Once again...
- Thread starter Duke
- Start date
schools need to start reaching out to kids, from grade school through college, and start teaching to be aware of signs of people who are in distress and let them know thats it is ok, and not sntiching, to alert an authority figure like a teacher or counselor that they think someone might be having some difficulities. then those people could go and talk with this person at least. try and figure out with a professional conclusion that this person might be a danger to themself or others around them.
i'm going to say this over and over a big common factor is many of these school shootings medication. these kids are on and off their anti depressants. a lot of them are loners or have been bullied.
i'm going to say this over and over a big common factor is many of these school shootings medication. these kids are on and off their anti depressants. a lot of them are loners or have been bullied.
I never heard of someone using these thing for mass murder 
You know damn well that there is a difference. But of course, there are still ways to kill someone.
You know damn well that there is a difference. But of course, there are still ways to kill someone.
Maybe, Maybe not, not to bring religion into this but as an example the Christians slaughtered Muslims by the masses during the crusades. I really think that if someone is determined to take out as many people as possible nothing will stop him till he either off's himself or takes too many rounds from police fire. Its hard to stop a determined individual, adrenalin takes over an while 1,2 or 3 bullets may stop you or me, its not the same for the person who's hyped up, they'll eventually run outa juice but when is the question? Either way we as human beings are obsessed with how an by what means to kill each other.
Of course guns themselves do not kill people. But when you make firearms accesible for every psycho it's a matter of time before something fucked up happens.
Guns aren't merely a "means to kill". You can use a chair as well. Or the aforementioned fork. Or a fertilizer bomb. Sure, you can even use your pinky. But a gun does tend to be the easiest and least emotionally attached way (pulling trigger vs. poking out eyeballs with fingers).
Hey, defend your gun culture all you want, Yankees. Fact is that here in Holland I don't run the risk at school to get shot the fuck up.
Guns aren't merely a "means to kill". You can use a chair as well. Or the aforementioned fork. Or a fertilizer bomb. Sure, you can even use your pinky. But a gun does tend to be the easiest and least emotionally attached way (pulling trigger vs. poking out eyeballs with fingers).
Hey, defend your gun culture all you want, Yankees. Fact is that here in Holland I don't run the risk at school to get shot the fuck up.
please, you guys are arguing about gun control being the cause of the shooting, but it's clearly not. the real cause is video games of course!!! at least Jack Thompson says so!
COMMENTARY
By Winda Benedetti
The shooting on the Virginia Tech campus was only hours old, police hadn't even identified the gunman, and yet already the perpetrator had been fingered and was in the midst of being skewered in the media.
Video games. They were to blame for the dozens dead and wounded. They were behind the bloodiest massacre in U.S. history.
Or so Jack Thompson told Fox News and, in the days that followed, would continue to tell anyone who'd listen.
"These are real lives. These are real people that are in the ground now because of this game. I have no doubt about it," said Thompson, a Florida attorney and fervent critic the of video game industry.
The game he's talking about is "Counter-Strike," a massively popular team-based tactical shooting game that puts players in the heavily armed boots of either a counter-terrorist or terrorist.
But whether Seung-Hui Cho, the student who opened fire Monday, was an avid player of video games and whether he was a fan of "Counter-Strike" in particular remains, even now, uncertain at best.
Meanwhile, in the aftermath of the school shootings and the finger-pointing that followed, game players and industry advocates say they're outraged that the brutal acts of a deeply disturbed and depressed loner with a history of mental illness would be blamed so quickly on video and computer games. They say this is perhaps the most flagrant case of anti-game crusaders using a tragedy to promote their own personal causes.
"It's so sad. These massacre chasers — they're worse than ambulance chasers — they're waiting for these things to happen so they can jump on their soapbox," said Jason Della Rocca, executive director of the International Game Developers Association.
"It disgusts me," said Isaiah Triforce Johnson, a longtime gamer and founder of a New York-based gaming advocacy group that, in response to the accusations, is now planning what is the first ever gamer-driven peace rally.
