News Why Would an Adult Target Kindergarten Students in a Shooting?

[OmCheeto]

Letter from John to his best friend Jack Pinto.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout...own-shooting-victim-jack-pinto-191902176.html

To be six again.

I remember my friend Rusty, an inuit child, of my generation.

Good night Jack. We will always share a birthday. :)

 

[Pythagorean]

Hrmm... I've realized that I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the title of this thread, as it emphasizes the perpetrator over the victims.

 

[Evo]

Hrmm... I've realized that I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the title of this thread, as it emphasizes the perpetrator over the victims.

It was meant to be about the perpetrator.

Someone just decided to start adding news about the victims. That might have been best left out of this thread and to the news to keep them separate. But I'll allow it unless more people are against it.

 

[Darwin123]

I've seen very well written posts by you in the past, with thoughtfulness & sensible logic. However you comment here...simply out of context.

This isn't about some third world country governed via violence & fear. It is not how things are done here.


If there was ever a "Good" reason for a public stoning...it's preventing this from ever happening again. (please America do not put armed guards in PS)

The justice argument works a little for me. I am not arguing against extreme penalties per se. Yes, my internal justice meter says that some miscreants deserve extreme punishment, maybe more than stoning. I do accept the justice argument. Punishments appropriate to a crime is good in theory. However, like gun control it is not a panacea.

Lanza anticipated you. He killed himself. By doing so, he avoided serious penalty. A lot of the mass murderers now are immediately killing themselves.

Extreme penalties (death, torture) aren't really a deterrent for people who are willing to kill themselves anyway. This type of suicide-murder has been going on for some time. This type of suicide-murder may be becoming more common because of the Islamo-fascist suicide bombers. People see that most of them avoided society's anger. Extreme penalties don't work very effectively as a deterrent when people think they can escape the consequences of their actions.

Extreme penalties may help innocent people a little. It probably deters the professional killer a little bit. Of course, a true professional stands very little chance of getting caught. However, it may stop some from starting out. Extreme penalties may make some of the families feel better. I think this is an important consideration. Some families will feel worse. However, you may be partly right.

I wouldn't be so set against stoning and hanging if I didn't see how our Middle Eastern "friends" use it. They do manage to eliminate most crime in their countries. They hang young girls for sarcasm. They hang women for adultery. I am not even sure most of those women are guilty of adultery. They think that capital punishment applied in such a arbitrary way reduces crime. It probably does. I am not sure that capital punishment would reduce crime if it wasn't used in such a arbitrary way.

Society gets really upset when it turns out that an innocent person gets an extreme penalty. It is impossible to eliminate the chance of a false conviction without letting a lot of evil people free. When one tries to be so careful that no one innocent is convicted, then the deterrence goes away. The murderer knows that he has a good chance of escaping when the laws are too careful. I don't know what the balance is between saving people with deterrence.

Note that there are many psychopaths who are good at shifting the blame to other people. They get an innocent part to either take the blame, or even just share the blame. The extra damage done on the innocent person is part of the turn on by the psychopath. The more pain the innocent person gets, the more thrill the psychopath gets. So an extreme penalty can also be an incentive to some pyscho's. It adds to the thrill.


People who kill themselves have escaped punishment. We could see a dozen happenings like what happened in that school, and not catch a single one of them alive. On the occasion that we do catch one, the very publicity associated with his punishment highlights the fact that the others got away with it "completely".

Some one who does something not nearly as bad could be stoned because a law was set up while people were still mad at Lanza. If he later turns out to be innocent, there will be this big hue and cry to remove capital punishment altogether.

So I would be really careful about setting up extreme penalties while everyone is angry. I am not against capital punishment. However, gut reactions on such a matter are as dangerous as people like Lanza.

 

[Pythagorean]

It was meant to be about the perpetrator.

Someone just decided to start adding news about the victims. That might have been best left out of this thread and to the news to keep them separate. But I'll allow it unless more people are against it.

I just mean that I don't think the perp should get so much attention.

 

[Evo]

I just mean that I don't think the perp should get so much attention.

I'd have to agree with you. While the crimes are heinous, complete annonimity might discourage copy cats. If no one knows who they are, could be less of a compelling reason to do in some cases.

