In support of your own model, teachers are more likely to be targets, as they held the power when the students attended. Students might be targets just to punish the teachers further (demonstrating their powerlessness).
In support of your own model, teachers are more likely to be targets, as they held the power when the students attended. Students might be targets just to punish the teachers further (demonstrating their powerlessness).So where is the revenge? It had been 10 years from the time he went to that school. He knew none of the kids that went there, and did not seem to target anyone specifically. I'm sure he had more recent attachments than where he went to school 10 years before.
If you are looking for a high body count, then you go to where you know you will be safest to make sure you accomplish your goal. A school is a safe bet.
Nope, not mixing the two. I am talking about the profiles of mass shooters. Even though there is still much to learn, some of what we do know I have stated.
Is there something you think I have said that implies that?
This. The idea that security in schools will do anything to curb mass shootings is ridiculous. Even if it did work (and I am extremely skeptical it will given that it doesn't take a lot of time to do a lot of damage and history has shown this), all it would do is change the target from schools to clubs or malls or churches or pretty much anywhere people gather.In the sane world, people generally want to reduce mass shootings, not just move them off school grounds. I doubt many people in Vegas were thinking "At least I didn't die in the school hallway!"
Whats the difference? Florida has no laws to remove or prevent guns from people who have frequent non-criminal interaction with the policeLet see, not one, not two, not three, but at least 45 calls to the sheriff department about the killer/brother for the last few years yet not a damn thing was done. So much for "see something, say something" public announcement. Let blame on those evil black "assault" guns.
The sheriff claimed "only" 23 calls.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/27/us/parkland-shooter-cruz-sheriff-calls-invs/index.html
In support of your own model, teachers are more likely to be targets, as they held the power when the students attended. Students might be targets just to punish the teachers further (demonstrating their powerlessness).
One *fuf shot up a military base.
*fucked up fucker
This. The idea that security in schools will do anything to curb mass shootings is ridiculous. Even if it did work (and I am extremely skeptical it will given that it doesn't take a lot of time to do a lot of damage and history has shown this), all it would do is change the target from schools to clubs or malls or churches or pretty much anywhere people gather.
Giving guns to teachers and having armed guards in our classrooms goes against the very fiber of American ideals. It's a spit in the face of liberty. We will officially be living in complete and total fear of ourselves. If you honestly want schools to resemble a military installation, you've lost your fucking mind and need to step back and re-examine where you drove off the cliff.
The targets are not random. The targets are strategic.If the targets were truly random and not based upon objective criteria then one would expect to see mass shootings happening almost anywhere and not heavily focused on schools and such. You coming up with one shooting that didn't follow that pattern isn't really a strong critique of the offered hypothesis that would-be shooters actively seek out places where they expect no armed resistance (such as a school). Another theory would be that would-be shooters prioritize people they know and/or think somehow "wronged" them so a school is likely if it's a young shooter. Potential problems with that theory is that older shooters don't seem to prioritize their workplace as much as younger shooters do.
So what's stopping them from targeting clubs, malls, or churches now? Once in a while you see a mass shooting at one of those places but it's far, far less prevalent than schools.
Do you have a link to any studies that have shown a consistent connection between spree killers and a history of earlier killing or toture of animals? I know this is a common feature of many serial killers, but I have not noticed any such link with spree killers.
Of course there have been a great many such rampage killers by now, so the fact that the cases I've read about don't feature such behaviour isn't strong evidence. My general sense though is that the psychology and motivations of such are very different from that of serial killers (who are. in addition, less dependent on guns to do what they do). And its the latter where cruelty to animals seems to be a part of their pathological behaviour that is consistent with what they do to people. Spree killers just seem different in terms of what drives them.
Although animal cruelty is often described as a warning sign of future human violence, particularly in the prediction of multiple homicides, prior studies reveal mixed support for this notion and lack conceptual clarity in the measurement of such cruelty. This study investigates the quantity and quality of cruelty present in a sample of 23 perpetrators of school massacres from 1988 to 2012. Findings indicate that 43% of the perpetrators commit animal cruelty before schoolyard massacres and that the cruelty is usually directed against anthropomorphized species (dogs and cats) in an up-close manner. The implications of these findings for reducing false positive cases of cruelty are discussed.
Heard this afternoon Cruz had etched swastikas on the gun magazines. So another white supremacist/nazi sympathizer? Guarantee we won't hear about that from President Twitter Fingers. If he was heard yelling allah-akbar Trump would go on a Muslim tirade. Who is the bigger threat in the United States today?
Another very fine person I guess.
“What’s a better idea? I’ve not heard one,” Chief James Craig told The Detroit News. “You can say put armed police officers into every school, but that’s not practical ...“But it makes sense to arm certain teachers who are trained. That’s only one of several components, including taking a strong look at mental health issues, and making sure police take action when they get indications someone may be violent.”
Its not 100% of the time that they choose soft targets, but its also true that typically they do. As for fixating on a place, that usually grows from things over time but completely depends on the individual. In the FL case, he did not target students he knew, just students. These people tend to fixate on soft targets because they know that if they did anything they would get out of it what they want. My belief is that they like to mull over the idea of winning and its easier to think of situations where its more plausible. Its a fantasy but it needs to be believable enough to get enjoyment.
Why should I care what he thinks, is he special or better than other police who think it’s a bad idea?Detroit Police Chief: Arm Teachers.
Why should I care what he thinks, is he special or better than other police who think it’s a bad idea?
I think you are confusing terrorists with mass shooters. As another poster suggested, mass shooters typically pick a target they are attached to, former school, workplace, etc. Terrorists on the other hand do look for easy targets.
Of course we are talking in generalities.
Or it could be that I didn't read every post and every post I had read up to that point from you listed no downsides.Which is why you have to think critically. If you presume that people are supporting things because they are willing to see costs and benefits then you are not likely thinking things through. Arming teachers in a particular way would likely reduce school shootings, but that is not the best goal to have. So if you took my comments as arguing for arming, its because you view any admittance of a benefit as promotion.
Or it could be that I didn't read every post and every post I had read up to that point from you listed no downsides.
The biggest problem is TV and newspapers using these things to drive their ratings at the expense of lives lost to copy cats that want attention and have seen how well it works.
Talking point straight from the NRA at CPAC..The biggest problem is TV and newspapers using these things to drive their ratings at the expense of lives lost to copy cats that want attention and have seen how well it works.
Ok, so killing people is ok as long as your rated the number one news source...great.Talking point straight from the NRA at CPAC..
I wasn’t aware CNN killed anyone, link?Ok, so killing people is ok as long as your rated the number one news source...great.
Stop thinking ahead damn you! I can't believe how little this is mentioned in all these discussions.In the sane world, people generally want to reduce mass shootings, not just move them off school grounds. I doubt many people in Vegas were thinking "At least I didn't die in the school hallway!"
I'm not sure that is really true; that terrorists don't pick targets they are attached too.I think you are confusing terrorists with mass shooters. As another poster suggested, mass shooters typically pick a target they are attached to, former school, workplace, etc. Terrorists on the other hand do look for easy targets.
Of course we are talking in generalities.