Another School Shooting - Santa Fe TX

[Targhee]

19 minutes ago, texasmom33 said:

I don’t know why it’s just boys taking their wrath out in such violence- personally I think girls are more subversive and either hurt themselves or do other, less obvious types of self abuse and coping. I have noticed in general more parents being checked out and happy to let social media and video games stand in for parenting. Where I live we saw it early. Parents would buy everything and just hope the kids stayed out of their hair. I think it’s different for homeschoolers becauee we are so involved- sometimes maybe overly involved- we don’t realize that some parents go all day or days without speaking to their teens. 

Our local high schools are also pressure cookers with competitive everything. They’re huge. They’re anonymous.  and unless you are the richest, the brightest, and/or the most athletic, you’re not going to have a lot of options or stand out. If you don’t have money, you can’t do extracurriculars because you will never make the team or the band or anything else. You can’t afford the travel teams or the private music lessons, or the band uniforms, or the tutoring to keep up with the kids who can afford it and when you have 3-5k kids in a high school, that doesn’t mean there are more spots on the football or basketball team. It just means fewer people make it.  I don’t understand how all of that factors in but I can’t help but think that it does. Schools other places might be different but where we are, that is exactly how it goes in the public high schools roll.  

Do you think there’s a correlative factor of education inflation? I mean more kids attempting to go to college because “college is for everyone”, associated rising costs of college and pressure to get in and to get scholarships... This is a culture of pressures, in and out of schools.  Where I am at I see it heavily in sports and in music and theater.

Anyway, I think you are right that the “pressure cooker” of high schools and screens/social media probably play roles in all the general rise of mental health issues in teens recently (anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation) which in turn increases aggression, violence outright (like School shooters) and violence unseen (like cyber-bullying)

[Targhee]

28 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

 

I think you put your finger on something important. The powerlessness feeling counteracted by the ultimate power of a gun may be connected. But how did we handle feelings of powerlessness when we were young? I am sure there were times when I felt despondent or powerless over something. It would never have occurred to us to actually convert our less than charitable thoughts about another person into murderous actions. There are no "brakes" anymore in so many people. Everything spills over and out and the capability to sit with a less than euphoric feeling and let it run its course seems alien to many young men I talk to. 

Granted, sometimes issues are bigger than just "letting it pass." Evidently, they don't feel they have someone in whom they can confide, whom they can trust to contain their anguish and pain?

Yes. There is a very big difference from years ago.  Is it our conditioning to immediate gratification? Fast food (and just what and when we want), google searches, helicopter parents providing just what is needed and never let kids struggle, Amazon 2-day delivery, text messaging, easy access porn and so on?

[Barb_]

I don’t remember where I read it, but five or six shootings ago there was an article that related the rise in shootings to mob psychology and social contagion egged on by the news cycle and social media.

With some good key words, I believed I’ve unearthed it. Malcom Gladwell wrote this for the New Yorker actually closer to two years ago. It’s long, but it’s a really interesting read about the ritualization of mass killings:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/thresholds-of-violence/amp

 

[Liz CA]

21 minutes ago, Barb_ said:

I don’t remember where I read it, but five or six shootings ago there was an article that related the rise in shootings to mob psychology and social contagion egged on by the news cycle and social media.

With some good key words, I believed I’ve unearthed it. Malcom Gladwell wrote this for the New Yorker actually closer to two years ago. It’s long, but it’s a really interesting read about the ritualization of mass killings:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/thresholds-of-violence/amp

 

 

This was a very interesting article. We need more police officers trained like the one mentioned in the article.

[Junie]

(((Garga)))

 

[Guest]

@Garga I hear ya. I had experiences that were in many ways similar. In my case, I directed it onto myself: why was I so unlovable? Why was I so worthy of scorn? I spent a good portion of my teens with ideations to taking myself out of the equation altogether.  

[Paige]

1 hour ago, swimmermom3 said:

 

I don't know if I can put my thoughts together coherently on this connection. It may be misguided to believe that "something" has changed and it is a symptom strictly of modern times. Historically, there have always been "outlets" for young men.  A group of young white men could get together and lynch a young black man and it was "okay." We have often sent "troubled" young men into the armed forces, hoping that discipline combined with violence will "straighten" them out. Violent men took themselves west in the US to wreck mayhem on the native population. The Crusaders had the Church's blessing.

The type of firepower readily available makes mass shootings much easier as an "outlet" for rage, revenge, and/or despair.

This is a good point. There's really no longer any socially acceptable outlet for young male rage, angst, or hate. Which is a good thing, but it doesn't do anything to reduce the violent tendencies in some young men. Add in to that a much larger population, and you have more individuals who act out while the rates may be static. Add in media attention and you hear about things you never would hear about before, and hearing about things is it's own encouragement.

If we can't and don't want to provide this group with an outlet where they can just go beat and kill some people, then we should work on reducing the impulse to do it in the first place with little kids- before they get there. We need to do things differently instead of thinking we can go back to some mythical past when everything was good. Everything was never good, but we can work to make things better. 

[Pam in CT]

re cynicism, despair, hope, and bridges between

7 hours ago, Lady Florida. said:

We continue to send useless thoughts and prayers. 

As someone whose perspective on prayer has shifted, slowly but seismically, over the last decade, I am deeply saddened by the double-sided cynicism that has come to accompany the "thoughts & prayers" post-shooting ritual reflex... 

(....OTOH too often fused, cynically, with an unstated or explicit follow-on "and no other possible action on THIS earth is necessary or helpful";

OTO too often received, cynically, as inauthentic or hypocritical...)

