October 1, 2006
From Montreal to Colorado to Wisconsin, September was an awful, bloody month for North American schools.
The armed psychopaths in Montreal and Colorado, of course, were no kids, 25 and 53-years old, respectively. And there has been no word yet as to whether the 15-year old shooter in Wisconsin played video games, although it would be difficult to find a 15-year-old boy these days who does not.
In today's roundup, we look at an unsigned editorial in the Toledo Blade which ponders the effect of violent video games on such events:
"When Kimveer Gill opened fire earlier this month... it was a bloody reminder that the Columbine killings of 1999 still resonate... yet we seem no closer to understanding what motivates Columbine killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, or Gill..." "There is argument over whether (Super Columbine Massacre RPG) and other such games... contribute to real-life acts. Georgia Tech professor Ian Bogost says people like Gill don't kill because of what they read, hear, or play. How can we be sure without getting inside their minds?"
"The game's creator also disavows any responsibility... claiming that the game's purpose is actually to give insight into the Columbine killers. But that's an entirely disingenuous argument that barely merits consideration. And it doesn't get the game's creators off the hook. A game in which players take on the roles of the Columbine killers doesn't bring psychic insight, just a sick vicarious thrill."
"At what point do some video games cease being entertainment and start being incitement to violence?... And how can we identify, help, and stop young people for whom the massacre of school children evokes not horror but fascination and emulation?"
Comments
None whatsoever.
The people that committed those crimes were messed up in the head to begin with.
Like Billy Loomis said in Scream, "Movies don't create psychos, Movies make psychos more creative!"
Ok, how bout this, how bout we look at why these people became outsiders, why they were riddiculed, why they were ignored, why they were derided and tormented. How bout we look into that shit first before we start blaming games.
It's ironic that media often shows answers that everyone else misses. As an example, I point to the episode of Buffy the Vampire slayer called, "out of mind, Out of Sight".
In this episode, an invisible girl torments the friends of one of the shows regular charecters, assulting her boy friend, shoving her other friend of a flight of stairs, and so forth.
The message is, at first, they assume that the girl has the power to control this gift. Infact, what they find out is that this wasn't something she chose, it was something done to her.
The students, teachers, everyone at the school ignored her and acted like she didn't exsist, and because of the power and mystical energy of the area, she became invisible as a result.
basicly, Gill, The columbine shooters, and many other school shooters all have one partciualr, and common, trait. They are often outcasts from the "clich" nature of high schools, and were often bullied, tormented, and got no help from the facility or teadhers.
Truth is, it is the high schools themselves that should be blamed for these things, not games or media. While media might be considered a symptom of a mentally unstable person, as in, a violent or unstable person might enjoy violent media. But millions watch and play violent media and does nothing violent or deadly.
This is the great hypocracy. less then 1 percent of all people who play games every commit any, violent act, yet by the same token. 50 to 70 percent of people in prison often come from poor homes, violent histories, and abuse childhoods.
This is the great truth. Polis and people like Jack thompson wanna treat the symptom, instead of curing the actual problem.
So, agree? Disagree,? Think I'm crazy? Whats your opinion?
You're right. Unfortunately, as has been stated several times, anti-gamers just want a quick and easy way out. They don't want to do any research, and they ignore the research that doesn't even remotely agree with them. They don't want to hear that they have to do requires time and energy. Their agendas are too important to waste on protecting the outcasts.
Here's a way to stop school shootings: metal detectors, gun control laws, counseling for victims, punishment for bullies.
I know we don't want to be searched every time we go to school, but maybe just one of those walk-through metal detectors like in the air port. If it goes off cuz of your belt buckle or the chains on your pants, then that's too damn bad.
And as for the gun-control laws, we should start by making it illegal to hunt for sport, or at least for kids to hunt. Granted, that won't stop urban kids from getting their hands on guns, but it'll help. Something should be done to keep guns out of households. These kids get the guns from their parents or whoever they live with. How else can they get them? I know we have a Constitutional right to bear arms, but it seems that more and more people abuse that right every day. It should be a privilege, like driving a car.
Anyway, I'd rant about my "hunting should be illegal" belief, but I'll save that for an animal rights blog ;)
Now, on the other hand, the whole gun control thing. Yeah, that didn't work either. In an ironic twist, cities in the use with the highest gun control laws, also hve the highest number of fatal ciminial shootings. On the other hand ,areas with far less strict laws, have lower shooting rates.
Now, what I think should be done is not remove legal rights to have fire arms, but to target illegal black markets that sell them outright to anyone with the money. That would be a start. Also, Agree with the punishment for bullies thing, but personally, I'd just start offering kids who get bullies a free chance to punch the bully in the balls, that should do the job. Also good, jocks and clicks who torment others? Suspended!!!
