It started off as an all too familiar event. A young white male with a history of mental health problems gets into a school and threatens to shoot it up. Convicted felon Michael Brandon Hill (who somehow managed to get a gun...how?) skirted past security at Discovery Learning Academy in Decateur, Georgia and held two staff hostage.
But one of the staff, school bookeeper Antoinette Tuff, talked him down and he surrendered to police. The story of how she did this is detailed in the above link. More importantly, however, is that she did this without a gun of her own in a gun free zone. This incident really drives home the point of how this is all about mental health and not guns. What happens to young white men that they get to this point? Why is it always the same profile, save a few outliers?
This is at the heart of the school shooting issue. We need to figure out the profile for these guys just like we would a serial killer or habitual thief. More intelligence means better crime prevention and (thank God) leaving the very unhelpful gun ass hats out of the equation.
21 comments:
I wonder if Obama and Holder want to have a conversation about how these young men could be their son(s)?
We need to figure out the profile for these guys just like we would a serial killer or habitual thief.
So we can do what? Have we been arresting serial killers before their crimes based upon the profiles?
leaving the very unhelpful gun ass hats out of the equation
You keep insulting people you disagree with and they are going to start believing you don't want to share this country with them. That spells a very uncomfortable future....
Besides, you are out of your mind wrong in this case. The 'gun ass hats' were the very first people called - the cops - guys with guns were the first people called to help. Hmmm, called to get guns into a gun free zone because some criminal and mentally ill person violated the law by getting a gun and going to a gun free zone.....
Almost like if a person who couldn't be trusted with a gun also can't be trusted in public....
Seems I've heard this line around here before.
So we can do what?
From Heller...
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our [majority] opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms
Mentally ill people should not be allowed to own guns. Period.
You keep insulting people you disagree with and they are going to start believing you don't want to share this country with them. That spells a very uncomfortable future....
Then they should start behaving like adults and, frankly, human beings as opposed to adolescent fuckwads who are as ideologically close minded as they people they claim to hate (Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc)
the 'gun ass hats' were the very first people called - the cops - guys with guns were the first people called to help
I have stated repeatedly that I have no problem with trained police or private security being in school buildings. Our local police have an office in our school. What I have a problem with is right wing bloggers and other ordinary citizens being able to carry guns in schools and public places. Nope. Not going to fucking happen. Speaking of which, how does your theory about gun free zones stand up when you consider Fort Hood and Kirkwood City Hall? Plenty of guns didn't seem to stop them.
And your idea about putting more people won't work because of cost. Who is going to pay for it, GD? Last time I checked you guys wanted to cut spending. That's a big reason why the mental institutions shut down. Further, do you just want to lock these people up forever with no hope of rehabilitation? Forget about the human rights aspect here and, again, think
Wow...what is going on with Blogger today?
last paragraph...
And your idea about putting more people away won't work because of cost. Who is going to pay for it, GD? Last time I checked you guys wanted to cut spending. That's a big reason why the mental institutions shut down. Further, do you just want to lock these people up forever with no hope of rehabilitation? Forget about the human rights aspect here and, again, think about the cost.
From Heller...Mentally ill people should not be allowed to own guns.
Are you mentally challenged yourself? Really? They already are prohibited from owning guns
Wow. Just wow.
But that wasn't the fucking question.
You want to figure out the profile of potential shooters. THEN WHAT? Lock them up in pre-crime jail?
ideologically close minded
Got a mirror nearby?
how does your theory about gun free zones stand up when you consider Fort Hood and Kirkwood City Hall? Plenty of guns didn't seem to stop them.
Yep, you are a moron.
Plenty of guns? Really?
Ft. Hood - It may be an army base - but if you had even the slightest clue before you started slinging crap you'd know that the soldiers were not allowed to carry guns on base. Had to call civilian police with guns to stop the shooter.
Kirkwood city hall. Really? One cop inside the council chambers was the only gun present. You call that 'plenty of guns present'?
How does your theory that you are intelligent and reasonable stand up when you are so often shown to be a complete fuck up?
And your idea about putting more people away won't work because of cost.
You still don't think about things do you?
Simple statement. You do not need to read more into it than is said.
If someone is too dangerous to have a gun then they are too dangerous to be allowed in public.
That DOES NOT need to mean we need to lock more people up.
do you just want to lock these people up forever with no hope of rehabilitation
?????
IF THEY ARE TOO DANGEROUS TO HAVE A GUN THEN THEY ARE TOO DANGEROUS TO BE OUT IN PUBLIC.
Make the choice. They are rehabilitated? Fine. Then they are obviously not too dangerous to be in public and not too dangerous to have a gun. Other wise - then they are not fucking rehabilitated are they?
Forget about the human rights aspect here and, again, think about the cost.
They are too dangerous to be in public. And you are worrying about the cost?
Wow. Just wow.
Feigned internet comments shock...very played...why didn't you just write *facepalm* since you are being so obvious.
Kirkwood city hall. Really? One cop inside the council chambers was the only gun present. You call that 'plenty of guns present'?
Recheck the facts on this event and then come back to retract.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirkwood_City_Council_shooting
If someone is too dangerous to have a gun then they are too dangerous to be allowed in public.
That DOES NOT need to mean we need to lock more people up.
What does it mean, then? It sounds like you really haven't thought this through. Shocking...
Recheck your own facts. He shot one cop outside, then one in the chamber. That's not 'plenty' any way you look at it.
No. You aren't thinking out through. Double face palm.
How many non violent felons do we have locked up? Are they dangerous? Hmmmm.
