Gunman kills 5 at Utah mall

[nehemiah]

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (AP) -- A historic mall's winding hallways became a shooting gallery for an 18-year-old gunman in a trench coat who fired a shotgun randomly at customers, killing five and wounding four before being killed by police, authorities and witnesses said.

The shooter, whose name was not released, also was armed with a handgun and had several rounds of ammunition, Salt Lake City police Detective Robin Snyder said early Tuesday. No motive has yet been determined, she said.

For hours after Monday evening's rampage at the Trolley Square shopping mall, police searched stores for scared, shocked shoppers and employees who were hunkered down awaiting a safe escort. (Watch witnesses recount gunshots, carnage )

Marie Smith, 23, a Bath & Body Works manager, saw the gunman through the store window. She watched as he raised his gun and fired at a young woman approaching him from behind.

"His expression stayed totally calm. He didn't seem upset, or like he was on a rampage," said Smith, who crawled to safety in an employee restroom to hide with others. She said the gunman looked like "an average Joe."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/13/salt.lake.shooting.ap/index.html

why is america so violent?

[Lucidvizion]

America? He's 1 out of 300000000

He just picked a very violent way to commit suicide.

[nehemiah]

America? He's 1 out of 300000000

He just picked a very violent way to commit suicide.this type of thing happens five times a year.

and it is impossible to (rationally) disagree that america is violent.

now answer the question. why is america so violent?

[dasaybz]

Taking out innocent victims like they are a video game is just terrible. What a way to ruin many families.

[dasaybz]

this type of thing happens five times a year.

and it is impossible to (rationally) disagree that america is violent.

now answer the question. why is america so violent?

Come on libby. You know why American is so violent. It's because of the video games. We have to blame somebody, ya know? We couldn't possibly put the blame on the parents or the individual person. I mean, come on, holding people accountable is such old news.

[nehemiah]

Come on libby. You know why American is so violent. It's because of the video games. We have to blame somebody, ya know? We couldn't possibly put the blame on the parents or the individual person. I mean, come on, holding people accountable is such old news.yep.

in other words, you're afraid to answer the question.

why are you dodging?

[JLB]

Should it not be why are some people violent?

Maybe he was abused as a child.

What does it have to do with America?

Maybe he grew up in Canada or overseas.

[nehemiah]

:rofl:

it's a monkey dance in here.

[dasaybz]

yep.

in other words, you're afraid to answer the question.

why are you dodging?

I'm not afraid to answer any questions. America is violent because of the video games. There can be no other explanation. Right?

[Lucidvizion]

Some people want to die but don't believe in killing theirselves.

The phrase I've seen used most is 'Suicide by cop.'

America is violent because all mammal carnivore and omnivores are violent.

[JLB]

:rofl:

it's a monkey dance in here.

link would be cool.


Are you suggesting criminals don't recieve enough punishment?

Should we use caning as a method of punishment?

[nehemiah]

I'm not afraid to answer any questions. America is violent because of the video games. There can be no other explanation. Right?wrong.

[sahlensguy]

Senseless violence like this is due to disconect.

[dasaybz]

Nehe, what are you getting at here?

[JLB]

Utah is a violent state maybe thats it no?

[sahlensguy]

Utah is a violent state maybe thats it no?

States are not violent people are yes

[JLB]

States are not violent people are yes

Thank you my point earlier when I said it's the people not the country.

Should we punish these people a little differently?

When convicted does the form of punishment fit the crime?

Would caning ever be in order?

Sounds extreme to me but what does everybodyelse think?

[nehemiah]

Nehe, what are you getting at here?i'm not really getting at anything.... it was an honest question.

find a common denominator b/t the most violent countries in the world.

[sahlensguy]

Thank you my point earlier when I said it's the people not the country.

Should we punish these people a little differently?

When convicted does the form of punishment fit the crime?

Would caning ever be in order?

Sounds extreme to me but what does everybodyelse think?

Gunman did take his own life. No further punishment or long court battles necessary. Thankfully, I guess.

Criminals in general are pampered. Flogging is fine imo.

Violent offenders and illegals are get out easy. Pot smokers waste away behind bars. Rehab is neglected. Mental illness is an epidemic. Incarceration is a scam.

