Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

News-watch: yet another incident of mass violence in FL, USA — where is this nihilism coming from?

Categories
Control vs Anarchy
Culture
Ethics
News Highlights
Society
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

First, condolences and prayers for victims and families.

Daily Mail has a useful header that seems to capture key themes to ponder as we head into the weekend:

These was of course — within minutes — the usual talking point exchange on firearms, gun-free [= target-rich] zones, mental illness and effects of certain antidepressants, affiliations (Antifa and Islamism have also been suggested and there is a picture of him in a MAGA hat) and the like, etc.

U/D: My email inbox has a link to Townhall that points to a claim that “Leon County law enforcement sources told the Tallahassee Democrat that they could not find information linking Cruz, 19, to the Republic of Florida Militia, as first reported by the group’s self-proclaimed leader Jordan Jereb.” So, that one is a bit of a mystery.

My own view is that there need to be mental illness facilities that can effectively detain potentially violent inmates, that we do need to look at effects of drugs and that schools, organisations and public meetings need oversight by an organised, armed civilian marshal corps. Including churches. I have even suggested the Tavor in semi-automatic form and a 6.5 mm Grendel loading, and would add 9 mm pistols where such would be a better fit. That coach should never have been forced to try to use his body as a shield. Obviously, one guard was not enough. Where, too, four or five people (at least two armed), would credibly be able to take down such a would-be shooter in a case where “when seconds count, the police are minutes away.”

While I am at it, if he was repeatedly reported (including to the FBI), was expelled and in a school for the troubled, how was he able to organise and carry out such an attack?

However, we need more.

What is it that is eating out our civilisation and is sending the message to those on the fringes that instead of cherishing one’s neighbour one can view and treat one’s neighbour as little more than a target. Perhaps, all too literally.

Let me add a remark by Pat Buchanan, which points to a further factor:

>>While this massacre may be a product of mental illness, it is surely a product of moral depravity. For this was premeditated and plotted, done in copycat style to the mass killings to which this country has become all too accustomed.

Nikolas Cruz thought this through. He knew it was Valentine’s Day. He brought his fully loaded AR-15 with extra magazines and smoke grenades to the school that had expelled him. He set off a fire alarm, knowing it would bring students rushing into crowded halls where they would be easy to kill. He then escaped by mixing in with fleeing students.

The first ingredient, then, was an icy indifference toward human life and a willingness to slaughter former fellow students to deliver payback for whatever it was Cruz believed had been done to him at Douglas High.

In his case, the conscience was dead, or was buried beneath hatred, rage or resentment at those succeeding where he had failed. He had been rejected, cast aside, expelled. This would be his revenge, and it would be something for Douglas High and the nation to see – and never forget.

Indeed, it seems a common denominator of the atrocities to which we have been witness in recent years is that the perpetrators are nobodies who wish to die as somebodies.

If a sense of grievance against those perceived to have injured them is the goad that drives misfits like Cruz to mass murder, the magnet that draws them to it is infamy. Infamy is their shortcut to immortality.>>

Maybe, we need to ponder a point raised by Bryan, in the 1920’s — though it will doubtless excite ire in some quarters:

>>Darwinism leads to a denial of God. Nietzsche carried Darwinism to its logical conclusion and it made him the most extreme of anti-Christians . . . . As the [First World] war [of 1914 – 1918] progressed I [William Jennings Bryan was from 1913 – 1915 the 41st US Secretary of State, under President Wilson] became more and more impressed with the conviction that the German propa-ganda rested upon a materialistic foundation. I se-cured the writings of Nietzsche and found in them a defense, made in advance, of all the cruelties and atrocities practiced by the militarists of Germany. [It didn’t start with the Nazis!] Nietzsche tried to substitute the worship of the “Su-perman” for the worship of God. He not only re-jected the Creator, but he rejected all moral standards. He praised war and eulogized hatred because it led to war. He denounced sympathy and pity as attributes unworthy of man. He believed that the teachings of Christ made degenerates and, logical to the end, he regarded Democracy as the refuge of weaklings. He saw in man nothing but an animal and in that animal the highest virtue he recognized was “The Will to Power”—a will which should know no let or hin-drance, no restraint or limitation . . . . His philosophy, if it is worthy the name of philos-ophy, is the ripened fruit of Darwinism — and a tree is known by its fruit . . . .

