ON THE SUBJECT OF COLORADO AND THE "TRENCHCOAT MAFIA"

A SWIL chat list discussion... (page 2 of 2)

From: DR
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 21:15:33 -0400
Subject: [CHAT] guns, violence, and apple pie


The last article I read on guns and the murder rate in America (a longish article in _The New Republic_ a year or two back, I believe) cited a study that said the US has a murder rate roughly 4 times the rate of Western Europe and Japan (I think Finland and France had the highest murder rates after us, but they were a long way back). Checking which murders were done by gun, and by easily available guns, the study made the counterfactual guesstimate that if the US had Western European gun control laws - assuming that they were were fairly effectively enforced - we would have a murder rate roughly 2 times that of West Europe and Japan. Or: we're a violent, murderous country, and that won't end overnight, but tougher gun control laws would very probably save a significant number of lives.

On the other hand, though our private sector murders are pretty high, the Europeans and the Japanese have engaged in a lot of public sector murder in the last century, so maybe it evens out in the long run.

On the virtues of a well-armed militia: I respect the argument, but don't ultimately think it's as strong as the counter-arguments presented on this list.

On the second amendment: while I believe gun control is constitutional, I know that this is not an unconctested consensus opinion, and I think it's always iffy passing laws without democratic authority behind them - and the gun rights lobby is never going to believe that the second amendment is, ahem, flexible. Ideally we should amend the constitution - three quarters of the states, both houses of congress - to explicitly allow for gun control. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to pass gun control laws now; just that a constitutional amendment is an even better solution.


From: SE
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 22:33:45 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [CHAT] Constitutional amendments

In a previous incarnation of this thread, DR wrote:

> Ideally we should amend the constitution - three quarters of the
> states, both houses of congress - to explicitly allow for gun control.
> I'm not saying we shouldn't try to pass gun control laws now; just
> that a constitutional amendment is an even better solution.

I've been meaning to ask this for a while, but have been forgetting... D's comment above reminded me.

Does anyone know precisely how the constitutional amendment rules work? I sorta recall it being either 2/3 of both houses, or 3/4 of the states, can pass an amendment. However, I'm not sure of anything beyond that. For example, is it 3/4 of the state legislatures, or 3/4 of the states pass it by popular vote?

Why do I ask, you ask? I've been thinking for a long time that we need Congressional term limits. However, it is woefully obvious that Congress ain't likely to impose that on themselves, so it would have to be done by the people. The way to do that, as I see it, is to pass an amendment by 3/4 of the states. (Yes, a political issue I care enough about that I would actually consider trying to become an active campaigner for it. Don't ask about logistics yet, I haven't a clue. I'm still in the clueless optimism stage. :-)

We're quite welcome to debate the merits of Congressional term limits as well, if'n you like, but if anyone knows the deatils of how it works, I'd appreciate it if you could let me know. :-)


From: JHi
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 22:03:26 -0500
Subject: Re: [CHAT] Constitutional amendments

>Does anyone know precisely how the constitutional amendment rules work? I
>sorta recall it being either 2/3 of both houses, or 3/4 of the states, can
>pass an amendment. However, I'm not sure of anything beyond that. For
>example, is it 3/4 of the state legislatures, or 3/4 of the states pass it
>by popular vote?

Use the Web Luke...

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.


This comes from:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/art5.html

Actually in looking this up I came across something absolutely fascinating. I was sure that the following facts were true:

1) Out of the twelve original amendments proposed as part of the Bill of Rights, only 10 ever passed.

2) The last constitutional amendment was the 26th, lowering the voting age to 18.

It looks like I was wrong on both counts, although the matter is apparently disputed by some. Apparently at some point in the 80s, for whatever perverse reason, someone in the Texas legislature started campaigning for the following amendment, originally proposed along with the others in the Bill of Rights:

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Enough state legislatures passed it so that it passed the requisite 38 states in 1992, and so is listed as the 27th Amendment. The text and some notes are located at:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/amdt27.html (It's also refered to on the page about amending the Constitution, which is how I found it in the first place.)

My question is, did anyone here know about this? I'm surprised that I didn't hear about it when this was happening.


