Massacre in Virginia: 33 students dead

[Gilliatt]

I would like to interupt this gun control debate to pay my humble hommage to Liviu Librescu, the Israelien teacher who blocked the access to his class and was shot. After having survived the Shoah, I guess he never thought he would die from a bullet on a campus. He saved lives by giving his own life, I consider him a true hero.

[BlueSky]

I would like to interupt this gun control debate to pay my humble hommage to Liviu Librescu, the Israelien teacher who blocked the access to his class and was shot. After having survived the Shoah, I guess he never thought he would die from a bullet on a campus. He saved lives by giving his own life, I consider him a true hero.

Yes very much so.
Well put Gilliatt.

[TEMPLAR67]

Indeed, he was a true hero, if only the world could be blessed with more people like him

[Obsidian]

Thanks for pointing that out, I actually forgot all about that detail of the events.

@Obsidian, thanks for listing the points from your training. Just one question though, in the US does the same apply when someone is being prosecuted for killing someone in order to determine if it was self defence or murder?

I'm Canadian, so I can't speak to your system. But I imagine it is similar.

I know for purposes of self defence, I wouldn't be justified in killing a guy in a bar fight because of the differences in our training. We are expected to restrain ourselves.

In regards to the isreali hero of the hour,
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... 2FShowFull

I hope there is an afterlife. I'd like to meet this man.

@ TEMPLAR, rifles make up only a fraction of a sections firepower, the vast majority comes from belt feed machine guns.
Pretty sure those aren't legal. God I hope those aren't legal...

Trust me, you don't want rocket launchers kicking around. Military weapons are terrfying even when your the one firing.

[mr_sir]

I'm Canadian, so I can't speak to your system. But I imagine it is similar.

I know for purposes of self defence, I wouldn't be justified in killing a guy in a bar fight because of the differences in our training. We are expected to restrain ourselves.

My brother is an officer in the British Army and from what he has told me in the past, the British Army system and expectations of soldiers and their training etc. is pretty much the same as in Canada. The thing that concerns me is that if Templar is right and those kind of weapons are easily accessible in the US then it really is just a disaster waiting to happen. A weapon like those the army use is dangerous in trained hands, in untrained hands it is just a recipe for disaster, especially if that person lacks the discipline and self restraint that soldiers have been trained to have.

I would like to interupt this gun control debate to pay my humble hommage to Liviu Librescu, the Israelien teacher who blocked the access to his class and was shot. After having survived the Shoah, I guess he never thought he would die from a bullet on a campus. He saved lives by giving his own life, I consider him a true hero.

I agree completely. That guy is a true hero, just like the teachers that shielded the kids in the Dunblaine disaster over here. When I was teaching I'd like to think I would have done the same for the kids I taught (but I hope I will never be in a situation where I have to find out if I would). Its not until disaster strikes that you find out who the real heroes are and it must take so much courage and selflessness to do something like that. Anyone that gives up their life to save other people is a hero of the highest degree and deserves to be recognised and remembered as such.

[TEMPLAR67]

@ TEMPLAR, rifles make up only a fraction of a sections firepower, the vast majority comes from belt feed machine guns.
Pretty sure those aren't legal. God I hope those aren't legal...

Actually they are legal as long as you pay a fee of 400 per year to the ATF, and if you have enough money and friends in the right places you can get your hands on a GE minigun

Trust me, you don't want rocket launchers kicking around. Military weapons are terrfying even when your the one firing.

I no, i was just kiddin
In other news- the US court of appeals for the D.C. circuit rules the D.C. handgun ban unconstitutional

if Templar is right and those kind of weapons are easily accessible in the US then it really is just a disaster waiting to happen.

you can easily buy an AK47 for under 400 in most gun shows here, i have one

[Fiberfar]

you can easily buy an AK47 for under 400 in most gun shows here, i have one

Hm... I think all kind of weapons with automatic fire is illegal in Norway (except for those in the military).

