Self Defense in Public Schools

[Drac]

I have no real comment.. Anything that I was going to post already has already been posted..I got so sick of all the BS in school that I quit and went to work and discovered the MA..A year or so later I was able to extract some measure of satisfaction when a few of my serious tormentors came to the club where I was a bouncer and assumed that I was still the same person they use to beat the crap out of..Surprise, surprise,surprise..

 

[sgtmac_46]

Before I start, I understand that bullying in general is a huge issue that isn't being dealt with correctly in schools.



I find peace because others are willing to stop violence on my behalf, not perpetrate it.This is the same in life as well. My point is to teach kids the lessons of proper use of the law and not use violence in its stead. Unfortunately, too many people think that physically fighting back is required no matter what, where the law says it's not. The law in the real world says that a violent reponse is only OK in self-defense, not in fighting.



Oh how I agree. But we must try to bring it back without resorting to violence ourselves.



I don't mean to say that the potential for damage isn't there because it's a stupid fight over someone's tennis shoes. Any time physical contact is made on another there is a potential for hospitalization, no matter what the reason was. My point is that because of that, you should have a darn good reason for making the contact and that should be for more reason than your feelings were hurt.



Because they've been taught that a violent response is appropriate in any situation. Where do they go next? In the adult world, this will only get them into further trouble. Their parents help perpetuate this, that's why the parents stick up for their children. We need to break the cycle with today's kids.



Yes, but you're saying that a child whose offers up "a beating that renders the bully unconcious, with a level of violence he never imagined" is always right? IMO, it's extremely rare that it's right.



I agree that not everyone is that evolved. But should I lower myself and become violent in response when there are better procedures in place? Your response ("a beating that renders the bully unconcious, with a level of violence he never imagined") makes me think that you don't believe non-violence is the key.



Many are dealt with at the lower levels, but they just continue their behavior. It's after the extreme act that we try to completely remove them from society. According to recent statistics, our legal system is doing better. Violent crimes are on the decline.



I agree. But violence should not be the first response.



I agree. But violent responses aren't the only way to declare you're not a door mat. Being assertive is not the same as being aggressive.



I agree, I would never advocate that it never has a place. But I also don't think a 7-year-old knows when violence is appropriate without being taught. And I think they need to be taught the steps to be tried before resorting to violence.

WhiteBirch

First of all, you fail to understand violence and from where it springs. Second of all, you took my "beating unconcious" analogy out of context. I wasn't suggesting that a kid beat another kid unconcious, however, someone stated that fighting just results in more fighting, and I took issue with the technical accuracy of that statement. A beating that results in the bully being rendered unconcious most often results in an end to further conflict. Your argument about that being right or wrong is irrelavent as it was only meant as a statement of technical reality, not one that makes a decision about the morality of the act. I am factually correct on my statement, and whether or not that act is right or wrong is a different topic, as it was a purely academic point. I will be teaching my child effective conflict resolution skills, but in that tool box will include the ability to physical defend herself. When I teach her those skills, though, i'll teach her the truth about human behavior, not what I wish human behavior should be. Much of human behavior is controlled as much by our genes as by our environment. And because of that, we will never eliminate our "Teach out" violence entirely.

 

[sgtmac_46]

This is Untrue, and not the "Myth" of Columbine. TAG Investigators spent a lot of time interviewing people and recreating what happened with those boys, building up what caused their mental state, and all the evidence pointed to the fact that the "Jocks" WERE beating them and the school was made aware, and chose not to take action, becuase the athletic department was more important in their views. In the words of one of their friends: "I know its wrong to think this way, but all I could think was Its about time SOMEONE did somthing"... Granted TAG found this was not the ONLY factor, but it was the MAJOR factor.

I suggest you check out "Investigative Reports: Bullied to Death" and "Columbine, Investigating Why" before you make up your mind what their motive was.

