School Shooting
There was a school shooting in Campbell County, Tennessee near my home town of Knoville this afternoon. The principal, and two associate principals have been shot by a teenage boy--See more here.
Update: The suspect in this shooting is a fifteen year old boy who students say "liked attention." I believe a major contributing factor in these school shootings is a desire to be noticed and a sense of entitlement to notoriety and in general (thanks to our baby boomer parents who think their kids can do no wrong). These kids usually have what psychologists refer to as "Atypical Depression" which is an active depression that manifests itself in irritability, anger and blaming others for their problems. The teen generally is average to high average in intelligence, has a first degree relative with mental illness and has a desire for vengence against a particular target--the school, students, or in this case, the administration. If you would like to learn more about school shooters, you can read my book, The Scarred Heart: Undertanding and Identifying Kids Who Kill for free at www.violentkids.com or go to Amazon.com to view it. The Knoxville News-Sentinel's blogger, Michael Silence, has more on the shooting, and has rounded up lots of posts by bloggers from the area.
For those of you interested in the gun debate on this issue--it has been found that boys who own legal firearms show less delinquency even then those boys who do not own guns at all. It is the boys that own illegal guns who comitt more crimes--not surprising as they have shown themselves willing to break the law already. See more on this issue here.
Update: The suspect in this shooting is a fifteen year old boy who students say "liked attention." I believe a major contributing factor in these school shootings is a desire to be noticed and a sense of entitlement to notoriety and in general (thanks to our baby boomer parents who think their kids can do no wrong). These kids usually have what psychologists refer to as "Atypical Depression" which is an active depression that manifests itself in irritability, anger and blaming others for their problems. The teen generally is average to high average in intelligence, has a first degree relative with mental illness and has a desire for vengence against a particular target--the school, students, or in this case, the administration. If you would like to learn more about school shooters, you can read my book, The Scarred Heart: Undertanding and Identifying Kids Who Kill for free at www.violentkids.com or go to Amazon.com to view it. The Knoxville News-Sentinel's blogger, Michael Silence, has more on the shooting, and has rounded up lots of posts by bloggers from the area.
For those of you interested in the gun debate on this issue--it has been found that boys who own legal firearms show less delinquency even then those boys who do not own guns at all. It is the boys that own illegal guns who comitt more crimes--not surprising as they have shown themselves willing to break the law already. See more on this issue here.
posted by Helen at 6:37 PM
50 Comments:
You hate this news but some obsessed, angry teen is always looking for a way to beat the Columbine record for high school deaths.
I'm still surprised we haven't had a "successful" suicide bombing. It is pretty much inevitable.
The cat is out of the bag, the horse has left the stable and Pandora refuses to be put back in the box.
To rabbi-philosopher,
Yes, I hate hearing this kind of news--especially near my hometown. It is sad to think of the family tonight who lost their loved one--and the other two administrators who are currently here at UT hospital. I deal with these kids all the time--little do they know the road that lies ahead for them with the legal system etc. I guess if they could think that far ahead, they would not kill in this manner.
It really takes a lot of stubbornness not to see the role of guns in these incidents. "Studies have shown that most school shootings involve guns" is one of my standard comments. And the worst of these incidents in the United States involve guns, not knives or other weapons. After all, it is very difficult for a child at school kill or maim more than one person with a knife.
It is not that anyone needs to ban any guns or even pass any new gun laws. The point is that with whatever laws we have, gun owners who are also parents need to have some common sense. In a lot of these cases, the gun came from a parent or some other relative. Now, many psychologists will say that the real problem is in the kid's head. But how is it that parents can spend thousands of dollars on therapists, or even lock up their kids in institutions, but they can't be bothered to lock up their guns? Guns don't mind being locked up, people do.
And besides, guns are a lot more predictable than people, especially teenagers. The troubled teen with cult fascinations could be your kid or mine. But at least you can know that he isn't playing with YOUR gun, if it's locked up.
First of all - this incident is a tragedy and this post is not meant to lessen or trivialize that in any way.
That said, if guns were not available some troubled individual or individuals would use cars (like the kid did a couple years ago, I think in CA - psych. medications also involved like in Columbine) or some other means (like the devices also used at Columbine). Or something that hasn't been thought of or used yet.
And remember that if gun prohibition were enacted the black market for them would increase exponentially. Kids would likely still have access to guns under a prohibition scenario. And I seem to remember some studies indicating that it was easier for kids to get their hands on illegal drugs than legal (for adults) alcohol.
Yes, if there are children in the house gun owners need to restrict access to their guns. But violent crime is still at a multi-decade low. Doctors kill many times more people each year than guns. Swimming pools kill more people each year than guns.
And there still doesn't seem to be many long or sustained discussions about changing the culture of our schools - which is a common denominator in all of the incidents. Or a very involved discussion about how psych. medications seem to pop up in the mix of variables so often.
Guns have always been a part of American life. I don't have the statistics, but I would guess that gun ownership rates have either stayed the same or declined over the past five decades or so. But school shootings have been a relatively recent phenomena. So it would seem prudent to focus on "culture-culture-culture" or "meds-meds-meds" at least as much as "guns-guns-guns" when one of these incidents occurs.
But I guess when people have a particular outlook they tend to focus on their personal bogeymen, whether that's meaningful or not. And those with agendas may use tragedies to forward those agendas. The 9/11 tragedy was used to justify civil rights erosions that had been on the drawing board for a long time. And also to justify the invasion of Iraq, which was also on the drawing board pre-9/11. Those whose agenda is gun prohibition will use other tragedies in a similar manner.
I don't have the statistics, but I would guess that gun ownership rates have either stayed the same or declined over the past five decades or so.
That was the case until a gun sale boom following 9/11, another boom following the London bombings, and another boom following the New Orleans hurricane.
-SayUncle
It will be intersting to see which medications this boy was using. I believe the percent of school shooters on anti-depressant/anti-psychotic medication is 100%. Not to imply causality, but it is an interesting statistic.
40 or 50 years ago, rural American boys routinely brought guns to school during hunting season. Its seems to me that availability of guns has not been shown to be the cause.
The problem with attributing violence to guns is the same as attributing being a 9/11 terrorist to being an Arab male. In the former, the probability of having access to a gun GIVEN executing a school massacre is very high, while the probability of executing a school massacre GIVEN having access to a gun is very low. However, people seem to confuse the two and think that the two statements are the same.
