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

> As Sabrina says some of them are over-17, but for the under's I'll be 
> betting on a family gun or some such. Was it Michael Moore who pointed out 
> that the majority of guns 'on the streets' in America were stolen from 
> those who purchased them legally.

I heard a lot of Americans say that they own (and sometimes carry) a gun to 
protect themselves.  But in reality, when an attacker starts shooting, how 
many members of the public are really going to get out their gun and try to 
battle with the attacker?  And do they propose that children carry guns too 
to protect themselves?

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:52:00 -0000, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:58:36 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> if I give a known
>> psychotic the means to go on a rampage in the full knowledge that's what
>> he'll do is it still all his fault?
>
> Suppose that psychotic purchased the weapon prior to their break?
>
> Or they decided not to take their medications?

OOC error, but I'll still answer. If it's the case that someone taking  
medicine is safe to own a firearm, but isn't safe if they stop taking  
their medication then the question becomes 'what's the likelihood of that  
happening?'. Think of Asimov's The Naked Sun of the three intelligences  
involved who was the real murderer?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 18 Feb 2008 08:26:22 -0000, scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> did  
spake, saying:

>> As Sabrina says some of them are over-17, but for the under's I'll be  
>> betting on a family gun or some such. Was it Michael Moore who pointed  
>> out that the majority of guns 'on the streets' in America were stolen  
>> from those who purchased them legally.
>
> I heard a lot of Americans say that they own (and sometimes carry) a gun  
> to protect themselves.  But in reality, when an attacker starts  
> shooting, how many members of the public are really going to get out  
> their gun and try to battle with the attacker?

I think the 'protect' bit refers more to home defence I'm sure most States  
require a permit to carry a concealed weapon, which implies that carrying  
a non-concealed weapon is hunky-dory.

> And do they propose that children carry guns too to protect themselves?

Start 'em young. Everyone knows that the best thing for a high-pressure,  
clique-ridden situation that is found in a school is to add weapons to the  
mix.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:39:22 -0000, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 14:40:27 +0100, scott wrote:
>
>>> Gunshops.
>>
>> Never seen one before, I presume even if I did find one they wouldn't
>> sell one to me without me first doing some training and sanity-checking?
>
> There's a background check that's done, and a waiting period.  I don't
> believe any state has a training requirement.
>
>>  And I assume also they wouldn't sell a gun to a school kid?
>
> Parents purchase guns, parents don't lock them up properly.  Kid gets the
> gun.

Except if the purpose of the gun is home defence doesn't locking it up  
defeat part of the objective?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Sat, 16 Feb 2008 09:02:32 -0000, Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom>  
did spake, saying:

> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:15:50 -0000, "Phil Cook"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>> Oo ar well I be in the country so we get a lot of shotguns and the odd
>> rifle. No handguns of course since the ban. Incidently we seem to be
>> getting increased reporting of stabbing incidents.
>
> Increased reporting, indeed.

Yes I chose my phrasing carefully.

> But I see little difference from when I was young.
> The media loves a panic it gives them a greater audience. Oo ar, Oo ar,  
> Oo ar :)

http://www.septicisle.info/2008/02/book-review-flat-earth-news-by-nick.html

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Sun, 17 Feb 2008 12:36:16 -0000, Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom>  
did spake, saying:

> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 07:03:14 EST, "nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom>  
> wrote:
>
>> Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote:
>>> No I won't. My memories may be getting on a bit but I still trust  
>>> them. Do you
>>> know the term "media panic"?
>>
>> If it's so good to get public attention, why wasn't the practice of  
>> documenting
>> such school shootings as widespread in the first half of the XX's?
>>
>> 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.
>
> Did I say somewhere that there always has been school shootings?
> I think that you are right. It is a new phenomenon.

The question of course is why? Is it a cultural shift in attitude or  
simply that such weapons are more available? Perhaps the underlying  
'panic' in the US has resulted in more people buying guns that are then  
used by their children or stolen and sold on?

> But violence is not. Especially amongst the young.

I blame these Mods and Rockers, they should be banned.

>>> As for documentation ha! All I will say is 45
>>> minutes to mass destruction.
>>
>> don't trust the government, trust independent press.
>>
> I don't - I don't.

Except what bias is the independent press pushing?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 15 Feb 2008 21:53:25 -0000, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:35:40 -0500, nemesis wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>> it's NOBODY'S fault but the SHOOTER'S.
>>
>> yes, it's nobody's fault that a fucktwit can buy guns and get stoned to
>> death and start shooting people.  It's not his parents' fault, nor his
>> neighbors' and colleagues' fault, nor it is fault of the society he's
>> been raised in.  Let alone the government permitting fucktwits to buy
>> legal drugs and guns is at fault here.
>
> Well, we do happen to have this thing called the second amendment to the
> constitution.  You know, the one about the right to bear arms?

No disrespect aimed at Jim, but perhaps we can start a small movement such  
that the second amendment is always quoted in full rather then just a  
latter part of it

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,  
the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I know that Jim already knows the full text and I'm sure most others here  
do to, but if we all got into the habit perhaps it'll spread to the  
"fuckwits" that don't.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message