School Shootings

[shadowgod]

Everything is about choice. I defend the right to choose, so I don't consider it unacceptable to throw everything away if that's your choice. My sympathy goes to many different people; school-shooters are not among them. Society is better off without them.

 

I also don't see how not killing yourself makes you somehow so stupid as to not recognize the ramifications of going on a shooting spree. There is no subtelty; the consequences are plainly visible.

 

Menzo

 

To you perhaps, but a 14 year old who is more controlled by hormones and emotion than rational thought?

 

As far as society being better off without them, that argument is way too wide to be acceptable. There are allot of things society is better off without. Some could even argue you and I.

[Menzoberranzen]

To you perhaps, but a 14 year old who is more controlled by hormones and emotion than rational thought?

 

As far as society being better off without them, that argument is way too wide to be acceptable. There are allot of things society is better off without. Some could even argue you and I.

 

And just as I don't care what heterosexist evangelicals think of me, I don't particularly care whether the murderers agree with me about their value to society, although I would argue that there is a big difference between a lifestyle 'choice' and the act of murder.

 

I remember myself when I was fourteen, and the 'emotions' argument doesn't cut it. Lots of people are emotional/feel isolated/are depressed and yet somehow don't come to school one day and blow people away.

 

A line has to be drawn after which we hold people responsible for their actions. A kid who calls another kid is a fag because he's insecure is forgivable, even understandable, but a kid who murders because of his 'emotions'? I think we need to call a spade and spade and hold him accountable, just as we would hold an adult accountable. 18 is an arbitrary number, it does not confer sudden wisdom or rationality.

 

Menzo

[FrenchCanadian]

To you perhaps, but a 14 year old who is more controlled by hormones and emotion than rational thought?

 

As far as society being better off without them, that argument is way too wide to be acceptable. There are allot of things society is better off without. Some could even argue you and I.

 

The argument is indeed to wide, and I wouldn't go as far as to say that the society is better off without them. But there from saying that, cause of an excess of hormones and emotions, they should be forgiven of every sins, every wrong doing they might do is not fair. It's unfair to all of those students who are being treated as shit day after day at school and still will never go out and do such a thing.

 

A line has to be drawn after which we hold people responsible for their actions. A kid who calls another kid is a fag because he's insecure is forgivable, even understandable, but a kid who murders because of his 'emotions'? I think we need to call a spade and spade and hold him accountable, just as we would hold an adult accountable. 18 is an arbitrary number, it does not confer sudden wisdom or rationality.

 

Menzo

 

Exact,, they gotta be held accountable,, tho the only point is that, we want to be sure to jeopardize his future completely

[Tiger]

To you perhaps, but a 14 year old who is more controlled by hormones and emotion than rational thought?

 

As far as society being better off without them, that argument is way too wide to be acceptable. There are allot of things society is better off without. Some could even argue you and I.

There is a good argument for banning guns. However, there is also a good argument for keeping guns legal. That is why people passionately debate the issue.

[JamesSavik]

To you perhaps, but a 14 year old who is more controlled by hormones and emotion than rational thought?

 

There is a good argument for banning guns. However, there is also a good argument for keeping guns legal. That is why people passionately debate the issue.

 

 

Sounds more like a good reason to contain 14 year olds until they are in control of themselves.

 

I suppose that is why the archictecture of middle schools looks a lot like prisons.

[The_Silence]

I think no matter how strict you make the gun policy, you will always have someone that will slip through the cracks. If someone REALLY wanted to do some damage they will find a way around those policies.

 

And for the cause of the shootings.........personally I think it starts in the home.

[Razor]

Well the thing about this is that it shouldn't really be an issue other than charging parents with negligence for leaving a gun in a place where it's available to a minor.

 

I don't agree with gun control, and I think that it's a provided right for a reason. If you look at history, that's one of the major steps in taking complete control of a state; disarming them. Yeah sounds paranoid, but that's what they thought, too. It's also a really screwy way of shirking responsibility off of the people who were involved and onto an inanimate object so nobody has to feel guilty about it.

[The_Silence]

I suppose that is why the archictecture of middle schools looks a lot like prisons.

 

LOL

[AFriendlyFace]

People need to take responsibility for their own actions - it is the shooters fault, even if the parents were contributing facts.

I do agree with this.

It's a pity more of the younger ones don't off themselves at the same time, like the college-aged ones do. Then we'd all be spared the ridiculous claims that it's 'society's' fault, or the media's. You find me a mentally average fourteen year old in the United States who is too stupid to know the consequences of shooting someone, and then I will agree that he shouldn't be tried as an adult.

