What the hell is wrong with kids? On the streets, in school, they just can't kill each other fast enough. This kid was only 14 years old (according to CNN).


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071010/ap_on_re_us/school_shooting

According to the story, the school is across the street from the FBI office.

Smart kid.

I think its called 'accessability to weapons'.

I think its called 'accessability to weapons'.


Bull Shit. I grew up in an area, and a time when everyone had access to weapons. No one kept them locked away. They were in the night stand, or a closet. Kids didn't shoot each other, nor carry them to school, or on the street.
During my first 12 years of schooling, only two fellow students lost their lives. One drowned, one died in an auto accident. Until I joined the military, I didn't even know anyone who had been shot at, intentionally.

I had access to a veritable arsenal of guns when I was a kid. Never had the desire to kill anyone with them.

:rolleyes:

Bull Shit. I grew up in an area, and a time when everyone had access to weapons. No one kept them locked away. They were in the night stand, or a closet. Kids didn't shoot each other, nor carry them to school, or on the street.
During my first 12 years of schooling, only two fellow students lost their lives. One drowned, one died in an auto accident. Until I joined the military, I didn't even know anyone who had been shot at, intentionally.Different strokes for different folks.
The fact is,that accessability to weapons means in some sections of society kids will use them to make a statement.

Different strokes for different folks.
The fact is,that accessability to weapons means in some sections of society kids will use them to make a statement.


Those sections of society being the ones who believe a parents job is complete immediately after the birth of a child.

VERY SAD.........

I wonder what set him off!

Those sections of society being the ones who believe a parents job is complete immediately after the birth of a child.
Cant argue with that.

Bull Shit. I grew up in an area, and a time when everyone had access to weapons. No one kept them locked away. They were in the night stand, or a closet. Kids didn't shoot each other, nor carry them to school, or on the street.
During my first 12 years of schooling, only two fellow students lost their lives. One drowned, one died in an auto accident. Until I joined the military, I didn't even know anyone who had been shot at, intentionally.


Exactly. I'm only 26 and this seems to be the thing to do now. I graduated high school during what was called the "columbine year".

Sadly enough, when my son graduates high school he'll probably be faced with more unthinkable things.

Killer video games - lots of boood & death, hit replay & start over, gangsta mentality, profane gangsta music videos, an expectation of (and no resulting guilt or shame) being imprisoned at some point, street heroism for non-lethal bullet or stab wounds, are all contributing factors.

The Dillinger Gang robbed police stations to get huge arsenals of weapons.

Very very difficult to pull off a heist like that--has to go like clockwork.

One of the tommy guns on display at the Dillinger museum was later returned to the East Chicago police force because they wanted it back--after 60 some odd years. They said having the gun on display "glorified" Johnny.

As indeed it did, haha.

I blame the spate of school shootings on copycats, misfits wanting to get their names in the paper, kids who think shooting up a joint is the answer to all their problems. Most cops would much rather dseal with an adult criminal than a teenaged or younger one--those sorts tend to shoot first, ask questions later.

Does anyone know where or when this trend started?

The first one that really mde worldwide headlines was in Scotland--March 1996.

Yeah I remember that-very bad.


There was one in England before that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/19/newsid_2534000/2534669.stm


Tho I was think about America,were did it all start.

Oct 1997, Mississippi--Luke Woodham, age 16. He killed his mom too. That one REALLY opened the floodgates.

Read up on him a bit,I see that caught him.

I think he got a life sentence. Serving life, at age 16.

Something for those glory boys to think about.

Yeah,trouble is,most of these fuckers shoot themselves to avoid justice.

That is true--also good for bigger headlines.

I know this is an area of interest to you Ren.
Have you ever came across a case of backlash against one of these guys families.

Yeah,trouble is,most of these fuckers shoot themselves to avoid justice.


On the up side, that saves the State a shit pot full of money. No trial, no supporting the fuckers for life.

I haven't read of such, but there has been a backlash against the Columbine shooters parents--mainly because the parents seemed to be such idiots--totally unaware or worse, not caring, that their sons had violent tendencies and also had a huge arsenal hidden under their very noses.

Here guns are very restricted,for obvious reasons,tho this last year,in a couple of murder cases,backlash against the attackers family has been serious.
In one case I know,3-4 houses have been burnt down.

That's pretty sad, paul. The families are not responsible.

Can you give me some details on those murders?

