School Shootings

[CyberWar]

NOTE TO POLITICIANS AND JOURNALISTS LOOKING FOR A MATERIAL TO MAKE ANOTHER SCANDAL ON VIOLENT ANARCHIST WEBSITES, AND TO STUPID RETARDED IDIOTS WHO MAY VISIT THIS THREAD IN SEARCH FOR INSPIRATION - THIS IS INFORMATION IS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY WITH THE GOAL OF INCREASING AWARENESS OF THE THREATS TO PUBLIC SAFETY.

As we all know, a few days ago one took place in Finland, which came as a surprise, since this country has one of the lowest violent crime rates in the world. Typical perpetrators are usually described as alienated youths taking revenge against society. But is that really the case?

A term copycat effect has been created to describe murders that reenact other, widely publicized murders. An American forensic psychologist proposed a theory that all school shootings in the Western world have their origin in one single incident during the 1970's, arguably the first school shooting. This is an interesting idea, since most school killing sprees indeed appear to immitate this one incident to at least some extent.

I did a little research on this subject and came up with the following conclusions:

most of the perpetrators attempted suicide after the spree (with mixed success)

all of them would excuse their actions with alienation and hatred for society

most of them failed to kill a significant number of people

most of them were reported to take interest in similar cases of school killings

This leads me to think that they somehow deliberately or subconsciously chose to immitate previously commited crimes rather than think up an original plan of their own.

A typical scenario: the killer arrives at the location and locates a random place to start with, usually a group of people. He/she hastily opens fire, usually without properly aiming (the case in Finland seems to be an exception), killing and injuring the majority of the victim toll. After that, the killer moves on, firing at random targets, who are now alert of the attack and take proper steps to avoid the attacker. The spree continues until the police arrives, ending with a suicide after a brief standoff.

Contrary to media reports of well-planned attacks, this seems a rather sloppy, impulsive planning to me. A properly prepared attack would lead to much greater death tolls than is usual, for example, if the attack took place during a school sports event or a graduation ceremony. Detonating a pipebomb in a crowded sports hall could have devastating consequences, both from blast and fragmentation, and the resulting crowd rushing to the exits, which could be even better a target for small arms fire or additional pipebomb attacks.

Those of you who attend schools in US are probably familiar with the invader drill. Some procedures seem rather ridiculous and would actually help a rationally-minded killer to increase the body count - for example, the practice of locking and silently hiding in the classrooms instead of immediately using random exits like windows (many US schools are one-story buildings to ease evacuation in case of a disaster). Imagine yourself as the maniac, armed to teeth and walking around the site looking for easy prey. You would probably check the doors of classrooms that look suspicious. Finding them locked when they shouldn't be is obviously going to get your attention. And, although these doors tend to be well-crafted, they still are no obstacle to a properly equipped maniac bent on killing everyone inside - a hand grenade/pipebomb applied to the lock should do the trick. Most of the youths involved in these killings were both informed and stocked to make pipebombs, which some of them indeed did (not that they did a sloppy job making them).

Similarly weird seems the cattlish mentality of the victims, who could have easily swarmed and overpowered the attackers in the early stage by sustaining little to no casualties. Instead, they chose to be slaughtered like cattle, screaming for mercy. Obviously, the killer is going to take advantage of this unfortunately natural aspect of human behaviour. The crowd's tendency to rush away from a threatening individual instead of attempting to neutralize it makes it an excellent target.

So, a perfect school killing would:

take place in a confined space with limited exit possibilities during a mass event (like a grad party)

involve a pre-planned use of strategically-placed explosives (for example, leaving a backpack full of explosives at one's seat in the middle of the hall while excusing oneself to bathroom with the intent of obtaining weapons hidden in a location outside)

involve ACCURATE use of firearms and additional explosives on the fleeing masses

would require a thorough, methodic search & destroy sweep for survivors

could possibly involve arson to hamper rescue attempts and/or increase the damage

if suicide is a must, then explosive belt would be the best solution for additional damage


Currently known preventive mesures are only moderately effective. "Profiling" the potential offenders is ineffectual, since these crimes have often been perpetrated by youths without previous history of violence and/or alienation. Besides, the humiliation of being "profiled" can very well add an incentive to commit violence to an otherwise harmless kid. Neither are zero-tolerance policies effective, as they usually end up degrading into zero-sense policies (for example, an 8-year-old being busted after aiming a chicken drumstick at a classmate).

