Connecticut School Massacre - Death-Toll currently at 26

[corvus1970]

From Yahoo:
http://gma.yahoo.com/breaking-conn-school-district-locked-down-shooting-report-151955384--abc-news-topstories.html

A heavily armed man invaded a Newtown, Conn., elementary school today, killing his mother and 26 others, mostly children, federal and state sources tell ABC News.

The gunman, identified as Ryan Lanza, 24, of New Jersey, was killed inside of the school.

In addition to the casualties at the school, a dead body was also found in his home, officials said. Sources said Lanza was armed with four weapons and wearing a bullet-proof vest when he opened fire in the elementary school.

Among the dead was the gunman's mother, found in the school, sources told ABC News.

That's just a snippet. You can read the rest at Yahoo news by following the link.

I felt I should take a few moments to post something about this here, largely because I was upset over some of the bickering elsewhere on the board, and this shook me out of that. All of that now seems trite and petty and not worth any of my time. This, this is important.

Shocking, disgusting, enraging, and saddening.

For those of us that ask why, there will never be any answers that truly satisfy that question, nor can there be. No answer can erase the stain of a crime of this magnitude.

For me, at this moment, all I can do is offer up a silent hope that if there is something for us after we die, that it is good, and there waiting for those children with arms spread wide.

[FatherXmas]

So much for finding a refuge from this story here.  Just waiting for the tie in to video games as that still seems to be the current bugaboo.

[corvus1970]

That bugaboo always seems to come up, unfortunately, as will a bunch of other useless crap that, frankly, doesn't address the problem at all.

And sorry, but I felt it was far too important to leave unacknowledged.

[Vasarto]

I hope hell exists...because I want whoever did this to go there.

[JaguarX]

Damn. That incident is just not proper at all. Very low thing to do, shooting up a school, very low.

[sl701]

For me, at this moment, all I can do is offer up a silent hope that if there is something for us after we die, that it is good, and there waiting for those children with arms spread wide.

I wanted to write a lenghtier comment on this particular statement, but my English just isn't good enough. I really, really hope you are right.

I was just checking on my son (he's a little bit over 1 1/2 years old now) when I heard the news. I'm really sick. All those innocent lives, their futures destroyed. I can't even begin to comprehend the pains the parents are going through right now and probably forever will. I'm not a particularly religious person but my thoughts and prayers are with them.

[Kheprera]

Sick to my stomach.  My oldest is in 3rd grade. My youngest turns 5 in 6 days.

Angry that this was the route he chose.

Mourn the victims, let the shooter's name fade into obscurity.

Tonight I'll hug my kids tight, like I do every night.

I  hope that anyone else who feels the need to do something so senseless against *anyone* seeks help.  This... is not an answer to problems.

[corvus1970]

As a friend of mine said elsewhere:

This country needs a universal health care system that includes comprehensive mental health.

And I couldn't agree more.

[Electric-Knight]

 

[faith.grins]

This is still a beautiful world, and people are still intrinsically good, and the ratio of hugs to gunshot victims is still very, very high.

There can be no "justice" for actions like these.  The death of a man who hurts children is still wrong because it never allows him to feel what he has done and regret it.  The only justice we can have is that best revenge:  to live a good life.  To live good lives for the sake of the people whose lives were unjustly cut so short.  To live good lives to remind the rest of us who are frightened and shaken by this that fear only diminishes our ability to reach out to one another and give ourselves comfort.  To live good lives so that those who have been left behind remember that everything we do in life is a risk, even having children, and that sometimes those risks pay off in ways we did not expect.  To remember that pain is not all-consuming, not world-ending, and that this, too, shall pass.

In the words of Charlie Chaplin in 1940, at the dawn of the most horrific conflict humankind has wrought upon itself, wearing the visage of Adolf Hitler himself:  "Do not despair; the hate of man shall pass."

[healix]

It was Ghandi who said:

You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the entire ocean does not become dirty.

[Kuriositys Kat]

From Howard Taylor on the Shlock Mercenary website:

Let me share one piece of wisdom, passed on to me by Sarah Eden, whose nine-year-old said these words to her today: "When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."


 My heart goes out to those who lost their loved ones today.

[Tanglefoe]

Last reports I saw and read were that the shooter was actually Adam Lanza, the younger brother of Ryan Lanza.  Adam was for some reason carrying Ryan's ID when he was found. 

Anyways, to the victims.  I wonder if there is any address being publicized where people could mail cards or flowers to the families.  Maybe to the school?  It would be cool if we could maybe get something together.

[TimtheEnchanter]

That bugaboo always seems to come up, unfortunately, as will a bunch of other useless crap that, frankly, doesn't address the problem at all.

The media will scapegoat whatever is the most convenient catalyst, so that Society can do what it always has: continue living under the delusion that our world is fine and nothing needs to change.

[corvus1970]

The media will scapegoat whatever is the most convenient catalyst, so that Society can do what it always has: continue living under the delusion that our world is fine and nothing needs to change.

There's not enough "INDEED" in existence to adequately express my agreement.

[faith.grins]

The media will scapegoat whatever is the most convenient catalyst, so that Society can do what it always has: continue living under the delusion that our world is fine and nothing needs to change.

I reject your pessimism.  I choose hope.

[healix]

Press done right..a Norwegian paper left out the killer's name, and instead focused on the victims. Many newspapers could learn from this.

[emu265]

Press done right..a Norwegian paper left out the killer's name, and instead focused on the victims. Many newspapers could learn from this.

That is certainly is something. 

...I work at an elementary school (as a paid volunteer for an after school program, basically)... the thought of the first graders getting so much as hit makes my blood boil.  But this...  I have no words.

[Little David]

It really broke my heart when news of this happened. It's hard for me to say anything meaningful about it. It's always saddening, infuriating when innocent people are made the target of a murderous rampage, but to deliberately target children?

I think what gets me most is how the killer supposedly wore a bulletproof vest, but wound up taking his own life anyway. The mentality behind these kind of people, why they do these kinds of things ... I just can't understand it.

The least I can do is keep the families of those involved in my thoughts and prayers.

So much for finding a refuge from this story here.  Just waiting for the tie in to video games as that still seems to be the current bugaboo.

I've already seen commentators on articles doing this: "When parents take the time to really look at the violent video games, movies and music their kids are listening to...especially when dealing w/someone mentally disabled, then and only then will we begin to address the problem. We have to stop glamorizing violence in entertainment."

What bothers me about statements like these is that I don't think any news sources have reported anything about the killer's entertainment preferences. I guess it shows just how eager some people are to use a tragedy to further their agenda.

[Victoria Victrix]

At least back when I was a kid people would wait at least six months before trying to make political hay out of something like this.

I have no words.  I just...have no words.  All we could do was buy 20 toys and take them to Toys for Tots Saturday.

[Minotaur]

At least back when I was a kid people would wait at least six months before trying to make political hay out of something like this.

I suspect in today's world, outside the immediate area, in 6 months this will be but a distant memory, so if you want to make political hay, you have to do it immediately.

