Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

School Shootings


swordfish

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, swordfish said:

Maybe this will shed some light as to why the MSM is so silent about the shooters......This is from a UK paper - Google "Colorado school shooter father illegal alien"  

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7012485/Father-Colorado-school-shooter-Alec-McKinney-serial-felon-illegal-immigrant.html?fbclid=IwAR2OnCmvKI9o0UFocR0dq3bv7upXv3TFd5s12pYT0BBPXwNwC-Ha4fSaOiA

This group of kid shooters really sound troubled.  So it couldn't have been their fault.  I mean really these kids are not the "prototype" shooter the MSM likes to cover.

 

I'm not seeing silence ...

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/suspected-colorado-stem-shooter-was-bully-made-jokes-about-school-n1004181

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/05/10/colorado-school-shooting-updates-unanswered-questions/1157356001/

http://time.com/5585312/school-shooting-colorado-stem/

https://nypost.com/2019/05/10/colorado-school-shooting-suspect-cracked-jokes-about-killing-classmates/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/colorado-stem-school-highlands-ranch-shooting-suspects-devon-erickson-female-juvenile-law-enforcements-radar/

https://www.vox.com/2019/5/7/18536054/colorado-shooting-stem-school-highlands-ranch-denver

https://kdvr.com/2019/05/10/investigation-into-school-shooting-is-intense-and-time-intensive/

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/07/721200551/multiple-people-injured-in-colorado-school-shooting

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a27404389/colorado-stem-school-shooting-8-year-old/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

In one of the articles linked, at least one of the shooters was using drugs, "legal and illegal" and had been in therapy. 

As I have stated before no one wants to look at the white elephant in the room, there is a recurring theme in "most" of these shootings and everyone refuses to see it.

What are the "these shootings" you are specifically talking about. School shootings? Mass shootings? Shootings where the shooters were kids? 

The only "theme" I see is people with grudges against the world, based on religion, politics, bullying, can't get a date, can't keep a job, mommy didn't love me, didn't get a pony, etc., etc., etc., took advantage of easy access to guns to kill or maim some people. 

Ultimately not any different that what happens almost nightly in Indy and other big cities, but that's 18 or 16 year old black kids shooting up other 18 or 16 year old black kids, so no one really cares about identifying any "themes." 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

I have seen plenty of articles about the 18 year old. Not sure why you think he is being ignored.....

 

1 minute ago, foxbat said:

Yeah - SF is wrong again.......

However - Notice the dates on the stories......all from last week......

Nothing substantial this week.  Again - this GROUP of shooters (two survivors) does not fit the prototype "conservative, straight male, stars and bars" kind of shooter the MSM wants to cover with any effort.......

Again - while I am glad there is not grandiose coverage of these losers, (unlike normal) I can't help but notice how fast this has disappeared.

7 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

What are the "these shootings" you are specifically talking about. School shootings? Mass shootings? Shootings where the shooters were kids? 

The only "theme" I see is people with grudges against the world, based on religion, politics, bullying, can't get a date, can't keep a job, mommy didn't love me, didn't get a pony, etc., etc., etc., took advantage of easy access to guns to kill or maim some people. 

Ultimately not any different that what happens almost nightly in Indy and other big cities, but that's 18 or 16 year old black kids shooting up other 18 or 16 year old black kids, so no one really cares about identifying any "themes." 

School shootings W.  The thread is about school shooting.  (IMHO)

The "Theme" SF (not speaking for IO) would tap on would be the "school shooter has to fit in the prototype category" to back a gun control narrative.  But when the shooter(s) turns out to be a bullied, or marginalized person, then a "some people did something" narrative (hat tip to Congresswoman Ilhan Omar) is put out, then the story can fade, or blame placed elsewhere - like the school system.

Referencing your last comment (outside of school shootings) - (IMHO) the majority of black on black shootings would most likely be related to gangs.  Violence of that sort has certainly become commonplace in Chicago and  I suppose Indy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, swordfish said:

 

Yeah - SF is wrong again.......

However - Notice the dates on the stories......all from last week......

