COLUMBINE

[cybercoma]

If I witnessed a rape and did not call the police or intervene I would be rightfully punished by the law.

Actually, rightfully you wouldn't be punished.

[Canuckistani]

Do you even think about the possibility that your belief (also stated in several other threads) that violence is on the rise and that there is an "escalating epidemic of monsters among us" might be completely wrong? Books like Steven Pinker's "The Better Angels of Our Nature" show that almost all forms of violence have been, and continue to fall dramatically - both recently and over the last several centuries. I have yet to hear any evidence-based counter arguments to the facts provided in that book.

These sorts of mass killings do seem to be on the rise, while violent crime is down. I think it does have to do with the breakdown of society, I just don't think that returning to Betsy's ideal society is feasible nor desirable. I would say that substituting Mammon for Jesus hasn't done us much good, but then "Christians" haven't been followers of Jesus for a long, long time.

[cybercoma]

It's still possible to decipher a rational message in a simple and inarticulate expression. The question is: is there a rational message in there at all?

It's amusing that betsy thinks there is in her posts; her modus operandi: post nonsense, refer challenges to that nonsense back to the nonsense.

This is why I mostly ignore her any more. It's completely pointless to have a discussion with her. Her arguments are completely devoid of logic or reason and she's not even remotely interested in discussing things with others. Instead she just proselytizes, ignores people when they point out logical inconsistencies and contradictions, and insists they don't understand her simplistic points. It's a complete waste of time arguing with her. There will not ever be a breakthrough, despite really hoping that today's going to be the day. There is no point in appealing to reason with those that are simultaneously ignorant and stubborn.

Edited February 5, 2013 by cybercoma

[betsy]

You believe in a god that has the power to prevent rape and school shootings, but chooses not to when he is jealous or upset. If I witnessed a rape and did not call the police or intervene I would be rightfully punished by the law. According to your own beliefs, your god does this every day and yet you refer to 'him' as 'loving'. That's twisted.

Never mind doing the interpretation-card....like i said, you don't understand our belief, you don't undertsand the Bible. Twisted or not, the bottom line is....you're not God. You're merely human. Just one of His creation. He can do anything with you as He pleases. He can raise you up to be among the most powerful men on earth....or He can knock you down tomorrow in ways you can't even imagine....and you won't be able to do anything about it.

[GostHacked]

Never mind doing the interpretation-card....like i said, you don't understand our belief, you don't undertsand the Bible.

What parts are to be understood, and which parts are to be ignored? What does God think of people who only follow part of what is in the bible? Did God say which parts are good and which parts are bad? If you are truly going to follow God's word, and not just a simple interpretation of it, then you must follow all parts of the bible, even the parts that contradict each other. Maybe god wrote the bible to test Christians to see if they can spot such contradictions. I think he failed.

I ask again about what version of the bible is the right one? You have pointed out the King James version is the correct one. But that is simply man reinterpreting some items to match up with the progression of society. Hardly the true word of god anymore.

Twisted or not, the bottom line is....you're not God. You're merely human. Just one of His creation. He can do anything with you as He pleases. He can raise you up to be among the most powerful men on earth....or He can knock you down tomorrow in ways you can't even imagine....and you won't be able to do anything about it.

Then god made me question everything , including him. Oh he is slick ain't he. More and more this god character that people put forth seems psychotic , jealous and spiteful. These are not traits I would tag on a god, but there you have it. This god IS crazy.

I guess after an eternity of existence, we are created just for his amusement. I , for one, am not amused.

[g_bambino]

If you are truly going to follow God's word, and not just a simple interpretation of it...

I think she meant interpretations of her faith. She apparently doesn't appreciate that being done to her, though she'll do it to everyone else (i.e. anyone who challenges her faith-based claims, double standards, illogic, what-have-you is automatically an athiest). Oh, did I just challenge her double standards? Atheist I must be, then.

[GostHacked]

I think she meant interpretations of her faith. She apparently doesn't appreciate that being done to her, though she'll do it to everyone else (i.e. anyone who challenges her faith-based claims, double standards, illogic, what-have-you is automatically an athiest). Oh, did I just challenge her double standards? Atheist I must be, then.

Yes it is hard being an atheist. We don't have anything we can scapegoat to explain off our own contradictions. We have to be accountable for our own actions. Damn that is like ... ummm being a responsible human being.