I don't think we in Britain will ever fully understand the American fascination with guns, but if gun control is to happen, I'm sure it will be in the wake of something like this. 

[corvus1970]

I don't think we in Britain will ever fully understand the American fascination with guns, but if gun control is to happen, I'm sure it will be in the wake of something like this.

I've lived in the States my whole life and I don't fully understand it either. I think a lot of it is based on a nugget of truth, a huge helping of myth/wishful thinking, a bucket-full of manipulation, and big, stinky fear.

[Little David]

If you want to understand it, you'd have to look at the conditions under which the country was founded.

Admittedly it's hard not to argue for gun control in the wake of something this horrible, but to look at it realistically ... if someone really wants to go on a killing spree, they won't be stopped by a lack of legally available guns. They'll find them on the black market. And if they can't get guns that way, they'll just turn to something else: knives, home-made explosives, what have you.

It just happened recently in China, as a friend just pointed out to me while we were talking about this ... and though the stabbing spree was not fatal, the article mentions another in 2010 that was.

[Minotaur]

If you want to understand it, you'd have to look at the conditions under which the country was founded.

Admittedly it's hard not to argue for gun control in the wake of something this horrible, but to look at it realistically ... if someone really wants to go on a killing spree, they won't be stopped by a lack of legally available guns. They'll find them on the black market. And if they can't get guns that way, they'll just turn to something else: knives, home-made explosives, what have you.

It just happened recently in China, as a friend just pointed out to me while we were talking about this ... and though the stabbing spree was not fatal, the article mentions another in 2010 that was.

Somebody made almost exactly this sort of post on a bridge related forum I frequent, the point is that a chair/hockey stick/fire extinguisher/other object lying around gives you a chance (and if there are 2 or 3 of you a very good chance) against a guy with a knife, not so good against a gun.

Nobody can prevent somebody killing people, removing the gun can save them killing as many people.

[TimtheEnchanter]

I've lived in the States my whole life and I don't fully understand it either. I think a lot of it is based on a nugget of truth, a huge helping of myth/wishful thinking, a bucket-full of manipulation, and big, stinky fear.

A couple things I feel about gun ownership in the U.S.

#1. While I can't speak for others in this situation, based on the times where something really scary has happened around here and the police were called... if there WERE a situation with an unstable killer, if we were to wait on the police, unarmed... we'd be dead by the time they got here.

#2. "People shouldn't be afraid of the government. The government should be afraid of the people." We are already on very shaky ground in the U.S. Many think that another civil war, workers' revolt, etc is inevitable, given enough time. Heck, it may even become necessary someday. Taking away the right to bear arms would have nothing to do with public safety. The massacres make for convenient excuses, but ultimately that's not why it would be happening. Just like the bill proposed that would give the government carte blanche to log and sift through 100% of everyone's internet activities was given the much more innocent-defending label of, "The Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011".

#3. A gun ban will only take the guns away from law-abiding citizens who are no threat to anybody. Those who want to pull this kind of heinous crap will simply go to the black market instead, just like drugs. And illegal guns make for a much bigger headache for forensics than legal ones.

Frankly, even if guns get taken away, I'll STILL be more interested in looking for ways to prevent people from reaching such disastrous ends in the first place. The current build of Reality is horridly broken. It shouldn't be a shocker that people are losing their sanity as a result.

[corvus1970]

Agreed. While it might help in the short-term, it still won't address the economic, social and, occasionally, health-care issues that cause a lot of the violence in this country.

[Electric-Knight]

Not coming at this from any personal or political agenda (other than being horrified, of course):
One of the first things that has always come to my mind when considering the person responsible for such acts is... Were they on some sort of psychogenic drug?
Not that there aren't people capable of losing it all on their own... But the increase in young people committing such atrocities... And the nature of today's society handing out such heavy drugs to children and people at first signs of "problems" (quotes for various sorts and differing degrees) fills me with concern.
It's just a topic I would like to see reach the open, mainstream national conversation.

[corvus1970]

Early reports suggested the shooter was troubled, but I haven't seen any stories mentioning any sort of diagnosis. So, I really dunno at this point.

[Portland Underground]

Just...wrenching. 

[Electric-Knight]

Early reports suggested the shooter was troubled, but I haven't seen any stories mentioning any sort of diagnosis. So, I really dunno at this point.

Absolutely. I just want to reiterate that I am entirely all for not jumping to conclusions and just hope that such information can be learned eventually and put to good use.

[corvus1970]

Whole-heartedly agreed.

Its hard not to, because when something like this happens, people ask "Why?" Sometimes there are no answers, and even when there are, it can take time to come to the correct conclusions.

[FatherXmas]

This isn't a bullied kid striking back at his classmates.  This isn't an adult seeking vengeance on his current or former coworkers.  It makes no sense to go after 6 year olds.  None.

Of course they found "violent video games" at the house.  I'm sure a random sampling of games found in homes of 16-25 year olds will show "violent video games" is nearly the norm.

I've seen several reports from former classmates from years ago refer to him as "goth" simply because he was an introverted loner.

The media is casting about for some social ill to blame.  So far it's his mother taking up sport shooting as a hobby and therefore he was able to get hold of her guns.  Some media outlets have referred to her as a "survivalist" for owner those weapons.  They lived in a $700,000 home on a nice chunk of land in an affluent small town.  It wasn't a bunker stocked with food and supplies beyond what someone living in an area that had two tropical events and an snow storm that took out power for over a week each time in the past 18 months.

Owning guns for sport shooting or hunting is like enjoying MMOs, video games, anime, comic books, etc.  If you don't do it yourself you won't "get" people who do.  Society understands a guy with a room devoted to his favorite sports team but scratch their heads over somebody who has a Star Trek or Star Wars room.  Same is true for someone who owns a variety of guns for sport or hunting.

The media is also talking about upping security at all schools.  This jerk shot his way into the building.  Unless you replace every window in a school with bullet proof glass and windows that can't be opened, there isn't a lot you can do to prevent someone determined to enter.  Some suggest an armed police officer in every school.  This would have only slow a determined individual down only slightly more than an unarmed teacher because nobody thinks someone is going to shoot up a random elementary school!

All of the proposed changes are simply security theater.  It makes people feel safer without actually making them safer because in reality they are already very, very safe when compared to other parts of the world.

What happen in Newtown, CT was a horrible tragedy.  But it was unpreventable due to it's shear randomness.  A determined individual looking to go out in a blaze of so called glory can do immeasurable damage in so many ways that you simply have to take their blows and accept that it's the cost of a free society unless you want an intrusive police state watching everybody's actions through a microscope. 

We don't have a Mr. Reese and Finch with their machine looking out for us.  We don't have a Mr. Parker that could backstep and prevent this.  Bad things happen, often to good and innocent people but that doesn't mean we should radically alter society to give an illusion of better safety than we already have.

Sorry, this is just my way of copping with what happened.

[JaguarX]

This isn't a bullied kid striking back at his classmates.  This isn't an adult seeking vengeance on his current or former coworkers.  It makes no sense to go after 6 year olds.  None.