‘Mental masturbation’
When Jack Thompson gets worked up, he refers to gamers as "knuckleheads." He calls video games "mental masturbation."
When he's talking about himself and his crusade against violent games, he calls himself an "educator." He likes to use the word "pioneer."
Certainly Thompson has made a name for himself. After all, he knows a thing or two about publicity. He's spent no small bit of time in front of a camera.
On those rare occasions when a student opens fire on a school campus, Thompson is frequently the first and the loudest to declare games responsible. In recent years he's blamed games such as "Counter-Strike," "Doom" and "Grand Theft Auto III" for school shootings in Littleton, Colo., Red Lake, Minn. and Paducah, Ky.
He's blamed them for shootings beyond school grounds as well. In an attempt to hold game developers and publishers responsible for these spasms of violence, Thompson has launched several unsuccessful lawsuits.
But in the hours after the Virginia Tech massacre, Thompson wasn't the only one rushing to make a connection between the shootings and video games. Police were still struggling to piece together the nightmare that had unfolded on campus that morning when Dr. Phil McGraw appeared on Larry King Live and took aim at the usual suspect.
"The problem is we are programming these people as a society," he said. "You cannot tell me — common sense tells you that if these kids are playing video games, where they're on a mass killing spree in a video game, it's glamorized on the big screen, it's become part of the fiber of our society. You take that and mix it with a psychopath, a sociopath or someone suffering from mental illness and add in a dose of rage, the suggestibility is too high. And we're going to have to start dealing with that."
Meanwhile, by Tuesday, The Washington Post had posted a story on its Web site stating that several youths who knew Cho said that in high school he'd been a fan of violent video games, especially "Counter-Strike."
But a short time later, the newspaper removed that paragraph from the story without explanation. Meanwhile, authorities released a search warrant listing the items found in Cho's dorm room. Not a single video game, console or gaming gadget was on the list, though a computer was confiscated. And in an interview with Chris Matthews of "Hardball," Cho's university suite-mate said he had never seen Cho play video games.
None of this seems to matter to Thompson.
"This is not rocket science. When a kid who has never killed anyone in his life goes on a rampage and looks like the Terminator, he's a video gamer," he told MSNBC.com.
And in a letter sent to Bill Gates Wednesday, he wrote: "Mr. Gates, your company is potentially legally liable (for) the harm done at Virginia Tech. Your game, a killing simulator, according to the news that used to be in the Post, trained him to enjoy killing and how to kill."
(Microsoft did not create "Counter Strike" but did publish a version of it for the Xbox. The company's representatives declined to comment on Thompson's letter.)
While Thompson concedes that there are many elements that must have driven Cho to commit such a brutal act, he insists that without video games Cho wouldn't have had the skills to do what he did.
"He might have killed somebody but he wouldn't have killed 32 if he hadn't rehearsed it and trained himself like a warrior on virtual reality. It can't be done. It just doesn't happen."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18220228/
i wish someone would just shut that damn Thompson fool up permanently.
COMMENTARY
By Winda Benedetti
The shooting on the Virginia Tech campus was only hours old, police hadn't even identified the gunman, and yet already the perpetrator had been fingered and was in the midst of being skewered in the media.
Video games. They were to blame for the dozens dead and wounded. They were behind the bloodiest massacre in U.S. history.
Or so Jack Thompson told Fox News and, in the days that followed, would continue to tell anyone who'd listen.
"These are real lives. These are real people that are in the ground now because of this game. I have no doubt about it," said Thompson, a Florida attorney and fervent critic the of video game industry.
The game he's talking about is "Counter-Strike," a massively popular team-based tactical shooting game that puts players in the heavily armed boots of either a counter-terrorist or terrorist.
But whether Seung-Hui Cho, the student who opened fire Monday, was an avid player of video games and whether he was a fan of "Counter-Strike" in particular remains, even now, uncertain at best.
