It seems to me at least part of the answer is that if US society wasn't saturated with guns, most of these kids would simply engage in a fantasy, then grow out of it. No blood would be spilt.

I think there's many factors, but the easy availability of guns does play into it, Natalie.

Even if you hate Michael Moore's guts (and I don't), you must admit that Bowling for Columbine raises important issues that get largely ignored.

Politicians need to be held accountable, and need to stop looking for scapegoats.

Rap music? Please, spare me. Why don't we start with parenting your kids and looking out for them and hanging out with them often enough so that they don't become ticking raging-hormone time bombs?

That would help.

The guns have nothing to do with the social pressures which are causing the kids mentioned in this article to feel oppressed and yearn for revenge against their parents, teachers and peers. They would feel that way whether there are guns in America or not.

Currently US gun laws do not allow kids in this age range easy access to guns, and there are severe legal penalties for parents who let kids get hold of guns and use them criminally.

Remember, that a Columbine a major part of their plan was to use bombs to cause mass devastation. They could have done that without the guns - well, if they'd been any good at making bombs anyway.

Dave

Yes, there are always social pressures, Dave. But the easy availability of guns is what is turning some schools into killing zones.

A kid is far more likely to snag his father's pistol out of the closet than take on making a homemade bomb.

How many stories about kids blowing up schools have you read about lately? H

How many fatal shootings?

Well, recently I've heard about one of each, actually. We had a local school bomber not long ago and then there's this recent school shooting case in Minnesota.

So, what kind of gun control is going to stop these kids from going berserk? Let's play it safe and just ban all private gun ownership. That should solve the problem, right?

Wrong. The pistol and shotgun Jeff Weise took to school were stolen from his grandfather who was a police officer, and therefore would still have had the weapons even if civilians were banned from owning them. So no help there.

Perhaps instead we should look at what's going on over in the UK, where they're considering reversing a 100 year tradition of extreme gun control because people are getting sick and tired of being killed by home invaders and would like a chance to defend themselves and survive.

What you may have failed to consider is how much worse things could be if we didn't have guns to defend ourselves and provide at least some deterrent to uncontrolled violence.

Dave

I bet if you look at violent crime data in the US versus Western Europe and Canada, it's extraordinarily higher in the US.

I'm not saying it's all guns, but easy access (to kids and to violent criminals) isn't helping the problem any.

Actually, property crime is lower per capita here and it's not heading up the way that it is in most of Europe. The main difference is that our crimes tend to end with a somewhat more extreme punctuation of violence, if you know what I mean. So instead of a lot of drunken wife beating we'll have a lot of drunken wife beating plus some drunken wife beater shooting which they don't have.

Dave

Dave, sorry mate but that is pants!

Every kid feels like killing his friends and family at times. Crumbs I feel that way about you sometimes, LOL!

But to say that the ridiculously easy access to weapons in the USA isn't a direct cause of these shootings is naive at best, or a standard argument deployed by people who work for or support the American weapons industry and the NRA.

The only reason I can see that you all like guns so much is your cowboy history; it's some weird cultural hangover from the bad old days when, yes, possibly everyone did need a gun.

Nowadays, it would seem like a sign of political maturity if the so called most powerful nation on earth was able to civilise itself and disarm.

Not all issues can be solved through the barrel of a gun.

How many kids live in homes with guns and DON'T go on shooting rampages? I would guess far, far more than do snap and lose it.

If that was truly the problem then I would bet more parents would remove guns from their houses in an effort to "save" their kids from this type of thing.

Look at the 3 kids in each of the posted links/situations:

Minnesota: Kid was shuffled between his grandparents, no steady parental figure. Was bullied and pickedon most of his life.

Michigan: Kid came from a single parent home. Was teased "incessantly" according to reports

Colorado: As far as I know, single parent home. Kid was trying to "fit in" after being teased and may have been trying to avoid an after-school fight by making the list as a distraction.

Nothing has been reported about guns in the home, outside of the Minnesota case. And in that case the grandfather was a police officer, guns would have been in that home no matter the laws n gun control.

What stands out is the teasing and the single parent factors.

Single parents, having been one myself, tend to have a lot of balls to juggle in running the household, keeping the kids on track and working. No, I am not saying that these kids parents were neglectful, I am saying that when the entire burden of raising a family and maintaining a household is on one person a kid may not feel he getting the attention he needs or desrves.

The guns are not the problem, but are sure as hell easier to blame than looking at ourselves.

Nobody is saying that the guns are the problem, that's missing the point.

The teasing and bullying goes on everywhere but the violent assaults on schools et cetera is way off the scale in the USA. That wouldn't be so if the weapons were not so readily available.

given that the vast majority of the US population is middle class and urbanised, why on earth do you even need weapons? And please don't say for self protection, that's too glib.

Alienboy: "Nobody is saying that the guns are the problem, that's missing the point."

And earlier he said: "But to say that the ridiculously easy access to weapons in the USA isn't a direct cause of these shootings is naive at best"

Contradict yourself much? If guns are a direct cause of the shootings, then they are the problem, aren't they?

Well, of course they aren't. Guns can't cause anything and gun control won't stop these things from happening. Without the guns they'll learn to make bombs, or they'll poison the drinking fountain or they'll catch a teacher alone and beat her to death. Guns are just a tool. The problem is the kids and what made them sociopathic.

Dave

Exactly Dave. A gun is simple a means to an end here. No, we don;t hear nearly as much about school teachers being brutally beaten, but it happens far more than you think.