Of course they found "violent video games" at the house.  I'm sure a random sampling of games found in homes of 16-25 year olds will show "violent video games" is nearly the norm.

I've seen several reports from former classmates from years ago refer to him as "goth" simply because he was an introverted loner.

The media is casting about for some social ill to blame.  So far it's his mother taking up sport shooting as a hobby and therefore he was able to get hold of her guns.  Some media outlets have referred to her as a "survivalist" for owner those weapons.  They lived in a $700,000 home on a nice chunk of land in an affluent small town.  It wasn't a bunker stocked with food and supplies beyond what someone living in an area that had two tropical events and an snow storm that took out power for over a week each time in the past 18 months.

Owning guns for sport shooting or hunting is like enjoying MMOs, video games, anime, comic books, etc.  If you don't do it yourself you won't "get" people who do.  Society understands a guy with a room devoted to his favorite sports team but scratch their heads over somebody who has a Star Trek or Star Wars room.  Same is true for someone who owns a variety of guns for sport or hunting.

The media is also talking about upping security at all schools.  This jerk shot his way into the building.  Unless you replace every window in a school with bullet proof glass and windows that can't be opened, there isn't a lot you can do to prevent someone determined to enter.  Some suggest an armed police officer in every school.  This would have only slow a determined individual down only slightly more than an unarmed teacher because nobody thinks someone is going to shoot up a random elementary school!

All of the proposed changes are simply security theater.  It makes people feel safer without actually making them safer because in reality they are already very, very safe when compared to other parts of the world.

What happen in Newtown, CT was a horrible tragedy.  But it was unpreventable due to it's shear randomness.  A determined individual looking to go out in a blaze of so called glory can do immeasurable damage in so many ways that you simply have to take their blows and accept that it's the cost of a free society unless you want an intrusive police state watching everybody's actions through a microscope. 

We don't have a Mr. Reese and Finch with their machine looking out for us.  We don't have a Mr. Parker that could backstep and prevent this.  Bad things happen, often to good and innocent people but that doesn't mean we should radically alter society to give an illusion of better safety than we already have.

Sorry, this is just my way of copping with what happened.

Indeeeeeeeed.

[Arkasas]

Of course they found "violent video games" at the house.  I'm sure a random sampling of games found in homes of 16-25 year olds will show "violent video games" is nearly the norm.

My local newspaper had a little piece today about how he went to LAN parties, and played strategy games such as World of Warcraft, Counterstrike, and Mario Party, instead of violent video games. The number of things wrong with that statement are quite obvious to anyone who has ever been a nerd.

[corvus1970]

Amazing how the fingers get so easily pointed in the wrong direction.

[Victoria Victrix]

Well, from my years and years and years studying biology and ethology...sometimes critters are just born defective.  With so much that can go wrong in the brain...as good as humans are at compensating for that, sometimes there are things that just cannot be overcome.  That's the only explanation I can come up with.

[Minotaur]

Well, from my years and years and years studying biology and ethology...sometimes critters are just born defective.  With so much that can go wrong in the brain...as good as humans are at compensating for that, sometimes there are things that just cannot be overcome.  That's the only explanation I can come up with.

http://thebluereview.org/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother/

A tough read, but I think an important addition to the debate.

[eabrace]

I've lived in the States my whole life and I don't fully understand it either.

That.

And that's having grown up in a rural community where opening day for deer season is basically observed like any standard holiday.  I do understand owning firearms suitable for hunting.

[healix]

it is important that we remember these new angels, and not the defective person who took them away............

[Septipheran]

The media is also talking about upping security at all schools.  This jerk shot his way into the building.  Unless you replace every window in a school with bullet proof glass and windows that can't be opened, there isn't a lot you can do to prevent someone determined to enter.  Some suggest an armed police officer in every school.  This would have only slow a determined individual down only slightly more than an unarmed teacher because nobody thinks someone is going to shoot up a random elementary school!

All of the proposed changes are simply security theater.  It makes people feel safer without actually making them safer because in reality they are already very, very safe when compared to other parts of the world.

The most simple, effective solution would be to encourage teachers to pursue concealed carry licenses in order to protect their students in this kind of situation. A police officer pretty much has a giant target on their chest from the psycho's perspective. Armed teachers is a deterrent because a would be sociopath couldn't identify who might or might not pose a direct threat to their lunacy as easily.

[Electric-Knight]

I'm not pro or anti anything explicitly... but I have known a lot of public school teachers and I can't think of a one of them that I'd like to see carrying a gun (at all, never mind in school).

Just food for thought.

[JaguarX]

it is important that we remember these new angels, and not the defective person who took them away............

Yeah. I agree.
 No fame for the murderer.


I saddens me when people can name the Columbine shooters off the bat but cant remember a single victim's name. Hell the Columbine shooters have their own detailed wikipedia page while maybe only one two maybe have any semblence of the page and the rest are barely mentioned. These rae not the people that should be immortalized in history. People remember Tim McVeigh but not the victims. Hitler but not the people he killed (granted that would be a whole lot of names to remember.), Bin Laden and his inner circle but not the 9/11 victims, Lee Malvo but not the people he shot.  It should be the victims that are never forgotten not the killer.



But also it's also about time to start blaming the killers for these aact (society as a whole) instead of adding to the "It wasnt my fault I killed those children. The gun made me do it. If it wasnt for the gun. I wouldnt have did it." logic. The gun nor anything or anyone else didnt decide to get up that morning grab a gun, go to the school. enter the classroom and blow those school children away. The killer made those decision to get up, plan the massacre, decide to act on that plan, and pick up a gun, and kill those people.

[Septipheran]

I'm not pro or anti anything explicitly... but I have known a lot of public school teachers and I can't think of a one of them that I'd like to see carrying a gun (at all, never mind in school).

Just food for thought.

Obviously there would need to be pretty stringent requirements, but it's a perfectly plausible solution.

[JaguarX]

I'm not pro or anti anything explicitly... but I have known a lot of public school teachers and I can't think of a one of them that I'd like to see carrying a gun (at all, never mind in school).

Just food for thought.

yeah seen many school teacher exhibit much more scarier behavior than many crazy people I know.



I just thought: on military base, any old person even if they knew the principal personally, cant just walk into a school and waltz into any classroom they choose. first you have to walk past a desk and sign in, thus people know you are there and of course you have to state your reaso nfor being there and it has to be valid and then you get an escort if you have buisness there. Of course i nthe shooting, it probably wouldnt have worked well as that shooter probably would have killed the front desk people anyways but then that would have given time someone who hear the shots to call for help, lock some doors or something, hide, and possible saving lives. Instead of the killer just casually walking into a classroom no questions asked and starting the mayhem on a classroom full of students.
Or like in some schools in supposed dangerous parts of town, (where ironically shooting likes this rarely if ever happened) and having trained armed security. Throughly trained. Not some trigger happy burnt out on edge police officer but one that is trained, mental stable, and trained again, police officer.

[corvus1970]

I'm not pro or anti anything explicitly... but I have known a lot of public school teachers and I can't think of a one of them that I'd like to see carrying a gun (at all, never mind in school).

