Jokela School shooting

[Meshugger]

Meshugger:

Your post shows much of the reasons for a common mistake: People don't become that hateful because of (abusing) Nietzsche or listening to Black Metal. People are made that by others. You aren't likely to go out and kill people (except probably in some dangerous cases of schizophrenia) if you've got friends, if there are people treating you well, if your parents respect you for what you are, or at least leave you alone if you need that. The beginning is really as simple as that. I agree that there might be a common cause of people turning to the "darker" side of life and people killing others. It's that cause that needs to be condemned, not the lifestyle that might result of such a cause (and actually might prevent you from hurting others, because you've found a good way to deal with the **** that has been done to you). The cause is the (probably casual and careless) cruelty of others.

 

You misunderstood my point

 

Personally, i love reading Nietzsche and i like my own occasional dose Black Metal, such as Emperor and Mayhem. My point was, why are they always using the same artists and writers as their inspiration to their twisted reality? Nietzsche just wanted to find a way for man to a good life without god(s) and create a morality of their own. And most Black Metal artists have said themselves that they are to music, as the horror-genre is for movies. I mean, by now, people should understand that already, matured to read between the lines so to speak.

 

Maybe his parents failed to talk to him completely.

[Walsingham]

Samm, you're making a good point when you say that isolation is a problem more than death metal or whatever.

 

However, in my experience - and I'd be interested to hear if anyone agrees - many of those who are isolated are:

 

1. Pretty inept and selfish to begin with (for reasons beyond me).

2. Exagerrate their awkwardness by listening to music no-one else likes, and indulging in excessive displays of irritation and anger.

 

I'm really just saying that while people around these people have to look to tehir own behaviour a bit, it's not like it's everyone's fault but the munta in the middle. I speak as someone who has had a fair amount to do with teenagers over the years, as a sports coach, employer, and latterly as an Army recruit. But as i say, I'd like to know if anyone agrees.

[Gorgon]

Teenagers are relatively new at heart wrenching soul searching and introverted agression, so they sometimes come off as egotistical.

 

Serious mental instability can hide behind what we usually describe as a 'phase'

So before we go wagging our fingers at how good they have it and how they are screwing up their prospects, remember that they are basically insecure and the rest is a posture.

[Walsingham]

Teenagers are relatively new at heart wrenching soul searching and introverted agression, so they sometimes come off as egotistical.

 

Serious mental instability can hide behind what we usually describe as a 'phase'

So before we go wagging our fingers at how good they have it and how they are screwing up their prospects, remember that they are basically insecure and the rest is a posture.

 

I stand corrected. you are right, of course to remind me that some folks have serious unavoidable problems manifesting as awkwardness.

 

On a similar note, and keeping in mind I'm in favour of gun control I was furious to see this incident being used opportunistically as an excuse to beat the drum. I think it's pretty clear that in this instance the failure was in pastoral care and support, not gun control. The boy was clearly capable of committing vilence in other ways, since he had in his possession bomb making manuals.

[Gorgon]

Why does that make you furious.

 

He reenacted the Columbine massacre, to my knowledge I can't think of any examples of a student using bombs to massacre people at a school. He didn't either, he used guns. The what ifs are not at the core of the matter.

 

These tragedies are a global phenomenon, but they occur in greater frequency if it is realatively easy to aquire guns.

 

To me it's not a question of a political adenda, i'm not trying to get elected, I do however feel that there is no reason to tiptoe around the glaringly obvious.

 

Is the how as important as the why, of course not, but it belongs in the discussion.

[Guard Dog]

To me it's not a question of a political adenda, i'm not trying to get elected, I do however feel that there is no reason to tiptoe around the glaringly obvious.

Of course! The real blame for the problem must lie with an inanimate object. You know, firearms have been in the western world since the late 15th Century and they have never been harder to come by than they are right now. This phenomenon of children killing their classmates just sprung up about 15 years ago so it is a tad illogical to claim guns are part of the cause since they have been there all along. I think is it MUCH more important to concentrate on the why and forget the how because as someone else correctly pointed out, if it was not a gun he used, it would have been something else.

[Sand]

A gun is just a tool. By itself it cn't harm anyone. People kill people. Guns are just a tool they use. They could have easily use a car, a knife, a heavy blunt object, kitchen chemicals, and so forth and so on.

[Musopticon?]

I think it should be made clear here that Finland has near-zero gun-related crime even though we are the third most armed nation in the world(IIRC). At least in this case, sctricter gun laws would have amounted to nothing.

 

I understand though that like in Dylon Connie's case, no one should be able to get hand grenades and automatics in their grubby paws. Those are not some hobbyist paraphelia, like the .22 Auvinen had which is easily acquired, but tools for killing.