I have to agree with that point,, I'll never believe that at 14 you don't realize that when you pull a trigger you can kill someone. A 14 y.o. knows that once the shooting is done, the victims won't get back from the death by miracle.

 

The one thing that they might be lacking is : Control. As you grow up you realize that you have to control your rage, that you gotta have some self restrain and think before doing something

I'm a little conflicted on this point. Psychologically and physiologically speaking there's a great deal of evidence that indicates the average person's brain doesn't completely mature until their early twenties. Until then people (on average) are very much more likely to be impulsive and not think out the consequences than someone 30 or so. In that regard 18 may be too young to use as a benchmark. However, cognitively speaking they mostly are developed. So it's sorta a catch 22. You have adult thought processes, but "kid" emotions.

 

As far as society being better off without them, that argument is way too wide to be acceptable. There are allot of things society is better off without. Some could even argue you and I.

Well that would be ridiculous! You and Menzo are two the niftiest folks around

 

And just as I don't care what heterosexist evangelicals think of me, I don't particularly care whether the murderers agree with me about their value to society, although I would argue that there is a big difference between a lifestyle 'choice' and the act of murder.

 

I remember myself when I was fourteen, and the 'emotions' argument doesn't cut it. Lots of people are emotional/feel isolated/are depressed and yet somehow don't come to school one day and blow people away.

 

A line has to be drawn after which we hold people responsible for their actions. A kid who calls another kid is a fag because he's insecure is forgivable, even understandable, but a kid who murders because of his 'emotions'? I think we need to call a spade and spade and hold him accountable, just as we would hold an adult accountable. 18 is an arbitrary number, it does not confer sudden wisdom or rationality.

 

Menzo

I do completely agree with this! 18 is a totally arbitrary number and I remember being 14 too. IMO, people underestimate kids way too much. In my experience they're not as naive and irrational as people seem to think.

 

I also agree that regardless of your age (well at least certainly once you are a teenage) the individual themselves is responsible for their actions and their life. The circumstance and other factors are just circumstance and other factors, it doesn't give them a free ticket IMO.

 

Look at Menzo or James Savik for example (two individuals whom I profoundly respect BTW), they've indicated in their forum posts that they had a pretty rough ride at a few points and they didn't kill themselves or anyone else. They grew up to be strong adults who make intelligent posts in serious discussion threads

 

The "it's not my fault, my parents didn't love me/society mistreated me/I grew up poor/whatever" argument just doesn't wash with me. I'm endlessly sympathetic to the people that had to endure these circumstances, and I will keep this in mind when shaping my perception of them, but first and foremost I do hold each individual accountable for his or her own actions and happiness.

 

You can suck lemons or you can make lemonade

 

-Kevin

[Graeme]

I apologise for coming in late. I know some of my points have already been said in form or another, but I want to say them anyway

 

That's probably because guns have been banned. I heard about why. The man responsible perpetrated the largest body count ever for a spree killer. It's such a shame. Guns aren't all bad in the hands of responsible citizens. It's the nutters who make it bad for everyone else.

Actually, no. Guns are not banned in Australia. They never have been and never will be (I believe). What we have is gun RESTRICTION. The number of people who own guns outside of gun clubs is very low, but they exist. A very wide group that own guns are farmers -- they need them. My brother-in-law is a farmer, and his two nephews (both teenagers) are eagerly waiting for their gun licenses to come through. A former neighbour of mine is a hunter and he owns guns. All perfectly legal.

 

As I understand it, before you are allowed to own a gun in Australia, you have to show reason (recreational hunting is a legitimate reason) and go through a number of checks. Most citizens don't have a reason to have a gun, and hence don't have one. This keeps the number of guns in circulation in Australia quite low, and THAT is the major reason for the low rate of shootings in Australia.

 

I think that weapons are so easily accessible in the US is one (but of course not the only) reason why this happens so often in the US. Its much harder to get hold of a gun here, and we have much less shootings here - not only in schools, but in general.

Which is pretty much the situation here, too, but we've got the advantage that it's more difficult to smuggle in guns from other countries since we only have sea borders and no land borders.

 

Not to be trite, but guns don't kill people; people do. Like James said, if you want to kill someone, a machete works just as well as a gun.

