Stephen wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 16:32:35 -0500, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:
> 
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:51:11 -0500, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:
>>>
>>> [Snip for brevity]
>>>
>>> To reply to your last point (mine) first. I think that you are right, gun laws
>>> won't help. It is too late for you, (not personally) there are too many guns in
>>> circulation and the belief that you need a firearm to defend yourself too
>>> ingrained. To quote a long dead poet who died in a fight. Why, this is Hell nor
>>> am I out of it.
>> I disagree with the observations, but not the quote.
>>
> I don't know if that is an observation I thought that it was a belief. But
> please correct me if you see things differently. You live there whilst I am only
> an onlooker. And I don't like the conclusions that I have come to and would like
> to be wrong
> 

Hmm, I thought the observation was that it is too late. Or the
observation of the facts that lead to you having that belief.

>> The problem that I saw, first hand in the USA high school system, is
>> that there is often no hope. I don't work in a school, so I can't
>> observe how it's changed over time. But I did ask some others people for
>> their memories of school. There have always been cliques, but it seems
>> that kids have been getting more and more insular and stopped talking to
>> people not in their group. Whether the 5 year olds playing team sports,
>> or parents arranging strict play dates is to blame for this is another
>> discussion.
>>
> I don't have children myself so no personal experience but the trend in the UK
> seems to be going the same way.
> 

No kids here either, I'm going by what I remember, what I saw when my
sister was in school, and what I've seen since then from cousins and such.

>> So kids grow up with much less of a safety net, and very few people to
>> talk to when things go wrong. Take a common occurrence, a fight within
>> one of these small groups of kids. One kid singled out, where do they go
>> and who can they turn to?
>>
>> IMO, the problem isn't the guns or these kids either killing themselves
>> or killing others before they kill them self. It's that these situations
>> occur in the first place.
>>
> Some people say that modern society is changing too fast for us to adapt to it
> safely. I think that this has a kernel of truth. The demise of the nuclear
> family plays a part.
> 

Is that the demise of the family with regard to single parents and
non-traditional families, or the other movement to return to large
extended families?

>>> As for depression and drugs; it would probably be better (IMO) if drugs were
>>> used as a last resort if at all. But then you would have to put more effort into
>>> helping people which would not be as profitable to the established money makers.
>> You haven't seen what counselors charge by the hour, have you? The drugs
>> are common because they are the cheap answer, cheap enough to be
>> available to the people who really should be getting counseling but
>> can't afford it.
> 
> No I've got no idea at all. But surely it is cheaper for society to pay for it
> than pay for the outcome. (Yes I am a socialist). Having said that I also
> question the beneficial effect of counselling. In fact I think that in a lot of
> cases it makes things worse. I makes people dwell on things too much. I also
> think that "closure" is over rated as well. What is wrong with being sad and
> letting time cure your ails rather than forcing an end to your problems.
> 
100$ an hour seems to be the going rate here. Insurance companies can
dictate what they will pay, but make doctors charge the same thing to
everyone and therefor dictate what the uninsured pay too. Screwed up
system. 100$ a month for a one hour session, or the latest 45$ a month
pill, or an older pill at 8$ a month?

No argument from me on the first part. It would be a lot cheaper for
society. The second one, though . . .

I don't think counseling is about getting a person 'over' an event or an
issue. When you have a tough math problem, that you have no idea how to
solve, you don't 'get over it.' You study, learn what the notation
means, figure out how the problem is expressed, and then work through it
step by step. What do you do with a problem in life that you have no
frame of reference for how to solve?

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote:
>> I suspect it is violence in the home. Not domestic violence but violence on TV
>> and the movies. Bang, bang you are dead. Click! You are alive again. It doesn't
>> hurt.
> 
> Our grandparents and parents seemed unaffected by years of exposure to Warner
> Bros. cartoons, first in the movie theaters, then in saturday morning TV.
> 
> 

Or the exposure to war.

The violence isn't the problem, it's that the consequence isn't real.
Punch your little sister, and the worst you get is sent to your room
where you have your own TV and video games, and maybe even computer.
Grounded for a week? Don't worry, you can still play video games online.
Schools give Ds instead of Fs, and detention might interfere with after
school sports so that's out too.

Post a reply to this message

Why am I so angry? Well let me tell you.

(accomplished)

What matters is that I am angry and for a good reason.