[TEMPLAR67]

Hm... I think all kind of weapons with automatic fire is illegal in Norway (except for those in the military).

It is actually illegal to purchase a full auto weapon at a gun show but the guy right next to the one you bought it from usually sells conversion kits. I have yet to get mine done .Again, I love gun shows

[Chanak]

Those conversion kits skirt the law by a loophole. There is a way to turn a semi-automatic rifle into an automatic one, yes...using a technicality. Quite frankly, anything that transforms a firearm into an automatic weapon should be illegal here, period.

@Obsidian, the situation regarding military issue weapons in the U.S. armed forces is identical to your own experience up there. Weapons and small arms ammunition are secured in a unit's Arms Room, with access tightly controlled by command. The Armorer (typically a unit Noncom assigned to the role, not a specialized occupation) is the only one able to access the Arms Room, although if I'm not mistaken a unit's commanding officer will also possess the means to access the Arms Room. 20 minutes sounds like a realistic figure. Either the Armorer of the Commander would have to arrive, open the variety of locks on the Arms Room door, and begin the tedious task of handing weapons and ammo out to soldiers as they file past.

Heh, and you'd best be 1000% certain it is YOUR OWN assigned weapon you take out of there. A mistake can lead to courts martial in a heartbeat. And it is never the Armorer's fault if you end up with the wrong one, either. You must check it before walking away.

The level of nascience regarding firearms in general is amazing in my country. Again and again you see Hollywood movies and TV shows depicting muscle-bound knuckleheads (or conversely, bikini-clad fitness model dominatrixes) toting 7.62mm sub-machine guns such as the M-60 cradled in one arm, firing away at hordes of screaming foes. Or the hero who leaps spectacularly into the air, firing away with a 9mm handgun in each hand, contacting a mess of enemies flawlessly as he/she sails through the air. Such nonsense doesn't help the dose of reality that people here in my own country so desperately need regarding firearms. It's a symptom of a greater illness, I think. Guns and sorry attitudes are glamorized by our media to such a degree that little kids act out the sick fantasies portrayed by their movie and TV heroes quite frequently during their playtime, and it sours my stomach to see it. It's quite different from the Army men of my day when I was their age.

Anyone with military or police training (or even students of a solid Hunter's Safety course, if they actually pay attention during class) knows: A) how dangerous firearms can be; B) that safety is the highest priority when handling firearms; C) that firearms are NEVER stored loaded; and D) that you treat every firearm as if it were loaded, even if you personally know (and have verified) that said weapon is not presently loaded.

A dose of reality: automatic weapons are actually rather frightening to handle when fired. They tend to "climb" on you very quickly and require both secure footing and adequate training to use as they were intended: in a military situation, serving as suppression fire. Note that this does not include out in the field hunting animals, or in the gun locker inside of someone's house. Automatic weapons are infamously inaccurate and beastly to handle. I should know, I was both an M-60 submachine gunner for my squad in most of the units I was assigned to, and in my last unit I operated a vehicular-mounted M-2 .50 caliber machine gun. The M-60 requires tripod mounting on the ground in order to use effectively. The M-2 is a beast and is far too heavy for even the strongest individuals to carry fully assembled...let alone attached to a belt of those tremendous bullets. Those things are huge. Unassembled, three soldiers carried an M-2. Someone carried the tripod, someone carried the barrel, and the unlucky one had to lug the chamber assembly.

Not that fable needs any affirmation regarding this, but his statement regarding the US Constitution *not* guaranteeing citizens a blanket right to bear arms is quite correct: it does not. The Constitution only provides for an armed militia for States...which, over 150 years ago, actually existed and essentially was comprised of adult male landowners in a State, who were typically the ones who owned firearms in the first place. Evetually state militias were phased out and in their place the National Guard came into being. Some time ago the National Guard was federalized to the degree that the President could summon individual or even *all* National Guard units to active military status, effectively making them part of the federal military forces. The States still retain a measure of control over the National Guard within their borders, but it is more of a "parent and child" relationship. A state's governor has authority unless the President of the United States speaks up and activates them.