From: CG
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 23:04:22 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [CHAT] England and guns

one point about gun laws in the u.s. versus in western europe is that we currently have fairly relaxed gun laws and thus have a lot of guns in circulation among the population. just changing laws wouldn't change the current numbers of gun-owners, and it wouldn't change the attitude about private gun ownership which exists here, which seems to be very different from that in western europe. so (while i am definitely in favour of putting more restrictions on handguns), i'm guessing the immediate effect of such a move on the rate of crimes involving handguns would be pretty close to nil.

a response to someone's comment that guns appeal as part of the fantastic: i would feel unsafe owning a gun, but i have a (somewhat sharp) four-foot katana on my wall, and i know there are several other people on this list who own that sort of weaponry. i guess i consider that safe because it's not going to do anything on its own, and it's much harder to use a sword effectively than a gun. (i certainly wouldn't know how to do so.) but it is a weapon, and there are a lot of people i know who, like me, keep sharp-edged things around because they're nifty. and they're nifty *because* they're weapons, not just because they look pretty.


From: AF
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 00:29:06 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [CHAT] Constitutional amendments

> No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and
> Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of
> Representatives shall have intervened.
> My question is, did anyone here know about this? I'm surprised
> that I didn't hear about it when this was happening.

I knew that it was true for Presidents -- that is, that if a President proposes a change in the salary of the office of President, that change takes effect after the next election. I guess I just sort of assumed that it was true for everyone else. I mean, it makes sense. Otherwise Congress could just keep increasing their own salaries.


From: HB
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 01:27:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [CHAT] Constitutional amendments

On Thu, 22 Apr 1999, JHi wrote:
> My question is, did anyone here know about this? I'm surprised
> that I didn't hear about it when this was happening.

well, i was a freshman in high school at the time, and our school had gotten Channel One TV the year before (summary for folks who went to high school before the 90's: a daily television news show direct to classroom televisions; they give free TVs to schools who contract to show the news program, which contains lots of commercials, where they make their money; meanwhile the schools have TVs in every classroom for multimedia use the rest of the day. question for current frosh: is channel one still around?)

anyway, it was a big story for them, as much of their audience was taking american history or government classes, and they tried to cater their news to relevant topics. but as far as amendments go, this one was certainly slow to pass, and so dragged out that it probably didn't make any news headlines between 198x and 1992, and not many in '92 either. maybe each state covered it a bit when they voted, but nationally, there wasn't much to cover.


From: HW
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 03:02:17 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [CHAT] colorado goth stuff

On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, KT wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, JH wrote:
>
> > simplistic claim that RPGs *cause* violence. But I do think that the
> > culture of violence that kids are exposed to -- mostly on TV -- from a very
> > early age, especially when viewed without any sort of responsible
> > discussion or analysis, helps teach kids that violence is an acceptable
> > method of conflict resolution.
> Rational discussion beginning. I admit, I like to watch what my dad calls
> "rotgut"--stuff like the Die Hard movies, "guy" movies, action movies.

Between baby sitting and working in public schools I've seen a lot of children with very strange relationships to violence. I baby sit for a family who are very religious. The parents are sincere but ineffectual and television is right under Satan in terms of agents of evil. I wouldn't let the two boys (9 and 5) watch _Hocus Pocus_ partly because it was their bed time and partly because I wasn't sure how the parents would feel about portrayals of witches or the Disney company in addition to the rating of the movie. I explained that it wasn't a movie their parents would want them to watch and had things in it they were too young to see. (This is the type of language I have heard their parents use. I assumed it would be effective.) They fussed, I said no again, and took them upstairs. The older one snuck back downstairs to watch the movie. This indicates to me that all his parent's talk about "bad movies" and "too much violence" have been more titilating than effective. He's dying to see what they don't want him to because, as far as I can tell, they've failed to create any kind of emotional connection in him to violence so it's just exciting.

Other interesting moments have been watching children in relation to Titanic. Many (most?) children from age 5 and up have seen it. Those parents who haven't let their kids see it generally cite the sex scene and the nudity as the reason why. Personally, I'm more worried about the final hour and a half of people dying, drowning, being afraid. The children I have talked to were told by their parents that it was "just a movie" and "not real." Older children were interested in having "Titanic dresses" for Halloween or enjoying an emotional glut sob fest over the demise of Leonardo diCaprio. This presents really massive problems to me since the Titanic was of course very real, 1500 people died, and Leo really shouldn't rate that much by comparison.