Nothing substantial this week.  Again - this GROUP of shooters (two survivors) does not fit the prototype "conservative, straight male, stars and bars" kind of shooter the MSM wants to cover with any effort.......

Again - while I am glad there is not grandiose coverage of these losers, (unlike normal) I can't help but notice how fast this has disappeared.

A big reason that this one hasn't lingered ... morbid or not, is body count not political affiliations or immigrant status.  North Carolina was similar.  Coverage tends to be tied to body count and, again morbid or not, sometimes the age of the kids.  Had it been one or two kids under the age of ten, the coverage would linger longer regardless of source.  Two teenagers close to graduating, probably less.  Ten teenagers closer to graduation, more coverage.  It's become more commonplace that it takes more for it to register at any level of sustainability in news cycles unless people push it to stay in the forefront with things like protests, show appearances, etc.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Impartial_Observer said:

there is a recurring theme in "most" of these shootings and everyone refuses to see it.

I see it. It's people who wouldn't have access to guns if the current laws were enforced, but they're not being effectively enforced. Is law enforcement that scared of the gun lobby that they're letting this stuff slide? Are they just flat out incompetent? Do they 'turn a blind eye' to red flags? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, foxbat said:

A big reason that this one hasn't lingered ... morbid or not, is body count not political affiliations or immigrant status.  North Carolina was similar.  Coverage tends to be tied to body count and, again morbid or not, sometimes the age of the kids.  Had it been one or two kids under the age of ten, the coverage would linger longer regardless of source.  Two teenagers close to graduating, probably less.  Ten teenagers closer to graduation, more coverage.  It's become more commonplace that it takes more for it to register at any level of sustainability in news cycles unless people push it to stay in the forefront with things like protests, show appearances, etc.

Yep - body count IS a factor in this equation.......

The heroics of young Mr. Castillo certainly deserved a little more attention (IMHO).  I mean so far it has been good, but that kid deserves a lot.

2 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

I see it. It's people who wouldn't have access to guns if the current laws were enforced, but they're not being effectively enforced. Is law enforcement that scared of the gun lobby that they're letting this stuff slide? Are they just flat out incompetent? Do they 'turn a blind eye' to red flags? 

Great topic Gonzo.  Punish the parents as well when there is obvious fault by not securing weapons.  From a lawyer's perspective for the parents I suppose that's easier said than done though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, swordfish said:

 

Yeah - SF is wrong again.......

However - Notice the dates on the stories......all from last week......

Nothing substantial this week.  Again - this GROUP of shooters (two survivors) does not fit the prototype "conservative, straight male, stars and bars" kind of shooter the MSM wants to cover with any effort.......

Again - while I am glad there is not grandiose coverage of these losers, (unlike normal) I can't help but notice how fast this has disappeared.

School shootings W.  The thread is about school shooting.  (IMHO)

The "Theme" SF (not speaking for IO) would tap on would be the "school shooter has to fit in the prototype category" to back a gun control narrative.  But when the shooter(s) turns out to be a bullied, or marginalized person, then a "some people did something" narrative (hat tip to Congresswoman Ilhan Omar) is put out, then the story can fade, or blame placed elsewhere - like the school system.

Referencing your last comment (outside of school shootings) - (IMHO) the majority of black on black shootings would most likely be related to gangs.  Violence of that sort has certainly become commonplace in Chicago and  I suppose Indy.

Wha? Huh?

Since Columbine the "narrative" on school shootings has been the shooters were picked on outsiders; outcasts and social misfits; weirdos with mental issues; mad at a girl, mad at the world.

The notion that the prototypical school shooter is -- or is portrayed in the media as -- "conservative, straight male, stars and bars" is a complete fantasy. 

Now, there have been some recent mass shootings where the shooters were in fact  "conservative, straight male, stars and bars" types, like the dudes who shot up the synagogues in Pittsburgh and California. But those stories didn't get any more attention in the media than the leftie guy who shot up the Republican Congressmen at the ballfield. 

