The latest school massacres
 

I'm surprised there is no general current event thread about school killings.
They keep happening, so we should at least acknowledge them.

Today is Oregon's 15-minutes of fame.
This is my reaction. It sounds familiar doesn't it ?

HEY HEY HEY ... N R A
How many kids did you kill today ?

Oregon: (10/1/15 3:00 pm): 13 dead and counting, with 20 wounded

.

That'll help the school overcrowding problem, and since the teachers work load is reduced cut their pay.

I'm not a gun nut, but the NRA didn't kill anyone today.

Young wippersnapper --- neither did LBJ, but that didn't mean he wasn't responsible.

That's what happens when a State makes euthanasia legal. Kids who don't know any better think that makes it OK to euthanize others whether they want to die or not. The shame that is Oregon's citizens-killers.

Bullshit. Having guns around doesn't stop this shit.

Here are the rules in America. These rules are followed by all media.

I didn't make the rules, the culture did, so don't blame me. The rules are racist because the culture is racist. You are racist too.

- When a white person kills a white person, it's because of guns.

- When a white person kills a black person, it's because of race.

- When a black person kills a white person, it's a terrible event.

- When a black person kills a black person, it's expected behavior and doesn't require any explanation.

NRA aren't responsible for school shootings - but they are partly responsible for the creation of a culture that glorifies, indeed all but sanctifies, guns and gun ownership.

It's a political fight, and the NRA is the largest and most powerful member of the guns rights side. That guns are so easy to obtain and so difficult to regulate is due largely to the efforts of the NRA.

The responsibility of the shootings lies with the shooters, just like the responsibility for accidents caused by drunk drivers lies with the drunk drivers. We have common sense regulations for bars regulating who they can serve, and when they can serve them, and how much they can serve them. It would be smart to have some common sense regulations for guns. I don't pretend to know what those would look like, but fighting every regulation is what the NRA does. If that organization got in front of the problem of guns being used in these mass shootings and proposed some common sense solutions, they could actually do some good. You know, like they used to when their main focus was gun safety and education instead of political fundraising. It would be nice if the NRA was part of the solution.

The problem as I see it, is less about controls (though I think some controls might be a wise move), it's the rhetoric around guns and the cultural place of guns in America.

Guns have always had an important part to play in American culture, but in recent decades the fight for gun rights -v- gun control, has over-emphasised that role. Guns are up there with Jesus - they're not just a right, they're an essential expression of patriotism and nationhood. They've become sanctified, and fetishised. Hollywood plays its part - but the NRA have done a great deal to imbue guns with far greater significance at an identity level, than they should ever have.

This issue is clearly not just about proliferation of weapons. Many countries have widespread gun ownership and minimal gun control but they don't seem to experience the same level of school massacres.


[eta] I am aware I am commenting on something I am only able to view from the outside and as such may be missing certain nuances.

Or maybe viewing from the outside allows you to see certain nuances.
You're spot on with the culture being the primary problem. The NRA could be a big help by taking the position that the laws would help the law biding gun owners by keeping the weapons out of the hands of baddies. But they've staunchly maintained a fer us or agin us position, because that makes them the most visible leader of the fight for the common man against the big bad government/eastern eggheads, which makes the money flow into their coffers.

Trump learned to tap into that same common man defense to attract the disgruntled, but for personal aggrandizement rather than wealth. While the NRA wants to turn back the clock to the 1880s, Trump's promising to turn back to the 1950s, it says so on his hat. :haha:

Of course nobody in either camp mentions the 1880s was an era of lawlessness and high personal danger, and 1950s was an era of big government, and strong unions.

I'll agree with that.

The problem with that is determining who the "baddies" really are.

Not really, "baddies" is enough to get people's support, because it instantly triggers what their own fears have determined who baddies are. Might be inner city thugs, motorcycle gangs, drug dealers, Immigrants, gangsters, etc. Promoting, if the gumint don't take your guns, you are safe and invincible, it just folly.

Perspective gets distorted by headlines.