It seems the boob toob is so powerful, and the millions sit there with a blank
stare and get programmed. Such a challenge, no wonder I forgot my lines.


http://www.mpp.org/news/in-the-news/reefer-madness.html
"
RM: What about John Walters [the drug czar, head of the White House Office of
the National Drug Control Policy?]
RK: [He's] an ugly man with a cold heart. Ultimately [the argument against
legalizing marijuana] comes down to a hatred for people who are different from
you. That's what is driving a lot of the prohibitionists ... they say, 'this
person does drug whatever, [and] I don't, therefore I want to have them
arrested and maybe even tortured, thrown in jail.' And the results [of that]
don't matter. These people aren't looking at the reports for the frequency with
which drug offenders put in jail are recidivists. They don't care. It's all very

don't actually have to win; you just have to fight.
"

God, I love that. And ya know? He's right. All you have to do is believe there
are 7 virgins waiting for you, and there will be. Ah the power of belief. You


But first I got to burn one with John. (Cryptic for smoke a joint) That might be

(or its been way too long) or they wouldn't be like that.

Yes Nemesis since the 60's most Americans have known,
 ( a peace drug, The American Indians called a peace pipe. ) Remember that song,
"TIME" . time has come today. well here we are.

I had another exciting thought just then, it keeps pouring in now. Overwhelmed,
later,

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 07:03:14 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> I'll reiterate:  there's no evidence that shootings in schools happened
> or were not isolated incidents before becoming widespread after the
> 1990's... we're definitely witnessing something new here.  Some may want
> to live in denial, others have an urge to talk about it and try to do
> something about it.

Who's living in denial?  Have you looked at the references I cited?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 21:19:07 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> (And before you say "well, that's 1996", read the page title - it says
>> "RECENT worldwide school shootings")
> 
> well, wikipedia is of course always more detailed:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting

Yes, and I had a look at that page as well.

> No reports of school shootings before that.  

That you've found.  Again, just because YOU didn't find it doesn't mean 
it didn't happen. <sigh>

> The trend of school
> shooting has certainly grew a lot beginning in the nineties.  It far
> surpassed the political shootings in the 60's, 70's.

Hmmm, Kent state?

>> PLEASE do some research before making false declarations.
> 
> I did.

Clearly not enough.  After all, I found a bunch of other incidents that 
predated your statistics and it didn't take a lot of time to do so.

>> > Never heard of school shootings before, even here in Brazil's
>> > favelas...
>>
>> Just because you've never heard of them doesn't mean they haven't
>> happened.
> 
> No, because daily we see in the news conflicts between cops and drug
> dealers in the favelas.  Whenever any passer-by is shot, it generates
> huge crowds, big news in TV.  If shootings happened in schools, it would
> be everywhere, politicals would show up in TV etc.

And that would've happened in the 50s or the 60s as well?  Or the 20s?  
Or the 1890s?  And you know this how?

Times change.  News didn't used to be sensationalized the way it is now.

>> They seem to think that because THEY haven't seen it, it must not have
>> happened?
> 
> I haven't seen UFOs.  I don't discard their existence altogether though.
> I haven't personally seen the Holocaust, but I believe those old and
> disturbing B&W photos and films were authentic.
> I haven't seen Jesus, yet I'm a believer.
> 
> I haven't seen documented school shootings in past ages, nor any
> evidence of it in literary works.  I have no motives to believe our
> grandparents were living in denial.

So, you haven't seen proof of some things and you believe them, and you 
haven't seen proof of other things and don't believe them.

So much for standards.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 10:25:36 -0500, alphaQuad wrote:

> Now Jim, you said you are doing something to make a difference. Try
> doing something that will really make a difference. Like I am.

<sarcasm>

Yeah, because you sure as hell have gotten him on your side now, haven't 
you?  Yep, I can sure feel the love and understanding he's showing you.

Well done.  Well done indeed.

</sarcasm>

Calling people idiots and stupid doesn't do your cause any good at all.  
One of these days, you'll wake up to that fact.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 23:37:59 -0500, Sabrina Kilian wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 16:32:35 -0500, Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> 
>>> The problem that I saw, first hand in the USA high school system, is
>>> that there is often no hope. I don't work in a school, so I can't
>>> observe how it's changed over time. But I did ask some others people
>>> for their memories of school. There have always been cliques, but it
>>> seems that kids have been getting more and more insular and stopped
>>> talking to people not in their group. Whether the 5 year olds playing
>>> team sports, or parents arranging strict play dates is to blame for
>>> this is another discussion.
>>>
>>> So kids grow up with much less of a safety net, and very few people to
>>> talk to when things go wrong. Take a common occurrence, a fight within
>>> one of these small groups of kids. One kid singled out, where do they
>>> go and who can they turn to?
>> 
>> Well, from my own experience (I was a loner/nerd/geek all through
>> school
> 
> Was that actually a clique then? =)

Not so much, no - it was a label. :-)

>> through the 70s and 80s), school counseling can help.  When I was in
>> 3rd or 4th grade, I used to meet with a school counselor once or twice
>> a week.  We'd talk, play cards, whatever - it was a chance at
>> interaction that I wasn't getting from my peers.
>> 
> Poor rural school I went to had guidance counselors. While they were
> great at helping students find the right colleges to apply to, their
> advice over disputes was a little lacking. I think some advice I heard
> was to 'stick up for yourself' as a deterrent to bullying. While not the
> best way to stick up for themselves, violence does fit against that
> simple instruction.

