Connecticut School Massacre - Death-Toll currently at 26

[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.