School Shooting in Connecticut

Off Topic
621

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

Adam was in the autistic range. I actually was wondering with the huge rise in autism if this has anything to do with these really bright kids committing atrocities.[/quote]

I think this is a fascinating questions. The Batman shooter’s dad is a genius who works for FICO. James Holmes himself was working on his doctorate dissertation (this is from memory, I may be wrong). Adam Lanza’s dad is no dumb cookie, the guy was taking in nearly $500k/year and his mom was a trader.

So we have two terribly bright individuals with 2 sets of extremely bright parents committing these acts.[/quote]

I have heard that “high functioning brains” are more susceptible to mental instability. I would hate for people to blame autism though… Surely there were other psychiatric forces at play in this kid’s mind. I have never thought of autism as something that made people dangerous.[/quote]

Autistic children are sometimes violent due to the frustration they feel in dealing with society.

My neighbor two houses down has an eighteen year old, high functioning grand child with autism that lives with them. He is generally cooperative, but when he doesn’t want to do something becomes quite belligerent. The problem is that here is someone with the body of an adult with the mind of a child and even less than a childs ability to understand why people around him are different than him. Pretty disturbing to look up and see that someone is looking through your screen door and not saying a thing.

Disclaimer* I have grown up with an aunt with down syndrome, so I have a great deal of compassion for the mentally handicapped. I am just saying that the mental health aspect really should be something we should be looking at.

622

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

I have a theory feminism causes cancer. Its true. [/quote]

You’re smarter than we all thought!

It is well established that childless women and women having children later in life are at an increased risk of developing breast cancer. In particular, women having a first child before 20 years of age have a 50% reduction in lifetime breast cancer risk when compared with women who do not have children. This protective effect is specific for estrogen receptor positive breast cancer.

But seriously, I thought part of this discussion was about protecting the health and welfare of children?

623

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Ever wonder why so many children have autism nowadays? The average age women give birth has increased dramatically. Women who have children later in their fertile years have significantly more autistic children.

I believe there are ties to older men having children at a later age as well, but the link is minimal in comparison [/quote]

That’s Down Syndrome, not autism. There is conflicting evidence that a mother and father’s age an increase the risk of autism but it’s nothing like the relationship between a mother’s age and Down Syndrome.

624

[quote]challer1 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Ever wonder why so many children have autism nowadays? The average age women give birth has increased dramatically. Women who have children later in their fertile years have significantly more autistic children.

I believe there are ties to older men having children at a later age as well, but the link is minimal in comparison [/quote]

That’s Down Syndrome, not autism. There is conflicting evidence that a mother and father’s age an increase the risk of autism but it’s nothing like the relationship between a mother’s age and Down Syndrome.

http://downsyndrome.about.com/od/diagnosingdownsyndrome/a/Matagechart.htm[/quote]

Autism too.

But Down syndrome too yes, thanks for bringing that one up

625

My Christmas Wish:

That humans in this country and abroad will stop trying to pin Sandy Hook on one element, on one issue, on one condition.

There are multiple factors at play here, and the one thing we MUST understand is that it cannot be contained and wrapped up in one tiny box and shelved. There is no ground zero, there is no patient zero, there is no ultimate white-hot source where everything sprang from.

People with Autism and their parents-caretakers cannot be the people that are profiled as potential risks in this deal, just as American citizens who wore turbans and burkas shouldn’t have been profiled in the months after 9-11. It’s counterproductive and lame.

626

What happens to all the rambo gungho “if i had a gun on me and I was there” shooters at Fort Hood?

627

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
What happens to all the rambo gungho “if i had a gun on me and I was there” shooters at Fort Hood?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting[/quote]

You are going to love this (I’m retired Military and know this to be true). Most sections on Military Bases are GUN FREE Zones. The Dumbest shit on earth I know but trust me it’s true. Only the MP and the HIRED security teams carry

628

[quote]BradTGIF wrote:
My Christmas Wish:

That humans in this country and abroad will stop trying to pin Sandy Hook on one element, on one issue, on one condition.

There are multiple factors at play here, and the one thing we MUST understand is that it cannot be contained and wrapped up in one tiny box and shelved. There is no ground zero, there is no patient zero, there is no ultimate white-hot source where everything sprang from.

People with Autism and their parents-caretakers cannot be the people that are profiled as potential risks in this deal, just as American citizens who wore turbans and burkas shouldn’t have been profiled in the months after 9-11. It’s counterproductive and lame.

[/quote]

I wasn’t suggesting they be profiled, just that it may be prudent to look into the psychological aspect of very highly functioning autism spectrum and the inability to cope with society. A lot of these shooters are social outcasts yet highly intelligent and considering how little we know about autism it seems foolish to discount it.