Not to mention that in almost every case where a civilian with a gun tried to intervene and stop a gunman, its ended badly.

[FatherXmas]

The most simple, effective solution would be to encourage teachers to pursue concealed carry licenses in order to protect their students in this kind of situation. A police officer pretty much has a giant target on their chest from the psycho's perspective. Armed teachers is a deterrent because a would be sociopath couldn't identify who might or might not pose a direct threat to their lunacy as easily.

I'm pro gun ownership but I'm against that.

As for any talk about resurrecting the federal assault weapons ban, Connecticut still had theirs, modeled after the former federal one, and that riffle was legal in Connecticut.  I might agree about clip size for a gun normally used for target shooting but gun owners buy extra clips the same way I buy USB drives, "oohh a sale, you can never have too many".  And since changing clips only takes a moment, it's doesn't really impact the final result when going against unarmed tykes.

[Electric-Knight]

I'm not sure we should get into this stuff (although, I certainly would like to believe we're capable of handling it all respectfully as you all have so far), but I just thought I'd say that any such possibly reasonable adjustments (minimal or extreme) cannot be seen as fail-safe deterrents - no matter what side of the fence one may be discussing from.

It's not happening in this thread, but the one constant I see is a lack of conversation and, instead, the persistent throwing of made-up minds at each other - which is so disappointing and basically futile.
I imagine that there are likely equally valid options that differ and it's just worth finding some agreements and/or compromises.

[TimtheEnchanter]

On the topic of deterrents, there are all sorts of non-lethal alternatives to guns. Really cool sci-fi stuff that can incapacitate a street full of maniacs without projectiles or any permanent bodily harm. They just haven't become commonplace yet.

[Electric-Knight]

Oh, that's true too, Tim.

Back to video games, I caught a tiny bit of a report on CNN where a woman who'd been investigating was relaying what an old highschool friend of the killer's had told her. She said that they used to play video games together, namely "Warcraft and Starcraft - where you basically set up bases against one another and then..." she paused, "Go in and kill everyone".
Up for an Emmy, that one.
 

[TimtheEnchanter]

Back to video games, I caught a tiny bit of a report on CNN where a woman who'd been investigating was relaying what an old highschool friend of the killer's had told her. She said that they used to play video games together, namely "Warcraft and Starcraft - where you basically set up bases against one another and then..." she paused, "Go in and kill everyone".
Up for an Emmy, that one.

Time to make a fool out of someone...

Maybe someone just over-generalized here (and they really mean WoW and SC2) but if I take that at face value... Warcraft is so old he wouldn't have even been born yet. To play Starcraft when it was released, he would've been 6 years old.

So technically she's trying to scapegoat a gaming experience that he had roughly 15 years prior.

[chasearcanum]

I'm not pro or anti anything explicitly... but I have known a lot of public school teachers and I can't think of a one of them that I'd like to see carrying a gun (at all, never mind in school).

Just food for thought.

I'm not against a teacher carrying a firearm due to any competency issues on their part, but our experiences in teacher differs greatly.  I met many of my most lasting heroes in the classroom.

I'm more concerned that the type of teacher that's going to be willing and capable at responding to gunfire is the one that's willing and capable in helping break up a fight, confront an emotionally-charged kid, or deal with similar student turmoil.  If the gun's on them, then its also within arm's reach of the angry, belligerent and emotionally-questionable kids they're confronting.  If the gun's not on them, then its being left unattended (and potentially USED in such an attack) or so locked away that it is of little use for responding to gunfire.

Many people who buy a gun for self-defense end up having that weapon used against them.  In *this* kind of situation, you're just increasing those odds.


Yes, I will concede that if there are more armed people inside the school, there's the potential for a shorter response time when an attacker arrives.   However, it doesn't take long for a clip to empty in a semi-auto... even a large clip.   No armed teacher, focused on teaching, (not readying for a quick draw at any moment), is ever going to respond fast enough to prevent that first clip from emptying, odds are several clips will be used before someone armed gets there... but after even one you've got a classroom full of dead kids.   

What were we trying to prevent again?

[Merseine]

The most simple, effective solution would be to encourage teachers to pursue concealed carry licenses in order to protect their students in this kind of situation. A police officer pretty much has a giant target on their chest from the psycho's perspective. Armed teachers is a deterrent because a would be sociopath couldn't identify who might or might not pose a direct threat to their lunacy as easily.

I understand your position and respectfully disagree with it.  In my opinion the answer is not more guns.

I am a former high school science teacher who taught in an alternative school for 3 years and we had every kind of "non-standard student" you can think of, from convicted teenage felons (with ankle monitors and parole officers) to 15-16-17 year old moms and dads.  I can say that we as a faculty confronted this issue head on. We were trained (and re-trained regularly) in non-violent intervention techniques that I only had to use twice.  Once during a fight between two students and once when an ex-student came in looking for a suspected enemy.  I can still see that student in my mind's eye and I am thankful that I never had to confront someone with a firearm.

The non-violent intervention techniques we were taught may not have been able to be used, or even made a difference in this tragic situation, but I would rather have used those techniques than even have the option of being able to pull a gun on another human being.  That's me, and YMMV, but if you've never been in a classroom with challenging students, with all due respect, you really don't know what goes on. 

[Victoria Victrix]

Folks, the bottom line here is very simple.

We don't know what caused this young man to act this way, although "I Am Adam Lanza's Mother" certainly does seem to point to something no one seems to be able to cure or understand.

We don't know what could have prevented this. 

We don't know exactly how he got into the school.

We don't know exactly what he did when he got there.  There is only one living adult witness.

We don't know are the operative words here.  Anything we say is pure speculation.

Let's not do the same thing as the media and the politicians.  Please.  We're smarter than that.

[Aggelakis]

Hey guys, just want to thank ya'll for not going crazy with this. I've seen some really horrible stuff being said back and forth in other venues, and I like to think we're all better than that. Thanks for proving me right so far. Please keep up the respect and tact. There's no reason to let this become a fight between our community members. If you find yourself getting upset, please take a break instead of posting something you may regret later. Let's keep this positive. We should be focusing on the children (and the adults), their families, and their friends, not on trying to lay blame somewhere.

[Electric-Knight]

Yes indeed, Aggelakis.
It is such a morbid tragedy and sent me, and many I am sure, reeling.

The vitriol I have seen being thrown around (in numerous other places) during the aftermath has been quite terrible itself.

When we look at that horror-stricken community all coming together for each other, how can we not do the same? How can we not act in kind? If there are ever lessons to learn from such things, it is through the resolve of those most impacted that I believe we must humbly attempt to emulate, carry on and promote.
After all, it really is all about respecting each other, respecting life. Start with that. If it doesn't come from there, we don't need it right now.

(all simply in my own humble opinion, at least)

Also, I had a conversation in which someone else was talking about the aspects and benefits of community and, as the benefits were being mentioned, I was thinking that was what I (and, from what I have gathered, many of you) get from this community.
*hugs*

[faith.grins]

*hugs*

(Hugs)

[FatherXmas]

Folks, the bottom line here is very simple.