Kids on the playground beat the hell out of each other on a daily basis, but we as a society have become so use to it that its not even news unless someone dies and then its just a blurb on the 6pm broadcast.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people WITH guns.

actually bullets kill those people..but that's just splitting hairs

{8^)

full Disclosure here, gentle Readers..my paternal grandfather was a gunsmith from Holland , who fled to America just prior to Germany's invasion so he would not be forced into making guns for Nazi's...my Family has been gunsmiths for as long as there have been guns..and weaponsmiths for hundreds of years before that

that being said..."the Right of a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is a Quote from the Second Amendment, as near as i can remember it...

funny how many firearm enthusiasts and the NRA ALWAYS skip the "well regulated militia" part, eh?

we license our Driving as "a priveledge" NOT a Right...we Register our cars...hell, i even have a license for my dog for Bog's sake...

but weapons..bah...we can't even make certain that convicted felons don't have them..they buy them every day at gun shows, even wal-marts...depending on what State you are in

insanity...that coming from lil ole me..whom we all know is quite Insane

however you side on the issue of firearms, all seem to agree that children should NOT have access...and it IS ease of access that enables these disturbed kids to go off on these shooting sprees

but one of the above Commentators was quite correct...more american kids die from accidents involving firearms in the home than do on these school rampages

Parenting is the key...in a Society where adults are either pressured into spending far too much time making their Living to spend that time with their children..or are disinterested and lackadaisical in being involved with their own kids, and so have no clue into their Lives...

what can we expect besides the occaisional time bomb

the good news in all this is that it is MUCH less prevalent than the media would have us think...that's because it makes for more sensational copy, and thus a bigger slice of the news cycle, than the much larger statistical incidence of children accidentally killing themselves and each other with a firearem that was NOT safely secured...

be involved with your kids...safely lock your firearms away

nuff said?

Excelsior!

Got to go with personal responsibility ... guns are not the problem; people are the problem. True, people have been buying too many guns motivating the market to respond with more and better product - causing the glut of firearms in our homes. But the kids are going nuts for other reasons and using the guns for what they are made for.

i agree with ya there Anna Lisa...but my point is that kids are kids..

ya don't let them play with rat poison do ya?..you teach them not to lick their fingers and stick them in a light socket while the switch is on...that it's bad to run over the neighbor's cat with their bicycles...etc..

what i am saying is that Parents need to be Parents..and that those that choose to own firearms need to be Responsible about locking them up safely...and being involved with their children's lives

by all accounts...those two simple steps will halp to avoid the vast majority of these sad Incidents...

know what i mean?

Excelsior!

Gonzo - I agree completely.

Scary, I agree with both Gonzo and Anna Lisa.

But here's the really good point from Gonzo:

>>the good news in all this is that it is MUCH less prevalent than the media would have us think...that's because it makes for more sensational copy, and thus a bigger slice of the news cycle, than the much larger statistical incidence of children accidentally killing themselves and each other with a firearem that was NOT safely secured...
<<

I was going to say this myself, but lost track of this thread. As far as I can tell there's been a fairly steady decline in overall gun violence in the US, and no more incedence of people going on shooting sprees now than ever before. What's changed is that with our nationwide media and instant access and the constant thirst for something to report on and blow out of proportion, incidents which might have made a minor note in local papers 30 years ago because they happened far away are suddenly national news instead and then worried to death by the bulldogs of the media. It's the same thing with all these child abductions. There are probably fewer child abductions today than a generation ago, but there's so much attention focused on every one of them now that it seems like they are much more common.

Dave

It's my understanding also that increased national reporting is behind the impression of increased gun violence incidents. I haven't seen reports of decreasing gun violence, though. Does Dave have a good link on that?

Yes, it is all about parenting. But what am I to do about those few who just don't give a damn and don't do even the basics of parenting?

My kids come home and tell me about their friend at school who they bought lunch for because they had no lunch money cause their mom said they were eating too much.

Or the kid who my son gave his "old" gym shoes cause the other kids were teasing him about his shoes. This boy told my son that his mom spent her money on buying a dress for a party and told him he would just have to earn some new shoes somehow.

I can't parent everyone else's kids...I got three of my own to deal with.

You have to take a test to drive but the let anyone with reproductive organs be a parent. ***SHAKES HEAD***

perfect point T-Square

no easy answer there...all anyone can do is the best that they can

there are NO guarantees

complete safety is a fairy tale the scale of which dwarfs sant and the easter bunny

we do what we can, and hope for the best

has it ever been any different?

i think not...but i hope it can get better...otherwise i would pull my own head off and go bowling with it

hey Diogenes...got a Light?

Excelsior!

How many links would you like, Anna Lisa? Not only is gun related crime down, but so are all other forms of violent crime. Here are three good links, but I can provide more. There are also statistics on this available from the FBI, the CDC and a number of other sources.

This site has a bunch of links to the most recent violent crime stats

Here's a good article based on the latest stats from the CDC on violent death, which includes a 2.9% decrease in firearm related deaths, which is part of a continuing trend.

And here's an article from the CDC on the really dramatic decline in weapons violations of all kind, including firearms in the last 10 years on high school campuses

In this last article I think it's very, very telling that the one stat that DID go up was the number of kids who aren't going to school out of concern for safety issues. So during a decade where all forms of school violence declined dramatically, the perception is that violence has actually gone up. Sounds like the media at work to me.

