Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Absolutely fucking horrific.
Young, young kids this time as well. It's properly got to me :(
what the fuck, what the fuck, what the fuck
Most of them in tears. Really harrowing image.
they were told to shut their eyes when they got outside, so were walking in a line holding each others shoulders and crying.
man, this is grim as fuck
There are lots of unwell people out there.
wrong or right.
But it's obviously more emotive with kids a) because they're more innocent and uncorrupted and b) because it's easier to relate the story to children you know
so what you're saying is, it's less sad if a fully grown man gets shot because he probably lies on his tax return and gives shit presents at christmas. and obviously every child there was just brimming with untapped potential.
it's really really sad either way.
You utter belm.
It's a question of immediate perception isn't it.
We're all very jealous of your ability to react robotically to tragedy, bore off now though please.
but its probably not the best time to bring it up.
People just find things sadder when it involves kid's, not sure why they just do, maybe a discussion for some other time ehh?
it's not like i was being a dick, i genuinely feel empathy for the victims and their families.
but i'm not saying this to them or even anybody closely related to them or the situation. it's a british indie music forum, let's not be hysterical.
I think your a good egg and have a valid point, but I don't think people got any genuine feelings of empathy from you, it just looks like you are having a go at folk for having the wrong feelings/telling them how they should feel on an emotive issue.
That forza guy missing the irony in having a go at you for looking for attention did raise a smile though.
You utter, utter cunt
not condusive to having that point accepted.
have a think about how you've expressed yourself.
Then the day you have a child will be the day you understand.
thus rendering his observations totally subjective ...
saw this a bit ago and they were saying only the gunman was dead, and a few injured. damn
Kinda appalled that a story about elephants drinking vodka is top story on the beeb's site when this has happened.
its not though is it.
Its all over their news site as it should be. What is your point, that the BBC care more about elephants?
Think your priorities are a bit fucked if you are more concerned with the placing of a breaking news story over the horrific content of it.
Chill your fucking bean.
let these bastards know the correct amount of sadness they should be feeling.
but calling me a twat and a cunt and a prick for questioning why there needs to be an emphasis on the fact it was children (but not actually saying anything offensive about the situation whatsoever), and getting upset because of the BBC website algorithm, it's kinda really silly.
You know, as though what was really, really important here was that it was irrational that people got more upset due to it being kids but that you felt you had to add a token 'it's all very sad' thing on at the end.
I just was trying to explain how you've come across in this thread. I'm sure you didn't mean to.
there's no obligation here to make sure everybody knows how compassionate you are, so i didn't start with "obviously this is very sad, BUT" can't we just be a bit more sensible about it? i understand that it's an emotionally charged situation but i think everybody on these forums should be able to handle one post asking a fair question, instead of getting hysterical about it as if i just ran onto the scene shouting YEAH BUT WHAT IF
I think it's just that it's a really emotive story and emphasising the irrationality of being more upset over kids just seems quite an unusual immediate reaction to lead with.
I mean the obvious answer to your original question is it's an emotional response rather than a rationally justifiable one but people are generally emotional and rarely particularly rational so it's hardly surprising that people react that way but, at the same time, far more surprising to people when someone starts asking detached rational questions in response to an emotive news event.
but honestly i found the whole "oh god it was kids" aspect of it way more crass than i supposedly was being. i mean, a life is a life and it just seems almost cheesy to go for the whole 'poor kiddies' thing when you're talking about something this awful.
but I guess what makes it particularly horrific for me is the fact that the children who survived had to witness this and, at such a young age, come to terms with the fact that people they went to school with and people who taught them are gone and never coming back and the fact it's possible some of them will have witnessed the whole thing; which is likely to be massively scarring for anyone but especially for anyone so young that they can't process or understand why or how this has happened; nobody should have to come terms with death so young in such a horrific manner.
You just decided that was what you wanted to bring up. Did you seriously expect there not to be a reaction? Spare the bullshit justifications, you were clearly just trolling.
yes i expected the reaction, didn't say i didn't expect it
justification? lol okay man
not trolling but if that helps you then cool.
stop embarrassing yourself by repeatedly acting like a stupid cunt.
go cry into your "sports cars"
maybe try having a little break from the internet, mate. you sound like you're having a bit of a breakdown!
