses
yearly are for defense against poisonous snakes, rabid squirrels, foxes,
etc.) Civilian handgun ownership averts thousands of victim injuries, and
even deaths, which would not otherwise have been avoidable, given the
manifest physical and tactical advantages criminals have over unarmed
victims.
Against these palpable benefits there are no substantial costs of gun
ownership by law-abiding, responsible adults. Such ownership may marginally
increase the number of gun accidents. But the vast majority of these stem
from gun misuse by the same aberrant group of reckless and/or violent people
who perpetrate the vast majority of murders. Applying these irresponsible
gun misusers' accident and murder rates to gun possession by the average
citizen makes no more sense that estimating that citizen's chance of dying
from a cut based on death rates among hemophiliacs.
The following are some ways of fine-tuning current gun laws:
1) Current federal law (and a potpourri of state laws) forbid gun ownership
by convicted felons and persons adjudged of unsound mind. This could be
extended to embrace anyone convicted of driving while intoxicated or of
multiple conviction of selected violent misdemeanors. Such laws should be
leavened by allowing police to give special permits to own a gun to such
people if they have not been in trouble for years.
2) The ban on felons owning guns is undercut because millions of sales are
between private persons where the sellers have no way of checking whether
the buyer is a felon. The obvious way to deal with this would be to require
everyone who owns or wants to buy a gun to acquire a federal permit that
would be available on proof that he/she was an adult without a felony
record. But that is both politically and practically impossible. Gun owners,
who are convinced that the anti-gun crusaders will eventually use permit
records to confiscate all guns, would hysterically fight the law and, if it
were enacted, would flout it en masse. More promising would be to have a
criminal records check done with the driver's license. Every license issued
would bear the notation "eligible to own firearms" (except, of course, for
juveniles, felons and those with sanity records). Sale of a gun to a person
without a driver's license bearing this notation would be a felony and also
make the seller financially liable for any wrong the buyer did with the gun.
3) Guns commonly enter the underworld when stolen from lawful owners by
burglars who find such theft profitable because guns are easily fencible
items. One way to severely discourage such theft would be a dual law that
(a) imposes a mandatory three year prison sentence on anyone knowingly
possessing a stolen gun; and (b) rebuttably presumes knowing possession if
the defendant is found to have possessed two or more stolen guns. Faced with
this, fences may stop buying stolen guns, thereby discouraging burglars from
stealing them.
4) The potpourri of state laws governing gun ownership by minors should be
strengthened by a uniform provision against possession of any kind of gun by
any person under 18 years of age, except under the supervision of a parent
or other responsible adult.
5) It should be a felony for a parent to negligently allow a gun of any kind
to fall into the hands of an unsupervised minor. Where the parent himself
owns the gun illegally (e.g. because he is a convicted felon), there should
be mandatory imprisonment for at least 5 years. The gun lobby has objected
that a parent whose child has been killed in a gun accident should not be
subjected to the additional penalty of a prison sentence. But people who are
unwilling to obey current gun laws and too irresponsible to protect childen
against the consequences are too dangerous to be allowed at liberty,
independent of any issue of punishment.
6) The current potpourri of state laws on carrying a gun are inconsistent,
irrational and so maladministered that permits to carry are granted to
unqualified persons with special influence and arbitrarily denied to
uninfluential persons, however well qualified.{207} They should be replaced
by a comprehensive prohibition against carrying a loaded gun of any kind
(whether concealed or openly) without a permit which would be issued as a
matter of right, but only to persons demonstrating firearms skill and legal
knowledge as to their use comparable to that required of a police officer in
the jurisdiction.
7) In addition, it should be illegal to carry a loaded gun on the person, if
inebriated (a prohibition that would apply even in one's own home), or while
drinking in a bar. .
I'm sorry but your reasonning is very paranoid (and typically american unfortunately). You think that :
a) the governement is here to take on you, become a dictature and abuse everybody freedom
b) all criminals are out there to kill you
c) they are good citizens and criminals, and nothing else.
As for a), it seems most american are paranoid about governements. They have this absession that all the officials are trying to screw them up. But this governement, is made of citizen and elected by citizen. A governement is supposed to work for the well being of its citizen. If you need guns to protect yourself from your governement, then you don't live in a democracy. Then what are you waiting to start a civil war ?
As for c), you forget that anyone, at one moment or another, is a criminal. Most people, at one moment are another in their life, get somewhat insane. When these person have a gun, they can get pretty dangerous, killing themselves or others. Most gun advocate always depict a world with the good guys protecting themselves against the bad guys. It's not a John Wayne movie, there are no good or bad guys, just different humans.
As for occupying America, this is PATHETIC : if somebody is fighting openly America, you won't even have the time to reach to your gun when your city will be nuked. Guns won't save you, whatever the NRA says.
I like people like you, who point to the horror others do, then suggest that we should torture peoples to death... you are not better than they are. Some people feel that because they have the law on their side mean they have the moral right to do the same horrors they accuse others of doing. No law can justify horrors, or killing other people.
I personnaly prefer to regurgitate what I personnaly think, as you say, that regurgitate what the NRA thinks. At least that proves that I can think by myself, which some people can't seem to do. If you use the NRA docs as an "objective" basis for a discussion on guns control, then we don't have the same definition of "objective".
I can carry in some other proof from martial arts. More than just physical, training involves taking down mental and emotional barriers to combat. Amongst them is the aversion to hurting/killing people. Try, for instance, training with a friend. Your every blow is pathetically weak, and it takes a fantastic effort of will to focus on delivering a meaningful strike. It's hard to clearly explain it to anyone who has never noted these facts, but very true. An average person is not equipped to effectively hurt other humans.
On war: another excellent book to read is Dunningham's "How to Make War". It's more about covering all aspects of military operations, but still worth reading.
"The second leading cause of death (by a large margin) is artillery fire."
Very true. About 60-70%, if I recall properly.
Another point about war that I've seen in several sources is that the violent fringes of society, the ultra-independents, tended not to do so well in war. War, with a very organized procedure for slaughter, found better servicemen in the structured 9-to-5'er people. Again, just what I've read.
I realize that better schooled military students are reading this argument. If I'm off the mark anywhere, please point me in the right direction.
Hehe...given the recent uproar over another set of "statistics"...ie Mindcraft's NT v Linux stats..I find it funny that anyone would even dare use stats from the NRA in a gun-control debate.
Yeah..like the NRA is an "un-biased source"
Jack Chick is an insult to christianity. I read some of his slanderous drabble and as a christian I am ashamed that he is one to. He calls catholics pagans, he says being gay is a choice an not hormonal, he insults Jesus and Christianity as a whole.
Now, in a recent poll of parents by CNN ( http://www. cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/04/22/school.viol ence.poll/), the parents received a 51% for "deserving a great deal of blame." Right behind it, in third rank, was TV, movies, and music, with 49%. Two ranks down is the Internet itself (god I hate capitalizing that word).
Am I the only person that sees anything wrong with this?
We all get pissed off because people are pointing fingers, but think about it. What can come of it, when 34% of the parents polled point a a mass collection of electrons transmitting themselves from connection port to connection port and blame it some how. That's not even scraping into the whole bypass of the person actually watching/listening to the entertainment media's condition. Those kids listened to KMFDM, therefore KMFDM is evil! Sha. Okie.
Human are stupid, panickey animals. This has to be expected. Not enjoyed, but expected. I guess that's it...
Oh, one other thing. This is pure hearsay, but I've been told that that Christian guy who started that whole gay Teletubbie thing shot his big, fat mouth off on the topic. Something like RPGs are the root of all evil. Like we haven't heard that before... Gah.
Eric Kolb
http://dygel.weyland-yutani.net
http://rpgc.simplenet.com
Calling doom a kill simulator is like calling starfox64 a flight sim of 737.
If you want real kill simulation you must have bad aim and guns that give a royally good kick when you fire them.
First of all, how is it possible to determine who is "*potenially* mentally unstable". Wouldn't everyone fit in this category? Like the guy who went up into the clocktower at UT Austin 20 or so years ago and sniped a dozen people, out of the blue... (he was found to have a brain tumor).
What about people who are drunk? or in a fit of jealous rage? It seems to me that enough people die every year in car accidents, and guns are obviously much more lethal.
DOOM CAN be played over the internet with the use of other peices of software e.g. Kali
A murder spree with a gun can result in upwards of 15 people killed - without the gun that same individual would probably only be able to kill a couple of people.
I bet I could kill a hell of a lot more than 15 people with a gallon each of bleach and ammonia. Costs less than a firearm and doesn't require any skill to use.
Weapons are not the issue, intent is. Besides, if you really want to cut down on mass murders, you should make governments illegal.
Look guys, I played Quake and Doom for more
times and more hours than some could.. I
got to the point of seeing people around the corner
sporting a missle-launcher, its not that far flung
and idea.. Maybe these guys were on drugs, played quake, went out
and killed 13 people and shot themselves because they could not take this nightmarish world..
We can't tell unless we know them, until there is more information..
We can blaim all we want.. It won't undo what has been done.. The
obvious things are they were Goths, wore black, black shades, had pipe bombs, shot people, killed themselves.. Goths worship death, its all about valuing death.. But this doesn't mean goths are to blaim.. But it does make one question what values these kids had, what their purpose was in life, I mean, they made mistake, should we recognize the mistake or learn from it..
I personally think its the fact they were teenagers and some teens cannot see beyond 18.. Should we be doing something to help them see something ahead of them.. Maybe that would stop these problems, damn maybe its nothing, maybe it is, its a rude awakening, a water mark, what are we giving our children? Are we responsible enough to raise our children? Do we care about our children.. When you had children, did you understand what it was about or did you plop down and decide "lets have a rug rat".. I think America is becoming irresponsible.. We build up this wall of invulnerability and hide in it.. Those two deputies were building a wall of invulnerability, they didn't want to be hurt.. As a result people died.. Ooopps need another pain killer.. I think our police officers should go to church and also play a lot more quake like games.. Religion is not orthogonal to war.. Christian belief states that there is no greater love than dieing for others.. In our secular world, its loving ourselves more than others.
Read his comment more carefully, and don't stop after the first few lines.
As far as I can tell, he's not writing that it was the fault of the people who teased the alleged perpetrators, nor should being teased be an excuse for committing murder.
What he is saying, in my interpretation, is that this tragedy points out that these people really weren't treated the way we would want them to have been, and so while we're going through and trying to respond to the situation which those individuals created, we shouldn't lose sight of the behavior of those who provoked the shooting.
No, the jocks etc. didn't kill anyone, and they shouldn't face the consequences that they would face if they had done so, and the original poster doesn't think so either. But he does think that the Jocks and the rest of them may have behaved in an inappropriate manner, and we should take this opportunity to look at what sort of things are going on in our schools, and possibly do something about it.
Or maybe he meant something totally different, I'm just an Anonymous Coward.
----------
The above opinions are not endorsed by my employer.
I am self-employed.
Right. So why would kids in a highschool want to
kill a bunch of their classmates and then themselves? Seems to me that "duke nukem" or
"the internet" isn't the answer to that question.
Also, a driver's license is not a right to own a car, but to use said car on the roads, and the roads are state and/or federal property, and they can require that you do certain things/pass certain tests if you want to use those roads. This doesn't apply to guns.
Perhaps you should have read the next line, where he states that he would support the same punishment for his own daughter, for the reasons he describes?
Please no, stop, you're killing me!
So now to be a teacher you have to take a firearms certification course? Thinking of the teachers I
had in school, the only ones who wouldn't be
incompetent with a gun were the ones who in all other respects were dumb as bricks. You know the type -- coach/health teacher, coach/shop teacher, coach/english teacher.
I love fantasy-land. Let's make a law making it a civic duty to be armed! I know that seeing a friday night crowd of drunken armed hillbillies always makes me feel safe!
It must have taken a great deal of real courage to stand up and die fighting for what they believed in
Salute ! See you guys in Valhalla !
Sorry to burst your bubble but an armed guard _was_ present in the school!
Claiming this would not have happened when an armed person was there is discredited by the simple fact that an armed guard _was_ present at the school!
Uhm. Here in Norway, we have lots of guns, but little violence. In Switzerland, lots of guns, little violence. The issue isn't guns. Guns are only tools.
Harald
PS: In both Norway and Switzerland the Home Guard keeps 100s of 1000s of "assault weapons" at home, with nary a mishap...
Killing one is as bad as killing 20. So it doesn't actually matter, besides if you have your time you can kill 20 with a rock, one at a time.
I just wonder when they start cutting hands and feet... I can kill with my bare hands. It actually takes very little skill or strength, it can be done accidentally too (something to think about...)
-coward.
And what are the population ratios? We have more people than either of those countries.
Gun control would not have prevented the bombs. Or home made guns. The guns they had were illegal any way. You cannot by law have a sawed off shotgun in the US. So tell me, how would tighter gun control laws have prevented this? If someone is crazy enough to kill that many people, do you really thing he is going to perfer one method over another? No, he is going to go with the easiest way. If it is guns, he will go that way. Bombs another more devestating way. Acid? Think really hard about it before you go off on how guns are the problem.
I think that was not done by high school kids but by terrosrists.
Bloody hell, that's a great quote.
Ah well, so what he's saying is, to paraphrase certain others, "Kill 'em all".
You can't fight fire with fire.
> The reason the Civil War weapons were recovered > with multiple loads in them was because of the
> involved loading method.
Possibly, but I tend to doubt this assessment, given an army's penchent for drills. During training, common actions that must be performed under fire are drilled, drilled, drilled until they can be done without thinking.
If misloading as you described was at all common, then the drill instructors would have focused on that in particular and made it much more un-common.
God help the soldier who gets behind a weapon on a firing range, and doesn't do the initial safety check, or keep the muzzle pointed downrange! (The usual punishment *starts* with a swift kick in the ass)
> As to not being able to fake the loading process > that is very easy and you would know this if you > have ever loaded a muzzleloading weapon.
As a matter of fact, I have - but if you have ever participated in military drills in a military setting, you'd know that it's *very* difficult to deviate from the standard drills while they are in progress - the easiest thing to fake is the firing.
However, I don't think there was a consious, rational decision to "fake it" Instead, I think it's more like "load the weapon, raise to fire - can't do it! - oops, there's the load command, gotta keep up with the drill (peer pressure) raise to fire - still can't do it! Next time I will..."
The soldier involved has every intention of firing right up to the point when he _should_ fire - and does not.
>> This man is not fighting, he is posturing.
> If by fighting you mean standing up in a
> firestorm and by posturing you mean trying to
> lay down some cover fire for whoever might be in > the same area as....
What he did was emphatically NOT cover fire. Cover fire is aimed, purposeful, and done through the sights on the weapon. Hoisting a rifle over your head and firing in the general direction of the enemy is just making noise.
Something that is hard to understand unless you've done it is that soldiers are _expected_ to expose themselves to fire when the time comes. An infantry platoon caught in the open by a machine gun will assault the gun, not hide and hope it goes away.
The other hard thing to understand is that that assault can be successful if it is carried out properly. You will proably lose a few on the way in, but you will lose all of them if you stay put or run away.
DG
I'm not sure what good a new death penalty law does for people that are not afraid of death.
How about that, I wasn't the only person in the world to read that book. :)
:)
:)
> First, I feel that you overlooked what he
> considers one of the most powerful motivators
> for enabling soldiers to pull the trigger--
> peer pressure
You're quite right, I did (although I touched on it in a response) It's tough to compress that entire book into a Slash-bite.
> Second, I must disagree with your application of
> the Col. Grossman's chapter on Video Game
> violence
I think this is a special case.
I agree with Col. Grossman insofar as I don't see games like DOOM turning children into killers, nor indeed do I see DOOM making it any easier to shoot anyone else in the general case.
However, the "mission" these two were on - wandering the halls, blasting anyone they came across - is chillingly similar to the plotline of DOMM and DOOM-like games like Quake. If we make the assumption that they played a lot of DOOM, then the reflexes taught by DOOM would have been applicable.
As I said before, I don't think DOOM brought them do the door of the school, armed for bear and ready to kill. But I do think DOOM may have made it easier for them to keep going, once they started.
Incidently, I don't think ID or other game companies are responsible in any sort of legal way. The games are for the most part, harmless fantasy.
As an aside, I've played my share of Quake/QuakeII, and I enjoy the games. I've found though, that I suck at the online versions, despite all the military training. Part of the problem is that I'm modem-connected and so latency-challenged, but larger still is that I've discovered that I unconciously compensate for _fatigue_. Part of me knows that you can't go running top-speed around hallways, jumping around like a kangaroo, while humping a rocket launcher - so I don't do it - and I get killed by those that don't know any better.
DG
There is no justification why someone, anyone, should be allowed to carry a gun. I don't care how violent your little suburban town is, or how big of a rodent problem you're having, that does NOT give you the right to carry a lethal weapon around.
Well, I have that right. And it's not because we have a rodent problem that this right exists. The right to defend one's life is as old as the hills. And it's not yours to give or take it away. Sorry!
There is no justification why someone, anyone, should be allowed to carry a gun. I don't care how violent your little suburban town is, or how big of a rodent problem you're having, that does NOT give you the right to carry a lethal weapon around.
Well, I have that right. And it's not because we have a rodent problem that this right exists. The right to defend one's life is as old as the hills. And it's not yours to give or take away. Sorry!
Many homeschoolers (not the enlightened sort, who may well be more prevalent) will want to use homeschooling to indoctrinate, on the plain meaning of "indoctrinate". As a fellow anarchocapitalist, I don't particularly see any solution to this problem, but I definitely don't want to hide it.
dadams, Yeats said that first; Delmore Schwartz quoted it (as the title of a wonderful story).
I read your page, and it's brilliant, and so true. Makes me remember the hell I went through, and how glad I was when I finally left high school. The only thing that kept me from killing that bastards for real was that I got to kill them in fiction, over and over again, in the stories I wrote and the comix I drew. But I fear nothing will really be learned from all this--it's just too easy to blame "that heathen rock 'n roll," or the internet, or, Quake, Doom or the lack of JE-sus in the schools. And I fear it'll happen again. . .
But I have been in Israel, and saw lots of guns, and rather powerful ones, and I certainly didn't feel an increase in fear proportional to the increased presence of guns.
You never know just what the rank and file of a particular armed body might be persuaded of.
Sorry to intrude into internal US affairs, but as I am posting as Foreign Anonymous Coward, I probably dont have to fear retaliation.
What strikes me as very odd is that as a countermeasure to avoid such acts in the future, Americans seriously believe that they should ban computers and trenchcoats. Let me spell it out for you: They used GUNS to kill their peers, not computers and trenchcoats.
Maybe you should arm all pupils with automatic weapons so that they can defend themselves?
Or maybe society should ask itself wether they can expect differently from young people that get trained to see making love as an despicable act but get to see splatter movies in early afternoon children TV shows.
May your wounds heal soon and your lessons be learned well.
A suggestion for you, Mr. S...not that I've ever been a parent, but you haven't raised kids I wouldn't give other parents advice about how to "protect" theirs before you do. :::gasp!::: the teens themselves!? True, this may sound odd coming from someone my age (I am 14 and a freshman at a small-town high school), but our country doesn't want to face the fact that these young people have doomed themselves, and apparently neither do you.
The past 35 years? How old are you? Does this mean you were young enough to be affected by all this "media propaganda"? Have you blown anybody away in your lifetime???
No? Hm.
Rather than try to (foolishly) blame TV, music, and video games, why not try blaming
Last week, a girl in my class took a joyride in an older friend's car with no license and no experience. At 11:00 pm one night, the car she was driving hit a 41-year-old man with a wife and six children. He died instantly. This girl whom I have known since kindergarten has no one to blame but herself.
In addition, I'm an outcast, and do you see me shooting 12 people and then killing myself? No. I've made an informed, intelligent decision not to screw around with firearms.
I am the voice no one wants to listen to, but these are the facts. If we are all exposed to violence in the media, why aren't we all dead???
Each of us chooses our own path, and the outcome that results is our responsibility.
Lena
Not to rain on the parade, but there is little doubt in the mind of many behaviorists that the explosion (no pun intended) of media coverage of violence, and ever-increasing competition for the attention of consumers (TV, movies, video, e-games, etc.) using violent themes has resulted in a significant desensitization to violence, in particular pertaining to children.
It has been demonstrated in numerous studies, especially with children, that repeated exposure to violent behavior (actual or simulated) can make an individual less able to distinguish between the consequences of simulated (i.e. viewed or played) violence and the consequences of violence in reality.
The first report I read about this linkage was back in the late '60s, (studying children's behavior before and after being exposed to a graphic boxing film) but undoubtedly there have similar publications on the subject before that.
We see repercussions of this evidence almost daily in statistics about perpetrators of domestic violence having been exposed to such violence on a routine basis as children much more frequently than would be expected by chance.
Is Doom to blame? Indirectly, yes. Doom is merely a part of a massive media wave that washes over children. It implies to them that, after a night of murders, mayhems, bombs on TV, video, e-games etc. the sun will rise the next day and the world will be about the same as it was the night before.
Our perception of reality develops as we age. It is well understood that children's understanding of spatial relationships, actions and consequences (what we call reality) evolves as they grow.
Now, does this condemn Doom or Doom players? Of course not. But it should be made clear that many children are unable to sufficiently distinguish between the graphic violence onscreen (and its negligible consequences in the real world) and graphic violence in reality.
The key word is sufficiently. Many children are grounded enough to understand, despite repeated exposures to violence in the media, the experiential consequences of actual violence (death, injury, etc.). But without sufficient guidance, at least some children are not.
This accounts for the surreal descriptions of many of the recent school killers: they looked calm, and/or dazed, etc. In fact, they are unwilling, or unable, to realize that the consequences of their actions substantively differ from the consequences of the actions they see onscreen. Quite often this sinks in later, after arraignment or during trial, when the accused fully understands the consequences of his actions. But during the carnage, reality is not there.
What can be done? As long as graphic violence sells, about all we can depend on is the abilities of parents, teachers, significant adults to:
Society must convey this to our children. Judging from some of the sotto-voce remarks I hear in the stands of my son's little league games, we've got a long way to go.
--REMOVE THE NOSPAM--
jwalteriiNOSPAM@aol.com
I've been thinking about this alot recently and have come to some personal observations and conclusions. If you discount the mentally disturbed and look only at those individuals who seemed to be normal, here are my thoughts.
In order to do something as horrific as Littleton, or any of the other similar events you must:
1) Have no (or an altered) concept of right and wrong
2) Have no respect for human life
The largest factor in creating someone who possesses those two qualities is environment. What positive or negative role models did you have growing up? Did your parents or others abuse you mentally, verbally, or physically? What kind of self image do you have? What sort of peer pressure influences are exerted?
Even if the worst possible combination of these factors are combined, though you may produce a person capable of serious crime, you still have only a one in a million chance of producing a person capable of mass murder. It's a whole different league.
The next thing you'll need is a trigger. Something has to happen that will make the person have no care whether he lives or dies. As they see it there life is over anyway.
Only when you've gotten this far can the media, movies, books, the Internet, and games can have an influence. You've gotten to the point where you going to do something and everybody is going to pay, what you're going to do going to based on what you've seen or perceived. What is simply a form of harmless escapism to most people, coalesces into a plan to act out.
Of the very few who get to this point, most will chicken out or simply realize that this is wrong. The remaining will need access to the means to act out their plan.
Personally, I cannot even think of what it would take to get even started along this road. I am sure that movies, books, the internet, and games cannot cause this.
When I was in high school over a decade ago, I went to school whose demographics were very much like Littleton. I wore a trench coat to school (army green and I left it in my locker), I played games like schoolyard slaughter and their ilk on my old Atari. I even participated in BB Gun Wars with a group of friends, and occasionally went with them to shooting ranges to use the real thing. I was a WaReZ dOOd who war-dialed MCI and Sprint access number so I could get access to pirate BBSs, and guess what, most of those BBS had detailed step-by-step plans how to make everything from homemade poisons, to pipe bombs, to atomic bombs. I even read alot of them. I saw a lot of gruesome movies including Faces of Death. I listened to the proto-goth music of Bauhaus, Joy Division, and The Cure (and still do). High school wasn't fun, but I survived. Hell, I had a math teacher who I hated so much as to draw a new picture of him dying some horrific way each day in class, but I never imagined or even considered acting those things out. Of course, I wasn't a nazi or a racist; I wasn't a jock or a nerd; I also had a somewhat supportive family.
Everyone wants answers as to why this happened and it is a hell of a lot easier to find out what someone watched or listened to than it is to identify and determine the environmental effects that shaped a person. The media knows this is bogus and that's why whenever something like this happens the media does three sets of stories:
1) What happed and what did the perpetrator wear, eat, watch, listen to. All media related aspects are then played-up.
2) What was our effect? How did our coverage affect everyday people.
3) We went to far. The media will then criticize the behavior of "the media" in general. Even though every news outlet lead with the story and all the network anchors flew out to CO, it isn't them, its "the Media" which has over-dramatized the situation, and used it to pat themselves on back.
We should hit phase three later today or tomorrow.
---
This AC. Dammit, you know who this is.
uhm, A.C., oh! Anonymous Coward?
Damn straight.
Whenever a tragic event of this sort occurs, you always read headlines in the paper such as, "if it could happen here, it oculd happen anywhere."
./ authors have said this, they received replies, such as, "In your country where the citizens weren't armed, dictators took over.", or, "then the U.S. had to save your ass when you got in trouble." I believe this answer comes from reading N.R.A. pamplets and is not original thinking. When the U.S. has protected citizens of such countries, it was the technically superior U.S. military that did the work not the armed citizenry.
Yet, has anyone noticed that these events do not happen everywhere, and in fact happen only in the U.S.
I believe this is so, because of the simple fact that guns are readily available to people in the U.S.
When previous
Furthermore, in South America, and Yuguslavia, the people being attacked actually do have guns, but they are being attacked by superior militaries.
Yet in some ways I understand the people in the United States. It is easy for Western Europeans countries that don't have the crime and guns problems of the U.S. to point fingers. You can have gun control in these countries because of the history, but in the U.S., if you suddenly changed the law one day, it wouldn't do anything about all the guns already out there.
Still I have to wonder if the arguments about protecting yourself, are also false, my argument being statistics and not emotional arguments. It seems the exception, not the rule that guns are used in self defense. It seems many people are killed when a child gets a hold of gun and uses it like a toy, or an angry husband or wife shoots without thinking, and of course gangs and crime. As much as you might feel that your gun is protecting you (and I can understand why someone would feel that way) the numbers plainly show that in countries where guns are available, people die from gun crime and gun accidents.
So back to the topic on hand, which is why things like movies and the Internet are blamed. Since I plainly believe that the problem is the availablity of guns, I have a simple explanation for why the Internet receives the blame. People who believe in the right to bare arms simply cannot accept the fact that easy gun availablity might be to blame and will look at every possible scape goat they can come up with rather than admit to guns being the problem.
Armed citizenries made sense in the days of muskets and British Kings, but are a tragic anacronism in the days of modern militaries, and simply result in innocent people getting killed.
Once again, this phenomena of students going on rampages in schools, has only occured in the U.S.
First, since my comments could easily be misinterpreted, let me cover my ass: What they did was wrong.
Folks, how many high school students, (and even those younger), commit suicide in this country every year? How many teens take their own lives because they are picked-on, or social outcasts?
From my own experience, high school was the most
lonely period of my life. Most social interaction was in the form of being bullied. I survived, obviously.
Look at how the media have portrayed the problem:
"Social outcasts snap, and kill other students."
Would the media have jumped on the story if it went something more like this:
"Social outcasts snap, and kill themselves."
They wouldn't. How do I know? Because it happens every day, and when's the last time you saw yet another teen suicide on the cover of a national newspaper, or on CNN?
Teachers and administrators are afraid to punish the bullys, they could get sued for suspending them. Writing up a referal (the method used in my old High School) is ineffective (why should the bully care if he gets one more. He's already got 2 dozen).
What's the propose solution? The media, school administrators, and even the president, are suggesting identifying troubled teens and sending them to counsuling. Are you kidding me!? Take social outcasts, and bullied students, and try to
find out what THIER PROBLEM IS!?! How about diciplining bullies. How about encouraging students to be different and rewarding creativity?
You can't solve a problem until you identfy the cause.
A snippet from:
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/guns/aiming.html
Myth No. 1: Guns cause crime. A review of the academic literature shows
that there is no relationship between the number of guns and the amount of
crime in the United States. Criminologists Gary Kleck and E. Britt
Patterson reported in 1993 their finding that gun ownership had no
significant effect on the rates of murder, assault, robbery, or rape in
the U.S. Between 1973 and 1992, the rate of gun ownership in the U.S.
increased by 45 percent (from 610 guns per 1,000 people to 887). The
homicide rate during that period fell by nearly 10 percent (from 9.4
homicides per 100,000 people to 8.5).
Myth No. 2: Gun control laws reduce crime. Firearms have been regulated
with increasing stringency in the United States for most of the past
thirty years. Nevertheless, the number of firearms in private hands has
increased continuously by many millions per year; handguns have become an
increasing proportion of privately owned firearms; and rates of crime,
violent crime, and homicide have shown no relationship to the passage or
enforcement of gun laws. In their 1993 research, Kleck and Patterson
analyze the impact of 19 gun control measures on six categories of
violence. In ninety of the resulting 102 relationships, they found no
significant correlation between gun laws and violence.
Myth No. 3: Gun control laws stop friends from killing friends. Most
murderers and most victims of homicide have criminal records. They are
likely to have other criminals as friends and acquaintances. So while it
is true that in many cases of homicide the offender and victim are known
to each other, it is not true that these "friends killing friends" are the
plain ordinary folks often portrayed in anti-gun propaganda. "It is not a
slander on the few truly innocent and highly sensationalized victims,"
writes Dr. Edgar A. Suter and his colleagues, "to note that the
overwhelming predominance of homicide victims' are as predatory and
socially aberrant as the perpetrators of homicide." Indeed, according to
City of Chicago data, the largest and fastest-growing category of
relationship between killer and victim is "non-relative, non-friend
acquaintance."
Myth No. 4: Gun control laws keep criminals from obtaining guns. In
surveys of prisoners, a majority report that they had owned a handgun
prior to their imprisonment. But only 7 percent of criminals' handguns are
obtained from legitimate retail sources. Three-fourths of felons surveyed
report they would have no trouble obtaining a gun when they were released,
despite legal prohibitions against firearms ownership by convicted felons.
Myth No. 5: Required waiting periods would prevent some of the most
vicious crimes. The Brady waiting period law imposes waiting periods on
handguns--the least-deadly type of firearm--while imposing no such
restriction on much more deadly, substitutable weapons such as rifles or
shotguns. While handguns are preferred by criminals because of their
portability and concealability, not every criminal who planned to use a
handgun will abandon his criminal plans when confronted by a waiting
period. Indeed, for reasons discussed in more detail below (see "Why
Waiting Periods Fail"), it is entirely possible that waiting period laws
could increase the number of both killings and nondeadly woundings.
Myth No. 6: Guns don't work as self-protection against criminals. In fact,
guns are about as valuable to civilians as they are to police officers,
and for the same reason. According to criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc
Gertz, every year adults use guns for protective purposes 2.5 million
times. As many as 65 lives are protected by guns for every life lost to a
gun. Each year, potential victims kill between 2,000 and 3,000 criminals;
they wound an additional 9,000 to 17,000. Moreover, mishaps are rare.
Private citizens mistakenly kill innocent people only thirty times a year,
compared with about 330 mistaken killings by police. Criminals succeed in
taking a gun away from an armed victim less than 1 percent of the time.
The real utility of defensive firearms, moreover, must surely be far
greater, and would be measured not by how many people were shot or even
how often a gun was fired, but rather by the deterrent effects of a
civilian being armed.
Myth No. 7: Guns aren't needed as self-protection. About 83 percent of the
population will be victims of violent crime at some point in their lives,
and in any given year serious crime touches 25 percent of all households.
The odds are not likely to improve; there is only one police officer on
patrol for every 3,300 people. And the courts repeatedly have ruled that
government has at most a limited duty to protect individual citizens from
crime. An illustrative case is Warren v. District of Columbia, in which
three rape victims sued the city under the following facts: Two of the
victims were upstairs when they heard the other being attacked by men who
had broken in downstairs. From an upstairs telephone, the two roommates
made several calls to the police. Half an hour passed and their roommate's
screams ceased; they assumed the police must have arrived. In fact,
however, their calls had been lost in the shuffle while the roommate was
being beaten into silent acquiescence. When her roommates went downstairs
to see to her, as the court's opinion describes it, "For the next fourteen
hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit
sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands" of
their attackers.
Having set out these facts, the District of Columbia's highest court
nevertheless exonerated the District and its police, noting that it is a
fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are
under no general duty to provide public services, such as police
protection, to any individual citizen.
Myth No. 8: Gun control laws are especially needed to prevent the purchase
of Saturday Night Specials and "assault weapons." Inexpensive handguns are
involved in only 1 to 3 percent of violent crimes; criminals generally
prefer larger caliber and more expensive handguns. Moreover, in the past
fifty years no civilian has ever used a legally owned machine gun in a
violent crime. And despite their repeated use by drug dealers on
television and movies, no Uzi has ever been used to kill a police officer
in the United States. Even some gun control advocates concede that
so-called assault weapons play a minor role in violent crime. In 1991,
1992, and 1993 combined, there were more than 2,500 criminal homicides in
the City of Chicago--only three of which were perpetrated with a true,
military-style, "assault weapon."
Myth No. 9: Gun control laws are especially needed to prevent gun
accidents in the home. "Gun-control advocates have sought to create the
impression that firearm accidents involving children are a large and
growing problem," writes the Independence Institute's David Kopel. "Many
people mistakenly conclude that children die frequently in gun accidents
and that sharp restrictions on gun ownership are necessary to address the
problem." In fact, however, the number of gun accidents involving both
children and adults has fallen dramatically.
In 1970, 2,406 Americans died from firearms accidents. By 1991, that
number had fallen to 1,441--even as the number of guns increased
dramatically. Between 1970 and 1991, the annual rate of fatal gun
accidents was cut in half, from 1.2 to 0.6 per 100,000 Americans. The
death rate from firearms accidents is lower than that from accidental
drowning (1.6 per 100,000 in 1991), inhalation and ingestion of foreign
objects (1.3), and complications from medical procedures (1.0).
Myth No. 10: Gun ownership is not a constitutional right. The Second
Amendment reflects the founders' belief that an armed citizenry (called
the general militia ) was a necessary precaution against tyranny by our
own government and its army. The idea that government has a constitutional
right to disarm the general citizenry is totally foreign to the intent of
the Constitutional framers. Samuel Adams, for example, expressed in the
Massachusetts convention his intention that "the said Constitution be
never construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are
peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." David Kopel summarizes
the legal scholarship on this issue:
In the field of legal scholarship, the primary question has been
answered: the Second Amendment was plainly intended to guarantee a right
of individuals to possess arms. The essential purpose of this guarantee
was not to protect sporting uses of guns, but to facilitate resistance to
criminal governments, which were seen as simply a larger case of
resistance to individual criminals.
Please explain precisely (with data to back up your wild conjectures) what is biased in the previous arguments?
DOES BANNING GUNS REDUCE VIOLENCE: CROSS-NATIONAL COMPARISONS
Advocates of gun prohibition point to the far lower violence
rates prevailing in some countries where the laws discourage gun
ownership. But closer examination reveals that, despite disparate
gun policies, almost identical violence rates prevail alike in:
a) England and Japan which discourage guns; b) Australia and
Canada which have widespread sport gun ownership; and c) Israel
and Switzerland which promote and even require it. [1] Moreover,
if anti-gun laws explain Japan's low murder rate, why is the rate
in Taiwan (where illegal gun possession can bring the death
penalty) higher than the U.S.; and why is the South African (non-
political) murder rate twice that of the U.S. despite the world's
most harshly enforced anti-gun laws? [4]
International comparisons are interesting, but seductive for
they are most likely to "prove" to the reader the preconceptions
with which he approaches them. Thus 19th Century comparisons of
U.S. to English homicide were used to prove not the efficacy of
gun laws but of capital punishment.> Such comparisons could not
have been made by 19th Century gun control advocates because: a)
English violence fell precipitously during that Century though
England had no gun controls at all (excepting that the police
were to be unarmed); while b) this was the period of the great
increase in American violence -- which occured in states which
were unsuccessfully pioneering the gun controls we now associate
with Europe. In fact European crime rates were low (and falling)
from at least the mid-19th Century, yet gun laws came in only
after World War I, aimed not at crime but at the political unrest
of that tumultuous era. [4]
Ridiculing comparisons of the U.S. to England, the latter's
premier gun control analyst, Colin Greenwood, asks: As the U.S.
so greatly exceeds England not just in rates of gun crime but in
crime with knives, may we assume that butcher knives are illegal
in England? And if more guns explain the much higher U.S. gun
crime rates, what explains the much higher rates of unarmed
Americans robbing or beating each other to death: do Americans
"have more hands and feet than" Britons? [5]
Claiming that in any society the number of guns always
suffices to arm the few who want to obtain and use them
illegally, Greenwood feels the issue is simply one of the
relative size of that group: Why is it that perhaps 1 in 300
Americans is inclined toward violent crime while the comparable
figure for Japanese and Europeans (including the well-armed
Swiss) may be 1 in 30,000? He attributes American crime "not to
the availability of any particular class of weapon" but to socio-
economic and cultural factors which dictate
that American criminals are more willing to use extreme
violence[;quoting a report of the British Office of Health
Economics:] "One reason often given for the high numbers of murders and manslaughters in the United States is the easy
availability of firearms... But the strong correlation with
racial and linked socioeconomic factors suggests that the
underlying determinants of the homicide rate relate to
particular cultural factors." [5]
PRIMARY FOOTNOTES
1. U.S. laws allow (but do not encourage) home possession of
civilian-type arms and strongly discourage gun carrying. Contrast
both Switzerland, where every military age male's home must have
a military rifle or a handgun (for reserve officers) and Israel,
where public policy encourages such guns being carried in cars
and on the streets. In 1984 three terrorists armed with automatic
weapons who tried to attack a crowded Jerusalem cafe were shot
down by handgun-carrying Israeli civilians. THE ECONOMIST, Ap. 7,
1984, p. 34.
See generally Kates, "Handgun Prohibition and the Original
Meaning of the Second Amendment", 82 MICH. L. REV. 204 (1983) at
n. 193 and 264ff.; and "Swiss Army: A Privilege of Citizenship"
and "Order by Israel Puts Even More Guns on the Street", LOS
ANGELES TIMES p. 1, Oct. 1, 1980 and July 5, 1978 respectively.
It should be noted that the formal texts of Swiss and Israeli gun
control laws do not differ greatly from those in force in much
more restrictive jurisdictions. In general it is not the laws
themselves, but their administration and the spirit animating it
that produces such profound differences. Thus under the laws in
force in New York City, England, Switzerland and Israel alike a
permit is required to own a handgun. But: permit issuance for the
purpose of personal defense is routine in Switzerland and Israel,
administratively discouraged by New York City and non-existent in
England.
Equally significant are differences in policy re civilian
possession of automatic weapons. Either an ordinary rifle or an
assault rifle or other fully automatic weapon requires a permit
in England; since 1934 possession of a fully automatic weapon in
the United 5tates has required registration and been subject to a
prohibitive tax and as of 1986 purchasing new assault rifles or
other fully automatic weapons is totally forbidden in the United
States. But in Switzerland and Israel the government distributes
hundreds of thousands of automatic weapons. I was once asked by a
puzzled Israeli why Americans are so fixated on personally owning
guns: "if they have to live or be in dangerous areas why don't
they just check a handgun or submachine gun out of the police
armory?" It was simply incomprehensible to him that American law
would seek to prevent average citizens threatened by violence
from arming in their own defense.
2. B. Bruce-Briggs, "The Great American Gun War" Fall, 1976
The Public Interest.
3. Originally published as J. Wright, P. Rossi and K. Daly,
Weapons, Crime and Violence in America (Washington, D.C., Gov't.
Printing Office: 1981). Unless otherwise specified, references
herein are to the commercially published version, J. Wright, P.
Rossi and K. Daly, Under the Gun: WeaponS, Crime and Violence in
America (N.Y., Aldine: 1983).
4. See generally T. Gurr, "Historical Trends in Violent
Crime: A Critical Review of the Evidence," in Annual Review ofCrime and Justice III (Chicago: U. of Chicago, 1981), C.
Greenwood, Firearms Control: A Study of Armed Crime and Firearms
Control in Enqland and Wales at 1-3 and Chs. 1-3 (London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1971), L. Kennett and J. L. Anderson,
The Gun in America (Westport, Ct.: Greenwood, 1976) p. 213, NIJ
Evaluation Note 3 above at 125, D. Kates (ed.) Firearms and
Violence: IssueS of Public Policy (Cambridge, Ma.: Ballinger:
1984) 5-6.
5. C. Greenwood "Comparative Cross-Cultural statistics" in
D. Kates (ed.) Restricting Handguns (Croton-on=Hudson, N.Y.:
North River press, 1979) 37
It still, somehow, amazes me that all the 'pundits' (oy) come up every imaginable wrong answer there is. I should know better by now.
They encourage the 'good sport' and 'sportsmanship' which is the greatest load of crap to ever be foisted on folks. The jock-gang and their ilk do what for any better term I'll call charging the capacitor of hate. Were theses kids filled with hate? Yep. But they didn't get it from the media, at least not enough to be the main cause. The people right around them dumped the hate in by the bucketfull. (Yes, I've been there and I *do* know WTF I speak of, tyvm) The charge keeps building... and people now wonder why a spark jumped the gap? Clueless.
This is a very unpopular view, I'm sure. I can hear the replies of "You're blaming the victims!"
No, I'm recognizing what happened. Was it right?
Certainly not. Was it understandable? Very.
What happened was simple - two people were driven to the point where they felt they no longer had anything to lose and the spark jumped the gap, the hate that was built up, put there by the 'good sports', discharged.
Folks will keep asking 'why?' and keep coming with wrong but comfortable answers and keep failing to realize that more than two of the wounds were self-inflicted, just not as obviously directly as the two always said.
I spent 11 years as a professional military officer, and while I was so employed I was constantly researching and studying my trade.
One of the books I picked up was called "On Killing", written by a Army Colonel with a PHd in Phsch, an absolutely facinating study into what it meant, on a personal level, to kill someone.
One of the subjects in the book was on the training of soldiers to kill. Humans have a powerful, innate aversion to killing people and getting people to overcome this aversion is very difficult. It's also the prime purpose of any Army training cadre.
In WWII, a study showed that a very small percentage of soldiers in a given battle actually fired their weapons, and an even smaller percentage of those soldiers fired aimed shots.
One of the changes made was to replace the standard Army "bullseye" rifle practice target with a man-shaped target. Thus conditioned to shoot at man -shapes (rifle engagements take place between 400 and 100 metres, so you can't make out faces etc.) the percentage of men who shot went up dramatically - by Vietnam, most men were actually firing aimed shots.
An interesting side note is that cases of post-tramatic stress syndrome increased at the same rate - those who would not normally have killed were now killing - and suffering the consequences after the fact.
Now I certainly don't think that DOOM or Quake turned these kids into monsters, but it is entirely possible that the game helped to desensitise and condition them to be able to overcome the natural aversion to killing. DOOM didn't get them to bring all those guns and ammo to school, but once the shooting started DOOM _may_ have helped keep it going.
Incidently, on the gun control issue, there's no issue that tears me (as a retired military professional) harder in two directions. On the one hand, I have lived around high-power firearms for most of my life, I have been in possible-live-shoot situations before, and I know when to shoot, and when not to. I trust myself with a firearm, because I'm highly trained, and I know that I won't use one except in the direst of situations. I would like to be able to carry a gun. Not some monster cannon, just a standard frame 9mm loaded with a "safty round" like a Glaser that does not shoot through people and is frangible (so no ricohets). Ammo capacity is not an issue - if I need more than 3 rounds, there's bigger trouble afoot than I should be involved in.
However, I DON'T trust Joe Public. I have no assurances that anyone holding a gun really understands what it is he's holding. Cops do, soldiers do, but I don't think guys like ESR do - and that scares me.
I'm not sure which is worse - people like me without a gun, or people not like me with one.
DG
--
--
Just lurking, thanks!
Asking to government to ban this, that, or the other thing to prevent these acts of voilence won't solve the REAL problem: unbalanced kids with no parents or positive role models in their lives. Banning the guns might help, but there's still 1001 potential murder weapons in every kitchen in America. If children aren't raised to respect life, separate FICTION and ENTERTAINMENT from REALITY, and obey the laws of the land in which they live, the problem will never totally disappear, only keep changing shape. The only way kids will learn to do these things is if parents teach them to. The government just doesn't have the reach/power/ability/right to teach morals and such - it's got to start in the home.
If parents would raise their children right, teach them the difference between "real life" and "lets pretend", take them to church, and be role models instead of babysitters, we'd all be much better off. It's easy - if you don't want your children looking at porn, teach them it's wrong and disrespectful to women. If you don't want them building bombs, teach them life is to be respected. If you want them to grow up to be mature responsible adults, TEACH THEM. Don't ask the government to do it, or the school system, or anyone else. Parents should be the biggest influence in a child's life. End of story.
--
--
Just lurking, thanks!
Let's face it, we have such a long-standing
legacy of violence in this country.
When my dad was a kid, violence was sparked
by 'adventure radio shows' like The Shadow.
When I was growing up, it was television in
general. Later, it was Rock and Roll, then
Heavy Metal, followed by Dungeons and Dragons
(or maybe it was D&D followed by metal).
Now, we obviously can't handle our internet
(gasp!).
It's a sad, sad world when the media just do a
quick 'latest big thing' story, blaming all
the ills of society on whatever seems to have
taken the fancy of our youth. I say that media
sensationalism is the root cause of all of the
violence (grin).
Mark
-----------------------------------
Proof of sanity forged upon request
I think this thing with parents sueing game makers, etc. is a result of the parents unable to face flaws or shortcomings in the way their children were raised, so they look for the simplest excuse to blame. Games are being used as a scapegoat for a much larger problem, and that is the problem with the upbringing of children in America. You see, what these parents are advocting is th shelter children from the raw nature of real life. Those people responsible for the upbringing fo a child feel that every little thing will influence children this way oe that way. Problem is, that's not the way it works. Children are not machines as adults seem to precieve them as. They have the their own perception of reality. and they have their own abilities to proccess information. Parents, etc. have treated kids for so long in a sheltering manner that many of them raise their kids to be extremely receptive to persuasion because they do not try to nurture their critical thinking skills as they grow up. The problem isn't the voilence in games or on telivision. It's that kids haven't been prepared to deal with it. Look at all of the billboards and ads you see now days that say things like "A lot of people are talking to your kids about sex, shouldn't you be one of them.", You see these things because after years of blaming the media, etc. for promiscuity amongst kids, people realised that some kids were doing it and others weren't. This led them to realise that it's the way the kids are taught to deal with things, not the fact they they are exposed to it. This is the solution to so many problems chilren have these days, effective upbringing, parents can't expect the television or the computer to raise their childern, or protect them. As I child, I often got picked on by the more "socially elite", and often I was angry and saddened by it; And I easilly could have brought a gun to school and killed a bunch of people, probably even thought about it from time to time on an impulse. But, I could never have done it, because I couldn't cope with the thought of committing such violence against others, because it was wrong. It's a classic question that has been around for ages. There is a fine line between sheltering and nurturing your child, and many parents can't tell the difference. People might not think it could be so simple of a solution (and it's not easy to do), but it really is. Why do some kids on the net grow up to be script kiddies with seemingly no moral value, and why do others grow up to be brilliant programmers and leaders?
Upbringing, it's all in the upbringing.
whee -Me
+Secondly, the death penalty doesn't work, has never worked, and will never work.
You think? The last I checked, the repeat offense level for people who are put to death is Zero.
The last time I checked, inherent in the execution of the penalty, is the creation of a new murderer (the executioner).
If the state itself is a murderer, placing the stain of the blood of it's victims on the hands of all of it's citizens through our implicit approval, are we not all is some small way, guilty of murder?
Even if you spread the blood around, it does not decrease the amount.
Every time some kid kills somebody (be it his parents, his girlfriend, his classmates, whoever), and it makes it into the media, they always blame it on that kids recreational activities (music, movies, tv, internet, games(doom, dungeons and dragons)). Granted its very possible that there is some kid that has never thought about going and killing person/people. And its also possible that listening to some lyric, or watching some movie, playing some game, gives them that idea. But what the media never says is that something has to be fundamentally wrong to actually entertain the idea for more than a second. Nobody mentions the m(b)illions of people that watch/read/listen to/use all the same resources that this fucked up little kid does, but never have this problem.
end rant.
Right-o, and while we're at it, we should ban pipe bombs. Oops, they're already illegal. The prisons can't keep prisoners from smuggling or building guns, what makes you think "gun control" can actually have any positive effect?
Our state has had concealed carry permits for several years now. There have been no shoot outs in the streets, no crimes committed by concealed carry permit holders.
slashdot broke my sig
Geeks: "Oh we're just an outcast minority that the media likes to pick on!!!"
Goths: "Oh we're just an outcast minority that the media likes to pick on!!!"
Gun Owners: "Oh we're just an outcast minority that the media likes to pick on!!!"
whatever. who fucking cares how you are portrayed in the media anyway? The great part is, none of those groups are outcasts or minorities, but they all think they are. Everyone wants to join an outcast minority clique.
Makes me long for the 80's when everyone wanted to be "cool" and there was a set standard for what cool was.
heh, just kidding that last part was dumb.
I mostly agree with you, but I'd go even further to say that there's definitely something else (and more important) wrong even given the availability of guns. I think if you want to really 'fix' the problem of teenagers shooting up lots of people, it's worth the effort to get at the root cause of the problem--which I don't think is the availability of guns. There's something very wrong psychologically with a person who does this, and it goes deeper than simply being able to acquire weaponry. If it were more difficult to get guns, these types of incident would most likely occur less often, but that doesn't address the (more important, IMO) problem that there seems to be an unusual excess of people who like to do these things. I'm not saying it's an easy 'problem' to 'solve,' but I think it's certainly worth looking at.
Possibly, but you can probably get the same stuff (only more accurate) at your local library.
I tend to agree with you on everything except point 3. It's not that I'm against the death penalty, but when you bring up 'genetic inferiority' I become a bit angry.
We should punish people for doing wrong, but we shouldn't just kill them on a basis that they may not be as 'pure bred' as a normal person.
---------------
---------------
Do not discount the fact that you have free will.
I, personally, don't see why anyone at the school would need a gun to take on the shooters.
Just about any item in the world can be turned into a weapon. The only real problem is being afraid to die.
---------------
---------------
Do not discount the fact that you have free will.
This is being blamed on every fear-of-the-"new"-and/or-"different" target known: geeks, the Internet, Dungeons&Dragons, goth, etc., etc. ad nauseam. Anything that came into existence after the "reporter" fossilized is grounds for suspicion and a potential "cause" of every possible evil.
Sanity check: there's a quote from Socrates indicating that the Greeks believed the very same thing. Insularity and fear of change haven't changed at all; we're still cavemen afraid of the thunder, and for some strange reason we're *proud* of it.
(Keep in mind, however, that the media are a business; they're selling a product, and the best way to sell that product is to cause as much trouble as possible. I've ranted about that before; the media will manufacture riots, if necessary, to sell themselves. The danger is that they will indeed inflame that caveman fear and cause problems for us, whose only crime is not being 100% identical to those that are afraid.)
-- brandon s. allbery, sysadmin @ cmu electrical & computer engineering "Think, youth, THINK!"
Yes, I was one of those ridiculed at school and it only got worse as I got older. I am legally blind, which made me an easy target, but worse than that I was the one with the 95% test scores and decent grades, even though most everyone knew I seldom bothered with homework.. I was pushed down flights of stairs. I had the sunglasses I MUST wear if I go outside destroyed on a number of occasions. I've come home with bruises, cuts, scrapes, and torn clothing. I've had books stolen from outside of my book bag. I've had threatening notes and worse show up in my locker. I had the laptop lent to me for schoolwork "moved" (read: stolen and hidden away such that a teacher and I spent two hours looking for it) And I had computers and violent games then. You know what, I never shot or stabbed anyone, but I almost have to say that I can see what these kids are going through---I've been there. Of course that doesn't excuse what they do about it---not for a second! There is something seriously wrong with these kids and they need either to be in a mental ward or in prison for what they've done.
Now I promised a possible solution, so here it is: Home schooling. I'm serious. People tell me all the time that it's hard to teach their kids at home, but it's not really. They also tell me that kids need to be around other kids---to that I ask do they REALLY? And besides, supervised Internet access for children is a great way for them to interact with other kids in their area. The Internet also provides a place for kids and their parents to go for help when they need it. Many parents who homeschool their kids now will agree that the Interent definitely makes it easier and does allow the kids to interact with others, usually with better results than any interaction in school.
Not to mention that this way you don't have to eat school cafeteria food. And that lunch hour is supposedly your interactivity time at school anyway past the 6th grade. And your kids will learn at their pace, rather than the pace of the entire class. This invariably leads to the ability to learn more. It also leads to less busy-work, which at least 2/3 of the homework schools give kids is anyway. And you take away the need to compete to be the best student in the class or to lash out at those who did better on the homework or the last test than you did. All in all it's a better environment for learning.
It is harder for a family with two working parents or a single parent, but believe it or not I have seen a group of people in an area work together in cases like this.. It ends up being a small classroom in those cases, but the students are usually different ages and at different levels so it does still help to solve the problem.
I cannot stress enough that the Internet does NOT replace a teacher anymore than a TV should replace a babysitter. It's merely a tool to be used and works best when used properly.
There are quite a few legitimate concerns raised about the pervasiveness of violence in American society, especially the media and entertainment industry. However, what people need to be able to do is to find a way to address the issues without resorting to lawsuits and legislative remedies, and without censorship.
Sure, you can go say Doom is evil, and causes people to kill each other. I disagree, since if only two people killed somebody after playing the game, in the eight-plus years it's been out, that's hardly any more of an influence to kill people than listening to Mozart is (several serial killers are Mozart fans). Nonetheless, even if you think it's evil, you cannot ban it. I personally like the game, and I do not kill people. My right to play a game I enjoy should not be infringed upon because somebody else cannot control their actions. The same goes for music, movies, etc. Hell, I listen to KMFDM and Marilyn Manson, play Doom, and use the Internet. Even with all these evil influences combined, I have still not killed anybody. I should be allowed to continue enjoying these forms of entertainment.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Well, the Matrix does have somewhat of a connection, as the main character in the movie enters the military facility dressed in a black trenchcoat that has weapons inside.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Well, one kid who did treat them decently (who wasn't a member of the group, but who nonetheless did not treat them like shit) was warned by one of the soon-to-be shooters ahead of time, so he left.
He's alive now. I suppose that's his reward for treating fellow humans decently.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Uh I think you just proved yourself wrong, in that making ungs harder to acquire does not solve such problems. The UK has among the strictest firearm laws in the world now and if that happens, I dont think prohibition of such weapons helps.
Posted by The Mongolian Barbecue:
Easy. Fire all current teachers and replace them with hardened criminals from our penal system. Arm them to the teeth, give them body armor, and legal impunity. This way we'll kill two birds with one stone- the next time a student tries to kill his friends he'll be rapidly disarmed, sodomized, and then murdered (and possibly eaten), and we won't have to spend billions of dollars on keeping convicts locked up. After all, inmates are one of our largest underutilized national resource.
As far as the "connection" between games like DOOM and violance, frankly it is quite obviously bullshit. For instance, I just finished playing3 hours of quake II, but you don't see me killing anyone do you! Instead I am here, holding a well reasoned discussion about this controversial topic.
Posted by The Mongolian Barbecue:
Did you even try to get an education or were you too busy at the shooting range? Obviously you have no idea of what brought Hitler to power. Hitler tried a violant revolution in 1922 (or thereabouts) based entirely on privately owned arms (actually he and his old army buddies from WWI started it). In the pre 1932 era he maintained a private militia of about 2 million men, the SA (which would morf into the SS a few years later).
Clearly you are an uneducated hypocrite. I would also not be surprised if you smelled bad.
Posted by MC BoB:
I believe the core issue is responsibility.
Most find it much easier to blame the Internet, The Media (whoever that is), Movies, Drugs, Trenchcoats, Guns, etc. Than to face the hard facts.
These kids did not just see a movie, listen to a song, hit a website and decide to kill a few people. They spent weeks planning how they were going to murder thier classmates. Where were there parents?
If your kid is walking around with painted nails and a beret with the iron cross, how could you possibly ignore it?
I'm not saying that automatically makes them a psyco, but certainly someone, a parent, counselor, pastor, or relative relized this kid needed some guidance.
How could you possibly construct 30 explosive devices without someone finding out or suspecting?
I'd like to see the parents placed on trial for not being responsible for thier children. And none of this "You can't control them" crap. When I was thier age, I posted on BBS's, Played Castle Wolfenstien (remember that one?) and knew how to make a pipe bomb, but you didn't see me killing a 15 classmates because I felt different.
These kids needed help, and thier parents should be held responsible. No gun law, metal detector, or tax credit is going to change the fact that 15 kids are dead due to irresponsibility.
Posted by MC BoB:
What?!?
Now it's the Police's Fault?
Wrong, The buck stops with the parents, period.
They decided to bring the kids into this world and are responsible for raising them.