All weapons are force multipliers. A weapon allows for a strong and more deadly attack than no weapon. Guns don't kill people, but they make it a lot easier for someone who wants to kill to do so. They are a high force multiplier, much higher than a machete. You can kill lots of people with your bare hands, but it is a lot easier with a pistol, and even easier with an automatic rifle.

 

Having tougher gun control laws like in Canada, or over here, at least seems to reduce the number of shootings, so IMHO it's not a bad idea. I personally don't see a reason why "normal" people need a gun anyway - i am happy to leave that privilege to the military and the police etc.

There are a lot of reasons why "normal" people need guns. Farmers I've already mentioned -- indeed almost anyone who deals with livestock. Security guards are another class of "private" individuals who need guns.

 

But in order to stop the violence, we have to find out what makes people go ballistic in the first place, and work on that.

Definitely! We need to treat causes, not just symptoms.

 

Stricter gun control laws only thwart those of us who do abide by the law. behind Illicit drugs, the black mark for guns is the second largest shadow market in the world. Stricter controls will only force more traffic to the black market.

In my humble opinion, stricter gun control laws will not work in the USA because there are just too many guns already out there. It works in Australia because we've never had a high guns/population ratio. There is no doubt in my mind that restriction of gun access in Australia keeps the number of shootings here to a very low number, but it is way too late for that to happen in the USA. Indeed, it was too late even before the USA declared independence

 

Exactly! Everyone always argues that "the crazy people will still get access to the guns anyway", but that argument is comparable to saying "There's no reason to restrict access to weapons of mass destruction. If people want to destroy huge world populations they will anyway".

I was going to make this point, but I saw you had already made it If keeping weapons is deemed necessary for citizens to feel safe, then why aren't they permitted any weapon they like, including nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, if that's what it takes? The doctrine of Mutual Annihilation kept the the USA safe from the USSR during the cold war. Shouldn't Americans be allowed to do the same to keep their homes safe from killers? "If you threaten my family, I'm going to blow all of us up, so stay away!".

 

Yes, I know that's silly, but those who argue that guns shouldn't be restricted don't seem to be campaigning against the restrictions already in place. Many guns are already illegal in the USA and the majority appear to accept that. The argument then becomes which weapons should remain legal.

 

Yes, right now there would still be tons of blackmarket firearms out there, but only time and efforts to clean that up will make that problem go away, and using this as an excuse not to get started and give it a try is pretty lazy and irresponsible IMO.

Sadly, I have to disagree. I would like to think this was true, but I don't believe it. There is too many weapons out there, and too many people in the USA have the opinion that they should be allowed to own them (eg. because of the 2nd Amendment) that trying to eliminate sufficient quantities of "illegal" firearms is doomed to failure.

 

A line has to be drawn after which we hold people responsible for their actions. A kid who calls another kid is a fag because he's insecure is forgivable, even understandable, but a kid who murders because of his 'emotions'? I think we need to call a spade and spade and hold him accountable, just as we would hold an adult accountable. 18 is an arbitrary number, it does not confer sudden wisdom or rationality.

I definitely agree. Too many people (of all ages) to try to find someone else to be responsible for their actions. Personal responsibility seems to be a dying trait in society... at least it appears that way at times

 

I don't agree with gun control, and I think that it's a provided right for a reason. If you look at history, that's one of the major steps in taking complete control of a state; disarming them. Yeah sounds paranoid, but that's what they thought, too. It's also a really screwy way of shirking responsibility off of the people who were involved and onto an inanimate object so nobody has to feel guilty about it.

You have to be careful with your historical analysis, because the societies in question are very different to the societies of today. After all, the vast majority of Australians don't own guns, but I see no sign that anyone is going to try to take over the country. I agree that there are nations today where your statement would very true, because the citizens don't trust the way their country governmental structures are set up. I don't see that as being true for many other nations, though.

 

I'll also repeat what I said above: The USA already has gun control in place, and has for decades. If you don't believe in gun control, why aren't you lobbying against the existing ban on many types of guns?

 

However, I'll also repeat that I don't believe that a much stricter form of gun control in the USA would work. Your society won't allow it. That solution is not open to you -- you'll need to find another way to address the rate of shootings.

[AFriendlyFace]

I apologise for coming in late. I know some of my points have already been said in form or another, but I want to say them anyway

Always a pleasure, Graeme! I'd been eagerly waiting for your (and Jamie's) input.

