News German School Shooting

[T.Neo]

I don't think it can drive anyone to do things like this. Otherwise schools would be full of shooters.

They probably are.
They just don't end up doing it.

 

[Moonwalker]

They probably are.
They just don't end up doing it.

They are definitely not. Ending up as a killer requires some unusual mental illness and access to weapons.

 

[Urwumpe]

They probably are.
They just don't end up doing it.

Could you just vaguely imagine, to do such a crime out of frustration?

Even I can't and I know that I have a higher than average aggressivity.

Maybe that is also the reason... the time from frustration to reaction is very short inside me, I can't eat it inside me. Who pushed me, got pushed.

 

[T.Neo]

They are definitely not. Ending up as a killer requires some unusual mental illness and access to weapons.

Sure. No access to weapons is certainly a reason why.
But if you think only people who are "mentally ill" can commt such acts, what do you not sympathise with this person?
Maybe he couldn't help it...

 

[Artlav]

the really evil FPS, which really have Spree killings and just plain violence as topic, are already unavailable for teenagers over legal ways.

Hm. Examples?

 

[Urwumpe]

They are definitely not. Ending up as a killer requires some unusual mental illness and access to weapons.

All spree killers show more or less strong signs of a paranoid schizophrenia. It is not too unusual, all kinds of psychosis are pretty common among the population, despite people not believing this.

The access to weapons is not needed. In the right hands, all can be a weapon. Firearms are just the tool of the unskilled.

---------- Post added at 07:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:37 PM ----------

Hm. Examples?

For example BloodRayne (1 & 2, since 2003)

In German language, there are the official guidelines about computer games and violence:

http://www.bundespruefstelle.de/bmf...ehung/computer-konsolenspiele,did=108036.html

They did their homework in the last years...

 

[Moonwalker]

The access to weapons is not needed. In the right hands, all can be a weapon. Firearms are just the tool of the unskilled.

Yes. But it is a fact that they, almost all school schooters, had access and practice. They mostly liked guns as killing tools.

 

[T.Neo]

It is not too unusual, all kinds of psychosis are pretty common among the population

Hence what I meant about almost anyone.

 

[Urwumpe]

Yes. But it is a fact that they, almost all school schooters, had access and practice. They mostly liked guns as killing tools.

You will sure also find people using Katanas (Remember Wesley Snipes) or axes.

 

[T.Neo]

You will sure also find people using Katanas (Remember Wesley Snipes) or axes.

Indeed. We had a pupil here in South Africa who used one of those to kill a fellow pupil.

 

[Hielor]

You will sure also find people using Katanas (Remember Wesley Snipes) or axes.

At which point they're not a school shooter.

The video games argument is blatantly ridiculous. America's Army, for example, took some fire when it came out because parents were concerned that it was teaching their kids to be killers.

There's a big, big difference between walking around with WASD while clicking a mouse button to shoot a pixelbullet at your pixelenemy and actually sneaking around in a real forest with a gun to actually shoot someone.

Clicking the mouse button tells you nothing about how the gun actually works.

 

[Artlav]

For example BloodRayne (1 & 2, since 2003)
In German language, there are the official guidelines about computer games and violence:
http://www.bundespruefstelle.de/bmf...ehung/computer-konsolenspiele,did=108036.html
They did their homework in the last years...

Babelfish nonsesed the text too much to make heads or tails...
Just how exactly do they prevent teenagers from downloading these games?
Do someone check home PC's for illegal games, some kind of Internet censorship, parent responsibility, other ways?
Or is it just an unenforced law?

 

[Moonwalker]

Charles Whitman, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Robert Steinhäuser, Bastian Bosse, Tim Kretschmer and some more..., they all used guns, and they all had practice and access. Stone cold fact.

 

[Tommy]

I have to say that having guns in the house doesn't create this kind of violence. I live in northern Wisconsin, in the Chequamegon National Forest. Hunting is very much a way of life around here and many, if not most, homes have at least one gun in them. The house I grew up in had 4 shotguns, two rifles (one an antique black powder flintlock) and a pistol. Despite being picked on quite often, and having no luck with girls, I failed to become a spree killer. No one around here has. Part of the difference, I think) is that Hunter and Firearm Safety classes are so readily available (offered as an elective at the local schools to kids beginning at age 12. We've all been given a respect for the power of firearms, and seen what they can do to large game like white-tail deer. Almost all of the high school "spree" killers have never fired at any thing other than a paper target and have no real concept of what a firearm will do. By the time they find out they are too far gone to stop.

