College & High School Shootings: What Now

[mkemse]

After yet another senseless school shooting at NIU University in DeKalb Illinois On Thursday Feb 14, what do you suggest be done to prevent these incidients from continuing, either at the College Level or high school level even the Campus Police Chief at NIU even said last night "On and open Campus of 25,000+ students it is virutaly imposssible to prevents things like this from happening since it is a open campus"
Would appriciate any comments anyone may have, and personaly my thoughts and prayers go out to the families who lost loved one in this terrible sesnseless tradgedy

[ThisYouWillDo]

I understand there have been 4 separate shooting incidents this week in colleges/universities in USA. This is appalling news and I also send my sympathies and condolences to those affected

My views on gun-control have been well-aired elsewhere. These events do not encourage me to alter them.

TYWD

[Warbaby1943]

reinstate corporal punishments at all levels

[Logic1]

Make it way harder to get access to guns is one way for sure, but that seem to be a hard limit to lots of americans it seems.
So sadly I guess that you simply need to spend more money on mental healtcare and/or accept the fact that it happens?

yes that is VERY cynical but without easy access to weapons then it simply wouldnt happen or atleast way more seldom.

my deepest condolences to those affected is there for sure in any case.

[spammik]

My heart goes out to all of the people involved.......I am at a loss of understanding any act of violence.....

[mkemse]

Make it way harder to get access to guns is one way for sure, but that seem to be a hard limit to lots of americans it seems.
So sadly I guess that you simply need to spend more money on mental healtcare and/or accept the fact that it happens?

yes that is VERY cynical but without easy access to weapons then it simply wouldnt happen or atleast way more seldom.

my deepest condolences to those affected is there for sure in any case.

I gree with you on spemnding more Money On Mental Health Clincs, but the 2009 Fereral Budget has Our Currebt Presdient cutting money for Social Secvice Agencies and social Securityand Nedicare by 500 Billion Dollars, what do we do then??

[mkemse]

The did annnouce this morinig, that 6th sutdent died making it 7 totla 6 and the gunman with 3 still in critical condition his type senseless violence has to stop or parents will stop snedingthier kids to school andstart home schooling them

[mkemse]

reinstate corporal punishments at all levels

I agree but I do not think that will deter anything, peoeple who committhesetype of crimes do notknow what they aredoing andif so will; probably care elelss aboutwhat happens to them, plus in most cases the shooter kils himself in the end, that means no death pentalty to the shooter

[ThisYouWillDo]

Corporal punishment does nothing except brutalise both the person administering it and the person receiving it. As a deterrent it's useless. As retribution, it's ineffective, and as a means of making amends, irrelevant.

As I've said before, it doesn't even make the victims feel better. (Or if it does, the judicial system shouldn't be catering for that kind of perversion.)

TYWD

[Thorne]

My views on gun-control have been well-aired elsewhere. These events do not encourage me to alter them.

Yes, you and I have been over this before, but I'm a little more inclined to see things your way at the moment. These kinds of things are just horrible!

What confuses and concerns me about them is that there is very little in common among the shooters. Some were bullied and ridiculed, some were just shy, some were trying to settle romantic scores. Nothing concrete that you can come out and say, "Look out for this behavior in students!"

[Thorne]

Corporal punishment does nothing except brutalise both the person administering it and the person receiving it. As a deterrent it's useless. As retribution, it's ineffective, and as a means of making amends, irrelevant.

Well, I think you would have to admit that, to date, there has never been an executed murderer who has killed again.

[mkemse]

Well, I think you would have to admit that, to date, there has never been an executed murderer who has killed again.

my concenr on thi whole issue is most shooting ens with the shooter commiting suicide or being take by the polie but what do collegles and schools that are all open campus do to protect their students better, i have neevr hear of a shooter going to trial because they are usialy killed at the scene to begin with

[Thorne]

my concenr on thi whole issue is most shooting ens with the shooter commiting suicide or being take by the polie but what do collegles and schools that are all open campus do to protect their students better, i have neevr hear of a shooter going to trial because they are usialy killed at the scene to begin with

One advantage of the killers taking themselves out is that they save the state the cost of a trial and incarceration and appeals and more appeals and more appeals.