Your thoughts on this?

ONCE AGAIN, FOR STUPID IDIOTS THAT DID NOT READ THE DISCLAIMER AT THE BEGINNING - THIS THREAD IS AIMED AT THE DISCUSSION OF EXISTING SCHOOL SECURITY MEASURES AND POSSIBILITIES OF IMPROVING THEM, NOT INSPIRING SOME RETARD TO ENACT THE PLAN PROPOSED HERE AS AN EXAMPLE.

[crazy white guy]

I think that having a member of staff equipped and trained to stop the intruder would be the best option. A trained adult with a pistol would be equal or greater than a suicidal teen with a shot gun and an assault rifle. My school has whats called a safe schools coordinator which is basically a truancy officer. He has a walkie-talkie and a whistle. If he had a gun safe in his office, It would take less than a minute for him to get from anywhere on school grounds to the security office where he would have a pistol safely stashed in a small desk safe.

[jrly]

My school has a "school liason officer" who is pretty much a cop for the school and she has a gun. There are also hall monitors that wander around with walkie-talkies to make sure that kids aren't just wandering the halls. A couple years ago my school had a scare because "all whites rednecks will die" written on a bathroom stall. Know you have to understand that my school is 25% native american students and the rest are white with about half of them being rednecks. The administration wasn't going to do anything about it but then a couple girls heard someone on their bus saying that the person was bringing a gun to school so we had a lockdown. Which meant that everyone was locked in their classrooms with the windows on the doors blacked out. We basically just sat there for about five hours doing nothing while the school was searched and a SWAT team, with assault rifles, was brought in to search the students. Nothing happened, but it would have been pretty easy for someone to come into a room with just a handgun and kill and injury quite a few students maybe even everyone if the person had extra ammo. Just goes to show how shitty the planning is.

[Bahr]

At the collage im going to, on the back of your student ID you have a list of instructions about what to do if someone comes in and starts shooting. And it pretty much says hide, and if the shooter finds you stick your head between your legs and kiss your ass good-bye. But one of my cooler instructers said that if he runs out the room and out the school either we follow and have a chance or stay and probly get shot at. I asked him that if a shooter did come and I had a gun with me would it be I'iet if I shot back and he said sure just make sure when the cops get there let them know that your not the initial shooter.

[CyberWar]

Lockdown? Gee, I used to study for half a year in US when I was 13, the school seemed more of a prison than anything else.

The procedure sounds just as ridiculous as I described initially. As I said, if I was a maniac seriously determined to kill somebody, I would stock myself well for that.

Imagine walking down a hallway looking for victims and spotting a class with blacked-out windows - the most obvious action would be blasting the lock and flinging in a few grenades before entering to finish off the survivors. A more logical solution would be windows that are difficult to break or open from outside (to prevent theft), but easily open from inside. Thus people could effectively escape in random directions rather than just sit quiet and hope the attacker is too dumb to have figured all this out by himself. On the downside, this would not work in a multi-story building.

An armed guard can help, but a smart killer would put significant effort in honing one's shooting skills before the attack, and probably obtain some form of bullet protection, negating the guard's advantages. Also, if there is only one guard without a gun readily on hand, the attacker could first dispatch of him before proceeding on a spree. If the attackers work in a team like in Columbine, one can be sent out specifically to dispatch of the guard while others proceed with the primary goal. So having several guards carrying weapons at all times would be more efficient in terms of safety (but not cost).

The most dangerous and individually demanding but also the most effective method of dealing with such attacker would probably be swarming him. Some are likely to be injured or killed, but a swarm attack would save much more lives than passive "hide & pray" approach. I think such collective defense should be taught instead of traditional duck-and-cover drills.

