Let's have a nice calm discussion of the role of violence in America. We have always been a violent nation, our destiny in fact, was born of violence. We have celebrated it through stories and legends of heros of the Revolution, and the Civil War...then we had the grand mystique of the "Wild" West , and eventually WWI......this led to the gangsters of the thirties, WWII, Korea, and eventually "La Familia" or the mafia. We have always glamorized these things, and always looked at many of them with a fondness in our hearts. We may mourn the loss of life, but we still look at the struggle, regardless of where or with whom, as nothing less than mythic and heroic. Thirty years ago when I was child, things were a bit different. We were taught to shoot and handle firearms...we were taught to respect them. We were taught to stand up for ourselves...honor was a term not used lightly. If someone threatened you, you were taught to fight back....to stand your ground. I get the sense that kids are not taught that nowadays, that this is discouraged. Some would say that this might be the feminization of America's young boys, this might be due to many fatherless homes, or a myriad of other social and societal factors. But, I wonder, if we are not doing them a tragic disservice, one with potentially deadly consequences.
As men we are both blessed and cursed with a wonderful hormone-testosterone. Any basic seventh grade science book will tell you that it heightens aggression and violent tendencies in higher levels. Most people know that the teenage years, with puberty result in markedly increasing testosterone levels. I wonder if young men were taught to express their rage, and anger, and aggression in positive or productive ways, if tragedies like VT could be avoided in the future.....anyone with any thoughts?

Let's have a nice calm discussion of the role of violence in America. We have always been a violent nation, our destiny in fact, was born of violence. We have celebrated it through stories and legends of heros of the Revolution, and the Civil War...then we had the grand mystique of the "Wild" West , and eventually WWI......this led to the gangsters of the thirties, WWII, Korea, and eventually "La Familia" or the mafia. We have always glamorized these things, and always looked at many of them with a fondness in our hearts. We may mourn the loss of life, but we still look at the struggle, regardless of where or with whom, as nothing less than mythic and heroic. Thirty years ago when I was child, things were a bit different. We were taught to shoot and handle firearms...we were taught to respect them. We were taught to stand up for ourselves...honor was a term not used lightly. If someone threatened you, you were taught to fight back....to stand your ground. I get the sense that kids are not taught that nowadays, that this is discouraged. Some would say that this might be the feminization of America's young boys, this might be due to many fatherless homes, or a myriad of other social and societal factors. But, I wonder, if we are not doing them a tragic disservice, one with potentially deadly consequences.
As men we are both blessed and cursed with a wonderful hormone-testosterone. Any basic seventh grade science book will tell you that it heightens aggression and violent tendencies in higher levels. Most people know that the teenage years, with puberty result in markedly increasing testosterone levels. I wonder if young men were taught to express their rage, and anger, and aggression in positive or productive ways, if tragedies like VT could be avoided in the future.....anyone with any thoughts?

why are you assuming in your post that everything orignated in America, that's laughable. We are resonsible for WW I, WW II, The Mafia?

That being said, why don't you ask what you really want to ask "Is the feminization of male teenagers resulting in wimps that won't stand up to a heavily armed assailant shooting anything that moves?"

I think, frankly that is pure hooey.......that overly dramitizes what people in the past would have done. Put your generation or mine or my Dad's in the same situation, and more likely than not, the same thing would have happened.

It is rare that anyone, from any generation would stand up unarmed to a heavily armed assailant.

Len

Let's have a nice calm discussion of the role of violence in America.

Or maybe the role of violence in S. Korea :)

Or maybe the role of violence in S. Korea :)


Point taken but how likely do we think it would be that Cho Seung-Hui would have or could have done this heinous act back in his native country? We know of the horrendous violence/carnage in various African nations (plus many other third world nations at war/civil war) but on the first world stage this tragedy has a distinctly American character. I’m not aware of anything quite like this (one person running through a public or private facility killing 30+ innocents with two 9 mm pistols purchased less than a month ago from a gun store) happening in Europe, Japan or any other developed first or second world country…. but maybe I have that wrong. …but I don’t think so.

No offense intended to anyone here but this situation that we find our country in causes me feelings of anger and melancholy. Let’s not kid ourselves, this will happen in this country over and over and over again.

why are you assuming in your post that everything orignated in America, that's laughable. We are resonsible for WW I, WW II, The Mafia?

That being said, why don't you ask what you really want to ask "Is the feminization of male teenagers resulting in wimps that won't stand up to a heavily armed assailant shooting anything that moves?"

I think, frankly that is pure hooey.......that overly dramitizes what people in the past would have done. Put your generation or mine or my Dad's in the same situation, and more likely than not, the same thing would have happened.

It is rare that anyone, from any generation would stand up unarmed to a heavily armed assailant.

Len

it's US-centric....that's the culture I am most familiar with, I never said that we were responsible for WWI,or II, or the mafia...what I said was that we tend to glamorize them in film and lore. As far as the other stuff, well, not the point I was trying to make at all. I never meant to infer that people in my fathers or grandfathers generations would have been able to stand up to a heavily armed assailant...I meant to infer, that perhaps the heavily armed assailant WOULD NEVER have shown up. He might have chosen to act out his aggressions without the use of firepower. I am suggesting that by teaching our youth that it is not okay to get angry or to conversely express that anger...well, that leads to internalization..which leads to things like yesterday. I was not commenting on the role of someone standing up to an armed assailant..that is simply BS, but trying to understand the "why" of the assailant himself.

One of the problems to trying to understand why these things occur and hopefully prevent them, as I understand it, is that the perpetrators seem to come from a largely different mold each time. This one appears to be similar in that regard.