... I was startled by something an old lady carried, at the March for our Lives in New York:

Quote

Maybe These Kids

are God's Answer

to All Those Thoughts and Prayers

I've been thinking about this a good deal since.  Maybe, indeed.

______

 

I agree with Stella that we do need as a society to name and acknowledge the maleness of the mass shooting pattern.  And also Lisa's insight re socially sanctioned outlets for troubled men:

49 minutes ago, swimmermom3 said:

 

I don't know if I can put my thoughts together coherently on this connection. It may be misguided to believe that "something" has changed and it is a symptom strictly of modern times. Historically, there have always been "outlets" for young men.  A group of young white men could get together and lynch a young black man and it was "okay." We have often sent "troubled" young men into the armed forces, hoping that discipline combined with violence will "straighten" them out. Violent men took themselves west in the US to wreck mayhem on the native population. The Crusaders had the Church's blessing.

The type of firepower readily available makes mass shootings much easier as an "outlet" for rage, revenge, and/or despair.

(and bar brawl buddies beating up gay men, and pogroms, and and and)

This insight goes a little further than the "evil in the heart of darkness" individual lens -- it is not mutually exclusive with it, but it adds a sanctioning, feed-on-each-other, cheering-on-audience element that the Gladstone article also gets at.  We've always had angry young men, they've always craved an approving audience.  They've always been able to find socially sanctioned ways to express alienation and anger... you had only to find your like-minded peeps.  Mobs have one or two ringleaders and a whole lot of eggers-on.

What's shifted in the modern pattern is the like-minded cheerleading peeps are on line, egging one another on from dark supremacist and incel corners of the interwebs.  But they are there, as surely as if they were wearing white hooded robes.

And of course the right weapon can kill a lot more a lot faster; that too has changed.

[Targhee]

3 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

re cynicism, despair, hope, and bridges between

As someone whose perspective on prayer has shifted, slowly but seismically, over the last decade, I am deeply saddened by the double-sided cynicism that has come to accompany the "thoughts & prayers" post-shooting ritual reflex... 

(....OTOH too often fused, cynically, with an unstated or explicit follow-on "and no other possible action on THIS earth is necessary or helpful";

OTO too often received, cynically, as inauthentic or hypocritical...)

... I was startled by something an old lady carried, at the March for our Lives in New York:

I've been thinking about this a good deal since.  Maybe, indeed.

______

 

I agree with Stella that we do need as a society to name and acknowledge the maleness of the mass shooting pattern.  And also Lisa's insight re socially sanctioned outlets for troubled men:

(and bar brawl buddies beating up gay men, and pogroms, and and and)

This insight goes a little further than the "evil in the heart of darkness" individual lens -- it is not mutually exclusive with it, but it adds a sanctioning, feed-on-each-other, cheering-on-audience element that the Gladstone article also gets at.  We've always had angry young men, they've always craved an approving audience.  They've always been able to find socially sanctioned ways to express alienation and anger... you had only to find your like-minded peeps.  Mobs have one or two ringleaders and a whole lot of eggers-on.

What's shifted in the modern pattern is the like-minded cheerleading peeps are on line, egging one another on from dark supremacist and incel corners of the interwebs.  But they are there, as surely as if they were wearing white hooded robes.

And of course the right weapon can kill a lot more a lot faster; that too has changed.

But there is something more *young* in this problem.  These are 14-21 year olds mainly (outliers exist, yes).  Could it be also that without a good role model in their life (whatever the relationship - Father, brother, teacher, coach, neighbor, friend) they are more easily swayed in their very passionate late teens by those dark corners of the web? Have we in treating anger as something bad, put potential role models in a bind where they can’t demonstrate how to rightly handle that anger (because they aren’t allowed to express it at all)? 

[Stacia]

Re: today... (from Business Insider)

Quote

The incident marked the 101st mass shooting in 2018, according to the nonprofit Gun Violence Archive, which tracks shootings in the US. To put this into perspective, we are 138 days into the year, which means the US has had nearly as many mass shootings as days in 2018.

We definitely have a problem.

From Time: The Santa Fe High School Shooting in Texas Was the 22nd School Shooting This Year

[Pam in CT]

21 minutes ago, Targhee said:

But there is something more *young* in this problem.  These are 14-21 year olds mainly (outliers exist, yes).  Could it be also that without a good role model in their life (whatever the relationship - Father, brother, teacher, coach, neighbor, friend) they are more easily swayed in their very passionate late teens by those dark corners of the web? Have we in treating anger as something bad, put potential role models in a bind where they can’t demonstrate how to rightly handle that anger (because they aren’t allowed to express it at all)? 

I wholly agree about how essential are connections and role models in young men's lives... both in general, and also in insulating/ vaccinating against the risk of radicalization in the dark corners of the web, specifically..

I don't know that 14-21 is, historically, young.  Historically that's launching age (successful or troubled); that's always been the age we've shipped young men off to war; that's the age of brawling and beating up.  Also the age when young people typically look to cohorts, rather than families, for their "audience" and affirmation.

[Garga]

1 hour ago, Junie said:

(((Garga)))

 

 

Thank you.  It’s ok now.  In my mid-thirties I went to church counseling and I forgave all those kids.  The counsellor had me write down every incident I could remember (there were a lot) and how it made me feel and then say, “Person’s name, when you did X, I felt like Y. With Jesus’ help, I forgive you,” each time.  It worked. I walked out of that room free.