All of that is to serve a point: State militias don't actually exist anymore.

[TEMPLAR67]

@Chanak, I would just like to say thank you for your service and the same to all of the other current or previous military from all countries in this discussion.
There really is no point for a civilian to have a full auto gun except for the fact they can be a lot of fun, most people cannot handle the kind of responsibility that goes with that kind of weapon. And for anybody that hasn't already seen it, look up the north Hollywood shootout to see what automatic weapons can do when in the wrong hands.(some good clips on youtube)

[Chanak]

Guns played a role in protecting families and livelihoods in the relatively lawless environment of frontier America a few centuries ago. As infrastructure and law enforcement arrived, the "need" for arms disappeared...however, the mind-set that saw a "need" for them never went away. Truly, at that point the only real and justifiable use for firearms amongst the general population was for the hunting of game, or the slaughtering of livestock on farms.

The concept that we somehow "need" firearms to protect ourselves from a possibly oppressive government - or from the ravages of criminals - is a faulty one in my estimation. Really...as a former government employee in a variety of capacities (the military being my first but not the last), I am confident that if the "government" wanted to oppress someone and spirit them away, it very well could do so despite brandishing firearms at its agents. After all, they overcome armed and dangerous criminals on a daily basis, do they not? We also have law enforcement agencies in our society that exist to enforce laws and possess adequate force to meet armed and dangerous criminals when they present themselves. They are trained to do so, and are even paid to fulfill that role.

Guns had a place in the hands of citizens during a time in the past when there was a lack of infrastructure and law enforcement presence over much of our country. Such is not the case these days, however. Based on this fact alone - the fact that the law has a long arm now, reaching across all of the states and capable of dealing with armed criminals when they arise - I could say that firearms have no place at all in the hands of citizens, period.

I'll make an exception to that since as it happens, hunting in the US is a crucial element of successful wildlife management programs in every state, chiefly due to a lack of natural predators in the wild places. Were it not for the controls introduced by regulated hunting, white tail deer populations would spiral completely out of control, resulting in mass starvation as the animals exhausted the ability of the environment to support them. In the past, natural predators would keep their populations in check. With their eradication, hunters now serve as that balancing predating factor.

So, because of those facts I would approve of the ownership of certain firearms designated for use by hunters (semi-automatic pistols and assault rifle models have no place in the hands of a hunter...they were created and intended to be used by military and law enforcement personnel). I believe that society needs to demand stringent measures of control regulating the ownership and use of hunting firearms. There should be lengthy waiting periods before a purchase can be made, an owner's license that must be renewed annually - only issued once a background check is passed and a fee paid - and zero-tolerance laws for any deviation outside of verifiable hunting activities. For example: a licensed gun owner is found to be in possession of his/her hunting firearm in their vehicle while visiting a friend's home. That person should be subjected to the suspension of their ownership license, the confiscation of their hunting firearm(s), and face a stiff fine for their first offense. A second offense should result in the permanent suspension of their license, and jail time. It should be that tough.

[Gilliatt]

Guns played a role in protecting families and livelihoods in the relatively lawless environment of frontier America a few centuries ago. As infrastructure and law enforcement arrived, the "need" for arms disappeared...however, the mind-set that saw a "need" for them never went away. Truly, at that point the only real and justifiable use for firearms amongst the general population was for the hunting of game, or the slaughtering of livestock on farms.

The concept that we somehow "need" firearms to protect ourselves from a possibly oppressive government - or from the ravages of criminals - is a faulty one in my estimation. Really...as a former government employee in a variety of capacities (the military being my first but not the last), I am confident that if the "government" wanted to oppress someone and spirit them away, it very well could do so despite brandishing firearms at its agents. After all, they overcome armed and dangerous criminals on a daily basis, do they not? We also have law enforcement agencies in our society that exist to enforce laws and possess adequate force to meet armed and dangerous criminals when they present themselves. They are trained to do so, and are even paid to fulfill that role.

