What appeals to rampage murders ?

Scott Evans

Staff Alumnus
Resistance free, target rich environments.

If this were not so then why do we not see such atrocities attempted in police stations, shooting ranges, on military bases or anywhere individuals are likely to be armed?

Such events are actually on the rise since the sweeping “No Tolerance gun restriction laws” have been imposed on schools. Teachers and administrators (who should no doubt be responsible citizens) who may have in the past carried a firearm cannot. Why has no media person made the connection ?


Resistance free, target rich environment = DANGER

Resistance capable environments = deterrence and there by safety
 
Scott - I've semi-successfully (some people simply refuse to use any logic) used the same argument yesterday and today. So true.
 
....And it gives The Brady Bunch what they want.They can say..see,see we told you so!
The news will eat it up.

------------------
Keep the Faith and the Constitution
 
Scott,
Your fine question is deeper than I am qualified to address - but (lacking
personal control :) ) I’ll take a shot at it. (Insert standard disclaimer about
not being a “shrink”.)

A “rampager” may perceive a tempting target, but what makes him
rampage? Something overwhelmed “normal” values.

All of us get angry but we don’t shoot people who merely slight us. We bring
about change or ignore the problem.

Some people are unwilling or unable to cope with their problems. They may
feel inferior or impotent and become so frustrated that they fall prey to any
“empowering” element. In well-balanced people, this “I’ll show them”
response may bring about high achievement (e.g. Colin Powell and Theodore
Roosevelt). Other frustrated people try to find empowerment through
membership in organizations (e.g. military forces, law enforcement,
churches, labor unions, HCI, NRA, etc.). Unfortunately, some people turn to
destructive organizations like the UAP - as the Littleton shooters may have
done. The need to “belong” can overwhelm some people - especially the
young, the uneducated, and the inexperienced. (Puberty, menopause, and
other crises frequently exacerbate such problems.)

The root causes of such unbearable frustration may be hereditary,
intellectual, environmental, something else, or “none of the above”! We may
not know the causes, but we all recognize something has changed in our
society.

Fist fights have become gun fights. “Hissy fits” have become mass murders.
Personal industry is scorned, thwarted by our government, and considered
unnecessary - even naive. The values of past generations such as integrity
and truth have been replaced with “situational ethics” - moral silly putty.

Many of us have become fat and lazy - physically, morally and intellectually.
At one extreme we show heart-rending emotion over trivialities. At another
extreme we have become truly heartless. Personal responsibility has been
replaced with finger-pointing; etc.

Our self-serving, paternalistic government has created a bureaucratic Hydra
- increasingly ruling over us as “subjects”, further destroying our privacy,
values, and initiative.

Increasing population density restricts many of our earlier freedoms and
activities and unites fringe groups of every ilk.

Achievement and individualism are given mere lip service as our children are
educated downward to the lowest common denominator in the name of
Equal Rights - frequently creating social parasites out of potential achievers.

Many families no longer have time (or make time) for their children. With
both Mom and Dad working, many homes are little more than sleeping
quarters; fancy status symbols; showplaces representing albatross-like
financial burdens; morally empty shells devoid of values, solace, or sense of
“belonging”.

In many homes, children are treated as expensive irritants, disturbances
interfering with parents’ “time off”. Such children may never learn virtuous
values or realistic coping abilities, so (for example) we find a single
UNemployed mother who neither knows nor cares where her children are at
two o’clock on a weekday (i.e. schoolday) morning.

Happily there are exceptions - frequently in the homes which are most
time-pressured! For example, many single parents work full-time, may even
have an additional part-time job, and still find time to shower love, affection,
and training on their children.

We, as a nation, are reaping the whirlwind we have sown by spending
excessive time and money on “escapes”; by ignoring our children, and by
relying upon the government, schools, and other babysitters to raise our
children for us. If we denigrate values and refuse to teach them, we can not
expect our kids to have them.

Scott, I believe the answer to your question is that the Littleton rampagers
reached the end of their rope. They felt pressures (real or imagined) too
great to describe, to analyze, or (tragically) to cope with.

Overwhelmed people frequently leap at any apparent solution - too
frequently some charismatic person or group.

If the individual is lucky, the chosen solution provides good values. If
individuals are unlucky, having no internal values themselves, they may be
taken over by bad values and follow a Hitler, Jim Jones, etc. For some such
people violent films, TV programs, and computer games affect personal
values - desensitizing them to violence, developing the thought processes of
violence and revenge.

From there it may be a short step to any “final solution” - a brief moment of
recognition or revenge; suicide; or even mass suicide.

Obviously many of us have or had hard lives but, from some intrinsic or
extrinsic source, we have developed values, coping mechanisms, self-worth,
etc. Other people, frequently with lesser travails, can not develop such skills
and sink into some form of aberrant behavior.