I would love to know the decision-making processes used by this boy that resulted in his thinking that this was the most desirable course of action given his apparently unpleasant circumstances. Was he being physically or socially attacked at school? Was he being ostracized by social elites? Saying that somebody does something "to gain attention" strikes me as far too imprecise to be useful. Why did he think that shooting people, with its resulting negative social sanctions, was more desirable than, for example, simply refusing to go to school or running away from home?
I once heard a social psychologist say that there were apparently two myths that well-adjusted people had to believe in (1) I am more-or-less in control of my situation and (2) I am a good person. Do these two "myths" bear on this situation?
Gubs are almost always part of the equation. I am delighted with my own guns, air rifles for target shooting, and I am a strong believer in the rights of gun owners. That said, many gun owners are careless, guns in a home are much much more likely to be used against the home owner, and the real abuse of gun ownership is suicide, which is far more likely with a gun. For home protection, there are many other solutions, big dogs, electronic alarms, mace, lots of ways to protect yourself without endangering your family. Statistics are stubborn facts. Gun ownership is a vey hazardous activity, and should require the highest standards of care and training.
First off, my guns are locked away from my kids and any other stupid person who doesn't know how to handle firearms. My dad was a cop and his never was, but I knew from the time I can remember that if I picked it up and pointed it at someone, I had better mean to kill them. My kids know that too; but I figure if they are locked up their friends can't get to them either.
That said, I've noticed that there have been more school shootings since the federal law was passed that banned guns within 1000 feet of school. I wonder if the better solution wouldn't be to recommend that school administrators and teachers get and use concealed carry permits and be allowed to carry in the school. John or Jane Doe probably would think twice before using a gun at school if they thought Mr. or Mrs. Jones could and would shoot back.
Our town's solution to the problem is that at the high school there is ALWAYS an on duty police officer in the school during school hours and more than one at any athletics event. There are intermediate patrols in the middle schools and very rarely do I drive within a mile of those without seeing a police cruiser in the neighborhood. They cruise close to the elementary schools during the day as well, but they don't actually patrol in the schools. So far, we've been lucky and it's worked. Campbell County isn't that far from me either and this is scarily close to home.
Campbell County is definitely in my thoughts and prayers today, especially the young man who did this. I wonder if he realizes yet that he's ruined the rest of his life.
To annonymous,
Kids today feel little ability to get away from their situation--they are mandated to go to school--and will be jailed or their parents jailed if they do not attend. Many of them feel trapped. Often, these kids do not want to run away from home but from their school. In my research, I have found that hatred and dislike of school plays a large part in a kid becoming violent. We don't know yet what happened to this kid--you are right, there is a long process of thought that goes into these shootings. They are planned, thought about and usually obsessed over for as long as a year prior to being carried out. The feeling of their being no way out of their situation as well as little relief from their depression and anger can lead to a downward spiral--one where the only relief from their situation is to bring it to a climatic conclusion that will resolve in their mind once and for all the pain and depression they are going through. It is a hard thinking process to fathom if you are not this close to the edge. Many of the school shooters or mass murderers in general kill themselves at the time of their crime. Why go down alone, they think, when they can let the world or the school feel the pain and anger that they feel?
To Pierce Wetter:
Yes, I have read all the Slashdot threads--unfortunately the crackdowns often lead to more problems. You can see an article I wrote with a colleague on kids feelings towards these school officials if you click on my articles at the right of the screen and check out the first one published in Perspectives in Psychiatric Care.
"it has been found that boys who own legal firearms show less delinquency even then those boys who do not own guns at all. It is the boys that own illegal guns who comitt more crimes.."
why not point us to that study? in these days of the internet, so much of this stuff is available online. at a minimum, you could cite us your authority.
i'm sorry, i just find it highly suspicious when people "cite" studies that they provide absolutely no foundation for.
To annonymous:
Do you know what a link is? Click the highlighted section to see more--you will see a summary of the research and at the bottom left is the actual study if you would like to see the original source.
"I believe a major contributing factor in these school shootings is a desire to be noticed and a sense of entitlement to notoriety...."
And not just for school shootings. See "Ethical Problems of Mass Murder Coverage in the Mass Media," Journal of Mass Media Ethics 9:1 [Winter, 1993-94] 26-42.
In the late 40's I walked to school with a friend who brought a rifle to school every Wednesday. The high school rifle range has since been converted into a day care for the students' children.
This is progress?
Most of the pro-gun-control crowd,both here and elsewhere, seem to be unwilling to distinguish between kiddy-sized children and teenage-sized children. Those in the first group aren't safe near guns because their thought processes don't include a realistic appreciation of the irreversible consequences of their actions; they think that T.V. is just real life in a box. The second group appreciates that violence has consequences that can be irreversible, they just don't care, because their innate selfishness prevents them from thinking about anything other than their own needs: for attention, to be cool, subconscious death wish (suicide by cop), etc. etc. Gun control won't prevent these shootings from occurring; better mental health among our disaffected angst-ridden teenagers might.
Anon.: "i'm sorry, i just find it highly suspicious when people "cite" studies that they provide absolutely no foundation for."
Helen: "Do you know what a link is? Click the highlighted section to see more"
Ha! BUUUURRRRRNNNNN on you, Anonymous!
It doesn't take access to a gun to enable these kids to cause mayhem. All they need is a www connection to find all kinds of recipes for explosives out of common household objects.
In my observation, the kids like this started on that path well before they reached school age. Bullying and so forth contribute to the problem, but so often they are marginalized by their peers because their parents didn't teach them self control at home. Kids who throw tantrums and are disruptive just aren't fun to play with.
Sad to say, and no disrepect intended to our hostess here, but there's been a lot of malpractice in the area of child rearing advice from "professionals" over the past 30 years or so.
I have to hand it to Keating and MyssiAnn for acknowledging the basic responsibility of gun owners to keep their guns out of the hands of their own children, except under clear adult supervision. Everyone else here is responding with the usual propaganda that may have its political uses, but also leads a lot of people to mistrust gun owners at a personal level.
If the same Ken Bartley had shown up to school drunk, no one would have said, "if it weren't his dad's vodka, it would have been something else." If the same Ken Bartley had driven himself to school with no license, no one would have said, "cars don't kill people, people kill people." No one would have said, "if he hadn't taken his dad's car, he could have stolen one." Obviously a correct response from Ken Bartley's dad, if it turns out to be his gun, is "I'm very, very sorry that I somehow let my chronically delinquent son bring my gun to school." It's really the wrong time for all of this NRA talk.
