1 2 3 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Schoot shootings: what is the proximate cause?

 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  806
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
14 May 2019 04:42
 

Looking at the data and assuming for tractability that a “generation” is 20 years, the frequency of school shootings has increased generationally since 1970.  The generation from 1970-1990 averaged about 19 shootings per year, from 1991-2010 it averaged about 32 per year, and 2011-present it is averaging about 39 per year.  So a clear increase in frequency.

This increase in frequency appears independent of any increase in the school age population over the same time.  In 1970 there were 48.9 million school age children (kids aged 6-17); in 1990 41.7 million; in 2010 49.7 million; and presently there are 49.92 million.  So school shooting frequency has increased per year across three generations, even as the number of school age kids has stayed roughly the same, or in one case even declined.

A rough estimate suggests the intensity of shootings (i.e. number of students killed per year) also increased from 1970-1990 to 1991-2010 (from ~8 per year to ~20), but surprisingly the intensity from 1991-2010 appears to be the same as from 2011-present (on average ~20 per year).  So the intensity of school shootings increased sharply, then leveled off to current levels.

This data suggests a troubling picture: kids have been catostrophically violent toward each other with greater frequency and intensity since 1970, increasing steadily in frequency over the entire time, but leveling out in intensity to its current levels around 1990.

The gun data over the same period indicates an even more troubling picture. 

Gun production from 1970-2015 has gone from a high of ~5.8 million per year in ~1975 (the data is on charts) to the fluctuating ups and downs between ~3 million per year in 1986 to ~5 million per year in 2010, with a spiked increase to just over ~8.5 million per year in 2012, averaging out again at ~9.2 million from 2012-2015.  At the same time, from 1970-2015 the number of gun-owning households has steeply declined, from a high of ~50% in 1976 to a low of 31% in 2015.  So, over this period of increased school shootings, an increasing number of guns is concentrating in fewer households.  This is important because other than theft, households are minors’ principal access to guns.

Even more disturbingly, gun control laws don’t seem to be the problem.  Background checks—a weak but not entirely ineffective preventative measure—have steeply increased from 1999 to 2018 (the only years for which I could find data), going from ~9 million annually to ~26 million annually.  So, even as the number of household owing guns has steeply declined, a weak but not altogether ineffective preventative measure has steeply increased over the same time, presumably keeping pace with sales.  Yet school age kids are getting access to guns in these household that are minimally not criminal.   

This data suggests that while gun ownership and gun laws are the ultimate cause of school shootings (for obviously, without guns, there would be none), the proximate cause of school shootings is more complex.  The data indicate that something about the nature of youth has changed that’s causing this kind of violence to one another, not simply the availability of guns.  For guns were even more available when records of this phenomena began, yet school shootings have increased.  Why?  Why are kids resorting to this kind of violence with greater frequency, and intensity?  The answer can’t simply be the presence of guns and gun control laws in our society.  Per household gun ownership has declined steeply, the existing laws are being triggered more frequently, even as school shootings have increased.  Besides the obvious presence of guns, what’s causing these kids increasingly to resort to catastrophic violence, when three generations ago this was more or less unheard of?

[I can’t find clear data combining the age profile of school shooters with the type of weapon used, but roughly 90% of the incidents where age is known were shooters from 5-18, and roughly 87% of all shootings involved a handgun.  This goes to the question of where school age children are getting the guns for these shootings. 

Also, crimes committed by adults in schools, while horrific, are separable from “school shootings” in the usually intended sense, but I can’t find data that separates them out by incident.  In any case, they comprise only a small fraction of the age-determinable school shootings. As I see it, they require different analysis and measures to address them.]

[ Edited: 22 May 2019 05:19 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17386
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
14 May 2019 08:26
 

I would say the ever increasing culture of victimhood and 24 hour media coverage.

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15679
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
14 May 2019 08:52
 

Interesting numbers. I’d look for a cultural aspect to this since these shootings happen almost exclusively in the US (would need to factor in the availability of guns here, but still I think it’s primarily an American phenomenon). One thing that might go to the psychic atmosphere part of this is a comment made by a student who was interviewed on CNN about the latest (or has there been another by now) shooting where the only person killed was the kid who ran at the shooter. The interviewed student said this kid was a hero, but the comment that jumped out for me was “he’s punched his ticket to Valhalla…” Could be nothing, but seems indicative of something in the generational psyche to me.

