[united1999]

DEKALB, Illinois (CNN) -- Northern Illinois University on Friday identified the man who fatally shot five people in a classroom as Steven P. Kazmierczak, whom police described as an award-winning student "revered" by colleagues and faculty.

Kazmierczak, 27, who police said shot 21 people before shooting and killing himself, was an award-winning sociology student and a leader of a campus criminal justice group, according to school Web sites.

Concealing a shotgun in a guitar case, and tucking three other guns under his coat, Kazmierczak walked into a geology class in an NIU lecture hall Thursday afternoon and began firing, police said. The graduate student stopped to reload his shotgun before he took his own life, police said.

Kazmierczak was a student about 175 miles away at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, police said, and there "were no red flags" warning of any violent behavior.

One of Kazmierczak's advisers said that she enjoyed having him as a student and that he was "a nice person; he was a nice kid."

"I found Steven to be a very committed student, extremely respectful of me as an instructor and adviser," said Jan Carter-Black, an assistant professor in the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's School of Social Work.
Carter-Black was assigned to be Kazmierczak's faculty adviser when he enrolled in the school in the summer of 2007, and he was a student in her human behavior and social environment class last fall, she said.

University shooter interested in 'peace and social justice' - CNN.com




What is going on in this country there have been to many school shootings in the past week according to the news. It is a sad news that people go to school to improve there life, but then some low life maniac decided to destroy his and other peoples life. I think the government should take major roll in gun control to prevent this from happening. The other solution would be to allow the instructor to carry gun so they could take out the shooter before they attack.

[RobsonLegend]

Originally Posted by united1999

The other solution would be to allow the instructor to carry gun so they could take out the shooter before they attack.

Allowing such would do nothing to solve the problem. In fact, it would very likely lead to even more bloodshed in any future incident like this. Law enforcement and military personnel spend hours upon hours of training to know when not to shoot in situations like this, and yet innocents still get caught in the crossfire sometimes. And you want to put more guns in the hands of folks whose training would consist of a couple of hours at a shooting range on a monthly/annual basis?

[united1999]

Originally Posted by RobsonLegend

Allowing such would do nothing to solve the problem. In fact, it would very likely lead to even more bloodshed in any future incident like this. Law enforcement and military personnel spend hours upon hours of training to know when not to shoot in situations like this, and yet innocents still get caught in the crossfire sometimes. And you want to put more guns in the hands of folks whose training would consist of a couple of hours at a shooting range on a monthly/annual basis?

I know what you saying is true, but what can you do exactly? I don’t really see that it would create more bloodshed, because on this particular situation if the professor had a gun he could have saved more life by engaging the shooter. The shooters attention would have turned to the professor rather than the innocent students who would have nothing to defend themselves. By then, low enforcement will arrive and do the rest.

[RobsonLegend]

Originally Posted by united1999

I know what you saying is true, but what can you do exactly? I don’t really see that it would create more bloodshed, because on this particular situation if the professor had a gun he could have saved more life by engaging the shooter. The shooters attention would have turned to the professor rather than the innocent students who would have nothing to defend themselves. By then, low enforcement will arrive and do the rest.

And you don't think creating a crossfire would have resulted in further bloodshed?

You've got far more faith in the ability of someone untrained in dealing with the mental stress of such a situation to wield a firearm and disable the shooter than I do.

[united1999]

Originally Posted by RobsonLegend

And you don't think creating a crossfire would have resulted in further bloodshed?You've got far more faith in the ability of someone untrained in dealing with the mental stress of such a situation to wield a firearm and disable the shooter than I do.

Tell me what would be the best solution for this problem, I just want to hear your opnopn on this.

[RobsonLegend]

Originally Posted by united1999

Tell me what would be the best solution for this problem, I just want to hear your opnopn on this.

The solution? There's not one singular way to take care of this. Kneejerk reactions such as stricter laws (like that's ever prevented folks with malicious intentions from obtaining firearms anyway) and creating prison-like atmospheres on open campuses are definitely not on the list.

Neither is blaming the entertainment culture (e.g. pointing the finger at violent movies/video games).

Obviously something's going on in the minds of such individuals. That's where any effort to try and pre-empt future occurrences of these shooting sprees needs to start. Coming up with "solutions" that are just responses to actual incidents does nothing to stem the tide of violence.

Thus, folks who would be considered at-risk for committing acts like these need to be pinpointed and provided with support groups and counseling ASAP.

Problem is, pinpointing individuals becomes a task where people would have to admit certain behavioral tendencies.