The conclusions I've drawn have been some what mixed. I think I'm more worried about movies and television preventing children from developing the ability to empathize than anything else. Parents tend to either say children are too young to notice the language or the sex in movies or get annoyed if children are frightened by movies because they should know it's not real. Children _do_ notice the language and _should_ be frightened by portrayals of suffering or violence. I don't think violence on a screen is enough to make someone do something. I do think that failing to develop the ability to empathize, imagine suffering, connect violence to pain can lead to destructive behaviors and I see that as a negetive aspect of media like movies and television more than exposure to violence. (And no, I'm not refering to slapstick Roadrunner and Coyote kinds of violence. If people don't have empathy for the Coyote I don't think it's going to turn them into terrorists. Frankly, I have trouble dealing with slapstick violence, but I don't expect other people to feel the same nor do I think it's a realistic expectation.) But when children can see violence or suffering that upsets sensitive adults and find it funny, or even worse, aren't affected at all I think that's a sign that movies or television are desensitizing.

A teacher took a poll in her elementary school class during the Vietnam war. She read her children three different versions of Little Red Riding Hood and asked them to vote for the ending they liked best -- wolf takes all, woodcutter kills the wolf, or, one of the oldest version, the woodcutter chops opens the wolf, Red and granny jump out and they fill the wolf up with rocks and throw him in a river. The class liked the last choice best. This is hardly hard and fast scientific evidence. It was an upper middle class neighborhood and the children had educated parents who had been discussing the violence being shown on the news in their hearing. I don't know that I'm willing to go as far as the teacher did and draw the conclusions from her survey that 1) exposure to images of violence had made the children more bloodthirsty and 2) children have an inherent sense of eye for an eye justice. Just the same, I think it's interesting they preferred the most violent ending even though it was the one they were least likely to be familiar with.

I really don't know. Children are so complicated and parents right now are mostly incompetent. It could have so easily been some of my high school friends had they been just a little closer to the emotional edge.


If anyone hears about any memorial activities or legislative ones for that matter, would you let me know?

Ack, sorry this post is so long.


From: JT
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 04:05:41 -0400
Subject: Re: [CHAT] Constitutional amendments

JHi asked:
> My question is, did anyone here know about this? I'm surprised
>that I didn't hear about it when this was happening.

Oh, sure...the congressional pay-raise thing. I think I heard about it via word-of-mouth, though, as it never made a national buzz. I remember wondering why nobody seemed to notice or care, as though I'd come across a UFO on Parrish beach that everyone was calmly walking past.


From: CD
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 09:54:44 -0400
Subject: [CHAT] England, entropy, guns and freedoms

On Thu, Apr 22, 1999 at 01:22:57PM -0700, JH proclaimed:
>
> The British, who have no strong tradition of private gun ownership, are
> appalled by American attitudes toward guns. When a school shooting occurs
> (as I believe it did there a few months back), the populace generally views
> it as a reason to instate even stronger laws against gun ownership.

I see this as a kind of physical analogy. The concept of entropy basically says that once you give a system a new degree of freedom, it is very difficult to take it away. Concider a whole bunch of blue marbles and a whole lot of red marbles segregated into two sides of a box. Take the divider out and shake the box. It's very easy to mix the marbles (give them a new freedom). _Un_mixing the marbles, on the other hand, is very difficult and is not likely to happen through random shaking.

In my mind, this is directly analogous to society. Once a freedom is given (whether it be rite to bear arms, free speech, whatever) it is virtually impossible to revoke that right. Look at what happened with Prohibition? Societies tend towards maximum entropy as well.

Ignoring for a moment the various cultural differences, John Wayne, and Paul Revere, the british have never specifically had the right to bear arms so not having them is no big deal. It's a stable state (to belabor the point a bit).

So my point is that while strict gun control may be the only way to solve the problems that are becoming increasingly common in the world, it will probably be almost impossible to accomplish except through heavy government control.

This is an idea I've been tossing around for some time now and I'd love to hear commentary.


From: SE
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 11:03:06 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [CHAT] You want sick?

