I'm lying here in bed still after having just watched a program about a Thurston High shooting that took place almost twenty years ago. Yesterday, I watched a few documentaries on the Columbine shooting, and one was a speech given by Dylan Klebold's mother about her lack of knowledge about what was going on in her son's life and how so many people held her accountable for not seeing the signs and getting her son help. When asked how she viewed her son, she referred to him as a "cherub." Doesn't every parent want to think so about their child?

But I suppose my question is, when did this angelic-like cherub of a boy become a monster? When did he suddenly feel like he lost control of his life and some sort of chaos took over?

It's always easiest to blame the parents as one video suggested. But the parents are the ones that raise him and should teach him right from wrong. The parents should also be the ones to say "no" to the child when he or she wants something such as a gun or access to websites that are pornographic or have instructions on how to create bombs. The parents are the ones that should provide not only love, food, a roof over their head, and clothes, but guidance, advice, suggestions, understanding, and know when to reach out for outside help such as psychiatrists or psychologists and not solely rely on teachers or school counselors or hang on to the hope that the student will just outgrow his/her problems.

The Thurston Child, Kipland, he seemed to come from a middle class home. Both of his parents were school teachers and he had an older sister that lived up to or exceeded her parents expectations. They were teachers, so they expected that their kids would do well in academics. Such was not the case with Kip. He was dyslexic and even though he tried to emulate his sister in school and in a video was seen trying to also do hand stands and gymnast type flips like she did in cheerleading, he was just different. He felt like a failure or a disappointment. At one point I thought hurrah for the parents because they did seem to suggest that he needed something to call his own, something that he could be involved in. But then it was more of a let down because they suggested he join football where he obviously didn't belong. Also, I thought he needed to be monitored as far as what he was doing in his room. He shouldn't have been given a computer and just been allowed to lock himself away and access any type of websites of his choosing. That was how he learned how to make bombs, from the internet. The mother came across as a pushover. If the child wanted a gun, the dad would say okay, the mom would say no for a short while but then always give in to the child because the father kept okaying everything. At another time, the mom tries to put her foot down and does put the kid in counseling/therapy and he's given medications, but as soon as the nine months of counseling is over, the boy decides that he doesn't want to take his medications anymore and asks his parents if he can stop taking them. They go along with it and say okay. He was seeking approval, denial, or discipline. It may not seem like it, but kids WANT someone to care about them. They want to know "hey is this okay if I do this?" and sometimes the answer has to be "NO." If he didn't want or seek their approval or acceptance, he wouldn't have asked. He could've just pretended to take them, then spit them out. They had the opportunity to actually PARENT and they failed him. They also failed him by buying him so many guns! He's a boy. He doesn't need a glock or a rifle at the age of 12. He was only 15 and at the time of the shooting owned more than half a dozen weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition.

In the other case, Columbine, I thought that there was a common misconception of these types of shooters is that they are either poor or uneducated. People assume a gun toting thug/shooter will be a drop out or a gang member, but Klebold and Harris were doing well in school and according to one student who knew them said that they never missed a test/exam day. On the day of the shooting, he noted that they were not there that morning and found it odd. It's true that the boys were not among the popular crowd of students. They were alienated or ousted out by the jocks that they loathed, but they came from well-to-do, middle-class, moderately wealthy homes.

I began to wonder if the problems with these kids were not only in the home but in their environment. What happened to them as children to cause them to feel alienated or isolated? Were they bullied? Left out of activities? With these two Columbine kids, it seemed to be the case. It's the reason why they claimed to despise the popular crowds and the jocks. "You left me out of so many fun activities," said Klebold in one of his journals.

Often kids do not have the same interests as other kids. Maybe they don't care for the same types of music, movies, foods, sports, etc. There are any number of reasons why kids either clique together or ostracize others. It can also have to do with the clothes they wear, if they stutter, are they trendy, are they in certain activities like band, etc. Sometimes kids are also bullied for weight, grades, sexual orientation. It can be anything as basic as hair style, shoes, style of dress, or what those kids parents do for a living. Should parents and teachers do more to teach their children how to get along with others? How to include them in activities? How not to make someone feel lost or out of place? Or how to spot the signs of someone that has become either removed from reality somehow or maybe emotionally detached from others?

