Northern Illinois University shooting?

[Yellowfin]

The liability calculations are being done from the perspective of liberalism. A conversation I had with a chief of campus police yielded a different tone on the liability issue: CYA and PR. They know full well they can't have any means whatsoever to fully detect and stop a loony from repeating these disasters, so the only people they can tell anything about whatsoever are the people who are licensed. They have to feel like they're screening at some level, so that's the level they can do it. Where I was, the sheriff's department issuing the CCW had to inform the school that you were getting it and the school had an agreement with the department that the chief of campus police had to give them a letter of approval--basically that he knew you had the license and had personally told you not to carry there and that you'd be in trouble if you did. Basically they'd have information on how many people had a permit and who, so they could officially say to administration and parents that they were doing something to monitor people on campus who might have a firearm. That's it. Nothing more. Just purely to say to the parents who might be worried for their kids and say "Oh my god, you have no idea about who might be carrying a gun there!" They can say they have something more than nothing, and they can tell the administration "Hey, we have a tight lid on it. We know exactly who has a gun and we can keep anyone we deem necessary from being able to. We have only allowed _____ permits."

That's straight from the source.

 

[alan]

A couple of quick points re this latest school shooting.

1. The state of Illinois is, it seems, awash in gun control laws isn't it? Judging by the evidence, they don't work particularly well, a fact that one would think might serve to argue against the enactment of more such laws. Probably won't though.

2. University spokespersons have mentiioned the existence of a plan to prevent such incidents. Seems as if that didn't work particularly well either, though in fairness to the school and it's seurity people, reaction time, an after the fact consideration, seemed pretty quick.

A couple of quick points re this latest school shooting.

1. The state of Illinois is, it seems, awash in gun control laws isn't it? Judging by the evidence, they don't work particularly well, a fact that one would think might serve to argue against the enactment of more such laws. Probably won't though.

2. University spokespersons have mentioned the existence of a plan to prevent such incidents. Seems as if that didn't work particularly well either, though in fairness to the school and it's seurity people, reaction time, an after the fact consideration, seemed pretty quick.

3. Seems that laws effect only those inclined to the obeying of such things. This consideration appears not to include those with emotional/physiological or other mental health problems.

 

[Yellowfin]

Maintaining liberalism as unopposed doctrine is more important to school administrators than student safety. Never forget that. If it wasn't, they would voluntarily seek policy to state otherwise.

 

[Musketeer]

There is something true about suicidal shooters not being deterred by armed citizens.

The problem with this statement is that it doesn't address why there are so many shootings at gun-free areas and so few at places such as gun shows and police stations.

If someone just wanted to commit suicide, he could easly pull the trigger at home. But if someone wants to commit suicide and make national headlines, murdering some innocent people before he offs himself is what that person will do. Going to a gun show or police station will likely keep the murderer's "tally" down, which means less attention in the news.

Just because someone is insane does not mean he or she is entirely stupid.

CCW will not deter them. It can only hope to keep the total number of victims down. That said I support legal CCW for schools.

Schools will always be prime targets because even if CCW were legal there the vast majority would be unarmed. Likewise for malls. Both are prime targets because they have maximum visceral impact in the media. Most Americans would not react nearly as strongly to an attack on a gun show or a police station, even if they had a higher body count, than on a mall or school. Most Americans can directly connect with schools and malls, not so with Gun Shows or Police Stations.

If you want to deter these things and just let the nut jobs go back to blowing their brains out in a closet then STOP PUBLISHING THEIR NAMES AND PICTURES. I have said this over and over after every rampage shooter. Those who study such individuals say the same thing. America is turning these psychopaths into pop culture celebrities. They know the path to fame is to kill a bunch of people in a horrific manner and a public setting with schools and malls the prime targets. The news media carries out a grisly contract with them. If they give a good front page story the media will make them famous.

These individuals are suicidal but if they knew all they would get was anonymity in place of fame for their rampage killing most of these attacks would cease and we would be dealing with simple suicides looking to gain attention as they always had before.