Of course, the disadvantage is that you don't get to speak with and study the killer to find out what went wrong to cause him to do such a thing. Over the years law enforcement has managed to improve their understanding of serial killers and the kinds of things that make them tick. They need to do the same for these "spree" killers, those who just seem to snap for some reason and try to take out as many people as they can. And it does seem that many of them seem to have no sense of self preservation. They go into it knowing that they are going to die, one way or another.

As for protecting the campuses and the students, there is no absolutely sure way to do that, beyond locking THEM up for the duration, basically turning our schools into a form of prison. That, IMO, is no solution. In fact, it would probably make the problem worse.

Anyone who wants absolute safety in this world is in for a serious disappointment. There is no such thing. We risk our lives every day we are breathing. We can minimize the dangers, but there comes a point, just as in medicine, where the cure is worse than the disease. All you can do is learn to live with the threats and do your best to avoid them.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Well, I think you would have to admit that, to date, there has never been an executed murderer who has killed again.

I have to give you that one, Thorne. I'm guilty of blurring the distinction between corporal and capital punishment.

No-one executed for murder has killed again afterwards: even the ones who were innocent and, it might be argued, had a "free strike". A crude but highly effective means of punishment. Maybe that's why our forefathers used the death penalty on highway robbers, adulterers and sheep stealers too. One shouldn't disregard the wisdom of the ages lightly.

Knives are becoming a problem at our schools, and a few of them have installed metal detectors at all entrances. Maybe that would work in USA universities. But, thinking about it a little more, if I were intent on carrying out a mass killing, I wouldn't let anyone stop me at a metal detector - I'd run past then open up, probably taking out the guard as my first victim.

TYWD

[mkemse]

One advantage of the killers taking themselves out is that they save the state the cost of a trial and incarceration and appeals and more appeals and more appeals.

Of course, the disadvantage is that you don't get to speak with and study the killer to find out what went wrong to cause him to do such a thing. Over the years law enforcement has managed to improve their understanding of serial killers and the kinds of things that make them tick. They need to do the same for these "spree" killers, those who just seem to snap for some reason and try to take out as many people as they can. And it does seem that many of them seem to have no sense of self preservation. They go into it knowing that they are going to die, one way or another.

As for protecting the campuses and the students, there is no absolutely sure way to do that, beyond locking THEM up for the duration, basically turning our schools into a form of prison. That, IMO, is no solution. In fact, it would probably make the problem worse.

Anyone who wants absolute safety in this world is in for a serious disappointment. There is no such thing. We risk our lives every day we are breathing. We can minimize the dangers, but there comes a point, just as in medicine, where the cure is worse than the disease. All you can do is learn to live with the threats and do your best to avoid them.

The Chief Of Police For NIU Security said in a pRess Conference last night and again today "As long a we have open campus there is no way to 100% guarantee security, it simply is not a reality, it can not be done"

[Whippett]

Coming from a country with strict gun control as well - I have to say that I've never understood the American love affair with guns. Guns don't kill - but any lunatic can get a gun - and that is the problem - lunatics with guns! Sometimes I think that the line between responsible and irresponsible ownership in terms of guns is lost in the political argument. And gun ownership should be a responsibility - and should not be a universal right.

I'm also with TYWD on the death penalty - it serves no purpose except revenge. Heck, if the death penalty were a deterrent there would likely be far fewer mass murders in the US. The media should certainly stop sensationalizing mas murder as well - all that does is bring out one more unhinged copy-cat killing.

[Thorne]

I'm also with TYWD on the death penalty - it serves no purpose except revenge.

