View Full Version : photo of school shooter asa coon dead
Oh man!!!! I literally felt sick when I saw that pic. Wow.
xdamage
10-13-2007, 08:52 PM
Guns don't make people crazy, they don't "allow" a person to kill'' as if given permission.
True, however the reality of the human condition is that we do have people walking around with mental issues (sometimes physical in nature, sometimes psychological in nature, sometimes some of both) who are inclined to do harm to others. This is a reality we must face as a fact about the human condition. Guns don't give people permission to kill, but they do make it easier for people who are inclined to do so to succeed. Killing someone without a gun can very from quite difficult to easy but many of those ways require a degree of up-close personal interaction that have some deterring factors. Guns further remove that deterring factor by allowing kills at a relatively safe distance, and with little risk of retaliation (particularly when you shoot someone who is un-armed). Remember, one of the reasons people were so appalled by the death of Ron Goldman and OJ's ex-wife is that the kill was committed with a knife, and there was much evidence that they fought a brutal painful fight before dying. Guns remove a degree of that brutality from the equation, which is something that may deter even many of those who are considering killing someone else.
I'm personally on the wall about how I feel about guns in our culture, but I do feel that too many of them are used for offensive purposes by people that would be a lot less likely to succeed at killing if they didn't have access to them. That doesn't negate that they are responsible, but it does face the fact that our society is incapable of identifying and treating the many-wanna-be killers who find it's easy and safe to themselves to commit murder at a distance using a gun.
britt244
10-14-2007, 12:32 AM
That's all they do is pick on people they KNOW won't fight back! Don't be fooled by appearances. These kids and adults do not do this to people who fight back or speak up.
If an adult attacked you repeatedly the law would back you up in protecting yourself but when it happens to a child they don't! They expect a child to report it to an adult and wait........ It kills me how these opportunistic DAs get so passionate about prosecuting kids as adults. The whole point of having separate penalties is that a child cannot function as an adult does. Their brains are literally different. So the patience and reasoning ability you and I have as adults doesn't exist in kids because the brain has not fully developed. We're too caught up in self-righteously attacking our young instead of learning that it takes tons of work from a COMMUNITY to protect and raise healthy kids.
it is still worse for a special needs child than a normally developing one. the child might be too scared to fight back or shy or whatever they are, but a mentally disabled one CAN'T.
and i'm with army sgt here. darcy, if you, or anyone else here who has mentioned it, had access to a gun that still doesnt mean you wouldve shot people. and if you really WANTED to get a gun, you could.
DylanAngel
10-14-2007, 05:48 AM
it is still worse for a special needs child than a normally developing one. the child might be too scared to fight back or shy or whatever they are, but a mentally disabled one CAN'T.
You so obviously don't have children. I don't know any parent that would agree with you. If your kid is tormented, it doesn't matter what their mental capacity is.
And this child was not normal. Normal people don't go around solving their problems with guns; normal people don't commit suicide.
This child needed help and was failed by everyone around him.
True, however the reality of the human condition is that we do have people walking around with mental issues (sometimes physical in nature, sometimes psychological in nature, sometimes some of both) who are inclined to do harm to others. This is a reality we must face as a fact about the human condition. Guns don't give people permission to kill, but they do make it easier for people who are inclined to do so to succeed.
And they make it esier for people to defend themselves against those who wish to do them harm and are the only tool that exist that makes a 90lb woman the equal of 250lb man intended on harming her. Understand your other comments are general speculation that are not supported by the data. For example, there is no correlation to murder rates and gun ownership when you compare all like countries (vs hand picking one vs another) and I can supply that info if you wish. On a general note however,
What guns are intended for is irrelevant. Cars are intended for driving to work, yet kill 40,000 per year. Pools and bikes-designed for biking and swimming respectively-kill more kids per year then guns. What guns are USED for is what’s relevant. There are negative and positive uses for guns.
A negative use of a gun is when a person commits a crime using a gun to commit it. That person is what is known as a criminal and all legal and or physical punishment should be applied to said person.
