dark topic

[trseaman]

Agreed...

I always like how the first thing you hear is how "the system" has failed the shooter... Like he is the victim! (Poor fella, he never had a chance... )

And of course their face is the first and sometimes the only face you see in the media...

Tim

[Richardrichard9]

I don't think it woudl completely stop it, but for the most part. After Virginia Tech, there were plenty of school occurances. Such as here in Rochester (RIT) there was a bomb threat. Mostly because they wanted the attention that the V.T. shooter got.

[The Jackson]

Your theory is very sound, but what about this:

How would the general public (potential killers included) know that that these kinds of shootings were going on and the media was intentionally not showing them? Without some kind of display by the media to the people, the example would not be set. I'm not sure if word-of-mouth/Internet/what-have-you could get the kind of widespread delivery your theory requires.

I'm not saying it can't be played out, but how would it without giving those people what they want? Maybe a parent-like "This is your last warning" type thing, or what?

[Richardrichard9]

I think what bloke was getting at was that the media not mention the shooters name. They can still report on the incident, but they don't have to give so much attention to the shooter. They seem to (atleast on CNN) give more attention to the shooter than the actual victims.

[eupher61]

Sicko psycho mentality doesn't really care about the fame.

[windshieldbug]

Chicken or Egg.

Does the perpetrator first decide that he (it's always a HE, by the way... ) decide to take someone specific out FIRST and then decide to make a big splash of it,

-or-

does the perpetrator decide to make a big splash, and while he's doing it, take out someone that has committed a perceived wrong to them?

Keep your chickens AND eggs far, far away, thanks

[Doug@GT]

I disagree, simply because I think the people are more rational than that.

Someone who actually "wants to be noticed" probably also wants to savor that notoriety. A suicidal (either due to their own actions or those of rescuers) shooting-spree is not likely to provide the opportunity to enjoy one's fame.

To draw a really dark analogy, it would be like a soloist refusing to receive any applause for his or her performance. What inferences would we draw about that kind of person? Certainly not that they perform to be noticed.

On the other hand, I don't have a real alternative theory either. I understand shooting sprees about as much as I understand racism. Which is to say, not at all. It seems to be a mindset I can't even begin to fathom. So I don't look at the mentality of the actor, just the action. And the action is deplorable. What's the solution? Like others said, Joe's idea might do some good, but it will never happen without some authority violating other principles Joe believes in (like freedom )

[Mojo workin']

Another step could be to unravel all of the nonsense laws that have been passed infringing on 2nd ammendment rights. If Johnny's mom and dad didn't pay him enough attention when he was a kid, and he's decided to show everyone by killing a bunch of his classmates, he might think twice if there is the knowledge that one of his classmates could possibly be packing heat. True, the original example was that of the suicidal psychopath, but even so, they might not want to go out in a gun battle, rather than simply an attack.

[Biggs]

I have a theory about these people who decide to go into schools / fast food joints / post offices / work places / churches / day care centers / malls / universities, etc., shoot a bunch of people, and then blow their own brains out.

1/ Obviously, they're quite deranged, but

2/ With the fairly extensive planning that goes into these acts, they're quite aware of what they're doing.

My theory is this:

They would NOT do this if they could not KNOW FOR CERTAIN that their NAME would be mentioned over-and-over on national T.V., radio, and print media.

If the media would REFRAIN from mentioning the names of these people ...not even mention it ONCE...I believe it would all stop.

-------------------------------------------------------------

How close to on-target do you think my theory is regarding this?

This makes no sense. Mass murders predate mass media. Thus, there must be some motivation that is not derived from news coverage of these tragedies.

If someone is "quite deranged," what they "know for certain" may be very different from reality.

[KevinMadden]

Another step could be to unravel all of the nonsense laws that have been passed infringing on 2nd ammendment rights. If Johnny's mom and dad didn't pay him enough attention when he was a kid, and he's decided to show everyone by killing a bunch of his classmates, he might think twice if there is the knowledge that one of his classmates could possibly be packing heat. True, the original example was that of the suicidal psychopath, but even so, they might not want to go out in a gun battle, rather than simply an attack.

Because the best way to solve the problem of guns in schools is more guns in schools.
(Granted I would like to learn how to fire a gun well, and own a gun, I not completely against the idea of bearing arms, but certainly wouldn't have it in class with me)

Unfortunately, Mass murders and senseless acts of violence are an unpredictable and unpreventable problem. I do agree with Bloke though, many shootings are found out to be cries for attention.. and we give them that attention, albeit after the shooters death.

[iiipopes]

Bullshit. You're all bullshit. I have over two decades experience in criminal law, both on the defense side of the table and the prosecution side of the table.

The only commonality is that these are not completely rational acts, so there is no generalization that can be made for motive. Sometimes notority or infamy is the motive. Other times it is stress breakdown, revenge, perceived desperation, or other mental states or circumstances that provide the motive.

Since we live in a country that has as a popular interpretation of the Second Amendment as requiring civilian access to firearms, they will be readily available for such unless and until that interpretation is changed by statute or court decision.