We don't know what caused this young man to act this way, although "I Am Adam Lanza's Mother" certainly does seem to point to something no one seems to be able to cure or understand.

We don't know what could have prevented this. 

We don't know exactly how he got into the school.

We don't know exactly what he did when he got there.  There is only one living adult witness.

We don't know are the operative words here.  Anything we say is pure speculation.

Let's not do the same thing as the media and the politicians.  Please.  We're smarter than that.

Actually we do since the Connecticut State Police has reported exactly how he got into the school.

And you do realize that blog was by another woman whose 13 year old boy has some undiagnosed condition that causes him to have extreme outbursts of rage and not by the shooter's now dead mother.  There weren't any reports about if the shooter previously had any instances of an uncontrolled temper.

And there are two witnesses recovering from gunshot wounds.

[Septipheran]

I understand your position and respectfully disagree with it.  In my opinion the answer is not more guns.

I am a former high school science teacher who taught in an alternative school for 3 years and we had every kind of "non-standard student" you can think of, from convicted teenage felons (with ankle monitors and parole officers) to 15-16-17 year old moms and dads.  I can say that we as a faculty confronted this issue head on. We were trained (and re-trained regularly) in non-violent intervention techniques that I only had to use twice.  Once during a fight between two students and once when an ex-student came in looking for a suspected enemy.  I can still see that student in my mind's eye and I am thankful that I never had to confront someone with a firearm.

The non-violent intervention techniques we were taught may not have been able to be used, or even made a difference in this tragic situation, but I would rather have used those techniques than even have the option of being able to pull a gun on another human being.  That's me, and YMMV, but if you've never been in a classroom with challenging students, with all due respect, you really don't know what goes on.

I have an aunt who is a public school teacher that feels very different than you do. In fact, she welcomes the opportunity to be able to protect children from this situation if by some terrible stroke of luck she were placed in that position. Non-violence looks really dreamy on a t-shirt, but John Lennon never wrote any songs for when a deranged sociopath was staring down a barrel at small children. You can't legislate the insanity out of people (I've seen some funny image macros about the likelihood of more laws preventing criminals from committing crimes) but you can absolutely use violence as a last resort to prevent innocents from being harmed, and in cases like this one I would not bat a single eyelash or even feign the slightest concern if that violence against the perpetrator was lethal.

[Minotaur]

Actually we do since the Connecticut State Police has reported exactly how he got into the school.

And you do realize that blog was by another woman whose 13 year old boy has some undiagnosed condition that causes him to have extreme outbursts of rage and not by the shooter's now dead mother.  There weren't any reports about if the shooter previously had any instances of an uncontrolled temper.

Yes I did, and there have been several reports (that the BBC carried) of the shooter having Aspergers, which in some cases but not all causes exactly that sort of temper (it does in the only case I've run across personally).

[corvus1970]

I have an aunt who is a public school teacher that feels very different than you do.

And in the same situation does she feel that she could have retrieved her gun in time to stop the assailant? As I mentioned before, civilian intervention tends to go badly. Furthermore, in most cases where an armed civilian has stopped a shooter, its happened after the shooting was over, and the civilian was a security officer, an ex-cop, or ex-military. I can cite specific examples if need-be.

You arm teachers, and you cause an escalation because the potential shooter will know that said teachers are armed. Sure, this might dissuade a few, but it won't dissuade them all. You could end up with a shooter who wears body armor, like in the Texas courthouse shooting in 2005, for example. Furthermore you continue to create an illusion of security that cannot guarantee safety, and fails to address the root causes of violence.

The solution is not "more guns".

[chasearcanum]

And in the same situation does she feel that she could have retrieved her gun in time to stop the assailant? As I mentioned before, civilian intervention tends to go badly. Furthermore, in most cases where an armed civilian has stopped a shooter, its happened after the shooting was over, and the civilian was a security officer, an ex-cop, or ex-military. I can cite specific examples if need-be.

You arm teachers, and you cause an escalation because the potential shooter will know that said teachers are armed. Sure, this might dissuade a few, but it won't dissuade them all. You could end up with a shooter who wears body armor, like in the Texas courthouse shooting in 2005, for example. Furthermore you continue to create an illusion of security that cannot guarantee safety, and fails to address the root causes of violence.

The solution is not "more guns".

An armed teacher won't prevent this kind of shooting.  You are correct.

- it MIGHT lesson the "resolution time" - the time it took to negate the shooter.  I've read accounts that multiple rooms were affected- some teachers were shot while barring doors, some while shielding kids in a bathroom.  It is possible that, after the initial alert, an armed teacher could have responded before some of these rooms were accessed, faster than you'd expect for police to come from some other site to respond to the issue.

It wouldn't have prevented the initial killing, and there's a question on how much time is saved, compared to police response times from offsite locations.   When the initial alert went down, from accounts that are coming out, most teachers started locking and barring doors.  The public doesn't know the full timetable, but it sounds like the bulk of the deaths may have been in the earliest incidents and that barring & locking doors may have impeded the shooters progress to the point that an armed teacher wouldn't have saved many more lives than the armed police response team.   If so, it may be that lockdown drills and sturdier barriers will be a more effective measure.


- We also have to consider that introducing a firearm to the school property  may increase the likelihood of a shooting.  A weapon in ready reach for a teacher is also in reach of students.  Granted, safeguards can make the weapons in "less reach" to the students than it is from the teachers, but no safeguard is perfect (and the tougher the safeguard, the harder it is for the legitimate user to access it as well).  Many of these kids are in gun-less homes, so while you've done your best to limit their access to the firearm, you've still increased the number of people that have ANY access to a firearm. 

- Finally, some argue that the availability of a firearm at the site would serve as a deterrence.  The answer to that is... yes and no.  These people aren't rational. they aren't usually thinking of getting away.  They've seen their world collapse and end and are just trying to take as many others out with them as possible.  They're not afraid to die, so the threat of return fire is NOT going to have much of an impact on them.   At the same time, they DO want to hurt others- random others- and they can't do that if they're shot before they can complete their planned actions.  That opens up the slim possibility that they'd choose a different venue- one less likely to have a nearby armed responder- if they knew there were armed people at the school... That is, IF the location chosen was totally random.  That's a big if.  There are a lot of psych reasons to believe that schools would remain the target even then.  The attacker is more likely to just take measures to minimize interference before his plan is completed (come in under a nonthreatening guise, weapons concealed, boobytrap, ID and negate /distract gun-wielders quickly, etc.



For all those reasons, I don't think that measures like arming teachers (or other school staff) will have enough of an impact on incidents to mitigate this kind of incident.  It's a nice fantasy for the pseudo-survivalist-aspiring-hero to cook up, but like many such fantasies, it doesn't stand up to simple application to the facts.  Granted, I believe that simply "limiting oversized magazines" or the kind of "ban on assault rifles" that some are proposing are equally as fantastic and unlikely to have a measurable impact, but that's a topic for another time.

[FatherXmas]

Yes I did, and there have been several reports (that the BBC carried) of the shooter having Aspergers, which in some cases but not all causes exactly that sort of temper (it does in the only case I've run across personally).

