SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Rambi who wrote (203569)4/21/2007 3:44:30 PM
From: KLP  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793826
 
• Mass Shootings More Common Since 1960s

[Always blame guns, not the 60's generation who rebelled against everything, including common decency... I personally think it is a lack of community and family values...the sense of belonging....many of the video games of today are not helping the situation at all either. Many show blood and gore all over the screen, not only guns, but knives, ball bats, IED's and everything else.. When little kids are exposed to this stuff, they grow up thinking it is the norm...]


apnews.myway.com
Apr 21, 2:45 PM (ET)

By MATT CRENSON







NEW YORK (AP) - Mass public shootings have become such a part of American life in recent decades that the most dramatic of them can be evoked from the nation's collective memory in a word or two: Luby's. Jonesboro. Columbine.

And now, Virginia Tech.

Since Aug. 1, 1966, when Charles Whitman climbed a 27-story tower on the University of Texas campus and started picking people off, at least 100 Americans have gone on shooting sprees.

And all through those years, the same questions have been asked: What is it about modern-day America that provokes such random violence? Is it the decline of traditional morals? The depiction of violence in entertainment? The ready availability of lethal firepower?



Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox blames guns, at least in part. He notes that seven of the eight deadliest mass public shootings have occurred in the past 25 years.

"I know that there were high-powered guns before," he said. "But this weaponry is just so much more pervasive than it was."

Australia had a spate of mass public shooting in the 1980s and '90s, culminating in 1996, when Martin Bryant opened fire at the Port Arthur Historical Site in Tasmania with an AR-15 assault rifle, killing 35 people.

Within two weeks the government had enacted strict gun control laws that included a ban on semiautomatic rifles. There has not been a mass shooting in Australia since.

Yet Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota State Department of Corrections, said the availability of guns was not a factor in his exhaustive statistical study of mass murder during the 20th century.

Duwe found that the prevalence of mass murders, defined as the killing of four or more people in a 24-hour period, tends to mirror that of homicide generally. The increase in mass killings during the 1960s was accompanied by a doubling in the overall murder rate after the relatively peaceful 1940s and '50s.

In fact, Duwe found that mass murder was just as common during the 1920s and early 1930s as it is today. The difference is that then, mass murderers tended to be failed farmers who killed their families because they could no longer provide for them, then killed themselves. Their crimes embodied the despair and hopelessness of the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression, the sense that they and their families would be better off in the hereafter than in the here and now.

On Dec. 29, 1929, a 56-year-old tenant farmer from Vernon, Texas, named J.H. Haggard shot his five children, aged 6 to 18, in their beds as they slept. Then he killed himself. He left a note that said only, "All died. I had ruther be ded. Look in zellar."

Despondent men still kill their families today. But public shooters like Virginia Tech's Seung-Hui Cho are different. They are angrier and tend to blame society for their failures, sometimes singling out members of particular ethnic or socio-economic groups.

"It's society's fault ... Society disgusts me," Kimveer Gill wrote in his blog the day before he shot six people to death and injured 19 in Montreal last year.

In the videos and essays he left behind, Cho ranted about privileged students and their debauched behavior.

He also mentioned the Columbine killings, referring to Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris as "martyrs." Imitation undoubtedly plays a role in mass shootings as well, said Daniel A. Cohen, a historian at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.

"Certain types of crimes gain cultural resonance in certain periods," Cohen said.

So many post office employees gunned down their co-workers during the 1980s and early '90s that they spawned a neologism. To "go postal," according to the Webster's New World College Dictionary, is "to become deranged or go berserk."

The most recent postal shooting was in January 2006 when Jennifer San Marco, a former employee who had been fired a few years earlier because of her worsening mental state, walked into a letter sorting facility in Goleta, Calif., and killed six people with a handgun.

Criminologist Fox speculates that the increasing popularity of workplace killings, and public shootings generally, may be partly due to decreasing economic security and increasing inequality. America increasingly rewards its winners with a disproportionate share of wealth and adoration, while treating its losers to a heaping helping of public shame.