It is true that every once in a blue moon, a child either in the U.S. or in Japan kills someone at school with a weapon other than a handgun. Now and then it's a knife or a rifle. On very rare occassions it's a pipe bomb or a car or a baseball bat. But usually it's a handgun. A fair fraction of the time it's daddy's handgun, left floating around the house.
I don't doubt that children who hunt with their own rifles are less delinquent on average than other children. But that is conflating cause and effect. It doesn't mean that you should just give guns to juvenile delinquents to improve their behavior (much less that you should leave guns floating around the house). Undoubtedly airplane pilots are less afflicted with epilepsy than other people too. That does not mean that flying an airplane is a cure for epilepsy.
In fact the experiment has been tried. Kip Kinkel was another teenager who developed classic symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia. (The works, including booming auditory hallucinations.) His father gave him a gun to channel his interest in violence. To bring him back into the fold, you know. Big mistake.
It appears that the guys who first jumped Kinkel, thus saving lives, were kids who had guns in the home.
Wasn't Kinkel's father a teacher or a counselor?
I believe one of the stories about the incident told us that the students really liked the old man.
IMO, it's a bad sign when kids really like a male teacher. It means he's "cool" or panders to them. It would be better if they respected him and, later in life, figured out he was a really good guy. When they knew enough to know what that means.
I'll go with this "a sense of entitlement to notoriety and in general (thanks to our baby boomer parents who think their kids can do no wrong)." My oldest daughter (a GenX'er though) spoils her kids to no end. When her son had trouble coping with authority figures in school she began home schooling. (Solves the shooting at school problem though.) While she allows no guns in the house, real or toy, these are the most disruptive kids I'm around. They do not hesitate to punch or kick to get attention or to throw a major fit when they don't get their way. Myself and others in my family in the past have taken the kids hiking, picnicing, shopping, etc. Everyone has quit doing it because one or the other always tosses a fit over something and resist obeying even the most modest requests. My daughter just doesn't understand why her aunts, uncles, grandparents, the kids great-grandparents don't invite them over more often. I am glad they don't have a gun in the house as the kids' impulse control seems poor.
To Crimsonnape:
Many parents in my experience are like your daughter. It ceases to amaze me that they think their little darlings are not the jewels of everyone's eyes. I have seen 2 year olds talk and cuss a cashier at Target with no discipline from the mom, children grabbing other kids' toys and five year olds who come to my office and call 911 to report me for abusing them for asking them to do some testing. We wonder why there are school shootings when so many of our kids do not know how to behave or understand consequences. Luckily, most kids such as your grandchildren will turn out fine, those who are very narcissistic or personality disordered will end up having trouble in life and the most vulnerable kids who are mentally ill or depressed etc. will do what this kid in Tennessee did because they have never suffered any consequences for their actions and have been fed a diet of school shooters being the media darling of the nightly news.
"..little do they know the road that lies ahead for them with the legal system etc.," you say. Do tell.
To a psychiatrist...
Yes, wouldn't it be great if the media, rather than showing schools shooters in this dramatic climatic moment of their lives (in a cop car, looking important etc) focused instead on the misery and downright boredom these kids will face for years down the road sitting in a jail cell and listening to lawyers etc.
Two things come to mind:
(1) These shooters are mostly boys, right? Now, my observation of public school, as I watch my boy and girl move through it, is that I myself would cheerfully blow it to smithereens if I weren't highly socialized. It's an immensely oppressive and dehumanizing institution, at least as far as boys go, and I wouldn't be so confident as far as girls go, either.
For example, just yesterday I went to vote at the local elementary school. The walls are covered in "uplift" posters, and I remember one in particular: a Good Child(TM) thinks to himself: "I will respect others. If I disagree with a teacher, I will try to understand his point of view."
Question: where is the poster facing the teacher that says: "If I disagree with a student, I will try to understand his point of view."? Answer: no where.
Every year one or both children come home with "contracts" to be signed, in which they (and I as parent) agree to all kinds of obligations. I will do my homework on time, I will be respectful of others, I will follow the teacher's directions to the letter, yadda yadda. None of these are particularly obnoxious, I hasten to add. But notice: there is no evidence of any reciprocal obligations by the teacher or school. No where does it say: I will begin and end school on time, I will respect my students' opinions even if they differ from my own, I will address them in polite and respectful ways, I will bear in mind their top priorities may not always include the work I assign them, and for good reason, and so forth.
No institution in my forty-three years as ever come as close to being intolerant of contrary opinion, tyrannical, and heirarchical as public school. I'd rather be in the Army any day.
Girls seem to do a bit better, because they seem less bruised by the constant disrespect of their own will and desires, but it sure seems to batter my boy around. He's reasonable, and he does what he's told, but he hates school, and I don't blame him a bit. What would happen if he had poor impulse control?
I don't mean this to excuse the actions of the violent kids, by the way. Just saying it ain't surprising school is their target. I can't imagine a more repressive institution in their lives.
(2) People say a problem is boomer indulgence of their children. I don't agree, or at least not fully. The problem is neither indulgence nor (from the other side) excessive discipline. The problem is inconsistency, and a focus on the parent's wants rather than the child's needs.
I'm damn strict with my kids about necessities -- being courteous, respecting others' person and property, doing the job you committed to doing -- but on the other hand, I'm very indulgent about true options, especially when it comes to having the right to respect for your own opinions and desires, no matter how silly they seem to others. You don't have to say you like your sister if you don't. You don't have to agree that John Kerry is a ratfink or Wallace and Gromit are hilarious if you don't think so. You don't have to lend me $2 in cash if you don't want to, even if you've no particular reason not to and it means I have to drive all the way home for my wallet. You're allowed to be sullen and grouchy all day if I yell at you in the morning, or for no reason at all.
The disaster happens when you're inconsistent. Sometimes you let them do what they want, and then you suddenly change the rules, and insist they do what you want. Sometimes you're strict, and sometimes you're a push-over. Furthermore, it's worse if you have no respect for the child's boundaries, the way you would respect an adult's, if you tell him what to think as casually and commandingly as you would your computer.
What this all does is teach the child that there is no structure, no big set of generally agreed-on rules that must be followed for success, and which he can count on to allow him a private space of his own -- if only the place inside his own head -- a place where his opinion is law and others must ask and not command. He learns that it's just a question of pleasing (or not) the person you're with at the moment. So, they do not develop an interior copy of the big set of rules. They just respond to whatever the pressure of the moment is. Very bad news for discipline and law-abidement: for the scary true fact is, a peaceable society depends not on a constant credible threat of law enforcement, but on the general agreement of people that courteous and mutually respectful action is important.