 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3075
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
14 May 2019 09:43
 

In addition to the obvious factor of the inexcusable accessibility of weapons to teens, an emotional age with questionable judgement ...

I think some teens are lonelier and more isolated now.  Parents working long hours, fewer if any siblings, online friends more prevalent than close friends.  Add to that the over-exposure to violence in entertainment and social media, bullying, a depressing view of their future.  Some/many of these shooters have stated that they were inspired by the reports of previous school shootings.  It used to be that kids were protected from some of the ugliness of the world until they were old enough to handle it; now they’re exposed to it constantly.

Perhaps it wouldn’t be a bad idea if parents limited and monitored their kids’ access to social media.  Push them out the door to the playground or sports arena where real friends are made; take them on a picnic or go camping where family ties are strengthened.  I think we can assume that happy kids don’t shoot up schools, so some parents need to pay closer attention.

 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  806
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
14 May 2019 10:19
 

burt

To your point, extrapolating from the numbers, Germany has a household gun ownership rate roughly one fifth that of the US, plus an estimated 20-45 million illegal guns in circulation.  Ceteris paribus one would expect something like one fifth the per capita gun violence in Germany compared to the US, but it’s actually (in 2016) 14,415 deaths in the US versus 25 in Germany— 99.2% below the expected value. 

One explanation for this is that Germany and the US are not ceteris paribus because Germany has some of the strictest gun control laws in Europe, and the US gun control laws are comparatively lax—strenuously so.  And this is true.  But this explanation is unsatisfying as an explanation of school shootings because although these have clearly impacted overall gun violence in Germany (from 57% of homicides in 1995 to 8% in 2015), school shootings have never been the problem in Germany that they’ve been in the US.  As far as I’ve been able to tell, there is only a handful (less than 5) of school shootings on record. 

This suggests that although stricter gun control laws will reduce gun violence overall—as it clearly did in Germany—school gun violence among ages 5-18 is a separate problem.  Specifically, it’s a problem Germany’s never had, even when guns accounted for 57% of homicides (in the US today, guns account for 67%). 

This suggests that new gun control laws aimed at gun violence generally will not impact school shootings, as these shooting appear to have a different cause than gun violence generally.

It also bears noting that the only school shootings Germany have occurred after gun violence generally had already declined by 88%.  So the shootings there started long after these gun control laws had reduced gun violence.

Like you say, I think: “it’s primarily and American phenomenon” and it is almost certainly related to the “psychic atmosphere.”

GAD

I agree there is both an increasing victimhood culture and 24 hour news, but I don’t see how either could be the cause of school shootings.  Maybe the later contributes to them somehow, in that the coverage gives students some outlet for recognition—a basic human need.  But I don’t see how it’s a cause per se.  And even less so for victimhood culture, which as I understand the term is far too recent to account for the rise since 1970.

Jan_CAN

But the question is, isn’t it: where is this accessibility coming from?  An 18 year old can buy a rifle, but not a handgun.  In some states a 16 year old can too, with parental co-signing, I think.  In any case, since 87% of type-identified shootings used handguns, how are they getting them?  It seems to me that even Germany’s strict gun control laws won’t keep them out of their hands.

“It used to be that kids were protected from some of the ugliness of the world until they were old enough to handle it; now they’re exposed to it constantly.”  Agree, and maybe as parents we are failing to prepare them for this exposure, generally across child-rearing practices that have become the norm since the 90’s. Since the exposure seems unavoidable, I personally think the culprit is (mainly) there—in those practices.  But I would be hard pressed to give any causal account.

“So some parents need to pay closer attention.”  Maybe it is, paradoxically, that parents have paid too much attention to their kids and not given them enough autonomy to solve disputes among themselves when young, leaving them less equipped in a violence-saturated society to avoid these violent means when they get old enough to act on them….

[ Edited: 14 May 2019 10:21 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1621
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
14 May 2019 11:34
 
Jan_CAN - 14 May 2019 09:43 AM

In addition to the obvious factor of the inexcusable accessibility of weapons to teens, an emotional age with questionable judgement ...