Well over here it's the opposite with autism experts coming out saying Aspergers, which it hasn't been confirmed that the shooter had, isn't something that leads to violent outbursts.

[chasearcanum]

Well over here it's the opposite with autism experts coming out saying Aspergers, which it hasn't been confirmed that the shooter had, isn't something that leads to violent outbursts.

Unfortunately, Asperger's has been so thoroughly overused by both professionals and nonprofessionals that the term's useless.  To be honest, even many psychologists have embraced the term for general social/anxiety/cognitive disorder within the autism spectrum simply because
1) parents feel more secure with a precisely-named disorder than a general disorder
2) its one that insurance companies cover without as much resistance as THEY give to more general disorders

Since the therapy is so broad, depending on severity and symptoms, the more specifically named diagnosis eliminated these two barriers to effective treatment without adversely affecting the patient, so it seemed like a win.

So, depending who you ask and how they use the term, you're both probably right.  and wrong.

[corvus1970]

Chase, I'll keep things simple and say that I agree with everything you've posted in reply to me. Very well thought-out.

On the matter of Aspergers' overuse, you are right about that too. In fact, the term's use is going to be phased out. There was a very snarky reply somewhere on line to the question of what Aspergers is, and that reply was "Its a disorder people get by reading about it on the internet", and while dismissive in tone, there's some truth to it. A lot of people have a tendency to self-diagnose their issues, and the confusion and non-committal in professional circles did not help matters.

Plus, we haven't any definitive evidence about what, if any, disorder this shooter had aside from being extraordinarily pissed off and homicidal. We may never get a concrete answer.

[Darkness De Ding]

I teach at a high school in California. My AP Civics kids started an interesting conversation with me just moderating, giving all a chance to speak. (Sometimes my seniors astound me - which helps since the 5 other classes are sophomores.) Some went to gun laws, others went on about violence in the home. However after a bit of thought, we all decided that we would have and will go to the wall for any kid. Period. Guess my students are about to ding and get a chance at their capes.

[randohm]

Hi everyone, this is only my second post and I don't know too many people on the boards but I loved COH and heard an interesting theory and I wanted to share it with people who cared and knew about COH.  In today's world people rely more and more on virtual interactions and form relationships soley through video games.  In the case of Asbergers and other disorders this would provide an outlet to interact with other while making positive contributions to the goal of the group, without too much fear of ridicule for being socially awkward in real life.  Someone with Aspbergers could form what is perhaps the most meaningful relationships in their life online through an mmorpg and the "friends" would never know or even care about ones diagnosis. 

One of the signs of Asbergers is what others may call an obsession with something.  Memorizing the names of WOW characters and their histories or all the names of every train ever made or every detail about roller coasters etc. are examples of behaviors associated with Asbergers.  If someone with little or no social life and social support found refuge in a game that provided a sense of safety, belonging and contribution to a social community for the first time in their life, then losing that game would certainly be problematic for that person.  If that person had little social support and limited coping mechanisms they might go into deep despair. 

If that person were taking a seratonin reuptake inhibitor such as prozac for their mental health diagnosis then there would be a significant increase in the risk of suicide http://www.drugwatch.com/ssri/suicide/ For every so many people who choose to commit suicide a few may attempt an extroverted suicide by killing others first before they kill themselves.  The question I had was what was Adam Lanza's stressor that set him off.  The answer I heard proposed was City of Hereos closed on November 30, 2012 and took with it the social group most meaningful to him in his life.  After two weeks of trying to cope and adjust to the loss of everyone he found most dear in his life with little or no social support he committed his terrible crime of December 14, 2012. 

No one seriously proposing this but if it were true how would any of the investigators think to check for it?  Also this begs the question of what responsibility companies have, if any, when they decide to destroy or completely remove an entire community that so many people find so meaningful in their lives.  When this is lost what kind of affect will it have on the world at large?  Many people play mmorpg's for hours a day and years at at a time.  These games may give significant meaning to peoples lives, especially young people and perhaps even more so with a young person who has few or no friends outside of their game.  An online life can be a sort of substitute life for many.  How do people deal with the loss when this is taken from them and what steps should we all be taking to make things better for all of us?

[FatherXmas]

Well on another note, a town in CT is doing a violent video game buy back program.  All games turned in will be destroyed.

What's next, a sit in at their local GameStop?

[houtex]

They've burned books before.  This is no different, and will too pass.  It is sad the way sheeple 'work', isn't it?  Rather than be rational and think... mob rule prevails more often than not.

/It's obviously less hard to follow rather blindly than to think, and possibly even lead.

[Electric-Knight]

Heh, that's crazy, FatherXmas. 
Be sure to drop off your heavy metal albums, D&D dice and books and toss in some of the Beatles albums for good measure (John is a troublemaker).

Randohm, hiya!
What you bring up is a rather sensitive subject and potentially problematic, but you handled it very well and I just wanted to mention that and say thanks for it (troublemakers are pointed out far too often, as opposed to complimenting the good folk! Psst, did i say "troublemaker" twice so far?).

I don't have a lot to say about your final questions, Randohm... While I absolutely agree that such video game outlets can be greatly beneficial to special needs (and for regular needs), as you have mentioned, and I also agree that such losses can have severe impact (again, even in regular/normal-ish cases... we might be able to handle it well, but that doesn't remove it from being severely impacting or having that potential to be severely impacting), the company making the decisions just can't be responsible for all such circumstances, in my opinion.

I do certainly believe that a company doing a shutdown has an ethical responsibility greater than what was displayed and put into action in CoH's case... However, such encounters and incidents and botch-jobs are a part of what we experience in life and the responsibility lies more on ourselves and those around us than the incidental antagonists that distantly affect our lives.

I agree with your assessments and certainly feel like such cases are indeed possible from those sorts of experiences.
As much as I lay blame on companies for their poor handling of some things, I can't see myself laying that sort of blame on them (not that you were either... just proposing the questions).

Even in the case of clear mistakes by a parent or guardian... sometimes we do have to realize that people make mistakes. In hindsight, they can seem horrifically terrible and people may demonize them for it... but, I try to keep in mind that they're people who may have made some mistakes that many times over may not have resulted in anything horrible happening. That's not to say that I'm against laying any blame nor am I against taking some further preventative measures... but it's a difficult thing to stay on the side of understanding and reason when the results of a particular incident were so horrific.

I hope that babble contained a bit of value or entertainment factor...

To sum up my main response to your questions, hehe... I really don't know what a company could do to help such affected people.
I think that that person needs help from their support groups, whether it be the family, friends, active communities and/or professional help. Video game producers can't be mental health providers when they decide to shut down a game (I'm not saying that flippantly). People in those situations either need to recognize that they have greater need of help, or the people around them must recognize it.

Just my opinions and thoughts!

[eabrace]

Well on another note, a town in CT is doing a violent video game buy back program.  All games turned in will be destroyed.

I wonder where the gift certificates can be spent and whether the buyback price is better than what Gamestop offers. 