629

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
What happens to all the rambo gungho “if i had a gun on me and I was there” shooters at Fort Hood?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting[/quote]

From article:

However, Lt. General Cone stated: “As a matter of practice, we do not carry weapons on Fort Hood. This is our home.”[119] Military weapons are only used for training or by base security, and personal weapons must be kept locked away by the provost marshal.[120] Specialist Jerry Richard, a soldier working at the Readiness Center, expressed the opinion that this policy had left them unnecessarily vulnerable to violent assaults: “Overseas you are ready for it. But here you can’t even defend yourself.”[121]

630

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]BradTGIF wrote:
My Christmas Wish:

That humans in this country and abroad will stop trying to pin Sandy Hook on one element, on one issue, on one condition.

There are multiple factors at play here, and the one thing we MUST understand is that it cannot be contained and wrapped up in one tiny box and shelved. There is no ground zero, there is no patient zero, there is no ultimate white-hot source where everything sprang from.

People with Autism and their parents-caretakers cannot be the people that are profiled as potential risks in this deal, just as American citizens who wore turbans and burkas shouldn’t have been profiled in the months after 9-11. It’s counterproductive and lame.

[/quote]

I wasn’t suggesting they be profiled, just that it may be prudent to look into the psychological aspect of very highly functioning autism spectrum and the inability to cope with society. A lot of these shooters are social outcasts yet highly intelligent and considering how little we know about autism it seems foolish to discount it.
[/quote]

I see what you’re saying man, and I wasn’t trying to single you out exclusively.

631

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
What happens to all the rambo gungho “if i had a gun on me and I was there” shooters at Fort Hood?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting[/quote]

What is your point? That you might get shot in a gunfight?

632

Another sad truth - if you ever have to defend yourself or someone else with the use of deadly force, you might as well kiss all of your assets, future income, and career goodbye. The likelihood of having all of that taken in civil court can be pretty high. All depends on what part of the country you live in and what went down.

633

[quote]Oldman Powers wrote:
Another sad truth - if you ever have to defend yourself or someone else with the use of deadly force, you might as well kiss all of your assets, future income, and career goodbye. The likelihood of having all of that taken in civil court can be pretty high. All depends on what part of the country you live in and what went down.[/quote]

Maybe true, but I’ll never allow that to be a factor in my decision to Act or not

634

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]Oldman Powers wrote:
Another sad truth - if you ever have to defend yourself or someone else with the use of deadly force, you might as well kiss all of your assets, future income, and career goodbye. The likelihood of having all of that taken in civil court can be pretty high. All depends on what part of the country you live in and what went down.[/quote]

Maybe true, but I’ll never allow that to be a factor in my decision to Act or not[/quote]

Agreed.
The topic is always covered in my CHL classes.

635

[quote]Oldman Powers wrote:
Another sad truth - if you ever have to defend yourself or someone else with the use of deadly force, you might as well kiss all of your assets, future income, and career goodbye. The likelihood of having all of that taken in civil court can be pretty high. All depends on what part of the country you live in and what went down.[/quote]

gee that or death. hmm

636

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

Adam was in the autistic range. I actually was wondering with the huge rise in autism if this has anything to do with these really bright kids committing atrocities.[/quote]

I think this is a fascinating questions. The Batman shooter’s dad is a genius who works for FICO. James Holmes himself was working on his doctorate dissertation (this is from memory, I may be wrong). Adam Lanza’s dad is no dumb cookie, the guy was taking in nearly $500k/year and his mom was a trader.

So we have two terribly bright individuals with 2 sets of extremely bright parents committing these acts.[/quote]

I have heard that “high functioning brains” are more susceptible to mental instability. I would hate for people to blame autism though… Surely there were other psychiatric forces at play in this kid’s mind. I have never thought of autism as something that made people dangerous.[/quote]

I have seen that “high functioning brains” come at the high cost of being grossly underdeveloped emotionally.

Much like the body builder that focus on one body part only.
That creates huge weakness.

Whilst these parents with gigantic brains may be able to intellectualize emotion, I question whether their children can ever feel their love.

Rejection is an ever present constant.

Intelligence is a shallow as beauty is.

All of you who have been in a relationship with a beautiful person who has only relied and developed their looks, ask yourself how meaningful and how loved, and how real did you feel with that person.

Now imagine the cold world of the children of high minded intellectuals.

637

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
The idea of teachers with guns is a non-starter for all the reasons listed in this thread and more. It works in Israel because there is mandatory conscription for Israeli citizens aged 18 and over. There is exactly %0 chance that the vast majority of teachers either want to be armed or have the training to warrant being armed.[/quote]

You don’t need “all” or even a majority. Just some.

I hunted terrorists for a living. Just like nuts, they looks for “soft” targets – because they are cowards in their hearts.

Again, the CO movie shooter picked the movie theater that was “gun free zone.” That’s intentional.

