Gunman Kills 21 on Virginia Tech campus

[Garland]

Every bit of prevention helps. We've discussed several tactical ideas (loosening gun laws/beefing up armed security) but how about psychological - being able to pinpoint this problem kid and not letting him out of site.

but we haven't talked about anyone reaching out to this guy on a personal level...I just wonder when he became "beyond help"...that guys manifesto is plain messed up.

GARLAND'S INTERVENTION PLAN FOR SCREENING AND TAKING PROPHILACTIC MEASURES THAT AT-RISK KIDS DON'T TURN INTO DEVIANT ADOLESCENTS (the whole spectrum...would it help somebody like Cho...who knows)

In order to assess each child to determine whether or not they are potentially at risk of becoming a deviant adolescent, it would be prudent to collect a brief family history in order to understand if there is a genetic predisposition to things that would constitute problem behaviors or if a child may be learning problem behaviors inside their household. This would include looking for substance abuse in their families as well as criminal histories. Not only would collecting a family history aid in perhaps understanding whether or not there is a genetic component, but also learned antisocial behaviors. Since the purpose of this program is to determine and intervene on the behalf of at risk children and not to determine whether or not biology or learned behaviors are primary causal factors in adolescent deviance, it would not be unnecessary to make any such claims. It would only be important to look at the collected data and understand that several things that could be considered deviant behaviors have roots in the home, whether the familial etiological ties are biological, learned, or a combination of the two is inconsequential. Other potential factors that may contribute to a child being “at risk” of becoming a deviant adolescent could include temperment, level of self constraint versus disinhibition, positive versus negative emotionality, socio-economic status, and perhaps (as we touched upon in class) issues of attatchment. It would also warrant looking into the parents’ work and marital situation, as children who are undersupervised or neglected have a much greater propensity to have difficulties later in their lives. Naturally, if a child has already developed antisocial behaviors (lying, stealing, bullying, vandalism, etc.) during their childhood, they should be monitored as “at risk” for becoming deviant adolescents.

The intervention program should focus on resolving some of the individual participants problems such as; dealing with attatchment issues, resolving family turmoil, and teaching self-regulation skills as well as other skill sets to the at-risk children. This would include working on effortful control, executive attention, controlling impulsivity, and teaching the children how to better manage themselves. This would, naturally, be a costly and time consuming intervention that would require a great deal of specialized care, but I believe that the ideal (and perhaps completely unfeasible and unrealistic) course of action would combine individual therapy, group therapies (with the children, families, and educators), separate family therapies, and separate drug and crime education programs for the children.


ANYONE GOT A BILLION DOLLARS? Fund me, and I can make an impact on this shit...I promise.

[SamuraiGuy]

Uhh ended up deleting treelizards quote, so... yeah this is in response to that.


First of all their taking these views on statistics from a book called "Women, Work and Family in America" you dont think thats going to be skewed.

I bet a book called "women dont do shit" might have some different perspectives on the same statistics..

Anyway....

"On average, women ages 18-65 spend about 30 hours per week in paid employment and 22 hours doing housework"

Taken from her source.... funny, I worked 25 hours this week... and I'm a full time university student, during exams, training MA in a city over an hour away, 3 times a week, seeing my girlfriend, moving out of my room (housework?) and i still have time to come on here.

Thats 5 hours less work than women (on average) in a work week, and I'm doing alot more.

30 hours isnt even a full work week, 40 is. And while women may be doing 52 hours of work between houes and employment, men are doing 10 hours of housework plus there jobs. If there only working 30 hours a week you americans need to get off your slacking asses. It doesnt say how many hours on average they work a week, though I'll guess its 40 at least, or over 40. (The average person works a 9-5 which is 40, than you have constructio nworkers, farmers, etc...) These are far more common than the rich ass guy who works 20 hours a week.

I think its funny how they dont have the statistics for men there, about the work week. Carefully left that one out though, guess thats what you get when you have sources with an agenda.

I've also studied sociology (where did you study it btw) and im still doing so...
Whats your point?

Torture rates when male natives were left alone... hmmmmm....