This one is the most intense and long running,others being homes petrol bombed,but the people remaining in they're homes.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/5405504.stm

Killer video games - lots of boood & death, hit replay & start over
The only reason i highlighted this part is because ive always enjoyed first person shooter type video games, violent "shoot em up" movies. My favorite author growing up was stephen king and his macabre imaginations. Ive never felt that these games and interests have made me more or less agressive than I already am.

I think violence is something that is in all of us, and blaming it on some video game is easy. Some have a flaw that allows them to hurt/kill others without much emotional involvement, save self pity. Some video game wasnt the spark that kindled the fire, imo.

Not everyone is wired the same as you are. Not everyone can walk away from a SK novel or a 'killer' movie unscathed. The listings I made are contributing factors, no one item is responsible for the behavior of any shooter, but taken collectively may be a different story.

The only reason i highlighted this part is because ive always enjoyed first person shooter type video games, violent "shoot em up" movies. My favorite author growing up was stephen king and his macabre imaginations. Ive never felt that these games and interests have made me more or less agressive than I already am.Interesting you should bring this up.

Here is King's take on the matter:

http://www.horrorking.com/interview7.html

An excerpt:



I can't say for sure that Michael Carneal, the boy from Kentucky who shot three of his classmates dead as they prayed before school, had read my novel, Rage, but news stories following the incident reported that a copy of it had been found in his locker. It seems likely to me that he did. Rage had been mentioned in at least one other school shooting, and in the wake of that one an FBI agent asked if he could interview me on the subject, with an eye to setting up a computer profile that would help identify potentially dangerous adolescents. The Carneal incident was enough for me. I asked my publisher to take the damned thing out of print. They concurred. Are there still copies of Rage available? Yes, of course, some in libraries where you ladies and gentlemen ply your trade. Because, like the guns and the explosives and the Ninja throwing-stars you can buy over the Internet, all that stuff is just lying around and waiting for someone to pick it up.

Do I think that Rage may have provoked Carneal, or any other badly adjusted young person, to resort to the gun? It's an important question, because it goes to the very heart of the wrangle over who's to blame. You might as well ask if I believe that the mere presence of a gun makes some people want to use that gun. The answer is troubling, but it needs to be faced: in some cases, yes. Probably it does. Often? No, I don't believe so. How often is too often? That's not for me or any other single person to say. It's a question each part of our society must answer for itself, as each state, for instance, must answer the question of when a kid is old enough to have a driver's license or buy a drink.

There are factors in the Carneal case which make it doubtful that Rage was the defining factor, but I fully recognize that it is in my own self-interest to feel just that way; that I am prejudiced in my own behalf. I also recognize the fact that a novel such as Rage may act as an accelerant on a troubled mind; one cannot divorce the presence of my book in that kid's locker from what he did any more than one can divorce the gruesome sex-murders committed by Ted Bundy from his extensive collection of bondage-oriented porno magazines. To argue free speech in the face of such an obvious linkage (or to suggest that others may obtain a catharsis from such material which allows them to be atrocious only in their fantasies) seems to me immoral. That such stories, video games (Harris was fond of a violent computer-shootout game called Doom), or photographic scenarios will exist no matter what--that they will be obtainable under the counter if not over it--begs the question. The point is that I don't want to be a part of it. Once I knew what had happened, I pulled the ejection-seat lever on that particular piece of work. I withdrew Rage, and I did it with relief rather than regret.

If, on the other hand, you were to ask me if the presence of potentially unstable or homicidal persons makes it immoral to write a novel or make a movie in which violence plays a part, I would say absolutely not. In most cases, I have no patience with such reasoning. I reject it as both bad thinking and bad morals. Like it or not, violence is a part of life and a unique part of American life. If accused of being part of the problem, my response is the time-honored reporter's answer: “Hey, many, I don't make the news, I just report it.”

I write fantasies, but draw from the world I see. If that sometimes hurts, it's because the truth usually does. John Steinbeck was accused of gratuitous ugliness when he wrote about the migration of the Okies to California in The Grapes of Wrath, even of trying to foment a domestic revolution, but most of his accusers--like those who made similar accusations against Upton Sinclair when he wrote about the corrupt putrescence of the meat-packing industry in The Jungle--were people who preferred fairy-tales and happily-ever-afters. Sometimes the truth of how we live is just ugly, that's all. But to turn aside from these truths out of some perceived delicacy, or to give in to the idea that writing about violence causes violence, is to embrace hypocrisy. In Washington, hypocrisy breeds politicians. In the arts, it breeds pornography.

Interesting you should bring this up.