 

LOL, didn't hurt that I agreed with virtually everything you said

 

Most citizens don't have a reason to have a gun, and hence don't have one. This keeps the number of guns in circulation in Australia quite low, and THAT is the major reason for the low rate of shootings in Australia.

Yes, strongly restricting guns to only citizens who actually need them would satisfy me. The vast majority of Americans who own guns most certainly do not need them in my opinion.

 

In my humble opinion, stricter gun control laws will not work in the USA because there are just too many guns already out there. It works in Australia because we've never had a high guns/population ratio. There is no doubt in my mind that restriction of gun access in Australia keeps the number of shootings here to a very low number, but it is way too late for that to happen in the USA. Indeed, it was too late even before the USA declared independence

This is pretty much what I was eluding to when I mentioned that today's gun control laws don't effect today's gun related incidents; they effect tomorrow's. I completely agree with your assessment that the problem is that there are already too many guns in circulation for new laws to be particularly effective at first. I still maintain that trying is better than nothing though, and as someone who actually lives here I feel like I have a vested interest in pushing this agenda.

 

My solution to reducing the number of guns already in circulation would be for the government (or perhaps a wealthy private interest group) to make generous enough offers for guns (and also have a "no questions asked" policy) that the majority of citizens would sell them, thus removing them from circulation.

 

In any case you're completely right: regulating is only one half of the solution, the other half needs to come in the form of active reduction.

 

I was going to make this point, but I saw you had already made it

We're even then because:

Well the thing about this is that it shouldn't really be an issue other than charging parents with negligence for leaving a gun in a place where it's available to a minor.

 

I don't agree with gun control, and I think that it's a provided right for a reason. If you look at history, that's one of the major steps in taking complete control of a state; disarming them. Yeah sounds paranoid, but that's what they thought, too. It's also a really screwy way of shirking responsibility off of the people who were involved and onto an inanimate object so nobody has to feel guilty about it.

You have to be careful with your historical analysis, because the societies in question are very different to the societies of today. After all, the vast majority of Australians don't own guns, but I see no sign that anyone is going to try to take over the country. I agree that there are nations today where your statement would very true, because the citizens don't trust the way their country governmental structures are set up. I don't see that as being true for many other nations, though.

 

I'll also repeat what I said above: The USA already has gun control in place, and has for decades. If you don't believe in gun control, why aren't you lobbying against the existing ban on many types of guns?

That's pretty much the exact same point I wanted make (although with my inferior knowledge of the country, I wasn't going to rely so heavily on Australia as an example to make it ).

 

 

-Kevin

[Graeme]

Yes, strongly restricting guns to only citizens who actually need them would satisfy me. The vast majority of Americans who own guns most certainly do not need them in my opinion.

This is where things get tricky. The idea that if guns were banned (or heavily restricted) in the USA, then only outlaws would have guns is, unfortunately, very true. Because guns are so prevalent, they are prevalent in the criminal parts of USA society. Thus, it is a legitimate concern that citizens have a means of defending themselves against attackers armed with guns. Australia gets away with it because guns are still not that common in the general criminal group (though some parts do have guns -- they're just the part that is less likely to go after the general citizen). In the USA, your average drug addict (to pick only one small group) who need cash to buy another hit are likely to have access to a gun. This group is also more likely to use that gun against other citizens. What is your average law-abiding civilian supposed to do in this case?

 

While I support gun control in Australia, and while I think gun ownership in the USA is out of control, I recognise that the situation in the USA is not simple and that the solutions that work in Australia are unlikely to work in the USA. What I don't know is how to solve the problem -- how to keep the average citizen safe, while lowering the incident of gun-related deaths and injuries.

[shadowgod]

I do completely agree with this! 18 is a totally arbitrary number and I remember being 14 too. IMO, people underestimate kids way too much. In my experience they're not as naive and irrational as people seem to think.

 

I also agree that regardless of your age (well at least certainly once you are a teenage) the individual themselves is responsible for their actions and their life. The circumstance and other factors are just circumstance and other factors, it doesn't give them a free ticket IMO.

 

Look at Menzo or James Savik for example (two individuals whom I profoundly respect BTW), they've indicated in their forum posts that they had a pretty rough ride at a few points and they didn't kill themselves or anyone else. They grew up to be strong adults who make intelligent posts in serious discussion threads

 

The "it's not my fault, my parents didn't love me/society mistreated me/I grew up poor/whatever" argument just doesn't wash with me. I'm endlessly sympathetic to the people that had to endure these circumstances, and I will keep this in mind when shaping my perception of them, but first and foremost I do hold each individual accountable for his or her own actions and happiness.