Foreigner (only here for a few years?), likely committed double murder of people he knew (possibly relationship related?) then a couple hours later methodically, and with some degree of planning goes on an apparently random mass-killing spree at a University.

Pretty much another one-off type of deal it seems to me.

One of the problems to trying to understand why these things occur and hopefully prevent them, as I understand it, is that the perpetrators seem to come from a largely different mold each time. This one appears to be similar in that regard.

Foreigner (only here for a few years?), likely committed double murder of people he knew (possibly relationship related?) then a couple hours later methodically, and with some degree of planning goes on an apparently random mass-killing spree at a University.

Pretty much another one-off type of deal it seems to me.


The reality is that there are all sorts of disturbed people all over the world. There’s nothing unique about this with regard to American society. There’s more to the formula than the perpetrators. Potential perpetrators aren’t unique to America… there are other ingredients that are.

it's US-centric....that's the culture I am most familiar with, I never said that we were responsible for WWI,or II, or the mafia...what I said was that we tend to glamorize them in film and lore. As far as the other stuff, well, not the point I was trying to make at all. I never meant to infer that people in my fathers or grandfathers generations would have been able to stand up to a heavily armed assailant...I meant to infer, that perhaps the heavily armed assailant WOULD NEVER have shown up. He might have chosen to act out his aggressions without the use of firepower. I am suggesting that by teaching our youth that it is not okay to get angry or to conversely express that anger...well, that leads to internalization..which leads to things like yesterday. I was not commenting on the role of someone standing up to an armed assailant..that is simply BS, but trying to understand the "why" of the assailant himself.

if he wan't able to buy a 9 MM Handgun in virginia in March....his agression may not have had the consequesnces it did.

I don't buy your premise. If this is anything like the last 10 of these, he will turn out to be a socially inept loner.

Based on your premise, how did Charles Whitman (the UT Sniper) in 1966, who wasn't part of this "Feminization" you describe, not learn these masculine lessons?

Yer lookin' for easy answers to complex questions, not gonna happen.

Len

if he wan't able to buy a 9 MM Handgun in virginia in March....his agression may not have had the consequesnces it did.

I don't buy your premise. If this is anything like the last 10 of these, he will turn out to be a socially inept loner.

Based on your premise, how did Charles Whitman (the UT Sniper) in 1966, who wasn't part of this "Feminization" you describe, not learn these masculine lessons?

Yer lookin' for easy answers to complex questions, not gonna happen.

Len


Nah, I'm not looking for answers...just hoping to provoke some discussion beyond guns are bad...and this guy was crazy. Just asking questions.....thinking along societal evolutionary terms...

a quick google search shows this is not an American problem but a world problem.

April 26, 2002:
Johann Gutenberg Gymnasium, Erfurt, Germany

A former student at Johann Gutenberg Gymnasium in Erfurt, Germany, kills 16 people before turning the gun on himself. Most of Robert Steinhauser's victims are teachers.



March 13, 1996:
Dunblane Primary School, Dunblane, Scotland

A 43-year-old unemployed former storeowner, Thomas Hamilton, cuts the telephone lines to Dunblane Primary School in central Scotland and enters, armed with two pistols, two revolvers and more than 700 cartridges. He begins shooting in the school gymnasium, killing a teacher and 16 children many of them under the age of six. Subsequent investigation found that Hamilton had been a former Scout leader who had questioned by police several times after complaints about his behaviour around young children. The controversy surrounding the tragedy led to tighter gun controls.

Dec. 6, 1989:
L'École Polytechnique, Montreal

Marc Lépine, 25, walks into a classroom at Montreal's l'École Polytechnique engineering school, separates the men from the women and tells the men to leave. Then he begins shooting from a semi-automatic military weapon, shouting "I want women" as he roams the school's floors. Lépine kills 13 female students and a college employee, and injures 13 others before committing suicide. He had purchased a semi-automatic, a Ruger Mini-14, to carry out his assault. The ease with which he had acquired it and carried out the assault leads to the creation of pressure groups, which eventually forces the federal government to set up a national gun control registry.

How very European of you to make this solely an American problem.:thumbsup:

Len
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

If this is anything like the last 10 of these, he will turn out to be a socially inept loner.

I don't think that is universal. The guy at the Amish school killing doesn't fit that description. Not sure about the Utah mall. Even Columbine, those guys weren't inept loners, just not jocks.

Nah, I'm not looking for answers...just hoping to provoke some discussion beyond guns are bad...and this guy was crazy. Just asking questions.....thinking along societal evolutionary terms...


Well you've set up quite a challenge for yourself then. Crazy people are everywhere in the world but the unique level/type of access to guns and gun violence here in America isn't.

I was remembering the initial claims not the conclusions:

From Wiki

In July 1999, the FBI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation) organized a major summit on school shooters in Leesburg, Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leesburg%2C_Virginia). They brought in many of the world's leading psychologists and psychiatrists, and representatives from each of the recent school shootings, including a large Columbine contingent. Attorney General Janet Reno (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Reno) was also in attendance<SUP class="noprint Template-Fact">[citation needed] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources)</SUP>. The FBI eventually published a major report on school shooters, though it steered clear of causes on any individual case. However, on the fifth anniversary of Columbine, the FBI's lead Columbine investigator and other top psychiatrists went public with their conclusions in a Slate story entitled The Depressive and the Psychopath.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-25>[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre#_note-25)</SUP> They diagnosed Harris as a clinical psychopath (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy) and Klebold as a depressive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive), and saw that the plan was masterminded by Harris. He had a messianic-level superiority complex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority_complex), and hoped to illustrate his massive superiority to the world<SUP class="noprint Template-Fact">[citation needed] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources)</SUP>.
A thorough study of all U.S. school shootings by the U.S. Secret Service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Service) warned against the belief that a certain "type" of student would be a perpetrator. Any "profile" would fit too many students to be useful, and may not fit the potential perpetrators. "The researchers found that killers do not 'snap.' They plan. They acquire weapons. They tell others what they are planning. These children take a long, planned, public path toward violence. And there is no profile. Some lived with both parents in 'an ideal, All-American family.' Some were children of divorce, or lived in foster homes. A few were loners, but most had close friends." Instead of looking for traits, the Secret Service urges adults to ask about behavior: "What has this child said? Does he have grievances? What do his friends know? Does he have access to weapons? Is he depressed or despondent?"<SUP class=reference id=_ref-26>[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre#_note-26)</SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
Thanks for the clarification.

Len

Well you've set up quite a challenge for yourself then. Crazy people are everywhere in the world but the unique level/type of access to guns and gun violence here in America isn't.


and perhaps it is that simple....but fifty years ago we had greater access to guns....there were certainly unbalanced or crazy people at that time, yet these incidents rarely occured...My question is why?

a quick google search shows this is not an American problem but a world problem.

April 26, 2002:
Johann Gutenberg Gymnasium, Erfurt, Germany

A former student at Johann Gutenberg Gymnasium in Erfurt, Germany, kills 16 people before turning the gun on himself. Most of Robert Steinhauser's victims are teachers.



March 13, 1996:
Dunblane Primary School, Dunblane, Scotland

A 43-year-old unemployed former storeowner, Thomas Hamilton, cuts the telephone lines to Dunblane Primary School in central Scotland and enters, armed with two pistols, two revolvers and more than 700 cartridges. He begins shooting in the school gymnasium, killing a teacher and 16 children many of them under the age of six. Subsequent investigation found that Hamilton had been a former Scout leader who had questioned by police several times after complaints about his behaviour around young children. The controversy surrounding the tragedy led to tighter gun controls.

Dec. 6, 1989:
L'École Polytechnique, Montreal

Marc Lépine, 25, walks into a classroom at Montreal's l'École Polytechnique engineering school, separates the men from the women and tells the men to leave. Then he begins shooting from a semi-automatic military weapon, shouting "I want women" as he roams the school's floors. Lépine kills 13 female students and a college employee, and injures 13 others before committing suicide. He had purchased a semi-automatic, a Ruger Mini-14, to carry out his assault. The ease with which he had acquired it and carried out the assault leads to the creation of pressure groups, which eventually forces the federal government to set up a national gun control registry.

How very European of you to make this solely an American problem.:thumbsup:

Len
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->


I'm not trying to make this solely an American problem. I'm questioning. Here's another question: On per capita basis, how many of these acts of gun violence have happened in the US versus the rest of the world? I’m headed out to work now so I won’t be back for a while… if it makes you feel better you go ahead and claim you won the argument. :thumbsup:

it's a function if improved mortality and statistics?

I mean, even 2 generations ago, how many kids died before adulthood? How many died in childbirth? I know both my grandparents had more than 1/2 their children die before age 20. Add in Wars, famine etc, and many many more people are living than would have in the past.

The larger the population, the more people on the edge of the bell curve there will be......add the instantaneous communication and it may seem like there is more of this going on (and there probably is) but is the increase statisticially significant? i.e. is there aa higher % of the population commiting these acts?

I'm not excusing it, nor minimizing it, rather, trying to put it in perspective.

Len

and perhaps it is that simple....but fifty years ago we had greater access to guns....there were certainly unbalanced or crazy people at that time, yet these incidents rarely occured...My question is why?


I don't know if that is in fact true but if it is then I'd certainly like to know why too. I have a lot of questions. I wonder why or if I and we should care so much? I have strong feelings but I'm not sure if they're entirely rational.

'He was a loner'

How many times have we heard that one?

it's a function if improved mortality and statistics?

I mean, even 2 generations ago, how many kids died before adulthood? How many died in childbirth? I know both my grandparents had more than 1/2 their children die before age 20. Add in Wars, famine etc, and many many more people are living than would have in the past.

The larger the population, the more people on the edge of the bell curve there will be......add the instantaneous communication and it may seem like there is more of this going on (and there probably is) but is the increase statisticially significant? i.e. is there aa higher % of the population commiting these acts?

I'm not excusing it, nor minimizing it, rather, trying to put it in perspective.

Len


point and question, and to be honest, I am not sure of the answer..

The Mafia were Italian Americans; the Irish gangs in NYC were Irish American, and so on, with blacks and Hispanics. The common thread: alienation from the larger society and security and comfort, belonging, acceptance, self-worth, in gangs.

So this guy comes over from Korea, a place of homogeneity, same people, same race, same expectations, same acceptance of others, from which one may derive spiritual comfort, a love, if you will, as with an extended family, religious group--or gang. But America, the land of immigrants, offers no such spiritual security, so you have alienated individuals who can't relate on this very basic level. Therefore it becomes easy to murder, having simplified the victims into contemptuous alien creatures.

With natives, like Dylan Klebold, the problem is isolation, physical as well as spiritual, and total lack of supervision, again the breakdown of social nexus, spiritual union, the national weakness same as above. This together with a lingering Puritan ethic, that represses emotional life, and provides few outlets for natural agressive behavior brought about at puberty by the sex glands.

