Connecticut Elementary School Shooting

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

I am shocked by this 18 children 5-10 dead, gun control will be an issue again.

On this forum, yeah maybe. Offline? I doubt it. The usual suspects will probably go into seizures, and the rest of the US will quickly forget about it. Plus, its the holiday season, so people have other things on their minds other than what's in the news. School shootings aren't spectacular or new enough anymore for them to seriously effect the issue or politics, even if this is the first time I've heard of an elementary school being shot up. Though I can think of a very, very old incident where one was bombed...

This?

I think the number of victims and their ages will attract the most attention...

I can think of a much more recent one in my very own hometown. I knew two classmates who were there that day, one of whom was wounded in the leg.

Cleveland School massacre of 1989 in Stockton, CA

[Edi]

Only saw this thing in the morning paper today.

This is the kind of crime that is practically impossible to prevent. Gun restrictions or no gun restrictions in the state, there are several things in play. It was seemingly a premeditated act by a lone gunman who gave no indications of his plans, so no possibility to intercept beforehand. He went in, shot his mother (a teacher) and then killed the kids.

He has the initiative, so doesn't matter if the teacher in the class is a trained soldier, if he/she doesn't see it coming, the reactive nature of the defense response means that it's game over before it even begins.

[His Divine Shadow]

I am wondering if China is doing the right thing sometimes by quelling the media circuses whenever they get one of those knife stabbing sprees. Maybe it helps, I dunno. I can't just help but think if we hadn't had a media frenzy since the days of columbine every time this happened and put the concept of school shootings so solidly into the mind of the populace, we wouldn't be in this fucking mess as bad as we are

[Broomstick]

There have been mass killings since probably forever. These days we hear more about them, and we have more efficient weaponry than a couple centuries ago. On the flip side, merely having weapons available doesn't trigger a mass shooting/bombing/knifing/whatever.

I'm more more interested in finding out the causes of such incidents. As Edi noted, this is the kind of perpetrator almost impossible to stop in advance as there are no prior red flags (that we know of) that would indicate that this particular person would snap and become a mass murderer. It's not simply that when we psychologically dissect these guys after the fact we seem to invariably find a loner who has suffered some sort of abuse/bullying, but that these particular individuals go on to kill multiple people rather than one or two, or commit suicide. Most disaffected loners, alienated outcasts, victims of abuse and/or bullying, and the like don't go on to commit even one murder, much less dozens in a single day. The ones who do are very much exceptions. I don't find it sufficient just to say they're crazy, that's dodging the difficult questions not answering them.

[Aaron MkII]

There have been mass killings since probably forever. These days we hear more about them, and we have more efficient weaponry than a couple centuries ago. On the flip side, merely having weapons available doesn't trigger a mass shooting/bombing/knifing/whatever.

I'm more more interested in finding out the causes of such incidents. As Edi noted, this is the kind of perpetrator almost impossible to stop in advance as there are no prior red flags (that we know of) that would indicate that this particular person would snap and become a mass murderer. It's not simply that when we psychologically dissect these guys after the fact we seem to invariably find a loner who has suffered some sort of abuse/bullying, but that these particular individuals go on to kill multiple people rather than one or two, or commit suicide. Most disaffected loners, alienated outcasts, victims of abuse and/or bullying, and the like don't go on to commit even one murder, much less dozens in a single day. The ones who do are very much exceptions. I don't find it sufficient just to say they're crazy, that's dodging the difficult questions not answering them.

If you want some interesting reading you should find the coroner's report on the Montreal massacre here in 1989. The popular conception is that Marc Lepine was an insane mysgionist (ugh, he hated woman) but what the coroner found is that he was abused by his father, an immigrant and that as a son of an immigrant he was ostracised by Quebec's culture.

[Broomstick]

In that case I'd say the misogyny was not a cause of the massacre but an influence on it. The root cause probably stemmed from the abuse, although of course abuse does not invariably lead to massacres (thank goodness). So... is there anything in common between people who suffer abuse who lash out by killing bunches of other people vs. the vast majority of such victims who don't do this?

[Aaron MkII]

In that case I'd say the misogyny was not a cause of the massacre but an influence on it. The root cause probably stemmed from the abuse, although of course abuse does not invariably lead to massacres (thank goodness). So... is there anything in common between people who suffer abuse who lash out by killing bunches of other people vs. the vast majority of such victims who don't do this?

I wish I had an answer for you.

[Broomstick]

I wish anyone had an answer to that one. It's a hard question, so much easier to blame a gun or a knife or violent games or some other thing.

Even if we had an answer to that question would it give us anything useful to work with?

[Aaron MkII]

Maybe, maybe not. When we get down to it, our track record and understanding of mental illness is terrible.

[ray245]

I do not think so. If it is going to be so hard to find out what are the signs of a person willing to commit mass murder, we probably will not know until it is too late. These people are so close to the edge that a little push is enough to drive them to commit murder.

[Broomstick]

No one is born compelled to murder. Something drives people to that brink. It's not so much a matter of "how do we stop people on a hair trigger?" as "how do we prevent people from getting that close to creating a massacre?"