Dave

Dave - good stuff thanks

Hey T-Square - if you get the sense that your child's school environment actually is getting unusually negative you have the options of getting a transfer or of homeschooling.

But understand that it could be worse. You could be trying to raise a child in Somalia.

It's not the school, it's not the teachers, it's not the kids...it's their "parents".

I am perfectly happy with my kids schools.

But I am just one.

BTW, that Telegraph article about Britain reconsidering gun control is not representative of general views. I don't know of any surveys - the fact they haven't been done is reflective of the degree of consensus - but I think if you did you'd get 80 per cent plus agreement on gun control.

As for guns in US homes, what doesn't get reported is how often they are used not in dramatic public attacks but pathetic homne suicides.

When I was a journalist in the Australian bush, where guns are necessary for practical purposes (snakes, dying cattle etc) I used to report with great regularity: "A young male was yesterday found dead with a gunshot wound to the head... Police said there were no suspicious circumstances."

From my reading it sounds like the Telegraph article is just the tip of the iceberg. There was a rather comprehensive look at this published in American Freedom magazine (admittedly suspect as it's from the NRA), but the article was well researched, and it pointed up a lot of statistical correlations. Apparently what's really got people ticked off in the UK is that folks who shoot burglars with legal or illegal guns are getting sued or tried criminally for taking action to defend their homes. There were several celebrated cases of this sort in the last few years. What I'd expect to see is not blanket legalization like we have here in the US, but some sort of relaxing of gun laws to provide for home defense uses - perhaps only for shotguns.

>>As for guns in US homes, what doesn't get reported is how often they are used not in dramatic public attacks but pathetic homne suicides.<<

Stats from the CDC and most other sources give a gross figure for handgun deaths and then break it down by accident, homicide and other - other basically being suicides. But of course, if you want to kill yourself at home there are plenty of easy and legal ways to do it - many less scary than using a gun.

Dave

We are facing a crisis in America, and I don't have the answer to "why?". But I do believe that if we do our best to see that every child's environment includes books, culture, and parental involvement - and excludes excessive TV, video games, and violent imagery - we will be on the right path towards eliminating the Collumbine type incidents that seem to be on the increase.

Show me incidents of high school shootings between 1900 and 1950 and then tell me that TV is good for America. Tell me that "Grand Theft Auto" develops eye-hand coordination, or that exposure to violence has no effect on the minds of our children. Go on, I dare you.

Bennett - if you read #21 and follow the links you'll see that there has a been a decline in all sorts of violence in recent years, including a decline in gun violence in schools. This at the same time that reports of such activity are increasing. Like the child abductions, it's all a creation of the media which is now reporting 24/7 with great intensity on things which have been going on for years without that same level of attention.

Dave

Certainly media messages have much to do with the violence, as does America's glorification of violence over it's history. American's are taught from a young age that they have gotten most everything at the barrel of a gun. Beyond that, the effect of videogames on children is well documented (no one cares though...)

Those out there that are saying guns aren't the problem, need to think this through a little more clearly I think.

Of course, guns aren't the root of the problem. People don't think of killing a human being every time they lay eyes on a gun. However, the point that if America had far fewer guns and if HANDGUNS and Semi-automatic weapons were banned, we would have less gun crimes, is accurate.

It is true that Canada has more guns per capita, yet uses them on animals rather than humans (more often than not). However, Canada does not have near as many guns in urban centers, and has next to no hand guns or semi-automatics. These are the guns that are traded around schools, and that are fascinating to young minds.

Kids don't think of dragging a 30 lbs 303 to school with a book bag full of shotgun shells, in order to shoot their teacher. They'd be lucky to get one shot off unnoticed, let alone two.

Lastly, why is it that Americans will fight tooth and nail to protect their right to have guns, when they don't give a fuck about nearly every other issue. It's such a pathetic reflection of society's priorities. What is the harm in giving up that god given right to have semi-automatic or hand gun? How much of a persons rights to we squash in asking them to give that up? Apparently they on use them to shoot in a gallery on Sunday afternoons or after work. We then they have to give that up in order to help out in the campaign to save lives and lower fear levels in society. It's a hell of a price to pay isn't it. I mean it would be devastating to have to give that up.

"no sir, I wont give up my right to own a firearm. That right there is in the bill of rights. no sir, not when my granddaddy died for that their right"

And yet the right to not get murdered, is one that most Americans have ever troubled themselves to think about for more than a nanosecond. AMERICANS HAVE ABSOLUTLY NO EMPATHY FOR MURDER VICTIMS. Sure a few Americans can get riled up over abuse victims or those denied human rights, or some Iraqis who suffered under Hussein, but when it comes to someone who is just murdered, just a statistic, well they can't grasp that. They haven't the imagination to empathize with that.

"Make a choice; Handguns or LIFE? "
"ummm handguns. No question"

Americans would sooner, dissolve the country into thirty republics, than give up their right to bear a firearm. I'm one hundred percent certain of that.

There may be other ways at home to kill yourself, but few are as open to impulse as a gun, and as apparently easy.

Could you actually slit your own wrists? I don't think I could.

And while taking pills might be easy, they are seldom just lying around in sufficient quantities in most homes. (And there is often the chance of someone being saved, or changing their mind, with drugs, which there isn't with a gun.)

Plenty of people have slit their wrists. I'd rather do myself in with a gun, but I'm not inclined to off myself either way. But you forget other simple expedients like jumping off something tall or gassing yourself with the kitchen range. Where there's a will there's a way.