"We ridicule them. We vote them off the island. We laugh at them on 'American Idol,'" Fox said.

But there has also been an erosion of community in America over the past half-century, and many scholars believe it has contributed to the rise in mass shootings.

"One would think that there's some new component to alienation or isolation," said Jeffrey S. Adler, a professor of history and criminology at the University of Florida.

People used to live in closer proximity to their families and be more involved with civic and religious institutions. They were less likely to move from one part of the country to another, finding themselves strangers in an unfamiliar environment.

Even so, the small-town America of yesteryear wasn't completely immune. On March 6, 1915, businessman Monroe Phillips, who had lived in Brunswick, Ga., for 12 years, killed six people and wounded 32 before being shot dead by a local attorney. Phillips' weapon: an automatic shotgun.

Remarkably, violence in today's media seems to have little to do with mass public shootings. Only a handful of them have ever cited violent video games or movies as inspiration for their crimes. Often they are so isolated and socially awkward that they are indifferent to popular culture.

Ultimately, it is impossible to attribute the rise in mass shootings to any single cause. The crimes only account for a tiny fraction of homicides.

And a significant fraction of those who commit them, including Cho, either kill themselves or are killed by police before they can be questioned by investigators.



To: Rambi who wrote (203569)4/22/2007 1:04:10 PM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793826
 
Well, the greatest error being made here is that every one is assuming I am against guns and that I am trying to take away yours and everyone else's right, which isn't at all what I have said.

My dear. You continue to expect people to actually read what you actually wrote. And, to boot, to not reflexively assign you to the posse of the bogeyman if your words stray from the party line.

Plus ca change... Tsk. <g>



To: Rambi who wrote (203569)4/22/2007 3:21:43 PM
From: carranza2  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 793826
 
The gun issue is complex and fascinating.

Thanks to the huge number of handguns we have in the US, I don't think legislating them out of existence is really helpful because anyone who wants one can have one. No gun control law will change that because no jury will convict an innocent gun owner solely for the crime of owning a gun.

To compound the difficulties, the reality is that a minuscule portion of the population uses guns to commit crimes or in the way Cho did. Legislating guns out of existence is therefore akin to taking away cars because a few drivers are reckless. It simply does not make sense.

Increasing the penalties for committing a crime with a weapon is naturally a good thing, but one I think the criminal laws have long ago considered and implemented by making distinctions between assaults and assaults with a deadly weapon, robbery and armed robbery, etc.

Perhaps some sort of a substantial tax on handguns coupled with psychological tests to weed out the obviously disturbed might help, but I really don't think these steps would have much impact given the easy access on the black market.

I think it is inevitable that criminals and psychopaths will have guns. They are not deterred. The question is what do the innocents who are potential victims of these criminals and psychopaths to do?

I frankly don't think that there is much prevention value in owning a handgun and a lot of danger in having one at home accessible to children. By the time a trigger guard can be unlocked and the weapon loaded, the time during which having a gun might be worth the danger will in most cases have passed.

As far as having guns in school, I went to a school where the kids could take their hunting rifles to class. One student was accidentally shot and killed by another who was playing with his rifle; he thought it was unloaded. In my own family, I recently learned from one of my sisters that she had somehow gotten hold of my father's pistol, which he thought was well-hidden, when she was very young, fourteen or fifteen, and accidentally set off a shot that narrowly missed another one of my sisters. They did not speak of this incident for 30 years.

I don't mind guns. I know how to handle them as a result of my background and experience, but I do not presently own any and doubt that I ever will. At home, I rely on a baseball bat for self protection. I have never had to use it for self-defense, and it is unlikely that I ever will, but I feel a lot more comfortable with it around than any guns.

Having rambled about all this, at the end of the day I have no problem with anyone who can demonstrate proficiency and good sense owning a handgun. They should be aware that they provide very limited protection and that they can be dangerous if not properly secured. It is ironic that the proper securing of a gun robs it of much of its defensive value.