Would be school shooter thwarted before he can begin... By himself.

When they searched his room, officers found an assault weapon, a handgun, hundreds of rounds of ammunition and, in a backpack, handmade explosives. The assault rifle had a magazine capable of holding 28 bullets, officials said.

UCF officials said Seevakumaran had not paid the university for this semester and was no longer an enrolled student. But UCF tried to take a "compassionate approach" and did not immediately remove him from the campus residence, where he lived on the third floor of the building. However, the university was in the process of removing him, officials said.

Beary said both the guns found in Seevakumaran's room were purchased from an Orlando gun shop, with a first purchase in February.

One was a High Point 45-caliber semi-automatic pistol and the other an American Tech 22-magnum tactical rifle. The rifle, Beary said, could easily have been hidden in a gym bag and brought undetected into the apartment building. Firearms are not allowed on campus.

Police also found a backpack containing four "improvised" explosives. Officials would not say what the explosives were made of, but they did say that the bombs "were not in final completed stages." They also said the explosives, together, would not have had enough power to bring down the apartment building.

Haven't seen this hit major news outlet yet. All he had was a GSG-522 (From guess) and a Hi-Point handgun in .45acp. I want to know when a .22 was considered an "assault weapon" by the media. As well as what he was planning to accomplish with little more than a plinking target firearm and a handgun made with a reputation of poor quality products.

Smagmuck_:
Haven't seen this hit major news outlet yet. All he had was a GSG-522 (From guess) and a Hi-Point handgun in .45acp. I want to know when a .22 was considered an "assault weapon" by the media. As well as what he was planning to accomplish with little more than a plinking target firearm and a handgun made with a reputation of poor quality products.

I assume he was trying to kill people.
Discussing the quality of a gun doesn't matter in cases like these. If he can aim and pull the trigger, he can kill people (and even if he can't he still can hurt someone). Also, he was making bombs.

The USA had a pathetically poor mental health pandemic.

This, and the lack of any form of health infrastucture for those who need it most, and can afford it the lest (the mentally ill) in combination with a shit tone of readily avalible guns...

...hmm... Whatever could go wrong?

A lot of the USA's problems with gun violence can't be solved with regulation alone and need efforts on multiple fronts to identify and help those who... err... are at risk of picking up a gun and killing lots of people because they are mental and recieve no help . (I say that as someone who almost commit suicide 1 & 1/2 years ago)

The USA's health system really does need someone to kick it so it works... or better yet sit it down, give it some tea and talk to it calmly about its problems, and tell it that everythin will all be alright one day when the corpses eventally overflow into congress and they are forced to make changes.
There needs to be a bottom floor added, and no, not some bullshit private sector charity initiative, that doesn't work. Sorry but look over the pond for better results at a lower per head cost.

------

On the bright side he didn't kill anyone but himself. Also I am sure the USA's economy has been greatly boosted by those arms manufactures sales to another good citizen of the USA!

Mr.BadExample:
I think we can all agree the lesson to be taken away here is that if someone seems depressed the people around him need to take notice and spend the time to ensure he kills himself instead of those around him.

Not impressed.

Mr.BadExample:
I think we can all agree the lesson to be taken away here is that if someone seems depressed the people around him need to take notice and spend the time to ensure he kills himself instead of those around him.

Yes. Because the more people commit suicide, the happier the world will be, right guys?

*head hits desk*

Stay classy Escapist.

It is a good thing that he killed himself without taking anybody else with him.
It would've been better if he had received the help he needed.

Shadowstar38:
Yes. Because the more people commit suicide, the happier the world will be, right guys?

You'll note that in the article it is written that Seevakumaran did not seek counseling from the college. In a perfect world we could prevent all bloodshed by simply temporarily suspending the rights of potential criminals or the mentally suspect. The state would be allowed to commit someone into a facility where he would be of no threat to anyone.

You'll remember that in the Sandy Hook incident Adam Lanza's mother tried to get him help. When he found out he shot her in the head and went on to murder twenty children. The most likely reason that Seevakumaran didn't carry out his plans is because a student called the police to come and shoot him. The student didn't call a psychologist to talk James through his problems. Lo and behold, only one person is dead because that student understood that some people can't be helped and it's simply better to reduce the potential casualties.

I can't speak for the world, but I'd be plenty happy to see a potential mass murderer kill himself than allow him the chance to leave a mother without her son or a husband without his wife. The sorrow felt by the parents of a monster mean little when you consider the tears shed by the innocent.