A Department of Pre-Crime would be a wonderful idea! Our Esteemed Host already thinks everyone should get psychiatric counseling at least once a year. Certainly that should be a prerequisite for gun ownership. And given what Wile E. Markadaffiya has stated repeatedly about the mental state of 2nd Amendment activists, we already know who's unfit for firearms ownership permits: start with the membership lists of the NRA and spread out from there. Now isn't that simple? And we'll see murders committed with firearms drop by, well, who knows or cares. It's the thought that counts, and if it saves just one life a year, it's worth it. Next on the agenda: a national speed limit of 25 mph. That'll save thousands upon thousands of lives!
A Department of Pre-Crime would be a wonderful idea!
Straw Man and Appeal To Fear...you just don't have anything else, do you?
I'd like to see the current system improved in terms of background checks so less people who are felons and mentally ill get guns. How do you propose we do that?
No asshole. You said you wanted to figure out the PROFILE of these people.
The question is WHY? and for what PURPOSE?
Profile? Is is hard to figure out the profile of convicted felons and those mentally ill who have been committed? Oh, let's see - they have been convicted or committed.
That's not a profile. That's a record. A record is what pops up when you do a background check.
Again, that is not a profile. You wanted to figure out a profile of potential shooters. Potential? That would be people who may shoot in the future. So pre-crime is spot on fucking accurate to what you were alluding to.
You either own the profile = pre-crime or admit you fucked up.
For you to fuck up and then try turn it on us is a dick move. Cowardly dick move.
Wow, with this and the other one today you've been a dishonest double dick cowardly asshole liar.
It's called satire and sarcasm O Wise and Sooper-Edukated So-Called Teecher. You don't really understand the words and phrases you throw around, do you? No doubt you'd have been accusing Jonathan Swift of all kinds of logical fallacies in his A Modest Proposal...
You said you wanted to figure out the PROFILE of these people.
The question is WHY? and for what PURPOSE?
One of the reasons violent crime has dropped so much is due to improved crime fighting techniques and technology. Part of that includes profiling. It's not just about serial killers either. Common, every day crimes are solved partly because of profiling. Don't you think the drop in violent crime is a good thing?
As to the rest, you are clearly worried about something hence all the personal vitriol. Paranoid about the government? It would seem to me that is just so tiresome after a while.
Nope. Makes no sense. We got a problem solving school shooting crimes? That's what the profile thing does. Solves the case. If you know who did the crime, you don't need a profile to solve it.
So the question stands, for what purpose do you need to profile active shooters.
And the vitriol? Stop being as dishonest juvenile dick and you would be surprised at how people react to you differently.
What part makes no sense? I thought you were in law enforcement and worked with police. Perhaps you should ask them how they catch criminals these days.
Why are you so worried about the purpose of profiling, GD? What are you afraid is going to happen?
My knowledge of what I am talking about it why it makes no sense.
You said: "We need to figure out the profile for these guys just like we would a serial killer or habitual thief."
And I keep asking why? What good would a profile of a person who does a school shooting do you? Have there been school shootings where the shooter came in, shot it up and disappeared?
That's what a profile does. When you don't know who the suspect of a crime is, you use a profile to figure out what general traits the suspect has. That helps you narrow down who to look at while searching for a suspect.
In the case of school shootings we know who it is because he's still at the school shooting it up. A profile will not help you find a suspect when you already know who the suspect is.
But the second part of your comment says more - "More intelligence means better crime prevention". Prevention? That's why I keep referring to pre-crime. What the hell kind of prevention will a profile do? So what if you know the profile of a school shooter is white males between 18-22 years who play warcraft and have few friends? What are you going to do with that knowledge? What can you do with that knowledge that will in any way prevent one of them from trying to shoot up a school? Lock them up? For what?
Why are you so worried about the purpose of profiling, GD? What are you afraid is going to happen?
Because when you use words and terms and phrases that make no sense they make no sense. If, and I say if because you are the one using the terms worried and afraid, I am indeed in any way concerned about profiling here it is only because of the way YOU have phrased and termed the usage of profiling.
My main purpose in figuring out who fits the profile of a school shooter is to get to them before they go in and decide to shoot up a school. In short, mental health treatment. Parents, school officials, peers, church leaders, and other community officials could use this information to get them help.
Remember this?
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2013/06/more-parents-like-this-please.html
And this?
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2013/04/he-is-saying-things-that-need-to-said.html
How was it that Pete Hoffmeister did not become a shooter? He offers answers in his piece and those are the sorts of things we need to be doing to prevent future school shootings and gun violence in general.
Honestly, it starts with the parents. We need more like the Lememrs.
Oh, unicorn farts. I should have known.
Well, that makes no sense because both of these examples are real people. Actually, maybe it does since you guys live in a bubble:)
both of these examples are real people
Ok, let's examine.
My main purpose in figuring out who fits the profile of a school shooter is to get to them before they go in and decide to shoot up a school.
Great. Pete Hoffmeister got help. He wanted it.
Blaec Lammer didn't get enough help. He didn't want it.
Pete stopped himself because he wanted the help.
The Lammers had to stop Blaec - not by getting him help but by turning him in. Yep, and the crimes he's charged with? He confessed. Any guess what would have happened if he didn't confess?
You can't force people to get mental health treatment unless they are diagnosed to be a danger to themselves or others. That's the mental health system we have. Having a profile won't change that.
You can't help people unless they want to be helped. Having a profile won't change that.
And the best part: Having a profile on a bunch of people won't even show that those people need help. And even if it did, you still need to either convince them to get it or force them to.
And if it starts with the parents, why the hell do you need a profile? Again, what's the purpose?
So the parents can see the warning signs. Not everyone is as bright as you and I, GD:) Think lowest common denominator.
You could model something like this after drug addiction or gang involvement. The goal is community awareness and it's very clear who fits the profile.
Something else to consider...making terroristic threats is a crime. You don't have to actually do something in order to be caught.
No shit? What's your point?
Post a Comment