[TimtheEnchanter]

Well on another note, a town in CT is doing a violent video game buy back program.  All games turned in will be destroyed.

Hmm... I wonder how hard it would be to fill a game cartridge with manure?

[dwturducken]

Hmm... I wonder how hard it would be to fill a game cartridge with manure?

You obviously don't remember the Atari ET game...

[Thunder Glove]

You obviously don't remember the Atari ET game...

Sorry, pet peeve of mine.  But E.T. wasn't manure.  It was an unpolished rock.  But Karate, for example... that was manure.

(I had more here originally, but a full-on rant about E.T.'s reputation isn't really appropriate for this topic)

[FatherXmas]

I wonder where the gift certificates can be spent and whether the buyback price is better than what Gamestop offers. 

Another article about it, this time the Guardian UK.  Seems the gift certificates are from local businesses who are members of the local Chamber of Commerce.  Bit name chains don't normally belong to such organizations.  This article also mentions movies and music are also included in the drive.  On one hand the town says they aren't blaming violent video games as the cause but on the other say that constant exposure to violence must make kids more prone to violence and bullying.

At least this piece concludes with mention of the Texas A&M study last year that concluded there is no evidence, even in a small way, that violent games leads to an increase in violence.

[Electric-Knight]

Let's face it... humans have proven to be violent entirely on their own without any such outside blaming factors. 

[JaguarX]

Let's face it... humans have proven to be violent entirely on their own without any such outside blaming factors. 

true.

[TimtheEnchanter]

First shots fired in the war on video games?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/biden-no-silver-bullet-against-gun-violence-212503247--politics.html

[Tater Todd]

I don't think so...I'm glad that he didn't pull a Hilary Clinton though.

[chasearcanum]

Ok, I'm going to play devil's advocate here:

I worked in the "learning games" industry... not for kids, but DoD stuff, but much the same.

There's a reason why we look at using game technologies for education- they're damn effective.  I'm not going to dig up numbers, but ever since I was a kid people had observed that retention is higher the more engaged you make the student, and interactivity of even simple interactive game tasks makes the student much more engaged.  That's been studied and tested and proven to be a reasonably true rule of thumb in most disciplines.   

So, in general, a user retains more from an interactive game than he does from a non-interactive rich media tv show and retains more with either of these than from reading the same content in a book.   If this is true, then the assumption would be that video games would have a greater impact on learned behavior than the same experience for the same duration in tv or books, respectively.

That's not condemning video games.  That's recognizing the potential power they can have. 

If we are looking at a violent culture and trying to identify elements in our culture that lead to violent tendencies, it would be somewhat natural to look at the most effective means of transmitting these ideas and inclinations.

Now, the problem is that many people often tune out after the 30-second soundbyte that gets us this far, so they cry for action against violent video games and don't go any farther.  Politicians, worried about re-election- listen to these folk, rather than take the next steps.   Because of this, too many people get angry just because video games are brought up and start screaming bloody murder like we shouldn't even consider them as a factor here, much like the NRA has influenced congress to prohibit any study into gun violence, however benign.

When confronted with people discussing the role of games,  let's invite the discussion on video games and culture and ratings systems and the issues of responsibility as parents get preteens "M" rated games then act alarmed about the content.  Concede
that what may be safely cathartic and comfortable for a well-adjusted adult could be mis-applied by those less developed, if left unmonitored.   Admit to the power of video games, because that's the power to teach and develop critical thinking-- and that means that games, properly applied, can be just as valuable to the solution.  Then, since they've given us the opening, show them that what the industry has put together to encourage responsible use is so far beyond anything TV ever did, and yet it breaks down at the end due to simple parental monitoring.

Once we get them past the sound byte, you'll find much commonality in place with the "anti-gaming" crew.

[TimtheEnchanter]

Gosh, that could lead to the government looking at video games with just as much scrutiny as they do guns. I'm reminded of how video games were often vilified. One of the most classic examples is Lawnmower Man, using virtual reality to teach a chimp to wield firearms, and then using it to turn an innocent boy into the next Carrie. Wargames gives us a naive kid who thinks he's just having fun but almost destroys the world in the process. But there were many lesser known examples, random cop shows and low budget films that went with the same theme. And they all had a similar story. Somehow a kid would end up being driven to destructive ends after playing a game (often this was intended by the developer). If the government were to study the teaching power of games, and finds out that it has an even more power than traditional medias, what kind of limitations would that put on gaming? Could a game like Red Faction then be viewed as unintentional subliminal programming that can turn children into dissenters? Could it be treasonous to give people a video game that lets them shoot U.S soldiers? Video games could actually be outlawed if this went far enough? Though it's not likely because of the size of the industry, and the economic impact it would have. But considering the fact that most of our existing laws are only there because of a tiny percentage of troublemakers, it's quite a realistic outlook.

[FatherXmas]

Oh that town suspended the collection and burning now that there was a "dialog" about it.

Connecticut still had an identical ban on "assault-style weapons" that the federal government had.  That riffle was legal.

The owner of the gun was fully checked out and licensed.  She was the first and often forgotten victim of this incident.

The funny thing about the law, either the old federal or that state's was what defined an "assault-style weapon", many of the features listed are of limited or no impact on the lethality of the weapon.  It's like coming up with a list of features to define a "European-style sedan".

1) It was semiautomatic.  Fully automatic or with a fire selector switch is handled earlier in the law and is an outright ban or a lot more restrictive license.

2) It took clips.

3) It could not have two or more of the following.

a) a folding or collapsible stock
b) a pistol grip
c) a bayonet mount (really?)
d) can use in rifle fired grenades (this isn't the under barrel grenade launcher)
e) has or can accept a flash suppressor

My "really?" has more to do with the idea that something like the inclusion of a bayonet mount can define a "bad" gun from a "good" one.  And where do you get rifle grenades?  It's not like Carbela's or Bass Pro Shops carry them.  And if you are ingenious enough to make your own you probably could modify any rifle to then use them.

Someone suggested people wouldn't be so frightened by the "black evil gun" if it had a wooden stock and simply looked more like a hunting rifle than looking like, but not, a military rifle.  Or something like this. 

Honestly the problem is people don't want to face the fact that these tragedies are the exception rather than the rule.  Students bringing in a gun to shoot other students or teachers is one thing but a "random" stranger going into a elementary school to shoot up the place isn't even remotely on anyone's threat radar.  Nothing that the politicians and pundits can suggest, outside of banning private ownership of guns, could have prevented that.  A determined individual can cause great destruction and mayhem in a free society if he so chooses.  That's the cost of a free society.

Now since there isn't a solution that would actually make a difference in this case we turn to the causes.  Sadly "broken" person isn't an acceptable reason so something must be the cause hence the discussions about violent media and games.  So they will be the scapegoats and like guns, by people who don't understand why would anyone enjoy those games or enjoy target shooting.

This will probably get nuked but I had to say my peace.