I dont really see how this is pertinent. First of all you said historically, therefore it doesnt neccessarily reflect what happens today. Second of all I think modern day were a little more civilized then that. I doubt if you took a sample of 10 random north american males and left them alone in a house for a month they'd start to torture each other. Actually I bet they'd be fine with it.

And they probably would get a little rougher, probably would be more violence, whos to say this is wrong?

Athens and Sparta did things very different, neither was better. They still ran a perfectly fine civilization while being brutal and trying to get rid of the "softness".

On another note, explain homosexuals to me? How the hell do they ever raise a kid without a women around, how do they exist without the constant influence (nagging) of women?

Damn..... looks bleak for them.

[Tom Yum]

IAs far as women keeping civilization together... things kind of have a tendency to fall apart when there aren't any women around. And that's all I'll say about that.

Yep. Look at my living room...

[treelizard]

SG, study after study has shown women do more housework than men even when both people are working full time. Which I'd be more than happy to do for any man who is willing to take a bullet for me if necessary.

I studied sociology and there were tons and tons of studies on this, which I'm sure you would be more than capable of researching yourself if you just plugged it into google instead of asking a woman to do your work for you. Okay, okay, here's one: http://asweb.artsci.uc.edu/sociology/kunzctr/stats.htm

As far as things going to shit without women around, I just read an article the other day (I'm about to leave to go hiking, so you'll have to research this one yourself) that was talking about torture in Native cultures (historically) and about how the rates of torture increased exponentially in groups of all men who were separated from the women. I'm not saying that all groups of men separated from women for an extended people of time are torturers. Iam saying that something about women and children being around seems to help keeps a little bit of softness there (and I mean softness in a good way). Believe it or don't believe it. Don't matter to me.

You don't get a choice? Last I checked deciding to get married and having children is a choice.

Thanks to Mike, eX, TY and others for keeping this thread on topic. You are more adept at this than I.

[Tom Yum]

There's the Catch 22. If you do predict it and attempt to do something, you're falsely accusing or imprisoning someone and violating his civil rights. In this country, you actually have to let a guy go on a killing spree and off himself to talk about what should have been done....

Several teachers recommended that he get help, especially after those crazy writings. I believe he checked into a counseling program? and was taking anti-depressants even up to the point before the rampage.

That manifesto is messed up and makes me think that he should have been dealt with long ago, as some tried to do by sending him to counseling and putting him on the anti-depressant meds.

Looking at the big picture, he was a bullied individual who may not have had any real outlets for his tension and just bottled it up. He probably fed himself the wrong kinds of thinking and the rampage was his final release?

I can honestly say is that as his classmate, if we attended school, whether in highschool or college, I would have stepped in, tried to befriend him, take him out for coffee or what not after hearing some of the exchanges that may have taken place and tried to help the guy.

If he pushed me away or started dogging on me, which is possible considering the depression, then I would have approached the instructor about my concerns for him.

[Tom Yum]

Good stuff, TL. I wonder if it's going to be enough to overcome this P.C. victim mindset we've ingrained in the entire population of our country. One can hope.

On a similar note, I saw United 93 again tonight. God love those heroes aboard that flight. If they hadn't stepped up and attacked their attackers, who knows how many more innocent people on the ground might have died also.

If you're on a bus or plane and a strange looking fellow yells "GET ON THE GROUND!!!" exposing some kind of weapon, your eyes widen, heart pace picks up and you start thinking about your options, looking around for something you can leverage.

I'm also glad that the freaking shoe bomber got beat down.

[Tom Yum]

I've always loved that poem, good call Mike.

I actually played a piece written about that poem....memories.

[SamuraiGuy]

I didn't say women were the only ones responsible in caring for a child. But studies have shown women do a lot more of the work, maybe because they're more suited for it. I didn't say men couldn't do it, but I do think chemically emotionally phsyiologically etc. women are designed for it.

As far as women keeping civilization together... things kind of have a tendency to fall apart when there aren't any women around. And that's all I'll say about that.

Actually, you are whining like a woman yourself, which is pretty unbecoming... especially on a tall guy like you.

First of all, how did this thread end up with a Dylan Thomas poem in it? hahahaha. Never knew my knowledge of that would ever need to arise again.