I disagree. While it's true that the death penalty is not necessarily a deterrent, I think it can, when applied properly, help to protect society and innocent civilians. I do not, however, propose applying the death penalty indiscriminately. A parent who kills his children, while heinous, is probably not a threat to anyone else. The Susan Smith case, here in South Carolina, comes to mind. While she most definitely killed her kids, many of the people who advocated giving her the death penalty wanted it only because she had misled them into thinking the kids had been kidnapped. She made them feel sorry for her and when they learned the truth they wanted her head. As it turned out she was given a life sentence, which I do think was appropriate in her case.
But a person like Jeffrey Dalmer or Richard Speck, who killed innocent people at random, with no ulterior motive, certainly deserve the death penalty. They are a threat to anyone they cross paths with and, if they should ever escape from prison (not unheard of, let's face it) they would undoubtedly kill again.
I also believe that anyone who kills a police officer should be executed, a mandatory sentence without possibility of commutation. There are a few other types of crimes, along a similar vein, but I certainly wouldn't want to use the death penalty as a catch-all punishment.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Why is it worse to kill a policeman than an estate agent or a lawyer?

[mkemse]

Why is it worse to kill a policeman than an estate agent or a lawyer?

A Police Officer Is Considered a Munticple Governement Employess which carriers a stiffer sentence both are wrong, if you kill a letter carrier that is also a Federal Offense since they work for the Government

[Thorne]

Why is it worse to kill a policeman than an estate agent or a lawyer?

Only because a police officer is the outward representative of the law. They are there (theoretically, at least) to help protect the rest of us from the criminals. Those who would kill the police are a bigger threat to the rest of society than almost any other criminal.

And killing lawyers can almost be considered a public service anyway. (Just kidding, all you lawyers out there. Don't sue me for bad jokes.)

[ThisYouWillDo]

So, to commit premeditated murder by killing an ordinary citizen is less reprehensible than accidentally and inadvertently killing a policeman in the heat of the moment? How does it feel to be a second class citizen?

In the UK, the police are regarded as public servants. They call me "Sir" not "Buddy" and I call them "Constable" not "Sir".

And if we both faced a lunatic with a gun, he would be expected (morally, only, of course) to take the bullet instead of me.

If it really is because killing a representative of the justice system must be punished more severely, pour encourager les autres, wouldn't it be simpler just to make resisting arrest a capital offence and be done with it?

[Thorne]

So, to commit premeditated murder by killing an ordinary citizen is less reprehensible than accidentally and inadvertently killing a policeman in the heat of the moment? How does it feel to be a second class citizen?

In the UK, the police are regarded as public servants. They call me "Sir" not "Buddy" and I call them "Constable" not "Sir".

And if we both faced a lunatic with a gun, he would be expected (morally, only, of course) to take the bullet instead of me.

If it really is because killing a representative of the justice system must be punished more severely, pour encourager les autres, wouldn't it be simpler just to make resisting arrest a capital offence and be done with it?

As usual, your aversion to the death penalty has you selecting extreme examples. I never said that killing anyone was more or less reprehensible than killing anyone else. To my mind the question revolves around the threat to society. A man who kills his wife, whether premeditated or not, is not likely to kill other people randomly. Certainly, he should be imprisoned for life, no parole. But he is not a threat to society.
While I have a hard time thinking of how one could "inadvertently or accidentally" kill a police officer while committing a felony, naturally circumstances must be taken into account. But remember: in the US at least, when you commit a felony you are responsible for ALL outcomes of that crime. If you cause the death of ANYONE, whether by design or by accident, it is still felony murder. If you deliberately shoot a police officer you are, by my definition, a serious threat to society, and deserving of the death penalty. Not "pour encourager les autres", but for the protection of the rest of society.
Here, too, the police are public servants. I have never had one call me "buddy". They have always referred to me as "Sir" or as "Mr. Thorne" once they have learned my name. But by the same token, I give them my full respect, because of the job they do, and I refer to them as either "Officer" or "Sir".

[Ozme52]

Better eliminate all cars and motor vehicles too.

In 2002, for example, gun deaths numbered 28+ thousand.
Motorvehicle deaths numbered 43+ thousand...

with drivers of automatics being the worst culprits.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Ok - I have the wrong impression about American cops - I get it from the way your film makers portray them.

I don't see why my argument was extreme. Why is the killing of an unarmed woman who disturbs you during the commission of a crime, in the heat of the moment less bad than killing an armed cop who does the same thing? To my mind, if either is worse than the other (which I do not believe) then it is the killing of the unarmed woman which deserves harsher punishment.