[betsy]

Do you even think about the possibility that your belief (also stated in several other threads) that violence is on the rise and that there is an "escalating epidemic of monsters among us" might be completely wrong? Books like Steven Pinker's "The Better Angels of Our Nature" show that almost all forms of violence have been, and continue to fall dramatically - both recently and over the last several centuries. I have yet to hear any evidence-based counter arguments to the facts provided in that book.

Well, if I see murder-suicides being reported practically everyday on tv, when it hadn't been as rampant like that 10 years ago....what am I supposed to think? Things are getting better? And I'm not talking merely about simple violence or simple crime of simple murder - gee, imagine having to describe murder as being, simple. I mean these kind of Crimes with the capital C.

Isn't it ironic with all the outrage over violence against women - we read girls being gang-raped in roaming buses in India, Canadian cop being arrested for plotting to kidnap, torture and cook women - I mean, we're not talking simple rape here, although that too, is heinous.

Why don't you compare the kind of monstrous crimes being committed in America and all over the world - don't count the ones done during war.

[betsy]

deleted. double posting.

Edited February 7, 2013 by betsy

[Wayward Son]

These sorts of mass killings do seem to be on the rise, while violent crime is down.

Just because something seems to be on the rise does not mean that it is. I care much more how things actually are than how things seem. Are they on the rise? I don't know, but when I look into the evidence and statistics the answer seems to be no. In Pinker's book, for the western world, the USA is the statistical outlier. Violence is still going down there, but not as much as other western countries. In the rest of western world violence declined by a huge amount starting a couple hundred years ago and that decline continues to the present. In the United States the violence rate was dropping along with the rest of the western world until about 100 years ago when violence levels stabilized or decreased at slower rate then the rest of western world.

Still, are mass killings even in the US on rise? Doesn't look that way. That could be wrong, but far too many people seem to be looking to explain the increase in mass shootings - with their own pet theory that conforms with their world view - before we even have actual evidence that said increase actually exists.

I had a conversation with an aunt once. I asked her to look up the evidence for murder and violence trends to see if it confirmed or countered her belief that both were dramatically increasing. She said that doing so would be pointless. Either the evidence would either confirm her beliefs or the evidence would be wrong. Her beliefs are simple - violence and murder must continue to increase until the second coming, as we are moving farther from the garden of eden and our connection with god. These beliefs can't be changed or argued with as that is what her worldview tells her must be true. Coming across evidence that counters her worldview just convinces her even more that no "evidence" outside the bible can be trusted and insulates her further from the real world.

[guyser]

Well, if I see murder-suicides being reported practically everyday on tv, when it hadn't been as rampant like that 10 years ago....what am I supposed to think?

Well, thinking isnt a strong suit for you anyhow. SO who knows what you think.

But the facts are it isnt as rampant as 10 yrs ago.

But hey, facts are a scary thing for religious sheep so dont bother with them. Only messes up what you want to believe.

[Wayward Son]

Well, if I see murder-suicides being reported practically everyday on tv, when it hadn't been as rampant like that 10 years ago....what am I supposed to think? Things are getting better? And I'm not talking merely about simple violence or simple crime of simple murder - gee, imagine having to describe murder as being, simple. I mean these kind of Crimes with the capital C.

TV news is selling a product. The reality of murder statistics are the reality of murder statistics. Evidence over anecdotes.

Isn't it ironic with all the outrage over violence against women - we read girls being gang-raped in roaming buses in India, Canadian cop being arrested for plotting to kidnap, torture and cook women - I mean, we're not talking simple rape here, although that too, is heinous.

Why don't you compare the kind of monstrous crimes being committed in America and all over the world - don't count the ones done during war.

As I said, why don't you read Pinker's book. If you truly believe that heinous crimes are on the rise then why not challenge yourself by reading the evidence of 1) what heinous acts were commonplace in the past and would be unthinkable now and 2) what the actual statistics are that show that the acts we consider heinous are far less frequent now: which is part of the reason we find them so jarring. In many cases they used to routine.