Dave

I wonder how many people participating in this blog, for instance, believe that Americans would do anything to stop gun violence, even if they knew exactly how to do it?

I for one, don't believe anything would ever be done. Any change for the better will only be the result of coincidence or an unforeseen side effect of otherwise unrelated societal changes.

Right now the evidence points to maybe five factors which may or may not have to do with violence. Regardless they are often talked about (in a pseudoscientific way) in relation to gun violence.

1) Concealable and semi-automatic Gun's are available and so they are used.

No ones willing to give up their right to own a gun so we won't see if in fact this is a contributing factor.

2) The media creates fear and society reacts violently to perceived threats, or perceived inadequacies (Something along these lines).

Nothing will be done about this because violence sells advertising and no one will hold corporate America accountable for anything, let alone something as intangible as this.

3) Other forms of media (video games, music, and movies) glorify violence and desensitize us from the real consequences of violence.

Violence in these forms of media make a lot of money as well. Capitalist processes outweigh social needs, and no one gives a fuck about this anyway. Too abstract for the average person to grasp, and people think censorship is wrong regardless of it's effect. Oh and the people trying to exercise censorship focus on sponge bob square pants and other perceived homosexual threats, so they don't have time to look at the big picture.

4) Capitalism has lead to an unhealthy family unit and an unhealthy society. As a result, people are just more likely to go bonkers.

Well this is a pretty shaky theory or at least as I summarized it, and even if it was correct, obviously America isn't about to tinker with the capitalist system until the world falls upon its last 24 hours of existence. And maybe then they'll introduce some social welfare initiatives. Too late by that point.

5) America is infatuated with it's power and particularly with it's ability to use violence and force to achieve anything.

Personally I think there is more to this than one might think. It sounds absolutely ludicrous that people could develop a unified sociopathic consciousness or whatever, but I think we may be seeing it. Lots of social theorists say there is evidence of this through history in many different nations, or cultures

Okay Dave, I should have read all of the posts before tossing in my two cents worth.

However, although this thread turned into a debate on gun control, the original post was about:

"What are we doing wrong as parents? As a community? As a society? But I want to know, need to know, what are the schools doing to protect my kids from this? What is my community doing to protect my kids?"

So my post was aimed at addressing that question. It's great that there seems to be a reduction in violent crime overall, but the questions about the sociological impact of increasing violence in TV and videos remain, as do the questions about where we are headed as a nation beset by violence against children.

For what it's worth I think you asked the right question. But the answer isn't video games or rap music. Those simplistic answers that people like the AFA and PTC leap at are just convenient excuses. It's all about parents taking responsibility for their kids and teaching those kids to take responsibility for their own actions.

Dave

Dave you hit it on the head...for me at least.

Let me explain...

I moved my kids to a nicer neighborhood, nicer, more accomplished school district in a effort to give them a boost in their education.

What did I get in return? A bunch of whiny spoiled brats surrounding my kids whose mommies and daddys bail them out from every wrong turn they make. Many times rewarding them instead of punishing them.

My boys know that if they mess up, they have to come home and deal with me. They know and fully understand that I am the law in their world. They have a healthy respect for me, in the way that any child should of a parental figure.

But it seems they are the only ones in our neighborhood. I have told numerous kids over to our house to play that if they can't abide by the rules in our house then I will be happy to give them a ride home. Or call their parents to come pick them up.

Each time this happens the kid in question seems to react like I have just done them the greatest favor in the world by laying limitations and rules on what they do. They straighten up their act and I tend to never have any trouble out of them.

I have been told by nearly every kid on our block that I "am the coolest mom ever." ????

Cause I make you follow rules? Wow!!

These kids are looking for guidance. They act like they want the worlds freedom, but they are 10 and 12-years-old and eagerly look for some guidance.

They will either find the right guidance in an adult or peer group that cares or the wrong guidance with those other kids we all wish would leave our good kids alone.

We have one kid who no matter what just won't act like he has any sense. This kid has been "banned" from every house on the block and none of the kids are allowed to play with him. His parents let him run the streets from dawn til dusk...with no care what he is doing. Others have tried to talk to him, include him in their family fun, but this kids is just not having it. In his world its his way or no way.

Hi parent cater to his every need and whim. When he broke out a neighbors window during one of his rock throwing fits all his dad did was come down the street, scream at the neightbor for having the nerve to "yell at my kid" and took the boy back home.

Not more than 30 minutes later as we were trying to board up the nieghbors window does this kid come down the street on his bike and flips us off.

This kid is 8-years-old!

Its sad...I just hope and pray that this kid doesn't have access to any type of weapons.

I would write an annoymous letter to the parents letting them know what you think abou thier child. But make it less personal, and less antagonistic.

In any case, about the problems causing gun violence. I don't believe it's entirely due to poor parenting either. YEs, good parenting could fix it. But their have always been bad parents and yet kids weren't shooting other kids. Secondly, look to england, or Canada or anywhere else, and as yourself if they have bad parents too? and plenty of them...

THier are other societal issues at play. Dave, I've done enough reading on teh effects of media on childeren (and adults) and their is a definate correlation between violent messages in video games and movies, and actuall acts of violence.

I'm not a right wing nut either, and I am ussually against censorship. But in cases like this when most experts are in aggreement about the power of media to influence, something should be done.

