Let's think about mass shootings.

[pimpdave]

(1) Why is it that schools seem to be the usual site for such events?

They are described that way in training manuals we've seized from Tea Party Death Squads.

(2) Recall in the 90s that mass shootings were more commonly occurring in corporate spaces, but since the 2000s, that's no longer case. What explains this?

The rise of the Tea Party and their Death Squads, obviously.

[Symmetry]

(1) Why is it that schools seem to be the usual site for such events?

(2) Recall in the 90s that mass shootings were more commonly occurring in corporate spaces, but since the 2000s, that's no longer case. What explains this?

It's a form of suicide. Making it more obvious as a quick and easy way to die makes it more common.

[AAFitz]

because children make people act emotionally and killers learn that the fucking dumbass mainstream media will talk about them for months and make them famous if they shoot up a school

I think this is unfortunately the root of the problem.

Wiping out a bunch of accountants, just doesn't have the same impact as schoolkids.

There isn't perhaps a more emotional target possible.

I would however use the word infamous there john, not famous.

[AAFitz]

(1) Why is it that schools seem to be the usual site for such events?

They are described that way in training manuals we've seized from Tea Party Death Squads.

(2) Recall in the 90s that mass shootings were more commonly occurring in corporate spaces, but since the 2000s, that's no longer case. What explains this?

The rise of the Tea Party and their Death Squads, obviously.

You might be pushing it on this one. I love the other parodies because they really do mirror some of the ridiculous threads this forum has seen, but Im not sure its worth making fun of shooting up schools just for the hell of it at this point. Not that there isn't probably a conservative post it simply parodies somewhere perfectly.

[AAFitz]

It is actually pretty difficult for a zero tolerance policy to be effective because bullying can take place anywhere.

In other words, if bullying is punished severely at schools, or wherever, then bullying will just happen elsewhere....there are situations that cannot be controlled by the Powers That Be.


I think the real solution is much more complicated. I think it involves instilling compassion into the minds and hearts of the youth. If someone is being bullied, the greatest relief comes when another person, or group of people, of the same status (for instance, another person of the same age) steps in and says "That is not okay. Leave him alone."

If people are compassionate, they will befriend the targets of bullies. If they see a "loner", they will make an effort to get to know the person.

Bullying will always be around to some degree. But I think the greatest harm is done when the target of the bully feels all alone. I think bullying is much less traumatic if the target of the bully has a friend he/she can talk to who will reassure him/her that the bully is an asshole.


A number of years ago, I was walking my dogs with my wife. We saw a bully picking on a guy. I think they were about 13 years old (it was outside a school that went to grade eight). The guy being bullied was backing down from a fight with a bigger dumbass looking prick. A big group of kids were behind the big guy, laughing about it. I am sure they were all just happy that it wasn't themselves being singled-out. So the guy backing down was walking away, all alone. It was pretty sad to watch. I felt like saying something to the bully, but I don't think it would have been effective. It might have made things worse the next day. But I noticed another kid who looked torn - he was off to the side and didn't seem happy about what was going on. I asked him "Is that your friend?" He said "Yeah". I said "Then go be with him." He ran after his buddy and walked away with him. I can only imagine that it felt really comforting for the bullied guy to know that he had a friend that would stick by his side.


I really think that punishing bullies alone will not be effective. I think that if children learn to be compassionate, there will not be "loners". There will be a greater acceptance of "oddballs" or the groups of people who don't fit in with the mainstream. Maybe my experience is not common, but when I was in grade school and high school (where I think the vast majority of bullying takes place), "tech geeks" and "music nerds" and other "non-mainstream" groups of people were not bullied. Bullying was not acceptable. I think we all felt a greater sense of empathy that seems to have been lost among the youth in the last few decades.

The Prowler solution: Educate to eradicate.

I like it.

[Symmetry]

because children make people act emotionally and killers learn that the fucking dumbass mainstream media will talk about them for months and make them famous if they shoot up a school

I think this is unfortunately the root of the problem.

Wiping out a bunch of accountants, just doesn't have the same impact as schoolkids.

There isn't perhaps a more emotional target possible.

I would however use the word infamous there john, not famous.

Most mass shootings should be looked at as a form of suicide. Media is partly to blame, but placing the blame solely on reportage seems very wrong.