When I had walked into that counselling session, I still felt the sting of rejection and the anger. I wished for some sort of confrontation with those people where I could reject them and hurt them.  It was a little silly but I’d imagine things like them coming to my door with a broken down car in a winter storm, and I’d shut the door in their faces and tell them to go somewhere else for help.

The moment I walked out of that session though, it was all gone. I bear no ill-will toward any of them now.  I can’t drum up anything negative toward them.  I can tell my story and say, “Yes, it was sad and a waste,” and I can remember my thoughts and feelings at the time, but the pain is gone.  Rather like when you remember that labor pain was probably some of the worst pain in your life, but you don’t actually feel the pain right now.  You can remember that you were in pain and the thoughts and feelings you had about it, but the actual sensation is gone. 

That’s how it is.  I can remember that I used to hurt, but I don’t hurt anymore.  It’s been 10 years since that counselling session and I’ve never felt pain from my childhood since.  

[Liz CA]

Garga, you asked not to quote but these two posts give a lot of food for thought.

[SeaConquest]

4 hours ago, swimmermom3 said:

 

Katy, what do you think has caused the shift in their thinking?

Perhaps you live in a more liberal area than I do? I still am not hearing people irl in my area asking for a complete ban, but I sense that patience is wearing thin. I know my own is. I am also mindful that every mass shooting is a highly profitable event for the arms industry.

We have had several of these threads in the past year and I don't remember anyone saying the Margaret in Co. couldn't have a gun to protect her livestock. There have been questions about the "need" for 100 guns in your suburban guestroom closet.

 

Wait, what? Is this for real? This country is pathological.

[hjffkj]

Garga, I went through this to what seems like a lesser extent in 7th and 8th grade, 2 different schools. School was a living hell but thankfully I had a loving family at home. They didn't know the extent of the issues or they would have stepped in sooner. 

But I completely understand how a kid, especially a boy, could snap and retaliate in such a violent way if they don't have support at home.  Seeing it in the news so often sadly makes it seem more doable for the.

[Frances]

2 hours ago, Targhee said:

Do you think there’s a correlative factor of education inflation? I mean more kids attempting to go to college because “college is for everyone”, associated rising costs of college and pressure to get in and to get scholarships... This is a culture of pressures, in and out of schools.  Where I am at I see it heavily in sports and in music and theater.

Anyway, I think you are right that the “pressure cooker” of high schools and screens/social media probably play roles in all the general rise of mental health issues in teens recently (anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation) which in turn increases aggression, violence outright (like School shooters) and violence unseen (like cyber-bullying)

I think it starts even earlier that high school. When we begin lots of testing and test prep in elementary school, push higher level academics down to lower grades, and substantially decrease recess and PE to fit it all in, I think it’s unhealthy for all children. But given that elementary school is already in general more designed for girls than boys, I think this hurts boys more. And some kids then add numerous structured activities after school and on weekends and fill in the gaps primarily with screen time. 

Add to that the high percentage of children living without both parents and the huge financial stress on many families, it’s no wonder we have lots of struggling teens.

[Carol in Cal.]

3 hours ago, Garga said:

ETA:Don’t quote, please.  

 I have no answers, but perhaps a little bit of insight.

Gosh, Garga, how did you turn out so great?  I'm so sorry.  Carp.  ((((Garga))))

[Frances]

1 hour ago, hjffkj said:

Garga, I went through this to what seems like a lesser extent in 7th and 8th grade, 2 different schools. School was a living hell but thankfully I had a loving family at home. They didn't know the extent of the issues or they would have stepped in sooner. 

But I completely understand how a kid, especially a boy, could snap and retaliate in such a violent way if they don't have support at home.  Seeing it in the news so often sadly makes it seem more doable for the.

And I often wonder how much seeing or hearing about the almost daily bullying that is modeled by our fearless leader makes kids who are being bullied feel? 

[Carol in Cal.]

Here is what I'd like to know.

How do kids learn to handle guns these days?  Or, for that matter, how do adults?

I grew up with NO gun culture around.  I associated guns with violent crime mostly.  My grandfather's best friend hunted, but nobody really talked about it much, and I don't think I ever saw his gun(s).  My dad had a rifle, up high in the basement on hooks, that he never used once he got married--I think he had done a little duck hunting back in the day but didn't really like it.  I literally never saw it in his hands.

Then I met DH.  And his family.

Oh my.

NRA members.  Proud of their dad's hunting and fishing and tracking and, yes, even trapping prowess.  

So I felt like I needed to observe this for a while, rather than voice my knee jerk reactions which were embarrassingly contemptuous (which is wrong, I know.   Hence 'embarrassing'.)

I read their NRA mags that they kept in the bathroom.  And I watched how this was passed on.

I saw my husband's brother talking casually to his 4 year old son about how it's funny to point a fishing pole at someone, but NEVER EVER a gun.  I saw him teach him to fish.  And I saw him gradually teach him hunting skills, after he took the school based safety course that all the other kids took.  ALL of them.  It was unheard of not to have this skillset.  I saw how dangerous the neighborhood was that MIL and FIL were trapped in, that had gotten that way around them, and how their house was burglarized more than once.  How vulnerable they were.  How reasonably they thought that it was the knowledge that there were guns in the house that kept home invaders out.  So that was the good side.  I saw how they used what they took--it wasn't just sport.  They were not well to do, and the fish and game were actually pretty crucial to their diets.  Nothing was wasted.