I might be going a bit overboard, but I went through all that shit in high school, so i know. And lemme tell you, a knee to the balls gets a bully of your back in a hurry
That's a PAINFULLY presumptuous statement, IMO. More needless flak at a guy who was simply ballsy enough to make a game over an extremely touchy and controversial subject. We need more people like Danny LeDonne, if you ask me.
"Georgia Tech professor Ian Bogost says people like Gill don’t kill because of what they read, hear, or play. How can we be sure without getting inside their minds?”
From what I gather hearing LeDonne talk about it, that's exactly what he tries to do with SCMRPG. Get inside Klebold's and Harris' heads. That's why they are the PC's.
Yuki: Your rant on bullies and victims of bullying resonates strongly with my opinion. If there's a victim of bullying, screw the Zero Tolerance crap (That's only making it worse, if you ask me) and let the kid take a swipe or two at the bully. That's discourage him from bullying that particular student.
About what you first said Yuki, it's not that everyone misses it, say like Buffy, most anti gamer christians would see that show as satanist or heathen, so odds they aren't aren't missing the answer, they aren't even looking.
But there is another interesting connection between the media and school shootings that conveniently never gets a mention in the supposaly unbiased news media. Have you ever noticed that these school shootings always happen in "bunches"? That is, there rarely is a random one school shooting, and then, a few months or years later, there is another. No, there school shootings always happen in "groups", as in, when there is one horrific school shooting, there always seems to be a rash of "copycat shootings".
Now why is that? Could it be, that the real reason as to why we always seem to have all these horrific school shootings have little to do with violent video games, but with the fact that the news media sensationalizes, and glorifies the people that commit these horrific acts? honestly, lets look at the facts here. Back in the late 90's, when there was a rash of school shootings, the news media always rushed to the scenes of the acts, shoving their cameras, and microphones in the faces of the victims, while also throwing the faces of the perpetrators of these crimes on the cover of newspapers, and in the screens on every Television all around the country and world.
It's now happening again, first, there is a school shooting, then the news media makes the school shooter "famous" by printing his picture on the front page of the newspaper, or show his face on ever TV screen on the planet. Then suddenly, you start to see a whole bunch of copycats happen. Now ask yourselves this question? Which is more likely? That someone would be motivated to commit a horrific act because he wants to recreate some section in a video game? Or, that some depressed, lonely individual is motivated to grab a bunch a guns, go int a school, and start shooting because this guy wants to go out being famous, with his face and name etched into every media outlet in the world? If you look at the actions of the latter school shootings, particually, the one in which a 53 year old man stormed into a school, assaulted a bunch of girls, and then shot a 16 year old girl in the back of the head. It wouldn't take a genius to come to the conclusion that the sensationalist news media like CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and newspapers like the Toledo Blade, and the Toronto Sun has far more blood on their hands, then any video game designer could ever imagine.
Maybe we should look into regulating what the news media shows? For the safety of our society, and especially our children?
What an idiot. He claims that he wants to find out what motivates school shooters, but when anyone offers an explanation he doesn't like, he screams, "NO, YOU'RE LYING! STOP LYING!" I think this guy's entire article barely merits consideration.
"yet we seem no closer to understanding what motivates Columbine killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold"
Actually, if you know ANYTHING about the Columbine massacre, you should know that Harris and Klebold both had clinically diagnosed psychological problems, had a history of crime, and planned on killing everyone in their school with bombs so they would be famous. Case closed?
That is the first thing that popped to my mind, it was like he was saying that the only way to understand them is to get into their minds, but to attempt this is just gratuitous violence.
@grls
I agree with the counselling and more punishment thing, but I disagree with the metal detectors and the increased gun control.
Metal detectors are generally fairly easy to get around, especially in a situation like a school (many small entrances, and lots of open ground), and would either be easily gotten around, or cost a prohibitive amound of money to enforce and use.
And as far as more gun control, as yuki said, places with the most gun control in america have the worst crime, also banning hunting for minors would do nothing to prevent gun crimes, as the people who generally hunt and have the gun training required are almost never the people who actually commit crimes such as these. Also, this would do nearly nothing to prevent the kids from getting guns, after all, the columbine kids definately didn't get their guns from their parents, in fact, the parents said they had no clue that their kids had guns at all (horrible parenting), and Kimveer Gill was an adult with perfectly legal access to guns. Besides, most of us would rather our kids hae access to our guns, so just incase someone should break into our house, our kids have a means to protect us.
