Ship of Fools: Evan

Thread: Evan Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020018

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

This video has gone viral. It looks like a cute love story, but watch again.

This is mostly for American audiences. I would hope it generates a good discussion among youth and parents and other adults.

Reactions are welcomed.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

[disclaimer] I'm not American.

I didn't notice anything strange, either.

I'm conflicted over the message. I can see what they're getting at, but on the other hand, I suspect a lot of weird teenagers do and say weird stuff without it ever going anywhere. If everyone is 'looking out for the signs', these weird kids may end up getting even more persecuted than they already are (and they are). Just because everyone in set A engages in X behaviour, doesn't mean everyone who engages in X behaviour is in set A. (this last bit of bobbery here is an attempt to avoid spoilers).

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
Just because everyone in set A engages in X behaviour, doesn't mean everyone who engages in X behaviour is in set A.

So much this (see also: "radicalisation").

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Yep. The loner in the background, never interacting, making shooting signs etc.

But many kids are loners, especially those with ASD. They find social interactions somewhat overwhelming and use earphones and smartphones/tablets etc as a coping strategy. It's not weird, plenty of us are 'differently wired'.

There was little to spot about the kid (except the 'shooting' signs with his fingers)

The fact that the dangerous kids have access to guns is the real issue. Remove the guns and you could still have a psychopath on the rampage, but the damage they can do is far, far less.

[ 05. December 2016, 06:49: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

At 0.49, the loner is being bullied - someone knocks his headphones to the floor and looks as though they are speaking aggressively to him. Is there a suggestion that people should be more aware of bullying, too?

And what Boogie said; if the bullied loner didn't have access to guns, he could not take a gun to school.

Posted by Tobias (# 18613) on :

I thought that the mystery person adding to the inscriptions on the desk would turn out to be Tom Riddle.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I saw the odd pic as he was scrolling through his facebook feed (or whatever) on his tablet, but didn't see any of the others.

But then I'm thinking that I'm probably unlikely to notice a bunch of people writing on the desk either unless it was right in front of me. If the focus had been on the other kid rather than the one writing on the desk, I doubt we'd have noticed much about him.

To me this is a much deeper problem even than just the availability of guns - if someone really wants to commit mass murder, they're going to plan to do that in any way that they can. If they can't do it with guns, they'll do it with knives and if not knives something else.

Whilst gun control is important, the more important thing is to be focussing a bit more on why it is that in our societies these things happen so often.

On some level I think that must be related to the nihilistic nature of large parts of our culture; in the past kids took drugs to get away from the nonsense, today some seem to be wanting to get infamy by blowing themselves away in the most digusting way possible.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tobias:
I thought that the mystery person adding to the inscriptions on the desk would turn out to be Tom Riddle.

I also had that feeling of foreboding and was wondering whether this was going to be some kind of law enforcement effort to find the Zodiac killer.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

As posted above echoing anoesis, I think the thing that should be causing the most concern here is the idea that all potential mass murderers/terrorists/criminals can be accurately identified by extrapolating the characteristics of a given mass murderer/terrorist/criminal to everyone who resembles them - and potentially, locking all those people up as a precaution.

I find this far scarier than any individual mass murderer/terrorist/criminal.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Yes, especially as one of the characteristics appears to be "victim of bullies."

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Indeed. Just what those who find social integration that little bit harder than others need - to be labelled as potential multiple murderer.

Way to go.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Interesting story, from a couple of days ago: Utah parents showed up at school, just in time to take guns away from their son, who had just shot a hole in the classroom ceiling. It's not clear what, if anything, he'd planned. But the father had an odd conversation with the kid that morning, and the mother's intuition was firing up, and their guns were missing--so they played it safe and went to school to find their kid.

No one was injured.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I was also just contemplating something of a mismatch between the apparent reality of many of the school shootings (which appear to be mostly white boys) and the political language of our times - which seems to suggest that those to fear are people of colour.

We seem to have shooting incidents much less in Europe than in North America, but the pattern seems similar: I don't remember reading about an incident that wasn't involving a white boy.

