Another Mass Shooting

[Ymir's blood]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

If Jonah Fucking Goldberg calls your viewpoint "perverse," you know you've gone completely off the goddamn rails. What does a good wingnut do under those circumstances?

Double down, of course.

Originally Posted by Dumbass

Why aren’t there more men? Perhaps not enough want the job? But why? Because they are tacitly discouraged from careers in elementary education?

Because society doesn't consider teaching elementary school to be a manly job?

[Ymir's blood]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Well, if that is the case, there is obviously only one solution. Arm the teachers. And the kids. Teach them all basic gun-skills. At least one in ten will have to learn basic battlefield medicine and carry some plasma, pressure-bandages and morphine at all times. We will put them through regular drills until they can learn to drop their desks, take cover and return accurate fire without having to think about it. Also, every three months or so, we randomly toss some flashbangs into the classroom so they can get used to following their training even in unexpected and disorienting situations. Maybe we can have some of them drop to the floor and start screaming and spurting fake blood all over the place to simulate the casualties so they can learn to get them behind cover.

OR, or or... we build those little turrets on the corners of school grounds. With a man with a gun in it. Imagine how safe those kids will feel, playing tag under the shadow of a prison-style gun tower!

But then the future shooters will have military style training as well! Obviously we need secret police(men) who can pass themselves off as grade schoolers.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You are just being an ignorant jerk.

Just because I don't support a ban on guns.

[The Man]

No, for a lot of other reasons than just that.

Newtown: Police, Fire, Motorcycle Group, Among Do-Gooders Preventing Westboro Funeral Picket - CafeMom Mobile

[Qingdai]

Teaching isn't considered manly because it doesn't pay enough.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by Qingdai

Teaching isn't considered manly because it doesn't pay enough.

And vice versa.

People sure are coming up with convoluted, disingenuous crap to distract themselves from the obvious white boy problem.

White Men and Mass Murder: Did a Sense of "Aggrieved Entitlement" Lead Adam Lanza to Kill 26 People at Sandy Hook Elementary School? | Alternet

White Masculinity, like Whiteness, imagines itself as normal, innocent, and benign. The very premise that the intersection of those identities could result in socially maladaptive and violent behavior which is evil, and yes I use that term intentionally, is rejected by those deeply invested in a particularly conservative and reactionary type of White Masculinity, as something impossible. To even introduce such an idea is anathema to their universe. The language is verboten. The Other is suspect until proven otherwise; "real Americans" as "good people" are to be judged by precisely the opposite premise.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Ymir's blood

Because society doesn't consider teaching elementary school to be a manly job?

Odd, 'cause around here there a lot of men as principals, adminstrators, and teachers in the elementary schools. It must only be in the 'macho' areas of the country where men are discouraged from teaching in the elementary schools.

Do you play the banjo?

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Odd, 'cause around here there a lot of men as principals, adminstrators, and teachers in the elementary schools. It must only be in the 'macho' areas of the country where men are discouraged from teaching in the elementary schools.

Do you play the banjo?

National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education, Table A-17-1. Number and percentage distribution of full-time teachers, by school level, school type, and selected teacher characteristics: School years 2003–04 and 2007–08 (PDF file)



That took literally 45 seconds, and most of that was taking and uploading the screenshot.

It's also weird that you apparently view playing the banjo as being notably macho, or something.

[Ymir's blood]

Originally Posted by Qingdai

Teaching isn't considered manly because it doesn't pay enough.

It doesn't pay enough because it isn't considered manly!

[Qingdai]

Only women, liberals and democrats are teachers, therefore we should pay them next to nothing and not let them organize, which was the exact argument I saw in my local paper.

Sounds good, let's arm the oppressed, what could possibly go wrong?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Qingdai

Only women, liberals and democrats are teachers,

Is that why I got out of teaching, I just didn't qualify.

[livius drusus]

All the girls who now get to take shop class despite their vaginas are doubtless grateful to you for that.

[ChuckF]

hahahahaha I completely forgot about that. Explains the AROUND HERE IT'S MANLY part.

[The Man]

Please To Put Armed Guards Outside All Pennsylvania Churches Too, Also

[LadyShea]

if we follow this reasoning, is that if you do not want something gun-murdered, the only way to prevent it is to guard it with guns.

Libertarianatopia!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by thedoc

If you look at the gun ownership map compaired to the overall homicide rate you will see that Russia, Brazil, and much of central Africa is low on guns but high on murder. This in not a detailed analysis but just a quick look.

For the US the overall murder rate is low and the firearms rate is low as well, according to the maps you provided the links to.

Are you sure you read the map correctly?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Just because I don't support a ban on guns.

No, it is the way you ignore the wider argument and just use smug and ignorant one-liners like this one, trying to reduce a considered argument to a conflation, a strawman, or in this case, an accusation of bias. I find it an unworthy style of arguing. It strikes me as a lazy and dishonest way to dismiss points you don't like without actually addressing with them.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Are you sure you read the map correctly?

I believe so, on the Wikipedia map "Map of world by intentional homicide rate", the US is at 2-5 per 100,000 population, which is much lower than many other country according to the map.

On 'TheGuardian' map "Homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 pop", the US is also at 2-5 which is lower than several other countries, there is only one catigory with a lower rate plus those that have none.

If it is a matter of perspective, you could look at it as anything more than none, is a high rate, but that is unrealistic. It should be pointed out that many countries with very low gun avalability, and no homicides by gun still have a very high homicide rate. To me that would indicate that if a person wants to kill someone they will find a way even without guns.