Guns had a place in the hands of citizens during a time in the past when there was a lack of infrastructure and law enforcement presence over much of our country. Such is not the case these days, however. Based on this fact alone - the fact that the law has a long arm now, reaching across all of the states and capable of dealing with armed criminals when they arise - I could say that firearms have no place at all in the hands of citizens, period.

I'll make an exception to that since as it happens, hunting in the US is a crucial element of successful wildlife management programs in every state, chiefly due to a lack of natural predators in the wild places. Were it not for the controls introduced by regulated hunting, white tail deer populations would spiral completely out of control, resulting in mass starvation as the animals exhausted the ability of the environment to support them. In the past, natural predators would keep their populations in check. With their eradication, hunters now serve as that balancing predating factor.

So, because of those facts I would approve of the ownership of certain firearms designated for use by hunters (semi-automatic pistols and assault rifle models have no place in the hands of a hunter...they were created and intended to be used by military and law enforcement personnel). I believe that society needs to demand stringent measures of control regulating the ownership and use of hunting firearms. There should be lengthy waiting periods before a purchase can be made, an owner's license that must be renewed annually - only issued once a background check is passed and a fee paid - and zero-tolerance laws for any deviation outside of verifiable hunting activities. For example: a licensed gun owner is found to be in possession of his/her hunting firearm in their vehicle while visiting a friend's home. That person should be subjected to the suspension of their ownership license, the confiscation of their hunting firearm(s), and face a stiff fine for their first offense. A second offense should result in the permanent suspension of their license, and jail time. It should be that tough.

I agree with you Chanak. Gun control was imposed recently in Canada and I had no problem with the fact that I needed to register my hunting rifles. In fact, I see it almost as a kind of satisfaction, because it means that I respect the law and that the government judges that I have the capacity to act in a responsible manner with my rifles. To be honest, I would be dissapointed if the government decides to make them illegal, but I would not hide them if that becomes the case. I would give them, because I don't need hunting rifles to live, I can buy meat at the grocery store and amongst the thousands of people I have met in my life, none of them have ever been attacked by criminals. My father was a policeman for more then 35 years and he never shot anyone, so why would a normal citizen need a weapon?

@ Obsidian and Chanak, I used to have a very bad opinion of soldiers because the few I have met in my life taught they were some kind of superheroes fighting villains. You both make me lose that opinion and realize that the militia is not different than any other branch of society: it is composed of a mix of people, some more dumb than others and some more intelligent than others. Mea culpa.

[Chanak]

@Gilliatt: As a hunter, you're aware that certain kinds of firearms really have no place in taking down game. I do know that at least in the state of Tennessee, it is illegal to hunt with a semi-automatic pistol, or a fully automatic firearm. In the case of waterfowl and other federally regulated wildlife, permissible weapons and ammunition (I believe no lead shot is allowed in the case of ducks and geese) is spelled out clearly for a hunter. Anything other than what the law proscribes can result in trouble, and large fines. This sort of regulation should extend to cover the entire sphere of gun ownership, limiting it to hunting only.

Re: military...really, a military force is a cross-section of people from all walks of life in a country. You'll find as many reasons for being in the military as you will people inside of it. Mostly, people in a military force (at least in Western societies) are just like everyone else you'll encounter in day-to-day living. As for myself, I joined for 2 basic reasons: first, money for education; and secondly, I desperately needed the structure of the military and the kick in the rear it would give me. It paid off, and did both of those things. It wasn't a career nor lifetime committment for me, like it was for my father. I joined at 19, and got out at 23 after a 4-year term of active duty service. That set the stage for some government jobs afterwards, both federal and state.