[john9blue]

Most mass shootings should be looked at as a form of suicide. Media is partly to blame, but placing the blame solely on reportage seems very wrong.

you think that he wouldn't have picked some cooler/better form of suicide if the shooting wouldn't have become national news? any attention at all means a lot to people who feel they are being ignored or marginalized

[Symmetry]

Most mass shootings should be looked at as a form of suicide. Media is partly to blame, but placing the blame solely on reportage seems very wrong.

you think that he wouldn't have picked some cooler/better form of suicide if the shooting wouldn't have become national news? any attention at all means a lot to people who feel they are being ignored or marginalized

Not what I said, of course.

Attention will always be a part of media- railing against something being reported is futile.

[patches70]

I'd be interested to read about the armed guard at Columbine and what they did about the attack if you have link I could check out.

The guard at Columbine was a police officer hired as a school resource officer. When the shooting began the deputy, Neil Gardener, was outside sitting in his patrol car eating lunch.
When the bombs the two gunman had set didn't go off the shooters began blasting people.
Deputy Gardener was called on his radio by a school official that he was needed in the senior parking lot. He assumed one of the students had been struck by a car. Then moments later he got the call on his radio from another school employee that there was a shooter in the school.

Neil Gardener had at least two fire fights with the shooters. Unfortunately the deputy wasn't wearing his prescription glasses and wasn't able to see very well and no one was hit (either he or the gunmen) in either fire fight. Gardener immediately called for back up.

The first police officer on the scene was a motorcycle cop who just happened to be very close. He drove is motorcycle off road across a field to reach the school quickly.

Gardener didn't get into the school. He had his firefights with the gunman from outside while they were inside. SWAT entered the school and began clearing it room by room but by then the shooters were already dead from self inflicted gun wounds.

It was reported that normally, Neil Gardener would eat his lunch in the cafeteria with the students. On this particular day he was outside sitting in his car eating lunch.

Just a wrinkle I guess, bad luck. If he had been in the cafeteria maybe he would have noticed the shooters planting numerous bombs around the place (or maybe not). If he had been inside the school when the shootings began, who knows, maybe it would have turned out different. It's not really worth trying to second guess that stuff, though.

By the time the first fire fight between Gardener and the shooters happened, two were dead and ten wounded. The shooters themselves started outside, killing two students before actually entering the school and massacring more students.

[Borderdawg]

I'd be interested to read about the armed guard at Columbine and what they did about the attack if you have link I could check out.

The guard at Columbine was a police officer hired as a school resource officer. When the shooting began the deputy, Neil Gardener, was outside sitting in his patrol car eating lunch.
When the bombs the two gunman had set didn't go off the shooters began blasting people.
Deputy Gardener was called on his radio by a school official that he was needed in the senior parking lot. He assumed one of the students had been struck by a car. Then moments later he got the call on his radio from another school employee that there was a shooter in the school.

Neil Gardener had at least two fire fights with the shooters. Unfortunately the deputy wasn't wearing his prescription glasses and wasn't able to see very well and no one was hit (either he or the gunmen) in either fire fight. Gardener immediately called for back up.

The first police officer on the scene was a motorcycle cop who just happened to be very close. He drove is motorcycle off road across a field to reach the school quickly.

Gardener didn't get into the school. He had his firefights with the gunman from outside while they were inside. SWAT entered the school and began clearing it room by room but by then the shooters were already dead from self inflicted gun wounds.

It was reported that normally, Neil Gardener would eat his lunch in the cafeteria with the students. On this particular day he was outside sitting in his car eating lunch.

Just a wrinkle I guess, bad luck. If he had been in the cafeteria maybe he would have noticed the shooters planting numerous bombs around the place (or maybe not). If he had been inside the school when the shootings began, who knows, maybe it would have turned out different. It's not really worth trying to second guess that stuff, though.

By the time the first fire fight between Gardener and the shooters happened, two were dead and ten wounded. The shooters themselves started outside, killing two students before actually entering the school and massacring more students.

Also, I believe at the time the standard procedure for LEOs at a shooting/hostage situation was to hold position outside a building where a shooter was known to be until SWAT arrived. Most departments have since changed that policy, now instructing officers to pursue and engage an active shooter.

[kentington]

because children make people act emotionally and killers learn that the fucking dumbass mainstream media will talk about them for months and make them famous if they shoot up a school

I think this is unfortunately the root of the problem.

Wiping out a bunch of accountants, just doesn't have the same impact as schoolkids.

