This morning several people have contacted me on this subject, so I'll just briefly mention that my family and friends have not been directly affected (it occurred in a different suburb).
This Reddit thread is the source of the embedded photo (cropped for size) and has more info than the local news stations (which don't release details until they are properly verified). That post indicates "Aug 2024, age 14. This picture is the last Facebook post from her dad."
This other link also has (unverified) information about her "manifesto" and this photo. TL:DR - a dysfunctional family + bullying at school.
I'll take this post down later after more reliable information is available online.
MADISON, WI—In the hours following a violent rampage in Wisconsin in which a lone attacker killed at least two individuals and injured six others, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Monday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said Maryland resident Jonathan Pallard, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep this individual from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what they really wanted.” At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past eight years were referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless.”
Addendum: for additional detailed information and investigation, see the link in the December 18 comment by an anonymous reader.
"Rupnow’s parents married initially in 2011, about two years after her birth. They divorced for the first time in 2014, agreeing that they would have joint custody but that Rupnow would live mostly with her mother.They married again in 2017 and divorced in 2020, agreeing this time for a more even split in custody. She would be at her father’s for two days, then with her mother for two days, then with her father for three days, before doing the opposite the next week.It wasn’t long before her parents remarried yet again. In April 2021, they were going through a third divorce. They were “admonished concerning remarriage,” court records state.In July 2022, they agreed on shared custody but that Rupnow would spend most of her time with her father. She was now in therapy, intended to help decide where she would spend her weekends..."
Her manifesto is so sick...
ReplyDelete"It's not even my fault though, it's everyone else's, it has to be theirs and not mine."
xoxoxoBruce
Blame is so much easier than responsibility, unless you have a lawyer named Rudy or some such.
DeleteHer 'real' name is "Natalie" - how do you get away with using a different name on your school id?
ReplyDeleteI sometimes wake up in the middle of the night and turn on the radio low to be lulled back to sleep by the all night murmur of the Beeb on NPR. What a 'here we go again' hearing of this Madison school shooting at 3am. Of course, the BBC made me feel better by pointing out this was the eighty-something school shooting of the year in the USA.
ReplyDeleteHere's an Onion title from today:
Delete"Study: More Americans Buying Firearms To Defend Selves From Toddlers Who Found Their Guns"
(in addition to the boilerplate response, which concludes " At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past eight years were referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless.”)
DeleteAs we speak, there have been two new mass shootings in the US: one in Utah (5 dead, 1 injured); one in Maryland (1 dead, 9 injured): https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting
DeleteNot in schools though, so that's nice, I guess.
"Sometimes these things just happen." Mindboggling.
ReplyDeleteSadly it is not even the first news item of the day, it's no longer "news" it's ordinary. The only thing I think that makes this slightly news worthy is that the killer was an female.
ReplyDeleteOrdinary, or purposely pushed out/off/down because reasons?
DeleteGarrison Davis, of Cool Zone Media ("Behind the Bastards"), posted an in-depth review of what is known on this on substack "The Madison, Wisconsin School Shooter Was A Columbine Copycat: Here's What That Means
ReplyDeleteAlso: why the far-right wants you to believe she was transgender" https://shatterzone.substack.com/p/the-madison-wisconsin-school-shooter?publication_id=1198857&post_id=153292578&isFreemail=true&r=y58ci&triedRedirect=true
thanks for the link, which I've incorporated as an addendum to the post.
DeleteI think you have added the wrong link to the post. I now know more about tofu skin.
DeleteFixed. Thanx for the heads-up.
DeleteYour link in "see the link in" points to tofu skin?
ReplyDeletespeedblogging = errors. Fixed - tx.
DeleteI now have to admit I had to go google Tofu Skin after reading these comments. Amazingly, I learn odd new stuff all the time here just by accident. 16+ year reader but rarely comment.
DeleteGlad to hear that, because that's why I maintain the blog. I would also note that several readers have told me TYWKIWDBI is the only blog they follow where they read all the comments.
DeleteHere's the hard part: Come up with a plan to stop this.
ReplyDeleteThere it is. Seriously.
Take away all guns? OK...but are we really taking away all guns? If not, then one element of society is dangerously over-armed--the rest of us don't have a fighting chance against them.