Thank you Annonymous:
I agree with most of what you say--the issue is quite complex and when I discuss some parents letting kids do as they please--there is also the other side--hypocritical and draconian rules at the school. I address those in my book, The Scarred Heart, and in other articles I have written.
I certainly understand the school issue--every year I sent back a form stating that I do not agree with the rules I am being asked to sign off on--one of them being that in Tn I must present a doc's note after so many days of my child not being in school or face going to court. This, I find, outrageous. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I am particularly puzzled with parents who claim to call the parents of the children their child visits checking on the availability of guns in the home.
Any parent that would make such a call reaveals that they have failed to teach their child the most basic elements of polite interaction. The parent is admitting that jr. can not be trusted not to snoop where he has no business snooping. One wonders, would the parents of the child rummage through your underwear drawer given half a chance.
A parent that asks me about guns in my home before jr can visit is a red flag for me and jr is definitely a child I do not want in my home nor interacting with my children.
Maybe stuff like this is why so many kids don't like school. Public humiliation of students by teachers was common when I was in school. Plus many of the kids classmates are angered at their friends humiliation and the fact that it could also happen to them.
Well, looks like I'm one of the late ones. About the only thing I have to say (since I have NO idea what the young man was taught about guns growing up - I don't assume he knows nothing) is that he is 15 years old. Far far over the age of reason - which is generally accepted to be 7.
I do agree that they have no idea what they are letting themselves in for by way of the legal and psychiatric systems... and that might just make some of them think twice (although if THAT is the deterrent - it's pretty scary to think about!).
But they are able to understand right from wrong, even if they don't care about it. Also, at that age and with proper planning - even guns that are locked up can become accessible. To think that anyone can safely lock away a firearm from a determined teen or adult... who lives in the same house... is sheer wishful thinking.
And yes - I think it's a valid point that, someone bent on killing can find alternate ways of doing this if their first option (a gun) is taken away. To call that a bogus argument is to ignore the fact that there are other spectacular ways to kill people - ways that will inspire notice.
The big problem is the notoriety that comes with a spectacular crime. Oh yeah, the spotlight is all on YOU because YOU did the deed! If we could get the news people to stop making each of these shootings a national issue - there would be less incentive to do it... but I suppose that will never happen either.
What's with this "the teachers should be more understanding" bit?
I was schooled by the Old Nuns, who made Marine drill instructors look like wimps. They never tried to understand anyone. I recall one telling me that there were schools where I would be allowed to do whatever minor misconduct I had done, and asking if I knew what they were called. Upon my answering no, sister, she responded with scorn, "Progressive ... schools."
And they kept good order and taught us self-discipline. Even fistfights were rare, extremely rare, and this school was on the edge of the barrio and drew a lot of students from there. Humans are pack animals, and the Old Nun was the alpha male. Absent an alpha male, the pack fights to win the role. With one, you toe the line.
I've known modern parents who were shocked and offended at the mere idea of wearing a uniform -- why, it would oppress their dear's sense of individuality, hinder their freedoms.
Mr, Hardy:
The difference was your school taught you self-discipline and kept good order. Many schools teach high "self-esteem" (no one is better than anyone else) and then turn the other way when a kid is kicked, bullied or harrassed. The hypocrisy in current public schools is evident to most kids--especially the smarter ones who have a sense of fairness. Perhaps your school was fair--everyone got the same harsh treatment--but at least it was consistent.
To focus for a second on the firearms aspect - I don't really like using statistic (lies, damned lies, etc...) especially when imple logic will suffice.
Take a kid whose parents teach him to shoot at an early age (ay 6 or 7) & he continues shooting, being taught all the rule & potential consequences of breaking them. What the parents have done is not simply teach him how to hoot, but they've instilled a sense of responsibility in him. This goes a bit beyond what can be taught at that age without such an object. Most kids don't get that kind of abject lesson until they start driving.
So I would submit that firearms training (proper firearms training mind you) probably does more to prevent uch behavior than anything else. It teaches that the kid is responsible for his actions & the consequences thereof. Once that is instilled in a person's character then it' not very likely that he'll go on a random killing spree.
A for parents locking up their gun - the better idea would be for the parentsto teach & discipline their kids until they can be trusted around guns. Locks can be defeated, even by a pre-teen - with a few simple hand tools.
& guns in the home are not mor elikely to be ued against someone in the home - that i a non-threatening person in the home. That study was discredited a long time ago. Plus if the 80,000 to 2,000,000 (estimate) folks who ue guns in legitimate self defense are taken into account, I think that even that much cited & much flawed study would be negated.
& the reason that people would not be defending car ownership if a car had been ued is pretty simple; the media & various other sorts would not be attacking car ownership as the root cause of such a murder. Gun owners are defensive about this kind of thing precisely because those who want to eliminate gun ownerhip jump on such incidents. No one is denying that the kid is responsible & that he should have been better supervised, but the reason he sought to harm people wasn't that a gun was accesible - it was that he was mentally unstable. Given that instability & his obvious intent, the tool he used is not nearly as important as why he chose to use any tool at all for such a purpose (after all, bombs or poison could have done as much if not more damage).
Still, it's a very sad situation. A preventable one on many levels (better diagnosis & treatment for such kids, having armed teachers & staff at chools, etc...) but sad nontheless.
Geez, the problem with anonymous is he is legion. But this anonymous is back, Helen, on account of I can top your reflection on the "note from a doctor," as follows:
My daughter injured her hand by accidentally closing the car door on it. It seemed OK at first, but then started hurting all along the underside and got numb at the tip. Time to see the doc. Meanwhile, I mentioned this to the gym instructor, since they were teaching volleyball, and I said: let's have no volleyball until I get this checked out. Don't want to make it worse.
Response: well, I suppose, but I can only take your word for it as a parent for 3 days (and her word as a human being not at all), so I better have a doctor's note soon or she gets her grade in phys. ed. lowered a letter or so.
Holy cats, I'd have thought as soon as they heard about the injury they'd, like a sports team, almost require a doc's clearance note to allow her back to playing volleyball! (And if they thought it through, liability-wise and all, I expect they would.) But what was striking was the feeling of complete contempt I got back. Like: who gives a damn what your opinion or your daughter's opinion is? You're obviously a pair of slackers who will weasel out of work if you can. We need a professional's judgment here.
Blech.
