|
|
Home |
 |
|---|
Horrors, horrors, horrors!!!!!!! The actions of the killers
in Littleton are so
horrific that they are vermin, and that no one should have any sympathy
for them.
There are few things as horrible as burning another human being
alive, any person
doing so must be vermin and completely undeserving of mercy.
Yet, a few years back there was a movie called the Burning Bed.
It was about an
abused wife who lit her husbands bed on fire and burnt him alive.
By the time the
movie was over, any decent human being who understood what the woman
had suffered
felt sympathy for her.
The record shows that the killers in Littleton were subjected to
years of physical
and verbal abuse and that the teachers of the school would side
with popular kids
instead of them when disputes occurred regardless of the facts.
This is exactly the
same situation that the woman in the burning bed was in, except
she was a mature
human being, and these kids were under the added stress of enduring
this during
adolescence.
I find it impossible to understand how any decent human being can
fail to have
sympathy for the killers.
Second, "The Burning Bed" and other similar incidents led to a new
defense in murder
cases where abuse victims were considered to be acting in self defense
when they
killed their abusers. If Colorado has such a law, depending
on how it is worded, it
is possible that legally, according to the letter of the law, these
killers were
acting in self defense, not committing murder.
Rediculous yes, but that is what decades of passing laws based on
the passions of the
moment instead of the necessity to maintain a just society has brought
us to.
You are to your children as the faculty is to the school body. Would
you
be a good parent if you allowed your oldest,
because he/she was bigger to daily beat and bruise up your younger
children for the fun of it, and when your younger children
came to you for help you ignored them because the eldest was your
favorite?
According to the general news printed in various sources, this is
what
happened at Columbine and Glen Ridge.
This is pecking order behavior carried to an unnatural extreme and
reinforced by the power of the state. It is the role of the
state/faculty/parent to enforce a better standard of behavior, teaching
children to respect one anothers rights.
This is what did not happen at Columbine and Glen Ridge. (In Glen
Ridge
the jocks gangraped a mentally handicapped girl with a baseball
bat and
a pool cue and then passed these around school the next day boasting
about what they did. The golden jock culture of Columbine
about
duplicates that at Glen Ridge and this is thus a valid indicator
of the
level of abuse that the jocks at Columbine might have felt license
to
inflict on the nerds.)
This pecking order behavior carried to an extreme without restraint
can,
like the cycle of vengeance, escalate to inhuman levels
of brutality and sadism. When there is no limit to the abuse that
the
top of the pecking order can inflict on the bottom, there is a
good deal more to lose if you lose your place in the pecking order.
This
makes those at the top more desperate to hold their
place, this desperation makes their suppression of those lower more
brutal. This increased brutality makes them still more afraid
of losing their place, resulting in yet greater sadism and brutality
on
their part. Each time they perform some more brutal act and
get away with it, they rejoice in a momentary sense of security
in their
dominance until it escalates again. While this is happening
at the top, desperation and hopelessness is increasing similarly
at the
bottom.
The gang rape at glen ridge was the result of one end of this behavioral
spectrum, and the massacre at columbine the result of
the other.
By enforcing on children and the students a formal standard of respect
and fairness that keeps the pecking order from
escalating out of control, you provide all of them with a sense
of
security and trust in society. Even though your jocks and preps
will feel abused because you 'take the side' of unpopular students
when
the facts support them.
Nazi Germany showed how far this behavior could go when the desire
for
being at the top of the pecking order and the desire
to abuse those at the bottom becomes the primary behavior of the
state,
destroying any idea of human rights.
It is worthwhile to note that there is a negative correlation between
gun access and school shootings. I.E. while legal gun access
has been
decreasing school shootings have been increasing. There is
a positive
correlation between Clinton being in the White House and school
shootings. These have increased since he entered the White
House, in
fact they may have started while he was there. Clinton has
been the
president since before the kids at Columbine entered puberty.
For their
entire young adult life he has been the most significant public
role
model for young males. If fake role models in video
games have an
effect on these kids, then a real world one must have an even greater
effect.
Clinton is the teflon don of abusers. He is a chronic sex abuser
and
almost certainly a rapist, and has shown himself time and again
to be
able to slick his way out of any serious consequences from his actions.