I'll give you sick. In the last couple of days, the following domains have been registered:

trenchcoat-mafia.com
trenchcoat-mafia.org
trenchcoat-mafia.net
trenchcoat.org [1]
trenchcoatgang.com
trenchcoatgangsters.com
trenchcoatmafia.com [2]
trenchcoatmafia.org
trenchcoatmafia.net
thetrenchcoatmafia.com [2]
trenchcoatmedia.com [3]
trenchcoatmob.com

I'm sure there are more... There are just the ones that came up in the search off of memepool... Except for the footnoted ones, there are no web pages at these domains yet...

[1] This one is really sick. Seems to be a site glorifying the whole thing...

[2] These seem to be preemptive squatting, as the message on these sites says that they registered these sites to prevent the sick and twisted sort of things that they knew would otherwise come. (And came anyway, as in [1] above...)

[3] Someone pointing out that just because he wears a trenchcoat and uses the internet doesn't mean he's a psychotic killer.


From: DR
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 13:21:39 -0400
Subject: [CHAT] constitutional amendments and the Brits


I had completely missed that last constitutional amendment, and I feel very embarassed about that. One ought to be au courant with the Constitution, seems to me.

Also: the Brits weren't always sweetness, peace, light, and order; they were pretty wild about, oh, the time they were colonizing America, and for a while before then. See medieval french chronicles, shudderingly disdainful of their barbarous northern neighbors.

Cultural theories of violence: a book called _Albion's Seed_ presents nicely the theories that different cultural heritages of the United States trace strongly to different regional heritages of Britain. In particular, according to this theory, violence is concentrated amongst the descendants of the Borderlanders between England and Scotland, who lived in a more-or-less perpetual state of war for centuries, before emigrating to Ulster and America - known in America as Scots-Irish, concentrated in the Appalachians, the South, and the West.


From: Megan Hallam
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 22:01:48 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [CHAT] letter of outrage in response to media "Goth" coverage

There's a wonderful letter at the following site addressed particularly to 20/20, calling for an apology for defamatory coverage of the "Goth subculture"

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/2703/


From: Megan Hallam
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 22:50:34 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [CHAT] letter of outrage in response to media "Goth" coverage

Well, I decided to submit my own letter to 20/20, and thought I'd include it here. So here goes...


--begin rant--

To whom it may concern at 20/20:


After reading your transcript of Wednesday, April 21, 1999: "The Goth Phenomenon," I am appalled at your flagrant disregard for journalistic integrity.

Your coverage of "gothic involvement" in the tragedy at Columbine High School has been nothing short of slanderous. And believe me, I'm not a Goth. Although, I do occasionally wear black and (horror of horrors) I'm rarely without my black trenchcoat.

Some of the statements made were technically fair, but when they're combined with comments like "It's what's known as the Gothic Movement, violent and black," "Gothic Movement has helped fuel a new kind of teenage gang - white suburban gangs built around a fascination with the grotesque and with death," and "There have been a series of violent episodes around the country linked to teenagers who call themselves Goths" I'm no longer willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not saying that these boys weren't involved in goth culture, or didn't think they were Goths. But regardless of possible involvement, any participation cannot be made a causal factor based on such scant information. Have you never heard "correlation is not causation?"

Are all NFL football players drug-abusing, date-raping animals? There have been several incidents of that nature, yet nobody has tried to make that assertion. But I forgot, sports stars are considered mainstream, and All-American, right? Above reproach, at least as a group? Just like the jocks who were targeted at Columbine. And you wonder why there's resentment toward them! Can't you see that this witchhunt (and believe me, that's what this seems to be) does nothing but perpetuate an ideology that isolates, and frustrates, and _angers_ a large portion of American society?

I'm sickened by what I've seen from much of the news media on this issue. It's all about hype, and fear mongering, and trite cliches based on little-to-no actual knowledge. What happened to in-depth research? What happened to looking for the deeper roots of the story? All you reported was the obvious. Scapegoats and warning signs -- so comforting, because they allow us to reinforce our belief that there's a clear enemy to guard against (in this case, anyone wearing dark clothing, or a trenchcoat).

There are people from all walks of life who, for whatever reasons, commit acts of apparently senseless violence. Sadly, some of them are children, and we have to wonder where we went wrong in raising them. But I refuse to believe that any single influence is to blame. And I refuse to equate the entirety of the "Goth Movement" (as you erroneously label it) with the two boys who committed this horrible crime. I just wish you were responsible enough to similarly refuse.