 

[Astronuc]

Someone just decided to start adding news about the victims.

I'm guilty. Firstly, I think the victims are more important than the perpetrator. Secondly, in the first 24 hours or so, there was a lot of misinformation and hearsay, and mostly speculation about the event, the perpetrator and his motives, as well as a lot of commentary about access to guns or gun control.

American-born Nicole and her British-born husband Ian previously spoke about their 'gorgeous angel' who was found dead in the arms of his favourite teacher, Anne Marie Murphy.

The special needs teacher, who was laid to rest following her own funeral in New York on Thursday, had tried to shield the young boy from the bullets, but also lost her life.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ms-Funeral-Dylan-Hockley-6.html#ixzz2FoIY1Un5

Funerals were also held for Olivia Engel, 6, Madeline Hsu, 6, Grace McDonnell, 7

On Saturday, services for Josephine Grace, Ana Marquez-Greene, Emilie Parker, which I believe are the last three of the funerals.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/22/newtown-victim-funerals-saturday_n_2351419.html


I should point out that this thread was a tough job to moderate, and Evo took it on. I think she did a decent job.

 

[encorp]

I'd have to agree with you. While the crimes are heinous, complete annonimity might discourage copy cats. If no one knows who they are, could be less of a compelling reason to do in some cases.

The media would never have that.

In the guise of journalism they run with these things, creating "profile of a killer" and painting them in whichever way draws viewers, readers, etc

Lanza got what he wanted, to be paid attention to - it seems it's a shame he wasn't taken care of before this happened. Those kids might still be here.

This is more a case of mental healthcare than anything, really. My resolution would be to pump billions into mental health research and social programs to help mothers, like Lanza's who may be unable to cope with the needs of their child. Then maybe we can start saving children from their minds, and others from the guns those minds could wield.

 

[Evo]

I'm guilty. Firstly, I think the victims are more important than the perpetrator. Secondly, in the first 24 hours or so, there was a lot of misinformation and hearsay, and mostly speculation about the event, the perpetrator and his motives, as well as a lot of commentary about access to guns or gun control.

It just feels creepy, to me, to include the victims in the same thread. The victims should be given more respect. But maybe it's just me that doesn't want them thrown together with discussion of their killer like this, out of respect for them.

 

[Astronuc]

The media would never have that.

In the guise of journalism they run with these things, creating "profile of a killer" and painting them in whichever way draws viewers, readers, etc

Many in the media seemed to exploit the story.

Lanza got what he wanted, to be paid attention to - it seems it's a shame he wasn't taken care of before this happened. Those kids might still be here.

There are some hints and a lot of unanswered questions regarding Lanza. We'll probably never know. He apparently did a good job of destroying his computer hard drives. Hence, we can probably reasonably conclude a strong intent and motivation.

Mental health officials and criminologists struggle with the inability to develop a predictive capability on any particular individual.

 

[Astronuc]

It just feels creepy, to me, to include the victims in the same thread. The victims should be given more respect. But maybe it's just me that doesn't want them thrown together with discussion of their killer like this, out of respect for them.

Perhaps we should split of those posts into a separate memorial thread. At the time, though, it seemed appropriate to call attention to the victims rather than the perpetrator.

 

[OmCheeto]

I just mean that I don't think the perp should get so much attention.

hmmm... kind of like the notaMorganFreeman internet hoax.

But I agree. To this day, I do not know who killed John Lennon. And I do not care to know the name of the current perp. When Astro posted the names of the children, I went to work finding out something that they and I had in common, as they would just be statistics otherwise. I don't like 6 year old statistics.

I found that one of them shared my birthday. I posted on his obituary this fact, and that I would never forget him, even though, at the time, no pictures of him had been posted. I didn't really need to see a picture of him, as that would just take me back to when I was 6.

hmmm... as always, my mind is filled with too many random thoughts.

ps. Do not let Vera Lynn be carried away by eagles.



pps. Happy Christmas everyone.

 

[Evo]

Perhaps we should split of those posts into a separate memorial thread. At the time, though, it seemed appropriate to call attention to the victims rather than the perpetrator.

It's not necessary, it's all over the media in memorial articles.

 

[encorp]

Many in the media seemed to exploit the story.