Again, you're factually wrong. Nothing about the Columbine incident shows any kind of revenge for bullying by anyone. They did not shoot or try to shoot one single person that had allegedly bullied them. In fact, the truth is that they themselves were known to bully other children. And if you want to support that asinine assertion, show me where they walked in to the gym and started shooting jocks. The FBI and it's behaviorial science unit reached a far different conclusion. http://slate.msn.com/id/2099203/

Here's a test. Check this link and pick out the bullies who allegedly bullied Harris and Klebold. http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/pines/6097/chs_n.htm
Not jocks, not bullies, these guys went after the weak, like they did when they were living. They weren't the victim of bullies, by all accounts they WERE the bullies. They liked the power they got from victimizing others, they liked attacking the weak. They didn't just snap because they were victims, they did what they did because they WANTED victims. These guys were predators, pure and simple. If not, they would have gone down to the gym, where all these alleged jocks were, and shot them. That's not what they wanted. "Someone did something"? LMFAO. They hated the jocks, so they shot a bunch of non-jocks? hahahaha. I suggest you open your eyes and use some critical thinking skills. This myth of the victimized school shooter needs to be dispelled before it does more harm than good. These guys WERE bullies, they weren't defending themselves.

I also think it's time to stop power hungry highschool boys from glorifiying this type of cretins. The worst thing we ever did was broadcast their image around the world, as if they were heroes. It made me so angry when Time magazine put Harris and Klebold on the cover, big color pictures, with all the victims lined up on the border in little black and white pictures, as if the Killers were the most important thing, and the victims were just a footnote. Pathetic.

These guys should have had their bodies tacked up to utility poles for a month after the crime as a message, and then been buried in unmarked graves so their mothers could never visit them. That's the right message to send. Not the bizarre hero worship I see from some morons.

 

[mj-hi-yah]

MOD. NOTE.

Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-MJ
-MT Moderator-

 

[Cryozombie]

Again, you're factually wrong.

I see. You are more knowlageable than an entire FBI task force who were actually there, actually interviewed witnesses, and actually worked closley with psycologists to paint a picture of what happened.

Go you.

 

[shesulsa]

These guys should have had their bodies tacked up to utility poles for a month after the crime as a message, and then been buried in unmarked graves so their mothers could never visit them. That's the right message to send. Not the bizarre hero worship I see from some morons.

This has got to be the most morally reprehensible thing I've read in a while.

 

[sgtmac_46]

This has got to be the most morally reprehensible thing I've read in a while.

You mean more morally reprehensible than killing 13 people. Or more morally reprehensible than suggesting that killing 13 innocent people was justified by claiming that you were bullied? I think people's morals may be out of wack if that's the case. What I think is morally reprehensible is the idea that killers deserve empathy while the victims are lost in obscurity. Here's a test. Try actually naming some of the victims of Columbine. I bet most people can't do it without looking it up. But the killers names are right at the front of people's minds. That's morally reprehensible. Here, take a look at the time magazine cover that I was talking about, it's purely sickening. http://columbine.free2host.net/after/timemag.jpg. These two killers, in large colored pictures, while the victims get consigned to little black and white borders, as if their lives were nothing more than footnotes in the much larger lives of these two cretins. That's why these idiots are emulated and have such a following. It's truly bizarre.

Now, if the idea that holding people accountable for their actions offends people, i'm sorry, but just as you are entitled to state your opinion, so am I. I think it's time somebody spoke for the victims of Columbine, and stop trying to make these two monsters either A) Heros or B) Victims, which is what i've been reading over the last several posts.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I see. You are more knowlageable than an entire FBI task force who were actually there, actually interviewed witnesses, and actually worked closley with psycologists to paint a picture of what happened.

Go you.

You might want to read what the FBI concluded, which is exactly what I said. Read the link I provided. The FBI concluded that Klebold was "hotheaded, but depressive and suicidal" while Harris was "cold, calculating, and homicidal", a pure "Psychopath". The FBI also concluded that bullying was not a factor, significant or otherwise. Bullying was an idea that popped up after the killings as a way to "explain" the situation. The reality was that Harris and Klebold were seeking to gain the notoriety of committing the greatest mass murder in US history.

A far cry from the innocent victims' of bullying. This myth that these two were "victim's" needs to be dispelled before it causes any more harm. What kind of sick society identifies with these two murderers?

Now, that having been said, I'll cease any further discussion of this as I'm sure a continued argument over this topic will probably irritate the moderators and it really doesn't have much to do with self-defense. Suffice to say, I'm definitely pro-victim/anti-murderer on this and all related topics and leave it at that. Anyone who wants to have a further debate over the topic with me is more than welcome to do so in a forum more suited to the subject matter.

 

[shesulsa]

I wonder what made them psychopaths. I notice the article does not go into that. Repressed anger / supressed rage and it's damage on the teen psyche is also a classic study in psychology.

I don't think understanding what drove these boys to violence is excusing them, but I feel it is important to look at causes and try to understand them so that we can address these issues as a society, which it seems is the general concensus.

Now, slap a label all over these kids if you want to. I noticed the FBI reports you link to did not refute by proof that these boys were not bullied and ignored by their school, they just slapped labels on them, used a few key words to incite YOUR anger and placed a judgement call. Whoopdeedo. Anyone can do that. Let's not learn from this experience at all, let's just ostracize them and torture their memory even more than it already is.

Did you miss the part where the teens who survived the shooting talked about how everybody put these boys down and called them names and treated them as outcasts? They should know.

Here's some links for you to read:

http://cms.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20000901-000038.html

http://cms.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20010501-000015.html

 

[MJS]

Haven't really posted much on this topic, but I have been reading it. One thing that I find amazing, especially when talking about the shooting, is that nobody seemed to intervene prior to this. I mean, you would think that if someone is being picked on, harrassed in school, beat up, etc. that they would show some signs, ie: not wanting to go to school, a decline in grades, etc. Now, I do not know all of the ins and outs of that particular school shooting, but you would think that someone, be it a parent, or someone from the school would have noticed that these kids are obviously being treated differently.

IMO, going to school is a learning exp. not a battle for survival on a daily basis.

Just my .02.

Mike

 

[lvwhitebir]

you took my "beating unconcious" analogy out of context. I wasn't suggesting that a kid beat another kid unconcious, however, someone stated that fighting just results in more fighting, and I took issue with the technical accuracy of that statement. A beating that results in the bully being rendered unconcious most often results in an end to further conflict. Your argument about that being right or wrong is irrelavent as it was only meant as a statement of technical reality, not one that makes a decision about the morality of the act. I am factually correct on my statement, and whether or not that act is right or wrong is a different topic, as it was a purely academic point.

Actually it's not so academic because people believe that this is the correct action in response. To be academic about it you might as well say that killing him stops him too; he can still attack you when he wakes up otherwise.

I will be teaching my child effective conflict resolution skills, but in that tool box will include the ability to physical defend herself.

I think that's important as well. Everyone should know some form of self-defense. We need to know its lawful definition and that the physical part is only a small part. Finally we need to teach when a physical response is appropriate, according to the law, and at what level. I hate to see good people go to jail for truly acting in self defense but going over the line.

WhiteBirch

 

[Cryozombie]

SgtMac,

I did read your link, It was to an article by a Times Reporter, he said:

"But the FBI and its team of psychiatrists and psychologists have reached an entirely different conclusion."

But it doesnt specifically state what their findings were, and this also goes against what I heard "From the Horses mouth" so to speak, in the two reports I suggested you watch.

Most of the Article you cited was about the findings of a single Psychiatrist, Dr. Robert Hare. Hare labels them as Psychopaths, citing work in their journals and on the web, had no real meaning, but the truth was in the fact that their letters to show remorse were written for effect, because their angry writing about the same subject was serious. but there was no specific information as to WHY he decided that the remorse was fake, but the anger about being caught was not.... unless you count the fact that he claims you have to ignore their hate speech as irrelevant, which he then goes on NOT to do. he also cites the fact that they lie, for pleasure, and if that is the case, could the entirty of what they wrote then be a lie, and if so, how does that effect his findings since what they wrote was a big part of what he used, at least as far as the article you sent me indicates?

Also, one other thing I noticed when I read that, which makes me question Dr Hare's "findings" in favor of the other reaserch I saw, was the fact that he claims they do not care about their victims or why they are and what they feel... I have to ask, if that is the case, how these "Psychopaths" managed NOT to kill or injure any of their other friends in the "Trenchcoat Mafia" when they were "indescriminatley" killing victims in theri psychosis driven rampage?