[Mauler3050]

Yeah, thank God that all shootings are about always crimes of passion. If we had people REALLY thinking about how to do things right I think these shootings would claim a greatly higher amount of lives then they do. I mean even columbine with their pipe bombs and munitions did ineffectively with however many guys there were. Suggesting that their aim was to kill as many as possible.

I think that's what it boils down to, what is the motive? If it is to systematically kill as many people as possible, i say the powers that be help us all within bullet range. Thankfully I believe most of these troubled kids have different motives.

[CyberWar]

Indeed - quiet, reserved behaviour, unstable personality, a good motive and a cold, calculate mind of an intellectual makes the most dangerous combination for a spree killer.

A clever attacker would not use any means of electronic communication to plan a group attack as that can be easily tracked and intercepted. So, here's a few basic guidelines for the attackers that security staff does not seem to consider:

NEVER talk about it outside the circle of participants (if any)

NEVER use electronic communications to discuss and plan the attack

NEVER leave any indications for your intent in a place where anyone from the outside might discover them (for example, two guys were busted after a janitor found a note of theirs in the trash bin)

NEVER act suspiciously or obtrusively - you do not want anybody pay a closer attention to you

ALWAYS purchase your stocks in different locations away from your target area

ALWAYS keep your supplies distributed over several different hiding spots

ALWAYS follow the OADA principle (Observe, Analyze, Decide, Act) in your planning - do nothing by impulse

ALWAYS be certain of your decisions - if you have any doubts about your plan, redesign it! Do not forget that you are a psychotic maniac that wishes to take revenge on society for years of alienation, bullying and simply low self-esteem - make it fucking count!


And now, some advises for the security staff:

There is a saying that dogs who bark do not bite. A kid who speaks of murder and so on does not necessarily plan a killing spree - it is most often the silent ones you have to watch out for.

Try to think like the potential attacker. Learn to recognize the school bullies and asshole teachers first, as they might become a prime target, and you will be able to single out potential perpetrators from among their objects of dislike. Know the motives, and you may be able to help a lost soul before it goes to hell.

Judge not from appearance and interests, judge by motivation. A completely combat-incompetent computer geek is just as likely to strike as an anarchist kid interested in weaponry and explosives.

Be a friend and advisor that they can confide in, not the fascist pig-cop who's there just to fulfill his beating list.


The day of the Ultimate School shooter is yet to come, and I really hope the security measures will be adjusted appropriately to prevent that - no metal detectors and armed guards will be able to stop it, but some understanding and common sense might just do the trick.

[FerretBone]

Why not just allow all teachers and staff to carry concealed hand guns? Mass killing problem solved. It has prevented mass killings in every public shooting in the US where a concealed handgun holder has intervend.

[CyberWar]

A good idea indeed. If such a basic weapons training for teachers was instated as a requirement and made confidential, it would be quite some time before the shooters would discover that and change their tactics accordingly.

However, if an armed guard is present at the school, our smart attacker would probably consider that and get a kevlar vest or something, reducing the advantage of covertly armed staff.

[jrly]

There is also the chance of a teacher forgetting to lock the drawer where the gun is and a kid that is just pissed off at the time and would normally just walk it off, instead sees the gun, grabs it, and starts firing.

[FerretBone]

Originally Posted by jrly

There is also the chance of a teacher forgetting to lock the drawer where the gun is and a kid that is just pissed off at the time and would normally just walk it off, instead sees the gun, grabs it, and starts firing.

Firearms do no good for a person if its not on their person at the time of a shooting. So in order to be prepared, the firearm would need to be with them at all times.

A kevlar vest would be useful to a would be killer, but would also be an strong indicater to the rest of the school if someone was wearing a vest.
Note, if a teen is comitted enough to find a kevlar vest, aquire a firearm, smuggle them both into a school, someone is going to be shot. You can not stop it. You can only minimze the death toll.