The simple truth is that these school shootings have become so ubiquitous that, as with other "true crime" stories, the amount of media attention they get now depends on how many people died (a "record setter" get lots of coverage) and whether there is some especially pathetic or sad aspect to it (little children killed; a teacher just back from her honeymoon shot) to play up. This last shooting, sadly, was just run of the mill: only one kid killed, no babies or cute puppies involved. So a hot takes on Trump's latest tweet on the trade war with China quickly moved it  off the front page... 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

You think that theme didn't exist when I was a high schooler?  When you were a high schooler?  Why does it seem like a much larger issue today than when we were young adults?

I don't think its nearly as simple as you make it.

I didn't suggest those themes are new. That wasn't my point at all.

In 1974, when I entered HS, there were about 100 million guns in the hands of private citizens in the U.S., with a population of around 200 million. Today, there are about 350 million guns in the hands of private citizens in the U.S. with a population of 325 million.

And in the 1970s, a very large percentage of the guns in private hands were hunting weapons --  bolt action rifles and shotguns -- or 5 or 6 shot revolvers. Today, a very large percentage of the guns in the hands of private citizens are semi-automatic handguns and rifles that are not used by their owners for hunting, and which are designed as "self-defense" weapoons -- i.e., designed to be used against human beings -- with magazines that can hold 10+ rounds. 

Troubled kids in the 1970s who wanted to take it out on the world could not easily get their hands on guns in order to do that.  Today, many of then can, and the guns they get their hands on are easy to use (i.e., easy to kill or maim with).

Edited by Wabash82
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

You think that theme didn't exist when I was a high schooler?  When you were a high schooler?  Why does it seem like a much larger issue today than when we were young adults?

I don't think its nearly as simple as you make it.

I think it is still a ripple effect. Suicide rates are high too. Indiana is one of the highest ranking states for attempts and death by suicide. Columbine put things in hyper focus. People see an avenue to 1. Get the most attention possible. 2. Inflict a large amount of damage, injury, and/or death in a short span of time. Suicide follows the same pattern, seeing friends or family members do it, seeing the attention gained. The common denominator though, as far as the individuals go, is mental health, and/or medications. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Wabash82 said:

What are the "these shootings" you are specifically talking about. School shootings? Mass shootings? Shootings where the shooters were kids? 

The only "theme" I see is people with grudges against the world, based on religion, politics, bullying, can't get a date, can't keep a job, mommy didn't love me, didn't get a pony, etc., etc., etc., took advantage of easy access to guns to kill or maim some people. 

Ultimately not any different that what happens almost nightly in Indy and other big cities, but that's 18 or 16 year old black kids shooting up other 18 or 16 year old black kids, so no one really cares about identifying any "themes." 

Take your pick.

Prior to the last meltdown of this forum I posted stats from mass shootings and the presence of mental illness and psychiatric drug use. 

I'll concede the point, you guys are right, we need more gun laws, especially in light of how well our current laws are working and being vigorously prosecuted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get it.

1) It is a mental health issue if a 16 year old white suburban or rural kid high on Ritalin shoots another 16 year old because he is one of the "jocks" at school who bully him.

2) It is a law-and-order issue when a 16 year old black city kid stoned on pot shoots a 16 year old from the same neighborhood because he is in a different street gang.

3) It is not a problem that either kid had a gun; the problem is the paucity of good-guys-with-guns to "get the drop" on these kids. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

But this doesn't address root cause....why the shift in societies behavior today vs. when we were younger?  I went to a decent sized consolidated high school, lots of guns in the gun racks in students cars outside in the parking lot.  Yet it never crossed anyone's mind to take that gun into a building and discharge it at fellow classmates...even if some of them were bullies.  Why has behavior and culture changed and can this be addressed?  (or is it too late?)

Other societal shifts; divorce rates/single parent homes, unemployment rates, lack of careers compared to jobs, parent working multiple jobs, children in foster care, drug addictions, are all more significant now than they were back then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

I get it.

1) It is a mental health issue if a 16 year old white suburban or rural kid high on Ritalin shoots another 16 year old because he is one of the "jocks" at school who bully him.

2) It is a law-and-order issue when a 16 year old black city kid stoned on pot shoots a 16 year old from the same neighborhood because he is in a different street gang.

3) It is not a problem that either kid had a gun; the problem is the paucity of good-guys-with-guns to "get the drop" on these kids. 