And why do you call it simplistic? It's the least simplistic explanation I can thing of. It's very simplistic, perhaps, in the sense that people think it's a case of monkey see, monkey do. Well if thats your understanding of the process than indeed it does seem too simplistic.

Sydney, I agree with your statement that people are too selfish, too ignorant and too self-centered to care one fig about murder victims.

Everytime I listen to the news and hear the same tired old stories hashed and rehashed and not one damn mention of the sanctity of life and protection of the innocent, then I know that we are living in a world full of assholes.

I don't hate President Bush (anymore) but I do think he is a hypocrite and needs to stop thinking of himself as the spokesperson for Jesus and God.

I am pretty sure that any divine being looking down on our world is ashamed and disappointed in the vast majority of it's creations.

We are a depraved, craven society full of sick, deviant, lazy, loathsome creatures.

Guns are the least of our problems - they are just the instrument to the evil that lurks within so many people.

Sounds like a load of cynicism doesnt it?

Like your saying Dawn, I think that if you don't teach your kids to filter thorugh all the crap and the media messages, then they end up adopting this "who gives a fuck" attitude or somthing. It's like most people don't spend enough time thinking of who they are in relation to others, and the world. Had they done that, they'd see that their actions matter.

This is one reason that I still hold hope for organized religion. My catholic upbringing gave me a few hours of each week to reflect on the things I had done to others etc. I still see the value in this , though I had the organization itself, anymore.

>>I'm not a right wing nut either, and I am ussually against censorship. But in cases like this when most experts are in aggreement about the power of media to influence, something should be done. <<

My problem with 'experts' in this field is that virtually every expert on media violence is an expert primarily because they decided that media violence was a problem and therefore began to study it and made themselves and expert on the subject. So they were really against media violence first for whatever personal reason, and then they became an expert and - what a shock - their findings matched the beliefs which prompted them to become an expert.

What we just don't have are truly objective studies which draw any clear statistical correlation between media violence and violence in the real world. In fact, the overall decline in violent crime in recent years - at the same time that video games have reached unprecedented heights of violence - argues directly against the thesis that violent media leads to violent action.

Psychologically an equally strong case can be made for the concept that exposure to acts of extreme violence in the media can have a deterrent effect on violent tendancies in the individual - the theory practiced in the extreme on Alex in A Clockwork Orange. Seeing the media violence either helps the child work out and resolve his violent tendancies, or it causes a somewhat older and more mature child who can understand the implications of the violence to have an aversion reaction.

This theory makes much more sense in the statistical context of declining violent crime. Of course, the decline in violent crime can also be ascribed to other factors, particularly the spread of concealed carry gun laws in some of the more violent states which have also shown a particularly dramatic decline in crime - like Florida.

Dave

There are many objective studies that show a correlation between violence and media. These people follow a scientific method, and though there is room for some personal bias, their is far too much evidence to suggest that people doing research in this field are simply trying to collect data to reinforce their personal prejudices.

I realize there is a decline in violent crimes. Canada has been on a decline over the past 15 years or more (last I heard..). But because their is a menagerie of factors affecting violent behaviors, we can't reduce this statistic to a simple statement like "violence in media can't be the route of the problem because violence is in recession".

Certainly, no good comes of a media saturated in violence and sex. Certainly, these themes could be replaced, to some degree, by more positive messages. Certainly, violence and sex (in particular sex) have perverted consumers psychological makeup. The research supports this overwhelmingly.

Just pull up an academic journal on the subject and read the intro and it'll cue you as to the trends in concerning these statistics and data. I spend four months reading these types of journal and there wasn't much debate amongst those in the know, as to the effect these media messages have on consumers.

>>There are many objective studies that show a correlation between violence and media. These people follow a scientific method, and though there is room for some personal bias, their is far too much evidence to suggest that people doing research in this field are simply trying to collect data to reinforce their personal prejudices.<<

Do you have any links to these or even the names of the studies or the authors? I have yet to find any. All the studies I find are from partisan groups on either the left or the right, who happen to agree on this one issue, though for different reasons.

>> we can't reduce this statistic to a simple statement like "violence in media can't be the route of the problem because violence is in recession".<<

But wouldn't you agree that media now is more violent than it was 10 years ago, especially in the US, but in that same period as the violence in the media increased the violence in real life decreased. Is that a coincidence? It certainly doesn't support the theory that media violence begets real world violence.

>>Certainly, no good comes of a media saturated in violence and sex. Certainly, these themes could be replaced, to some degree, by more positive messages. Certainly, violence and sex (in particular sex) have perverted consumers psychological makeup. The research supports this overwhelmingly. <<

Show me the research. On the issue of sex - pornography in particular - the studies are incredibly skewed, even worse than the ones I've seen on violence. The researchers went in with a clear agenda and found what they wanted.

What I'd like to see are statistical studies, not anecdotal studies - not the typical I talked to 50 sociopaths and they all liked porn and videogames. That's not a study. That's a correlation. What it doesn't tell us is whether the media made them sociopaths or the other equally valid possibility that the violent and sex filled media was appealing to them because they already were sociopaths. Or just because they were GUYS ferchissakes. Males like sex and violence. They're wired that way. I have yet to see any believable evidence that seeing it in the media makes them more likely to acti it out in public except at very, very young ages.