Watch the two reports I cited, as a basis for comparsion, and see if they dont, at the very least, seem more comprehensive and well thought out, as opposed to the findings of one Psychiatrists "beliefs" about what happened.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I wonder what made them psychopaths. I notice the article does not go into that. Repressed anger / supressed rage and it's damage on the teen psyche is also a classic study in psychology.

I don't think understanding what drove these boys to violence is excusing them, but I feel it is important to look at causes and try to understand them so that we can address these issues as a society, which it seems is the general concensus.

Now, slap a label all over these kids if you want to. I noticed the FBI reports you link to did not refute by proof that these boys were not bullied and ignored by their school, they just slapped labels on them, used a few key words to incite YOUR anger and placed a judgement call. Whoopdeedo. Anyone can do that. Let's not learn from this experience at all, let's just ostracize them and torture their memory even more than it already is.

Did you miss the part where the teens who survived the shooting talked about how everybody put these boys down and called them names and treated them as outcasts? They should know.

Here's some links for you to read:

http://cms.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20000901-000038.html

[url="http://cms.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20010501-000015.html"]http://cms.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20010501-000015.html[/url]

I hear a lot of pseudo-psychology when these type of discussions come up. The fact is that modern research suggests that sociopaths are as much born as built. Trying to claim these boys were victims IS excusing their behavior. I know exactly why these boys did what they did....power. If you can't understand that, i'm not sure what else to tell you. There is a psychological effect going on here, though, and you and many other people have fallen victim to it. The modern media is driven by images of killers, and we focus our energy and time trying to understand "them". The effect that happens is that, after repeated viewing and discussion of the killers, they are humanized and we build empathy toward them. The result is that the killer is humanized and the victim is dehumanized. Most people lack a sufficient understanding of these powerful psychological processes to defend themselves against it, as we've seen illustrated in this forum. Many here are exemplifiying that kind of Killer Humanization/Victim Dehumanization that I have outlined. Your response is purely an emotional response, based on the empathy forced upon you by a media pushing the image of victimized "killers". Try using some critical thinking skills, and stop letting your heart do the thinking.

 

[sgtmac_46]

SgtMac,

I did read your link, It was to an article by a Times Reporter, he said:

"But the FBI and its team of psychiatrists and psychologists have reached an entirely different conclusion."

But it doesnt specifically state what their findings were, and this also goes against what I heard "From the Horses mouth" so to speak, in the two reports I suggested you watch.

Most of the Article you cited was about the findings of a single Psychiatrist, Dr. Robert Hare. Hare labels them as Psychopaths, citing work in their journals and on the web, had no real meaning, but the truth was in the fact that their letters to show remorse were written for effect, because their angry writing about the same subject was serious. but there was no specific information as to WHY he decided that the remorse was fake, but the anger about being caught was not.... unless you count the fact that he claims you have to ignore their hate speech as irrelevant, which he then goes on NOT to do. he also cites the fact that they lie, for pleasure, and if that is the case, could the entirty of what they wrote then be a lie, and if so, how does that effect his findings since what they wrote was a big part of what he used, at least as far as the article you sent me indicates?

Also, one other thing I noticed when I read that, which makes me question Dr Hare's "findings" in favor of the other reaserch I saw, was the fact that he claims they do not care about their victims or why they are and what they feel... I have to ask, if that is the case, how these "Psychopaths" managed NOT to kill or injure any of their other friends in the "Trenchcoat Mafia" when they were "indescriminatley" killing victims in theri psychosis driven rampage?

Watch the two reports I cited, as a basis for comparsion, and see if they dont, at the very least, seem more comprehensive and well thought out, as opposed to the findings of one Psychiatrists "beliefs" about what happened.

You still haven't pointed to one single victim that allegedly victimized these killers. Without that, you've already lost this argument. I've read the two reports cited, and they are driven by the worst kind of pseudo-scientific thinking. Try using some critical thinking skills. Number of "Jocks" killed 0 Number of innocent people killed 13. It's not that difficult, hard as you try to obfuscate the point. Don't fall victim to the trend I outlined in my last post. This type of victim dehumanization must end. Several people in this forum are already trying to defend Harris and Klebold as if they were victims, protests to the contrary that that's not what they are doing. Use your minds people. Understanding from an intellectual level is good, understanding of killers from an empathetic level is bad. It's mommy thinking. Hitlers mother loved him, but that didn't make him a good person. I would be willing to bet that almost every evil person who ever lived was loved by his mother if no one else. Remember, rational good, empathy bad, when it comes to understanding killers.