 

[Musketeer]

I am struck by this telling quote:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330792,00.html

"I heard this girl scream, 'Run, he's reloading the gun!"'

At least on the LIRR attack over a decade ago they figured out by the time he went to reload a second time that it would be a good time to attack him.

 

[Yellowfin]

Is it just me, as usual, or does anyone else here have a serious moral problem with news media making colossal paydays off these psychos and their rampages? As many have pointed out above, they encourage it by giving it publicity...and then they profit from it. Isn't that basically manufacturing profit off of killing people?

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The comment on liberalism is not the total picture.

Bans on carry are supported by economic business organizations across the country. They bleat all the economic conservative positions but don't go for the good ol' conservative RKBA.

Some parents are clearly antigun but many administrations are cold blooded business men and advised by such.

 

[ssilicon]

Every time I hear about one of these tragedies, I always shake my head in sadness that there wasn't one or several others who were armed, and likely have been able to "neutralize" the perp before he could hurt more people.

It is because there are hardly any armed people out and about that these mass killings can take place so easily. We need more people (the good guys) to have guns (and have them on their person) so bad seed like this can be dealt with swiftly and effectively. Then maybe there is no news story worthy to make nationals.

Our society is getting so brainwashed, lame, sissyfied, cowardly, dependent on some government representative or whatever the hell it is, that we actually had some skinny arse middle eastern terrorists take control of plane loads of people with nothing more than BOX CUTTERS. That my friends shows that we, as a society have a PROBLEM with the idea that we need to be able to handle some things for ourselves, and not defer everything to the man all of the time. The "man" (government, police etc.) isn't going to be able to save the day. You gotta get your hands dirty sometimes, or at least be ready and willing to.

 

[toybox99615]

obviously your not reading

jrfoxx and others

 

[The Tourist]

You probably won't get a total compliance, because segments of society have always had people who were brainwashed, lame, sissyfied, cowardly, and dependent on some government representative.

In fact, you cannot rightfully claim to be a Wisconsin citizen unless you are brainwashed, lame, sissyfied, cowardly, dependent on some government representative and a left-leaning communist.

There have also been outstanding men and women (few in number) who will step up. And this small section of society should have the right to CCW.

I'm not surprised there are sheeple. I am surprised that during tragedies like this there are those who vocalize that the "sheeple lifestyle" is admirable.

 

[Musketeer]

Is it just me, as usual, or does anyone else here have a serious moral problem with news media making colossal paydays off these psychos and their rampages?

You are not alone. I actually think they should be considered co-conspirators for the complicit assistance they have agreed to provide rampage killers in exchange for headlines. I also blame the public who feed on this information for no purpose other than their gruesome curiosity. Some time ago I made a promise never to refer to one of these rampage killers by name. I will never give them the satisfaction of repeating their name from my lips or writings.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Numerous experts, even on the media, have pointed out that the repeated gory presentations, interviews with the victim and the bereaved, discussion in depth of the shooter's problems, claims, life - all reinforce through social cognitive learning theory - the next one.

These folks have an underlying pathology, a sucidial wish, a desire for a certain suicide model where they make those that did them a real or imaginary ill suffer (even if the victims are symbolic of those that did them ill), the action against these targets leads to their own death and the desire to die a 'warriors' death as compared to the lonely isolate suicide.

The fantasy of all this occuring is reinforced by watching the coverage of previous school shooters. When they see crying parents and friends, students running in panic, blustering officials - that is vicarious reinforcement to their actions.

This has been pointed out many times. However, a media structure that focuses endless on Natalee Holloway and the like really doesn't care about such subtlety.

No one argues for a censorship of events but one can report without the vicarious reinforcement presentations.

 

[Musketeer]

No one argues for a censorship of events but one can report without the vicarious reinforcement presentations.

I do! There is no need to report the names of these individuals in periodical print media, internet or television reporting. It is enough to simply report what happened without turning the killer into a celebrity. If learning who did it is so important to you then go and buy a textbook on the subject of sociopaths and psychotics. Removing these animals from the cover of TIME at the news stands and their life's stories from 60 Minutes and the Evening News is single largest thing that can be done to curb these slayings.

Just like it would be illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater it should be illegal for the media to report in a manner that has a reasonable expectation of costing more lives while providing no benifit. I really think a law going after this type of reporting could stand up in court based on the damage the media is doing and that the information would still be available but not in the 15 minute of fame format that drives the death toll up.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

A law banning the factual nature of events being reported is clearly unconstitutional.

The fire in a movie theatre analogy doesn't hold as that utterance has a direct harmful action.

Arguing that the presentation of actual violence incites it at a later date is a dangerous row to hoe. Easily, this individual or others have read gun literature at some time be knowledgable about what to buy. The description of firearms may prime such aggressive ideation. I can tell you there is a great deal of research suggesting that. Thus, one could argue that all gun related literature and presentations should be banned.

However, I argued for some discretion in how the story was reported. Moral suasion is best - not laws to control behavior. Let's ban humanoid targets at matches as they teach killing - anyone ever thought of that?

Geez.

 

[Redworm]

Has anyone commented on the reports that the guns were purchased legally? No idea what kind of medication this guy was on but it seems that many of the recent mass shootings with legal firearms have been committed by the mentally unstable.

 

[Musketeer]

I would argue that a law banning the factual reporting of the killer's name and photo would stand up.

Not knowing their name or photo has no bearing on knowing what happened. The retention of such information serves a direct public safety function. There is ZERO public benefit to the reporting of the name and photo of these killers.

Plenty of items are illegal to report. The names and photos of sexual assault victims and often the names and photos of those tried as juvenile offenders are illegal to report. Those have as much bearing on the story as the name of a rampage killer. The absence of the intimate information though does not prevent the reporting of the story. The restriction of its reporting has also been upheld in court.

I say pass a law about it and let it ride all the way to the SCOTUS if need be.

 

[Musketeer]

Has anyone commented on the reports that the guns were purchased legally?

That is going to be highlighted in the calls for bans. Of course the fact that some doctor considered him dangerous to be constantly medicated but didn't go so far as to get him labeled a possible danger will be ignored. As I said, it suits those looking to ban to paint a picture of a perfectly adjusted individual just "loosing it" and going on a killing spree. The logical next step then would be anyone can just snap so nobody should be trusted with guns.

 

[jephthai]

Has anyone commented on the reports that the guns were purchased legally?

I just wish people would realize the "outlier" nature of this event. It's unlikely ever to happen at NIU again. Yet we'll get new laws because of it. Like the shoe bomber -- we have a relatively unique crime that's already illegal, but we'll create a general law that also manages to restrict the rights of law-abiding people.

It's a core philisophical misunderstanding -- you can't (often) stop crime before it happens without infringing other peoples' rights. There's no guarantee, and I don't expect one (not sure I'd want one), that you will escape this life without being the victim of a crime. But we can't punish people because of what they *could* do -- only what they've done.

This recent trend of committing suicide at the end of it probably enhances this frustration, since there's no one to punish.

-Jephthai-

 

[WhyteP38]

Schools will always be prime targets because even if CCW were legal there the vast majority would be unarmed. Likewise for malls.

Apparently, that depends on where you live. Down where I live in the South, plenty of people carry concealed, whether they have permits or not, and whether in a restricted zone or not. It would sure be nice if taking responsibility for your own self-defense was not a crime.

As for the legalities of restricting news about such murderers, I don't see why you can't apply the same logic behind rape shield laws to this problem as well.

 

[Musketeer]

Apparently, that depends on where you live. Down where I live in the South, plenty of people carry concealed, whether they have permits or not, and whether in a restricted zone or not.

CCW even in the most popular areas is still a very small minority of the public. CCW within the halls of higher education or among public school teachers who have generally gone through a very liberal leaning course of education backed up by a liberal union and primarily liberal peers is an even smaller minority.