It doesn't take a village, it takes responsible parents.
I do believe that someone at the school should have been trying to help them, how do we know they were not?
I can't blame a principal when the kids built 30 bombs in thier parents home. Where where the parents? How could you not know the kids had a problem?
Take responsibity for your actions and those around you, and quit blaming the Internet, Music, Guns and Media. If parents do their JOB, these other areas are of MUCH LESS concern.
I really think you should look at the facts, rather that relying on some half-baked idea of what you think reallity should be. According to statistics by law enforcement agencies, in every state that has concealed carry laws, violent crime has dropped *dramatically*. The number of incidents of people using concealed carry weapons illegally is almost nil.
No, I can't either. It would be a lot easier to use all of those pipe bombs they had. Why does no one propose banning pipe?
One common theme I've noticed in some of the responses is the acknowledgement that this isn't a simple (we're going BLAME this for their actions) answer or cause.
I grew up in a little "Historic District" town north of Seattle as a nerd in a pre-dominantly football/WWF/Monster truck loving town. I made explosives and homemade weapons with no intentions of using them on anything but inanimate objects (stumps, rocks and GI Joes). Like the majority of those posting to this forum, I like and play violent video games, watch violent movies... etc.
The factors that everyone has ignored is the social structure for kids growing up today. High school hasn't been about learning for f*cking years. IT was a social game when I went (90'- 92') and it's even more of one now. And sure mid-American home lifes can suck. Anything "could" be a factor but that's not going to be the solution. We have caste systems in society at all levels that are getting farther and farther apart (not to sound depressing). Naturally shit like this is going to happen.
It's not like an equation with one definitive answer and 'wholla' everything's solved.
How about Op Ivy's "Take Warning"?
Posted by Siozie:
The media is looking for firepower, anything they can get their hands on. The most blame I have seen placed, or rather misplaced, has been on the Gothic community. In nearly every single atricle I have read, there has been more than a passing mention that these kids Wore Black and Listened to KMFDM. Neo-Nazi Goths, as it were.
What it really comes down to is that the media will play up what is going to get them the most readers/viewers/listeners. In most cases. In others you will see some real information, and in rare cases it will be the refutation of the misinformation perpetuated by other sources.
"These kids had websites, and they sent email. Must be the work of the devil, yessir! They killed, that means anyone else using the Internet MUST be a psychotic black-clad loose cannon! Round 'em up!"
The reality is, this will likely NOT adversely affect either the Net or Goth communities as a whole. Except in its perpetuation of our own paranoia of getting persecuted. Yes, there will be some cases where individuals will feel the backlash of these lies and misinformation. However, I predict that it will not be on a grand scale, nor will it change the face of these communities as we know them.
Had these kids flaunted their Net and Gothic ties, both of which have yet to be proven on a more than passing acquaintance level, we might be in a different situation. That did not happen. So here we are, jumping at shadows, and some are forgetting to save a thought for the folks that are mired in the midst of this.
--
--
=8^
Your argumentation is totally irrational. You both claim that guns are evil, and that everyone should have the right to carry one. I think we both agree that a society without guns would be the best. Unfortunately, guns exist and there will always be criminals who carry guns. So what do we do? If we allow everyone to get a gun this mean it will be easier for criminals to get guns. So, common people will get guns out of fear for the armed criminals, which means more guns, and more fear. This leads to a very frightening spiral. The alternative is to make guns illegal. Criminals will still have guns, but it will be harder for them to get guns. Common citizens wont be able to defend themselves, so we'll need a well functioning and non-currupt police force to protect us.
I think a society with less guns is a more pleasant one to live in (I now live in Sweden where guns are very uncommon, but I've also lived in the US), and banning guns is the only way to get rid of guns. A society filled with armed citizens fearing each other is not a good foundation for a democracy.
Please alter my pants as fashion dictates.
...another massacre in a US school.
I'm not going to judge (I can't) especially as I live in Scotland where a "madman" walked into a school in Dunblane and killed 19 kids...but. What is going to change in the US? In the UK we looked at what had happened and didn't just sit there and say "isn't that bad" we collectively, as a nation, and said "Guns are bad...handguns are really bad - lets just ban them"
Yes. It was a knee-jerk reaction...but I think that it has probably done a lot to make things *potentially* safe here. You cannot ever legislate against psycopaths...but you can send a clear message that "violence is bad".
Given that... it's pretty easy to then disconnect fantasy games like Quake from reality. I hope.
True... It does reduce the likelyhood that McJoe public goes shooting people. You can't stop anyone who is determined...unless you know they are.
;)
What I found scary about Dunblane (and other similar events) was that many people knew the guy was a nutcase...but nobody did anything.
Look after your fellow man...that way they can't sneek up on you and stab you in the back
It's not the game's fault; it's not the gun's fault; it's not the Internet's fault; it's not society's fault. It's the kids' fault.
--
Get your fresh, hot kernels right here!
How many read the Wired article about people in the Marine Corps. modifying Doom for training purposes? I think they made a good case for the limited way in which it could be useful to them. If these guys in Littleton were really playing like this, they took the idea a little far, regardless of the ultimate real-life actions.
The sheep of America wouldn't try and stop someone attacking them with toe nail clippers.
The media has shown that its best to lie down and take it, then cry to mommmy because you were picked on. Take for example the New York Subway murders of last year. They laid there while he was reloading, I'm sure after all the violent movies they've seen, they could recognize that sound, and the sound of clip dropping to the floor. Instead of rising to stop, they laid there and waited for him to continue the executions.
To me and many people I know, its very obvious how over 1500 students can disarm two highly armed students with much less than 15 casualities. Maybe its due to military trainging (their part, not mine.) Maybe its due to most of us spending a major part of our lives in countries with terorists and you are shown how to handle terorists.
The 2 students attacking that school, were terrorists. Just more effective than most. They brought more terror to a nation than a hundred car bombs in Israel.
Mordac -- Littleton, Co (didn't go to Columbine High School, just the Library across the street)
I'm not sure how much humor was intended. But a couple of minors who cannot legally buy any guns. Walk into a school (gun free zone) with ILLEGAL guns (as in you can't go to the sporting goods section to pick one up) and pipe bombs (build them on your own.. get your plans on the net)
Lets see, while atleast the school felt safe enough not to have any security guards. Hey the teachers can't even have knife over 2 inches.
I don't own a gun, but after attending some classes I know how to use one. I feel safe with one (won't shoot my foot and stuff a hot barrel in my pants afterwards.)
I think I'm going to do a larger post elsewhere on just weapons bans and why people look at me funny carrying a claymoure (not the explosive type.) We have the right to defend ourselves, from theives, crooked cops, Clinton, etc... (LOL when thinking about defending myself Clinton... he has armed gaurds for his protection, hopefully he also has Trojans :)
Jimmy ;) I'm having fun with this.
:) But if I do go mad and do this, please blame it on the 1930's Flynn flicks... They made me do it, it wasn't me...
the Knee Jerk reaction will NEVER help. The weapons restrictions were already tight enough then in Scotland. You had to keep you gun at a gun club and couldn't take it out of the clb unless you were taking it to another (permits...)
So next year someone will come in and kill a dozen people with potato guns (a backpack full of them, each potato with spikes instead of eyes.)
Outlawing a weapon doesn't git rid of that weapon, it introduces another. If I can't get a blackmarket weapon (which most could, like the Scottish idiot did) then you use a weaker legal weapon.
I am a trained sword fighter (not wussy Olympic fencing.) I could go into a school with a homemade blade and kill ten people before they realize what is going on. I won't, I'm sane, I think....
Boy are you right. They were thinking of blackpowder pistols that only scratched someone and never ripped a hole through their body. Oh.. yes they did. Well they never though about weapons that can take at a whole room of people. Oh... yes they did, they wanted people to own cannons if they wanted (and many did).
BUT THEY EXPECTED YOU TO KNOW HOW TO USE ONE PROPERLY. Your prents raised you with a gun so you would only shoot the bad guys (which were my family, drat.)
Weapons have always been able to kill people, mass quanities of people. Just some require less strength to use (and less sanity.) In another 50 years when we start to vaporize people with modern weaponary, again we will fawn over the days of safer weapons that did less demage (oh a grenade, we have a nuke in the closet.)
Bravo to you. We have terrorists in America, our kids. With some real parenting, this may go away. Kosovo's terrorist is another culture that wants to cleanse them selves. Unfortunately TOO FEW people in KLA have access to weapons. They didn;t get them from the Serbs legally, they killed people to get the few guns they have. TO STOP THE KILLING OF THEIR FAMILY. If Canada ever invades the US, I will be ready and waiting while our government will be peacekeeping (in some other country of course.)
I say 5 days. First we sue the schools, then the parents, teachers, broadcasters. I already heard the comparison to "Basketball Diaries" again, so Leo will be personally sued for staring in that movie. We follow up with game companies, Al Gore (he invented the internet afterall), and heck the makers of the linoleum in the school (with out that, the murderers couldn't have walked around without getting dirty shoes.)
I'm glad to here that. So the gun control laws put in place in the 60's and 70's to combat California's high rates should just be kicking in now. Or did you mean several decades, California keeps adding more restrictions and violence keeps jumping further and further up with each one.
I am thankful there are states where we can still carry concelaed weapons, they have the lowest crime rates.
I don't carry a gun, I prefer to Draw and Quarter the criminals who come for me, they just never come.
You mean it isn't already easy to get guns? I can't think of anyplace on the planet where if you have the money you can get a gun and in countries where they are illegal it may be cheaper (no taxes, no permits, no wait.)
While we're at it lets get rid of the first ammendment. Our forefathers never saw how wide spread and evil communication could be, it must be stamped out before more people are educated.
We do that and the Internet fiasco is gone, no more bomb making, no more whining and complaing from out voters. But make sure to get rid of the third ammendment first, otherwise the voters could rebel and stop us.
I must second the approval of this rant. Most excellent.
For all of you ready to stop having children, go to the great website for Voluntary Human Extinction. Its the ultimate solution.
I don't laugh at this and I don't think you should either. My point is more on not letting them actually cause the terror they have brought to us. There are a lot of people afraid out there, and they shouldn't be. Instead they should learn how to stand up and fight.
You are not the type of person who would lay down and wait for a bullet to go into your head. We do we teach our children to do that. I personally would have voluntered to die to save just one child there. Get up and take a bullet for another, or two.
I know the areas you are talking about, most of them know about honor and teach there children not die cowering on the floor begging for their lives.
You pulling the quote out of context there is really good. I wish I could answer that, but all I can say is don't be afraid. There is no cure, but my family in Israel are not afraid of the much more common terrorists. us Americans should not fear our children, who are now OUR terrorists.
If you are still serving, I thank you for your continuing work. Otherwise, thank you, without you the world would be a worse place. I respect the military more than most non-military. I just don't respect the way we teach our children.
What would you teach your child to do in one of these instances?
Mine would not be taught to die crying, not to be a do first, think later hero (and most likely die as well.) My child should know how to take control of that situation and get people out if possible, or get the gun away if a viable alternative appears.
Which I might add, 200 hundred kids in a cafeteria who do not lie down and wait, but instead get up and run towards the shooter would have stopped him quite quickly. he may fire a few times, but not aiming a single shot, partly panicked, he would most likely shoot the ceiling above the children. If he is lucky, he might hit a few people, but most likely not fatally. Though yes, he might have excellent aim and kill a few, but this is not likely.
Unfortunately, we are trained to lie and die, not to fight. I am done here.
What I said is not perfect, and most likely not even close (everyone wants a perfect situation with no one hurt, you know thats impossible), but its what I say, and thats it.
Your right. It is a lot easier to say and do. Its just because we are raised to run. This isn't a simple solution. I know of only a hand few people who would follow, the rest wouldn't. BUT maybe if the world starts showing how you can help, people will start realizing how much a difference they can make.
First of all, a nuke is a bomb. Besides that, his point was that there is always a way to kill people. Guns are a quick and powerful way to kill someone, but bombs, knives, bats, gasoline, etc., will all get the job done. If you have read anything about the incident, then you would know that the kids made their own bombs. They didn't run down to the local BombMart and buy them. Maybe we should abolish chemistry classes. Ban all chemistry books as well. People shouldn't have access to information that could potentially be used to harm someone.
Gimme a break. Guns didn't cause the problem. The social environment and lack of decent parenting caused the problem. The people involved need to quit trying to blame anyone and everyone but themselves. I'm sure that's quite difficult for them to deal with, but if they want to live in their own delusional world, then they shouldn't begrudge the two killers for living in theirs.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
You can't use a TV to babysit kids and then expect them to grow into civilized human beings.
Bingo. You got this right. But why are you blaming the TV for not being a good parent? Isn't that the responsibility of the child's parents? The TV shows are there for entertainment and information. They are not there to raise children.
I was listening to NPR yesterday and they had a school district psychologist, the lawyer for the parents of the children who were killed in Kentucky, and another person (don't remember who she was) talking about the causes of the incident. I wanted to strangle all of them. It was some of the most irresponsible and irrational commentary I've ever heard. I was actually yelling back at the radio (yeah, I know, look who's talking about irrational commentary.. irony noted :).
The Kentucky lawyer went on and on about how the game manufacturers were irresponsible for putting out games with violent content and about how it taught kids the skills they needed to kill (such as ammo conservation). He said that a person's normal reaction would be to empty a gun into the target until it falls, but that the kids didn't do that because the games taught them to fire conservatively and take out as many targets as possible with as little ammo as possible.
Is this guy for real?? Has he ever played these games? You run around firing a rocket launcher most of the time! Not to mention the fact that this wasn't an instinctual thing that happened. The whole incident was premeditated. They were there to kill as many of the people who had tormented them, or that represented the groups that had tormented them, as they possibly could. They didn't empty a gun into someone because they didn't need to. They weren't fighting for their lives. They were going to die and they knew it. They were there to kill those who had bullied and harrassed and alienated them before they killed themselves. After reading some of the background of the group, they seem to be rather racist and not at all right in the head. I don't know whether that was caused by their alienation or was the reason for it. Either way, the kids weren't alright.
The lawyers and psychologists and pundits should all wake up to reality. DOOM didn't cause this. I don't think it even contributed to it in any significant way. Killing pixilated aliens hardly prepares you to kill someone that you've gone to school with for years. Aiming with a mouse hardly teaches you any gun skills. The fact is that they were shooting people at point blank range. They couldn't miss and it only takes one shot. If they really must blame someone for the tragedy, then let them put the blame where it belongs: on those who harrassed and alienated the teens and the parents who did not take responsibility for raising them with a sense of right and wrong and reality versus fantasy. Any other blame is misdirected.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Somewhere along the way, the perpetrators in Littleton stopped believing that murder is wrong and learned to see it as a viable solution to their problems.
I think you are confused here. They didn't see murder as a solution to their problem. Their solution to their problem was suicide. The murder was done as a kind of pre-avenging of their own immenent deaths. They were going to die and take as many of the people whom they hated with them as possible. Perhaps they thought they were doing some small deed to make the world a better place for others like themselves. Perhaps they did. I don't know and I'd rather not even go off in that direction. The point is that they didn't see things the way we see them. They weren't rational. You can't, as a rational person, make any sense out of what happened. It's a tragedy, but Quake and Doom are far from being the cause.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The "right of the people to keep and bear arms" was justified by the need for a "well regulated militia". In this day and age, with the technology available to us and the size of our "well regulated" armed forces, the 2nd amendment is hopelessly out of date.
Hmm.. where to start? First of all, I think it should be the right of any law-abiding citizen to own a gun for their own protection. They should obviously have a license for the weapon and receive proper training in its use.
Second, the old saying, "If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns" definitely rings true. Drugs are outlawed, but will that stop me from buying them if I really want to? It's not even difficult to buy them. Whether guns are legal or not, I know that those who want them will be able to get them. I'd just as soon keep them legal so that those of us who are not criminals will have some means of protection available to us. Maybe it's not much, but you can't really rely on the police to protect you. They get there later and put what's left of you into little baggies.
The problem is not the availability of weapons, but the desire of people to kill others for whatever reason. I can own a gun and never fire it for any reason other than practice. Does that make me a dangerous person? I don't think so. A dangerous person is dangerous whether they have a gun or not. If they want to kill someone, then they will most likely do it, gun or no. Would I stand any better chance against a burglar with a knife than one with a gun? Would it matter at all if he had a hunting rifle or an assault rifle? I'd be just as dead either way. If I had a gun of my own, then perhaps I would have some chance of saving myself. I think I should at least be given that chance at staying alive.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Wake up. Outlawing guns isn't going to solve anything. Liquor was outlawed. Did that prevent people from getting it? Nope. It just turned it into a lucrative business. Drugs are outlawed. Does that mean I can't get any within a mile of my house? Nope. It's also a lucrative business. I could buy drugs any time I want. What does that tell you about what will likely happen if guns are outlawed. Then only those people who want a gun in order to kill someone will be able to get a gun. The person who is the target will probably have no defense whatsoever. Sounds like a great way to live.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I don't think that the possibility of someone at the school being armed (security guards or whatever) would have made a difference in this case. They knew they were going to die, but they were angry too. They wanted to kill as many of the people who had caused them pain as they could. It was a sort of pre-avenging of their deaths. Perhaps someone would have shot them, but that wasn't a concern to them since they were going to kill themselves anyway. At least they could take a few people with them.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The idea of gun control may work in some countries. Unfortunately, banning just about anything in the US doesn't work very well unless that something is very expensive or hard to obtain in the first place. Guns are neither expensive nor hard to obtain. It will end up being just like the "war on drugs" that we've heard so much about, but that hasn't really changed the fact that I can buy just about any drug I want within a few miles of my home.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
An armed populace (and don't we already have one, anyway?) is no deterrent to a demented mind intent on violence.
I don't believe we really have an armed populace. Only a very very small percentage of the population is licensed to carry a concealed handgun. The risk to someone commiting a violent crime is pretty low.
Also, while I agree with you that someone with "a demented mind intent on violence" is not likely to be deterred by the possibility of people nearby carrying guns, I do think that it could keep that demented person from killing as many people as he might otherwise be able to do. If he shoots someone only to have someone else shoot him, then he won't be able to kill anyone else. Simple as that. Guns will always be available to those who want them, just as drugs are available to anyone who wants them. Does the demented person really care that they are outlawed?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
If he'd actually killed someone, then you would probably have a case. Then it would go to court and the jury would make the decision. Not all that complicated.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
This deserves to be moderated up even though the text is on another site. I think this is something that everyone here should go read.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
And contrary to popular slashdot opinion, bombarding children with the message that violence is acceptable, fun, and cool may just have a detrimental effect.
This is where parenting comes in. You are responsible for the children you bring into this world. It almost seems kinds sick that anyone is allowed to have a child and then turn that child loose on society with little or no parenting. Parents who let their kids watch whatever they want, as much as they want are not doing their job. I wonder how involved the parents of these kids were in their lives. I wonder how often they actually talked to their kids as they were growing up. I wonder alot of things about their lives. There was something very very wrong with them.
I don't think the media glorifies the act of walking into a building and killing a bunch of defenseless people. Yeah, there's alot of violence, but then the media doesn't depict everyday life. It depicts extraordinary (usually fictional) people in extraordinary (usually fictional) situations. With a little parenting, kids should be able to understand this. If they can't, then they have no business watching that sort of movie or whatever it is, and the parents should not let them. I think parents should be held responsible once in a while. If they aren't going to take the time to raise their children right, then they shouldn't have children in the first place.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
But please don't make these two out to be victims, They lost control of reality, They pulled the triggers, and they are to blame.
You're right about this. I didn't mean to absolve them of blame. They are most definitely the primary ones that are to blame for the tragedy. I see now that I didn't actually say that in my post. That was an oversight. I've said it in many other posts today though, so I guess I took it for granted.
I also wanted to point out that others were also partially to blame. The parents are the obvious candidates. The thing you seemed to take issue with was that I also laid some blame on the other students. I don't think that is wrong. If you continually beat on and pick on and harrass somebody, eventually they will snap and lash out. It just doesn't usually happen this way. Sometimes they simply commit suicide. Sometimes they lash out in a much more reserved way. These two did it in a very ambitous way in order to get their revenge before they killed themselves. I think it's only common sense that you can only push people so far. Especially when it's a young person who is not fully mature or who has not been raised with the sense of honor or morality that one needs in order to get along in society. Public high schools do very little to foster any sense of honor or morality. I've been there and it's not pretty.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
As for a), it seems most american are paranoid about governements. They have this absession that all the officials are trying to screw them up. But this governement, is made of citizen and elected by citizen. A governement is supposed to work for the well being of its citizen. If you need guns to protect yourself from your governement, then you don't live in a democracy. Then what are you waiting to start a civil war?
Okay, this is a flawed argument. You are assuming that politicians are a straight-arrow bunch of boyscouts that have the people's best interests at heart. That may have been so at one point in time long ago (if even then), but it isn't that way any longer. Most of these guys don't have any other jobs. They are career politicians. They can't just do what's right. That might be too controversial and they may not get reelected. What would they do then? Second, you assume that just because we have something resembling a democracy (actually a democratic republic), that the government cannot become corrupt. Bad thing to assume. Have you seen the scandals and illegal activities that politicians are involved in? My God, it scares the hell out of me. Don't kid yourself, they can and do steal from the rest of us. This country is a hell of alot more screwed up than most people know. Did you know that the top 10 or so banks in the country are effectively bankrupt due to all the loans they have been making to other countries? Then there are things like the S&L bailout and various other bailouts. Some rich businessmen get greedy and make some really bad investment decisions with other people's money. They lose it all and the government takes our tax money and puts them right back in business. What a deal. No risk as long as you are dealing in numbers large enough to screw up the economy. The government spends half its time trying to cover up its mistakes and splits the rest of the time between making more mistakes and appeasing the old people that still bother to vote.(voting is a whole separate discussion that I'm not going to go into here.)
As for c), you forget that anyone, at one moment or another, is a criminal. Most people, at one moment are another in their life, get somewhat insane. When these person have a gun, they can get pretty dangerous, killing themselves or others. Most gun advocate always depict a world with the good guys protecting themselves against the bad guys. It's not a John Wayne movie, there are no good or bad guys, just different humans.
This argument should be qualified. We are referring to violent criminals, which invalidates your statement that everyone at one point or another is a criminal. They may break a minor law, but that is a far cry from committing a violent crime. There is a point about people snapping in a fit of rage and killing someone because they had easy access to a gun. Of course in that case, a knife might be a whole lot handier and there's probably one close by. Or maybe a broken bottle or a fireplace poker. You get the point. Why take the time to get your gun and drive to someone's house and shoot them? If someone can take that much time and still be determined to kill the other person, then they will do it with or without a gun. People who lose control can kill someone whether they really intend to or not. It does happen. It will happen with or without guns. Those people should be held fully responsible for their actions (even though they often aren't). These kinds of crimes will never cease until human nature changes. The other problem is that you can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals. This goes right back to my previous argument which nobody here has addressed. They have never been able to do this with any product that an enterprising group can make money off of. Outlawing liquor didn't work. Outlawing drugs didn't work. What makes you think outlawing guns will work? All that will do is get rid of the legitimate places to buy guns where they are registered and there is a mandatory 3-day waiting period. If those are gone then all criminals will have absolutely untraceable weapons and law-abiding citizens will have no defense. Try calling 911 when someone is already in your house. Trust me, it's too late.
As for occupying America, this is PATHETIC : if somebody is fighting openly America, you won't even have the time to reach to your gun when your city will be nuked. Guns won't save you, whatever the NRA says.
This all depends on the intentions of the group that is attacking the country. If they want to turn the country into a worthless radiated wasteland, then yeah, they can just nuke it. If they want to gain control of the country and its vast industry and wealth, then they have to occupy it while doing as little damage as possible. In that case, guns might do some good. People would either choose to fight or surrender. At least they have the choice. If its a nuke fight, then this whole argument is pointless because there won't be anyone left to complain about the gun problem.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I agree... untrained persons should not be allowed to own or carry guns... thats why a licence to carry comes with a comprehensive training course... including such topics as the nature of intuition and target recognition... threat assessment and other necessary skills.
so what about trained people with guns, can they do any good... what about the security gaurd (NOT A COP... no more training than any other perosn with a licence to carry) up in boston who held off a nutcase with a rifel who was trying to shoot women in an abortion clinic...
unfortunately he was killed as a result, but how many innocent women would have died if he hadt been carrying a gun (and chosen to use it)
Guns are not inherently bad... in the wrong hands they can be devistating, in the right hands they can save lives...
and if your going to go on about where did the nutcase get the gun... there are alwyas going to be ways to get a gun...no matter what you do
for the record... I do not own a gun... I am not a member of the NRA and actualy... I rather hate guns... but I dont want to see them gone
Gun controll is onething... elimination is another
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
It has been shown that public executions are not a deturent (fucoult I belive) but I understand your point.
OK, lets say that the knowledge that a teacher might have a gun wouldnt have stoped them... the teacher still might have been able to stop them before they killed all thoes kids... sure, there would have been death, but Id make the trade for fewer deaths anyday
also.. . the games that the previous poster was speaking of were not doom and quake, but the terrible sadistic manner in which the shooters taunted and killed their victims... I belive you misunderstood him... understandable under the circumstances
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Heh. Maybe you should go back to school. Pearl Harbor is in Hawaii. (State of Fairbanks? wherefore is this place of which thou rantest?) And we tended toward isolationism until Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
14th amendment? Unless I've forgotten, the 2nd amendment (part of the Bill of Rights) gave citizens the right to bear arms.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Why blame the guns? Personally, as many others have also mentioned about their own home situations, I was brought up with exposure to firearms. I know what a gun is, and how to operate one. We have guns in our house. (a .45-caliber pistol and a .270 rifle)
I play (and have played) a bevy of violent games - Doom, Doom II, Dark Forces, Quake, Quake II, and others which I can't think of off the top of my head. I watch movies that are violent. I listen to techno, and I actually enjoy a little Rammstein and KMFDM. I was teased and bullied in high school. None of these things made me snap - my parents paid attention to me.
It sounds like these kids were disaffected and disconnected, and had other problems which can't be easily dismissed as a result of them "having guns". Once I'm 21, I may seek a handgun and a concealed carry license. Does that make me some kind of freak? No.
As another person mentioned, and rightly so, "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". I personally fear knowing that no one but a criminal would have a gun - that I or another would be in the wrong defending him/herself with a gun if that's what it takes. Taking away guns is just squashing a side-effect of the problem - people like the two shooters from Littleton, who have obvious problems, and parents who don't bother to pay attention to their children. Don't blame guns - no matter what you may think, they don't act alone.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
ridicule them and they will retreat from human association
That statement really hit home for me. I was tormented fairly relentlessly in school by the same groups of people. I didn't go on a shooting spree however. I still am pretty antisocial tho.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Of course. Morons wouldn't know how to pull the trigger on a gun, or wire up a bomb from a set of directions. :P (sarcasm mode off)
:)
It is a sad state of affairs when people who "excel at academic activities" are generally
considered dangerous. The stupid are breeding, and it's only getting worse.
Maybe us geeks need to start our own nation.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Those who would use a gun just because they are having a bad day are unstable. Usually, if anyone is paying ATTENTION (unlike with the Littleton shooters), they'd notice this, and those individuals would get the help they needed.
Anyone who has a concealed carry license (which is REQUIRED, in states that have provisions for concealed carrying of weapons) should have some sort of training. However, if you're getting a CCL, you probably have enough gun handling experience to control yourself and be aware of the situation.
In summary, there are certain people who shouldn't carry weapons - i.e. minors, felons, and anyone who is potentially mentally unstable.
We're not all lunatics and morons. Though it may sometimes appear that way...
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
...only last time it was D&D that was driving Kids to violence and suicide. Anyone here remember the 60 Minutes episode?
My conclusions from the last time around remain: what drives kids to do these deeds is not rock music or D&D or Video Games, but broken and abusive homes. Unfortunately, such a conclusion doesn't give rise to pat answers or simple solutions, while blaming it on rock and roll/video games/D&D/the internet/whatever does (just ban the offending source of ideas, and viola- problem solved in time to go to commercial).
You can't blame the internet.
You can't blame computers.
You can't blame the public school system. (arguable though)
This is a matter of COPING skills. These are learned at home & then at school. Parents need to take more time with their children. I know how hard this is. I have a 6 yr. old son & a handicapped wife. Only 1 pay check to support all of us.
About public schools. I think they need to be smaller. These things never happened with smaller class sizes. This will allow a closer Teacher/Student ratio. More one-on-one contact. Closer relationships will be built. Although, kids-will-be-kids. Peer presure is VERY powerful in high school. This also points back to coping skills. The family needs to play a greater part in childrens lives.
This may be a good time to bring back prayer in schools.
IMHO.
Not to mention theres that whole paying taxes to keep the royals living in luxury. No thanks I'll pass on that too. (I don't like the idea of being treated like a peasant)
And the right to bear arms is not a peculiarity of the USA. Many other countries REQUIRE their citizens to be armed, while other prohibit it and use it crush any opposition to their despotic rule. Could that happen inthe USA? Probably not, but the same thing has been said in other countries where it did happen.
Somehow this country was heavily armed for hundreds of years, and yet we didn't have this sort of violence happening. Its not the guns, thats too simple of an answer. The real answer is complicated and multi-facted.
--
Python
Python
If you properly took note, they also found 30+ explosive devices. Ranging in usefullness. One of witch could have quite easily killed many people...20lb propane tank (gas)...
Without guns, they would have simply relied on the explosives, witch btw you can make most of them in your kitchen quite easily...
Also, in the USA, you can buy ammo at any age. And zip guns are pretty easy to make (a bit dangerous, but easy). This is another route they could have taken. (althouth IMHO zip guns are rather inefecent, and pose a greater threat to the user)
http://www.xpurple.com
Only problem with this, is that if you take the guns away from everybody (legigimate people), then thier will still be guns avaliable...just iligaly... And, it probably wouldn't be much harder to get ahold of one if you realy wanted to than buying a pould of dope.
IMHO, every amarican should carry a firearm, it keeps those who would use them for evil reasons from acting out, or, if they do, something can be done about it quickly.
http://www.xpurple.com
So bullets and guns should be expensive.
Personally I think getting rid of guns in US, though probably desirable would be virtually impossible politically. However, taxing the fuck out of them so that you had to be rich to own one (and therefore less likely to kill someone for the sake of a few cigarettes*) would probably be politically feasible and would solve most the problems.
*Once when I lived in the California the neighbourhood 7-11 was robbed for cigarettes and 2 staff got shot - I reckon if you're so poor you kill people for cigarettes then you shoudn't be able to afford a gun.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
Bad math dude. Figure the casualty rates for both. Take the worst case peacetime US death rate by violent crime and compare it to an annualized rate for your one dictator/world war per century.
And just for the record, has Europe EVER had a 100 year period with only one major war? This century has featured WW1 and WW2 plus a wide and varied assortment of minor actions such as the current festivities in Kosovo and Bosnia.
Now lets take Kosovo since it is so current they were breaking in on the walltowall coverage of the Colorado shooting for updates... Imagine the Kosavars were all armed. Do you think they would have been driven from their homes so easily? But wait! It gets better! Ask the right question: Would the shooting have ever started in the first place? Not likely. War is almost never fought between two well matched opponents. Wars tend to start when one side thinks they can WIN. Of course sometimes one side rekons wrong and pays a price for it.
Democrat delenda est
So should weapons of mass desctruction, and smart bombs be made available in your grocery store too? The "people kill people" argument is the gun lobby's oldest argument. IMHO it's a dumb one, because it means you don't have to stop at guns. Why not make it legal to have 200,000 volt electric wire fencing around your house too so that you can "protect yourself". Please.
The only reason you need to protect yourself in the first place is because you made guns available. I don't know why you don't see the error in that. It's only the US that has this problem of children slaying children with guns.
Matt.
Matt. Want XML + Apache + Stylesheets? Get AxKit.
No, without access to guns they would have blown it up or burnt it down, and far more people would have died.
Good point. And without access to guns *or* bombs, they might have used a nuke. So for the safety of everyone, maybe there should be bomb shops on every street corner. Mebbe the government should subsidise them, make the bombs nice and cheap...
--
... yeah, Heroin doesn't kill people, people kill themselves, with heroin.
So why doesn't the US government honour people's inaliable right to bear class A drugs?
--
On the radio this morning I heard an interview with ted bundy, and he said that he, and everybody in prision with him who had
commited murder where addicited to pornography.
REALLY!?!
For christ's sakes, if I was in jail for a life sentence, then I'd want all the porn I could get my hands on. No big surprises there.
--
There is no connection between having a gun and shooting someone, and not having a gun and not shooting someone, any
you'd be a fool and a communist to think so", by someone or other whos name i forgot, died last year i think.
Ah, the genius of Bill Hicks. There was great wisdom in his gun control sketch.
--
It's pretty consistent. You seem so scared of your fellow countrymen that you need the right to bear arms to protect yourself -- but that's why you're scared of your fellow countrymen.
Anyway, if the government really want to drag you to the gas chambers they won't even notice whatever poxy weapons you could get. Remember, if the government turn on everyone else - you have guns, they have large bunkers and nuclear weapons. Your uzis, AK-47s etc. aren't going to do much good if an ICBM lands near you.
So why not concentrate on ensuring that America is a sufficiently nice country that the government (that YOU elect!) can be trusted, at least on the really important things.
We seem to do OK without a right to bear arms in Britain, and let me compare the gun-death statistics for 1997: Britain - 30. USA - about 7,000 IIRC. Even given that our population is half that of the US, it's still about a factor of 100 out.
axolotl
Well duh! With gun control there would be far fewer guns in circulation, making it harder for the kids to have got them. The gun culture would also be less predominant, and they would therefore have been less likely to think of using guns.
Whatever you say about hardened criminals still having access to guns (which is probably true, to some extent), harsh gun control still makes it extremely hard for first-timers, people without serious underworld connections (ie people like these two kids) to get hold of a gun. At the moment they can just steal their parents' (legally held) gun. If guns weren't around the home so much they couldn't.
axolotl
The only comment I have is the two boys who did this probably learned more from CNN about what they did than from videogames.
However, I DON'T trust Joe Public. I have no assurances that anyone holding a gun really understands what it is he's holding. Cops do, soldiers do, but I don't think guys like ESR do - and that scares me.
I think guys like ESR have more of an idea than a lot of people. I believe the solution is simple: to get a driver's license and you're young, you need a class. Hunting license? Hunter's safety class. It's simple: Require a license. And require training. Which would include more than just "point here;" we need psychological evaluations, too.
While the idea that parents should have a strong influence on their children is popular, it is neither possible nor always desirable.
Last I heard, current psychological thought held that children "naturally" get most of their outlook on life from their peers. No matter how involved a parent gets and how carefully they try to pass on whatever moral principles they think are important, most of it just won't take.
Besides, I think it's a good thing that much of a parent's influence fails to stick to their kids. I've seen some *really* weird parents running around trying to teach their kids some awfully strange and self-destructive ideas. I'm very glad kids have the ability to filter out their parents' garbage and figure out the world for themselves.
-Mars
So what does scientific education have to do with this? And most such studies have focused exclusively on science and math..... that doesn't mean that American education as a whole is lacking.
If you look at CEO's of American businesses, a high proportion of them ARE raised in the US to parents raised in the US.
It isn't the change in behaviour caused by the power drill that is the problem. A power drill is a very useful tool for making holes.
A murder spree with a power drill can result in upwards of 15 people killed--without the drill that same individual would probably only be able to kill a couple of people.
Allowing that psychopath to have a power drill is as irresponsible as giving a baby a gun.
Get my point?
But if it were up to me, I'd take away the guns!
Think about it.
Your post is very well thought out, that is at least until point 3. Will people never learn that death penalty is never a solution and does not help to stop people who are mentally ill in the first place, from killing?
Hmm... and what if I would decide right now that you are mentally ill and can't be treated, therefore I'll just kill you?
This matter is a bit more complicated as you can hopefully see...
As for having to defend yourself from outlaws, you are much less likely to get shot if you don't have a gun. Because in a situation where two people have a gun, one has to pull the trigger first.
You bring up a very good point that there is no hard evidence supporting *either* view. i.e. that the [internet/goth subculture/violent videogames/demon du jour] does or does not promote violence.
However that being the case, we must rely on the anecdotal evidence to provide the support for our opinions, because we don't have anything else. And the anecdotal evidence supports quite firmly that most of the people who do [embrace the goth subculture/play violent video games/mess about with the internet/demon du jour], tend to live quite sane lives and have a strong tendency not to blow up their High School or whatever.
Hey, they lived in houses... in the suburbs, no less. That must have been what did it, those suburbs. We all know that those big city kids don't go shooting up their schools, do they? (No they shoot up at school)
Ahh - My eye!
The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
While I do agree with you about the "fascination with carrying guns", you have to realise that the Port Arthur incident was committed with a weapon which was already illegal under the laws existing at the time. The firearm legislation reform was knee-jerk reaction.
I think that that Second amended to the US constitution should be recinded. It was perfectly valid to suggest such a right in 1791 when it was drafted, but America is no longer a wild frontier. And the average US citizen does not need a gun, except for the perceived need for protection against other citizens who also have a constitutional right to "bear arms".
Certainly there are some US citizens who genuinely do require firearms, but where is the "currently justifiable" reason that it be wtitten into the constitution as an inviolable right?
Ahh - My eye!
The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
the major players here are someone who didn't bother or didn't succeed to instill a sense of morality
Er, no. The major players here are those whose teasing and taunts drove someone to lash back.
What sense is there to instill a sense of morality and decency in someone if OTHERS will not act accordingly?
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" becomes perverted into "Do unto others as they have done unto you".
When some people disregard other's freedom to enjoy so-called alternate lifestyles, they should not be surprised when their freedoms are totally disregarded in return.
The overblown response of murder to teasing is perfectly in-line with the reasoning that the best response is a strong one (and why the U.S. floundered in Vietnam and won in the Gulf).
Is such a reaction right or justified? Certainly not, but the risk of it happening is to be expected. It is truely unfortunate that the response is directed so poorly at the instigators, but then again, who among is us innocent when we allow harrassment to persist?
The best premptive measures are those that serve to nip harrassment in the bud, and thus not giving rise to any form of retaliation, overblown or otherwise.
While I do not advocate taking the law into one's own hands to settle a dispute, neither do I care much when the rights of those who are disrespectful of others are themselves trampled upon. I do wish, however, that when such an overblown response occurs, it occur with greater regard for who the recipient is. Sadly, I do not ever expect this to be the case.
In Liberty, Rene
Original post: the major players here are someone who didn't bother or didn't succeed to instill a sense of morality
My response: Er, no. The major players here are those whose teasing and taunts drove someone to lash back.
Your analysis: All right, you're saying that the real perpetrators of this crime are the various Jocks, Soshs, and Primadonnas of the Colombine HS social structure because they picked on some kids they thought were weird.
No. I used the term major players, to refer to those who could prevent such a tragedy. I disagree with the person who's post I followed up about just who the major players are. If I meant to write about the alleged (remember, even they are innocent until proven guilty) perpetrators of the crime, I would have used different words.
Since your understanding of what I wrote is in error, your further analysis is invalid.
In Liberty, Rene
I can't believe all the crap that is being put out about what went wrong with the kids... On the way to work this morning I got preached by the morning DJ about how of course it was the music how can anyone listen to the music and not have it effect them... The music, the Internet, the games, it's all crap... If that was the problem then I would of gone on a shooting rampage a long time ago. I mean look at my last name 'Bugg' you think I didn't get a lot of grief about it in school, you think now that I'm in a Corp. setting I still don't get it (I can't believe the number of times peope come up to me and ask me "So I guess you got laughed at in school" [me] "Actually no, why you ask?") and I listen to music such as Rob Zombie, Danzig, Suicidal Tendencies, Mifits, just to name a few of my current playlists and I love to play DOOM/Quake type games and love it even more in Deathmatch... I've had a modem connection to BBSs and Internet since I was in earily grade school... How is it that I haven't picked others off with a gun that my father would keep... I'll tell you why, I know the value of life, I have something to strive for when I wake up in the morning and the want and need to see it continue when I go to sleep... That's something that all people going on killing spree's don't have. They can't seem to be able to graps the concept that when they kill someone in a computer game that it's different when they kill in real life. And until people get instilled with this it's just gonna go on and something else will get blamed... Anyone remember when Dungion&Dragons was made out to be Satan's handy work and would lead the kids to ruin???
-- Ed Bugg --You have freedom of choice, but not of consequences.--
If we're now going to start blaming the Internet for our problems, does this mean that we can sue Al Gore?
I agree that gun control in the US just isn't going to work. Through years of liberal arms policies, the country is now so poisoned with so many guns that it is going to take at least 400 years before they'll be halfway filtered out again through repossession and rust. It's not a serious option anymore, the country has gone beyond the point of no return.
I've heard all the arguments from Ben Hur and his friends, but make no mistakes.. the easy availability of guns is what caused this, not the games or the movies or the drugs. Here in Amsterdam we have plenty of games and movies and drugs, but somehow we don't seem to get massacres like these.
Michiel Denie!
Quite beating around the bush. The issue is really quite simple. You have guns, you have violence. Most of the rest of the western world has no guns and a LOT less violence. You say they could have done this through countless other means, but the fact it that they did not, and that noone else has lately, not in other parts of the world. Pipe bombs can be made anywhere, why do these tragedies seem to be confined to the US only? Think man, think. I know well the thrill of firing a loaded weapon (sport shooting club during my student days). But it's not worth it.
Michiel Denie!
Quit beating around the bush. The issue is really quite simple. You have guns, you have violence. Most of the rest of the western world has no guns and a LOT less violence. You say they could have done this through countless other means, but the fact it that they did not, and that noone else has lately, not in other parts of the world. Pipe bombs can be made anywhere, why do these tragedies seem to be confined to the US only? Think man, think. I know well the thrill of firing a loaded weapon (sport shooting club during my student days). But it's not worth it.
Michiel Denie!
Nobody says that taking away guns will take away violence. But the ease of obtaining a gun certainly contributes to guns being used.
So you say that we'll still have violence, and that's a problem with society. Agreed. But at least we'd have less fatal violent attacks.
<tim><
What you're arguing is that it's the parents faults, and guns aren't to blame.
I guess you'd have no problem if the education system provided guns for all your kids in their desks. And crack cocaine during recesses and lunches. Because if you were the good parent you say you are/would be, your kid would have the right mind to say "no, that's not for me".
Kids are experimenters. Too many people here claim that video games have no effect on kids. "If they had proper parents, they wouldn't be influenced to the point of killing people in real life". Guess what folks? Kids are much more easily influenced than you or me (providing that you or me have a stable moral base). When kids grow up, they need a stable moral base, which usually comes from parents. But until they get this established moral base, media sources, video games, and violent weapons are all contributing sources to the child's moral code, (if you can still call it a "moral" code after all the junk has been thrown in).
If you want to solve the problem, be a good parent and try to learn what is contributing to your child's moral code. It just might save some lives.
It's good that you've been trained to use them responsibly. Unfortunately, there is no way to ensure this responsibility is followed by all gun owners. Until we do (mandatory gun "lessons?"), we'll continue to have mass killings by kids in schools and adults during moments of road rage.
<tim><
You've got two kids... Who are in what boils down to a gang.
/your/ kids.
You've got a society with no moral standards -- that has, in essence, told these kids to find themselves as the ultimate morality.
You've got parents who are absent enough not to notice that their kids are making dozens of pipe bombs. ("Wow johnny... We're so glad to see your interest in gardening! Could you put some of that fertilizer on the petunias? And plumbing too!")
You've got a total demise of common courtesy, to the point that these kids are mercilessly harassed without anyone in authority making any attempt to protect them.
Finally, they are presented, daily, in every media, with graphic violence, sexual depravity, and moral degeneracy.
And we blame the Internet? Or guns?
The problem is that:
1) Parents are pursuing self-fulfillment instead of raising their kids. I know it makes people happy to have a job -- great. Have one. But don't neglect your kids. If you can't have self esteem without a job, then don't have kids!
2) Society has trashed all moral standards in favor of a bunch of feel-good psycho-babble.
3) Children are taught that truth is relative.
4) The schools neither teach nor discipline.
5) Moral degeneracy has taken over everything people see and here. We are continually being assaulted with sex and violence -- in the bassest possible form.
Get a clue people. And don't do this to
This is only the start people -- our schools are going to be war-zones until we turn around. And all the gun control or warning labels in the world won't change that.
-- Slashdot sucks.
The reason, it seems to me, this is such a big problem is that every time this happens, all the counselors, media, and parents look for the person to blame. However could these little darlings do something like this?! Obviously, it can't be their fault.
Magic words, to people who're still growing up. Take away the blame, and a lot of things can start percolating in heads. I'm only 22, so High School and such wasn't THAT long ago. The people at fault are the little bastards involved, the ones doing the shooting. Leave the rest of us who play quake, use the internet, wear black trenchcoats and basically went thru the same problems while growing up *out of it*. Put the blame back where it belongs; on the head of the little psycho's pulling the trigger.
I went through high school, and never killed a single person. Yes, I had access to guns (pistols and rifles; been shooting since I could keep the barrel from dragging the ground). Yes, I used the internet (Terrorists handbook was around 6 or 8 years ago, too! And yes, if I'd wanted to plan an attack and build bombs and kill a huge quantity of people, it would have been possible to do it in a much larger blaze of media attention that these guys pulled.
But I never did it, because I'm not a complete wacko.
There isn't anything necessarily bad about the internet or even games like Doom. They're just "things" and as such don't have any inherent moral value. They're neither good nor bad.
:-)
I think its safe to assume that these kids were socially deviant, and would have been regardless of their exposure to the internet, combat role-playing games, or any other "thing" that we could choose to blame for this mess.
There were apparently some deep issues such as rejection, feelings of isolation, depression, etc.... These seem to be the result of being singled out and ridiculed by other kids, and I guess in that sense there's plenty of blame to go around. Ultimately, however, these 2 (or more) kids are the only ones responsible for what happened in Littleton. They are the ones that chose to act. Unfortunately, we can only assume that they are now paying the price.
I think its important, however, to realise that while the 'net and the other things are not to blame, they did play their part. Kids like this tend to hang out on the net and find other like-minded kids - thus easing some of the isolation. In the process they reinforce their anger towards those kids who pick on them. In the process they also find resources that facilitate the destruction on the scale that we saw on Tuesday. Anybody care to bet where they got the instructions for the pipe bombs?
As for games like Doom, its my *opinion* that if there is already a predisposition towards violence, then Doom certainly doesn't help. We have to admit that some of our toys have a very real down side.
That said, do we restrict access to such things? I don't think that is the answer. Think about guns for a minute. It was certainly illegal for those kids to have guns, much less take them to school. As if that mattered.... As one of the talking heads said, a disturbed kid and only his fists leads only to a fist fight. A normal kid and a gun leads to hunting with his dad. Put the two together and it may lead to disaster. I think we can make a similar argument about the 'net and games like Doom.
The problem lies not in the net, Doom, or even guns, though all have their part to play. (Lets not hide our head in the sand on that.) The problem lies at home and at school. Unstable or unattentive parents, ridicule among other kids - these are things that *create* disasters like this one. Other things may enhance or facilitate, but without cause, there is no effect.
Like we used to say in the old days, just my $0.02 worth
Kelly
My point is that neither the internet, nor Doom, nor guns are to blame. The problem lies with a society in which cutting sarcasm and ridicule are accepted modes of communication (think about that if you choose to respond) and parental indifference is rampant.
However, that is not to say that the "things" in question don't have a part to play, and we should examine that. What we do about it is problematic - we could take away all internet access and combat role-playing games. But what good would that do? It was illegal for them to have guns, yet they had them. It was illegal for them to make bombs, but they made them. What should we do? Make it illegal for kids to go into a hardware store?
The problem is a moral one - the morals of our society suck. Its fair to examine what restrictions our kids should be under. But violent kids are a product of neglect and ridicule, from both parents and peers.
Kelly
I'm not sure if I agree or not with what you said though I susepect i agree. While mindless and realistic violence (I can't see computer game violence in the same light as TV violence) may not make killers, perhaps it makes a life look cheap and easy to take. There is also some de-sensitising to brutal violence. Brutal violence for me is not loads of blood and guts flying all over the place, it's the casual merciless, thoughtless and trivial shooting of some poor trivial character on the screen. When I look back at what shocked a few years ago, it looks funny when compared with today and perhaps that isn't so much our being more "enlightened" but more de-sensitised.
Just my 0.02 (insert local currency symbol here.
Mark
You must ask yourself why does the US have the highest murder rate in the world when the UK has one of the lowest (in the UK, even the police don't carry guns).
The majority of people (even criminals) don't really want to shoot anybody and therefore probably wont. If you are going to rob a house, you will take the tools required to do the job. If that house is likely to contain someone carrying a gun, not only are you going to take a bigger gun but you're also going to shoot first.
In America, it would be hard to ban the gun but if it were done, you'll all still get robbed but fewer of you will be shot in the process. It just stands to reason. In general, the first people to get shot in any violent confrontation are the people carrying guns.
Regards
Sure, blame it all on the Internet. Certainly the Internet probably helped by giving them the information they needed to construct 30 explosive devices, but while you're at it go ahead and blame guns, alcohol, drugs, rock music, music videos, pornography, cigarettes, yada, yada, yada....whatever... People tend to look at things through a limited scope of perception, as though it were necessarily one thing that drove those kids to do what they did. It's much more plausible to assume that whatever drove them to do such a horrible thing involved influences from their entire environment. Of course many lobbying groups will now scream for the banning of all firearms, metal detectors in all schools, making the parents responsible, etc.
We still fail to look at the real issues and everyone wants to place the blame somewhere else. The blame is with us. We are all in some way reponsible. Just because it didn't happen on our block, doesn't exclude us from some of the blame and responsiblity. Our society glorifies violence, yet we are horrified by the results.
----------------
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein
Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
People have always felt the need to segregate those who do horrible things from themselves. In the publicized cases over the last couple of years there have been a few common characteristics of the people behind the murders:
This to the public is the definition of a geek. It lets society get off the hook of delving into the real problems. Instead the symptoms get labeled as the problems. What does this mean? Rather than looking at why they preferred gaming so much, gaming is seen as the problem. "Censor computer games!" cries the public. "While you're at it, ban death metal!" shouts the clergy. This is much easier than having "What caused these people to be ostricized by their 'peers' in the first place?" as your battle cry. That would require real work and real thought.
There are very few journalists left in media, be it television, print or radio. For the most part they've all become socially acceptable versions of Geraldo Rivera and will carefully repeat what the public wants to hear. Nobody does interviews with youths seen as outsiders to let society see why they've become outsiders, instead they interview friends of the victims who just label them as outsiders. So they reinforce the myth or misdiagnosis.
Chances are a large section of the slashdot readership at one time or another has been labeled as an outsider. A better editorial interjection on the part of Hemos would have been "were you ever seen as an outsider, and if so why?"
This whole situation is too complex for the media to cope with. I would guess that factors that were involved included, but by no means limited to:
You mean after you came into WWII 3 years late, once you had sold us a lot of rusty destoyers that never worked.
I thought this was meant to be a serious debate, but I guess what Nicholas Monsarrat said in the "Cruel Sea" was true "America isn't a great nation, there are just a lot of them".
The irish times was one of the few papers on this side that actually has bothered to put in any quotes that it actually attributes to named students in the school. Which goes something along the lines of
"They were quiet kids, clever..."
There was another quote from a teacher along the lines of
"it was ironic that most of killings took place in the library, as they liked reading there"
or something like that, the point being that by the only comments that have been attributed to named sources, these were reasonaly normal people, that were pissed on long enough to get pretty mad at everyone.
In any other country that would have been the end of it, they would have grown out if it. Possibly been able to tell themselves that they were now earning twice as much as everyone else in their school, done the whole growing up thing and die in their beds 80 years later. Of course in the states you have the "right to bear arms", and put a stop to that pretty sharpish. Nothing like being able to put your hands on an arsenel of weapons to give you an inflated sense of power.
This is not a story of geekdom, this is a story of a country that is set up so that its easy to blow the fuck out of people at the drop of a hat :-)
C. (whos doesn't own a gun, doesn't know anyone who owns a gun, knows noone who has ever been shot, knows noone who knows someone whos been shot, and does not feel any trauma that he is denied the right to shoot people)
"There is no connection between having a gun and shooting someone, and not having a gun and not shooting someone, any you'd be a fool and a communist to think so", by someone or other whos name i forgot, died last year i think.
I sometimes write stuff
It appears that the only reason you have to have a gun is to protect yourself from all the other people with guns.
I remember a norwegian in a usenet thread similiar to this who said that all norwegians in the north of norway have guns, to protect against polar bears :-).
I suppose its just too late for the states, once the cycle is as ingrained as it is, its very hard to get out of it.
What kind of madness suggests that having a gun creates a polite society !, i would assume that this post is a parody, but i have a sinking feeling that it isnt.
C.
I sometimes write stuff
In short, both the public and the media have a need to find simple explanations and comfortable correlations for anything uncomfortable. To say the truth (that these changelings were wacko looney sicko's)just doesn't fit neatly into a PC world view.
The unknown is scary, and to the majority, Doom, the Internet and other non-appliance technologies represent that scary unknown. Here's how it all happens:
/* MAGIC THEATRE
ENTRANCE NOT FOR EVERYBODY
MADMEN ONLY */
from the land of opportunity, where innovation and hard work is encouraged, a country that enshrines the concept of 'freedom of speach', and fought a civil war over black civil rights, a place that made it possible for powered flight and putting man on the moon, a mixture of peoples from around the world trying to make a go of it, where the media makes the news and sometimes reports it, a country of immense wealth and power and oportunity, a proud and competitive nation, a win at all costs nation, home of the corporation, fast food and drive in churches, where tolerence and justice can be equally replaced with intolerence and injustice, a country where vested interests and power can subjugate the needs of the rest of the nationfor it's own, where the right to bear arms is enchrined in the consitition and where school kids instead of being kids, studying and playing in the school yard, kill and mame each other for no apparent reason land of the free....
peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
Did guns protect your freedom of expression under McCarthy?
Thought not.
Britain - where I live now - has been a democracy for a lot longer than the US has existed. And guess what - very very few people have access to guns. Firearms are neither sufficient nor necessary for protecting democracy.
Funnily enough, we don't have many random shootings in Britain either. Could there be a cause / effect relationship here?
Oh, and by the way, the Nazis were elected into power; it seems highly unlikely that having guns would have prevented anything.
no taxation without representation!
Well, I agree to a degree: There is much more violence in the media than there used to be, and I am not sure that this is a good thing.
I never did understand why people seem so keen to censor sex in the media while allowing graphic brutality - but that's a different matter. Anyway, I'm not in favour of censorship for adults, but we should certainly keep some of the violence away from kids.
I also agree with you on the propaganda issues; what I disagree with is the gun issue:
Regardless of how f**cked up a youngster is, without a gun it will be difficult to start shooting people. Simple as that. Without easy access to guns, this would not have happened.
no taxation without representation!
True, guns don't kill people, people kill people.
With guns, usually.
no taxation without representation!
Interesting stuff in here, some of which I agree with. And some which I disagree with:
:)
For one, I believe gun control is useful - but then I'm not American
Secondly, the death penalty doesn't work, has never worked, and will never work.
Especially not against people who are planning to kill themselves at the end of their crime spree anyway.
Also, do you really think that people think about the consequences of their actions? If so, would there be so many murders, so much drunk driving etc?
no taxation without representation!
School administrators know that the real problem is bullying and alienation. If you listen to the news reports that actually take the trouble to find an administrator instead of Johnny-on-the-street, you'll hear it. The school in Oregon where Kip Kinkel killed a couple of people a year or two ago has taken action to reduce alienation, not reduce Internet usage.
My point is: you (Hemos and all you other foaming-at-the-mouth /.ers) are allowing yourself to get overexcited and feel persecuted. Calm down.
John.
Americans have the right to have guns.
They do not have the right to shoot other people.
Personal freedom, as long as you don't muck with other's freedoms.
If 5-10% of the population carried a gun, we would be a much more polite country.
Damn non-Americans can't seem to see this.
Ed
I agree. I think the real problem is that employment for teenagers is not good these days. There is not much for someone who wishes to do something in the real world. When I was a teenager, it was easy to find a part time job and really do something different.
So what does a person do who does not feel welcomed into the job market and has no purpose? To be ridiculed by a capitalistic society? An ugly attitude forms. It can be hidden due to the shame of rebelling. One day, the kid cracks and goes postal.
The media has never addressed this issue. How odd.
Every american should carry a firearm? Yuck! I have a SKS rifle and a 80lb bow for hunting. This allows me to bring back some non-steriod-slaugherfarm-abused-for-life-game home for dinner and eat healthy, but I would not recommend people in a big crowded city who do not get out to have firearms. Some people just do not need a high powered tool that will send a high speed projectile a mile and a half. Its silly.
The problem with our society is that we do not have a welcome job market for new teenagers anymore. Its now competitive and not very nurturing like it used to be. A newbie is likely to get ridiculed. We need more time with families and community activities to solve this, not playing the blame game of TV and video games.
...and I'm scared that other people around me could legally own guns that they might use on me or...
I own an rifle. Somehow, the USA defines my SKS as an assult rifle. I bring back healthy, lean deer meat on the dinner table with it. Does that scare you?
In this city and any that I know of, discharging a firearm is illegal. There are places to go hunt and play with guns, but one of them is not in populated areas. I hunt in the country, deep in the woods where the game can be found. Not in your neighborhood!
