Shooting at Northern Illinois University

[jon1856]

Gunman's Friendly Exterior Masked Past


By ASHLEY M. HEHER and CARYN ROUSSEAU,
AP
Posted: 2008-02-16 06:58:46
Filed Under: Nation News
DEKALB, Ill. (Feb. 16) - Steven Kazmierczak's quiet, dependable and fun-loving exterior masked troubling details from his past that emerged as a stunned community struggled to understand what caused the 27-year-old to open fire on a class at Northern Illinois University, leaving six people dead.
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/gunmans...14171009990001

How the NIU Massacre Happened

The first thing Lhee Santos remembers of the worst afternoon of his life was the tall, thin man kicking open the door on the lecture hall's right side. It was 3:06 p.m. and the intruder walked onto the stage, startling the professor, Joseph Peterson. The unannounced visitor bore several weapons, including a 12-gauge shotgun, a 9-mm glock pistol and two other pistols. He wore jeans and a t-shirt and carried a guitar case. The 150 or so students in the introductory geology class thought it was all just a joke. That is, until the gunfire started. The first body down was the professor's.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...eed-cnn-topics

[KDAngel]

Dan Parmenter was the Pi Kappa Alpha that was killed. He's closely connected to my best friend, so it's so crazy to feel so connected to this.

He dated Lauren Debrauwere (the Sigma Kappa who was shot and is in critical, but stable condition). She was sitting right next to him when he was killed. I can't even imagine that... I'm just happy she's alive.

The names of everyone's out there now, I don't feel bad posting. I think if anything it'd be good to pray for Lauren to get well and to be able to cope with this horrible tragedy.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by KDAngel

Dan Parmenter was the Pi Kappa Alpha that was killed. He's closely connected to my best friend, so it's so crazy to feel so connected to this.

He dated Lauren Debrauwere (the Sigma Kappa who was shot and is in critical, but stable condition). She was sitting right next to him when he was killed. I can't even imagine that... I'm just happy she's alive.

The names of everyone's out there now, I don't feel bad posting. I think if anything it'd be good to pray for Lauren to get well and to be able to cope with this horrible tragedy.

I can understand you feelings and perhaps others here can as well.
I too have had a few (too many) close ties to some events in the past.
"Crazy" is only one term you can use.

I think I can say the just about most of the US and parts of the World have everyone who was involved in their thoughts, minds and hearts.

[barbino]

Knowing that there would be a thread on the shooting at NIU on GC, I deliberately gave myself a few days to deal with my emotions before posting. It seems that the older I get, the more emotional I become, and episodes like this can bring it out in all of us. Yes, I know several NIU alums. I could have gone there myself. It's all over the news in Chicago, and every news brief has an update on the story.

The shooting was senseless and tragic - like many others, I am left asking, "Why?" The last news update said that there was no suicide note left by the shooter, and because of this, we may never know what caused him to do this. Right now, I am sadly pondering this last bit of information.

[knight_shadow]

Oops.

[LatinaAlumna]

^They do have a chapter there, but the women involved are from Delta Psi Alpha Co-Ed Fraternity:

http://www.deltapsialpha.com/

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by LatinaAlumna

^They do have a chapter there, but the women involved are from Delta Psi Alpha Co-Ed Fraternity:

http://www.deltapsialpha.com/

I searched for about 3 hours trying to find that link. My mistake!

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

This is an incredibly broad overstatement about something you seem to be unfamiliar with.

You have no idea how familiar I am with this topic. Just say you disagree, based on your personal opinion and experience. You do realize there's more to these types of debates than your personal opinion and the experiences of you and the people you know, right?

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

You have no idea how familiar I am with this topic. Just say you disagree, based on your personal opinion and experience. You do realize there's more to these types of debates than your personal opinion and the experiences of you and the people you know, right?

Of course I do. However, for those of us who do have some experience with the subject matter, it is fairly easy to spot those who are unfamiliar with it.