Meanwhile, in the aftermath of the school shootings and the finger-pointing that followed, game players and industry advocates say they're outraged that the brutal acts of a deeply disturbed and depressed loner with a history of mental illness would be blamed so quickly on video and computer games. They say this is perhaps the most flagrant case of anti-game crusaders using a tragedy to promote their own personal causes.
"It's so sad. These massacre chasers — they're worse than ambulance chasers — they're waiting for these things to happen so they can jump on their soapbox," said Jason Della Rocca, executive director of the International Game Developers Association.
"It disgusts me," said Isaiah Triforce Johnson, a longtime gamer and founder of a New York-based gaming advocacy group that, in response to the accusations, is now planning what is the first ever gamer-driven peace rally.
‘Mental masturbation’
When Jack Thompson gets worked up, he refers to gamers as "knuckleheads." He calls video games "mental masturbation."
When he's talking about himself and his crusade against violent games, he calls himself an "educator." He likes to use the word "pioneer."
Certainly Thompson has made a name for himself. After all, he knows a thing or two about publicity. He's spent no small bit of time in front of a camera.
On those rare occasions when a student opens fire on a school campus, Thompson is frequently the first and the loudest to declare games responsible. In recent years he's blamed games such as "Counter-Strike," "Doom" and "Grand Theft Auto III" for school shootings in Littleton, Colo., Red Lake, Minn. and Paducah, Ky.
He's blamed them for shootings beyond school grounds as well. In an attempt to hold game developers and publishers responsible for these spasms of violence, Thompson has launched several unsuccessful lawsuits.
But in the hours after the Virginia Tech massacre, Thompson wasn't the only one rushing to make a connection between the shootings and video games. Police were still struggling to piece together the nightmare that had unfolded on campus that morning when Dr. Phil McGraw appeared on Larry King Live and took aim at the usual suspect.
"The problem is we are programming these people as a society," he said. "You cannot tell me — common sense tells you that if these kids are playing video games, where they're on a mass killing spree in a video game, it's glamorized on the big screen, it's become part of the fiber of our society. You take that and mix it with a psychopath, a sociopath or someone suffering from mental illness and add in a dose of rage, the suggestibility is too high. And we're going to have to start dealing with that."
Meanwhile, by Tuesday, The Washington Post had posted a story on its Web site stating that several youths who knew Cho said that in high school he'd been a fan of violent video games, especially "Counter-Strike."
But a short time later, the newspaper removed that paragraph from the story without explanation. Meanwhile, authorities released a search warrant listing the items found in Cho's dorm room. Not a single video game, console or gaming gadget was on the list, though a computer was confiscated. And in an interview with Chris Matthews of "Hardball," Cho's university suite-mate said he had never seen Cho play video games.
None of this seems to matter to Thompson.
"This is not rocket science. When a kid who has never killed anyone in his life goes on a rampage and looks like the Terminator, he's a video gamer," he told MSNBC.com.
And in a letter sent to Bill Gates Wednesday, he wrote: "Mr. Gates, your company is potentially legally liable (for) the harm done at Virginia Tech. Your game, a killing simulator, according to the news that used to be in the Post, trained him to enjoy killing and how to kill."
(Microsoft did not create "Counter Strike" but did publish a version of it for the Xbox. The company's representatives declined to comment on Thompson's letter.)
While Thompson concedes that there are many elements that must have driven Cho to commit such a brutal act, he insists that without video games Cho wouldn't have had the skills to do what he did.
"He might have killed somebody but he wouldn't have killed 32 if he hadn't rehearsed it and trained himself like a warrior on virtual reality. It can't be done. It just doesn't happen."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18220228/
i wish someone would just shut that damn Thompson fool up permanently.