[TEMPLAR67]

The concept that we somehow "need" firearms to protect ourselves from a possibly oppressive government - or from the ravages of criminals - is a faulty one in my estimation. Really...as a former government employee in a variety of capacities (the military being my first but not the last), I am confident that if the "government" wanted to oppress someone and spirit them away, it very well could do so despite brandishing firearms at its agents. After all, they overcome armed and dangerous criminals on a daily basis, do they not? We also have law enforcement agencies in our society that exist to enforce laws and possess adequate force to meet armed and dangerous criminals when they present themselves. They are trained to do so, and are even paid to fulfill that role.

While we dont have to worry about an oppressive govt any time soon criminals are always a concern no matter where you live. In some cases it can take as long as 15 min for police to arrive on the scene of a break in, and that is if your lucky enough to get to a phone the moment they get in. your chances of at the very least frightening a would be criminal into leaving are much better if you have a firearm.

So, because of those facts I would approve of the ownership of certain firearms designated for use by hunters (semi-automatic pistols and assault rifle models have no place in the hands of a hunter

In the hands of a hunter no they dont(in fact it is illegal to hunt with an assault rifle), but a person like me who collects guns from all over the world and it has kinda become my hobby on the weekends i just cant see any problem with it. I would be just fine if you had to get a license to own them and possibly some sort of evaluation to see if your crazy or not but in general i see no problem with the ownership of assault rifles and pistols. If i HAD to pick any sort of weapon to ban it would be pistols as they are used in the vast majority of gun crimes

My father was a policeman for more then 35 years and he never shot anyone, so why would a normal citizen need a weapon?

Id bet a considerable amount of money that you could find hundreds of cases on the internet where people have saved their lives and belongings because they had a firearm.

And if any of that up above dosent make sense its because its 230 AM and im havin some trouble puting my thoughts together. sry

[C Elegans]

part I

I am sorry I post this without having read all the posts in this thread, but briefly skimming through the thread I got the impression that several people are interested in possible causes and explanatory factors in events such as the recent Virginia "school shooting" tragedy. Since the topic taps my area of expertise (I have an ongoing project where I collaborate with epidemiologists, geneticists and forensic researchers to identify risk factors for violent behaviour) I thought some of you may be interested in current knowledge and hypotheses in this field. Naturally one cannot speculate too much about the specific Virginia yet since a lot of things are not known yet, but many studies of similar events have been performed.


Mass killings such as the Virginia school shooting are very rare events compared to other lethal violence among youths (or among any people, but let's focus this discussion on school killings and related events). This means knowledge about such events is limited by the insecurity in measurements that must follow from the fact that the events, like most human behaviour, are complex and multi-factorial, but not very many. In other words, a conclusion, any conclusion, is less realiable and secure the fewer observations you have and the larger variation you have between the observations. If you have 100 cases of "A --> B and only B" it's safer and easier to draw the conclusion "A causes B" than if you have 100 cases and in 50 of them "A --> B", in 10 "A --> C" in 20 "A --> B and X" in 5 "A --> D but only of Z is present", etc.

Since mass killings are so rare events, school killings/shootings are often lumped together with other violent crimes in school environment, or among school children/youths. It is not known whether school shootings are really a subgroup of other violence, or if they constitute a specific, unique type of violence. Judging from what is known hitherto, it seems like it's a subgroup of general violence among young people rather than a highly specific, unique type. School killings seem to be the extremest form of a continuum of violent and destructive behaviours seen in a certain context, performed by a certain type of people.

Risk factors

A risk factor is a factor that contributes to the development of something, for instance a disease or a behaviour pattern. A risk factor does not mean a 1:1 relationship - all mass murderers do not display strong interest in weapons, but a whole lot do, many more than among the normal population. Also, a risk factor must not necessarily be causal, it could also be something that increases the receptivity for a certain disease or behaviour. For example, low intelligence does not cause mass murder. Low intelligence is however associated with brain damage, many neuropsychiatric and developmental disorders and it increases the risk of an individual not being able to develop in a healthy manner with adequate and adaptive coping skills, response- and behaviour patterns.