By the way, in response to the poster above about having a "strict" Catholic school: I can relate. I went to a strict boys school run by the Christian brothers. But the respect ran both ways. They all called me "Mr. [Anonymous's Last name]", and they took their responsibilities to me very seriously. (It helped that we paid tuition, and could take our money elsewhere if they didn't do an ace job teaching us.) If I blew off an assignment or two in an unusual way, there'd be a polite helpful inquiry: what happened? Can I help? Contrast to daughter's middle school, where she was absent 4 days last year for illness, called the office and all, but dinged by teachers for not turning in assignments and cutting class. But she was sick! I said, I called the office and all! Oh, they said. Well, you have to call each teacher, too, because the office can't be bothered to let the teachers know, and the teachers can't be bothered to check with the office.
And, if I chose to argue politely with my teachers, even with a priest over Christian dogma, they listened politely, and never dreamed of punishing me via my grade or by ridicule. Try arguing PC dogma with a public school teacher today and see what happens.
There are gems of teachers, I know. I've met them and I cherish them. But the system is corrupt, because it is not based on mutual respect, but treats the teacher as a gardener of souls, rather than just a gal who knows a lot about algebra and English lit, and child as probationary postulant in the Temple of Goodness, to be watched quite carefully for any sign of emergence of his probably criminal natural self. How can this fail to bring out the cynic in even the best child and the martinet in even the best teacher?
These long ruminations about child psychology, and parents, and "the system", and so on have their place, but people are getting distracted away from the simple facts of this case. It is very easy to sprain your brain looking for the "deeper" explanation, especially if you don't like the obvious explanation in front of you.
The authorities explained that the boy who did it, Ken Bartley Jr., got the gun form home. I am not remotely surprised that it was his dad's gun. Also, as I mentioned before, Ken Jr. has a long record of misbehavior at school (according to the reports). In addition, Ken Sr. shot and killed a man himself several decades ago in a fight over a woman; it was ruled self-defense.
The psychology of the situation is obvious. First, Ken Jr. took the gun to school because he wanted some illicit show and tell — he was having other kids feel it in his pocket. What child doesn't enjoy illicit show and tell now and then? I brought a stopwatch to school once to show to everyone else. (It was explained to me that, however interesting that stopwatch was, maybe the teacher deserved the class's attention too.) Second, Ken Jr. also thought of this gun as a source of power and manhood, a perspective that he could have inferred from his dad's experiences. Third, he learned the lesson "don't point a gun at someone unless you mean to kill them" all too well. The three guys in the principal's office tried to take the gun from him, so there was his big chance at lethal "self-defense".
Now someone said that simply teaching children to be trustworthy is a "better" idea than locking up guns. Why does one idea exclude the other? Locks and keys are an obvious pyschological clue to children (and adults too). Most children do not cut bolts and pick locks, but most children do sometimes play with things that are left unlocked. There has been no report that Ken Bartley Sr. locked up the gun and that his son used a bolt cutter. I bet that the story is not that complicated.
While consistent and respectful treatment of students is nice, really, if you're going to basically incarcerate teenagers for seven or eight hours a day, you have to totally crack down on bullies. The problem is that the students being harassed cannot get away. An adult being harassed at least knows that he has the option of withdrawal - he or she can search for a new job, move away from obnoxious neighbors, etc, as a last resort. Even if it's not really a viable option for whatever reason, the fact that it's there is a significant psycological benefit. Students suffering from harassment and mobbing know that they are required to be in school, and that basically puts them in a mental corner. People who feel they're stuck in a corner are likely to snap in some fashion sooner or later - the fact that school shooters tend to have other troubles just makes them more likely to snap earlier than others. They aren't alone, though: I was in college when Columbine happened, and there were a surprising amount of "I know just what they were thinking" type sentiments in the air.
The other major problem (apart from students feeling trapped) is the poisonous phrases "Boys will be boys", and "Sticks and stones may break your bones...". The sheer range of antisocial obnoxiousness I've heard people excuse with such sayings boggles the mind... There were two five year old kids who were torturing my dog, and intended to kill him. Fortunately, I found the dog in time, but the mother of one of the boys dismissed it as 'boys will be boys', and the system gave me (and my parents) the runaround. Eleven years later, I happen to witness the same kid drinking underage and beating the crap out of his girlfriend. Again, the system fails (the girl defends him, etc). Apparently he was now a football player and so forth now.
So help me, if my kids ever become 'popular', I'll feel like I've failed as a parent. The sheer perverseness of that statement is all the proof I need of how royally screwed up our schools are.
Don't have time to run through everything, but in a nutshell:
Don't buy into the "school shooters are: selfish, narcissistic, self-absorbed, want attention, blame others for their problems, etc." These kids are usually a subset of one of the lower echelons of the artificial HS social strata - they usually spend most of their time trying to avoid "attention" because it is usually negative. Nonstarters there in my opinion.
About discipline: Don't think authoritarianism is the answer. From what I've seen heavy authoritarian parenting often just turns the kids into weasels, liars, thieves, cowards, frauds, etc. because they spend their lives learning to get around draconian "discipline" any way they can. (Which is often just sadism, arrogance, power-tripping, pathology, etc. in disguise.) I've seen this played out many times in my extended family, friends, acquaintances, etc.
About alarms, dogs, etc. instead of guns for self-defense: If you aren't comfortable with owning a gun they are alternatives. I wouldn't say they're better or more effective. Any dog that can be thought of as a "guard" dog can be very dangerous to kids, serious criminals often can easily get around or neutralize them, etc. And if you're really concerned about security you would employ multiple methods.
Oh and I agree about the "cool" or "pandering" teachers. A real piece of work at my old school was thought of as one of the "cool" teachers.
Greg,
The reason reponsibility is preferable to having objects locked up is very simple; locks only delay those determined to retrieve what ever is locked up. If the kid had an hour or two & some simple hand tools he could have defeated most locking measures for firearms.
There's also the unintended consequence. A few years back in Cali a few kids were home alone. Their parents had wen out. The oldest was 14 or 15 & apparently trustworthy enough to watch out for the other two. A man broke into the house & killed all three using a pitchfork. Now the oldest child had not only known where the gun was, but had been shooting quite a bit & was familiar & compotent (by all account). Sadly, due to Cali law the gun had to be locked up as there were no adults present & the little girl could not legally have a key. It is very possible that she could have saved her life & the lives of her siblings, but the foolishness of locking up guns as the prefered custom prevailed.