 

#3 - IF either kid had a gun - it was obtained illegally.  So YES - THAT IS THE PROBLEM.  Your solution seems to be less guns, less problems.......not attempting to correct the path to the kids have guns and are using them point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

I get it.

1) It is a mental health issue if a 16 year old white suburban or rural kid high on Ritalin shoots another 16 year old because he is one of the "jocks" at school who bully him.

2) It is a law-and-order issue when a 16 year old black city kid stoned on pot shoots a 16 year old from the same neighborhood because he is in a different street gang.

3) It is not a problem that either kid had a gun; the problem is the paucity of good-guys-with-guns to "get the drop" on these kids. 

 

1=Apples

2=Oranges

3=Ridiculous

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

agree....I could add many others....that point to why a human life has become less valuable.

 

I agree, and kids at home alone during the Summer with no supervision, while a parent is at work? Left to their own  decisions; whether playing video games that are extremely violent, or hanging out, will find trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Irishman said:

I agree, and kids at home alone during the Summer with no supervision, while a parent is at work?

With all the high taxes in most families both parents need to work full time in order to make ends meet.  What is the solution?  Full time, 365-days a year government school?   Government appointed nannies what stay at home with a couple's children?

  

  • Disdain 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Irishman said:

I agree, and kids at home alone during the Summer with no supervision, while a parent is at work? Left to their own  decisions; whether playing video games that are extremely violent, or hanging out, will find trouble.

I don't know that I completely agree with this particular adage.  I recall being without supervision A LOT as a kid, but I do recall realizing that even though my folks weren't there, I was "being watched."  I knew that whatever I did had ramifications and accountability when they did get home.  I often came home after school and let myself in, getting my own after-school-snack, starting my homework when I had it, getting ready for work when I had it and then getting on my bike or, when licensed, my car and getting to work.  On weekends, I'd get up at the crack of dawn and my friends and I would be gone all day "roaming."  The biggest thing that I remember/see as a difference between now and then is home accountability.  Most of the guys that I hung out with had similar parents and we all knew that, if you got in trouble with the school, the neighbor, the cops, etc., that was going to be the least of your concerns because your parents were going to be 100 times worse.  The one kid in our group whose household wasn't that way eventually ended up leaving our group and getting into all kinds of trouble with authority as early as 13 years old and then beyond.  He was one of a group of about a dozen of us.  Today, it seems to be like, in a group of a dozen kids, 6-9 of them are going to have parents that, when their kid gets into trouble are going to try to claim that their kid is blameless or that their kid shouldn't be held accountable or that it's no big deal.  Kids who grow up in that environment tend to see life as having very few consequences and also end up not recognizing levels of response in how they do things.  If they are blameless, defended, and exonerated by their parents even when they do wrong, there's nothing that pushes them to think about not doing wrong.  Seen this in many cases where parents go above and beyond to try to make it seem like damage done by their kids is nothing and going after the person whose property is damaged and claiming that they are blowing it out of proportion rather than owning up to the damage and holding their own kids accountable.  We also see, in the other forum, some of the simplest early forms of this with coaches talking about how parents are quick to attack a coach over holding his own players accountable ... the parents want to exonerate their kid's bad behavior or brush it away.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, foxbat said:

I don't know that I completely agree with this particular adage.  I recall being without supervision A LOT as a kid, but I do recall realizing that even though my folks weren't there, I was "being watched."  I knew that whatever I did had ramifications and accountability when they did get home.  I often came home after school and let myself in, getting my own after-school-snack, starting my homework when I had it, getting ready for work when I had it and then getting on my bike or, when licensed, my car and getting to work.  On weekends, I'd get up at the crack of dawn and my friends and I would be gone all day "roaming."  The biggest thing that I remember/see as a difference between now and then is home accountability.  Most of the guys that I hung out with had similar parents and we all knew that, if you got in trouble with the school, the neighbor, the cops, etc., that was going to be the least of your concerns because your parents were going to be 100 times worse.  (SF had to cut his own switch from the willow tree on occasion - willow switches were the worse) The one kid in our group whose household wasn't that way eventually ended up leaving our group and getting into all kinds of trouble with authority as early as 13 years old and then beyond.  He was one of a group of about a dozen of us.  Today, it seems to be like, in a group of a dozen kids, 6-9 of them are going to have parents that, when their kid gets into trouble are going to try to claim that their kid is blameless or that their kid shouldn't be held accountable or that it's no big deal.  Kids who grow up in that environment tend to see life as having very few consequences and also end up not recognizing levels of response in how they do things.  If they are blameless, defended, and exonerated by their parents even when they do wrong, there's nothing that pushes them to think about not doing wrong.  Seen this in many cases where parents go above and beyond to try to make it seem like damage done by their kids is nothing and going after the person whose property is damaged and claiming that they are blowing it out of proportion rather than owning up to the damage and holding their own kids accountable.  We also see, in the other forum, some of the simplest early forms of this with coaches talking about how parents are quick to attack a coach over holding his own players accountable ... the parents want to exonerate their kid's bad behavior or brush it away.   