I agree, our understanding of mental illness is terrible. We don't know how many people have this potential (a few? a minority? most?), how many are subjected to the stimuli that can induce this, how many of those people have sufficient/effective intervention (knowing or unknowning) that short-circuits the process, and so on. I don't think there is an easy answer, but shrugging our shoulders and saying it's hopeless and unpredictable won't help anything, either.

[Aaron MkII]

Fucking boggles the mind that a President can go on TV, cry during the press conference and nothing will happen.

"Not the time"

So when is?

[Broomstick]

On another message board I saw someone post that if the price of retaining their guns is the occasional massacre that is a price they would be willing to pay. That is not to say this person thought such killing acceptable, he doesn't, but that he thinks the harm to society in disarming the country is worse than the harm of a rare massacre.

(Do note that is NOT my own opinion!)

In the face of an opinion like that no demonstration of grief is going to sway the person's stance. While not all Americans support that stance it most certainly does exist, it's held by more than a tiny sliver of a minority, and that's part of what change is up against.

Or another comparison - automobiles kill ~40,000-50,000 Americans a year, yet there is no impetus to restrict licensing, impose or enforce new laws, and safety changes to vehicles that cost money are resisted fiercely. Apparently, most Americans are will to accept that level of carnage in return for their current driving culture even if there are minorities of them that would prefer a safer even if more restrictive environment.

Likewise, Americans in general want to keep their current gun laws (maybe tweak a few - and not always in the direction of more control/restriction) and want this enough that they won't be swayed by 20 dead children lying in pools of blood in a school in Connecticut. That is what is meant by "gun culture". Keeping weapons is an integral part of US culture, it's even enshrined in the core framework of our government. I'm not sure what a comparable element of culture would be elsewhere but I think its an interesting question to ponder.

[General Zod]

Or another comparison - automobiles kill ~40,000-50,000 Americans a year, yet there is no impetus to restrict licensing, impose or enforce new laws, and safety changes to vehicles that cost money are resisted fiercely. Apparently, most Americans are will to accept that level of carnage in return for their current driving culture even if there are minorities of them that would prefer a safer even if more restrictive environment.

How many of those were done with the intent of killing someone else? The car analogy is a false one since most people don't get behind the wheel drunk or otherwise with the intention of ramming someone down.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Fucking boggles the mind that a President can go on TV, cry during the press conference and nothing will happen.

"Not the time"

So when is?

Given the present American political climate, the answer to that question is probably "about the time you can order Sno-Cones in Hell." You want more money for urban mental health services, poverty relief programs, and job training? Sorry, that's "socialist entitlement spending that only adds to the deficit and steals money from the 'job-creators' that we need to make America great again." And, as others will tell you, when budgets fall into the red, those are the very first things that get axed to make up the deficits.

You want a meaningful discussion on gun control? Sorry, not while the NRA has Congress and President "My head is so far up my ass, I can see the backs of my own teeth" Obama by the balls. Any legislation passed will have to survive legal challenges ad-nauseum based on its compatibility with the Second Amendment. Want to repeal the Second Amendment and replace it with something sensible? Not gonna happen, we Americans like life in the 19th Century, fuck you very much.

There have been, what, fifteen mass shootings in the last twelve months alone, and the White House still says that "Now is not the time," and President Eunuch only promises "meaningful action," which is the polite way of saying "we're going to stick our heads up our asses, like we always do, and hope this blows over and you stupid fucks forget about it and go back to buying big-screen TVs and supersize McHeartattack meals to recover the economy." Americans have this mind-boggling ability to shrug off self-induced clusterfucks like these like it were nothing; when really, what ought to be happening is Americans ought to be writing President Spineless, their local Congresscritters, their Governors, and their local state legislators day-and-night, and staging peaceful, but noisy, mass-protests in front of their local gun shops every day until every last one of them is driven from business. You know . . . exercising their First Amendment rights, instead of letting the Second Amendment and "FREEDOM(tm)" bend them over a barrel and sodomize 'em until they can take a bull elephant without discomfort, like they usually do.

Sorry . . . turning on the radio yesterday to listen to NPR, expecting Science Friday, only to hear live coverage of how yet another crazy, suicidal, asshole with legally-purchased guns turned yet another public place into a shooting gallery mostly ruined my yesterday. I'm just full of rage. Don't mind me.

[Sephirius]

Or another comparison - automobiles kill ~40,000-50,000 Americans a year, yet there is no impetus to restrict licensing, impose or enforce new laws, and safety changes to vehicles that cost money are resisted fiercely. Apparently, most Americans are will to accept that level of carnage in return for their current driving culture even if there are minorities of them that would prefer a safer even if more restrictive environment.

How many of those were done with the intent of killing someone else? The car analogy is a false one since most people don't get behind the wheel drunk or otherwise with the intention of ramming someone down.

I don't think it's an analogy without merit- I think the point being made here is that to the Americans who would accept these sorts of spree killings as a 'price paid' for their rights, the death tolls are just as much a 'force of nature' regardless of the cause, with or without intent.

