Leaderboard

You just won the jackpot! What a brilliant idea. When we have online schools and unlimited access to knowledge via the Internet, the traditional school model seems outdated. In online schools they will kill just in Counter-Strike etc.

Hypothetical, and unsupported. And irrelevant, since you acknowledge that mass violence would be reduced. Guns make mass killing easy. And that feeling of ease with a gun IS germane to the psychological aspects of the problem. Plenty of evidence to suggest an alienated angry teenager would more likely kill classmates with the feeling of power a gun, especially an assault style rifle, confers. Mass knifings are quite rare, even in places where no civilian legally possesses a gun. So it is not "politicizing" to inquire how to render mass murder more daunting to someone emotionally unstable. Even if it were, psychology and politics often intersect. Get used to it.

Except of course that is not happening. Older statistics from 2009-2015 showed a median of less than one death from mass shootings in any European country and 18 per year in the USA. If you want to talk about psychology, it would suggest that Americans have a uniquely different psychological mindset than Europeans. One could extend that to gun violence in general. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/03/24/980838151/gun-violence-deaths-how-the-u-s-compares-to-the-rest-of-the-world And looking at homicide rates, the US has a rate of 6.4/100,000. If we exclude mini-countries, the next highest Western European Country would be France with 1.56. The UK has 1.1 and Germany 0.82 (see wikipedia). In the US, the by far guns are the the murder weapon of choice (https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/). I often feel that folks in the US, especially when they talk about shithole countries or how immigrants allegedly swamp European countries with violence and crime, vastly underestimate how things are in their own neighborhood. So no, other countries do not even come close with murders using alternative weapons. It is not necessarily the guns per se, but clearly, the cult around its use, and the convenience to kill (themselves and/or others), has created a situation that facilitates killings and, again, assuming that Americans don't have highly specific psychological issues, any discussions that tries to ignore a likely central aspect to it, is going to miss the mark. One can ask separate questions here. One is what facilitates violence in any form (bullying is at best only one factor and I suspect that there are so many aspects that trying to find simple narrative is largely futile). The second is why it leads to deaths and/or severe injury, which, given the title, seems to be the original question. I do believe that OP was started from a uniquely American perspective, assuming that somehow mass shootings or equivalent violence is a just part of the course, not realizing that the USA is an outgroup among developed nations.

I sorta assumed that, given the threat title. The notion that there aren't issues that pertain particularly to a gender would depend on an utter blindness to everything that goes on in the world. When I have heard people take this tack, it is usually a prelude to "dear Lord, us poor white guys and all the terrible inconvenience we have to deal with because all those other people are laying about pretending to be victims!"

Yes, if only those pesky victims would learn to dress in such a way that men don't wish to assault them. If you keep arguing in threads that women aren't really victims of wage discrimination, violence from men, etc., people will start to assume you are a misogynist.

So, the arrow of time of this historical perspective is from subjectivity to a more precise interpretation of objectivity? I sensed while reading this, maybe wrongfully, that science wanted to "rinse away" subjectivity from the process. However, some believe that subjectivity has a key role to play in science In this paper, we argue on the ability of science to capture the true subjective experience of life, blinded within the limits of its reductionist approaches. With this approach, even though science can explain well the physics behind the objective phenomenon, it fails fundamentally in understanding the various aspects associated with the biological entities. In this sense, we are skeptical to the present approach of science and calls out for a more fundamental theory of life that considers not only the objectivity aspect of a biological entity but also the subjective experience as well. It raises questions as to what does it takes to develop a new science from a subjective standpoint. https://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/552 Another thing that caught my attention was that science does not evaluate objects, but evaluates properties of objects. This will become vital in furthering my understanding of science.

When did "burglarized" become a word for burgled? Anyway, telling people that they didn't have an adequate coping strategy is telling them it's their fault.

This is called "victim blaming".