So teaching kid to be responsible is the most important thing. Locking your guns up? Sure, if you're leaving the house unoccupied for any length of time. Barring that, even a teen ager (presuming you've done your part & instilled some responsibility in them) needs to have access to a firearm, just like a fire extinquisher or any other safety implement.
& for the comment that most kids don't pick locks or use bolt cutters, I'd counter that many, many more kids do break into things than shoot up schools. If a kid is determined to murder people I don't see him being reluctant to do a little B&E into the gun cabinet. I do trust you know that kids are typically capable of accomplishing such tasks? Because they usually don't does not in any way mean that they could not if they were motivated.
The kid having easy access to his dad's gun - sure; it expedited things, but if his dad had locked up the guns it'd probably not have discouraged the kid. It'd have just moved his schedule back an hour or so.
Locking up guns is not the solution to situations like this. Dealing with your kids emotional & behavioral problems is; or at least it's the best attempt. Now under the circumstances the kid should not have had access to a gun. Or a knife. Or drano. Or a match (ya know 100% of arson involved fire, right?) or any other dangerous implement. But that's easy for me to say since I only see this situation after it occurred. I haven't dug in it closely enough to have an opinion on the father's liability, or negligence, or the lack of either of those. & the scary thing is that this could could have just snapped. It could have been unforseeable by anyone who knew him. I must agree with Chris Rock who a number of years back said that in the attempt to explain school shootings, he wondered why people just didn't accept that some folk were crazy? Shooting people randomly at school is, in my humble estimation, a sign of serious mental & emotional distress. Craziness in other words.
Another solution - ever noticed that most mass shootings happen at places where guns are forbidden? Never see an event like this at a shooting range do ya? That's cause the mentally disturbed would-be murderer knows that a defenseless target is easier than one capable of firing back. Arming teachers would go a long way toward curbing this sort of thing, or at least forcing a change in venue. Plus you have the added benefit of discouraging Beslan-like attacks on schools by adults with agendas as well as kids who are mentally unbalanced.
Greg, the focus on locking up guns from kids is like trying to stop a person from sneezing. It might work temporarily but it'd be much better to treat the cold that causes the sneeze in the first place. Hence discussions of what caused the kid to do such a thing. I know it seems obvious to you that the kid having easy access to a gun was the main problem, but again any kid who would shoot people randomly, or even purposefully at a school will find a way to achieve the desired end. After all, at Columbine the one good thing (relatively) was that for some reason the bombs that were planted didn't go off. They'd have done more damage than the shootings did. Eventually some kid will do a repeat of columbine minus the guns but with better bombs. That's why it's most important to try to determine the cause of this behavior & figure out ways to stop it. Locking up a gun (while in some cases a good idea) is not the general solutionn I think you think it is.
There was a shooting in, I think, Missouri several years ago in which the kids not only got the guns from a locked cabinet in a relative's house, they got keys to somebody's van. They were underage and will be out shortly.
I see that one of the problems people seem to be having when trying to figure out how to place the blame for this is... they really really want to turn this young man into a "child". I see Greg above referring to Kent Bartley...
"What child doesn't enjoy illicit show and tell now and then?"
This is a subtle thing - but very insidious. When you speak of young man or young woman - you speak of someone who is able to take some sort of responsibility for their lives. When you speak of a "child" the implication is that there must be an adult to take care of them.
I see this happening when someone wants to garner sympathy in some way - and also it gives an easier way to deflect blame onto someone else. It often happens in reference to soldiers who are called "our children" even though they are all over the age of 18!
This was a young man. He is a teenager - he is fully able to rise from his bed daily and take care of himself. He could - if pushed to it - even live alone and take care of himself. This negates the claim that he's a child who needs tending in order to make it through the day.
As for whether or not he had to break a bolt to steal the gun. That was never at issue. The issue is - when a teen or adult wants to do something - they will find a way to do it. I knew plenty of kids growing up who completely circumvented their parent's rules - stole stuff from home in order to do what they wanted - broke into locked cabinets in their homes... etc. To say that locking up a gun would completely deter a teen bent on killing or maiming someone is unrealistic.
I don't understand how people can stay married to this idea that since kids could in principle pick locks or cut bolts, you might as well leave loaded guns on kitchen tables. And if one of your kids does casually pocket the gun and shoot somebody at school, then there must be unnatural demons inside him that need to be exorcised by a team of psychiatrists. This just a way to excuse gun owners from the very simplest precautions, so that instead "the system" has to invest a thousand times more in counselling and security.
If the whole point is to teach "kids these days" respect, restraint, and responsibility, locks and keys have to be part of the lesson. A lock sends a strong psychological message. Even a flimsy book lock sends a message, otherwise teenagers wouldn't want them on their diaries. If there is no lock, that conveys the opposite message. I don't know how parents can expect their kids to learn any responsibility from anyone, if they themselves think of locks and keys as meaningless pieces of metal.
I understand perfectly well that teenagers are on their way to adulthood, that they are starting to take on responsibilities. My own son is in 8th grade and I know the facts of life, thank you very much. Obviously most 15-year-olds still should have some adult supervision too. That is why they are still have to go to school, why they can't legally buy alcohol or vote, and why they can't legally drive in most states (except by learner's permit). It's one thing to take your kids hunting and so on — I have no objection to responsible, supervised use of firearms. It's quite another to just throw up your hands and let guns and ammo float around the house.
I understand that no precautions are complete or foolproof when it comes to delinquent children and teenagers. The determined teenager can do whatever he wants to. But it's not what usually happens. The usual prelude to a school shooting is that the kid just casually obtained the gun. Yes, there are more kids who bust locks than who bring guns to school. But there aren't very many kids who bust locks in order to bring a gun to school. Those two things don't usually happen on the same day.
This is after all the second time that a student killed a school employee in Tennessee this year. Jason Clinard, also 15, shot and killed his bus driver. It was the same story as the one this week. Clinard just took his daddy's handgun from home.
The Knoxville News Sentinel has a very germane article about the psychology of the teen shooter, Ken Bartley, Jr., as related by one of his best friends. Her story has the real ring of truth to it. This particular teenager is not possessed by the devil. He's the usual contradictory, all-too-human teenager who gets in trouble a lot. He acts tough, but he looks scared when he does it. He egged his friend's car, but he cleaned it up right away. He probably brought the gun to school on a dare.
The same article has some very interesting information about Ken Bartley, Sr. It seems that shooting and killing people is a hereditary condition in the Bartley family. Ken Sr. shot and killed a man in his store who accused Ken of sleeping with his wife. A grand jury refused to indict him, because it might have been self-defense. Like father, like son, except that the line between self-defense and murder is very thin.