The positive use of a gun would be to prevent a crime or save a life, such as the 120lb women who shoots the 210 rapist, the 80 year old man who prevents the burglar from coming into his home and doing him harm, or the shop owner who protects his life work from looters after a storm, and so on
In that context, the ONLY relevant question is, what is the ratio of good to bad uses of guns? Between 700,000 (FBI’s data) and 2.5 million (Klecks data) times per year a gun is used in the in the US. in the positive sense Guns are used approximately 5 times more often to prevent a crime/save a life then they are to commit a crime.
So why not just remove all guns from the hands of citizens to reduce crime (which is not even possible nor constitutional but mentioned here for the sake of argument) which should lower crime? On a much larger historical picture, history has shown us over and over and over what happens to a population that is disarmed by it’s own government: they become subjects, slaves, or dead. Hitler knew that all too well when he said:
“History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." --- Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942.
Thus, why the Second Amend exists and reveals a universal truth: the right to self defense - be it from criminals or a tyrannical government - is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT no government can grant or take away. Those who do not view armed self defense as a basic human right, ignore the mass graves of those who died at the hands of tyrants.
Great men of peace and war agree on that. For example:
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." -Mohandas K. Gandhi
and
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." -- The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)
Guns are a necessary evil but necessary to a democracy and that fact was recognized by men far smarter then we are. For example;
"A FREE people ought...to be armed..." -George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790 in Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790.
And:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws
make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides,
for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and punishment - (1764).
And a more recent opinion:
"That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or laborer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." --George Orwell
This is no less true today then it was then, perhaps even more relevant today then it was then some have argued.
Use your logical mind, do some research, leave what you think you know of the topic behind, and you will be shocked at what you find.
britt244
10-14-2007, 08:36 AM
You so obviously don't have children. I don't know any parent that would agree with you. If your kid is tormented, it doesn't matter what their mental capacity is.
And this child was not normal. Normal people don't go around solving their problems with guns; normal people don't commit suicide.
This child needed help and was failed by everyone around him.
nope, i don't. but i know that if i were seeing 2 children being picked on, i'd be more pissed about the retarded or downs syndrome or autistic one. while their PARENTS might have equal feelings, i personally do not. and that's just how i feel.
jaizaine
10-14-2007, 08:40 AM
At one stage in school I got picked on by a group of girls. I went to an all girls high school that was extremely bitchy. They used to make me feel so worthless and ugly and I used to dread going to school. Luckily I also had a group of aweome really close friends so school wasn't a total nightmare, just when I ran into these bitches.
I used to fantasise about killing them. But thinking about something and actually going through with it is another thing.
I guess because I have a great family and also have great friends, I had a support system so I didn't feel like my life sucked.
It's a shame that these kids don't realise what a small part of their lives school will be. I remember thinking at the time that I was powerless and there was no way out of it. But once school is over you realise what losers these people who picked on you are and how they just don't matter. I wish there was some way that we could teach kids that.
At the same time while I do sympathise with the situation I don't sympathise with anyone who goes on this sort of shooting spree.
It's the same as the fact that I do not sympathise with serial killers who kill their victims in vicious ways because they had a fucked up home life.
Plenty of people rise above the hardships they were dealt and go on to lead good lives.
Noneya
10-14-2007, 09:11 AM
Ewww. I knew I should've not clicked on the link. Damn!
i.breathe.in
10-14-2007, 09:46 AM
when your in school, all your life is is school. its not so different from when you enter the workforce, people arent a whole lot nicer there, they just are more suave at wording things to be less hostile and more hurtful.
britt244
10-14-2007, 10:32 AM
^ well.. isn't that just life then? and life isn't fair. and that sucks but what else can you say? that's just how life is.
i.breathe.in
10-14-2007, 10:59 AM
exactly without the proper attention this kid would have done it eventually somewhere.[
QUOTE=britt244;1242879]^ well.. isn't that just life then? and life isn't fair. and that sucks but what else can you say? that's just how life is.[/QUOTE]
You know what makes me sad about this? The fact that he is someone's kid. Yeah, what he did was wrong and by no means am I saying its OK.
But... he was someone's baby. :(
madmaxine
10-14-2007, 11:54 AM
You know what makes me sad about this? The fact that he is someone's kid. Yeah, what he did was wrong and by no means am I saying its OK.
But... he was someone's baby. :(
I understand what you're saying and the punishment for his mother is that she can go to her grave knowing she failed him & the world in a big way.
My mom was in mental illness land for most of my life and her motherhood was a long series of failures....Some people should not be allowed to parent.
I hope this thread will prompt people to reach out to people in need. Some of these troubled people just need be listened to or cared for.
I understand what you're saying and the punishement for his mother is that she can go to her grave knowing she failed him & the world in a big way.
My mom was in mental illness land for most of my life and her motherhood was a long series of failures....Some people should not be allowed to parent.
I hope this thread will prompt people to reach out to people in need. Some of these troubled people just need be listened to or cared for.
I know! Its seriously fucked up! :( But sometimes I wonder... are ALL these messed up kids products of their "messed up" parents? You know how all cusomters think our parents, especially DADS, fucked us over somehow? (And its not always true) I cant help but wonder, what if this kid actually had a normal life and he was just the one who needed help? Or what if he parents had tried everything but he was just fucked up? :(
Either way it totally bugs me. :(
madmaxine
10-14-2007, 12:21 PM
I know! Its seriously fucked up! :( But sometimes I wonder... are ALL these messed up kids products of their "messed up" parents? You know how all cusomters think our parents, especially DADS, fucked us over somehow? (And its not always true) I cant help but wonder, what if this kid actually had a normal life and he was just the one who needed help? Or what if he parents had tried everything but he was just fucked up? :(
Either way it totally bugs me. :(
Speaking from what I've observed in my lifetime, it's usually a mix of genes and environmental influences. My half-brother is mentally ill and sociopathic (both his parents were nuts) so he ended up a juvienile deliquent in CYA (prison for teens) and now he's a homeless crackhead. I'm slightly nicer than him and have a hot body so I'm a greedy stripper instead of a crackhead felon, like my brother (smirk). ALL of my siblings have some sort of issue from being raised by a neglectful, mentally ill, unfit mother. If NO ONE had helped us get through childhood, we would have all been slinging bags and in prison by now.
So...even in the best case scenario, if this child was exhibiting signs of mentall illness/gross maladjustment, the parents should have taken it upon themselves to get him help. I've met a few people who were lucky enough to be given help in their teen years and they're well-adjusted and productive citizens. Again, it takes someone reaching out.
DylanAngel
10-14-2007, 12:41 PM
So...even in the best case scenario, if this child was exhibiting signs of mentall illness/gross maladjustment, the parents should have taken it upon themselves to get him help. I've met a few people who were lucky enough to be given help in their teen years and they're well-adjusted and productive citizens. Again, it takes someone reaching out.
Exactly what I was saying. Mental illness is just that; it makes you not able to judge certain things for yourself. Someone else needs to step in. This child was not only failed by his parents but the whole darn system.
When I was in school, and even when my daughters were in school, whenever a child exhibited behavior that was different than the norm, they were pulled into the school psychologist. Don't they have those anymore?
And yes, he could have come from a normal home, but he had a history of hurtful behavior, so yes it absolutely is partly the parents' fault for not getting him the help he needed.
Speaking from what I've observed in my lifetime, it's usually a mix of genes and environmental influences. My half-brother is mentally ill and sociopathic (both his parents were nuts) so he ended up a juvienile deliquent in CYA (prison for teens) and now he's a homeless crackhead. I'm slightly nicer than him and have a hot body so I'm a greedy stripper instead of a crackhead felon, like my brother (smirk). ALL of my siblings have some sort of issue from being raised by a neglectful, mentally ill, unfit mother. If NO ONE had helped us get through childhood, we would have all been slinging bags and in prison by now..
:( :hug:
You ARE hot, and I am glad you are a greedy stripper. lol
Im sorry about the past situations though. :(
So...even in the best case scenario, if this child was exhibiting signs of mentall illness/gross maladjustment, the parents should have taken it upon themselves to get him help. I've met a few people who were lucky enough to be given help in their teen years and they're well-adjusted and productive citizens. Again, it takes someone reaching out.
I totally agree.
xdamage
10-14-2007, 01:37 PM
Understand your other comments are general speculation that are not supported by the data. For example, there is no correlation to murder rates and gun ownership when you compare all like countries (vs hand picking one vs another) and I can supply that info if you wish. On a general note however,
Well, people tend to pick statistics that align with what they want to believe. I'll can pick them too which I will below just to show how easy it is to use them to believe what we want. Like I said, I'm a bit on the wall about guns, but I'm also scared as hell by extreme positions that fail to acknowledge there are issues either way. And your post came across as an extreme position, which leaves me wary that your picking and choosing statistics to match what you want to believe. I much prefer the moderate position.
What guns are intended for is irrelevant. Cars are intended for driving to work, yet kill 40,000 per year. Pools and bikes-designed for biking and swimming respectively-kill more kids per year then guns. What guns are USED for is what’s relevant. There are negative and positive uses for guns.
Not relevant to me. Your not even comparing apples and oranges here. This a complete mis-direction, waving the left hand to distract attention from the right. For the most part people killed in cars are not murdered or suicides. The topic of interest is murder and suicide, not death in general, or death by machine.
Anyway, this is the problem with statistics:
http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html
" Two thirds of all 1992 US murders were accomplished with firearms. Handguns were used in about half of all murders. Sharp instruments were used in 17% of murders and blunt instruments in about 6%."
I do admit though it's not the whole story, but please don't tell me it's not something we should be concerned about either.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm
"Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns"
"Like the homicide rate generally, gun-involved incidents increased sharply in the late 1980's and early 1990's before falling to a low in 1999. The number of gun-involved homicides increased thereafter to levels experienced in the mid 1980's."
"Homicides of teens and young adults are more likely to be committed with a gun than homicides of persons of other ages"
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/intimates.htm#intweap
"In general, guns are most often used in intimate homicide but weapon type varies by relationship. From 1990 to 2005 --" (see the associated table which shows guns are used as the weapon of choice when committing homicide by factors of 3-4x vs other methods)/
The point is that when you look at homicide in our country, there is a definitely (using my preferred statistics vs someone elses) evidence that they are the preferred weapon of choice. That concerns me. I understand about our second amendment right, but that was also written in a different time when the availability and power of weapons was different. I get very concerned about people who's minds are so rigid that they can't even consider that maybe rules and social norms that made sense at one point in time in history may change as the society and technology changes.
gingerlee
10-14-2007, 03:57 PM
BULL SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The differentiating factor is he chose to kill.
Guns don't make people crazy, they don't "allow" a person to kill'' as if given permission. Guns are inanimate objects and cannot be held up as the excuse or reason for this douche bag killing people.
You are right. Guns don't make people crazy. Crazy people are crazy with or without a gun.
BUT...just like I said yesterday in my rambling post, having access to a gun at any point in my life would have been *really* bad. As a kid (or adult even) I thought the world was always ending, things would never get better, all that stupid shit. I got physical with people when I was mad, and the first thing that went through my head was wondering what I could do to hurt them the most. If I had a gun I honestly know I would probably be in jail somewhere for doing something stupid when I was having an 'episode'. I thank god every day that nothing of that nature ever happened.
So, yeah. Some people's heads don't work the way people think they do, and the thought process they use is fucked. Those are the people that should never have access to a weapon. The only reason people are talking about what he did is because he shot them. If he stabbed them or some other craziness, this would not be getting half the attention it is.
Well, people tend to pick statistics that align with what they want to believe. I'll can pick them too which I will below just to show how easy it is to use them to believe what we want.
Which is an excuse used by those who don't want deal with facts/stats they don't like. The "i can find a stat to support what ever I want" position only holds water for those who don't have any experience with stats. Stats are only as good as the methodology used to generate them, which means there are stats that are worthless and there are stats that hold water and have been confirmed, etc. It's then a matter of how you use those stats and what conclusions you make from them that really matters. You also have to look at historical context and US Const context, and such to get a total picture.
Like I said, I'm a bit on the wall about guns, but I'm also scared as hell by extreme positions that fail to acknowledge there are issues either way. And your post came across as an extreme position, which leaves me wary that your picking and choosing statistics to match what you want to believe. I much prefer the moderate position.
I did not pick and chose a damn thing. I chose the stats we know of that exist. If you have some stat/fact you feel supports that "moderate" postion, feel free to supply it. Nothing you supplied altered anythung I have said. What you did supply was strictly opinion, which I countered with stats (generated by the FBI no less) and a larger historical picture, which you find "extreme." In the larger picture, they are the FAR more important issue, ergo, basic human rights and all that "extreme" stuff...
Not relevant to me.
Quite wrong. Everything is relavant to you unless you live in a bubble of some kind.
Your not even comparing apples and oranges here.
Guns used to commit crime vs guns used for self protection, nothing "apples and oranges" about that.
This a complete mis-direction, waving the left hand to distract attention from the right. For the most part people killed in cars are not murdered or suicides. The topic of interest is murder and suicide, not death in general, or death by machine.
"The topic of interest" is death, no matter the cause or the tool used. Intent is what matters here. The issue is death, so when a person says "ban X as it kills X people" and you point out to them say riding a bike kills 10 times more people than X, it allows a context to be had.
Anyway, this is the problem with statistics:
http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html
" Two thirds of all 1992 US murders were accomplished with firearms. Handguns were used in about half of all murders. Sharp instruments were used in 17% of murders and blunt instruments in about 6%."
I am quite aware of the problems with statistics as I have been dealing with them a long time. I am also in contact with the major researchers in this area. As already mentioned, murder rates do not correlate to gun ownership when all countries are compared, so your stat is essentially worthless if one is attempting to make decisions that actually save lives and actually effect criminals vs law abiding peoples.
I do admit though it's not the whole story, but please don't tell me it's not something we should be concerned about either.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm
"Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns"
"Like the homicide rate generally, gun-involved incidents increased sharply in the late 1980's and early 1990's before falling to a low in 1999. The number of gun-involved homicides increased thereafter to levels experienced in the mid 1980's."
"Homicides of teens and young adults are more likely to be committed with a gun than homicides of persons of other ages"
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/intimates.htm#intweap
"In general, guns are most often used in intimate homicide but weapon type varies by relationship. From 1990 to 2005 --" (see the associated table which shows guns are used as the weapon of choice when committing homicide by factors of 3-4x vs other methods)/
The point is that when you look at homicide in our country, there is a definitely (using my preferred statistics vs someone elses) evidence that they are the preferred weapon of choice.
And the weapon of choice for people looking to defend themselves and has no bearing on actual murder rates country to country. In the states of the US where they passed laws making it easier for law abiding people to carry, crime went down...What you are doing is presenting stats out of context and or failing to fill in both sides of the equation (which is par for the course with anti gun groups BTW) , which I already mentioned: good vs bad use of guns which you seem to have brushed over. Now, if you want to read site with an extensive library looking at the issue, see for example:
http://www.guncite.com/index.html
That concerns me. I understand about our second amendment right, but that was also written in a different time when the availability and power of weapons was different. I get very concerned about people who's minds are so rigid that they can't even consider that maybe rules and social norms that made sense at one point in time in history may change as the society and technology changes.
It concerns me when people who have clearly done no real research on the topic attempt to argue it. As I said, men far smarter than you and I wrote the documents we follow and we dont get to pick and chose them because you feel times have changed. Nothing has changed in human nature or what makes the protections we have out of date. It's also a simple fact the data and history do not support your comments.
And to play with stats for the fun of stats, every year the Brady Bunch gives a grade to states regarding their gun laws. Guns with strict laws get the highest grades (they being a pro gun control group and all). Looking at their grades, we get:
STATE . . . . . . Brady Grade,
New York . . . . . . B+
Vermont . . . . . . . D-
New Hampshire . . D-
Maine . . . . . . . . . D-
Massachusetts . . . A-
Connecticut . . . . . A-
Rhode Island . . . . B-
Now lets look at the actual crime rates for those same states:
2005 FBI UCR data of crime/homicide rates per 100,000 people:
Region . . . Violent Crime, Homicide Rates
USA National . . 569.2 , 5.6
New York . . . . 445.8 , 4.5
Vermont . . . . . 119.7 , 1.3
New Hampshire 132.0 , 1.4
Maine . . . . . . . 112.2 , 1.4
Massachusetts . 456.9 , 2.7
Connecticut . . . 274.5 , 2.9
Rhode Island . . 251.2 , 3.2
Conclusion: if you want to find the place with the lowest crime rates, pick the one that gets the worst grade by the Brady Bunch...::)
PaigeDWinter
10-16-2007, 09:33 AM
Ok ok.... this thread has gotten a bit much. Closed.