Via the AP: Gunman opens fire at N. Illinois U. hall
A gunman opened fire in a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University on Thursday, injuring as many as 15 people, authorities said.
“Campus police report that the immediate danger has passed. The gunman is no longer a threat,” the school reported on its Web site at 4:14 p.m.
[...]
The shooting took place in Cole Hall near the King Commons, a central gathering place on the 25,000-student campus, according to the Web site.
Dear goodness.
Hopefully these are injuries only and none will be fatalities.
Update: Sadly, this was not the case. CNN is reporting: 5 shot dead, including gunman, at Northern Illinois University.
According to the report, 22 were shot and the gunman was not a student at NIU.
Update 2: CNN now reports that there were 6 killed by the gunman plus himself. The shooter was a one time graduate student at NIU.
February 14th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
I am so tired of hearing of these senseless shootings… what is causing it? why can’t we stop it? is it because guns are too easy to get these days? is it because of violent video games that make killing fun and allow the perp to push in a code and have invincibility so they never die, thereby gaining virtual immortality??
February 14th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
I don’t think it’s the video games. Too many kids play violent video games and don’t commit violent crimes for this to be the case.
And we can’t get rid of all guns, nor should we.
I think the real problem is the vulnerability of most college campuses to these sorts of attacks. A potential attacker faces no credible threat of retaliation. I’m not saying I like the idea of my professors and classmates carrying concealed firearms, but I think having an armed security guard in each building may be one way to discourage these kinds of crimes (or to mitigate the potential damage). It wouldn’t be cheap, but I think it might be a good use of funds.
February 14th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Critics charge that TV violence causes people to act aggressively and to be less sympathetic toward victims of real-life violence.Does TV viewing really contribute to all those reactions? This question has been passionately debated for decades; hundreds of studies and thousands of books and articles have addressed the matter. At the heart of the debate is the difficulty of proving that one thing causes another—for example, that early exposure to TV violence causes physical aggressiveness later in life. Proving a cause-effect relationship is sometimes challenging. To illustrate: Suppose you take a medication for the first time, and within hours you break out in hives. In such a situation, it is easy to conclude that the medication caused your allergic reaction. Sometimes, though, an allergy develops gradually. When that is the case, linking the allergic reaction to a specific medication may prove much more difficult, since allergies have many causes.
Similarly, it has been difficult to prove that the violence shown on television causes crime and antisocial behavior. Many studies do suggest that there is such a link. Furthermore, some criminals have said that their attitudes and violent behavior were fashioned by what they saw on TV. On the other hand, people are exposed to many influences in life. Violent video games, the social values of friends and family, general living conditions—all these may also contribute to aggressive behavior.
February 14th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Video games should definitely not be blamed. For one there is just as much violence on cable television as there is in video games and two anyone with half a brain realizes that they are playing in an imaginary interactive world. Some people are just intrinsically unsteady. Usually these people are outcasts from an early age and the rejection from their peers only fuels their instability.
February 14th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
I will tell you what is causing this K Benson…I ask the media to take this most recent shooting/suicide as an opportunity to NOT focus on the shooter. This copycat behavior in the US needs to stop. Time and time again it comes out that these shooters look for a way to gain fame in their final moments. Lets keep these killers anonymous, simply from refraining from using their name or showing their picture. This country needs to come together to prevent our loved ones and our youth from dieing in this tragic and inhumane way.
WE need to let the media know we don’t want to head the details if it’s only going to be giving these types of kids a reason to do these things.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
It seems that the cause of these violent attacks often stems from people who feel alienated from others, for one reason or another. Columbine and Va. Tech are two solid examples of shooters who felt alienated and anger towards their peers. Doesn’t it seem that as time passes and as technology progresses, people seem to be more connected to their machinery than to other humans? Even my own child prefers to text her friends on her cell phone rather than speak to them on the phone.
Communication seems to be much less personal than it used to be. Even customer service phone calls are taken by a recorded operator. How can anyone ever see a crisis develop when it has become so much more simple to communicate without any personal interaction? I’ll bet if I dialed a crisis line on the phone tonight, I’d get a recording directing my call–”If you are feeling suicidal, press 1. If you are feeling violent towards others, press 2. The wait time for an operator is approximately…FOUR…minutes.” You get the message.
We have become a nation of alienation. I am very sad to watch our country, a nation who deems itself one of the great influences worldwide, begin to crumble upon itself because we no longer find the individual important. Most of my family doesn’t even know my phone number anymore. I am just number “9″ or number “15″ on their “Speed Dial.” When they are not on their own phone, they do not know how to reach me. Americans tend to distance ourselves more and more from others as technology progresses, but we don’t do anything to make up the difference for the lack of personal transactions.