To be perfectly honest if it hadn't been for my Faith I likely would have been one of those people that finally snapped and did something I'd later regret. So the question needs to be asked, what can be done to help the kids that are being bullied without it turning into a PC nightmare for all involved?
so help me if this comment is filtered ....shoot me..I know I am bad...but I a no spam bot >
easy access to games - a problem
god i hate the world
Scary, but true.
Oh God forbid.
If you can't tell, I don't think very highly of SCMRPG's creator. I lost respect for him the moment he refused to take the game down after this event. To me, that's what a honorable, courteous person would do - even if it's only for a few weeks. Instead, we get this lame "I did it as art" excuse. He seems to feed off the attention his game gets, which wouldn't be surprising. Otherwise he wouldn't have resorted to exploiting Columbine to make his substandard RPG Maker game stand out.
You want a game that invites thought-provoking discussion? Here's your discussion. Don't run away from it because you don't like what publications are saying, you asked for it.
Lamer.
Columbine already had metal detectors, and they didn't do much good. What are you supposed to do when some lunatic walks through the door carrying a shotgun or hunting rifle? Ask them politely to not kill you and place the weapon into a basket before walking through the detector?
Gun control just doesn't work. Criminals, by their very nature, do not follow the law.
After a rather stable crime rate for nearly a century, the firearm homicide rate in the UK has doubled since they banned handguns and most rifles. And this is an island nation which should be a lot easier to stop guns from coming across the border than the US. Just think of the hundreds of thousands of people sneak into this country per year. And, despite being banned entirely, all the tons of drugs smuggled across the border. Not to mention the thousands of machineguns that make it in which have been illegal to import since 1968, and illegal for civilians to buy if made after 1986.
"And as for the gun-control laws, we should start by making it illegal to hunt for sport, or at least for kids to hunt."
That's funny. Before the push to make schools into "gun-free" zones at the height of the gun-control movement, there weren't any school massacres. In fact, many schools (especially those in the mid-west and less urban areas) often had target shooting clubs/teams. Students would keep rifles in their lockers to use for the target team or just hunting after school. Yet there were no shootouts.
It wan't until the think-of-the-children cultists disarmed all the potential victims (both students and faculty) that these massacres started to happen. Why? Simple. If some nutjob wants to commit mass murder, they know schools are full of soft targets with no means of resistence.
Check out the story of vice principal Joel Myrick, who helped stop a school massacre with a handgun he kept in the car. HE could have stopped it even sooner had he been allowed to keep the gun in his desk or on his person. But thanks to gun-control, he had to waste valuable minutes running to and from his car.
"These kids get the guns from their parents or whoever they live with. How else can they get them? "
The recent shooters in Montreal and Colorado weren't kids though. And the Columbine shooters din't get guns from their parents. The Tec-9 and handguns used there were bought illegally from another adult who also bought them illegally. Before any shots were even fired at Columbine, Klebold and Harris broke some twenty Federal and state gun laws. Before shooting anyone, they would have been looking at like 250 years in prison.
"I know we have a Constitutional right to bear arms, but it seems that more and more people abuse that right every day."
No they're not. Remember that graph which shows the massive decrease in violence with the release of all the GTAs and such marked on it? That decrease in violence also includes a decrease in the misuse of guns. At the same time the violence has decreased, gun ownership has increased at an almost inversely proportionate rate. The number of handguns in the US has increased exponentially while the level of violence has been dropping. It only seems like more people "abuse that right every day" because the media is paying attention to these isolated cases.
"It should be a privilege, like driving a car."
And has licensing and registration stopped people from stealing cars? Has it stopped people from being killed by cars at like ten times the rate of gun-related deaths (even though there are more guns than cars in the US)? Has it stopped people from driving without a license? Besides, you don't need a license to drive on private property, only on public streets. Just as you need a hunting or concealed handgun licenese (except in Vermont and Alaska) to use or carry a firearm in public places.
At any rate, blaming guns makes about as much sense as blaming games. Both are inanimate obects, and to blame them is an emotional, knee-jerk response. A response which all but absolves criminals of personal responsibility. Punish the crimes, not convenient scapegoats.
To say that would be to say that one couldn't learn anything about the incident from the game, which is a lie needless to say.
And to argue against that logic would only result in several stutters and self reprhase when I say "so those 2 didn't go to school and murder several?, cus I learned that from the game"
October 1st, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Fandel has a point. Everytime a school shooting happens, more will follow briefly afterwards. I believe we live in a society where a man would point one finger at something but at the end day, 3 other fingers would be pointing back at him."
