the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

Michael wrote:

Pro-trump either way

It ain't about Trump. It's about Russian interference with a U.S. election. I heard a FOX news spokesman say that it was Obama's fault because it started in 2104. But, if it started then, the FBI was right to investigate suspicious contacts between Russians and Americans --in the Trump campaign.

Afa "domestic terrorists" and the FBI , does anyone think that a 19 year-old who posts bigoted remarks and claims a desire to be a school shooter should be allowed to buy an AR-15? Sure, why not? We can't stop someone on the "no fly" terrorist watch from buying one. We certainly can't treat an American like a terrorist? We can't lock them up beforehand either. We really shouldn't invade their privacy or impinge their right to free speech.

Bao wrote:

That's because many Americans love guns and law enforcement officers. Anyway, I wonder how many teachers have been murdered. I wouldn't sacrifice my child so that some guy could own a gun. More importantly, I don't think any child would favor the trade. Sure, I would readily use a gun to save a child because the child is much more important than almost anything else.

oragami_itto wrote:If it happened in the inner cities it wouldn't be news. Plus they all have metal detectors and armed security due to gang violence in the 80s. They tend to handle things out of school

The fact is that most urban violence anywhere is directly related to crime. In places where there is a large gang presence, that's where most of the mass killings occur. People point to Chicago or Detroit, but not to NYC. There are cities in Alaska with higher rates of violent crime, per capita. http://bismarcktribune.com/news/nationa ... 8e.html#31

"Inner city" is just a post-Civil Rights era euphemism (or dog-whistle) for "where the poor and non-Whites live." It's used to explain high crime and high incarceration rates, and often as a rationale for gun ownership. Ironically, the places where the gun laws are loosest are the places where most of these mass shootings occur. The result is that those places make it even easier to buy weapons.

Yeah, metal detectors work, but there weren't any mass shootings in schools before the detectors were installed. We are certainly due for one, if they care predictable in any way. Otoh, they don't happen in any other country with this frequency. If it's mental illness, it's an American mental illness.

Steve James wrote:

oragami_itto wrote:If it happened in the inner cities it wouldn't be news. Plus they all have metal detectors and armed security due to gang violence in the 80s. They tend to handle things out of school

The fact is that most urban violence anywhere is directly related to crime. In places where there is a large gang presence, that's where most of the mass killings occur. People point to Chicago or Detroit, but not to NYC. There are cities in Alaska with higher rates of violent crime, per capita. http://bismarcktribune.com/news/nationa ... 8e.html#31

"Inner city" is just a post-Civil Rights era euphemism (or dog-whistle) for "where the poor and non-Whites live." It's used to explain high crime and high incarceration rates, and often as a rationale for gun ownership. Ironically, the places where the gun laws are loosest are the places where most of these mass shootings occur. The result is that those places make it even easier to buy weapons.

Yeah, metal detectors work, but there weren't any mass shootings in schools before the detectors were installed. We are certainly due for one, if they care predictable in any way. Otoh, they don't happen in any other country with this frequency. If it's mental illness, it's an American mental illness.

Sure there were mass shootings before the detectors were installed, that's why they were installed. Charles Whitman was the earliest modern indiscriminate shooter I can think of, Brenda Ann Spencer the next. That's just off the top of my head.

The difference is that the gang and crime related shootings on school were targeted, though again most of that stuff happens off campus. When I was in school they started making us bring transparent backpacks and we had armed security, and this was pre-Columbine. For perspective, the largest auto theft ring in south florida was based out of my high school.

Sure there were mass shootings before the detectors were installed, that's why they were installed. Charles Whitman was the earliest modern indiscriminate shooter I can think of, Brenda Ann Spencer the next. That's just off the top of my head.

My point was that the metal detectors were installed in NYC schools because of stabbings, not mass shootings. I remember Whitman very well. I watched on tv. He was a vet with problems who sniped at random people at a university.

But, 2017 was the first time a NYC student was shot at a school. I think the last was 25 or more years ago.

I was out of school by 1970, and we never had metal detectors. In fact, there was a move to have them removed altogether a few years ago. Anyway, metal detectors won't stop anyone from spraying the outside of a school or church or club or concert with bullets.

Here's something to think about......

Boys without Fathers are Broken.

Issue number one that no one in the mainstream media or government wants to acknowledge: fatherlessness. Specifically, the impact of fatherlessness on the boys who grew up to become school shooters.