[Guest Manny]

<Content deleted by Manny>

Edited April 4, 2013 by Manny

[Guest Manny]

I'll attempt to answer my own question. Their motive is hatred for civil society. Some of them have written "manifestos", pathetic attempts at criticizing the world and justifying their murderous deeds. But on the other hand, I heard some of the document written by the Unabomber guy, has been studied by sociologists, and some of them agreed with and have written similar things in their own writings, his assessment of our society today.

Since then his methods and his document have been revered by other sick individuals. It can be downloaded from the internet. THe creep who killed people n Norway also wrote a political manifesto, same kind of things. Thanks to the media and internet evil people can share these ideas.

[Wayward Son]

Sometimes data can be interpreted in many different ways and it depends on how you measure "violence". Are you sure about that data? Where did you find it?

Yes, I am well aware that data can be interpreted in many ways. However, in saying that you are basically saying that we can never be certain of anything and you might as well just believe what ever you want to believe. I don't operate that way. I side with the best data. If better data comes along that gives a different answer then I alter my position.

I already mentioned that this data comes from Pinker's book: The Better Angels of our Nature. To me it is by far the best compilation of the data - and the book is massive: 800+ pages covering a very broad field. Am I sure that the data is correct? Of course not. However, there are always critics of any book, especially academic books, and I have found the critics of this book to have done a very poor job arguing that Pinker is wrong. For instance, both John Gray and Edward Herman hate the book, but their complaints appear to be entirely ideological and not evidence-based in the slightest. The few critical reviews on amazon seem to follow that same pattern (ie: Pinker says that world is becoming far less violence...but what about the increased violence by humans against the ecosystem etc).

So, no, I am never certain. But on the one hand, I have Pinker providing a massive amount of statistics supporting his thesis, backed and supported by what seems to be the vast majority of relevant experts; while on the other hand the minority of critics argue that Pinker must be wrong because.....well him being right would cause extreme cognitive dissonance.

There is also evidence that these modern mass killers are aware of the consequences of their actions,

Any evidence that many mass killers of the past were not aware of the consequences of their actions?

And let me tell you something, there are people that admire them. When these killers decide to do something, they want to outdo each other in the kill count. It's terrorism.

Any evidence that this is a change from the past? I suggest you read the evidence in Pinker's book that shows that many monsters of the past were widely admired: in fact their actions lifted them into positions of power. Also the evidence that many people and groups wanted to outdo each other in the amount of blood shed and pain inflicted.

We can look at trends in violence in so many ways. If you look back at history, I mean pre-modern civilization like in Roman times, life in general was far more violent, and usually shorter. Life was worth far less back then than it is now. But that is because over time we have become a much more civilized society. We know there's still going to be murders. Question is why mass murders. Not necessarily, "more murders' in a given year or over some long time average but more murders in one episode, and the effects of accompanying hype. What about that stuff? What is their motive? What is their message, and is there something similar in the message.

I reject your position that mass murders are increasing, therefore I see no reason to try to come up for explanations for an increase that I do not feel exists. If it was on the rise I would expect to see the worst "rampage killers" to have been in the past 15 - 20 years. So I went to wikipedia, and while I can't say that every entry is completely accurate, here is what I found:

Worst rampage killer event in Africa: Tanganyika 1957. Not one of 10 worst examples happened in the last 15 years.

In the Americas: Columbia 1986. None of the top 5 events occurred in the last 5 years.

In Asia: South Korea 1982. Top 6 events occurred more then 15 years ago.

In Europe: Soviet Union 1925. Of the top 10 #4 and 9 occurred in the past 15 years.

Oceania: Australia 1996. This event led to strict gun control policies. All of the top 15 events occurred more then 15 years ago.

Workplace killings: Indonesia 1996. 4 of the top 15 events occurred in the past 15 years.

School massacres: US 1927. This is the only category where the majority of the top 15 events occurred in the past 15 years.

Relgious/political/racial motivated rampage killers: Norway 2011.

Domestic violence rampage killers: US 1987.

vehicular manslaughter rampage killers: Kenya 1993.

Grenade amoke rampage kilers: Thailand 1979.

We live in a world where unspeakable acts of violence still occur and they always will. But it is less violent today compared to 25 years ago, and less violent back then compared to 100 years ago, and less violent back then compared to 250 years ago.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Wayward Son

[Wayward Son]

I'll attempt to answer my own question. Their motive is hatred for civil society. Some of them have written "manifestos", pathetic attempts at criticizing the world and justifying their murderous deeds. But on the other hand, I heard some of the document written by the Unabomber guy, has been studied by sociologists, and some of them agreed with and have written similar things in their own writings, his assessment of our society today.