There isn't perhaps a more emotional target possible.

I would however use the word infamous there john, not famous.

Most mass shootings should be looked at as a form of suicide. Media is partly to blame, but placing the blame solely on reportage seems very wrong.

I agree. If there was no media there would still be mass killing attempts. The killers aren't sane and attention isn't the sole reason these people are choosing to kill.
It is also the media's job to report these situations. If they didn't they would be blamed for not informing us, allowing more of the shootings to happen.

[john9blue]

because children make people act emotionally and killers learn that the fucking dumbass mainstream media will talk about them for months and make them famous if they shoot up a school

I think this is unfortunately the root of the problem.

Wiping out a bunch of accountants, just doesn't have the same impact as schoolkids.

There isn't perhaps a more emotional target possible.

I would however use the word infamous there john, not famous.

Most mass shootings should be looked at as a form of suicide. Media is partly to blame, but placing the blame solely on reportage seems very wrong.

I agree. If there was no media there would still be mass killing attempts. The killers aren't sane and attention isn't the sole reason these people are choosing to kill.
It is also the media's job to report these situations. If they didn't they would be blamed for not informing us, allowing more of the shootings to happen.

this argument is only valid if the shootings pose a clear and present threat to the american population (they don't)

right now it's having the reverse effect of making people rally around strict gun-control laws that make them MORE vulnerable to criminals.

[jonesthecurl]

Let's imagine armed guards at every school, and armed teachers.
Do you let the kids in the playground at recess?
Do you have a bullet-proof glass corridor to the school bus?
Do you arm all the crossing guards?
I can personally see the school where my kids went when we moved here from my front porch. With a sniper's rifle I could pick off a dozen or so through the windows before they figured out where I was.
What about when the kids come out for a fire drill?
What about the local ice cream parlor?
Playground?
Cinema?

Little league games?
Halloween parades?
Sunday Schools?
Summer camps?
YMCA?

[patches70]

Also, I believe at the time the standard procedure for LEOs at a shooting/hostage situation was to hold position outside a building where a shooter was known to be until SWAT arrived. Most departments have since changed that policy, now instructing officers to pursue and engage an active shooter.

I think you are right about that. I remember a lot of people were asking why it took so long for the police to finally enter the building. By the time the police did get in there it was far too late.

The quicker a shooter(s) can be engaged, probably the better.

[AAFitz]

because children make people act emotionally and killers learn that the fucking dumbass mainstream media will talk about them for months and make them famous if they shoot up a school

I think this is unfortunately the root of the problem.

Wiping out a bunch of accountants, just doesn't have the same impact as schoolkids.

There isn't perhaps a more emotional target possible.

I would however use the word infamous there john, not famous.

Most mass shootings should be looked at as a form of suicide. Media is partly to blame, but placing the blame solely on reportage seems very wrong.

Im sorry. I did not mean the media was to blame, but that the choice of a school, was far more emotionally charged, and I actually didn't mean for the country as a whole, but the actual people in the area.

Im not suggesting he chose a school for more coverage, but that any coverage would be more enraging.

The question was about why they chose schools over say a market or a senior center. The act it self is obviously a suicidal rage designed to just do as much damage on the way out as possible.

[AAFitz]

Most mass shootings should be looked at as a form of suicide. Media is partly to blame, but placing the blame solely on reportage seems very wrong.

you think that he wouldn't have picked some cooler/better form of suicide if the shooting wouldn't have become national news? any attention at all means a lot to people who feel they are being ignored or marginalized

I myself dont believe it is the media attention itself that was to blame. I think it was more personal, and the harm he wanted to inflict was to the people that were inflicted the most. He obviously was so filled with homicidal rage, he wanted to cause pain. I actually doubt he cared what the rest of the country thought.

He wanted to inflict pain and suffering to those people in that school, and anything else would have been coincidental at that point, and hardly the main justification.

[stahrgazer]

Most mass shootings should be looked at as a form of suicide. Media is partly to blame, but placing the blame solely on reportage seems very wrong.

you think that he wouldn't have picked some cooler/better form of suicide if the shooting wouldn't have become national news? any attention at all means a lot to people who feel they are being ignored or marginalized

I myself dont believe it is the media attention itself that was to blame. I think it was more personal, and the harm he wanted to inflict was to the people that were inflicted the most. He obviously was so filled with homicidal rage, he wanted to cause pain. I actually doubt he cared what the rest of the country thought.