But.  Then there was the nutsy stuff.  That same nephew became 'off' as an adult--maybe BPD, not sure.  And they still took him along hunting.  I would not have ever wanted to be within 5 miles of that man with a hunting rifle in his hands.  Idiotic and dangerous to allow and participate in and encourage that, I thought.  And darned weak.  And FIL had a handgun in his night stand, not even locked up.  Which my DH told me was not loaded.  Which I do not for one minute believe.

But it seems like now the next generation doesn't necessarily have responsible gun use taught to them so consistently.  And, no one has the time to take their kids out over and over and engrain naturally the fact that you don't ever ever point a gun at a person, to the extent that it's a taboo that military actually used to have a hard time overcoming in training.  And then there are the increasingly prevalent and gory video games.  I think that this all contributes.

 

Off Notify me of replies.  

 

 

[Corraleno]

3 hours ago, texasmom33 said:

 I don’t think there were the red flags like with the FL shooter from what Dd and I are hearing from people. 

Last month he posted a photo of an arcade game with a sniper rifle,  a photo of a gun and a knife on his bed with the caption "Hi f***ers," and a tee shirt he had custom made that said "Born to Kill." 
 

[Targhee]

11 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

Here is what I'd like to know.

How do kids learn to handle guns these days?  Or, for that matter, how do adults?

I grew up with NO gun culture around.  I associated guns with violent crime mostly.  My grandfather's best friend hunted, but nobody really talked about it much, and I don't think I ever saw his gun(s).  My dad had a rifle, up high in the basement on hooks, that he never used once he got married--I think he had done a little duck hunting back in the day but didn't really like it.  I literally never saw it in his hands.

Then I met DH.  And his family.

Oh my.

NRA members.  Proud of their dad's hunting and fishing and tracking and, yes, even trapping prowess.  

So I felt like I needed to observe this for a while, rather than voice my knee jerk reactions which were embarrassingly contemptuous (which is wrong, I know.   Hence 'embarrassing'.)

I read their NRA mags that they kept in the bathroom.  And I watched how this was passed on.

I saw my husband's brother talking casually to his 4 year old son about how it's funny to point a fishing pole at someone, but NEVER EVER a gun.  I saw him teach him to fish.  And I saw him gradually teach him hunting skills, after he took the school based safety course that all the other kids took.  ALL of them.  It was unheard of not to have this skillset.  I saw how dangerous the neighborhood was that MIL and FIL were trapped in, that had gotten that way around them, and how their house was burglarized more than once.  How vulnerable they were.  How reasonably they thought that it was the knowledge that there were guns in the house that kept home invaders out.  So that was the good side.  I saw how they used what they took--it wasn't just sport.  They were not well to do, and the fish and game were actually pretty crucial to their diets.  Nothing was wasted.

But.  Then there was the nutsy stuff.  That same nephew became 'off' as an adult--maybe BPD, not sure.  And they still took him along hunting.  I would not have ever wanted to be within 5 miles of that man with a hunting rifle in his hands.  Idiotic and dangerous to allow and participate in and encourage that, I thought.  And darned weak.  And FIL had a handgun in his night stand, not even locked up.  Which my DH told me was not loaded.  Which I do not for one minute believe.

But it seems like now the next generation doesn't necessarily have responsible gun use taught to them so consistently.  And, no one has the time to take their kids out over and over and engrain naturally the fact that you don't ever ever point a gun at a person, to the extent that it's a taboo that military actually used to have a hard time overcoming in training.  And then there are the increasingly prevalent and gory video games.  I think that this all contributes.

 

Off Notify me of replies.  

 

 

That culture hasn’t disappeared everywhere. I grow up with no guns in the house, but I knew how to handle and shoot one.  My grandparents had guns and we regularly target shot. We did not have a gun in my married house until DH’s first issued handgun for deployment.  We now have several, kept in gun safes (even the B.B. gun is in there). At least once a year, maybe twice, DH takes kids to the range where they have to do a safety check with DH before getting to shoot - reinforcing they know the rules and that they are important. They also shoot once or twice a year with Gpa, a 25 yr military vet who reinforces proper gun use and handling. And DS shoots at scout camp.

We are not NRA members. We don’t have a big gun culture in our home, but we do have guns so everybody learns about them. They’re locked up, ammo locked up separately, only DH knows where the keys are.  The kids have a healthy respect for guns. It is possible to teach this, even in a busy family.  I’m not saying everyone should own a gun, but I am saying there are still people who teach responsible gun use.

[Katy]

NBC just reported that this child purposely shot people he liked so he could get more attention in the news.  So it turns out in this case being nice to him backfired.

 

9 hours ago, umsami said:

Actually Australia, when they revamped their gun laws after a mass shooting, put in an exception for farmers and such.  People need to show a need, but that exemption did exist.

 

Of course, you are far more likely to be killed, or have a family member killed, by a gun then you are to defend yourself or your family. (<1%)

The bigger issue with our gun laws that is rarely talked about is how easy access increases the likelihood of a successful suicide.   Teens who use a firearm to kill themselves most often have gotten it from a family member (more than 80% of the time).  

Your teens are far more likely to die from suicide using a firearm than via a school shooting.  At least today, that is.  Almost seems like that will go the other way. ?

 

Note for full disclosure: It's possible that the below information came straight from the NRA, I honestly don't know. The person who posted it also may have gotten it from the FBI or FDLE. I haven't looked it up for myself, but one of my dad's coworkers when I was a child (I think he was the Chief of Police immediately after my dad) has posted (on social media) that the bolded statistic isn't accurate because there aren't accurate statistics for the numbers of criminals who turn and run away when confronted with a gun held by their intended victim.  Many jurisdictions don't collect information like that.  He also quoted something about the science behind that statistic being poor even initially, despite the fact that I've heard some variation of it for at least 30 years.  