The problem is that they're "goodies" right up to the minute they massacre a bunch of innocents.

Public opinion doesn't seem to be swayed by mass shootings.

Isn't the definition of murder the death of innocents?
Otherwise it's manslaughter/ self-defense.

[don't slaughter me if I'm wrong, it'll be a difference in UK/ US law]

Oh, the above is simply me being anal - Spex isn't necessarily wrong.

It just occurred to me that these people are murderers. Britain's most prolific killers did not need guns. The fact that guns feature in the death of "innocents" in the US is just a blip of time and space if you're of a murderous bent IMO.
That said, much as I adore Wolf (the only non-hunting gun-toting Dwellar I can think of off the top of my head) I'd be completely weirded out by seeing any of you carrying a lethal weapon around. That's just my feelings, having not grown up with guns.

Where and when I grew up, seeing someone with a gun would be natural. Here and now I would immediately try to assess their actions and intent, because it's far less common. Spex is right, but in most cases, the post tragedy examination shows plenty of warning signs. That's why the chart of specific proposals has much higher support than the ban/not ban question PEW asked.

I feel those charts reflect my own reaction to those questions, in that my answer to should we ban guns is a sound no, as I think that's throwing out the baby with the bath water and would not solve anything. But the questions about individual initiatives, I can wholeheartedly support. This is what I mentioned earlier about the NRA being wrong in their no restrictions stance, rather than supporting some laws.

At this point, it feels like the first instinct of some folks, when hearing of any national tragedy, is to press hard for their particular political agenda.

"A terrible thing has occurred! And the most important thing is, HOW CAN WE USE IT???"

Those people going on rampages might not have done the deed if they were getting laid more often and that's why we need to legalize prostitution.

Now, what were you sayin' UT?

That won't work, it's not related closely enough. To legalize prostitution you would need a mass fucking, not a mass killing.

I don't know, I think "We the People" are taking a mass fucking every day. ;)

USE it, Bobby!

https://www.bobbyjindal.com/jindal-w...-with-garbage/

I agree with Mr. Jindal.

What if I told you that, over the last 25 years, as society has sunk into the abyss,

What if I told you that after all that...

...for the last 25 years, murders and violent crime are way way down?

America's Faulty Perception of Crime Rates

http://cellar.org/2015/crimechart.jpg

Do you still think it's culture?

I say innocents because I don't think there'd be much outcry if someone killed a bunch of murderers and rapists.;)

Et tu, Brute !



.

That's the point LL

Chart is deceiving. Total number of violent crimes is irrelevant. Crimes per GDP are relevant. Relating same data to the population is number of violent crimes per citizen:
2010 0.0040
2005 0.0047
2000 0.0050
1995 0.0068
1990 0.0072
1988 0.0064
1985 0.0055
1980 0.0059
1975 0.0048
1970 0.0036
1965 0.0019
1960 0.0015

Violent crime is down significantly. But not as much as the chart would have us believe. Crime rates are similar to crime in early 1970s.

Is there an echo in here?

A second look at that chart - it is violent crime per GDP. But the numbers are apparently per 100,000 people. My numbers are annual violent crimes per person.

tw, there's no such thing as violent crimes per GDP. Come on, what the hell is that, really?

Replace GDP with per person. Forgot what the technical expression is.

lol

A competing instinct is "A terrible thing has occurred! And the most important thing is, IT'S TOO SOON TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT!!!" And every subsequent event resets the TOO SOON timer.

Yes, I forgot that. We need time to grieve. Emotions are too high right now. Let's wait till things settle down.

That runs counter to Saul Alinsky's tactics, which were required reading at UC Berkeley. "Never let a good crisis go to waste."

Another one last night - if you're not part of the solution i'm sure you're happy.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/deadly-shoo...ry?id=34363113

In 2013 there were 8,454 homicides with a gun. Cops estimates 80% of those are gang/drug related, which are mostly in urban slums. Other people have a 0.000530%, or 1:188,700, chance of being killed with gun. Each year you statistically have a greater chance dying falling down stairs 1:180,000, or riding a bicycle 1:140,000.