 

You can suck lemons or you can make lemonade

-Kevin

 

I agree with you Kevin. I think people should be copable for their actions.

 

That said,

 

there has been numerous ocasions across these forums where it has been pointed out that people mature at different rates. Comparing yourself at fourteen to anyone else at fourteen is unreasonable. I am not condoning what the kid did. All i am saying is we need to look at what caused him to think that course of action was acceptable. That is where the problem is, and can be solved. Stricter gun control will not solve the problem. If someone wants to lash out violently, they will, even if it is with the nearest blunt object.

 

The answer also isn't in taking these kids, and throwing them away. We shouldn't call for their execution. We shouldn't deem them fit to stand trial as an adult when we don't think they are mature enough to drive a vehicle or choose the laws that effect them. We shouldn't relegate them into a system of broken prisons that will only take what ever evil is inside of them and amplify it.

 

Prisons do not rehabilitate, not in their current state, they take a individual who may have been misguided and turn them into monsters. It is proven with reoffender rates.

 

the shooter in Oxnard turned 14 two weeks ago. He has been charged as an adult. Something is wrong with that, we should be educating kids, not sending them to prison. It's people who express some of the same opinions that have expressed here, that think there is nothing worth saving in these kids. That may be true. The failure to try is the real devil in society. That willingness to just get cover up the stain rather then deal with. It's Horrendous and spits in the face of our better angels.

[AFriendlyFace]

This is where things get tricky. The idea that if guns were banned (or heavily restricted) in the USA, then only outlaws would have guns is, unfortunately, very true. Because guns are so prevalent, they are prevalent in the criminal parts of USA society. Thus, it is a legitimate concern that citizens have a means of defending themselves against attackers armed with guns. Australia gets away with it because guns are still not that common in the general criminal group (though some parts do have guns -- they're just the part that is less likely to go after the general citizen). In the USA, your average drug addict (to pick only one small group) who need cash to buy another hit are likely to have access to a gun. This group is also more likely to use that gun against other citizens. What is your average law-abiding civilian supposed to do in this case?

 

While I support gun control in Australia, and while I think gun ownership in the USA is out of control, I recognise that the situation in the USA is not simple and that the solutions that work in Australia are unlikely to work in the USA. What I don't know is how to solve the problem -- how to keep the average citizen safe, while lowering the incident of gun-related deaths and injuries.

Hmmm, I really don't think the characterization is completely fair or accurate. I'm sure I'm exaggerating what you're saying, but it sounds to me as though you assume the typical American is regularly having shoot-outs with "out laws".

 

I would be very surprised if the average criminal is significantly deterred out of fear that his victim will also have a firearm. He/she is probably deterred from fear that another criminal or the police will shoot him/her, but I doubt greatly that he/she fears this very much from a typical citizen. So I don't think guns work as much of a deterrent here.

 

As far as actual, physical defense, personally I think (and I haven't done research or seen statistics this is just my intuition) having a gun while getting robbed makes you more likely to get killed or hurt. They escalate the situation and sort of force the criminal into a corner where he/she has to shoot you. Most robberies are non-violent and most criminals aren't out to physically hurt someone just for the sake of doing it. "Forcing their hand" so to speak by upping the stakes with additional weapons seems like a bad idea to me.

 

I have a friend who carries a gun (but I only have one friend who carries a gun out of quite a few friends) and I'd certainly feel much safer being robbed when he isn't around.

 

Anyway, as I keep saying, I think it's better to do something than to do nothing, and bottom line I sincerely believe very strong restriction (as well as efforts to remove current firearms from circulation) will do a lot more good than harm.

 

Prisons do not rehabilitate, not in their current state, they take a individual who may have been misguided and turn them into monsters. It is proven with reoffender rates.

Oh it certainly is! The notion that prisons serve any practical function besides physically separating the offender from the public for a period of time is most definitely incorrect and naive. Indeed, as you indicated most ex-cons simply emerge more pissed off at the world and significantly more knowledgeable about the ways of the crime world.

 

the shooter in Oxnard turned 14 two weeks ago. He has been charged as an adult. Something is wrong with that, we should be educating kids, not sending them to prison. It's people who express some of the same opinions that have expressed here, that think there is nothing worth saving in these kids. That may be true. The failure to try is the real devil in society. That willingness to just get cover up the stain rather then deal with. It's Horrendous and spits in the face of our better angels.