We could learn alot from the Japanese or the Europeans about how to get along. They don't have, until recently with the ME immigrants, problems with alientation and violent behavior America does.

and perhaps it is that simple....but fifty years ago we had greater access to guns....there were certainly unbalanced or crazy people at that time, yet these incidents rarely occured...My question is why?

I think there are way more Handguns today than there were 50 years ago...and since a very high percentage of violence is commited with handguns.....well you do the match.

Please support that there was greater access to handguns 50 years ago compared to now.

Len

Looks like if I want to commit mass murder, I should move to Virginia.
.
Virginians can buy one hand gun a month without a permit and that restriction is only to prevent trafficking by criminals.

There is no requirement for gun owners to register their firearms so police have no idea how many guns there are in Virginia or who owns them.

I wonder how many people he could have killed with one, or even two revolvers?

I think there are way more Handguns today than there were 50 years ago...and since a very high percentage of violence is commited with handguns.....well you do the match.

Please support that there was greater access to handguns 50 years ago compared to now.

Len


Well, of course I don't have empirical evidence, but talking with friends of my father, anfd my grandfather and his friends...they were able to purchase just about any gun they wanted...No ID checks, no 3 day waiting, no background checks..none of that. They said anecdotally, of course, that ex-cons could walk into a sporting goods store and buy several rifles, shotguns, handguns, etc. There may be more guns in production today...maybe, but I don't know. Fifty years ago, most men, at least according to my relatives, had guns in the home, and many were avid sportsmen/hunters. I wasn't there, so I can't tell ya for sure.

I'd really doubt this has much to do with the availability of guns, since these things typically seem to involve a good bit of premeditation, and it would seem almost anyone in the US can get a gun if they want to.

I think the only sensible comparison would be between places that have ready access to guns and those that don't.

Looks like if I want to commit mass murder, I should move to Virginia.
.
Virginians can buy one hand gun a month without a permit and that restriction is only to prevent trafficking by criminals.

There is no requirement for gun owners to register their firearms so police have no idea how many guns there are in Virginia or who owns them.

I wonder how many people he could have killed with one, or even two revolvers?

All those competing gangs in DC come ovah to Vuginiah an git their 9mm handguns. 9mm bullets have great velocity. They make big holes and take lots of flesh with them as they go through. They're the weapon of choice for many gang members, the ones elevating that DC stat:

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html#world

SELECTED WORST CITIES
MURDER (LATE-1990s)
EUROPE AND USA CITY MURDERS
PER 100,000
(1) Washington, D.C., USA 69.3
(2) Philadelphia, USA 27.4
(3) Dallas, USA 24.8
(4) Los Angeles, USA 22.8
(5) Chicago, USA 20.5
(6) Phoenix, USA 19.1
(7) Moscow, Russia 18.1
(8) Houston, USA 18.0
(9) New York City, USA 16.8
(10) Helsinki, Finland 12.5
(11) Lisbon, Portugal 9.7
(12) San Diego, USA 8.0
(13) Amsterdam, Netherlands 7.7
(14) Belfast, N.Ireland, UK 4.4
(15) Geneva, Switzerland 4.2
(16) Copenhagen, Denmark 4.0
(17) Berlin, Germany 3.8
(18) Paris, France 3.3
(19) Stockholm, Sweden 3.0
(20) Prague, Czechoslovakia 2.9

Here's a excerpt from a study on violence in boys and men and gender roles. http://www.jimhopper.com/cycle/


Faced with such an intense conflict between the emotional legacy of abuse and the emotionally constricting dictates of their gender socialization, male victims must find some pathway to resolution. One pathway entails the rigid adherence to masculine gender norms, a resolution which requires the forceful suppression and repression of abuse-related emotions (Lisak, 1995). Such a rigid conformity to gender norms may result in an accentuated constriction of emotional experience that is particularly focused on "vulnerable" emotions -- the helplessness, shame and powerlessness associated with the abuse experience (Bolton, Morris, & MacEachern, 1989; Lisak, 1994a, 1995). Thus, the male abuse victim who adopts this resolution to the conflict would manifest an intolerance of his own distressful emotions.

Simultaneously, such a rigid gender adaptation would likely lead to an accentuated reliance on anger, the emotion which is most sanctioned by male gender norms (Mosher & Tompkins, 1988). Indeed, these authors, among others, have argued that men who rigidly adhere to gender norms for emotional expression are likely to convert a variety of emotional states, such as fear and helplessness, into anger. Thus, gender rigidity increases the likelihood that abuse-generated emotions will be suppressed and converted into anger, a dynamic that is likely to increase the propensity for aggressive action.

Such gender rigidity, with its resultant constriction in emotional experience, is also likely to interfere with the individual's capacity to constructively integrate his traumatic experiences. As described by Horowitz (1986) and Roth and Cohen (1986), such an integration typically requires periods of avoidance of traumatic information and affect, as well as periods of approach. The gender-rigid, emotionally constricted individual is less likely to be able to tolerate approaching the negative emotional states evoked by trauma, and more likely to avoid them, either by using psychological defenses, or by converting them to aggressive action.


From this study it would appear that the adherence to strict gender roles (the manly man concept) leads to the use of aggression in coping with their emotions.