There are some hints and a lot of unanswered questions regarding Lanza. We'll probably never know. He apparently did a good job of destroying his computer hard drives. Hence, we can probably reasonably conclude a strong intent and motivation.

Mental health officials and criminologists struggle with the inability to develop a predictive capability on any particular individual.

I agree.

I just can't help but feel there is a connection between mentally ill people "snapping" and the depth to which the rest of society ignores, and pushes them aside.

I'm not sure we can figure out what that connection is, but greater, more organic societal integration of ill people can't hurt.

 

[Astronuc]

I just can't help but feel there is a connection between mentally ill people "snapping" and the depth to which the rest of society ignores, and pushes them aside.

I'm not sure we can figure out what that connection is, but greater, more organic societal integration of ill people can't hurt.

Well, it is often an isolated, really a local issue. Starting in the 1980s, the Federal government started cutting support to states, and states started cutting back programs, particularly mental health, in order to cut spending. Consequently, mentally ill folks were deinstitutionalized, and the only recourse is for them to live in society. For most that's fine, but for some it doesn't work. There have been recent incidences of mentally ill persons harming folks in New York City.

My wife had a front row seat to the developing crisis when she worked at a local mental health facility. She could do very little to help those who represented a potential threat to themselves or others, until they essentially went out and committed a crime, e.g., property crime, drug crime, or violent crime such as assault or homicide.

Generally, people cannot be committend involuntarily, or to be committed, they have to demonstrate, by their actions, that they are harmful to themselves or others. In the extreme case, that harm may be a homicide of some innocent person who just happens to be in the 'wrong place'.

If we learn any details about Lanza's life that might have hinted at his future action, it will be some time. Topics like mental illness and guns as a public health issue are topics for separate threads.

 

[OmCheeto]

It's not necessary, it's all over the media in memorial articles.

Please remember that for some of us, PF is the media.

I really hate the fact that I do not know this little peacenik's name.​

------------------------------
breathe Om, breathe!

 

[gravenewworld]

Can't believe there so many people out there that think arming teachers or having armed guards would stop a school shooting. Did they forget that Columbine had an armed deputy had an armed deputy that couldn't stop the shooting?

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/DEPUTIES_TEXT.htm

 

[nsaspook]

Can't believe there so many people out there that think arming teachers or having armed guards would stop a school shooting. Did they forget that Columbine had an armed deputy had an armed deputy that couldn't stop the shooting?

Ask the Secret Service if they stopped guarding the President after Kennedy was killed, Ford shot at and Reagan was shot. Granted it might not be 100% effective but to use Columbine as a reason not to do it seems strange. That said I think it's a simple-minded dumb idea.

 

[BobG]

Armed guards at schools would reduce the chance of any type of killing in schools, and about 1/3 of schools do have some type of armed security. It would cost about $2.5 billion to provide armed security for the rest.

Part of the funding could come from taxes on firearms and ammunition, but probably not the whole amount. The taxes on firearms and ammunition would rise so high that sales would decrease, lessening the amount of tax money gathered. While the overall weapons industry generates a lot of money, presumably, any taxes would only be applied to domestic sales of small arms, meaning the taxes would have to be very high to generate the entire $2.5 billion.

Plus, one has to wonder whether that's the right place to spend $2.5 billion.

The murder rate for elementary school kids is very low (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0311.pdf ). Murder rate for pre-school age children and younger is at least three times higher than the murder rate for elementary school children, with parents being responsible for over half of those murders.

Murder rates for teenagers skyrockets, more than three times higher than for pre-school kids (Table 311). The high teenage murder rates usually occur outside of school and easy access to firearms could be said to be one reason for the high murder rates (or at least one could say firearms are the most popular murder weapon among teenagers). In fact, most of the schools with armed security are schools with a teenage population (high schools, some middle and junior highs).

 

[enosis_]

Armed guards at schools would reduce the chance of any type of killing in schools, and about 1/3 of schools do have some type of armed security. It would cost about $2.5 billion to provide armed security for the rest.

Part of the funding could come from taxes on firearms and ammunition, but probably not the whole amount. The taxes on firearms and ammunition would rise so high that sales would decrease, lessening the amount of tax money gathered. While the overall weapons industry generates a lot of money, presumably, any taxes would only be applied to domestic sales of small arms, meaning the taxes would have to be very high to generate the entire $2.5 billion.