But fair enough.
so you can consider your only goal for the day achieved. Well done.
keep making a tit of yourself, go on.
why use that, when you could have skipped to the next story and got one about girls aloud and had an even better faux-moan about the bbc being heartless cunts.
The reason these types of shootings happen close together is because some mentally ill person sees that someone got some attention for it and they then decide that they will do the same. We will probably end up hearing more about the killer than the victims.
The people who do these things are usually motivated by more than just fame
but I think the publicity is a factor. I think (failure to do research and back myself up alert) there's significant evidence that a proportion of serial killers and mass murderers are motivated by notoriety, power and a desire to feel important and certainly I've read articles by professionals working in this field saying a similar thing to skellywager that sticking the killers photo and details all over the papers is probably unhelpful...
but with something this shocking everyone wants to know how and why it could have possibly happened; there's no way the public can process something like this without knowing who the shooter is, and thats why the press will always name them.
These shootings never lead to any real change in the gun culture in America, the lobbyists have far too much power and too many Americans genuinely believe the problem is not enough guns rather than way too many. Its baffling.
incidents of gun-related violence and death that happened here.
it helps reduce the number of these things happening, but doesn't stop them.
(but not sure this is the time or place for a discussion about gun control)
not having guns available for hobbyist purposes would remove their access for the people in this country who have been involved in this type of incident.
no private individual should really have access to anything more than a 22 rifle and only then for the purposes of vermin control in rural areas.
for the US, it's a much more contentious issue given it's part of their constitution, but as i noted elsewhere, restrict and control the sale and movement of ammunition far more harshly than is currently the case and folk could have as many guns as they want, spend as much time as they want polishing them and admiring them, but they'd have a much harder time carrying out the type of attack which occurred today.
without the ammunition guns are useless.
personal opinion mind.
I have two children, but there's a limit to how much sympathy you can have for a country that persists with gun laws that enable this sort of incident.
How many times does this have to happen? At least start the process in changing public perception to the acceptability of widespread gun ownership.
The last minute is always awfully poignant.
and the parents are letting them do it, egging them on "tell them what you saw honey, go on."
If I were an American I would feel utterly tormented and disgusted at the gun laws. How many more times does it have to happen?
Here, a lot of personal freedoms are viewed with essentially religious fervor, in large part due to our revolutionary origins (for better or worse). In my opinion, three of these are combining to create such situations.
1. The right to keep and bear arms
2. The right to be a bad parent (up to a certain point) and not teach personal responsibility
3. The right to ignore those around you and not interfere (help) when they are having trouble getting through life
#2 and #3 are not specifically supported by law but they are understood to be acceptable excuses. In every major shooting I have read about, the people around the attacker have stated they ignored signs/failed to help far in advance or were just plain ignorant due to carelessness.
It's avoidable, we can all agree. But the method has to be right.
you can bear as many arms as you can hold, but make bullets harder to purchase, or much much more expensive than they are.
2 and 3 seem to be universally accepted 1st world rights, and not just applicable to the US.
that if a bullet cost $10,000 there wouldn't be any innocent bystanders, if you got shot you must have done something to deserve it.
walmart and pick up a box of 9mm bullets for a few dollars, no license required.
a gun without bullets is just a fancy club.
would not lead to mass murders. IT'S... THE... GUNS.
(This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, just saying that you can have the worst kinds of social disorder and you still can't kill lots of people very quickly without guns...)
But where is the line? Conversely, an irresponsible, violent-crime ridden society will find ways for its members to kill each other no matter what. It just takes a little longer.
All I'm saying here is that there are solutions beyond pure legislation, and that a law by itself will not solve problems involving people who disregard the law in general.
And with access to guns who is to say we wouldn't have the same problems. But we don't have the guns and we don't have the frequency of major shootings.
but if I went round a school armed with, say, a baseball bat, someone would manage to stop me before I killed my 23rd person...
he's super liberal in so many ways, but you talk to him about American gun laws and it's like flicking a crazy switch, he starts spouting words like "2nd amendment" "forefathers" and often ends the argument in "you just don't get it".
The last argument i had with him over this was over the batman cinema gunman, his argument was he was let down by society so his family/frends/co workers/teachers should have done more to help him. I've not seen him since this tragedy but I imagine his argument would be similar.
only to find out its the wrong guy!
someone shopped this...