[GocartMozart]

How about just realizing that shit happens. You can't sanitize everyone's life because of random functions within society. You can't have a 100% success record when protecting people from people. From time to time you'll just have some insane mofo who shoots people. That might not be the most satisfying answer, but when I look at what the problem is, I see that there is no problem here. At least if there is a problem, the solution would make things worse. In that case I look at what other parts of our society are ailing, and I see that we have more violence on a daily basis in urban New York, than I do on the campus of Illinois. How about giving our attention to people who actually have a problem, rather than people who have been the victims of a fad by some random insane people who watch too much CNN.

[united1999]

Originally Posted by RobsonLegend

Thus, folks who would be considered at-risk for committing acts like these need to be pinpointed and provided with support groups and counseling ASAP.

Problem is, pinpointing individuals becomes a task where people would have to admit certain behavioral tendencies.

I completely agree with your argument. I think in my opinion, the below statement from CNN might be some of the clues that could prevent the mass killing from happening. Of course, the girlfriend might not think right away what the intentions of the other person just based on the clues, but she could at least tell law enforcement about the last cell phone conversation, the note, and the package with a gun holster and ammunition. This could have saved his life and too many other innocent lives. *RIP*
I rest my case!!!!!!!


1- “Either the day of the shooting or the day after, Baty received a package in the mail from Kazmierczak. It was a two textbooks with what she described as a "goodbye" note, and a new cell phone.
2- She said she had never known her boyfriend to lie: "He was always open and honest; we didn't keep anything from each other."
And the social-work student said she had no indication that anything was amiss.
3- "I would have helped him, I would have done something for him," Baty said. Even last week, when the two talked every night until the killings, she was not alarmed.
4- Kazmierczak "told me that he loved me and that he would see me on Thursday and missed me," she said. "That whole week I talked to him; he sounded fine."
5- It was during their last conversation, a few minutes past midnight Wednesday, that she got her first inkling that something was amiss, she said. "He told me not to forget about him and he told me that he would see me tomorrow, and when we got off the phone he said 'Good-bye.' He never said good-bye."
She has no idea why he sent her a new phone, but read the contents of the note to CNN.
6- "You are the best Jessica!" it read. "You've done so much for me, and I truly do love you. You will make an excellent psychologist or social worker someday! Don't forget about me! Love, Steven Kazmierczak."
7- He sent her another package with a gun holster and ammunition in it, Baty said. She said she has no clue why he would have done that.
Shaking and crying, her family at her side during the interview, Baty said she still loves the man she met in a hallway at NIU when they were both undergraduate students. “

[GocartMozart]

how do you consider someone at risk? this means you have to give someone the power to label you "at-risk." fuck that. While I'm a moody person in general, i'm nothing like bi-polar personalities which are abound in society. If you started labeling people "at-risk" you'd firstly breaking their constitutional rights by prejudicing them immediately, but secondly, that would make me more likely to take arms in the first place. For me personallly I would take it as a pure interferance in my rights, but worse a person who truly is legitemately sick, is already feeling like the world has labeled him unfairly. That person is thus far more prone to this act.

End of the day, you can't protect everyone, everyday of their lives. They have to use their intuition to call for help if they notice something. Stupid shit happens everyday, that doesn't mean we go around over-reacting to it. It would be a bigger tragedy if we did. Now if you can think of logical solution that doesn't interfere with peoples rights, I'm all for it.

[RobsonLegend]

Originally Posted by GocartMozart

how do you consider someone at risk? this means you have to give someone the power to label you "at-risk." fuck that. While I'm a moody person in general, i'm nothing like bi-polar personalities which are abound in society. If you started labeling people "at-risk" you'd firstly breaking their constitutional rights by prejudicing them immediately, but secondly, that would make me more likely to take arms in the first place. For me personallly I would take it as a pure interferance in my rights, but worse a person who truly is legitemately sick, is already feeling like the world has labeled him unfairly. That person is thus far more prone to this act.

End of the day, you can't protect everyone, everyday of their lives. They have to use their intuition to call for help if they notice something. Stupid shit happens everyday, that doesn't mean we go around over-reacting to it. It would be a bigger tragedy if we did. Now if you can think of logical solution that doesn't interfere with peoples rights, I'm all for it.

That's exactly why this is not as cut-and-dry as people seem to think it is.

It's worth pointing out, though, that having a diagnosis known is not prejudicial. Leaking the information if it's not public record is, but if it's part of (for example) your college application, it's not. It isn't a video game world. In a game with a crossfire, you lose strength or power or whatever if you hit a civilian. In real life, someone dies if you shoot an innocent in a crossfire.

But then again, the civil liberties crowd would have a field day with that one, and I'm inclined to think (at least partly) rightly so.

So, back to square one. Either way, the whole "put more guns out there" suggestion is counter-productive. It'll just make things worse.