I think some teens are lonelier and more isolated now.  Parents working long hours, fewer if any siblings, online friends more prevalent than close friends.  Add to that the over-exposure to violence in entertainment and social media, bullying, a depressing view of their future.  Some/many of these shooters have stated that they were inspired by the reports of previous school shootings.  It used to be that kids were protected from some of the ugliness of the world until they were old enough to handle it; now they’re exposed to it constantly.

Perhaps it wouldn’t be a bad idea if parents limited and monitored their kids’ access to social media.  Push them out the door to the playground or sports arena where real friends are made; take them on a picnic or go camping where family ties are strengthened.  I think we can assume that happy kids don’t shoot up schools, so some parents need to pay closer attention.

Yes, and especially the boldfaced. I can’t help but assume strong causal correlation between graphic violence in films to quick desensitizing of violent types of psychopaths who otherwise might never achieve their potential.

 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  9414
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
14 May 2019 12:03
 

A sober assessment, Anal.  Regretfully, your data will remain incomplete because Congress specifically banned government studies on gun use in the USA, which deliberately causes speculation, assumption, and confusion in the public.  It is not difficult to figure out why Congress wants to keep the people in the dark about guns.

[ Edited: 14 May 2019 21:44 by Skipshot]
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3075
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
14 May 2019 12:09
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 14 May 2019 10:19 AM

Jan_CAN

But the question is, isn’t it: where is this accessibility coming from?  An 18 year old can buy a rifle, but not a handgun.  In some states a 16 year old can too, with parental co-signing, I think.  In any case, since 87% of type-identified shootings used handguns, how are they getting them?  It seems to me that even Germany’s strict gun control laws won’t keep them out of their hands.

“It used to be that kids were protected from some of the ugliness of the world until they were old enough to handle it; now they’re exposed to it constantly.”  Agree, and maybe as parents we are failing to prepare them for this exposure, generally across child-rearing practices that have become the norm since the 90’s. Since the exposure seems unavoidable, I personally think the culprit is (mainly) there—in those practices.  But I would be hard pressed to give any causal account.

“So some parents need to pay closer attention.”  Maybe it is, paradoxically, that parents have paid too much attention to their kids and not given them enough autonomy to solve disputes among themselves when young, leaving them less equipped in a violence-saturated society to avoid these violent means when they get old enough to act on them….

Perhaps the minimum age in the U.S. needs to be 21.  And there should be a legal requirement to keep guns secured.  The prevalence and ability of every Joe Blow to buy a handgun in the U.S. is mindboggling so it’s no surprise these often fall into the wrong hands.  In some neighbourhoods, older teens may have the ability and money to get hold of an illegal gun, but I expect that many get the weapons from their own homes or those of friends/relatives.

How does one completely prepare a child for that which they have not yet attained the maturity to process?  I think younger children, if given any access (e.g. iphones), should be very carefully monitored.  But yeah, for older kids there should be a lot of instruction and guidance, at home and in school.  But they also need to get a real life and off the damn things more often – easier said than done though.  And real life stuff like sports teaches them more about getting along with others than sitting in front of a screen ever will, with the additional benefit of physical activity and letting off some steam.

I guess it’s about the right kind of attention.  Time spent with kids so the parent has at least an inkling of what’s going on, like in the olden days with regular, nightly family dinners – not in front of the TV, but conversation around a table without devices blocking faces.  But I’ve seen the kind of attention I think you’re referring to, where parents do everything for their kids without letting them learn from minor mistakes or taking the time to teach them how to resolve their own problems which builds self-confidence.  (I recently observed an acquaintance of mine, a mother of a 20-year-old, running around trying to resolve her daughter’s difficulty with a landlord and a leasing issue.  Offering motherly advice is one thing, but her grown daughter should have been able to handle the situation for herself.)

 

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6645
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
14 May 2019 15:02
 

It might have something to do with the increase in mental illness over time, as described in Psychology Today:

These studies conclude that anxiety and depression are markedly higher than they were in earlier eras. They examine age groups from children to middle-aged adults and span the medical and psychological literature. Many are nationally representative samples. Most employ anonymous questionnaires asking about symptoms, which means the increases cannot be due to over-diagnosis – these are people filling out surveys for research studies, not people seeking treatment. Yet they still report more issues. And it’s not just because they think it’s more acceptable to do so – the MMPI includes two measures of this type of response bias, and it still showed increases in mental health issues among high school and college students after these scales were included in the model.