Since then his methods and his document have been revered by other sick individuals. It can be downloaded from the internet. THe creep who killed people n Norway also wrote a political manifesto, same kind of things. Thanks to the media and internet evil people can share these ideas.

I am not denying this. However, I don't see this as a change from the past. There were plenty of sick people who had violent tendencies and actions in the past, wrote manifestos, gained admirers and followings - sometimes in significant numbers, caused mayhem, assassinated leaders, terrorized the population.

[betsy]

The media should have covered exactly zero of Darrell Scott's speech.

That is a biased opinion, pretty much sharing the same sentiment as the biased mainstream media. It is not for you to tell us what is devoid of fact. The media's responsibility is to provide unbiased information -especially with contentiouis issues such as gun control.

You think every thing covered by the media is all based on facts?

Once the media start eliminating or burying pertinent information - which it is doing now - it no longer becomes the venue for facts. It's nothing more than a propaganda machine .

It was completely devoid of facts and statistics. It was completely devoid of rigorous thought about a complex subject. It was simply the opinion of someone who has put very little thought into the matter and simply says what he feels is correct based on his ideology.

He was invited to appear before, and make this address in the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee. Yes it is filled with emotion. What victim-impact statement isn't?

There is nothing wrong with that, but there is something wrong if that opinion is elevated beyond what it is: a raw ideology-driven opinion backed up by no facts, statistics or evidence. Furthermore several of the things in it were completely wrong. Such as his son praying in the school despite it being against the law. His son can pray however much he chooses. However, his son cannot be FORCED to pray in school by law. I certainly understand Mr. Scott's grief, and I applaud him speaking before the committee, but the media has no obligation to report nonsense just because it is said by a grief stricken father shortly after an extreme tragedy.

For the reason that the nature of his statement proved to be very controversial - coming from a religious perspective - and being delivered before the subcomittee at that, not to mention the very contentious subject as to gun control laws which has the country divided, and for daring to turn the tables and point out accurately that the problem is not the weapon and what he percieves to be wrong, his message should've been very newsworthy for the ever controversy-seeking media!

The media covered former Senator Gifford's husband's victim-impact statement - which pushes for gun control. Gifford's been covered saying that all along....so nothing newsworthy there that her husband spouts the same thing!

The blackpout by the media on Dale Scott's victim-impact statement is simply due to bias.

Edited February 7, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

Just because something seems to be on the rise does not mean that it is. I care much more how things actually are than how things seem. Are they on the rise? I don't know, but when I look into the evidence and statistics the answer seems to be no. In Pinker's book, for the western world, the USA is the statistical outlier. Violence is still going down there, but not as much as other western countries. In the rest of western world violence declined by a huge amount starting a couple hundred years ago and that decline continues to the present. In the United States the violence rate was dropping along with the rest of the western world until about 100 years ago when violence levels stabilized or decreased at slower rate then the rest of western world.

Still, are mass killings even in the US on rise? Doesn't look that way. That could be wrong, but far too many people seem to be looking to explain the increase in mass shootings - with their own pet theory that conforms with their world view - before we even have actual evidence that said increase actually exists.

I had a conversation with an aunt once. I asked her to look up the evidence for murder and violence trends to see if it confirmed or countered her belief that both were dramatically increasing. She said that doing so would be pointless. Either the evidence would either confirm her beliefs or the evidence would be wrong. Her beliefs are simple - violence and murder must continue to increase until the second coming, as we are moving farther from the garden of eden and our connection with god. These beliefs can't be changed or argued with as that is what her worldview tells her must be true. Coming across evidence that counters her worldview just convinces her even more that no "evidence" outside the bible can be trusted and insulates her further from the real world.

You depend too much on statistics. They're all not accurate. Some are fudged....to push an agenda.

Anyway here's the latest on mass killing stats.

Mass Murder Rate Still Rising, Experts Say

Posted: 12/14/2012 7:22 pm EST |

How much of an increase is subject to debate. According to FBI statistics, the trend is inching upward. People killed in clusters of four or more averaged 163 annually between 2006 and 2008, just two more than back in the 1980s.

