Oregon shooting
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 1 Guest
Registered Users: None |
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| David wrote: | I like what I've read from Ehrenreich (though I'm not sure what TP would think of her  ), but I'd give Freudians a miss. Sometimes a gun is just a gun.  |
My mother always said: "oedipus, shmoedipus, as long as you love your mother".
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
 |
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Do you laugh or cry more than other people? |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | https://www.facebook.com/FoxBusiness/videos/10153622223345238/ |
Halfwits. Children who believe the world can be divided into 'law-abiding citizens' and 'baddies' belong in kindergarten, not on national TV (and certainly not in office, in Giuliani's case - and he's supposed to be one of the saner ones!).
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| So, your insults are on point, but how is he wrong? |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^That childish PR talking point was dismissed pages ago by An_Inkling.
First, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Dunce is purposely conflating other types of gun crime with the mass and arbitrary nutter shootings which are under the public spotlight here. Second, even so, the difference between an organised crime boss and the 14 year-old kids in the gang down the street carrying an arsenal around is itself enormous. Melbourne isn't Detroit, despite the Gangland Shootings.
Are you honestly saying you were unaware of those possibilities prior to repeating the same dead point again? And if you were aware of them, why did you choose not to mention them?
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I will let you know when I become a aware of them why did you choose not to mention them. |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | | Mugwump wrote: | The underlying causes are probably unknowable, and so entangled that isolating one or two will falsify the picture rather than sharpen it. Inequality, family breakdown, exposure to violent media, emulation of past shootings, or the simple rates of dissociative mental illness in a large population all probably play a part. Which you prefer will depend on your ideological preferences.
The one constant factor in every case, however, is that when someone's hatreds boil over, they have ready access to weapons that allow them to kill many people very quickly. Fix that and the problem will largely go away. Obama's speech nailed it very well. |
As already stated, the latter is a no-brainer, but I was responding to David's post and talking about (male) violence broadly.
On that topic, this is one of the stablest bodies of knowledge getting around in the behavioural and social sciences. The biology and psychiatry of male violence is well-known. The main social correlates are well-known because you have great crime data worldwide and access to well-studied prison populations. That gives you the ability to get as close to stability in causal theory formation as you can in the social sciences because you can model the problem from the biology, through to the individual and family behaviour, and on to larger social units.
The writer who got me into this topic many years ago was James Gilligan, and his basic premises only become more verified over time.
So, the ideology in the case of broader male violence is claiming we don't understand it well enough to reduce it within reasonable policy constraints. |
I read one of Gilligan's books years ago and all I recall is that most violent actors had been exposed to violence at an early age and subjected to sustained denigration. That is credible and makes intuitive sense, but it does not seem to easily cover random mass shootings.
If we mentally flick through the cases of Julian Knight, Frank Vitkovik, martin Bryant, and the US cases of Virginia Tech, Colorado and Sandy Hook, i don't think that any case fits the type of profile described by Gilligan, as far as published records show. Narcissistic dissociative personality disorder looks more like it.
More broadly, if you look at gun deaths per 100,000 people, it looks as though the major variable by far is the prevalence of guns per head of population, not levels of social stratification. There are many good reasons for reducing inequality. It does not need to be force-fitted onto every issue.
_________________
Two more flags before I die!
Last edited by Mugwump on Sun Oct 04, 2015 1:18 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | So, your insults are on point, but how is he wrong? |
How isn't he? This distinction between 'law-abiding citizens' and 'bad guys' presumes that a) only people with a criminal record are dangerous, which is obviously untrue and b) that even if we could make such a distinction, it would somehow be possible to keep guns away from 'bad guys'. This in a country where, as Obama says, there is nearly one gun for every human being.
The idea that gun control doesn't reduce violent crime is patently absurd and I find it staggering that an elected official could make such a claim with a straight face. Let's pretend, like Fox News does, that America is the only country on the planet and that, say, Australian gun control didn't work. Could anyone really seriously claim that gun control has no effect on violent crime?
Perhaps over a short time period there may be little to no change (particularly in a city with entrenched poverty and dysfunction like Chicago), purely because gun ownership rates haven't yet been substantially affected. But surely any thinking person would realise that strangling the influx of guns would reduce gun usage. What is even a possible argument against this? Black markets (like the local black market in methamphetamines, for instance) often have to deal with supply shortages. That's evidently not going to happen with a gun shop around the corner.