Doom and the Internet are everywhere, I play Quake and spend more time on the Internet than watching TV. I do not have a desire to kill people, neither do millions of other users around the world. The Internet is just a means of communication just like the telephone. I am sure that these 2 guys also used the telephone and used it to discuss there perverse plan. Does that make it the telephones fault that they did what they did ? No, of course not.
The problem has far more to do with the American obsession with guns and third world type attitude towards them. Guns are seen as some sort of symbol of power and manhood. They are seen as a right and not as a tool to do a job. If guns were not so readily available then guns would not be used to solve every problem. Until America can drag itself into the caring world and stop seeing might as right then these incidents will continue to happen.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Excellent quotation. Who's John Taylor Gatto, and where's the quotation taken from?
OK, I play Quake 2 and Half-Life, and I don't go around strafing people with automatic weapons.
BUT I would kill to get a copy of Requiem...
--
Barry de la Rosa,
Reporter, PC Week (UK)
Work: barry_delarosa[at]vnu.co.uk,
tel. +44 (0)171 316 9364
-- /. ID is lower than Bruce Perens'!
Barry de la Rosa,
public[at]bpdlr.org
My
It is a natural human reaction to laugh in the face of danger and evil, because there is so little we can do about it. It was a JOKE. Loosen up.
Besides, I had a point. I'm more interested in the games for the games' sake, not for the violence's sake.
--
Barry de la Rosa,
Reporter, PC Week (UK)
Work: barry_delarosa[at]vnu.co.uk,
tel. +44 (0)171 316 9364
-- /. ID is lower than Bruce Perens'!
Barry de la Rosa,
public[at]bpdlr.org
My
The only journalistic voice of reason.
Even my home paper, the Washington Post, is guilty of poor journalism on this one.
We should definitely start an email campaign to authors of bad articles (and of good!) on this foolishness. Geeks have to protect our name.
Haven't these absolute idiots in the media ever heard of kids playing Cowboys & Indians? Cops & Robbers? Since when have little boys not had toy guns growing up?
As someone who writes computer games, I find this extremely scary.
SoZ is actually optimistic when you compare it to his The Jagged Orbit (in which people are scared to death of having to leave their houses) and The Sheep Look Up (the Dutch cover blurb described it as "a country being destroyed by pollution; environmental, political, social, personal"), both of which are eerily similar to aspects of our society.
Other dystopias this thread reminds me of are A Clockwork Orange's meaningless violence, and Fahrenheit 451 (what happens to a society that acts on the censorship cries).
IMO, the biggest impact the internet has in terms of socialisation is that it strongly reduces the influcence your physical location (e.g. the country you grow up in) on your culture. It allows you to communicate with kindred spirits all over the globe.
But this isn't the global village where we're all in the same vanilla culture. It's a bazaar in which just about everyone can find the cultural niches they belong to (SF fandom, taoism, wicca, Linux, cartoons, bikers, classical philosophy etc. etc.)
This can be a great thing, but it can also be very bad, as a means of spreading memes like racism, self-destructive religious cultism etc.
The internet is a technology that is changing communication. It is not inherently good, nor inherently evil. It is not "the medium is the message". It is the medium in which all messages can be found.
It is our individual responsibility to learn and to teach how to use this technology for good.
Heh Heh. That's funny.
My opinion in this is that the only people who believe this media hype about Doom & Internet resulting in violence, would be granny. My impression is that the world has grown up enough to realize the Internet just makes things easier; good and bad. And that the media hasn't quite grown up as much yet, still pushing that angle.
I don't know anyone who feels the same way as the media. What do you think?
Exclude: my mother (73), email's & surf's regularly.
Ken
word
======== In the future, everything will be artificial. ========
Hmm. Pardon my french, but that is just fucking insane.
If you give everyone in America a handgun, do you *seriously* think that nobody is going to use it?
If you have a violent urge to harm someone, it is *much* easier, psychologically, to do it from a distance than it is to run up to someone and physically hit them or stab them.
Also, what happens if one person pulls a gun and fires - suddenly you have a whole street/shopping mall/schoolyard ful of people shooting each other.
Does this sound like a good idea to you?
-- Stu
Everyone seems to have missed out on a correllation which not only encompasses the Internet, but also family values and shock-rock.
It is obvious to me that the biggest factor in these kids lives is that they all had parents who never used the Internet to vent frustration playing DooM and were prevented from listening to Marilyn Manson when they were teenagers. (those left wing fools can claim that this is because Marilyn Manson 'wasn't born' at the time, but this is clearly just handwaving)
Also, virtually *all* so-called 'psycho killers' in the last twenty years have attended either school or church (sometimes both!) at some point before their attacks.
Conclusion: we should probably ban church, school and most importantly baby-boomers.
-- Stu
I think we need to spend some time figuring out why these school shootings keep happening. It's important that we gain an understanding. I'm just gonna give my thoughts and then come what may:
As a little background, I'm a 30 year old software engineer (a programmer who thinks about it first), I'm married, and I do plan to have children. My wife is a school teacher in a school district on the edge of Philadelphia. Her district has a very wide range of income levels, so I hear about the whole range of wierd student and parent behaviours that teachers have to deal with.
When I refer to 'our parents' I'm refering to those folks in their 50's and 60's like my parents. When I refer to 'kids' I'm talking about anyone under 18.
Speed of change: These kids are growing up in a world that's changing on an almost daily basis. If you are a little slow learning how to fit in, then by the time you get a clue, the rules have changed.
Over-stimulation: The way kids play today is a LOT different from when our parents grew up. TV provides a rapidly changing series of loud, attention-grabbing scenes. The stories behind much of what's on TV revolve around someone beating someone else up for some reason. Games for dedicated game machines and computers are mostly about violence in one way or another, and like TV they provide rapid, loud stimulation, and everything is resolved by violence.
Parental over-work - The TV and Game machines probably wouldn't be so bad, but many parents are working longer and longer days. They don't get home until late, so the kids watch TV till mom and dad come home, and when they do come home, they don't want to yell at the kids, so they let the kids do whatever they want (I've seen this with my cousin's children). Alternately, they don't want to be bothered with the kids, so they plop them down in front of the TV. Either way, the kid is getting more TV time than parent time, so where do you think they are going to pick up their outlook on life? And if a parent is over-worked, how are they going to notice that little Bobby seems depressed?
Responsibility - Many parents simply don't want to be responsible for raising their children. They don't discipline the children at home, so by the time the kids get to school, they have no respect for authority of any kind. Or they put so much pressure on the kids to do well and get into honors programs that the kids break down when they don't make it. Or when the kid gets a bad grade, instead of working on making sure Johnny does his homework, they call and yell at the teacher!
I'm not saying that any of these things have to do with the latest shooting (I don't know that much about the families involved). But I will say that NONE of these things ALONE would be enough to send someone over the deep edge. But taken in combination with a hundred different things I haven't mentioned...
Thanks for reading.
A thousand pounds of wood moving at 300 feet per minute. Don't get in the way.
What kind of argument is that? You realize that you are saying guns cause violence here, right? The first human that had his head bashed in by a rock would probably argue that you are wrong.
Most of the rest of the western world has no guns and a LOT less violence.
Oh, right. I forgot. The rest of the western world is so peaceful. Ireland? They are real nice over there. The balkans? Really wonderful over there right now too.
I guess I'll stop wasting everyones time now, cause nobody here is gonna change their mind about this, but let me just say this: until mankind has something else to focus on, we are going to keep killing each other off. Violence is directly related to population density. I vote we move to mars.
"There's no secret. You just press the accelerator to the floor and keep turning left." -- Bill Vukovich
About the same as the last gun control discussion on
I think at the core of the problem, among other things, is the fact that people don't really want freedom anymore. Not really.
Let me explain that a little. Freedom is directly proportional to responsibility. (shit, I must be an engineer ...:-) Any sytems or embedded programmer can tell you this.
The more freedom you have the more responsibility you have. If you want 100% control over the computer, you get to write you own OS and drivers, etc. The whole shot. It's all your responsibility.
If you don't want all of the responsibility you can go get an RTOS of even a PC or something, but you give up some of your freedom to do whatever you want with the gear.
Back to the topic at hand ... Modern society doesn't like responsibility. Parents aren't held responsible for their children anymore, people aren't held responsible for their actions, etc. Everyone wants the government to do everything for them. They want a shiny happy life.
Nowdays every single time something bad happens the masses cry out "we want a law to stop this!!" and the politicians, who will do anything to keep their cushy job, joyfully respond by passing whatever legislation will keep their subjec^H^H^H^H^H^Hvoters happy. People refuse to admit that shit happens.
Now this may sound harsh, but I'm the type of person that is fully willing to accept the responsibility for my own well being. Those who aren't can count on the government to protect them and take their chances. I'm not plugging for full blown anarchy here. (that amount of freedom would put me out of work :-), but we are heading towards a world where everything is going to be controled, and I don't like it.
The internet could be considered a prime example of this effect. Parents won't take the responsibility of monitoring their children ... anyway.
I guess I'll shut up now. This is most likely not going to be read this deep into a thread anyway, but hey ... it was just so much fun to write.
/dev
"There's no secret. You just press the accelerator to the floor and keep turning left." -- Bill Vukovich
I agree. I think that this over-defensiveness is still part of the backlash from the 80s "AD&D makes kids into satanists" idea. As silly as that idea was and as ridiculed as the people saying it were, I haven't come across any other issue that so galvanizes the gaming community.
:)
Personally, I think people tend to be over-sensitive about society having negative opinions about their hobbies, but I tend not to care much about what society thinks.
Sigh. How can somebody who's 23 feel so old?
Well, logically, if a person is pre-disposed to do the kind of violence that these kids did, constant exposure to violence through movies, games, or what have you does not make them *less* likely to go out and murder a couple dozen classmates.
I think that violent movies, etc. are kind of like guns: they don't force people to commit crimes, but they maybe make it easier for people who are already predisposed to commit crimes to do so.
For a personal example of the impact that violent movies, etc. can have on people, try going for something like 2 months without watching any violent TV shows, seeing any R-rated (or higher) movies, or playing violent video games, then go back and watch or play again. I did something like that once and was able to understand the horror that people like my mom feel when they see people shooting each other on television.
I agree that American "culture" (actually, the set of mainstream cultures in the United States) has lots of problems and encourages all sorts of bad things, but I don't think that we can put the primary blame on it. Perhaps a little bit, but I don't believe that people are mindless automatons who are manipulated by their surroundings. People have been excluded, mentally and socially tortured, and made to feel worthless for as long as human beings have been social creatures. These 2 kids chose to go out and kill a bunch of their classmates. Yes, it would have been much nicer if their parents or friends or teachers or classmates or clergy (if they had any) would have intervened and somehow stopped this tragedy, but I still place the lion's share of the blame on the people who actually committed the crime.
Bring back the public service message that asked "It's 10pm - do you know where your kids are?"
Sanity.html - Error 404 not found
Video games and the Internet do not drive kids to kill. It's only when video games and the Internet are the sum total of a child's emotional input/experience that they appear to be the cause of such events.
It ain't the clothes, it ain't the computers, it ain't the music. Those are just the straws at which the drowning child grasps in his quest for meaning, power and understanding.
Kids need feedback and guidance (love) throughout their formative years. When they don't get it, they grow up stunted and unable to forecast or concieve the repercussions of their own actions.
They can't see any difference between a thought and a deed, and they treat their lives (and the lives of others) like a video game.
We'll see more of this in the future, and all the perpetrators will be children of the middle class, with parents who nurture their own careers with far more patience, attention and diligence than they could ever even concieve of giving to their own children.
Game over.
**>>BELCH
Er, no. The major players here are those whose teasing and taunts drove someone to lash back
"Lash back" by killing classmates indiscriminately? Nope. I was teased in high school too, and I lashed back as well, but not like these kids. You know why? Because I could not think of killing my fellow students (however much they may have been "driving" me to do so) without thinking of what such actions might lead to, in terms of the suffering of my self, my family, my fellow students, my whole town. Why did I think that way? Why did I care? Because my parents gave me clear directions (on a smaller scale) of what was right and what was wrong, what was real and what was fantasy.
They convinced me that MY life had value, hence I couldn't help but feel that OTHER people's lives had value as well.
Saying "Why can't everyone just be NICE to each other" is childish nonsense. The world ain't like that and it never will be. Raised with an ounce of caring, children grow up with the built in ability to cope constructively with emotional adversity.
**>>BELCH
Your parents 'failed' in making you act in the manner of a 'good student', but they obviously did NOT fail in helping you to become a 'thoughtful person'. The ability to be insightful, introspective and question your own motives that you show in your post shows that, emotionally and intellectually, you're light-years beyond where these kids were.
Advice: get what you can out of college, even if its just a few wacky friends and a hangover. You'll move on to bigger and better things when you're ready. Other kids your age are falling into credit card debts of 1,000s of dollars. Give yourself some credit! A debt paid late is still a debt paid.
Fortune: You'll have a scary time with your folks when they realize you haven't taken to school like a fish to water. You WILL, however, find your nitch and they WILL come to respect you all the more when you do, even if its not what they intended or expected.
(That's what happened to me, anyways!)
cheers
-kent
**>>BELCH
I think the causes are an OK start, but terribly incomplete. I don't profess to know all the events, feelings, and influences that came together to cause these two kids to decide that shooting up the school was a good idea. The key though is that it wasn't one thing, it wasn't four things, it was probably more like 15 different things including the 4 described above, but not limited to those. The key though is that had any one of those things been missing this would not have happened.
Some might then say the solution is to eliminate one of the causes and that way this will never happen again. This is where gun control comes in. While guns don't cause a person to go out and mass murder. They are a gating factor in that without the guns the person could not act. But, this is too simple a solution, and still leaves us with an outcast, depressed, and anti-social person.
I also have a problem with blaming the violent movies, music, and video games for violence. It is hard to come up with any correlation let alone causation. If you say well there were 100 shootings where the killers liked Marilyn Manson, I will point out that there were 1 million other people who listened to Marilyn Manson and didn't shoot people. The only way to get correlation is if this number is greater than total killers vs the general population. And, that is still only correlation, there is no way to show causation. Listening to Marilyn Manson is more likely an effect just like going out and shooting people is an effect.
The point is there has to be a differentiation between things that correlate and things that might cause a person to be a killer. We also need to know which solutions remove causes and which are simply gating solutions that do nothing for the person.
Just heard on the news this morning that 'The Basketball Diaries' or whatever it's called is too blame according to investigators. Never mind that they may not have ever seen it, but it's too blame. Never mind that they probably saw John Wayne shooting 'the nips' but they didn't go out invading Japan. Never mind that they probably saw Batman & Robin but they didn't go out and, uh, whatever, I'll pass on that one. Okay, never mind that they probably saw Matrix and uh, no, Rambo, geez, well uh, hmmmm... Well I saw all those movies and I didn't go wacko but then again, I didn't have access to guns.
:-) Some of theose trouble makers were obsessed with guns, uhm, including me. Gee, yah think maybe this is just what you get when you set someone to the breaking point.
Years ago when I was in high school we just kicked each other in the face and stuff.
I remember Jeffrey Dahmer and how they discovered that his parents were and stuff were very anti-gay and being in such a negative environemt took it's toll on him and he flipped.
Myabe some people are simply more prone to this and given the right sequence of events this is the result. Nothing can be done about that but people being what they are want to point to something to blame. For all we really understand of reality it could be some non-locality thing were some butterfly somewhere knocks over a ladybug and all the resulting anger the ladybug feels gets amplified in some kids head.
"...the jocks get away with doing worse.". Wow. I think you are over generalizing here a bit.
I too was a geek in High School. I too got beat up, made fun of, etc. But I don't recall that it was just jocks, and certainly not all jocks, to the contrary. In fact I don't recall any jocks being involved.
The solution?
Well, sounds rather coy but...it starts with you and me. First I have to let go, forgive, what others did to me in my past. Throw it all into the "sea of forgetfullness". Second I have to learn to put others before myself. I have to hold the rights of others above my own. I have to care for others more than for myself.
Now I have to teach that to my children and their children. I have to live it out before them EVERY SINGLE day. I have to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.
Is that going to solve the worlds problems? No. But it will help those around me. And in the process make me a better person, even though the goal is to make others better persons.
So we can continue to argue who is at fault. We can continue to lobby for gun laws, shut down the internet. But until we love or fellow person and respect their rights more than our own it will be a fruitless struggle against an evil we continue to be entagled in ourselves.
A child is walking along the beach at low tide. The beach is covered with thousands of star fish stuck up on the sand as the tide moved out. The child walks along, picking up one star fish at a time and tossing it out into the ocean. An old man comes along and says. "What are you doing, you can't possibly save them all. You are wasting your time. What you are doing doesn't matter". The child with joy in his face picks up another star fish, throws it into the ocean and says, "It matters to that one."
Don't know where that parable comes from. But it seems to fit...somehow.
A Nuke is a destructive weapon.
:P
A rifle is the tool of a nation's defenders.
It's rather simple and this whole nuke argument
is getting old. Machine guns are also destructive
weapons and are highly regulated by the US government.
Oh, and if Congress declares war we will have,
for every intent and purpose, an executive with
dictatorial control. That it'd be Clinton makes it that much worse. The guy has no judgement and
torch half the population if a poll said to.
I urge you to get more paranoid. It's much safer on our side
-k
No need to apologize for being US-centric. This is a decidely American discussion.
:P
;)
2. Some gun control for teens.
Well, since everything you suggested there is already on the books in all 50 states, you can pull _your_ panties out of your crack now
Seriously, people seem to have no clue about current (extensive) gun laws. 21 for a handgun, 18 for a long gun. Period. That's Illinois and many other states. Dunno about Texas, but I'm about to find out.
21 years for a handgun nationwide, I'm pretty sure, so your above discussion about concealed weapons for 'Little Johnny' is absolutely MOOT.
Handguns on the principal of schools sounds better and better all the time. My cousin was in that school, for God's sake. She got out with her life and more kids might have if a responsible adult had the tools to fight the murderers.
Nobody has a clue about the laws on the books for anything anymore and it is proving to be a national disaster. Nothing personal. But people who don't own guns don't care to find out.
Anyway, like the letter. Dunno how you got a score of 5 though!
-k
"every amarican should carry a firearm"?
We already tried that, in the American west. The result? A murder rate higher than our worst inner cities today.
When people have weapons, they use them. Not a difficult equation, and it's been true throughout history. The armed population that chooses not to use its weapons remains completely hypothetical. (Obviously some people can, but it breaks down in the general case).
I fear banning would suffer the same problems as prohibition & the drug war, though. There are too many guns already here & it's near impossible to control something like that it a country this size.
The ocean of guns we live in will probably only change by changing our culture.
b.c.
The media are not stupid. They know exactly what they're doing. It's the general public's
knee-jerk, ignorant nature to try to Pin The Blame On The Culprit.
It happens with every disaster, every death, every problem. The public tries to find something to blame so that they don't have to actually fix social problems. Currently, we're seeing a lot of
this because of Colorado.
Combine that with the fact that most people are utter morons when it comes to computers, and the fact that most of the older generations and much of the middle generation fear the new methods of communication that the younger
generation has adapted to, and you get this exact reaction that we're seeing.
The media seems to not understand that there are *intense* social divisions within public high schools in North America. They are used to seeing only one group, not the dozens, (if not hundreds) of social groups that make up the young N.A. population. Since the media like simple things, things that fit into 5 second sound bites, they perpetuate the fiction that it's all "that danged innernet thingy's fault."
Just a few of my deranged thoughts, folks.
Cheers.
-- SG
"Luck is just one of my many skills!"
- Sam
The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.
What I find amazing about America is your fascination with carrying guns. Here in Australia we had someone go on a rampage with a semi-automatic gun and kill 40 odd people. Our response was to make semi-automatic guns illegal and make it harder to obtain guns in general (pity it took a massacre to make it happen).
Why in America does it seem to focus on what factors made the people do it, and not on why don't we try and make it more difficult for people to obtain guns and then go and do these things.
Begin rant here.
I teach school and have taugth at a suburban school very much like the one in Colorado. I now teach in an urban "small school". The difference is that in a small school kids are known and groups are splintered.
The problem is that schools are too large and so kids go unknown there. At home parents often hold jobs that keep them out of the house for far too long and so kids go unknown there. And kids then find other ways to attract the attention that they both need and deserve.
As for video games and the internet, well, we do have a problem. My wife and I lay in bed last night trying to think of something in our popular culture that isn't linked to violence, sex, lying, war, oppression, or the like. We figured out that Sesame Street fits the bill but beyond that, well, not much.
What is happening is that violence is glamorous. By this I mean that it is shown as something that is not painful and nearly desirable. A character in a movie is hit by a car, but he holds on to the hood and goes for a wild, wacky ride! Gee. Funny, when my brother was hit by a car the only thing that happened was an extended stay in the hospital and all of us praying that he would not die.
The internet is not the problem. Doom and Quake are not the problem. Mel Gibson movies are not the problem. But consider the total package. Put all of these things together and feed them to young kids. There's a problem with that. We have to face it and it's up to us to figure out a way to do something about it. The answer is not to ban any of this stuff. That would be ridiculous, ineffective, and against our values here in the USA. But there are other ways.
When I was a kid I played some video games. My friend's family gave him a computer to fool around with instead. I learned how to beat the Atari 2600 in my sleep and he learned how to take apart, rebuild, and program his computer. When my kids come along and the decision comes down to a Playstation or a Linux box, we'll see what kind of machine we can build together.
End of rant.
Yeah, I'm as old as my UID would suggest.
I'll give it a try.
Gun control is the first step in getting these weapons off the streets. Gun control is not a system that would cure the problem over night. Rather, I believe that it would inflate the problem for several years and then begin to have a positive effect.
The problem with current American gun policy is that it has produced a culture of weaponry and violence that we are finally finding out leads to our own destruction.
All this nonsense of having a gun to protect one's self is foolish. Owning a gun doesn't protect anyone. Actually, most gun owners who attempt to protect themselves with a gun increase their own chances of being shot and also increase the danger to their families. Why? Because most gun owners find, in the moment when they most need to, that pulling a trigger is a very difficult thing to do.
We have to work to combat the culture of violence and to help people understand the pain of a bullet wound. Hollywood, video games, the NRA, and a host of other forces work hard to blot out the pain of violence. So far they are winning. We are buying into the culture of violence with millions of dollars and finding our streets more and more littered with the bodies of the victims.
Yeah, I'm as old as my UID would suggest.
Why the objection to links to sex in american popular culture? European society seems to have a much healthier additude. This difference would seem to me to be more significant than any differences in gun control laws.
Perhaps...but I don't think of many of the images of sex to be especially healthy in our popular culture. It's one thing when Nabokov tells the story of Lolita and quite another when we suffer through the tales of Bill and Monica or Joey B and Amy Fisher.
I think maybe I'm just frustrated with the turns we're taking in our entertainment. That and I'm probably turning into an old prude! (grin)
Yeah, I'm as old as my UID would suggest.
After hearing all the discussions held herein, I have one simple question?. After we rule out the guns, bombs, games,internet, and high school cliques what is left? My question is where are these two boy parents? One thing I know is I never had access to explosives at that age.. even if I wanted to make them myself? You have to be 21 just to buy gunpowder?(in NY State at least). Why weren't there parents aware of the trouble they saw in these two? I will admit I was at the very least unpopular most of my high school years. I think I turned out okay and didn't screw up too bad. I certinanly didn't get some guns and bombs and head off to school for the day?
------snip rant--------
sorry IMHO the games/internet/"insert socially unacceptable thin here" had nothing to do with it.. Only two screwed up and confused kids do what they thought was something "right" or wrong for that matter to put there opinion across.. I know it sucks and it is stupid, but who told them it was.. NO ONE!
That darn Slashdot is so cool... Hey did you pay the phone *(#(Q%$#$ NO CARRIER
I actually wrote that statement, Slashdot went wacky on me :(
....Sociopaths and Psychopaths will be sociopaths and psychopaths, no matter if they are geeks, farmers, politicians, terrorists, Ordinary Joe Bloggs, that "nice quiet man a few doors down", yer uncle/aunt, or whoever.
How can you _possibly_ blame Doom for these two characters doing what they did? I play Doom etc. but I'm not going around spraying bullets.
No. There are too many factors involved with what these people did, ranging from America's "achievement culture" - whereby if you're not good at sports/science/anyhting else, you're no good at all, to America's Gun culture - "It's in the Constitution, Son!", to lack of parental care/education, and a WHOLE lot more. Pinning this one on the fact someone may be a geek, play Doom or whatever is just Plain Nuts.
Silly Media!
Of course, no journalist would *dare* put the blame were it rightfully belongs: with the person responsible. Somehow it seems unacceptable to them that an 18-year-old can truly be a criminal.
/does/ make a lot of sense to try to figure out why it happened, if only to prevent any more tragedies like this one. And contrary to popular slashdot opinion, bombarding children with the message that violence is acceptable, fun, and cool may just have a detrimental effect.
Nobody is really talking about putting the blame on the person responsible, because of course they're to blame. They're also dead, so in this case, it's a completely moot point. However, it
--
Ian Peters
Ok, I'm getting really tired of seeing this logic over and over. Nobody is saying we're all going to be killers! Just like nobody says that /everyone/ who smokes will die of cancer, merely that it is a health risk. And yes, I'm sure people blame the kids, as they are the ones finally responsible. They're also dead, which makes that point rather stupid. Besides, if we just blame the kids, than you've done nothing to prevent a tragedy like this from reoccuring. If, however, you make some effort to determine /why/ this happened, even if you are wrong, you are at least making an effort to stop this trend.
--
Ian Peters
There isn't anything necessarily bad about the internet or even games like Doom. They're just "things" and as such don't have any inherent moral value. They're neither good nor bad.
/course/ your environment has no effect on you! What a rediculous idea!
This is technically accurate, but also naive and completely non-constructive. Everything is just a thing. It's the message we take away from things that is important.
I think its safe to assume that these kids were socially deviant, and would have been regardless of their exposure to the internet, combat role-playing games, or any other "thing" that we could choose to blame for this mess.
You really should share this amazing insight of yours with the experts, so they can stop wasting their time doing research. Because of
--
Ian Peters
I believe the core issue is responsibility.
I agree completely. Parents, authority figures, all seem to be abdicating their positions of responsibility, clutching to some contributing factor and claiming that this is the fundamental cause. I believe that video games which portray and encourage violence are probably not healthy. This is not the relevant fact, however. What is relevant is that parents are not watching what effect this is having on their children and making personal, case by case decisions.
--
Ian Peters
Sorry, I accidentally hit submit prematurely.
... I'm struggling for a point here. While I don't think it's fair to claim that this is bad out of hand, I do think that parents should be worried if their children are growing up in an environment like this. In combination with other factors, I think that this can certainly be detrimental to their well being.
To continue with my rant, I think that violence in media is something that needs to be looked at, but not in isolation. In combination with other factors, children are being left to their own devices, with very little guidance from responsible adults. When they are faced with messages like the one I mentioned above, well, I don't think it causes them to become killers, but I don't think it's healthy, either. Certainly it's easy to just claim that portrayed violence is the sole cause, which isn't fair, but isn't it slightly ludicrous to claim that it has no effect whatsoever?
Regarding the `Goth' scene -- I'll be the first to admit that I know relatively little of what is actually entailed in being a Goth. However, from what I have seen, it seems to focus or dwell on death, depression, pain
Hmm. It's early, and I didn't sleep last night, so this is coming out a lot more ranty than I'd like. I guess my main point is this -- yes, the media is being narrow minded to try to blame this tragedy on one cause, but we would be equally narrow minded not to consider the effects of portrayed violence on our youth.
--
Ian Peters
I realize this probably won't be the most popular opinion you'll read attached to this article, but I'm going to step out on a limb. There seems to be a knee-jerk reaction going on here, on two counts. First, the media, for seizing on violent computer games and the internet as a possible `cause' of this tragic event, but also, the slashdot community for dismissing this possibility out of hand.
Several of the (few) posts at this point make the following argument -- "I play violent video games, and I've never killed anyone, so that theory must be wrong!" This is a fundamental logical flaw. If the statement were "violent video games turn everyone into killers", then a simple counter example would be sufficient. However, merely stating that violent video games have no effect on you doesn't disprove a relationship. I'm not necessarily claiming that there is one; just that this argument is flawed.
Now, to claim that there is a relationship. Several people have pointed out that violence predates the internet and computer games by a large margin. This is certainly true. I could sit here and make the argument that violence has never been this realistic, but I don't think that's the point. I do think that mindless violence, which is being portrayed more and more, in many different forums, is problematic. I was recently playing Quake Team Fortress the other day. As I entered the game, I was greeted with the message "Kill, Kill, Kill!"
--
Ian Peters
I hear you Demona. I actually rather shruged off the whole thing until my wife brought it up reading the paper this morning. It wasn't news to me. The only thing surprising about it is that it didn't happen earlier, that is youthful geeks who just snap. My wife was amazed at the similarity in the descriptions of these students to me at that age. The manner of dress, most of their interests and the fact that they were fed up with the cards they were delt and they were ready to leave their lives and take as many of those that made them miserable with them.
Now I'm not saying that I would have actually gone that far. My father was in law enforcement, so there were firearms in the house that I could have used if I was really determined. I wasn't. Sometimes the only thing that stopped me was knowing that this is exactly what would happen. The media blitz. They'd blame my computers, my books, guns, my parents. And that's just wrong. My parents are two of the most outstanding people I will ever know and I couldn't do that to them. But the thought did cross my mind more than once.
What would even make me think such a thing? I'm reminded of Annie's brother in Annie Hall (sincere applogies to those that can't stand Woody Allen, but I thought this scene was very un-Woody like) who said, "Sometimes I see a car coming towards me in the other lane and I think about just swerving into that lane. Do you ever think about that?" Okay, the quote's not exact, but that's the idea. An idea that I'm apparently not alone in thinking. Books and TV and Video Games had nothing to do with it. Heck, they were probably what kept me from snaping! What it amounted to is that I felt that I was being wronged as an individual. Our society has taught for hundreds of years that if someone or a group is being wronged, killing the opressers is an acceptable solution. Hey! If it was good enough for George Washington, who we learned in first grade was the greatest American hero, it's good enough for me.
Let's look at the violence these kids saw. Take two movies: Braveheart and Mortal Combat. I think Braveheart, which was hearlded as an outstanding piece of historical fiction, had much more to do with this incident than the mindless violence in Mortal Combat. Braveheart was wronged as an individual, he was opressed by the dominate govenment, so what did he do? Revolt! Kill all the Englishmen! There's your ethnic clensing. So what he died in the end? He was a hero and he made history. Well, at least it seems that those kids in Colorado made history. Perhaphs we should hold society to its own standards and say that they're heros as well.
Instead we're calling them criminals. What have we learned from this? Nothing. Instead of implementing special programs for the technically gifted, they're baning trench coats. Hello? Trench coats don't kill people. People that can't stand being out of place, out of touch and see nowhere to go kill people.
There are no hard and fast solutions to problems like these. What needs to change is the society that we live in. It doesn't matter what you ban, they'll still snap and they'll still find a way to wound society in any way they can. So instead of being reactive, we need to be more proactive as a community. Parents, Schools and Neighbors need to identify those kids that don't fit into their nice perfect mold and place them in a less structured environment.
For me, that environment was college. I went when I was 16. That amazed people, but I didn't think it was special. It was a necessary step in my development as a person. To feed into another popular /. thread, I didn't need to go to college to learn the technical skills I have. In fact I probably could have learned more by not going judging by how much I've learned in the couple years since I finished. But the college environment was invaluable for teaching me who I was.
That environment for some is the military or boarding school or becoming a vagabon and traveling the country. Whatever it is, it's necessesary. It would be best if this sort of environment could be provided right there in public schools. Most schools have special programs for gifted students or problem students, but I'm talking about something for the student who isn't really better, just different. A program that would replace their normal classes.
Anyway, this is long enough and I hope I've made my point. Do what you can to change the system. For example, we'll home school our kids when we have them. I'm also going to volenteer to help technologically gifted students at the local school, soon as I've done my grad work. Let's see that none of these people died in vain and that it doesn't happen again.
-"Zow"
For me, taking stong opposition to the idea that these kids were motivated by violent games is not a knee-jerk reaction. This is nothing new. When I was in high school the "Great Evils" were Dungeons & Dragons and Heavy Metal. Instead of goths there were punks. Nothing's changed.
What galls me is that these things are scapegoats, pure and simple. I was into all this stuff when I was a kid. The key is parents being involved with their children's lives. My parents were there for me. They listened to me, got involved with my life and my interests, and knew what I was doing. They gave me a lot of freedom and when there was something they didn't want me to do, they didn't give the "Because I said so!" explanation, they gave me reasons, explained their concerns.
The reason I really fume over this is because this scapegoat just doesn't fly anymore. The Pulling Report, written by Mike Stackpole, pretty comprehensively proved that the Dungeons & Dragons excuse just didn't work. Actual psychological studies found that role-playing game players were more in touch with reality than "regular people". What's frightening is that if you read this document and switch role-playing with DOOM, it'd apply to the current issue.
When I was a teenager, I had teachers, ministers, and even classmates tell me I'd go to Hell because I wore a Metallica T-Shirt, without even knowing anything about me. If we spent more time talking to our kids insteaded giving them crap about the games they play or the music they listen too, we might see when there's a problem before it literally blows up in someone's face.
The following is my US-centric train of thought. Please point out any and all errors, because I myself am still unsure of the accuracy of all of this.
1. "Free speech" includes such things as speech, the written word, symbolic acts, art of all forms, and video games.
2. Being "free speech" does not exempt one from liabilty in a civil court case. (I.e., one is responsible for ones actions, whether or not such actions are covered by the Bill of Rights.)
3. If it can be shown in court that Doom was partially responsible for the outcome (media speculation doesn't cut it as evidence), id Software could be held liable and be required to pay money to the vicitm's families.
4. Michael Carneal, another school shooter in December 1997, is said to have been influenced by the movie, "The Basketball Diaries," evidenced by court-appointed psychologists. (He claims he wasn't so influenced.)
I seem to recall recently on some morning TV news show that the parents of his victims are suing various entertainment companies in a civil suit using just such an argument. I couldn't find any info on the net, though. Does anyone know about this?
Do people really want to believe that they can decide if something is good or bad?
I guess this goes for Media as well. Do they not understand that is the user who makes it good or bad.
The internet in particular has had such a phenomenal impact on the lives of common people, which nobody finds interesting.
This is attitude inspite of seeing the goodness of NET the whole day.
Some incident like the one where a Girl in Europe with serious illness got locked in her school room and CALLED FOR HELP ON THE NET. Some child who was accessing the NET in US could understand her and helped save her by informing the elders.
This particular incident though a Life Saver for the Girl and a practicle effort for the child is US went practically unnoticed.
I guess people want stories where someone is BAD and someone is GOOD. For them that is a story and Where there is nothing BAD there is no FIGHT or BLOODSHED they are not interested.
This I feel is where a person grows up.
I know lot of good things happening on the NET, why can't the Children also be taught about the useful things and guided that way.
I defenitely do not see any effort to that end, except when some thing goes wrong, even if the BAD person has an e-mail account the NET becomes BAD.
NET is what we created, i guess wether it is GOOD or BAD, it what we put it to use for.
I think it is truly sad to see such immaturity and lack of responsibility on the side of the parents. In this day and age with both parents at the workplace, no one can keep an eye on their kids like they used to. It's a shame that things like this happen but don't blame the video games, blame the kids and the parents. If your kid chooses to model his life after a murderer or thinks that killing someone is cool and they do it, then you obviously have not had a good talk with your child in a while.
AM I RIGHT or AM I RIGHT.
If you are going to blame computer games then you should blame cops and robbers, those violent lullabies we sing to our children (They all ran after the famers wife... cut off their tails with a carving knife)
(and if the bough breaks the cradle will fall and down will come BABY cradle and all)
It's all bullshit.
This is how I respond to the parenting issues. Even if your 13-14 year old is "out of control" how bad are they really? I was once that age and did a lot of stupid shit. Mostly micheivous stuff that wasn't that big of a deal. If your kids talk back, get detentions, try pot, stuff like that then your kids are probably just going through the time in their lives when They are discovering themselves. They will hopefully under remembering the foundation you laid for them see through the peer pressure and other bullshit that kids have to go through today and become good people.
I am not saying all parents are bad. I just think people aren't ready for children when they think they are and the child suffers for that reason.
I the early 80s, there were a few reports of strange people who did strange things, like killing cats in their basement. They happened to also play Dungeons and Dragons. The media Immediately took hold of htis, and decided: Ah Ha! Dungeons and dragons must be at the root of this odd behavior.
Today, It's the Internet. The 'net is still new and scary to most people, and anyone with enough knowledge to use it efficiently is looked upon as either a computing god, or as a strange social outcast. Just like D&D in the 80s, it was something that normal people didn't do, and hence was assumed to be responsible for sick people's otherwise strange behavior.
You seem to really have a good grasp of the concept of "coolness." It certainly fits with my experiences in school. However, I think that home schooling could be part of the answer. Human beings were designed to be raised by parents--not the state. Moral training should begin at birth and should be undertaken by parents. I would have done so much better if I had been home-schooled from the beginning. I disagree with the notion that home-schooling induces a lack of social skills. I had great social-skills when I was young...it was only the continuous abuse at school that caused me to become an introvert. Also, now that I'm in college, I have no trouble being friends with people--even the "jocks." Everyone has matured by now. I will admit that home-schooling could and would run into serious problems in our society--but that is just because our society is already so messed up. Parents are self-centered and don't really care about their kids. Most of the parents don't have any morals either! I guess about the best you can say is that we're in deep trouble in this country and it'll take a miracle to get us out now.
--the now very depressed Art Tatum
Secondly, the death penalty doesn't work, has never worked, and will never work.
Tell that to God.
That behavior is not determined by genetics? Everyone has this idea that genetics determines intelligence, morals, and everything else under the sun. Genetics determines physical characteristics only. And please don't start in with the argument about the brain being physical. The brain has nothing to do with a person's beliefs or intelligence.
For the past 35 years American culture has been subjected to a barrage of increasingly mindless & violent movies, TV shows and yes, video games. To even suggest that children and young adults haven't been affected by this is ridiculous. Of course, everytime something happens, the News media and Entertainment industry come out blaming guns, phases of the moon, PMS or something instead of the real culprits...themselves. They are the one profiting from showing these images. People seem to forget that young children/teenagers are not rational creatures who can separate reality from fantasy. (Why do you think the Marines like to recruit 17-18 year olds? It's because they can brainwash an 18 year old to believe all that "Sands of Iwo Jima" bullshit.) When "The Wild Bunch" and "Straw Dogs" came out 25-30 years ago, they were the most violent movies ever made. If you were under 17 you couldn't get in. Take a look at the stuff that's on TV now..."Die Hard" or "Air Force One" for example. Psychopaths coldly murdering innocents. Didn't Alan Rickman and Gary Oldman look BAD blowing away people? Yeah, I know they were the bad guys, but gee, they look so cool.
Simply because you haven't killed anyone means nothing. I haven't either.
The fact remains that even though guns were MUCH easier to get 30 years ago (I got my first rifle when I was 12) the murder rate amoung young people was also much LOWER.
You can't use a TV to babysit kids and then expect them to grow into civilized human beings.
You ever hear of Rwanda? How about Cambodia? In both places you had 14 year olds with machetes, plastic bags and clubs....they killed millions. Mass murder did NOT start with the invention of the Colt .45.
Hmmm. I served 7 years in th US Army, was in the 82nd Airborne and did 14 months in the Republic of South Vietnam. I've lived the past 19 years in Cambodia, Thailand, Indonesia, the People's Republic of China, Vietnam and Taiwan.
I'm very interested in how you were "shown to handle terorists (sic)" armed or otherwise. Please enlighten us.
This morning's New York Times had an article that got it right (http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/042299col o-school-suspects.html). It mentions Quake (apparently Harris even made a few Quake levels), but then points out, "Yet computer games like Doom and the Goth style are popular among even the best-behaved young students." The point is, that Internet usage and playing FPS games are too common to be indicators of future behavior.
OK, an example. About 90 years ago, researchers interviewed people who were in prison for a variety of crimes, and found out that %95 of them had masturbated. Oh my God, masturbation turns you into a criminal! This "fact" was taken as a given for decades, and kids and adults were given many stern warnings about it. It was only in the 60's that Kinsey asked the population at large about masturbation, only to find that, oops, %95 percent of the country does it. Previous conclusion is useless, due to faulty statistical thinking.
I do think our culture glorifies violence, but i don't really mean movies, TV, and video games. I mean the fact that we study wars in school, but not negotiation. That generals get statues or elected President. That any gunplay will get news coverage, but anything that does not result in violence doesn't get covered (this has been faulted as why the protests of the 60's and 70's got progressively more violent; non-violent protests stopped getting covered in the media).
That WINNING is all that matters.
Our culture really only gives attention to that which causes death; escalation or capitulation seem like the only options. See Deborah Tannen's _The_Argument_Culture_ for more on this idea.
Peace, y'all.
mahlen
The Beatles know in the same sense that the subconsciousness knows.
--Charles Manson, ca. 1968
Face it - Narrow minded people will seek out a scapegoat any time something like this happens. It's been this way since the beginning of time. It's because "THEY" were Black, or Mexican, or Athiests or Fundamentalists, or they played D&D, or they watched too many violent TV programs, or they spent all their time on the Internet. Narrow minded people long for simple explanations to complex problems. They want to reinforce the US vs. THEM - i.e., "We would NEVER do that, because we're DIFFERENT!"
Get used to it. People are frightened by change, and Lord knows the Internet represents change! They wouldn't have pointed fingers at the kids for spending all their time in the LIBRARY, because that's too familiar. But, if they live in chat rooms, or play games of imagination, then they are branded as misfits.
It ain't going to end any time soon unfortunately.
Your Servant, B. Baggins
If the Constitution is wrong, there's a simple solution. Change it.
Why don't you?
Because the majority of Americans don't want guns banned, as is demonstrated by the way that so many states are busily removing their anti-gun laws at the moment.
The people may well change their minds if they keep seeing children being murdered.
As I see it (from an outsider's perspective), the threat of government tyranny is remote now, but these deaths are quite real. Maybe the constitution should be changed. I don't think taking away guns is the answer - it won't stop children from wanting to kill other children. It might make it more difficult.
Maybe there is no answer. Certainly there isn't one simple answer, anyway.
I miss Meept.
One thing no one seems to have thought of.. who wants to start a betting pool of when the first lawsuit will be filed? I got 10 bucks on 2 weeks from today. Lawsuits are as american as mom, apple pie, and guns.
OH yeah, the offical Matrix bash site is up! Looks like a script kiddie site, it's definitly not worth checking out. (PS: I still cant find a mirror of the bastards orginal aol web page)
--
Society doesn't like this. It gives Society a bad name.
Society tries to do whatever possible to convince itself that these Bad People(tm) were never a part of Society to begin with.
The first step is to find "obvious differences" between Society and the Bad People. Well, violent computer games and the goth subculture are in the limelight these days...let's use that!
(cue all those media shots of the items with the Doom logo in evidence bags)
This report was put on the web after the shootings in Kentucky last year. It is an in-depth analysis of where, when and why. The media's predeliction for making a 'crisis' out of everything is pretty well addressed.
http://www.cjcj.org/jpi/schoolreport.html
Jim Wildman jim@rossberry.com
I agree with you. Our environment DOES effect how we think and what we are >likely to do in a situation. The ad industry knows that what we see and hear (even when we don't like it) will effect what we buy. So why do people think that what they see and hear by choice (ie, games, entertainment, etc) WON'T effect them?
Just like real environmental hazards, different people have different 'tolerance' levels. I personally am not effected by smoke; it takes a lot to get me to cough. My wife has battled asthma and allergies, she has problems with a little whiff. Likewise I believe that what we see and hear DOES have an effect on us. And given our personal situation, MAY make it easier to do things that are unusual.
This in no way absolves anyone of the blame. You still have to live (or die) with your choices. And you may chose to take others along and the rest of us will ask 'Why?'.
Jim Wildman jim@rossberry.com
Anyone who asks this question is either painfully sheltered, willfully ignorant or deliberately, maliciously part of the problem. Yes, the Internet and readily available weapons are at fault, and the usual band of fascists, both closeted and "out", are happily pimping the dead to further their totalitarian agendas. How many of those who claim to have "no idea why this could have happened" ever spent the night awake, crying, praying for something, anything, to keep them home the next day, or forever? How many spent their entire school years in that state? How many have repressed those memories, and try to maintain the fiction that childhood is the happiest time of one's life? Does thinking make their brains hurt that badly? Or do they simply hate their past so much that they believe every child must suffer in the same way? John Taylor Gatto writes: "Put kids in a class and they will live out their lives in an invisible cage, isolated from their chance at community...Interrupt kids with bells and horns all the time and they will earn that nothing is important; force them to plead for the natural right to the toilet and they will become liars and toadies; ridicule them and they will retreat from human association; shame them and they will find a hundred ways to get even."
Fuck Slashdot
See
http://www.sepschool.org/faq.html, the Separation of School and State FAQ.
If you peruse misc.education.home-school.misc on Usenet, you will find that increasing numbers are finding how rewarding this approach can be, for themselves and their children.
I would urge you also to read "Let's Blackmail the Young into Doing Good" at http://www.infomagic.com/liberty/vs99 0414.htm for a somewhat related rant. Relevant quote:
"...it's nice when young people learn how good it can feel to help others, out of the goodness of our hearts. But the lessons learned by slave laborers -- shirking, sabotage, resentment, and escape -- are quite different."
Fuck Slashdot
If you read the group for yourself, you can see that most Christians who home school are not the ones who seek to enslave others, and that growing numbers of secular, atheistic, agnostic or just plain "semi-spiritual, non-organized" religious folks are also discovering the benefits of freedom in this area.
I agree wholeheartedly with the previous poster's concluding paragraph, btw.
"If either the right wing or left wing gained control of this country, it would flap around in circles." (Frank Zappa)
"Free your mind, and your ass will follow." (George Clinton)
Voluntary cooperation becomes much easier when forced cooperation is abolished.
Fuck Slashdot
(Speaking on a personal level, I set my threshhold as low as possible because, like Katz, I want to see it all, even things I may disagree with, even things which may make me angry. Part of maturing is thinking before you act, including communications, electronic and otherwise. I allow others to think whatever they want, but their actions are a different matter.)
I've learned to be with the world and not of it, as St. Paul[?] said. And as Ken Kesey said, "Take what you can use and let the rest go by."
"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment."
Fuck Slashdot
Burning of the schools not too far away
It's the government schools, stupid
"You treat children as slaves, and you're surprised when they despise you and your institutions? You lock them up in cages, and act surprised when they kill their keepers?" [As well as their so-called "peers"]
Fuck Slashdot
Sounds about like me... my grades weren't great in HS, but I did have good test scores and consequently was expected to excell in college. Unforunately, that is not the case. Some of my classes I do well in, and others I'm failing for various reasons. I am like you; when I am interested in a problem, I rip it to shreds. When I'm not, well, I tend to go watch the Simpsons, etc. Only I'm 22 and still 2 years away from graduation (at least.) Of course I did take lots of time off to work as a sysadmin. Still, I regret nothing!!! MUAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
All I was really saying was that if they came up to someone who had treated them with a single iota of decency, I don't think they'd have shot them. Yes, these boys had other problems, and their apparently racist behavior was a way of channeling the hate they felt in general towards a specific target. I did not and cannot condone violence as an answer to what these boys were feeling. I'm sure that the racism is something they learned from some influential adult figure. Kids do NOT automatically hate. It's learned. Either by heaping derision upon them, and making them hate, or by example. Where did these kids learn it? At the hand of the bullying "in crowd," under the wing of a parent or other adult, or both? My money says both.
--- --- --- Don't just do something! Sit there!
Thanks for validating the clarification I made a little earlier.
--- --- --- Don't just do something! Sit there!
Maybe this will make the "ins" realize the "outs" are human beings, and have breaking points. I'm sure these boys did what they did because they were sick and tired of being treated like shit. It's sad and terrible and tragic that peoples' sons and daughters are dead. But how many of them that died ever bothered for one second to treat the boys that did this like real human beings? I'd bet none. So be warned. If you don't treat your fellow human beings as equal, it could happen to you. And if you treat others like shit, whose to say you didn't deserve it? Maybe the jocks SHOULD be the ones afraid of the geeks, instead of the way it is now. Food for thought. If you don't like my opinion, get your own.
--- --- --- Don't just do something! Sit there!
We all have access to the same information that the kiddies got off a website. Are we all going to kill? So far throught this whole thing no one has blamed THE KIDS. The two children that killed all of these people are not being held accountable. Isn't this wrong?
http://www.confuzn.com
I understand they are dead, but I think the media can get off of the band wagon. I have heard the killings blamed on hitler, pot, trenchcoats, internet, the fact they are pathetic kids in school, and other crap.
sorry about the two posts but I screwed up.
http://www.confuzn.com
Well, I dunno. My wife and I took Doom and Quake off my kids' computer because we didn't like the way they behaved and talked when they'd been playing it. And believe me, I've played plenty of Doom, although I never really got into Quake. And I'm not a heavy disciplinarian; in fact, I think a lot of society's problems are caused by too much "discipline" and not enough playtime. But Quake and Doom really are excessively, unnecessarily violent (and revel in it, for that matter).
Did violent video games drive these kids to what they did? No. But given a couple twisted kids who lacked the moral sense to know that you just don't do things like that, was the inspiration rooted in Quake and Doom somehow? We'll probably never know, but the possibility clearly exists. Should we outlaw Quake and Doom? No, definitely not--but the community should still develop a sense that shooting and blowing up people is wrong, and I don't see a good way to reconcile that with blowing up and shooting people on a computer screen being okay.
-Graham
The above posting clearly illustrates the exact though process that led to the Colorado murders. You can't pretend it doesn't feel bad when people loathe you--the issue is clearly that geeks/nerds do have negative feelings because the "cool people" don't like them.
As much as you want to deny it, we are all programmed (by advertising, peer opinion, even parental opinion) that cool is good. But being cool and being smart both require a major investment of time and attention; so much so, in fact, that it is difficult or impossible to do both at once.
So every student makes a choice; perhaps by temperament and capability; perhaps by chance; rarely, if ever, by conscious desire. This choice perpetuates itself: Having spent a lot of time becoming either smart or cool, it is much easier to remain what you are than to switch to the other side.
From the point of view of cool people, it must be true that uncool==bad. If investment in coolness is to pay dividends in social currency, then it is at least as important to make sure that uncool people don't get social reward as to make sure that cool people do. So the cool people (again, not necessarily consciously) loathe the smart people, and the smart people feel bad because nobody likes to be loathed.
The smart people have no such inherent need to loathe the cool people. The expected reward of an investment in coolness is social promotion; in order to receive it, it is necessary to force everyone into the "correct" social attitudes. But the reward that smart people expect to gain from their investment is intellectual accomplishment, eventual future money-making, and perhaps a sense of superiority. But this is all internal and does not really require anyone else to be forced to fit any particular pigeonhole.
The problem is, we all want social recognition. Even smart people. The environment is set up so that smart people don't get it because they can no longer afford to make the investment in being cool (ie, spending their time knowing what fashions are current, who's dating who this week, going to parties, never being seen near a computer, etc). So smart people are made to feel bad; in some cases, very bad indeed.
The most obvious way to deal with these bad feelings is to demonize those who cause them. How do you reconcile the cognitive dissonance between the belief that you are a good, worthwhile, useful person, and that they all think you are valueless? Well, they must be wrong. See the previous poster's choice of words: stupid, scared, mindless. People you don't even want to be involved with. People who don't like you and aren't liked by you. People who are so worthless that you don't even care if they think you're worthless. People so useless that 'subjecting yourself' to their company is a trial to be endured rather than an enjoyable experience.
And if they take such strong, destructive actions as loathing you based on what you see as a wrong-headed belief (ie, cool is better than smart), they must be bad people. And if they're bad people, why not kill them? You're doing the world a favor: Improving the collective IQ, as it were.
Needless to say, this is the wrong answer. For healing to occur, you must accept that these people loathe you, that it matters to you, try to understand their reasons, try to find ways to cope. This is very difficult and it would be a better world if it didn't have to happen. However, given the unpleasant choice as it has come to exist, better to grow up understanding that shallow people exist and posessing a few tools to deal with them succesfully, than to grow up with a kernel of hatred buried in your psyche and a twisted view that includes the [do I dare say it: evil] concept that permits you to value human beings as worthless.
The real tragedy is that these issues could easily, almost trivially, be addressed by the teachers, but the functional structure of the schools prevents it. By high school, courses are taught by subject, and the subjects are academic: history, science, math. There isn't a class in how to get along with people. Unlike elementary school, there isn't anyone specifically tasked to get to know the kids and oversee their cognitive and social development. It's easy to say that it's the parent's responsibility, but the parents rarely have any clear knowledge of what goes on in the school.
Home schooling is not the answer, because most parents can't stay home all day, aren't qualified as teachers anyway, and can't provide opportunities for social interaction; so all that happens is that their kids' social development pains are delayed until college instead of high school.
The real answer is to have a mandatory and participatory ethics/morals curriculum in the high schools, but of course it's very difficult to teach morals in a way that doesn't offend one or another fundamentalist religion. We've actually gotten to the point where you can't say "It is wrong to kill" in a classroom because it might be interpreted as religious in nature (not to mention then having to explain away the barbarity of state-sponsored execution). Now I'm not particularly religious myself, and I'd be generally against teaching specific dogmas in the schools, but I think high school is where moral grounding needs to be learned--and I think if the recent tragedy shows us anything, it's that we have to address this problem NOW.
It's not an isolated incident, it's associated with a particular culture, Western in general and US in particular. Clearly cultural elements play a part, the question is which ones and how much!
I don't believe that the internet or DOOM are to 'blame'. Though clearly easy access to ideas, just as easy access to guns, can be a facilitator.
The reason seems to be clear to me; anger, alienation. The difficulty of growing up in a world with so many choices. I know nothing about their circumstances other than the filter of the media, but one thing that struck me that I don't think has been mentioned - people have said here,
"Hey they were angry because they were made outcasts, all we need is more tolerance of diversity"
I'd like to propose a different view, teenagers like to rebel, make their mark. They did this in quite a visible way, yet nobody at school or at home seems to have taken any real notice, so they escalate, up and up... still nobody gives a shit and they can't really come in the next day without trench coats and glasses as that would seem like admitting defeat.. so they make people notice....
Maybe all they need was somebody to show them how to stop being a prat and do something constructive with all that intelligence and energy, that it takes more courage to live than die, more courage to change than to go to extremes; courage to admit your wrong.
Here I see the internet, in particular, as potentially a great outlet for creativity... but you have to be brave, not sneer.
Of course that's just speculation, but as I hadn't seen this particular perspective aired...
Gab
You really must read this article on Salon magazine.
The first line says it all: "In the land of no good explanations, the man with the daffiest explanation is king."
Everone's looking for an explanation, and the Internet is just one things fingers are being pointed at. Other things are: Kosovo, trenchcoats, Goths. (I wonder what kind of upbringing these boys had)
I guess this quote from the article explains why the Internet stands accused:
"But clearly there are deeper fears at work. We are eternally concerned with what technology will do to us -- how it will change our minds, change our lives, affect our livelihoods."
With over 50% of US families having access to the Internet, I don't think many people will take this finger-pointing seriously.
It depends on what you mean with discipline. If you mean being able to set limits, okay, I agree.
If you mean 'though love', hitting, yelling, continuus blaming, criticizing etc, I'd be willing to bet that's what those kids' parents did.
If your life at home is like DOOM, then it's not a great stretch to bring DOOM to school.
[Then again, that may not be the case. But according to reports, their parents were not very involved with the community. You'd be surprised how easy it is to hide child-abuse.]
Yes, but it's the equal protection clause of the 14th that applies the second amendment to state laws. "No state shall make or enforce any law abriding the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states". Prior to the 14th amendment, the US constitution applied only to federal laws. (hence "Congress shall make no law...") but *not* to state laws. The 14th amendment allows the second amendment to protect a citizen's right to keep and bear arms from state and local law.
0 1 - just my two bits
While the peanut gallery have turned this into a gun control debate and got right off topic, you have nailed it. This kind of violence is just a flare-up of a very serious disease afflicting the high school system. Violence. The violence that goes on in high schools, including incidents where the bullies can constantly subject the "outcasts" to physical abuse and humiliation is largely ignored, and acts that would result in prosecutions and permanent criminal records in the adult world are dismissed with a slap on the wrist. It is really sick, and the fact that the violence is ignored until someone DIES is disgusting, as is the complete failure to understand that this kind of thing is not really all that surprising when a culture of violence , humiliation, and abuse prevails in the high school culture.
cheers,
--
Some one has to point thier finger. Why not at the computer indrustry, they have allready done it to the TV brocasting.
Computers: the scapegoat of the future. ive played all of thoes games, ive never killed anyone (flys and roaches, but i wont count thoes right now), nor ever really wanted to. I would like to play a game of quake in something like the matrix, i guess they did also, and forgot no one could respawn.
-magister-
Society on the Internet is *in general* a meritocracy. You're judged by your ability to communicate, by your intelligence. But then when you go to school, those attributes become irrelevant, or worse, are turned against you.