The US has the highest rate of gun ownership, and the highest proportion of homicides with a gun, but the maps seem to indicate that taking away the guns will not stop the killing, people will just find a different way to do it.

[LadyShea]

the US is at 2-5 per 100,000 population, which is much lower than many other country according to the map.

And much higher than all other "first world" countries. Which was the point being made

[Vivisectus]

4.3 per 100.000 to be exact. Compared to a number that bobs around the 0.7 to 1.5 range in most other countries of comparable affluence. And lets bear in mind that the US is actually a lot richer than the countries it is being compared to - it uses up an enormous chunk of available resources compared to the rest of the world.

If we consider the problem from a different angle for a moment, and assume that the proliferation of handguns etc. has no real impact, what other influences are driving up the murder rate? Poverty? Lack of effective policing, caused either by lack of resources or corruption? Some sort of cultural tolerance for murder?

Though I realize this might be better moved to the gun control thread.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

4.3 per 100.000 to be exact. Compared to a number that bobs around the 0.7 to 1.5 range in most other countries of comparable affluence. And lets bear in mind that the US is actually a lot richer than the countries it is being compared to - it uses up an enormous chunk of available resources compared to the rest of the world.

If we consider the problem from a different angle for a moment, and assume that the proliferation of handguns etc. has no real impact, what other influences are driving up the murder rate? Poverty? Lack of effective policing, caused either by lack of resources or corruption? Some sort of cultural tolerance for murder?

Though I realize this might be better moved to the gun control thread.

This is the difficulty, the most noise is being made about the impliment being used and the real question of "Why are these people killing other people", is not being addressed. Why are some people succeptable to acts of violence, guns are just the weapon at hand and do not cause the violence. There are some who claimed that violent video games promoted violence, years ago the same clame was made about the game 'Dungeons and Dragons', but I don't think there was ever a well established connection. I do not believe that guns cause violence, and I think all the furror over guns is distracting people from discovering the root cause of violent acts like these. To me, gun control is like putting a band-aid over an infection, without treating the underlying infection.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And much higher than all other "first world" countries. Which was the point being made

Here is another look that might indicate a possible corelation if you only look at the US and Europe,

Fileeath Penalty World Map.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You might see a link between the death penalty and the occurance of homicide, If society condones the death penalty it might suggest to some that killing is OK, just a thought. However when you look at it world wide the connection starts to break down.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by thedoc

This is the difficulty, the most noise is being made about the impliment being used and the real question of "Why are these people killing other people", is not being addressed. Why are some people succeptable to acts of violence, guns are just the weapon at hand and do not cause the violence. There are some who claimed that violent video games promoted violence, years ago the same clame was made about the game 'Dungeons and Dragons', but I don't think there was ever a well established connection. I do not believe that guns cause violence, and I think all the furror over guns is distracting people from discovering the root cause of violent acts like these. To me, gun control is like putting a band-aid over an infection, without treating the underlying infection.

Wow. Are you channeling peacegirl?

So you are saying that Dungeons and Dragons were once linked to the elevated level of homicide in the US? Of course not - there was merely a scare for a while where very few kids were thought to have gotten up to no good because of it. Why bring that up if not to once again lazily try to handwave?

You are dishonestly trying to conflate "other factors that could cause an elevated homicide rate" to "Things that people thought made people more violent but were mere popular scares".

All you end up saying is a version of Peacegirls "Something else must be going on", but you do not say what this something might be. She does it because there is a pretty strong case against what she wants to believe, and she wants some excuse not to have to look at it. I suspect you do it for the same reasons.

[thedoc]

What do you expect from a Jerk?

[maddog]

I was watching an episode of "Forensic Files" last night (actually now repackaged into a program they are calling "Mystery Detectives") which involved a multiple death situation ... not guns this time, but a river boat/rail accident. A tugboat operator was pushing some commercial barges upriver at night, operating without charts and maps -- because, hey, what do you need that for? you just steer between the two banks, right? They did have radar/sonar (I forget which) on board, although it was not required equipment at the time. However, the pilot was not familiar with it or trained how to use it. He thought he was in the main branch of the river, by a certain turn. Actually, he was downstream from where he thought, and he had turned up a side channel which was closed to commercial traffic. Because that branch of the river was closed to commercial traffic, a rail bridge that crossed over it was not lighted. They thought there was no need, because commercial boats wouldn't be going up there. Well, the pilot crashed the barges into one of the supports of the bridge. It was a severe enough crash to distort the rails, but not enough to actually sever the rails. If the rails had been severed, then the green-light switch for the track would have had its circuit broken, and would have signalled any approaching train that the track was closed. But despite the crash and damage to the rails, the green signal remained on, so the passenger train crossed the bridge at 72 mph. When it hit the distorted part of the rails, the engine derailed and took several of the cars into the river with it. Some of the cars remained on the tracks so there were some survivors, as well as some passengers killed in the accident.

After the accident, which did kill a number of people, several things were changed:
1. River boats must carry appropriate maps and charts
2. Sonar/radar is required
3. Personnel must be trained on use of the sonar/radar
4. Bridges, even over waterways where commercial traffic is banned, must now be lighted.
5. Boats have to have more/better lighting.

That's what they did with a multi-death incident involving transportation facilities. Why can't anyone think of things to do about guns?

ETA:
6. IIRC, I think they also mentioned something about bridge construction, i.e., the ends of the rails on this bridge were not "tied down," or something like that, and that kind of tie-down is now required, or perhaps it was about how the supports are constructed, but they improved the bridge construction guidelines, too.

#2892