[FatherXmas]

Gosh, that could lead to the government looking at video games with just as much scrutiny as they do guns. I'm reminded of how video games were often vilified. One of the most classic examples is Lawnmower Man, using virtual reality to teach a chimp to wield firearms, and then using it to turn an innocent boy into the next Carrie. Wargames gives us a naive kid who thinks he's just having fun but almost destroys the world in the process. But there were many lesser known examples, random cop shows and low budget films that went with the same theme. And they all had a similar story. Somehow a kid would end up being driven to destructive ends after playing a game (often this was intended by the developer). If the government were to study the teaching power of games, and finds out that it has an even more power than traditional medias, what kind of limitations would that put on gaming? Could a game like Red Faction then be viewed as unintentional subliminal programming that can turn children into dissenters? Could it be treasonous to give people a video game that lets them shoot U.S soldiers? Video games could actually be outlawed if this went far enough? Though it's not likely because of the size of the industry, and the economic impact it would have. But considering the fact that most of our existing laws are only there because of a tiny percentage of troublemakers, it's quite a realistic outlook.

Ender's Game

[TimtheEnchanter]

Someone suggested people wouldn't be so frightened by the "black evil gun" if it had a wooden stock and simply looked more like a hunting rifle than looking like, but not, a military rifle.  Or something like this. 

I'm actually amazed that's even allowed. Sometime back in the 80's it became illegal for toy guns to look too realistic (after there were one too many accidents with cops shooting children). I still have the old all-gray NES light gun. The thing still looks like a toy to me. Nevertheless, Nintendo ended up swapping one of the gray tones with day glow orange. And that was the beginning of the neon sidearm era.

So what's stopping crooks from painting their real weapons obnoxious colors and then getting the drop on someone who assumes its just a toy?

Honestly the problem is people don't want to face the fact that these tragedies are the exception rather than the rule.  Students bringing in a gun to shoot other students or teachers is one thing but a "random" stranger going into a elementary school to shoot up the place isn't even remotely on anyone's threat radar.  Nothing that the politicians and pundits can suggest, outside of banning private ownership of guns, could have prevented that.  A determined individual can cause great destruction and mayhem in a free society if he so chooses.  That's the cost of a free society.

Now since there isn't a solution that would actually make a difference in this case we turn to the causes.  Sadly "broken" person isn't an acceptable reason so something must be the cause hence the discussions about violent media and games.  So they will be the scapegoats and like guns, by people who don't understand why would anyone enjoy those games or enjoy target shooting.

Everything has always seemed to be more about the perception of security rather than the reality of it. Maybe they just need to teach everyone Duck & Cover again.

[FatherXmas]

I'm actually amazed that's even allowed. Sometime back in the 80's it became illegal for toy guns to look too realistic (after there were one too many accidents with cops shooting children). I still have the old all-gray NES light gun. The thing still looks like a toy to me. Nevertheless, Nintendo ended up swapping one of the gray tones with day glow orange. And that was the beginning of the neon sidearm era.

So what's stopping crooks from painting their real weapons obnoxious colors and then getting the drop on someone who assumes its just a toy?

Which made the whole toy gun business silly.  I grew up with realistic looking cap guns as a child.  I even have an awesome motorized quirt gun that looks like a machine pistol and takes clips of water, back before the whole orange ring law.  TV production crews now take Nerf riffles and paint them to black/gunmetal so they can pass a near future scifi weapons.  And honestly, police officers can't afford to assume anything about a lethal looking device in someone's hands.  Color doesn't matter.  A ring around the barrel tip doesn't matter.  If it gets pointed toward them or other people they will shoot center mass.  But again this was an ineffective solution pushed by politicians over a tragic event that "sounds" good on the surface.

And here is a page with lots of other paint jobs (yes most are camo of one type or another).  Here's another.

[chasearcanum]

Gosh, that could lead to the government looking at video games with just as much scrutiny as they do guns. I'm reminded of how video games were often vilified. One of the most classic examples is Lawnmower Man, using virtual reality to teach a chimp to wield firearms, and then using it to turn an innocent boy into the next Carrie. Wargames gives us a naive kid who thinks he's just having fun but almost destroys the world in the process. But there were many lesser known examples, random cop shows and low budget films that went with the same theme. And they all had a similar story. Somehow a kid would end up being driven to destructive ends after playing a game (often this was intended by the developer). If the government were to study the teaching power of games, and finds out that it has an even more power than traditional medias, what kind of limitations would that put on gaming? Could a game like Red Faction then be viewed as unintentional subliminal programming that can turn children into dissenters? Could it be treasonous to give people a video game that lets them shoot U.S soldiers? Video games could actually be outlawed if this went far enough? Though it's not likely because of the size of the industry, and the economic impact it would have. But considering the fact that most of our existing laws are only there because of a tiny percentage of troublemakers, it's quite a realistic outlook.

Sometimes overly-defensive reactionary gamers are JUST AS BAD as the side they mock:

Virtual sand tables.

When I was in the service and we were planning an op, we'd craft a sand mound to be roughly the same terrain as we'd go through and use things like dixie cups and cigarette butts to mark "this is the objective.  This is the enemy.  This is the path we'll take." etc.   Now there are "virtual sand mounds" that let commanders model the entire thing in a 3d game's first person shooter and let his men have both birds'eye view and the perspective on the ground, very close to what they'll see on the ground.   Some of these have pretty sophisticated tools, like being able to model a region based on digital mapping data or even build an entire town mockup based on data from an embassy car equipped with stereoscopic cameras and gps (a precursor to google maps streetview, in a way).

So, after several years of development, the question came up, "We can do X with this.  How much can others do just using COTS (commercial, off the shelf) material?"  Some funding got allocated to research this, the media picked up on it, jazzed up the headline to get readers, and suddenly I saw the gamers in such ridiculous mouth-frothing hysteria that "anti-gamers are saying terrorists are using video games to train terrorists!", "RIDICULOUS!", "Call of duty will not make you a sharpshooter" and TOTALLY going off on unrelated tangents misunderstanding the whole issue.

It was rather embarrassing to admit to being a gamer*

Goddamn it, be proud that they they recognize  the power of the medium and want to use and foster the development.  As national security experts, the question of the enemy's capabilities is always high on their lists, so its only natural that after they say "ok, this is what we can do.... what can THEY do?"


... and to be pretty honest here, appearing "familiar in your environment" is a good way to not stick out.  The "gps/stereostopic" embassy car making environments for CAVE VR I mentioned was used in ...diplomatic arenas... long before I ever heard of its use in the military.  If you could do get accurate enough maps to do a mockup of... say... a real airport.


*not the most embarrassing moment, I'll save that for later.

[TimtheEnchanter]

Isn't there an official government-made virtual army training game out there now that anyone can log in and play?

[chasearcanum]

Isn't there an official government-made virtual army training game out there now that anyone can log in and play?

There was "america's army" IIRC.   http://www.americasarmy.com/  Not sure of its current status.   That was more of a "welcome to the army" game.  The actual wargames get much more... robust...

It's used mostly for recruitment and as a "proof of concept,"  but I know it was used at least for some battlefield-robotics systems once.  The robot was modeled in the engine with realistic behaviors and we interfaced the system with the robot's controller, so soldiers could get practice sessions in without actually risking breaking the little beasties.