>>Just pull up an academic journal on the subject and read the intro and it'll cue you as to the trends in concerning these statistics and data. I spend four months reading these types of journal and there wasn't much debate amongst those in the know, as to the effect these media messages have on consumers.<<

I did a bunch of research on this when the PTC and the AFA and other groups first began pushing this issue, and not one of the studies I saw was scientific. Every single one was anecdotal in nature and most were even worse - basically making arguments and then drawing conclusions based on essentially nothing at all except for the obvious similarity between media violence and violence in the real world. What they all lack is either a clear causal link or a meaningful statistical correlation.

But by all means convince me otherwise, because right now I just don't see it.

Dave

Firstly, I don't have the names of certain studies off hand, nor would they be easily accessible unless you had access to some academic search programs (which I don't from home).

Any reading I did on that topic was done in Australia over 4 months ago. I could have given you a few sources from the paper I wrote on pornography, but my paper along with all my school stuff is in freight right now (one month away).

In any case, your right that many of the studies look at correlations between offenders and thier habits. They then comapare these statistics with statistics pertaining to the general population.

Other research I read was more a type of action research which followed smaller groups of porn consumers. However, other studies combined the results of many smaller studies to form a more empirical body of evidence.

In any case, many of the studies suggest that people after looking at certain types of pornography developed fetishes in line with those types of images they saw being fetishized in the porn they were watching. So, if they were comming accross alot of anal sex porn, they wanted to engage in anal porn.

Secondly, ordinary sex was not satisfying to them anymore, and needed more perverse sex inorder to keep interested.

All this is consistant with social theory and should not be that surprising. It's a matter of degree when looking at its aplication. TO what degree are we influenced by the media? To what degree is our sexuality perverted?

Probabably the answer is different for each of us. Some more than others.

>>Firstly, I don't have the names of certain studies off hand, nor would they be easily accessible unless you had access to some academic search programs (which I don't from home).<<

I do in theory, but I'd have to go down to the college and they'd try to dragoon me into teaching again and that would be tedious. There really ought to be some resources on the net if I can find them.

>>In any case, your right that many of the studies look at correlations between offenders and thier habits. They then comapare these statistics with statistics pertaining to the general population.<<

That sounds a little more valid, except that I dispute the ability to get accurate statistics out of the general public on the subject of their porn use habits.

One thing this brings to mind is that societies which are more open about sex, where porn is not stygmatized, such as the Netherlands, have rather low levels of sexual offense when compared to more socially repressive countries.

>>In any case, many of the studies suggest that people after looking at certain types of pornography developed fetishes in line with those types of images they saw being fetishized in the porn they were watching. So, if they were comming accross alot of anal sex porn, they wanted to engage in anal porn. <<

But is this true of ALL people or just of people who have the pre-existing personality type which makes them easily influenced by pornography. I accept the idea that there are certain people whose personalities make them ill-suited to responsible porn use, but from what I can tell it's just as likely that this was a condition which pre-existed their first exposure to adult material and that most normal people when exposed to the same pornography will not become addicted or develop fetishes. Studies have been done which demonstrate this - for example, the British have a much higher statistical tendancy towards developing fetishes than most other nations because of some of their social and family traditions.

>>Secondly, ordinary sex was not satisfying to them anymore, and needed more perverse sex inorder to keep interested. <<

This sounds like a classic description of a sociopathic personality disorder though, not of the influence of an outside influence on a mentally mature adult.

>>Probabably the answer is different for each of us. Some more than others.<<

Exactly. I think that's where these studies break down. It seems like there's a firm dividing line between those who are naturally susceptible and those who are not.

Dave

This is a hugely important issue in society as a whole today. As has been said many times- guns are not the answer--removing them will not remove the malaise that has infected society.

Our modern society has become a cult of consumerism and buying "things" which really leaves not much room for development of a spiritual wholesomeness. I am not talking about the current resurgence of the "puritannical" "religions" as I am a deeply instilled faith and belief in some form of a positive and nurturing Spirit that helps us and is behind the world's mechanisms.
As our culture's spirituality has faded, directly proportionate to that abscence of a faith, so has the crime and violence and all our other social problems increased.
Now comes the "hard" question: how to restore that spirituality? I don't have the answer. I've worked in various drug & alcohol treatment centers, one of which was Hazelden- supposedly the best in the world, and most in the field of recovery all agree with the point I made above in respect to how to "recover" from substance abuse--that you must find some form of "spirituality" to succeed.
Unfortunately, nobody seems to have been able to find a way to "give" someone that "spirituality"....which accounts for the abysmally low rates of true recovery in that field.
This is true carried over into all of society as a whole.
How do we guide our culture back to a "spirituality" and a caring and compassion for others as opposed to the present culture of BMW's, Porsches, Gucci, Versace, million dollar homes, etc., etc., .....?

"How do we guide our culture back to a "spirituality" and a caring and compassion for others as opposed to the present culture of BMW's, Porsches, Gucci, Versace, million dollar homes, etc., etc., .....?"

"We" don't, all you can do is live your beliefs.

I don't see how prosperity and an interest in living well or even the actual acquisition of luxury goods are contrary to having compassion for others. Contrary to popular belief poverty is not inherently ennobling, and wealth doesn't automatically doom you to hell. Some of the richest people in America give enormous amounts to charity, including Bill Gates and Michael Dell. A lot of well off people also give of their time as well as their money. In my experience there are far more people doing good works for their fellow man quietly and behind the scenes without overt displays of religion than most of us even begin to realize. Look at the activities of your local Junior League, Lions Club, Odd Fellows, Elks, etc. You might be surprised.