Plus, one has to wonder whether that's the right place to spend $2.5 billion.

The murder rate for elementary school kids is very low (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0311.pdf ). Murder rate for pre-school age children and younger is at least three times higher than the murder rate for elementary school children, with parents being responsible for over half of those murders.

Murder rates for teenagers skyrockets, more than three times higher than for pre-school kids (Table 311). The high teenage murder rates usually occur outside of school and easy access to firearms could be said to be one reason for the high murder rates (or at least one could say firearms are the most popular murder weapon among teenagers). In fact, most of the schools with armed security are schools with a teenage population (high schools, some middle and junior highs).

I don't think deploying armed guards to stop school shootings is a realistic plan.

The first question to ask is where are these events taking place? IMO - when the discussion turns to guns - we have two problem areas.

The first is crime related (often injuring innocent victims) and the second is the more publicized type (school, theatre, campus, hospital, etc.) On the crime side, weapons might be part of daily life on the street. On the other side, weapons are tools of choice to do whatever crazy plan they've concocted.

In the case of a school shooting, an armed guard is just one additional variable to be avoided - much like a police officer on the street. Again, it's just what I think.

 

[edward]

Ask the Secret Service if they stopped guarding the President after Kennedy was killed, Ford shot at and Reagan was shot. Granted it might not be 100% effective but to use Columbine as a reason not to do it seems strange. That said I think it's a simple-minded dumb idea.

The secret service had always guarded the presidents and always will. Asking if they quit after Kennedy was shot was a strawman.

Anyone ever wonder what the outcome may have been if John Hinckley had been carrying a 9MM Glock with a high capacity magazine instead of a .22 caliber revolver? And no that is not a strawman that just brings us up to date on what we are facing.

My grand son's grade school already has an armed Resource Officer. Depending on the size of the school one officer may not be enough.

The perpetrators of these crimes are going for the easiest target. If we put armed guards at the schools, the only deterrent will be the presence of the guard not the effectiveness. Next they will have to put armed guards on the school buses. Will Junior High basketball games be next?

Each incident presents a different tactical situation especially in a crowd. Will we need snipers at football games.?

The death toll at these types of incidents is related to the sheer firepower that the perpetrator comes with.

There was a citizen armed with a Glock at the Gabriele Gifford's shooting in Tucson. He couldn't get a clear shot.

Loughner allegedly proceeded to fire apparently randomly at other members of the crowd.[2][20] The weapon used was reported to be a 9mm Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol with a 33-round magazine.[21][22] A nearby store employee said he heard "15 to 20 gunshots".[23] Loughner stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his pocket to the sidewalk, from where bystander Patricia Maisch grabbed it .[24] Another bystander clubbed the back of the assailant's head with a folding chair, injuring his elbow in the process, representing the 14th injury.[25] The gunman was then tackled to the ground by 74-year-old retired US Army Colonel Bill Badger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting

 

[skeptic2]

The perpetrators of these crimes are going for the easiest target.

Adam Lanza killed himself. He knew it was going to be a suicide mission. Why would he be concerned about going for the easiest target?

 

[skeptic2]

There is already an estimated 300 million guns in circulation. In a basic nutshell, the realistic answer is that making weapons less available is not an option.

We can however control the situation with bullets.

The same thought occurred to me. In fact restriction of ammunition could be much more flexible than restricting weapons. For instance the purchase of a hunting license could come with a permit for a reasonable number of rounds. Shooting ranges could sell all the ammunition a customer wants but he would not be allowed to take it with him. Home owners would also be allowed reasonable number of rounds for protection.

The idea would be to prevent a gun owner from stockpiling large amounts of ammunition. Different types of ammunition could have different limits. High powered assault rifle ammunition could have lower limits than say.22 rounds.

 

[OmCheeto]

The secret service had always guarded the presidents and always will. Asking if they quit after Kennedy was shot was a strawman.

Anyone ever wonder what the outcome may have been if John Hinckley had been carrying a 9MM Glock with a high capacity magazine instead of a .22 caliber revolver? And no that is not a strawman that just brings us up to date on what we are facing.

My grand son's grade school already has an armed Resource Officer. Depending on the size of the school one officer may not be enough.