Let's not congratulate our Internet/Slashdot/hacker culture too much: just because these boys used computers doesn't make them well-spoken or intelligent. Any idiot can get on AOL or some ISP and hang out in chat rooms, make crappy webpages, play Doom, and download the Pipe-Bomb-HOWTO.
In fact, it was widely recognized that they did NOT seem to be all that intelligent - their grades were hardly stellar (although that's not the end-all judgement of intelligence, it's something, and it's all we've got to go on in this case). Take a look at what they wrote in their yearbook or what's been attributed to them on the Net - "effective communication" it ain't.
This is not a case of the killers thinking "I'm widely respected on the Net because of my intelligence, but I'm an outcast at school for the very same reason?! I guess I'll kill a dozen innocent people!" That hardly seems to be evidence of intelligence. My guess is that they were as isolated on the Net as they were at school and in their families.
>If I can have the right to own a gun, why can't I >have the right to own a nuclear warhead? They are >both intended for the same purpose.
No, they're not. A nuclear warhead is a weapon of war, of mass destruction, and of utter and total inhalation. A pistol, rifle, or shotgun, non-automatic, is a tool for self defense.
--"In dreams begin responsibilities" - Delmore Schwartz
>...there are dictators who are elected. Hitler
>was of the latter variety.
Hitler was not "elected" dictator. He was elected, mostly by slandering and slaughtering his opponents, to a position in Germany most like Prime Minister I suppose, as there was still someove above him, not royalty, but a president. Hitler had enough Nazis in the legislative body to give him power to form laws. He then dismantled the rest of the government and built it back up to suit him. And yes, Hitler did take away people's guns and no, that probably wouldn't have stopped WWII, but at least we would have found out a little sooner (ala Kosovo). All this information was gathered from ABC's "Century" TV program, but I don't doubt that it's factual.
--"In dreams begin responsibilities" - Delmore Schwartz
...would be an even bigger disaster than the war on drugs. The reason that is such a problem is because there are smart, responsible people who enjoy the recreational use of controled substances and are willing to risk quite a bit to get it. Likewise, there are smart, responsible people who enjoy the recreational and self defense use of firearms. Compare taking herion from a junkie with taking a pistol from a member of the NRA and I think you'll see that neither is worth the risk.
--"In dreams begin responsibilities" - Delmore Schwartz
First of all, I was merly trying to prove to the AC that the German people did not elect Hitler as a dictator. They did not know of what his plans were at the time.
>>Hitler had enough Nazis in the legislative body
>>to give him power to form laws
>How did they get there? They were elected.
>Probably they weren't elected very honestly, but >again, that's in the nature of elections.
I probably should have said "suporters," instead of "Nazis," where "suporters" is the union of "Nazis" and people who supported Hitler in fear for there life.
>>He then dismantled the rest of the government
>>and built it back up to suit him.
>And? Again, this was done by political means,
>with a garnish of terror around the edges; but
>the terror was not directed at the majority of
>the electorate. It was directed at fringe groups >like Jews and communists, and also at political
>opponents.
You can't overthrow a government with the government. There has to be some point where you just dismantle everything, throw it all out and rebuild it.
The difference between the people would like to rebuild or dismantle parts of the US government and Hitler is their platform. Hitler said that he was a big conservative, was going to make Germany strong after WWI. He didn't metion the fact that he wanted to become a dictator and kill all the Jews, Gypsies, Gays, and anyone else he didn't like. The libretarian and other such parties platforms is the partial or total destruction of government. They're honest about what they want.
--"In dreams begin responsibilities" - Delmore Schwartz
>My take on the firearms issue? Both positions
>have flaws: but on the whole I like the idea of
>banning public access to lethal weapons. People
>(in whatever groupings you choose) are just too
>irrational and, all too often, just plain stupid.
I have to disagree. There are millions of gun owning americans who've never shot anyone. And there are also many americans (say, thousands) who've been able to stop a crime because they own a gun.
Some people are irrational, yes. People drink themselves to death every year, people fall asleep at the wheel and kill minivan's full of kids, some people abuse there children, some people run with sharp things. Just because stupid people do stupid things, should we outlaw booze, cars, procreation, and sharp things? Lots of stupid people do stupid things, yes, but we can't let a few bad apples ruin the pie.
--"In dreams begin responsibilities" - Delmore Schwartz
PS-- sorry for the horrible spelling, obviously my spell checker is somehting I connect with totally too, I should have used it here ;-)
---------- Hot Rats!
I think that in some ways you make a descent argument here but I don't think you really go far enough with it. The fundamental flaw here was not that these kids played Doom, or listened to Marilyn Manson, or dressed in black trenchcoats. The fundamental issue was that these kids were left alone with these things and never really connected to anything outside of that. The parents probly did the best they knew how but were they really there from the tiem their kids were born with the love and support that they needed? Or did they go about their daily business and ignore the various signs that were there saying that their kid was screaming out for help? I seriously doubt that these parents were attachemnt oriented and thought their kids love and connection on a daily basis. I don't want to sound like I'm blaming it all on the parents, because there were definately more factors that that.
Lets through in the video games and the internet and Marilyn Manson though and look at the role they could have played. Violent Music, while a definate form of expression (and one that even I connect with, being a fan of MM) does not in and ov itself motivate one to kill. Nor does violent thought in and of itself. The videogames could very well have been active in breaking down the barriers between reality and fantasy, but why would that be possible. If all a person has to connect with is a violent video game, then perhaps that's all they will know. If all a person knows is a violent fantasy of killing before being killed, you can see that there is a potential problem without me pointing it out. And the internet... As we know the internet is a tool for communicating and gathering ideas and spreading them. But it is a tool moer than a media. It is what we make of it. I can go on the internet and for months at a tiem never have contact with another human being on it, it is my decision about how I use the tool that allows me to communicate with other people or shut them out completely. In my case I choose to share my thoughts but that does not mean that most of the flames I will recieve from posting this will have any bearing on my life. Because I choose to ingnore the input and seek my own agenda which is to not bother reading or writing to people who don't like my ideas or my input. Who's to say these kids were part of an internet propigated "gang," I'm not saying they weren't, but I think that the impact was way less than is being emphasised. In the end, I believe that it is too difficult to pidgeon hole someone into a course of behavior that is dictated by music and video games and the internet by themselves. No, there was more to it... I think that these kids were let down by their families first off, probly because the parents didn't know how to effectivly divy up thie time between work and family and still make ends meet without feeling very drained themselves. This is a feeling that is growing in America and will probly continue. Secondly I believe that the school let these kids down, because they had no outlet for these intelligent children that they wanted to take part in, and because they failed to make them feel comfortable in any social type setting. The community and other kids let these kids down for not breaking through and not connecting with these boys early on and giving them status in the social ranking of the community. It is important for children to feel a part of something even if it is something small. Other kids and other parents should have reached out to include these kids in something other than what they could devise on their own. Alienation doesn't go aware just because you ignore it, often times it comes back to bite you.
This is what is happening today, more and more parents are having children that they can't devote the time to because they are too worried about the lives they want to lead than the ones they do lead. They don't take the time on a daily basis from the childs earliest years to make them feel loved, to bring them in and make them a part of the family unit. They send them to school where the only thing that they can find to connect to are drugs, music, and games. The other kids make fun of them, only driving them farther away. Teachers and priciples look at them as troubled children and pidgeon hole them that way, driving them further into a hole. They go home and play quake and have fun, and listen to loud crunchy music and have fun, and escape their depression for a while, breaking down what's real for a while. And we're suprised when they start fantasizing about all those monsters in doom being the monsters that are keeping them in that hole. Go figure that we've created a ticking time bomb, look at how many times these kids have been labeled and criticised and let down before they ever got to that point. And when they fell so low and have they're boundaries torn down to such a point, and still people ridicule or even worse, ignore them. It makes perfect sense that as an eighteen year old with hormones pumping and real life closer than ever, they just wanted to explode.
Unfortunately I believe that this is only the beginning. It's not going to go away until on the most fundamental family layer, we start to deal with our children as what they are, human. Full of all the good that we are, and the bad. We need a social structure that allows us to spend time with our kids, a work environment that is more focused on family, and healthy workers than profit. And more schools that have less children, more teachers, and lots of active learning rather than lectures that bore and build discontent. And most importantly room for all children to learn to grow and connect with eachother, not to learn to create outcasts. This is the only way we can start to change this in a healthy and constructive manner.
Taking into account for human behavior, it's not possible to have a hippy dippy land that everyone is going to be idealic parents and we're going to have idealic schools where all the kids are nice to eachother and all the teachers are great at motivating their students to do something other than fantasize about something other than today's lecture. But it is definately time that we as a community (as all communitys that make up the US, and the world) start taking a real hard introspective look at what we do to perpetuate the current behaviors and start working on real ways to move closer to that ideal that we seek. Until then, acts like this will continue.
---------- Hot Rats!
These so-called experts blamed the Internet, violent video games, "put-down culture" (whatever that means), and even the "Serial Killer trading cards" that were published some time ago.
At no time did anyone make the seemingly obvious observation that it never would have occured to these kids to do this if it weren't for the television coverage of the last couple dozen times this happened...
I mean, the internet is a great repository of information, and a revolution in media, certainly. But nothing matches the pervasiveness of TV. Nobody ever committed an act of public foolishness or massive violence in the hopes that it would make it on to the World Wide Web...
Of course, they're blaming the Internet because they may have got bomb plans off the web -- so what? If you want to find out how to be the best possible serial killer/mass murderer you can be, and avoid the mistakes of those who have gone before, your best bet is to spend an evening watching cable, not surfing the web. Between "Forensic Detectives", "America's Most Wanted" and Bill Moyers' latest production for A&E, you can find out everything you need to know about avoiding capture, concealing evidence and copping an insanity plea if you do get caught.
But, the supreme irony was this -- the host of this show was none other than Geraldo Rivera, the man who put Charlie Manson on the air over a decade ago, and whose style of sensationalistic pseudojournalism arguably bears more responsibility for this tragic event than every neo-nazi website and ultraviolent videogame put together.
$_="06fde129ae54c1b4c8152374c00"; s/(.)/printf "%c",(10,32,65,67,69,72, (74..76),(78..80),(82..85))[hex $1]/eg;
and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
It is amusing how some people are quick to claim that a thing such as a game could not possibly change behavior, but a thing such as a gun can... It seems to me that it would be the other way around if anything.
As much as I hate to admit it, you are somehwhat right.
However, you fail to address the heart of the problem.
Do video games (of the violent flavor) affect children? The answer is they ***can***. If parents choose not to raise their children, more than likely they *will* (this is not always true, I've known children that were sit down in front of the TV all of their young lives and turned out fine, even after playing lots of Doom).
It isn't the TV or the Quake that hurts children. It is the replacement of a parent with these. That is what does it. It has nothing to do with lack of religion (or a "strange" religion), violence in a game, or anything like that. It has to do with the lack of a caring parent.
But that is just me.
This sig is false.
If America didn't have so many guns, it wouldn't have so many shootings.
There are nutters everywhere, but America gives them the constitutional right to bear arms.
Duh!
Getting the chance to witness first-hand the European work ethic/culture, I see the point Mr.AC is trying to make. However, I think we are also witnessing evolution in progress...sociological evolution. As the globe becomes smaller, and the continents begin to weaken their nationalistic hold on borders, the traditional cultural differences will begin to blend. The United States, far removed from the pressures of 7+ countries at its doorways, has been a crucible of sociological changes. As large as the country is, it has acted as a Galopagos in the realm of cultural time. The "agressive, go-get-em" attitude has been allowed to grow unchecked with no "natural enemy"...well, maybe one. And unfortunately, that "one" is a loss of respect for others. Total victory in a capitalistic society cannot be achieved without crushing others, both economically and socially. At first it starts with an acceptance of poorer people, then impovershed people, then outcasts. Fear of being last turns into paranoia. Given the tools to eliminate the causes of this fear and paranoia, the individual will respond. We saw this response on Tuesday. We've seen it before, and we'll see it again. However, because of this global border relaxing, the U.S. will find itself increasingly opposed to the more humanitarian/solcialist ventures of other countries. There's a long way to go. Case in point: In the UK, there are campaigns geared for the elimination of the 3rd World. That kind of change would be unheard of in the U.S. Too many companies are built upon the backs of the 3rd world. I hope this will change. Finally, I think all of us (meaning the globe, not Americans) should remain keenly aware of an alarming global trend that could thwart the ideals of a globally equal society. As the globe has shrunk, weapons have become more powerful. This means that simply having these weapons puts a lot of power in the hands of "cornered" countries. This has been all too apparent throughout the 90s. Even though life isn't as dark as many futurists of old predicted for the late 20th century, I do believe we all have room to improve and I hope this is as low as we get. As Shakespeare's "King Lear" tells us, there's no bottom. Things can *always* get worse. Jesse
Many people can control themselves when it comes to alcohol. Have a few drinks, know enough not to get in a car or beat up their significant other when they get home. Others can't keep this control, and sometimes they don't skip that first drink, since it seems that no one else has to abstain. But for some people the first drink inevitably leads to a tenth. And many times people who've had that tenth drink go on to do something violent. Should we ban alcohol? I don't think so. In moderation, it actually can help you live longer. There are, however, people for whom any amount of it is inappropriate.
Acting out violent scenes, even on screen, can also create an altered sense of consciousness, through the adrenalin and the extreme focus. I would have to believe that there are people for whom this would have the same effect as alcohol has to an alcoholic. Combine this with a sense of factionslism (we/they),a general feeling of powerlessness, a society that doesn't reward empathy as readily as self indulgence, and the ready availability of weapons and instruction for creating them, and you're going to get this kind of reaction sometimes.
So should the games be banned? I don't think so. Do we need to admit that they may be one of several contributing factors. I believe that the answer has to be yes.
Why the objection to links to sex in american popular culture? European society seems to have a much healthier additude. This difference would seem to me to be more significant than any differences in gun control laws.
I'm sorry, but I have a slightly higher opinion of the Slashdot audience than yours.
But yes, he definitely had issues. And very poorly written exception handling.
K.
-
--
To the extent that I wear skirts and cheap nylon slips, I've gone native.
-- Proud descendant of semi-nomadic cattle-herders.
What drove HAL crazy? Being programmed to tell
:) (and a high threshold for pain :(). But I accepted quite a bit of the grief that came my way because that was the way things were. If it had been pointed out to me that there were other ways for things to be, I wouldn't have been so quick to accept the hassle.
the truth and being told to lie.
Society on the Internet is *in general* a meritocracy. You're judged by your ability to communicate, by your intelligence. But then when you go to school, those attributes become irrelevant, or worse, are turned against you. You're ostracised for the very same things that are an advantage on the Internet. This does not lead to a stable mentality.
I didn't have too much trouble in my school, mostly because I was a sarcastic little bastard who'd verbally rip anyone to shreds who tried to mess with me - and I had biker friends
K.
-
--
To the extent that I wear skirts and cheap nylon slips, I've gone native.
-- Proud descendant of semi-nomadic cattle-herders.
When people talk about gun control and how it would make a better future, I think of the following:
If eliminating guns is supposed to make life better for everyone, why not ban cars becuase of drunk drivers (or perhaps ban driving during night time)? If a law abiding citizen is denied the use or ownership of a gun because of someone else breaking the law involving a gun, it should follow that safe drivers should not be allowed to drive cars because there is a possibility of someone driving drunk. A car is after all a guided projectile and a drunk driver with a car is an unguided projectile.
Sit back and think how that would solve the problem. With no cars, how can you have a car wreck? The world must then be safer. Now realize that if cars are banned, do you really expect that everyone will simply stop using their car? No. It just makes EVERYONE a criminal. So instead of making the world safer, the world is just as dangerous or worse, but everyone is now a criminal. So what did we accomplish? Nothing, except denying law abinding citizens the privilege to drive a car.
To me, this is ignorance. Cars and guns are inherently dangerous. The root of the problem is people who drive drunk, or people who seek revenge by shooting someone. The problem is not the car or gun itself. Until people can make this distinction, there will always be this ingnorance.
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
Richard von Weizs
It is difficult to find a single responsible party in a mess like this. Obviously, most of the responsibility lies on the two students who committed the violence, but a pretty large share also has to go to the students who pushed them to it. Typically enough, it appears from one report I've seen that these students were too cool to eat at the cafeteria, and had just left campus when the shooting started. The other influences are surely too small to be seriously considered, unless you wish to separate possible mental illness from personal responsibility.
/.ers here. I never fit in with *any* group, jock or geek or anything else, but got along reasonably well with everyone. I went to a number of schools, and the best ones in this regard were the relatively small ones, where I often found "jocks" that would stick up for me when the occasional bully tried to push me around. As a whole, the jocks did not impress me much, and some were downright lousy, but it only took a few with a firm sense of right and wrong, willing to stick up for me, to make a huge difference. There were doubtless other contributing factors, and some of these probably helped me in part because I had always treated everyone else with respect.
It is unsurprising that the gun control debate should erupt here. Let me just say that I believe that the calls for gun control are as badly thought out and as knee-jerk a reaction as the blame placed on the internet and computer games. Everyone seems to be searching for a perfect solution that doesn't exist, and few seem willing to make a reasonable trade-off that will produce a best-case, but far from perfect, result.
Several posters brought up the point of self-esteem -- either too little or too much. I believe that all the talk we hear about low self esteem is so much crap. The problem is two-fold -- self esteem that is too high, and acceptance that is too low. Kids don't need to be told that they are smart and nice and pretty or handsome and so forth, in many cases even if they are. They don't need to have an over-developed ego in which they believe they can do no wrong. On the other hand, they don't need to be told they're worthless either. What they need to be told is that they are valued and loved regardless of whether they are smart or stupid, pretty or pretty ugly, fat or thin, "normal" or "outsider", jock or academic. This needs to be done first by parents and teachers, and then by other students.
My experience in school was probably somewhat different than many of the other
I also discovered in high school that most of the kids -- even the jerks -- were wonderful to be around when there were only two of us. When they weren't trying to impress others, they had no reason to be cruel, and when being themselves were generally quite nice if sometimes a little shallow. I believe our society could do more to make it the popular thing to treat people right -- that alone would make a tremendous impact. The methods that have been generally used to do this, however, are so incredibly lame that it's incredible that there hasn't been more of a backlash.
Just because I think it's so important, I'm going to repeat again: Don't teach kids self-esteem. Teach that they are loved and accepted without any conditions (but that they would be better off if they studied, acted nice, and so forth).
Since a number of people have said that violence like this does not happen in other countries -- Ha! There are plenty of countries with more violence, or similar incidents. I'm thinking that it wasn't so long ago that someone set fire to a dance club in Sweden, for example. Of course, Kosovo is another example of pointless violence, and other posters have mentioned examples similar to this one in Colorado.
For all that, I believe that one of the worst effects of all this is the result of the media. I hadn't realized that the media could be so stupid until I saw a report on TV last night -- tieing in the Internet, Geeks, Computer Games, Goths, and even Trenchcoats and Gangs into all this, where it should have been extremely obvious by then that none of these had any connection to the shooting. The only thing in the report that might have a connection to this sort of violence was the report itself, which so blatantly ostracised anyone who was not like the reporters who were covering the story -- anyone who thought independently, dressed differently, whatever. This attitude of the media toward anyone who does not meet their idea of what is "normal" can clearly contribute to non-"normal" students being abused and made to feel separate from society, which seems to have been one of the root causes of this shooting. There were a couple cases where the shooters didn't shoot people they knew well, and let them get away -- I don't believe they were completely insane, just driven to insanity by years of hatred and abuse. They had a responsibility to keep themselves from going so far, but they are not the only ones responsible.
Since I'm here, I'll go ahead and put in a plug for genetic engineering -- perhaps if we engineer future generations to have higher intelligence and greater empathy, as well as removing some factors that attribute to aggression, we will have less violence of all sorts in the future.
Alan R. Light
Monroe, NC
Like most everyone else ex-USA, I find their gun culture absurd. Everytime something like this happens the same tired arguments get another go round the ring. It's really _very_ simple ...
re: geeks -- I was a classic techie geek at the age of 17, emotionally withdrawn and not a happy bunny. God knows I fantasised enough about blowing the heads off the UK equiv. of 'jocks' ... fortunately I couldn't get a gun, and eventually grew up & realised that though I had smaller muscles, I had a more brains :) and that they get you status, too, if you work at it.
It will be interesting to examine the stats for such incidents in a decade's time, to see whether the Net explosion has an overall positive or negative effect. I'm pretty sure it will be positive cos potential killers will have more scope for socialisation outside their RL peer group. That will hopefully more than counter-balance the idiots who spend their time researching pipe bombs.
Incidentally, I lost a lot of respect for ESR over that 'geeks with guns' nonsense.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Are you suggesting that the answer to the problem IN THE U.S. is better training in how to use a gun ?
Clearly if possession of guns were outlawed tomorrow, death rates would not drop immediately. We (in the UK) still have the occasional incident with WW2 era weapons kept as souvenirs. It would take a long time to bring the US into line with, say, Canada in death rates.
What about Canada ? Society is presumably similar to the US -- but what's the murder rate there ?
If life has such great value, isn't it more important than this facile "right to carry guns" ? \a
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Uhm, when the "militia" is "the people", then yes, EVERYONE has the right.
your society (sadly) glorifies the possession of firearms. people do not need guns to lead normal lives.
talk about blaming games or music is utterly bizarre in that context.
There are essentially 3 parties involved here: the Murders, the Parents, and the "Cool" People.
I was a member of the "Cool" group when I was in high school. However, I did not participate in the "cool" rituals of making fun of others. We've all felt hatred before, and I'd bet my Linux box that these two kids were sick and tired of being laughed at and picked on. The "cool" people would say, "Ahh, we were just playing," but you all no it sucks to be rejected and made fun of.
The Parents are probably to most to blame IMHO. My parents actually told me (and I remember it fondly) that I was *not* special (this only happened once and it was used to prove a point). Basically I came to the conclusion that we are all equal in value...that being the life of a human. People that I didn't consider very bright in high school have actually turned out to be pretty smart and have some great jobs. All it takes is to feel like your worth something. That's were parents need to teach their kids that building people up instead of tearing them done is *very* important. On a different note, the parents of these two murders need to wake up. From what the new reports said, these kids have been active in the Gothic movement and liked to play with guns. Hmm...
And lastly the Murders...what do I say? How about vent on something else? I get pissed and vent through programming or Quake2. Oh and the bottom line on the Quake/DOOM issue is that if you can't tell the difference between Virtual and Actual reality, you need to get out more. Also, and this kinda goes back to the parents, too many people think fighting (physically) is the way to solve problems. It sounds cheezy to many people, but talking things out is a much better way to go. I'm pretty sure that if these trench coat guys would humble themselves and go tell the "cool" people that it hurts to be picked on, that something would be done. Someone from the "cool" group would have to passion to agree and support the "outcasts". I hate having enemies, and I hate knowing somebody else hurting because of something I contribute or can stop.
So contrary to what the media would like us to believe, Society is to blame. We don't want to say it's society because that would mean we would have to actually do something. Sorry, but if you've ever made fun of somebody, you contributed to this problem. One of the most important concepts for use to get through out fat heads is to put ourselves in other people's shoes. Do unto others and you would want them to do unto you. I think that's in Matthew somewhere...that being the Bible.
"Your heart is free. Have the courage to follow 'er."
-- Grow up and use mutt.
Considering that the government is run by the same fucked in the head americans, it's really a moot point
Well, IIRC here in Norway we have more guns per k-capita than the U.S., but we have fewer incidents largely because
Plus, we hail from the Vikings, which obviously were flower-power do-gooder hippies. After all, they didn't have porn, the Internet, videos and movies, guns, rock music or skimpy clothing, hence weren't violent. And I'll break the knee-caps of anyone who saysdifferently. :-)
I think it was in Scotland, and it was not a student who carried out the horrendous act. It was an adult.
There was a similar massacre in Tasmania, in 1996, when an adult went on a shooting spree at a popular tourist location (36 dead). He is serving life in prison, and it resulted in stronger gun laws in Australia.
I don't think any relelvant American politician (or judge) would be willing to risk their necks to restrict gun access. Given the history of assassinations in the US, I really can't blame them.
Of course, if these kids were "smart" and they really wanted carnage, they would not bother with guns but just blow up the school. In that case, the whole issue of gun access is irrelevant. The problem is somewhat deeper, and indicative of a problem in modern society.
Think 'politically correct'.
Right, but they didn't want to just kill people. That could be done more easily and safely from a distance with more devastating explosives. They wanted their victims to plea for their lives, face-to-face. They wanted them to know who was doing it. This makes me very sad. What could make someone want to do this?
There was one mass-shooting in a Scottish school, but it was not a child or teenager. It was a middle aged man.
Geeks are always getting blasted by the old media.
Part of it is the simple dislike many of the social gadfly types in the media have for those of the more intellectual persuasion, part of it is opportunism (in at least two, and probably more, obvious ways: an opportunity for the old media to bash its most threatening rival -- the internet -- and an opportunity to hype a trajedy and push people's fear buttons in the hopes of keeping them mindlessly glued to the tube), and part of it is simple incompetence and shoddy journalism resulting more from laziness and lack of talent than any overt malice.
The reality is that (at least in the US) nearly all young people are using the net, so of course no one should be surprised that some of those who go off the deep end are using it as well. Shall we start assuming all (or most, or even many) automobile drivers are serial killers, simply because nearly all serial killers drive cars?
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Let me start this by refering to both this and itp's response to the `Media coming to grips with the changin' times' post I did.
You, itp, are absolutely right in that there *is* a connection between the glorification of mindless senseless violence and the increased occurence of such. Humans get numbed by anything they see long enough, and if it is truly pervasive they will start to perceive it as the norm.
However, in current society, even though violence is being glorified, there are very many examples that show it is *not* normal, and there are very many reinforcements of the non-violent norm. The two trenchcoat mobsters must have ignored those examples and reinforcements and chosen to be highly violent.
Note that they could choose for violence. They had access to weapons and bombs. They had positive reinforcements for the destructive thoughts brought on by their outcast nature. But they must have also lacked reinforcements against violence.
There is probably no single reason to be found for their actions. What can be said however is that their entire surroundings were conducive to their violence.
Actually the social setting of high school is but part of the problem. I have been a social outcast in high school as well, what with me being a nerd and all. However, I *did* manage to keep myself socially involved with most of the people I saw at school. I wrote for the high school newspaper, acted in the high school plays and was an active member of the school choir. This provided me with ample reinforcement for the view that `everything is gonna be alright'. It even prepared me for being outcast in my freshmen year at college: I managed to find friends even though most of the other freshmen loathed me.
It seems to me these kids did not even try to actively go out to combat their negative feelings but simply reveled in them. And the fact that *that* has not been noticed by the teachers and parents is what scares me. It ought to be different.
I think it is actually rather encouraging that the media point to FPS games as a reason for the Columbine killing. It shows that they are becoming mainstream and there is nothing anyone can do against it anymore. Just look at the past for more examples of this: the supposedly 'bad` influence of comics, the 'corrupting` influence of agressive action movies, even TV shows have been 'credited` as cause for rampant behaviour.
Ofcourse, no journalist would *dare* put the blame were it rightfully belongs: with the person responsible. Somehow it seems unacceptable to them that an 18-year-old can truly be a criminal.
On a last note: why do people think that ready availability of information on bomb-making (or drug-making for that matter) is all that's required for people to actually go out and make bombs (or drugs)? There *is* such a thing as availability of the physical means to do so, and it need not exist. Knowledge doesn't kill. Knowledge *cannot* even kill.
Hunting license? Hunter's safety class. It's simple: Require a license. And require training. Which would include more than just "point here;" we need psychological evaluations, too.
But this brings us back to the very same problem. We can legislate the hell out of owning a gun, but this only works for those interested in abiding by the law in the first place. Laws can be passed ad nauseam, but they won't do anything to stop those who are intent on breaking them. And that's exactly what happened in Littleton. It's pure folly to think that either of these two kids would have reflected on the "legality" of their actions had there been even MORE laws in place. They wanted to kill, and they did. It's that simple.
"That there are voices opposing stricter laws on firearms and guns make me shiver. Especially this guy who said something like "if only a teacher had a gun, this wouldn't have happened" ... *gosh*"
Obviously, you haven't thought this through enough if this just makes you shiver.
What did these shooters want? Power. They wanted the ability to shoot whoever they wanted to, to walk through a maze of helpless students and get back at all of them. The "games" that they played while shooting people makes this obvious. They only were able to do this because no one could counter them.
It wouldn't have taken a gun, it just would have taken the knowledge that someone in that crowd owned a gun and probably had it with them. That would have raised the possibilty of being shot down, which would have dramatically decreased the willingness of the shooters to start this. To be shot down would have been the final humiliation.
THIS is what concealed carry laws are about. Criminals are much more loathe to turn a gun on somebody when there is a chance that they will get shot in return.
"HELLOOO!!! anyone in there... this was a suicide mission. Under normal circumstances someone with a gun would think twice. However in this case, these kids went in, shot the place up, then killed themselves."
But there is a DIFFERENCE between killing oneself and being shot down. One is "going out in a blaze of glory." The other is "Being shot down." As I said before, being shot down is the final humilliation.
"It had nothing to do with games"
Sorry that I didn't make that clear...I meant games as having that one female beg for mercy and then killing everyone around her, saying exactly how they were going to kill people, etc..
I was in a group that would for the most part would have been classified as a "Trenchcoat Mafia" had our school not been less accepting of the differing groups, since at our school the jocks didn't run the show. We played doom and quake, even on the schools network. Many had trenchcoats, a few even owned guns, (under parents name if under 18) and we were never in a fight, or threaten to fight someone, by fists, hardguns, or rifles. We played Magic, some played AD&D, none played sports. Perhaps the only main differing media-hype statistic is that we didn't listen to MM.
What you wear, play, listen to does not turn you into a humankind hating, gun-happy terrorist unless there is something else wrong, something that cannot nessessarily be represented by clothing or the contents of your hobbies section of your web page. Unfortunatly, when it isn't highlighted for the mass media to see, they will place the blame on what is evident, regardless of how blatently incorrect it is to anyone who spends a few clock-cycles on it.
I find the events of the last few days as horrible as anyone. I'm pleased I live in a country where guns are not commonplace. What HAS troubled me about this tragedy, is the speed in which the various churches have "rallied round" the community. What a perfect time to increase their congregations. It sickens me that whenever there is an out pouring of public sympathy, the church is right there on scene to mop it up. I hear many people offering prayers to the dead, and their families, even Clinton. I'm all for religious freedom, people are free to belive in anything they want, (even aliens and volcanoes) but just don't use a tragedy just this to further your cause. And for the record, I was brought up a Christian, but have become Agnostic!
Thanks,
Andy Bowd
yes, www.dotcomforwardslash.com is my real URL.
Thank you for your intelligent response. It is terrible to hear such a thing as someone being killed for their belief, and I am sorry to hear about the loss of a friend. Whilst I do not share people's religious beliefs, I am prepared to fight to the death to defend their right to have them. (To paraphrase clumsily) I don't belive a church (notice how non specific I'm being here) should be used as a crutch. Religion is not a panacea. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth when I hear people, to my (prehaps jaded) ear asking * (again notice how ns I'm being) for forgivness for sins. I belive that if there IS a god (can't think of a better word, sorry) and I'm proved wrong, that I've led, whilst not the best life in the world, I'm a good guy, I don't beat people, hurt animals, lie, cheat (apart from video games!). I am just a person who looked at a spritual life, and decided that it would be wrong for me to follow a lifestyle that I didn't 100% belive in. I don't mock people for their beliefs, a friend of mine's, girlfriend is a christian, and I am fasinated by how this (multiple) degree student (one of her family members taught me Physics in school) can at one hand, know how the universe works, and yet belive that someone made it. They say time heals all wounds, I hope that you're soon back in good spirits.
Best wishes
Andy Bowd
yes, www.dotcomforwardslash.com is my real URL.
"I Think death is too good for them. They should have been made to suffer for a long, long time. Maybe death eventually, but not a quick injection or electrical jolt."
Are you listening to what you are saying? Do you think that tourturing them is going to fix any of the damage that has been. It certainly won't bring back any of the people that they killed. It might make you feel better but at what cost?
Another thing to consider is the killers themselves. Why do you autoamtically assume that they are "Monsters"? Is it because you don't want to even imagine that they could be similar to you in any way? I would suggest that all this violent talk towards them will do nothing for anyone and is just making the tragedy all the sader
That's what it's, in spain we also had a media telling that it was internet fault that those sick boys killed so many. They did forgot that getting a weapon in the USA it's easier than getting the driver license. If there're so many weapons in one moment or another they'll be used and someone will be killed. That's the truth, it's not internet, it's education and the guns.
Interestingly enough, the newspaper report I saw here in Western Australia didn't say anything about the gunmen being "geeks", blaming the Internet, or blaming violent computer games. Instead, it seemed that what the press was worried about was that the gunmen were Goths ...
The front-page report states that Eric Harris "started wearing black [a year ago] and became obsessed about anything German from World War II", while Dylan Klebold "had an interest in guns" and "adopted a Gothic appearince in the past year, wearing black clothing and growing his hair long".
The only mention of the Internet anywhere in any of the articles was a passing reference to a website where Gothic poetry was "symbolised" by trench coats. The article claims that the Trench Coat Mafia were inspired by fantasy games such as Dungeons and Dragons ...
The following quoted excerpts are from my copy of the paper. It isn't clear whether they wrote this article themselves or 'borrowed' it from another source - it's uncredited.
I suppose this indicates that the Australian press (even if it is mostly owned by Rupert Murdoch) doesn't hold the same 'fear' of the Internet that the American media seems to. This is a good thing, I guess, for the Internet community at least!
There was also a very heart-warming article in the newspaper about how President Clinton was showing his support for the families of those affected by the tragedy. However I much preferred this article about Clinton over on this week's edition of The Onion. :) Go read it and take your mind off this unpleasant subject ...
NB: The above quotes are from The West Australian newspaper, April 22 1999 issue. No on-line version for me to link to, sorry.
Andrew.
--
The Yautja
"It was all so different before everything changed."
Sincerely,
The Yautja.
> Kosovo is a prime f*cking example of what can
> happen. If every household in Kosovo had a gun,
> if every township could band their people
> together with said guns and put up a fight they
> might have been able to defend themselves. This
> very reason is *why* we 'merkins have this
> slowly disappearing right to keep arms.
The Kosovans _did_ have access to weapons, _did_ put up strong fight (the KLA made a lot of ground early on), but in the end the Serbian tactics and superiority beat them down. Along the way, of course, were (and are!) the many attrocities.
My take on the firearms issue? Both positions have flaws: but on the whole I like the idea of banning public access to lethal weapons. People (in whatever groupings you choose) are just too irrational and, all too often, just plain stupid.
C-x C-s
I used to play Doom & Duke Nukem back in college, and I though they were pretty cool games. I certainly know these games don't make people killers, if they did, we would have a bigger problem right now.
However, when I heard about the shootings and the type of weapons I could not help but notice the similarities to some of those games. For example, we all know that one of the weapons in Doom 1&2 is the shotgun. And then, in Duke Nukem, one of the "innovations" was the use of pipe bombs to blow away enemies.
While more likely these games didn't cause the killings, I can't in all honesty say there was no influence here from them. (And the level of use was high, the "Eric" guy made a bunch of wad files back in '96 & '97)
As games become more and more violent and much more realistic, we're going to have to deal with the fact that sometimes, some games are not appropiate for certain age groups and certain types of kids. Wheter it's soley up to the parents, or a rating system or whatever, we can't not thinking about this issue.
Yesterday I got my copy of Half-Life, which I've been itching to play. However, I couldn't install it. I probably will sometime, but for now, I could use a lot of thinking and reflect on what's going on in this world.
- sigs are for wimps.
Hi. As dark paladin said, I apologize in advance. I'm an American, my veiws are skewed, etc..bear with me. I'm probably one of the youngest /. readers out there. I'm eighteen, and a freshman in college. (don't ask)
Therefore, this incident strikes more than a little bit close to home. I was in high school less than a year ago, and I can vouch for what dstar was saying about the division between geeks, goths, and other interesting folks, and what I've generally called throughout the years "norms".
I mean, right there you can tell how bad our nations schools have gotten. I went to a catholic high school for christsake, and the "us" and "them" mentality was quite strong even there.
But I digress. Essentially, it was just me and a few of my friends who shared geeky or gothy inclinations, and banded together for discussion, merrymaking, etc. Perfectly innocent. When we had to refer to ourselves as a group, we usually called ourselves "The Table", simply because while at school our orbiting point was a table in the lunchroom area where we always sat at.
(Amusingly enough, my high school ascribed to a caste system of seating arrangement, where the seniors sat closest to the food, the freshman the farthest. The Table was front row, closest table to the lunch line, and there were quite a few lower classpersons in our group. Just one of the reasons we were so well loved.)
Well...it wasn't long before it was recognized by the student body at large that we were a group of "different" people. A number of us had made the intellectual leap to wear all black (it goes with everything, you know), and I guess since some of us were geeks they decided we liked Star Wars (an accurate guess, but still...) so we became, much to our annoyance..."The Dark Siders".
The inter-clique hatred sort of built up from there. One of the knuckle dragging foot ball players got expelled from school after a friend of mine got fed up with being refered to as a "Faggot" "Gay-Boy" "Nance" etc, and went to the administration to complain. I myself evidently was accused of causing a member of said football team to break his leg by casting a spell on him. (I never knew I had it in me. idiots)
In addition to the outright hatred towards "us" the rest of the school felt evidently the school's linguistic habits were falling onto hard times as well. The use of profane language had evidently sprung into an epidemic of huge proportion. (Now, it seems to me that high school students have always had filthy mouths, but then, I'm not an administrator of a catholic high school, so what do I know?) So we were subjected to a degrading and demoralizing speech from the administration, in which the Disciplinarian figure in the administration (an ex-cop) *listed* all the words he didn't want heard, including some really quite nasty abbreviations of phrases that evidently were used. This stupidity was compounded by him then feeling it neccessary to "stick up for us", and admonish the rest of the school for "picking on us". This from the man who repeatedly had, throughout my years at the school, shown himself to have a very closed mind, and actually requested a number of times that we act more "normal".
So...to give a point to this ramble:
Our schools have become idealogical hotbets where the majority learns to hate and fear that which it does not understand. And as they always say, the lessons they learn there will stay with them the rest of their lives. And people wonder why management can't understand engineers or IS flacks.
What do we do about this? Unfortunately, I haven't a clue. I regretfully agree with Dark Paladin's suggestions. (i.e. Parental involvement, Gun Control, Death Penalty) Regretfully because I find it incredibly saddening to think that we have to resort to laws specifically aimed at minors regarding unthinkable crimes so that some measure of peace can be found. Not only that, but I'm a big fan of this freedom thing, and each law takes just a little bit of squirming room away.
Here's hoping this turns out okay...
You've touched upon a whole different topic. The school system in the US is degrading. And I'm of the opinion that nothing will stop it although I do have several opinions on the reasons.
First, children today often don't have any sort of support system. Mom and dad both work if they are even both still around. They don't have much time to be a part of their child's life. Some try really hard, even fewer actually succeed. The unfortunate part is that even a little bit of listening can avert a tragedy like this one.
Second, school is a privilege. This may sound good on the surface but what this means is that each successive generation takes this a little more for granted. Even worse, kids that genuinely want to be in school are stuck in classes full of kids that don't want to be there. That statement contains so many problems that need to be fixed that it is a topic for another entire dicussion.
Third, society tends to view money as the answer. When confronted with this opinion I often hold up a dollar bill and ask if it's teaching anyone. When everyone says that it isn't, I then hold up two then three, etc.. The point is that money may be required to implement a solution, but it is not a solution in and of itself. In fact, in more densely populated areas an equal allotment of money is almost insignificant.
Add these three together and what you get is a downward spiral. Each successive generation of kids will be required to be and learn to be more independent. Schools will get more money and not know what to do with it. Each generation of kids will be more likely to take school for granted and not understand the future benefits. Schools will spend the increase in money on making sure that the students can't sneak away. As the reaction becomes more militant the gulf between the few students that really want to be there and the students that don't want to be there will widen.
Because the kids are more independent, they know the basics about how to function in society earlier. This means that they know how to find or purchase guns, explosives, knives, etc.. The internet and violent games only give them the extra experience needed to make the task easier.
The last nail in the coffin that is my downward spiral theory is that all of this adds up to mean that parents need to become even more involved than they already are. Parents that are barely able to tackle the problem now will become overwhelmed.
I fully expect to send my future children to a school where they aren't required to spell correctly until the 6th grade. I only hope that I'm in a position where I can keep my son or daughter out of public schools. I'd hate to have to send them somewhere they are expected to be medianly stupid just because classes are tailored around keeping a disgruntled group a little more interested.
Grrr! Few topics are as frustrating as this one.
-Paul (pspeed@progeeks.com)
Edu. sig-line: Choose rhymes with lose. Chose rhymes with goes. Loose rhymes with goose.
Comparing? THEN use THAN.
Ok, I don't consider myself goth, and I sure don't listen to industrial pop, but it's been pissing me off to no end listening to the radio and hearing people talk about "these goth kids", and generally making it seem like people who wear black clothes and listen to crappy industrial music are racist psychopaths. The kids weren't even goths to begin with.
There are many groups that are being targeted here, and many generalizations being made. And blame is flying everywhere except where it belongs - the kids and the parents.
-lx
I've read quite a few comments about who is responsible. Parents, guns, society. I hate to say this but none of us know enough about these two kids to say what caused or influenced them to go on a shooting spree. We all know what we know via a third party who has no interest in conveying the facts or the truth. If anyone is to blame for keeping societies ills obfuscated and out of sight, it is the media. If we rely on the media to report to us what is going on, and we make decisions based on this hearsay and conjecture, we will never solve the real problem, no matter what it is.
In short, the media dispenses bad data. We would be wrong to act on that bad data or to draw conclusions from it.
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
As usuall most people will only see this as a gun control problem. I don't really think that gun control is the issue. These kids made a large quantity of bombs also. These kids had some motivation to do this. If they didn't have access to guns they may have simply made more, or larger, bombs. They also could have used knives, forks, pencils, etc. I think we should be worrying more about what makes a child want to do something like this, not the fact that he used a gun to do it. If somebody is determined to do something, they will find a way to do it. Just removing guns from the wouldn't have stopped this kids from doing what they did. They just would have used some other method.
Living in the UK, I find it difficult to understand the american culture at times. On CNN yesterday there was a program (Crossfire) that talked about the effectes of "Computer Games, Rock Music and the Internet" on these killers.
.22 guns used by the British Olympic team. Within 2 months all guns were turned in to the government. In the UK even the police do not carry guns unless they are part of special "armed response" forces.
When a similar incident occured in the UK a few years ago (Dunblane massacre), all private ownership of guns was prohibited. This even included
The issue that was consistently ignored by the American media (from what I saw) was the availability of guns. Things like the Internet and Rock music which at best have an incredibly small effect were paraded as the obvious reasons. The gun culture which was probably (IMHO) the major effect was ignored.
Burying the head in the sand?
Now, I understand the gun culture even less. I am of course an outsider so my opinions are pure speculation.
Close them all down. They ARE the Anti-Christ!
...or was it "Planet of Apes"?
...and send all our battle-hardened high-schoolers to spearhead the ground war in Kosovo.
Issue guns to ALL the citizens...we are safer that way...I saw that in the "Ten Commandments"
Bomb Redmond! Strangle Eric Raymond! Vilify Tim O'Reilly and all poseurs!
To hell with you all!
Buzz Lightyear
buzz Lightyear doesn't know what he's taking about.
Buzz Lightyear
Yes I do!
Buzz Lightyear
He was elected, mostly by slandering and slaughtering his opponents,
Slander doesn't depend on guns, much less on dictators. It happens in every election on earth. As for slaughter, now that I think about it, Hitler's goons were armed with sticks and knives. They had very few, if any, guns in the early days. Guns would have made it easier, I suspect, but who can say?
Hitler had enough Nazis in the legislative body to give him power to form laws
Watch those passive verbs. How did they get there? They were elected. Probably they weren't elected very honestly, but again, that's in the nature of elections.
He then dismantled the rest of the government and built it back up to suit him.
And? Again, this was done by political means, with a garnish of terror around the edges; but the terror was not directed at the majority of the electorate. It was directed at fringe groups like Jews and communists, and also at political opponents.
Essentially, what you're describing is what the militias and religious extremists want to do in the United States: Grab power, as "democratically" as possible, and then "fix" the government. What Hitler did was exactly what the gun nuts tell us we should be doing "every twenty years": Overthrowing the government and replacing it with one that vigorously supresses whatever we're feeling nervous about this week. Hitler was not the government until he grabbed power. When Hitler started grabbing power, he was an armed private citizen.
When people talk about "a revolution every twenty years", they always assume that the new government will be composed of them and their friends, or at least their ideological soul-mates. They always assume that it will be a government that they like, and that it will not send goons to kill them in the streets and/or pack them into cattle cars. But you know what? More often than not, when the "armed private citizens" grab power, they do exactly that. When you look back with hindsight, it's easy to say "Oh, the Bolsheviks were a government and look how bad they were!" Well, they weren't a government until they'd grabbed power. Before that, they were, as usual, armed private citizens. They were much less of a majority than the Nazis were, by the way. The government collapsed, a weak but reasonably popular democratic government replaced it (Kerensky et al.), and then the Bolsheviks moved in and seized power. Arms were everywhere, but the Bolsheviks had the will and they had skilled leadership. The rest is history.
"Once a solution is found, a compatibility problem becomes indescribably boring because it has only... practical importance"
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
I agree with this. Here in Atlanta, one of our local radio idiots was talking about the influence of Marilyn Manson on these devil worshippers, and how we would hear a lot more about the music and how it was to blame before this was all over. Keep in mind, he was saying this at a time when the exact identity of the shooters was not known. The police had not even secured the building. When I got home that night, CNN was showing the cover art to Rammstein and playing up the fact that these two spoke German to each other.
Then came the video of Doom. I noticed the player in Doom had the shotgun (may favorite weopon in Doom) and had not yet got the chain gun.
Of the 1800 students at Calumbine (sp?) High School, how many do you think have played Doom? How many have listened to Rammstein?
Certainly any male old enough to hold a joystick has played Doom. No mention is made of the total prevalence of Doom on personal computers. It's an immensely popular game.
The media looks for some trait in the personality of these kids that will help mark them as members of a counter culture, but the traits they come up with are mainstream.
Marilyn Manson, Rammstein, Doom. Not all teenagers listen to these bands or play first person shoot-em-up video games, but they are not counter culture.
The fascination with Hitler is disturbing, but not uncommon in confused teenagers. Most grow out of it. The strange posts to AOL (if true) are disturbing, but AOL is a very mainstream outlet for kids to express their uninhibited thoughts in anonymous chat rooms. There is nothing unusual about doing this.
These two were disturbed, they needed help, but the media looks at normal, everyday trappings of teenage culture and places them on a stage as oddities. They are not oddities.
Questions that should be asked: How did these guys manufacture pipe bombs in their garage without their parents noticing? What legitimate warning signs were missed? (e.g. did they threaten someone verbally, had they tortured animals in the past, was there a history of non-lethal violence leading up to this.) But the media plays clips from "Du Hast" and shows 640x400 screens of monsters getting blown away with a shotgun.
There's no easy answer to this one, but it's difficult for me to believe that these kids were instilled with any morality or belief system.
School shootings are a uniquely American phenomenon and in a uniquely American way, pop culture will blame pop culture for the evils of our pop culture.
You've got a very valid point about the bombing, however, this DID happen in Scotland a while back. It IS mainly an American problem, but guns aren't any more to blame than video games. There was something wrong with these kids. Whether the cause be how they were brought up or how they were treated in school I don't know.
Believe me, I don't like the whole world police thing any more than you do. I wonder if these kids saw Clinton bombing a whole country because he didn't agree with the way they treat people, and saw themselves doing the same thing on a smaller scale?
Fink
How?
I have an unregistered firearm I have to protect my home. So there is one you can't find. Think I'm the only person who doesn't want to give up my only realistic form of self protection?
Fink
Odd, I know of three such occations where a gun protected a home and possibly lives. Strange considering I appearently have never seen a bad neighborhood. I think the recent events have shown that it doesn't matter how safe an area seems to be, there are wackos everyehere. My father has a friend in LA who protected his appliance store with an evil semi-automatic handgun during the riots. He had to empty four clips to keep looters at bay, but other than some minor damage, he lost nothing and no one in his store was hurt.
I'm respect your opinion, but it has no influence on my ownership of a gun.
It seems everytime an unthinkable tragedy occures, the "I have a special agenda" people come out in full force to explain to us (in our shocked and upset state) that this whole tragedy could have been avoided if only their viewpoint was adopted and acted upon. See, video games really ARE bad, this proves it. There really IS too much violence on TV, see where it leads? This is all because of that evil music, etc.
I even saw one of the congressional representatives of Colorado on TV yesterday lamenting that the state never adopted a more strict weapons policy for the schools!!! I can see it now, two deranged teens prepare to enter the school and start executing people when the notice a "Gun Free School Zone" sign, and turn back, defeated.
Please, policies weren't going to prevent this. This was a result of kids ever growing lack of repsect for life, both their's and other's. When you feel your life is so meaningless that you plan to kill yourself anyway, it's probably not difficult to take other's lives. I for one would like to know why kids (not all, but more than ever before) no longer seem to respect life at all.
My $0.02
Fink
First of all, it is NOT every American's right to own a gun, only non-felons who are over 18 (or 21 for handguns and semi-automatics). I happen to own a gun and I don't plan to go on a shooting rampage anytime soon. I own a gun because there have been robberies, shootings and other crimes very near where I live and I would like to be able to protect my family and property if necessary. Anyone who tells me I shouldn't be able to do so can go live in DC where there is a gun ban. And of course, because of this, DC is the safest place to live because there are no guns right? funny...
I believe in gun control. You need limits on who can own what, and waiting periods are a good idea as well. However, you will NEVER remove guns from this country. There are simply too many in circulation. Cut off the supply lines and march around (as Hitler did) and attempt to disarm the public as much as you want. Then only the criminals will have and continue to get them. Plus they now have the added bonus of knowing that their victoms will probably be defenceless.
Oh, but wait, we have the honest and not-at-all corrupt police to protect us, right?
Fink
It's real easy to feel old at 23 when you look at things like this and realize that neither of these kids probably remember things like Challanger (What were they like 3 ate the time?)
It's amazing that when so young (23 myself) we can feel so old.
- The unexamined life is not worth leading -
We were probably screaming at the radio in unison. I heard the same program, and it never ceases to amaze me when 'experts' on adolescent behavior spew the most ignorant garbage.
I'm a firm believer that there are two ways to teach a child: raise them, or graze them. If you pay attention to them, teach them and learn with them, you're raising them. Put them in front of a TV, you're turning them into cows that feed exclusively off of the media.
I heard on NPR just a little bit later a woman talking about how to protect your younger children from the news coverage on the massacre. She recommended that you monitor the channels they watch, or better yet, get some VCR tapes. WHAT THE HELL?? Ever heard of turning the fucking TV off? I was raised without one, and other than the fact that I couldn't join in on the reminescing of last week's SNL, I did just fine. Why is considered necessary to use the TV as a tool for distracting you children until they're 18? My GOD, you might actually have to entertain the little bastards for a few hours a day!
America will continue to see an increase in this type of violence. Other countries will begin to see this in time. The bleed-over of US culture is becoming almost cancerous.
Signed, one bitter little bastard.
...suckling from the sweet amnion of life...
Most gun owners have some sort of Rambo fantasy of fighting a corrupt US government with their pistols and a heroic gleam in their eye. What they don't seem to realize is that legions of fat white men with handguns would last about 1.5 seconds against ONE of the soldiers our military turns out. I was raised in the Army, and I have a healthy respect for the machines soldiers become over the years. If the military is against the populace, we don't have a snowball's chance in hell, guns or not. If the military is for the people, then we don't have a problem, do we?
So for all of you badass nerds out there stroking your weapons: chill. When the big bad government comes for you, take comfort in the knowledge that there isn't damn thing you can do...
...suckling from the sweet amnion of life...
No..you going out, deep in the woods to hunt deer does not scare me. What scares me is this:
You coming home and taking your gun out of your vehicle, accidentally forgetting it was loaded, and it goes off killing my 2yr old playing in our yard.
Your 15yr old son, home before you after school just fooling around, accidentally shooting his best friend.
You, coming home from a 6hr bender at the local tavern and getting fed up with your spouse nagging you constantly about the bills, just "losing it" and shooting her dead on the spot.
You, hearing a "noise" in the middle of the night, coming down stairs with your SKS, discharging it and finding out that the burglar you thought you just thwarted was in reality, your 17yr old daughter coming home late from a date.
Someone breaking into your house, stealing your precious deer rifle, and then taking it to school to kill 13 of his classmates.
Those are the things that scare me.
Spectra
Oh I see...let's take every proposal out to it's most absurd conclusion, laugh at it and then do nothing. That takes real intelligence. Hmm...we can't stop every form of weapon so we should just do nothing. Brilliant! What great way to address society's problems you have formed here. Absurdity.
I stand in awe.
After all is said and done..after all the politcos, religious leaders and school officials have their minute in the limelight...if something isn't done about this..meaning the way high school students interact and treat each other...if something isn't done about this basic fact, then we will be no better of then we were before the tragedy.
All the gun control in the world will not stop kids, feeling desparate and backed into corners, from lashing out. I think sometimes, given the cruelty in schools that is not amazing that some students just lose it and go on similar rampages, but rather it is amazing that more don't do it. Adults could get arrested for felony menacing and assult over things that happen on a daily basis in high schools, where nothing is ever done.
Good post and some damn good comments on this thread.
First off...where in my post do I bring up banning anything? Nowhere...So your post is irrelevant as a point of debate. I was responding to someone who was making a point that "he" was a responsible gun owner. "He" only used his gun deep in the woods...therefore we had nothing to fear from him. The point of my post was to illustrate that accidents do happen, even to the most well-intentioned people.
I grew up in a very gun-oriented community. All of the guys (and some of the girls) in high school who were of age would take off of school on the first day of deer hunting season. My father was (and still is) one of the hunter safety instructors in the county. I won many a competition trap/skeet shooting contest for my age group at the time. So please don't deem to lecture me on the safe use of firearms. I have lived and breathed firearms and firearm safety for longer than I can remember.
That being said, all of the things in my post, as well as all of the things in your post DO happen. Guns "accidentally go off", people "accidentally" shoot others. And yes, people DO drive drunk, cars do slip into gear and kill people...
But to use this argument...
Object A kills people. Object B kills people. We can't get rid of Object B, that would be absurd, therefore we shouldn't do a damn thing about A..
This is one of the weakest excuses for serious debate that I have ever seen. People whose only mode of give and take on a subject is that of taking things to their most absurd conclusion, in the hopes of making the other side look foolish, really aren't interested in a serious discussion.
Do I think banning is the answer, no..and nowhere in any of my posts could you possibly think I did. But something needs to be done. Making absurd analogies is NOT one of those things, walking around, deluding yourself that *you* are a safe gunowner, therefore nothing could *ever* go wrong with the use of *your* firearm is also NOT an answer.
The answer lies in serious people talking seriously about the issues, not absurdities and self-delusion.
You also have a good night.
Spectra
Or try this one out slick..
How bout if it was your wife, mad at you for leaving her for someone else, pointing the gun at your head? Are you going to go on about HER right to bear arms in that situation?
The previous poster had a very good statement, one that could lead to an interesting discussion..he would be willing to give up his right to bear arms if only 1 child could be saved. The whole state of nature vs society argument, where citizens agree to give up certain rights and privledges and agree to live under certain rules and conditions for the better of society....a very interesting point, a worthy argument..
but you had to fuck it up and be cute. That line of reasoning is very tenuous, asking someone to make gun control/death penelty choices while faced with physical harm to themselves or loved ones. That's probably why we don't let victims of crimes sit on the jury, or even let relative/friends of victims sit on juries.
I just wonder how many kids have to die before people really start engaging in real dialogue on the gun-control issue? 15? 150? 15000? How many deaths have to occur before people re-think their need to pack heat?
I wonder what the odds are in an accidental shooting occuring on any given day versus the odds on some Dirty Harry wannabe actually walking in on some person raping his wife, having a loaded gun on his person, having the presence of mind to shoot the rapist and somehow manage to not shoot himself or his wife by accident? I don't have any hard facts on that, but my money is that an accidental shooting is much more likely to occur.
Still think so highly of your argument slick?
I asked the question "How many kids have to die..?" based on the simple fact that you have commented that saving one child isn't worth you giving up your guns. You apparently want to hang on to your Dirty Harry image. I simply want to know how many would be worth it to you?
And yes..it is an emotional topic to me. I've been a gun user or a gun owner ever since it has been legal for me to do so. I was once a member of the NRA. But after attending a funeral of a family member who was killed by a punk wielding a handgun I've *thought* about this plenty. And unlike you, I seem to be able to grasp both sides of the issue. I don't like the current gun crazy society we live in. I'm not advocating *banning* anything. But I would like to see the US gun-advocates stop running around yelling "2nd Amendment! 2nd Amendment!" as if it is the end all, be all of the argument. I'm sorry..but I fear the potential for harm if everyone has your Dirty Harry attitude towards firearms, more than I perceive a benefit on the off chance that I am going to stop some mugger or rapist in my home.