This is true, but really I'm at a loss with what to do with the kid. What would you suggest?

 

I really don't give much for his chances of redemption (well perhaps in the religious sense, but not in the practical, societal sense). If he does "change" he'll then always be tortured by the demons of what he did. Either way it seems to me like he's destined to live a rather miserable, depressing life.

 

I certainly do think he's too unstable and dangerous to be set free. I might favour psychiatric treatment and oversight for him, but as I said I'm not too sanguine about the chances of his ultimate "recovery". That just leaves locking him up or executing him. I'm against the death penalty so that's out as an option for me.

 

That really only leaves locking him up, and as we both agree that's a pretty cruddy solution too. He isn't going "change", if he ever gets out (and I'm conflicted on whether or not I think he should) he'll just be bitter, angry, and traumatized. Life imprisonment or eventual release, I don't think he stands much of a chance of ever being happy and enjoying his own life, or being productive and giving back to others.

 

So where does that leave him?

 

I am against suicide and additional death, but I certainly can understand the sentiment of "it's ashame he didn't kill himself at the end and spare us and himself a lot more trouble".

 

Believe me, if I could "fix" him and make him be a "good" and "happy" person I would, and I'm the forgiving sort, so I wouldn't pointlessly punish him either, but frankly - in this case - I just don't see that as a very likely or viable possibility.

 

 

It's very sad,

-Kevin

Edited February 16, 2008 by AFriendlyFace

[BeaStKid]

Ouch! :wacko: Shootings in Australia are rare, very rare, but I have to say that the media here must be becoming desensitised, too, because I haven't seen reports on this in our newspapers.

 

The front page of the newspaper I subscribe to says today---> Ex-student kills five in US varsity. So much for the Indian media being de-sensitized.

 

There was a shooting incident in a school in Gurgaon (near New Delhi) here as well where two students in eighth grade ( yeah eighth grade!) shot down their classmate as the latter used to bully them.

 

I don't have much to say other than it is a sad picture of where some of my fellow generation members are heading towards.

 

[Menzoberranzen]

the shooter in Oxnard turned 14 two weeks ago. He has been charged as an adult. Something is wrong with that, we should be educating kids, not sending them to prison. It's people who express some of the same opinions that have expressed here, that think there is nothing worth saving in these kids. That may be true. The failure to try is the real devil in society. That willingness to just get cover up the stain rather then deal with. It's Horrendous and spits in the face of our better angels.

 

Educating them?

 

"So, in case you've been living in a hole for the past 14 years, killing people is illegal. And, because you are obviously an utter invalid, the primary consequence of taking a gun, loading it, and shooting it at someone's head is their imminent demise. Now that's our lesson for today kids, tomorrow we'll talk about what you're feeling when you decide this is a good idea."

 

The kid should go to prison, and there they can try to rehabilitate. What kind of message does that send to people - to the victim's family - if this kid gets off scott free so that he can be educated on something he should have known years ago?

 

I'm sure there are things worth saving in most people, but that doesn't change the fact that the primary response to crime is punishment, not salvation.

 

Menzo

 

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world disciplined.

[FrenchCanadian]

Educating them?

 

"So, in case you've been living in a hole for the past 14 years, killing people is illegal. And, because you are obviously an utter invalid, the primary consequence of taking a gun, loading it, and shooting it at someone's head is their imminent demise. Now that's our lesson for today kids, tomorrow we'll talk about what you're feeling when you decide this is a good idea."

 

The kid should go to prison, and there they can try to rehabilitate. What kind of message does that send to people - to the victim's family - if this kid gets off scott free so that he can be educated on something he should have known years ago?

 

I'm sure there are things worth saving in most people, but that doesn't change the fact that the primary response to crime is punishment, not salvation.

 

Menzo

 

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world disciplined.

 

Simple,, 'cause when he'll be getting out of prison he'll be what 34,, at 34 you still need a place to live, and all those stuff, if you don't educate the guy or do nuthing about him, what do you think he'll be able to do when he'll get out,, doing illegal stuff!!.

 

The message to the victim's family. last november, in a small town in quebec, a 14 y.o. boy gave a punch to the head of another in school over a stupid hat. That boy died from that hit. Of course the 14y.o. been arrested and all. Well he's been sentenced yesterday to 6 months of house arrest. article here My point is that the parents of the victim said that they're happy, they never wished that the teen would have to go in detention.