I know a large percentage of conservatives will reject your statistic outright due to anecdotal experience. I don't know a gun owner with a concealed carry permit who doesn't have at least 3 stories of people they personally know who stopped crimes when they pulled a gun on their would-be perpetrators. I've also not heard of a criminal grabbing a gun from a victim and using it on them.  Unless you're talking about a situation where the people knew each other already, and domestic violence fueled by alcohol or drugs turned to murder. How do I know this? The conservatives in my life LOVE to tell stories about why I should get a concealed carry permit.   Even though I was raised around guns and am sympathetic, I wouldn't feel safe having them as long as we are foster parents.  Nor do I feel I have the time or inclination to spend the sorts of money you need to spend on ammunition to keep muscle memory for accurate shooting up. Besides, we live in a place with a less than two minute 911 response.  I would likely feel very differently if we moved to an isolated location with slow police response.

 

6 hours ago, swimmermom3 said:

 

Katy, what do you think has caused the shift in their thinking?

Perhaps you live in a more liberal area than I do? I still am not hearing people irl in my area asking for a complete ban, but I sense that patience is wearing thin. I know my own is. I am also mindful that every mass shooting is a highly profitable event for the arms industry.

We have had several of these threads in the past year and I don't remember anyone saying the Margaret in Co. couldn't have a gun to protect her livestock. There have been questions about the "need" for 100 guns in your suburban guestroom closet.

 

Most of them are college friends who live on the East Coast and had kids in elementary school when Sandy Hook happened. A fairly large percentage of those that are that liberal are the 1st or 2nd generation children of immigrants and don't feel any sort of patriotic duty to be armed the way many Americans do. Some of their families left their birth countries because of armed uprisings and violence. A few others live in Chicago or a suburb thereof and are exposed to enough gang violence in the local news that they are horrified. Even those that lived in basically locked-down communities where the police keep a log of every car in every driveway at night.

[Ausmumof3]

7 hours ago, Pam in CT said:

I wholly agree about how essential are connections and role models in young men's lives... both in general, and also in insulating/ vaccinating against the risk of radicalization in the dark corners of the web, specifically..

I don't know that 14-21 is, historically, young.  Historically that's launching age (successful or troubled); that's always been the age we've shipped young men off to war; that's the age of brawling and beating up.  Also the age when young people typically look to cohorts, rather than families, for their "audience" and affirmation.

If anything the change in approach to that age could be part of the problem.  At an age where boys traditionally move into a world of "real work" with other men of all ages they are spending more time in an environment with only peers that maybe makes some of the social issues like bullying etc worse.  Obviously the move toward more intellectual types of work makes this necessary in some way but a system where education continues attached to the workforce might be possible?

[GinaPagnato]

5 hours ago, Katy said:

NBC just reported that this child purposely shot people he liked so he could get more attention in the news.  So it turns out in this case being nice to him backfired.

 

I thought I read this morning that he targeted kids he didn't like and left the kids who had been nice to him alone so that they would tell his story. I assume that means he thought they (the nicer kids) would be sympathetic to him and understand why he did this.

[Guest]

Quote

ut it seems like now the next generation doesn't necessarily have responsible gun use taught to them so consistently.  And, no one has the time to take their kids out over and over and engrain naturally the fact that you don't ever ever point a gun at a person, to the extent that it's a taboo that military actually used to have a hard time overcoming in training.  And then there are the increasingly prevalent and gory video games.  I think that this all contributes.

IME, lots of boys do recieve training in conscientious gun handling. My own sons have shot guns numerous times in a controlled environment. Every Thanksgiving, my DH and his brothers, along with all the (usually male) cousins shoot clay pigeons. (The girls have all shot a few times, and one niece hunted deer pretty refularly. It’s more the guy thing, though.) once, my son was going to a birthday party that was held at a shooting range, but there was a very long wait, so DH offered for the birthday party to move to our house where target shooting can be done. So these were a small group of boys around 11-13 yo, learning to responsibly manage guns. FWIW, *I personally* would not have planned this for a birthday party. I know how to fire a gun and I am not opposed to my kids knowing how but I would assume this was too charged to make it the focus of a birthday party.

I think the intention to harm, especially in males, is as old as humanity itself. (Cane killed Able because he felt inferior.) Mass shootings are one of the ways it is expressed in a modern context. I am not meaning to say nothing can ever change, but I am saying harming others is nothing new. When people say, “we had guns when I was a kid and none of us ever thought for a second we would go kill our classmates,” I think it misses the larger point. Someone upthread spoke of how lynchings, gay bashing, barroom brawls, etc. were once the manner of “allowed” violence. I think that is an astute observation. 

It is one of the reasons I have come to favor much greater gun regulation. I don’t think that impulse to harm is going away anytime soon, so my preference is that it would be unlikely or practically impossible for a person to have guns that can fire large amounts of ammo at once. (I know that wasn’t used in this instance, but it has been very significant factor in many other mass shootings.) 

[Pawz4me]

The thing is

Mental health issues are not, as far as I know, unique to the U.S. Nor do I think the rates of mental health issues are higher here--or at least not significantly so--than in other first world countries.

As far as I know boys go through adolescence in all countries. I do not think the way boys are expected to conform or perform in school or anything else is uniquely different here than in other first world countries.

As far as I know all first world countries play pretty much the same violent video games as many of our kids here play.

The main difference between the U.S. and Canada, Australia, England, France, etc. -- access to guns. That's it. That's the difference.