The corroding influence of Darwinism has spread as the doctrine has been increasingly accepted. In the American preface to “The Glass of Fashion” these words are to be found: “Darwinism not only justifies the sensualist at the trough and Fashion at her glass; it justifies Prussianism at the cannon’s mouth and Bol-shevism at the prison-door. If Darwinism be true, if Mind is to be driven out of the universe and accident accepted as a sufficient cause for all the majesty and glory of physical nature, then there is no crime or vio-lence, however abominable in its circumstances and however cruel in its execution, which cannot be justi-fied by success, and no triviality, no absurdity of Fash-ion which deserves a censure: more — there is no act of disinterested love and tenderness, no deed of self- sac-rifice and mercy, no aspiration after beauty and excel-lence, for which a single reason can be adduced in logic.” [The Menace of Darwinism, pp. 52 – 54. Emphases and explanatory parentheses added.]>>

Is this one root of what we are seeing? This is worth pondering, too. For, nihilism, surely, is not distilling itself out of thin air and imposing itself on us. END

PS: As it has come up, some BBC numbers, c 2007 when policy on holding the 50 rounds at home changed:

PPS: Here is an illustration on how Israeli Teachers protect their charges in loco parentis:

Are Israeli Teachers armed? Notice two adults, one on obvious overwatch for an outing carrying an instantly recognisable US WW2 issue/era M1 carbine [not a likely equipment for a security guard or a soldier on active duty], the other interacting more closely with the children. And of course we do not know if the second adult has a concealed weapon. This image is of course scoffed at, but it makes the point — armed overwatch, some open, some not.
Comments
obtw: machine guns aren't illegal at the federal level. Just search Youtube for the Bullit County Machine Gun Shoot. Yeehah!gooshy
February 17, 2018
February
02
Feb
17
17
2018
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT
mb @ 55, Oswald killed Kennedy with a rifle he bought through the mail.gooshy
February 17, 2018
February
02
Feb
17
17
2018
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT
Yes, if “nearby” is expanded to include the more lawless areas of say Mexico, Columbia etc
By nearby I meant other parts of the US and central America. Not global disarmament.
I do not think the CIA etc can deal with an April 19 1775 scenario backed by any significant fraction of the relevant gun owners in the US.
My argument was not that the CIA can deal with that scenario (I agree that they can't) but that they don't need to. People will take up arms if the government tries to confiscate their property. But the government doesn't need to show up on people's doorsteps to oppress them directly, instead they can use interest rates, inflation or other financial machinations to do so gradually and with subtlety.
Guns were never hard to get in this country. Even very poor people (my grandparents) had guns.
That doesn't mean that the changes MB mentioned didn't happen. @ Charles
Automatic assault rifles are already banned, and magazine sizes are already limited.
Take for example the Los Vegas shooter, Stephen Paddock. He was a millionaire and he did planning and research for months. He was resourceful and determined. He could easily have afforded to get an automatic assault rifle or a machine gun. But he didn't use either. He instead used more readily available AR-15s with bump-stocks which are legal but very sub-optimal for what he was trying to do. Despite his resources and determination, getting a better, but illegal weapon such as a machine gun was either too difficult or would have drawn too much attention. He knew the shortcomings involved with using bump-stocks because he tried to compensate for their flaws. If he used a machine gun he could have easily killed a hundred more people. So yes, the laws you mentioned and the inconvenience in obtaining firearms it creates are very real and have real effects.Jul3s
February 17, 2018
February
02
Feb
17
17
2018
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT
Jul3s:
Strict laws won’t work if there are areas with much looser laws nearby.
Yes, if "nearby" is expanded to include the more lawless areas of say Mexico, Columbia etc. (Kindly note the effect of prohibition and what is now increasingly clearly the losing war on drugs.) If what you really imply is global disarmament of civilians (implying global power and massive force) then you are even more looking at April 19 1775 updated. Where, too, compare what just happened with the Bundy Ranch case. Including, the interventions by people insistent that another Vicki Weaver case would not happen while they were silent and the whistleblower exposure of snipers etc secretly sent to the ranch. I do not think the CIA etc can deal with an April 19 1775 scenario backed by any significant fraction of the relevant gun owners in the US. We need to be looking at a more feasible answer, and to ask pointed questions of those playing the polarisation game on this. KFkairosfocus
February 17, 2018
February
02
Feb
17
17
2018
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
The US government can already do whatever it wants, the CIA has no accountability and has virtually unlimited power. If you believe this, it is true. If you don't believe it, it is not.tribune7
February 17, 2018
February
02
Feb
17
17
2018
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT
MB-- More accessible legally. But in practical terms, they were more difficult to obtain. Fewer gun shops. Fewer shows, etc. Guns were never hard to get in this country. Even very poor people (my grandparents) had guns.tribune7