As such, he presents an example of how much license you get at the
top
of the pecking order, inviting high school jocks to greater excesses
of
abuse to their social inferiors. He also presents an example
of the
systems inability to prosecute the popular, proving to those at
the
bottom of the pecking order the helplessness of their situation.
Thus
his presence clearly increases the pecking order problem.
His public
example could have been calculated to increase the likelihood of
violence like that at Columbine and Glen Ridge.
When you come right down to it, there is more real evidence to indict
Clinton as a significant cause of the shootings at Columbine than
access
to guns.
"A couple weeks ago, I believe a thread discussed free instructions
for
teachers. Well Front Sight has done something about it.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/19990517_xex_firearms_tra.shtml
--
"The schrewd person saw trouble and took cover; the simple ones
kept
going and paid the penalty." Proverbs 22.3
More on this, a discussion on the Tactics list with a teacher who
doesn't want the job. This is entirely understandable. It is
an ugly unpleasant job. No One wants it. I certainly don't.
But it is apparently necessary.
It occurs to me that you are exxagerating what is expected of you.
Simply
being able to defend yourself and the students would save lives.
There is
a pretty good chance that they will encounter you, and you will
be forced
to bring the situation to a close, regardless of whether you are
escorting
your class to safety, or barricaded in the room.
It may be a stunt, and a shot at getting cheap publicity, but the
idea is
still good the Israelies used it and it worked for them.
Meyer, Glenn wrote:
I have some pretty fierce buddies at work also - combat vets,
> Army shooting champs, ex-wrasslers, professional
> hunters. Even if we were all well armed - I don't
> think we are going to more than secure our students
> or flee the area.
>
> Scream of digust - AHHHHHHHHHH!
>
> Pardon me for this outburst. And for those who
> want to call me a wussy - recall I was on the
> "Charge" brigade side of the debate.
>
> We don't need stunts and self - centered
> things like this.
>
> Glenn
> Professor of Psychology
> Four Cheese Master of Pizza
Rob Shein wrote:
> Yeah, but Israeli teachers all have military training to begin
with,
> including experience with automatic weapons.
This is a volunteer program. The teachers who choose to get
the training and
carry guns will get the training and carry guns.
> Also, Israelis don't freak the
> hell out at the concept of (heaven forbid) a GUN somewhere in
a
> school...(gasp!) Can you imagine for a moment what would
happen if some
> soccer mom found out that there was even a single teacher wearing
(heaven
> forbid!) a GUN (insert scary DA DA DUM music here) while in school?
Of course, unless you explained that the school had decided to increase
security
to protect her children. A cost analysis had shown that security
guards with a
high school diploma or less cost 900 dollars a month apiece, and
they are not
very reliable or well educated. Getting good guards could
cost 2 or 3 thousand
dollars apiece a month, but the school already has intellgent, educated,
responsible adults, who already care about and are responsible for
the kids.
These adults, known as teachers are being given the tools they need
to protect
the kids. These tools are known as guns. Its all in
the spin.
> And you
> know, one day, some teacher with a gun won't be the sort who should
have
> one, and he/she will do something really stupid, causing an AD...and
can you
> imagine what will come of that?
This is true of police officers and soldiers and security guards.
It happens
every day.
Meyer, Glenn wrote:
> Political:
>
> It will not have enough support in the schools except maybe for
> some smaller rural systems.
>
> The Israeli analogy is not useful. In Israel, the teachers were
armed
> against an external aggessor at war with them. We are talking
about
> arming ourselves against our own children. There is a world of
> difference in motivation. I do not regard my students as
a force
> I must be aware of and do constant battle with. The armed student
> is aberrant. This perspective will argue strongly against the
arming
> of teachers. The model is much more oriented to prevention and
> treatment.
This is a more or less good point. I am not sure that it is
really valid.
The kid in Littleton was on antidepressants. He was being
treated. It
didn't do much good. Armed teachers are still more cost effective
than
security guards.
> As I said before - fire fights in the school are not attractive
to most -
> better prevention and/or gun bans will be seen as the solution.
True, but a fire fight is better than a massacre. Killers who
have to stop
and go to cover in a firefight aren't completely free to shoot other
kids.
> Tactical:
>
> CCW works as a deterrent as many people don't know who is
> armed. An explicit training program will identify those armed
> teachers. This info will get out and you may be a target.