Atta Boi Foxy - SF's nomination for Post of the month!!! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Coach_K said:

Some Kids don't have parents anymore.  They have friends.  Friends who share their DNA and are responsible for them, but "Nobody puts Baby in a corner."

fixed that for ya

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, foxbat said:

I don't know that I completely agree with this particular adage.  I recall being without supervision A LOT as a kid, but I do recall realizing that even though my folks weren't there, I was "being watched."  I knew that whatever I did had ramifications and accountability when they did get home.  I often came home after school and let myself in, getting my own after-school-snack, starting my homework when I had it, getting ready for work when I had it and then getting on my bike or, when licensed, my car and getting to work.  On weekends, I'd get up at the crack of dawn and my friends and I would be gone all day "roaming."  The biggest thing that I remember/see as a difference between now and then is home accountability.  Most of the guys that I hung out with had similar parents and we all knew that, if you got in trouble with the school, the neighbor, the cops, etc., that was going to be the least of your concerns because your parents were going to be 100 times worse.  The one kid in our group whose household wasn't that way eventually ended up leaving our group and getting into all kinds of trouble with authority as early as 13 years old and then beyond.  He was one of a group of about a dozen of us.  Today, it seems to be like, in a group of a dozen kids, 6-9 of them are going to have parents that, when their kid gets into trouble are going to try to claim that their kid is blameless or that their kid shouldn't be held accountable or that it's no big deal.  Kids who grow up in that environment tend to see life as having very few consequences and also end up not recognizing levels of response in how they do things.  If they are blameless, defended, and exonerated by their parents even when they do wrong, there's nothing that pushes them to think about not doing wrong.  Seen this in many cases where parents go above and beyond to try to make it seem like damage done by their kids is nothing and going after the person whose property is damaged and claiming that they are blowing it out of proportion rather than owning up to the damage and holding their own kids accountable.  We also see, in the other forum, some of the simplest early forms of this with coaches talking about how parents are quick to attack a coach over holding his own players accountable ... the parents want to exonerate their kid's bad behavior or brush it away.   

It was the same for a lot of people back then. But we cannot compare the way things were when we group up to what many kids have now. I agree though that far too often, parents will make excuses for their kids. But like TD said, there is just more of a lack of respect for human life

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

With all the high taxes in most families both parents need to work full time in order to make ends meet.  What is the solution?  Full time, 365-days a year government school?   Government appointed nannies what stay at home with a couple's children?

  

I agree that parents do need to work more to pay bills. But, I was not even coming close to the nanny state thingy you drifted to. 😳🤪 The fact is that wages have not kept up with the cost of living. I have stated this in other topics. The fact that wages have not kept up has lead to the breakdown of the family unit. People who divorce will still claim that money issues are a leading cause of divorce. If an employer expects 30 hours or more out of an employee, they should compensate them for that. Now, don’t go off on another tangent about what I just said there. lol Just last year, amid a run of several years of record profits, Walmart just cut more employees time, so that now, most of their hourly employees are part time. A single person can barely survive on that. Throw in a kid or two, and that increases dramatically. Employers are doing this to save money and avoid paying benefits. There are plenty of other examples as well. Again, the ripple effect impacts those who are most vulnerable and even unstable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...