What happened in Colorado was a tragedy. But what's happening in the aftermath is perhaps even more tragic. There were many victims of the shootings at Columbine. I weep for them, and for their families. But the victimization should have ended with the people who died. It cheapens their deaths that it was only the beginning.


I join the Goth community (something I never thought I'd say) in requesting a formal, national, on-air apology for the comments made during your broadcast.

Sincerely,

Megan C. Hallam


[www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/~mhallam1]
For a responsible, rational discussion of what happened in Colorado and
what's happening as a result, see the above website.

--end rant--


From: CO
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 23:02:06 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [CHAT] letter of outrage in response to media "Goth" coverage

megan, that's a wonderful letter. Thanks.


From: BL
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 03:19:04 -0400
Subject: [CHAT] a little bit of everything


re: guns being singled out for banning while the other issues (culture, music, etc.) are merely maligned. guns are designed to caused injury and death. unless the music is played REALLY LOUD, there is no direct comparison.

re: media and rpgs "causing violence." I think most people have a bit of violence in them. some recoil from it, others don't. of those playing violent games and rpgs and such, i think for many it is a useful outlet -- blow off that uncomfortable and an unacceptable urge to do violence, now it's gone and i can resume my peaceful life. for others, the activity reinforces, normalizes, and rehearses the violence. i have no suggestions for how to distinguish the two groups. unfortunately, curtailing the games might prevent folks in the latter group from blowing away their classmates, but may also make those in the former group more likely to.

re: raising kids around violent images. we let our kids watch a lot of stuff that would be generally considered inappropriate for their age (and thus probably had the only two-year-old in the country who insisted on having buffy the vampire slayer on her birthday cake)(not to mention j dressing as buffy for halloween: "what are you, little girl?" "I'm a boy and i'm buffy!" "[complete blank stare.]") we also watch a huge amount of "Making of" material, discuss special effects, stunt folks, and fake blood. (the outtakes at the end of jackie chan movies are GREAT for this -- showing the instant concerned reactions of the "bad guys" whenever a stunt goes wrong.) we also develop our own amateur special effects every october. so j can at age 5 now figure out how most special effects are (or could be) done (he's great at recognizing computer graphics and blue screen effects), and suggested that we should have a vampire in our front yard, holding a child upside-down over a bucket so he could have a doggie bag. we also discuss plot devices, red shirts, the immortality of main characters, mood music, and the like. and then we discuss reality, bad guys, good guys, running away screaming whenever you're unsure if you're safe, and how nothing like the stuff on tv has ever happened to us, so it's really generally a nice, secure world.

re: preference for other, more medieval weapons. j's first day in preschool he hit it off with a boy dressed in camouflage. i laid out our ground rules, coversationally: "we don't let j play with gun toys at all, but any swords, bows&arrows, and that sort of thing is fine, since we figure the odds of him coming across a battle axe at a friend's house and getting hurt are pretty slim." (to which the teacher, listening in, responded, "oh, i'd never allow anything like that -- it could be sharp & dangerous!" the, bulb, unfortunately, hasn't gotten any brighter.) j and w also know a lot of rules pertaining to sword play -- no swordfighting with an unarmed person, which swords can hit the person vs. which can only hit the other sword, etc.

re: titanic. YES YES. i was hugely upset by the repeat business this movie had with teens. i went to it with a friend, figuring i'd heard it was re-watchable, so i could go again with s later. i thought it was an excellent movie that i could not bear to watch again for a very long time, because i don't want to experience that much fear and pain again any time soon (it also took me HOURS to warm up again -- i don't care if freezing to death is the gentlest death). the fact that teeniboppers saw it over and over just to see leo shows a stunning amount of emotional detachment from pain and suffering. very creepy.

re: other movies. we just saw the matrix last night. mostly fun, but s had to go and spoil my post-film mulling enjoyment of the eye candy by pointing out that classy as flapping trench coats are, enjoying seeing heavily armed people wearing them blowing away everyone in their path was not exactly currently sensitive. oops. we also just watched a bug's life and pleasantville. both really great (bug's life better).