Well, it can, but it doesn't always.  I also had guidance counselors in 
high school, but I rarely went to see them.  In fact, just for college 
entrance stuff, now I think about it.

>> Now while I am arguing one on one side that school shootings/violence
>> isn't anything new, the frequency can be somewhat alarming - but things
>> like kids getting together and arranging to meet out in the playground
>> after school for a fistfight is something I remember from my early
>> elementary school days in the late 70's.
>> 
> So the violence has been there for at least 30 years. That's not what's
> changed.

Yes, agreed.

>>> IMO, the problem isn't the guns or these kids either killing
>>> themselves or killing others before they kill them self. It's that
>>> these situations occur in the first place.
>> 
>> Well, part of the problem is that they've managed to get their hands on
>> the weapons - and that's down to poor parental supervision in many
>> cases of modern school violence.  That certainly can be demonstrated to
>> be the case in the Columbine event - the parents appeared to be totally
>> clueless that their kids were out in the garage making pipe bombs.
>> 
> I don't know, I've heard that back in the 50's and 60's schools actually
> had hunting clubs, and boys keeping their rifle in the locker wasn't
> that uncommon.

True, hadn't thought of that.  But I don't think the parents were unaware 
of that, either.  It seems that many parents (certainly not all) treat 
their kids as a fashion accessory - they don't know how to parent, so 
they let others raise their kids for them, or were basically 
disinterested in being involved in their kids lives.

> I'd say part of the problem is a lack of respect, for each other and
> life in general.

Agreed.  And learning that respect is something that happens at home as 
well as in school settings.

>> Well, my own experience with the school counselor back in elementary
>> school was that the school provided him for that service.  Maybe
>> schools don't do that any more, though - I don't know.
>> 
> My school might have offered one, but rumors fly in a small area. 4th
> graders and cousins who hear through the grape vine can both be very
> cruel.

It doesn't have to be a small area.  My first elementary school had 
something like 1500 students in it in total; kids can be cruel.  It 
doesn't take a small area or a large area.

But kids don't seem to learn coping skills that help them deal with 
problems in a sane way.  Today they seem to be generally coddled by the 
system and told "it's OK" - and at the same time, they're passed through 
grades when they really shouldn't be because we don't want to "hurt their 
self-esteem".  Then when a really crushing event happens in their life, 
they're ill-prepared to cope with it and they snap.

A kid who has made his way through the public education system and been 
told all along that failure is OK getting into the workforce, where he 
screws up and then gets fired for incompetence is a great way to get an 
office building shot up.

>>> Or worse, is convinced that anyone who gets counseling is already too
>>> far gone to be helped.
>> 
>> I'm sure that happens too.
>> 
> 
> One day visiting a counselor will be like seeing a doctor for an ear
> infection. Till then, ask a kid, grade school to college age, whether
> they would prefer to be healthy or to maintain their image.

Well, in my case there wasn't an image to protect, because I was rejected 
by most of the kids in school anyways, except for a very small group who 
basically tolerated me, and one or two friends.

There's a reason I will never go to any reunions (I went to my 5-year, 
what a waste that was).  Those people made my life growing up miserable.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 12:24:55 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> Not domestic violence but violence
> on TV and the movies.

I don't buy that.  There again, the responsibility (and the blame) rests 
with individuals making choices, not the media.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> That you've found.  Again, just because YOU didn't find it doesn't mean
> it didn't happen. <sigh>

well, if you follow your logic, then there's a lot more school shootings
happening right now that go unreported.

> Clearly not enough.  After all, I found a bunch of other incidents that
> predated your statistics and it didn't take a lot of time to do so.

I found this:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/020712.html

Pretty interesting.  It just goes on the general statistics of murder crimes --
so there's no way to know if school shootings are in.  Murder crimes, thus,
seem as high nowadays as in the inbetween war times of the 20's and 30's...
only that then it was the result of war, gangsters and others while today it's
insane people with access to guns shooting school teens.