Yes, I am all for gun control. I want AR 15 assault rifles and other types of weapons such as this to be banned. But I also feel that kids should be evaluated and monitored over time for signs of depression or mental instability, and that children from as early as pre-K and Kinder should be taught the most basic and important skills of human interaction; kindness, sharing, inclusion, tolerance, and acceptance of others differences no matter their background or ethnicity or financial income/status.

It's not to say that I don't think that schools should be more prepared in the event that a shooting/bombing or invasion of some sort takes place because schools need more than just fire drills, and it hardly seems safe to me that every teacher should carry a weapon. If a child is disturbed and a parent has gone through every means possible for that child NOT to own a gun or get his hands on one, why should a teacher then be allowed to carry one on his person or in his desk where a child can easily access it or obtain it? There might be an argument to say, "Well, I'd lock it up in a safe or hide it in my desk." But please give these kids some credit, they are young adults and many of them are extremely intelligent. They will figure out lock box codes or figure out some way to get the guns if they really want to take them away from a teacher. We should be making guns harder to obtain not easier by putting one in every room.

I have written in a Facebook post today, the following regarding my thoughts and ideas of what more can possibly be done to help keep our children safe:

I watched a short vid the other day of a system that can be utilized in schools to stop/prevent shooters in schools. It costs nearly half a million dollars and is basically a camera system, PA system, and smoke machines that cloud the hallways making it difficult for the shooter to see. Also, the doors automatically jam if there is an intruder. I found several faults with this system such as not only is it expensive, but what happens to the students when they are locked out of the rooms because the doors jam and they are stuck in a smoke filled hallway with the shooter/intruder? The students would not be able to see either with all the smoke and would have a hard time getting away and out of the building.
Does anyone have any suggestions that can help save lives or keep shooters out of rooms that maybe isn't as costly or that the average person can do?
My suggestions are to utilize belts to tie doors closed by looping the belt through the metal arm at the top of the door or around the metal push bars on a set of double doors.
Also, I thought it would be a good idea to have rope ladders put in place in classrooms that are not on the first floor or inflatable slides like that of the ones used in airplanes during emergencies. Those inflate in seconds and students can easily jump on them and slide out.
For me, I thought the best way to think about the scenario of an onsite shooter is to think about it in comparison to a fire. If there is a fire in the building...ANY part of a school, apartment building or other type of institution or building etc. What do we have to do immediately? We have to evacuate and get as far away from the danger as possible. What do we do in a shooter case? We tell students to HIDE. Get under desks! Put a book to shield your head! (which is what was suggested in that video I saw. Hide grouped together in one part of the room away from the door holding a book over your head). But if there were a fire would we ask them to hide? NO, because we want to get away from the immediate threat.
A shooter can roam the hallways seeking children that are hiding. Aren't we asking our kids to be sitting ducks by asking them to hide? Isn't it better to observe, listen for gunshots, make a decision to run away from the gunfire and OUT of the nearest exit, then get as far away from the school as possible away from the danger? This is why I suggested an escape route from the windows as a possibility.
In a fire drill, why do we ask that everyone go into the hallways? If there were an actual fire, wouldn't it make more sense to escape by any means necessary such as fire escapes and windows. We need to think of other ways out of buildings than to just have students/kids swarm the hallways. It was what this last student in FL was counting on. He pulled the fire alarm and out came kids pouring into the hallways.
Maybe we need to consider other methods of safely getting children out of schools? What are your thoughts? Any solutions? And I'm not seeking a rant about gun control. I'm talking about immediate action that can be taken on site at a school at the time of an actual shooting.

As I sat here thinking of all of this...I have started to wonder whether or not I should go back to school. Would I in any way benefit society if I was a counselor? And if so, would I be able to possibly help parents figure out what is going on with their child when they seemingly go from a young, sweet "cherub" of a boy, to a disturbed, trouble-making juvenile, or worse yet, a killer?

When I was younger I always thought about taking courses in psychology. I wanted to find out how a mentally ill person's mind worked. I thought about becoming a Forensics Psychologist because I figured there was some kind of issues going on in the brain with those that are serial murderers. Were they a product of their upbringing and their environment?? Or was there some sort of misfiring of the brain that caused them to be the way they were? I thought it would be possible to somehow dissect their lives to figure out where their lives and thoughts started to go horribly wrong and in some way affected their behavior and actions towards others.