I have some of my own observations in this area. As has been pointed out, in the past there were very defined gender roles for males which some believe led the boys to settle things themselves without guns. And some believe that at present we don't have these roles in places and believe that boys are taught to not be as aggressive. I think that this proposition is false. As an example look at the way males are now portrayed. Every aspect is super sized. Compare young male role models from the past and present. Sports figures are now much physically larger than in the past. Same goes for professional wrestling. How about the rise of blood sports on T.V. such as ultimate fighting? Movies stars and action figures are also more overtly masculine. IRemember when little Humphrey Bogart was considered a tough guy? If you look at a G.I. Joe from the 60's and one today you will notice that the current model is positively bloated, and hugely muscled. Rap music has been taken over by the tough guy, I'm bigger and badder than you image. You don't have to delve to deeply into video games to see this same trend. All male figures in pop culture are physically huge and extremely aggressive and self centered. We even have a President that has taken this tough guy attitude in dealing with other nations as evidenced by his get them dead or alive talk.

At present we are currently moving towards a more overtly masculine and aggressive time, not the other way around.

This is long, but please read it and offer your thoughts.

As part of coping with this tragedy happening yesterday in my university and not only that, my own hometown, I've been pondering the question of long term causes and influences with great earnesty the past two days.

I've come to the conclusion that the unfettered media coverage of these events is the single biggest responsible factor. There are other factors, but this is the most important, and the one we can control most readily. The coverage we are now accustomed to brings the gruesome turn of events to you live and in color 24/7 for months and months afterwards. First hand accounts. Crime scene descriptions. The killer's profile and his chain of thoughts and planning. It goes on and on and on. Even though the talking heads you see on TV declare how tragic it was, and how disturbed and awful the perpitrator was, in the mind of someone with (a) borderline mental stability and (b) a great deal of self-centered need for attention, it's an irresistable lure to plan and commit these things. And it just plain plants ideas in people's heads.

As much as we all feel the need to know what happened and be aware of news as it unfolds, and as much as we think we need unrestricted freedom of the press, the only long term solution in this country will be serious restriction on how the media (including blogs and message boards nowadays) covers these events. The number and specific content of eyewitness / victim accounts needs to be heavily constrained (although it's fine, maybe benficial, if these details come out in a book or something later on). The footage of swat teams and shots being fired has to be eliminated. The number of hours a day devoted to it on each news channel needs to be tightly limited. We do need to hear in general what happened, how many victims there were, and who they were. That alone conveys PERFECTLY WELL to anybody with a reasonable imagination how terrible and grave this was. We need to hear that this guy was a loner and some of the warning signs he left behind, so we can look out for this in the future. But that's it. That's all we need.

It all comes down to do we treat news as entertainment, or do we treat it as practical tool for keeping society aware and informed in a responsible way? The current status quo is that the news equals entertainment.

I don't mean to be grim or pessimistic, but more events like this are very likely going to happen at a university or high school in the next few months or even weeks. There are so many people out there of borderline stability who are inspired by all this attention. The thing they want most is to go down in a big, horrible ball of fire. And we give them the opportunity for doing just that. So sad.

Nah, I'm not looking for answers...just hoping to provoke some discussion beyond guns are bad...and this guy was crazy. Just asking questions.....thinking along societal evolutionary terms...

Fair enough. Consider that there are ways other than force that can be utilized to get around problems. In a culture, a society, a nation, it all starts at the top - and if the leaders tend to use force to get solutions, then that becomes part of the culture.

We are a young country, a mix of many cultures which means we are still open for change as we find our way. Our form of government which allows periodic leadership turnovers to occur has been a perfect match for our attempt to allow all this diversity in culture and thought to come together.

At present, we have a leadership which has chosen the threat of force and its use in order to attain its goals, instead of sitting down at a table and hashing things out face to face.

Sitting down and getting to know your opponent allows one to find where their open doors might be on an issue. And it will also allow the opponent to better understand where you are coming from, which could lead to further openings to occur, ultimately leading to a workable solution both sides would be in agreement with.

Although doors can be opened by force, they won't stay open without the continued use of force if the reasons for that door being closed in the first place were misread and therefore not properly dealt with. But - if you don't sit down with your opponent first and get to know them entirely so, you have only yourself to blame for your own miscalculation.

I've noticed a sort of 'bunker mentality' among those on this here forum who continually defend this administration with Iraq. Us vs. Them. I also see the same sort of mentality that could drive an otherwise sane person to arm themself and go out and blow their life away, and take along as many others that they can manage to do.

So, when you ask yourself why this happened, all you need to do is to look within your own selves to find the right answer.

and perhaps it is that simple....but fifty years ago we had greater access to guns....there were certainly unbalanced or crazy people at that time, yet these incidents rarely occured...My question is why?

Fifty years ago (1957) the population of the world was 2,889,768,830. This year it is projected at 6,528,089,562. Does that help?

http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldpop.html

if tragedies like VT could be avoided in the future.....anyone with any thoughts?[/QUOTE]

i can't elaborate much right now but think about this:
Rome was the dominant, rich empire of it's day. Rome's law and urbanity pretty much layed out the parameters for our living.
Rome was as beligerant and testosterone indiced as anything else. It's armies were big, courageous and disciplined. You can't say Rome was a feminine, emasculated society right?
So here it goes: No army could enter Rome. All the weapons and military behaviour stayed outside. The city, the place for civilized life, was a place where violence and agression were controlled.. fiercely. The city was where women would flower and show it's strength, mystery, style.where dialogue, politics and entertainment would happen. it was tyhe reason why the armies were fighting: to be civilized.
your description makes america look like it never went civilized. a land of barbarians. the wild west. i believe it's the wrong description of the US cause cities like NY show a different vision of american civilization: one where sophistication equals power. that sophistication w/ jazz music, movies, writting, museums is what makes america a leader in the western world.... not the freedom to have guns.