Dr. Warren Farrell, author of the new book The Boy Crisis, explains:

Minimal or no father involvement, whether due to divorce, death, or imprisonment, is common to Adam Lanza, Elliott Rodgers, Dylan Roof and Stephen Paddock.

In the case of 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz, he was adopted at birth. His adoptive dad died when Nikolas was much younger, and doubtless the challenges of this fatherlessness was compounded by the death of his adoptive mom three and a half months ago.

The rate of mass shootings has tripled since 2011. We blame guns, violence in the media, violence in video games, and poor family values. Each is a plausible player. But our daughters live in the same homes, with the same access to the same guns, video games, and media, and are raised with the same family values. Our daughters are not killing. Our sons are.

But boys with significant father involvement are not doing these shootings. Without dads as role models, boys’ testosterone is not well channeled. The boy experiences a sense of purposelessness, a lack of boundary enforcement, rudderlessness, and often withdraws into video games and video porn. At worst, when boys’ testosterone is not well-channeled by an involved dad, boys become among the world’s most destructive forces. When boys’ testosterone is well channeled by an involved dad, boys become among the world’s most constructive forces.


As Terry Brennan, co-founder of Leading Women for Shared Parenting, notes:


72 percent of adolescent murderers grew up without fathers; the same for 60 percent of all rapists.

70 percent of juveniles in state institutions grew up in single- or no-parent situations

The number of single-parent households is a good predictor of violent crime in a community, while poverty rate is not.


Yet, despite the growing number of experts, pundits and commentators drawing attention to the impact of fatherlessness on school and community safety, the post-attack discussion inevitably reverts back to gun control. Instead of spending so much as fifteen minutes on fatherlessness we are forced to endure the same salacious headlines, the same provocative tweets, the same tired old memes about the evils of guns as if somehow a cold piece of metal convinced yet another boy to become a mass-murderer. We ignore the lack of adequate mental health services, the failure of law enforcement to effectively intercede, and the sickening impact fatherlessness has on each one of these tragic cases. Why? Because it is easier to ban a hunk of metal than it is to right systemic cultural wrongs.

From....https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/will-guts ... shootings/

There's no reason to deny the effect of fatherlessness on boys. However, the loss of a father affects a girl equally. If not, why not? Moreover, Cruz lost his mother. Another mass school (Newtown) shooter killed his mother. So, my argument would be that losing a parent can be highly disturbing to a child (male or female). Yet, only a minute fraction of orphans, adoptees, foster children, and those from single parent families every commit these type of crimes.

The answer is simply that there is no single factor, no gene, no political belief, no medicine, mental illness, or family situation alone will lead up to a person becoming a mass murderer. Access to firearms is secondary, but only because firearms are readily accessible. Fatherlessness or any of those other factors alone will not enable a person to commit mass murder. Guns may be a separate issue, but discussing access to them is necessary.

Now, if the argument is that we should have sympathy for boys from broken families, ok. If the argument is that they need help and rehabilitation rather than incarceration, ok. It's just like the drug problem. Good thing that we're starting to think about those problems that way.

Btw, I grew up without a father. I don't consider myself broken. Just sayin'. Anybody else unfortunate enough to be in that situation?

Steve

Like yourself, the vast majority of fatherless boys and men are able to survive that experience well. As painful as that must be.

Not many fatherless boys commit mass murder. But perhaps most mass murderers come from fatherless house holds.

Bill wrote:Not many fatherless boys commit mass murder. But perhaps most mass murderers come from fatherless house holds.

Would you be willing to do the research to back that up, or just gonna work off your gut instinct there?

I based that on this quote from the article I posted.....


Terry Brennan, co-founder of Leading Women for Shared Parenting, notes:

72 percent of adolescent murderers grew up without fathers; the same for 60 percent of all rapists.

Also, check out this page with many links to studies.....

https://photius.com/feminocracy/facts_o ... _kids.html

It's not a matter of percentage. Being fatherless doesn't lead to murder. I bet that boys who are physically abused by their fathers are statistically more likely to be murderers. Anyway, my point was not that lack of parental care or fatherly love didn't affect male children. My point was that other factors are always present. If fatherlessness is a predictor, though, then who would suggest preventing boys without fathers from owning weapons. It's the same with medications.