Which studies have shown women do alot more work? In the grand scheme of things you'd have to say its equal. They may do alot more work with the baby, but thats cause they get the easy way out. Providing for the child is just as hard. Like my dad joked to my mom after she said "we both decided when we had kids that one of us would stay home and take care of it" (shes recently got an employee trying to work right after being pregnant or something) and my dad said "yeah and im still mad that you wouldnt let me stay home"

He was joking but it shows that we dont really get a choice. Women have to do more work? Who says? I'd like to see that study, and does it just pertain to caregiving or work in general. I know last summer when I was working 66 hours a week landscaping, or working another night shift job (not at the same time) my girlfriend wasnt doing as much work as me? Guess the tables will turn when she gets pregnant. Boy am I lucky.

And in my experience things dont go to shit when there arent any women around. Once again are you going to prove that statement or just claim it as the truth?

[Sagacious Lu]

Dylan Thomas!

Sorry to get all poetic, but this is a good illustration of the culture I think we need to get back. It sure as hell seems more noble than waiting for some maniac to kill you:

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I've always loved that poem, good call Mike.

[treelizard]

I know of single fathers; obviously it is possible but I think it's harder for men-- just like it's harder for women to be warriors.

Doesnt mean I'm gonna cower under the desk and not aid them.

What if they asked you to? Or what if you were taking care of something else (like helping people get out the window)? Or what if you were administering first aid? I know myself well enough to know that I'm better at the less combative work out there (much as I hate to admit it and love playing with sticks and knives) and someone else would be better suited at it. I'd be more than happy to do whatever they tell me, which more often than not around trained guys is "stay right here." To which I say, "Yes, sir!" Not "But women are equal! Why can't I put myself in harm's way for you while you put yourself in harm's way for me?"

You also had another thing about having a baby in some place (a public place) and looking for threats and taking care of the baby at the same time. You think a man has never been left alone with his child? Not once in a public place, men go through these types of situations too. It's a bit ridiculous to think that women are the only ones responsible in caring for a child.

I didn't say women were the only ones responsible in caring for a child. But studies have shown women do a lot more of the work, maybe because they're more suited for it. I didn't say men couldn't do it, but I do think chemically emotionally phsyiologically etc. women are designed for it.

As far as women keeping civilization together... things kind of have a tendency to fall apart when there aren't any women around. And that's all I'll say about that.

Because men have to listen to the bitching and put up with all their shit while their pregnant which is far far worse.

Actually, you are whining like a woman yourself, which is pretty unbecoming... especially on a tall guy like you.

[SamuraiGuy]

[QUOTE=treelizard;265736]
Women are basically responsible for keeping civilization running. Their work is harder and definitely more inclusive than cowering in the corner waiting for men to protect them. I do think you should try carrying around a baby and caring for all of it's needs down center city while looking around for potential threats at the same time...just for an hour... see what it's like.
QUOTE]

Women are responsible for keeping civiliziation running? I dont know if this is news to you, but even though women get pregnant and carry the child it isnt happening without men. I really dont see how else that could be interpreted, obviously men are just as capable as caregivers, providers, and parents as women. You've never heard of a single father?

Well, shit, why the **** are men the gender that gets to not carry babies for nine months and then give birth? They should be just as responsible for that as women are.

See how absurd and stupid that sounds?.

Because men have to listen to the bitching and put up with all their shit while their pregnant which is far far worse.

On a serious note, men are responsible during the pregnancy, there the ones still at work, they are the ones making sure the womens needs are met, driving them to the hospital, getting them what they desire at that time, comforting them while they throw up, etc...

And yes your situation does sound absurd and stupid, because its impossible (as far as we know) for men to carry a baby and deliver it. Its not impossible for a women to defend herself. If men are better suited to it, so be it, I'm sure there are far more men better suited to defending me than I am. Doesnt mean I'm gonna cower under the desk and not aid them.

You also had another thing about having a baby in some place (a public place) and looking for threats and taking care of the baby at the same time. You think a man has never been left alone with his child? Not once in a public place, men go through these types of situations too. It's a bit ridiculous to think that women are the only ones responsible in caring for a child.