February 17, 2018
February
02
Feb
17
17
2018
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT
Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US and yet the highest gun violence stats, most of it criminal and gang-related. “Less intelligent”, “less resourceful” criminals regardless obtain and discharge firearms at higher rates than elsewhere.. Gun control doesn’t work.
Strict laws won't work if there are areas with much looser laws nearby. Obviously. This does nothing to refute my point. Countries with stricter gun control (not necessarily banning) don't have the other problems that Chicago has and they are better off for it.
The pattern of the school etc mass shootings — and note, this is not counting the sort of gangland violence in say Chicago — points to a culturally conditioned syndrome at work.
The rest of the developed world isn't any better culturally, but they don't have a firearms violence problem that is similar to the US.
gun confiscation is unlikely to work, indeed it would predictably trigger civil war as a major section of the population would interpret such along the lines of was it April 19 1775.
I agree but this thinking is incredibly naive. The US government doesn't need to confiscate people's guns to take away their freedom or their property. The US government can already do whatever it wants, the CIA has no accountability and has virtually unlimited power. Ironically, believing the fantasy of being able to be a hero shooting against a gun-taking tyrant is probably helping to placate the masses.Jul3s
February 17, 2018
February
02
Feb
17
17
2018
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT
JAD, it seems so, cf 38 above. We SHOULD be discussing a serious policing failure and what that points to. Then, what has worked for 40+ years, proved by Israel. Instead, we are seeing media stunts like this. KF PS: The linked points to serious questions about media ethics and whether showing up with some media is little more than setting yourself up to be smeared by those who are little more than agit prop operators. Resemblance to the stunts going on at Wiki WRT ID should give us sobering pause.kairosfocus
February 17, 2018
February
02
Feb
17
17
2018
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT
FACT: The Parkland City FL school could have been stopped without any change to current gun laws.
January 2017 – Administrators at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School recommend a “threat assessment” on Cruz to see if he is a danger to the school and its students, according to a news report by television station WPLG- Ch. 10 filed after the shootings. It is not known if the assessment was conducted, the station reports. September 2017 – A blogger in Mississippi warns the FBI that a commenter named ‘nikolas cruz’ wrote on his YouTube page: “I’m going to be a professional school shooter…” January 5, 2018 – A person close to Cruz contacts the FBI’s tipline to report concerns about him, including his possession of guns. February 16, 2018 – Two days after the killing of 17 people, the FBI acknowledges the January caller provided information about “Cruz’s gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting,” The agency says proper protocol was not followed, and is launching an investigation into what went wrong.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/fl-florida-school-shooting-nikolas-cruz-warning-signs-20180216-story.htmljohn_a_designer
February 17, 2018
February
02
Feb
17
17
2018
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT
JAD, the inverse correlation invites a dynamical explanation. There are likely many factors but for sure the main point is clear: mere incidence of guns per capita does not drive homicide rates. That is the same message from Switzerland and Finland BTW, with relatively high firearms ownership and relatively low homicides. The pattern of the school etc mass shootings -- and note, this is not counting the sort of gangland violence in say Chicago -- points to a culturally conditioned syndrome at work. Where, the clear failure of the war on drugs in the same US shows that gun confiscation is unlikely to work, indeed it would predictably trigger civil war as a major section of the population would interpret such along the lines of was it April 19 1775. The cross-factors of a generation of mass killing of posterity in the womb, linked to a willful and often animus-loaded driving out of the Christian heritage from institutional spaces, the public and the mind-space suggest that we have a major cultural challenge and something like simply re-instating prayers, readings and devotionals will not work; too much has changed. A reformation is needed, and such typically only come in response to existential crisis that shatters the hold of a dominant mindset -- compare how Mr Putin, a former KGB Light Colonel [and presumably a Communist thus atheist] is evidently serious about the Orthodox faith inherited from his mother. Inference, as a civilisation we have long since crossed several terrible thresholds and we are going to be very lucky indeed if we do not go through collapse of the crumbling cliff-edge underfoot. KFkairosfocus
February 17, 2018
February
02
Feb
17
17
2018
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
Here’s another fact that needs to be kept in mind when weighing whether or not stronger gun control laws would be effective:
“In [a] study, led by epidemiologist Anthony Fabio of Pittsburgh’s Graduate School of Public Health, researchers partnered with the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police to trace the origins of all 893 firearms that police recovered from crime scenes in the year 2008. They found that in approximately 8 out of 10 cases, the perpetrator was not a lawful gun owner but rather in illegal possession of a weapon that belonged to someone else. The researchers were primarily interested in how these guns made their way from a legal purchase — at a firearm dealer or via a private sale — to the scene of the crime. The top-line finding of the study — that the overwhelming majority of gun crimes aren’t committed by lawful gun owners — reinforces a common refrain among gun rights advocacy groups. They argue that since criminals don’t follow laws, new regulations on gun ownership would only serve to burden lawful owners while doing little to combat crime.
https://www.nationalreview.com/blog/corner/study-vast-majority-gun-crime-isnt-committed-lawful-gun-owners/john_a_designer
February 17, 2018
February
02
Feb
17
17
2018
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
“You are very frustrating to have a discussion with.” My wife tells me the same thing. “What hasn’t changed though is access to guns, which were actually more accessible when mass shootings were almost non-existent.” More accessible legally. But in practical terms, they were more difficult to obtain. Fewer gun shops. Fewer shows, etc. “Yet banning guns for some strange reason is what certain types insist to be the solution when logic dictates that it obviously not.” I am not suggesting banning guns. Just some restrictions on types and storage, and more thorough checks on people wanting to purchase them. “If returning Bible readings and daily prayer to public schools cuts the violence to 1962 levels would you support it?” Sure.Molson Bleu
February 17, 2018
February
02
Feb
17
17
2018
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
--Tribune, I am not suggesting that school shootings, or mass shootings in general, only occur here.-- OK, you say "But none of this explains why this is only an American problem." I point out that, well, it isn't. Then you say you didn't mean it. You are very frustrating to have a discussion with. You are right that our society has changed. Once upon a time things like what has happened this year (church shootings, concert shootings etc.) were unthinkable. What hasn't changed though is access to guns, which were actually more accessible when mass shootings were almost non-existent. Yet banning guns for some strange reason is what certain types insist to be the solution when logic dictates that it obviously not. So I pose this question to you: If returning Bible readings and daily prayer to public schools cuts the violence to 1962 levels would you support it?tribune7
February 17, 2018
February
02
Feb
17
17
2018
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
Molson Bleu @ 49
Stricter gun laws are not going to stop these events. But they certainly will make it more difficult for these sick individuals to obtain weapons, and significantly reduce the numbers.
That hasn't worked in Chicago, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the coutry, and yet one of the highest rates of gun violence.
Stricter laws could include: 1) ban on automatic assault rifles. 2) limit on the magazine size.
Automatic assault rifles are already banned, and magazine sizes are already limited.
3) background checks that include medical records and social media use.
Meaningful medical records, like a history of clinical sociopathology are already supposed to be reported, including if military service problems like PTSD. Social media is problematic. How do you know whose social media to scan? Under what screen name? This will depend on the applicant being truthful, and those with mental imbalances won't be truthful.
4) mandatory training before purchase. 5) secure storage and transportation requirements.
Training or proof of proficiency is already a requirement for concealed carry. And criminals will not abide by "storage and transportation requirements".
This would not prevent the vast majority of Americans from being able to purchase guns. But it might prevent some mass shootings.
What has been shown to be most effective in stopping mass shootings is a "good guy" with a gun taking the shooter out early on. Allowing teachers to be armed would go a long way to ending school shootings shortly after they begin. When seconds count, the police are minutes away.Charles
February 17, 2018
February
02
Feb
17
17
2018
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
Tribune, I am not suggesting that school shootings, or mass shootings in general, only occur here. But it is difficult to argue that it is not disproportionately more prevalent here. “The reason why America is singled out is because we have a free press that reports this at length and in great detail and globalists (domestic and foreign) hate us.” This is rather simplistic. I live in Maine and remember the Canadian media covering the Saskatchewan shooting quite extensively. It is now February 17 and we have already had eight school shootings that have resulted in death or injury. Since 2013 we have averaged one school shooting per week, thankfully, most of them without fatality. Is there any other western country with this frequency, even on a proportional basis? Back when I was in high school, I remember several times when one friend of mine or another would show us a handgun in the school yard that he “borrowed” from his father. Just to show off. Does anyone seriously think that this is (or was) a common occurrence in other countries? I would be interested to hear from readers from other countries on this.Molson Bleu
February 17, 2018
February