I fear that these kinds of campaigns only stoke the fear of "the other", which almost always seems to end up being (perversely) fear of black and minority ethnic people.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
We seem to have shooting incidents much less in Europe than in North America

We don't just "seem to" have less, we do have less. The last school shooting in the UK was in 1996. I'm not aware of any school shootings in which children were killed in Europe since then.

[ 05. December 2016, 09:46: Message edited by: North East Quine ]

Posted by Jack the Lass (# 3415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
The last school shooting in the UK was in 1996. I'm not aware of any school shootings in which children were killed in Europe since then.

There have been a few, but they are very few and far between - wikipedia

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Correction - 1996 was the last primary school shooting in Europe. There have been seven secondary school shootings in Europe since then.

(cross posted with Jack the Lass)

[ 05. December 2016, 09:59: Message edited by: North East Quine ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
We don't just "seem to" have less, we do have less. The last school shooting in the UK was in 1996. I'm not aware of any school shootings in which children were killed in Europe since then.

There have been several recent school stabbings, including one in Aberdeen if I recall correctly. And the horrendous 2011 Brevik attacks seem to have a lot of similarities to various North American school shootings (albeit, of course, not actually in a school).

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
To me this is a much deeper problem even than just the availability of guns - if someone really wants to commit mass murder, they're going to plan to do that in any way that they can. If they can't do it with guns, they'll do it with knives and if not knives something else.

That's rubbish. Not that they'll try, but the implication that they'll have a reasonably similar chance of success.

It is surprisingly hard to kill someone with a knife. Using a knife means you have to get within arm's reach of the victim, so if they're running away you have to have to be fast enough to catch up. You have to stab them hard enough to get through their ribcage/skull, but not so hard that you break your blade (because if you do then you can't use it any more) - and that's assuming you brought a blade that's long enough to hit a vital organ in the first place. Furthermore, knife wounds are generally much cleaner and therefore much more survivable than gunshot wounds, so multiple stabs are needed to confirm the kill.

And that's just for one kill. The odds that everyone else will be standing meekly around waiting for you to finish so that you can attack them next are pretty slim.

Contrast to a gun, with which you can mow down a dozen people in one burst of automatic fire without having to get anywhere near them or expend any effort other than a tightening of your index finger.

I agree with you that guns aren't the reason why so many people try to commit mass murder. But they are the reason why so many succeed.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Yes, there was a fatal school stabbing in Aberdeen last year.

The video featured refers specifically to shootings, although I suppose it could apply to any school violence. One difference is that there are more potential victims if someone is armed with a gun.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

I agree with you that guns aren't the reason why so many people try to commit mass murder. But they are the reason why so many succeed.

There are at least two possible explanations for the number of massacres in the USA; you seem to be putting most weight on the availability of guns, my inclination is to believe that it is something more than that.

I would concede that the availability is likely a strong contributing factor but I'd also suggest that it is possible to cause a massacre with things other than guns. These are obviously not all from North America or Europe, but massacres have happened in schools with knives (one murderer in Japan killed 8), with bombs or explosives (Kenya, Bath School USA etc), flamethrower (Germany) and so on.

There would appear to be various ways to cause mass casualties in schools (and elsewhere) in Europe even without the gun availability of the USA. So why hasn't it happened as often (apparently) as in the USA? Is it simply about guns?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Think how many US films have as a central theme solving problems with a gun. It seems to be woven deep into the psyche. I think it's what they call the Myth of Redemptive Violence.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There would appear to be various ways to cause mass casualties in schools (and elsewhere) in Europe even without the gun availability of the USA. So why hasn't it happened as often (apparently) as in the USA? Is it simply about guns?

I agree with what Karl said. But also, you're still looking at the numbers of people who have succeeded rather than those who have tried. And we don't know how many potential mass murderers in Europe have decided it's just too difficult and given up.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I'm wondering just what the school in the film is supposed to be doing about the odd one out. Report him to some sort of safeguarding member of staff? Or treat him with more respect, earlier, much earlier? Be excellent to each other, dudes?