Mr.BadExample:
You'll note that in the article it is written that Seevakumaran did not seek counseling from the college. In a perfect world we could prevent all bloodshed by simply temporarily suspending the rights of potential criminals or the mentally suspect. The state would be allowed to commit someone into a facility where he would be of no threat to anyone.

You'll remember that in the Sandy Hook incident Adam Lanza's mother tried to get him help. When he found out he shot her in the head and went on to murder twenty children. The most likely reason that Seevakumaran didn't carry out his plans is because a student called the police to come and shoot him. The student didn't call a psychologist to talk James through his problems. Lo and behold, only one person is dead because that student understood that some people can't be helped and it's simply better to reduce the potential casualties.

I can't speak for the world, but I'd be plenty happy to see a potential mass murderer kill himself than allow him the chance to leave a mother without her son or a husband without his wife. The sorrow felt by the parents of a monster mean little when you consider the tears shed by the innocent.

I didn't seek out any help. My College intervened a week before I stood on a train track.

Oh yes I still stood on it and watched a trains lights approach in the darkness of night but stepped off...

Its not determinate that if they had not picked up on it I would have still been stood on the tracks, turning me into a lumpy red paste, however it was one of the factors that persuaded me to live with the pain for a bit longer, as the option to die wasn't going anywhere anytime soon, but death was likely a one way option.

Just because you can't save everyone doesn't mean you shouldn't try, or at least make people more aware en masse. Also a psychologist is just fine and dandy assuming you can afford one.
To find one for low cost, or free is hard and an effort... an effort which often cannot be made by someone suffering any mental problems. So friends and family can do it for you? What if they aren't there, or worse, are part of the problem?

Comando96:
...identify and help those who... err... are at risk of picking up a gun and killing lots of people because they are mental and recieve no help . (I say that as someone who almost commit suicide 1 & 1/2 years ago)

Also I am sure the USA's economy has been greatly boosted by those arms manufactures sales to another good citizen of the USA!

1) There's no litmus test to reveal whether someone is going to start violence or pick up a gun and shoot innocent people. It's not nearly as simple or even achievable as people would like to think. Policy I've heard of tries to force professionals to report people they are compelled to determine a threat. Like this is going to make patients want to seek treatment.

2) That's outrageously offensive and sick, especially for someone who has tried suicide. Or is it just an opportunity to do some bashing?

AgedGrunt:
1) There's no litmus test to reveal whether someone is going to start violence or pick up a gun and shoot innocent people. It's not nearly as simple or even achievable as people would like to think. Policy I've heard of tries to force professionals to report people they are compelled to determine a threat. Like this is going to make patients want to seek treatment.

It isn't always easy to tell... hell it was only picked up for me as teacher previous had depression and saw the symptoms.
Otherwise, bad policy is bad. In the UK there is a system in place and it is that those who pose a risk to themselves or others are passed on from professionals to a higher level, but these induiduals, unless the threat appears immiment will recieve more treatment and attention in efforts to offer extra support. Only in extreme cases does this result in anything resembling authority intervention. A more common measure is for induviduals to be placed on a "suicide watch" which is to ensure that someone, either professional or friends and family are with the indivudial at all times. While not exactly great, the system does make all efforts to be kind.
What does make detection easier is a common knowlage of depression, its symptoms and also how to act and help those who do have it.

I do think that efforts to teach things about depression in schools should be made. You aren't going to get around the issue until its known about:


For a start, show everyone this, or get everyone to read the book.
I once had a Black Dog - Matthew Johnstone

AgedGrunt:

Comando96:
On the bright side he didn't kill anyone but himself. Also I am sure the USA's economy has been greatly boosted by those arms manufactures sales to another good citizen of the USA!

2) That's outrageously offensive and sick, especially for someone who has tried suicide. Or is it just an opportunity to do some bashing?

An incredibly dark sense of humour keeps me afloat. But yes, its amounts to an opportunity for some satirical bashing of guns combined with corporate lobbying targeting the USA priorities; being that of money over life.
A paraphrased quote from a satarist - "To be a true satirist is the abilty to say fuck you to absolutely everyone"
In other words, nothing is really off limits. Saying that, the more tasteless the joke, the more serious a point I am normally trying to highlight.

Smagmuck_:
I want to know when a .22 was considered an "assault weapon" by the media.

Technically an assault weapon is a semi-automatic rifle with detachable magazine and one of a bunch of other features. No mention of the ammunition used.

But the same paragraph calls it an assault rifle. Which it isn't unless it is capable of selective fire, and uses an intermediate powered cartridge.

IIRC, Ivan Milat used a Ruger .22, and I think there was a high profile murder in Australia independant of that.

