Why do school shootings happen?

Ahnimus

MahoganySouls wrote:

Oh come on, you know darn well that if had a partner who helped you raise your children and financially support them, you would have had a completely different life. Not to mention less problems.

Is this an argumentum ad antiquitatem or an argumentum ad populum?

It's not true, either way.

When we are discussing human behavior, childhood and adolescence there are a billion and one variables. From the prenatal environment all the way up to the tiniest particle in the universe. But we constrain our inquiry to a smaller picture, our ecosystem and the entire human species.

Especially in today's global economy. What happens in China, might affect your kids at home.

Ahnimus

dunkman wrote:

at least my answer is MY answer... all you ever do is quote people who are infinitely smarter than you.. but just for you i'll translate my first post

mental and socially instability + the ridiculous ease by which american people can acquire a gun + american society as a whole = a far greater chance of a school shooting happening than the rest of the developed world

Let me point out that there are many more ways to kill a person. Guns are temporally inefficient. If I snap and want to kill someone, I want something right away, something instantly available, like a knife, rope, cord, my hands, etc.. Maybe if I had a gun at the time I needed it. But either way, the intent and motivation is what counts, not the weapon.

Anyway, I appreciate the paraphrasing. The first statement, not only sounded myopic, but socially inflamatory.

prism

MahoganySouls wrote:

They have loving in tact traditional family lives. They were taught values, standards and morals. Today kids are taught to balk at authority, greed, selfishness and calous disregard for others.

Until society restores the family unit and its responsibilities, these things are just going to continue to get worse.

hmmm....like for example

Pekka-Eric Auvinen: killed 8, wounded 12 more, commits suicide in Tuusula, Finland. he came from a two-parent "traditional" family.

Cho Seung-Hui: killed 33, wounded 13? more, commits suicide at Virginia Tech. he came from a two-parent "traditonal" family.

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold: killed 13, wounded 23 more, both commit suicide at Columbine H.S. both boys came from a two-parent "traditional" family

those are just some of the more well known school shooters. look at a list of all school shooters over the last few years and you'll find that all but one or two of them came from two-parent traditional family homes.

MahoganySouls wrote:

Obviously you could have had an easier go at it if you had a "traditional" family unit in place.

Children need structure, security and direction. They need male and female (mother and father) influence. Couple that with love and unlimited time and you have a recipe for successfull child rearing.

Children who get stuck in a situation where parents are absent due to personal selfishness or because they have to work so much to make ends meet do not thrive. They get lost and the negatives of society suck them in.

these killers did in fact have a mother and father influence. did these killers have two parents that gave them love, time and attention? I don't know if anyone can really answer that for sure. however, it is for certain that no one can blame single-parenting as one of the many reasons that these shooters went off the deep-end. so, you really need to step down off of your high horse and quit blaming the kids and their parent(s) from "non-traditional families" for all of society's ills.

69charger

dunkman wrote:

no need for defence if your stupid country had no stupid right to bear arms in the first place.

Blah...

Blah...

Blah...

dunkman

Ahnimus wrote:

Let me point out that there are many more ways to kill a person.

why thank you.. all these years i've been under the assumption that all people died from gunshots... i visited my grandads coffin a few years back and there i was checking for bullet holes.

Guns are temporally inefficient. If I snap and want to kill someone, I want something right away, something instantly available, like a knife, rope, cord, my hands, etc.. Maybe if I had a gun at the time I needed it. But either way, the intent and motivation is what counts, not the weapon.

since you seem intent on quoting the worlds greatest minds.. let me quote another:-
"The NRA says 'guns don't kill people, people do.' But I think that the gun helps. You know? I think it helps. I think that if you just walked around going 'Bang!' you wouldn't kill too many people would you? You'd have to be really dogdy on the heart for that to work. - Eddie Izzard"

Anyway, I appreciate the paraphrasing. The first statement, not only sounded myopic, but socially inflamatory.

thanks i achieved my goal

dunkman

69charger wrote:

Blah...

Blah...

Blah...

Blasphemy? you have typestutter? i nev... i nev... i nev.. i never knew that... me too

onelongsong

Malcolm_X wrote:

These things, as tragic as they are, they fascinate me......like WHY??? Why would someone do this? I can see like ok, a kid has problems with school, gets picked on bad home life etc. I mean when I was in middle school kids were vicious to me, called me fag, retard, gay etc. All which was false, and trust me, some of these kids I wanted to kill, but its like I knew this shit wouldn't last forever, its like what would you rather have 9 months outta the year of being picked on, or life in prison....Its like don't you know if you do this, your gonna be fucked for life....even if you get outta jail, your still fucked.

you can ask the same question about almost any crime. why do people do drive-bys; why do people steal; why do people drink and drive killing almost 40,000 per year? people commit crimes. there are 4 times more people killed in the us by drunk drivers than by guns. when i was in high school; we brought our guns to school during hunting season. that school has never had a shooting. in fact; i didn't feel comfortable leaving my gun in the car so i'd bring it in and lock it up in my locker. times have changed. i was bullied by this kid and i wanted to shoot him; but i wouldn't because i was raised better. it was wrong so i didn't do it. now our courts let people out on probation so many times that when the person finally gets jailed; they're a hardened criminal. back when we actually used the death penalty; it made a difference. now you'll sit on death row for up to 20 years. if these people know they won't be punished; where is the deterrant?

catefrances

onelongsong wrote:

you can ask the same question about almost any crime. why do people do drive-bys; why do people steal; why do people drink and drive killing almost 40,000 per year? people commit crimes. there are 4 times more people killed in the us by drunk drivers than by guns. when i was in high school; we brought our guns to school during hunting season. that school has never had a shooting. in fact; i didn't feel comfortable leaving my gun in the car so i'd bring it in and lock it up in my locker. times have changed. i was bullied by this kid and i wanted to shoot him; but i wouldn't because i was raised better. it was wrong so i didn't do it. now our courts let people out on probation so many times that when the person finally gets jailed; they're a hardened criminal. back when we actually used the death penalty; it made a difference. now you'll sit on death row for up to 20 years. if these people know they won't be punished; where is the deterrant?

explain to me HOW the death penalty is a deterrant?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

69charger wrote:

Blah...

Blah...

Blah...

Dude... you need this fucking gun

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8HMzWd0gfU

I can make some phone calls if you'd like.

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

you can ask the same question about almost any crime. why do people do drive-bys; why do people steal; why do people drink and drive killing almost 40,000 per year? people commit crimes. there are 4 times more people killed in the us by drunk drivers than by guns. when i was in high school; we brought our guns to school during hunting season. that school has never had a shooting. in fact; i didn't feel comfortable leaving my gun in the car so i'd bring it in and lock it up in my locker. times have changed. i was bullied by this kid and i wanted to shoot him; but i wouldn't because i was raised better. it was wrong so i didn't do it. now our courts let people out on probation so many times that when the person finally gets jailed; they're a hardened criminal. back when we actually used the death penalty; it made a difference. now you'll sit on death row for up to 20 years. if these people know they won't be punished; where is the deterrant?

There is no known detterant to homicide. Most professional criminologists would disagree with you.

The results of this project clearly show that there is a
wide consensus among America's top criminologists that the death
penalty does, or can do, little to reduce rates of criminal
violence in our society. These results chisel away at one of the
most important justifications for the death penalty in modern
society. To the degree that well-intentioned voters support the
death penalty as a last-resort effort to reduce crime rates, this
study should have an impact on the public's support for the
executioner.