"Homicide trends don't look like EKGs," said LaFree, who is also director of the National Center for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism. "They go up for a while and tail off for a while."

But, LaFree added, "What's interesting is that we're getting a specialized strain of violence when other forms are in decline."

One-on-one gun homicides have dropped more than 40 percent since 1980, according to 2010 FBI crime data. The firearm homicide rate sank from 10,000 in 2005 to 8,776 in 2010.

So this newspaper says it STILL IS on the rise...which is right? Your source or mine?

This stats talked about people killed in clusters of 4 or more. What about people killed in clusters of 3? Double homicides?

Those that falls under domestic violence, mental illness, going "postal," revenge etc..,

Furthermore, it's not only that there are mass killings that I refer to some as monsters. It's the slaughter for the lack of any reasons or motives.....just the desire to commit horrific acts. Senselessly.

Now that you mentioned statistics, I'm curious as to the rates of these senseless acts of heinous crimes compared to 20 years ago.

Edited February 7, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

Anyway, let's peel away again.....

Most of these mayhem killers are young people. Where do you think they get the idea of using guns -high powered assault weapons - to do these crimes? What inspires them? Surely they wouldn't go through all the trouble of knowing all about guns and weaponry if they weren't inspired. Some are inspired by movies like the Matrix....or violent video games.

Why isn't anyone pushing to ban these movies and games (not that I'm endorsing that either).....but if you say you're looking for solutions to stop these senseless killings, wouldn't it be sensible to get to the things that plant the seeds? If there is no inspiration to impress the young gullible minds, there wouldn't be any seeds forming.

What about the media??? They glorify these monsters....give them the publicity they crave. Therefore, the media - in its sick quest for ratings - encourage such horrific acts, even inspiring some to outdo previous brutalities that made it on the evening news.

Have you seen that sickeningly violent movie that spoofed the media, NATURAL BORN KILLERS?

Why isn't anyone pushing to silence the media. If you think it okay to tamper with the constitutional rights.....you should tamper with free speech.

That's why the focus on gun control to what they claim is the so-called answer to this problem, is simply a sham! The public is falling for it.

Edited February 7, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

Anyway, why is the liberal mind so surprised about how callously human lives are regarded? If we can justify killing a baby for the gratification of self.....why shouldn't youngsters who grow up into that kind of mentality think any more of others? Regardless of age? Of course there's a connection....and as we keep on to this kind of life-style - I think, we ain't seen nothing yet.

[betsy]

Well, Wayward Son, here is an excerpt from an article about that particular book by Pinker.

The Better Angels is a long, absorbing and sometimes horrifying book, because in order to establish his case Pinker has to dwell at some length not just on the savagery of the past, but on the way brutality and cruelty was – until relatively recently – taken for granted. If you want to know about medieval forms of torture, or the favourite tools of the Inquisition, or how Tamerlane's troops operated, then you will find ample material here. The ingenuity of human barbarism knows no limits. What's even more salutary, however, is the realisation that it's not all that long ago since people were routinely hung, drawn and quartered in England; or that flogging and keelhauling were routine methods of maintaining discipline in the Royal Navy; or that nobody batted an eye at the flogging of children as late as the 1950s.

In one sense, this is also a consoling book, in that it describes mankind's path from unimaginable barbarism to a safer, more "civilised" state. Critics might describe it as an example of the Whig interpretation of history – that is, an account of inexorable progress. But that's not how I read it. Pinker's account suggests that what the great cultural historian Norbert Elias called the "civilising process" was a long, arduous struggle whose long-term outcome was never assured.

And recent increases in violence – such as the surge in homicides in the 1960s in the US, or the chronic violence that is now disfiguring much of Latin America – suggest that it's still not assured. Perhaps the wisest thing we can say about the trajectory described by Pinker is what the guy who jumped from the 50th floor said when he was passing the 25th: so far so good.

http://www.guardian....lence-interview

Well if you're going that far back in history....it's pretty much barbaric too using clubs and spears! See, they didn't need guns to cause that much mayhem.

Anyway, I'm talking about modern times. Senseless brutal killings by those I refer to as, monsters. We may've been used to the likes of Hitler, Ghaddafi, Pol Pot....but we're not talking dictators, or artrocities of war. That's why I told you to discount wartime crimes. We're talking about what's been happening in our civilised society.