We have plenty of "blame the guns" bozos over here, mind you. We just slow them down a little. But they'll try the same stupid, matriarchal, knee-jerk, emotional "solutions" here; it's just a matter of time.
It's people who own guns and who make arguments like this that worry me. Matriarchy? I wasn't aware that the Matriarchy had a position on gun control. Do you have an URL? Or maybe instead you could explain your guns/matriarchy opposition. It suggests that on some level you're equating guns and patriarchy or, perhaps, guns and manliness.
None of us who advocate for tighter gun control laws is claiming that such laws "solve" the problems that lead to school shootings. Nor are we trying to diminish individual responsibility. The only claim is that with tighter laws, those problems wouldn't have led to shootings.
Seth
I agree with you itp. It is also clear that society in high school and general society pick on people. Advertising and CorpGov LLC want people to feel worthless inside so they will seek out CorpGov LLC entertainment and products. These young lads must have felt worthless because they were not popular, not liked. Instead of embracing themselves and their differences, instead of not wanting jerks to like them, they wanted to be liked by crippled people. It's sad, victims all around! The media crys, yet the other top story of the day is our bombing...to solve a problem. So how can one form of violence be chosen over another? Clinton wants to solve a problem so he drops bombs, the two boys wanted to solve a problem so they too drop bombs. Video games!? Movies!? Goth!? Try the real world with our, peace is war, warriers are peacekeepers and CIA/NSA/ATF etc etc -g.
an enigma wrapped around a paradox driven by a paradigm shift
What violent games/movies etc etc do is they lower the treshold of resistance to violence so we will accept the bombing of Kosovo. The side effect is that it lowers all tresholds to violence and CorpGov LLC is willing to let its citizens kill other citizens because the alternative would be that citizens would question all violence. Example: A policeman pulls you over for speeding. Upon approaching your car, the officer notices a gun on the passenger seat. What will the officer do? Why he'll pull his gun on you!!!!!! How dare you have a gun!!!!!! This is the typical "Do as i say, not a i do" authority figure response!!! Before one of the lawabidingcitizenswhobelievesonlyguiltypeoplegetar rested replies in agust... might i pause to say, "If only criminals had guns, wouldn't they be easy to identify in a lineup?" -g.
an enigma wrapped around a paradox driven by a paradigm shift
I too was on the bottom rung of high school. i be there now, an outsider, but that was always my choice. I saw what being popular was all about. "Beware the lure of fashionism". I never wanted to join them, earn their respect or be near them. They are alone in a crowd, each of them doing whatever keeps them popular. Short hair, long hair, bell bottoms, nike, the Gap. The herd moves on. Co-op Life cause freedom is anarchy and capitalism can't give you what it's told you you want, if you dare to do more than "think different" if you dare to "think for yourself". We've no time to talk about it...time is money my fellow conformer...time is money. -g.
an enigma wrapped around a paradox driven by a paradigm shift
If we talked about our ideas while everyone listened and tried to understand our point of view then agreed to disagree. Agreed we all were on this planet and that since we were all here together, that must be the way it is to be. Together no matter how different we are. If nothing else, to serve as a bad example. Can we embrace non-violence, we can with those we agree with, that's easy. It's been said it's easy to love your birth child, but aren't we all each others brothers and sisters? Isn't that what this threading is? Our reaching out to have our say on an issue. But then, we go out into "the world" and suddenly we're not allowed to speak our voice. We're outside again. I got married and had a daughter. Family. People who are suppose to listen to what you have to say. Can't we all realize we're here together: Family. Can't we allow the youngest child to pick the activity for the family in rotation of participation? Sometimes, isn't the child right and not the parent (as a parent i can tell you truthfully, yes)? The world changes, yet so much stays the same. Can we not see that the glowing ball of light filling all space/time, is coming from within? Isn't it time we stop committing "random acts of blindness"? -g.
an enigma wrapped around a paradox driven by a paradigm shift
See, someone shares and then someone blames. Aren't we all assholes? Is there nothing but further "fashionism" defense? There are many dead children around the world tonight and every night, let us cry for each and every one of them or let us begin to stop the violence. Stop the war on drugs, stop the war on people stop the war for peace stop the killing fields everywhere Parents are weeping all around the world tonight, everynight, not just in our USA but everywhere! We're posting to let it all out, yet you want to continue the hating and blaming. Allowing any country to bomb as a solution teaches us all that might makes right. A.C., its good to hear your voice. You can't have freedom without liberty.
an enigma wrapped around a paradox driven by a paradigm shift
Of all the people around the world who have played Doom or other 3d shooters, How many have gone into their school and killed living people instead of monsters and demons.
If these games influenced these kids, it's because they must have had serious family or social problems.
Of all the people around the world who have played Doom or other 3d shooters, How many have gone into their school and killed living people instead of monsters and demons?
If these games influenced these kids, it's because they must have had serious family or social problems.
God Damn! am i sick and tired of hearing about how bad video games and the internet are! the internet is just a bunch of computers hooked together by copper wire (mostly) and glass. so what, there is heaps of information on "the net". i agree, not all of it is great. but just because i CAN find out how to wield a semi-automatic, does not then make me a mass murderer. it is not the availablity of this information that makes these kids go bonkers... they must already have some problems to begin with. and games such as doom and quake DO NOT make people kill. they are entertainment! they are not realistic in the slightest! blocky, cartoony, polygons! not life like! the media always go on about things such as this as though they know what they are talking about. maybe if they did a little research they might get a better idea of what is going on. thank god that most people realise that the television and newspaper coverage is biased and incorrect 80% of the time in the first place anyway! also, maybe if the media did not give as much coverage as they do to these awful events, then there also might be a lessening in their occurance. now i am not saying that people dont have to know about this, or that the media should not inform us, just that a little bit of common-sense and restraint would go a long way to helping things my two cents
I've given this incident (and the likes) a lot of thought, and when I heard about this one, I was grief-struck, but not the least surprised.
First, the Doom factor: Is it because people play Doom they go whacko, or do the whackos play Doom? Which way around is it?
Second, if people who play Doom, Quake and the likes, how come there aren't any more incidents? To the best of my knowledge, that kind of games have sold in the range of millions, and are probably installed as illegal copies of a factor 20.
In my humble opinion, it's not those games which causes it - it may push the near-edge whackos just over the edge, but cause it? Not likely.
So, how about the Internet factor? That it's possible to download bomb recipes? Yeah, that might be a problem. Except that
1) You only get the blueprints - not the materials,
2) I've had such recipes at hand LONG before the Internet got popular and
3) Any moron can figure out to stuff gunpowder down a metal tube and seal it.
Well, what's the problem then, you ask? As I see it, it has something to do with the American Gun Culture. I nearly choked in my coffee when I read that there are so-called 'gun free zones', eg. schools, churches, government building and the likes. This is nice.. Except that you're allowed to carry a handgun everywhere else!
Now take cigarettes.. You're allowed to smoke them at home and at places which are clearly marked. So effectively, there's harder restrictions on the potential of killing yourself than the potential of killing others!
So I'm not the least bit surprised that incidents like this happen.
Don't get me wrong with the next comment - I feel the deepest sympathy for the affected teenagers and the friends and families of those, but I do not feel the slightest sympathy for the American society as such.
The American society keep claiming that it's important that guns are readily available whenever you feel like it.
Well, any choice has a consequense and a price, and perhaps now is the time to reconsider whether the price of free guns, which is some dead innocent teenagers now and then, may be too high or not.
Q: How does a Unix guru have sex? A: unzip;strip;touch;finger;mount;fsck;more;yes;umount;sleep
...And it WILL give the average whacko the ability to kill whoever he may choose to, with the movement of a finger.
If people just say 'well, yeah, there's nothing to do', then be prepared to see more of the inhabitants of "God's Own Country" to get closer to Him a lot faster than planned!
Being from Denmark, I think that the task of taking an armed whacko down is a POLICE task, NOT a civilian task. Try to consider what would happen if 5 or 6 completely untrained persons tries to shoot an armed whacko down - what are the chances of those 5 or 6 shooting eachother or other innocent bystanders?
Somehow the Danish death rate by gun wounds is by far lower than that of the US. It usually makes headlines if a single person is shot down here, because it's so rare. So please give me a good argument why gun control shouldn't be imposed..?
Q: How does a Unix guru have sex? A: unzip;strip;touch;finger;mount;fsck;more;yes;umount;sleep
First off, this does not have much to do with how many citizens there are; I'm talking percentages here, and our death by gunshot percentage is still way lower than the US percentage.
And still, if someone broke in, I'd be much happier if I knew that the person in front of me would just point a stolen gun at me, and not consider firing it because chances that I have a gun are extremely small, than he'd just gun me down because there might be a chance that I had a gun too.
If everyone carries a gun then those who have little thoughts of others will per default gun you down and steal your money, than just trying to scare you to hand over your money
But if we look beyond the guns/no guns policy, can we agree that that discussion is all about taking care of the symptom? Wouldn't it be better to prevent incidents like this by taking better care of those who may seem likely to go to extremes?
Just my $0.02.
Q: How does a Unix guru have sex? A: unzip;strip;touch;finger;mount;fsck;more;yes;umount;sleep
the major players here are someone who didn't bother or didn't succeed to instill a sense of morality
Er, no. The major players here are those whose teasing and taunts drove someone to lash back.
(The quote in Bold is from the previous message)
All right, you're saying that the real perpetrators of this crime are the various Jocks, Soshs, and Primadonnas of the Colombine HS social structure because they picked on some kids they thought were weird.
That's bullsh*t!
Puhleeze! If that were the case, I would've blown up with explosives all three high schools that I attended and shot anybody trying to escape with a high powered rifle. Give me a break. Now, I'm willing to concede that being an outcast from your peers tends to make a person develop socially in different ways, but I turned out all right and I was an 'outcast' in HS...
"Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons...for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
All kids here in Europe (in France at least) play doom, listen to american
bands but we never had a such bad fight.
Well then, why don't you explain to me why when I was in Dresden and Vienna almost two years ago, when I came upon some neo-Nazi demonstrations that certainly could have approached the level of what ocurred in Colorado.
Give me a break!
Dude, I don't care where you live, if I really wanted to get a gun, I'm would be able to get a gun, and more than likely, no one is going to find out until after that gun has been used.
"Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons...for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
As a European I'm stunned that americans doesn't see the cause:
That civilans have semi-automatic guns at home!!!
That is NOT the reason why this ocurred. In the US we have laws ON THE BOOKS prohibiting the alteration of the long barreled shotgun to a form that makes it easy to conceal (i.e. the sawed off shotgun that these kids used). In the US we have laws ON THE BOOKS prohibiting the sale of semi-automatic 'Assault Rifle' weapons.
The problem with these laws is THEY ARE NOT ENFORCED!!!
We do not need more laws muddling up the picture, what we do need is to ENFORCE the laws already in place!
"Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons...for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
I've been playing violent computer games since before those putrescent pukes were born. Shit, I've been playing violent computer games since before about half of you /.'ers were born! I've been a heavy Internet user since those gun-toting psychopaths were in elementary school. I've never harmed anyone, nor have I been strongly tempted to. I have a house and a job and a long-time domestic partner. I am what is colloquially referred to as a well-adjusted individual.
I attribute this to the fact that my parents actually went to the trouble to teach me good values. Thanks, Mom and Dad!
We have a fundamental problem in America that people are unwilling to accept responsibility. We see it every day: frivolous lawsuits, bogus bankruptcy filings (1e6 per year), and parents who try to use legislation to abdicate their responsibility to raise their kids.
"We can't watch our kids all the time," they say. "I did my best, but the kid was out of control!" Well, listen up you FUCK: YOU MADE THE KID, YOU FUCKING WELL DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO RAISE IT PROPERLY! IF YOU'RE NOT READY TO SACRIFICE YOUR WHOLE LIFE TO BE A GOOD PARENT, THEN DON'T FUCKING HAVE FUCKING KIDS!!! Pardon my french. I guess I feel strongly about this.
This brings me back to responsibility. Kids have very few rights under law, and correspondingly few responsibilities. Morally and legally, parents are responsible for the actions and well-being of their children. Parents must do whatever it takes to meet this obligation, even if it means asking friends and relatives to help out, or even one of the quitting their job and tightening their belts a notch. The system breaks down when we don't enforce this.
For starters, if the kid commits a crime, the parents must share equally in the punishment. I have no problem at all with seeing those Colorado parents doing life in prison for unleashing those little demons into the world.
I'm not saying there weren't other factors. The sensational media. Politics. Economices. Social dynamics in school. Inadequate security. Preservatives in their food. Even violent games and the Internet. But none of these other factors can be used as an excuse, because in the end it always comes back to the parents.
The bottom line is, parents are responsible for bringing up their kids. Parents are responsible for what their kids do. Period.
I am happy to live in a country that makes
the seemingly bold assumption that the relations
between individuals must be handled by rules
common to the whole society rather than by
the possession of devices made to kill.
The "State" is defined as an organization that
has the monopoly of the usage of violence,
which can be used to defend the society against
domestic as well as foreign aggressions.
Why the hell should individuals be allowed to
possess and carry objects whose only purpose
is to kill other people ?
I really hope that you americans will soon
understand how senseless this tradition is.
60-70 years ago, the newspapers would have blamed that crazy jazz music. 30-40 years ago, rock and roll was the culprit. Whenever there are societal changes afoot (increasing usage of the Internet, for example), everything that goes wrong will be blamed on those changes no matter how tenuous the connection. This issue is sadly no different.
The only comment I can make (that hasn't been made already) is that every person is responsible for their own words and actions, and their own words and actions only. Nobody forced these kids to open fire - not gun manufacturers, not Doom or iD software, not Hitler or Marilyn Manson. They chose for themselves, and if they were still alive we would expect them to bear the consequences of their actions.
So I think the more important issue is: how does a person decide which action to take? Ultimately, you make decisions mostly based on the morals that you are taught by your parents and to a lesser extent the morals you learn from your environment. Many of us have undergone the same treatment as these kids, listened to the same music, played violent games, perhaps owned and/or used guns. We have all been exposed to the same admittedly violent culture that we live in. In fact, the only difference between these killers and ourselves is ...the parents.
What your parents teach you (or fail to teach you) is the most important influence on your choice of actions. When the media stops making knee-jerk accusations about Doom and that crazy Goth music, maybe we'll start to hear about the home lives of these two kids. Their parents didn't force them to pull the trigger at school, but kids that were raised correctly would never think that it was OK to take guns and 30 pipe bombs to school.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
I've never been able to understand why you would want to carry a concealed weapon versus a non-concealed one. If I understand correctly, you are arguing that if everyone had a gun, it would have had a deterrent effect on these kids. How is there a deterrent effect if the weapon is concealed? It seems to me that if you believe that guns will deter violence (which I don't agree with, but just for the sake of argument) then won't they deter violence better if they are not concealed but instead are carried in plain view? Why would a criminal be deterred by a gun they don't know you have?
Please explain why concealed weapons are better, because it doesn't make sense to me.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
hate to say this but me too.
I Live in australian and a couple of years ago something similar happend like this, in tasmania. The govenrnment took the hard road and banned semi-auto weapons, and military sytyle guns as well.
But for all of this I don't know if in the end this will ever happen in the USA, please don't get me wrong here, I don't see anything inherantly(sp?) wrong with the owning of fire arms but it seems that "gun culture" has become too much a part of the psyche of the USA.
on another note, It seems that people in this world are moving too fast to care anymore, when I went to High School in Aust, (btw I am english) I had a realy bad time, I was what you could of called a "goth" (No MM there though, cure bauhause and sisters of mercy type) and a loner, you know the sort of kid who wasnt good at sport, had a few leaning difuculties (i wasn't diagnosed with dyslexia till I was 17) and well had, well no friends, I was alone, and Tried to kill myself on many an occasion, why am I saying this, I think I just want to say that I survived, 25 this year, got a reasonable job, and just want to say that if any one who reads slashdot, ever needs to talk, out poor their heart about any problem, I listen, I have sat with many people through dark nights of the soul, I as I have survived, want to help others, If anyone needs to talk drop me a line at my work based email address ben@iaa.com.au
Benjamin
(don't realy know why I have typed this if I have rambled too much, please forgive, even though I live on the other side of the world, what happend made me cry)
"sometimes I wish I was blind I thought I saw a whole lot more than this"
I knew they would attribute this to the game doom. I caught a glimpse of an evidence bag with some item in it that had the doom logo on it. Looked like a book or something of that size, they didnt show the shot for very long.
Microsoft aggravates my tourettes syndrome.
In todays postmodern society, people are just looking for something to pin the blame on.
No one is responsible for their own actions, it's always someone/something elses fault. With this type of outlook I think we're going to see things get a lot worse before they get better, IF they get better.
I play video games all the time (Starcraft mostly) and used to play DOOM, etc. I admit that I get a bit rowdy when I play these, and as a kid in high school I think it might have even affected my tempermant a little.. But in reality, that could NEVER be the sole reason for such an awful thing as this. Sure, it might not have helped much, but if video games and the Internet
were the #1 contributor, guess what? There wouldn't be any high school students left. Every high school in the US has geeks, and I'm sure they all get on the Internet, play Starcraft, and doom/quake/whatever.
Our culture needs some absolutes, some morals.. until then things are going to keep deteriorating. In this society there is a decreasing moral code, and every man is doing more and more as he see's fit. These High School kids apparently saw that it was fit to go ahead and waste their peers.
It's a bummer that the stereotype of "geek" is now heading toward the dark side.
What can we do? Well, voice our opinions of course. I for one will be praying.
That's my take on the whole deal
This was a suicide that happend to invlove the murder of other people. But it is still a suicide. People who are not mentally ill do not committ suicide without some major life tragedy. This does not seem to be the case in any of the school shootings.
These kids are ovbiously mentally ill, and all the gun legislation or blaming Doom in the world will not help them.
People have this stupid idea that Mental Illness is something to be ashamed of and that it someone elses problem. Mental Illness is an illness just like heart problems, diabeties and cancer. We need to wake up and treat it like an illness or else this is only the beginning of the problem. The school shootings show that mental illness is everyone's problem.
Charles Bartley
You can't blame Doom, the Internet, or anything else. Look at the millions of counter-examples of kids playing that stuff and turning out perfectly okay! When I was a kid I grew up on Bugs Bunny cartoons ("He does so have to shoot you now!") and Space Invaders, Galaxian, and the like. So did all my friends. As far as I know none of my high school crowd ever went postal. (Or should the new phrase be, "went high school"?)
These kids had other problems. Right now people are looking for something to blame. It's hard to accept that there is nothing to blame. Except maybe the kids' parents and teachers for not recognizing this ahead of time and getting them help. Maybe. What are the warning signs? Being a geek and a loner? Hell, that description probably fits 99% of the people reading this. It certainly fit me back then.
Ever read John Brunner's novel Stand On Zanzibar? That book scares me. It was written in the 60's and takes place about a decade or two into the 21st century. And every day reality matches that book just a little more. One element of the book was something called "muckers" -- people who run amock and go on a killing spree. Well, we seem to have no shortage of muckers these days. I predict it'll only get worse as the population increases, both due to there being more people of every sort and therefore more psychopaths; and because too many people living too close together tend to snap a little bit easier.
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
I think your first point: No emotional connection to other students is right on the mark. I doubt they had much emotional connection to themselves either though. I'd like to point people to a book by Daniel Goleman called Emotional Intelligence. Some of Goleman's inspiration/push for researching and writing this book was seeing the growing trends of agression and depression in society, especially in schools. What we've just seen Colorado is an extension of these trends. Emotional Intelligence @ Google
its easier to look for something to lay blame on quickly (and preferably something 'newsy'), than to try to solve the problem. from an outsiders point of view, the US gun laws are a miracle of insanity. formed when militias were needed as there was no army, to deal with colonial opression, you now have a situation where kids are given booties and guns at birth!= slight exageration for effect - i hope!
we have only (thankfully) had a very limited experience with mass random(ish) shootings in australia..and the last one led to incredibly tighter gun laws, despite the nra and gun lobbies having kittens.
look for solutions not scapegoats.
Between the idea & the reality, between the motion & the act falls the shadow
try being a parent sometime. an incredibly hard, ndervalued and undersupported role in the western world. we do the best we can. harsh economic times ofetn mean two parents HAVE to work. we talk to our girls all the time. we respect and like them, and make sure they know how loved and valued they are.
but i have known ideal parents whose kids turn into criminals and waste their lives, or worse, destroy others.
i came from a broken home, and like many, havent used that as an excuse to stop me from doing the best i can, and being happy.
and happiness doensnt have to come at the expense of others - a little known fact.
*sigh*
some people are born broken, others become broke.
some dogs are born vicious, some are formed that way, through cruelty or indifference.
its too easy to lay blame.
and dont forget..those parents have lost their children,and have to live with the pain and guilt of their actions.
Between the idea & the reality, between the motion & the act falls the shadow
You may find the article "Trained to Kill" at http://www2.christianity.net/ct/8T9 /8T9030.html to be a very interesting read. This article by David Grossman addresses the issue that in many ways our culture trains kids to kill in this manner.
...when I hear people bring up this topic is that they honestly do believe that it's the video games that are doing it.
I'd be willing to entertain the idea that increasingly violent imagery in media is having an adverse effect on children, both in terms of violent behavior and other problems in emotional developent. What bugs me is that when I've heard this discussion framed by would-be censors, it's always in terms of video games and the Internet, rather than television and movies.
But that's just me. Comments?
I am a senior at Arapahoe High School, in Littleton just 5 miles east of Columbine. They aren't our main rival, but I've watched two back-to-back state championship soccer games from the Arapahoe side of the field when it was down to us and the Columbine Rebels. As a result, there's been some real animosity between our two schools. Needless to say, that has been thankfully tossed aside as many of us went down there to offer help and support.
/. and user friendly for a bit of escape, and then seeing Iliad's message there and then later this (huge) thread on slashdot.
Also, I am a varsity wrestler (hence the handle i use) and i just recently competed in the regional championship which was held in the Columbine gym.
And as soon as I heard about the shootings, the first thing that came to mind was the time I was sitting in a bathroom stall in the Columbine boy's bathroom during the tournament. All 3 walls were covered with hate messages, swastikas, references to satan, and especially things to the effect of "All jocks must die!" And, like all those Columbine students, I thought that was kind of strange and then promptly dismissed it as I left the stall.
I don't personally know any of the victims, but it's been a hard last couple of days when I didn't know that fact. The coordinator of the gifted/talented program at Arapahoe (a good friend of mine) is the next door neighbor of a fatally wounded victim and has also known Dylan, one of the killers, since preschool. A fellow member of my track team is a friend of that kid everyone saw hanging out the window on the news. So its been a surreal week, and I don't think it's quite hit me yet.
When I first found out about the incident, it had only just started 15 minutes earlier, and for the next several hours I was under the impression that it was a minor shooting, with perhaps a few injuries. Then, I got home after practice and got the updated story, and couldn't believe it.
You've all probably seen on the news what they've been saying about Littleton, CO. Well its true. Practically every school here is a blue ribbon school, no gang activity, long honor roll lists with the bumper stickers to proove it, and plenty of soccer moms. Oh, and despite the name, its not little - thats just the name of the founder. It's a suburb of Denver, and nothing separates the two except a thin invisible line.
So I believe them when they say "If it can happen in Littleton, it can happen anywhere." -cross community upbringing off the list. And the more you read about the kids' parents, the more you will realize they were not "brought up wrong" or "mistreated". No, they both come from 2 parent households, and the neighbors feel strongly enough that the parents were good caring people (one mom works as a counselor for disabled people) that they wrote a note, signed by 19(?) of them expressing their support for the parents (although i admit that them not knowing about all that bomb building has me stumped) so I don't thing is parental upbringing. These two guys did little league sports and cub scouts, and the like, and Dylan attended a youth group with a friend of mine only last year. By his account, Dylan was normal.
Oh, and this "trenchcoat mafia" thing has also been blown out of proportion. This group (which was not a gang at all, and had no affiliates outside the school) was a geek type group that dressed different but had fun in their own way, and didn't harbout much more resentment than your average high schooler. They did, however, have a facination with guns. This is a description of that group as it stood last year, and they even took out a yearbook ad that show the group of geeks all smiles.
Things turned sour with the group late last year, from what I heard, when the jocks started picking on them. Then the hate started. They resented how the jocks seemed to run the school, and they were always picked on. A fight was arranged at a local baseball field after a big confrontation at the school. The trenchcoats showed up with brass knuckles and swords, so the jocks left.
I don't know for sure, but I believe that Eric and Dylan were drawn into the group through their interest in computers and weapons, and turned sour with the rest of the group from the run-ins with jocks. Their real flaw, I believe, was a combination of not knowing how to play the high school game and no effective method of dealing with hate. They channeled it into a long range plan, set in motion near the begining of this school year, to get revenge on the jocks and have the final say, so to speak.
In every way, they thought of the whole matter as a war. They developed a fascination for war (WWII and in particular) and Hitler, and went around annoying people by marching around the school with precise 90 degree turns like soldiers.
Here is where the part about DOOM comes in. They were so consumed by their big plan, that they played DOOM head to head over their modems for hours upon hours. This was not for fun or relaxation or to try to beat each other or any of the normal reasons a person would play DOOM. They took it seriously and considered it training. They also played paintball a lot, and for the same reason. The important thing to stress here is, that while those 1st person shooters may or may not contribute to this kind of thing, in this case the plan came first and the "training" second.
All of this is kind of overwhelming when you are so close to it. Its kind of funny that, even after I knew that it had made world news and forced "Littleton, CO" into the same breath as the likes of "Jonesburo, AK", the thing that really drove it home for me was logging onto
If you've gotten this far, thanks for reading my thoughts and impressions on the matter, and I wish only the best of health and peace to all of you.
Vidi, Vici, Veni
The traditional news media's market share is being clobbered by the personal computer and the internet. They are desperate to hold on to their ratings to keep the advertisers happy, so they are using their still considerable reach to go after all the things they feel threatened by. They are, in one fell swoop, going after all the weirdos: Goths, computer geeks, net nerds, and other assorted outcasts who don't fit profiles compiled by the ad men.
I wouldn't be surprised if they next went after Apple for promoting non-conformity with their "Think Different" Campaign ("Here's to the crazy ones...the misfits; the rebels; the troublemakers; the round pegs in the square holes...").
The music is not in the piano -Clement Mok
>Several of the (few) posts at this point make the following argument -- "I play violent video games, and I've never killed anyone, so that >theory must be wrong!" This is a fundamental logical flaw.
Perhaps. What most of us are likely saying to ourselves is "I play violent video games and do not sumbit to murderous urges, so I have quite a bit of doubt about claims that such games incite people to violence." Nothing logically flawed there.
>Now, to claim that there is a relationship.
[clip clip]
>I was recently playing Quake Team Fortress the other day. As I entered the game, I was greeted with the message "Kill, Kill, Kill!"
Welcome to TeamFortress. No space. "Kill, Kill, Kill!" is the spawn message in Well6, which has been around for quite some time. What did you expect by joining a TF game? Hugs and kisses? It's based on Quake, which is mostly about killing virtual others as quickly and often as possible.
>When they are faced with messages like the one I
>mentioned above, well, I don't think it causes them to become killers, but I don't think it's healthy, either.
Again, if it disturbs you then don't play it. I've seen that message more times than you will ever start up Quake in your life, and the most it ever meant to me was "fragged again".
>Certainly it's easy to just claim that
>portrayed violence is the sole cause, which isn't fair, but isn't it slightly ludicrous to claim that it has no effect whatsoever?
You claim a relationship between portrayed violence and actual violence based on your discomfort with a game you chose to play, amongst other things that may bother you as well. I don't get your point at all.
If someone is bent enough that a video game, TV, the Internet, or even a gun pushes them to violence in any way, they were in desperate need of mental help in the first place. I don't see how toning down violence in various media would have prevented this horrific disaster.
It takes more than exposure to violent images and concepts to create a monster. Turning out a truly twisted and warped human being capable of such slaughter requires years and years of neglect, abuse, hatred, anger and of course, a growing young soul. Those first four ingredients need not come from a parent. It can come from anyone. The violent media in this case was being used as a substitue for actual communication that might have somehow prevented this massacre.
"Goth", last I checked, is Latin for "loser".
----- The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they will be when you kill them.
Hey - he invented all this Internet stuff right? Well he should damn well be held accountable.
The media-ever the arm chair philosophers-are just using the new whipping boy on the block. Wonder how they explain the inner city violence at schools where the kids are too poor to have the Internet? I am learning to dispise the media.
Tired of being another body in the flock? Linux ! We are not sheep anymore.
Also, I'd add that perfectly normal people have stupid kids as well. one of the things which seems to be in short supply nowadays is intelligent people.
"what they do not understand, they fear, and what they fear, they destroy", as the quote goes.
Threep
"How absolute the knave is! We must speak by the card, or equivocation will undo us." -- Hamlet: a5,s1
You know I was at my library the other day. I cant belive we allow our children in that place! Books about guns, war, The Catcher in the Rye, Mein Kampf, even The Communist Manifesto!!
As Americans we cant let our youth be corrupted by this kind of evil. Get out the matches it's book-burning time!
(For the sarcasm impaired, It's important to note that the Internet is not the only source of information on the planet, just the most hyped. For every web site these killers visited I'm sure there's many more paper related publications in the Littleton Public Library)
People will always try to find someone to blame. I use the internet, and have done so for a few years, I've played Duke Nukem, Quake and Doom, I was picked on in school and I am proud to be called a nerd or geek, yet I have never been inclined to pick up a shotgun and blast away at real life people.
I'm not surprised that these comments have been made, it's a knee jerk reaction. All I have really to say is to look a little closer to home before pointing fingers.
-- johnmc.
so it must all be his fault. :)
>And, second BTW, I guess you're telling the Israelis that they're stupid too, given that Israeli teachers -- for that matter, Israelis in general -- regularly carry Uzis and other guns. Oddly enough, this kind of thing doesn't happen in Israel any more.
That's true, provided you conveniently forget the Israelis and Palestinians shooting one another (unless shooting Palestinians doesn't count), and the killing of Netanyahu's predecessor by a gun-wielding assassin.
The facts refute your argument in this case, I'm afraid.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
I believe it's more a society thing than an availibility of guns thing. while I was in Europe for a little while I always kind of got the impression that everyone was somewhat more mature regarding, mostly, sex, guns and education. I suspect that even were guns outlawed in the US people who wanted to do such things as these would get them anyway.
I'm sure that as teenagers, they drank plenty of {Pepsi,Coke,Etc}. Since they went and killed people, it's plainly obvious that caffine makes you kill people. Never mind the hundreds of millions of other people who drink caffine on a regular basis, since they did, it's true. I think we have a responsibility to put up a web site and inform people about the evils of caffine. And perhaps we should all turn ourselves in to our local police stations now, since most of use drink caffine and have also played doom. We are a menace to society.
"genetically defective"? And who made you the genetic's expert to decide this? I suppose your next post would have something to do with "gay" people are also "genetically defective" so "kill them"?
Leaving your possibly flawed genetics aregument aside, what makes you so damn sure that your US justice system is so perfect and error free that you can so easily advocate the "death penalty".
Even if your justice system was 100% perfect and error free, who gives you the right to make such a decision for someone else?
I am sorry but I must say that I truly hope you do not raise your daughter with the same values and thought-patterns as yourself. You would be doing a great injustice to the society.
--sidster
Play lotto? Try http://www.alottofun.com/
They all obeyed the laws saying "No guns in school"
They were all unprepared to defend themselves.
They're all dead.
Judging by all the comments I've read, most folks are in favor of at least two of the above.
********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
I guess this could just as easily be filed under "Think Different."
It's my (as always, humble) opinion that the phrase "Think Different" is redundant. Simply by thinking, you are different, especially from the perspective of the herd. In high school, if any of you remember (I almost don't, and it hasn't been that long), the jocks were popular. If you read SlashDot regularly, I'm betting you weren't a jock.
I was lucky. My parents sent me to a private school after 7th and 8th grade. I never complained then, but those were the two worst years of my life, and getting out of the public school system was heaven. Why?
Anti-intellectualism. "Sure," you say, "throw an -ism at the problem." But hear me out.
City geeks--you had big classes, you were probably friends with a number of students of similar interests and intellects. And there still weren't many of you, were there? Compared to them? Do you remember the little war every day in the gym showers? Do you remember learning to shower and dress faster than anyone else to avoid the wrath of an idle jock? Do you remember how good it felt to be one of a few who could laugh at the jocks together, one of the ones who had people to sit with in the cafeteria?
Country geeks--especially from low population density states--How many of you were there? Three? Seven? In a school of how many? You remember what it was like to know that the teachers supported you, when everyone else was fighting them. You remember how you didn't have to study very much, and yet didn't ever have time to go out, either... or maybe nobody ever asked you to go anywhere with them.
Nobody (except my parents, God bless them) ever said "It's okay to be smart. It's okay to learn about computers. You're different from the others, and you know it. When they're mean to you, you have to realize that they're scared of you, of what you can think of, someday."
So, yeah, I was one of you. I was the only one in my school. For two years, I was alone. I had no friends.
Check that--I had a 286 with a 2400 baud modem. I had friends in the BBS'es, and I played MUDs with them (not that I ever called them that).
It's a good thing I never liked sunglasses or trench coats, hmmmmm?
But seriously: I think every geek realizes that, for the first twenty years of his (her) life, s/he will be persecuted. To a twelve-year-old, that's a lifetime. When you're that young, persecution is a thing which has "always" been in your world. School is a trial that may never end. When you have been teased since first grade for being smart, the lesson may sink in eventually: being smart is bad.
Smart people are not wanted. Smart people have no value. Smart people don't have friends. Smart people aren't attractive.
For people that age, when popularity is becoming important, this cuts to the core. Their (Our) entire society says to them, "You will never be the best." It says this to them after they've been told that they *are* the best. It hurts.
I have to stop ranting about this... I'll get to my point.
I think you all recognize some of the emotions above, some of the reactions. The media is quick to blame us for these shootings, and I think what lies at the heart of the accusation is an accusatory, Dark-Ages suspicion of the intelligent ones in any society. We're the modern wizards. We do magic. We write spells in C++. We inscribe symbols too small for the eye to see on mirrored wafers, and use them to conjure daemons. (sorry, couldn't resist).
There is a flawed perception in American thought that "jocks" are good at sports because they practice, and "geeks" are somehow born geniuses. Michael Jordan did not get that good simply by practicing. I was not born with the ability to learn calculus. Our pursuits are not appreciated by anyone who doesn't *need* us, and now that the world has started to need more and more of us, more and more of us are willing to show our faces.
As the chances that we "naturally talented" geeks will succeed in life strictly on brains increases, the envy of us increases, and the jealous hatred seeps into pop culture with characters like Milhous, Urkel, and other Nerd stereotypes. The geeks withdraw, become less sociable, and (perhaps) even more skilled at their geeking.
They also grow to hate society.
When I was twelve, a student in my middle school beat me up on the last day of school. My last day in the public school system. He told me it was a "going away present." I waited next to his locker with my pocket knife, ready to stab him for the humiliation. A classmate--a neutral party, the closest thing I had to a friend--told me to put it away. Told me anything I did to retaliate was wasting my time. I'd never see him again. I put away the knife.
I saw him later that day, as we were getting on the buses, and yelled some asshole comment like, "I'll be laughing when you're pumping gas into my limo, [epithet deleted]." I was a prick. A total prick. All because I felt that much hatred for one person.
That was almost 7 years ago. Now there is the Internet. The Internet is the ultimate tree-fort. Geeks of all ages can come and go unmolested, and unlike school, the Internet is a meritocracy. It pumps our egos, lets us feel like we *are* the best. Like we can maybe someday rise above feeling useless.
Geeks have always found hatred at school; elder Slashdotters, back me up here... How many of you toyed with--fantasized about--maybe someday getting revenge?
Geeks can now find the other three keys to a school shooting on the Internet.
1) Empowerment. We are finally allowed to have egos. We have a forum in which we can be proud of ourselves.
2) Violence. It does desensitize us. It lets us pretend that the man in the game is C.S. Holder, or Chris Givens, or maybe the kid whose name you still remember today. It lets us pretend that C.S. is no more important than the man in the game.
3) Information. How to make a bomb. How to buy a gun, cheap. How to make shrapnel for your bomb. Things that once took hours of obsessive research are now available at a whim. A hateful whim.
But the empowerment is good; we all know that. We take pride in checking SlashDot to see how we are shaping tomorrow.
The violence, to some tastes, is just fun. And by the time you're 18, that's all it is... just a little fun.
The information is what makes the Internet great.
We need to curb the hatred. We need to tell kids that being smart is more than okay. We need to let everyone know that just because we're going to be successful when we grow up doesn't mean that they should berate us and try to tear us down now.
Anti-intellectualism made the "Trench-Coat Mafia." The Internet simply let them actualize their fantasies and dreams.
And in the end, the media, rather than discard a handy stereotype, will argue for a censored Internet instead of a society that accepts people for who they are.
{{I apologize for the really long, emotional rant... I guess this has been building up in me for a while now. If you want to tear me down, please, go ahead. If this strikes a chord in you, e-mail me. I'd rather talk it out with every single person on the 'net than see this happen one more time.}}
--Jurph
The founding fathers of the US screwed up. They made the right decision about guns for their pre-industrial 18th century society, but couldn't predict the affect on a country of 250 million when 19 million new guns are dumped on it each year.
Children are suffering for their understandable short-sightedness. We must face the possibility that our founding fathers were not infallible, and that gun control is necessary.
I find it interesting that the National Rifle Association has all but canceled their conference in Colorado.
NRA President Charlton Heston stated, "Our spirits must endure this terrible suffering together, and so must the freedoms that bring us together". Perhaps Mr. Heston and his organization should go to Littleton and have a conversation with some of these children, and ask them about their views about the right to bear arms.
Point 2:
Internet use and violent computer games did not cause this, but we must face the question: do ultra-violent media exacerbate existing problems with some children (and adults)?
Which leads to this:
Point 3:
Where were these kid's parents while they were amassing a small arsenal of weapons, and constructing dozens of explosive devices?
This is from the yahoo article:
Neighbors of Harris said the family, which lived in a cul-de-sac in a well-to-do section of Littleton, kept to themselves, especially Eric.
"The day before this happened I could hear glass breaking and saws going like bzzzzzz," 10-year-old neighbor Tony Fattore told Reuters, making the sound of a saw.
"I didn't think anything of it cause he was always in his garage doing something. But then we heard about the explosives so maybe he was in there building them," Fattore said.
Where were the parents? Did they see any warning signs?
Too many "well-to-do" parents seem bent on giving their children "stuff", when what the kids really need is guidance, role models, support, and direction.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the internet.
Doc Technical
Because the majority of Americans don't want guns banned, as is demonstrated by the way that so many states are busily removing their anti-gun laws at the moment.
Might you entertain the possibility that a majority can be wrong? And is it possible that lawmakers are influenced by a gun lobby that contributes to their election?
The second ammendment says:
I don't think most of the US gun owners are members of "A well-regulated militia". A rational interpretation might be that members of a well-regulated militia have the right and need to keep fire-arms.This all made much more sense in the agrarian, rural society of the 18th century, when travel took much longer, and it was impractical for the militia to store their weapons at a central location.
Times change. Laws can change. It's time for this one to change.
Thanks so much for the ad hominem attack. It does so much to bolster your argument.
If the intent of the second ammendment didn't hinge on the idea of a militia, then the authors could certainly have left the phrase out, so that it merely read "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Had they done this, we would not be having this discussion.
But they didn't leave the "militia" phrase out, because they wanted to clarify the intent for the right to bear arms.
And again, I never said I wanted to ban guns, I just want them "well-regulated".
It's simply a matter of fact that US have more people kill by firearms than any other "democratic" country in the world (in proportion). A few years ago in france a guy got hostages in a primary school (3-4 years old kids). The outcome was he was killed by police when they went in and no hostage had been hit in any case. In US it would have ended into a bloodshed... This is not hyper-hyped stuff, this is only that nowhere else kids have killed tens of scholars taht way...
Give people a car, they'll crash into wall and run over people. Give guns to kids, some will use them on other kids...
This is not insulting or attacking US citizens to say that.
About dictators, having gun will not help anything. For one century, in western Europe there have been only 2 dictators (mussolini & hitler). At that time, many people had rifles (manly farmers). That did not help to get rid of these dictators. This is the same with Molosevich : his people did not throug him. The problem with democracies is that when a dictator appears, he do not enforce his power by submitting every people, he manupilate people so that citizens vote for him. In that case, your guns will not help you. If you believe what your chief says you have no reason to attack him. And for having weapons to protect your country against invaders... Who can attack US ?
No having guns is not a good think. And reasons given are false.
The world belongs to those who get up early. - I'm far from being the king of Earth then
"Let's see now, HOW many times have" you read an history book about other countries than yours ? Not all countries in the world are dictators driven. When you don't know think, please shut up.
And I prefer a country where I can go to school without fearing to be shoot even though though one dictator appears in it once in the century... and stays there for 4 years (World War 2 was last time in western europe).
The world belongs to those who get up early. - I'm far from being the king of Earth then
It's a right to carry a weapon to protect yourself, but not to have high level protection of your data by encryption.
Nowadays your main danger is not a dictator takeover, that's an administrative state that goes into Big Brotherhood. You have the right to have a weapon, but not to protect your personnal data against the state. In this information society, that means you are at the mercy of the state.
Remind the Decency Act and the tries to put chips that FBI (or others) can decrypt with no problem... Ok these did not pass, but more and more pression are made to force these. How long will it take to transform US into "1984" ?
Therefore, whether people who claim guns is a good right are dumb, or they do not see the real danger. There is no dictators danger in US.
The world belongs to those who get up early. - I'm far from being the king of Earth then
We get US cartoons, ;-)
we get US music,
we get US junk food,
we get US films,
we get US games,
we get US net (Internet),
so now we have to get US slaughters...
what's next ?
The world belongs to those who get up early. - I'm far from being the king of Earth then
I just wanted to point out th
The world belongs to those who get up early. - I'm far from being the king of Earth then
I just wanted to point out that for most of people who claim guns are against dictators, they do not see they can be ruled by dictators or something very close, very for them to see it or even to oppose to it. When Intel wants to put some ID in its chips, that's dictator ship or it will please any dictotorial state. But many people think (not me) that it is a good thing cause it help to protect buz & it helps people not to be stolen their Banking card number (or they think so...)
I want to point out that guns to have freedom is an outdated argument.
The world belongs to those who get up early. - I'm far from being the king of Earth then
kids killed in US
;-)
kids killed in Ireland
Lots of Irish in US
The cause & the effect are known...
Irish are the real responsible !
ok I'am just kidding
The world belongs to those who get up early. - I'm far from being the king of Earth then
1/ population increased (ok that does not explain * 200 increase). I am curious to know what was english population in 1920 ? It is something like 70M people by now, no ?
2/ firearms simply are easier to grab, beacause their number & price. Everyone knows laws do not enforce anything (see US prohibition & alcoohol biz).
but maybe I am wrong. When you write "20 armes crimes in London" is it "20 firearms" ?
Anyway, you miss the point. By forbidding weapons you make it harder to criminals to find weapons and you greatly limit kids having & using weapons. Usage of firearms in middle of towns are rather limited in europe. I am told it was not in some places in US.
The world belongs to those who get up early. - I'm far from being the king of Earth then
Now, if the AC had actually read the full post in question, he would have seen that pspeed hopes that he can bein a position where he can keep his son or daughter out of public schools.
But then again, I could be wrong.
While reading (skimming) this discussion, I was disappointed to find no references about the key issue here: morality.I assume that most people would agree with me: killing anybody in this way, no matter who you are or what cause you represent, is wrong.(emphasis added)
If I may ask, what is the right way to kill people?
Do you support the death penalty? Is that the right way to kill people? What about bombing abortion clinics? Is that the right way to kill people?
Moral relativism is bunk. It's also boring. Take a stand.
I think this notion of the sanctity of life is a bunch of bullshit (those of you who've heard George Carlin on this topic will understand).
If everything that has lived before is now dead, and everything alive now is going to die, where does the sacred part come in? --Carlin.
I was cynical at first. I read the stories in the paper, on the web, and watched on TV. I wondered aloud if the parents were a factor. Then I remember a link from Slashdot: an article about kids in Idaho written for Rolling Stone. I realized that people of all ages make decisions on their own. Sometimes these decisions are well reasoned and sometimes not, as evidenced by this week's tragedy.
I talked to a friend of mine at lunch yesterday about Colorado and the killings. He and I agreed that the problem was communication. The kids (the shooters) had something to say and, they thought, no one to listen. How many times have you been hurt emotionally and felt "too whipped" to say anything to anyone. A friend or loved one says, "Hey, how are you doin'?"; is your standard reply "Fine" or are you willing to open up when you need to.
The shooters expressed themselves in a way which they believed everyone would (finally) understand. Don't blame the internet or parents. Let's let them take some of the blame themselves. Ozzy Ozbourne, DOOM, computers, and Bill Clinton aren't to blame for your behavior. You are.
If your
IIrc, there was at least one school shootup in the U.K., sorry to say.
Legacy hardware/software addict. Midnight hacker, 1960. Codepage 819 in DOS: Total Latin-1 compatibility (no boxes/lines
Teacher of the Year, as I recall; NYC area, I think.
However, as I remember, he finally had "had it" with the dictatorial Educational Establishment, and managed to remain a perceptive, intelligent, independent, and sympathetic thinnker. Try looking for a book or two by him with a search engine.
Not sure I remember all this correctly, though.
Legacy hardware/software addict. Midnight hacker, 1960. Codepage 819 in DOS: Total Latin-1 compatibility (no boxes/lines
Teacher of the Year, as I recall; NYC area, I think.
However, as I remember, he finally had "had it" with the dictatorial Educational Establishment, and managed to remain a perceptive, intelligent, independent, and sympathetic thinker. Try looking for a book or two by him with a search engine.
Not sure I remember all this correctly, though.
Legacy hardware/software addict. Midnight hacker, 1960. Codepage 819 in DOS: Total Latin-1 compatibility (no boxes/lines
I'm saddened to see how little response there was to this message. I think desensitizing is quite significant; I was shocked when TV images of the Iraqi bombardment were compared to video games. Video games simulate destruction, but never simulate the terrible pain and suffering that follows. No wonder perceptions are skewed!
It's not just violence that kids are being desensitized to; also ugliness and deformity; in general, all things any sane person in preceding certuries would have gone to great length to avoid.
I also definitely feel that parents are out of touch with their kids; essential "socialization" is rare or missing.
Legacy hardware/software addict. Midnight hacker, 1960. Codepage 819 in DOS: Total Latin-1 compatibility (no boxes/lines
Seems that you don't follow the news, and maybe those who replied to your message don't, either. There was a very sad school "shooting" in Dunblane, Scotland, I'm just about sure. Really shocked the daylights out of the Scots; I think they're very fine folks, on the whole. I'm almost sure there were other cases outside the USA; Montreal and England?
Legacy hardware/software addict. Midnight hacker, 1960. Codepage 819 in DOS: Total Latin-1 compatibility (no boxes/lines
I keep seeing images on news stations of the game "DOOM" being played.
.... and AOL!(aka satan)
First of all, Why werent the kids playing quake2 or even quake1? The images of Doom seem cartoonish at best. I wont beleive the "ultra violence" of doom caused anyones death until i see someone keel over from seeing the lights of a BFG.
I think its unfortunate that the tragedy is going to put a shadow on those of us who use the internet on a daily basis. They're going to want to take away our guns now, and probably ask us to remove any KMFDM imagery from our webpages.
Lets put the blame where it needs to be, on the newsmedia, the parents who cant control their kids,
Who gives a fat rat's ass HOW they were killed!!! Jesus F'in' Christ!!! It almost sounds as if you approve of the use of bombs, because it supports the inane statement that "guns don't kill people, people kill people", and since some of them were killed by bombs, well, that's OK.
Get a grip!
Jackasses *with* guns kill people.
WTF were two high school kids doing with an entire friggin' arsenal? I mean, semi-automatic weapons, sawed-off shotguns, and enough explosives to blast open most bank safes!
The bus just went by, and you missed it...badly!
A well regulated militia...
I fail to see how allowing every person in our society to wield guns like some idiot falls under the clause "A well regulated militia"
The second amendment was drafted and ratified over 200 years ago, coming off the heels of the war to gain independence from England. At that time, there was little in the way of formal armed forces, thus the need to the average man to keep and bear arms to protect "...the security of a free state..."
The "right of the people to keep and bear arms" was justified by the need for a "well regulated militia". In this day and age, with the technology available to us and the size of our "well regulated" armed forces, the 2nd amendment is hopelessly out of date.
Oh, and if you want to argue about the inviolability of the amendments to the constitution, might I remind you of the amendment which outlawed liquor... repealed in about 15 years.
And yes, a gun CAN change someone's behavior. Suppose you were the 98 lb weakling who was always picked on, but too small to defend yourself. Now, add a gun to the mix. You aren't such a "weakling" now, in that you can hurt/maim/kill your tormentors, just as the kids in Colorado apparently did.
Minds are like parachutes... they work best when open.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
.3006 rifles. They hunt deer for sustinence.
Lessee, a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state... isn't that the job of the armed forces?
And, tell me where the following "translation" fails...
Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Lessee, you claim that your interpretation is backed up by statements by the Founders. Thanks for backing up one of my points... This amendment was drafted over 200 years ago. Times have changed. 200 years ago, you didn't have a person walking down the street, or into a public building and start firing randomly. There wasn't a need for strict gun control. People knew how to control themselves. Ideally, we *should* be able to act in the same way. Unfortunately, we aren't. Thus, something needs to be done.
Finally, where in my comments did I make ANY statements about those who own and use firearms *responsibly*? I never stated that guns should be outlawed. Personally, I know an entire branch of my family that would starve if they were no longer allowed to own their
But, what is the purpose of a semi-automatic or automatic weapon? To kill people. Don't tell me you need 30+ rounds a second to take down Bambi... there won't be much left to eat at that point.
Since you obviously were putting words into my mouth about gun laws, let me express my views for you, just to clear up any misconceptions...
It should be illegal for a citizen to own an automatic or semi-automatic weapon. Keep them in the armed services, where people are properly trained in their use, and *when* to use them. Srticter control of handguns is needed. At this point, it would be useless to ban them. There are too many of them, and it is too easy to obtain one. However, more thorough background checks, and mandatory supervised instruction should be required. Same for rifles and shotguns. Point of sale of these firearms should be more tightly controlled. As it is now, a 16 year old can walk into the local Wal-Mart and buy a rifle and ammo all without so much as an age check. There is a reason we have age limits on so-called adult activities (driving, drinking, etc.): Most 16 year olds aren't emotionally and socially mature enough to partake of them responsibly.
I hope I cleared up your misconceptions of my position.
PS I think my point about repealing amendments was quite clear. Thanks for backing that up, too.
I grew up in the country where EVERYONE owned several guns, and guess what, we never, ever even let it cross our minds to point a gun at another human being, mainly because our parents drilled this fact into us from 1year old on. The real issue is that in today's society, life is not really all that important. We wipe out pre-borns that are inconvenient, we kill the old that are inconveniant, and now we just kill people that are annoying.
Guns are just another piece of equipment which can be missused. I could also take a truck through a crowded shopping mall and kill even more people than I can with a sub-machinegun.
BTW, every gun they had was illegal .
These people just don't understand how important, and precious life is.
-- Keith Moore
This sig is the express property of someone.
Do you know why it's so easy to own a gun in the US?????
It is for two reasons:
1 We have the largest free-standing militia in the world, this is a added defense of the country.
2 We have the largest free-standing militia in the world, this is an added defense against our own government, and the Constitution gave us the right to bear arms so we could defend ourselves against the government, if say it decided that all people with green eyes should be executed without question.
-- Keith Moore
This sig is the express property of someone.
>The "State" is defined as an organization that
>has the monopoly of the usage of violence,
>which can be used to defend the society against
>domestic as well as foreign aggressions.
Or, as we are seeing in a certain former home of the Yugo, the complete monopoly to inflict violence, which can be used to dominate and destroy their own society in the face of domestic as well as foreign resistance.
>Why the hell should individuals be allowed to
>possess and carry objects whose only purpose
>is to kill other people ?
See above. Kosovo is a prime f*cking example of what can happen. If every household in Kosovo had a gun, if every township could band their people together with said guns and put up a fight they might have been able to defend themselves. This very reason is *why* we 'merkins have this slowly disappearing right to keep arms.
Of course with that freedom comes immense responsibility, which we're sorely lacking in this country. Responsibility for your guns, your kids, while driving, while drinking, while doing anything. America is losing that. We just blame it on something else. Which is what we're seeing yet again.
>I really hope that you americans will soon
>understand how senseless this tradition is.
It's pretty easy for you across the pond to sit there and yell "Ay! If you dinna have no guns, dis no happen!" Meanwhile you've got mega mega problems of your own that we can sit over here and tell you how easy it would be to fix them. Dunblane, car bombs, the IRA, that whole serbian shithole mess, etc. etc. etc. We're all the same.
Doesn't matter where you live or what laws you have or don't have. Human nature will still bend you over and give it to you long and hard when and where you least expect it.
Blech. Signatures.
to defend the video games, I personally would have to say that if anything, a game of half-life or other such game is rather calming when I am frusterated and angry. If anything i would think that these games lessen the urge to commit such an act of violence. There's nothing like killing a few marines, or aliens when you're frusterated...
paintball is growing in popularity in my area, and as far as i know, no one has attributed it to kids killing kids. (for those who are unfamiliar with painball, you shoot your opponent with a gun that fires small plastic balls filled with paint, if you are hit, you are out of the game.. ) this is far more similar to killing people, yet it's not seen as a problem, nor do i want it to be. why this scrutiny towards computer games? Is it the fear of the unknown for those who don't like video games?
On a lighter note?
Has anyone noticed that these killings tend to happen in school cafeterias? Maybe it's the food that drives kids to killing... I remember high school cafeteria food, and i eat dorm food daily...
Now if you'll excuse me, i'm going to play half-life deathmatch with my friends and the lunch lady....
...two copper coins roll on the floor....
I think there is a distinction that has to be brought to light here. These kids (as well as most high school internet "geeks") were probably in the realm of crackers. Most of the Internet kids at my old high school were crackers, all in to anarchy and warez and thinking they could hack security and destroy things. And they were all unstable. But the few true hackers I knew were intelligent and reasonably stable - strange nonetheless, but really uncapable of random violence. The crackers were always starting fights and were generally outcast. So all I'm saying is that those who use technology and the Internet for violence and anarchy and crime, and are outcasts, and are geeks - those are the people that we should watch, not your local OS programmer.
First of all Our Bill of Rights is old and outdated. Would you really trust medical care from 1776 ? I think not. The people in the UK have it right when they let their constitution evovle and not stagnate. America is just full of people who won't take responsibility for their own actions , we just want someone or something to blame that isn't us.
"That wasn't an attack. It was preemptive retaliation!"
First of all I said evovle not do away with . Before you start calling people simple-minded please read the comment . thanks
"That wasn't an attack. It was preemptive retaliation!"
There was an interesting comment on 60 Minutes last night. One of the guest remarked that in the 1950's, when Juvenile Deliquency was first becomming a problem, the 'experts' immediately started blaming the violence in comic books - and some of the goriest were actually banned. Yet, when you look at all of us that grew up with them, 99.99...% grew up more or less normal (as far as violence is concerned). Even Vietnam didn't permanently affect most of us. The question is, what is the difference in that tiny fraction that somehow crosses over into self-destructive violence. It has to be something internal to them and not some external factor.
Clinton says violence is not the answer kids.
But he can't speak about it for too long he's busy - he's got to go back and organise bombing Serbia some more...
Johnny
IMHO, the sad reality of this is that we will never understand. "Why?" is a fundamentally human question, but one that cannot always be answered. These boys were obviously sick, and rational people will not be able to comprehend their motivations. That's why its the fault of the Internet.......or Doom, neo-nazism, geek culture, goth culture, competition and pressures in US schools, Marilyn Manson, Rammstein, television, racism, the US gun laws, movies like Natural Born Killers, Kosovo, bisexuals, the books they read, black trench coats, teachers, the kids that teased them, their parents, the food they ate etc. I'm surprised I haven't seen a talking head trying to blame the real mafia yet. The fact is large-scale school violence can happen anywhere - Dublane, Scotland or Montreal, Canada or in South Africa (watch the news this morning!) I don't have any easy answers and neither does the Christian Right or angry, frightened parents or censors or the NRA or psychatrists or journalists.
I reply hesitantly to this. Criticising the United States often leads to long annoying threads composed of nothing more than flames. However, I feel that Mr. Coward is somewhat mistaken on the subject of the violence problem in the US.
You don't really get anywhere blaming the US culture/society for the actions of two citizens. All cultures raise people who are more violent or antisocial than the norm. Often these people are from fairly well of segements of the population. All nations have played host to people who have put their thoughts into action with regrettable results. It is by no means unique to the US.
On the other hand, there appear to be a host of nasty things that occur more frequently in the US than in any other peaceful and civilised nation. Some of the reasons for this are fairly obvious, and some are not. America has the worlds highest murder rate per capita AND overall simply because of lax gun control. (Note: I said peaceful and civilised. Murders are of course more frequent during wars and times of instability.)Murders would probably be fairly frequent in England too, if everybody older than 18 could buy a gun.It's not a facet of American culture so much as it is a problem of American law.