From: Megan Hallam
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 17:27:37 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [CHAT] letter of outrage in response to media "Goth" coverage


On Sat, 24 Apr 1999, AH wrote:

> No offense, but do you really expect that this letter will have any
> effect, or that they will even finish reading this and the similar
> letters that they receive? It seems to be premised on the idea that
> 20/20 is interested in responsible, serious reporting. Journalists
> are storytellers, and these sorts of shows are mostly entertainment.
> The recent shooting must have been seen as an excellent opportunity to
> play to the fears of their white, middle-class audience, just like
> horror and suspense movies play to the fears of the audience. "What
> can be done about this Goth Menace?"

To be honest, I don't necessarily expect any immediate impact because of my letter. I know that things don't often work that way. But at the same time, 20/20 has a comment page up for the express purpose of gaining viewer opinion, which means that someone reads at least part of what is sent, otherwise it wouldn't typically be worth having (though yes, I'm aware that its mere presence is enough to convince most people that the show is listening, and they don't actually _have_ to listen, in the end...). Added to the fact that there's an active campaign to send letters of protest, there's every possibility that someone, somewhere, might start to see things a bit differently.

So no, I'm not naive enough to think that my one letter is going to change the face of television journalism. But I'm also not cynical enough to believe that there's no hope at all that such comments can make a difference. Programs cater to an audience, I accept that. But with that focus comes an attention to who the audience is, and what that audience wants. That's what ratings are for, and audience input (in the form of letters, responses to surveys, and the like) often have more impact than you might think. So I might as well put my hat in the ring, even though in the end it may make no difference. Because the only thing I'm positive of is that keeping silent will most certainly accomplish nothing.


From: MB
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 18:03:55 -0700
Subject: [CHAT] NPR on colorado

I was listening to All Things Considered and it was talking about Colorado.

I was really disturbed to learn that the diary they found states that the kids had been planning it for over a year.

Why does that make it more horrific for me?

Is it because before I felt, to a degree, that part of me could understand someone who couldn't take being an outcast anymore, even if their method of "snapping" was completely foreign and abhorrant to me? If it was over a year, this wasn't snapping.

They apparently observed the cafeteria for a long time to figure out when it was most crowded and chose that time for their attack.


They had the standard psych guy on talking on and on about how these kids distanced themselves, etc. etc. etc. and all I wanted to do was shake him and say "NO! The people you need to fix are the 'jocks' who were throwing rocks at these guys, and excluding them!" He claimed that these boys were hating anyone who wasn't just like them, and were lashing out. I wanted to say "No, you've got it backwards!"


But then I heard more details (I don't get a paper or watch the news, so I hadn't heard much of this) -- about how they targetted Christians, minorities, and the handicapped. ABout the kid with MS who they shot. Or the girl they walked up to in the library, asked if she loved Jesus, and when she said yes, gunned her down. And then one said "Hey, a nigger!" and they killed a black kid.


And my worldview swung again: I had pegged them as kids who couldn't deal with being different, who felt alienated, and were lashing out. It seems that was true, but also so much more going on -- and suddenly I didn't feel as much animosity towards the psych guy.

[although, again, he really showed his cluelessness when he was talking about their attitudes towards Hitler, and noted that they hated jocks, while Hitler wanted to create a race of athletic supermen. psych guy's comment? "This just goes to show how confused they were." NO -- this goes to show that, at least in part, the developed their attitude of hatred from the way others hated and treated them. But yet....am I telling me that they shot the black kid because he mistreated them? One of a handful of blacks in the school? I hate what they did, but part of me, the part that was not in the "in" crowd, and was abused by the jocks, wanted to see them as somewhat victims, to hear that part of the answer should be that we shouldn't just educate kids not to be violent, but to be more accepting of differences. But the more I hear..... argh. confusion.]


From: BL
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 00:32:21 -0400
Subject: [CHAT] co shooting

one more thought i'd meant to include. this all reminds me of something from a movie or tv show i saw sometime, which i'll badly paraphrase:

shooter: "i blame society [for my violent acts]"
victim: "well, since you're the one holding a gun right now, i blame YOU."

i don't care how persecuted these kids were or felt themselves to be. you just don't do that. you don't hit. you don't pick on someone even smaller/more outcast. you don't blame a random similar person for all the slights or insults you may have received from another member of their race/religion/extracurricular pursuits. and you don't walk into your school with enough explosives to destroy the place and shoot people. YOU JUST DON'T DO THAT.


PAGE 1 | PAGE 2

BACK HOME