Maybe, maybe not, it depends on how your school runs the program.
Certainly
some of the armed teachers will be identified, but can prospective
killers
ever be sure that they know them all?
> What is the expectation of the trained armed teacher?
> Here I am with my J-frame, out of shape and no vest?
> Am I supposed to join the fray or aid in clearing the school?
> Do I run to the fire?
I think this will vary from state to state and city to city.
> What are the legal ramifications? What happens to my
> health insurance, my personal liability if I become an
> official armed teacher? How am I covered? Currently,
> we are told that the school covers us for professional
> liability if we do everything correctly. That is their out.
> If I screw up - sorry!
This is equally true of LEOs and is one of the reasons for their
slow and
careful response at Littleton.
> Who sets the rule structure for armed intervention by
> a teacher? If a kid pulls a gun and instead of talking
> to him, I distract him and then blast him and a stray
> round nails a 15 year honor student - I'm ruined.
Likewise true for LEOs.
> I think all the problems we talk about for simple
> CCW are magnified being the official armed teacher.
Possibly so. It still remains a cost effective method of increasing
school
security.
> Conclusion:
>
> It might be possible to allow CCW on campuses, if
> the teacher is a permit or license holder.
>
> However, any official semi-LEO, shooter, defender
> role is a very bad idea.
>
> I wouldn't want that role. The Israeli may have
> had it in a war situation. We aren't there yet.
I think that this is the essence of the matter. No one really
wants that
role. Look at the LEOs in Littleton. They had to face
all the problems you
mentioned without the intimate knowledge of the student body (or
the school grounds) that a teacher
possesses.
Addendum, I agree that an official role is less desirable in a free society than simply relying on good people who happen to be teachers to volunteer to accept this unpleasant but necessary responsibility. However, considering the attitude of the people, some sort of liason with law enforcement by such volunteers is probably unavoidable, and might be a good thing.
First, the War on Drugs is based on a lie, or a misunderstanding
of what
most criminal drugs are. People assume that criminal drugs
are
unnatural and not found naturally in the environment. That
people are
not exposed to them in nature, and that they are therefore unhealthy.
The fact is that the major criminal drugs are natural, they occur
naturally in plants, plants that have been commonly used, as food
and
medicine, for thousands possibly hundreds of thousands of years.
In the
case of marijuana, which is native to Africa, humans and their ancestors
may have been ingesting it for millions of years.
Biological organisms adapt to and develop a need for things which
are
commonplace in their environment. The idea that drugs are
'bad' is
scientifically implausible on the face of it. There are some
bad things
in the environment, things which are poisonous in too great a quantity,
and these things are also, quite freguently, good for specific
individuals with different health problems.
Drugs, quite clearly, fall into this category. They are so
common in
nature, so everpresent in the plants that we eat on a daily basis,
that
we are adapted to a regular, mild, daily intake of mind and mood
altering substances. Even blood sugar levels can have a profound
impact
on mood and attitude. The simple truth is that most foods
contain
drugs, and most drugs occur in foods.
In other words, when an organism evolves in an environment it adapts
to
that environment, develops a need and use for substances common
in that
environment and suffers health problems when those substances are
denied
it by an artificial environment.
This adaptation is not always positive. We would be better
off if we
had the ability to make our own vitamic c. Something other
primates can
do. We have lost that ability and now need additional vitamin
c in our
diet. This could be called a negative mutation. But
it is real.
Drugs are chemicals found in nature which effect perception, thought,
and mood. As such, they provide a source of natural substances
which an
organism can use to modify its mood. When depressed it can
eat
something that makes it less so. Naturally, after browsing
on this or
that as it grows up, it determines what has this or that effect,
and
eats accordingly as the mood moves it.
Negative mutations are very common. Most deadly genetic diseases
occur
more often as the result of mutation than from inheritance because
they
are deadly and frequently kill the people who have them before those
people can have children. Nondeadly mutations are more frequent
because
they are inherited.
Negative mutations can modify the ability of the body to appropriately
govern its moods chemically just as easily as they can modify its
ability to produce vitamins, digest this or that food, handle sugar
levels, etc.
Where substances are present in nature that mask these effects, diet
adjusts to include those substances, maintaining health by
supplementation from nature. Thus, some individuals of any
ethnic group
living in an area where a drug producing plant has been ingested
as part
of the diet for thousands of years will have ancestors who suffered
negative mutations in the mood mechanism effected by that plant
and will
need that plant as a part of their diet to regulate their moods.