[CyberWar]

True indeed. However, kevlar vests can be hidden relatively easily - a trenchcoat or just puffy winter jacket over it is sufficient.

[jrly]

What about the majority of the teachers who probably have never fired a gun before and if they did try to use it, they would probably miss and hit another student. It seems to me that having teachers have guns would just cause more problems that it would fix.

[CyberWar]

A state-sponsored training course mandatory to all teachers under the guise of "personal defense" is the answer.

[viRus08]

I doubt it would be cost efficient to arm and train every teacher of every school....

[Random]

Originally Posted by viRus08

I doubt it would be cost efficient to arm and train every teacher of every school....

I would agree with this. Since a value could not reasonably be placed on the life of a child (or several), a decision would have to be made on the balance of what it would cost to train every teacher, against the cost of not doing so (bad publicity from dead children, et cetera).

I could reasonably see a selection of teachers being trained - and it would have to be more than one per location, due to sickness or whatever else - but this on its own raises further issues. How many teachers or school staff will accept the responsibility of protecting their body of students; or worse, how many will accept the responsibility of killing one of their own students? It does become a matter of life or death in the moment, but I imagine that some sort of an emotional connection is formed between teachers and students, if not a care for the sanctity of human life.

Further, if all teachers or staff were to be trained and armed, what is to say that it would not be a student responsible for a school shooting, but a teacher?

[jrly]

Originally Posted by Random

Further, if all teachers or staff were to be trained and armed, what is to say that it would not be a student responsible for a school shooting, but a teacher?

"Shut the fuck up you little shit!"

[X9ballX]

i think the students shooting up schools is hapening due to all the teachers playing favorites and not treating all the students equal.and video games and violent music and some tv has a bit to due with it but not near as much as the teachers not treating everyone corectly.all the teachers in my school let the preps do anything. i seen preps punch nonpreps for no reason and get away withit. were as i cant pick my nose without them bitching and sending out for a few days. well it was like that now i go to bad boy school

[hellsgateman]

for one if then was aimed t random then Jesus i hope you had a good run
and second my school is one where we have about a dozen cops there or as the call the probation officers armed with tasers, stun guns, and 9 mils so i assume they think we are safer than most

[1000101]

Originally Posted by hellsgateman

for one if then was aimed t random then Jesus i hope you had a good run
and second my school is one where we have about a dozen cops there or as the call the probation officers armed with tasers, stun guns, and 9 mils so i assume they think we are safer than most

The illusion of safety can often be the most dangerous obstacle. Plus if you have teachers and half the staff armed up it's creating a hostile environment for any potentially "messed up" kid, therefore possibly encouraging him to attack. I'm from England so I don't really have the American mentality. However it seems to me that if you have teachers armed, then students will copy, thus encouraging shootings.

I think the emphasis should be on preventing kids from getting to the state where they even consider a shooting as a viable option, and not on making the school into some kind of potential shooting house.

[AngryAngry]

First, I totally agree with CyberWar's first post on this page. He's right.

Second, about arming members of the staff, I think teachers should NOT carry a gun. Just imagine: One student gets in a rage and starts attacking the teacher with his fists. The teachers pulls his gun and fires.
Palin should die. Arming the teachers is NO solution. It wouldn't be as simple as just giving a weapon to a teacher. Teachers can be mentally unstable too, you know.
Maybe we could arm like the "school liason officer" or something.
But No. The best solution would simply be to stop selling guns. No guns. What are 9mm handguns for? Not to shoot birds or foxes or deer. They're meant for shooting and KILLING HUMANS. I know you guys are American and you want to be able to defend yourself, but in the end if there wouldn't be guns sold to citizens, there wouldn't be anybody to defend yourself from.

Third, Columbine wasn't really "succesful". Harris and Klebold killed 13 individuals, threw 76 pipebombs of which only 30 exploded. Their 2 big 20lbs propane time bombs didn't detonate. They spent quite some time in the library taunting students in stead of trying to kill alot of them as quickly as possible.