Of course this argument will go no where because I am coming at it from a purely rational point of view, and several of you have obviously got a lot of emotionalism and empathy invested in this, so this will likely deteriorate. It's obvious that my suggestions about these two sociopaths angers you more than the idea that they killed 13 people. That's truly bizarre.

What created these two monsters wasn't that they were bullied, it was that they were coddled. Brought up in upper middle class homes with parents they snowballed. They avoided consequences for all previous actions, they were given everything they wanted and told that nothing was their fault. Now the same treatment they received before they did this, they are receiving afterwards. We are teaching our children now that they are not responsible for their actions, they are the victims...victims of ADHD, victims of society, victims of poverty, victims of everything. Is it any wonder they act as if they are not responsible for their own actions. I see kids like Harris and Klebold every day, they aren't bullied, they are coddled and given every excuse by parents who are willing to give them everyting but discipline. I am called to these kids homes when they are 13, 14, 15, by the parents who never disciplined them, but now don't know how to make the child that has run amuk go to bed, do his homework, stop tearing up the house. So they want ME to discipline their spoiled child. The same child they will AGAIN make excuses for when he starts getting arrested at 16, 17 and 18. They will bail him out, they will hire him an attorney, they will rationalize that his is being bullied by the police, influenced by his friends, and is NOT responsible for his own actions. Oh, they are angry at 17, but it's not angry that they are BULLIED, they are usually angry when, at 17, after years of getting their own way, they finally run in to the realization that the rest of the world isn't going to coddle them the way their mothers and fathers did.

When people say "We need to understand them, so we can keep it from happening again" they really mean "We want to keep it from happening again, without having to actually teach our children that there are consequences and boundaries". Some people want simple answers that don't force them to have to reevaluate what they believe about themselves and the world around them. So we come up with "Bullying". We just claim that these poor, 17 year old kids, were the victims of a faceless entity, so we can have our power back. We can continue to believe the world is a wonderful place and discipline isn't really required. Just give your kids everying, and when you run in to a problem, call a psychologist to tell you what's wrong with your child, get a prescription of paxil, ritilin, some group therapy, and presto, all better. And we did it all without blaming little Johnny for his behavior, because, as we know, blaming him would be bad for his self-esteem.

It isn't bullying that created Harris and Klebold, it was excuses. Someone might want to write a new book "EXCUSED TO DEATH" or maybe "MOTHERED TO DEATH". Some of you folks might want to read it, before you forget that these poor, innocent, cherubic faced boys, cold bloodedly murdered 13 innocent people. People who's mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and friends will NEVER see again. Who's families and friends will mourn for the rest of their lives, because these two boys wanted to know what it felt like to have the power of life and death in their hands. Lets look past the natural mother instinct that causes us to see the faces of these two young, handsome, WHITE middle class boys, and want to simply forgive and forget. It's pure emotionalism at it's worst. What's more, I still haven't heard any of you mention the name of ONE SINGLE VICTIM.

That having been said, it's not my intention to offend anyone. I DO feel very strongly about this subject, as it is a trend I see occurring in American (I'll go so far as to say Western) society, and it is media driven. Things like the Time Magazine cover are prime examples. We spend our time trying to understand the killers, and we tell people subconciously that it is the killers life that is important. Some people are more succeptible to this suble power of suggestion than others, notably truly empathetic people (like my wife) who tend to wear their emotion on their sleeve. They tend to allow their mind to be clowded by their emotions.

 

[TonyM.]

Gee, if getting bullied in school is justification for mass murder, Myself and thousands of other people should have been up on the roof with the magnum a long time ago. Sociopaths are generally created by their parents or lack thereof.

 

[shesulsa]

Again, being bullied does not a murderer make. These boys talked to their parents about it, they talked to school administration about it and sought help repeatedly. No one answered. Their pain turned to anger and it began to manifest outwardly ... this is a classic cry for help. No one answered. Their fascination with explosives, firearms, darkness and death were screaming that they were unable to cope with what was going on around them. Teachers let jocks skate when they didn't study, but failed these boys. Their parents shrugged their shoulders as did everyone else and said 'boys will be boys.'