It isn't an insult, but I won't simply say I don't agree. If you're knowledgeable about something, and clearly I'm not, for the benefit of others monitoring the discussion I would fully expect you to point out that disparity. I don't think there is anything abnormal about this. If you think I'm wrong, feel free to say so and explain why you feel that way, if you so choose.

A lot of people are out there spreading lies/misrepresentations/misunderstandings about firearms. Thus, if I think I spot some, I'm more than willing to point them out.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

However, for those of us who do have some experience with the subject matter, it is fairly easy to spot those who are unfamiliar with it.

It obviously isn't as easy as you think.

Originally Posted by shinerbock

A lot of people are out there spreading lies/misrepresentations/misunderstandings about firearms. Thus, if I think I spot some, I'm more than willing to point them out.

This is why I edited my post. This isn't a gun control debate but there were no lies/misrepresentations/misunderstandings in my post. More importantly, this isn't a general gun control debate. I agree with the right to bear arms--as long as those who are pro and con aren't misrepresenting the truth. I never said that gun carriers are crazy people who want to shoot up the world just because they can legally carry a gun. I know that most gun carriers rarely use their gun or have one for hunting (which goes back to my previous post).

I simply disagree with guns where the law currently forbids them. I said that in certain contexts (i.e. home, school, work) guns can increase the violence potential because everyone wants to protect "what's theirs" and it decreases the ability for altercations to end without gunfire.


Therefore, the law forbids them in certain places for a reason.

Among those reasons:

1. People who own guns do not shoot up random restaurants if the server pisses them off. However, the likelihood of gun violence increases with the frequency in which gun access converges with people's daily interactions with others. That's based on years of qualitative and quantitate research on gun violence in neighborhoods, homes, and schools.

2. The above includes already motivated offenders (who weren't found in background checks--no surprise) who now have a legal reason to have their gun at school--spend less time hiding their gun and more time focusing on what they plan on doing with it.

3. Everything else I said in my previous posts.

This is a circular discussion because my point of reference will always be different than yours. That's fine.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

It obviously isn't as easy as you think.

A lot of people are out there spreading lies/misrepresentations/misunderstandings about firearms. Thus, if I think I spot some, I'm more than willing to point them out.

This is why I edited my post. This isn't a gun control debate. I agree with the right to bear arms--as long as those who are pro and con aren't misrepresenting the truth. I never said that gun carriers are crazy people who want to shoot up the world just because they can legally carry a gun. I know that most gun carriers rarely use their gun or have one for hunting (which goes back to my previous post).

I simply disagree with guns where the law currently forbids them. I said that in certain contexts (i.e. home, school, work) guns increase the violence potential because everyone wants to protect "what's theirs" and it decreases the ability for altercations to end without gunfire.


Therefore, the law forbids them in certain places for a reason.

Among those reasons:

1. People who own guns do not shoot up random restaurants if the server pisses them off. However, the likelihood of gun violence increases with the frequency in which gun access converges with people's daily interactions with others. That's based on years of qualitative and quantitate research on gun violence in neighborhoods, homes, and schools.

2. The above includes already motivated offenders (who weren't found in background checks--no surprise) who now have a legal reason to have their gun at school--spend less time hiding their gun and more time focusing on what they plan on doing with it.

2. Everything else I said in my previous posts.

This is a circular discussion because my point of reference will always be different than yours. That's fine.[/QUOTE]

1. I'd like to see any particular research you're referring to. I suspect you may be speaking in generalities, but if there is a specific study you took note of I'd like to know about it. There is also research showing that violence has decreased in areas where gun ownership for purposes of self defense is encouraged. I also highly suspect that there are also other variables in many of these studies which may disqualify them from usefulness in this discussion.

2. I've seen no support for such an argument. If you argue that potential killers may use concealed carry on campus rights, I'd agree with you. My point is that the prohibition of concealed carry on campus won't prevent such people from going forward with their plans. All it does is prevent those who respect the law from protecting themselves.