OK, about shootings in general:
Since I heard about the Finland shooting, I've been thinking how it would be like if a person would attack my school.
I think I'd try to gather some guys and swarm the attacker(s). But maybe I would just act like everybody, like cattle and panic and hystiricly start screaming and run away. I don't know how I would be like in such a situation. Would I really be able to keep my mind cool? I hope

PS: FOR THOSE WHO ARE INTERESTED: Here's a report about the Columbine shooting with about ANY possible information you could need. They've even got diagrams of Harris' and Klebold's activities, the 991 phonecalls, information about the bombs etc etc.

[Tane Te Tu]

Everyone thinks they will stop the attacker.

In the Outback (local club/bar) a girl pulled a knife on a guys misses. now this guy is supposedly the man at fighting and is always saying he hopes he sees a mugging so he can stop it ect. the moment his misses is stabs he runs off and hides behind the bar. it takes 3 of us (full grown men) to take the angry shelia down. You simply can't take someone down when they have a weapon, even more so with a gun.

It was like the sand off in South Auckland with the cop and the Mongrel Mob
. the cop had a taser with one shot and there were 3 mob members all with knifes ect. the cop said that the first one to step forward would get tasered. in the end they all backed off even though he could have only taken out one.

People will always run. And most shooters seem to be to erratic to be efficient if you keep moving and don't hide you should be safe(er).

[Steve_TPF]

It's not true that you can't stop an armed attacker.

In the Monash University Shooting, an armed man was tackled by several people after he opened fire. He killed two people and wounded five before being taken down. Since he had at least three pistols, as well as spare clips, the death toll would have been much higher if he had been allowed to continue firing. Not everybody runs.

I don't agree that armed teachers/security would encourage a shooter. Knowing that someone is likely to shoot back is a definite deterrent. If the shooter knows that everyone else is unarmed then he/she can do as he pleases. (Unless tackled by brave individuals of course.)

[ect.]

If the teachers were carrying guns, one day they would get pissed off by a pupil and go on thier own killing spree(well they would in my school). Also, theres a risk of pupils stealing a gun.

[AngryAngry]

Originally Posted by ect.

If the teachers were carrying guns, one day they would get pissed off by a pupil and go on thier own killing spree(well they would in my school). Also, theres a risk of pupils stealing a gun.

Exactly. There shouldn't be guns in a school 'cause that would mean that there's a possibility of an attack taking place. I say kids shouldn't be able to get their hands on guns. That would solve the biggest part of the problem. Attacking a school with a slingshot or a knife won't really do the trick.

[FerretBone]

Originally Posted by AngryAngry

Exactly. There shouldn't be guns in a school 'cause that would mean that there's a possibility of an attack taking place. I say kids shouldn't be able to get their hands on guns. That would solve the biggest part of the problem.

School age children are not old enough to possess or buy firearms. Maybe we should add more firearms laws to the already 20,000 plus laws on the books. I'm sure one or two more would stop this right? We can sovle all this mess buy outlawing children from having guns. Whooops! We have already done that. Next

Did some baboon just say run around and hide somewhere in defense when being attacked???

1. The Department of Justices National Crime Victimization Survey says that the probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women with no resistance than for women resisting with a firearm. Men offering no resistance are 1.4 times more likely to result in serious injury than resisting with a firearm.

"Getting rid of guns" does not work, never has worked, and never will.

2. The Swiss, New Zealanders and Finns all own guns as frequently as Americans, yet in 1995 Switzerland had a murder rate 40 percent lower than Germany's, and New Zealand had one lower than Australia's. Finland and Sweden have very different gun ownership rates, but very similar murder rates. Israel, with a higher gun ownership rate than the U.S., has a murder rate 40 percent below Canada's.

You kids are worried about a teacher (adult) carring a gun?? Are you freaking kidding me?

3. The type of person willing to go through the permitting process is extremely law-abiding. In Florida, almost 444,000 licenses were granted from 1987 to 1997, but only 84 people have lost their licenses for felonies involving firearms. Most violations that lead to permits being revoked involve accidentally carrying a gun into restricted areas, like airports or schools. In Virginia, not a single permit holder has committed a violent crime. Similarly almost the same results have been reported for Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Tennessee.