Most people who are bullied do not turn out like these boys did - but more and more are as we continue to claim survival of the fittest is deemed by some an appropriate means of population control for God's most gifted creature and ignore cries for help.

Are you your brother's keeper?

So I suppose, sgtmac, that you would rather let kids like this grab a label, continue to be ostracized and devalued and just hang 'em high and risk collateral damage than have teachers, parents and counselors do their job and step in potentially saving lives.

Bully for you.

 

[MJS]

Again, being bullied does not a murderer make. These boys talked to their parents about it, they talked to school administration about it and sought help repeatedly. No one answered. Their pain turned to anger and it began to manifest outwardly ... this is a classic cry for help. No one answered. Their fascination with explosives, firearms, darkness and death were screaming that they were unable to cope with what was going on around them. Teachers let jocks skate when they didn't study, but failed these boys. Their parents shrugged their shoulders as did everyone else and said 'boys will be boys.'

Most people who are bullied do not turn out like these boys did - but more and more are as we continue to claim survival of the fittest is deemed by some an appropriate means of population control for God's most gifted creature and ignore cries for help.

Are you your brother's keeper?

So I suppose, sgtmac, that you would rather let kids like this grab a label, continue to be ostracized and devalued and just hang 'em high and risk collateral damage than have teachers, parents and counselors do their job and step in potentially saving lives.

Bully for you.

Well said! :asian: I have to agree though...IMO, these kids were showing signs of abnormal behavior and nobody seemed to do anything. I think that just about everyone can say that at some point during their 12 yrs of school, that they were picked on by someone. Parents are the ones who should be the first to see any problems that begin to happen with their kids. Its not the job of the Police to take charge of discipline of kids..again, its the parents!! As a dispatcher, I have taken many calls of parents saying that their kids are out of control, won't go to school, etc., and I sit there, shaking my head as I dispatch an officer, thinking "If you can't control your kids, maybe you shouldn't have had them!"

I'll say again, it is the job of the parents to recognize problems and address them. It is the job of the school admin. to provide a safe environment for kids to learn and get an education. Apparently, someone was not doing their job.

Mike

 

[sgtmac_46]

Again, being bullied does not a murderer make. These boys talked to their parents about it, they talked to school administration about it and sought help repeatedly. No one answered. Their pain turned to anger and it began to manifest outwardly ... this is a classic cry for help. No one answered. Their fascination with explosives, firearms, darkness and death were screaming that they were unable to cope with what was going on around them. Teachers let jocks skate when they didn't study, but failed these boys. Their parents shrugged their shoulders as did everyone else and said 'boys will be boys.'

Most people who are bullied do not turn out like these boys did - but more and more are as we continue to claim survival of the fittest is deemed by some an appropriate means of population control for God's most gifted creature and ignore cries for help.

Are you your brother's keeper?

So I suppose, sgtmac, that you would rather let kids like this grab a label, continue to be ostracized and devalued and just hang 'em high and risk collateral damage than have teachers, parents and counselors do their job and step in potentially saving lives.

Bully for you.

What i'd prefer is that you stop making excuses for mass murder and pretending that you can change a sociopath with a counseling session. Sociopathology is not an illness of the mind, it is an ill mind. I know of what I speak, i've dealt with hundreds of sociopaths in my line of work, i've spent the last ten years studying sociopaths, and i'm not just a laymen, i'm working on my masters in psychology, with an emphasis on aggression and sociopathology. I plan on spending the rest of my career studying this type of behavior from a realistic point of view. This is a subject matter that I take very seriously, and the idea that you can treat a sociopath as if he has an "illness" is absurd and usually spouted by people who have never had the "honor" of dealing with this type of person.

Sociopaths are not sick, they are not in need of help, they are predators. These boys weren't bullied to committing mass murder, that is the most idiotic idea i've ever heard. These boys did not even grow up in a bad environment. They had parents who gave them everything, nice clothes, money, video games, everything. It wasn't that they were different that created conflict in school, it's that they thought they were superior to everyone around them. That is what brought them in conflict with others.