Here is King's take on the matter:

http://www.horrorking.com/interview7.html

An excerpt:



I can't say for sure that Michael Carneal, the boy from Kentucky who shot three of his classmates dead as they prayed before school, had read my novel, Rage, but news stories following the incident reported that a copy of it had been found in his locker. It seems likely to me that he did. Rage had been mentioned in at least one other school shooting, and in the wake of that one an FBI agent asked if he could interview me on the subject, with an eye to setting up a computer profile that would help identify potentially dangerous adolescents. The Carneal incident was enough for me. I asked my publisher to take the damned thing out of print. They concurred. Are there still copies of Rage available? Yes, of course, some in libraries where you ladies and gentlemen ply your trade. Because, like the guns and the explosives and the Ninja throwing-stars you can buy over the Internet, all that stuff is just lying around and waiting for someone to pick it up.

Do I think that Rage may have provoked Carneal, or any other badly adjusted young person, to resort to the gun? It's an important question, because it goes to the very heart of the wrangle over who's to blame. You might as well ask if I believe that the mere presence of a gun makes some people want to use that gun. The answer is troubling, but it needs to be faced: in some cases, yes. Probably it does. Often? No, I don't believe so. How often is too often? That's not for me or any other single person to say. It's a question each part of our society must answer for itself, as each state, for instance, must answer the question of when a kid is old enough to have a driver's license or buy a drink.

There are factors in the Carneal case which make it doubtful that Rage was the defining factor, but I fully recognize that it is in my own self-interest to feel just that way; that I am prejudiced in my own behalf. I also recognize the fact that a novel such as Rage may act as an accelerant on a troubled mind; one cannot divorce the presence of my book in that kid's locker from what he did any more than one can divorce the gruesome sex-murders committed by Ted Bundy from his extensive collection of bondage-oriented porno magazines. To argue free speech in the face of such an obvious linkage (or to suggest that others may obtain a catharsis from such material which allows them to be atrocious only in their fantasies) seems to me immoral. That such stories, video games (Harris was fond of a violent computer-shootout game called Doom), or photographic scenarios will exist no matter what--that they will be obtainable under the counter if not over it--begs the question. The point is that I don't want to be a part of it. Once I knew what had happened, I pulled the ejection-seat lever on that particular piece of work. I withdrew Rage, and I did it with relief rather than regret.

If, on the other hand, you were to ask me if the presence of potentially unstable or homicidal persons makes it immoral to write a novel or make a movie in which violence plays a part, I would say absolutely not. In most cases, I have no patience with such reasoning. I reject it as both bad thinking and bad morals. Like it or not, violence is a part of life and a unique part of American life. If accused of being part of the problem, my response is the time-honored reporter's answer: “Hey, many, I don't make the news, I just report it.”

I write fantasies, but draw from the world I see. If that sometimes hurts, it's because the truth usually does. John Steinbeck was accused of gratuitous ugliness when he wrote about the migration of the Okies to California in The Grapes of Wrath, even of trying to foment a domestic revolution, but most of his accusers--like those who made similar accusations against Upton Sinclair when he wrote about the corrupt putrescence of the meat-packing industry in The Jungle--were people who preferred fairy-tales and happily-ever-afters. Sometimes the truth of how we live is just ugly, that's all. But to turn aside from these truths out of some perceived delicacy, or to give in to the idea that writing about violence causes violence, is to embrace hypocrisy. In Washington, hypocrisy breeds politicians. In the arts, it breeds pornography.

When i was in my reading phase,a little over 10 years ago,I read a
Novel a week.Sometimes more,sometimes less.
I dint tackle - Remembrance of Things Past - but started too.
I was virtually in awe every time Stephen King had a new fiction
out.The number of diehard followers he had was staggering.
So,I used to play a little game.I'd start-up a conversation with these
rabid followers,who just had to have THE latest King Novel,and slowly
weaved my inquiry towards what other Novelists or Novels they
read or thought moving.Virtually to a reader,Those King Followers were
for all intent and purpose..Ignurnt about other Great Authors and
great books.
So by process of elimination,one could easily glean,that those
reading exclusively King books are prone to muttonhead syndrome or
worse.

Not everyone is wired the same as you are. Not everyone can walk away from a SK novel or a 'killer' movie unscathed. The listings I made are contributing factors, no one item is responsible for the behavior of any shooter, but taken collectively may be a different story.
i never walk away unscathed. scared not inspired, but i'm closer to normal.

I don't think violent video games will make someone a killer, or even sway them towards 'evil', but some games can have the unintended effect of conditioning people to have certain responses.

