Conquer Club

(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?

Unemployment.

None of these people intends to accomplish anything useful by their shootings. They are just hopeless losers who know they will always be failures, and their homicides are essentially just a prelude to suicide -- a way to get on the evening news and make sure somebody knows who they were and how painful it was to be them.

They've learned through experience that schools will get more news coverage than factories. Just as any Madison Avenue executive, they are leveraging their advertising buck with the maximum possible free exposure.

(1)Cyberbullying?
(2)Improved HR departments?

Simple answer: "Gun Free Zones."

A gun free zone is a lot different than a drug free zone even though you might think they are the same. People who use drugs aren't scared of other people using drugs. But people who use guns are scared others will use guns against them. So the zone give the impression that there will be no one to stop them. In the most recent school example, the gunman killed himself when he finally heard the police arrive.

The whole notion basically boils down to response time. In a rural area it takes time for the police to arrive. In cases like this even ten minutes is far too long. This tends to embolden wackos.

As I said, the answer is simple.

Oh yeah, didn't someone pose the question in an earlier thread as to why the gunman seemed to seek out the only "gun free zone" theater for miles around? The previous post explains that pretty well. Derp.

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

john9blue wrote: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've read the highlighted part about five times and it's significance still eludes me.
Do you mean the environment of a school encourages one to act on emotion?

tzor wrote:Simple answer: "Gun Free Zones."

A gun free zone is a lot different than a drug free zone even though you might think they are the same. People who use drugs aren't scared of other people using drugs. But people who use guns are scared others will use guns against them. So the zone give the impression that there will be no one to stop them. In the most recent school example, the gunman killed himself when he finally heard the police arrive.

The whole notion basically boils down to response time. In a rural area it takes time for the police to arrive. In cases like this even ten minutes is far too long. This tends to embolden wackos.

As I said, the answer is simple.

Columbine had an armed guard. Fort hood was a military base. If a shooter is going to commit suicide after a shooting, then it seems unlikely that someone else being armed is going to scare them away from their goal. All they need is the element of surprise to be successful.

Funkyterrance wrote:

john9blue wrote: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've read the highlighted part about five times and it's significance still eludes me.
Do you mean the environment of a school encourages one to act on emotion?

sorry, i meant that we sympathize more with children than adults because children are perceived as more innocent/precious/etc.

john9blue wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

john9blue wrote: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've read the highlighted part about five times and it's significance still eludes me.
Do you mean the environment of a school encourages one to act on emotion?

sorry, i meant that we sympathize more with children than adults because children are perceived as more innocent/precious/etc.

Ahh, I think I see. You mean that killers are intentionally targeting schools because their actions will be more heavily covered by the media since loss of innocents is more "gut-wrenching"? I'm trying my best to follow you here, man.

Funkyterrance wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

john9blue wrote: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've read the highlighted part about five times and it's significance still eludes me.
Do you mean the environment of a school encourages one to act on emotion?

sorry, i meant that we sympathize more with children than adults because children are perceived as more innocent/precious/etc.

Ahh, I think I see. You mean that killers are intentionally targeting schools because their actions will be more heavily covered by the media since loss of innocents is more "gut-wrenching"? I'm trying my best to follow you here, man.

maybe... but i definitely think it played a role in this shooting being the "tipping point" for the gun debate. this didn't happen after virginia tech (college students died) or aurora (people of all ages died)

more likely the shooter targeted the school just because children are more defenseless than adults. i don't think he had some kind of master plan to spark this national debate, the pieces just sorta fell into place like that.

tzor wrote:Simple answer: "Gun Free Zones."

A gun free zone is a lot different than a drug free zone even though you might think they are the same. People who use drugs aren't scared of other people using drugs. But people who use guns are scared others will use guns against them. So the zone give the impression that there will be no one to stop them. In the most recent school example, the gunman killed himself when he finally heard the police arrive.

The whole notion basically boils down to response time. In a rural area it takes time for the police to arrive. In cases like this even ten minutes is far too long. This tends to embolden wackos.

As I said, the answer is simple.

Agreed

I agree with john9blew in some cases.

I think that in other cases, people blame the educational system for their failures and this is a messed-up way to express their frustration.

In others, people were emotionally damaged while at school and never got over it, so this is their way at exacting revenge.

TheProwler wrote:In others, people were emotionally damaged while at school and never got over it, so this is their way at exacting revenge.

In that case, wouldn't it make more sense for them to go to a former classmate's workplace and do it there instead?

Funkyterrance wrote:

TheProwler wrote:In others, people were emotionally damaged while at school and never got over it, so this is their way at exacting revenge.

In that case, wouldn't it make more sense for them to go to a former classmate's workplace and do it there instead?

"Sense" Hahaha!!!

I think there are people who felt everyone was against them, and those "kind of people" are still at school. In their minds, the current students are the same people.