I myself used to fantasize about killing some of the bullies that tormented me. That's all it was, thoughy, was a fantasy. Even though I had access to the aforementioned guns (none of which were ever locked up in any way) there was never any serious thought about going through with it. There is something "broken" in these people that do this, and it's not the access to guns that causes that. Guns just make it easier and more newsworthy. Trust me, one of these days some kid is going to slash up a bunch of classmates with a ninja sword or somesuch.

From Urwumpe:

Also, forget the idea of "We need to be able to fight our government, if it becomes criminal." If the majority of the country fails to stop such developments with political weapons (from democracy, over law, over army, national guard and militias), you can only commit a honorable suicide that way.

I disagree. While you can't beat the government, you can create a stand-off. A stand-off means press coverage, placing the government under far more scrutiny and forcing them to be certain that they have followed the laws and proceedures. For instance, take a look at the Camp Davidian stand-off in Waco, Tx. If the Davidians hadn't had guns, the Police could have moved in and rounded those people up without any press attention at all. The only "facts" we would ever have learned are the ones given in press releases. Without public scrutiny, a government feels far freer to violate peoples rights and ignore the legalities of due cause. In this case, Koresh and his followers deserved to be arrested (for child rape, etc) and so the Police moved in even with the press looking over their shoulders. But you can bet that the Government made sure they had their I's dotted and T's crossed first. The ability of a citizen to put up armed resistance, however futile, creates a thin, but IMO essential, layer of protection against government abuse of power.

 

[Moonwalker]

Trust me, one of these days some kid is going to slash up a bunch of classmates with a ninja sword or somesuch.

By now it was done by guns basically. Guns do not cause school shootings, but guns are still means to an end and accessible by parents and gun clubs. The killer could have also used knifes or something else in theory, but they did not in reality, because guns have still the most powerful violence potential those crazy people got drawn to.

 

[Usonian]

With events like this, there is always an interest in working up the psychological/emotional profile of the shooter - and I am as interested as the next person. But I am also interested in the psychology of the (nominally) sane observers and general public. The anit-gun reaction seems straight-forward -- fear of getting shot. One can argue the effectiveness of various gun control measures, but the motivation prompting the call for controls is not mysterious. What seems less obvious is the motivation of the pro-gun crowd. Why the resistance by pro-gunners to registration, waiting periods and idenfying marks on ammunition? Aren't these measures just a public expression of the personal responsibility both sides say we should all exercise? What is the psychology behind the late Charleton Heston, holding rifle aloft, and growling, "You will have to pry this from my cold dead fingers." Or the bumper stickers reading, "My wife, yes. My dog, maybe. My gun... NEVER!" Or this German father with 14 guns locked up, but one in his nightstand with hundreds of ammunition rounds? Why hundreds of unsecured rounds?? It might be an interesting exercise to overlay the psychological profiles of the "Nut With a Gun," and the NRA-type "Gun Nut."

Second remark. I design schools for a living. Building codes are geared toward dealing with fires, primarily. So far as I know, there are no code provisions anywhere in the US that address gun violence. Some individual school districts adopt their own local policies -- lock-down drills, security sweeps, centrally controlled locks and gates, security cameras -- but there are no systematic and nation-wide requriements. In the last 50 years exactly zero children have been killed in public school fires (a building code victory!) but dozens (a hundred or more?) kids have been killed in schools by gun fire during that period. And we still have no nationally mandated standards addressing that threat. In a democracy, the laws, such as building codes, are a rough reflection of public concern, noise and aggitation. Where is the noise and aggitation on the issue of school shootings? A lot of denial going on. Some of the denial comes from fearful anti-gunners who would just rather not deal with the nasty issue, but most of the denial (I suspect) comes from the pro-gun side that will go to any lengths to fight any diminishment, preceived or real, of their rights.

Final remark. It seems that these shootings sprees are almost always carried out by antisocial loners, seeking some sort of attention and validation. Isn't it likely that the modern-day non-stop news coverage serves to motivate these pathetic people? Well, I guess I have now made my contribution along those lines. Let the debate rage on.

 

[Urwumpe]

I disagree. While you can't beat the government, you can create a stand-off. A stand-off means press coverage, placing the government under far more scrutiny and forcing them to be certain that they have followed the laws and proceedures.

Yes. In another reality. Look at the history of stand-offs in the Tibetan conflict. Successful resistance requires more, than just media attention. And it is not the violent protests, which have the biggest effect. If you resort to violence, you switch sides and become actor, instead of victim. Unless you have the ethnic credit to compensate committing crimes for a good thing (which only history can tell), you will fail.

For instance, take a look at the Camp Davidian stand-off in Waco, Tx. If the Davidians hadn't had guns, the Police could have moved in and rounded those people up without any press attention at all.