Discuss other possible factors all you want. Mental health and access to care is certainly worth discussing.

But it still comes down to guns.

To my way of thinking to deny that guns/access to them are the crux of the issue is to be complicit.

Article

[DawnM]

13 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

The thing is

Mental health issues are not, as far as I know, unique to the U.S. Nor do I think the rates of mental health issues are higher here--or at least not significantly so--than in other first world countries.

As far as I know boys go through adolescence in all countries. I do not think the way boys are expected to conform or perform in school or anything else is uniquely different here than in other first world countries.

As far as I know all first world countries play pretty much the same violent video games as many of our kids here play.

The main difference between the U.S. and Canada, Australia, England, France, etc. -- access to guns. That's it. That's the difference.

Discuss other possible factors all you want. Mental health and access to care is certainly worth discussing.

But it still comes down to guns.

To my way of thinking to deny that guns/access to them are the crux of the issue is to be complicit.

Article

 

There are always many things that contribute.  I don't believe a person who is mentally and emotionally stable but owns a gun, will go and shoot up a school.  And I am honestly pretty strongly pro gun control.  

Bullying has become a huge issue.  Children/teens ability to cope with stress and adversity has become a huge issue.  Resiliency is not taught by parents much anymore.  Instead we see an entire generation whose parents ran to their rescue if they had any unpleasantries in their lives.  It is causing issues.

The cyber world, including first shooter games, social media, internet (where all knowledge is at your fingertips within seconds), and online bullying, are issues as well.

This guy didn't just bring a gun, he brought explosives.  

I am a huge advocate for more mental health professionals in the schools.  Our current ratio of School Psychs, Social Workers, and School Counselors to students is abysmal.  

[Pam in CT]

re why is this nation different, from all other nations?

54 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

The thing is

Mental health issues are not, as far as I know, unique to the U.S. Nor do I think the rates of mental health issues are higher here--or at least not significantly so--than in other first world countries.

As far as I know boys go through adolescence in all countries. I do not think the way boys are expected to conform or perform in school or anything else is uniquely different here than in other first world countries.

As far as I know all first world countries play pretty much the same violent video games as many of our kids here play.

The main difference between the U.S. and Canada, Australia, England, France, etc. -- access to guns. That's it. That's the difference.

Discuss other possible factors all you want. Mental health and access to care is certainly worth discussing.

But it still comes down to guns.

To my way of thinking to deny that guns/access to them are the crux of the issue is to be complicit.

Article

 

Big picture I agree.  There's neither evidence nor theory that supports a hypothesis that the incidence of mental health problems, or social alienation, or isolated basement obsession with flickering screens, or lone wolf Heart of Darkness individual evil, is higher here in the US than elsewhere.

At the same time, when problems are big -- as our mass shooting exceptionalism is -- it makes sense to look at multiple levers that could begin to move the mountain.  Not in lieu of recognizing our gun policies and culture as the major driver, but in recognition that there may be others as well.  (Some of which might themselves be causal to our gun policies and culture.)

Does our patchwork health system leave particular gaps for mental health problems (recall another area where we're suffering from adverse international exceptionalism is our opioid crisis)?  Do our educational practices drive alienation and social stress? Does our culture celebrate individual problem-solving to the point where young people feeling isolated feel constrained from getting help? Do our gender norms implicitly condone, or explicitly celebrate, male aggression?   

 

[Carrie12345]

4 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

 

Does our patchwork health system leave particular gaps for mental health problems (recall another area where we're suffering from adverse international exceptionalism is our opioid crisis)?  Do our educational practices drive alienation and social stress? Does our culture celebrate individual problem-solving to the point where young people feeling isolated feel constrained from getting help? Do our gender norms implicitly condone, or explicitly celebrate, male aggression?   

 

Or is the shift away from gender norms overwhelmingly threatening to a certain type of personality?

[Chris in VA]

I wish I could find it, but I have seen stats/research  that show it is not bullying but sociopathy that is a determining  factor in school shootings. The Columbine shooters, for instance, were erroneously reported as being bullied and ostracized but that has been determined to be untrue. 

[Dmmetler]

At the same time, there was an incident recently in a family I know and care quite a bit about. Very responsible gun owners, kids have been taught from birth, practically, how to handle a gun safely, that a gun is ALWAYS considered to be loaded, that you never point it at another person, that joking about shooting someone isn't funny....these are kids who won't pick up a nerf gun and shoot it at someone because they know what guns do, having seen it out hunting.

Well, oldest (adult, but still living at home) DD has a boyfriend dad doesn't like (who, ironically, seems just like him only in his early 20s instead of mid 40's-and who also has been raised in a conservative, hunting/fishing family)-and who is trying to get her to move in with him. Dad and mom had just found out she has had a physical relationship with him as well. Boyfriend came over, and mom called dad and mentioned it. Dad came home, seeing red, when all the kids were doing was sitting in the living room, talking, with mom and sibs in the next room.

Things got heated. Dad pulled gun on boyfriend. Boyfriend pepper sprayed dad and pulled HIS gun. Mom called the police (apparently did so as soon as her DH came in as angry as he was-because she was afraid things would get just this bad). FORTUNATELY, no shots were fired.

The dad's defense is "He was on my property-I told him to leave. I have a right to shoot a home intruder".

The fact is that had this not been two men, both who believe guns are the answer and violence is acceptable, this wouldn't have happened. And it could easily have turned into yet another "domestic violence incident" that leads to people dead-and likely, that would have included the young woman caught between her father and her boyfriend.

[Garga]

@dmmetler   Yikes!