There was a case I read about a few years back about a teenage boy who spent many hours playing a first-person shooter game where multiple targets were presented to the player and they were to be shot as quickly as possible (a scenario that I'm sure is common to many games of this type). This kid then went on to stick up a convenience store with a buddy of his. When they confronted the store clerk with the gun they demanded money. The store clerk moved to comply and was shot dead by this kid. In all the interviews afterward the kid was unable to say why he'd shot the guy and there seemed no reason for it. At his trial an expert witness testified (convincingly IMO), that he hadn't shot the guy for any reason at all, rather shooting targets had become a conditioned response due to the long hours he spent doing just that in front of his computer monitor.

I doubt anything like this can ever be definitively proven or demonstrated, but I have no problem believing you can condition people to shoot a gun at a target to the degree that it becomes a reflexive reaction.

If it can become a "conditioned" response, does this not argue that these games do have some potential dangers?

I think they do have potential dangers, even if they mostly result in things that are a little less drastic than murdering people. My brother enjoys first person shooter games too, and they make him grumpy and aggressive.

I strongly disagree with the idea that video games cause violent behavior.

Here's an interesting rebuttal to this myth:

http://www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerevolution/impact/myths.html


Where were the games when Charles Whitman killed half a dozen from his sniper's nest at the University of Texas campus?

Where were they when the Son of Sam went on his summer-long rampage?
To blame these cartoonish games is quite the reach. Eric Harris himself ridiculed the notion. His statement was brutal in its honesty:

"We are doing this because we hate the world."...he ridiculed the idea that video games were the cause or trigger of his upcoming slaughter.

But of course, the pundits ALWAYS have to assign blame--after all, these games MADE a kid kill? Triggered his "inherent" violent tendencies?
ridiculous.

Has anyone actually played these games, like "Grand Theft Auto" or "25 to Life"? I have and so have our kids and sons in laws and their friends. They are first person shoot em ups, and resemble Saturday morning cartoons.....CARTOONS, folks, not the reason or trigger for these rampages.

I don't think violent video games will make someone a killer, or even sway them towards 'evil', but some games can have the unintended effect of conditioning people to have certain responses.

There was a case I read about a few years back about a teenage boy who spent many hours playing a first-person shooter game where multiple targets were presented to the player and they were to be shot as quickly as possible (a scenario that I'm sure is common to many games of this type). This kid then went on to stick up a convenience store with a buddy of his. When they confronted the store clerk with the gun they demanded money. The store clerk moved to comply and was shot dead by this kid. In all the interviews afterward the kid was unable to say why he'd shot the guy and there seemed no reason for it. At his trial an expert witness testified (convincingly IMO), that he hadn't shot the guy for any reason at all, rather shooting targets had become a conditioned response due to the long hours he spent doing just that in front of his computer monitor.

I doubt anything like this can ever be definitively proven or demonstrated, but I have no problem believing you can condition people to shoot a gun at a target to the degree that it becomes a reflexive reaction.

If it can become a "conditioned" response, does this not argue that these games do have some potential dangers?

Vile,
I'm wondering what "conditioned response" made the boy decide to rob the storekeeper to begin with, and what "response" it was that "made" him take a loaded gun into the store.
Frankly, and with all due respect, I find the boy's "defense" a load of bunkum.

Vile,
I'm wondering what "conditioned response" made the boy decide to rob the storekeeper to begin with, and what "response" it was that "made" him take a loaded gun into the store.
Frankly, and with all due respect, I find the boy's "defense" a load of bunkum.
Have to agree with you. Nothing forced any of his actions prior to his cowardly act of shooting an unarmed person in cold blood. He is the only cause of putting himself in that position in the first place.

It's funny I'm obessed with the Saw movies...these are movies about torture. And I've never thought about hurting anyone before in my life. I cry when others get hurt. I pray. I feel bad if I failed to say hi to someone in the hallway at work.

go figure.

If it can become a "conditioned" response, does this not argue that these games do have some potential dangers?

I don't know Vile, are you saying people can actually "learn" parts of their personality through conditioning?

I strongly disagree with the idea that video games cause violent behavior.

Here's an interesting rebuttal to this myth:

Has anyone actually played these games, like "Grand Theft Auto" or "25 to Life"? I have and so have our kids and sons in laws and their friends. They are first person shoot em ups, and resemble Saturday morning cartoons.....CARTOONS, folks, not the reason or trigger for these rampages.
i play gta ma'am.i dont think its the reason for it ether.