Dave

Dave

All Hail the Great Beneficient Republicans who are saving the world from their lazy philanthropic save-the-animals feed the masses selves .............

The Grande Ole' Party of scheming Old boy networks and interlocking directorates that are smart enough to know just how many crumbs they have to throw out at any given point in time---just short of the masses rising up and revolting.

Skull & Bones forever !

Belated response: Nalle, you twisted my words out of their proper contexts but it's too late at night and i can't be bothered to work up a defense.

Everybody who argues that guns aren't the problem is deluded. Even in cases when guns aren't used, they contribute to a cultural context of elevated violence.

I haven't been to the USA for almost 10 years now but on my last visits to Los Angeles, Miami and New York, the level of aggression I saw was way off the scale. I can't imagine it is significantly better nowadays.

I'm really struggling to think of anywhere in Europe where the thought of being shot might occur or where I'd be afraid to go - which is not meant to start another pointless which is best argument - i'm just trying to show how the context of weapons and violence changes everything.

"Guns can't cause anything and gun control won't stop these things from happening. Without the guns they'll learn to make bombs, or they'll poison the drinking fountain or they'll catch a teacher alone and beat her to death. Guns are just a tool. The problem is the kids and what made them sociopathic."

It's so easy to shoot somebody, you just point and squeeze. All these other methods are way more complicated. Remove the opportunity, remove the crime.

Finally, nobody seems to have explained WHY do you all need to have guns? So come on, explain THAT to me.

>>I haven't been to the USA for almost 10 years now but on my last visits to Los Angeles, Miami and New York, the level of aggression I saw was way off the scale. I can't imagine it is significantly better nowadays. <<

You're going to hate this answer - 10 years ago those were some of the areas with the most stringent gun control in the country. The reason for the aggression is that the troublesome types there knew there was little fear of a serious reprisal because their victims were unlikely to be armed.

If you compare the crime stats in Florida - one of your examples - from when they had strong state gun control laws with their current crime stats since they've enacted a 'concealed carry' law, you'll see a truly dramatic decrease in violent crime. It's not a coincidence. Carjackers just hate getting shot in the head when they reach for your keys.

To answer your final question as to why we need guns - an armed society is a civil society.

Dave

well, Tristan, what do you do, other than carp about social injustice?

I think it is a combination of aggressive nature and culture, because
it APPEARS to me that Europe is less violent than the US. (Until soccer season).

But here is also a very real feeling of not being a victim over here, if one should happen to have a violent crime committed against oneself. You can't guarantee the guy breaking into your house or car, or mugging you is ONLY going to take material posessions so one might feel rightly justified in having a form of self defense.
BTW, I don't own any firearms, so don't put me in the gun nut category.

why is it that sfc ski always almost without exception--when he decides to "reply" to a post on here---always does it in an antagonistic fashion, always mocking the object of his reply, and bashing said poster----and never addresses the actual ISSUE---just the personality of the poster that said something he doesn't like ????

You'd think this was just a place for people to come together and argue with other people---instead of a place people can come to and not have to worry about being attacked PERSONALLY because they made a statement that someone didn't agree with... which of course most people are very aware is an obvious trait of someone that is extremely insecure in their position or belief---thus creating that NEED to attack anyone that says the opposite of what they believe............

Actually, Tristan, SFC Ski is one of the most consistently polite, stick-to-the-topic commenters on this site. I'm not sure what your gripe is....

where have YOU been bhw...???????
all I've seen him do is ridicule and bash anyone who makes a statement he even comes close to feeling is a "leftist liberal" position.................
(ie--read the 1st sentence in post # 50 )

yepperss-----VERY consistently "polite" ??

not quite the adjective I'D use to describe his "comments" -----
abrasive...combative.....yes....
polite-- NEVER from almost all I've seen from him on here~~~
Please show me some of his polite "comments"---I can't seem to find one.

I've been here a long time, Tristan -- how about you? You're going to have to get a slightly thicker skin if you think comment #50 was combative or abrasive. Sheesh.

bhw---
trust me-my skin's more than thick enough for YOU bubba~~
but somehow you just forgot to answer my one question directly above:
if you've been here sooooo longgggg---
it should be sooooo easy for you to show me one of those polite quotes you so glibly spouted off about..?? eh ???
Do we need to prove how "right" we are by our "longevity" here ???
(or is that possibly just because you'd prefer to try and deflect me form asking you for an answer you so obviously were totally unable to render ????)

Tristan, talk about combative....

I can't provide specific examples because the link to each commenter's list of comments has been removed from the bottom of the comments box (as has been the IP address, etc.). Don't know why that is, but it's gone.

But I don't need to prove anything, anyway. SFC Ski has his own long history here, and he's more than shown himself to be a calm voice in many a frenzied commenting storm.

Tristan, let me draw it out for you:
In your Comment # 44 you talk about how our society is , and I paraphrase, more obsessed with material wealth than spiritual wealth, and ask how to guide the culture towards the spriritual. I joined in to say that we as a culture cannot be guided to do so, but each individual can live what he believes in an effort to help his fellow citizens, and that can impact society as a whole.

Further on Dave mentions in #46 that there are many non-governmental community organizations that work to improve the community they are based in, and a person could become involved in any one of them. Your comment #47 was some snarky commentary about the Republicans and crumbs off the table, etc. MaybeI was wrong, but as it immediately followed Dave's and addressed his point somewhat, I took it to be in response to his comment. I then asked what it is you do to change the situation where you are, or the culture as a whole, do you do anything; volunteer in your community for example, or just complain about the situation and expect someone else to do the heavy lifting?
In my mind, you can complain all you want, but if you are not doing anything on a personal level and expecting social reforms to just materialize, you will be waiting a long time.

