I think that the primary problem is that the USA has embraced a culture if violence and the shootings are  a manifestation of that violence

Yes, I find it fundamentally wrong that my 8-year-old is able to turn on the TV and can watch people killing each other but can't see a boob.

I never realized how pervasive violence is until I had a kid and began to be a gatekeeper for what he consumes.

dennis1361 wrote: I think that the primary problem is that the USA has embraced a culture if violence and the shootings are  a manifestation of that violence

Agree wholeheartedly.

I fully agree.  Violence, like sex, sells.  It is supply and demand.

Unfortunately pornographic violence, like pornographic sex, can seed deviant thoughts in some people. It's distressing to me that, for some, a person who buys a shotgun at the local Wal-Mart is a deviant, yet Quentin Tarantino, who has propagated some of the most violent, sickening tripe available in Cinema, is an artist.  It just doesn't compute.

Unfortunately, we have lost the ability among our business leaders to understand that principle still matters; and polluting the airwaves with material that decays our culture is at least as deleterious as polluting the air and water with industrial byproducts.

All of this violence is fostered and delivered through so many different means, from movies and video games to actual "news" program that are simply vying for ratings, to sports that we watch and glorify. 

The odd thing is that our culture looks at this violence as "good, clean fun" when it is simulated on the movie screen, but we shake our heads, tremble, and weep when we see it on the news. The inconsistency is galling. 

Do I blame Hollywood?  Not directly as a class, but they bear some responsibility to self police.

Do I blame video game makers?  Not directly as a class, but they bear the same responsibility.

Do I blame gun owners, makers, etc.?  Nope.  Owning a gun is not a violent act, no matter what some would have us believe. The violence is in their own mind.

Do I blame consumers?  You betcha.  Every one of us.  The only way to effectively change the culture is to stop participating in its unsavory parts.

Do I blame governments that set the stage for the violence by creating soft targets, the illusion of police "protection," and the mentality that individuals aren't responsible enough to defend themselves?  You betcha.  Even many mentalities on the CEB show that people, very smart people, think it's not their job to be vigilant about their personal safety and that the police have a responsibility to defend them. 

Sad overall.  Dennis, I agree.

Do I blame governments that set the stage for the violence by creating soft targets, the illusion of police "protection," and the mentality that individuals aren't responsible enough to defend themselves?  You betcha.  Even many mentalities on the CEB show that people, very smart people, think it's not their job to be vigilant about their personal safety and that the police have a responsibility to defend them.

So many have come to believe it is governments responsibility to keep us safe from harm, even when the harm is the result of a random event. Something bad happens, pass another law.  Get injured while hiking, sue the Forest Service because they don't maintain Disneyland style sidewalks in the woods.

People walk into the path of a transit train while listening to their IPod, and no one proposes banning IPods.

Confiscate all the guns and you won't still won't be safe.  Someone bent on killing themselves and taking others along can make a very effective and powerful bomb from material that is readily available. 

Muddled thinking like "banning assault weapons" because assault weapons kill people will not make anyone safer in malls or schools.  Police can't protect us.  It's up to each of us as individuals to know how to protect ourselves and others.

Yes and no. First graders aren't exactly skilled in self-defense, nor are school administrators. 

The assault in Aurora took place in a darkened movie theater. You really think any of the patrons had any realistic chance of defending him or herself?

I think we all have to be responsible, but the notion that each and every one of us should be responsible for our own safety? Against armed assailants? No.

And the police actually do a pretty good job of maintaining the public safety.

He lives!!!!!

dennis1361 wrote: I think that the primary problem is that the USA has embraced a culture if violence and the shootings are  a manifestation of that violence

We have always been a culture of violence.

John Dillinger, Bonnie and Clyde, Jessie James, Butch Cassidy and his crew - is there any statistical evidence that proportionally more people are dying from gun violence today than 50 or 100 years ago? 

dennis1361 wrote: I think that the primary problem is that the USA has embraced a culture if violence and the shootings are  a manifestation of that violence

You have twisted my meaning. I'm talking about the everyday equivalent of defensive driving.  I'm not talking about taking action against armed gunmen, and in general I'm not being critical of LE.

My neighbors included a retired SWAT sergeant, Portland police officer and a Clark county deputy.  3 for 3 will tell you they can't protect (read prevent) you from harm when a criminal act occurs.   

  Do I expect first graders to be skilled in self defense? (Seriously - did you really ask that?) Of course not, but we teach our kids to look both ways before crossing the street, not to talk to strangers or play with unfamiliar animals. Schools have all sorts of drills (well, they used to) for emergencies.  Fire drills is one example. 

Protecting oneself doesn't necessarily mean packing a .357 or earning a Black Belt. I'm talking about walking into a store and identifying exit locations in the event of a fire or earthquake. I am referring to being at least marginally aware of ones surroundings. 

A little paranoia is a good thing.  Used properly, it can potentially save your life.

navy9t1 wrote: We have always been a culture of violence.

John Dillinger, Bonnie and Clyde, Jessie James, Butch Cassidy and his crew - is there any statistical evidence that proportionally more people are dying from gun violence today than 50 or 100 years ago? 

dennis1361 wrote: I think that the primary problem is that the USA has embraced a culture if violence and the shootings are  a manifestation of that violence

No, in fact homicides have dropped dramatically over the last two decades.  Moreover, mass shootings, like the one in Newton, represent only 1% of all homicides, despite taking up a disproportionate share of the news.

The bottom line is that human life is fragile.  Anyone who is bent on killing people, especially if they don't mind dying in the process, can kill a lot of people, whether it is a guy with a bunch of guns in a kindergarten or a guy with an explosive vest in a bus.