02
Feb
17
17
2018
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
MB, it is not only an American problem. School shootings have occurred in: France: https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/16/europe/france-high-school-shooting-grasse/ Finland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jokela_school_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kauhajoki_school_shooting Brazil: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_de_Janeiro_school_shooting Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre (OK that was with a kitchen knife) China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_%282010%E2%80%9312%29 (oops knives again) Oh, and lookee here, Canada: https://www.cnn.com/2016/01/23/americas/canada-saskatchewan-la-loche-school-shooting/index.html The reason why America is singled out is because we have a free press that reports this at length and in great detail and globalists (domestic and foreign) hate us.tribune7
February 17, 2018
February
02
Feb
17
17
2018
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
The U.S. does not have that high a murder rate -- especially when it is taken into account that most murders occur in relatively limited areas subject to certain social pathologies such as the vast majority of children being raised without a father in the home. The big concern about gun bans is that we end up like Mexico or Venezuela rather than Japan or the U.K., which I think is far more likely to occur if we enacted a gun ban. But here is a question for our social progressives who think putting ink on paper solves problems: If the U.S. could stop the shootings by rescinding it's ban on prayer and Bible readings in public schools, would you support it? When the U.S. had prayer and Bible readings in public schools, these mass shootings did not occur despite an even easier access to firearms, it should be noted.tribune7
February 17, 2018
February
02
Feb
17
17
2018
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
KF@42. These are all valid points. But none of this explains why this is only an American problem. Other countries have similar issues. Mental health issues, stresses, and the like. They are bombarded by the same access to media and social media. Yet they don’t experience the same level of this type of evil. Yes, other countries experience the occasional ideology or religion based acts of terrorism. But that is not what we are seeing in the US. Other countries have been forced to add serious security around tourist sites. But this is because of a known (although dispersed) enemy with a known ideology, known motives, known strategies and, to a certain extent, known identities of the enemies, and those aiding and abetting these enemies. The difficulty with these enemies is that they know no borders, and obey no rules. What we are seeing in the US, however, is a different animal. It is largely the actions of lone individuals, often marginalized in society, often with some mental illness. Many are inspired by other actions or groups, but these inspirations could be anything. ISIS, the IRA, white supremacists, Donald Trump, Skooby-doo. The inspiration is incidental, not causal. Stricter gun laws are not going to stop these events. But they certainly will make it more difficult for these sick individuals to obtain weapons, and significantly reduce the numbers. Stricter laws could include: 1) ban on automatic assault rifles. 2) limit on the magazine size. 3) background checks that include medical records and social media use. 4) mandatory training before purchase. 5) secure storage and transportation requirements. This would not prevent the vast majority of Americans from being able to purchase guns. But it might prevent some mass shootings.Molson Bleu
February 17, 2018
February
02
Feb
17
17
2018
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
Jul3s @ 43
Guess what, if something can’t be done easily, then fewer people will succeed in doing it. By making access to a powerful tool like guns more difficult, the lazier, the less intelligent and the less resourceful criminals (which is most of them by far) won’t commit the crimes they otherwise would; at least not on the same scale. That leaves only the much smaller minority of smarter potential criminals committing these major crimes which in turn means that the number of tragedies is lower then it would have been.
Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US and yet the highest gun violence stats, most of it criminal and gang-related. "Less intelligent", "less resourceful" criminals regardless obtain and discharge firearms at higher rates than elsewhere. The number of "tragedies" (e.g. drive-by shooting deaths of innocent children) is not lower, but higher than elsewhere. Gun control doesn't work. Criminal control hasn't been tried, because that is "racisss".Charles
February 17, 2018
February
02
Feb
17
17
2018
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
“According to data retrieved from the Centers for Disease Control, there were 7 firearm-related homicides for every 100,000 Americans in 1993 (see light blue line in chart). By 2013 (most recent year available), the gun homicide rate had fallen by nearly 50% to only 3.6 homicides per 100,000 population.” At the same time, “the number of privately owned firearms in US increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013. Adjusted for the US population, the number of guns per American increased from 0.93 per person in 1993 to 1.45 in 2013… In other words, there was a “56% increase in the number of guns per person that occurred during the same period when gun violence decreased by 49%...” http://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013/ Notice the correlation: it’s an inverse one. Of course, correlation is not causation, nevertheless this is raw data from a U.S. government source which does not support the emotion based arguments of the gun control advocates.john_a_designer