I searched for Ryan Lanza on facebook seconds after it was announced on BBC news and there were already dozens of groups set up with loads of people in them
and people are photoshopping fake responses or hacked his account, hard to tell.
that they have to take action to stop this sort of thing happening.
But the proposed actions will involve JUST ABOUT ANYTHING EXCEPT GUN CONTROL.
arm the school kids
I really hope that now he's been re-elected he makes it more of an issue
Now he can't be elected again, let's hope for some boldness. But the chances of him getting it through both houses are surely non-existent...
Just read that the shooter's mother is one of the dead. She was a teacher at the school and he specifically targeted her classroom :'(
was it the 20-year-old brother?
depends on how closely their producer is watching the other channels news feeds.
and another two take his place.
Just realised its the guy who missed his knickers when someone said Patrick Moore was a naughty man in that RIP thread.
well, i'm not sure how much more you can sink in my estimation crispin. i'm sure you'll find a way, but for the moment...
But, you're /still/ not as much of a bellend as hofo. So there's some consolation to be had.
but i meant what i said about you not being as bad as hofo.
you can use it as a pull quote and put it in your profile if you like.
and Ryan Lanza is in custody. What a clusterfuck. How can they be consistently getting every fact wrong?
this tragedy has just highlighted the numerous damaging effects of the social-media inspired thirst for instant information. You expect it on twitter- that can't be regulated- but now reputable news outlets seem to be resorting to a google search to find their stories. It's reckless, and dangerous, and clearly just a desperate attempt to keep up with 'new media' and stay relevant. The internet has been responsible for so much positive change, but sometimes it's effects are worrying.
Sometimes people just need to take a moment, stop, and not try to say everything all at once.
So far the BBC has managed to
a) broadcast an interview with a confused small child who has just witnessed a major tragedy.
b) broadcast cringeworthy interviews with a local hairdresser and bistro owner; both of which are questionable in their relevance and, particularly in the case of the former, got really uncomfortable and led to a suspect being named live on TV despite no actual evidence or confirmation at the time.
c) possibly led to the wrong suspect being named.
I'm pretty sure none of these things would have happened had they taken time to process their story and respond appropriately.
You've got to fill those hours with something.
Consider the pressure that a news editor is under when a story like this breaks.
People want to know exactly what happened and they want to know it immediately. If you can't provide them with new information constantly over the course of it developing, they'll switch off (in the long term as well).
Social media has definitely muddied the waters, but the BBC's news team are trying to tell you the story as best they can as quickly as they can. If they went to something else until they had it fully confirmed, people would be rightly furious.
It's so easy to sit there at 9pm when the dust has settled and say "you got this, this and this wrong." Reporting a story like this is a little bit harder.
from people like us, for up to the minute details regardless of whether things have been properly fact checked
The media getting it all dangerously wrong as usual and yet here I am watching it all.
I mean, i've ranted just there about everything that's wrong with the media coverage, and I contribute to and partake in it myself. I'm constantly updating twitter, trying to find out what's going on before the news tell me, even if it's probably wrong. When I think about it, there really is no point.
Especially for the kids who would have witnessed the horror and depravity of seeing their classmates being shot, at such an early age they are going to have a lot of difficulty further down the line. A community falling to pieces basically. Not to mention the parents and teachers of the school.
I have one hope in my mind for them:
Are the stars aligned in a once in a millenium way, that this President free of the shackles of electioneering and with no need for relection, coupled with the public outrage over so many dead kids, may finally result in meaningful gun control? God, I hope so.
In China a couple of years ago they had several episodes of people losing their marbles and going into schools and stabbing children.
The government took action and now as far as I can see, every school at school opening and closing time has policemen at the gate observing what is going on. They are decked out in quite serious looking gear, though I can't say I have ever actually looked to see if they are carrying guns.
I don't know where they are during school time, although schools here have fences and gates, so the children are more protected during that time.
I couldn't see it working for American schools though. Those that I see on news reports or TV seem to be bigger in area, with more entrance points, and no fencing.