If a man is a threat to society, because he is likely to kill anyone and everyone who gets in his way, he must be taken out of society: I would prefer that to be permanently gaoled.

If a man only kills policemen, he would appear to be obsessive and in need of psychiatric treatment rather than execution.

And what if a policeman's wife kills him during a domestic dispute?

Finally, as lawyers are as important a part of the legal system as police officers are, why should their murders not be treated in exactly the same way.

Osme: Please tell me, are cars designed to kill, or do they have another purpose? What about guns? Maybe you can hold them by the barrel and use them as hammers?

It would be interesting to compare the number of car deaths per car owner with gun deaths per gun owner too.

Also, how many gun victims were shot by automatics?

BTW, you might be amused to know that in all the years' driving experience I have had - too many to want to think about - I had never had an accident until I got an automatic a few years ago. I have had two minor accidents since: I rear ended someone, and I took out a traffic sign. So I'm on your side in that regard )

TYWD

[TomOfSweden]

This discussion again. It's bound to be heated so I'm going to make some popcorn and lean back.

[ThisYouWillDo]

I have tried to be restrained, Tom

[mkemse]

Ok - I have the wrong impression about American cops - I get it from the way your film makers portray them.

I don't see why my argument was extreme. Why is the killing of an unarmed woman who disturbs you during the commission of a crime, in the heat of the moment less bad than killing an armed cop who does the same thing? To my mind, if either is worse than the other (which I do not believe) then it is the killing of the unarmed woman which deserves harsher punishment.

If a man is a threat to society, because he is likely to kill anyone and everyone who gets in his way, he must be taken out of society: I would prefer that to be permanently gaoled.

If a man only kills policemen, he would appear to be obsessive and in need of psychiatric treatment rather than execution.

And what if a policeman's wife kills him during a domestic dispute?

Finally, as lawyers are as important a part of the legal system as police officers are, why should their murders not be treated in exactly the same way.

Osme: Please tell me, are cars designed to kill, or do they have another purpose? What about guns? Maybe you can hold them by the barrel and use them as hammers?

It would be interesting to compare the number of car deaths per car owner with gun deaths per gun owner too.

Also, how many gun victims were shot by automatics?

BTW, you might be amused to know that in all the years' driving experience I have had - too many to want to think about - I had never had an accident until I got an automatic a few years ago. I have had two minor accidents since: I rear ended someone, and I took out a traffic sign. So I'm on your side in that regard )

TYWD

our film maker and movie studios sebsationlizeeverything, but in reality the Gunman at NIU had a Master in Pyscology, and more in portent passed EVERY bck ground check required inthis country to puchase a gun, he had a 2 day wait to check on his mental stability he passed, everytning he did to obtain his guns was legal, they talked to the gun dealer who sold them and the dealer said and has paper work yo back it up, he wentt hrough all the legal steps required by law, back groundcheck, mental health histiry ect and the gun man came up clean on all tests, what next??

[ThisYouWillDo]

To me, it's obvious: if what he did was legal then the laws are wrong. Change them.

[mkemse]

To me, it's obvious: if what he did was legal then the laws are wrong. Change them.

We have tried for years to change gun laws in the United States the big probelm we have is the NRA the National Rifle Association has so much power as lobbiests here that no major changes ever make it through congress, they are killed or burned in congress and get nowhere amknig chages is not the issue getting them passed and having a President sign them is the issue 99% of gun law chahges never go anywhere, they get introduced into congress and then just die there or get vetoed with not enough votes to overide a veto

[Ozme52]

This discussion again. It's bound to be heated so I'm going to make some popcorn and lean back.

I knew in my heart you would bow out of the automatic v. stick-shift argument. No heart Tom?

Osme: Please tell me, are cars designed to kill, or do they have another purpose?

Actually... laffin... the original purpose and design of wheeled vehicles is to deliver a warrior and arms to the fight (or hunt) and to provide an advantage in speed and power. Mobility.

Much later, a secondary purpose and design was introduced to carry goods to and from market.

Personal transportation was a far distant third... primarily reserved for the gentry and upper classes (who also were often the only ones permitted to own weapons.)