I blame the effectiveness of drugs to treat depression and anxiety. To the extent that they mask a genetic predisposition, they increase the likelihood that people suffering from depression and anxiety will find a mate and breed, thereby increasing the number of people with the genetic predisposition—and the number of kids at risk of going on school shooting sprees.

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15679
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
14 May 2019 17:38
 
nonverbal - 14 May 2019 11:34 AM
Jan_CAN - 14 May 2019 09:43 AM

In addition to the obvious factor of the inexcusable accessibility of weapons to teens, an emotional age with questionable judgement ...

I think some teens are lonelier and more isolated now.  Parents working long hours, fewer if any siblings, online friends more prevalent than close friends.  Add to that the over-exposure to violence in entertainment and social media, bullying, a depressing view of their future.  Some/many of these shooters have stated that they were inspired by the reports of previous school shootings.  It used to be that kids were protected from some of the ugliness of the world until they were old enough to handle it; now they’re exposed to it constantly.

Perhaps it wouldn’t be a bad idea if parents limited and monitored their kids’ access to social media.  Push them out the door to the playground or sports arena where real friends are made; take them on a picnic or go camping where family ties are strengthened.  I think we can assume that happy kids don’t shoot up schools, so some parents need to pay closer attention.

Yes, and especially the boldfaced. I can’t help but assume strong causal correlation between graphic violence in films to quick desensitizing of violent types of psychopaths who otherwise might never achieve their potential.

My brother is a writer (quick commercial, he has a book out now on Amazon called Hollow Fortress, first of four, good read) and years ago he started but never finished writing a book called The Goat Lab. The title came from a traumatic experience he had while in air force pararescue back in the late 60s and early 70s. He said that military studies had concluded that in a firefight only about 20% of the participants actually shot towards the enemy, so the military set up programs to actively desensitize soldiers and one such program involving slaughtering goats. In his case, however, they didn’t have any goats available so sent his group out to a local farm where they bought some cute little lambs, one of them being the farmer’s young daughters pet. I don’t know about films so much, but violent video games seem to me pretty good at desensitizing players who might come to think that shooting up a school is just another game.

 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  806
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
14 May 2019 18:11
 

Skipshot

I’ll take sober.  And yes, the data is incomplete; some model of the cause needs to be addressed, and that would take different data.  But, if the cause is not specific to guns but rather to something like self-regulation and a propensity to violence generally, there may be hope.  Although the Federal government won’t fund studies into school shootings specifically, one may be able to slip in studies that get at the underlying causes, absent mention of guns.  Either way, the prohibition against directly studying the problem shows how intellectually bankrupt and morally/socially toxic the gun lobby really is (I’m sure we can agree on that much).

Jan_CAN

I think the minimum age should be 21 for any gun, but I don’t think that would make a difference in school shootings.  Requiring parents to secure guns probably would, perhaps even a big one.

The real life kind of things I have in mind involve (among those you mention) unsupervised play time together, where—as you indicate—kids have conflicts and are forced to learn how to resolve them on their own.  Yes, this builds self-confidence.  To your example about the 20 year old, put the wrong set of psychological circumstances together and not having someone to resolve an issue at school might lead a kid to extreme measures rather than the usual means of conflict resolution.  The data indicates that 408 incidents were anger or escalations of disputes.

“How does one completely prepare a child for that which they have not yet attained the maturity to process?”  One never completely prepares them, I would imagine.  But it seems the parenting philosophy has switched from “prepare the child for the road” to “prepare the road for the child,” with even the later disrupted by the toxic (at that age) potential of social media.

ASD

Wow, Psychology Today and thrift-store eugenics as an explanation for school shootings.  I guess you put a lot of thought into that one, eh. 

[ Edited: 14 May 2019 19:43 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
no_profundia
 
Avatar
 
 
no_profundia
Total Posts:  499
Joined  14-07-2016
 
 
 
16 May 2019 19:02
 

Peter Turchin, author of Ages of Discord - which I have not actually read yet, but has been on my list to read for a while - believes the rise in mass shootings is a “canary in the coal mine” that points to larger cyclical historical processes that regularly produce periods of social dis-ease and rising violence. Turchin believes we are in the middle of such a period and that mass shootings are a symptom of that fact. I can’t say whether I agree with his specific analysis since I haven’t read his book yet but I strongly suspect he is right in a general sense: I think we are entering a period of social turbulence and I suspect mass shootings are one symptom of that.