I’m sure there is no 100% cure to such problems - but we could be doing
much, much better. Where may the answers be found? I have only
personal opinions about where to search. Rest assured, I will not rely upon
the self-serving bureaucracies of our paternalist government or the
mush-minded, touchy-feely drivel of most academic “institutions of higher
learning”.

But we must find and correct the root causes of our problems rather than
merely address the symptoms. Or mass murders and tyranny will increase
and, paradoxically, may become the least of our problems.
 
Have you ever played the game Doom, or how about Duke Nukem 3D? Wolfenstien3D? Rise Of the Triad, Alien Trilogy, Metal Gear Solid, or Syphon Filter? We should probably ask our selves why we play such video games. The hero walks down the hallway killing the monsters that threaten him. . These desensitize gun violence, and make it seem normal. these games could easily fool a pissed off teenager into using the easy way out, instead of seeking help with his or her issues. I play these type of games to break from reality but I still know when to come back. These troubled kids do not. And they will use any easy method off attention getting they can find. I know I was in the same boat for a while. Picked on at school, told I was a weirdo, a freak. Just because I do things a little differently. Does anyone have an experience simmular to this, even from the other piont of veiw? You knew a weirdo, or disliked the freaks.

------------------
The needs of the many out way the needs of the few.
 
Hmmm...as a kid, I often wished for a PPSh and several drums to fight the bullies in school and neighborhood, when my parents could not protect me and teachers would not. Given a chance, I do think that I would have killed every one that attacked me, on behalf of myself and other non-agressive innocents. In other words, a submachine gun is a reasonable response to an unarmed mob, because they have the capability and demonstrated will to attack and kill or maim.

I think that the desire to eliminate people who constantly put one in fear for life and limb is normal. Most people think that armed response is the way to combat terrorists.

Unfortunately, the CO teens had bacome terrorists themselves by 1)inflicting massive damage on the innocents and 2)retaliating for non-lifethreatening abuse with murder. It was a matter of applying a sometimes-appropriate response to completely inappropriate situation.

To sum up this incoherent rant: I think most kids understand the principle of non-aggression. Those who do not are either professional victims, incapable of fighting back no matter what or nutcases like the two in CO. The middle ground is the same for adults, use of force only to save own or dependents' lives.

At which point we can trust kids' judgement is another question. Given that 18yr ords are trusted to go fight wars, it would not be a big stretch to trust 14yr olds with firearms for *all lawful purposes*, including self-defense. Historically, that approach worked. Unfortunately, the current approach is to handicap all kids except the violent and senseless fringe...wow, what a bright idea!



------------------
Cornered Rat
ddb.com/RKBA Updated March 20
"Turn in your guns, get a a free tattoo on your arm"
 
Come on, CR, there's a world of difference between physical threats & abuse and verbal taunts, ridicule, etc., that are common in high school. Yeah, being a doofy kid I took my share of crap and remember how much it hurt and fantasizing about all kinds of bloody retribution, but aside from a few bare knuckle dust-ups, nothing ever happened. Although I remember wishing heinous things on my tormentors, but there's a vast leap between wishing and acting (and I had a shotgun of my own plus access to dad's .45 at the time).

I agree that the desire to get even is pretty normal, but acting on it in such a devastating way isn't. I'm not so sure about the most kids know the difference about nonagression though, let alone knowing the diff betwen TV and reality.

At the ripe old age of 50 and in a position to deal with a fair number of kids just out of college, I must say the over-inflated opinions of self worth and expectations of reward/recognition are pretty out of sync with reality. IMHO, about a quarter to a third of the young'uns I deal with don't have both oars in the water to some degree.

Age is only good for perspective, and I did't really understand the 'generation gap' until I spanned one or two, but a lot of today's kids really are weirder that I remember and I wuz a longhairedhippiefreakcommieratbastarddopesmokin'pinkoniggerloverfaggot child of the 60's - No dis intended, & pardon the rant, but life is strange these daze. M2
 
On magnitude of threats...

I do not think that lack of understanding by the assailant of the damage he is doing should count as a reason not to respond with overwhelming force, if possible. After all, getting eaten by a bear is not morally superior to surviving (and killing the poor beast which was only doing what's natural for it). Likewise, restraint in the face of people bent on doing physical damage to you, no matter if they state intent to "only rough you up", is foolish, IMO.

To simplify, from the stand point of ethics, not legal aspects, I see an argument for not responding with force to ANY non-physical abuse (teasing, namecalling, etc.) but to select fight or flight in case the abuse is physical. If the opposition doesn't know well enough to avoid initiating violence, they are not likely to know well enough to only inflic superficial and non-permanent damage.

Flight would be MUCH preferred but not always possible.

In the case of "fight" I would not want to trade a fist blow for fist blow. The proper answer to a fist (morally right, not always legally sound) is a shotgun slug in the face or something equally potent. The proper answer to baseball bat or a knife or a gun is still the same, utmostly lethal response. Lethal, as in the most likely way to stop the attack and remove the attacker.