All you have to do is make the schools “less soft” of targets. The possibility of CCW is a huge deterrant. Get it where 5-10% of the teachers carry — most of the front desk folks and admin – that’d be huge.[/quote]

A gun is nearly useless if it’s locked up in a drawer or cabinet and a student could break in and get it. Teachers are in too close proximity to students walking through classroom aisles and too focused on teaching to constantly worry about it being snatched away. So I feel really uncomfortable about teachers having guns.

I am okay with teachers having similar equipment as prison guards. I would also be okay with administration carrying guns that don’t interact with students much. I would also be happy to pay a few dollars more in taxes to keep armed police men at a school. But teachers with guns, no.

638

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

Adam was in the autistic range. I actually was wondering with the huge rise in autism if this has anything to do with these really bright kids committing atrocities.[/quote]

I think this is a fascinating questions. The Batman shooter’s dad is a genius who works for FICO. James Holmes himself was working on his doctorate dissertation (this is from memory, I may be wrong). Adam Lanza’s dad is no dumb cookie, the guy was taking in nearly $500k/year and his mom was a trader.

So we have two terribly bright individuals with 2 sets of extremely bright parents committing these acts.[/quote]

I have heard that “high functioning brains” are more susceptible to mental instability. I would hate for people to blame autism though… Surely there were other psychiatric forces at play in this kid’s mind. I have never thought of autism as something that made people dangerous.[/quote]

I have seen that “high functioning brains” come at the high cost of being grossly underdeveloped emotionally.

Much like the body builder that focus on one body part only.
That creates huge weakness.

Whilst these parents with gigantic brains may be able to intellectualize emotion, I question whether their children can ever feel their love.

Rejection is an ever present constant.

Intelligence is a shallow as beauty is.

All of you who have been in a relationship with a beautiful person who has only relied and developed their looks, ask yourself how meaningful and how loved, and how real did you feel with that person.

Now imagine the cold world of the children of high minded intellectuals.
[/quote]

Very interesting perspective

639

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

Adam was in the autistic range. I actually was wondering with the huge rise in autism if this has anything to do with these really bright kids committing atrocities.[/quote]

I think this is a fascinating questions. The Batman shooter’s dad is a genius who works for FICO. James Holmes himself was working on his doctorate dissertation (this is from memory, I may be wrong). Adam Lanza’s dad is no dumb cookie, the guy was taking in nearly $500k/year and his mom was a trader.

So we have two terribly bright individuals with 2 sets of extremely bright parents committing these acts.[/quote]

I have heard that “high functioning brains” are more susceptible to mental instability. I would hate for people to blame autism though… Surely there were other psychiatric forces at play in this kid’s mind. I have never thought of autism as something that made people dangerous.[/quote]

I have seen that “high functioning brains” come at the high cost of being grossly underdeveloped emotionally.

Much like the body builder that focus on one body part only.
That creates huge weakness.

Whilst these parents with gigantic brains may be able to intellectualize emotion, I question whether their children can ever feel their love.

Rejection is an ever present constant.

Intelligence is a shallow as beauty is.

All of you who have been in a relationship with a beautiful person who has only relied and developed their looks, ask yourself how meaningful and how loved, and how real did you feel with that person.

Now imagine the cold world of the children of high minded intellectuals.
[/quote]

I’ve seen studies that suggested a group of students with IQs between the range of 140-150 performed better in nearly every aspect. Athletically, emotionally, socially, and of course academically. I was in a college prep school with these geniuses too and they were very down to earth, sensible, and amicable.

I’m just not buying into that one.

The deal with a criminally violent smart person is that they are capable of doing so much more harm. If you’ve ever known anyone that’s worked in a prison or do it yourself, you quickly realize that most criminals are… well… dumb.

The most violent IQ range is actually 75-90. That is if it’s not from some sort of disability and they just got there because that happened to be where they fell on the bell curve.

640

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

I’ve seen studies that suggested a group of students with IQs between the range of 140-150 performed better in nearly every aspect. Athletically, emotionally, socially, and of course academically. I was in a college prep school with these geniuses too and they were very down to earth, sensible, and amicable.

I’m just not buying into that one.

The deal with a criminally violent smart person is that they are capable of doing so much more harm. If you’ve ever known anyone that’s worked in a prison or do it yourself, you quickly realize that most criminals are… well… dumb.

The most violent IQ range is actually 75-90. That is if it’s not from some sort of disability and they just got there because that happened to be where they fell on the bell curve. [/quote]

I was speaking from personal experience.

And in my personal experience yes, they are “very down to earth, sensible, and amicable”, specially in their own “pond”.
And you can absolutely intellectualize emotions and appear emotionally grounded and sound.

That does not mean one is capable of a profound bond of love, or even that one will be able to bond with one’s children.

I was not speaking about violence at all.

I was speaking about a profound capacity for love: emotional intimacy ( Between one’s four walls: with one’s partner and children ).

On the note of violence: wasn’t Hitler very intelligent or is that fiction?