While a butcher knife might have the same end result, it likely would have gotten taken from the killer early on during her "spree." If we start killing with knives, then what? Take away knives?
I don't like this killing any more than anyone else. It's hateful and tragic. But, well, really, what do you do? Ban guns? If so, who will be the only ones to keep their guns?
Guns is a strong deterrent to criminals. I once wrote in about having a little dog that barks big. A former criminal said that he was no afraid of of the dogs...but of the fact that the dog's barking may have awakened the resident...alerting him to be armed.
How do other high-crime nations do it?
I am not sure which is easier / safer /quicker to disarm - a knife or a rifle?
ReplyDeleteI was not trying to be cute--it was a serious question. We can SAY there are no guns allowed. But since when has saying something meant that everyone will obey it?
DeleteIt would simply be the case, I would think, that only the non-compliant would have guns. Further, an underground arms market for personal guns would flourish
Would there be fewer mass shootings? I think so. But does that trump the fact that some homes would be defenseless? Does it trump the Second Amendment?
You get the idea. Again, I'm not trying to play smart aleck: I simply cannot conceive of how an actual banning of guns would look like or work in American socieity.
Assault weapons?
DeleteThey're all assault weapons, at least potentially, but single shot only would be a help.
ReplyDeletexoxoxoBruce
What do you mean by “single shot?”
DeleteA 'single shot' means you have to load a bullet after each time you fire.
Delete“I simply cannot conceive of how an actual banning of guns would look like or work in American socieity.”
ReplyDeleteI can. How about we look at the entire 2nd amendment… “A WELL REGULATED Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” ?
How about; as part of that regulation, we register all guns and make sure the owners are licensed and insured every year. That insurance will pay for the damages that are caused by guns, so those affected by gun violence aren’t left to pay for it? We do that for cars and it hasn’t destroyed our freedom to drive as far as I can tell.
How about we remove the laws forbidding legal action against gun and ammo manufacturers, just like a car manufacturer can be sued for faulty air bags? You make a product that is a danger to society, you pay for the consequences.
How about we increase the penalties for mis-using a firearm to include losing your license to own one. Again the car example shows it can be done. Too many DUIs and you will be taking the bus.
How about we look at other countries that heavily regulate firearms and have a dramatically lower death rate from them (including accidental deaths). Using the car example yet again, can you imagine what driving would be like with no regulations on drivers, car safety or speeding/drunk driving?
When I was growing up, the idea of owning an assault rifle was absurd and the NRA was about learning to use guns safely. Guess how many mass/school shootings we had back then?
So why is it sooooo mysterious how this would work? Because the gun industry and the NRA spend millions lobbying against any measure that would erode their profits. That’s why certain politicians are so anxious to show themselves holding up guns in their campaign material. Stop voting them into office and maybe we can begin to imagine less gun violence.
Thank you for writing this list of reasonable, actionable things we can do to reduce gun violence.
DeleteMy son wasn't even 3 years old when he had his first active shooter lock down (not a drill, an actual armed assailant outside his daycare). I made it to 40 before I learned what that terror felt like. The arguments that it's too expensive or too complicated or not effective are excuses. There is a vast middle ground we can all meet in to solve this together. No guns vs. no gun regulations is a false dichotomy.
About the well-regulated militia....
DeleteIf I were to say "A free press being necessary to security of a free state," would you think it wise to take away a free press when we have achieved the security of the free state? I doubt you would--and I'd agree with you.
Namely, the right continues to exist whether there is a militia or not. The Amendment didn't say, "Until the security of that state is attained, you can have guns. But after that, you cannot own guns any longer."
I agree that some guns are not needed. You certainly don't typically hunt with an assault rifle. I'm good with them going away. BUT...
But if the bad guys have them and keep them, what are the innocent folks supposed to do when someone like that breaks into a home?
Your auto insurance generally will not cover intentional/deliberate acts, such as damage committed in the act of committing a crime or driving your car into a crowd at a parade. Homeowners insurance might cover accidental damage from a handgun, but will not cover intentional or criminal acts. No insurance company is going to offer liability for misuse or criminal acts with a handgun, which is why some states and cities have tried to mandate insurance. These mandates have failed in courts or are presently working their way through the courts., most prominently in NYSPRA v. Bruen (New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, No. 20-843 (U.S. Jun. 23, 2022) Courts have also noted that firearms insurance could incentivize suicide. Suicide accounts for more than half of gun deaths*, and paying liabilities to surviving family members could lead to an increase of such acts.