My friend had a believed to be close friend who was an avid reader of 'Guns and Ammo'. He has become a 'born again' Christian of some sort which has resulted in his cutting off contact with his family and friends completely, moving to a different part of the country. No guns, though. Should he have been reported to the PTB?

[ 05. December 2016, 14:08: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There would appear to be various ways to cause mass casualties in schools (and elsewhere) in Europe even without the gun availability of the USA. So why hasn't it happened as often (apparently) as in the USA? Is it simply about guns?
I agree with what Karl said. But also, you're still looking at the numbers of people who have succeeded rather than those who have tried. And we don't know how many potential mass murderers in Europe have decided it's just too difficult and given up.

Or not looked into other ways as they don't look 'cool'?

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

The first time I saw Evan going through his Instagram pictures I noticed the kid with the gun but he just went past it---like he knew the kid was just doing his thing.

Fortunately, many times when kids begin posting such pictures someone will likely report them but a few do get through.

I do wonder how youth will react when they see this video. Will they mention they know of kids like this? What do they do about such individuals?

I think it is not so much about assuming all kids who are loners are dangerous (I was a loner--still am in many ways). But I do think it does suggest the faculty and staff should pay extra attention to such people to see if they are all right.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

quote:
I do wonder how youth will react when they see this video.

I ran it past my son, and his first thought was that it was made by the NRA, because it suggests that the loner is the problem, rather than the loner having access to a gun being the problem.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

As has been pointed out be some European posters, there have been similar instances in Europe, not necessarily with guns.

However, I would suggest that the loner is not the problem, but rather ignoring the loner is the problem.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

There are some response videos from young people which do not seem all that impressed.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Though some of the comments are from people claiming a) Sandy Hook didn't happen, and/or b) It's a conspiracy by people who want gun control.

b) is probably true in some sense, but the commentors see that as a very bad thing. It's nothing to do with guns, guys.

Posted by Mili (# 3254) on :

I didn't really get the point of the video until reading why it was made. Apparently it is supposed to help teens and make them less afraid by empowering them to look out for signs someone in their school might be at risk of killing others with a gun. Doesn't this just put the onus on possible victims rather than on adults in the school or parents or potential shooters themselves who might not realise there is help out there?

I have read of cases where school shootings were stopped by other children letting adults know that someone was planning on bringing a weapon to school or had told them about a plot they were making. But in these cases the children were friends of the plotter or at least acquaintances that the potential murderer felt comfortable talking to. It's unlikely kids from other social groups would have enough information to know if someone was plotting mass murder.

Even in Australia,where guns are not such a big part of the culture, there are children obsessed with violence and guns, but most of them never commit violent crimes. If they do, they are more likely to join a gang or bikie gang etc, rather than become a lone shooter. So it's not always easy to spot the difference between a potential violent criminal and a child who just likes guns or is going through stuff in their life that draws them to violent imagery and stories.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Mili:
Apparently it is supposed to help teens and make them less afraid by empowering them to look out for signs someone in their school might be at risk of killing others with a gun.

Make them less afraid, huh?

Do you know how many boys in my high school were loners fascinated by guns?

I'd guess about 20%.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

What I find disturbing about that video is something quite different. Underlying it is an unspoken assumption that it is somehow the decent, normal youngsters that are guilty because they haven't spotted the signs that among them is murderous psychopath. There doesn't seem to be any sense that the murderous psychopath might have any responsibility for his own actions, might be expected to control himself. He's treated as having no more agency than a dangerous hazard, something like a rabid dog, a rattlesnake or the San Andreas Fault.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Do you know how many boys in my high school were loners fascinated by guns?

I'd guess about 20%.

....and I assume there wasn't a shooting at your school.

So here is the thing, take that 20% over the whole school population of the US and then throw in the lottery ball factor an actual shooter appearing out of that number. That gives the problem with which America is burdened. A far greater probability rating than any other developed Country so that one shooter incubates another and another and so on and so on.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Going backwards in the movie. As Evan walks to the library, two bullies rough up the loner.