This is absolutely true. The first thing I thought of when i heard about this shooting was, What medication was this guy taking? Because so many ppl who have gone on a killing spree have been on one anti-depressant or another. The FDA is finally considering putting a suicide warning on drugs like Prozac and Paxil. They need to do it for all of them, and they need to add homicidal to the side-effects. Because suicidal + anger = homicidal. But if they say that it would just ruin the drug company's profits, so you won't be seeing that anytime soon. In fact, what you will be seeing is a bigger push for what's called Teen Screen. Screen all teens for psych problems and then put them on a drug. So drug companies will profit for causing the problem in the first place. And we'll have even more shooting incidents.
The attitude of blame is partial, and in most cases biased.
Shouldn't the question here be, not 'what is to blame?' but who, why, when, and where to place the blame also? For to answer one leaves out the others.
Who warrants an attitude of a something having a singular cause? ... again it's partiality.
I can see what I can call to blame in this situation, but I can't put a name to it. For what is to blame has not a name, it has many names.
Shouldn't the question here be, not 'what is to blame?' but who, why, when, and where to place the blame also? For to answer one leaves out the others.
Who warrants an attitude of a something having a singular cause? ... again it's partiality.
I can see what I can call to blame in this situation, but I can't put a name to it. For what is to blame has not a name, it has many names.
Heres my 2 cents.
I think that alot of people should get the blame for this. They shouldn't be sent to prison but they just really think about what they did.
First of, his parents. They saw how weird he was, never talked to anyone, not even his parents. Any parent with a brain could of seen that their child has some type of problem and needs theraphy. They should've gotten him some professional help immediately.
Also, the students at his high school or middle school or wherever he was bullied should get some blame too. If it weren't for them, he wouldn't of been emotianlly scarred. People might think that words don't hurt and you should just ignore it but come on how much can a kid take? There is such a thing called sensitivity you know. Even if someones just joking aroud with them sensitive people end up depressed.
The professors at the university should be blamed for reading all of his violent plays and not doing anything about it. I dont know how Virginia works but in California if you even write like one bad word in your homework the principle will call you in and you'll be set for counceling for the rest of the semester.
And yeah Cho definately should be blamed. He should've found a nice girl and settled down with her or something instead of stalking girls and what not.
I don't think America should be blamed though. Sure you can find guns every where but not everyone that finds a gun is gonna go on a shooting spree. Usually you gotta have some guts or something.
I think that alot of people should get the blame for this. They shouldn't be sent to prison but they just really think about what they did.
First of, his parents. They saw how weird he was, never talked to anyone, not even his parents. Any parent with a brain could of seen that their child has some type of problem and needs theraphy. They should've gotten him some professional help immediately.
Also, the students at his high school or middle school or wherever he was bullied should get some blame too. If it weren't for them, he wouldn't of been emotianlly scarred. People might think that words don't hurt and you should just ignore it but come on how much can a kid take? There is such a thing called sensitivity you know. Even if someones just joking aroud with them sensitive people end up depressed.
The professors at the university should be blamed for reading all of his violent plays and not doing anything about it. I dont know how Virginia works but in California if you even write like one bad word in your homework the principle will call you in and you'll be set for counceling for the rest of the semester.
And yeah Cho definately should be blamed. He should've found a nice girl and settled down with her or something instead of stalking girls and what not.
I don't think America should be blamed though. Sure you can find guns every where but not everyone that finds a gun is gonna go on a shooting spree. Usually you gotta have some guts or something.
you are making up excuses for a killer. there is no excuse for doing what he did. these other people aren't to blame. look at it this way. damn near every kid is picked on or bullied in high school, myself included, and yeah it does have an effect on you. but yet i never picked up a gun and shot up my school because of it. so that theory is out the window.
you can't blame the parents really either, at least not without knowing exactly what went on in their home when they were raising him. it's easy to say that "any parent with a brain could have seen their child had a problem" but it is absolutely not true. kids have been hiding things from their parents forever and getting away with it. and in this day and age where the majority of families have both parents working, a lot of parents simply don't have the time or energy to know every aspect of their child's life. does that make them bad parents? well some may say yes, but again that's not always the case.