I also have to credit "evercompromised" for mentioning some relevant information about the particular school in this story. The reports say that the three men in the principal's office lunged at Bartley to get the gun from him. It doesn't sound like they took the gun very seriously — but it is consistent with the portrait of tough-guy school principals who don't understand either kids or logic very well.
Greg,
I'm going to try to break this down for you.
Locking up the gun would have delayed, not prevented the incident.
Realizing that the kid was in need of help & getting him that help may have prevented the incident.
The kid did not shoot 3 people because a gun was available. The kid shot 3 people because he was mentally/emotionally/morally disturbed. Locking up a gun would not have made him undisturbed.
Now I am not saying that since kids will get guns anyway we should leave them laying around casually. My point is that it is much preferable to teach our kids to be reponsible with guns than it is to just rely on them being locked up. Address the cause & the symptom will go away.
Nor am I saying the kid was possessed by satan. He was 15. That's old enough to know right from wrong. Either he could not recognize right & wrong or he simply did not care. That's not demon possession - that's a moral failing. It could have been caused by some sort of mental illness or chemical imbalance but the point is that the kid was old enough to know better. He did it anyway. Therefore it' safe to assume that he had such a strong desire to perform this action that overcoming obstacles (like a lock) would not have stopped him. Even if he had no access to a firearm it's real damn likely he'd have sought out & employed other means.
& the folks who rushed him - they did what was right & proper. Because they acted quickly the kid shot 3 people instead of a dozen. They did understand the situation & took it quite seriously. The alternative would have resulted in the kid shooting more people with impunity (since adults in a school are disarmed by law, remember?). If you're ever in that situation you should do the same; act as quickly & deliberately as you can to disarm the peron whom you believe means to cause you harm. That doesn't have anything to do with being a "tough man" or living up to some sort of image. It has everything to do with surviving.
Publicola: I am not saying that since kids will get guns anyway we should leave them laying around casually.
I am glad that you agree with me about this, because it has been my real point all along.
But after this sound comment, you are still falling back to a wild leap of logic. It is clear from the psychological portrait that Ken Bartley Jr. did know right from wrong. His sense of right and wrong may have been far from perfect, but he did have one. And it is also clear that he didn't always care about right and wrong. But you then reason that since he sometimes knowingly did wrong, he was therefore driven to do wrong no matter what stood in his way. Basically you are dividing all teenagers in the world into two types, Eagle Scouts and criminals. The Eagle Scouts are completely loyal to right over wrong; the criminals are driven to do wrong no matter what.
But that's just not the way that things are. I have two kids and they are not always loyal to right over wrong. Usually, but not always. Sometimes they transgress even though they know better. At these times, locks and keys make a big difference, both practically and psychologically. I have caught my son playing with matches a few times, even though he knows that it's wrong, but he has never broken a lock to get to them. He is smart enough to figure out how, but the lock is a message as well as an obstacle, and he understands that message.
There are parents in this world who think that a paddle is the only way to communicate limits to children. Some of these children grow up to think the same way, but even more so: they learn that locks, doors, and fences don't matter, only weapons do.
And it's not just certain parents who ascribe to a simplistic all-or-nothing system of justice. Often the government is the same way. Look at the way that the state of Tennessee prosecutes Ken Bartley Sr. and Ken Bartley Jr. Either it's self-defense, in which case there is no penalty whatsoever; or it's murder, in which case the state may seek life in prison without parole, even though the defendant is only 15.
Greg,
The kid either knew right from wrong & didn't care, or he did not know right from wrong. In either case he had no inhibitions against shooting unarmed people. Why he did it should be studied simply to try to figure out if crimes like this could be prevented. But I guaran-damn-teeya that the solution involves something other than just locking up dangerous objects.
See there's a big difference between say playing with matches (or even firearms) & deliberately shooting unarmed people. Your idea that the gun being locked up would have resulted in preventing this only works if the kid decided to shoot on a whim. A crime of temporary passion more or less.
I have seen nothing to indicate that this is the case. The kid brought the gun to school with the intent of shooting unarmed people. That's a whole lot different than if he'd been fondling the gun & it discharged due to his negligence.
Yes kids will do things they know are wrong. Usually they simply don't think they'll be caught. But there is a very big distance between your kid sneaking around & playing wiht matches thinking he could get away with it & this kid who intentionally shot unarmed people knowing damn well that he would get caught. Your kid was curious about something potentially dangerous. That's normal. This kid simply wanted to shoot unarmed people & didn't care about the consequences to himself or others. You r kid could be deterred with locks. Thi kid probably wouldn't have been deterred.
So again I must contend that if the gun had been locked up the kid would have either broken the lock or found another way to accomplish his goal.
Hence my contention that it'd be better to have kids that were brought up to be responsible & moral enough around firearms rather than use locks to deny them access. I was around firearms since I was born. I never recall any of them being locked up. Yet not only was my upbringing sufficient to keep me from negligently discharging one of them, I didn't take out folks at my school cause I was having a rough time either (& every kid has a rough time with school - some more than others but still...)
& self defense is a legitimate use of force, even deadly force. Murder is not. Some things should be cut & dried. But again you make a mistake - there's an intermediate we call manslaughter. It's basicaly murder w/o the intent which provides the middle ground between the two that you say is missing. But some things are fairly black & white. Killing someone who attacks or threatens you is self defense. Killing someone cause you are having a bad time at school is murder.
& even though the kid is only 15 he is more than old enough to understand the difference between those two things. either he does not care or for some reason cannot grasp the concept. Either way that makes him too dangerous to exist in polite society. Or even rude society. He should get a life sentence. Depending upon the details of the case (which we really do not have from newspaper reports) I wouldn't be opposed to him receiving the death penalty. His age is not so sympathetic that I could dismiss or lighten the consequences of his actions. He took a life that was not threatening him. He needs to be contained from society.
oh, before I forget - I am not saying that he was driven to do this therefore locks would not work. I am saying he wanted to do this & had no moral inhibitions about it therefore locks wouldn't have worked. It was a willfull act. & since he was not deterred by the thought of being caught & possibly even killed (if the cops got there in time) I don't think any implied psychological message sent by a lock would have altered his decision.