That happened once when I was walking down the hall and big kid--one of the tackles on our football team, actually, tried to rough up a smaller kid. I intervened and practically got beat up for it if a janitor had not also intervened.

Then there is the girl who tried to talk to the loner, but he just shut her down, by putting on his headphones. She walked away. She should have mentioned it to a staff member.

Then there is the time Evan is making contact with a girl beside him while the loner is pantomiming shooting a gun at the back of a teacher. There is no indication no one saw that action.

When Evan looks through his Instagram pictures and he sees the loner pointing a gun at him through the camera. This is definitely a warning sign.

And while Evan is writing on the library desk we find the loner openly viewing a violent video on a library computer. Now, if somone had seen this, it should have been reported.

Does it empower youth? It certainly tells them to be aware of their surroundings and do something about it if something--or someone--appears a little off.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

I dated that guy, the loner who was obsessed with guns and somewhat angry. He grew up, got a scholarship to a bible college, and as far as I know is having a perfectly good life. He certainly didn't become a mass murderer.

Americans certainly are eager to find any solution to gun violence besides the obvious aren't we.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

There would appear to be various ways to cause mass casualties in schools (and elsewhere) in Europe even without the gun availability of the USA. So why hasn't it happened as often (apparently) as in the USA? Is it simply about guns?

Guns are cool. Guns are powerful. Video game characters wield guns and blow away bad guys. Movie heroes wield guns and blow away bad guys. Guns are personal, without requiring skill or risk on the part of the attacker when faced with unarmed prey.

Yes, you can build a bomb and kill a lot of people - but you can't stare them in the face while you're doing it. You can drive a truck into a crowd of people, but there's no sense of power - of deciding whether an individual lives of dies.

There is something about guns that's different from just wanting an efficient way of making dead people.

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:

Then there is the girl who tried to talk to the loner, but he just shut her down, by putting on his headphones. She walked away. She should have mentioned it to a staff member.

"Please, Mrs. Smith, Johnny ignored me." Maybe Johnny wants some quiet time. (Imagine that - quiet time in a library?!). Maybe Johnny just wants you to sod off and leave him alone. The last thing I want when I'm trying to concentrate on something (not, I would have thought, an uncommon activity in a library) is someone trying to strike up a conversation with me.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Originally posted by Gramps49:

quote:
Then there is the girl who tried to talk to the loner, but he just shut her down, by putting on his headphones. She walked away. She should have mentioned it to a staff member.

Given that most (all?) shooters are male, is it just boys who rebuff girls who should be mentioned to staff members, or are girls who rebuff approaches made by boys to be "mentioned to staff" too?

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

I'm so old I thought this was going to be like the Coronet Instructional Films I watched in school. This one would have been all about why we shouldn't damage school property.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

If someone is using the school's internet connection to access gun related material, that shouldn't happen, in the first place, but, if they have found a work round, it should be flagged up wherever IT maintenance is based so that a) it is stopped, and b) the log on of the user is identified and they are investigated. But I would be surprised if that isn't being done anyway. Though possibly not in Texas - one comment under a reaction posting was about a school enforcing open carry on campus. (Not sure if that meant that all students had to do it!)

[ 06. December 2016, 13:34: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

What's wrong with accessing information on guns from school?

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

It does not seem practical to flag or prohibit all web searches relating to guns in a high school. I can imagine the debate team researching something like "Why the south lost the Civil War" and finding material about cannon factories and homemade gunpowder and Minie balls.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Whilst gun control is important, the more important thing is to be focussing a bit more on why it is that in our societies these things happen so often.

On some level I think that must be related to the nihilistic nature of large parts of our culture

Precisely.

The modern era of indiscriminate mass shootings by disaffected loners began fifty years ago this year with the murder of 18 victims at Texas University.

However, guns have always been freely available in the US.

Semi-automatics are now more prevalent than in the past, but ex-WWII Garrand semi-automatics were around for twenty years before 1966, and anyway, anyone with a bolt-action, some spare full magazines and a bit of practice could shoot an awful lot of people without needing a semi-automatic.