[Nephtys]

Or another comparison - automobiles kill ~40,000-50,000 Americans a year, yet there is no impetus to restrict licensing, impose or enforce new laws, and safety changes to vehicles that cost money are resisted fiercely. Apparently, most Americans are will to accept that level of carnage in return for their current driving culture even if there are minorities of them that would prefer a safer even if more restrictive environment.

Automobiles are required to be relatively accessable due to their incredible economic impact. Every single human being in the US is directly and very strongly economically affected by automobiles. Stores wouldn't be stocked. Cities would be designed very differently. I couldn't get to work or places of shopping, or groceries without cars.

Guns don't have any economic effect within several orders of magnitude of a car, so it's a false comparison.

[Stark]

I don't think it's an analogy without merit- I think the point being made here is that to the Americans who would accept these sorts of spree killings as a 'price paid' for their rights, the death tolls are just as much a 'force of nature' regardless of the cause, with or without intent.

To really emphasise this, someone should make a wall with the names of everyone who is killed in these large scale examples of gun violence. Hang a sign on it that says 'died for freedom'. The context would be great - maybe even get special comiseration letters that clearly tell parents or relatives that their loved ones died to protect freedom.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

I don't think it's an analogy without merit- I think the point being made here is that to the Americans who would accept these sorts of spree killings as a 'price paid' for their rights, the death tolls are just as much a 'force of nature' regardless of the cause, with or without intent.

This is saying "people are going to die someday anyway, so it doesn't matter how they go". Beyond this, there's the obvious fact that they never think they could be the victims. They are hiding behind such notions as 'personal responsibility' and 'carefulness' like they could save them from an asshole drunk or determined enough to shoot/drive over them. What kind of price for your rights can you be said to accept, when the dead for the sake of these rights are complete unknowns to you? Essentially, you do what the Hebrews did: sacrifice a worthless, faultless animal for the forgiveness of your sins.

Gladly accepting the lives that others give is beyond egoism. Ayn Rand herself would balk at this.

Or another comparison - automobiles kill ~40,000-50,000 Americans a year, yet there is no impetus to restrict licensing, impose or enforce new laws, and safety changes to vehicles that cost money are resisted fiercely. Apparently, most Americans are will to accept that level of carnage in return for their current driving culture even if there are minorities of them that would prefer a safer even if more restrictive environment.

Matter of urgency. Once obvious glaring problems like guns are gone, says their mindset, then we can tackle car safety; a deeper reason can also be that most people use cars way more than guns, so they'd like to focus on guns to forget their own problems. But the morality of these reasons can be debated.

[Broomstick]

Or another comparison - automobiles kill ~40,000-50,000 Americans a year, yet there is no impetus to restrict licensing, impose or enforce new laws, and safety changes to vehicles that cost money are resisted fiercely. Apparently, most Americans are will to accept that level of carnage in return for their current driving culture even if there are minorities of them that would prefer a safer even if more restrictive environment.

How many of those were done with the intent of killing someone else? The car analogy is a false one since most people don't get behind the wheel drunk or otherwise with the intention of ramming someone down.

The vast majority of people who own guns in the US have no intention of using them to kill another human being, either.

[fgalkin]

Then they would have no problem if the guns were restricted to authorized practice ranges, and illegal everywhere else, right?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Jerry the Vampire]

The thing is, guns are made to kill, cars are not.

[Broomstick]

You forget the hunters. A gun man be purchased with the intent to kill food rather than people.

And, apparently, no, many US gun owners are NOT content with restriction to "authorized ranges" even if they are just target shooters.

[General Mung Beans]

Or another comparison - automobiles kill ~40,000-50,000 Americans a year, yet there is no impetus to restrict licensing, impose or enforce new laws, and safety changes to vehicles that cost money are resisted fiercely. Apparently, most Americans are will to accept that level of carnage in return for their current driving culture even if there are minorities of them that would prefer a safer even if more restrictive environment.

Automobiles are required to be relatively accessable due to their incredible economic impact. Every single human being in the US is directly and very strongly economically affected by automobiles. Stores wouldn't be stocked. Cities would be designed very differently. I couldn't get to work or places of shopping, or groceries without cars.

Guns don't have any economic effect within several orders of magnitude of a car, so it's a false comparison.

A better analogy would be alcoholic beverages-besides those that might be used for medicinal purposes, the Lord's Supper, and cookery alcohol is simply a beverage for pleasure which however causes tens of thousands of death of each year from both various alcoholic illnesses and drinking and driving.

[General Zod]

Or another comparison - automobiles kill ~40,000-50,000 Americans a year, yet there is no impetus to restrict licensing, impose or enforce new laws, and safety changes to vehicles that cost money are resisted fiercely. Apparently, most Americans are will to accept that level of carnage in return for their current driving culture even if there are minorities of them that would prefer a safer even if more restrictive environment.

How many of those were done with the intent of killing someone else? The car analogy is a false one since most people don't get behind the wheel drunk or otherwise with the intention of ramming someone down.

The vast majority of people who own guns in the US have no intention of using them to kill another human being, either.

That has . . . absolutely no bearing on the point I just made.

Out of all the people who were killed with guns in the last year alone, how many of their deaths do you think were caused without any intent on part of the person using the gun? Or do you still want to insist that the car analogy is relevant?