Mr.BadExample:

I can't speak for the world, but I'd be plenty happy to see a potential mass murderer kill himself than allow him the chance to leave a mother without her son or a husband without his wife. The sorrow felt by the parents of a monster mean little when you consider the tears shed by the innocent.

If a guy only kills himself he has never been, and, for obvious reasons, never will be a "mass murderer". Because, to be a mass murderer, you kind of need to have committed mass murder...

You know, I'm a tad averse to this "It's OK to kill someone just in case when you suspect they might be thinking about maybe going on a rampage" shtick.

Vegosiux:

Mr.BadExample:

I can't speak for the world, but I'd be plenty happy to see a potential mass murderer kill himself than allow him the chance to leave a mother without her son or a husband without his wife. The sorrow felt by the parents of a monster mean little when you consider the tears shed by the innocent.

If a guy only kills himself he has never been, and, for obvious reasons, never will be a "mass murderer". Because, to be a mass murderer, you kind of need to have committed mass murder...

You know, I'm a tad averse to this "It's OK to kill someone just in case when you suspect they might be thinking about maybe going on a rampage" shtick.

Yeah...if he's en route to a school with a loaded gun in his pocket that goes off and he dies of bloodloss, fair enough.

If he's some angsty type that considers doing something really terrible, but decides to kill himself instead...how many of us haven't wanted to blindly lash out at people who were more or less innocent? Big difference between wanting to do something and doing it.

thaluikhain:
Technically an assault weapon is a semi-automatic rifle with detachable magazine and one of a bunch of other features. No mention of the ammunition used.

IIRC, Ivan Milat used a Ruger .22, and I think there was a high profile murder in Australia independant of that.

Technically an assault weapon is [arbitrary and ever - changing definition of a term used for political gain].

No one disputes that a .22 is potentially lethal, but most people understand that it is a poor choice for self - defense (or murder). They tend to be used for crimes because most people are easily intimidated by a firearm and because they are relatively cheap.

Vegosiux:
If a guy only kills himself he has never been, and, for obvious reasons, never will be a "mass murderer". Because, to be a mass murderer, you kind of need to have committed mass murder...

That's why I said potential.

You know, I'm a tad averse to this "It's OK to kill someone just in case when you suspect they might be thinking about maybe going on a rampage" shtick.

I'm not saying the mentally infirm should be murdered. However, if someone is potentially planning to shoot up a kindergarten, I'd much rather see his peers push him into suicide than try to get him help. The potential loss (of a great number of young children) greatly outweighs the potential gain (of a loser continuing to live). Isn't it worth it even if it only saves the life of one child?

Comando96:
An incredibly dark sense of humour keeps me afloat. But yes, its amounts to an opportunity for some satirical bashing of guns combined with corporate lobbying targeting the USA priorities; being that of money over life.
A paraphrased quote from a satarist - "To be a true satirist is the abilty to say fuck you to absolutely everyone"
In other words, nothing is really off limits. Saying that, the more tasteless the joke, the more serious a point I am normally trying to highlight.

I think everyone can appreciate well-placed humor, but this "dark humor" that is sometimes thrown around walks a tightrope, and in some contexts is just unethical, insensitive commentary with shock-value.

No one should deny that the ability to see the humor in things can change someone and IMO it even has the power to heal, but there's also a fairly distinct line between satire and cynicism. The "humor" essentially turned what was a humbling story of what might have been and what could have been done and weaponized it, antagonizing an argument that has no place anywhere and cannot hide behind a veil of satire and humor.

tl;dr is civility too much to ask for?

AgedGrunt:
antagonizing an argument that has no place anywhere and cannot hide behind a veil of satire and humor.

You assume that Satire requires humor at all... it doesn't. Though Satire is associated with humor, it is largely a way to criticise, something, someone or just random stabs at society as a collective. Ultimately this criticism should be constructive in some form, if for nothing else to create an absolute repulsion towards what you have stated in order to get the person to think about what has just been stated.

Judging by your reaction, it will have had an effect, resulting in you, even if no one else thinking about the point, and thereby my writing of it had the desired effect, conclusively justifying its existance.

Satire doesn't need to be funny. It just is often a lot more family friendly if it is.
In response to being civil. Meh. Means to an end. If words don't work, then using more extreme words is far better than many other means of getting your point across.

I like how they say it was thwarted. No it wasn't, the dude just didn't carry out the plan. Someone else would have to have intervened somehow for it to have been thwarted. I know I'm nitpicking but c'mon media, do something right for once.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked