Connecticut School Shooting

[TheLeviathan]

Wow. OK. So the problem is the media or maybe video games or maybe mental health or maybe bullying but let's make sure we don't consider guns as a problem. Stunningly stupid.

 

I absolutely believe we should consider guns. I just don't find the politicized debates about them productive. Particularly in the wake of these tragedies that debate becomes heavy handed and lacking in all nuance.

[TheLeviathan]

My point was NOT that Aspergers was a causative factor. My point was that, taking into account his Aspergers, the shooter may not have been motivated by a desire for fame.

 

Again, no one is making that argument. Giving these murderers wall to wall coverage, I can assure you, is not de-motivating, it can only inspire. The issue is why do we give these murderers infamy at all - it flies in the face of common sense and decency.

[diehardtwinsfan]

The problem with the media is that all of it is owned by something like 5 companies who are also owned by a handful of individuals. This is why you get force fed what Brittney Spears had for breakfast and whatever the latest Teen Mom's flub up was. I'm not sure I'd go so far to blame them for this tragedy, though Lev makes a great point...ethics in journalism is gone. Like many other industries, much of this would get fixed by simply breaking up the mega-conglomerates... but anti-trust laws died several decades ago, and the powers that be get way too much benefit from keeping things as is to resurrect them.

[Squirrel]

You are wrong and right both. In many states, Aspergers is classified under mental illness, not developmental disability. For instance, in South Dakota, none of the autism spectrum alone qualifies someone as being developmentally disabled, but does qualify them for mental health services.

 

Aspergers and autism are not violent disorders to the community, however. Possibly within their own circle (family, very close friends), but not strangers.

 

Then the classification is wrong. It's a neurological disorder. Perhaps it's 'classified' that way because of special needs those of autism may required, but it is not a mental illness. I have three good friends with kids with autism, to varying degrees, and they are livid with the media throwing that out there. And a colleauge of mine with Aspbergers.

[TheLeviathan]

Anything in the DSM is technically a mental illness. Aspergers, as part of the ASD spectrum, is also in that mix. But many reports are trying to refute laying this crime at the feet of that diagnosis. Either way, I worry that this will be the banner that flies from this crime: Worry about Autism. Scary thought if it is.

[Squirrel]

Anything in the DSM is technically a mental illness. Aspergers, as part of the ASD spectrum, is also in that mix. But many reports are trying to refute laying this crime at the feet of that diagnosis. Either way, I worry that this will be the banner that flies from this crime: Worry about Autism. Scary thought if it is.

 

Agreed. But the thing is, we don't even know if he had this. Someone in the media was quick to throw it out there as a possibility, then wham, he has it and it was a cause or contributing factor when it just isn't/wasn't, even if he had it. In our thirst to have answers, the media responds very irresponsibly and now have created more problems where there were none before.

[TheLeviathan]

All part of why I don't find any value in blasting this guy's name and story all over the media. We do more damage and we give this a-hole infamy. I don't understand how that is being defended in this thread.

[biggentleben]

Then the classification is wrong. It's a neurological disorder. Perhaps it's 'classified' that way because of special needs those of autism may required, but it is not a mental illness. I have three good friends with kids with autism, to varying degrees, and they are livid with the media throwing that out there. And a colleauge of mine with Aspbergers.

 

It's as much for funding as anything else, but that is the classification. Medicare/Medicaid issues weigh heavily into that, based primarily, as Lev referenced, on the most recent DSM. The DSM-V has no announced changes regarding autism and where it falls, so I would wager it will remain classified that way for another decade or more.

[biggentleben]

The media basically understands very little about the autism spectrum, but that "very little" is much more than they know about personality disorders. Heck, the common person does not understand much, if anything, about personality disorders. Watch the television, and you'll see stories about multiple personality disorder - something that has no mental health backing and even its closest relative (disassociative personality disorder) removed from the DSM-V, but most people you ask would state that someone in a mental hospital very possibly may have multiple personality disorder. Obsessive compulsive disorder is in the grouping of personality disorders, but it is far different than borderline personality disorder, so there is a wide array of things to know in the area, and believe me when I say the media knows NONE of it. In fact, if they did, there would actually be something to latch onto and "blame" depending on if it was ever diagnosed within the personality disorder family - antisocial personality disorder, whose sufferers typically will commit numerous petty crimes as an essential "need" to fight against rules of society, and a person with this disorder can actually be driven in anger to the point of lashing out physically and violently.

[TheLeviathan]

Well said Ben. Just to add to your list, bi-polar is thrown around ignorantly a lot these days. Much of the discussions about mental illness are far more harmful than beneficial, IMO, in large part because of the rampant ignorance of specific mental illnesses. People only know vague generalities, including the media. That's a dangerous basis for a national dialogue about a sensitive subject.

[biggentleben]

Well said Ben. Just to add to your list, bi-polar is thrown around ignorantly a lot these days. Much of the discussions about mental illness are far more harmful than beneficial, IMO, in large part because of the rampant ignorance of specific mental illnesses. People only know vague generalities, including the media. That's a dangerous basis for a national dialogue about a sensitive subject.

 

Heck, I'm just happy when someone uses the words "bipolar" and not "manic depressive", and that change was made when my father was in high school (and I was born before Reagan was in office).

[Kobs]

Baseball refusing to televise the people who run on the field hasn't stopped them from doing so.

 

Seatbelts haven't eliminated traffic deaths either.

[Kobs]

I absolutely believe we should consider guns. I just don't find the politicized debates about them productive. Particularly in the wake of these tragedies that debate becomes heavy handed and lacking in all nuance.

 

Adaptation does not occur without a stimulus. This is simply a stall tactic. If we wait until the undefined tragedy wake is over for this, there will be another one that we'll have to wait for.

[TheLeviathan]

Adaptation does not occur without a stimulus. This is simply a stall tactic. If we wait until the undefined tragedy wake is over for this, there will be another one that we'll have to wait for.

 

Fair point. I would just caution that sometimes the issue we choose to hang our hats on isn't always the right one (see: Columbine and bullying) and in our emotional reaction to the tragedy we don't have think clearly in our responses. Good gun control reform is going to take some nuance or it simply isn't going to work either.

[PseudoSABR]

Fair point. I would just caution that sometimes the issue we choose to hang our hats on isn't always the right one (see: Columbine and bullying) and in our emotional reaction to the tragedy we don't have think clearly in our responses. Good gun control reform is going to take some nuance or it simply isn't going to work either.

Jesus, Levi, you sound like the NRA: “Out of respect for the families, and until the facts are known, the NRA has refrained from commenting. While some have tried to exploit the tragedy for political gain, we have remained respectably silent." That's ****ing rich.

Having the conversation can do no harm, and despite your admonishments, it seems to be happening pretty sensibly in public.

[TheLeviathan]

Having the conversation can do no harm, and despite your admonishments, it seems to be happening pretty sensibly in public.

 

Could you have twisted what I said any worse? Seriously? The gun control reforms against assault rifles and those pertinent to mental health are going to take some serious nuance to achieve what we want not only responsibly but effectively. A national dialogue that is too heavy-handed in it's tact towards either angle of that is not going to get us anywhere. See: Columbine and bullying. A tragedy like this should lead to a better solution than we have seen in the past.

 

So far I like how the President is handling things and their approach to trying to find a solution. I also think the national dialogue about guns has been pretty fair from what I've seen in editorials and talk shows. I'm more worried about Autism now at this point.

[TheLeviathan]

Or you can just read this crappy article that pretty much uses a wrecking ball for tact and includes all kinds of quotes or opinions that just make you shake your head: New details emerge a week after school massacre - Yahoo! News

[PseudoSABR]

Champions of the status quo call for quiet (as the NRA does and righteously relishes in).

 

Bullying? Oh the irreparable harm we've caused by suggesting bullying in school might lead to violence! How can we let ourselves be so maniacal in our discussions! The mental health issue and bullying issue are problem more related than one might think at first blush, so your poo-pooing it seems odd to me.

 

No one doubts the seriousness to address policy, but public discourse actual needs to hit a fever pitch (even some hyperbole) before the pols will listen and even act reasonably.

 

I know you can totally be reasonable on these issues, but your role as discourse police seems like a misstep to me.

 

Look whether its bullying, mental health, magazine and assault weapon bans, the emotional disconnect between teachers and students, etc., let's tackle this problem and talk about it in as many ways as we can. There's plenty of reasonable people that are charged with sorting through the muck to get to some real solutions. I'm going to be curious as to what the Biden task force comes up with...

[PseudoSABR]

Or you can just read this crappy article that pretty much uses a wrecking ball for tact and includes all kinds of quotes or opinions that just make you shake your head: New details emerge a week after school massacre - Yahoo! News

Yes, the media is sensationalizing this discussion in an unhelpful way. Stunning. But what's different is some in the media are actually trying to be thoughtful and are willing to table their ideology to have a serious discussion.

 

Example: Joe Scarborough (Totally worth checking out.)

[TheLeviathan]

Bullying? Oh the irreparable harm we've caused by suggesting bullying in school might lead to violence!

 

Are you done? In the wake of that shooting we actually started to make the killers sympathetic for being bully victims and blamed violent video games. As it turned out, those reasons were far less central to their actions than the immediate narrative indicated. Any time you take minimal evidence and try to make sweeping changes it isn't likely you're going to make effective change.

 

It's not about policing it - public hyperbole is simply not going to impress on policy makers more than 20 dead first graders. If that isn't enough to shock action, public outcry (regardless of it's direction) isn't going to make a dent.

 

I'm all about the conversation....once we've cooled off, thought about it, and committed ourselves to not making an rash observations. To me the goal is to make sure this never happens again and the best way to do that is to talk about facts and what we can do and try (as hard as it is) to keep our emotions as the fuel for the process, but not the end-all, be-all.

[PseudoSABR]

After Columbine we sympathized with the shooters? What alternative reality are you living in?

 

Once we've cooled off, our desire to make difficult changes and face powerful special interests might be mitigated...

[TheLeviathan]

After Columbine we sympathized with the shooters? What alternative reality are you living in?

 

Once we've cooled off, our desire to make difficult changes and face powerful special interests might be mitigated...

 

Much of the dialogue post-Columbine is that these were bully victims seeking revenge. While that was a small part of the issue, it was not even close to the central motivator, but it put them in a victim light themseleves was more sympathetic.

 

I'm not suggesting we let our emotions die, but we don't let them drive the boat completely. It's not like gun control or changes to the mental health system are going to be easy. We could just as easily cause even more harm out of this if we aren't careful. (Especially since the shift is going towards mental health now)

[TheLeviathan]

Columbine, Bullying, and the Mind of Eric Harris | Psychology Today

 

Since you have clearly forgotten what happened in the aftermath there.

[PseudoSABR]

Honestly, who cares about being right about the central motivation of the mass-murderer of the month; rather we need to look at all the possible motivators as well as the ease with which these murderers carried out their plans and the mental health issues that may have prevented such an act. It's a tall order, but asking people to clam up--as if any discussion about preventive measures is necessarily emotionally motivated and dismissable--doesn't help.

[PseudoSABR]

Columbine, Bullying, and the Mind of Eric Harris | Psychology Today

 

Since you have clearly forgotten what happened in the aftermath there.

Ugh. You are impossibly snide. I'm sure I'm not the only one who remembers the discussion surrounding Columbine being more than about bullying. This point in particular is a petty one; just drop it. It's like your own pet straw man. And for the record, again, bullying probably is an important part of the mental health issues that face adolescents--but that's certainly not my take from Columbine. Jesus.

[TheLeviathan]

Honestly, who cares about being right about the central motivation of the mass-murderer of the month; rather we need to look at all the possible motivators as well as the ease with which these murderers carried out their plans and the mental health issues that may have prevented such an act. It's a tall order, but asking people to clam up--as if any discussion about preventive measures is necessarily emotionally motivated and dismissable--doesn't help.

 

I'm sorry...what exactly is your aim here? You have yet to accurately take the content of anything I've said into account in your replies. Your tone is that of someone who just had their dog kicked. I'll try one more time, but if your little routine here is going to stick it's not worth it.

 

One....I never said the only thing discussed out of Columbine was bullying. I said it was "central" and "much of". Talk about straw-man arguments. The problem, which I've clearly outlined for everyone not trying to have a problem, is that rash initial judgements paint the wrong picture of the situation and make real solutions difficult. You can't hit the target if you don't know what you're aiming at. Public discourse, driven by the media, creates these irrational moving targets. After Columbine, as the link I posted suggested accurately in a reputable source, is that we started looking at every mass murderer as a victim themselves rather than actually considering the situation for what it was. And, out of Columbine and that ridiculous emotional response that made the figures more sympathetic, we had the largest rash of these kinds of killings. Out of the well-intentioned care to end bullying we, in fact, caused more of them to happen by our ham-handed response.

 

Here we present with the same risks. We don't know the picture here and a rush to make changes to the mental health system DOES present serious risks to those with mental health issues and those without them. Gun-control has sensitivity with it as well (not as much, but certainly some) Best intentions or not it is a worthy endeavor to arriving at solutions that don't cause more harm out of a tragic situation. The discourse at the top levels of the government is appropriate - it is focused on police responses and the difficulties of law enforcement - not on rash diagnoses and assumptions about what the quiet and shy are capable of doing. We should be more prudent as civilians that we don't take tragedies and make them worse. Simple as the point is. I look forward to your next twist to it though, I'm sure it will be entertaining.

[glunn]

The first step to a solution will be learning to fight the problem instead of each other.

[Squirrel]

The first step to a solution will be learning to fight the problem instead of each other.

 

The first step to a solution is to address the means, now, and then work on the whys. This is what happens ... people talk and talk and talk, debate and argue, and nothing happens, nothing changes.

[Musk21]

The first step to a solution will be learning to fight the problem instead of each other.

 

For many in this country it seems like their "right" to have guns like the AR-15 is the most important issue here.

[glunn]

For many in this country it seems like their "right" to have guns like the AR-15 is the most important issue here.

 

I feel that my shotgun is ample for home defense, and I would not want to lose my "right" to defend my home against criminals who may be armed. On the other hand, assault rifles seem excessive for home defense and more dangerous in the hands of a madman than a shotgun.