Even in the UK it was possible in the first half of the twentieth century to buy pistols over the counter.

Here in Australia, too, it was far easier to acquire firearms long before the notorious massacres of the late twentieth century (such as Hoddle Street, in which my brother-in-law's brother was killed).

Gun control is now necessary, but it was not availability of guns, but deeper cultural factors, which kicked off the whole phenomenon.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What's wrong with accessing information on guns from school?

I know a school class that built crossbows as a school project. Including blacksmithing, IIRC.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

OK, but I was thinking about the Guns and Ammo types of sites, and people selling the things. And that looked like the sort of the site the boy was accessing, not historical weaponry.

There should, I feel, be controls on accessing sites such as those used by Anders Breivik, and the jihadists. That isn't what school IT is for, is it?

If it should happen that a project should be studying a topic that might need access to otherwise dubious sites, presumably that could be arranged for particular students.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Gramps--

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Then there is the girl who tried to talk to the loner, but he just shut her down, by putting on his headphones. She walked away. She should have mentioned it to a staff member.

Then there is the time Evan is making contact with a girl beside him while the loner is pantomiming shooting a gun at the back of a teacher. There is no indication no one saw that action.

When Evan looks through his Instagram pictures and he sees the loner pointing a gun at him through the camera. This is definitely a warning sign.

And while Evan is writing on the library desk we find the loner openly viewing a violent video on a library computer. Now, if somone had seen this, it should have been reported.

Does it empower youth? It certainly tells them to be aware of their surroundings and do something about it if something--or someone--appears a little off.

I haven't watched the film, because it would be too painful.

But, based on what you said, Gramps, I have some questions:

--The girl is supposed to report the boy for putting on headphones and not listening to her? Wow. What if he simply doesn't like her, or he's thinking about homework, or just needs some peace, or she wants to date him but he's not interested?

--Pantomiming shooting a gun at a teacher? That *could* be a sign of a problem. It could also be a kid blowing off steam in a rather stupid way.

--Pointing a gun through a camera on Instagram? Is this a real gun, or a pantomimed one? If it's real, then yes, likely a warning sign. If pantomimed, then see above.

--Violent video? I don't know what it was like, but watching one doesn't necessarily mean the viewer is thinking seriously of doing something. If it's about some guy, beaten down by life, going around to solve things with fire power, and he's watching it obsessively, that might well be a warning sign. But not *necessarily*, IMHO.

--Watching for someone who's "a little off"??? An awful lot of kids are a little off, in some way, at some time. Especially in high school. Maybe they simply don't fit, socially. Maybe they're in a disrepected school social caste. Or they're very smart/or not. Maybe they're depressed, lost, hormonal, etc. Maybe it's the other kids who are a problem. Maybe the school should find a good way to deal with bullying, and use it.

The "Dead Zone" had a good episode called "Cycle of Violence", wherein Johnny, a real psychic, sensed a kid was going to do violence at school--but he didn't know which kid, and had to figure it out. Very difficult to do, with grave consequences all around if he chose the wrong kid. Thought provoking.

I know it's important to get kids help before they resort to violence...but there's high danger of targeting a kid who isn't going to act out that way.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Interesting story, from a couple of days ago: Utah parents showed up at school, just in time to take guns away from their son, who had just shot a hole in the classroom ceiling. It's not clear what, if anything, he'd planned. But the father had an odd conversation with the kid that morning, and the mother's intuition was firing up, and their guns were missing--so they played it safe and went to school to find their kid.

No one was injured.

Golden Key, what happened next? Here the law states that guns have to be kept in a locked gun safe, orotherwise secured. The fact that the son could access guns would be proof here that the parents had broken the law. At a minimum they would have their licence revoked, have to forfeit their guns, and be banned from owning guns in the future. They could also end up with a criminal conviction. If either parent had a job which would be affected by a criminal conviction, the ramifications could be extensive. It would, I think, prevent either parent from getting a PVG certificate (protection of vulnerable groups).PVG certification is needed for eg church youth work, involvement in youth organisations etc. If there were younger children in the home, then there would be social services involvement.