you can say the school should have done something when they saw the stuff he was writing, and you mention some things about California schools. well this was at a university, not a high school, and there is a huge difference. and you can't just assume something's wrong with a peerson because they write violent essays or stories. if that were the case we'd have no horror novels or violent movies at all.
by your standards here shortie, the kids at Columbine picked on the killers and bullied them, so does that make them responsible for their own deaths? when it comes right down to it, there is only one person, thing or whatever to blame, and that is the person who pulled the trigger. end of story.
you can't blame the parents really either, at least not without knowing exactly what went on in their home when they were raising him. it's easy to say that "any parent with a brain could have seen their child had a problem" but it is absolutely not true. kids have been hiding things from their parents forever and getting away with it. and in this day and age where the majority of families have both parents working, a lot of parents simply don't have the time or energy to know every aspect of their child's life. does that make them bad parents? well some may say yes, but again that's not always the case.
you can say the school should have done something when they saw the stuff he was writing, and you mention some things about California schools. well this was at a university, not a high school, and there is a huge difference. and you can't just assume something's wrong with a peerson because they write violent essays or stories. if that were the case we'd have no horror novels or violent movies at all.
by your standards here shortie, the kids at Columbine picked on the killers and bullied them, so does that make them responsible for their own deaths? when it comes right down to it, there is only one person, thing or whatever to blame, and that is the person who pulled the trigger. end of story.
I think this is as much a Nature vs. Nurture debate, as it is one about the legality of guns in the state.
Human nature is and always has been to some degree, violent. All starting off as plain hunters and gatherers, we have an inherent pre-disposition to that sort of behavior.
Nurture: In Western society and partiuclarly American culture, people are told that violence/ anger is wrong and that they cannot and should not participate in it in any real degree. (Prime modern example: Iraq War)
Societal Nature: We are raised in a society that preaches non-violence, but one that itself participates in and initiates war against other countries time and time again.
Human Nature (continuing on from Nurture argument): This anger then, becomes stored and repressed until the point at which it reaches a breaking level, and manifests into a truly heinous outburst.
Nature vs. nurture: It is pushed to this breaking point most in individuals with a 'baser' mind state, one unable to discern right from wrong, (or filter out the apparent inherent hypocrisy and contradictory images presented in society -- regarding violence/ non-violence.)
And so we're provided with ideas and images of all the power we could have over others if we decided to, and that coupled with pure hate could, as in this very rare case, become devistating.
I don't write this to make excuses. Just to make the point that society can mess one up so severly and psychologically, that it can cause people to act against It (society) , or perhaps, more in-lined with their nature?
Human nature is and always has been to some degree, violent. All starting off as plain hunters and gatherers, we have an inherent pre-disposition to that sort of behavior.
Nurture: In Western society and partiuclarly American culture, people are told that violence/ anger is wrong and that they cannot and should not participate in it in any real degree. (Prime modern example: Iraq War)
Societal Nature: We are raised in a society that preaches non-violence, but one that itself participates in and initiates war against other countries time and time again.
Human Nature (continuing on from Nurture argument): This anger then, becomes stored and repressed until the point at which it reaches a breaking level, and manifests into a truly heinous outburst.
Nature vs. nurture: It is pushed to this breaking point most in individuals with a 'baser' mind state, one unable to discern right from wrong, (or filter out the apparent inherent hypocrisy and contradictory images presented in society -- regarding violence/ non-violence.)
And so we're provided with ideas and images of all the power we could have over others if we decided to, and that coupled with pure hate could, as in this very rare case, become devistating.
I don't write this to make excuses. Just to make the point that society can mess one up so severly and psychologically, that it can cause people to act against It (society) , or perhaps, more in-lined with their nature?
there are some excellent points there Elmira. humans are, by nature, violent creatures. but we live in a society which tells us not to be violent. so is it really so surprising when something like this happens? that is still no excuse to go shoot people up, but that is probably the best explanation i've seen in this whole thread.
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.