This applies to poppies for people in near Asia, marijuana for people
from Africa, coca leaves for people from South America, alcohol
for
persons from Eurasia and Africa, etc.
Up until the early part of the 20th century, the plants from which
drugs
are made were commonly available to the general public. No
one thought
anything of a person using a cough remedy with cocaine in it.
Parents
commonly used bonnets filled with poppy blossoms to calm hyperactive
children, etc. Our nation was built by a drug users.
Since the War on Drugs has assumed a religious intensity, people
are
more and more afraid to use anything declared a drug. Today,
this
designation applies to chemicals found in garlic, and other common
foods. Yet, this irrational and unscientific bias continues
to grow as
the War on Drugs grows.
Today, the natural foods that change human moods are denied to those
who
may have evolved a dependency on them by two distinct mechanisms.
1)
they are largely illegal and 2) people are religiously reluctant
to use
them for themselves or their children.
Times newsmagazine this week noted the large number of kids these
days
being diagnosed with disorders that require treatment with drugs.
Among
the affluent, antidepressants and other mind and mood altering drugs
for
kids are as common as multivitamins. For the poor, this makes
the War on
Drugs a two edged sword. They do not have the means to pay
for the
medical advice and drugs used by the affluent and they are denied
the
ability to self medicate with drugs occurring in nature. While
the CIA
sells them drugs in forms not occurring in nature to bankroll
its
operations in other parts of the world.
The link between depression and violence is clear. The link
between the
availabilty and use of mood altering drugs and avoiding depression
is
clear. The link between inavailability of mood altering drugs,
increased incidence of depression and violence is clear.
It is quite plausible to suggest that the War on Drugs is one of
the
significant contributing causes to increased random violence in
our
society. Random violence as opposed to all the purposeful
profit
motivated violence created by the War on Drugs.
It is wrong to put an organism adapted to an intake of vitamin c
in an
environment where it is illegal to take vitamin c. It is wrong
to put
organisms adapted to a readily available intake of mood altering
substances in an environment where it is illegal to take them.
It is so
idiotic, in view of evolution and the human organism, that only
puritanical religious fanaticism would make it seem a 'good'.
In addition, the war on drugs is slanted strongly in favor of drugs
common to Europe, and against nonEuropean drugs. Alcohol,
and drugs
used by Europeans as drugs throughout history are legally purchased
in
herbal stores and ABC stores throughout the country. Herbal
remedies
used, and even required by religions for use, in Africa, South America,
North America, and Asia are illegal in the US.
The drug laws in the US are not just politically racist, assigning
a
harsher penalty to drugs used by the poor and nonwhite, they are
biochemically racist as well, outlawing drugs from noneuropean
continents and legalizing those from plants and common to european
culture for thousands of years.
The raw plant materials containing these drugs that people have
plausibly adapted to and may have a neurochemical need for should
be
commonly available for purchase by any US citizen.
The new miracle drugs for depression prevent normal uptake of Serotonin,
increasing levels of Serotonin in the brain. This increases
calmness,
and decreases depression.
However, this chemical is closely tied to pecking order status.
Does it
create a subconscious expectation that one is higher on the pecking
order than one really is?
Does it, in fact, create delusions of grandeur?
Does ones behavior when slighted by others higher in the pecking
order
then reflect the behavior of a superior slighted by an inferior?
Was this mechanism one of the contributing causes of the Columbine
tragedy?
I have only questions. These interactions are subtle.
It appears to me, that these drugs may create psychoses.
It appears to me, that other drugs, which improve mood without a
direct
brain chemical link to pecking order status might be less dangerous.
Less likely to create psychoses.
Drugs, for example, like marijuana.
It is something to think about.
Addendum. After posting this, one person replied with a number of examples of people she knew suffering this kind of side effect from these drugs.
Conclusion. We need to look at the real causes of Columbine, not push gun control as some kind of placebo. It will make people feel better, but it will do nothing to stop future events like Columbine. Indeed, by rendering people defenseless, and increasing the myth of the gun as a symbol of power, it will make them more likely. The current gun control bills are a contemptible exercise in politics which will only guarantee the deaths of more children.