I agree with your comments about media coverage of violence. I'm not sure about the US, but in Canada, the overall rate of violent crime is lower now than it was 30 years ago. However, the volume of media coverage of violence, as well as its graphic, immediate qualities, has increased dramatically. This has been correlated with an increase in the belief that our communities are much less safe than they were 30 years ago, when in fact, this is not the case.

The exception to this pattern appears to be school shootings, which have dramatically increased in NA over the last 30 years. And it is a NA problem, not a US problem. This is displayed graphically at:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/. If you click on the link labelled: "Interactive: School Violence in America..." You can see that between 1975 and 1994, all school shootings were Canadian. Since then, there has been a dramatic increase in the frequency of such incidents, with most (but not all) taking place in the States.

I'm not trying to make this solely an American problem. I'm questioning. Here's another question: On per capita basis, how many of these acts of gun violence have happened in the US versus the rest of the world? I’m headed out to work now so I won’t be back for a while… if it makes you feel better you go ahead and claim you won the argument. :thumbsup:

i live in an extremely violent city of th 3rd world. crime is uncontrolled. criminals are armed w/ bazookas, grenades, AR15s and there is even land air missiles being used against police helos.
most of the random crime is commited by under 18. it's a horrible situation.. but violence is used to commit crime. we don't have random psychotic shooters. we don't have a lust for guns. some want to have it. most don't. we just don't like it, we don't see any fun in owning a gun.
i believe gun violence in america is a taste, a sickness, a vice, an addiction. it's either treated as such or the killings will keep on happening. shopping malls, hospitals, schools, town squares. use your imagination.

Let's have a nice calm discussion of the role of violence in America.

To add a response more relevant to the original post, I think it's useful to look at the difference between events like what happened at VT and the historically glamorized types of violence in this country. The content surrounding the old west, wars, criminals, etc all involved victims who in some quasi-logical way "deserved" the bullets they got. In other words, the outlaws of the Old West, Bonnie and Clyde, German Soldiers in WW2 would have considered it to be over the line, dishonorable, and pointless to randomly go into a room of innocent people and open fire. The outlaws shot the bank employees / train conductors who stood between them and the money. They fought it out with the police trying to hinder them. They had a cause that was in some sense rational, maybe even driven by the desperation of poverty or what not. The bad guys were trying to survive, not trying to kill themselves. And the protagonists fighting back were merely using violence to defend the common good.

Maybe we'd be somewhat better off with more fiction (movies) and reality (TV news) on these types of good-versus-evil violent scenarios, rather than content that revolves around the purely senseless, purposeless, disturbing acts.

Maybe we'd be somewhat better off with more fiction (movies) and reality (TV news) on these types of good-versus-evil violent scenarios, rather than content that revolves around the purely senseless, purposeless, disturbing acts.


I don't believe that anything in this world is purely senseless or purposeless...everything has a reason, a purpose....understanding it may be more difficult. I think of chaos theory mathematics when things like this happen, and specifically the butterfly effect. What butterfly was in this young mans head? This is the key to understanding. Blaming guns or dismissing it shows lack of a willingness to understand.:thumbsup:

several studies have looked at school violence (pretty sure most k-12, not college years). the only common thread was most perpetrating the violence were victims of bullying. the outcome is often worse here in the US becasue of ready access to weapons.

jim

I don't believe that anything in this world is purely senseless or purposeless...everything has a reason, a purpose....understanding it may be more difficult. I think of chaos theory mathematics when things like this happen, and specifically the butterfly effect. What butterfly was in this young mans head? This is the key to understanding. Blaming guns or dismissing it shows lack of a willingness to understand.:thumbsup:

I agree with your view. When we say senseless in this context, we mean senseless from the stand point of his own mortal continuance. Self-destructive might be a better way to characterize the difference between yesterday's violence and today's. A bank robber is ultimately taking a self destructive path (and perhaps partly realizes it), but not in the immediate sense. In the immediate, short-sighted view, he's fulfulling his innate drive for survival and greed. And he might *just* pull it off if the protagonists don't overcome him. These are drives we all posess and can relate to. Most of us don't posess the drive for utter self destruction. As world news highlights every day, someone with a self destructive drive can rarely be stopped. Someone with the aim of self preservation can be stopped more easily.

several studies have looked at school violence (pretty sure most k-12, not college years). the only common thread was most perpetrating the violence were victims of bullying. the outcome is often worse here in the US becasue of ready access to weapons.

jim

I don't believe that is a root cause. Bullying isn't anything new but the level of violence seems to be, access to weapons is no greater than in our past.Something is different culturally.

I don't believe that is a root cause. Bullying isn't anything new but the level of violence seems to be, access to weapons is no greater than in our past.Something is different culturally.

Access to handguns is up dramaticially.

Len

i live in an extremely violent city of th 3rd world. crime is uncontrolled. criminals are armed w/ bazookas, grenades, AR15s and there is even land air missiles being used against police helos.
most of the random crime is commited by under 18. it's a horrible situation.. but violence is used to commit crime. we don't have random psychotic shooters. we don't have a lust for guns. some want to have it. most don't. we just don't like it, we don't see any fun in owning a gun.
i believe gun violence in america is a taste, a sickness, a vice, an addiction. it's either treated as such or the killings will keep on happening. shopping malls, hospitals, schools, town squares. use your imagination.

That's what several others are getting at. Hong Kong kung fu movies glorify kicking and stabbing. American cops and robbers movies glorify firing guns and bullets ripping flesh in slow motion. I don't know where that comes from, maybe growing up with Wild West movies, but its there. Foreigners I've talked to, Europeans, Indians, Africans, can't understand this love of guns and gun play, Americans seem to have.