There are of course, two sides to this argument, and if the US government thinks the freedom to bear arms (and it is a freedom) outweighs the cost in lives then so be it. They are better placed to make that decision than I.
a) I'm an Australian. We recently had the lowest murder by gunshot rate in the world. Murders are still a shocking and newsworthy item here. We still have one of the world's lowest murders per year. Not usre if it is the lowest though.
b) All cultures raise loads of maniacs. Most cultures try not to arms them.
A couple of kids shoot out their school, instantly
the media blame computers, the internet and
marilyn manson, do you not think this is
becoming a little bit of a common factor, kids
do some thing wrong so games, the internet
and marilyn manson get the blame. I think the
media should get real man, obviously these
guys are social outcasts from the rest of the
school. I feel that they may have just been led
to this by all of the stess from everyone around
them , I mean if they are social outcasts its
obvious that they would have been pointed at
and laughed at you know, maybe even more
than that. And all of the pressure has just made
them lose it big time. My point is that if every one
was just to chill out show some respect and love
one and other none of this shit would happen.
Peace
B
I swear,
It makes me sick to hear comments like "Outlawing guns will prevent things like this from happening." Sometimes I think people can't reason past their own nose. "Hey I have a great idea! Why don't we give up all of our freedom, a bit at a time, in exchange for an illusion of security!" Great idea, Einstein. BAHHHHH!! Get in the corral my friend. You're being herded like Germans in pre-WWII. You want to give the U.S. government so much control that you bearly even have to decide what to watch on your televisions safely tucked away behind your white picket fence in your gated neighborhood. Here's an idea, force the American populace to re-take some history courses. Why don't you study Adolf Hitler. He was all for taking guns away from the public. That way there's no opposition when he decides to declare himself Fuhrer. Don't think that it can never happen to America folks. You sheep make me sick.
Well, good folks,
As much as you'd like to put me down, I didn't say anything that was factually untrue. You may disagree with my opinions. But that doesn't mean that my facts were not straight. I didn't say anything about how he came to power. I am educated about that. Yes, I know all about Mein Kampf, the Beer Hall Putzch , the SS. It is important to learn from it. Citizens MUST maintain control of their own government. The sooner you people wake up, the better.
Mike
--
Mike
--
"Wi nøt trei a høliday in Sweden this yër?"
Mike
--
Mike
--
"Wi nøt trei a høliday in Sweden this yër?"
Back in the 40s and 50s... Mom stayed home.. the family had less money but they were closer.. they didn't have 2 to 3 cars.. they didn't have a house that had 3 tvs, with VCRs, cable, etc. hooked up to them... but they didn't care.. they had each other...
Back in the 40s and 50s, Mom lead a dreary, meaningless existence and existed to serve her family. Dad was an alcoholic in a gray flannel suit, who started on the martinis when he got home and demanded dinner when he walked in.
So if parents started to bring up their children right, that includes discipline (spanking), respect for authority, made to make good grades in school, and just a bed and a few toys in there room until they're 13 or 14.
My mom always taught me to question and evaluate authority. Rule by fiat is abnormal to me.
Yes, Spanking. I am a product of spanking. It works. I am a 4.0 student in high school and at the top of my class. I say "Yes, Sir." and "No, Sir." and when I backtalk I get slapped in the mouth. My parents words are final and there is NO questioning. Because of my achevements, that how I get the computer that is sitting on my desk and the truck that I drive. If I screw it up, I lose both and the CD player in my room and the CDs that go with it. I atttend Sevrices Sunday morning, Sunday night, and Wednesday night. Religon is a major factor in a childs development. And the parent MUST follow the same rules of the child, that is to say, set an example.
My mother never hit me. I didn't get a 4.0 all the time, but my grades are good enough for a full academic scholarship. Growing up, I always had a cable TV in my bedroom; does that make me spoiled? Moreover, I am an atheist. My mother is a devout Baptist, but she does not mind my decision not to follow her beliefs. She believes it is an extension of the questioning of authority. Religion does not necessarily make a good child, and neither does corporal punishment. Different things work for different children, and your recommendations would most likely have led me to a bitter, hateful existence. However, it seems to have worked fine for you. General parenting pronouncements are a Bad Thing.
Mike
--
Mike
--
"Wi nøt trei a høliday in Sweden this yër?"
Read your page...well put! I understand what you're saying entirely. I was lucky in that I went to a 'magnet' high school for tech/sci/math. We were mixed in our gen ed classes with the mainstream high schoolers, and they called us nerds and losers. However, we turned it on them and took the appellation of nerd with pride. We started calling ourselves nerds. Thankfully, there were 100 of us in my class, and we stuck together fairly well. Of course, there were the popular nerds (fit in well with the gen ed) and the outcast nerds (didn't fit in at all), but the outcasts outnumbered the populars, so we were all pretty OK.
And of course, we get the jobs we love and pay well, doing things we might well do for free!
Mike
--
Mike
--
"Wi nøt trei a høliday in Sweden this yër?"
It's that person standing behind the gun, pulling the trigger that is the problem. It's been discussed over and over on news shows these past few days discussing "What could have been done?" "What was wrong with the parents?" ......
True, where were the parents while all the glass breaking and sawing was going on the garage? But asking about where the parents were now isn't the issue. Ask where the parents were while the child was growing up. Why didn't those kids understand the real value and impact of taking a human life?
And as far as the kids being labeled "geeks" and "nerds," I remember high school (hell it was only 4 years ago). I was a geek and I'm sure there's a lot of you who were the same way. I was picked on, taunted, etc. Yeah, it affected me. Of course it affected me. Would I bring ammunition to school with me to take care of the ones who picked on me? No! Why? I don't know. It's instilled in me to not do such a thing. Maybe it was just instilled in them to get ultra-violent?
This is a horrible, horrible thing to have to deal with and try to face and try to realize this will probably happen more often. Copycats are already out there. A Jr. High School yesterday in Eagan, MN, where my niece goes to school, had a bomb threat. Some kid left a note in another kids locker saying there were bombs ready to go off and cause destruction just like what happened in Colorado.
KaraMouse
This is a link to a piece I wrote while still in high school, describing the groups (castes, my terminology) in its little society. It is dirt poor writing, but got an A anyway, and was fun to talk to people about. Outcasts are the primary focus, and it is they who (IMHO) need to take responsibility in righting the wrongs of the popular kids.
t e20.html
Note, however, that it was written in the style of propaganda, and meant to call people to action in the cause of fixing the school's social system. It is not a call to violence, though, so I thought it to be in good enough taste (and with good enough relevance) to post it to this conversation.
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/7209/cas
Did anybody see the abc tv coverage of this tradegy last night? I did. I cringed. The news reporter just didn't get it. He affixed blame to video games, the Internet, Marilyn Manson and a "goth" lifestyle. He failed to recognize that today's disaffected goth is quite similiar to the switch-blade wielding hood of his era -- similiar, that is, in feelings of alienation and torment.
If there is a possibility for a cure for these massacres, then it is that people -- both teens and their parents -- must learn to not be so cruel to each other. Yes, it seems adults encourage the cruel behavior that particularly harms melodramatic youth.
A religious "grounding" helps. It helps judge and quickly eliminate thoughts of such godless acts as we saw in Littelon. Bashing religion -- and the religious right -- is bound to eventually contribute to something like this.
There is no magic pill to wake us up from this nightmare. Bashing the internet + rock music + video games + dark clothing has never worked. Society should do more soul-searching instead. Changing attitudes and broken moral values is more intelligent than pulling the plug on the PC and taking a censoring view of entertainment.
I've always been amazed with people's excuses for applying the Death Penalty.
Coming from a European country with no capital punishment whatsoever I find it difficult to accept the "turning point" for when someone can be sentenced to death. Maximal punishment around here is something like 20 years and though we maybe not have as much extreme crime as the US does (then again, we're a smaller country), the percentage of the population in jail is SIGNIFICANTLY smaller than it is in the United States.
Saying that teens who commit serious crimes like this should be sentenced to death is like wishing the problem away. It's a way of saying that you don't know how to handle the problem and by just erasing it (eg. killing the criminals) it will solve itself.
Apart from that, I do not believe in a government that kills its own people.
The second part of the problem, guns. I know how touchy the subject of gunpossession lies in the US, but this is definately a very good second in defining the problem. There is no justification why someone, anyone, should be allowed to carry a gun. I don't care how violent your little suburban town is, or how big of a rodent problem you're having, that does NOT give you the right to carry a lethal weapon around.
Teens should NOT be allowed anywhere _near_ guns. You've got pathetically strict smoking and drinking laws, why not go after something that REALLY kills?
Something that has absolutely nothing to do with the killing spree are the computergames they played. Although it might have drawn them away from social life (which I think was a severely contributing factor to the problem) the games itself didn't cause them to "snap".
These kids had severe problems in their social life, along with easy access to weapons and explosives (what apparently, reading the thread, a lot of americans find their God-given right)that's what caused this outburst of agression.
There is no way to prevent something like this overnight, it's going to take a long time before people realize the full impact that stopping this from ever happening again is going to have on their lives. It's not just "them" that have to change, it requires a lot of change from your own part as well.
A computergame or music doesn't kill, people do.
Sorry if this sounds too ranty, it's pretty early and I just got in the office.
rbb
In God We Trust, Others We Monitor
Article the fourth [Amendment II]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The Second Amendment to the constitution has been used for too long as a shield for cowards to hide behind in defense of weapons whose sole purpose is to kill. Fans of guns cite this antiquated notion as the reason why every American should be allowed -- encouraged, even -- to have fully automatic assault rifles.
Let's take a look at the history of the Second Amendment. It was passed -- as were the other amendments in the Bill Of Rights -- by an America completely different from the America of today. America in 1787 was a nation that had just fought a war against governmental tyranny and that wanted to ensure such a situation would not come about again. The military at that time was not a professional, standing army as we have today, it was composed of "citizen" soldiers, men who left their normal lives to defend their country. When the war ended, the Founders wanted to make sure that if such a situation ever arose again, the citizen army would be able to defend the nation again.
The Founders did not anticipate that America would adopt a standing, professional, highly trained army to defend its interests. They did not intend for the Second Amendment to put killing machines in the hands of every American for recreational purposes; and they certainly did not intend to arm every crack dealer, petty thief, disgruntled postal employee, and psychopathic loser geek teenager with a death wish. Had they seen the America of today, the Founders would most likely never have even proposed such an Amendment to the Constitution.
It is far too easy for anyone to buy a gun. Go to any Kmart and check. The self-defense argument is a moot point because far more people are killed or hurt trying to "defend" themselves with guns than are criminals. For every criminal that is killed in self-defense, how many children must die? The number I heard is that 11 children die every day because of guns (i.e. they are shot). Am I the only one who finds this absolutely appalling? The "recreational" argument -- used by skeet shooters and most hunters -- is more valid. But if we can pass a law that makes it illegal for me to do donuts in an empty parking lot -- recreation for bored teens -- then we can pass a law forbidding the use of guns. The safety of the public must come before the pleasure of the hunters.
We must make it not only difficult, but impossible for anyone to own a gun. I am against tyranny as much, if not more than, anyone else, but the threat of the government breaking into our homes and terrorizing its citizens is unrealistic. I am far more afraid of the tyranny that is occurring each and every day by the members of the population who hold the rest of us at bey with their tools of death. This is not only a much more realistic threat, but a far more immediate one. I can't see the U.S. Armed forces turning against the American people any time soon, can you?
As long as the Second Amendment exists, the NRA, with nutty Chuck Heston ("This would never have occurred if the school had an armed guard. The answer is at least one armed guard in every school in America." -- He actually said that!!) at the helm, is going to be in the right. After all, it's part of the Constitution, and all other laws must be in compliance with the Constitution. So the only recourse for people of conscience is to work to repeal the Second Amendment.
Of course, this will never happen. Guns are such a part of American culture that despite all the horror, Americans love guns. They are cool looking. According to the movies, cool people use them. They're loud and they give power. It is this idea, so ingrained in American culture, that will prove more difficult to fight than the NRA (though all the congressmen in their pockets doesn't help the cause any).
The Second Amendment is an evil, antiquated notion whose usefulness has long since passed.
-----BEGIN ANNOYING SIG BLOCK-----
Evan
rooooar
Certainly there was no internet for losers to hide on back then. The reports I've heard seem to say that Doom was these kids' lives. They played for hours and hours and really didn't have any friends. One was described as a "follower." So you have two probably already unstable people here, ostracized from the normal social group, who spend all their free time in front of a computer screen away from everybody else, who apparently have easy access to a great deal of ordinance, and one of whom would probably do whatever the other one suggested.
The cause of this was not "the net," "easy access to guns, or "the media." The cause of this was "the net," "easy access to guns, AND "the media." The role the media played was informing (sensationalizing, whatever) the stories of the other high school killers, making them think, "Hey, they did it, we can too!" The real culprit was probably the insanity of these boys. I played a lot of Doom in high school and had few friends (not none) and NEVER considered anything like this. These kids had to have had some mental defect in order to have carried out something like this. The other factors contributed, of course, but are dwarfed in comparison to the insanity.
When crazy people become isolated for long periods of time and have access to weapons of destruction, what do we expect will happen? Isn't a crazy guy with weapons of mass destruction why we fought the second world war?
I'm not saying you're wrong about people using this to further their agenda -- many people will. But it made me stop and think how ludicrous it is that these kids even had access to guns. And just because people use this to further their idea that "the net" or "the media" or "the guns" are bad doesn't mean they're wrong.
-----BEGIN ANNOYING SIG BLOCK-----
Evan
rooooar
Anyway, everybody's tossing around numbers so here're some more to think about.
http://www.aclu-sc.org/GunStats.htm
-----BEGIN ANNOYING SIG BLOCK-----
Evan
rooooar
Most Americans (at least that I know) would like to see much stricter gun control. I guess we know different people.
I recognize the value of guns as tools of self-defense, but only against our fellow citizens (the ones with guns) and maybe the occasional rabid dog. If the government decides it wants to take you down, your guns aren't going to help you.
When I was in High School I dressed all in Black, wore a trench coat in all types of weather and played D&D, doom, shadow run , and anything else that stimulated my mind and imagination. I was a part of a "Trench Coat Gang". Our gaming was our release, we did it to vent our frustration, not use it as a training tool like the media makes it out to be. We didn't kill anyone, sure we made bombs but what kid hasn't. Living on 14 acres of land allowed me to do as I pleased without harming anyone or anything but trees and dirt.
I think the media needs to pay more attention to the mind set of the teens and their parents. Sure no parent wants to be labeled as BAD but with society today you can't spank a child thats bad or even raise your hand as a threat. I'm not that old but if more kids today were disciplined like the "old" days maybe right and wrong would be ingrained a little better into children IMHO, and we wouldn't see as many if any of these school murders that have taken place in the last 2 years.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" -- Albert Einstein
So, this same sort of thing _didn't_ happen in Scotland a short while ago? Granted, it wasn't a student in that case, but a guy killed a bunch of friggin kindergarteners.
Guns are also readily available to everyone in such regions as Africa, South America, SE Asia, and Switzerland. When was the last time you heard of a Swiss guy going off half-cocked and blowing away a bunch of people? Granted, this doesn't put the U.S. in a favorable light, but that's not the point of this rant.
A simple truth is this: guns don't kill people - people kill people.
That the Swiss have machine guns in their houses doesn't prompt them to go on shooting sprees, right? The U.S. didn't have all these problems before the last twenty or so years, when guns were _MORE_ prevalent. No, the availability of guns to the populace has nothing to do with this sort of behavior. This behavior is a symptom of a much deeper problem.
The problem here is, nobody wants to take responsibility for their own actions. "My three-year-old kid went out and died in a ditch while I was passed out drunk, so there must have been something on TV that made her do that." It's revolting.
It is a fact that, in 1930s Germany, Hitler advocated licensing all guns. Germans, stolid and dutiful, loyal to their fuhrer, registered their guns. When Hitler wanted to pervert his chancellorship and turn it into something more nefarious, who got rounded up first? Gun owners.
Changing the gun laws would make it illegal for otherwise law-abiding citizens to own guns. Good, solid citizens would become criminals. As it stands, criminals already have guns. They would not be affected in the slightest. Do criminals in Europe have guns? Oh, wait, Europe is perfect and there is no crime there. Maybe its citizenry is just too lazy to bristle at taxes more oppressive than those shouldered by us in the U.S.
Also shown by the numbers is this fact, which you so conveniently ignore: in states where concealed carrying of guns has been once again permitted, crime rates have DROPPED. Yes, guns have actually made it SAFER in the U.S. where they are allowed to work their magic. An armed citizenry is not only there to defend against an oppressive government (mark my words, we will see civil war in this nation again inside 50 years... people have ignorantly given their rights, and soon they will realize just what has been taken from them, and they'll be pissed...), but to defend against each other.
The Internet, guns, movies, TV, newspapers, drugs, neo-Nazi activity, racism, sexism, and hate have _NOTHING_ to do with actions like this. They are simply symptoms of a much larger problem. This problem to which I allude is, from what I've seen, a Universal Truth [tm] (and is also pervasive amongst Europeans, much to their utter chagrin).
Here it is: PEOPLE ARE STUPID.
Armed citizenry is _necessary_ to maintaining the bounds on government set forth in our Constitution. The Constitution is not there to mandate government power over the people, but to limit government's power over the people. Our entire body of laws was miniscule until the last thirty years or so, as common sense had its rightful place in society.
As I dwell more on this subject, I see a correlation between dates of various happenings, and the beginnings of problems in the U.S. that could lead to the problem in Littleton.
The problem is that people don't take responsibility for their own actions. The baby-boomers didn't have to bear responsibility in their time, and instead set their goals toward more social "justice".
To wit, they passed the "Great Society" legislation in the 1960s, which established a system of welfare and cyclic dependency on government. This dependency on government freed young men of the burden of caring for children they fathered illegitimately, and made it profitable for young women to become baby-mills; the more babies they produced, the fatter the welfare check from Uncle Sucker. This money was easily converted into booze or drugs and, since there was no reason to work, there was no reason to stay clean. Uncle Sucker would take care of things, and just keep sending the checks no matter what, right? Oh, the kids? They'll mind themselves. I used that welfare check to buy a TV.
Seeing their parents practicing this lifestyle, one where nobody exercised any self-control, never took any responsibility for their own actions (I do drugs because the Man doesn't give me a chance... it's all a racist conspiracy... wait, I'm white... what?), how do you expect these kids to act? They'll learn the lessons taught them by their parents, and they'll learn them well.
Maybe one of the best things that ever happened to this country will be the impending WWIII that is starting (again!) in the Balkans. Gen-X will have to buckle down and bear the burden of responsibility for this war brought to us by a bunch of flaming, bleeding-heart liberal baby-boomer do-gooders.
\</rant\>
--Corey
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
'Scuse me?
Because he owns a gun does not make him a bad person. It makes him a smart person. Have you ever had your house violated? Broken into while you were there? Been victim of some kind of crime? Wouldn't you have liked to have protected yourself?
I doubt whether ESR has had any of these problems, as it _REALLY_ISN'T_THAT_COMMON_ here in the U.S. to be burgled or raped or whatever, but it never hurts to be prepared.
Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. -- My Grandma
Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six. -- My Grandpa
Your initial impression of ESR was probably the correct one. He probably _is_ a nice guy. Just because he wants to protect what is ultimately his to protect, his life, why is he demonized by you?
--Corey
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
Population of about 30Million? 600 homicides a year? Lessee... multiply your population by about 10 times, and increase the homicides by about that much. Now, you've got 6000 homicides a year to deal with.
CanaDUH doesn't look so peachy any more, does it?
I don't know what the homicide rate is for the U.S., but that's not the issue.
--Corey
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
Give up your RIGHT to bear arms to save just one life, eh? How 'bout if it's the life of the guy you just caught raping your wife?
Oh, and there are just as many, if not MORE drugs around now as then. That's a red herring.
So, if you played a lot of DooM in high school, and you had the same exposure to the internet and the media that these kids had, and your ability to get guns (which, by your other rants, must be seen as "guns are too easily available", meaning that they are easily available to YOU), why did you never think of doing something like this?
What? Society not to blame? Fscked-up kids to blame? Parents not minding their children? What? What means this word, "responsibility"?
--Corey
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
Oh, and by the way...
A crazy guy with weapons of mass destruction was NOT the reason we fought the second world war. It was due to popular sentiment after the bombing of Pearl Harbor (which, for you recent high school graduates, is in the state of Fairbanks).
The U.S. tended toward isolationism until AFTER the second world war. And WE were the guys with the weapons of mass destruction (remember Hiroshima, Nagasaki?).
--Corey
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
YES!!! I love it! Great idea!
Wasn't Hrunting the name of the bier hall of the king in Beowulf?
--Corey
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
The French citizenry didn't have guns in the early 1940s, either, did they?
It's telling, it really is.
--Corey
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
This text is a summation of a study done by an anti-gun guy in Chicago who embarked on this mission to prove that guns kill people.
His conclusion? That in states where concealed-carry was allowed, violent crime declined dramatically.
So what if it's from some NRA text? The point is, indeed, valid. Not only that, but the fact that the man who did the study was an avid anti-gun guy (who quite properly revealed the results of his study, though they contradicted his hoped-for result, in the best scientific tradition) lends credence to the text cited above.
Where in the above text, which includes bibliographic annotations, and into which vastly more study has gone than your considered opinion that it is invalid, is there an inaccuracy?
Hmm???
--Corey
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
I guess you missed the sarcasm in those statements. Yes, I know the state of Hawaii is home to Pearl Harbor. I was thinking of a young man who, when I said I lived in St. Louis, asked me what state that was in. He was a recent high school graduate from Philadelphia (PA - in case you're wondering).
Verily, I know that our isolationist tendencies ended with the bombing of Pearl Harbor. That was the reason we got into the war. It was only after WWII, though, that our "maritime" policies tended away from isolationism.
--Corey
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
In a situation where I would leave my wife for another woman (which is unthinkable, since I don't have a wife... but if I did, she would not have to worry about such a thing anyway... but I digress), and she was pointing a gun at my head, I would certainly be scared shitless. However, thoughts about her right to bear arms would never even enter my mind. I would still, at that point, support her right to bear arms if I were even able to think.
I can see the rationality in an armed citizenry. I _think_ about these things from time to time. Can you say the same?
Your blatant appeal to emotion, "How many kids have to die...", is indicative of your inability to rationally discuss such an issue.
Indeed, I do think very highly of my argument, Slick. I actually have _thought_ about my argument. I doubt that you can say the same.
--Corey
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
Are you forgetting that the executees/executed also have families? The means of death is irrelevent here! By executing a murderer, we are inflicting no less pain on the murderer's family than he inflicted on his victim's family.
Yep, it's the parents these days pushing
;).
responsibility for their children's upbringing
off onto the schools and the good ol' Democrat
social programs. Then the parents can sit back
and blame society when things go awry. Remember
back in the 80's when everyone started to think
discipline was bad? Well, now we're reaping what
we sowed.
Also, this whole labeling of the "geeks" and
"outcasts" just makes me sick. It was great
when yesterday, the NBC "Internet correspondant"
said "Well, after I logged on to the Internet..".
Right there you know to stop listening
It's not DOOM and Quake that made these kids
crazy. They were already crazy. And something
didn't click that killing people was a bad
thing. Quite sad. I'm just glad I got out
of High School when I did...
It's just the whole social outlook on life anymore
that's really screwing things up. Parents don't
want to discipline their children because they
think they should be all nice and fluffy all the
time. Well, then you get kids that don't know
how to behave properly, and don't quite understand
consequences the way normal people should.
-Mike
--- witty signature
Oh yeah, definitely I meant setting limits.
To me, discipline means teaching kids that there
are limits to what is acceptable, and if those
limits are broken, then there should be correction,
but definitely not through any abusive channels.
Constructive criticism to enforce limits.
--- witty signature
Lets face it, Doom and movies don't make people do violent things. These kids learned a long time ago that escalating violence and not accepting the differences of others is a way to have power and be popular. In some ways its how to be accepted. Where did they learn this? At risk of blaming the victims, probably from some of the very people they killed.
All reports indicate that they had been physically and mentally abused for years by their peers at school - the jocks and the cool people. They were verbally acosted, physically beaten and pushed against lockers and publically humiliated at every opportunity. Their answer was to band together and force their hate on to everyone that was different - both their regular abusers and minorities. After all, the jocks and cool people were cool because they picked on them, centered them out, some how hated "them". If they Hate minorities, they will be like them, they may be able to gain the social power that their abusers have. With this social situation simmering for years, these 2 individuals finaly snapped. They may have modeled their fashions, and ultimate behaviour on a few movies and video games, but the desire to kill and the need for acceptance and power were there long before that. Had these two found solace and power in Disney movies and games, we might still have 15 dead people, with the killers dressed as mice. My point here is the movies and games didn't MAKE them disturbed enough to kill, they were that disturbed first and choose their symbolism later. If The Basketball Diaries or Doom had never been made, this tragedy would still have happened.
So who is to blame? Everyone in Littleton and at that school - kids, parents, teachers - who regularly watched this kind of abuse and did nothing to stop it, chalking it up to "that's the way kids are". Whether they actively picked on these kids or just stood by and watched without doing anything, they contributed to the creation of these monsters.
I certainly don't condone their actions. These two were misfit psychopaths who choose an extreme method to lash out at their tormenters. Its wrong. But considering the culture of elitism and exclusivity which we have fostered in our schools across North America, why is anyone surprised this is happening? A human can only be pushed so far - adding teen angst and hormones to the mix only makes it worse.
This is a far more likely and reasonable explanation than Doom or The Matrix causing this - only we don't want to accept our role in creating this so we blame games and movies. People are asking "Where were these two boys parents? How come they didn't know?What values did they teach their kids?" These are valid points. But is just as valid to ask the same thing of the parents of the "popular" kids "Just who taught these kids that it was ok to abuse and publicly humiliate other kids? Where were their parents?"
Something to think about that makes more sense than Doom...
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
I could go off on a tirade here, but I wont.. I think we've proven our point
-- Life: Hate the Game... Love the cereal
I blame mostly the media for this. You see this on the news about how one person did this and it happens 3 more times. The media gives these kids the idea. It's like the qoute from 'Young Guns', "I'll make you famous". You shoot-up a school, what's going to happen about it? You going to known all over the world. At the least, 90% of the people on this earth want to be reconized and these people are now reconized. I feel that they are giving these 2 kids what they really wanted.... Just something for you guys to think about.
"The pen is mighter than the sword... But what if you can't write?"
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
I think the whole suicide deal was that the didn't want to pay for what they did. They killed semi innocent people. It's not like protecting the world, as it is in video games..There are penalties in real life for killing innocent people.
"The pen is mighter than the sword... But what if you can't write?"
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
How many nerds do you know that are hard core Manson fans.... I don't know any..
"The pen is mighter than the sword... But what if you can't write?"
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
Well it defantly would mask what cliques that a person was part of. I feel that this would help out alot. I think also that school should have longer days.. 7a-5p.. That would keep kids off the streat for 3 more hours.. But that's another story..
"The pen is mighter than the sword... But what if you can't write?"
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
If spanking your monkey leads to killing, but playing quake makes you behaved, we're am I at.. Would that make me a polite killer if I snap.. 'Excuse me, but can you stop running for a minute so I can kill you.. I'll make sure it's not painful to you'...
The whole war thing... Hmm.. Yeah, it shows that to get anything done you have to kill some people... But I don't believe in that.. I'm peaceful...
"The pen is mighter than the sword... But what if you can't write?"
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
I would like to find a mirrow also.. I would really like to have a look on what this has to say..
"The pen is mighter than the sword... But what if you can't write?"
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
I'm a punk, i'm into the punk lifestyling. We hate 99% of all jocks becuase of the ego.. Most of us don't like sports.. So please do not confuse Jocks and Punks, becuase we tend our own and leave everyone alone..
"The pen is mighter than the sword... But what if you can't write?"
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
>On a planet without Maryin Manson would they have still done it? Yes. Symptom.
>
>On a planet without Doom would they have still done it? yes - symptom.
But it wasn't just Doom or Marylin or Hitler or any other singular thing.
On a planet without all of those things would they have still done it? I don't think they would have.
Had you noticed that the nations you mention have dramatically lower instances of all other kinds of violence?
The US has some sort of violence problem, certainly, but gun control would, at best, be like a band-aid. On a severed artery.
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
Indeed, pipe bombs can be made anywhere. So why do those tragedies seem to be confined to the US only?
There's something wrong with our society that guns have nothing to do with. Unless we can fix that, gun control won't help a bit.
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
I wholeheartedly agree with this. When I was a Kid (before the advent of PC's and cable tv was only a rumor) virtually everything we did was a made up game that involved pretend killing or the strong overcomming the weak in some terrable way. Is seeing some cartoonish violence on a screen really any more "real" than conjuring up the images from your imagination? Everybody wants a simple solution, but face it, reality isn't simple.
I'm sure that playing quake for hours on end could have had some effect, but what doesn't? In the end it is how you deal with the situations that confront you, not the situations themselves, that make up your character.
...Because it couldn't be that high school inherently alienates teenagers when they need the most nurturing, and it certainly couldn't be that maybe they had a lousy homelife and that's why they didn't know that mass murder is not the way to solve problems.
I wonder...if they were big Voodoo Glow Skulls fans, would that be blamed? ("And when they get a load of me/I'll take them on a killing spree/ with my gun/and then you'll see what I call fun." or "...but when I kill your girlfriend/you'll wish you were my friend!")
What's the deal? I think the point made yesterday (that Quake et al. are more ways to release that violent intent than build it up) is very salient. The fact is, there is very little in the human experience that can be explained as "he did this because of this." Most attempts to make such a statement fall victim to the fallacy "because of this, therefore this." Like (a few centuries ago) "because I've never _seen_ a black person (or any group considered subhuman at the time) read, obviously, they can't read." The media is perpetuating the myth of simple cause and effect in human interaction. There are always going to be millions of reasons why people do antything. Blaming the internet or games like Duke Nukem is just farking retarded.
The American Constitution was only supposed to last 50 years before it was revised. And when it was written the most powerful gun at the time was the musket. So maybe bad political systems kill people.
Give you a few decades and I'm sure you trigger happy yanks will do far worse to yourselves. You've aleady made a good start...
Swedish neutrality is a remarkable feat, not a flaw. If all countries where like Sweden there would be no wars.
Chris (UK)
Sig pending!
But guns are only part of the issue. Culture is the issue being discussed. I think culture is to blame, but not the "Goth, D&D, internet" culture. American culture. A culture which allows the popular to spit on the unpopular. Which creates outcasts. Which makes kids feel like they have no reason to care about the world around them. The internet, D&D, and Goth allow people to have friends who support them. Quite the opposite of what most articles are implying, this is healthy. It is healthy to know someone is there for you. But in a society where popular kids are encouraged to exclude others and make them feel like they don't belong or are worthless, it is inevitable that some will revolt against this in violent ways. Years of torture can twist your mind, and while you may have been a good kid 8 yrs ago, you can be perfectly evil now.
kmj
kmj
The only reason I keep my ms-dos partition is so I can mount it like the b*tch it is.
It seems to me that self-styled "geeks" aren't affected very much by being picked on, so maybe labelling the two Colorado "gunboys" isn't justified. But the media has never been known to be particularly accurate with their labelling.
Anyway, I don't believe that the internet, or games caused this. Even if the boys had bought their guns off the internet.
I think the first people to blame are the boys. Every man, woman, and child is in control of their own actions. To lay the blame on the Internet or violent games is almost saying that it wasn't their fault, when it was completely their fault. I use the internet all the time, and I've played violent games a very long time (beginning with Wolfeinstein 3D and Spear of Destiny for all you pre-Doom folk), and I haven't done anything remotely violent. Even if they were motivated by feeling left out, being picked on by "jocks", they should either deal with it or seek help.
The second people to blame are their parents. I recognize that parents can't be responsible for everything their children do, but I think that they probably should have seen something like this coming. Or else they're guilty of neglecting their children. Nature and nuture.
Anyway, those are my quick two cents.
When I got mad, I loaded up the doom level I made of my highschool. Completely safe, and good for releaving stress. my level
Great response. Knee jerk defences just don't have a place in dicussions of events like this.
:-)
It is interesting that you bring up the goth element. In my younger years I certainly considered myself a goth and although aged almost 30 now, I still hang out in 'goth' clubs. There is a strong thread linking most people who are into the goth thing and you would be surprised at how many parallels there are to the video / fantasy / wargaming community.
My experience of the goth scene is that ther are many people who are attracted to it through their day to day troubles and in finding people who share a slightly 'bleaker' outlook on life. When I was 16, I was surprised at how many of my friends were people who were victimised at school.
However (and here's the kicker!) we were also all pretty well adjusted kids overall. Sure, there was a predisposal to listen to dark music, wear dark clothes, play Dungeons and Dragons and read 2000AD - but that was pretty much it. Personally, I do much the same today, except you can swap D&D for 'fiddle with Linux' and reading 2000AD for reading Slashdot.
So, is there a point I'm making? Yup, I guess there is. Those kids grew up in a society bounded by community values on the one side and surrounded by death and criminal behaviour on the other. There have been maladjusted people at almost every point in our history as far as I can work out, nowadays though, the maladjusted have an extreme range of different views of the world they can choose from, plus access to some startling amounts of firepower. To put the blame on any one aspect of our society is useless. I could blame those kid's parents, or the jocks who bullied them in school, or the laws of America which made guns available to them, or their teachers for not noticing how marginalised these kids were. But I'm not a journalist
I would say that all these aspects, pushed the kids to rebel. Once you begin to rebel against your parents, teachers etc, then you tend to gravitate towards certain things - I'm sure that I would be playing Quake a hell of a lot if I were that age right now. What is missed though is that these kids took their rebelliousness to an extreme new level - but one that has precedents. When I was a kid in the 70's I remember the girl who when asked why she had come into school with a shotgun and gunned down her class replied "I don't like Mondays", inspiring The Boomtown Rats song. I bet you anything that she too felt ostracised, was bullied and felt like the world was not somewhere she belonged.
OK, I'm gonna wrap this up, as typing something so long into a little textarea box is making me lose the thread of my argument.
Basically I feel that Goth music, dark clothing, a predisposition towards guns and violence, extreme political viewpoints, obsessively playing Quake - these things are symptoms of deeper problems. In our society, we are all looking for a panacea, a quick explanation for the irrational. Unfortunately, there just isn't one. These kids were complicated machines and somewhere along the line, they got their programming mixed up.
A little planning goes a long way...
Nice of you to say so :-)
I suspect that even were guns outlawed in the US people who wanted to do such things as these would get them anyway.
A similar point is made by another poster, who goes on to add that he thinks all Americans should carry guns. I'm reminded of a line from the "Yes, Prime Minister" books (humourous take on British politics), when the French ambassador wants his bodyguards to have SMGs for the visit of the French President to London. Sir Humphrey Appleby, the Machiavellian civil servant of the books, replies:
I agree that the problem goes deeper than the availability of guns (the UK has also experienced gun massacres despite our much stricter gun laws), but what is seems crazy to me (and, I would guess, to other Europeans) is the steadfast insistence of some Americans that having guns freely available actually makes things safer.
I think that the right to bear arms has established a gun culture in the States, and it's now that culture which you have to deal with. If guns were banned tomorrow, you'd still have the culture there, and you're right in saying that this would mean that people would still think about doing things like this and that they'd probably get the guns to do it with. But ISTM that part of turning around that culture must be to remove the ridiculously easy availability of firearms. It's like turning around a supertanker though: the thing has so much momentum that this would take a lot of time and effort. What you have to decide is whether it's worth it.
I can't agree with you more. This is one of the first things that I was wondering when this whole thing started. WHERE ARE THESE KIDS PARENTS?
I think one of the biggest problems we have in America is the sad state of affairs with concern to families. This may not be the most popular opinion (especially on slashdot) but we are starting to see the results of several things in society. How else can we explain _ALL_ of these shootings that are going on? I'm not that old (27) but I don't remember any school shootings EVER happening until this recent batch started. WHY IS THIS?
For one (as BoredAtWork pointed out), I think we are seeing an overall lack of real parenting going on. I see parents that just don't give a crap about what their kids are doing, who they are hanging around with, what they are watching, and what they are listening to. If things like the internet & DOOM were such a huge influence on these kids, why didn't the parents limit their computer usage? Use the computer as discipline leverage for petes sake.
Another thing that I see pervasive are the consequences of a relativistic society. If you think about it, we don't have real "black" and "white" anymore. If society doesn't truely know whats wrong and whats right anymore, how can we expect our kids to know this?
The problem of course is in large part due to the media. Have they even talked about these kid's (the perpetrators) parents? NO. Have they talked about the family life of these kids? NO.
Disgusting.
We didn't have the term "goth" when I was in high school. It was "freak", or "headrot" (although that's a bit older than my generation -- I just turned 24). "Freak" pretty much became a greeting shouted accross the hall at each other in jest. Or maybe seriously, who cares?
When I heard the killers singled out the 'jocks' I wasn't sorry in the least for those that had been _singled out_ . Jocks are on average, wankers who simply use idiot methods to gain some measure of respect from other sheep. (oooh look at that, I'm a cold prick, so bite me).
The first thing I have to say to you is that any disrespect or singling out you get from Jocks or Teachers or Whiggers or whatever the hell they are now you deserve for that last comment. If there is one thing I can't stand, and couldn't stand then either, it's hypocracy. Letting those words out of your mouth was a statement that you refuse to let it stop with you no matter how dead wrong it is in the first place. When I was in high school, the buck stopped with me and I got the shit beat out of me for it.
That's what a freak was then.
The second thing I have to say is that you really don't seem to understand how grave this really is. Imagine yourself dead. When one imagines oneself dead, one imagines oneself laying face up in a box. One forgets to imagine the fact that one's dead.
You need to admit that this is bigger than you. Some things are. Deal with it.
Keep the freedom to vote.
Totally agree with that, All kids here in Europe (in France at least) play doom, listen to american
bands but we never had a such bad fight.And we dont have firearms easily available.
Puhleeze! If that were the case, I would've blown up with explosives all three high schools that I attended and shot anybody trying to escape with a high powered rifle. Give me a break. Now, I'm willing to concede that being an outcast from your peers tends to make a person develop socially in different ways, but I turned out all right and I was an 'outcast' in HS...
Admit it.. if you had many guns and weapons easily available, you would have atleast thought pretty heavily about this. And for every I'd say 1000 people who have the weapons, and allow themselves to stop and accually have to contimplate, if all the torture they recieved in their life, should end that way. I'd bet you would see more of this. But luckly the figure isn't quite that high, though I think I thought about it a few time in my HS days (I'm better now btw college life is wonderful, its a relief to find out that people in regular society don't act quite that bad). Anyways, you often see adults who snap and kill dozens of people. I personally find it hard to believe that children are expected to be more rational than these adults. And we don't see panels of "experts" lining up to say how the media affected these adults, because they would just be laughed at.
Accually there was alot of random shootings, and innocent bystandards. While of course the media is going to say that all the kids where innocent bystandards, I do have to agree that the main targets probably treated these boys like shit. But, for example, there was one black girl who was shot simply for being black. While I don't contest to know the situation. Based upon what I've seen I seriously doupt that this girl had absolutly anything to do with these boys torment (based on her picture alone, she looked like an outcast herself). I agree that alot of the problem probably was the jocks. It's just that when I read your comment I pictured how the parents of this one girl would feel reading such an article, and I had to respond. (interesting side note the authorities didn't notify these parents of the childs death until a good 24 hours after this incident.. sad)
I still to this day bear the deep emotional scars of jr/sr high school
Oh, wahhh... go see a shrink or something.. geez.. it's freakin' high school for crissakes.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
i?it never would have occured to these kids to do this if it weren't for the television coverage of the last couple dozen times this happened...
Oh brillent! No one ever killed each other before TV. No Wars, No bombings, No robberies, just cutsie bunnies dancing in the meadows every day singing their cute little songs.
Please...
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
I should not be amazed at the ignorance and stupidity of media...but I am. Why is it that THOUSANDS, if not MILLIONS of adults and children under 18 play all SORTS of games and don't go in to murdering rampages?? Why is it that when certain people DO, it is automatically the inanimate game's fault INSTEAD of the parent's fault for not teaching wrong/right, reality from fantasy? Games don't kill people. The internet doesn't kill people. Black clohes do not kill people. Marylin Manson lyrics DO NOT kill people. Guns don't even kill people. PEOPLE kill people. You cannot cure the disease merely by censuring the symptoms!
The very articles which describes Internet/Games players as "outcasts" then proceeds to fulfill the prophecy by placing the stigma on them via mass media, through their own ignorant sensationalism.
Hello? Why is it a personal right to own a freakin gun in the first place ? What are you going to DO with it ? I know, hunting and practice, sure fine. Make it a 25 year limit, ban all guns in public and control it. Where I live that is the rules of today. I see no point in not having this.
Of course there are illegal weapons, bur really, is the fact that someone might obtain an illegal gun, and use it against you really motive enough for everyone to have one to protect themselves ? Of course not!
So, if I want to own a gun, I can just become a member of a club or something. Wrong again. For instance, people with a criminal record will never be admitted, and never get a licese, also you need to undergo training, in which they look for possible problem personalities. Yes, they are free to decline your application.
Second, the feedback from the schools to the parents, and so on is like non-existant these days. Maybe it is time to stop looking for scapegoats like "violent games and images" and face the fact that the screwed up system and "generation gaps" might just happen to BE the problem, tho everyone seems to simply scoff at the problem and turn to their Psycological-evaluation-religions...
But of course, once you have gone too far down that road, it's getting incrrasingly difficult to start going back. I am just glad this gun-control issue and shit ain't my problem.
As a person very familiar with the Goth scene (no I'm not but I have many friends from many walks of life), I can tell you that this isn't true. True Goths are fascinated with darkness (as in absence of light, not depressing things) and dislike "cute" things, but are not morbid. Many wanna-be Goths who do not understand true Goths are this way, but they are wanna-be Goths, not true Goths. In fact, most of my Goth friends are nicer than many of my other friends, and not just to their friends, but to strangers as well (like giving directions to people trying to find their way around campus, for example).
I totally agree with your comment about school. I was verbally abused by my classmates for about two and a half years at school, for various reasons. My experiences of school lead me to believe that the only way to avoid such treatment is:
I heard news reports in which the reporters were saying things like "no-one has any idea why these kids did what they did". I have a suggestion. I suspect it's because they were psychologically unstable - for whatever reason - and years of verbal abuse at school pushed them over the edge.
As an 18 year old in my first year of college, I have something to say about this "blame the parents" thing. My parents raised me just fine, brought me to church every sunday (at least until my junior year of high school), had all those little "talks" with me while I was growing up, always tried whatever they could to keep me on the right track, get me to study, do my homework, and what-not.
:-p....) who got along with everybody. I was a pretty quiet kid, but wasn't a "geek" in the typical sense of the word (although give me a computer with Linux installed and you won't be able to tell the difference! :-) So why am I in such a bad situation right now? I haven't been to class in a month and a half (no joke), spend my nights drinking and smoking, spend my days sleeping, and have a bank debt of $250 that I've been ignoring for the past 6 months, along with the constant "we're gonna sic our lawyers on you if you don't pay us, we promise!" letters from TeleCheck.
Unfortunately, it didn't work. I don't know why, but I did pretty miserably in high school (averaging around a 2.75 GPA... miserable in MY opinion, anyway) and almost didn't graduate because I forged notes from my parents on a regular basis to excuse myself from class and got busted. Now I'm doing even MORE hideous in college. It has nothing to do with my intelligence level, just my study habits. If I'm doing something that interests me, I'll rip the problem to shreds. Give me something interesting and complicated to program, it'll get done real quick. Give me a perl script to write, it'll get done real quick. Give me a paper to write? aahhh... I'll do it later. I'd rather drink a 40 and smoke a pack and half of cigarettes while watching The Simpsons. Needless to say, the paper never gets done. I drink a 40, and maybe another one, pass out, and wake up at 4 the next afternoon, ready to start another night of drinking and chain smoking. Maybe I'll smoke a J or drop acid. Maybe I'll go out and get laid. Who knows, as long as it doesn't involve studying.
But don't go blaming this on my parents. There's nothing to blame it on. Looking back on it, I'd say I had a reasonably "normal" childhood (from the typical American point of view, which is probably what we should be blaming in the first place) and my parents disciplined me a "normal" amount, they didn't beat me, didn't verbally abuse me, and didn't let me run rampant through the street shooting people. What more do you expect from them? Also, you can't blame my high school experience for any of this, either. I was a reasonably popular kid (not a jock, obviously... note my heavy nicotine dependancy
Why do I have such a glaring lack of self-control and motivation? It's obviously not from my parents' mistakes, as they did everything the same as most parents do. It's not from my elementary/middle/high school experiences, which were pretty much typical. So why, then? Why did I turn out so unsuccessful so far, while somebody who was raised pretty much the same way as I was might be at Princeton right now averaging a 3.98? Don't be so quick to blame the parents of these kids. For all you know they may have been the best parents in the world and it just didn't get through to the kids.
"Software is like sex- the best is for free"
I have to admit, to a large extent I am absolutely stunned by the postings here. To repeatedly call everyone a jerk for suggesting that new technologies and violent games can have a role in the recent onslaught of public violence is the height of stupidity and arrogance. At the least, it's not a very good way to approach something scientifically.
Look, I agree that there are larger social issues going on here, and I don't think that technology, the Internet, and Quake are responsible for the entire situation. But they do play a large part in the rapid changes that are shaping our world today, and the human reaction to those changes is the primary cause of these problems.
Someone wrote about 5 posts back that kids have always had toy guns, and this is true. But kids have not always taking shotguns and semi-automatic rifles into schools and started shooting people. I mean, seriously, in the past three years it seems like we can't go more than about 3 months before some kid or kids launch another massacre. And that's not even including the wackos who are over 18. We live in a more violent society than ever before.
What do we blame for this? Well, there are a lot of factors, and I won't even attempt to explain everything in the big picture. But technology, like the Internet, plays a huge role. I promise you, the depersonalization we have experienced as a result of Internet technologies, like e-mails and newsgroups where you never even hear another person's voice or see their face, plays a part. It makes people into abstract entities. Quake, too - yeah, it's just like killing people with your toy gun as a kid, but it's a hell of a lot more violent, the violence is purely for effect and intended to be pleasurable, and you never have to know the person who you kill. Sometimes, you can even kill computers - they're not even alive.
All of these factors have an effect. Everyone has to agree with the modeling experiments of Albert Bandura - when kids are repeatedly exposed to violence, they rapidly lose any inhibitions against violent acts and begin to take part in violent actions themselves. Whether that translates to real acts of violence is unclear, but it is clear that kids are at least more willing to think about violence after seeing it so much - and that means something!
In addition, technology has depersonalized us. We e-mail someone, but we never see them. We kill someone in Quake, but we have'nt seen them, or heard them, or anything. And then we drop smart bombs, kill thousands, and we're totally numb to it. Just look at what the high-tech war and that technology has done. I guarantee you that this and to some extent the gulf war, are the first times that society has not had massive repercussions from such large-scale violence. Massive protests, school closings, upheaval - there's nothing. Most people don't even follow the story from day to day!
I'm sorry, but to say that everyone is just making this whole correlation up is just naive, arrogant, or ignorant. It ain't the whole problem (bad parenting and other societal breakdowns are also to blame), but it certainly isn't innocent.
Just my $.02
On the radio this morning I heard an interview with ted bundy, and he said that he, and everybody in prision with him who had commited murder where addicited to pornography.
The Internet makes this so easy to get, and some of the teens (and adults) cannot handle or cope with that kind of addiction. Most aren't affected but there are a few who this this perverted fantacy world is real and try to play it out.
I am not saying that DOOM, Quake, and all the violent games do not contribute. I am saying that if you mix all these things together, with an unstable kid or adult, be scared.
Before they were arrested and convicted they had these addictions.
The interview was for warning about the dangers of violent pornography.
Some can't handle it!
I don't think that we can pinpoint the cause of all of these violent crimes by teens, but It is definatly something in their environment that are giving them these ideas. Something in their environment saying "screw people in authority." It is sad.
Has anyone thought of setting up a counsling/mentor program for the lonely people like this who use the internet?
Granted it would require thosew who need help to seek it out, but something like that would (hopefully) allow for: getting people to meet other people at least over the internet, maybe once its grown, and there are enough people in one area allow them to get together physically. The reasoning behind this is, as more than a few stated, these kids were almost completely disconnected from the rest of there school, their fellow students just didn't seem real at best and if they could be shown that people are real, maybe it would help balance them out or at least give them someone to talk to.
Maybe such a program isn't feasable and I know its no substitute for good parenting but maybe those of us who have been in (or close to)a similiar situation could help before something like this happens again.
-Yog
yog@end-war.com
I used to be totally against gun control, but after spending a year in Korea, my view of things has changed.
I felt safer in that country than I have ever felt walking around American streets.
And to all of you paranoid who think that the government will take over if we have no guns, how will they do this?
They would have to use the Army, the police, or some similar organization.
I am in the Army, and I don't think anybody who works for the government would honestly support killing innocent citizens. I know I wouldn't.
The problem is that most Americans have never been OUTSIDE of America, and haven't seen our country from a different point of view.
Up until 1993, the murder rate in england was 7.4 per 100,000, compared to 9.3 per 100,000 in the US (according to the Economist). After 1993 both countries murder rates dropped.
I'd say the difference in the murder rates is more likely a historical / cultural one than a "gun" issue.
I am shaking as I look back over the events of the last few days. I personally believe that the problem is much deeper than it seems- that gun laws will not solve it. But I digress.
I go to West Bowles Community Church, in Littleton, Colorado. Last year, I graduated from Chatfield High School, about ten miles away from Columbine. We were the sister school, the one that was built when Columbine ran out of room. We have about ninty regulars in the high school youth group. Forty of those were from Columbine. Three were in that library.
Two came out.
One of my friends was murdered. In cold blood. She was not some jerk, but one of the sweetest people I've ever met. She was in the library studying and when they came in, she started praying. They came over to her and placed the gun to her head and asked her if she believed in God. She said yes. They shot her. Killed for her belief.
Quite frankly, I would be shocked if the church did not do their part. There was a need for some place to greive. For everyone to find out. I'm sorry if this sounded like an attack, it was not meant as one. I just wanted to clarify where we're coming from.
Her name was Cassie Bernal.
Still not dead.
I guess I'm kinda at the epicenter of all of this. Last year I graduated from Chatfield, a school thats about ten miles away from Columbine- we were the school that was built after Columbine got too crowded back in '85. I go to church locally there. There were forty people in the youth group that went to Columbine. Today, we're short one. The girl that was praying in the library was my friend- they came in, held up a gun to her head and asked her if she believed in God. She said yes, and was shot. Murdered for her beliefs. One of the nicest people I've ever met.
So people are throwing fingers in every which way, trying to find out what caused this. I don't know exactly what it was caused by, but I know that many of the things they point at are simply symptoms, not the problem itself. So the kids liked to dress darkly and write death poetry. Was this the cause? I doubt it. And to pointing at the jocks as the reason? Heh. I got teased as much as anyone while I was in school. That may have been a contributing factor, something that pushed them over the edge, but again I don't think it was the overlying cause.
There are many factors to this. Everyone seems to be trying to find something to point the finger at. That ain't the way. This is much too complex to have just one single cause. I wish people would stop trying to classify people by group and start looking at them as people. Listen to 'Unity' by Op Ivy sometime. Thats what I'm talkin about. We are all different, but we are all the same.
Still not dead.
He hasn't killed anyone...
quack1701
You think? The last I checked, the repeat offense level for people who are put to death is Zero.
quack1701
Interesting point. The problem is I don't concider the execution of a murderer, murder. I've always wondered why we force ourselves to use a different moral code on murders than they do on their victims. I.e., they don't think it is wrong to kill, so why should you think it is wrong to kill them? Just a thought.
Anyways, common belief is that statistics indicate almost 80 percent of the crime is commited by only 20 percent of the criminals. I don't know how true this figure is, but I've often heard it quoted by the media. If this is true, and we execute the 20 percent of the people commiting 80 percent of the crime, we will all live in a much happier place. The main faliacy to this argument is once you get rid of 80 percent of the crime there will be a lot of unemployed lawyers looking for someone to sue. It just might be better to allow them to be tied up in the criminal system rather than unlease them on the civil system.
quack1701
Once again something bad has happened and the press is trying to blame everyone/everything except the killers themselves.
At first I heard the attack was racially motivated. Give me a break, only one of their victims was a minority. That is unless you think student atheletes are a minority?
Then they want to blame the internet, guns, porn, gothic clothing. It sounds to me like they are grasping at straws and attacking all the standard media scapegoats. Why can't they just report the kids where crazy. It was the kids fault. Maybe it was the parents fault. The police found bomb making supplies at the house of one of the kids. Either the kids were doing a good job of hiding this, or the parents where turning a blind eye to what was going on.
I say it is finally time for us to accept there are bad apples out there. And when we find them we should punish/eraticate them. Sure, some (but by all means not most) of them may have turned bad because of the internet, or porn, or Doom, or something. However, these are activities that 99.999 percent of the people in the country can enjoy without going crazy so why punish the majority of the public for fear of "saving" one?
The only good thing about this attack was the killers killed themselves. Sure, now we will never know why they did this. Who cares. We don't have to "protect" them for the next 20 years while we "enslave" them. We don't have to hear the arguments in 20 years that they have reformed and should be let go. We don't have to follow their media-frenzied trial for the next year. We don't have to pay for all this. Its over. The bad apples are gone. We can all go back to our glutenious lives of playing on the internet, watching porn, playing Doom, and cleaning our guns.
quack1701
This is one of my favourite pro-gun argument's because it's so easy to refute. Which of the the following is designed to kill people?
- guns
- cars
And why do we issue soldiers with guns, rather than cars?I wanted to say "ditto".
It has been 19 years since I graduated high school. I remember the torment and my pent-up rage all too well. When I heard about this event, I understood their feelings exactly. No, I never shot anyone -- but I wanted to.
College was such an amazing breath of fresh air for me. I went to Illinois Institute of Technology. Our mascot was Tommy Tech Nerd. All of the scum in high school were left behind. Here was a place filled with people like me.
I survived high school, but just barely. I still have an intense hatred for jocks and authority. When I hear of abuses by people in power (cops, politicians, CEOs) my gut reaction is "kill them, kill them all". The emotional scars will take a life-time to heal (if they ever do).
And you trust your fellow fucked in the head Americans MORE than the government? Personally I'm SCARED to own a gun and I'm scared that other people around me could legally own guns that they might use on me or friends and loved ones of mine just because they had a fucking bad hairday.
In the UK the kids normally don't have guns. Most shootings here involve either illegally owned firearms (owned by "serious" criminals) or adults who own guns and then flip out.
Having fewer guns in the country does mean fewer deaths when this kind of spree happens.
A kid with a knife cannot kill 15 or 20 people before he is overpowered.
+++++
The harder you look the less you see. That's what we're up against.
It isn't the change in behaviour caused by the gun that is the problem. A gun is a very useful tool for killing people.
A murder spree with a gun can result in upwards of 15 people killed - without the gun that same individual would probably only be able to kill a couple of people.
Allowing that psychopath to have a gun is as irresponsible as giving a baby a power drill.
+++++
The harder you look the less you see. That's what we're up against.
Canada: Homicides= == = ==
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
All methods 627 596 588 635 581
===============================================
Shooting 195 196 176 212 193
===============================================
Stabbing 191 154 183 195 168
(Source: Statistics Canada, CANSIM, Matrix 315)
Population
1994 29,036.0
1995 29,353.9
1996 29,671.9
1997 30,004.0
1998 30,300.4
(in thousands)
(Source: Statistics Canada, CANSIM, Matrices 6367- 6379.)
I could'nt find similar numbers for the US, if someone could find them, please post!!
And remember (having grown up in Canada myself)
We watch the same shows, listen to the same music, wear the same fashions, go to the same concerts, see the same movies and live in the same types of towns and cities the Americans do.
The media is just continuing its spree of not having a clue. "Oh my ghod! They played violent games! Online, no less!" (they have to have something about the net (or perceived net) in every article :-)
In my opinion (of course), games don't kill people, guns don't kill people, napalm doesn't kill people, its a lack of tolerance which kills people (or rather triggers people to kill other people).
I wonder how many /.ers know that one of the most well-known personalities here, ESR himself, is a raving gun-advocate. I was quite shocked to learn that, as he seemed a nice guy at first. Not so. Here's a quote from his home page : "[I] load blue-tip Glaser rounds for home defense. In case they fail to penetrate and I can't make a head shot, the last round in the mag is hardball."
I know I'm not going to stay in the same room as that person !
So we can just argue that the 1st amendment is "out of date" and ban free speech? The 4th amendment is out of date, so cops can search us at will? Either the constitution is the law or it isn't. If you don't like it, change it.
Last time I checked, free speech was somewhat of a _good_ thing, no? Who said the the 1st or 4th amendment was 'out of date'? You're making weak arguments to prove your 'point'.
Newsflash, buddy: GUNS are for KILLING people. At the time, it made sense, but now, with the US having the largest military in the world, it's being exlpoited. It's become an excuse for orginizations like the NRA and the reason why crap like the shootings near Denver almost NEVER happens in Canada, where we have things called "Gun Control Laws". They seem to help prevent things like this from happening...
How many more of these have to happen until you realize that guns are things that average citizens should NOT be allowed access to.