What America needs isn't gun regulation, it's gun regulation and a massive gun buyback as was done in Australia. In the meantime, though, absolutely any restriction on the number and type of guns that can be purchased is a small victory. Not a victory for ideologues and government control and Democrats, mind you, but for ordinary people who want to be able to go to the shops, to the cinema, to university and emerge without a bullet in their head courtesy of a disaffected teenager who found the combination to mum's safe. I don't know how the average American feels, but I think life is enough of a game of Russian Roulette without having to contend with being in a supermarket with 20 lethal weapons capable of instantly killing you and a few dozen fragile psyches to match. That sounds more like a dystopia than a free society to me.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Except you'd be wrong. Increased gun control = increased crime. You really need to stop comparing the USA to Australia as well, if you want to compare Australia to a country with high gun ownership then Switzerland might be more apt.
Imagine a gun buy back where gangs start shooting each other to acquire weapons to sell, then consider the USA's porous borders and huge numbers of firearms. Most people don't have weapons registered so good luck finding them and people will defend their rights with lethal force if Government decided to go full totalitarian and start confiscating. Criminals with weapons certainly wont be handing them in (much like here), it'll be law abiding gun owners being disarmed in a dangerous country.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities
Gun Control isn't about crime, it's just about control. |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | | pietillidie wrote: | | Mugwump wrote: | The underlying causes are probably unknowable, and so entangled that isolating one or two will falsify the picture rather than sharpen it. Inequality, family breakdown, exposure to violent media, emulation of past shootings, or the simple rates of dissociative mental illness in a large population all probably play a part. Which you prefer will depend on your ideological preferences.
The one constant factor in every case, however, is that when someone's hatreds boil over, they have ready access to weapons that allow them to kill many people very quickly. Fix that and the problem will largely go away. Obama's speech nailed it very well. |
As already stated, the latter is a no-brainer, but I was responding to David's post and talking about (male) violence broadly.
On that topic, this is one of the stablest bodies of knowledge getting around in the behavioural and social sciences. The biology and psychiatry of male violence is well-known. The main social correlates are well-known because you have great crime data worldwide and access to well-studied prison populations. That gives you the ability to get as close to stability in causal theory formation as you can in the social sciences because you can model the problem from the biology, through to the individual and family behaviour, and on to larger social units.
The writer who got me into this topic many years ago was James Gilligan, and his basic premises only become more verified over time.
So, the ideology in the case of broader male violence is claiming we don't understand it well enough to reduce it within reasonable policy constraints. |
I read one of Gilligan's books years ago and all I recall is that most violent actors had been exposed to violence at an early age and subjected to sustained denigration. That is credible and makes intuitive sense, but it does not seem to easily cover random mass shootings.
If we mentally flick through the cases of Julian Knight, Frank Vitkovik, martin Bryant, and the US cases of Virginia Tech, Colorado and Sandy Hook, i don't think that any case fits the type of profile described by Gilligan, as far as published records show. Narcissistic dissociative personality disorder looks more like it.
More broadly, if you look at gun deaths per 100,000 people, you'll see that the major variable by far is the prevalence of guns per head of population, not levels of social stratification. There are many good reasons for reducing inequality. It does not need to be force-fitted onto every issue. |
Maybe you're just chatting on the topic, hence preaching to the converted here on guns. I did mention I agree fully with that aspect, for the record, but it's a good topic anyhow General male violence and male psychiatry is a parent topic or a different topic, depending on how you want to approach it. My original intention was to treat it completely separately from mass shootings when I replied to David's comment. (Giuliani, of course, was purposely trying to mix all kinds of shite together to confuse people as a PR tactic; as I say, I think what you say on guns is dead right and a no-brainer, hence replying to David on male violence ).
However, I would note that Gilligan has extended work on biology and childhood trauma (the best quick introduction to which is found in Robert Sapolsky's worksearch for his Stanford lecture series on YouTube) to include much broader social contexts as a mode of realisation, getting at the gap between certain kinds of physical and developmental conditions, and their instantiation in violent social behaviour.