Basically if that happened here, the parents could be facing a perfect storm of consequences involving their family, their careers and their social standing.

Not to mention that the boy himself would be at a minimum suspended from school, but more probably expelled and would end up before a children's panel.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

NEQ--

Haven't had a chance to follow up on the story. But you could do a search on something like "Utah school gun parents ceiling"--and let us know.

I suspect most of the other things you mentioned wouldn't apply. But I know nothing of Utah's gun laws.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

NEQ, much the same here except that you have to go through a pretty rigorous process in the first instance to obtain a licence to have a gun of any sort.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I haven't watched the film, because it would be too painful.

I understand, but it is a bit difficult to engage with what you are saying if you haven't seen the thing we're discussing.

quote:
But, based on what you said, Gramps, I have some questions:

--The girl is supposed to report the boy for putting on headphones and not listening to her? Wow. What if he simply doesn't like her, or he's thinking about homework, or just needs some peace, or she wants to date him but he's not interested?

--Pantomiming shooting a gun at a teacher? That *could* be a sign of a problem. It could also be a kid blowing off steam in a rather stupid way.

--Pointing a gun through a camera on Instagram? Is this a real gun, or a pantomimed one? If it's real, then yes, likely a warning sign. If pantomimed, then see above.

I don't know, I think the video isn't saying so much "if you see any of these things maybe there is a problem you need to do something about" as much as "there was a massacre, there were signs but nobody noticed". Personally, I didn't think anything was totally beyond the pail and probably wouldn't have reported any of these things in isolation. Sure the boy was doing some pretty daft things, but I've seen worse standing on the bus stop.

I suppose it becomes more of a tangible threat taken together, but even then I wonder whether anyone was really in a position to notice all of these things (and, let's be honest, this video isn't intended to be analysed deeply, it is simply making a point).

quote:
--Violent video? I don't know what it was like, but watching one doesn't necessarily mean the viewer is thinking seriously of doing something. If it's about some guy, beaten down by life, going around to solve things with fire power, and he's watching it obsessively, that might well be a warning sign. But not *necessarily*, IMHO.

It's a split second, we can't really tell what the video is that he was watching, it was just something on his youtube. Is it really more violent than Bourne or more explosive than Mythbusters? Who knows.

quote:
--Watching for someone who's "a little off"??? An awful lot of kids are a little off, in some way, at some time. Especially in high school. Maybe they simply don't fit, socially. Maybe they're in a disrepected school social caste. Or they're very smart/or not. Maybe they're depressed, lost, hormonal, etc. Maybe it's the other kids who are a problem. Maybe the school should find a good way to deal with bullying, and use it.

The "Dead Zone" had a good episode called "Cycle of Violence", wherein Johnny, a real psychic, sensed a kid was going to do violence at school--but he didn't know which kid, and had to figure it out. Very difficult to do, with grave consequences all around if he chose the wrong kid. Thought provoking.

I know it's important to get kids help before they resort to violence...but there's high danger of targeting a kid who isn't going to act out that way.

I suppose it depends what the upshod is of "someone noticing". I don't know what is supposed to happen, but I assume that there is some kind of escalator of action - so the kid doesn't suddenly find himself facing a crash squad of armed police because he's been watching mythbusters and jokingly pointed his finger at a teacher.

I agree that on the one hand there is a danger of kids being snitches on each other and causing totally unnecessary over-reaction. On the other hand, I suppose a general maybe we should be noticing a bit more what is going on around us isn't a totally unwelcome reminder.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy
I agree that on the one hand there is a danger of kids being snitches on each other and causing totally unnecessary over-reaction.

I think teenage social pressures against snitching make this a very unlikely scenario.

There was a school shooting in the US about fifteen years ago. The shooter's fellow students had voted him 'most likely to start World War 3'. Apparently the adults were not aware of this.

Even if the students are willing to report their concerns, the authorities may brush them off.

Moo

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by PennyS:
OK, but I was thinking about the Guns and Ammo types of sites, and people selling the things. And that looked like the sort of the site the boy was accessing, not historical weaponry.