You've gotta get the guns out of Walmart, gotta drastically reduce the kind of guns people are allowed to buy, gotta have people manditorially applying for gun licences with psyche interviews a part of that process, and gradually increasing the rules to reduce gun ownership constantly over a long period of time. There's no other way.
no American president is going to try to outlaw or even make significant changes to how firearms are regulated, are they?
Far too risky.
so there's minimal risk to his political career at this point. it's not as if he can be impeached on the back of a move to increase gun control.
But it would possibly mean an(other) amendment to the constitution, which would lead to much broohahah from the press, nra, lobbyist groups, survivalists, secessionists, TRU PATRIATS, etc, but there's been loads of constitutional amendments over the years. this would be one which would be conflagrated immediately to a 'government taking our freedom' level.
even if obama radically tightened gun control laws, the next republican candidate would run on loosening them and win on a landslide.
but for some crazy reason the law expired in 2004 and was never renewed. The gun lobby is just too powerful to ever allow real change, I know it doesn't seem right to jump into the politics of these shootings so soon after they occur but the anti gun movement only ever has any weight immediately after these tragedies. People really need to speak out against this stuff and stop the NRA and Smith & Wesson from dictating their gun laws.
a man with a knife stabbed 22 children in a Chinese school
As unbelievable and terrible as this shooting is, it's not really a gun control issue, as the access to a weapon only affects the means with which to carry out the act.
Primarily it's a social issue - glamorisation of violence via the media and entertainment, poorly supported parenting, poverty, etc etc etc. A whole stack of factors.
Yes, there's no good reason for anyone to keep an assault rifle at home. However attributing this to gun licencing over-simplifies an event where an individual has chosen to kill members of his own family and young children.
That's a key difference.
Of course there are a number of traumatic social and personal mental health issues which can lead to actions such as this, but attributing this massacre to gun licensing isn't simplifying the matter. Horrible as it is, fucked up people will always commit violent crime, unfortunately America's gun laws make it significantly easier for that violent crime to be fatal.
But at the same time, there are 22 scarred and traumatised children.
My second draft post would say "attributing this <only> to gun licencing" and more strongly emphasise the importance of tackling the underlying issues IN ADDITION TO not making highly efficient killing weapons available to pretty much anybody.
You're right of course. The societal problems in the US right now run deep, very deep. 230 people have died through gun crime in Chicago this year alone, and I'm not sure amending gun laws would change that, as the majority of those firearms were purchased illegally. I think amending the gun laws will be a major step towards reducing atrocities like today's though.
The USA, perhaps surprisingly, on paper at least, don't appear to have a massive problem. Around 3 people who die per 100,000 do so by some sort of firearms-related homicide. Comparable to countries like Finland, Austria, Croatia and Belgium.
They do appear to have quite a serious problem with suicide by firearms, however, though lots of countries, including those who have significantly higher firearm homicide rates (like Jamaica, Honduras, El Salvador) don't provide comparable data.
Other countries where suicides by firearms are well above what appears to be the norm (Canada, Finland, Switzerland) all, perhaps unsurprisingly, have legalised firearms.
I guess the stats can be interpretated in a number of ways, but the numbers at least don't seem particularly damning in the case of America. Homicide rates seem relatively in-line, but the sheer number of people, and prominence of the country probably means events like this simply happen more often and we hear about them more when they do.
* Admittedly, this data came from Wikipedia, and i might have misinterpreted some of it.
Look at reference 43 from this article:
In 2009, Finland has a homicide by firearm rate of 0.4.
Austria 0.2 (2006)
Croatia 0.4 (2009)
Belgium 0.7 (2004)
this shows different numbers, which I guess is what you looked at.
I don't especially think the gun laws are to blame for this. Compare America to Europe and the number of unhinged spree killings are comparable. I think it's a problem universal to developed societies and has more to do with isolation and lack of community or fellowship than anything else. I am no gun nut but I think that the eye often misses the ball after these shocking and emotionally disorienting atrocities (would not dignify such an irrational act with 'tragedy'). Ultimately, this person acted out of incoherent hatred and one must wonder how he got to the point of zero empathy. Not that he's a victim. He forfeited that one when he bought the gun. The adult male, isolated and left to foster resentment - but no pat psychological breakdown could ever quite explain this sheer loathsome evil, which is ultimately why I'm terrified for all of us.Please let this not be a recurring flaw in our genome...