Deletehttps://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the us/#:~:text=Though%20they%20tend%20to%20get,had%20undetermined%20circumstances%20(458).
As an aside, "Too many DUIs and you will be taking the bus." Isn't one DUI too many? I will believe this country is serious about gun deaths when they get serious about impaired driving. I have had 2 family members killed by impaired drivers in two separate incidents. Neither driver served more than 3 years. My father, a police officer, was killed almost 60 years ago by a person with a handgun. The shooter died in prison while serving a life sentence.
“If I were to say "A free press being necessary to security of a free state," would you think it wise to take away a free press when we have achieved the security of the free state?”
DeleteIf we’re going to deal in hypotheticals, why would the framers include that important initial qualification when they could have easily just written the latter - “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”? And I didn’t mention banning all guns, I offered a Well Regulated approach that might curtail folks using guns to harm other folks. I didn’t say it would be foolproof, no law is.
“But if the bad guys have them and keep them, what are the innocent folks supposed to do when someone like that breaks into a home?”
It’s pretty obvious that the estimated 466 million guns that Americans own haven’t kept them any safer, especially when the number of gun deaths continue to rise. Again, most other countries have dealt with this and haven’t suffered any dramatic increase in crime. And they have much lower rates of gun deaths than we do. But there isn’t anything in my proposal that bars a responsible, registered, licensed and insured firearm owner from owning one. As an added bonus; if we added some level of training (think Gun Ed), we might cut down on accidental shootings.
“Courts have also noted that firearms insurance could incentivize suicide”
I can’t speak to the causes of depression and suicide but if a gun is easily available, I imagine that would be incentive enough, insurance or not. My insurance suggestion is based on the idea that the gun manufacturers should be liable for the cost of gun violence just as car manufacturers (or any manufacturer for that matter) are liable for their products. A school that is torn down so that traumatized kids won’t have to re-live a shooting, will cost the tax payers dearly and the gun industry and their lobby absolutely nothing. And they are working very, very hard to keep it that way.
“Isn't one DUI too many?”
Absolutely. I’m sorry you lost family members to DUI. My point is that there are people who threaten family members and in too many instances, are left to carry out that threat. Or kids who find their parents guns. Or any misuse of a firearm. If that resulted in immediately losing their guns, then there’s a chance owners would act more responsibly and the outcomes will be better for everyone.
But hey, I think I’ve explained enough. I know there are folks who will argue about the low numbers of school kids killed or how can we ever determine what “public good” is. And while we do nothing about this, the number of deaths rise every year, especially for kids. I (and many other gun owners) choose to advocate for a change. This was my proposal. What’s yours?
What used to be called "gun control" is a cost-benefit issue. NPR-types do not recognize the benefit side because they can't imagine wanting to own guns, shoot guns, etc. For them, it's a no brainier: just take away guns. Also, those in the gun control camp are not too interested in looking too hard at mass shooting stats. Most mass shootings happen in inner city neighborhoods and involve gangs. The "school shooting" is comparatively rare--especially those incidents involving mass casualties. Because of the volume of media coverage, it seems schools are constantly under siege. But the chance of being killed in a school shooting, in a country of 350 million is about like being bit by a rattlesnake and hit by lightning simultaneously. Having said that, what to do? Yes, eliminating semi-automatic weapons (essentially, modern firearms, ARs, etc al) would lower the "yield" in a mass shooting. And taking all guns would force people to use knives, bombs, arson, etc. But, again, this is a cost-benefit question. How much, and in what ways, do people benefit from owning firearms, against lives lost? It sounds cold. Like, why not eliminate every gun on the planet if it saves the life of one child? Here's an exaggerated version of the question: Why not cut down every tree on Earth if this saves one person from being crushed by a falling limb? Immediately our minds go to the benefits of trees. We're not expected to absorb disproportionate costs for a reason: it's unreasonable. Gun haters really don't get the benefit angle; as in, what's a proportionate response given the perceived benefits of gun ownership, not for gun haters, but for people who value guns? Lastly, if there are costs associated with guns and guns are nothing more than a consumer item for most gun owners, why are we not looking at the mayhem created by a vast array of other consumer items? Consumption creates death and destruction. What material sacrifices are the gun haters willing to make? If we're talking about a generalized reduction in consumption of all kinds, I'm all in.