Edited February 7, 2013 by betsy

[Mighty AC]

Anyway, let's peel away again.....

Most of these mayhem killers are young people. Where do you think they get the idea of using guns -high powered assault weapons - to do these crimes? What inspires them? Surely they wouldn't go through all the trouble of knowing all about guns and weaponry if they weren't inspired. Some are inspired by movies like the Matrix....or violent video games.

Why isn't anyone pushing to ban these movies and games (not that I'm endorsing that either).....but if you say you're looking for solutions to stop these senseless killings, wouldn't it be sensible to get to the things that plant the seeds? If there is no inspiration to impress the young gullible minds, there wouldn't be any seeds forming.[/Quote]Canadians and Europeans watch the same violent movies and play the same violent video games. Why then are Americans killing each other at rates much higher than the rest of the developed world?

[GostHacked]

Canadians and Europeans watch the same violent movies and play the same violent video games. Why then are Americans killing each other at rates much higher than the rest of the developed world?

Prescription drugs. That's my take on it.

[segnosaur]

Still, are mass killings even in the US on rise? Doesn't look that way.

You depend too much on statistics.

Yet if you are going to claim "mass killings are on the rise" you have to rely on statistics.

Mass Murder Rate Still Rising, Experts Say

Posted: 12/14/2012 7:22 pm EST |

How much of an increase is subject to debate. According to FBI statistics, the trend is inching upward. People killed in clusters of four or more averaged 163 annually between 2006 and 2008, just two more than back in the 1980s.

"Homicide trends don't look like EKGs," said LaFree, who is also director of the National Center for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism. "They go up for a while and tail off for a while."

But, LaFree added, "What's interesting is that we're getting a specialized strain of violence when other forms are in decline."

One-on-one gun homicides have dropped more than 40 percent since 1980, according to 2010 FBI crime data. The firearm homicide rate sank from 10,000 in 2005 to 8,776 in 2010.

So this newspaper says it STILL IS on the rise...which is right? Your source or mine?

First of all, where exactly did you get that quote from? I followed the link to the FBI site, and there appeared to be dozens of tables and sub pages. I don't really feel like wading through all that stuff to find the data.

Secondly, its possible that both statistics are actually correct... the one quoted by the previous poster (drop in killings of 4 or more) may be referring to a decrease in number of events (i.e. the number of 'monsters'), while yours is showing an increase in number of actual deaths... which is possible if there are fewer 'monsters', but they are becoming more effective at killing. However, this says little about what actually contributes to someone being a spree killer.

Lastly, if you look at your statistics, they actually debunk your own claim. Your reference stated an average of 2 more deaths annually between 2006-2008 over the 1980s. That's an increase of around 1.2%. On the other hand, the population of the U.S. went from 248 million to over 281 million, an increase of over 13%. If the number killed in mass killings increased at the same rate of population, you'd be looking at over 180 deaths (rather than the 163 you actually see.) So even by your own reference, the death rate (people killed per capita) for mass killings are down.

This stats talked about people killed in clusters of 4 or more. What about people killed in clusters of 3? Double homicides?

Those that falls under domestic violence, mental illness, going "postal," revenge etc..,

I suspect that they've been concentrating people killed in clusters of '4 or more' because there needs to be some way to differentiate between mass shootings like in Columbine (those that tend to spark mass media and political attention) and those that are often glossed over.

I find it ironic that you criticize the statistics for concentrating on people killed in clusters of '4 or more', yet you ignore the fact that overall murders are down seems to be lost on you. If you're going to argue that there is a rise of violence, why ignore the fact that murders as a whole are down?

Furthermore, it's not only that there are mass killings that I refer to some as monsters. It's the slaughter for the lack of any reasons or motives.....just the desire to commit horrific acts. Senselessly.

In that case you have to include things like serial killers, a problem that has plagued mankind probably since the dawn of time.

[g_bambino]

Canadians and Europeans watch the same violent movies and play the same violent video games. Why then are Americans killing each other at rates much higher than the rest of the developed world?

It's due to the larger number of Evangelical Bible-thumpers in America; too much God is to blame, obviously. </sarcasm>