You know, I really hate that analogy or whatever you'd call it. Because by that logic, even when someone has a valid point, they are actually to blame for the problem they're pointing out. For example when the game industry points at a variety of societies other ills as the real causes of violence, they're at fault. When they point out politicians are burning money on unconstitutional laws, the game industry is to blame for the waste.
I appreciate the discussion that's going on here and I want to make something clear. I've said this on Kotaku and elsewhere but I'll post it again here:
"Super Columbine Massacre RPG!" is, from the title on, a satire. It is a satire of how the media came to view the shooting but ALSO a satire on the conventions of video gaming itself. I wanted to deconstruct what a video game could be about while still using many of the conventions available in gaming. This is difficult for some to understand insomuch as the event itself was tragic and painful for so many people but I believe true satire can be aimed at even the most uncomfortable of topics (even nuclear war, per 'Dr. Strangelove.') In the case of SCMRPG, a GAME seemed to be the appropriate response to so much vilification of gaming.
Ask yourselves why we aren't eager to blame school shootings on black trenchcoats. Ask yourselves why we blame MySpace for child predation instead of public parks or lollipops. If something is new in our culture, it bears the brunt of the criticism. Remember when jazz music was thought to be the work of the devil--corrupting our youth with promiscuous notions of sexuality? Odd that no one is saying that now... but of course video games first are on the chopping block whenever violent behavior makes the evening news.
Thanks for posting and to all those who support what I'm doing and what video games can become if we defend their potential to do so.
But you then have some 20 year old from Colorado, who makes a 16-bit style RPG game about columbine using RPG Maker, with absolutely no intention of making any money off of that game. But yet, not only does he get death threats, but the news media goes after him with the proverbial noose in their hands.
Food for thought....
A major Hollywood studio makes millions of dollars off of a movie about a tragic event that ended with over 3000 people getting murdered.
The response: The news media heaps praise on the director and the movie studio. Never questioning the fact that maybe a movie studio shouldn't be making money off of the greatest tragedy that our nation ever had to endure.
Some 20 year old guy makes a RPG, with no intention of making any profit, about a tragic event that ended with 15 people getting killed.
The response: The news media,(most of whom have never actually bothered to see the game) condemns this guy as some sort of sick individual, while all but blaming him for the actions of a guy in Montreal who clearly was disturbed long before he had ever heard of this game.
Hypocrisy in the newsmedia? Really, you don't say?
For those who do not understand the Columbine RPG game ready my interview with the creator: http://www.esportstv.com/newsite/?p=news&id=189
I think you misunderstood a lot of what I said. I know that liscensing hasn't stopped people from stealing cars and gun control laws haven't stopped people from getting them illegally, but my point was there are other things that the government can do to stop school shootings. You didn't have to make me look like an idiot.
This article is GP's weekly editorial round-up. GP just reports on opinion pieces that published this week. Perhaps that is why "no one contacted you." I appreciated your input here, however. It's good to get info straight from the source.
I saw your interview on television. Nice work, you managed to stay on-point and not make gamers look bad, which I believe was the show's intent.
Anyway, FYI, I am just a reader here, so I don't speak for GP. Thanks for commenting. I hope you stick around.
Either way though,i think that you should have avoided calling it"Super Columbine massacre". because that just begs to be pounced on by pols.
I don't think he was trying to make you look like an idiot, he was just disagreeing with you. There are going to be a lot of people that disagree with you. Just like there are some people who disagree with what I.... okay, everyone disagrees to what I have to say;)
People should start listening to real experts and not the likes of Dave Grossman and Jack Thompson (sorry I am soiling this comments section just mentioning their names), these people just distract attention from the real causes and also worryingly use their so called expertise to try to lesser these killers sentences.
In the mean time real experts like Helen Smith are being overshadowed by these scaremongers. Dr. Helen Smith is a forensic psychologist in Knoxville, Tennessee. She has evaluated over five thousand mentally-disturbed children and adults, and has become an expert on kids who kill. She did a national survey of violent and nonviolent kids, which means she had the opportunity to hear what kids themselves had to say.
Smith objects to the way many experts blame violent television, video games or some rock group's edgy lyrics for school killings. Those experts, she contends, are not listening to the kids. She believes that violence comes from the accumulation of many distorted thoughts and stresses that finally send a child over the edge. In short, it's the way he or she processes what they see, hear, and experience. Kids who use violence to solve a problem have already had a number of violent thoughts. They perceive their environment and their situation in such a way that violence seems the best mode of action. That is, children who kill are predisposed to kill. They don’t just snap. They have a restricted view of other people’s rights and they feel they must bring their situation to some dramatic conclusion.