[treelizard]

Check out this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18174900/

Schools need to teach students to be aggressive

Cowering under a desk and waiting for help to come is no longer an option. American schools must teach their students to respond aggressively to attacks by people bent on mayhem.

"I would hope that the administrators and folks that are making the decisions would understand that it’s difficult to negotiate with a bullet," security consultant Allen Hill told TODAY. "A person that comes into your facility with a gun intends to kill and do you harm."

The founder of Response Options, a Texas-based security company, said, "Get past this paralysis of fear over liability issues. Our country is so litigious and concerned about doing the wrong thing and about doing the politically correct thing that we don’t do anything."

That only helps people like Cho Seung Hui. "The bad guys are counting on Americans to sit still and do nothing," Hill said.

Students and others need to realize that they do have options, Hill said.

The "bad guys" plan their attacks. Schools need to plan and rehearse their defenses and responses just as aggressively.

"The training should be just as intense and be taken just as seriously as the bad guy takes their mission to kill," he said.

At Virginia Tech, Cho Seung Hui walked into classrooms and simply shot people. There are reports that he even lined up victims to shoot them one by one. But in one Norris Hall classroom, student Zach Petkewicz led his classmates in barricading the door, saving all inside.

Petkewicz’ response was instinctive, prompted by "adrenaline and fear."

Hill’s company teaches acting from knowledge and a well-rehearsed plan.

"Once the bad guy’s inside, how hard is it to hit a non-moving target?" Hill observed.

"Get up and move," he advised. "Do whatever it takes to create chaos and mayhem. Disrupt them. Make them go into a protective mode themselves. We feel that we can become actively aggressive for our own benefit, whether that’s actively running out of the classroom, having to face the gunman and take him down, breaking out windows and escaping that way."

You can’t wait for something to happen and then try to form a response, he said. It’s got to be done in advance.

Security systems are passive, he said. But those under attack can be active.

Said Hill: "There are things that you can do to take the initiative away from the bad guy, to disrupt their plan and to create a situation that’s winnable for you."

[treelizard]

Thanks, Mike.

Happy to oblige treelizard here. As a matter of background, I have been a tactical trainer for Special Operations and Conventional Military forces since 1995, which hardly makes me a grizzled old veteran. However, it does mean I have seen the tactics change in response to everything from Columbine to Operation Enduring Freedom. One constant:

When you find yourself in a near ambush, you face the shooters and attack through the ambush itself.

In simpler terms, you turn toward whoever is shooting at you and you attack right into them until you've overrun and destroyed them. A gunman who is set on lining up students and shooting them one by one will kill more people if he is allowed to pursue his own course of action than if he is forced to deal with one forced upon him by outside influences. The weapons he had were not capable of penetrating four or five bodies at a time, and he doesn't seem to have been experienced enough to place accurate fire on vital areas while backpedaling away from an enraged group of students. He'd have gotten some, but likely not as many. Even unarmed, or armed with the kinds of things you can throw and swing (and find in a classroom), a group may well have stood a good chance of stopping him earlier. We'd still be mourning some tragic deaths, though, so I do not suggest it lightly.

[treelizard]

Guy's holding a gun, not aiming it.
He's approximately fifteen feet away. You can turn a corner and run, or you can charge at him.
Not everybody can rapidly bring a gun up and sight in to take out a moving target at a distance from the rest position.
A trained monkey could shoot you running in on it from eight, five feet away.

Still want to to go "through" the threat?

If I was in a classroom with a room full of children, hell yeah.

[bigred389]

Could be. Klebold and Harris certainly were; there wasn't a damn thing wrong with them biologically that could explain what they did. They were just plain evil, Harris especially.

I guess what makes me wonder is that Cho just seems crazier somehow. I have to admit you're right that he shows all the classic signs of the "organized" killer in his actions, but his thought and speech process seems so disorganized, way more so than Harris and Klebold. Bear in mind I'm not trying to excuse what Cho did in any way, I'm just doing some armchair psychoanalyzing out loud. I know it sounds macabre, but I kind of hope there's something left of his brain to examine post-mortem.

From a psychoanalytical point of view it was a disaster...he blew his brains out.
Not to mention a live specimen is much more useful than a dead one.