- el jefe -
www.hal9000.cc
Then
"It's every American's right to own a gun!"
Am I the only one who sees some incompatibility in these two statements? Yet this seems to be the attitude of so many Americans. They condemn such actions (rightly so), but then insist that laws to control guns are impinging on their freedom. Duh!
~ Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity ~
Social outcast, nerd, geek, freak - yep, I was (am?) all those things in school. However, I didn't *want* to be involved with most the other people. They didn't like me, I didn't like them, so why should I subject myself to their company, just because it's perceived as 'normal'?
You shouldn't have negative feelings, just because the 'popular' people don't like you - most of them are too stupid to be individual, and have to hang with the crowd because they're too scared to even try and think for themselves, and mindlessly follow other people.
~ Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity ~
Perhaps if there were more guns... If any of the victims of the shooting had a reasonable chance to defend themselves, the carnage might not have gone on so long. Perhaps if the trenchcoated young men had known they would have stopped a bullet instantly upon whipping out their own guns... But, they knew they wouldn't. They knew they were entering a sheep pen, where no punishment would be dealt out. Hell, if they hadn't gone out "in a blaze of glory", they could have dropped their weapons, walked out with their hands up, and we'd be seeing them on CNN. And they'd be sniffling about how no one liked them, and their parents were mean, and they'd be back on the streets (albeit after 10,000 hours of meaningless counseling) within years. After all, nothing you do is your fault in America these days! At worst, you haven't looked hard enough to find out whose fault it is! Probably devil music, drug users, internet pr0n, or violent computer game makers. The problem isn't guns, guns have been omnipresent in America for centuries. The problem is the total lack of responsiblity for one's own actions that American culture fosters. I'd like to see the parents of these kids publically flogged to death in Mile High Stadium. It won't help what happened, but other parents might just take an interest in raising human beings instead of antisocial psychopaths. But of course, why take the time to raise your kids right, when Marilyn Manson, Id Software, and Smith and Wesson can do such a good job for you?
HAL, or more formally HAL 9000, is the computer on board a spaceship in the movie "2001, A Space Odyssey". He had issues.
With 6 billion talking monkeys on this planet, you'd think their would be more defects than there are. That's a very low error rate. The crime rate is marginally higher than it used to be. There are just a hell of a lot more crimes being commited simply because there are a hell of a lot more people to commit them.
For those not in the United States, let me explain that we are a gun crazy society because our government was founded in paranoia. Our laws are written such that if our government gets out of hand we can take it over by force if necessary. A fellow from Australia explained that Americans waste their time trying to figure out why this happened instead of taking steps to prevent things like this. He explained that due to a violent crime involving semi-automatic weapons in australia, semi-automatic weapons are very hard to come by now. That logic is flawed though. Those kids could just have easily broken the main gas line and exploded the school, drove a car through the cafeteria, used a knife, etc. The tool used doesn't matter. Even if I was anti-gun, I still wouldn't want them to ban guns because of crimes like these. It wouldn't do anything to solve the problem. The tools would just change.
--- A Jesus Fish eating a Darwin Fish only proves Darwin's point.
Well, I've seen many interesting points, opinions and rants posted here so far. I'm impressed at some of the posts, offended at others, but was thinking there may be something else here as well.
Being that "most" news sources (TV, newspapers, etc.) are commercial entities, they all have a common goal; money. In order to achieve that goal, they must sell their product. What do you think will sell your product? News that has been well researched, accurate and three weeks ago? Or news that happened 5 minutes ago, or is happening right now?
This tragic event happened scarcely two days ago, yet apparently there has already been enough time for psycological analysis to point in the direction of the Internet and video games.
I'm impressed. Not by the idea that such analysis could be performed in that time, but by the mere notion that people believe that it can be. I don't profess to know anything about forensic psycology, but I do know it takes a hell of alot longer than two days (in most cases, anyways).
The big unfortunate thing here (other than the tragic loss of life), is that capitalism is more important than the truth.
My heart goes out to the families and friends of all those lost. May we learn from our mistakes.
Yes, one day I may actually learn to spell...
What good are morals when someone is already committed to killing themselves? If they were respected by other people, they would have respected those people and themselves as well. Harping on "morals" will not stop things like this. You can't expect people to make rational ethical decisions when their perception of reality is so far gone that they think postumous infamy is better than living.
Thats great logic. Its much better for 25,000 of us to be killed by ourselves each year than have some dictator take us over. Who? Castro? Or is Canada gonna invade us. Come on.
If I can have the right to own a gun, why can't I have the right to own a nuclear warhead? They are both intended for the same purpose.
Leave the guns to law enforcement and the military.
the US government, under its various auspices as the Army, ag extensions, and the CIA, publishes quite a lot of information specifically on making bombs.
Your tax dollars at work.
That comment should be moderated up. It's the most succinctly put expression of what I've been thinking about this article since I saw it. There's no reason to be so militantly defensive, or to accuse everyone of accusing.
n d-they-must-pay' mentality.
That said, I certainly do not believe that games and the internet will escape without some stabs in their general directions. As others have already said, this is certainly not the place to throw blame with this never-ending 'it-wasn't-my-fault-so-it-must-have-been-theirs-a
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
Something I sent to all my friends last night:
So, I'm watching dateline because I want to be somewhat informed on that shooting yesterday... This guy they interviewed mentioned that they did
nazi stuff like speaking GERMAN. So then, they show a clip of hitler and say that they listened to GERMAN music called "industrial noise" like
KMFDM (like MTV isn't to blame for society's problems), which is a GERMAN acronym for no pity for the majority (which is one of many things that can mean). And then they showed some guy playing doom and then faded into clips of bleeding
people. They did some other stuff that was pretty bad, like implying that blame was to be placed on anything other than a crappy school society.
lame, lame, lame
you've all probally heard the phrae if guns(or other item people are blaming for the latest shocking incident) are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns(or the aforementioned item). This is exactly what the problem is. Think, would you go on a killing spree if everyone over the age of 18 (legal adult in the usa), carried a fire arm of some sort. Most people without a death wish would. Also, these mad shooting sprees would take out a lot less people when, after thier first shot, all the "innocent bystanders" began shooting the lunatic. The problem exist not in the weapon but in the use of it. Yes, guns kill people. That is what they were designed to do, just as bombs are designed to blow things up. Both are entirely safe if used responsibly. It is this personal responsibility that is lacking. A sense of self and our personal influence in the world around us that allows people to understand and cope with their problems. It is an inabilty to cope with the pressures of living that leads to lunacy. Understand yourself and the world around.
Shaarad
I was/am too, and for the same reasons, not as much anymore , but in different ways, my group of friends at school's the 'goth/raver/whatever' group and that's perfectly fucking fine with me. People are sheep by nature and all it takes is one thug to lead the herd against the lone person to show how fucking stupid they are. When I heard the killers singled out the 'jocks' I wasn't sorry in the least for those that had been _singled out_ . Jocks are on average, wankers who simply use idiot methods to gain some measure of respect from other sheep. (oooh look at that, I'm a cold prick, so bite me). Heard the line from some Offspring song 'fuck with me and I'll fuck with you', some of you may , others not but the message is clear either way. Schools are full of young people full or hormones, ideas and energy, too bad this more often than not results in the usual sporting popularity BS, and alienation of others. And why vilify Goths/Geeks? The Goth scene is one of the friendliest and most supportive I know of (well here at least), they were obviously close friends, brought together by adversity and they stuck it up 'em. It's sad that there is going to be nothing learnt because of the search for a quick buck, it really is. It's moronic that a band and a game are singled out and used as scapegoats (like the recent killers), but it really shows that people are still just as clueless and pathetic years after school. I'd rant more but I can't be bothered. :)
BTW: Keep things like this up, open forums are great
cheers
>I totally agree with your comment about school. >I was verbally abused by my classmates for about >two and a half years at school, for various >reasons. My experiences of school lead me to >believe that the only way to avoid such >treatment is:
>Be good at sport;
>Follow the crowd like some kind of sheep;
>Never, ever behave differently in any way from >the popular kids.
When Dungeons and Dragons was the great evil which was driving kids to do crazy things? We've just found a new scape goat... jos
The tougher the laws get, the more criminals we see and the more violently and perniciously they behave. Everyone has some fault. Applying legal sanctions to every conceivable fault or misdemeanor is guaranteed to create a whole bunch of angry people disrespectful of authority (and, by association, the "supreme good" which such authority is held to represent). Food for thought: Why is it the "tough on crime" people are the ones who can get caught red-handed and buy or lawyer their way out of it?
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.
If we didn't have internet, we can always blame tv, not tv - magazines and books, and so on, moving backwards. But there is no inherent evil in the media as internet or tv or paper is, it is what you put in there and it is what you choose to put into your brain.
As there can be 'good' and 'bad' books or tv programs, the content of internet can be more (or less) acceptable. Those without inner urge to trespass won't actually feed on something they consider not healthy for themselves. If it's an accident they probably won't want to come to that site again or play that wicked game again.
If we are talking about free will so much, let's use it, right? If we have the brain to use, then maybe we shouldn't portray someone as a victim of a media (which is powerless in itself) but rather as an individual who made a concious choice.
God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ --1Thes5:9
Undoubtedly any theories we, or anyone in the media, come up with will be far too simple, but what the heck here goes;
From what I've heard and seen in the media (not always that reliable I know) it seems these young men were craving some kind of social acceptence. One of the "trenchcoat mafia" was interviewed and she said that to those they considered friends they were "really sweet guys" but that if they didn't like you "you better watch out". The social rejection they encountered in high school seems a very plausible cause (to me).
So feeling rejected by society they join/form a subculture and enjoy past-times which society deems "antisocial", Marylin Manson, Doom, Hitler, etc. These are symptoms of the real problem.
Naturally society isn't going to blame itself so it blames the symtoms and not the cause.
Finally I offer a test in such cases for deciding whether something is a sympton or a cause. It's simple - make a list of all the reasons the media, or whomever, is using. Then imagine that you had the power to wipe that thing from the planet. Then try to imagine whether they would still have done it. If the answer is yes then that thing is a symptom, answer no and it's a possible cause. E.g.
On a planet without Maryin Manson would they have still done it? Yes. Symptom.
On a planet without Doom would they have still done it? yes - symptom.
In a highschool were they didn't feel like social outcasts would they have still done it? Probably not - probable cause.
You'll never be able to nail down ONE thing as a cause because it's almost certainly more complicated than that (e.g. where were their parents while they were becoming neo nazis - if thats not just another convenient media label) but you can certainly weed out a lot of symptoms.
grek
"The school was cliquish and extremely divided. There was a lot of tension between groups. It was almost continuous conflict between each one. The abuse from the jocks was physical and verbal: rocks and soft drink cans were thrown from passing cars on the way to school. Theydid it to everyone. Then the jocks began to focus on the Trenchcoat Mafia as the year went on because they were different..."
Words from a member of the Trenchcoat Mafia as quoted in todays Guardian newspaper
It seems to me that the school had a lot more problems then a few people with internet access playing doom.
Where you stand depends on where you sit...
You highlighted exactly the exact wrong part of this passage in the deliberate attempt to make it look like it says something it doesn't. The pertinent part of this sentence says "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". This means that I have the right to own and carry a weapon. It also means that I have choose to exercise that right, I have the responsibility to use it properly.
And the person who remarked that this tragedy could have been avoided if someone besides the shooters had had a gun is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. If you want to see what happens when the average citizen doesn't have a weapon you need look no farther than this tragedy! If guns are outlawed, it doesn't mean guns will cease to exist! It WILL mean that the average citizen WON'T be able to defend himself when someone with a gun points it in his face!
The population of Denmark was roughly 5,250,000 in 1997 (source: The Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, http://www.um.dk/). Absolutely no offense meant, but we have cities bigger than your entire country. Couple this with the fact that the police in our country have NO legal obligation to help anyone (source: Taking Aim At Gun Control, Myth Seven, http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/guns/aiming.html) and the result is a country where you are much better off finding a way to protect yourself than relying on someone else to protect you.
Imagine for just a moment that you are a seriously disturbed individual about to go over the edge. Imagine that you regularly think about acquiring an assault weapon, walking into a public place and shooting as many people as you can.
Now imagine a society where any or all of those people may or may not have weapons of their own.
Do you see my point? It is precisely BECAUSE they know that most people in the US don't carry weapons that psychos do this! They know they will be able to simply mow down helpless citizens with impunity!
Important note: these two did NOT just "seek death" - if they had, they would have simply committed suicide. They sought to kill as many as they could FIRST and THEN commit suicide - and I do believe that they would have been deterred from doing so if they thought someone else at the school might be armed.
You have a tree. it grows apples.
.. and what do you know! because the leaf was damaged it manages to reach the apple.
.... if one subscribes to the all of the meanings that a lot of modern science and physics suggests, then every little one of OUR actions has contributed to this (from tripping over a gutter to eating a fly in a soup)
... YET THE CAUSE CAN NOT (and I garantee WILL NOT) be found.
..."nope, this is BS")
... what thought is, how we identify with things, why we are threatened, why one religious group is threatened by an other, why one race is threatened by an other, why one colour is threatened by an other.
one day, a butterfly flaps its wings. On the other side of the world a huge storm brews. lots of water falls.
one certain drop of water colides with millions of others, it completely changes the h2o molecules within it hundreds of times. After gillions of freak occurences it falls onto the top of a stem of a new apple. Its momentum creates a tiny explosion which slightly damages the stem of one of the leaves hanging over the apple.
A worm crawls to the end of the leaf
result : a bad apple.
blame the worm!
blame the bad DNA make up of the tree!
blame the farmer who didn't spray enough chemicals on it!
blame the storm for cleaning the apples of chemicals!
blame GOd!
blame the butterfly!
blame the storm that caused that butterfly's mum to have'im!
blame the butterfly who created the storm that caused that butterfly's mum to have'im.
:-)
hang on!
what's wrong with a bad apple? (dangerous territory I hear you say?)
blame DONT work. think about it.
trying to find the cause wont work either. how many gillions of years has this kind of stuff happened. how many gillions of years will people desperately try and find the cause?
if you want to access the internet with your modem and your modem is broken then you have a problem. if you dont want to access the internet then you DONT have a problem, you simply have a broken modem.
so what is the problem?
a bad apple is only a problem if you want to eat it right?
otherwise a bad apple is just a part of nature.
a kid kills other kids.
forget the cause, it could be (and probably IS) a billion things
so what is the problem?
(bear with me this is going to get hard core)
the kids are dead, we cant do anything for them. the atrocity has been committed.
so we want to try and prevent this from happening again. hence we try and find the cause
so this is irrational. yet we still try to find the cause.
what is the problem?
if we cant find the cause then why are we still looking?
THIS IS THE PROBLEM!
(at this point you are saying
Our existence is threatened, our children are threatened and so we try and cling on to something (a concept, a thought, an identification with something) which will aleaviate that fear. so we say its the internet, we say its games, we say its music, guns etc etc. and we feel better!
similarly, these "troubled youth" felt THEY were threatened. and so by destoying the threat, THEY FELT BETTER!
its no different to what is happening in kosovo. I mean come on everyone! how many people are being murdered in KOSOVO?
these youth are no different to ANY of us expect they committed a crime which threatens all of us. that is why there are hundreds of posts here, everyone trying to cope with a threat, find a way of feeling better.
the problem is human thought. this thread of discussion is EXACTLY the same thread of thought as these killers.
LETS TRY AND WORK OUT WHAT IS GOING ON IN OUR HEADS
I suggest that the problem is in each of our heads. and until we understand how thought works ( I dont mean biologically ) then this stuff will ALWAYS happen.
Well I bought into this site originally, but my doubt grew quickly.
Check out this tag:
META name="keywords" content="trenchcoat, trenchcoat mafia, mafia, littleton, columbine, columbine high school, colorado, shooting, massacre, kmfdm, marilyn manson, the matrix, hitler, jon katz, serbia, kenneth cole, van heusen, fidelity, leather, wool, textiles, cream soda"
Wow, I'm sure Jon would be happy at such a mention, right next to Hitler no less. I can see the thought process now..."hmmmm Marilyn Manson. Oh yeah definitely him, the Matrix was cool, let's put that in. How about Hitler, yea he was out of control. What next??? Ooh, I've got it, Jon Katz."
This only goes to show how extremely whacked these young men were. (if this in fact an "official" website).
+&x
If they really must blame someone for the tragedy, then let them put the blame where it belongs: on those who harrassed and alienated the teens and the parents who did not take responsibility for raising them with a sense of right and wrong and reality versus fantasy. Any other blame is misdirected.
/.'ers feel empathy for these downtrodden souls citing common experiences of being picked on or ridiculed for the way they were. But please don't make these two out to be victims, They lost control of reality, They pulled the triggers, and they are to blame. Let's not move away from one of the better consistent themese here, personal responsibility. I was capable of abstract thought at the age of 10, I knew true from false, reality from fiction. These kids willfully chose to ignore that, and exact their own horrible revenge. I realize there are other factors, but that doesn't change the choices these people made.
There are two people to *blame* for this and they both wasted themselves. I realize that many
+&x
I have two boy, 7 and 5, who are constantly complemented on their good behavior and politeness. (though the younger continues to interrupt adult conversations...gotta work on that).
.22 caliber rifle.
They both play Doom (combat mode). They have a Laser Tag set and all types of other toy guns. I've started teaching the older how to a small
I spank my children on occasion.
According to the media my children should be salivating lunatics. Why are they not?
I have taught them that Doom is a GAME and that hurting each other in meatspace is a punishable offense. I am teaching my son how to shoot, not the drive-by wrapper boys. I take my boys to ball practice, get on to them when they don't respect the coach or other team members in any way. The common thread is that I am their to lead them to being good people. Maybe I'll fail at some point in the future, but by the grace of God I will be there to guide my children, and if they ever do something horrible they'll at least know beforehand that it is wrong.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Your argument ALMOST makes sense...
For most people, the possibility of being shot would most definately be a deterrant, but in this case, remember, they ended it all by shooting themselves, so self preservation really wasn't such an issue to them.
"I'm not wearing any pants." -Yakko
I've just found this jem in today's (London) Times. At then end of the usual "shock horror, they learned how to make bombs from the internet" story was this quote.
"Last year local authorities in Washington DC issued a pamphlet offering tips on how to tell if a child is a secret bomb-maker.
"Generally these teenagers excel at academic activities," it said.
I agree this is mostly media crap, but the 'achievement culture' part is a little off... it's only if you play sports... I've never seen a smart kid in high school who was not continually being picked on for being smart. I may be biased as I used to be picked on for being smart myself, but this is what I've seen.
What I mean by zero tolerence was that if I ever ever fought back when someone attacked me in HS I would have been kicked out of school for 3+ months & have to go in front of the school board at the end of that time to even be let back in. I didn't need to get kicked out of school & have to repeat a grade because some stupid kid wanted to try to mess me up. As is one time a crazy kid attacked me in a hall & hit me well over a hundred times before he ran off. Luckily for me I guess I'm hard to hurt as in all that he couldn't leave even a bruise except for a lucky hit that broke my nose. & in that case I was kicked out of school until it was proved I hadn't fought back. At the time I was preparing to go to college & needed to have some grades for that so even 2 weeks of being out of school hurt my chances somewhat.
As for the other parts of what you said. I was bigger than most of the people who picked on me (I'm not a small guy) & in fact I studied martial arts under my uncle (who for references was a marine special forces hand to hand instructor) so if I had really had to I could have taken 6 crazy kids at once if I'd had to & it woudn't have hurt my future.
I don't have the worst social skills, but I was in fact using that phrase almost word for word from someone who used to bother me all the time. His arguement was that if you could do well in school you were some sort of freak of nature & the sick thing is most of the other people from my high school would have argeed with him. If you had been their you would not have been popular any more than I was.
In some strange twist reminicent of one of the few epsisodes of the MTV show daria I have seen, people used to come to me with problems they didn't think about. Like 'why their relationship wasn't working' (which was a truly hard one to come up with good replies for as I was never actually in a relationship in high school, for the reasons above) & when someone died (as if I had some strange insight into that because people treated me as if I should be dead). SO in some strange way I guess I was popular, but not in most peoples conventional sense.
I don't know for sure, but I'm 21 & feel the same way...
this sounds awfully familiar to me. Even though I escaped high school (by graduating) 3 years ago I still have problems because of high school even now.
I was tempted more than once to hurt some of them, but I have self control & never did. Even in my worst days when I was suicidal.
I never had a date/relationship in high school because no one wanted to go out with 'a freak' by their standards & even now beause of that I have trouble getting dates because I have little experience with that. Thats not the only mark left from high school, but it's one that still bothers me to this day.
it is a shame such things happen, but they do...
The issue here isn't what made these boys commit multiple murder as how the hell did they get the guns????
As a european I'm stunned that americans doesn't see the cause:
That civilans have semi-automatic guns at home!!!
A home with kids in them????
Have you all lost your head?
Then republicans go out and say that the massacre could have been avoided if the school staff carried guns!!
In other words, the school in america are so bad that the staff must carry guns to protect both themself and the children.
Why are americans so obessed with guns??
And why should they have advanced military guns?
Plz ignore spelling errors, I'm not english nor american.
//Christian Wallentin
I agree that there should be some gun control for teens. Perhaps they should not be allowed to:
1) buy shotguns.
2) convert them to "sawed-off" status.
3) purchase ammunition.
4) manufacture pipe bombs.
But wait -- with the possible exception of #3, those things are illegal *now*. Those two students broke a bunch of federal laws before they ever got to their high school, and I don't believe they had any legal "right" to bring their weapons to school either. Perhaps if a responsible adult at the school had a concealed weapon and the will and training to use it, the incident might have turned out differently.
Dale Stephenson
Once again, American society comes up with a perfect example of media power. We have all these flag waving, bible thumping "reformers" running around telling everyone that movies, TV and those horrible video games are corrupting the minds of our young ones. Well, I can tell you that I for one, and I'm sure most of you, have played violent games for well over a decade in varying degrees. Of course, I haven't climbed a clock tower and used a high-powered rifle to indescriminitely pick off pedestrians either.
When are we gonna realize that as long as we use our TVs as babysitters for our children, without first instilling in them a sense of right and wrong, of fantasy and reality, that shit like this is gonna happen?
The news media has too much power. I don't care how many nukes and stealth fighters a nation has, it is nothing in the face of information. The media are the real power mongers here. These irresponsible bastards sit around sensationalizing and hyping shit like this until it happens again, and again. We're stuck in a downward spiral that's gaining momentum with each passing "special report".
Don't get me wrong, they have a right, and perhaps a duty to report the story. But if we don't stop our insatiable appetite for these events, we're gonna find ourselves living in a world that is so preoccupied with outlandish acts of violence, that morality is but a half-forgotten dream on the edge of our conscience.
- InTRUHell -
You can put the parts of the second ammendment you want emphasized in bold all you want, you cannot deny the fact it says "the right of the people". Come on man, if you change the definition of the people in one ammendment you have to to change it in all of them. You are not forced to own guns, you have the right to however._ ________________
_______________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
There were explosives, they just didn't set them all off._ ____________
___________________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
The Second Ammendment gaurentees our freedom, even Thomas Jefferson said that a revolution was necessary in the right circumstances._ ______________________
_________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
Does it mean you can't defend yourself? Well it
hasn't stopped people from fucking with you has it? Don't let people push you around. Even if they are bigger than you, never back down. Defend yourself aggressively and consistently and no one will mess with you because you will have earned their respect. Even if they kick the shit out of you, they won't come back for more if you put up a good fight. Work out, build your body, study martial arts, there are many things you can do to get yourself into a position where people don't start shit with you just for fun. Fuck the schools policy as well. If teacher can't protect you, he has no right to prevent you from protecting yourself.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
What happened up there is a horrible unthinkable thing that makes no sense to anyone. The question of why they did it can never be answered. But that does not stop people from trying to find simple easily describable causes. I've often said that the intelligence of a group is inversely proportional to the number of its members. People latch on to the idea that computers made them do it or video games or any number of other things because these ideas are being spread around and promoted by the media. The media does this not because these are rational concerns, but because they sell more newspapers and get more viewers to watch CNN. Any search for the truth has to start at the center of the situation and move outwards from there. The center in this case is the two gunmen. Obviously they were into things that anyone would consider dark and sinister, but does that mean that there is a cause and effect relationship at work? Did they go psycho from the material or were they nuts to begin with and their interest in it simply another symptom? In my opinion there are some people in this world who are basically bad seeds. Now they may never go off like this but the potential is always there. Things which promote violence and death can set them off. But most people are not like that at all. You could show snuff films to the average person for weeks and never elicit any desire from them to commit violent acts. Show the same things to a nut case like this for half an hour and he'll be bouncing off the walls. Some people are just messed up and we shouldn't go blaming the things that were in their environment as the cause for their actions because these same things would cause no such behavior in a normal person.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
You might want to look up the meaning of the word militia, especially as it was used in colonial days. You might also do well to read some of the writings of Jefferson and Madison if you've any doubts as to what the second amendment means. An armed citizenry is the ultimate protection against tyrrany. It was true back then and its doubly true today.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Academic success isn't the same as intelligence. Nor is there only one type of intelligence. If by smart you mean someone whose main focus in life is academics, and who doesn't have good social skills, that person is definitely going to be picked on. But most intelligent people are not like that. I was one of the popular people in high school and most of my friends were very intelligent. We made very good grades and I at least had SAT scores that would make any propellerhead proud. There is this strange cultural connection between intelligence and nerdiness for some reason. Intelligent people tend to do better socially, not worse.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Look up the word, hell look them both up. Sometimes they are interchangable, but not as the word is used in the constitution. If you have any doubts about that read some of the things that jefferson wrote about an armed citizenry.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
So which country are you from that is so great and such a peaceful and serene place to live? You mention that the "state" where you live has the monopoly on the use of violence. I'd be willing to bet that it has a history of using it against its own people, because that is usually the outcome. Guns maintain democracy because it is power, not political ideology, which forms the basis of any government. Those who have the power rule. Guns are what give the common man power and are the final insurance against tyrrany. Guns being an instrument of violence, promote violence. But I would still rather there be a few nut cases running around occassionally going off than live in fear of well trained thugs who are the only ones with guns. Guns are evil, but as long as the gun is a source of power, it is a necessary evil that those who would seek to hold power must have them. The alternative is an eventual police state. Democracy is not the normal state of human affairs. Most often the powerful few rule the many. You may live in a country that has democracy without the ability of the people to directly defend that democracy, but it is a fragile democracy and will not endure.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Dictators arise from within and guns are the insurance policy that prevents that from happening. Dictators use force and the threat of force to maintain power and the gun in the hand of the common man makes that threat much more difficult to carry out. Nuclear warheads are not the same thing as a gun because their purpose is not the same. Guns put power in the hands of the people, thereby maintaining democracy. Nuclear warheads put vast ammounts of destructive power in the hands of those who use them. Guns have a relatively minor ammount of destructive power. A gun gives the exact ammount of power that each person needs to have a functional democracy. A nuclear weapon puts an astronmical ammount of power in the hands of one person, and it serves no political purpose. Guns stabilize a society while nuclear weapons would destabilize it because the 1/100th of a percent of the population who is nuts would use them. Timothy McVeigh didn't need a gun to kill all those innocents in Oklahoma, so please don't make the mistake of seeing guns as the only instrument of violence availabe.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
I'm from the state of Tennessee, which if you are not familiar with it has a culture where guns are prevalent. Never, ever, ever did I fear going to school because of guns. There were some places I didn't go to, but it was not because of guns, rather it was the because of the people who were there guns or no guns.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
The police spend most of their time working after the crime has been committed, not preventing it. The only way to prevent a criminal attack is to make it in the criminal's best interest not to attack you. The ability to defend yourself is the only way to do this and guns are the most efficient method of defense. The ability to threaten or kill others is not the role that guns play in a democracy, although that is an unfortunate side effect. You mention free speech and the right to live, far more important than either is the ability to protect both. Freedom is not the natural state of human affairs, it is rare and precious and must be defended. Guns simply represent the most effective defense. Freedom is an individual right and it must be protected by the individuals who enjoy it.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
The middle part of what you wrote is very insightful and true, but the first part has almost nothing to do with it. I don't remember the term for this kind of argument but its basically a situation where you state the conclusion and then state a premise which while true, does not lead to the conclusion. Associating gun ownership and advocacy with "white trash" is an emotional argument rather than a rational one. No one wants to be seen as trailer trash or a potential Jerry Springer guest, but guns have nothing to do with that. Anecdotes about how so and so is white trash and he likes guns would be the next thing you'd probably resort to.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
"We don't have a lot of nuclear weapons in private hands -- despite stringent controls on them. How could that be?! I thought that stringent controls made things proliferate, right?"
You can't exactly buy fissionable materials at the local K-Mart. Even if someone were to steal materials from a nuclear power plant, they would not be able to do anything with them because the concentration is far too low to reach critical mass. The two are not even close to the same thing. Guns can be made by a skilled machinist with the right grade of steel. If you wanted to create a nuclear device you'd have to kidnap a researcher from Oak Ridge and then manage to steal weapons grade uranium just to create a fission bomb which would be of very low yield by todays standards.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Oh I knew very well that I was quoting him. Tyrants aren't ignorant of the power guns give a population. He knew it and so would anyone else with the intelligence and ruthlessness needed to secure ultimate power to themselves. The only people who don't seem to understand this are those who want to take guns away from people. Well they wouldn't be the ones getting shot if freedom ever fell, so why should they care anyway...
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Any ideology has its share of nuts and crackpots whose views are so extreme, even their fellows don't claim them. I could point out that Mao brought communism to china in an attempt to link him to the left wing, but I won't. Communism was a convenience to him. Tryants can easily arise from within any ideology because human nature is the common denominator.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
I'd be far more worried about trained thugs with guns coming and shooting me in the head for my convictions than I'll ever be about nutcases who occasionally go off. Guns are evil, their sole use is the causation of death. But there is no way to un-invent the gun. It is here to stay and there will always be those who understand its power and who would seek to use it to enslave others. An armed citizen is the ultimate protection against tyrrany because as long as the common man can defend himself and his country, no domestic enemy can easily sieze power. We live in a very fragile democracy, one which is has decayed in many ways from the image envisioned by those who founded this country. The political process is mostly a sham. It matters little who you vote for because all of them to a greater or lesser degree are owned by those who paid to have them elected. But if the worst should ever happen and the government were to become an enemy of the people it was meant to serve, armed citizens will fight to protect their freedom and many will die for it. Political power doesn't come from the ballot box, it comes from the end of a gun.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
I agree that there is nothing that could be done to completely eliminate the possibility of this happening. However, I also believe in moderation. I don't believe in a gun ban, but I also believe in a little more accountablility and preparation than we take right now. It seems to to me that it's odd that we require people to pass a drivers examine (written and behind the wheel) to get a license to operate a vehicle, but there is no requirement, other than age and being a non-felon, to use a gun.
Of course, there's also the issue of bombs, which as far as I know, are just illegal. So it's not just a gun issue.
I believe that this incident is a result of some things that are really wrong in our society. You can't blame it solely on the media or the internet. They just provide information. How we use and let that information effect us was formed before we got the information. This sort of thing starts at home and in the community.
The one thing that everyone keeps saying is that they learned that it _can_ happen here, but I don't think they really believe it. But the truth is, it really can happen here, not because Littleton, CO is a Brady Bunch community, but because the problems that I perceive that precipitated this are so typical of American culture. Those problems are that we live in diverse communities, but we still only get to know those that we would categorize as "one of us". We ignore, sometimes with effort, the warnings, to make ourselves feel a little safer (for a while). It's become a way of life for many parents to not hold their kids responsible for their actions.
I've personally observed that last one for the last 15-20 years, and then watched those parents wonder why when their kid does something like this.
So, in response to the question, if we were to institute a gun control policy tommorow, it would not have made much difference. Too much of our society is screwed up to be cured by some overnight policy fix. If we put into practice, not just something that holds gun owners accountible for the use of their weapons (by them and others), _and_ make other changes to our society in terms of being a little more aware that we live among human beings, which are dangerous animals, and giving kids a sense of responsiblity, maybe then we will be less likely to see this sort of problem.
While reading (skimming) this discussion, I was disappointed to find no references about the key issue here: morality. I assume that most people would agree with me: killing anybody in this way, no matter who you are or what cause you represent, is wrong. Even in our postmodern American society where violence is glorified in all forms (movies, television, games like Doom, etc.) there are laws which forbid murder with very few exceptions. However, our laws seem increasingly to be in direct conflict with those violent influences. Somewhere along the way, the perpetrators in Littleton stopped believing that murder is wrong and learned to see it as a viable solution to their problems.
I have watched my brothers, my friends, and my husband play games like Quake and Doom for years now and while I dislike the games, I don't worry about violent repercussions in their lives because it hasn't seemed to jeopardize their moral character; their moral sense of right and wrong has remained stable. However, were they different men without a good sense of morality, I would be concerned.
I grieve for the deaths of these children, as I do for children in Kosovo or Uganda or anywhere else in the world, and the only comfort I have is that each person will have to answer to God for what he or she has done. Without my belief in divine justice, the world would seem to be a hopeless place to live.
yep. what else is new? we need something to blame this on, why not the net? the next time we have a major air disaster i think i will put forth the theory that the pilot likes to play flightsim in his spare time and must've forgotten that he was flying a real plane that could crash and kill people. then i will sue and retire. what it is is a bunch of parents who obviously aren't spending enough time with their kids. did they even know their kids had a website? did they care? were they involved with their lives at all? i have a friend who babysits for this same "upper middle class" demographic (cnn's words not mine) and was remarking how she generally spends twice as much time with the kids as the parents who are all out being social and living their lives as opposed to being interested in their kids' lives. yeah, guess i'm stereotyping a bit (or a lot) but it seems more and more true daily, as stuff like this makes glaringly obvious. newsflash - kids ain't just for status symbols. if you want a status symbol you can get rid of in a few years and can leave alone for half a day get a golden retreiver - and forget about having kids.
After having read the article, it does sort of appear that the author is using this event because they have an axe to grind regarding Doom, etc. (good thing they weren't into Carmageddon). Anyway, my first impression is that it should be filed under "backwards subliminal satanic messages" in popular music and other such nonsense.
From what little information I have obtained about this incident, I can't help but get the impression that there was a strong class separation dynamic that could have fed this rage.
When everyone is done grinding axes and jockying for media approval, I'd be interested in seeing what the real investigation turns up.
"Rascal am I? TAKE THAT!" -- Errol Flynn
Can you imagine the headlines if a teacher with a gun had prevented it? ("Teacher pulls gun on students, 2 dead") No matter what, this was going to be a lose-lose situation. You have 2 kids who want to kill people, and don't care if they go down too. No matter what, you have a minimum of 2 deaths. And it seems unlikely that anyone would shoot at them before they had killed at least one or two other students.
As a side note, despite the incredible proliferation of kids who carry guns to school, not a single other student at this school had a gun? hmmmmmm, maybe the media is exaggerating the gun problem in our schools. I also have to admit that I am shocked that no one (in particular the media) has mentioned the fact that this is incredibly similar to the scene in the Matrix where they walk into the building and start shooting everything in sight.
This incident has led me to believe that there really can't be any such thing as a safe school. I'm not really sure how this can be solved, as the only possible solutions would seem to lie with either airport style security, or with a massive change in the way shildren are raised (personally, I think I was raised pretty well, as I have never had a desire to harm anyone).
While I don't doubt the ability of mass media to oversimplify any bad situation, I have noticed that many groups who feel they have been mentioned -- at least in passing -- after this tragedy are taking it as if they're the targets of some kind of blamefest.
Example: Just last night I was mystified by someone very wound up about this subject. It turned out that, to my amazement, he felt that as a gay man who wears a trenchcoat a lot (bear with me here, this is a real example), the world was accusing him and his social group of this crime.
Frankly, I haven't noticed any particular pattern to media descriptions except that they're flailing about trying to get a handle on these guys. Matt Drudge, of all people, had an article where he pointed out some dozen or so different attempts to categorize them (Marilyn Manson fans, Hitler enthusiasts, vampire game players, fingernail polish wearers, the works) and made a little light of the actual journalistic depth of these attempts. If internet chatheads (and I'm one, believe me) are one of these categorizations, I guess it's natural for us to jump a little when our turn comes up on the big random attempt-to-explain-it-all wheel, but my point is that being loudly offended and raising a new stink isn't going to help, and I hope we think twice before going down that road.
In short (too late), no, I don't think that the Internet made these guys do this. Neither do you, I expect. Anyone who sits and thinks about it will realize that the major players here are someone who didn't bother or didn't succeed to instill a sense of morality -- or at least respect for life -- in these guys, and ultimately, beyond even that, responsibility falls on the shooters themselves. We all know it. I hope we all realize it. I suspect strongly that, like usual, after a couple of weeks we'll all get past the attempts to find some element of their lifestyles onto which to shift the blame.
R. Francis Smith http://www.sturgeonslaw.com/
This'll be brief...
I seem to recall that when Florida enacted their Concealed Carry legislation, _all_ violent crime (rape, murder, assault, robbery) went _down_ by 6%-7%. All "breaking and entering" type crimes went up about 10%, because the criminals were breaking into peoples houses when they knew they weren't home, mostly because they feared getting shot by a gun owner. If that's not proof that widespread gun ownership reduces crime, I don't know what is...
There was also a town in Florida that took this a step further. All homeowners were required to not only possess a firearm, but were required to be certified in it's use, and were allowed to carry it openly in public. I think that the violent crime rate in that town went nearly to zero, with all other crime dropping significantly as well.
feel free to refute...
You're very right, no amount of policy at any level will prevent this kind of action by individuals.
The question to ask and answer is: Why would individuals want to do this?
You and a couple of others here know the reason why, but I'll expand upon your answer for the benefit of those who need to hear it aloud.
In a society such as ours which is saturated with advertising-related media, the major effect--and end result--will always be homogenization of culture. The end result of homogenization of a culture is intolerance towards those who either aren't or refuse to be homogenized and who are thus cast out of the system or otherwise marginalized. Once marginalized, they are targeted by those who are willingly homogenized: Think peer-pressure as condoned and encouraged by those in authority at various levels of society (those who run schools, businesses, governments, etc.)
The primary culpret in this tragedy, even if indirectly, is the U.S. media/advertising monstrosity. The secondary culpret is the schools themselves, which are far more oriented towards socialization than towards education, where those who run the schools actively encourage young people to either become homogenized or marginalized. The whole push towards school uniforms for everyone is a push towards homogenization and will result in even more marginalization and acting out by those who don't and won't agree that life is like a Gap commercial.
In summation: Any school in this country where individuals or groups of individuals are exposed to ridicule, ostracism and other forms of punishment for expressing individuality or difference is a breeding ground for just this type of incident. Specifically, I've gleaned that this school in Colorado is typical in that the jock/cheerleader crowd are the "favorites" (very typical) and ridicule and harrasement of other groups of students is common.
One last related point: Any society which reduces to the value of a dollar any and every aspect of life will end up valueing only dollars and will lose all other sense of value. This is what's happening to us.
Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
Be careful what you swollow when dealing with news media of any sort -- they make their living by convincing folks to consume their product and thus reply on all the same bs tactics used by business in general. In short, they'll say and do just about anything to get you to consume their product and have very little regard for truth, honesty or any sort of ethics.
Two wackos in Colorado go on a bang-binge and kill a bunch of people they don't like but, because they like to play Quake and they have web pages on AOL, the "internet" and violent computer games are a "contributing factor" in their decision to do shoot up their school.
I'm convinced that reporters and commentators for news businesses are hired only after they've been verified as being logic-free morons who are quite ready to voice opinions in the absence of knowledge and facts so deadlines can be met, ratings can be acquired and advertising can be sold.
Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
Either the constitution is the law or it isn't. If you don't like it, change it.
Isn't that the point of this topic? Some people think the law should be changed.
I do also think that "the Bad Guy" in the movies does rather seem to be made into some kind of hero (Die Hard, for example). This type of glamorisation of what are basically psychopaths, is definately _not_ a good thing for children to absorb.
That and the notion that killing antagonists is the best way to resolve conflicts. How many times watching a movie do you think something like "Oh, it's ok the bad guy died. He deserved it anyways."?
The problem is that virtually all statistics come from a source that has something to prove. You want gun statistics? They only come from two sources: gun toting hillbillies that would rather kill you than give you their guns, or zealots that want to remove all guns from society because their child was killed by one of the gun toting hillbillies.
Reliable and unbiased statistics are hard to find, and when they are they are normally ignored both parties because they have their own "better" statistics.
(I don't completely buy into this, but I here's the reasoning)
If everyone has concealed weapons,then the bad guys don't know who is carrying weapons. Being the paranoyed people they are, they will assume someone in the crowd does, be afraid, and not do a bad guy type thing.
The real reason: While you may want to carry a weapon for your protection, most people don't want to be lame, wanna-be badass types who intimidate people by carrying around a gun. They just want the gun to be there when they need it.
I've read a lot of good posts, so I thought I'd just add to the mix:
:) is the presence of Unity.
The most difficult thing to do in such a "melting pot" society(remember.. we're supposed to be in harmony
If we(I'm a US citizen, read this to see a bit how i feel about America)just a few things manditory in schools:
1) some discipline class such as Martial Arts,
2) Driver's Education,
3) a manditory Human Relations class focusing majorly on the book "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegy,
1) Kids would get peace of mind, physical fitness ans dicipline of mind and body(not a lot, just more, much more than now),
2)the #1 cause of Death in the US would go down, (Driving), and
3) the #1 cause of deaths in scools, divorce, lack of career oportunities, lack of friends, would take a serius hit...
As you can see, my big thing is education, in any country, ppl aren't taught how to succed in life, no success priciples at at all, even in higher education.
to put it bluntly and cornily('that a word? heh), We need to learn to get along with each other.
"We must expect more not from each other, but more from ourselves" - Jewel Kilcher
Listen to your Karma... It's why you are where you are... actually, i was referring to life, not slashdot.
"A well regulated Milita, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
--
Gun control is not the answer. Criminals can acquire firearms regardless of whether they're legal or not. These are your rights that are being tossed around, people! Don't let an incident like this become an excuse to rob you of your rights.
my 2c
A lot of what im about to say has probably been repeated many times in previous posts here, but there's a lot I want say, so I may as well throw my two cents into the pot. Sorry about the length.
/. is that the internet/games/music is not the cause of these atrocities. A lot of you give out ideas as to where they *are* coming from, or from lack of what, but i'll get into that later.
/. will actually be listened to. While they aren't end-all, fix-all solutions, the ideas presented here could prove helpful. The sad truth is that people already know a lot of this, but don't want to face the facts, so they fool themselves and others into believing whatever alternate reality they can come up with that seems semi-plausible and points the blame at anyone else except themselves.
One thing we understand completely here at
The reason games like DOOM, and Quake....etc, are being blamed on violence, is because where ever there is a kid that shoots someone, 90% of the time, he's been known to play games like that, or listen to hard/acid/gothic rock.
Now, the more simple minded fold (read the media, and the majority of people that believe everything they hear), make the link, and do a bit of reverse logic. They end up fingering the games/music as the cause. A lot of us know better. Right now while im writing this, im listening to the Matrix soundtrack, including one of Manson's songs. I also have one of his CD's. I like his music. Am I going to pull a gun out in the middle of my work and shoot everybody in the office? Stupid question right?
My point is, the nature of this music, and these games, are intense, fast paced, and sometimes violent (the games especially). I have a ton of friends that dont like Manson, and dont like Quake, becuase they think it's too violent. If I were to force them to play/listen, would they become more violent? Again, another stupid question. The game/music doesn't change the person, the person listen/plays to it, becuase that is the stuff he likes. It *accents* his nature, it doesnt *create* it.
A violent person may like Quake, because he gets to blow stuff up. He may listen to hard rock because of the rush it gives him. Now these Trench Coat Mafiosos where by no means un-intelligent students. But that is what they are labeled when people say the games/music are the cause of what they did. Wrong answer, do not pass GO, do not collect $200.
So where did this come from? Basically it boils down to Monkey See Monkey Do. What are they imitating? Movies? No, movies imitate real life (you know what Im talking about, dont go off on a tangent with this). Killing has been passed down from generation to generation. Kennedy, Lincoln, Ceaser, how far back can you go? Gun, knife, club, it doesn't matter. You don't like something, kill it. How many school shootings have there been in the past few years? It's like it's becoming a competition to see who can gun down the most classmates, "Cummon man, those guys were amateurs, we can get 50 easy." They figure, hey, it worked for those guys, why not us.....
Here is the big part where parenting comes into play (or lack of it). School is by far one of the most stressful parts of a kids life. Not everyone is in the 'cool' cliche, some could care less. The thing is, outsiders/loners/etc. are almost always picked on, made fun of, or basically alienated from the rest of the school more so than they do themselves. The funny thing is, a lot of parents have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE what goes on at school, how their kid reacts to it, or what s/he feels about it all. What happens? The more aggresive outcasts just straight up get into fights. A few bloody knuckles, a broken nose or two, and a few days of in-school. "If there where more bloody noses, there'd be less wars." It's the quiet ones that usually are the danger, espeically in groups. They are the ones that will hold their anger in. They won't tell anyone, or show the anger and tension they are feeling. Sometimes they can contain it all, or find other outlets to relieve this anger and tension. Other times, it boils over, and stuff like this happens, and it happens a lot easier than many people think.
It's funny watching the news, how schools are thinking of tightening up security, giving teachers self-defense classes, putting in cameras/metal detectors. I even heard one school is thinking of making students wear ID cards. The dont understand NONE OF THIS will prevent something like this from happeneing again. Whoop-de-freakin-do you have metal detectors. When the two kids walk through, guns blazing, the beeping and sirens will be drowned out by the gun-fire. And who cares if they are wearing ID's or not, they are firing their ID's at you right now. If this is the way they want to prevent indcidents like this from happening, schools are going to turn into near prison-like atmospheres. Things like this will keep happening, and I guarantee, grades will be severly affected. The most *schools* can do, is teach the students, and, more importantly, teach the parents and let them know what goes on during school hours. The latter is more important, because any "awareness" classes ive seen are jokes, and get no attention paid to them.
The key to stopping this (as youve guessed it and said it many times over) is at home. The parents actually have to give a damn about their kids. Mindlessly driving them to school, and mumbling 'be good' everyday isnt going to do squat. Faking apathy and asking your kid how school was everyday when he gets home isn't going to cut it either. Parents think their kids "snap all of a sudden", becuase when they ask everyday, they get the same response, everyday, of "school was fine". The kid (especially if he thinks at all that you dont care) isn't going to say crap. The parents have to know their kids, and recognize when something is wrong.
This doesn't just *happen*, this means the parent actually has to spend time with the kid while s/he grows up. The parents actually have to spend time in the kid's upbringing. That's the only way the parent will know bobby is pissed at something when he comes home from school. Then they have to face the problem, and not think it will take care of itself, because all too many times, it *does* take care of itself, like what just happened.
I've ranted enough now. Hopefully one of these days, rantings like these and others on
-Sarkis-
"Disclaimer: Any errors in spelling, tact, or fact are transmission errors."
>
I have never seen 400+ comments/replies summed up in such a precise, eloquent comment. Bravo to you.
-Sarkis-
"Disclaimer: Any errors in spelling, tact, or fact are transmission errors."
I meant to have a...
at the head of that last comment.
"Disclaimer: Any errors in spelling, tact, or fact are transmission errors."
(apologies ahead of time if someone already mentioned this. Processing more than ~200
Many people have mentioned a lack on the part of the parents. This lacking thing _can_ be filed by other people than the parents. Our society is perhaps doubly-flawed in the fact that those falling through a hole left by the parents, find themselves falling through another hole of no one else step in and care.
For a highschool student these days, having someone who will be an advocate for you - even if you never ask them to be - is rare and empowering. No one specifically is to blame - we all are.
--
Well, if you really want to mess with our own minds:
Taking the idea that society doesn't want to think that horrid things are part of society
And noticing that many posters have mentioned personal feelings of outcast-ness when they were of high school age
It isn't unreasonable to thing that the fringe, not wanting to have this horror automatially associated with itself, goes and blames society.
Food for thought, is all.
--
I'm not going to get an answer on this. I never do. But I'm going to ask anyway.
How, exactly, would more gun control have prevented this? It wasn't legal for the kids to have the guns they did *now*. So, we need more things to charge their corpses with?
It *certainly* wasn't legal for them to have explosive devices -- do we need to make it illegal to buy silly putty and vaseline, just in case a kid has an oxidizer laying around?
What would gun control have done for this situation? Nothing.
How might things have turned out differently if someone had had a hunting rifle out in their truck? We'll never know. But perhaps these kids could have been stopped before they killed so many.
>Gun control is the first step in getting these >weapons off the streets.
Won't work. How hard is it for even children to get ahold of drugs?
>All this nonsense of having a gun to protect >one's self is foolish. Owning a gun doesn't >protect anyone. Actually, most gun owners who >attempt to protect themselves with a gun increase >their own chances of being shot and also increase
>the danger to their families. Why? Because most >gun owners find, in the moment when they most >need to, that pulling a trigger is a very >difficult thing to do.
Got a cite for that? Lots of people *do* protect themselves, and in even more cases the mere presence of a weapon causes the would-be robbers to flee.
>We have to work to combat the culture of violence >and to help people understand the pain of a >bullet wound. Hollywood, video games, the NRA, >and a host of other forces work hard to blot out >the pain of violence. So far they are winning. We >are buying into the culture of violence with >millions of dollars and finding our streets more >and more littered with the bodies of the victims.
Nope. There is an obvious and undeniable link to the violence in our society: the War on (some) Drugs. And it's bee worse than this. Take a look at Prohibition -- in some places the police had machine guns mounted on their cars -- because they needed them.
People will kill for money. This is a given. When killing someone will get them a few dollars, it's unlikely, but some people will do it. When it will get them several tens of thousands of dollars....a lot more people will do it.
Shalon Wood
Computer games are not the problem.
The problem is the social setting of high school. When I went to school, I was a nerd. I was, of course, tormented and teased, as no doubt all nerds are. I survived.
I've been watching. In the decade or so since I graduated from high school, it seems that he division betweenthe nerds and the jocks, the ins and the outs, has gotten worse. A lot worse.
More, since teachers tend to be afraid to interfere, the jocks get away with doing worse.
"He was such a quiet kid..." goes the common refrain.
Of course he was. That was how he survived in the jungle of high school. Maybe no one would notice he was intelligent if he kept his mouth shut.
These kids, it seems, banded together to defend themselves. I suspect this only got them ostracized further -- after all, they were a 'gang'. As if high school football teams are often less than a gang...
Folks, we've got a problem. We are driving our intelligent children out of society. Look at what we say -- "Intelligence is good!" -- and look at what we reward -- physical strength. Is it really any wonder that we hve kids going nuts when they have what we claim to value, and we punish them for it?
We have a problem.
I don't have a workable solution.
Does anyone?
From Wil S.:
"All the World is a stage, and all the people merely actors upon that stage"
From African wisdom:
"It takes a village to raise a child"
We are each given the freedom to create our own reality. It takes family, peers, other adult leaders, and even strangers to help a young person define their reality. There are infinite resources to lead us astray, and it takes the village to bring us back to a good path.
I have had the experience of working with young people who were abused; who have no grounding, no respect for themselves or anyone else, no sense of personal responsibility. These kids needed constant contact to stay out of trouble. When they reached 18, and no one had any enduring relationship with them, it took a few calls to the police when they abused society's trust and patience.
These Colorado kids were "normal" (troubled), from "good" homes, yet many of the danger signs were there. A lot of people passed up chances to do something about them, with them. These kids created their own reality and dragged a lot of beautiful people down with them. If there is something wrong, it is not the Internet or the freedom of information - it is a society that doesn't have time for a lost one, a society where you have to be part of the "in crowd" to be anyone. It's a tough road, being a parent. We need to be there for each other and for our kids. But the people around us need to be present to us and to our kids as well.
We all can do better.
----------------------------------------
Kheeeeee - Khareeeeeeeee!!!
I agree that the perception truly does exist (and is quite pervasive) that the internet is evil, guns are evil, adult oriented games are evil, and geeks already have more than a few screws loose. One need only watch a TV newscast, a TV drama, read a newspaper, or visit a more mainstream news website to see these portrayals. Before you cry *mass media!* *foul!* many people _believe_ the information presented to them in these formats. When bad things happen that appear to have influences related to these topics, the immediate and overwhelming American societal response is: legislate the hell out it! (Guns/internet/porn/games/whatever.) _Some_ of the rationale is understandable. Constant exposure to violent and sexually degrading material tends to desensitize the individual being exposed to it. Guns are easy to use and tend to distance the killer from his/her victim. Geeks are just plain different than your average Joe.
Folks, these aren't the issues. Not by a long shot. America, as a society, has three fundamental problems. 1) An inherent inability to see a tool for what it is, a tool. 2) An inherent unwillingness to take responsibility for actions. 3) (Likely not just an American problem.) Fear of the different/unknown.
Point 1: Guns, the internet, knives, etc. are nothing more than tools. They have no intrinsic good or evil qualities. What the person chooses to do with them, the behaviour--good or evil, is what matters. Remove or limit the effects of one tool, and the person will find another. Recent legislation, however, has focused on the tool rather than the behaviour.
Point 2: I seem unable to distill this into a nice little package. Suffice it to say that _parents_, not schools, not television, not games, not the internet, have a responsibility to raise their children properly.
Point 3: Fundamental human nature. We fear what we do not understand and do not know.
Refutations?
So sayeth MztrBlack.
Come on guys, the internet has nothing to do with this. These are things (murder, sex, pornography, satanism, etc.) that have existed before the internet. The only thing that changes with the advent of the internet, is that these things are more accessible since you can search with the click of a button.
...
... then again, maybe these kids would have used knives or razor blades instead ...
If being exposed to these things can turn you into a violent axe- (or in this case gun-)murderer, there's something wrong with you in the first place. If you have been drowned in such excessive doses of violent TV/Internet images that you actually feel the urge to act these things out in real life, there's something wrong with your social surroundings
I realize that our US friends (I live in Europe) treasure their right to carry arms, but the simple availablilty of these guns makes things like this much more easier to happen. I have always found the prevalence of guns in US society somewhat puzzeling (yes, I lived in the US for a few years and know what I'm talking about). Maybe if guns were not so easlily available, these things wouldn't happen so often
I was quite pleasantly (given the venue) surprised to find the introduction of "On Killing," by Col. Dave Grossman, Ph.D. to this discussion. I also found it to be a fascinating discussion of the psychology of training soldiers kill. As such, let me contribute a couple of other
First, I feel that you overlooked what he considers one of the most powerful motivators for enabling soldiers to pull the trigger--peer pressure. His study indicated that crew-served weapons (heavy machine guns, tanks, etc) were much more likely to fire, and fire effectively, even before the advent of improved training methodologies which increased the rate and quality of fire by individual soldiers. This thesis is borne out nicely as early as WW I, where the introduction of the crew-served machine gun resulted in a devastating increase in the casualty rates during trench warfare. Apply this to the unique aspect of this situation (as compared to nearly every other case of mass, random violence in American history)--the presence of *two* gunmen, and I think you have a much stronger basis for explaining why they did what they did.
That two such completely lost souls will find each other is, hopefully, statistically quite unlikely, but so long as our society continues to alienate people in the uniquely cruel ways that High Schoolers are capable of, then glorify in the media those who perpetrate them (those two boys have now achieved a place in history, even if a particularly gruesome one), these sorts of disasters will probably continue to occur.
Second, I must disagree with your application of the Col. Grossman's chapter on Video Game violence. He states quite specifically that games like doom are not his primary concern as an enabler of the killer instinct, but rather games in which the player actually holds a gun and uses it to shoot at human figures on the screen.
-Bing
We are genetically programmed and chemically driven to feed and to breed, beyond that the question arises as to why a mad, upright ape, living outside the laws of nature has gained to the position of representing the universe having become aware of it's existence. The miracle is that we don't kill ourselves off in greater numbers.
No more than a thousand years ago, (the flicker of an eye lid in terms of the evolution of our species), the viking who would go on to to be the first european to land on North America impressed his gathered clan and made his attendant parents proud, when at the age of six, or thereabouts, he buried a war axe in the head of one of his playmates, killing the other child instantly. It seems the other child had beat him at a game and he didn't like that. This violent act by a child was noted in the Norse sagas and was said to presage great things for the boy. My point is that we are violent creatures by nature and the herculean effort we have made to lift ourselves free of gratuitous violence needs to be noted. Geeks, like me, consider how far we have come, how far we have to go, and how to get to where we're going. Don't let the bad press get you down, one of the reactions of all people when such things happen is to find someone or something convenient to blame and in doing so to distance themselves from having to ask what in their lives propagates such violenc.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
I never did understand why people seem so keen to censor sex in the media while allowing graphic brutality - but that's a different matter.
It's not entirely a different matter. In Europe the tolerance for sex and violence is pretty much the reverse of what it is in North America. Frontal nudity (both sexes) is shown regularly on television (mostly, though not always after the
9:30 pm watershed - in the uk anyway), but the cop shows, for instance, are much less violent. It has to do with what your culture values and what your culture decides it will tolerate...