Guns are legal. Hunting is common. No reason a school would ban a kid from looking at web sites on guns and ammo. My school library had subscriptions to gun magazines. Got to get Billy Joe and Bobbie Ray interested in reading somehow.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

They aren't legal everywhere. Hunting with them is extremely uncommon among the sort of children in the sort of school shown.

And I can think of better magazines to subscribe to than gun ones. Science ones, for instance.

We aren't speaking a common language, are we? Over here that stuff would not be commonly accessible on school networks. And we don't even have the problem.

[ 07. December 2016, 19:48: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Why would you say kids at that school don't hunt? Preps and nerds hunt. Where I went to school, most boys and some of the girls went deer hunting. After graduation, I used to go hunting with my former drama teacher. Kids in that video looked like kids in any typical American school.

Billy Joe and Bobbie Ray ain't fixin to read no science magazine. We know this because the library had science magazines as well. I read all the political mags.

No...we aren't speaking a common language.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

The Instagram photo Evan saw, the loner was definitely holding a rather large caliber gun.

The video he was watching was more than a gun advertisement.

No, the girl probably would not report him if it is the only instance of him acting distant, but it is the accumulation of the whole that makes this a red flag.

The loner is exhibiting the same mannerisms of the kids who shot up Colombine Hight School.

[ 07. December 2016, 22:28: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
The loner is exhibiting the same mannerisms of the kids who shot up Colombine Hight School.

But it is dangerous to work backwards from the known symptoms of one person acting out to assume that all people displaying those symptoms may end up acting out in the same way (or that nobody who doesn't will).

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

Considering the Sandy Hook shooter it would end up being open season on Autistic or just awkward kids. Just what we need more of.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Guns are legal.

And there is the problem in three words.

Until it's illegal to own guns without strict, enforced controls all the hand wringing about 'loners' and kids who may pose a risk is a pointless diversion from the real problem.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Gramps--

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
No, the girl probably would not report him if it is the only instance of him acting distant, but it is the accumulation of the whole that makes this a red flag.

Maybe you went to a different sort of school than I did or that I've heard of.

But:

--The kid wouldn't necessarily be dangerous, even if he ignored everyone all the way through high school. High school (HS) is an extremely difficult, awkward, depressing, confusing time for most kids.

It sure was for me, partly due to the death of someone close to me. I was suicidal for a while, though I didn't actually try until years later. I was also bullied. And there was family stuff going on. But I wasn't remotely a danger to anyone else.

Kids act out, try all kinds of things. Sometimes, it's all they can do to just show up at school. Kids sometimes find a niche: jock, sosh (socialite), egghead, everyone else. But some kids are labeled as not fitting in *any* category, which is bad for them. Sometimes, kids who don't fit find a home in the drama department or music. FYI: A lot of famous people didn't fit in. (Not that we should all seek to be famous.)

--If the girl reported the boy for simply being distant, she'd trigger trouble for him, herself, or both--even if they both are completely innocent.

Reporting could be done as bullying or a cruel prank, against a kid who'd never hurt anybody.

ETA: Have you seen "The Breakfast Club"? Might explain some things for you. Or read Louise Fitzhugh's "Harriet The Spy".

[ 08. December 2016, 07:19: Message edited by: Golden Key ]

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Golden Key:

quote:
Reporting could be done as bullying or a cruel prank, against a kid who'd never hurt anybody.

Oh yes. I've seen it at primary level. The bullying girls who put in complaints against their victims in the secret reporting for counselling scheme - saying 'If you report us, we'll report you'. Fortunately observed on one occasion by me and reported to the counsellors.

And there was the Sikh boy who went round calling other children names of the four eyes, carrots variety until one called him something racist, at which he reported them, knowing full well that this resulted in a permanent record of them as racist. Most of the children thought of the racist names as equivalent to fatty, and the other traditional insults.

The possible outcomes of malicious reporting of outsiders already victims of bullying as threats don't bear thinking of.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Until it's illegal to own guns without strict, enforced controls all the hand wringing about 'loners' and kids who may pose a risk is a pointless diversion from the real problem.