Publicola: You're just not looking at the reported facts of this case. You say that Ken Bartley brought the gun to school with the intent of shooting people. That's just not what happened. He brought the gun to school with then intent of showing it off to other students. That's why he was bragging that he had a gun and having other students feel it in his pocket. If the initial intent was to just to shoot people, he wouldn't have just given away that he had a gun.
He was called to the principal's office because some of the students tattled on him. That is not consistent with an intention to shoot people either. If he had already planned to shoot the assistant principals, he would have gone there on his own, not come when he was called.
He was in the principal's office and he did not shoot anybody until they tried to grab the gun from him. If he had already planned to shoot people, he wouldn't have waited for that.
So it's clear when Ken Bartley decided to shoot people. It wasn't when he took the gun from his dad, or at the beginning of the day when brought it to school. He decided to shoot the people who were lunging at him to get his gun. He acted on a theory of self-defense. It was a childish, criminal theory of self-defense, but it was still a theory of self-defense.
It really seems that you have an all-or-nothing conception of crime, so that every teenager in this world, and undoubtedly every adult too, is either an Eagle Scout or a gangster. It means that every wrong ever done by anybody was either a complete accident, or it was planned all along. The only middle ground that you allow is that once in a blue moon, an Eagle Scout might kill someone by accident. It makes life very simple to think so, because it means that you hardly have to look at the facts to make up your mind.
Greg,
We are operating on a different set of facts.
The accounts I've read say that he was suspected of being armed (some accounts claim it was not due to students telling on him, others say students did tell on him) & summoned to the office (I initially thought this happened in the cafeteria). The kid at some point during his chat with the principal pulled his pistol (a .22 pistol from the accounts I've read) & shot the principal. That's when the other two adults jumped on him.
In addition I have read one report that the kid stabbed the same principal he ended up killing when he was in middle school (the stab was in the hand & done with a pencil).
so I don't buy into the idea that the kid shot after the adults rushed him, or that he didn't have any harmful motives until he was attacked. It seems there was some premeditation - not just an illicit show & tell gone horribly wrong.
& generally I accept that there are many varying degrees of right & wrong in most people. Very few are 100% good or evil. But there is a very big difference between playing with fire & deliberately shooting someone. So any wrong ever done is the result of one of two things: negligence or maliciousness. You could break those two up into sub-categories if you like, but those are the primary explanations for any harm caued by a human. & you underestimate the value of simplicty in life. Socrates would disagree with you on that.
The kid stole a gun, according to a few reports bragged about having it, then shot the principal he had stabbed in the hand a few years earlier. If that is true then I'd say the case for premeditation is pretty strong.
I believe you are thinking that I view folks as having a predetermined lot in life, to be either Eagle Scouts or Gangsters (as you put it). I'll allow that occassionally an Eagle Scout will act negligently & cause harm to someone else, but it's very seldom that they do so with malicious intent. After all, if they do that they're not Eagle Scouts anymore are they? A person is not borne into being one or the other (or any of the things in between). A person has the potential to be one, the other, & sometimes both. But a person's choices determine what he is, or what he's viewed as by others. A person does not have to choose to be either one, but when a person either has no value for human life or simply doen't understand it then he's much more like to not be an Eagle Scout.
The kid we're talking about made a choice. Why he made that choice is going to be the subject of much discussion, but it's undeniable (assuming the fact are as I've read them) that he did make that choice.
希望大家都會非常非常幸福~
「朵朵小語‧優美的眷戀在這個世界上，最重要的一件事，就是好好愛自己。好好愛自己，你的眼睛才能看見天空的美麗，耳朵才能聽見山水的清音。好好愛自己，你才能體會所有美好的東西，所有的文字與音符才能像清泉一樣注入你的心靈。好好愛自己，你才有愛人的能力，也才有讓別人愛上你的魅力。而愛自己的第一步，就是切斷讓自己覺得黏膩的過去，以無沾無滯的輕快心情，大步走向前去。愛自己的第二步，則是隨時保持孩子般的好奇，願意接受未知的指引；也隨時可以拋卻不再需要的行囊，一路雲淡風輕。親愛的，你是天地之間獨一無二的旅人，在陽光與月光的交替之中瀟灑獨行.................
素人辣妹自拍照素人辣妹自拍照素人辣妹自拍照素人辣妹自拍照素人辣妹自拍照素人辣妹自拍照素人辣妹自拍照素人辣妹自拍照淫娃免費視訊聊天網淫娃免費視訊聊天網淫娃免費視訊聊天網淫娃免費視訊聊天網淫娃免費視訊聊天網淫娃免費視訊聊天網淫娃免費視訊聊天網淫娃免費視訊聊天網淫娃免費視訊聊天網淫娃免費視訊聊天網Love99辣妹視訊聊天網Love99辣妹視訊聊天網Love99辣妹視訊聊天網Love99辣妹視訊聊天網Love99辣妹視訊聊天網Love99辣妹視訊聊天網Love99辣妹視訊聊天網Love99辣妹視訊聊天網Love99辣妹視訊聊天網Love99辣妹視訊聊天網免費視訊影音聊天室交友網免費視訊影音聊天室交友網免費視訊影音聊天室交友網免費視訊影音聊天室交友網免費視訊影音聊天室交友網免費視訊影音聊天室交友網免費視訊影音聊天室交友網免費視訊影音聊天室交友網免費視訊影音聊天室交友網免費視訊影音聊天室交友網後宮視訊聊天室後宮視訊聊天室後宮視訊聊天室後宮視訊聊天室後宮視訊聊天室後宮視訊聊天室後宮視訊聊天室後宮視訊聊天室後宮視訊聊天室後宮視訊聊天室免費線上視訊妹妹聊天免費線上視訊妹妹聊天免費線上視訊妹妹聊天免費線上視訊妹妹聊天免費線上視訊妹妹聊天免費線上視訊妹妹聊天免費線上視訊妹妹聊天免費線上視訊妹妹聊天免費線上視訊妹妹聊天免費線上視訊妹妹聊天
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
五分鐘護半身視訊美女視訊美女34c五分鐘護半身視訊美女99 視訊美女主播 500 點99 視訊美女主播 500 點888 視訊美女聊天室888 視訊美女聊天室視訊美女 live0204視訊美女 live0204173liveshow 視訊美女173liveshow 視訊美女0401 影音視訊美女聊天室視訊ggo0401 影音視訊美女聊天室gogogirl 視訊美女gogogirl 視訊美女av080 toav080 to視訊美女視訊美女正妹視訊gogo正妹視訊gogo正妹牆視訊交友高雄網正妹牆辣妺視訊
Post a Comment
<< Home