Edited November 13, 2007 by Musopticon?

[Blarghagh]

Guns do the job a lot easier though.

 

Why is everyone acting surprised? Finland is just like the rest of the world. America does not have a trademark on idiocy like some of my fellow europeans seem to believe. Then again, maybe I've become too desensitized to these sort of things... I didn't even bat an eyelash when I heard. Then again again, 9/11 wasn't even enough to faze me, and I was 12 at the time.

Edited November 13, 2007 by TrueNeutral

[Tale]

I'm not one for gun control, but I am aware of psychological studies on the subject of access encouraging violence. Empowerment isn't just about being able to kill someone, if you know you can, you're more likely to try. To completely ignore and discount the existence of guns in contributing towards violence is about shifting blame as much as people who shift it onto guns.

 

To claim that people who argue that guns contribute to violence are arguing that guns themselves cause the violence is to make a strawman. As I said, I'm not one for gun control, but making ignorant attributions to and assumptions of the arguments for it doesn't help.

[Gorgon]

A gun is just a tool. By itself it cn't harm anyone. People kill people. Guns are just a tool they use. They could have easily use a car, a knife, a heavy blunt object, kitchen chemicals, and so forth and so on.

 

The age old NRA mantra. Anyhow, the guns are important because this is an act inspired by media coverage of school shootings.

 

Not to suggest that guns are more important than the reasons he acted like he did, but again, a bomb would probably not have been the same, bombers are tactical and dispassionate, they plan on not getting caught. I don't recall any instance of a student using bombs against his shool, well aside from the millions of bomb scares conveniently centered around the exam season.

Edited November 13, 2007 by Gorgon

[Sand]

Those really annoyed me. I rather take the exam and get it over with than wait for the bomb squad to do a sweep.

 

Anyway, we need to find the reasons for such behaviors, take a good look at the warning signs, then help these individuals before they do something stupid. Parents are definitely key in this and they should take the brunt of responsibility when this sort of thing happens.

Edited November 13, 2007 by Sand

[Walsingham]

I'm furious because the real lesson which ought to be drawn from _this particular case_ is being missed. this was a young man who needed help. The system failed to pick up on it, and neither helped him nor imposed any kind of control over him.

 

I guess it makes me extra angry because there is worldwide an almost total absence of mental health care which either cares for the individual or protects society. We've had cases in the UK where men have gone nuts with knives and killed/maimed more than a handful at a time.

 

I'm in favour of gun control more generally not to prevent random fruitloops but to prevent crimes of passion, and a general vigilante mentality that weakens the processes and institutions of law enforcement.

[mkreku]

A hand grenade is just a tool. It doesn't harm anyone if it's just lying on a shelf. Who cares that it's pretty bloody lethal IF someone chooses to toss it into a class room? IT'S JUST A TOOL!

[Sand]

A hand grenade is just a tool. It doesn't harm anyone if it's just lying on a shelf. Who cares that it's pretty bloody lethal IF someone chooses to toss it into a class room? IT'S JUST A TOOL!

I agree.

[Tale]

A hand grenade is just a tool. It doesn't harm anyone if it's just lying on a shelf. Who cares that it's pretty bloody lethal IF someone chooses to toss it into a class room? IT'S JUST A TOOL!

I agree.

Swift would have loved you.

[Walsingham]

A hand grenade is just a tool. It doesn't harm anyone if it's just lying on a shelf. Who cares that it's pretty bloody lethal IF someone chooses to toss it into a class room? IT'S JUST A TOOL!

 

And you wouldn't be alarmed iof you saw a live grenade on the sidewalk? I think Eddie Izzard summed it up nicely: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people. And so do monkeys, if they have guns."

[Morgoth]

A hand grenade is just a tool. It doesn't harm anyone if it's just lying on a shelf. Who cares that it's pretty bloody lethal IF someone chooses to toss it into a class room? IT'S JUST A TOOL!

Never heard of propriety and responsibility, right? When western countries start to become as careless about weapon law as some Warlord controlled African provinces, you can't help but feel things are going mightily wrong.

[Sand]

Humans have been looking at more innovative ways to kill each other, and at greater quantities, for centuries. Its in our nature and that is something that isn't going to change any time soon, it is just some of us express that destructive aspect within ourselves more constructively than others (such as letting loose in a FPS than a classroom of one's peers). However, if guns and grenades were not available these people will find some other way to kill.

[Guard Dog]

I'm not one for gun control, but I am aware of psychological studies on the subject of access encouraging violence. Empowerment isn't just about being able to kill someone, if you know you can, you're more likely to try. To completely ignore and discount the existence of guns in contributing towards violence is about shifting blame as much as people who shift it onto guns.