 

Alright in this case you can say it was an accident,, there's a difference between a school fight and a school rampage. But still, we can't say for sure what the family of those victims wants when it's teens involved. You want them to pay for what they have done, but not more than they deserve

[YaP]

I agree that everybody should be held responsible for their actions, and nobody should get away with committing a crime. But for me there is a big difference between a 14yo and an adult. As mentioned by others here, kids mature very different. A 14yo may be quite mature, and aware of consequences of his actions - or (s)he may not be aware of those at all.

 

German laws are quite different when it comes to treating minors. I don't know if it works better, but to me it seems to be a good/fair approach.

 

Kids under 14 are not held liable for crimes they commit. The parents are. The kids may be put under foster care, or in a children's home, if the judges decides that the parents are not able to keep care of their children.

 

Teenagers between 14 and 18 are always handled by juvenile court (never treated as an adult). There is always a social worker or psychologist consulted to determine the maturity of the culprit. If they are sentenced to jail, it's always a juvenile jail - where they concentrate more on education than punishment, trying to give the kids a chance to re-integrate and get some kind of school/qualification.

 

Young adults between 18 and 21 may be handled by juvenile court or may be treated as adults, depending on their "maturity" - again a social worker or psychologist is consulted on that.

 

This of course doesn't prevent juvenile crime (neither does treating kids as adults). If there would be a recipe to prevent (juvenile or adult) crimes, the world would be a much better place for sure. Sadly i don't know of any.

It is a rather complex problem. It seems that the environment/parents play an important role. Lack of good role models is IMO another point - most politicians and celebrities aren't really good role models, are they ? And churches don't seem to be able to provide a value system that matches with the demands of todays societies - they disqualify themselves by ignoring the reality.

 

I think working on that is one of the biggest challenges we face today. The rising numbers of shootings, the spreading violence in schools etc. is only an (one) effect, a reaction to the underlying problem. If we don't manage to provide a better environment for the kids (and all of us), the violence will not decrease, no matter how harsh the laws are.

[AFriendlyFace]

I'm sure there are things worth saving in most people, but that doesn't change the fact that the primary response to crime is punishment, not salvation.

Despite the fact that I actually did agree with most of the rest of that post, I have to say that I find this concept disgusting and unappealing...unfortunately I agree that that is how the legal system is set up.

 

Mercy and rehabilitation should always out weigh simple, spiteful punishment and justice in my opinion. Without this focus, and without keeping forgiveness front and center, I really can't think much of society.

 

-Kevin

[shadowgod]

Educating them?

 

"So, in case you've been living in a hole for the past 14 years, killing people is illegal. And, because you are obviously an utter invalid, the primary consequence of taking a gun, loading it, and shooting it at someone's head is their imminent demise. Now that's our lesson for today kids, tomorrow we'll talk about what you're feeling when you decide this is a good idea."

 

The kid should go to prison, and there they can try to rehabilitate. What kind of message does that send to people - to the victim's family - if this kid gets off scott free so that he can be educated on something he should have known years ago?

 

I'm sure there are things worth saving in most people, but that doesn't change the fact that the primary response to crime is punishment, not salvation.

 

Menzo

 

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world disciplined.

 

That mentality has worked glowingly so far...

 

 

You missed a point in my previous post. prisons DO NOT rehabilitate. They are simply a short to long term storage option. An out-of-sight-out-of-mind place to hide people society deems as inappropriate. I've seen the inside of the California youth authority. Do you know how they teach class there? They place the kids in cages. Cages! How does treating a person like an animal even attempt at rehabilitation?

 

It doesn't it sends a clear message. throwing this kid into the system for the next 30 years to life is not an answer. If we continue to think this is a viable course of action we will continue to face the same problem. America has a pedigree for dealing harshly with youthful offenders. In fact the first recorded hanging in America occurred in Massachusetts. Unfortunately it was not for a murder or theft. A teenage farm boy was executed for taking certain liberties with the livestock.

 

 

And to answer your question, YES education and rehabilitation in an area that is free of cages and people wearing militaristic garb. If he thought giving into rage was an acceptable course of action certainly his education is off somewhere. In the same instance maybe prison is the best place for him, if he has demonstrated a clear history of violence. However a blanket condemnation with out regard to circumstances is both misguided and uninformed. A terrible example of mob rule.

[JamesSavik]

If you pay careful attention to these shootings, the media is playing an essential part of the problem.

 

The media will HAVE to be a essential part of the solution.