So, you're only partially covering Gilligan. His work concurs with the spate of studies last decade looking at impact of immediate sociological contexts ("local cultures") on behaviour, often in the context of nature/nurture-type discussions, and extensive number crunching on global violence. And, anywhere you care to look, at any scale of analysis, controlling for as many contextual variables as you care to throw at the analysis, shows you that social polarisation exacerbates violence.
Aware of this, Gilligan bridges the explanatory gap through the psychiatric mechanism of shame, which we know operates at all levels of relationships and identity, from within-family to between social group, race and even nations. Gilligan then tries to remedy that through a focus on social opportunities which minimise shame such as employment and controlled programs which have proven extremely effective in mitigating it, as evidenced through such data as recidivism rates.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ fair enough, we may have been talking across one another. I was specifically addressing RMSs. I accept that violence will have some relationship with social polarisation, as you call it, though there are doubtless many variables. China has dramatic social polarisation, if by that you mean wealth inequality. Singapore does, too. Hell, Britain has its share, as we know. None of these have high gun crime. France's rate of gun deaths is aboit 10x that in the Uk. Socilaist Venezuela has some of the highest rates of gun deaths in the world. It's a pretty complicated topic, and i don't think unicausal explanations will get to the root of it. As you said, though, suppression of gun-ownership seems a no-brainer.
I'll watch the Sapolsky video, thanks.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | I like what I've read from Ehrenreich (though I'm not sure what TP would think of her ), but I'd give Freudians a miss. Sometimes a gun is just a gun. |
She has a point or two
"Of all the nasty outcomes predicted for women's liberation... none was more alarming, from a feminist point of view, than the suggestion that women would eventually become just like men."
Kind of apt right now "Natural selection, as it has operated in human history, favors not only the clever but the murderous."
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/barbaraehr149070.html#8aq2TVvEiiF0VOcF.99
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Skids 
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Gun control doesn't work. Fact is, if i was a nutter and wanted to shoot someone, i could get out of bed now, go buy a gun (yep, write now) and start firing. Did gun control work?
_________________
Don't count the days, make the days count. |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | | pietillidie wrote: | | Mugwump wrote: | The underlying causes are probably unknowable, and so entangled that isolating one or two will falsify the picture rather than sharpen it. Inequality, family breakdown, exposure to violent media, emulation of past shootings, or the simple rates of dissociative mental illness in a large population all probably play a part. Which you prefer will depend on your ideological preferences.
The one constant factor in every case, however, is that when someone's hatreds boil over, they have ready access to weapons that allow them to kill many people very quickly. Fix that and the problem will largely go away. Obama's speech nailed it very well. |
As already stated, the latter is a no-brainer, but I was responding to David's post and talking about (male) violence broadly.
On that topic, this is one of the stablest bodies of knowledge getting around in the behavioural and social sciences. The biology and psychiatry of male violence is well-known. The main social correlates are well-known because you have great crime data worldwide and access to well-studied prison populations. That gives you the ability to get as close to stability in causal theory formation as you can in the social sciences because you can model the problem from the biology, through to the individual and family behaviour, and on to larger social units.
The writer who got me into this topic many years ago was James Gilligan, and his basic premises only become more verified over time.
So, the ideology in the case of broader male violence is claiming we don't understand it well enough to reduce it within reasonable policy constraints. |
I read one of Gilligan's books years ago and all I recall is that most violent actors had been exposed to violence at an early age and subjected to sustained denigration. That is credible and makes intuitive sense, but it does not seem to easily cover random mass shootings.
If we mentally flick through the cases of Julian Knight, Frank Vitkovik, martin Bryant, and the US cases of Virginia Tech, Colorado and Sandy Hook, i don't think that any case fits the type of profile described by Gilligan, as far as published records show. Narcissistic dissociative personality disorder looks more like it.
. |
I wouldn't be putting dissociative in there too quickly.
Narcissistic traits for sure, an actual disorder needs to be established.
A sociopath formerly known (in the main) as a psychopath gets my vote & invariably contains narcissistic features.
Equally, dissocial personality formerly known as anti social personality would be getting my vote.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Skids wrote: | | Gun control doesn't work. Fact is, if i was a nutter and wanted to shoot someone, i could get out of bed now, go buy a gun (yep, write now) and start firing. Did gun control work? |
The pen is mightier than the sword
It's worked pretty well so far. Mind you Ducks, Pigs & Roos might disagree.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