While school nerds who were bullied once chose the course of suicide as the way out, she notes, now they see another way to take action and get attention: strike out. Using guns and being violent toward others moves them from powerlessness to power, from nobodies to media celebrities.
Obviously the media are going to go with what sells and unfortunately this means that they are always going to go with the hype and exaggerating. However think about it, naming a killer "The GTA Killer" is just giving this individual additional status and therefore only adding to the problem.
Danny, I hope you understand that these are not my words. I am quoting from an editorial in the Toledo Blade. No reason I would contact you on this.
Every Sunday we do a roundup of mainstream editorials which discuss games. We try to present all views.
In the past, for example, we've quoted Ian Bogost in support of you and some reporter from the Toronto Sun against. There were probably others as well.
With regard to the title of my game, I'd like to quote a recent article by Aaron Ruby (which really "got it right" in my view):
"'Super Columbine’s' shock tactics were part of a campaign to offend precisely those people Ledonne could care less about. People exactly like Parents Television Council president, L. Brent Bozell. The effect was not unlike that sought by Sex Pistols guitarist and singer Steve Jones when he famously called interviewer Bill Grundy “a dirty old man" on London ITV. It’s a way of saying, “Fuck you. You don’t know me, you don’t understand my culture, and I’m not going to be bothered to explain it to you.” And the rejoinder couldn’t be truer in Ledonne’s case."
The full article is available here:
http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3825&I...
The title "Super Columbine Massacre RPG!" is actually intended to 1) cement the game with others of the era such as "Super Mario RPG" and 2) lampoon the media's perception of video gaming. In some sense, every time a journalist says the title in full ("Super Columbine Massacre RPG") the satire of the game hits its mark (even of most journalists don't realize it).
Maybe some people are angry at SCMRPG for reasons other than the simple fact that it's a video game. Maybe they're shocked that 200,000+ downloads of the game have occurred or that it would be made at all (thanks to software like RPG Maker and the 'Net). Some people really like the idea of a centralized, controlled flow of information (with various censors, ratings boards, and other stop-gaps in place for controversial material). More than a video game, I think for some SCMRPG represents how you can send a message outside the mainstream canons of discourse. If you're sympathetic with the established order, that's downright scary.
back on topic. probably none. they should actually get some praise. they kept those kids crazy sides in for a bit. it prevented them from going crazy for a while. but then again, their anger probably grew and grew every time they played a violent game until they exploded into rage mode.
I saw you on Fox News right after the Montreal shooting and was disgusted how you were treated on there. I commend you for how you stayed on point and got your message out even though it was an obvious witch hunt. I like and understand what you are saying and doing with SCMRPG.
Fandal is right, I wasn't trying to make you look bad. Just disagreeing and trying to explain why I disagree. Sorry if it came across sounding grumpy, my first post was made shortly after waking up. ^_^
But, yea, the government could do something. My point is just that gun control wouldn't help much here. In fact, relaxing gun control might be more helpful.
For starters, they could once again allowed faculty who have concealed weapons permits to keep a gun locked in a desk, safe, or on their person. To get such a permit, one must have some degree of training (varies by state) along with a criminal background check (which most teachers already get?), so they would surely be quite responsible. Statistically speaking, people with concealed weapons permits are among the most law-abiding in the land, with less than 1% ever having their permit revoked for committing a crime. Besides, if we didn't trust teachers to care for and protect the children, why would they have a job?
Secondly, local governments could even offer additional training for principals and/or teachers, and equip the schools with an emergency firearm. Israel has been arming its teachers for some time now, and school massacres (terrorist or otherwise) are but a thing of the past.
Lastly, should no faculty wish to bear the solemn responsibilty of meeting deadly force vis-a-vis, local governments could choose to provide armed security. Red Lake high school, for instance, had its own security guard, but unfortunately the think-of-the-children cultists' holophobic (and contradictory) policy left him unarmed and useless. The reason I mention professional security last is that the educational faculty tend to be more in touch with the students. After all, they interact with them every day and stuff.
Not to disparage law enforcement, but cops and mercenary security who are trained and tasked to detect and eliminate threats would do just that. And quite possibly over-react and needlessly intimidate since that's all they're there for. Whereas teachers would be more apt to diffuse threats with words or be able to differentiate real threats from bluffs, and would likely save violence for a last resort.