We should adopt stronger gun regulations because I think they would have positive effects on suicide rates, accidental gun deaths, domestic violence, gang violence, etc. even if those laws did not have a significant effect on mass shootings. I certainly don’t think stronger regulations would make mass shootings any worse and they would have lots of other positive effects.

 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  806
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
19 May 2019 04:24
 
no_profundia - 16 May 2019 07:02 PM

Peter Turchin, author of Ages of Discord - which I have not actually read yet, but has been on my list to read for a while - believes the rise in mass shootings is a “canary in the coal mine” that points to larger cyclical historical processes that regularly produce periods of social dis-ease and rising violence. Turchin believes we are in the middle of such a period and that mass shootings are a symptom of that fact. I can’t say whether I agree with his specific analysis since I haven’t read his book yet but I strongly suspect he is right in a general sense: I think we are entering a period of social turbulence and I suspect mass shootings are one symptom of that.

We should adopt stronger gun regulations because I think they would have positive effects on suicide rates, accidental gun deaths, domestic violence, gang violence, etc. even if those laws did not have a significant effect on mass shootings. I certainly don’t think stronger regulations would make mass shootings any worse and they would have lots of other positive effects.

I have not read Ages of Discord yet either, but I have it, so I checked the section on mass shootings.  While interesting, Turchin’s argument strikes me as too general to bear much on school shootings in the sense intended here (he talks of political unrest, targeting groups—not individuals—and “instability events”).  I agree all these factors are signs of social turbulence, but in this case it’s kids killing other kids, an event which takes place amidst “turbulence,” to be sure, but turbulence of a different kind, I suspect (plus Turchin is covering nearly 220 years, and school violence of this kind has only occurred in the last 50).  Perhaps the underlying causes are similar—one ‘consistent with the times’— but provisionally I think the proximate causes have more to do with the changing nature of adolescence than social turbulence and political unrest in the wider sense.  Even if the causes were ultimately the same, one would still want to know how to address the sub-set of problems of kids killing other kids; presumably there would be direct causes there that could be addressed, absent solving the underlying problems of wider social unrest.  In any case, I think kids are too preoccupied with their own developing horizons to fall into the class of “instability events” Turchin describes.  But, as you indicate, the two very well might be related…

I agree with adopting stronger gun regulations for all the reasons you mention, including the caveats. 

(Nice to see you again).

 

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15679
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
19 May 2019 08:26
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 19 May 2019 04:24 AM
no_profundia - 16 May 2019 07:02 PM

Peter Turchin, author of Ages of Discord - which I have not actually read yet, but has been on my list to read for a while - believes the rise in mass shootings is a “canary in the coal mine” that points to larger cyclical historical processes that regularly produce periods of social dis-ease and rising violence. Turchin believes we are in the middle of such a period and that mass shootings are a symptom of that fact. I can’t say whether I agree with his specific analysis since I haven’t read his book yet but I strongly suspect he is right in a general sense: I think we are entering a period of social turbulence and I suspect mass shootings are one symptom of that.

We should adopt stronger gun regulations because I think they would have positive effects on suicide rates, accidental gun deaths, domestic violence, gang violence, etc. even if those laws did not have a significant effect on mass shootings. I certainly don’t think stronger regulations would make mass shootings any worse and they would have lots of other positive effects.

I have not read Ages of Discord yet either, but I have it, so I checked the section on mass shootings.  While interesting, Turchin’s argument strikes me as too general to bear much on school shootings in the sense intended here (he talks of political unrest, targeting groups—not individuals—and “instability events”).  I agree all these factors are signs of social turbulence, but in this case it’s kids killing other kids, an event which takes place amidst “turbulence,” to be sure, but turbulence of a different kind, I suspect (plus Turchin is covering nearly 220 years, and school violence of this kind has only occurred in the last 50).  Perhaps the underlying causes are similar—one ‘consistent with the times’— but provisionally I think the proximate causes have more to do with the changing nature of adolescence than social turbulence and political unrest in the wider sense.  Even if the causes were ultimately the same, one would still want to know how to address the sub-set of problems of kids killing other kids; presumably there would be direct causes there that could be addressed, absent solving the underlying problems of wider social unrest.  In any case, I think kids are too preoccupied with their own developing horizons to fall into the class of “instability events” Turchin describes.  But, as you indicate, the two very well might be related…

I agree with adopting stronger gun regulations for all the reasons you mention, including the caveats. 