[goldberry]

Regarding the issue of why it's only boys.... I'm terrified it won't be much longer before it's girls.  Specifically because of all the media discussion given to this being a "white male adolescent" problem.  You have to know there are girls out there that are hurt, marginalized, angry.. and are going to view all that media as one more "dig" at girls being less than or not as "tough".  It's coming.

I hate our current media.  HATE IT. I absolutely want to see a law requiring no names or photos released of mass killers.  They can discuss the history or reputation of the person, or demographics, but no names, no photos.  Yes, I know it would come out on the web, etc.  But the decent reputable outlets would follow the law and it would help.  And by discussing the other parts of it, it would in no way limit any constructive conversation.

[Pawz4me]

Art Acevedo, Houston police chief, Facebook posting:

To all my Facebook friends. Today I spent the day dealing with another mass shooting of children and a responding police officer who is clinging to life. I’m not ashamed to admit I’ve shed tears of sadness, pain and anger.

I know some have strong feelings about gun rights but I want you to know I’ve hit rock bottom and I am not interested in your views as it pertains to this issue. Please do not post anything about guns aren’t the problem and there’s little we can do. My feelings won’t be hurt if you de-friend me and I hope yours won’t be if you decide to post about your views and I de-friend you.

I have never accepted the status-quo in anything I do and I’ve never accepted defeat. And I won’t do it now. I will continue to speak up and will stand up for what my heart and my God commands me to do, and I assure you he hasn’t instructed me to believe that gun-rights are bestowed by him.

The hatred being spewed in our country and the new norms we, so-called people of faith are accepting, is as much to blame for so much of the violence in our once pragmatic Nation.

This isn’t a time for prayers, and study and Inaction, it’s a time for prayers, action and the asking of God’s forgiveness for our inaction (especially the elected officials that ran to the cameras today, acted in a solemn manner, called for prayers, and will once again do absolutely nothing).

I close by saying, I wish those that move on from this page the best. May God Bless you and keep you.

[goldberry]

12 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

Art Acevedo, Houston police chief, Facebook posting:

 

 

What a brave and principled man. You know he's going to be ripped to shreds.

[Guest]

It’s just my two cents worth, and I probably don’t know what I’m talking about, but IMO, publishing the names and photos of the killers does not make a difference or cause more people to do this. It doesn’t make sense that it would. Knowing who robbed a bank doesn’t make other people rob a bank. Knowing the name of a pedaphile doesn’t make other people abuse children. I mean I guess it could be attempted if everyone would get on board with it, but in the first place, I cannot imagine everyone getting on board with it, and additionally, I just don’t think naming or showing a photo is a big motive. I frequently forget the names of these killers, personally. I usually have to look it up if I want to discuss a killing that happened a few years ago. I have already forgotten the name of the Las Vegas horrible guy. 

[Guest]

Re: mental health in the US. Is mental healthcare better and more accessible in European countries? I don’t know much about this and I’m curious. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, dmmetler said:

At the same time, there was an incident recently in a family I know and care quite a bit about. Very responsible gun owners, kids have been taught from birth, practically, how to handle a gun safely, that a gun is ALWAYS considered to be loaded, that you never point it at another person, that joking about shooting someone isn't funny....these are kids who won't pick up a nerf gun and shoot it at someone because they know what guns do, having seen it out hunting.

Well, oldest (adult, but still living at home) DD has a boyfriend dad doesn't like (who, ironically, seems just like him only in his early 20s instead of mid 40's-and who also has been raised in a conservative, hunting/fishing family)-and who is trying to get her to move in with him. Dad and mom had just found out she has had a physical relationship with him as well. Boyfriend came over, and mom called dad and mentioned it. Dad came home, seeing red, when all the kids were doing was sitting in the living room, talking, with mom and sibs in the next room.

Things got heated. Dad pulled gun on boyfriend. Boyfriend pepper sprayed dad and pulled HIS gun. Mom called the police (apparently did so as soon as her DH came in as angry as he was-because she was afraid things would get just this bad). FORTUNATELY, no shots were fired.

The dad's defense is "He was on my property-I told him to leave. I have a right to shoot a home intruder".

The fact is that had this not been two men, both who believe guns are the answer and violence is acceptable, this wouldn't have happened. And it could easily have turned into yet another "domestic violence incident" that leads to people dead-and likely, that would have included the young woman caught between her father and her boyfriend.

I think this shows what happens when you rehearse an idea in the mind. The dad, I would bet money, has rehearsed in his mind a thousand times how he has the right to shoot an intruder and defend his family. The bf has probably rehearsed in his mind a thousand times how he has the right to defend himself/his “honor” against another person with fire power. The mind wants to carry out the things it prepares itself to do. When you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail. 

To my way of thinking, this is the main problem with imagining scenarios in which you will “need” to harm others. 

[Pawz4me]

1 hour ago, Quill said:

It’s just my two cents worth, and I probably don’t know what I’m talking about, but IMO, publishing the names and photos of the killers does not make a difference or cause more people to do this. It doesn’t make sense that it would. Knowing who robbed a bank doesn’t make other people rob a bank. Knowing the name of a pedaphile doesn’t make other people abuse children. I mean I guess it could be attempted if everyone would get on board with it, but in the first place, I cannot imagine everyone getting on board with it, and additionally, I just don’t think naming or showing a photo is a big motive. I frequently forget the names of these killers, personally. I usually have to look it up if I want to discuss a killing that happened a few years ago. I have already forgotten the name of the Las Vegas horrible guy. 

I totally agree.