ReplyDeleteHow many people have been been bit by a rattle snake and hit by lightning simultaneously? What are their names?
DeleteIf you guys are going to start comparing numbers, I would suggest that the LEAST important number is the number of people KILLED. For school shootings the greater "morbidity" by far is the mental trauma suffered by teens and tweens not just in one school but system-wide. To be 15 years old and afraid to go to school is a tragedy that no child should experience.
Delete80% of mass shootings (i.e. killing 4 or more) occur in homes, businesses, schools and churches (source - https://archive.is/Yu5uO). If you looked at gun violence in general, I wouldn’t be surprised if the percentages were the same. The idea that a majority of gun violence is caused by inner city gangs is a myth promoted by the gun industry and their lobbyists. It’s most likely to be a family member. And the numbers are climbing every year.
DeleteAs to the “cost-benefit” of guns… I seem to remember somebody talking about, that if a child was going to die “…they had better do it and decrease the surplus population." That sounds cold too.
"...if a child was going to die..." Is that a quote from Netnyahoo? Just for reference, around 100 people die each year in these active shooter incidents...see FBI reference below. The point about collateral trauma is well taken. Certainly a cost. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
DeleteCalling people who want to reduce gun violence "gun haters" is pretty telling. There's no need for the devisive characterization.
DeleteI don't have any problem with people who own guns. Like any other consumer product, I just want controls in place for the public good.
Even if there's no way to fully solve the problem, there are still things that can be done to reduce the risk. Just like you can't completely eliminate car crashes but you still have traffic laws.
I know plenty of people who "hate" guns. It's not an exaggeration. As to "controls": exactly what controls? And what is the "public good?" Everyone wants the public good. Not everyone agrees on what this means and that's why we have this nasty mess we call "politics." Everyone lands somewhere on the spectrum from taking all guns to legalizing rocket launchers. Is there a magic place on that spectrum, ordained by God? An exact good? I think all gun control people will agree on one thing: there should be more control than there is now. But they won't all agree on how much. On the other side, there's agreement there should be less control, but not how much less. I'm a weirdo. I believe we do a host of socially acceptable things which cause, and will cause, far more harm (suffering) than guns. These activities don't even register. Controls on "other consumer products?" I have a wish list, but it ain't likely to be taken seriously.
DeleteSaying you know plenty of people who "hate" guns is meaningless. Those people aren't here to defend or explain their views, if they even exist. Can you explain how, in your opinion, more guns and unlimited access to guns makes for what you would consider a better, safer society? You've already said you don't think people who are considering suicide should be deprived of their guns. That's a pretty grim attitude.
DeleteA "safer society?" But at what cost? How far does any society go in making things safer? We ought to ask these questions rather than act on the assumption that safer is always better. One of my favorite quotes, from The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie:
Delete"'Little girls,' said Miss Brodie, 'come and observe this.'
They clustered round the open door while she pointed to a large poster pinned with drawing-pins on the opposite wall within the room. It depicted a man's big face. Underneath were the words 'Safety First'.
'This is Stanley Baldwin who got in as Prime Minister and got out again ere long,' said Miss Brodie. 'Miss Mackay retains him on the wall because she believes in the slogan "Safety First". But Safety does not come first. Goodness, Truth and Beauty come first. Follow me.”
To the suicide question: I think you did a solid rhetorical trick in saying I don't think we ought to deprive suicidal people of their guns. Actually I didn't say that, yet. I think what I said was that we ought not to deprive all people of guns in an effort to prevent suicide in a tiny fraction of the gun owning public. But as to your question: Do I think we ought to take guns away from people who are considering suicide? Well, for example, if I, as a 68 year old man, was handed a cancer diagnosis and I decided to kill myself, let's say with a handgun, do I agree that someone who "knows better" should have the right to stop me? No, I don't agree. Is that grim? Perhaps.
You're dodging the question. I asked you to explain how you think guns make for a better, safer society.