You may get the odd one, but the fact remains it is far harder to bring off than shooting a mass of people with a gun if you feel pissed off. This is why school shootings are virtually exclusively an American phenomenon. In the UK we had the last one in Dunblane in 1996, when someone was able to get hold of....a GUN.....:https://www.businessinsider.com/uk-changed-laws-ended-school-shootings-after-1996-dunblane-massacre-2022-5?op=1 There will be just the same adolescent alienation and resentments occurring all over the world, but without easy access to guns, people don't find it is easy to act on these destructive impulses - and the moment usually passes without serious incident. I'm afraid I now laugh whenever yet another school shooting is reported in the USA. They will go on and on until guns are properly controlled, as they are in other civilised nations. Yet we see Americans contorting themselves and jumping through all manner of logical hoops to avoid the reason that is staring them in the face: the availability of GUNS.

How about not giving anyone easy access to guns as a starting point.

The A-10 is/was essentially functionally bulletproof. It first flew in 1972.

No Government would be ideal. If people were considerate, compassionate, productive, and got along. Unfortunately we are not 'grown up' enough nad need a 'mother' to ntell us how to get along and take care of us.

I've only ever attended Brock University ( southern Ontario ), which, at the time was about 10 years old, and its sciences departments were run in the old Corning Glass Lab separate from the main small campus. One of my nephew's best friends, graduated from there and went on to do a PhD in Physics, at the Max Planck Institute in Germany. The daughter of my ophthalmologist also graduated from Brock, and went on to complete her studies at Princeton to also become an ophthalmologist, specializing in glaucoma, but unfortunately ( for me ) in Philadelphia. Those two schools of higher education have probably turned out more Nobel laureates than the next 10 combined, and would have been my first choices for Physics. So the US has 50 % of the ( what I consider ) best universities.

Not at all. Teaching someone how to install a home security system isn't "blaming them for getting burglarized" if they don't have one, or claiming that the burglar isn't responsible for their actions. This, to me, is similar to only offering women the advice to "call the police" if they are a victim of domestic violence, when, in reality, much of it occurs when the police aren't available and the police are not able to permanently stop it if it occurs outside of what can be legally done. (This is why resources on how domestic abuse victims can remove themselves permanently from the situation exist, for example): https://www.thehotline.org/plan-for-safety/

I don't consider that an accurate way of assessing the safety of a situation. Personal safety requires more than just assessing the sex ratio of a given environment. There are many situations which a person could view as potentially unsafe regardless of gender (e.x. a man entering alone in a bar full of rowdy bikers might view the situation as unsafe). I'm assuming that you're basing this assessment on either: 1. Physical differences between men and women which make it more likely that a woman could be overpowered by a male attacker 2. Statistics that show that men are more likely to be instigators of violence. Correct me if I'm wrong. And if this safety concern is presumably based on biological differences between men and women (e.x. that a man is more likely to be able to physically overpower a woman), I'm curious what solution you propose to it. I'd happy to do some research on statistics which involve non-physical aggression (e.x. verbal aggression, cyberbullying, etc). There will likely be less of a discrepancy between men and women when the physical variables are removed. (Similar to how differences in performance ability in sports are less pronounced when the sport or competition is less physical. For example, there's a noticeable difference in weight-lifting ability between the top male performers and top female performers, but women in less-physical sports such as Danica Patrick in auto racing are able to compete with the top male performers).

Not sure what to say. It's a person's responsibility to use adequate coping strategies, but not their fault in the sense that the other person isn't accountable for their behavior. The latter would be like saying "it's okay to break into someone's home if they neglected to install a security system", which isn't what I'm saying.

Right. If a person's home constantly gets broken into, it's their responsibility to take action such as installing a security system. Obviously, this doesn't mean it's "right" for a burglar to break into a person's home just because they didn't install a security system (and the law obviously wouldn't agree with that either). But it's more likely to happen to people who don't have one. You're being obstinate and misusing the term "victim blaming" to avoid acknowledging simple realities.