And no matter the circumstances, criminals who are determined to commit their crimes will find access to the means of committing their crimes, regardless of any type of controls or limitations on access to firearms or other instruments of crime, or the lack thereof. That is the fundamental reason the criminal justice system exists.

It is part of the fundamental human condition that has existed, for those of monotheistic beliefs, since the fall of Adam and Cain got jealous of Abel and killed him. Regardless of any other philosophy or point of view, this will continue for the duration of human existence. The best that anyone can do is work towards mitigating the circumstances that give rise to such, to try to prevent them, whether that be in the context of religion, social work, or even more basic, more attention to good parenting.

[windshieldbug]

Mass murders predate mass media

True, but with notable exceptions, they used to be limited to 2-3 people. Again, I can't pinpoint what begat what, but the Iran hostage crisis started "Nightline". Fast forward a few decades. Now you have 24/7 "news" stations, which aren't enough bad information fast enough, so we have the "news crawl". Network news, OK, but how do you propose stopping all the on site cell-phones, phone pictures, and even blokes fish testing the outside world. And what about Al Gore's 'net!?

[lgb&dtuba]

Times have certainly changed. Back when I was in high school a kid brought several guns to school. It was part of his science fair project on comparing and matching fired bullets. He had two 55 gallon drums welded into a tall water filled tower that he fired into to recover the bullets.

No one thought much about it.

Today it's a federal crime to bring a firearm onto educational property.

Yes, times and people have certainly changed.

[Doug@GT]

Doug, "freedom of the press" and "discretion of the press" are two completely different things. If you flip through the T.V. channels every night, these concepts are easy to understand and to separate.

Right--that was my point, albeit probably not very well put. I was arguing basically that the press is never going to voluntarily exercise discretion. So the only way to get them to would be to impinge on their freedom.

Either way, I still don't think exercise of this discretion would do much good. I will look into your assertion that these shooting sprees didn't use to happen, since I am rather young.

[Mojo workin']

Bullshit. You're all bullshit.

Enter the room shouting everyone down. I have no problem believing you're in criminal law.

And no matter the circumstances, criminals who are determined to commit their crimes will find access to the means of committing their crimes, regardless of any type of controls or limitations on access to firearms or other instruments of crime, or the lack thereof. That is the fundamental reason the criminal justice system exists

So how is my point of allowing responsible, non-criminal citizens to arm themselves against criminals so far out?

[Mojo workin']

gun totin' seventh graders !

All due respect, my advocacy was for adults only. No, guns don't belong in the hands of kids.

[windshieldbug]

IF YOU mess with a dope AT ALL - or allow your children to do so

That's not a very nice way to talk about me

[lgb&dtuba]

I will look into your assertion that these shooting sprees didn't use to happen, since I am rather young.

I'm not young, but looking into it seems like a good idea. So I googled "20th century mass shootings" and found this very interesting article:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3063882

The conclusions of the study cited take the reasons in a very different direction than we have discussed her so far. One quote from the article:

"Criminologist Fox speculates that the increasing popularity of workplace killings, and public shootings generally, may be partly due to decreasing economic security and increasing inequality. America increasingly rewards its winners with a disproportionate share of wealth and adoration, while treating its losers to a heaping helping of public shame."

Another quote:

"In fact, Duwe found that mass murder was just as common during the 1920s and early 1930s as it is today. The difference is that then, mass murderers tended to be failed farmers who killed their families because they could no longer provide for them, then killed themselves. "

There are any number of other interesting things in that article. It's worth taking a few minutes to read.

[Doug@GT]

Thanks for the link, Jim. I do agree with Bloke, though--that guy does seem to be introducing a lot of extraneous ideology into his analysis.

On the other hand, might Bloke be concerned that if losers are treated with "public shame," it would knock a hole in his "want to be noticed" theory?

As far as schools go, there is a statistic worth repeating: the average middle school, high school, or college can expect an on-campus homicide about once every 12,000 years.

I'll take those odds.



Doug "the real problem in schools is expressed best by The Onion"

[lgb&dtuba]

"Criminologist Fox speculates that the increasing popularity of workplace killings, and public shootings generally, may be partly due to decreasing economic security and increasing inequality. America increasingly rewards its winners with a disproportionate share of wealth and adoration, while treating its losers to a heaping helping of public shame."

I respect your ability to find pertinent sources and bring them to us, but I discount this particular source and comment as typical "newspeak"/political spin. All sorts of classic Marxist/Leninist buzzwords are found within just that one sentence.

bloke "no politics (please) "

Interesting.

Well, don't take that one paragraph out of context. Marxist interpretations are not really the slant the article was taking and I assure you that's not where I'm coming from. Looking at the paragraph in isolation I can see why you interpreted it that way, though.

The real point of this particular article in the context of this thread was that mass shootings are not a recent phenomenom, as has been asserted, and that if there's a common trait to the shooters (besides insanity) it's that they've been retaliating for real or imagined injuries and are "getting even". Going postal.