TheProwler wrote:"Sense" Hahaha!!!
I think there are people who felt everyone was against them, and those "kind of people" are still at school. In their minds, the current students are the same people.

I think I'm smelling what you're brewing here. I think that it may even be possible that people such as this walk around everyday and see everyone as "those same people" and a classroom full of children are simply easier prey. I think we are looking at a combination of sickness and cowardice when it comes to this recent event.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

tzor wrote:Simple answer: "Gun Free Zones."

A gun free zone is a lot different than a drug free zone even though you might think they are the same. People who use drugs aren't scared of other people using drugs. But people who use guns are scared others will use guns against them. So the zone give the impression that there will be no one to stop them. In the most recent school example, the gunman killed himself when he finally heard the police arrive.

The whole notion basically boils down to response time. In a rural area it takes time for the police to arrive. In cases like this even ten minutes is far too long. This tends to embolden wackos.

As I said, the answer is simple.

Columbine had an armed guard. Fort hood was a military base. If a shooter is going to commit suicide after a shooting, then it seems unlikely that someone else being armed is going to scare them away from their goal. All they need is the element of surprise to be successful.

Fort Hood was a terrorist attack and quite different from the school shootings being discussed here. 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. According to the study released by the Secret Service following Columbine which studied the previous 37 school shootings,

Secret Service study's findings wrote:Finding
Despite prompt law enforcement responses, most attacks were stopped by means
other than law enforcement intervention.
Explanation
Most school-based attacks were stopped through intervention by school
administrators, educators and students-or by the attacker stopping on his own. In
about one-third of the incidents, the attacker was apprehended by or surrendered to
administrators, faculty, or school staff (27 percent, n=10) or to students (5 percent,
n=2).

I'd say why try to prevent the best method of stopping these lunatics who try to kill the helpless?

newsmax.com wrote:Two of the three Virginia law students who overpowered a gunman in a fatal school shooting were armed and used their weapons to disarm the shooter. Yet of the 280 stories written about the shooting, a mere four mentioned the fact that the heroic students were armed and used their guns to halt the rampage.

Funkyterrance wrote:I think I'm smelling what you're brewing here.

I appreciate your discretion in using the word "brewing".


Sometimes seafood does that to me...

TheProwler wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

TheProwler wrote:In others, people were emotionally damaged while at school and never got over it, so this is their way at exacting revenge.

In that case, wouldn't it make more sense for them to go to a former classmate's workplace and do it there instead?

"Sense" Hahaha!!!

I think there are people who felt everyone was against them, and those "kind of people" are still at school. In their minds, the current students are the same people.

It's easy to play amatuer psychologist,so bearing in mind we aren't experts,I believe what happens in childhood never quite leaves someone.If your interactions are mostly painful this carries over into adult life.The opposite as well.Every time I see someone being relentlessly bullied I think someone totally innocent could pay the price for this later on.IMHO the single most important thing society can do to prevent these disasters,more than gun control,is a zero tolerance policy towards bullying.

chang50 wrote: It's easy to play amatuer psychologist,so bearing in mind we aren't experts,I believe what happens in childhood never quite leaves someone.If your interactions are mostly painful this carries over into adult life.The opposite as well.Every time I see someone being relentlessly bullied I think someone totally innocent could pay the price for this later on.IMHO the single most important thing society can do to prevent these disasters,more than gun control,is a zero tolerance policy towards bullying.

How do you know who's an amateur and who's a pro?

But seriously, I agree that bullying is a top ranking way to f*ck with someone's head and should not be tolerated. In nature, being isolated/outcast is received far worse than any physical abuse by many species, especially the higher-functioning ones. Yet, we react to physical violence so much more severely.

Funkyterrance wrote:

chang50 wrote: It's easy to play amatuer psychologist,so bearing in mind we aren't experts,I believe what happens in childhood never quite leaves someone.If your interactions are mostly painful this carries over into adult life.The opposite as well.Every time I see someone being relentlessly bullied I think someone totally innocent could pay the price for this later on.IMHO the single most important thing society can do to prevent these disasters,more than gun control,is a zero tolerance policy towards bullying.

How do you know who's an amateur and who's a pro?

But seriously, I agree that bullying is a top ranking way to f*ck with someone's head and should not be tolerated. In nature, being isolated/outcast is received far worse than any physical abuse by many species, especially the higher-functioning ones. Yet, we react to physical violence so much more severely.

Trouble is bullying is endemic,and many people don't take it seriously enough,so I have little hope for much channge.

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.

When I was in school there was The Bully. Not everyone joined in. The bully had a group of henchmen and people collectively hated them. Now bullying is accepted and encouraged among the youth, as TheProwler noticed.
The best way to deal with bullies is parenting. This will not change any time soon. I think parenting right now is ineffective and family units aren't units. This has a big impact on kids.

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?