Thankfully, 99.9% of people would never dream of taking another life.  Another couple of orders of magnitude either never cary out their plans, fail in their attempt, or are apprehended beforehand.

There are 17,000 murders in the US each year.  While each one is horrifically tragic, in a population of over 300 million, that's just over a 1 in 20,000 chance of being murdered.

BC

Boston Card wrote:


There are 17,000 murders in the US each year.  While each one is horrifically tragic, in a population of over 300 million, that's just over a 1 in 20,000 chance of being murdered.

BC

In a given year, which I believe equates to a 99.65 % chance of living 70 years w/o being the victim of a homicide. The odds are no doubt much better for those not engaged in criminal activities. But it is cold comfort indeed this week.

I assume then that I am much more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than I am to be killed by a violent criminal with a gun.

navy9t1 wrote: I assume then that I am much more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than I am to be killed by a violent criminal with a gun.

Don't know about drunk drivers, but the odds better are you will be killed in an auto accident.

standfan wrote:

The odds are no doubt much better for those not engaged in criminal activities. But it is cold comfort indeed this week.

The odds are also much, much better if you are not male, are not between 18 and 35, are not a minority, are not single and don't live in a city with strict gun control laws like Washington, DC, Chicago,IL or Oakland, CA.

Of course, this wasn't the case in the recent incident as none of the victims fit a high risk profile except the shooter himself.

navy9t1 wrote: I assume then that I am much more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than I am to be killed by a violent criminal with a gun.

I have seen you question this DUI vs. guns comparison a number of times last few days. I do not know the takeaway, but  I looked up the data quickly on the net...

Turns out you are not "much more likely" to be killed by a drunk driver, vs. gun, in 2010, the last year I saw data for both, the differences are only slight.  
http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicl..._factsheet.html The government says 10,228 were killed by drunk drivers in 2010

According to the government 8,874 murders were committed using firearms in 2010 http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cj...de-data-table-8.

But I think both gun deaths and drunk driving deaths have been falling, so it is possible the probabilities were different in the past or can flip in the future, since they aren't really that far apart and they are both moving. Please note that these numbers aren't all deaths just homicides. Guns appear to be far and away the item of choice for suicides, but that is likely another matter altogether.

navy9t1 wrote: I assume then that I am much more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than I am to be killed by a violent criminal with a gun.

I am at a loss for what you are possibly thinking.  Are you saying we should not take steps to reduce risks in our culture if they result in less deaths than DUIs?  You can't possibly be saying that.  Our company makes x-ray equipment which has safeguards to prevent overradiation of patients to limit biological damage (which can be a range of negative outcomes, up to and including death over a long period of time).  In your bizarro, no gummit world, we should be able to make products that would only kill a few thousand people per year? 

Maybe your counter argument is that the marketplace should decide what is safe.  OK, you get a brain tumor from excessive radiation, can you pin that on my company's products?

ccTop wrote: Yes, I find it fundamentally wrong that my 8-year-old is able to turn on the TV and can watch people killing each other but can't see a boob.

I never realized how pervasive violence is until I had a kid and began to be a gatekeeper for what he consumes.

Agree completely.

I have to be very careful what's on the TV. Even ads during sporting events (like Stanford football) show pretty graphic acts of violence promoting the latest video games, horror movies and crime dramas. I, too, didn't realize how incredibly sensitized to it all I'd become. Even Pixar movies are surprisingly violent; in Cars 2 for instance, cars are murdered and tortured to death. Not Tom and Jerry type violence, simulated acts of malice and evil. Try explaining that to a five year old.

We accept this violence, but fear the breast. A nipple during a halftime show. A mother breastfeeding a 4 yr old. Soldiers breastfeeding in uniform. All national crises. Somehow something so natural, a pair of pre-equipped sippy cups, have been twisted into objects of sexual titillation.

You might as well say that "you don't live in an urban center".  If you look at murder rate by states:




I don't see an obvious correlation between how liberal a state's gun laws are and how many murders the state has ((either way).  Arizona is pretty up there and has fairly liberal gun laws.  California and New York are in the middle and have restrictive gun laws.  Much of the Rocky Mountain west has liberal gun laws and very low murder rates.

And then there is your sentimental home.

BC

Boston Card wrote: You might as well say that "you don't live in an urban center".  If you look at murder rate by states:

If you mean "you don't live in a city of over 100,000 population that's had a Democratic mayor for more than 20 years" you'd be correct.

Just ask.  No need to go on a speculative rampage full of false assumptions. 

I have never advocated for what you describe as a "bizarro no gummit world".  

In this case, re the DUI and gun violence, I am pointing out that there are roughly as many deaths from DUI as there are from gun violence.  Since that is the case, why is there no corresponding call to ban alcohol?  I am not advocating prohibition; it didn't work before, it won't work now. 

In this most recent case, this woman apparently bought her guns legally; her crazy son killed her, took the guns, and went and killed the children.  There was no automatic weapons involved.  The "heavy duty" weapons he used were a small caliber .223 rifle and a 9 mm and 10 mm pistols. 

There is no law that could have prevented that shooting short of a total ban on guns, enforced by a police state. 

Separate but related issue - the gummint does a horrible job enforcing the gun control laws it has on the books now; the current administration DOJ is prosecuting less than half as many gun cases as GWB DOJ did; is this because there are fewer criminals out there buying, selling, and using guns illegally? 

I don't know, but that does not seem likely.  More likely, DOJ is choosing to apply its limited resources to drug enforcement, leaving less bandwidth to address gun violations.