Either way, when a teacher (or anyone else for that matter) dials 911 to come stop a gunman, they might literally wait the rest of their life for help to arrive. Teachers already are the first-responders to anything that happens in school, so why not untie their hands so they may save lives? Even if only a fraction of faculty at a handful of schools chose to do so, the ambiguous chance of being stopped before an attack could gain notoriety would do much to dissuade the would-be Gills, Harrises, and Klebolds of the world. These lunatics wanted to be famous, so the last thing they want to do is be dropped by the first teacher they come across when they walk in the door. To do so would put all their planning and stocking up on weapons to waste, leaving them as not much more than an embarrassing side note in the tomes of criminal history.
As for the utterly asinine statement "We seem no closer to understanding what motivates Columbine killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold", I can only suggest that anyone who doesn't understand simply hasn't bothered to do their homework. I'm not suggesting they read all 11,000 or so pages of documentation on the shooting here:
http://www.boulderdailycamera.com/shooting/report.html
But there have been dozens and dozens of newspaper and magazine articles and even journal pieces on the incident. Just to pick one off the top of my head, how about this one? Oh, it even has a good title:
"The Depressive and the Psychopath: At last we know why the Columbine killers did it." http://www.slate.com/id/2099203/
I recommend that everyone read it, and visit the columbine section of the Author's blog (http://davecullen.com/columbine.htm) for further information since he has literally hundreds of pages of background research on the subject. To summarize, based on the FBI investigation and the conclusion of their psychologists and psychiatrists, these kids were not normal kids pushed to the edge by social ostracism and peer violence and abuse. Both had tight circles of friends and partied on weekends and holidays with larger groups from school. They both had criminal records, too, for various offenses, and finally they were both damaged or simply broken personalities. Harris was a classic psychopath, somewhat unusual only in that he had better self-control than most, and was the dominant driving force behind the shooting. Klebold on the other hand was a depressive, who latched onto Harris in a rather one-sided and manipulative relationship. Counseling, intervention, and concern from authority figures -might- have helped Klebold if it had come before he cemented his bonds with Harris. But Eric Harris was simply a tragedy waiting for a time and place to happen. Psychopaths are untreatable, incurable, or as I said before just plain "broken". Unless and until our control over the mind advances far beyond it's current state our only options are killing them or locking them away for the rest of their lives. A closing note on the subject of these killers, I'd put down $20-30 on a bet that the police investigation will show that Kimveer Gill has shown violent tendencies, signs of mental illness, and/or a criminal record.
The criminal record part gets back to a point about gun control laws. I won't retread the points made about how ineffective they are beyond the simple observation that criminals are, by definition, individuals who don't obey laws. Harris and Klebold broke (I counted) over a dozen different Local, State, and Federal gun laws by the time they'd stepped onto school property that day (counting purchase of the guns and ammo, modification of guns, carrying them, carrying them onto school property, etc), before a single shot was fired. I don't think making it a baker's dozen would have made a difference. For those who advocate repealing the second amendment or the intellectually dishonest position that "the founding fathers never meant the second amendment to apply to individuals", I'll happily argue the point with you in a forum where it's not off-topic ;)
In short, not only are the various forms of entertainment media not responsible, in many of these cases (and definately in the case of columbine) bullying and social abuse are not responsible either. I'm not condoning them (hell, I had -rocks- thrown at me back in middle and high school, among many other wonderful growing experiences), but people keep missing a relatively simple truth: A small number of human beings are fundamentally damaged, and those individuals will inevitably go out and end or ruin other people's lives. We can -try- to pinpoint those individuals and help them (if possible) or incarcerate them (if not) before they hurt people, but even then we won't always be successful. As long as there are humans, in other words, there will be both criminals and the subset of criminals who kill without compunction or hesitation.
Actually,that highly depends. My high school has an armed police officer on campus at all times. He occasionally chats with the students, will answer questions, and tries to be civil with everyone, even students who look liek they might do something bad, and my school had not had a single shooting and hardly any violence. It's not law enforcement in and of itself that would be the problem, it would be the people doing the enforcing.
You have several good points, although I would -prefer- uniformed and armed police officers (such as the liasons that are already at several schools. I know back in the 90s my HS had one uniformed officer who always had her duty sidearm) over either teachers or armed guards. First, police officers are not simply trained to "eliminate the threat", but to preserve their life and the lives of civilians at risk. Police ROE in the US always includes standards for escalation of force. As a soldier on guard duty I learned a simpler version "Shout, Shove, Show, Shoot" (that is: Verbal warning, Physical force/pepper spray/etc, Presentation of the weapon + another verbal warning, fire), but their training on the subject is more thorough and places a stronger emphasis on not firing without need (if only because the paperwork is a real pain and because they risk quite a lot in terms of personal and professional reputation). Most police officers also have specialized training AND real-world experience talking down potentially dangerous suspects, and so I think your assertion that teachers would be better in that respect is also misplaced. Also, civilians with PTCs have to have -safety- training, NOT marksmanship training, whereas police officers have to maintain at least a moderate level of skill with their weapon.