He wanted to inflict pain and suffering to those people in that school, and anything else would have been coincidental at that point, and hardly the main justification.

Agree with Fitz here. Media attention is coincidental. If it was just "media attention" the guy wanted, he'd have gone after his governor or the president or something, even if it would probably fail. But no, instead he wanted to inflict terror, pain, and suffering, as much as possible. I even think picking the school was only because he was familiar with it and knew he could inflict a lot of pain and suffering and terrorize little kids while he was at it (in other words, I don't buy folks' theory that he had a vendetta against those kids.)

[john9blue]

you guys are right to some extent... i dunno, if my goal was "kill as many people as possible" i'd use bombs or poison or something instead of guns. maybe the guy isn't that "sane" though...

[jonesthecurl]

Let's imagine armed guards at every school, and armed teachers.
Do you let the kids in the playground at recess?
Do you have a bullet-proof glass corridor to the school bus?
Do you arm all the crossing guards?
I can personally see the school where my kids went when we moved here from my front porch. With a sniper's rifle I could pick off a dozen or so through the windows before they figured out where I was.
What about when the kids come out for a fire drill?
What about the local ice cream parlor?
Playground?
Cinema?

Little league games?
Halloween parades?
Sunday Schools?
Summer camps?
YMCA?

Swimming pool?
Beach?
Sports day?
Zoo?

[pimpdave]

(1) Why is it that schools seem to be the usual site for such events?

They are described that way in training manuals we've seized from Tea Party Death Squads.

(2) Recall in the 90s that mass shootings were more commonly occurring in corporate spaces, but since the 2000s, that's no longer case. What explains this?

The rise of the Tea Party and their Death Squads, obviously.

You might be pushing it on this one. I love the other parodies because they really do mirror some of the ridiculous threads this forum has seen, but Im not sure its worth making fun of shooting up schools just for the hell of it at this point. Not that there isn't probably a conservative post it simply parodies somewhere perfectly.

You need to always ask yourself about Poe's Law, when it comes to these kinds of questions.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50138860n

[pimpdave]

Let's imagine armed guards at every school, and armed teachers.
Do you let the kids in the playground at recess?
Do you have a bullet-proof glass corridor to the school bus?
Do you arm all the crossing guards?
I can personally see the school where my kids went when we moved here from my front porch. With a sniper's rifle I could pick off a dozen or so through the windows before they figured out where I was.
What about when the kids come out for a fire drill?
What about the local ice cream parlor?
Playground?
Cinema?

Little league games?
Halloween parades?
Sunday Schools?
Summer camps?
YMCA?

Swimming pool?
Beach?
Sports day?
Zoo?

Sleepaway camp hosted by local Catholic church in which priests give individual, private "counseling" sessions to the boys?

[BigBallinStalin]

Is the following everything?


(1) Why is it that schools seem to be the usual site for such events?
(a) gun-free zone
(b) increase in cyber bullying
(c) armed security does (not) matter
(d) children are easier to kill
(e) shooters were emotionally harmed here
(f) bullying
(g) lack of compassion
(h) desire for suicide
(j) for better media exposure

(2) Recall in the 90s that mass shootings were more commonly occurring in corporate spaces, but since the 2000s, that's no longer case. What explains this?
(a) relatively lesser media exposure
(b) improved HR resources
(c) armed security does (not) matter
(d) TPDS
(e) desire for suicide

[john9blue]

what are these corporate shootings that you're talking about? did they happen before or after columbine?

[BigBallinStalin]

what are these corporate shootings that you're talking about? did they happen before or after columbine?

I've been delaying my posts ITT because I can't find the source, and I don't feel like finding an article that compares mass killings in public entities v. private entities, while separating 'public entities' by category (e.g. schools, USPS, military facilities, etc.) and 'private' by corporate space and private schools, sooooo.....


Gonna have to switch tracks on this one. To be continued...


(also the 'media coverage' may have traction, because there have been several "office killings" in the past few years, but I really don't recall hearing about any of them. Perhaps dead children do make better news!)

[stahrgazer]

Maybe something like this, bbs...
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

The killers: Half of the cases involved school or workplace shootings (12 and 19, respectively); the other 31 cases took place in locations including shopping malls, restaurants, and religious and government buildings.

Based on this, 19 workplace shootings would equate to "corporate spaces" right?