> > huge crowds, big news in TV.  If shootings happened in schools, it would
> > be everywhere, politicals would show up in TV etc.
>
> And that would've happened in the 50s or the 60s as well?

probably not, as we brazilians were living under a military dictatorship who
regularly would arrest and murder University professors and other rebels.  So,
it's possible to imagine that some school shootings happened then, but it was
politically motivated against a few targetted individuals, not some random nut
with a weapon unloading his gun at random students.

I'm not saying it's not as bad, just that this current shooting modality *is* a
novelty.

> Times change.  News didn't used to be sensationalized the way it is now.

I call that BS.  The press has always chronicled passionate crimes like these
shootings.  This kind of news is the real revenue of newspapers...

> So, you haven't seen proof of some things and you believe them, and you
> haven't seen proof of other things and don't believe them.

I don't believe such violent act as random students being shot at will by
maniacs in a school would go unnoticed by the press or by school staff and the
community they live in.  Someone, somewhere, would make a big noise out of it,
make such horrid news spread.  Unless there are no survivors to tell the
tale...

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:25:46 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> That you've found.  Again, just because YOU didn't find it doesn't mean
>> it didn't happen. <sigh>
> 
> well, if you follow your logic, then there's a lot more school shootings
> happening right now that go unreported.

It's very possible there are.  I don't know - I don't visit every school 
in the country.  Do you?

What you're doing is applying a straw man argument to my logic.  Sorry, 
but that ain't gonna work.

>> Clearly not enough.  After all, I found a bunch of other incidents that
>> predated your statistics and it didn't take a lot of time to do so.
> 
> I found this:
> http://www.straightdope.com/columns/020712.html
> 
> Pretty interesting.  It just goes on the general statistics of murder
> crimes -- so there's no way to know if school shootings are in.  Murder
> crimes, thus, seem as high nowadays as in the inbetween war times of the
> 20's and 30's... only that then it was the result of war, gangsters and
> others while today it's insane people with access to guns shooting
> school teens.

Huh, now I wonder if that counts things like the guy who blew up a school 
in the 1920s in Wisconsin.

Or coming into the 1980s, the gang crime in California or in New York.  
Or Miami, for that matter.  Or in downtown Minneapolis.

>> > huge crowds, big news in TV.  If shootings happened in schools, it
>> > would be everywhere, politicals would show up in TV etc.
>>
>> And that would've happened in the 50s or the 60s as well?
> 
> probably not, as we brazilians were living under a military dictatorship
> who regularly would arrest and murder University professors and other
> rebels.  So, it's possible to imagine that some school shootings
> happened then, but it was politically motivated against a few targetted
> individuals, not some random nut with a weapon unloading his gun at
> random students.

Reports of some of these school shootings are that they're not random in 
nature - that the kids are shooting their tormentors.  Not always, of 
course, but much of the time.

> I'm not saying it's not as bad, just that this current shooting modality
> *is* a novelty.

I don't personally think any kind of shooting is a "novelty".  I think 
that trivializes the situation.

>> Times change.  News didn't used to be sensationalized the way it is
>> now.
> 
> I call that BS.  The press has always chronicled passionate crimes like
> these shootings.  This kind of news is the real revenue of newspapers...

It has not played it up the way it is now.  Today, you get a shooting 
like Columbine and it's in every major newspaper in the country and many 
around the world.  In the early 1900s, news traveled relatively slowly.  
In the 1800s, it traveled even slower.

News tended to be localized as a result.  I challenge you to prove any 
differently.

>> So, you haven't seen proof of some things and you believe them, and you
>> haven't seen proof of other things and don't believe them.
> 
> I don't believe such violent act as random students being shot at will
> by maniacs in a school would go unnoticed by the press or by school
> staff and the community they live in.  

I would agree with that, both now and in the past.  It's the *spreading* 
of news that has changed, and made us more aware of the things that go on 
in neighboring cities, states, and countries.  When something happens 
today, it's known about on the other side of the planet before the 
story's even complete.  Go up on news.google.com and have a look at the 3 
stories (as of this moment) on a major explosion at a pipe factory in 
Provo/Springville, UT.  News like that would never have made it out of 
the state in the early 20th century.  And that's a story that's still 
developing.  Right now, there are people in India and China who know 
about that because news travels nearly *instantly* thanks to our 
technology.

It wasn't always that way, and it's IMO foolish to think that that's the 
case.

> Someone, somewhere, would make a
> big noise out of it, make such horrid news spread.  Unless there are no
> survivors to tell the tale...

The reach was not as great in the past as it is now.

Jim

Post a reply to this message