Indeed it is sadly clear to most, outside of the world's most powerful country, that having gun ownership regarded as a legitimate imperative by a significant proportion of the population is a recipe for gun death.
It is no conincidence that the three males responsible for the UK's, (so far), three seperate major shooting massacres were all legitimate, licensed and bonifide gun owners.

But, as has already been said, in the absence of obtaining the obvious solution Americans can but try to find other ways of preventing these tragedies.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Gramps49:
The Instagram photo Evan saw, the loner was definitely holding a rather large caliber gun

The gun was a revolver. Revolvers aren't typically used in school shootings. As to large caliber, I couldn't get a clear look at the barrel but nothing larger than a .357.

quote:
originally posted by Gramps49:
The video he was watching was more than a gun advertisement.

It was a man holding a rifle. Perhaps, the boy in question was interested in a military career. Recruiters are common on high school campuses.

quote:
originally posted by Gramps49:
The loner is exhibiting the same mannerisms of the kids who shot up Colombine Hight School.

And thousands of other kids who go on to graduate and go on to live mundane lives without ever committing a crime.

quote:
originally posted by Boogie:
And there is the problem in three words.

Until it's illegal to own guns without strict, enforced controls all the hand wringing about 'loners' and kids who may pose a risk is a pointless diversion from the real problem.

We do need to improve to access and quality of mental health. However, expecting other kids to snitch on their classmates isn't the way to go about it. After all, the Sandy Hook killer wasn't a student.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

So, here we have a loner who likes to read Guns and Ammo Magazine, blows off a girl who approaches him in a friendly way, bets bullied in the hall, watches someone shooting an automatic rifle, eats alone in the cafeteria, pantomimes shooting a teacher in the back, and posts a picture of him pointing a gun at a mirror--and people still to not see the connections?

When I first watched the video, the social media picture of the loner pointing a gun sent a chill up my back--and it is a large caliber gun, unhostered.

Looking at the video a fifth time, there was at least one adult who saw him watching the video--in a school library--of him watching the video.

I think, because of Columbine, teachers are being more aware of such warning signs, but just being aware of signs does not make it all fool proof.

However, I doubt most schools would allow a Guns and Ammo Magazine subscription in the library, and most school computers would also block a video of someone shooting an automatic weapon.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Gramps--

It isn't that we don't see possible connections. It's that they're *possible* connections. As I and others pointed out, following up the way you suggest would most likely hurt a kid who had no intention of violence, and may not be more troubled than most teens--and maybe not troubled at all.

And, honestly, I'm downright boggled by the idea that a high school kid's quietly rebuffing someone is a warning flag of violence at all, let alone needing immediate reporting.

I hate to ask this--and you don't have to answer it--but has it been your personal experience that high school social life is that simple???

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

First of all, I have a big problem with leaving the responsibility of identifying potentially homicidal teenage kids with other teenage kids. It is so not their job. Not one bit. I'm assuming this video is aimed at adults.

Second, maybe we have the message all backwards. We spend the first half of the film focusing on the pretty, promising kids because that's what we want to do. It is not so much that we missed the specific things the young gunslinger was doing, is that he was pretty much invisible to us. THAT is the problem-- that anyone should feel so invisible in the micro- community that is his school that he doesn't even bother to close the window on hus browser when people walk by.

[ 12. December 2016, 02:04: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Gramps--

It isn't that we don't see possible connections. It's that they're *possible* connections. As I and others pointed out, following up the way you suggest would most likely hurt a kid who had no intention of violence, and may not be more troubled than most teens--and maybe not troubled at all.

And, honestly, I'm downright boggled by the idea that a high school kid's quietly rebuffing someone is a warning flag of violence at all, let alone needing immediate reporting.

I hate to ask this--and you don't have to answer it--but has it been your personal experience that high school social life is that simple???

For all we know, the girl who approaches him is one of the female relational bullies, and has been known to flirt with and then publicly dump boys to much mirth among her group, and putting his headphones on to block her out is a very sensible reaction.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0