Some risk factors are known to be common for all types of violent behaviour. More specifically for perpetrators of mass school killings however are a certain type of aggressive-depressive response pattern combined with aversive social experiences and access to firearms.

The strongest and most common risk factors are (not in rank order):

External attribution style, ie blaming others for perceived misfortunes and failures
Poor social competence and social skills
Fascination and interest in for guns and explosives
Fascination and interest in targetted violence
Access to firearms

other very common risk factors are:

Feelings of being rejected and/or picked on by peers
Depression
Aggression problems, tendency to respond with aggression since early age
Experience of recent stressful event/loss of status or "face"
Preoccupation with violent media (such as music, movies, games)


To make a developmental description: the persons who are at risk for developing into mass murderers of the type seems in school shootings, are individuals who already as small children (most likely due to genetic factors) tend to display aggression and react on frustration, disappointment and punishment with extrovert aggression. Unfortunately, the person also has low social skills, low coping skills and difficulties to adapt, which often leads to poor peer relations, social isolation, bullying or rejection. A vicious circle of poor social situation and a bad depressive-aggressive response to this is developed. The individual feels bad, have a lot of emotionally painful experiences and blame others and "society" for this and has no ability to cope with the situation and improve it. Instead, the person withdrawns into a fantasy world where he develops a glamourised ideal image of himself and his own violent impulses as a brave and heroic victim of evil who uses violence as a means to demonstrate the "true heroic nature" he really has. This distorted self-image can be reinforced by consumption of media that offers such stereotypes or "role models" to identify with, and propagates a romanticised image of violent acts.
Over time, the perpetrator narcissistically feels he has the right to kill these other people, it's a restoration of justice, a just revenge. If the individual then is exposed to a stressful trauma, especially of the social humiliation type where he experiences "loss of face/status", the risk for an aggressive revenge display increases.

The development into a "school shooter" does not happen overnight, it takes many years. Warning signs are many - 75% of perpetrators have even given explicit warnings and threats before the actual killing event. Studies in the US however show that only 25% of these have resulted in any form of follow-up. The response from the environment is of course depending on cultural values, knowledge, resources, control mechanisms and social support, so this will differ between different societies.

As you can see, the specific individual Cho Seung-Hui seems to fit perfectly into this development pattern.


Protective factors

Protective factors are factors that, when present, result in the negative development not occuring even if multiple risk factors are present. They explain why not everybody who displays equal risk factors become mass murderers.

For violent behaviour and violent crime among youths in general, it is known that the following factors related to the individual, are protective:

High intelligence
Committment and successful acheivements in school
Emotionally warm and supportive family relationships
Bonding with prosocial peers

For school killings in particular, not much is known about protective factors in the individual, since large study samples are needed to draw that kind of conclusions. Protective factors in society have however been studied since matched comparisons between individuals with equal risk but in different cultures can be studied.
There is evidence that control mechanisms such as restricted access to firemarms and extensive health care systems in school are the main reasons why mass school killings occur in the US but hardly elsewhere. There is also a hypothesis that US youths at group level have a stronger tendency than European and Asian youths to glamorise and romanticise violence.

According to WHO's World report on violence and health (2000), the homicide rate per 100 000 population was as follows for some selected countries:

Austria 0.8
Canada 1.4
Denmark 1.1
Germany 0.9
Italy 1.1
Japan 0.6
Spain 0.8
Sweden 1.2
UK 0.8
USA 6.9

Obviously, the rate in the US is very low compared to Columbia's 61.6 or Russia's 21.6, but it's quite a lot higher than all Western European contries and Japan.

School or mass killings by young offenders have so far been far more common in the US than in any other part of the world. There is no comparison really, the sum of the events in the rest of the world together is only a fraction of the events in the US. It is not known if this is related to the same factors that cause the generally higher homicide rate in the US or not.