"I use the words you taught me. If they don't mean anything any more, teach me others. Or let me be silent"
Games may have a lot of violence in them. However any *rational* human can distinguish between a game and reality (unless it's The Matrix, but that's besides the point). I love playing Quake, however, I will not go on a rampage killing people because I know that killing people in reality is not the same as killing people in a game for several reason. One is that people in real life are really dead, they don't just respawn somewhere else (as far as I know). Second, there are consequences for killing people in real life. Third, I believe that it is morally wrong to kill someone (except under certain circumstances (anger or insanity not being included)). Fourth, I feel no desire to kill people, whether or not I kill them or they kill me in a game. Sorry for the long windedness.
I totaly agree with this.. I think that the media blows thing out of proportion and tells people what they think they want to hear. Watching the news they where warning people of "goth gangs" ... this I don't think I could even imagine from the descriptions of the music and the way they dressed.. these kids that they where describing sounded more like heavy metal or death metal kids.. the media seems like they alwasy go after guns, games/tv/movies, or some type of gang/kult.
things like this are going to happen no matter what they do. I think the kinds just wern't raised right and well.. fucked up things happen when you don't raise your kid right.
Here in the USA there are about as many guns as people. The cities with the toughest gun laws have the highest crime. Every day TONS of drugs are smuggled in. If we were to totally ban all firearm ownership tommorrow, there are plenty of guns about already and there is nothing to stop these same drug smugglers from bringing in plenty more, especially since the price for (then illegal) guns would skyrocket. We have a 2nd Amendment for a reason. It is not hunting, it is protection from the excesses of government and, to a lesser extant, from criminals. There is NO WAY to insure criminals will not have access to guns in a free society (and not much of a way in a totalitarian state).
BTW, as I understand it, those two sad, looser assholes in Colorado used shotguns, which are legal even in the holier-than-thou countries preaching to the US about how great they are to have tight gun laws.
I own several guns. I use them for hunting, recreational shooting and protection. I have a concealed carry permit. I also have two young boys. I teach them gun safety and keep my firearms locked in a steel cabinent, with the ammo locked up seperately. EVERY gun owner should do the same. If you don't, shame on you!
Not a dictator problem? What the HELL do you think "Big Brotherhood" is? It's about control. Whether they control via your data or with a gun to your head the end result is the same.
...not Europe, or Canada, etc. Yes, I have lived "across the pond". You don't live in a free society. Even in the UK. You are not citizens, you are "Subjects of the Crown". If your government want to oppress you, oh well...
As to getting guns into the UK, the IRA has never seemed to have much problem (I know, sore spot, sorry, my brother in law is a Brit).
BTW the shotguns you allow "for farmers" are what did the most damage in Colorado. So called "Assault Weapons" (semi-autos) are used in less than 1% of crimes in the US.
The rest of Europe is even worse. The taxes, the regulations, the bullshit.
As to the US, we DO try to make it difficult for criminals to legally buy guns. We have a new computerized system that is starting to help.
...is ALWAYS gun control. Look at every modern instance of genocide. First you get their guns. Hard to line people up and shoot them if they are armed...
As to people who say "Not in the US", look at the Indians, the Mormons, Blacks in the South, Japanese Americans in WWII, and most recently Ruby Ridge and Waco.
> I want to point out that guns to have freedom is an outdated argument.
REALLY?!?! Tell that to the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. Weapons are the FINAL guaranty of freedom. Hell, that kind of shit goes on so much in the world today that I am amazed that people still push the old line that "violence never solved anything". Tell that to the Roman Empire, the American Indians, the Confederacy, the Jews of Europe, the third reich, etc.....
McCarthy? That was a bit ago. Turns out he was right about a lot of the commies he went after BTW. Bad tactics though.
:-)
The incidents you listed (Waco) are among the reasons to HAVE guns.
What was it Churchill said about democracy?
Yeah, be proud. I read the interesting things that come from your MPs. Your house of lords comes up with some good ones too. What about that extridition thing recently?
We don't have to get government permission (or at least pay taxes) to own a TV. We don't go to jail for listening to public service traffic on a radio.
And...we drive on the RIGHT side of the road
...ban it, regulate it, tax it. As has been stated to death, guns are not the problem, bad people are.
Europeans are so god-awful holier-than-thou. Shit, more death and destruction has been inflicted ON Europeans BY Europeans than the rest of the world combined.
Except for some like Sweden, who have never in modern times had the balls to stand up to anybody, no matter how evil they were.
The Constitution has been revised (amended) many times.
Contrary to what most think (the media dosn't help) we are now doing BETTER violent crime wise. The trend has been down for a few years.
If the US had stayed neutral in WWII, you would be speaking German.
Truth No. 3: With a gun in your hand it's pretty easy to kill someone.
Back in the 40s and 50s... Mom stayed home.. the family had less money but they were closer.. they didn't have 2 to 3 cars.. they didn't have a house that had 3 tvs, with VCRs, cable, etc. hooked up to them... but they didn't care.. they had each other...
So if parents started to bring up their children right, that includes discipline (spanking), respect for authority, made to make good grades in school, and just a bed and a few toys in there room until they're 13 or 14.
Yes, Spanking. I am a product of spanking. It works. I am a 4.0 student in high school and at the top of my class. I say "Yes, Sir." and "No, Sir." and when I backtalk I get slapped in the mouth. My parents words are final and there is NO questioning. Because of my achevements, that how I get the computer that is sitting on my desk and the truck that I drive. If I screw it up, I lose both and the CD player in my room and the CDs that go with it. I atttend Sevrices Sunday morning, Sunday night, and Wednesday night. Religon is a major factor in a childs development. And the parent MUST follow the same rules of the child, that is to say, set an example.
They are your children, they are not the school's children, they are not the religon's children. They are yours. To protect, raise, teach, uplift, and admonish. The flaws in your children are flaws in you.
Louis Blue
"Mother is the name of God,
on the lips of children.."
~Crow
I think it was Scotland, but still in the UK.
Games will be blamed because they are an easy target for a simple minded media. So long as we encourage the isolation that some people endure, this will continue. The internet is not the same as face-to-face, but it is a connection for many people. The rabid name-calling that we 'all left behind' in high school will continue, and geeks, because we are the outsiders will bear the brunt. Nothing much changes.
This is what happens when you treat humans like animals. The cause of this is not video games, or guns, or the internet. The problem is sticking developing young in a cage together and encouraging them to abuse each other.
This is not a crime perpetrated by abnormal people. These were very rational individuals who simply felt like they had nothing to live for. When people abuse you to the point where you hate yourself almost as much as you hate the abusers, the cultural values of kindness and care that we rely on to organize our society fail.
The thing about them being geeks, is that they were successful. They committed themselves to a violent course of action, carefully prepared it, and flawlessly executed it.
The only solution to this problem is to create a society where all people are accepted and diversity is encouraged. But of course the media and the government won't realize this. They're having a fun time blaming it on Hitler.
We are all children of Kod.
Newsflash folks. People are STUPID. They always need a scapegoat when something bad happens. People just can not accept that there are some people out there who are just gonna do fucked up shit no matter what kind of stuff they're involved in. There's no one to blame for this but the little nazi psychopaths themselves, and possibly their parents. It's not our fault. It's not the fault of the internet. It's not Marilyn Manson's fault. It's not the fault of ID Software. It's bad enough when people can't take responsibility for their *own* actions, but now their delegating responsibility for everyone else's actions as well. I say fuck the bastards.
Meghan
Pathetic.
So, from your posts, I am supposed to believe that opinions that are backed up with serious statistics are 100% biased and that your unsupported rantings are not? Give me a break. What do you consider a serious statistic anyway? Only statistics that support YOUR views?
All of the real hard evidence out there (that I have seen, anyway) which supports gun ownership and debunks gun control stands up to intense scrutiny and is independently verifiable by anyone. The opposite is rarely, if ever, true.
About the only thing your "opinions" move me to is pity - for you. If you cannot debate without resorting to ANYTHING other than ad hominem attacks on your "opponents", why bother?
Wait, let me answer that: you do not really HAVE any valid points; you are just posting emotionalisms in the place of REAL evidence because you otherwise cannot contribute anything meaningful to the discussion, but you so sincerely desire to express your emotional outrage, regardless of how ridiculous it makes you look. Fortunately, you can hide behind the nameless, faceless mask of an AC so you don't have to bear any accountability for what you say. How appropriate.
Fortunately, your post is so patently typical of logical fallacy that I am not too worried about anyone who can reason their way out of a wet paper bag taking it seriously.
Here's a piece of advice for you that I am SURE you will not take advantage of, but I could be wrong: find some REAL evidence to support your opinions and USE it to do so.
C'mon, IMPRESS me.
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
Lessee, a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state... isn't that the job of the armed forces?
Two points here. First, it is only the job of the armed forces as long as that is what the people want. If the people want the government to organize and maintain standing militia units to help perform this function, fine. Ultimately, though, the responsibility of maintaining the security of a free state rests on the shoulders of the people. Second, when the Next Revolution comes (I don't think it is a matter of "if" anymore), it is reasonable to expect that the government will do everything in its power, including using the standing militia units we allowed it to organize and maintain, to quell it. Our forefathers knew this well and thus gave us the ONLY tool possible for the people to win such a struggle. What a gift!
And, tell me where the following "translation" fails...
Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I don't think your translation "fails", as it says basically the same thing. However, your continued misunderstanding of what it means hasn't changed.
Lessee, you claim that your interpretation is backed up by statements by the Founders. Thanks for backing up one of my points... This amendment was drafted over 200 years ago. Times have changed. 200 years ago, you didn't have a person walking down the street, or into a public building and start firing randomly. There wasn't a need for strict gun control. People knew how to control themselves. Ideally, we *should* be able to act in the same way. Unfortunately, we aren't. Thus, something needs to be done.
Wow, this one is so full of holes I don't know where to begin. Let's start with time. Sure, TIME has changed; more accurately, it has passed. In addition, many things have changed along with it, but many things also have remained the same. Human nature is a perfect example of something which HAS NOT changed in 200 years. I find it highly unlikely that there were no random acts of violence 200 years ago. In fact, I believe the opposite is more likely true. Ideally, human beings should have been able to grow out of their natural tendency to react to adverse situations with violence. It didn't happen 200 years ago, nor is it likely to happen now or anytime in the near future. I find that a very flimsy argument for your statement "something needs to be done" when it comes to gun control. Some people have been, are now, and will probably always use violence to solve their problems. As it is stated, your entire discourse proves that now, more than ever, is the time when we need more armed citizens, not less.
But, what is the purpose of a semi-automatic or automatic weapon? To kill people. Don't tell me you need 30+ rounds a second to take down Bambi... there won't be much left to eat at that point.
What is wrong with that? You already said that you support responsible gun ownership, albeit in reference to hunting for sustenance. Does responsible gun ownership not include utilizing a gun to kill someone who is threatening your life or that of your family? Why does it matter what the exact form of the weapon is? What if a significantly-sized group of people were bent on killing you and/or your family? A big enough group to make it dicey whether or not you would survive with a simple handgun or rifle? Generally speaking, weapons, guns in particular, are for KILLING.
Of course, we are still just bantering about in terms of self-defense. I don't think the second amendment really deals directly with this topic. Instead, I believe it deals with the much more weighty and important topic of armed resistance by the people to tyranny of the government. The self-defense angle was probably omitted because it is a logical extrapolation. Again, human nature has not changed over the millenia. Throughout history, it has been proven time and time again that tyranny grows and thrives from even the humblest of human institutions. Thus, citizens of a free state must always be vigilant against it, with the risk of their own peril at their failure. Granted there are other tools that we have (and use on a daily basis) to keep it in check but, at some point, the only tool left will be that of the last resort: armed resistance. It has happened before, it will happen again. Only the most naive can believe that it won't.
It should be illegal for a citizen to own an automatic or semi-automatic weapon. Keep them in the armed services, where people are properly trained in their use, and *when* to use them. Srticter control of handguns is needed. At this point, it would be useless to ban them. There are too many of them, and it is too easy to obtain one. However, more thorough background checks, and mandatory supervised instruction should be required. Same for rifles and shotguns. Point of sale of these firearms should be more tightly controlled.
I think your heart is in the right place, but I think you are still missing one important point. If what you desire comes to pass, who will be the "certifying authority" for all of this? The Government. And, if we fail to use all other methods at our disposal in our vigilance against that same government becoming a tyranny, what is going to prevent the government from altering the requirements, making the oppressed citizenry even less able to resist, until they can no longer resist? Can you say "Kosovo"? Sure, people will resist, but with inferior weaponry, they will either be crushed under the boot of the government or become refugees, ousted from their homes, tortured, and/or outright slaughtered. No, thank you very much. Not for me.
I do agree with you, but in a more general way, that people who have abused their rights should lose them, temporarily or permanently. Minors should also not be permitted to partake in exclusively adult priviledges, at the very least without parental consent and supervision. However, mandatory instruction before you can get a gun bothers me. Not because it is something that every gun owner should do anyway, but because it takes something that is a basic and necessary right for a citizen of this free state and makes it into a priviledge. It cannot be compared to a driver's license or driver training because driving a car is neither a "necessary" function nor a right.
Directly, I think the best thing the government can do in relation to the issue is to keep the responsible adult citizens as well-armed and well-trained as possible. Those who abuse their right should be dealt with quickly and harshly.
Indirectly, we as citizens and, more importantly, parents need to take a more proactive role in improving the moral fiber of ourselves and our progeny. That includes taking full personal responsibility for one's actions and the consequences thereof. Ultimately, this is the root of the entire problem. Mucking about with gun control laws and imperiling our free state will amount to no more than putting a band-aid on a sucking chest wound. The final result will be no different; an ineffective solution leading to our eventual decline and death.
"Freedom is not free. Its price is its responsible use."
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
Maybe your trasnmitter is on the blink. :-)
Er, no. The major players here are those whose teasing and taunts drove someone to lash back.
I think that those making counterpoints to your statements are right on. I have re-read your post several times, looking for some way to interpret it like you suggest. The only way to read it to come up with your rebuttals is to severely warp the English language or change the meaning of words drastically.
What I get out of this assertion, based on the post you responded to, is that the "major players" (ie, those with the lion's share of the responsibility for this senseless act of violence) are the ones who were teasing/taunting the murderers. If that is not correct, then I would suggest you rephrase your assertion and try again.
However, if it is correct, then I believe you could not be further off-base. I don't think there is person alive who wasn't taunted or teased by their peers when they are kids. Sure, violence (fistfights, etc) is a response to such behavior, but it is not the ONLY response, nor is it the most correct one.
Continuing on in your post and subsequent rebuttal, you still seem to be defending the actions of the murderers in the context of "that is what you get when you keep picking on people". I don't think there were many people more picked on in my Junior High and High School than me. I dealt with it the way I was taught to - ignore it. When the morons decided that it wasn't fun to pick on me because I wouldn't respond to them, they would usually leave me alone for the time being; sometimes they would try to escalate it. I ended up in a couple of hallway brawls, but there were other students and teachers who helped break up the fights and the morons were punished appropriately.
What sense is there to instill a sense of morality and decency in someone if OTHERS will not act accordingly?
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" becomes perverted into "Do unto others as they have done unto you".
Even though you claim differently, what you are saying DOES amount to "Do unto others as they do unto you" or, more accurately, "Do unto others with escalation and extreme prejudice before they do unto you again". Yes, it is perverse, but that is what you are defending. Again, if you are not, then you need to restate your position, because whether or not you meant to say it, your words definitely do say it.
When some people disregard other's freedom to enjoy so-called alternate lifestyles, they should not be surprised when their freedoms are totally disregarded in return.
I do not think that teasing/taunting in school amounts to disregarding the freedom of others. Schools are generally fairly strictly regulated environments, even these days. Freedoms are exercised by the leave of the school officials and school policies, because the students are still minors and, while they are on the premises, the teachers and other school officials are, effectively, guardians, and they have the right to control individual activities as they see fit. This control has been curtailed more and more in recent years, but the level of responsibility has not diminished that much.
"Disregarding freedoms" tends to imply that the taunters/teasers somehow prevented the murderers from exercising their "freedom". This is clearly not the case, no more than ridiculing someone's point-of-view in an on-line public forum prevents the target of the ridicule from exercising their freedom to respond. As a result, I don't see the equivalence you are trying to make between being taunted/teased and responding with borderline-sadistic murder.
The overblown response of murder to teasing is perfectly in-line with the reasoning that the best response is a strong one (and why the U.S. floundered in Vietnam and won in the Gulf).
Wow, that's a LONG stretch. So, the best response is a strong one, no matter what exactly the response is? Right. So you are saying that, using such reasoning, that a response of banding together and either seeking help from the school officials to stop the "harassment" or just ignoring it altogether is not sufficiently strong enough to be effective? Also, I don't get the connection in your reference to Vietnam and the Gulf War. We "lost"/"won" those conflicts for reasons that had little to do with just the "strength" of our "response". The point is that the best response may be a strong one, but not all strong responses are "best" or "right".
Is such a reaction right or justified? Certainly not, but the risk of it happening is to be expected. It is truely unfortunate that the response is directed so poorly at the instigators, but then again, who among is us innocent when we allow harrassment to persist?
I do not believe it is the responsibility of another person (or the government, for that matter) to get involved in a dispute between others unless one person or group is trying to deprive the other of life, liberty, or property by force or fraud. Harassment only passes this litmus test when its effects transcend into this realm. I do not believe that being insulted or verbally abused as a minor by other minors even comes close to qualifying. Sure, it is harassment, by definition, but where is it violating rights and freedoms?
The best premptive measures are those that serve to nip harrassment in the bud, and thus not giving rise to any form of retaliation, overblown or otherwise.
No, the best preemptive measures are those that teach kids that there people out there who are going to make life hard on them and to help them develop a means to cope with it. In addition, they should also be taught how to seek real, effective solutions to their problems and to take personal responsibility for their actions, on either the addressing or receiving end. Means to "nip harassment in the bud" are not always going to be available, so they MUST have some other way to deal with it that will not lead to ultimate, drastic measures, such as the ones seen in this tragedy.
While I do not advocate taking the law into one's own hands to settle a dispute, neither do I care much when the rights of those who are disrespectful of others are themselves trampled upon.
Where is it stated that anyone has a right to receive respect? What about the right not to be offended by someone else? You keep going on and on about "trampled rights" and "disregarded freedoms". WHERE? The only rights that been trampled and freedoms that have been disregarded are those of the victims of these murderers, who did not die because they teased and taunted their attackers, but because their murderers were ill-equipped as human beings to deal with the minor adversities of life.
I believe the people who REALLY are at fault here, beyond the murderers themselves, are their parents and the other adults closely involved (or maybe not closely involved enough) in their lives. Unfortunately, our society has so cheapened and demeaned the role of parents and "social elders" that it is no surprise that things like this are coming to pass. It happened in ancient times as well. In this context, ancient Greece is a perfect parallel.
"Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it."
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
Though I think it is a good, mostly believable analogy, I have difficulties reconciling it with the real situation.
First and foremost, humans are not dogs. We have had the ability to reason for tens to hundreds of thousands of years. As such, we can learn to reason through our adversities rather than having to rely on our animal instincts to cope with them. Dogs do not have nearly the advantage we do in this area.
Secondly, physical violence goes a LOT farther than verbal abuse. If it had become this bad, then there are a lot of adults whose heads need to be put on the chopping block for incompetence in their guardianship.
Third, I find it hard to believe that a dog, "beaten regularly with a stick" fails to have a "propensity for violence" imperceptible by its owner/"guardian", regardless of its species.
Those who drive people to respond in an irrational manner must be held accountable for the fact that they increase the liklihood of such a response, espescially when what they are doing is ALREADY considered wrong.
It does not necessarily require another person to drive someone to act in an irrational manner. Life can sometimes, and for some people, provide impetus enough to react irrationally. The important issue is HOW they react.
You are right in that people still bear personal responsibilities for their actions. I think the teasing students probably deserved some form of punishment if they got out of hand (phyical violence; disobeying parent/teacher/official orders to cease, etc), but NOTHING justifies the response of the murderers.
"You reap what you sow, so make sure you only sow things that your ass is capable of reaping."
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
Sure they do. Look at Europe. Look at Austrailia. Look at Canada. Look at just about every western nation other then the USA. Most of these countries have tight gun control legislation, with a very small number of weapons in circulation. Because of this, the proportional rate of people who are killed with the weapons is much, much lower then in the USA. It's time that the gun companies were put out of buisness, and a campaign to destroy the weapons in your country was started. there is no legitimate reason for anyone to own a semi-automatic weapon or anything of that nature. Period.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
Seriously. We have to ask questions about this kind of stuff. We have to defend out rights as well - puritans and the mis-informed, who may have what they believe is best for the world at heart - are going to latch on to **whatever they can** to use for blame in this tradedy.
That's a shame. But it's human nature - if something like this struck at your heart and family, you would be ready to blame anything as well. But a perspective on the rational must be maintained.
Instead of beginning to learn towards the insane, how about we ask questions like this:
What were the socio-economic circumstances that led to this event? What created an environment for these children whereby influences like Doom (alleged influences, that is) could have such a severe impact?
It's easy to blame Doom. It's easy to blame the media. But what's hard is to blame yourself. Through creating a culture of popularity and stratifying our schoolyards, we create boundries that people seek to break through with dramatic acts. If you are deemed a geek, then a geek you are. How do you change it? How do you get respect? How do you gain a 'higher level'?
Answer: you purchase items that place you in the higher strata class. You dress in a manner that befits a member of that class. You behave and act as if you were a member of that class. You assimilate.
If you are deemed a member of a class, and you can't break out of it, or you loathe every other class for simply being unlike you, and you can't change these circumstances
Am I getting it right here? Comments? So in summary, I think what needs to be examined is not gun laws, or computer games, as they are but bandaid remedies for wider social concerns. Consumerism and a stratified culture and pecking order place enormous strain on those who aren't within 'acceptable bounds'.
Of course, if these kids were "smart" and they really wanted carnage, they would not bother with guns but just blow up the school. In that case, the whole issue of gun access is irrelevant. The problem is somewhat deeper, and indicative of a problem in modern society.
I expect that the only reason they didn't obliterate the entire school is because they didn't have the ability to make an explosive that powerful or it didn't occur to them. Most likely the former.
Guns aren't the issue, never have been. Mentality is the issue, always has been.
Talisman
"Study your math, kids. Key to the universe." -The Archangel Gabriel
It's not just a U.S. thing.
I currently live in Japan, which is generally regarded as a very safe country. Almost nobody owns guns.
So, when kids in schools lose it, they stab their teachers with knives. This has already happened several times over the past couple of years. The always-helpful media pointed to a TV drama where a "cool" character carried a knife. (So far there has been no appearace of a Knife Control lobby, but you never know.)
When kids become killers, something is clearly wrong. Blaming weapons, or the media, or computer games does nothing to stop the problem. I honestly don't know what will. But, if I had children, I know I would be talking with them right now and listening carefully to what they have to say.
About 10 years ago I missed, by 4 blocks, being zoned into a high school where two students and a teacher were killed by a student on a rampage with a gun. This type of stuff has been going on for years.. Doom wasn't around to influence them and I doubt they had an Internet connection.
I think that the 'capacitor' theory is a good one. IMHO censor ship, gun control, safety measures will do little to alleviate this problem. Just about any idiot will tell you that these two were miswired but the question is what in the environment caused them to be miswired or irritated the problem to the point where it reached this magnitude.
I can think of two possible solutions to remove part of the capacitor charging. Make high schools smaller to foster a sense of personal belonging in a community as well as to offer a better learning environment. To small might be bad but I'd be willing to bet that a study of extreme violence verses school size might have some interesting results. Does anyone know of any studies like this? My second suggestions isn't going to be a popular one with most of america either. That is get rid of the students who don't want to be there. I can tell you that most of the 'real' problems when I went to HS were caused by people who didn't want to sit through 6 hours of teaching. That included most of the 'jocks' who pretty much ignored the teachers and did their own thing in class including bugging the hell out of those of us who were actually there for a reason.
This was not racially motivated.
However, there was a basis of hatred that motivated them.
Think about it, if you are out cast from the "normal, human beings" it is easier to accept the fact that they are inferior to you and jealous, instead of realizing that they still are equals, even if you aren't treated as one.
Also, the bad apples aren't gone.
To deal with this problem, more is going to have to be done than just arresting possible suspects. I fall under those categories in more ways than one (trench coat, geek, goth clothing, enjoy talking german engineering accomplishments, as with any cool engineering feat.) so i was worried that my friends and I would be prosecuted because of it. You know what, the first thing the school did was call all of us together, to make sure that others would understand that we were different than those kids (I use kids, because of there twisted distorted understanding of the world was similar to a child who lived a protected life) in colorado.
Not only does immediate action help, but also equal emphasis, after the immediate threat of copycats etc., will have to be applied to the situation in Middle Schools, because you know what, that is where your opinion of others and their opinion of you, begin to set in, and during/after highschool it is much harder to break down those prejudice and bigotory ideas. So really, HighSchoolers should really begin to know and pay attention to peers who aren't in their "cliche," and may not want to be a part of it, but to respect them anyway. More action has to be taken towards the formation of cliches and the singling out of a few individuals in middle school, than in high school, because in middle schools, they be able to save not just the lives of potential victims, but save the lives of potential gunmen.
-Pfhor
People need a scapegoat, and since it is their first inclination to blame the internet, computer games and violent movies ... it is MY first inclination to say that they are just people wanting a simple scapegoat.
I think the problem goes a lot deeper. Im no sociologist, but i am educated in the general area. It seems to me that all of this is the symptom of SOCIAL development (albiet BAD social development), and not TECHNOLOGY development.
I think that it actually all starts with economics and increased unemployment due to frictional market changes, but i wont go into that...ultimately it means that the current workforce is working too hard to look after their children, and the higher number of unemployed dont have the money, incentive or even the *desire*/*care* to look after kids.
The kids take on role models and take them to the exptreme when they grow up. You can fill in the rest.
Handy (age 19)
This is just like the old days when people said "He Play Dungeons and Dragons and was learning black magic from the game", or "He listened to Ozzy Ozbourne!"
Maybe it has something to do with the soundtracks in the game - was Doom done by Devo?? If its different than a Pogo stick for some people then its evil!
Personally, for what it matters, I still hold the belief that all life is sacred, regardless of whether your a geek or an allstar football player. The murders in Colorado were truely senseless, and show how much our society lacks the respect for human indeviduality. I think that if we allow society to only pull that individuals who spend massive amounts of time on the internet, playing various games and such turn out to be violent morbid people, then we are all in trouble. I can hear legistlation a nockin'.
I think that the generatlization that things of this nature only happen in america is..well..dumb.
Everywhere you look people are killing each other, just in america it is special. And another thing, we don't bomb people we "don't like", usually there is a pressing concern. (I use the word usually very casually).
It's been interesting watching the media try to link this to the Internet. Even when there's no information, they seem to think these kids must have been "on the Internet". It has become a mandatory angle on every story about every delinquent in our society, even if it isn't relevant.
These kids sound like they had relatively little to do with the 'net, yet everybody is looking for the connection. Matt Drudge fell for AOL hoaxes. CNN reported how you can learn to make a bomb on the 'net (then later explained how pipe bombs are made).
After two days, all they've found is one personal web page of dubious origin. "How could this have been overlooked?" they ask. Well, pretty easily, as anybody who has ever published a personal page will tell you. It's the modern equivalent of putting posters on your dorm room door, except fewer people are likely to see it.
That said, the 'net is a wonderful complement to real life, not a substitute for it. People whose social interactions consist primarily of online chats with strangers can easily lose touch with reality. Friendships that exist entirely on-line rarely have any depth. So, there's some value to keeping an eye on this angle, as more and more people fall off the edge of reality. But the lesson is not that the 'net is bad, it's that real-life human interaction is good.
The thing about `Doom-players' or whatever being responsible for these killings is interesting, cos if you then go to a music website (e.g. www.nme.com) you find the implication that these people were rock music fans, and /that's/ why they did it. It seems that `conventional' America wants to blame any and every aspect of `alternative' (which, lets face it, isn't very alternative. How many people listen to rock music and play Doom?) for this tragedy.
The world is full of stupid people. Stupid people have stupid kids that do stupid things just like their parents. Stupid people might as well blame the telephone for the tragedy; it would be equally logical to them. Stupid people will always take the easy way out. When confronted with the question of starvation they will suggest increasing technology to grow food more efficiently when in fact that is only a short term solution. The real answer is to solve the problem of overpopulation. In the case of the shootings, the real answer is probably found by interviewing the parents. These kids are probably a result of stupid parenting (not to mention stupid school teachers and administrators) and possibly are victims of what I would term "the day-care generation". Is this not the kind of behaviour we should expect from a declining society going slowly but surely insane?
Soon after the decline of the "ME" generation came the "NOT ME" crowd. It's easier, it's EXPECTED to blame other persons, places or things for our own faults and shortcomings. The fault for these murders lies wholly with the two idiots who committed them. Since they were minors, responsibility for their actions lies with their parents.
Just think what a wonderful world this would be if we were willing to stand up and say "I caused this. It's my own fault". Why, the savings in legal fees alone would be astounding!
By the way, I recall, not long ago, a group of children being killed in Ireland not long ago. The "Only in America" comments are untrue and give Europeans a false sense of security.
"There is no end of stupid people" - A. Hitler
Then there's the quote "Kill them all, God knows his own" uttered by Pope Innocent (phah!) when the crusaders informed him that they were unable to identify which persons were muslims.
Religeon is at fault!
To say that intelligent people do better socially is inconsistant with your own statement about intelligence. I have found that most people are not comfortable around deep thinkers. People who do well academically may or may not think deeply. People are comfortable around creative thinkers and fast thinkers. We do not see the value in thinking deeply I fear.
First of all, Bavo Benjamin.
This is the first comment I've read that deals with the problem. The fact that these kids had guns, and decided to use them on thier fellow students are the symptoms. The problem is that they were A) willing to and B) decided to.
What was going on in these kids head I can only barely understand. But I do know that it is not something that happend in a day. Theoretically, these kids had been talking to thier parents and school counselors for years with this hate fermenting inside them. No one noticed? Or no one had the time and energy to care!?
We push ourselves and our schools harder and harder every year. Teaching subjects like reading and writing is no longer enough. We have to teach cultural diversity, relaxation techniques, coping skills. Why have the schools been asked to take this on? Because the parents are both working full time and more, and think they should still be able to have a social life. The result on the kid is intense. Add in the fact that childeren are some of the most cruel and inhumane people you are ever likely to meet and you have a receipe for disaster. Now that the disaster is happening society runs around trying to blame it on anyone but themselves.
You don't like how easy it is to get guns, work with your local government and have them restricted. Don't like the violence on TV, call or write the sponsers and tell them you will not buy thier products because of their sponsorship. Don't like violent video games, don't buy/play them.
It is not complicated, it just takes self discipline.
I feel like I've been in a fog the last two days. Normally, these school shootings don't get to me, but this one did. Things look differently, children seem dangerous. I feel like I'm in a state of shock. Maybe it's the horrific details. Maybe it's because those kids remind me so much of myself in high school (save for the Nazi crosses). Whatever the reason, the Denver killings have touched me to the core. But this is what I wanted to say: I was in a electronics store last night and I stopped by the computer game section. For the first time in my life, I questioned why I found it fun to kill people on a computer screen. I couldn't come up with an answer that had any more logic than the rationale that was swimming in those kids' minds. I don't think that Doom or Natural Born Killers caused this to happen. But I don't think I will ever be able to buy a shoot-em-up video game again.
De gustibus non est disputandum
My son is 16 and not really a nerd, but he is a little odd by the standards of the general population where we live. He has a few friends, some of whom are nerds of varying degrees. They all love roleplaying games like Vampire, computers, Doom, and a lot of other stuff that's being associated with this incident. Generally speaking, they don't have much use for jocks.
Last winter, my son wanted a trenchcoat. He wanted a tan one but he's big, so the only thing we could find in his size was a black one. He's worn it nearly every day all winter.
My son is the sweetest kid you'd ever want to meet once you get to know him. If he doesn't know you he can be a little intimidating, but real violence of any kind makes him physically ill.
When I first read the details of this incident, I printed out the article and gave it to my son. It upset him a great deal. I suggested he avoid wearing his trench coat to school for a while, if for no other reason than to show some sensitivity, and that he be prepared to be hauled into the guidance office for a little conversation. So far nothing has happened because he got sick yesterday and has been home. I can't tell whether or not it's related to this issue, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Think I'm over reacting? My 14 year old daughter has some friends in the high school, and others who have friends/siblings there. Yesterday she was asked by one of them if my son was in the "Trenchcoat Mafia".
It's very easy to have a kneejerk reaction to incidents like this. Administrators and politicians who are sensitive to public opinion have to be seen to be doing SOMETHING about what happened. Unfortunately they often latch onto the obvious visible characteristics and ignore the underlying problems. So I'm prepared for my son to be singled out solely based on superficial similarities.
If anyone is interested, I'll let you know if anything comes of this.
I disagree with point 1 of your solution. I'm not saying it's outright wrong, but I am saying I didn't grow up that way - i was given a lot of freedom, but was .. i guess afraid somehow of unknown consequences. no one threatened me, no one laid down specific rules, didn't even have a curfew, but i _knew_ that i would get some (verbal) beating if I were to come home late. Guess I was a good kid? Nup, i refuse to believe that. It's something else..
A careful look at the intent of the framers of the Constitution reveals that when they said "militia" they meant all citizens. The idea was that should the government ever descend into tyranny all people would be able to rise up and defend freedom. Now, an intersting thing here is that a strict reading of the second amendment could suggest that military weapons are OK to have lying around, whereas simpler "hunting" or "self defense" weapons would be of little use in any citizenry militia, and thus aren't actually covered by the second amendment. Although what happened in Colorado is horrifying, to strip civil liberties away from all the people in order to protect society from a psycho few is abhorrent. We need to remember that freedom can be taken away very easily, and defend it ruthlessly. And we cannot defend the freedom of speech and religion guaranteed by the first amendment without defending the second as well. To give up freedom for safety is the choice of a coward. I reccomend "The Embarrassing 2nd Amendment" from the Yale Law Review (sorry - don't have the full citation off the top of my head) which offers fairly in depth analyses of the various ways to interpret the second amendment if you are actually interested in thinking about this issue.
** Critical Thinking 101 ***
When A and B often occur together, A and B are said to "correlate". A and B can correlate without A causing B or B causing A. Perhaps the is a third agent C that causes both A and B, for example. Consider:
FACT:
"people who commit murder tend to play violent video games."
CONCLUSION ???
"playing violent video games tends to cause the commission of murder."
I *love* violent video games -- the more violence and gore the better, but I haven't killed anyone (lately).
** class dismissed **
Many people are incapable of critical thought and/or too lazy to bother with anything more than superficial inquiry. They are eager to accept simple answers to very complex questions ; there's a great need to have a *convenient* answer (e.g. a scape-goat), and not much interest in knowing the truth.
In the wake of a tragedy like in Colorado, people are even more unlikely to think rationally -- they will grasp even more desperately at ill-conceived explanations like:
o playing violent video games causes violent
behavior in people who play them
o the boys were "evil"
o society is to blame -- by devaluing their
lives, it taught them to devalue the lives
of others
Some of the answers have some merit, some don't. The real answer is far too complicated to fit into a 30-second sound-bite, and in fact we may *never* have a satisfactory answer.
Life would be better in general if people could:
a) *realize* when they don't know the answer
(be less stupid)
b) *admit* that the don't know the answer
(be more honest)
"I don't know" is sometimes the best answer. Unfortunately it's an answer our politicians aren't allowed to give...
I agree. Your logic is correct. Furthermore...
The Internet originally evolved into an educational tool wherein users could share, among other things, their thoughts and beliefs.
This still holds true today, and is one of the biggest advanteges of using the Internet over other forms of communication. People from all over the world can gather (virtually) and share their thoughts and beliefs.
Unfortunately the shiny side of the coin has a dark flip-side. While the right to freedom of expression is a wonderful thing and is enjoyed by more and more people each day, it cannot be denied that young minds are very impressionable, especially depressed young minds. The Internet provides a very convenient forum in which to preach. It also provides a very convenient means of persuasion, given the number of people who can gather to share common thoughts on any topic, including death, suicide, gothic fantasies and and all beliefs that tie the three together.
Does that make the Internet evil? No, just powerful, as are television, radio, newspaper, games and all other forms of media.
It is (should be) the responsibility of parents, friends, schools, and government (in that order) to protect young minds from the abuse of this power, and to educate them on how to deal with both their own feelings and emotions, as well as the feelings, emotions and beliefs of others.
This is my opinion. Take it as you will.
Onzola
The United States Gun Control Act wasn't enacted
until 1968. Guns were MUCH more easy to obtain
in the '50s and '60s. Guns are more difficult
to obtain today in the U.S. than ever before.
But in the '50s and '60s we didn't have high school students committing mass murder.
So is guns really the problem here? I don't think so.
I have just spent 2 hours reading on this subject, and I have seen this basic argument several times now. I have not read it all, by far. I have not yet seen the basic premise attacked. The anti-gun advocates do not seem to be able to tackle this one head on.
This is a challenge. Can ANYONE out there demonstrate that LAWS banning guns will prevent people who want to use them to kill others (A.K.A criminals (no regards for the much loved LAWS) from getting them?
Can anyone out there refute the claim that there are people out there who will KILL you given the chance? With whatever is at hand? Don't you want to defend yourself? Do you want to defend yourself against a crooked cop?
Who are you willing to trust with your life? Somebody you never met? Will that bump in the halway at 3:00AM spare your life? Your daughter's innocence?
Who do you trust with your freedom? Politicians? (They're such marvelous managers, no?) Who do you trust with your hardware? Microsoft?
This forum is populated in the vast majority (I believe) by people who use an OS that has gained it's popularity for the fact that it is under the control of the user, not some bully corporation (I have no problem with fat profits, BTW). Oh how I love Windows update! I don't have to think for myself anymore. Because I have no choice? We can defend ourselves by using some other system.
Can we defend ourselves against criminals if we we disarm the LAW ABIDING population? Can we defend ourselves against tyrrany and corruption?
Lets not forget to work within the system. Politics is a nasty ugly corrupt mess. But it's the only thing that keeps us from anarchy. Will the system defend us if it can merely roll over us? Can the system defend us when another nation decides to roll over us?
(This is why Israelis are armed, trained, and willing to defend themselves. Can you imagine someone trying to occupy America while every few dozen miles there is a sign that reads "FOOD, BEER, AMMO")
The system in America has persisted (and permutated) for about 200 years with only one violent disagreement. The federal government managed to survive what we call the Civil War. The Confederate states had several greivances, among them slavery. Never mind that they were wrong. At least they had the GONADS to stand for themselves, to rebel aginst what they thought was wrong. And to defend themselves against EVIL, whether it be a perceived threat from the overcontrolling Federal government, or Psycopathic, underdisciplined teens killing DEFENSELESS students.
Where I work, we have a sarcastic slogan: "There should be a law against that."
Would DOOM be popular if this aversion were still in place or not weakened? You can't pick on DOOM unless you pick on every other form of entertainment. How many ways does the transition from clicking the mouse to pulling the trigger differ from from rooting for Charles Bronson in DEATH WISH? Did you all root for Al Pacino or Robert DeNiro in HEAT? Did you root for law or lawlessness?
If we'd just pass a law against lawlessness, all our problems would go away.
I've been confronted with this argument so many times, going as far back as playing D&D in highschool in the 80s.
"Violent games/TV/computers cause people to be violent."
It _looks_ to be true, but psychological studies have found no evidence of cause and effect at all. It seems to completely be statistical. The true statement is really:
"Violent people and people with a tendency towards violence are attracted to violent games and television programs."
ThunderFoot.
(OF course they aren't the _only_ people attracted to violent games!)
And while we're at it, let's sue God and all publishers of the Bible, and all who support this violent document (priests, and so on)...more violence has been done in God's name than has been done as a result of Doom, Quake, watching Natural Born Killers and listening to Black Sabbath combined...so, let's have a class action suit against god, christianity and all its supporters!
There seems to be some sort of a misunderstanding here. There is only one use and one use _only_ for a hand gun, and that is to kill another person. This is sole purpose behind which these devices are produced and the only function that they serve.
Sorry to sound redundant but some people can not get this simple idea into there heads.
From this concept that hand guns can only be used to kill people stems the possiblity that at some point someone will actually be killed by a handgun. These same people also do not seem to be able to understand this equally easy concept. Now people can make all the arguements they want about responisble use and gun collecting and shooting guns at a shooting range or whatever, this does not change the fact that these guns are designed solely with the intent of killing a person. And with this fact comes the inevitable fact that someone somewhere at some point is going to be killed by one.
Now gun enthusiasts will openly admit that most guns that are used in crimes are obtained and used illegally. Now disregarding the easy of purchasing a handgun in the states, the fact is, is that the handguns are being manufactured under the pretense that they will be used for legal purposes. Of course the manufactures know that this is not the case. They know that many of the guns that manufacture will be used to commit crimes and murder people. And it would seem obvious to me that gun enthusiasts would recognize this fact as well. How then, could any gun enthusiast support the manufacture of hand guns, knowing and admiting that most of those guns will be used to commit crimes and murder people, regardless of any other fact?
I would think that the an innocent person's right to live is more important than _any_ person's right to own a hand gun for any reason. I would think that even one child that is accidentally killed by an improperly stored handgun is more than an acceptable loss and outweighs 1 million other person's rights to own a hand gun for any reason.
I would have to agree with the gun people that gun control in ineffectual. It is ineffectual in many cases in Canada as well as in the states. But the reason for that These guns are being tranported illegally into Canada from the states. In there was no hand guns being manufactured in the states then we wouldn't have a problem with guns at all in Canada. As it stands, we have much less of a problem with guns than in the states. But I think we in Canada really have to hold Americans responisble for the crimes that do occur because all the guns come from the states.
The American constitution is a fine argeument for allowing the general populace to carry guns, but look at other gun free countries such as a the UK where as far as I know the police _still_ don't carry guns. Times change and this is not colonial times any more. Using the constitution as reasoning to justify all the people that are killed by handguns is very weak. When the time comes that a people raises arms and revolts against their government, I'm sure people will find guns somewhere. In the mean time I don't think that all these people should be needlessly killed.
Truthfully I don't think that I trust anyone with a gun. We're not Vulcans, and I don't think that _anyone_ has the ability to not loose their cool from time to time or become irrational in difficult situations. Men have testosterone, and they're all going to loose their temper from time to time and do something stupid. Male chest beating and aggression is just a fact of life and is not going to change. Mix guns with hormones and you get dead people, where as without guns you get a bloody lip. This is disregarding the all out psychopaths, of which there will always be as well. People who support the manufacture and use of handguns just don't seem to understand the causality of a deadly weapon or the inevitability of human nature.
This also applies to misfits and social rejects, like in the recent shootings. These people always have and always will exist. We didn't have mass killings in the past because we didn't have easy access to machine guns in the past. If there were no guns, could these kids have gone of that killing spree? Of course not.
If psychopaths and hot tempers are always going to exist, can anyone justify making more guns? If you can, please tell me why.
The shootings in Colorado have NOTHING to do with Doom.
Doom is a game. Everyone knows that. Even the people in My workplace Readiness Class know that.
I play quake regularly. And yet, I can barely stand teh site of real blood.
The best way to realize, and remember teh fact that Doom and quake are just games, is to break it down. Learn about how it is made. It is just programming and animation. Like movies.
The difference between movies and Games, is you have control over one. In movies, you have no control over what you see. That is why movies are rated.
They shouldn't have gone to see teh matrix if it was rated R. Nor should they have seen that movie with leonardo [D!] Caprio. If they did see it, they might've turned gay.
The reason this happened, is because of their parents. One, A doctor. Clearly too busy to have time for his son. So, in order to get his fathers attention, he turned to crime. Soon, he was too far in. He couldn't see joy in anyone else's life, but his own. He only wanted to see their fear. He took his rage from his father, on others. It is no one elses falt. Not even the kids.
THAT is why I am scared of the future. If I had kids, how will I know when to keep my distance from them, and when to comfort them? How will I know I am doing a good job? Parents are sometimes blinded to the fact that their kids may be doing wrong.
It's never the kids fault. He was either taught too well, or not taught at all.
The "And so, I place the blame squarly on the parents shoulders" Kidd
To blame anyone other than the people who commit the crime is ludicrous.
;)
I might speed sometimes, so lets blame the car manufactures for making cars go so fast. If they didn't make these fast, powerful cars, I wouldn't be able to speed. Therefore, car companies are responsible for people speeding and they should pay the bill.
Space Invaders is just as violent as DOOM, the graphics just suck
they gotta blame something right? Why not the internet and computer games? But really, how many kids are on the internet? How many kids play violent computer games? Doom and Duke Nukem and Quakwe and the rest of the classics have been around for years. But how often do we see internet kiddies and computer games making these kids slaughter each other? I know it does happen but it is kind of rare. But the world has to blame something because we all know kids can't think for themselves and make their own decisions.
and that last statement was intended to be sarcastic, BTW, if you werent able to catch that.
Its really sad and tragic at what had occured in Colorado recently, however why does the media and most people blame the Internet, Games, Television, Movies, et al for these events ?
.... Unfortunatley, most people and the media love to fingerpoint and find a simple answer to a complex problem.
Sure, these kids played a lot of DOOM, Quake, watched NBK too many times, but I seriously doubt that these things are to blame. Personally, I've been playing games likes this and watching violent as hell flicks since I was a kid and I haven't killed anybody yet. Even books like the Bible (which is taught to most kids) have bloody and gory details in them.
I think for cases like this they should be examining the families the kids were in, what shape they were in mentally, what happened in their lives recently, etc
I've tried to wade throught most of the comments on this subject and its mind boggling the overwelming responce this post has generated.
I would like to point out however, that everybody here is preaching to the converted. Seriously, are there any non-geeks reading this?
I'm not opposing the opinions posted here, rather I'd like to point out that your just pulling your own wankers here and not getting a lot done. Orginze something, maybe step away form the computer and go forth and take action!
Oui?
Da Foxman
There is no invention in the history of mankind that has allowed him to make more mistakes quicker than the computer.
As far as I'm concerned you americans are the only ones that are even close to worrying that nerds are gonna take Quake to the streets. Here in europe, and sweden where I live, geeks are geeks and we're quite happy with that. The US gov. should ban handguns and other weapons instead - the laws regarding guns in the US is what is sick!
-- http://z80.org - all opinions, all the time --
you know, i always was one of the nerds that was picked on in high school. i was never popular, and i loved computers. i can honestly say i never even _thought_ about taking a gun and shooting a bunch up people, and i've been playing shoot 'em up games since they came out on on good old 8-bit nintendo. instead of getting violent in high school, i cranked the hell out of my amp and jammed a little. it seemed to get the agression out just fine.
Great- maybe laws won't help. I'll even agree that I might be wrong. But I would like to see the laws say that they need to have a license for kids- not just a piece of paper saying they can have one, but a real training program. We have them for cars, and the State has to agree that you have demonstrated the ability to drive. Perhaps if we made them take a test to prove they were responsible, understood the laws, at least something might stick in their heads that shooting somebody else isn't cool.
Think on this:
Guy walking around with gun. Cop pulls him over. "Do you have your license for that gun?" If the guy says no, fined, gun taken from him. If yes, thanks, have a nice day.
Would it help things? Maybe, maybe not. As I said, I'm not against people having guns in and of itself. But I am against them having guns without being taught the awesome responsibility and control that goes along with it. We ask this much of car owners- any reason why we can't have it for something made specifically to kill?
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
I like the approach- very scientific. Let's get to the heart of these problems and fix them (aka- the teens), and not to the external things (aka- the outsiders.)
Stephen Covey in his book 7 Habits makes an interesting comment on how he's lived in Ireland, South Africa, and other "hot-spots" in the world. And in every case, his observation was that people say "If those people over there would start doing/stop doing these things, then we would get along." But if you go to "those people", they would say the same thing as the other side.
Focus on where the real problem is first- the individual. Then move out.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
This is one area that I admit I'm a little evil in. I don't care if people are mentally ill- I say kill them too if they can't be treated. And if they can be, if they stop taking their medication for non-health reasons, and then hurt somebody, kill them, since they obviously can't be trusted.
Mean, overdone? Perhaps, and I'll be the first to admit it. But lets face it- the dead don't kill.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Apology in advance: This is a) long, b) I can't spell worht a damn, so forgive me, and c) I am basing some items on being in the USA, so forgive me if I make certain assumptions on laws and customs that you might not be familiar with. Thanks!
Well, now that we've debated up one end over the other about media, games, parents, cheerleaders who lead them on, teasing, and everything else, I'm going to make a try to see if I can figure out why, and what the solution is.
You see, this is very important to me. My daughter was born April 1. I want to see her graduate from High School, go to college, and be happy and successful some day. I want to sit down at the table each night and hear about her day when she's going to school.
I don't want to hear about how little Bobby shot up little Stevie because they didn't like each other.
So, here's my own opinion:
Why they did it:
1. No emotional connection to other students
I watched the news the morning after on the Today show, as they interviewed different teenagers about the killings. Almost all of them said "No, I really didn't know them. Well, I knew their name and face, but that was it." Only one student said "I was friends with one guy- and he told me to leave that morning. I left."
These two teenagers had no reference to the other students. Forget the Neo-Nazi stuff or whatever- it wouldn't have mattered. They had no emotional connection to these kids.
2. Parents didn't get a clue
The day after, their was a web page viewed on the news that was suppose to have been made by one of the students. Now, maybe that's been debunked by now- if it has, let me know. But the web page was basically "We hate them all, we wish they would die."
How the hell didn't the parents notice this? Or the pipe bombs in the basement, or at least the supplies to make them, or all of the ammo?
3. Not just disconnected, but disliked
An interview with a local student who had just moved from that area talked about how these two teenagers were into computers and, while he never used the word "geek", let's face it, they probably were. They lived in a culture that society rewards with money later in life, but punishes because they dare to be different in high school. Day after day, they probably heard the comments from other people, or perhaps just ignored.
4. Faulty wiring.
Something inside their heads just didn't connect right, and they decided that killing people was OK.
All right. Now, the solutions. Again, these are just my opinions, so work with me here. If you have a better idea, let me know- I've got to find out before my daughter get's too old.
1. Parental involvement.
Above all else, I believe in my heart that this is the most important thing. I know, people say "Teenagers hide stuff, they don't tell parents anything". I know this- I was a teen, I certainly didn't tell my parents everything I did. But my mother at least made the effort. There always had to be a parent or adult at someplace I was going to- and let me tell you, it's hard to try and put the moves on a girl when Dad's in the other room. I had a curfew- perhaps too strict of one, but it was there. I plan on having one for my daughter, but I'll give her slack as long as she calls to tell me first.
My father used to read my journal and my mail- jerk action for sure. I've sworn that I'll never do this to my child, and I mean it. But I will know what's she's doing. Who she hangs out with. If this means that I have to give up some of my time to come home some afternoon, make cookies or bring in video games for them to play (yes, those evil video games.) Check out where they go on the Internet, or their web page. Sure, they can make up something on geocities where you'll never find it. But make some sort of effort- odds are, you'll find out something before it gets to be a problem.
2. Some gun control for teens.
Before you get your panties in a not, just finish reading. Personally, I don't like guns. Too loud. But I have no problem with people who own them- I have a former co-worker who had a concealed weapons permit, and kept one in her purse. Great- I'm happy for her.
But there's no need for teenagers to have a gun except for the a) firing range and b) hunting range. A fellow at my last job was taught by his father when he turned 11 how to handle a gun. The number one lesson? How to put it away, lock it up, and never ever use it except for where it is supposed to be used. He was told over and over again, no guns on people. Don't shoot the birds. Respect this- or else your privilage to use the gun will be taken away for a long time. He was taught to respect the power and responsibility that comes with it- and when to use it, and when not too.
A law out in my place in the world came up about restricting concealed weapons in schools and churches, and was shot down. Seems that would infringe on little Johnny's rights to carry a rifle into school.
Teens don't needs guns- if you can't drink alcohol until you're 21, smoke until you're 19, and drive until you're 16, there's no way I want to give you the power to kill somebody just because you're big enough to wrap your finger around the trigger.
3. Death penalty for teens.
Yes, I'm saying death penalty- or at least hard laws. I don't give a flying leap if you're just 16, 14, or even 11. You kill somebody, I want it plain and simple that you are going to the chair, and nobody can save you. I admit, this won't stop some kids, especially these two who committed suicide after their rampage. But you know what- I bet that if every teen knew that if they shot somebody and killed them, they would be guarenteed a trip down death row, shootings would slow down. If they knew that Amy would be in jail until she was 70 for shooting Carla, she might think twice about it. As it is, some laws have them until they turn 21, or even 18, clear their record, and send them back out. I'll be honest- kill them. First felony, some jail time and therapy. Second felony, some more jail time, better therapy, job training, and then move them far away from where they commit crimes so they don't keep going back to the "bad crowd". Third felony- kill them. They obviously can't learn, and are therefore genetically defective, and must be culled from the herd. And those who think that I would spare my own child- think twice. Looking into my heart, and honestly feel that if my daughter did these things, I would cry, I would wonder what I did wrong- and then I would tell the DA to send her to the chair, and then spend the rest of my life feeling terrible about it. But I'd do it for the rest of society.
So, there's my rant, my opinions, and my views. Help me out- let's find a solution, write to our congresspeople, and fix these students. I figure I've got about 11 years to have this fixed before my daughter is old enough to worry about it, and want to get started now.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
The factors which led to the Littleton shootings are indeed complex, multi-faceted, deep-rooted and chronic. Succinctly stated, there is no one person, institution or societal factor on which to pin the blame-- it is a combination and blame only serves to undercut the process of understanding and learning.
I am a parent of two children under five years of age and every day I think about the devastation I would feel if I were to lose one or both of them. Indeed, I think the greatest trajedy that can happen to a parent is outliving a child. Where to begin with this... Let's talk about computer games for a moment.
Computer games are intense sensory experiences. Many people say they are addictive. I believe this to be true. I will tell you I am a hardcore gamer and play Quake 2 exclusively on the internet. My handle is JAZ and I'm 42 years old.
You may ask yourself why would someone of this age be playing Q2 DMs on the web? I play because I am interested in the relationship between computer hardware and software. One pushes the other in its development. Secondly, many of the things I have learned about computers via gaming are directly applicable to my work. Why do I play Q2 avidly? Because it is the most complex game (I believe) in terms of pushing hardware to its limits.
Many people like stock car racing and the rush that comes from building more powerful engines and faster cars. The same is true for me regarding computers. It is the process of learning that I enjoy--the game is just a tool.
Quite frankly, First Person Shooters (FPS) like Q2 are actually very simple. But if they are so simple why is their impact so powerful and why are they so popular? In my opinion, there are a number of reasons: These games immerse the player in a virtual environment. They actually make violence an abstraction complete with insulation and anesthesia-- you are wounded or killed but never feel anything.
The best way I can describe the experience of playing one of these games on line is that it is
like "living inside a cartoon." Third, there is the strategy and the immediate gratification of
winning the competition. And, given the way our society works today, this may be the only
outlet for some people to taste a moment of achievement or success.
I know that sounds extreme but I honestly believe that this medium may be where an addiction can begin; i.e. this reality becomes preferable because the reality experienced outside this immersion is full of failure and frustration. Also, during this time a person knows what it is like to have power and control without fear, consequence or the infliction of physical or emotional pain.
This is an intensely powerful combination which can quickly lead to an addiction. Top this off
with the anonimity of the net--you can be whoever you want to be for as long a time or as short a time as you like. You can also disappear and re-appear by taking on a different identity. The truth and profile that you present is of your choosing.
Couple this combination of factors with parents who are over-extended in terms of work, societal obligations. Couple these dynamics with a substantial amount of financial debt acquired in the pursuit of "the good life" and the result can be an isolated adolescent(s) filled with anger.
In an attempt to alleviate this isolation and anger the adolescent seeks the warmth of
acceptance and friendship. He/she will seek others out like him/herself. However, this acceptance comes, many times, with a risk and a price. Acceptance in a peer group is filled with dynamics that include competitive peer pressure.
These dynamics can result in more and more extreme statements,positions, outlooks within the group which may result in acts which are destructive and daring. "Talkin' the Talk and Walkin' the Walk." These dynamics are powerful and are tools used to establish leadership/power positions. The reality check by a group member(s) is pushed aside. Consequently, there comes a point where each individual must follow their own path of responsible behavior. I would like to know about the others in the Trenchcoat Mafia.
What anesthetized them emotionally from speaking out? Why were they so willing to accept authority and not question it?
All I can say as a parent is that my wife and I have put our family first. Every moment of every day I try to do the best job I can so that as my children grow they will have a strong sense of themselves and will never be afraid to follow their own intuition. I want them to develop their own voice and to be heard and to never be intimidated into doing something that is not right.
Bottom line: we each must look inside ourselves and take time to hear the inner voice that is
speaking to us. We as parents and adults must overcome our fears about making change and
take the chance of embracing change which will lead to a more balanced life for us and our
children. And, finally, we must use each day to teach our children and each other so that we
can use the time that we have to make a positive impact.
For all of us who have decided to become parents I believe it is important to remember what Tiger Woods' father said about his son: "He didn't ask to be here. I have to earn his respect everyday."
Thanks for reading this and you can feel free to e-mail me at: jazz@intrex.com. I welcome your comments.
"Gravity is just an illusion! The earth sucks..." - Anon Jason Jazz' Shipp Somewhere in rural Surrey, England.
This might send a message to the jocks of the world... Stop picking on people...
Now they might just shoot you.
Slowly and surely the Linux crept up on the Nintendo