The perpetrators of these crimes are going for the easiest target. If we put armed guards at the schools, the only deterrent will be the presence of the guard not the effectiveness. Next they will have to put armed guards on the school buses. Will Junior High basketball games be next?

Each incident presents a different tactical situation especially in a crowd. Will we need snipers at football games.?

The death toll at these types of incidents is related to the sheer firepower that the perpetrator comes with.

There was a citizen armed with a Glock at the Gabriele Gifford's shooting in Tucson. He couldn't get a clear shot.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting

Pennsylvania gunman kills woman in church, two other people before dying in shootout with police

As the gunman fled, his pickup truck crashed into a second vehicle, and he shot and killed the other driver, police said. The truck subsequently crashed into a car driven by one of the troopers on Juniata Valley Road near Geeseytown, and the gunman got out and began firing. The troopers returned fire, killing the suspect, police said.

like a noose...

 

[Skrew]

In regards to Lanzas motives, this is a possibility.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...c-home-targeted-children-loved-loved-him.html

Also I believe I read(can't find the source) that he got into a fight at the school the day before the shooting. It might have been with the school psychologist. If this is the case then it's possible she was going to work with Lanzas mother to commit him.

If this is true then what he did was not random or unguided but an act of what he considerd revenge.

 

[SixNein]

The same thought occurred to me. In fact restriction of ammunition could be much more flexible than restricting weapons. For instance the purchase of a hunting license could come with a permit for a reasonable number of rounds. Shooting ranges could sell all the ammunition a customer wants but he would not be allowed to take it with him. Home owners would also be allowed reasonable number of rounds for protection.

The idea would be to prevent a gun owner from stockpiling large amounts of ammunition. Different types of ammunition could have different limits. High powered assault rifle ammunition could have lower limits than say.22 rounds.

This was exactly my thought process. Bullets have a shelf life, and one can control that variable so much easier than guns. It's flexible and provides lots of options.

A friend of mine also suggested something like a drivers license for guns. People would be required to undergo training, background checks, and the would obtain a license to buy guns and bullets. In every say 4 years, the person would have to undergo the same treatment again to achieve a renewal.

 

[jedishrfu]

I like that idea but was thinking along the lines of a militia. So you want a gun per the second amendment then you have to attend militia training every x months.

 

[CAC1001]

The same thought occurred to me. In fact restriction of ammunition could be much more flexible than restricting weapons. For instance the purchase of a hunting license could come with a permit for a reasonable number of rounds. Shooting ranges could sell all the ammunition a customer wants but he would not be allowed to take it with him. Home owners would also be allowed reasonable number of rounds for protection.

The idea would be to prevent a gun owner from stockpiling large amounts of ammunition. Different types of ammunition could have different limits. High powered assault rifle ammunition could have lower limits than say.22 rounds.

Ammunition is part of the word "arms." The Founders didn't just mean firearms but not the ammunition to use them at the time. Also, there is no such thing as a "high-powered assault rifle" and actual assault rifles are already illegal. Also, what would be bad about stockpiling large amounts of ammunition? If one has 5,000 rounds in their home, they can't use that to go on a shooting spree.

 

[CAC1001]

This was exactly my thought process. Bullets have a shelf life, and one can control that variable so much easier than guns. It's flexible and provides lots of options.

A friend of mine also suggested something like a drivers license for guns. People would be required to undergo training, background checks, and the would obtain a license to buy guns and bullets. In every say 4 years, the person would have to undergo the same treatment again to achieve a renewal.

The problem with gun licensing is that unlike with driver's licenses, the gun control-oriented states do not want the licenses of other states to apply in their states. If you get a driver's license in Texas, and then drive into New York state, your license is perfectly legal there for a temporary period of time. But if you have a license to carry a gun from another state and then bring that gun into New York state, it is illegal for you to carry it at any time. Only if you have a NY state license would it be legal.

But also, what good would gun licensing do to solve the problem of people like Lanza?

 

[CAC1001]

I like that idea but was thinking along the lines of a militia. So you want a gun per the second amendment then you have to attend militia training every x months.

The militia in the Second Amendment refers to the general population, the unorganized militia, not an organized militia created by the government. But also, how would such training work to stop people like a Lanza?