Any sound rationale for not publishing names is completely lost on me. But I admit to being vehemently against anything that puts limits on the press or on the public's right to know.

[Guest]

@texasmom33, I don’t actually think that is random at all, both for the head injury aspect and the war metaphors that abound in sports. (I say this as a total sports mom; all of my kids played many sports since preschool age.) 

When I attended a funeral of a friend’s son who took his own life at 22, it was hard to ignore the theme of violence that had totally permeated this young man’s life. He was a rugby player and his coach talked about how incredibly “tough” he had been. I think he was trying to counteract the stigma of suicide as weakness, but he was inadvertently showing how much propensity to violence the young man had. The man was also an Ultimate Fighter guy. He was military. I could go on, but it was striking how thoroughly violence seemed to be this man’s companion. 

Shortly after that funeral, a different friend’s son, who played rugby as well, was wearing a shirt about rugby and it said something nakedly violent on it. I don’t remember it, but something of the effect like, “Rugby players must destroy their opponent - with no helmets!” It did make me wonder what the culture of rugby is (no familiarity) as I was getting a seriously violent vibe about it from two sources in a week or two. 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

In terms of football and the violence....you Could be on to something or, perhaps in a different vein, perhaps the kids who are more drawn to violence are also more drawn to those types of physical sports. 

 

...or parents who like that image wanting their sons to play it? 

[Carol in Cal.]

This paper looks appallingly plausible to me (Malcolm Gladwell is good at looking at stats in a new but convincing way.).

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/why-do-mass-shootings-happen-best-explanation/

His conclusion:

In the day of Eric Harris, we could try to console ourselves with the thought that there was nothing we could do, that no law or intervention or restrictions on guns could make a difference in the face of someone so evil. But the riot has now engulfed the boys who were once content to play with chemistry sets in the basement. The problem is not that there is an endless supply of deeply disturbed young men who are willing to contemplate horrific acts. It’s worse. It’s that young men no longer need to be deeply disturbed to contemplate horrific acts.

 

[Carol in Cal.]

6 hours ago, Pawz4me said:

The thing is

Mental health issues are not, as far as I know, unique to the U.S. Nor do I think the rates of mental health issues are higher here--or at least not significantly so--than in other first world countries.

As far as I know boys go through adolescence in all countries. I do not think the way boys are expected to conform or perform in school or anything else is uniquely different here than in other first world countries.

As far as I know all first world countries play pretty much the same violent video games as many of our kids here play.

The main difference between the U.S. and Canada, Australia, England, France, etc. -- access to guns. That's it. That's the difference.

Discuss other possible factors all you want. Mental health and access to care is certainly worth discussing.

But it still comes down to guns.

To my way of thinking to deny that guns/access to them are the crux of the issue is to be complicit.

Article

 

We used to have guns more generally and commonly distributed in the US population than we do now.  So why is this happening just now?  That is what your argument fails to address.  There has got to be another significant factor, or more than one.

[Corraleno]

A survivor said one of the victims was the shooter's ex-girlfriend, who was a student in the art class he targeted.

[Pam in CT]

re honor killings-

2 hours ago, HeighHo said:

Honor killings are part of some cultures.  

Yes, that's another good example of socially sanctioned violence that is egged on/ applauded by an audience.

[Targhee]

1 hour ago, HeighHo said:

 

Understandably so, as some of the behaviors that result in an honor killing were behaviors that would have the effect of destroying the family or tribe's ability to survive if revenge did not occur.  

I’m not understanding what you’re saying. The honor killings are understandable?

[Carol in Cal.]

Here is the Malcolm Gladwell article referenced in the National Review link that I posted above.

Don't read it.  It's that appalling.  But if you must, here it is.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/thresholds-of-violence

[GinaPagnato]

3 hours ago, Targhee said:

I’m not understanding what you’re saying. The honor killings are understandable?

I'm fairly certain that what she's saying is that given the social and cultural context, honor killings are "understandable" because their society and religious practice dictates it; without an extreme expression of revenge/discipline, the family unit/clan would be decimated. So if you can see that mindset, then it is "understandable".

[Corraleno]

From the LA Times:

 One of Pagourtzis' classmates who died in the attack, Shana Fisher, "had 4 months of problems from this boy," her mother, Sadie Rodriguez, wrote in a private message to the Los Angeles Times on Facebook. "He kept making advances on her and she repeatedly told him no." Pagourtzis continued to get more aggressive, and she finally stood up to him and embarrassed him in class, Rodriguez said. "A week later he opens fire on everyone he didn't like," she wrote. "Shana being the first one."

 

Male entitlement to the attention, affection, and bodies of women needs to be part of the conversation, too.

[Corraleno]

 

8 hours ago, HeighHo said:

 

Understandably so, as some of the behaviors that result in an honor killing were behaviors that would have the effect of destroying the family or tribe's ability to survive if revenge did not occur.  

 

4 hours ago, GinaPagnato said:

I'm fairly certain that what she's saying is that given the social and cultural context, honor killings are "understandable" because their society and religious practice dictates it; without an extreme expression of revenge/discipline, the family unit/clan would be decimated. So if you can see that mindset, then it is "understandable".

 

How does murdering rape victims preserve "the clan"? Family units would cease to exist if fathers didn't murder their 12 year old daughters for refusing to marry some 50 year old that dad cut a deal with??? Whole cultures would be wiped out if women weren't murdered by their own relatives for the crime of wanting a say in who they marry?

No, it's not "understandable." No, the survival of clans and families do not ever depend on the murder of women. What the heck???