See the problem? Numbers can be manipulated to support any position. Gun violence is something most people only see on TV news. It couldn’t happen here in my safe town/city. When it does, it’s a horrible thing, until the media assails you with the next horrible thing.

Looking at it practically, I read the other day the US has more guns than people, worth how many Trillions of dollars? How do you get rid of them? Pass a law like prohibition? Certainly the police must be exempted, and the Secret Service, maybe politicians. How about doctors, lawyers, or Indian chiefs?

Maybe a war on guns, since the wars on drugs, poverty, etc, worked so well. Until it’s no longer a political football, fuhgedaboudit.

Nobody really cares if the gangs and thugs kill each other off, but when their warfare spills over into the world of the regular folks, then it's a problem.

If somebody is being mugged for drug money and it goes wrong and they get killed, then do the cops dismiss that as drug related, or is that a real crime?

It's hard to avoid giving a very sarcastic reply; but that is just not true.

"happy" ? I don't think anyone is happy, but ...

Hang on - you don't get a choice as to whether you were born with a vagina or not.
I'm not sure the same can be said for guns.

I mean, your country, your laws, none of my business, but I just thought it was worth mentioning.

Ever heard of Caitlyn Jenner? Was she born with one? Methinks not.

I'm sorry, but those two things do not equate. If you're not a driver, you shouldn't make laws about cars? Maybe, I could go with that. If you've never taught, you sholdn't make education law? Fine.

But having a gun and having a fucking vagina are not the same thing.

One gender making laws about what the other gender can do with their body is not the same as a set of people who don't own some things, making laws about whether someone else can own those things.

There are plenty of good arguments against gun control, and clearly there is some kind of identity level shit going on with gun control, but equating rights over vaginas and rights over guns is ridiculous and icky. Seriously, that shit makes my skin crawl.

Bad example. Caitlyn still doesn't have one.

Oh, and that quote about needing guns to disarm people - seriously? You can make a massive dent in the number of guns through the use of amnesties and buy-backs. The rest happens across time as new laws begin to bed down. There will always be people for whom illegality is enough of a barrier that simply making it illegal would reduce numbers.

It then becomes unsafe to use guns because - you shouldn't have it in the first place. It becomes a less comfortable thing to have. It becomes the thing you mitght get caught out on if the police pull you over for something unrelated, or have to turn up at your house because of a burglary. You won't get rid of all of the guns - as a nation I can't see you guys ever wanting that to happen. But you could make them less ubiquitous.

It doesn't happen over night. It happens in stages. It becomes a generational change.

And most of the stuff I've seen from the pro-control camp isn;t about ridding America of guns - ot's about setting some limits on the kinds of guns and ammo that can be bought and the level of availability.

You aren't allowed to just jump in a car and drive down the freeway without having learned how to drive and passed a test to prove it.

The "New Rule" conflicts with the last one. The government owns guns, and makes laws.

I guess.

I think, where I am coming from is that I generally trust my country's soldiers and police with guns marginally more than I trust my next door neighbour or my cousin's crazy ass husband with guns.

As cynical as I am about state and the sinews of power - I don't think I have anywhere near as much distrust and fear of them as you guys seem to. I cannot imagine stockpiling weapons for the day when they send in the troops. There are odd times, during periods of great upheaval and social unrest (like during the Vietnam War in America, and the poll tax demonstrations in the UK) where battle lines seem tobe drawn - and that's when you get incidents like Berkeley campus, or the army on standby, with rubber bullets at Downing Street.

But, whilst there are governments who can rely on their armies to quell the population through brute force, fire into crowds of of their own civilians, and uphold the rule of a dictator there are many governments whose armies would balk and desert in great numbers at the idea of such an attack. I think the US is in the latter camp.