this guy would probably still have snapped, but the damage would have been lesser as he wouldn't have had access to the weapons of the same level of indiscriminate damage.
and, sure, there's loads of things you can use to hurt or kill people with if you're so inclined. but in situations such as these, the tool and access to the tool used will be the first thing looked at. mainly as it's easier to blame the implement than the societal cause of why the person wanted to use the tool like that in the first place.
unfortunately, i think it /is/ in inherent flaw excacerbated by crumbling social norms, desensitisation and failing communication partly brought on by technology and how its being used. I see generations of kids who are increasingly disconnected, from each other, from family, from wider society and they are in short, utter pricks. borderline sociopathic in some cases.
he may also have had other factors which played into his murderous rampage such as drug use, history of emotional or physical abuse (or emotional deprivation, which is more likely), mental or behavioural problems, etc, etc. im sure the media will happily/gladly/willingly lay this guys history bare for us all within the next 6-20 hours or so.
and i don't think you sound silly at all in anything you said. so there.
won't be in a single one, fucking detest the national media as an immanent whole
Is America getting more violent?
Because I don't think it is. There was that story the other about how New York had experienced its first day of no serious violent crime ever recorded. And apparently violent crime in the US has been going downward for a couple of decades:
If anything, I would suggest things like the mobile phones and the internet have allowed for increased and improved communication and opportunities to be connected.
an orange mobile advert.
sharing 140 character trivial updates via tweet, or splashing a barely literate status update on your facebook page, or being able to anonymously harangue someone on a forum (not a dig, just an example) isn't necessarily an improvement on the quality of communication which is occurring between people or groups of people in society.
And it's the quality of communication and interaction which is decreasing, just as the means of communication makes it easier for us all to increase the noise/signal ration to the point where it's as if everyone is just shouting, not necessarily at anyone in particular, just to hear themselves.
That's a degredation. The internet and these other technological advances are tools, we're not learning to use these things properly as a society and as a result they're being misused and society has just another flashy thing to play with while it ignores someone getting spat at on the bus, or an oap having fallen in the street.
As to NY heralding first day of no serious violent crime. That's reported crime. And it stinks of PR. I'd have to have a look at the source data before making any grand statements about America becoming less violent, especially with the increase in the frequency of massacres such as this one.
Nice graph on the first page.
How do you know the quality of communication and interaction is decreasing? Why shouldn't sharing facebook and twitter updates help, if before the internet one couldn't even do that?
My personal experience is that it's easier/less stressful communicating online, as I can decide who to interact with and when. I can stay in touch with friends on the other side of the country. And I can more easily arrange 'real life' social events and see what other people in my community have planned. I dunno, maybe you're just doing the internet wrong.
Ok, that sentence doesn't make sense. '...if before the internet you felt unable to share basic thoughts and feelings with people you see on a daily basis' might be better.
and they've declined to well under 500 per annum, from several thousand 20 years ago.
I don't think it's a fault of technology either - surely the human race has been more bloodthirsty historically. The internet allows access to provocative materials but that might be catharsis for someone with murderous feelings who would otherwise keep the feelings pent up until it became unbearable.
Of course I feel sorry for the kids (and of course it's sadder when a kid dies, they tend to enjoy life more than adults), but if you're not who society wants you to be, people can make things difficult for you and I understand how it makes you want to lash out. I think most people need to take a good hard look at how they treat people they consider 'different' and how it affects their outlook on life.
As the 'third most bloody massacre at a US school ever'. Sounds like they're laying down the gauntlet.
why doesn't Obama do that?
If he introduces a law that the majority of Americans, if polls are correct, don't actually want then it could cause a lot of problems and possibly even damage the campaign for gun control in the long-term. Certainly there's a reasonable argument to be made that the precise reasons why abortion polarises debate in the US far more than any other Western country is because the abortion laws were brought in by law before a debate/campaign to change minds had taken place.
I think America does need to look at its gun control laws but it'd be far more productive (albeit a longer process) to attempt to persuade people on the need for change rather than simply and immediately passing a law that would just get shouted down and most likely repealed in the future...
Depressing that not being on facebook is deemed worthy of remark.
so that people would stop looking for him / would know the previous ones that had been linked to weren't him
but the context looks more like fuel on the private-people-r-dodgy fire to my eyes.