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.
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 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.
But the problem is that most kids now *don't* have good parenting....most kids now are brought up in daycare centers either private or state-owned. Beause of the nature of my job and location, I'm able to keep my children at home and educate them myself. There is a big difference between their behavior and that of my friends' kids who attend public schools or daycare centers. BTW, I live in an Asian country where guns are completely illegal (always have been here) and the murder rate is actually slightly higher than that of the US. The difference is that here they use poison, baseball bats, gasoline, knives, acid, etc.
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.
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.
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.
"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
>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
That's because two kids with baseball bats and knives can't walk into a school and kill 25 people without anyone stopping them.
mike
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.
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.
first let me say that with good parenting a 6 year old can tell the difference between fantasy & reality. That or I was just a bit ahead of everyone else & I've pretty much always been able to tell the difference. I don't see any reason to hold other people to the same level I was at at 6 years of age (& I'm serious about the six year old thing, I never had strange ideas about being able to survive the boulder falling on me like on that coyote in the cartoon). Then again I never thought I was immortal during my teenage years either... maybe I've always just been a realist or something...
secondly, Getting picked on & not being able to defend myself (school zero tolerence policy), has had alot more to do with my violent tendancies & in fact being able to safely take out my agressive tendancies in a game have probably helped me not hurt someone.
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...
hmm I don't know about that... lets see back home who would have stopped them?...
Well the closest police were 15 minutes if you did 90 mph on roads designd for 30 mph (better hope they don't die getting there after someone calls).
No teacher is going to lay down his life on the line for anyone. (I saw them beat the crap out of a teacher & putting him in the hospital for making some of them repeat a grade, they would not stand up t them)
No old principle like we have would even put up with a verbal arguement.
Looks that If theyed wanted they could have come in beat people to a bloody pulp & left. 20-25 people easy. They just never did that & I doubt it would have appeared on the news anyways...
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...
those wepaons listed aren't strange I wasn't raised in a large town here in the US so they never used guns either. I did see more than one 'beat down' by people with knives, baseball bats (spiked ones are nasty), & various other 'low tech' solutions to try to hurt/kill someone. It's just those types of crimes don't get the attention ones involving guns 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
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
Michiel, Michiel. Yes it sounds good but, just with all of the big simplistic answers to all the worlds troubles in the past it just doesn't work. First where you have guns you almost always have no violence. 99% of the time guns are used in a safe and enjoyable manner, much like knifes. You tend to think this way because you are watching the news media and they only broadcast the negative(shock) stories to get viewers so they can sell advertizing. Have you ever heard a news story on the good things the NRA does or any other shooting organization? The good old automobile causes much more grief than all the guns in the world. Get a life and stop trying to figure out crazy boys that obviously had little attention paid to them by their parents. You may want to get involved with shooting sports and see for yourself that I too am not crazy. This is a user error problem not a hardware problem.
1bignick
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