:rolleyes:
There was a shooting at my junior high several years before I went there, although there were no injuries other than a few kids who got cuts and scrapes from jumping out a first-floor window. A boy who was being bullied brought a rifle to school, and fired several shots into a wall before being tackled by a teacher. I never knew about it until I read accounts on that school’s Facebook page!
And here’s the interesting thing. The people who were there said almost to a person that the target totally had it coming, and several people had harbored fantasies about shooting him as well, because of the way he treated them. :eek: That people were willing to say this on FACEBOOK indicates that the kid must have been something else.
One other thing. This happened in 1972.
p.s. Too bad the kid died. He should have survived, and been left paralyzed. I can think of a few classmates of mine that if anyone had done that to them, there would have been a celebration.
What wild shooting? I’ve had firearms instructors compliment me on my tight grouping. 
Nah, I think I’ll be a fatass old white guy defending my house and family.
I’m surprised you would squander an opportunity to clarify your position/feelings about this particular student/shooter/monster. It seems there is a possible misunderstanding about your position and only you can clear it up.
That sounds nice, but it’s full of potential for unintended consequences. I’ll bet such a policy would result in more accidental shootings and shootings by students who got ahold of teachers’ guns than the crimes it would prevent.
That’s totally unfair.
Unfair to whom? The girl who was shot? The families of the victims and shooter? The intended target (the teacher)? The 1st responders who had to address the aftermath of this monsters bizarre act? The witnesses to the shooting? The students and teachers who have to return to a place where some mentally ill monster tried to decided who should live and who should die?
Well golly gee, Pop, what should I say?
That it’s possible to feel compassion for someone without justifying or condoning his heinous acts?
That it’s possible to pity someone without feeling any less pity or sadness for his victim and her family?
That my heart breaks for Claire Davis and her family? That it also breaks for Karl Pierson and his?
That it’s possible to condemn disgusting and heartbreaking acts without losing sight of the fact that those acts were committed by a human being?
That Karl Pierson was a human being, a child, a terribly damaged person, and not a monster?
That people do horrible–even, dare I say, monstrous–things? That it’s in our nature? That dismissing Karl Pierson as inhuman absolves one of the responsibility to confront the nature of humanity in all its horrible complexity?
That words shape thought? That “doing monstrous things” != “monster?”
Why should I bother?
Is there anything, outside of his actions that day, that show he is a “terribly damaged person”? And when does one stop being a “child”?
As an aside, I don’t see how you can condemn someone for using the term monster, and then not seem to grasp how someone might condemn you for calling him “terribly damaged”. The words both you and doorhinge use to describe the shooter have implications and meanings.
It may be a whole other debate, but doesn’t a mentally ill person bear some responsibility for not seeking help? It’s not a quantum state with totally sane on one side and full goose looney on the other, it’s a continuum with the mentally ill person gradually losing sanity. Some time during the whole transformation from a bright, well adjusted individual to somebody who thought it was a good idea to shoot a 17 year old in the face with a shotgun did he talk to a counselor or physician or his parents or somebody who might have done some good? And if he didn’t, why didn’t he?
:shrug: I’m not sure there needs to be any other evidence beyond his actions. In my experience, well-adjusted and sane people do not shoot classmates for the fuck of it. YMMV.
“A young person,” then. Better?
Are you going to tell me a kid who walks into his school to wreak havoc, nearly kills a classmate, and kills himself is not damaged?
But no, you have a point. I don’t think I condemned doorhinge for his terminology, but I guess it could be seen that way if one squints.
And of course words have meanings. It is entirely likely that merely my repeatedly referring to Pierson as a human being instead of a monster will turn some people off. If you tell me you dismiss my posts out of hand because of the language I use, I’m not going to be butthurt about it.
.
Do you feel much compassion for George Zimmerman?
I think there’s some essential messaging conflict when you say, “The solution to fixing these shootings is to take better care of the mentally ill,” and then turn around and insist on referring to the shooter as a “monster.” When you say someone is a monster, that implies (to me, at least) that there’s nothing “fixable” about the person, and he’s going to end up doing something horrible regardless of what you do for him. If that’s the case, what’s the point of trying to treat him at all?
Quite a lot, since you ask.
Um, why do you ask, exactly?
IMO, after you shoot a girl in the face, mentally ill or not, the title of monster isn’t undeserved. Had he lived, treated or not, he should never see the light of day. But hey, the kid’s a liberal and this is a liberal board, so you all are doing backflips for him.
I find that kind of thinking to be incredibly simplistic and completely circular. People without mental illnesses do all kinds of incredibly evil things, and simply concluding that doing something evil = terribly damaged ignores the entirety of human history.
Much better than child. Good thing I didn’t jump down your throat over your word choice, right?
Everyone is damaged. Nobody’s life is perfect. But you called him “terribly damaged” and I have not seen a single thing to indicate he suffered from any mental illness, had any extremely traumatic event, or was anything other than a short-sighted, incredibly selfish person who should be condemned for taking dangerous, harm inducing actions.
If your problem with calling him a monster is about causing “butthurt”, I suggest the Pit might be better. My point was about the hypocrisy of railing on someone for using an emotionally charged word that carries implications like “monster”, while doing the exact same thing with words like “child” does nothing to support your view of the events.
Have you defended Zimmerman on this board?
The kid’s a liberal? Hadn’t heard that, so I guess I’ll ask for a cite.
ETA: Nevermind, it’s a diversion that serves no purpose, and I forgot to whom I was talking.
It’s already been cited.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16939067&postcount=64
The poster whose words you drew unfair conclusions from.