Tale, your expertise on psychology far outweighs mine (obviously) but it just seems unreasonable to me that simply having a gun makes you more likely to use it. To back me up on this I'd point out that in the US around 80% of gun crime is committed with illegally obtained weapons. If we can take for granted that there are far more guns legally owned than illegally owned that statistic undermines the premise of the study.

[Tale]

Tale, your expertise on psychology far outweighs mine (obviously) but it just seems unreasonable to me that simply having a gun makes you more likely to use it.

I haven't read the study, either. If I had the ability to search for it now I would. But to make a quick speculation on what it could mean, it's possible that a tool whose common connotation is violence, can possibly inspire violence.

 

To back me up on this I'd point out that in the US around 80% of gun crime is committed with illegally obtained weapons. If we can take for granted that there are far more guns legally owned than illegally owned that statistic undermines the premise of the study.

I'm not clear on the point you're trying to make here. The only thing those stats imply is the notion that gun control won't have overly significant impact on preventing gun crime. Which is not "the premise of the study" nor does it contest the notion that access encourages use. Illegal access is still access.

 

Or are you stating that since most gun possessors do not commit gun that guns don't contribute to crime. The idea that most gun owners don't engage in crime does not mean that the presence of a gun does not contribute to crime. A majority is not required for statistical significance to demonstrate the existence of an effect.

Edited November 13, 2007 by Tale

[Walsingham]

GD you make an interesting point. It does indeed suggest that there is a significant difference between legal and illegal gun owners. Would you happen to know how many offenders are repeat criminal offenders?

 

I'm beginning to think that maybe the answer is legal ownership if done in conjunction with lessons in responsible use and anger management, possibly adding in non-firearms self-defence. Thoughts?

[Tale]

I'm beginning to think that maybe the answer is legal ownership if done in conjunction with lessons in responsible use and anger management, possibly adding in non-firearms self-defence. Thoughts?

I'm always for education. Not sure how I feel about "anger management." Assuming it's overseen by someone who is educated in more than self-help books, it could be quite helpful!

[Aram]

I think I'd be for education, but only if actually done properly. The way I see it, if the government is allowed to create mandatory training or licensing, it's pretty much guarenteed that they'll use it as a way to discourage gun ownership. They'll make it a grueling, lengthy, and expensive process. We'll see instances of racism with minorities being turned away because they look like gangbangers. They'd keep making the system harder and more painful in the hopes that people will eventually decide it's just not worth the trouble to own a firearm--this has happened in many European countries.

 

If they actually got some people who wanted their students to have firearms, like the NRA, to do the training, it might be different. If the process was used specifically to educate instead of hinder, with a lecture on proper handling, a simple written exam detailing the rules of safe handling, followed by a brief range demonstration judged by their safe handling instead of their accuracy, and the license registry couldn't be used by the government to know which houses to raid when they come up with their latest, useless ban, I might accept it.

 

Of course, I think Findland may well have already been like this. I'm pretty sure Switzerland is. And obviously it did not help in this case. For all we know, the Nihilist may have kept his gun pointed in a safe direction and kept his finger off the trigger in between shooting his classmates. No matter how much training you offer, the responsible will just stay responsible, and the crazies will just stay crazy.

 

I'm totally against psychological tests being a part of gun ownership, because I know fully well that the government would make it a ridiculous and extremely expensive process, and they wouldn't hesitate to label every citizen in America crazy simply for wanting a firearm. If they told me I had to take an anger management class, that'd probably be the only time in my life I might need a class to manage my anger.

 

I'd be especially for training if completion doubled as a CCW permit and they did away with the NFA and '86 bans as a compromise.

Edited November 13, 2007 by Aram

[Guard Dog]

I'm not clear on the point you're trying to make here. The only thing those stats imply is the notion that gun control won't have overly significant impact on preventing gun crime. Which is not "the premise of the study" nor does it contest the notion that access encourages use. Illegal access is still access.

 

Or are you stating that since most gun possessors do not commit gun that guns don't contribute to crime. The idea that most gun owners don't engage in crime does not mean that the presence of a gun does not contribute to crime. A majority is not required for statistical significance to demonstrate the existence of an effect.

I'm trying to debunk the notion the access alone absent any other criminal intent makes gun use in a crime more likely. What I was getting at was if the majority of guns are legally owned by people with no criminal intent, and there was a clear link between access to guns and gun violence does it stand to reason that a greater percentage of gun violence would be comitted with legally owned weapons? I know that was not what you said but you refrenced a study to that point and I've heard the argument thrown around here before.

 

Put another way, if I don't like tennis, having a racket in the closet will not make me more likely to play.