To stay fully armed against the highly unlikely and wholly hypothetical possibility of the government going to war against its own people seems kind of bizarre to me. The logic of owning a gun in case I am threatened with volence by a nutjob rapist makes way more sense. The constitutional arguments just don't work for me. You can all have guns and the army would still be better armed. Unless you're also planning on getting kitted out with full kevlar body suits and anti-tank weaponry. And even then they would still be better armed. You would still have to rely on the notion that they would be unwilling to launch an all-out fucking napalm attack - you'd still be reliant on them observing some kind of self-imposed limit to the level of violence they're willing to mete out.

There are many kinds of freedom. Freedom from an armed populace and for the most part an armed police force is something I value.


[eta] I suspect a lot of that is down to a different history. Not least the history of law enforcement. The reason we only have specialist units of police that are armed, with the majority of police unarmed is something that comes from the way in which law enforcement developed here during the early days of police forces. We have as much of a cultural inclination towards unarmed police as you have a cultural inclination to armed police. That's one of the civil freedoms that characterises british culture - for the same reason we have, for most of the early modern and modern periods, had relatively small standing armies except in times of war. Because standing armies swore their loyalty to the monarch, we have always tended to have quite a large 'militia' component to our land forces.

Just to be clear; I was responding to the meme post; I agree with you 100%.

The root cause of these events isn't guns. It is a lack of empathy. Empathy developed by having real connections with people. A friend was telling me today about something the teaching staff of the school she used to work at started doing after Columbine. Every Fall they would put every kid in the schools name on a 3x5 card on a wall. The teachers would put a check mark by every kids name that they felt they had a relationship with. They took away all the names of kids with a connection to staff and focused on the remaining kids the rest of the year slowly trying to build emotional connections with every one of them. This was a huge multi-year effort, but I think much more useful than pointing fingers left or right.

So suddenly we no longer have sufficient empathy? Nonsense. Empathy did not change. We now openly encourage everyone to use violent tools.

The study is indeed intriguing. But it does not address what has changed. We know throughout history, more guns means increases in violent deaths. We know people today suddenly 'need' to defend themselves where it was not so necessary BEFORE propaganda promoted that need and fear (ie 1950, 1960s).

I agree, however to me they're equally as dangerous. :p:

Yeah those are nut cases. They are small but vocal, I put them in the same drawer with second coming zealots.

Our history is much different, in that large swaths of the country had no police, or just a US Marshall who covered thousands of square miles, self defense was a necessity. We also have a history of hunting, first for subsistence, then mostly for sport but still tradition. (A friend in north Jersey sent me a picture of a Bobcat in her yard, today.)

I wonder about that since we've moved from citizen solders to professionals. Where is their allegiance?

I think that's big step to better results. Reminds me of this teacher.

I beg your pardon? *I* get to choose to have a vajayjay. Didn't you get your choice form in the post? ;)

What caliber will it be?

Sorry, my amended post above looks a bit shouty.
I was simply emphasising for clarity, not shouting at the screen in rage.

You actually can use policy to impact culture.

Let's imagine a scenario where one of the states requires to pass some actual training before getting a gun license. Early on there would be a big hoopla about gun control and whether it's constitutional.

But if it stands, then over a few months you are going to have a new rising group of gun owners with an exclusive club mentality - they feel like they earned it, where gun owners in other states did not. This can be a potent viral strain to infect american gun culture with - remember how the american republicans defended the patriot act and phone tapping and so on? If you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to worry about. Much the same can happen here internally - within the NRA culture - if you don't want the tests it's because you don't think you can pass.

But is the point really about choice, or about impact?

We all can get hit by cars or shot by lunatics, regardless of whether we own a car or a gun. likewise, whether it is forced fatherhood against someone's will (with possible jail time) or the other way around - killing someone who they believe in and view as their living breathing child - men are affected by them. Not to mention consent laws applying to both genitalia, and unfortunately censorship laws, because of.. reasons...

Note that I am pro-choice, but I disagree that they can't be equated - The point isn't a pro life one, but rather that anything which gives us the means to impact others becomes the business of others who don't want to be negatively impacted, regardless of the level of agency in the process of acquiring it, and regardless of whether we try to deal with it on a case by case basis through life or organize around it as a society.