February 17, 2018
February
02
Feb
17
17
2018
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
Jul3s, First, without a critical mass of support, a drafted law is a dead letter. Do I need to say, prohibition? (Or these days, the lost war on drugs?) Second, I again draw attention to a wider pattern (which is illustrated in the PS to the OP), from 28 above:
Switzerland, where for decades essentially every household had in a cupboard a full auto battle rifle, ammunition and uniform, plus of course training. When particular types of artillery were superseded for the Army, individuals were encouraged to purchase. For many decades, no incidents. IIRC there was one recently [u/d, two]. Then over the past few years, we have had France, with extremely strict gun ownership restrictions, only to have Paris turn into a shooting gallery. Further, in the US 100+ millions have 300+ million guns and a serious gun confiscation effort WILL trigger a civil war; so the pols and agit prop operators are playing a dangerous polarisation game, now coming back to haunt them. Plus, with porous borders and a drugs trade, weapons cannot be locked out. There are also signs that terrorists are targetting.
What I have suggested is that we need to take the saying seriously, that when seconds count, the police are minutes away. Where, I clipped in 2 above:
In 1974, Israel endured the Ma’alot Massacre in which “Palestinian” terrorists took 115 people hostage at Netiv Meir Elementary School. Twenty-two children and three others were killed and 68 injured. Israel now requires schools with 100 or more students to have a guard posted. The civilian police force handles the entire security system of all schools from kindergarten through college. The Ministry of Education funds shelters and fences, reinforces school buses, and hires and trains guards. Guards don’t just stand around. They check everyone entering, and engage threats. And yeah, they’ve got guns. The lawful purposes for carrying guns are very clear: protect school personnel and students, create a sense of security, deter the ill-intentioned, and provide self-defense. Common sense.
We have entered a very dangerous age of mass terrorism, with guns, strap-on or planted bombs, cars and trucks, even knives. Riotous assembles haunt campuses and college towns. Media lynchings on pile-on accusations and the like point to even more dangerous possibilities. We already are seeing some implying that they are the only legitimate winners of elections -- rolling back the clock to c. 1640 England. I doubt they understand the phrase, Her/His Majesty's Loyal Opposition and what it took to get there. And much more, with a debt mountain, natural disasters, horrible geostrategic trends and the possibility of an EMP attack looming. Coming back to the school shooting and the like, I am suggesting we are seeing the rise of a culturally conditioned [I don't think "bound" is right] syndrome. One similar to demonically running amok. One that draws huge media attention, and therefore attracts piggy-back riders. Not to mention coldly calculating cultural marxist agit-prop operators and the like. So, I simply do not trust the climate in which radical policy change is suggested, or the patently scripted manner of talking points that now surface within minutes. I have long since argued for a broad-based civilian marshal corps initiative to hold armed overwatch on likely targets for terrorists or those prone to running amok. Gate-guards will need training in detecting and stopping approaching suicide bombers, sooner or later if the trends of settlement jihad are allowed to continue. (And if you don't know what that term is, that should be a clue on what the dominant media are not telling us. Just as, can you answer as to of what event was Sept 11, 2001 the 318th anniversary, less one day and what message was sent thereby to the Islamic world? If not, that too is a clue.) Going beyond, we need a major cultural reformation, from the deleterious influences tracing to the C19 in Germany then accelerated sharply through impacts of Darwinism. As in, evolutionary materialism -- never mind the lab coat -- is irretrievably self-referentially incoherent and amoral, undermining responsible rational freedom. Thus also, undermining that civil peace of justice which duly balances rights, freedoms and responsibilities. I strongly suspect such trends are contributing to the milieu that leads the fringe to distill the social permission to set out on the path of running amok like this. Further, in so manipulated and polarised a context, trust has broken down. That is why I note that any serious effort to impose gun confiscation in the USA will lead to civil war, period. But,frankly, if you are looking for an issue to alienate, marginalise and stigmatise certain demographics, and to lock-in an urban-based "progressive" voting bloc, that is it. Meanwhile, one of the most corrosive things in the USA and globally energised from it, is the ongoing slaughter of posterity in the womb at a million more victims per week. Over 40+ years, 800+ millions. The resulting distortion of law, professions, media etc that has to be sustained to create a false aura of legitimacy utterly corrupts governance and government with blood-guilt. An influence that must be reckoned with. Our civilisation is fundamentally morally bankrupt and utterly corrupted and tainted with blood-guilt. Absent serious reformation driven by a spiritual restoration, for cause, I and many others deeply suspect agendas and proposals that affect rights and core institutions. Especially, when lawfare is invited by what is being put up. The issues are a lot bigger, much more thorny and far more entangled than we suspect. KFkairosfocus
February 17, 2018
February
02
Feb
17
17
2018
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
“Why are we so afraid to look outside our own borders to see how other countries deal with their violence problems?”
We just have to stop abortions and have better gun laws.ET
February 17, 2018
February
02
Feb
17
17
2018
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
Seeing that gun violence is no where near the carnage of abortions I don't see any reason to focus on it. Seeing that we allow the abortion carnage to remain unchecked we are very misplaced by going after guns. Given what is legal and what is being taught to our kids I am very surprised there isn't more violence in our society.ET
February 17, 2018
February
02
Feb
17
17
2018
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT
@ MB
"Why are we so afraid to look outside our own borders to see how other countries deal with their violence problems?"
American exceptionalism.
“The oldest and deadliest school massacre in U.S. history” occurred in 1927… “44 people died, 38 of them students.” However, gun control would have done nothing to have prevented the massacre. The weapon that was used was a bomb. But maybe if there had been tougher bomb control laws it could have been prevented. Isn’t that the same logic that gun control advocates are using? Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1927-bombing-remains-americas-deadliest-school-massacre-180963355/#DUx3KzebFPzTKzoi.99 How does passing a law stop evil people from doing evil things? Are evil people law abiding citizens?
The problem with this argument is that it proves too much. If banning things didn't work then according to your logic absolutely nothing should be banned since criminals will find a way around any law. That is an impossible standard for any Human law. And yes, sometimes evil people are "law abiding citizens" with no criminal record prior to their killing spree. It also ignores the fact that humans have limited resourcefulness, limited willpower and limited ingenuity. It takes more effort to develop the contacts to find a gun on the black market then just going to Walmart. Obviously, laws cannot prevent criminals from doing evil things if said criminals don't care about the consequences or are extremely determined to commit a crime. But the vast majority of people (criminals included) are not like this. Guess what, if something can't be done easily, then fewer people will succeed in doing it. By making access to a powerful tool like guns more difficult, the lazier, the less intelligent and the less resourceful criminals (which is most of them by far) won't commit the crimes they otherwise would; at least not on the same scale. That leaves only the much smaller minority of smarter potential criminals committing these major crimes which in turn means that the number of tragedies is lower then it would have been.Jul3s
February 17, 2018
February
02
Feb
17
17
2018
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT
Folks, A thought. Are we seeing something like going amok or a similar culturally conditioned syndrome, a sort of spirit distilled from the times and culturally available messages that leads some to act out in patterns that follow scripts that are implicit but fit the dynamics of a place and time in recognisable ways? For example, the "loner" "loser" rising up against the prison of his life in the main custodial institution he experiences, the school, and particularly against other inmates who he perceives [for or without cause] as having tormented him? Where, could the capability of prescribed or even non-prescribed drugs to dull his senses actually lead to a sort of pent-up, highly charged emotional state until things explode, all then duly splashed across the world 24/7 live in the media, gaining attention at horrible cost? Where, also, the likes of Columbine's shooters are a sort of social entrepreneur from hell, who show how it can be done, drafting the script for the copy-cats? And where we then see a rising frenzy of the copycats doing their own version of me-too? Certainly, suicide terrorism went through that sort of cycle; though in many cases it was organised. In this context, I think a multiple level response is needed, no one-size-fits-all simple answer will work. I also think that we have ever so many who will ride piggyback on a trend of real or perceived "crisis" in order to advance an agenda that would not otherwise gain the sort of mass or institutional support that is desired. Where too, we must reckon with the drastic undermining of moral foundations in our culture in our time, and the perception that is promoted that you can make up and impose your own new moral and policy agenda. Likewise, the undermining of rationality and responsible freedom, which goes with that undermining of moral foundations. I am struck by Keynes on how the mad man distills his notions out of what some long dead professor has said. I am pretty sure we do not primarily have a technology problem, we have a socio-cultural one, with the amplifying effect of effective though maybe unintended social permission to the fringe. One thing I am sure of, liberty under just law is not anarchy or licence or the nihilistic rule of tooth and claw. KFkairosfocus
February 17, 2018
February
02
Feb
17
17