The study also suggests that political debates about how to
reduce criminal violence in America should shift away from
debates about the death penalty. Politicians or prosecutors who
continue to support the death penalty on deterrence grounds may
be able to point to their "gut" feelings or to individual studies
that support their position. However, given that so few expert
criminologists give credence to the deterrence hypothesis, the
results of this project challenge political discourse that points
to the death penalty as a crime-fighting tool. Our findings
support a shift in political discussions about crime away from
the death penalty and in the direction of more promising crime-
reducing policies.

http://www.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/dp/dppapers/mike.deterence

But that's nothing new. There has never been significant supporting evidence for the death penalty and all the scholarly organizations disagree with.

Many of the nation's largest
newspapers, such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Los
Angeles Times, and the Boston Globe have editorial positions
against the death penalty (Bedau, 1979). Among professional
organizations that have gone on record as opposing the death
penalty are the American Public Health Association (1987), the
National Council on Crime and Delinquency (1964), the American
Correctional Association, the American Orthopsychiatric
Association (Bedau, 1979), and the American Society of
Criminology (ASC, 1988). The fight against the death penalty in
the 1960's and 1970's was led by the NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund (Meltsner, 1973), and today virtually all civil
rights organizations in the United States stand opposed to the
death penalty. Organizations such as the American Civil
Liberties Union and Amnesty International, the 1977 Nobel Peace
Prize recipient (see, e.g., Bedau, 1992; Amnesty International,
1989; 1995), feel the same way. The Catholic Church, as well as
mainline Protestant and Jewish organizations, are also on record
as opposing the death penalty (National Coalition to Abolish the
Death Penalty, n.d.). This opposition is often based on moral
principles. But just like belief in the death penalty's
deterrent effects tends to correlate with pro-death penalty
attitudes, most groups and individuals who oppose the death
penalty are not convinced that the punishment is an effective
deterrent to homicide (Gallup, 1991).

But, you will probably allow your ideology to steer your "gut" to support the death penalty. That will be justification enough for you, right?

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

There is no known detterant to homicide. Most professional criminologists would disagree with you.

The results of this project clearly show that there is a
wide consensus among America's top criminologists that the death
penalty does, or can do, little to reduce rates of criminal
violence in our society. These results chisel away at one of the
most important justifications for the death penalty in modern
society. To the degree that well-intentioned voters support the
death penalty as a last-resort effort to reduce crime rates, this
study should have an impact on the public's support for the
executioner.

The study also suggests that political debates about how to
reduce criminal violence in America should shift away from
debates about the death penalty. Politicians or prosecutors who
continue to support the death penalty on deterrence grounds may
be able to point to their "gut" feelings or to individual studies
that support their position. However, given that so few expert
criminologists give credence to the deterrence hypothesis, the
results of this project challenge political discourse that points
to the death penalty as a crime-fighting tool. Our findings
support a shift in political discussions about crime away from
the death penalty and in the direction of more promising crime-
reducing policies.

http://www.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/dp/dppapers/mike.deterence

But that's nothing new. There has never been significant supporting evidence for the death penalty and all the scholarly organizations disagree with.

Many of the nation's largest
newspapers, such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Los
Angeles Times, and the Boston Globe have editorial positions
against the death penalty (Bedau, 1979). Among professional
organizations that have gone on record as opposing the death
penalty are the American Public Health Association (1987), the
National Council on Crime and Delinquency (1964), the American
Correctional Association, the American Orthopsychiatric
Association (Bedau, 1979), and the American Society of
Criminology (ASC, 1988). The fight against the death penalty in
the 1960's and 1970's was led by the NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund (Meltsner, 1973), and today virtually all civil
rights organizations in the United States stand opposed to the
death penalty. Organizations such as the American Civil
Liberties Union and Amnesty International, the 1977 Nobel Peace
Prize recipient (see, e.g., Bedau, 1992; Amnesty International,
1989; 1995), feel the same way. The Catholic Church, as well as
mainline Protestant and Jewish organizations, are also on record
as opposing the death penalty (National Coalition to Abolish the
Death Penalty, n.d.). This opposition is often based on moral
principles. But just like belief in the death penalty's
deterrent effects tends to correlate with pro-death penalty
attitudes, most groups and individuals who oppose the death
penalty are not convinced that the punishment is an effective
deterrent to homicide (Gallup, 1991).

But, you will probably allow your ideology to steer your "gut" to support the death penalty. That will be justification enough for you, right?

i'm going by the murders when we had public hangings and almost everyone carried a gun.

catefrances

onelongsong wrote:

i'm going by the murders when we had public hangings and almost everyone carried a gun.

public hangings. man i miss those days.

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

i'm going by the murders when we had public hangings and almost everyone carried a gun.

So, if I got this right.

You are assuming that a historical statistic is true, because you assume the presupposition of the death penalty as a detterant is true, even though it's repeatedly proven to be false? Furthermore, this "historical statistic" a statistic that is non-existent on this board, is a statistic that presumably shows less homicides in an era of the past where such deterrants existed.

Well, it isn't the most illogical thing I've ever read, but it's pretty close.

I think Steven Pinker would disagree with you as well, since he has actually charted the prominance of violence throughout history and it shows a steady decline. Interesting, and this is a mere correlation, but one other thing has also declined through history, the way society deals with violence. We no longer have public hangings, death penalty and so on, that has steadily declined throughout history, but that could be a result of the decline in violence? I doubt it, probably the other way around.

In a preview of his next book, Steven Pinker takes on violence. We live in violent times, an era of heightened warfare, genocide and senseless crime. Or so we've come to believe. Pinker charts a history of violence from Biblical times through the present, and says modern society has a little less to feel guilty about.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/163

prism

catefrances wrote:

public hangings. man i miss those days.

I know it, I haven't been to one since the last one in the US in 1936

catefrances

prism wrote:

I know it, I haven't been to one since the last one in the US in 1936

our last one was in 1967. aahh but he deserved it.

Ahnimus

catefrances wrote:

our last one was in 1967. aahh but he deserved it.

I'm really starting to dislike this word "deserve".

I apologize if your intention was humor, but this line of reasoning is far too common.

I would accept that "he deserved it" is a valid argument, if the parameters and rationale behind "deserving" something was ever made clear and concise without valid opposition to it.

It appears that what one "deserves" is a matter of values. A common logical fallacy, known as the naturalistic fallacy, suggests that what is natural is moral, and by this the merits of indivudals is determined. For example:

Owners of financially successful companies are more successful than poor people in the competition for wealth, power and social status. Therefore, these owners are morally better than poor people, and the poor deserve to be poor.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm

Many people should disagree with this. It does not follow from the way things are or 'Is', the way things should or 'Ought' to be, as David Hume expressed in An Enquiry of Human Understanding. In-fact, if one is naturally constrained by the laws of reality in their ability to succeed in modern socially constructed economics and law, then it more likely follows that they do not "deserve" to be poor, since as natural law states, success is beyond their grasp.

Anyway, this is an example, where what a person "deserves" must be derived from some other principles which should be contestable, and in every case, opposition will rear it's head. So it's not sufficient to simply say one is deserving without grounding it in reason.

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

I'm really starting to dislike this word "deserve".

I apologize if your intention was humor, but this line of reasoning is far too common.

I would accept that "he deserved it" is a valid argument, if the parameters and rationale behind "deserving" something was ever made clear and concise without valid opposition to it.

It appears that what one "deserves" is a matter of values. A common logical fallacy, known as the naturalistic fallacy, suggests that what is natural is moral, and by this the merits of indivudals is determined. For example:

Owners of financially successful companies are more successful than poor people in the competition for wealth, power and social status. Therefore, these owners are morally better than poor people, and the poor deserve to be poor.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm

Many people should disagree with this. It does not follow from the way things are or 'Is', the way things should or 'Ought' to be, as David Hume expressed in An Enquiry of Human Understanding. In-fact, if one is naturally constrained by the laws of reality in their ability to succeed in modern socially constructed economics and law, then it more likely follows that they do not "deserve" to be poor, since as natural law states, success is beyond their grasp.