 

The national media responds to every school shooting, there are profiles of the shooter/victims, commenttators discuss the incident at length and then you never hear anything else about it unless you do some digging.

 

The way this is portrayed, you might think, and I'm sure some people do think, that nothing ever really happens to the shooters.

 

I believe that the media has to show more of the process other than the initial shock and hysteria of the initial incident- specifically the trial (or at least highlights of the trial) and most important, the penelty.

 

 

BTW- the law often has problems posed by the age of the perps. In the Jonesboro shootings of 1998, Mitchel Johnson (13) and Andrew Golden (11) were under Arkansas's 14 year old cutoff for trying the pair as adults. They were both held by the Arkansas Youth Authority until they were 21 and released. Johnson has since been arrested for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and faces more time than he served for all of the the Jonesboro killings.

[AFriendlyFace]

That mentality has worked glowingly so far...

 

 

You missed a point in my previous post. prisons DO NOT rehabilitate. They are simply a short to long term storage option. An out-of-sight-out-of-mind place to hide people society deems as inappropriate. I've seen the inside of the California youth authority. Do you know how they teach class there? They place the kids in cages. Cages! How does treating a person like an animal even attempt at rehabilitation?

....

And to answer your question, YES education and rehabilitation in an area that is free of cages and people wearing militaristic garb. If he thought giving into rage was an acceptable course of action certainly his education is off somewhere. In the same instance maybe prison is the best place for him, if he has demonstrated a clear history of violence. However a blanket condemnation with out regard to circumstances is both misguided and uninformed. A terrible example of mob rule.

 

If you pay careful attention to these shootings, the media is playing an essential part of the problem.

 

The media will HAVE to be a essential part of the solution.

 

The national media responds to every school shooting, there are profiles of the shooter/victims, commenttators discuss the incident at length and then you never hear anything else about it unless you do some digging.

 

The way this is portrayed, you might think, and I'm sure some people do think, that nothing ever really happens to the shooters.

 

I believe that the media has to show more of the process other than the initial shock and hysteria of the initial incident- specifically the trial (or at least highlights of the trial) and most important, the penelty.

 

 

Well said guys! I completely agree. Particularly about not making blanket statements and treating every case as though it were identical to the last one!

 

IMO, the best thing the media could do to solve this and many other problems would be to butt out. Report it, keep us updated, but don't bash us over the head with 24/7 coverage of every detail

Edited February 16, 2008 by AFriendlyFace

[jfalkon]

Those are some interesting thoughts. I think the best solution to the problem is to take the glamor away. If the kid shot someone and was without delay locked up in a mental institution never to be seen again it might take some of the hero status away. I think any punishment that would could be viewed as grewsome would generate sympathy. Sadly, I must vote no on the giant blender (wood chipper?) idea.

 

The problem is that the sooter is seen as having more power than he ever had. This is atractive to kids. Who wouldn't like the idea of terrorizing the entire school and becoming a celebrity in the process?

 

As for the argument about a kid's emotions being unstable, I disagree. While they may react more emotionaly there is still such a thing as self control. I hated many of my classmates when I was in school. I would have enjoyed watching them get shot at. What kept me from stealing my dad's shot gun and blowing thier cute little heads off? I knew I would get in trouble. If someone is unable to understand that shooting the other kids will not lead to anything good there is probably a mental problem. If someone is aware of the consequences and still kills someone, he is a psycopathic murderer and should be kept away from the rest of us. I don't really care what happens to the kid as long as he is kept far away from me.

[Tiger]

Sounds more like a good reason to contain 14 year olds until they are in control of themselves.

 

I suppose that is why the archictecture of middle schools looks a lot like prisons.

Considering the shooting incident I recalled earlier in this thread, I tend to agree about 14 year olds and guns. They should not have guns at any time for any reason. There is a reason why only adults are supposed to be able to have guns. Kids are not old enough to fully understand the responsibility of gun ownership.

[FrenchCanadian]

Considering the shooting incident I recalled earlier in this thread, I tend to agree about 14 year olds and guns. They should not have guns at any time for any reason. There is a reason why only adults are supposed to be able to have guns. Kids are not old enough to fully understand the responsibility of gun ownership.

 

The problem is that the parents of those kids do have guns, and sometimes don't store them right. or simply is too easy to find... Also, worse, sometimes the parents will even bring their kids hunting and show them how to work it

 

I'm not giving all the blame on the parents,,, but, lets give the blame that they should have