It is interesting to compare homicide, including "school shootings", with other types of violent crime, for instance sexual violence, robbery or assaults. For sexual violence, the US and Western European countries do not differ. For robbery and assaults, the difference between the US and the Northwestern European countries except for the UK are still large, but the difference between the US and Southern European countries is quite small. So it seems that the US is generally more violent than Northwestern European countries excluding the UK, but not more generally violent than Western Europe as a whole. The big difference between the US and Western Europe is that people murder each other much more often in the US.

[Xandax]

<snip>
Id bet a considerable amount of money that you could find hundreds of cases on the internet where people have saved their lives and belongings because they had a firearm.

And if any of that up above dosent make sense its because its 230 AM and im havin some trouble puting my thoughts together. sry

That is a pretty faulty argument to say the least, because without making exact references, you/they have no way of knowing that their life would not have been saved without themselves being armed.

And then the interesting point would be how many people loose their live to people being armed as opposed to people who were actually saved (given the restriction just mentioned).

[C Elegans]

part II

I am sorry for the lenght of this, but I'd also like to comment on some popular beliefs I have seen in media as well as in this thread:

Some people believe anyone could become a mass murderer providing the circumstances are right. This is completely wrong. Only a small minority of the population would murder a number of innocent people as a response to perceived injustice or maltreatment. Instead, it is a long and complex development behind the act of mass murder, a development that probably must start even with a genetic vulnerability. (There are some really interesting recent studies of genetic factors, aggressive behaviour, conduct disorder, criminal behaviour and psychopathy, but that's off the topic, if someone is interested I can post more about that later)

Every school shooting and other mass murder committed with firearms, raises the gun control debate in the US. The slogan "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is nonsense in the sense that guns provide people the opportunity to kill much more than they could otherwise if the gun control does not restrict a certain type of persons from getting access to guns.

Access to firearms does not cause school shootings and it doesn't make a disturbed person more disturbed, but the effect of the disorder will be more severe if disturbed people have access to firearms. A violent lunatic with a knife or a baseball bat is not able to kill as many as fast as a lunatic with a gun. Comparative studies show that individuals who fit the "risk profile" equally well as the perpetrators of school shootings but who haven't had any access to firearms, have not at all managed to kill as many people. For instance, we've had several cases of school youths in Sweden who have tried to hurt or kill others by burning down buildings or with knives, baseball bats or iron bars. It is however very difficult to kill 32 people with a baseball bat. In fact, so far there has not been any lethal results at all.

In Norway and Canada, guns per capita is comparable if not even larger than in the US. Still, the homicide rate is at the same level as Western Europe with much fewer guns in society, and school shootings have never occurred in Norway and only 3 times in Canada (of which 2 was over 30 years ago). Personally I am not well read into the gun restriction laws in Canada, but according to many forensic researchers, the risk factor in the US compared to other countries with many guns, is not the number of guns but that anyone, also disturbed persons and criminals can get firearms so much easier.

Finally, I think it's important to observe the relationship between media and violence behaviour. It's been proposed that violent media such as movies, computer games and music with violent lyrics cause young people to committ violent acts. It is not as simple, the association between violent media and violent behaviour is more interactive than that.
Interest in and consumption of violent media is secondary to the disturbed personality, it is not the primary cause of the disorder. However, like with access to firearms, it contributes to making the situation worse. The offender often gets inspiration from violent media, and find role models he can "look up to" and identify with. An environment that presents a glamourised and idealised image of violence towards others, gives a form for the disturbed individual to get his "revenge" and make up for the perceived unjustices he has been victim for. Violent media do not only provide concrete ideas and examples how to kill and torture others, it also provides a meaningful context.
In some cultures, killing yourself is viewed as a way to "save your face", in other cultures you "save your face" and reach justice by revenge and punishment of others.

