Why Would an Adult Target Kindergarten Students in a Shooting?

[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?

 

[jedishrfu]

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?

I don't know how it would work but just thinking along the lines of compulsory training like you're in the National Guard and have to spend two weeks each year in training with monthly meetings...

This would preserve the second amendment while at the same time discourage some people from owning guns because of the civic responsibility of being a part of a local militia.

I know as it stands no one will want to do this just as no one wants to do jury duty when called upon to do it.

The goal is to reduce the overall amount of guns which would in turn reduce access and frequency of these incidents.

 

[MarneMath]

I don't know how it would work but just thinking along the lines of compulsory training like you're in the National Guard and have to spend two weeks each year in training with monthly meetings...

This would preserve the second amendment while at the same time discourage some people from owning guns because of the civic responsibility of being a part of a local militia.

I know as it stands no one will want to do this just as no one wants to do jury duty when called upon to do it.

The goal is to reduce the overall amount of guns which would in turn reduce access and frequency of these incidents.

You're probably right. The same effect would be gained by burning all guns in the world. What do both ideas have in common? They both will never happen and have no chance of happening.

 

[jedishrfu]

You're probably right. The same effect would be gained by burning all guns in the world. What do both ideas have in common? They both will never happen and have no chance of happening.

But it does have a greater chance of happening as we already must renew drivers licenses and concealed handgun carry licenses... to participate in a civil society and it raises awareness.

 

[Drakkith]

But it does have a greater chance of happening as we already must renew drivers licenses and concealed handgun carry licenses... to participate in a civil society and it raises awareness.

I don't think you idea has any chance of becoming true, not do I believe it would reduce the frequency and severity of these kinds of incidents enough to be worth it.

 

[MarneMath]

But it does have a greater chance of happening as we already must renew drivers licenses and concealed handgun carry licenses... to participate in a civil society and it raises awareness.

Yes, but that's completely difference. You don't HAVE to own a license to own a car. You don't HAVE to hace a carry and conceal to own a gun. You're asking people to have to be licensed to own something they believe is a fundamental right. Regardless if you agree with this or not, I can wager that the vast majority of Gun Owners believe that owning a gun is as fundamental to liberty as voting.

The simple solution to this is obvious, less guns. The obstacle to this solution, people in America tend to believe (wrongly) that by making it harder to buy guns legally, less guns are on the market and thus less violent crimes. They wrongly target Rifles because they look scary and unneccessary, but the simple fact of the matter is the more people will die and more crimes will be committed by handguns every year. Most deaths that occur from a gun shooting will be done by a gun not owned by the person. We have 300 MILLION guns in this country, (at a minimum) yet hire the bare minimum of ATF agents.

I'm willing to bet, even if tomorrow, we said, let's ban guns all together no one can buy them anymore, not even for hunting. Taurus will then by the number one gun of choice and gangs will still buy them illegal as always. Growing up in the inner city, I could've got a 9mm for 50 bucks. This isn't a linear problem where one great idea will solve them problem. Making it harder to buy guns legally is only half the problem. The other half, quite frankly, is much more difficult.

You want ideas that can help? Try:

1)Closing the Gun Show Loophole. If you want a gun, a background check should be manadatory, no matter who the seller is.
2)Closed the Revoke License Loophole, probably the most asinine law out there.*
3)Require reporting of a loss/stolen Gun.

*If you are unaware of this one. If a gun seller loses his/her license then the seller can consider their collection as private, and thus sell it without doing a background check.

 

[skeptic2]

If one has 5,000 rounds in their home, they can't use that to go on a shooting spree.

Why not?

 

[skeptic2]

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.

If a doctor or lawyer gets a license to practice in Texas, is he or she legally able to practice in New York?

 

[skeptic2]

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?

This is a very strange interpretation of the word militia. If your interpretation is used then the phrase "well regulated" becomes meaningless.

 

[CAC1001]

I don't know how it would work but just thinking along the lines of compulsory training like you're in the National Guard and have to spend two weeks each year in training with monthly meetings...

This would preserve the second amendment while at the same time discourage some people from owning guns because of the civic responsibility of being a part of a local militia.

In Switzerland, people keep a gun in the home as part of the militia.

 

[CAC1001]

Why not?

Well they can't carry that many on them all at once for one, but also, one doesn't need anywhere near that to go on a shooting spree.

If a doctor or lawyer gets a license to practice in Texas, is he or she legally able to practice in New York?

There's a difference though. One doesn't need to use their doctor or lawyer skills if traveling to a different part of the country for a period.

This is a very strange interpretation of the word militia. If your interpretation is used then the phrase "well regulated" becomes meaningless.

The phrase "well-regulated" in the old English meant "well-trained" or "well-disciplined." Also, if you look at the use of the word militia in the Constitution, it's regarded as a pre-existing entity. If you read Article I, Section 8 (on the Powers of Congress):

The Congress shall have the power...

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Here is Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.