Second, teachers, even ones psychologically prepared to carry a deadly weapon, are probably not prepared to deploy it properly in a life-or-death situation. If anything civilian gun owners are sometimes -too- "good", as anecdotes like this show: http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/5363616p-4853200c.html
A final and more general point. As far as the preservation of life goes, your priorities are a bit skewed. The emphasis is on preventing the subject from hurting innocent bystanders. If that subject has a gun in hand you do not wait to see if they're bluffing about shooting someone. If their weapon gets pointed at -you-, or at a hostage or bystander it is your responsibility to drop them. If they live, that's a bonus, but you don't wait to see if they're bluffing (because if they're not, it's too late) and you don't shoot to wound in an attempt to take them alive because you will be much more likely to miss or to wound them only slightly, allowing them to finish their action (killing or wounding you or an innocent). In fact, a missed shot in a crowded scenario (such as the cafeteria or library in Columbine HS) makes it likely that YOU will be the one wounding or killing a bystander.
Sure, there are tons of good cops, a few bad cops, and everything in between. While we're being anecdotal, a friend of mine's geeky little brother was arrested by a school liaison officer, then kicked out of high school for drawing cartoon characters in his notebook. Apparently, they thought the cartoons looked like graffiti, and thus just had to be "gang related" somehow. What happens when a cop this overzealous and suspicious of everyone he sees thinks a kid has a gun based on their appearance, and fires until slide-lock when the kid pulls out his wallet in the lunch line or something?
@Brer
Fair enough. I did over-generalize the "detect and eliminate" bit. Yea, I know police are trained to deal with all sorts of things. However, if a tip of some sort pops up that a kid may have a gun, some of them might get a bit jumpy. At no fault of their own really, cops sometimes develop an 'us and them' mentality due to the nature of dealing with criminals every day. Or, hell, might not even be a jaded veteran, but a nervous rookie. A vague threat with ubiquitous suspicion can sometimes have bad results.
Going to your previous post, imagine that cop who tailed you for five blocks was working your school. Now imagine some busybody/prankster/whatever told the cop "omg, the scary kid in the black clothes has a gun!!1" Now the cop, who apparently thought you were a terrorist already, runs up behind you in the hall, draws, starts shouting "freeze," and you turn around too quickly without thinking into a volley of JHP...
Granted, a teacher with could make such mistakes too. But, in theory, faculty would/should take a more reactionary approach when and if a shooting happens. Whereas police would tend to be more proactive. Yes, both have their place (and maybe it's the libertarian in me speaking), but I think over-policing kids in school and potentially subjecting them to an officer who treats them all like felony suspects is bad. Repression (real, implied, or imagined) breeds contempt for authority and society. On the other hand, if you can find enough cops that are trained to work with kids (or have their own) to patrol all the schools, then it might not be so bad. Cops that can't tell the difference between an anime fan and a Crip based on some drawings, or the difference between someone with a Satanic death-pact and a kid with a Hot Topic outfit, well, not so good. :p
As for whether teachers can handle being armed, well, it seems to work okay in Israel: http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel200409022215.asp Since their teachers started packing, Hezbollah and Hamas pretty much stopped kidnapping and shooting their students. Whether the teachers can or will shoot is almost beside the point though. The message alone of "we will not be victims" is very strong since the criminals won't know which teacher is an expert marksman. All it takes is one to ruin their chances of going down in history like Columbine. Thus the appeal of the former victim disarmament zone is lessened. Even if armed teachers aren't a total replacement for trained LEOs, it's still one more option and one more chance to save lives while waiting for the SWAT team to show up.
Oh, and on your final point, you don't need to tell me to shoot someone with a gun in their hand. I even defended he-who-can-not-be-named and his 'shoot to kill' statement from a recent interview. By bluffing, I meant like when some kid allegedly makes a threat (idle/joking/otherwise) that they plans to do something later. This too needs to be investigated, naturally. But sometimes the threats are just too silly to warrant, say, a full-blown felony arrest in front of the whole school. It is here I think teachers are better equipped to pick out the real threats from gossip made up to get another kid in trouble or what have you.
Look at the outright paranoia directed at people who wore black, wore trenchcoats, were geeky, or any combination thereof in the wake of Columbine. They were treated like time bombs, and the presence of guards would just convey a message: "we have armed guards to protect the normal kids from the freaks like you."