That's why I suggested treating agression in teenage boys by self-empowering them to be confident and independent.

Also we should legalizing pot and establish brothels where grown up women could teach teenage boys how to deal with their sexuality.:) Or bring back PE in public schools! These testosterone crazed little guys need acceptable ways to channel agression, other than violent video games and other violent media entertainment, that they swallow passively along with the french fries and pizza!

Hong Kong kung fu movies glorify kicking and stabbing. American cops and robbers movies glorify firing guns and bullets ripping flesh in slow motion. I don't know where that comes from, maybe growing up with Wild West movies, but its there. Foreigners I've talked to, Europeans, Indians, Africans, can't understand this love of guns and gun play, Americans seem to have.

This is ridiculous. A lot of Hong Kong cinema is about glorification of guns and ultra-violence. Obviously you aren't aware of John Woo's classic Hong Kong flicks, which are some of the greatest and highest grossing Asian films ever made. Hard-Boiled, The Killer, A Better Tomorrow, etc. The glorification of GUN violence was far in excess of almost any American film.

I don't believe that is a root cause. Bullying isn't anything new but the level of violence seems to be, access to weapons is no greater than in our past.Something is different culturally.

Bullying is a root cause. Violence is just one way to get revenge. That's been a part of our culture that hasn't changed.

This is ridiculous. A lot of Hong Kong cinema is about glorification of guns and ultra-violence. Obviously you aren't aware of John Woo's classic Hong Kong flicks, which are some of the greatest and highest grossing Asian films ever made. Hard-Boiled, The Killer, A Better Tomorrow, etc. The glorification of GUN violence was far in excess of almost any American film.

I haven't seen very many of those films. I'm thinking, "How can such a well behaved, polite society have such a passion for this extreme violence?" I think of Americans' taste for the same. Is it because it provides a release from this repressive social requirement to behave within strict standards? A primitive urge, id having it's way over ego and super-ego? Childish abandon over adult responsibility? And was this shooter picking up on that, with his well thought out and executed massacre?

Access to handguns is up dramaticially.

Len

How so?

I haven't seen very many of those films. I'm thinking, "How can such a well behaved, polite society have such a passion for this extreme violence?" I think of Americans' taste for the same. Is it because it provides a release from this repressive social requirement to behave within strict standards? A primitive urge, id having it's way over ego and super-ego? Childish abandon over adult responsibility? And was this shooter picking up on that, with his well thought out and executed massacre?

If you haven't seen the films, don't use them to back your argument.

I think it is the height of absurdity to generalize what Americans like. I'm not sure how many Americans there are in this world, but there are close to 300 million people in this country. Are you seriously telling me that all or even most have a passion for extreme violence? Another stab in the dark, perhaps? I could just as soon ask why is it that everyone in the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa seems to have an AK-47? And why aren't you talking about them?

What I find funny about this 'violent Americans' and 'America born of violence' is that every single nation on the planet not only has a longer history than us, but they have a longer violent history too. phys I normally agree with you, well except for more recently you have been sounding a bit like spydie - this op is silly. Look at GB, France, China, Japan, Russia, Germany, Turkey and pretty much every nation on the globe. They all have long histories of violence and strong nationalistic rememberences of their conquests. Most of the troubles of our time were the result of the French and British attemps at colonizing the world.

There is no rational explaination for what happened yesterday just as there is none for the extremism in the ME. spydie was right that they are the same, but not how he perceives them to be.

If you haven't seen the films, don't use them to back your argument.

I think it is the height of absurdity to generalize what Americans like. I'm not sure how many Americans there are in this world, but there are close to 300 million people in this country. Are you seriously telling me that all or even most have a passion for extreme violence? Another stab in the dark, perhaps? I could just as soon ask why is it that everyone in the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa seems to have an AK-47? And why aren't you talking about them?


ok but random shooting w/ high tech weapons has become almost an institution in the US. i don't think it's the "sh8t happens" kind of deal rather something to deal with and avoid.
having every kid from 12 on to carry a glock does not seem reasonable.
saying it's impossible to change a mentality or law is absurd. before the 30s english citizens had guns. then laws changed and nowadays it's highly difficult to gain possession of guns.

yeah it's not like most every household in Iraq has automatic weapons or something or people don't blow up other people with explosives strapped to their backs on buses in Israel or Gaza. Yeah there are no real threats of violent death in Africa or South America either. Yeah come to the US and we'll kill ya' all.

How so?

growing up in the inner city, the only way to access a handgun was to go to the mob. Now all I have to do is go around the corner to the local sporting good store.

In 1960, how many handguns were there in the US? How many are their now? I'm betting it's 10+X. and the population sure has not increased that much.

There are many more handguns per capita today than there were 50 years ago.

Len

ok but random shooting w/ high tech weapons has become almost an institution in the US. i don't think it's the "sh8t happens" kind of deal rather something to deal with and avoid.
having every kid from 12 on to carry a glock does not seem reasonable.
saying it's impossible to change a mentality or law is absurd. before the 30s english citizens had guns. then laws changed and nowadays it's highly difficult to gain possession of guns.

Yeah and you only just recently got that thing with Ireland calmed down too.

Not every kid from 12 on carries a Glock either. Some prefer old school steel like CZ's or Colts. You been watching too many Gangsta movies.

In 1960 you could buy one in any Sears store or catalog. Why would you need the mob?