You're right that this is a circular discussion. I'm not writing because I want to win this argument, I'm responding because I don't want your assertions to go uncontested, considering this is a very popular topic with a lot of people having unformed opinions.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I suspect you may be speaking in generalities, but if there is a specific study you took note of I'd like to know about it. There is also research showing that violence has decreased in areas where gun ownership for purposes of self defense is encouraged. I also highly suspect that there are also other variables in many of these studies which may disqualify them from usefulness in this discussion.

I am speaking in general about the findings of years of research because, again, my point of reference is different than yours. It would be extremely tedious and boring to go study-by-study (and translate certain findings so laypersons can follow) and that's why the gun control debate is rarely supported by research on either side, beyond low-level surveys. Findings can be twisted, which is why this isn't a gun control discussion. This is a discussion of why guns should not be allowed on campuses--and why many students, faculty, and staff are not willing to test whether the pros and cons of gun control are a reality.

Decreases in violence are a combination of factors just as increases are. Refer back to what I said in my other post about gun violence in the 1990's. where my point is that gun access did not reduce violence the way people assumed that it would. Gun violence increased for reasons including but not limited to gun access, however new people became involved because they now had guns that they attempted to use or had guns taken from them (which put more guns on the streets). Law abiding citizens were not going to let people take over their communities and they wanted to both protect themselves and fight back. Well, that made the would-be assailants think of better ways to be better assailants and prepare for wannabe Rambos with guns.

Other variables do not dismiss a studies usefulness. Other variables with effects that are not controlled for provide limitations that reduce the strength of the findings.

Originally Posted by shinerbock

You're right that this is a circular discussion. I'm not writing because I want to win this argument, I'm responding because I don't want your assertions to go uncontested, considering this is a very popular topic with a lot of people having unformed opinions.

It isn't about winning or losing because this isn't a formal debate. But I don't consider anything you typed to be a challenge to any of my assertions. And the fact still remains that guns will never be allowed on the average campus.

[nittanyalum]

Also, to toss one more pebble into the ripple, the idea that concealed campus carry might "scare" a would-be assailant from carrying out his craziness may be naive. Those types seem to like going out in a "blaze of glory" and often just turn the gun on themselves, anyway, so why would they care if the final bullet came from another gun? They'll still have had their rampage, will get their "fame" and won't have to face the consequences legally. So sure, they may get mowed down a little quicker if a couple of quick-draws in the 3rd row stand up and catch him in the chest, but that doesn't mean he won't still kick those doors in, fully armed and guns blazing randomly and try to do as much damage as he can before the gunfire he might now anticipate starts.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Also, to toss one more pebble into the ripple, the idea that concealed campus carry might "scare" a would-be assailant from carrying out his craziness may be naive. Those types seem to like going out in a "blaze of glory" and often just turn the gun on themselves, anyway, so why would they care if the final bullet came from another gun? They'll still have had their rampage, will get their "fame" and won't have to face the consequences legally. So sure, they may get mowed down a little quicker if a couple of quick-draws in the 3rd row stand up and catch him in the chest, but that doesn't mean he won't still kick those doors in, fully armed and guns blazing randomly and try to do as much damage as he can before the gunfire he might now anticipate starts.

I think you're right. Of course this depends on the assailant. Maybe to some potential assailants, the idea of being taken out before anything is "accomplished" would dissuade them from their course of action. Hard to say unless you're really in the head of one of these people. However, I do think most of these people have little respect for even their own life, so it may not make a difference.

Like everything else in this discussion, the result isn't certain. My mindset has nothing to do with whether this would be enough to dissuade potential assailants or whether it would prevent mass murder. Rather, I think that those responsible enough to carry in malls, restaurants, banks, etc...shouldn't have to abandon that ability to attend school.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Like everything else in this discussion, the result isn't certain.

What is certain is that the average college and university will not permit guns on or in close vicinity to their campuses.