DeleteAs for rhetorical tricks, look up "strawman fallacy". The people you say you know who "hate guns" seem to be a pretty good example.
That there are people who hate guns and love guns is self-evident. This has nothing to do with the "strawman fallacy."
DeleteI don't think I've dodged anything when I say that safety is not the be-all and end-all of our existence. Of course anyone is free to disagree.
I'm essentially a primitivist in orientation. It would be much easier for me to make the argument that firearms have made the world worse, along with iPhones, personal computers, the internal combustion engine, manned flight, factory farming, nuclear technology, and a host of other things. Our technical prowess has far outstripped our moral competence and the planet is dying.
(IMO, a society that limits freedoms in ways that are essentially arbitrary, that is, in the context of the larger question of what harm we are doing, is a society in denial.)
Other than that, the question can be seen this way: Does the freedom to own firearms improve quality of life, as they perceive it, for millions of people? Yes it does. Are they part of society? Yes they are; so this makes participation in society better for them. Do they count when we ask if guns make society better? I think we have to count them. So, I'm back to cost-benefit, where I started.
Okay, I think this will be my last comment on this one. I do imagine I've taxed the patience of our host. I appreciate the exchange.
The host encourages and supports civil exchanges. A diversity of viewpoints is an almost inevitable outcome of having a widely diverse readership.
DeleteCrowboy claimed to know "a lot" of people who "hate guns" in order to criticize their position. That is a form of the strawman fallacy even if the comment is subsequently changed to "there are people who hate guns".
DeleteI'd like some clarification of how the freedom to own firearms improves quality of life, whether that quality supersedes all other concerns, and whether there should be limits, but that would require honest and engaged discussion.
Related by ZIP code (rather than related by subject matter), the Seattle Mayor announced today that the new chief of police for Seattle would be from Madison, Shon Barnes. It seems Barnes brings his own controversies outside the recent shooting.
ReplyDeletehttps://harrell.seattle.gov/2024/12/20/mayor-harrell-to-appoint-shon-barnes-seattles-next-chief-of-police/
Not to derail the seriousness of real school / mass shootings, but most databases of those include incidents that we wouldn't think of as such.
ReplyDeleteLike, GVA includes as mass shootings all incidents with at least 4 victims shot/ killed. Most of which are not random rampages, but gang wars between individuals with past beef.
Likewise "school shooting" often includes not only gang members killing each other (which is why so many are in high school vs elementary) but also accidental discharges, drug deals gone bad in a school parking lot, and sometimes even shootings (e.g. suicides) across the street from a school. Random rampages are not the norm.
Are mass shootings of all kinds bad? Yes. But they're also rare, and most (not all) disappear on close examination.
Thank you.
DeleteThe FBI says 3 or more dead in an indiscriminant shooting. Media use different criteria, sometimes count the perpetrator as one or not because they are seldom taken alive. Killed sometimes by police and often by their own hand.
ReplyDeleteGranted many of these incidents happen for many reasons other than some nut shooting a bunch of people that might not even know. But the term “Mass Shooting” congers visions of streets running red.
We have to keep in mind “Mass Shooting” is a classification not a description.
However, there’s too damn many people getting shot. A shame “nothing can be done”.
xoxoxoBruce
In a Guardian article (I wish I could find it) from a few years back, the criterion was four shot, either injured or killed. Then a well researched breakdown of where these incidents are happening. When the FBI compiles "active shooter" numbers, this is a much different subset within the category of gun violence. Separating all other gun violence from the Sandy Hook-type incident reveals that Sandy Hook-type shootings are plainly anomalous. But when we think about gun control, Sandy Hook is front-and-center in the public mind--even if this sort of violence only accounts for about 100 out of almost 50,000 gun deaths in any given year. Incredibly, just for beginners, suicide is in that 50,000 number and a large percentage of the total! (Do I want to live in a nanny state that takes guns to prevent suicide? I don't.) That's a truly apples and oranges difference. Also, interesting: I've been noticing that around 80% of shootings, involving four or more, are committed with handguns and not long guns.
DeleteNo, I don't want a nanny state either, but I'd like to see a much better effort keeping guns away from children. At least with alcohol and driving they're not always successful but try harder.
ReplyDeletexoxoxoBruce