(Nice to see you again).

 

This doesn’t answer the questions, and is perhaps from a viewpoint that is biased, but…
https://humanparts.medium.com/the-story-my-male-editors-kept-killing-e0e8c71a47ec?fbclid=IwAR17MoFKCNFIeS45JQ2z9K7vhdBnch0AlT4oEvh9dFId5GXQ4BxWoKuAh3g

 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  9414
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
19 May 2019 09:19
 
burt - 19 May 2019 08:26 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 19 May 2019 04:24 AM
no_profundia - 16 May 2019 07:02 PM

Peter Turchin, author of Ages of Discord - which I have not actually read yet, but has been on my list to read for a while - believes the rise in mass shootings is a “canary in the coal mine” that points to larger cyclical historical processes that regularly produce periods of social dis-ease and rising violence. Turchin believes we are in the middle of such a period and that mass shootings are a symptom of that fact. I can’t say whether I agree with his specific analysis since I haven’t read his book yet but I strongly suspect he is right in a general sense: I think we are entering a period of social turbulence and I suspect mass shootings are one symptom of that.

We should adopt stronger gun regulations because I think they would have positive effects on suicide rates, accidental gun deaths, domestic violence, gang violence, etc. even if those laws did not have a significant effect on mass shootings. I certainly don’t think stronger regulations would make mass shootings any worse and they would have lots of other positive effects.

I have not read Ages of Discord yet either, but I have it, so I checked the section on mass shootings.  While interesting, Turchin’s argument strikes me as too general to bear much on school shootings in the sense intended here (he talks of political unrest, targeting groups—not individuals—and “instability events”).  I agree all these factors are signs of social turbulence, but in this case it’s kids killing other kids, an event which takes place amidst “turbulence,” to be sure, but turbulence of a different kind, I suspect (plus Turchin is covering nearly 220 years, and school violence of this kind has only occurred in the last 50).  Perhaps the underlying causes are similar—one ‘consistent with the times’— but provisionally I think the proximate causes have more to do with the changing nature of adolescence than social turbulence and political unrest in the wider sense.  Even if the causes were ultimately the same, one would still want to know how to address the sub-set of problems of kids killing other kids; presumably there would be direct causes there that could be addressed, absent solving the underlying problems of wider social unrest.  In any case, I think kids are too preoccupied with their own developing horizons to fall into the class of “instability events” Turchin describes.  But, as you indicate, the two very well might be related…

I agree with adopting stronger gun regulations for all the reasons you mention, including the caveats. 

(Nice to see you again).

This doesn’t answer the questions, and is perhaps from a viewpoint that is biased, but…
https://humanparts.medium.com/the-story-my-male-editors-kept-killing-e0e8c71a47ec?fbclid=IwAR17MoFKCNFIeS45JQ2z9K7vhdBnch0AlT4oEvh9dFId5GXQ4BxWoKuAh3g

As long as the weapons used in the crimes are not allowed to be researched, analyzed, and reported by an entity with the greatest power to collect the data, namely the federal government, then confusion and speculation will rule, no matter how many fancy words and obscure concepts are attached to the discussion.

When all other forms of machinery dangerous to people and society are heavily and strictly studied and regulated, it is telling that guns have a specific, legal proscription from such regulations.  Guns have a special place in Americans’ hearts which is is automatically absolved from blame when they are used for the explicit purpose of killing, and this is baffling.

Also baffling is that the 2nd Amendment cites a right to arms, which is a general term for weapons, yet many far less deadly (knives and swords) and far more deadly arms (grenades and bazookas) are deemed illegal.  Why are guns given special exemption among the world of arms?

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  6878
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
19 May 2019 10:11
 
Skipshot - 19 May 2019 09:19 AM

  Why are guns given special exemption among the world of arms?

$$$$$

 
 
 1 2 3 >  Last ›