2018
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT
“The oldest and deadliest school massacre in U.S. history” occurred in 1927… “44 people died, 38 of them students.” However, gun control would have done nothing to have prevented the massacre. The weapon that was used was a bomb. But maybe if there had been tougher bomb control laws it could have been prevented. Isn’t that the same logic that gun control advocates are using? Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1927-bombing-remains-americas-deadliest-school-massacre-180963355/#DUx3KzebFPzTKzoi.99 How does passing a law stop evil people from doing evil things? Are evil people law abiding citizens?john_a_designer
February 16, 2018
February
02
Feb
16
16
2018
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT
“The implicit assumption seems to be: Why can’t the United States be more like Canada (in which case, there would be fewer of these incidents)?” That certainly isn’t my assumption. I just think that the best way to solve this ongoing problem is not to retrench within ourselves and create armed camps. That is a reaction, not a solution. I think that we should get our heads out of the sand and acknowledge that our obsession with the 2nd amendment, and refusal to alter it in any way, is a large part of the problem. Why are we so afraid to look outside our own borders to see how other countries deal with their violence problems? Are we so arrogant that we don’t believe that we can learn from others? A rather sad state of affairs if that is the case. Thank you for your well thought out comment.Molson Bleu
February 16, 2018
February
02
Feb
16
16
2018
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT
Mass school high school/elementary school shootings really didn't start until after Roe v. Wade. http://billlawrenceonline.com/school-shooting-abortion-connection/ Just a coincidence, I'm sure.tribune7
February 16, 2018
February
02
Feb
16
16
2018
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT
U/D: Daily Mail adds explosive new details on the FBI's failure in this case: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5401101/FBI-knew-Nikolas-Cruz-stockpiling-weapons.html >>The FBI released a statement on Friday revealing that a call came in alerting the agency about Nikolas Cruz being a possible threat in early January 'The caller provided information about Cruz’s gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts,' said Cruz That same caller, who contacted the FBI on January 5 via their Public Access Line, also shared their belief that Cruz might conduct a school shooting The FBI did not investigate despite the 'potential threat to life,' and failed to even alert the Miami field office about the call Governor Rick Scott of Florida is now calling on Christopher Wrey to resign as director of the FBI and parents of victims voiced their anger at funerals 'Seventeen innocent people are dead and acknowledging a mistake isn't going to cut it,' said Governor Scott >> Something has gone very seriously wrong here. KFkairosfocus
February 16, 2018
February
02
Feb
16
16
2018
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT
Molson Bleu at 35 and above. I read the National Post article you suggested and the comments. It seems well-researched and thoughtful.The implicit assumption seems to be: Why can’t the United States be more like Canada (in which case, there would be fewer of these incidents)? First, firearms are a federal responsibility in Canada, which has roughly one-tenth the population of the United States. That makes regulation easier here. Many of the article’s Canada-favorable comparisons reflect that fact: If the Mounties think a guy is a whackjob, New Brunswick can’t vote him guns. Or not easily, anyway. By contrast, the 50 states have had separate criminal codes since forever and I don’t see that changing. The US federal government is probably too big for the job. Its police/surveillance bureaus seem so politicized at present that it is hard to see how involving them more would help. While the United States and Canada are very similar in many ways, some differences go back centuries and those are the differences that matter in this situation. Canada never had either a Revolution or a Civil War. While many injustices were done to the indigenous peoples (native Indians), mass slaughter was rare and not characteristic. So while many Canadians own hunting rifles, etc., or have received military or police training, there is little history of feeling the need to own a gun for personal safety reasons. A feedback loop develops: I don’t think I need a gun because I doubt that my neighbours have guns (unless they are hunting rifles). Even people who are acting crazy in the local pub probably do not have guns. If they did, they might be in big trouble, so they’d have to be pretty drunk to let anyone know. But here is an opposite feedback loop: Suppose half the people in my neighbourhood have guns? Then I might think I should have one too. If an armed and dangerous person lived in the neighbourhood and nothing could apparently be done about him, I might be right in thinking so. There are no simple answers in these situations that simply erase the history of either country. One thing that troubles me is that gun control usually comes up when a mass lone shooter appears. But most preventable firearms deaths do not take place during mass shootings. That’s not a promising basis for tackling the questions. By the way there was a mass shooting incident at a mosque in Quebec City in 2017, six victims.News
February 16, 2018
February
02
Feb
16
16
2018
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT
1 … 4 5 6 7 8