Is this a worldwide trend? I don’t know, but as with all social problems, there are usually a number of factors that contribute to a given situation. Maybe some of it is violence on video games or on TV, but maybe it is a combination of the number of hours spent on a video game or watching violent TV and the lack of any real human stimuli.
This is already too long. I could write a book. My heart goes out to the families of this new tragic event. Through technology, I have the potential to reach them with my message, so that is an advantage, but I hope that they will be physically surrounded by people who can offer them more human contact, and therefore, more effective healing therapy. People need people.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:14 am
This is going to be an unpopular post, but here goes anyway.
As a Law Enforcement Officer I can tell you why this is going to continue to happen. Until people realize that simply posting a sign declaring an area a “Gun Free Zone” is not going to protect them, this will not stop. Until people realize that the only people laws will have an impact on are those willing to follow them, this will not stop.
Here is the simple truth, “CRIMINALS DON’T FOLLOW THE LAW, THAT’S WHY THEY ARE CRIMINALS!!” A sign, or a law isn’t going to keep you safe.
Once again we have a situation where ONE person with a concealed carry permit could have drastically changed the outcome. Instead what you have is one person intent on harming others meeting with no opposition. When people finally realize that sitting around and doing nothing during an attack like this is not an option, and that being able to fight back IS an option, this will continue to happen.
Many don’t like the idea of people with concealed carry permits being on college campuses. They believe that these people will get drunk and go running around shooting everyone. If this were the case then those people of college age who don’t go to college would be doing so at home. Why is college any different than anywhere else?
The fact is that concealed carry holders are far less likely to be involved in an altercation than virtually any other group. Concealed carry holders must undergo background checks and charges of: brandishing, domestic abuse, stalking, possession of illegal drugs, assault, felony crimes or active protection orders will all disqualify someone from having a permit, much less buying a gun legally. These people are also required in most states to take a concealed carry class where they must demonstrate weapons proficiency, and a knowledge of when they can and cannot draw their weapon legally.
As for armed security guards? I have seen these people shoot when I go to the range. Most armed security guards are some of the most terrible shots I’ve ever seen. Plus you’d have to factor in the costs:
Armed security guards for every class: $14/hr per room=$xx,xxx per DAY!
Allow CCW holders to carry: free
Thus anyone coming on campus with the intent to harm would never know which class had a CCW holder in it, nor would they know who that person(s) is/are. If you have an armed security guard that’s going to be the first person they take out. These criminals want the easy targets, they do NOT want to meet resistance. Given that police response time is often 5-10 minutes these gunmen have shown that a lot can happen in that short time.
Individual security and safety is YOUR job, not the police’s or the Universities’. YOU need to decide what is the best way to protect yourself, be it with mace, pepper spray, self defense classes, or with a gun. Do you want someone giving you limits on how you can defend your own life?
February 15th, 2008 at 7:14 am
[...] It didn’t take long for many of the normal arguments about campus shootings to emerge in the comment thread in my post on the NIU shootings–and they will no doubt be circulated widely today (e.g., too many guns, too few guns, too much violence on tv, too many violent video games, etc.). [...]
February 15th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
The left will go for the guns, but Hollywood’s carnage pedaling and video game company’s massacre training simulations are creating these killers.
With the media becoming a pure entertainment outlet and the above, maybe free speech is the first bite we should take out of the Constitution if that’s where we’re going.
February 15th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
If you want to understand WHY the school rampages are going on and on and on read “Is the Devil In Your Laptop.” It’s a pamphlet reporting on the ‘Revolution of Military Affairs”: Violent Video Game industry (Gates/Microsoft sellers of DOOM, e.g., which programmed Dylan Kleibold and Eric Harris); on others such as Cho and the recent Swedish villain. It also reports on the social networking sites which provide the forum for the insanity: Rupert Murdoch’s myspace.com and Gates’ Facebook.
http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2007/11/27/noosphere-vs-blogosphere-devil-your-laptop.html\
PDF of the complete 80 page pamphlet:
http://www.larouchepac.com/files/pdfs/071127-lpac_myspace.pdf
February 15th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
ANyone who says it isn’t Violent Video Games is wrong. ALso check out http://www.killology.com
That is the website of the West Point colonel who says, scientifically, that it is indeed the Violent Video Games that are programming children to kill mercilessly.
February 16th, 2008 at 6:23 am
Why doesn’t anyone who blames such things as video gamed and TV ask them self: If this is the reason then why don’t this happen in the other countries who have the same games and the same TV programs? It doesn’t make sense to blame these things. The same way that one can’t blame other types of media because it’s all over the world and yet it only seems to be in USA that there is a major problem with guns in school.
And for those who wish for more guns in schools…where is the logic? This last episode was committed by a guy who completely legally bought and used his guns. There was performed a background check and everything. Maybe it’s time for USA to try something new…making it harder to get hold of guns since I can’t see any reason why anybody should be allowed to buy 4 guns in one year. Why whould one singel person need that many?