Well, bad example. Actually Waco had hours of examples for teaching police how to NOT do it.

The only "facts" we would ever have learned are the ones given in press releases. Without public scrutiny, a government feels far freer to violate peoples rights and ignore the legalities of due cause. In this case, Koresh and his followers deserved to be arrested (for child rape, etc) and so the Police moved in even with the press looking over their shoulders. But you can bet that the Government made sure they had their I's dotted and T's crossed first. The ability of a citizen to put up armed resistance, however futile, creates a thin, but IMO essential, layer of protection against government abuse of power.

public scrutiny requires no guns, but a really free press. And that is a cultural aspect. If your police wants to shoot and denounce journalists, they could do so, if the culture tolerates it. Just look at the recent events in Russia. No media could prevent it, and the international pressure of it does sure not break the criminals - it just makes the work harder for those who are getting into the spot light as "neutral journalists".

You can only do a armed resistance successfully, if you have the superiority. I don't know any resistance at all in history, which worked successfully from within a minority.

---------- Post added at 09:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:26 PM ----------

EDIT: On journalism: The screenshot of the forum post, shown by the police today, is a fake. He did likely not announce his killing spree like that. The forum is now closed due to media overload, but before that, they posted the original, which was photo shopped.

(BTW: Am I the only one who notices the obvious Dwarf Fortress reference? The ultimate killing spree game "........ is going berserk!")

 

[Tommy]

"Winning" isn't the only determination of success. In the long run, any armed resistance of the type I'm talking about is doomed to "failure". It's the ability to get the press attention that matters, and without an armed resistance chances are that the press, no matter how free it is, will never even find out about the raid, or at least find out after the the government has had a chance to cover up any facts that don't support them. People can't protest if they don't know anything even happened.

And while the assault on Camp Davidian was badly mishandled, it's still a good example of how the ability to put up an armed resistance protects freedom. Even the possibility of armed resistance forces the police to be more careful about the legality of their actions. Without the live, on-site presence of the press, the mistakes made by the police would likely have also been covered up to a large degree, and the incentive to come up with better plans for the future would have been lessened. The US government (and many Law Enforcement agencies) have a long history of hiding their mistakes as much as possible. Without witnesses (such as journalists) coverups become "easier" than dealing with the truth. Without armed resistance, the chance that nuetral witnesses will be present diminishes greatly. Yes, a free press is also essential. If the reporters aren't allowed to cover the story than resistance will not gather the attention, and the police are free to do as they please. Yet no matter how free the press, they have to find out something is happening in order to cover it, and the event has to last long enough for them to get there before it's over and covered up. That's what the ability to resist (by use of arms) for a few hours or days provides.
You don't need to win the battle to win the war.

 

[Urwumpe]

You don't need to win the battle to win the war.

Still, nothing can replace important victories in a war. Even forcing your enemy into Pyrrhic victories can win a war. But it must not. And especially against superior enemies, you can often only hope for Pyrrhic victories yourself.

Don't fight a war, before you don't expect to win it.

 

[Tommy]

Your point is valid in a revolution, and sure armed resistance didn't help much in Tibet (where there's no really free press), but the goal isn't always revolution. Sometimes all you want is to prevent abuse of authority, and even if you lose the battle the publicity can help prevent further abuse. Being unable to win doesn't always negate the value of resisting.

If the goal of resistance is hindering the authorities ability to abuse it's power, then you can loose every battle yet still attain your goal (ie, win the war) by creating public awareness and fostering a culture where that kind of abuse isn't tolerated. Most governments don't have unlimited power, and a politician's need to get elected (in most "free" countries) so they have to respond to the public's desire for limitations of power, and accountability for the actions of the enforcers.

A state where only the police have guns is a Police State.

Sure, you can argue that if your rights are violated you can sue (at least in "civilized" countries like the US) and gather attention that way. But the public doesn't pay nearly as much attention to a court battle as it does to a gun battle, and there won't be the same sense of public outrage if the oppression is "peacefully handled" in the court system.

Obviously, this kind of resistance will be far less or even non-existant in a society where the government has absolute power, or insufficient freedom of the press. Here in the US, it can be very effective at preventing abuse of power. What happened at Waco forced the government to be sure that it's actions were legal, and also exposed weaknesses in the Law Enforcements tactics. This forced them to improve their tactics (and created a call for better inter-agency cooperation) which will help reduce the loss of life (on both sides) the next time something like this happens. While the Davidians could be considered to have lost, society in general can count this as a victory.

Armed resistance created the public and political awareness that led to the Posse Comitatus Act, which is considered a major obstacle to Federal Government abuse of authority here in the U.S., even though that resistance was futile, and the resisters "lost".