It has been shown in many studies that children and youths display more violent behaviour immediately after consuming violent media. It however remains unclear if this is a lasting effect or not. More research on the putative relationship between violent media and violent behaviour is needed before any definite conclusions can be drawn.

Currently in forensic research, the effect of mass media rather than specifically violent media, is discussed a lot. There is a hypothesis that one of the reasons why shoot shootings occur much more often in the US than elsewhere is that more school shootings have already happened there. It is known from many studies of other violent crimes, that high media exposure of an event leads to "copycat" events. Other disturbed persons get inspired and triggered by the attention the original crime got. It is currently thought that for the disturbed school shooter, the knowledge that he will get an extreme amount of media attention, provides additional confirmation and satisfaction aside from the actual killing. Polls consistently show that "becoming famous" is more important than ever among young people, and that includes putative school shooters. Thus, mass media exposure is a risk factor that needs to be more investigated - currently some researchers belive mass media is a larger risk factor than access to firearms.

For those who are more interested in the topic, and/or wish to control my source material, the best single piece of information on the topic of school shootings is probably this review:

Verlinden S, Hersen M, Thomas J. Risk factors in school shootings. Clin Psychol Rev. 2001 Feb;21(1):159.

Another relevant article is:

Anderson M, Kaufman J, Simon TR, Barrios L, Paulozzi L, Ryan G, Hammond R, Modzeleski W, Feucht T, Potter L; School-Associated Violent Deaths Study Group. School-associated violent deaths in the United States, 1994-1999.
JAMA. 2001 Dec 5;286(21):2695-702.

It's supposed to be a free article, but I can't really confirm that since I'm connected via my university proxy. You can find it here and try:
JAMA -- Table of Contents (Vol. 286 No. 21, December 5, 2001)

A couple of more recent papers, although not as extensive:

Murakami S, Rappaport N, Penn JV. An overview of juveniles and school violence. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2006 Sep;29(3):725-41. Review.

Williams K, Rivera L, Neighbours R, Reznik V. Youth violence prevention comes of age: research, training and future directions. Annu Rev Public Health. 2007;28:195-211.

For those who are interested, all the above papers and more, can be found at libraries with Medline/Pubmed access. For a brief introduction to the topic, read APA's "Warning signs of youth violence".
APA Help Center - Featured Topics - "Warning Signs"

[Dottie]

It has been shown in many studies that children and youths display more violent behaviour immediately after consuming violent media. It however remains unclear if this is a lasting effect or not. More research on the putative relationship between violent media and violent behaviour is needed before any definite conclusions can be drawn.

I did post an article about longitudinal relationship between violent media and violent behavior in a thread about violent games, but I didn't get any comments on that. It would be nice to know whether you consider it to be a valid study design or not.

[url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/speak-your-mind-16/jack-thompsons-proposal-67148.html"]Thread[/url]

[url="http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/dev392201.pdf"]Article[/url]

Edit: In case anyone wonder about the results but are to lazy to read the article it showed that consumption of violent media (In this case TV series) did in fact cause violent behaviour later in life.

[TEMPLAR67]

And then the interesting point would be how many people loose their live to people being armed as opposed to people who were actually saved (given the restriction just mentioned).

You can never have an exact # of people whose lives were saved by guns annually as we dont know what "could" have happened. But guns annually kill about 11,000 ppl in the u.s. every year, omg thats so many ppl right , well not really when you consider that alcohol is responsible for about 32,000 deaths in 06 and just in the UK cigarettes kill about 120,000 people per year and in the US it is even more, almost half a million people every year , so should we ban cigarettes an alcohol too?if we heard about it every time someone died because of alcohol or cigarettes we would probable be having a different discussion right now.

[Fiberfar]

Most of the people who died from smoking and drinking, chose to take those smokes and drink that alcohol themselves. I'm fairly certain that those 11 000 who died from guns didn't chose to have that bullet fired at them.

Me I'd rather live a short life with alcohol and cigarettes each day than to end it right now with a gun...