Anyway, this is an example, where what a person "deserves" must be derived from some other principles which should be contestable, and in every case, opposition will rear it's head. So it's not sufficient to simply say one is deserving without grounding it in reason.

this is what's wrong with society today. some people do deserve it. i wish those who think someone doesn't deserve it would be the ones supporting these people. i heard somewhere that it costs $80,000 to support charles manson alone. if people don't deserve to be punished for their crimes; then we need to get rid of the laws. you collect a paycheck because you deserve your compensation you exchanged for your time. i was born dirt poor yet i worked and made something of myself. i deserve my life of lesiure. i worked for it so no; the poor don't deserve a slice of my pie. if they can't find work it's because they don't want to. and if a man kills another man without good reason; he deserves to die too.

onelongsong

catefrances wrote:

explain to me HOW the death penalty is a deterrant?

the highest profile case which proves the death penalty is a deterrant is the jeffrey dammer case. he only killed in states that didn't havve the death penalty. actually jumping past states that had the death penalty. these were his words.
texas installed an express lane where there are at least 3 witnesses or DNA to prove the accused is in fact guilty. killers bypass texas because they know they WILL die and not spend 20 plus years waiting on death row.
on the other hand; NOT using your death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment when you take the psycological aspects into consideration. if i locked you in a room and told you that i was going to kill you; but not when; you would go insane.

can you provide any stats showing the number of murders prior to the death penalty as apposed to now? i'd be interested to see how much it went up. yes up. if i can kill someone and know the worst that will happen to me is i'll get a room and meals free for the rest of my life; that isn't much of a punishment. since the jails are full of murderers that doesn't seem like it's much of a deterrant either.

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

the highest profile case which proves the death penalty is a deterrant is the jeffrey dammer case. he only killed in states that didn't havve the death penalty. actually jumping past states that had the death penalty. these were his words.
texas installed an express lane where there are at least 3 witnesses or DNA to prove the accused is in fact guilty. killers bypass texas because they know they WILL die and not spend 20 plus years waiting on death row.
on the other hand; NOT using your death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment when you take the psycological aspects into consideration. if i locked you in a room and told you that i was going to kill you; but not when; you would go insane.

can you provide any stats showing the number of murders prior to the death penalty as apposed to now? i'd be interested to see how much it went up. yes up. if i can kill someone and know the worst that will happen to me is i'll get a room and meals free for the rest of my life; that isn't much of a punishment. since the jails are full of murderers that doesn't seem like it's much of a deterrant either.

We've discussed this before and I've provided you with the statistics showing that the incidences of homicide is greater in Texas than anywhere else.

You are also wrong about Dahmer, the death penalty wasn't a detterant, he still would have killed because he was compulsory.

Look, we've been over this a couple of times, it ends when evidence is actually provided to you. A few months later you will make it an issue again.

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

We've discussed this before and I've provided you with the statistics showing that the incidences of homicide is greater in Texas than anywhere else.

You are also wrong about Dahmer, the death penalty wasn't a detterant, he still would have killed because he was compulsory.

Look, we've been over this a couple of times, it ends when evidence is actually provided to you. A few months later you will make it an issue again.

i don't recall having this conversation with you. dahmer himself said he only killed in states without the death penalty. he did have a compulsion to kill but also was smart enough to avoid the death penalty himself. the people gave him the death penalty as it was carried out. having lived in the area at the time; we all knew that if he had gotten the death penalty; he would have sat on death row for 20+ years; whereas if put in general population; he'd be dead within a year. what wasn't disclosed was how much money and/or letters were sent to the guy that killed him afterwards.

as far as texas; was that a per capita stat? also what needs to be addressed is the number of illegals in texas who will commit a murder and sneek back over the border.

this is why i don't recall the conversation.