April 26, 2002:
Johann Gutenberg Gymnasium, Erfurt, Germany

March 13, 1996:
Dunblane Primary School, Dunblane, Scotland

Dec. 6, 1989:
L'École Polytechnique, Montreal

How very European of you to make this solely an American problem.:thumbsup: You left out:

Osaka School Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre)

"At 10:15 on the morning of June 8, 2001, 37-year-old former janitor Mamoru Takuma entered the school armed with a kitchen knife and began stabbing numerous school children and teachers. He killed eight children, mostly between the ages of seven and eight, and seriously wounded thirteen other children and two teachers. Takuma was later convicted and sentenced to death by hanging. The sentence was executed on September 14, 2004. "

Not to diminish the fact that violence does seem to be a greater problem in the USA, but I think these examples from other countries show that there are, unfortunately, highly unstable people everywhere in the world and sometimes they will lash out. The VT shooter was obviously one of these people who unfortunately decided to unleash his madness in the USA. If he never came here perhaps we'd be hearing about a mass killing in South Korea instead. Any way you stack it up this is a sad event, but I'm not sure it tells us anything about American society, necessarily, since the killer didn't grow up here. He illegally purchased guns here, sure, but he could have done that in a lot of other countries too (for example, Canada).

You left out:

Osaka School Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre)

"At 10:15 on the morning of June 8, 2001, 37-year-old former janitor Mamoru Takuma entered the school armed with a kitchen knife and began stabbing numerous school children and teachers. He killed eight children, mostly between the ages of seven and eight, and seriously wounded thirteen other children and two teachers. Takuma was later convicted and sentenced to death by hanging. The sentence was executed on September 14, 2004. "

Not to diminish the fact that violence does seem to be a greater problem in the USA, but I think these examples from other countries show that there are, unfortunately, highly unstable people everywhere in the world and sometimes they will lash out. The VT shooter was obviously one of these people who unfortunately decided to unleash his madness in the USA. If he never came here perhaps we'd be hearing about a mass killing in South Korea instead. Any way you stack it up this is a sad event, but I'm not sure it tells us anything about American society, necessarily, since the killer didn't grow up here. He illegally purchased guns here, sure, but he could have done that in a lot of other countries too (for example, Canada).

if the kid in VT had a knife he would have been taken over by the students after the second or third stab. the gun was the problem. you have to face it: the US is the most lenient when it comes to guns and it suffers from massive psycho killings w/ guns.
instead of facing this cruel reality the gun lovers invoke the patriarchs, invasions, totalitarism,"i want to shoot, period" tantrums etc..

Odd how I live in a country where handguns are completely banned, and people are murdered with knives with alarming frequency. I would argue that is even more brutal and violent, as it is much more intimate than shooting someone from a distance. Of course, Europe likes to hold up their collective self-righteous heads and blame guns-- and it would definitely be far fetched to stab 50 people-- but that is not the point.

The US gets a bad international violence rep on two counts-- the death penalty, and guns (and maybe hollywood entertainment).

Funny how permissive sentencing in much of Europe is--- and how many countries have no clue how to deal with violent immigrants here. I think the maximum sentence here is like seven years in the nicest prison you have ever seen. Violent crime is a dirty little secret here... it definitely exists-- it just doesn't receive the level of media coverage as in the US-- at least in the English language.

America is too young to have its own violent crime history. Its roots lie elsewhere-- where did most American ancestors come from again? Good heavens, I actually agree with Steam on this one.

What I find funny about this 'violent Americans' and 'America born of violence' is that every single nation on the planet not only has a longer history than us, but they have a longer violent history too. phys I normally agree with you, well except for more recently you have been sounding a bit like spydie - this op is silly. Look at GB, France, China, Japan, Russia, Germany, Turkey and pretty much every nation on the globe. They all have long histories of violence and strong nationalistic rememberences of their conquests. Most of the troubles of our time were the result of the French and British attemps at colonizing the world.

There is no rational explaination for what happened yesterday just as there is none for the extremism in the ME. spydie was right that they are the same, but not how he perceives them to be.

Cool :)

you have to face it: the US is the most lenient when it comes to guns and it suffers from massive psycho killings w/ guns.Then will you please explain recent mass gun killings in Canada, Scotland, and Germany?

I will grant that guns are perhaps fuel on the fire. And frankly I favor background checks for gun purchases, which we have now. But you're never going to ban or severely restrict guns in the USA. You can blather about it all you want but you just aren't being realistic. And again I point to alcohol. There is every good reason to make it illegal, yet when we tried to do so it was a travesty.

Please show me a country with gun ownership on par with the USA that successfully banned gun ownership or restricted it significantly. The only relevant example I can think of is Australia, and all evidence suggests that all their gun buy-back program did was waste a lot of money while having no positive effect on crime.

and all evidence suggests that all their gun buy-back program did was waste a lot of money while having no positive effect on crime.

What evidence?

Prove it.

What evidence?

Prove it.

Buyback has no effect on murder rate (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/buyback-has-no-effect-on-murder-rate/2006/10/23/1161455665717.html)

I'd really doubt this has much to do with the availability of guns, since these things typically seem to involve a good bit of premeditation, and it would seem almost anyone in the US can get a gun if they want to.

I think the only sensible comparison would be between places that have ready access to guns and those that don't.

Canada has just as many guns per capita as the US, but has substantially lower rates of gun violence...they're right across the border man, so I would venture to guess its something about the American culture that perpetuates the idea that young males should yield small firearms to solve whatever internal conflicts they're having....something is planting that seed...I could only venture to guess what, but I'm sure the flamers would come out in force, stating "our right to bear..." this and "gun control..." that...the argument is circular.
I think that is what physasst is getting at...the origins of that mental "seed" and resolution of internal or external conflicts through firearms.