Harris exhibited clear signs of sociopathology with the kind of narcissistic thinking typically encountered in this type of person. He believed he was superior, not inferior, to those he killed. The problem isn't that these boys were bullied and ignored, the problem is that these boys thought that they were superior to everyone around them, and that they had the right to murder whoever they wanted for their own perverse pleasure. They were sheep to him, they were victims in his power fantasy. I'm still waiting for the name of one of the bullies they murdered.

Further, many of these types of personality traits show increasing evidence of having genetic root causes. The Narcissism displayed by Harris is very typical of most narcissists, over-inflated sense of self, pathological lying, power fantasies, a sense of "specialness" and "uniqueness", a feeling that you have some sort of lofty purpose. Basically narcissistics are self-centered, egotistical, and have an exaggerated sense of self-importance and the expectation that they should be considered superior without any commensurate achievements. Grandiosity and preoccupation with POWER is a hallmark of Narcissists. Add sociopathology, the idea that others are not worthy of compassion, do not matter, and are only important as objects, and you have a killer like Harris.

You want to understand what created these two, you need to study the sociopathic (called by the DSM IV, anti-social personality disorder) and narcissistic personality disorder, and you will come much closer than this stupid idea of "repressed rage" over bullying. These two were predators, not victims, and i've gone further toward understanding them than the "they were bullied" crowd ever will. It was the reinforcement of Harris' narcissism, not bullying and low self-esteem, that aided Harris in to the thinking that he and Klebold needed to commit the worst mass murder in history so that the world could see how special and unique they both were.

Don't you find it ironic that the more well intentioned people like you try and fulfill the self-esteem needs of this type of person, the more counciling sessions, the more we tell kids them are not really responsible, that they are victims, the MORE school shootings we have. At some point you might want to consider the possibility that maybe you have the wrong idea.

 

[shesulsa]

What i'd prefer is that you stop making excuses for mass murder and pretending that you can change a sociopath with a counseling session.

Causation does not equate excuse. I have stated this repeatedly. Allow me to make an analogy. A young man decides to start smoking cigarettes because he thinks it's cool. He takes health class and finds out how bad it is for him and he doesn't care. His parents find out and think, ah well, at least he's not doing drugs. Later he finds he doesn't really want to be a smoker any longer but finds the addiction too tough to break. He tries nicotine gum, the patch, hypnosis, but nothing works because he only tries half-heartedly and, after all, he's an adult male and has made his own bed. He develops cancer and sues the tobacco company because they made cigarettes addictive by adding nicotine and other chemicals to the tobacco ensuring the smoker will need to feed their habit and ensure the flourishing profits.

Now, are the illegal and morally reprehensible actions by the cigarette company responsible for his cancer? No, he is responsible because of his choice to smoke. However, did the actions of the tobacco company aide in his addiction and, therefore, the deterioration of his health? Yes. What about the man's parents when he began to smoke? Are they responsible? Yes. Rather than address the issue with the boy they thanked heaven he was not engaged in drug use.

Some folks, I suppose, are far more comfortable pointing fingers, naming names and finding an excuse as to why they don't have to lift a finger to help another human being. Keep studying sociopathic behavior.

Sociopathology is not an illness of the mind, it is an ill mind.

And you perceive the difference to be what, exactly?

... i'm working on my masters in psychology, with an emphasis on aggression and sociopathology. I plan on spending the rest of my career studying this type of behavior from a realistic point of view.

... as opposed to a clinical point of view?

This is a subject matter that I take very seriously, and the idea that you can treat a sociopath as if he has an "illness" is absurd and usually spouted by people who have never had the "honor" of dealing with this type of person.

Sociopaths are not sick, they are not in need of help, they are predators.

Indeed. So a sociopath is just a monster, right? A born abbhorition of nature, a whacko who cannot be helped? Goodness. Shall we just line up the entire prison population and just gun them all down? Why not? They're monsters and cannot be helped or rehabilitated, then why the heck are we spending money on them having them pay their debt to society? Let's just off them all and rid our nation of all the sociopaths? Hmmmm??

These boys weren't bullied to committing mass murder, that is the most idiotic idea i've ever heard.