It does not matter what level of hurt the initiator of violence intends. If a wolf has only teeth and blunt claws, do you get your rifle aside and bite it? Why treat two-legged predators differently? We know that those few tigers and bears that get a taste for slow, tasty humans tend to keep at it till removed. Most deviant humans do just that.

(Again, I am arguing ethics, not law.)

The issue gets less clear to me in case of kids...in the absence of parental protection and guidance, can a 25-yr old like me judge what is real danger and what isn't? 16-yr old? 12? 8?


------------------
Cornered Rat
ddb.com/RKBA Updated March 20
"Turn in your guns, get a a free tattoo on your arm"
 
CR

At which point we can trust kids' judgement is another question. Given
that 18yr ords are trusted to go fight wars, it would not be a big
stretch to trust 14yr olds with firearms for *all lawful purposes*,
including self-defense. Historically, that approach worked."


Oh come on!
1) 18 yr old military "kids" do not pack live ammo unsupervised stateside. When they are issued live arms, they are in the particular war zone and any potential undesirable damage they might do is an acceptable risk
2) Its obvious you have no background in biology....adolescence is a time when body chemicals and hormones are literally changing the body and influencing ALL bodily processes. This is a biological fact and it is a fact that mental processes are indeed affected.
3) Unsupervised 14 yr olds? Historically? Perhaps in a frontier society....not in a society of high population density.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
If I am off-base on my assumption about teenagers, that merely means that the oldtimers I know are 1)atypical 2)lucky or 3)exaggerating their own goodness.

Could well be more than one of those...
 
Mike in VA,

Since you opened the can of worms, I will second the vote for "Imagined Retribution" being pretty common. Some kids might think about having superman like strength and beating the crap out of people, others might (as has been depicted in several movies) picture being armed to the teeth and gunning down their enemies.

I was on the phone with a complete idiot the afternoon of the shooting who said she was so glad her kids went to a quiet rural school. I askher what she was talking about!.. all of the shootings that I can recall since Stockton in 1989 have been at moe or less rural schools.. certainly none of them have been at any "inner city" schools... of course not, in those schools we have police presence, in those schools, in many cases, we have metal detectors and/or bars ont he windows and the doors are locked at most entrances.

The schools which one "off-the-cuff" thinks of a dangerous are actually only dangerous on the same interpersonal level that schools have always been dangerous.. the bully can always corner you on the stairs or in the boys room and pop you one.. or maybe three guys can get you in the hall and whallop you a few times.. but only in these supposedly "safe" rural schools, filled with unsuspecting sheep, do we have these massacres of rampaging sociopaths.
 
Rob -
That is the irony of it all. As you point out, city schools are pretty secure, suburban & rural ones are not. The wolf waits till the sheep dog isn't around to do his thing. All those against armed teachers or other Responsible Adults on school property have completely missed the point. Those are people who tend to love kids and would protect them, not hurt them. I suppose you could argue that if they're bright enough to plan an attack like Littleton, they might be bright enough to figure who on staff was packing and disarm or take them out first, but still, old age and treachery has been know to undo youth and skill. Further, facing an armed adult is inconsistent with the cowardly behavour demonstrated by these litlle bastards. Granted that at this point it is idle speculation, but I believe taht the presence of armed adults could have made a difference.

I have this really strong urge to throttle (unfulfilled, of course) the anti's who are against CCW permits. WE ARE NOT THE PROBLEM!!! We are law-abiding to a fault, and the background check proves it! (not that I appreciate the state's nose in my butt). They just don't get it. I (or you/many TFLers) am exactly the kind of person you want in your neighborhood, because I do pay attention to what goes on and who comes and goes, and if I hear 'trouble', I will come (usually armed & w/cell phone).

Back on thread, though, I agree kids are goofy by nature and have vivid imaginations, which when combined with lack of perspective from life experiences but mixed with too much TV BS, can result in pretty lurid fantasies. And though I also perceive an erosion of values and discipline that makes these dangerous times, most kids just cuss, bitch and get over it, ultimately out grow it. But there are the few out past the 3rd std. dev. that lose it and act on it, and I'm afraid we still don't know why. All we can do is be aware that it can happen anywhere and take care, as chance favors the prepared mind. End of sermon, have a nice weekend. M2

[This message has been edited by Mike in VA (edited April 23, 1999).]
 
I'm glad there is quite a bit of violence on TV, movies, and video games. It is a form of release, a place where a civilized society can channel their aggressive energy in a harmless manner. Same reason why we love sports and pro-wrestling. Because there, we can let it all out. That's why prisons have weight-lifting rooms, though some would argue that it's just making them stronger.

Truth is, those kids are not too far off from other teenagers. No, really. I'm sure you folks have been keeping up with news, and know they're suffering from the same issues and problems that any other teenagers are going through right now. The only difference is that they have failed to properly adjust and make the transition as most of us have. And that's a real shame. So, let's not blame the parents, the guns, or even the media. Kids need help. We need to be there.

$.02
 
Back
Top