Tristan, I agree with bhw here, re a thicker skin and that SFC Ski is one of BC's more polite, rational commenters. If you think Sarge Ski's remark about "carping about social injustice" was "antagonistic, mocking and bashing," I can't wait to hear your opinion of some of the stuff R.J. (Bobby) Elliott has posted on this site in the past.

For example, Bobby Elliott is on record as stating that "Kerry voters are fucking communists" and of comparing decorated, dismembered combat veteran Max Cleland to a "thalidomide baby" and "a gigantic flipper."

(see Elliott's post from last fall, "Kerry Dissed by Marines")

wow~~~!
all you so-called "thick skinners" sure got your panties all bunched up I see!
Awwwwww...... I must have hurt your little on-line feelings I see.
I'm soooo sowwwyyyyy.............
Want me to go sit in the corner with my binky ...????

The poster poses the all-important Question:

What are we doing wrong as a society ....?

We really have no Spirituality anymore----
even the so-called "Evangelicals" or "bible-thumpers" or whatever one prefers as a "label"---
mostly--today, "Spirituality" (not "Religion"--that's DIFFERENT!)--is "dead" .........

We have the thriving Consumer-Religion very vibrant .............

but what ARE our children being TAUGHT -
Spiritual Values ..????
or how to succeed and get into a top college and get a high-paying job...?

and then we thrash ourselves over the question: Why are all these "sick things" happening ....

WHY NOT ...?

What's to stop people from getting frustrated and depressed and disillusioned and "sick"---when that very basic need and subconscious neccessity of having a Reason for Living is not being met .......

back to the ages-old Question: Why are we Here ...?

Just to go on-line and be able to type into our various favorite blogs and show a few others just like us how "clever" we are and how verbally versatile and witty and that we can always "get the last word in" ....THAT is our definition nowadays of what defines a "worthy" human being ...?????

(and YES ---I AM including myself in this "WE" ....) ............

"but what ARE our children being TAUGHT -Spiritual Values "

Well, unless you define "Spiritual Values", it will be hard to say whether or not they are being taught. By my definition, spiritual values will have some tie to moral values, as well as a foundation in the teachings of a few religions, but I'd like to hear your definition of "Spiritual Values".

Second, if you are going to complain that you are being treated unfairly, and I and others are going to respond as to just what it was that you wrote and the response you got, and you don't like the answer, the last thing you should do is write something like you did in Comment #59.

Dave Nalle "To answer your final question as to why we need guns - an armed society is a civil society."

WHAT? You'll have to explain that one, goes right over my head - unless that passes for humour down Tejas (sic) way!

what he is trying to say alienboy is that if everyone had guns, ie: an armed society, then folks owuld be polite to each other , for fear of getting their brains blown out

this could be thought of as accurate when viewed in the context of both samurai culture and a certain period of the american west..

manners and politeness were at their apex in both societies where dueling was prolific

hope that helps..

Excelsior!

SFC Ski-----
I see you ROSE and bit at the bait! HA!
Sucker!
And THEN ---in your OWN WORDS ---------
please define what you mean by MORAL values~~~???
(ohhhhh....I can't stop laughing---it hurts!!!!)
those panties were bunched much tighter than even I imagined!
Cackle .....cackle .............

oh my stars and garters...

it seems Tristan is off his meds again

heh

Excelsior!

Seem is the operative
attempt at some type of coherent thought in comment # 65...........
but what would Groucho know anyway ....

Tristan sez..
*but what would Groucho know anyway ....*

ummm....all the words to the Fredonian national Anthem?

why a duck?

and the secret word

but "grandpa" was "funny" like that...

Excelsior!

and Groucho quacks :

"do hobbits sing national anthems " ......

or was that Frodonian.

we must ponder these out of que posts ....

what a strange Knight we have here..

how is Isolde...that freak keeping ya "up"?

whoa..serious flashback..to the 12th century...

Excelsior!

ahhhhhhhhhhhh............

isolde wherefore art Thou
ye of Whom my heart quacks .......
HUH! how'd that get in there!

Tristan and Iseult is the oldest love story in the english language.
(from which Wagner took his opera Tristan und Isolde)

quack.......quack ...............

now it seems i have run a fowl of this malicious Knight...pun-ishment aplenty fer the likes of me...

puh-leeeeEEEEeeezze don't throw me into the briar patch...

so put the "mushrooms" down and back away slowly until the linoleum stops swimming

or , take two peyote buttons and a quart of wild turkey and call me if ya aspirate anything chunky...

Excelsior!

my digits are trembling as I dwell on this thorny thought~~~~

chunky~~~~~~~~~~????


choc---choc---chocolateley
chew---chew----chewey ................
Johhnny! Put that back in the toilet!

What did Spock see when he opened the door to Kirk's bathroom?
the captain's log .

time for the sack~~~

i'm fired.

This kid went to my school. He had some problems because of his parents, and had also tried to kill himself. Along with this he mixed and so some of the kids made fun of him. This is what caused him to make the list so that the other black kids would think he was one of them. They also thought it may be him because he inserted his name in the list wihtout numbering it. I would also like to add that most of the people in my school do not have problems like this.