Again, you refuse to read my statement and insist on twisting its context. Isn't this is a sociopathic trait?

These boys did not even grow up in a bad environment. They had parents who gave them everything, nice clothes, money, video games, everything.

You don't see this as a form of neglect? They were given things, not love or time or consideration or an ear to bend. Anyone can dole out presents. Apparently what some of us lack is the ability to give heart.

It wasn't that they were different that created conflict in school, it's that they thought they were superior to everyone around them. That is what brought them in conflict with others.

When the young mind encounters unfairness, neglect in spite of good intention, it becomes quite twisted and will defend every shred of its own truth. They put others down because that's how their damaged minds came to deal with the ostracism. It is a dangerous shift in mentality that, when caught early, may be treated - not always successfully, but even one saved life is worth the effort ... that is, in my opinion it is.

Harris exhibited clear signs of sociopathology with the kind of narcissistic thinking typically encountered in this type of person. He believed he was superior, not inferior, to those he killed.

This is the sickness of the mind taking over. A child with narcissistic thinking is very typical of the child who has everything but what he needs.

Further, many of these types of personality traits show increasing evidence of having genetic root causes. The Narcissism displayed by Harris is very typical of most narcissists, over-inflated sense of self, pathological lying, power fantasies, a sense of "specialness" and "uniqueness", a feeling that you have some sort of lofty purpose. Basically narcissistics are self-centered, egotistical, and have an exaggerated sense of self-importance and the expectation that they should be considered superior without any commensurate achievements. Grandiosity and preoccupation with POWER is a hallmark of Narcissists. Add sociopathology, the idea that others are not worthy of compassion, do not matter, and are only important as objects, and you have a killer like Harris.

You were a popular kid, weren't you? When one is ostracized and no one else feels you're worth the breath they used to speak your name you take one of several roads. One of those roads is self-devaluation. This means you buy into what others say about you and demonstrate to you in that you are worthless, mindless and not necessary of being alive. These are the ones who self-mutilate, self-denegrate. Some find drugs, some find violence some find both. Some find peace at the end of a rope or on the business end of a gun. Another road is to so intensely defend oneself as to aggrandize one's own worth, hence narcissism. When one travels far down this path the mind does twist enough to incur violence upon others and, sometimes, eventually on oneself. The middle path is those who have a taste of both - a bit of an inferiority complex accompanied by the knowledge that most people are pretty uncaring, self-centered, label-slapping sons-of-bitches who don't give a good goddamn who one is, whether they have anything special to offer to the world. The middle path and the externally violent path both scratch at finding some sense of self-worth, hence the narcissistic traits. Those on the middle path understand both sides that pull them.

You want to understand what created these two, you need to study the sociopathic (called by the DSM IV, anti-social personality disorder) and narcissistic personality disorder, and you will come much closer than this stupid idea of "repressed rage" over bullying.

I have studied the DSM-IV. Thanks.

These two were predators, not victims, and i've gone further toward understanding them than the "they were bullied" crowd ever will. It was the reinforcement of Harris' narcissism, not bullying and low self-esteem, that aided Harris in to the thinking that he and Klebold needed to commit the worst mass murder in history so that the world could see how special and unique they both were.

That, sir, is your opinion.

Don't you find it ironic that the more well intentioned people like you try and fulfill the self-esteem needs of this type of person, the more counciling sessions, the more we tell kids them are not really responsible, that they are victims, the MORE school shootings we have. At some point you might want to consider the possibility that maybe you have the wrong idea.

I have no possible way of fulfilling the self-esteem needs of this type of person, it is far too late for that. Further I have never stated that the real victims of Columbine were the two that did the killing. If we are not human enough to analyze the criminal mind and its causes (which, in this case we must do forensicly) then we are no better than the monstors you purport to walk the earth. I don't think looking at a murderer straight in the eye and telling him all he ever needed was love and giving him a big warm fuzzy is going to do any good. You have never asked me what I think the answer is to the problem of youth violence, only told me that I'm wrong to think it, whatever it might be because it does not conform to your ideas. It further sounds to me like you are not interested in hearing any other opinion but your own and therefore, not worthy of my opinion.

As I said before ... bully for you.

 

[47MartialMan]

Almost the reason to stay in a group or "gang"