I've not played SCMRPG, and I think it's an important step in moving games towards social commentary, but I can see why people get pissed off with it and why there's a difference in reaction between SCMRPG and movies about 9/11 - because there is a difference.
You frame it as a choice between someone prone to shoot too quickly and someone who isn't. I don't think that's an accurate portrayal for the reasons I've already stated, but soemthing that people, you included, miss is that in the math of a shoot/no-shoot decision when the wrong choices are to wrongfully kill someone who's unarmed, or to be too slow and get -yourself- and/or multiple other innocents hurt or killed, it's actually better to shoot than not to. The article you cited doesn't really comment on the issue of shoot/no-shoot decisions since the only school incident it references refers to a man who had already produced a weapon and started firing before anyone (civilian or law enforcement officer) had responded. As I said before, I agree with you on arming and more importantly on -training- teachers, but not only are they "not a total replacement" for police officers (and again I'm thinking in terms of 1-4 liason officers who, again, should be trained and experienced working with teachers and students and known to the school population) They're not -any- kind of replacement. The answer for any "bad shooting" scenario is almost always the same "better training, and more of it". Replacing police with civilians generally replaces more training with -less- training, and that's not going to improve matters.
A final note: You don't shoot people in the head unless you're a police sniper or (if the police are following israeli doctrine) the threat is of a suicide bomber wearing an explosive vest or belt that might go off if shot. You aim center-mass because it's the largest target and because even if you miss the heard and lungs the chances of an incapacitating wound are much higher.
They will be nice, kind, caring, and making sure they pay attention to everyone for about three months, but you all know High School - jerks will be jerks and people will be people. Most high schoolers are going around playing their chess game of social acceptance and don't have time to help out with someone who is deemed a 'loser'.
The problem isn't the games. The problem is the entire student body and what's really expected of people in High School and the shooters inability to live with (this is going to sound harsh, but don't make it seem to bad because I was one of these people, but was smart enough so people would cheat off of me so I didn't get too much shit) the fact that they're different, that they don't get along with the social norms of high school, and can't take on the blame themselves.
What happens to the outcasts with the ridicule and the problems that they have is wrong, yes. But they should learn other outlets for their anger and their problems even to escape the real world. Those are : sports, music, and even ironicly : video games.
And its all a load of crap.
The loser in Montreal admitted on his blog that he was doing it for attention. He wanted to be remembered. He wanted media time devoted to the glory that was him (at least in his mind). This was his way to get 'the respet he deserved'.
And this was why he killed himself when wounded by the police. A loser dragged away in cuffs, declared insane and locked up in a funny farm is just pathetic, a source of scorn. But the corpse of a mass murderer is memorable. Otr at least he seemed to think so.
Its always the same sort of thing "I'll show them! They'll remember the name of John Smith!"
But in reality he was just another pathetic dweeb who lived in his mother's basement, made excuses for bullies in his blog, decided he was so much smarter than everyone else, and thought the best way to be remembered was as a killer.
Blame the man with the gun, not some silly game. Its past time people started taking responsibility for themselves again, and past time we stopped making excuses for bad behaviour.
When the kid is getting picked on, he goes and tells the one kid to stop, and it makes the weaker kid look more weaker and thus, more torment. Next he goes and tells a teacher, teachers says to bully kid to stop, and thus in turns is more torment for the weaker kid. So weaker kid goes to his parents, and his parents go and tell the school, school officials sit down with bully kid, and after all that to get bully kid to stop, weaker kid gets WORSE torment. So weaker kid fights back by lashing out, be it smoking, not going to school, drugs/alcohol, and the best of all video games.
I chose video games to get away from everything and it helped (i played RPGs a bunch). But the thing is, some kids are tormented so badly that the weaker kid wants nothing more than to end it all, so guess what, people get shot. (To clear up things, i put down 'weaker' kid cause its mainly a big so-called popular football like kid beating up on people littler than him)
But pretty much, highschool is the worst. Highschool is a glorified popularity contest, if your not popular or not on the football team, your nothing to people and they hate you, and your deemed outsider if you don't wear the same things, don't party with them, or don't listen to the same music or do the same activities. Thus, people are dying cause they don't think of the consequences of their actions.
What should be done is stricter actions for bullying, not go out and say GTA did it if GTA isn't around. Some people i know don't like GTA, just cause they can't get into it (i like it very much cause of the good story line and blowing up a ton of cars with a tank) We should ban Bully, we shouldn't ban violent video games, we need to teach these young adults to show that tormenting people cause their different might get them killed if they push the wrong buttons.