Also you should note. Since 1934, only two people have been charged with murder with a legal Machine gun in the US. And one of those was a cop. Legal machinegun onwers go though the same process as a permit holder.

More guns do not increase unjustified shootings because "guns are more accessible."
Unjustified shootings are illegal acts of gun violence. Since Florida adopted a right-to-carry law, firearm homicide declined 37 percent and handgun homicide declined by 41 percent. At the same time nationally, firearm homicide increased 15 percent and handgun homicide increased 24 percent

CCW holder stops armed robbery
Armed Citizen Stops Bank Robbery Suspect - Detroit News Story - WDIV Detroit
Winnemucca, Nevada police statement: Permit holder stops a bar massacre by killing shooter


Cleveland: Store owner shot/killed one of his attackers during a ambush-style robbery.
Cleveland: Store owner kills armed robber after the criminal shot store owners son in head.
Cincinnati: Lunch wagon driver shoots/holds suspect at gun point a robbery until police arrived.
Cleveland: Barber shop owner shoots man robbing patrons of cash, jewelry, and other valuables.

27 cases so far, in Ohio (one of the latter CHL states) in the 3 short years they have been allowing handgun licenses.



"I'm from England so I don't really have the American mentality. However it seems to me that if you have teachers armed, then students will copy, thus encouraging shootings"

This is hilariously retarded. I dare you to try to prove this. You have obviously treaded in unfamiliar territory.

[1000101]

Originally Posted by FerretBone

This is hilariously retarded. I dare you to try to prove this. You have obviously treaded in unfamiliar territory.

Some people are just so damn hostile.... I presume you want me to prove my point and not that I'm English...?

Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that kids tend to copy adults, they wanna be grown up. So if a kid got hold of his dad's gun and took it to school, if things got heated up, or he got bullied, had an argument ect, then he's more likely to shoot. Also the more guns around the bigger the accessibility and appeal to kids (In this instance anyway).

As for proof, I have none, or nor can I be assed to find any, it's merely a theory, be it right or wrong, it's definitely not retarded. I mean I doubt a retarded person could even think of that....

[jrly]

Originally Posted by FerretBone

School age children are not old enough to possess or buy firearms. Maybe we should add more firearms laws to the already 20,000 plus laws on the books. I'm sure one or two more would stop this right? We can sovle all this mess buy outlawing children from having guns. Whooops! We have already done that. Next

Like legality is ever really an issue in getting a gun. I could go to Milwaukee, WI(I live in northern WI) and get a gun so easily right now and I could do it without a permit or I could break into one of the hundreds of rednecks' houses and steal a gun. So just because it is illegal for children to have a gun doesn't mean that they can't get one. And what about the university shootings where the killer is over eighteen(or is it twenty-one) so he can legally have a handgun.

Originally Posted by FerretBone

1. The Department of Justices National Crime Victimization Survey says that the probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women with no resistance than for women resisting with a firearm. Men offering no resistance are 1.4 times more likely to result in serious injury than resisting with a firearm.

"Getting rid of guns" does not work, never has worked, and never will.

So getting more people to own guns is the solution to gun violence.

[zaxinc3]

As stated, school shootings usually end with the shooter's suicide. Thus, shootings are a grad way of killing yourself. Just keep it to yourself and off yourself in your residence.

[LlevirulZ]

People think if you make it harder for people to get guns the crime rate will go down. Like the government banning private sells. Almost all the crimes involving guns the weapons were not legally owned. Plus teachers with guns would be a great idea. Whoever is against it probably think that the teacher will go crazy shooting students. I think a simple mental exam would do the trick. I mean seriously, instead of all the kids hiding in their classrooms, give a couple teachers guns so they can keep casualties down. If a shooter is trying to kill people someone will dire. The goal is to keep that number as low as possible. America is too naive to realize this. We think that with the right planning no one will die. The world just doesn't work like that. Am I right?