[JLB]

i'm not really getting at anything.... it was an honest question.

find a common denominator b/t the most violent countries in the world.

What countries do the caning nehe?

[sahlensguy]

i'm not really getting at anything.... it was an honest question.

find a common denominator b/t the most violent countries in the world.

Define violence i guess.

Hitler was extreme. You'll find little if any in common with that and violence in America today.

[JLB]

Gunman did take his own life. No further punishment or long court battles necessary. Thankfully, I guess.

Criminals in general are pampered. Flogging is fine imo.

Violent offenders and illegals are get out easy. Pot smokers waste away behind bars. Rehab is neglected. Mental illness is an epidemic. Incarceration is a scam.

Flogging is fine ok you don't think it's a little cruel?

I'm interested in your incarceration is a scam statement.

I think your onto something.

The punishment so often doesn't seem to fit the crime.

When you hear about someone getting years in prison for stealing bread or stories of that nature.

What's your take?

[sahlensguy]

I'm interested in your incarceration is a scam statement.

I think your onto something.

The punishment so often doesn't seem to fit the crime.

When you hear about someone getting years in prison for stealing bread or stories of that nature.

What's your take?

The prison system is a money making, political gaining corrupt tool imo.

We have a problem when more new prisons are builet than new schools.

And no, I don't think flogging is cruel. Like I said criminals in general are pampered.

[JLB]

The prison system is a money making, political gaining corrupt tool imo.

We have a problem when more new prisons are builet than new schools.

And no, I don't think flogging is cruel. Like I said criminals in general are pampered.

Thank you very much.

[gilchristfan]

Come on libby. You know why American is so violent. It's because of the video games. We have to blame somebody, ya know? We couldn't possibly put the blame on the parents or the individual person. I mean, come on, holding people accountable is such old news.

yep.

in other words, you're afraid to answer the question.

why are you dodging?

He did answer the question Nehe. Its just not the answer you wanted.

[shiva2999]

LOL!

Nehemiah asks why are Americans so violent?

Instead of answering the question, various different proposals for violent punishments are mooted.

BTW, I loooooove video games.

ESPECIALLY online first person shooters.

QuakeIII Arena was just ****ing awesome!

[dasaybz]

LOL!

Nehemiah asks why are Americans so violent?

Instead of answering the question, various different proposals for violent punishments are mooted.

BTW, I loooooove video games.

ESPECIALLY online first person shooters.

QuakeIII Arena was just ****ing awesome!

Dude, you gotta try playing Battlefield 2, it is a great game!!

[dasaybz]

shiva, clear your pm's

[JLB]

why is america so violent?

Not why are Americans so violent nehe asked why is America so violent.

[JLB]

LOL!

Nehemiah asks why are Americans so violent?



No he didn't.

[markythebill]

Video game, movies and TV shows don't make people commit murder, they just give potential murderers inspiration on the ways they can kill.


This sounds like a rampage mission from Grand Theft Auto. I used to love those, get a weapons cheat and then go round the mall shooting everything in sight! And the police copters can't get you in there so you don't have to keep shooting into the sky!

[sahlensguy]

LOL!

Nehemiah asks why are Americans so violent?

Instead of answering the question, various different proposals for violent punishments are mooted.

BTW, I loooooove video games.

ESPECIALLY online first person shooters.

QuakeIII Arena was just ****ing awesome!

The answer in a word is disconnect I believe.

Video games, movies, tv, media etc have all sort of made violence a little less real for many.

Both the act of doing it and the act of feeling and responsibly dealing with its pain.

God is out of the picture most of the time I'd bet. For too many, it's a dog eat dog world.

[shiva2999]

shiva, clear your pm's

Done.

[Gibby]

this type of thing happens five times a year.

and it is impossible to (rationally) disagree that america is violent.

now answer the question. why is america so violent?
There are many reasons for this neh. I think it is the lack of parental involvement/ discipline/ impartation of moral values in the lives of children. Because of economic uncertainty you have parents who sit their kids in front of the television and for whatever reason, might just be an innate fascination, the kids are drawn to violence. The parents have to work and are not teaching the kids right from wrong so they learn it from society. You also have parents that are around their children and yet they do not discipline or correct them. I am not saying spanking, but I am saying discipline. A kid does something wrong and a parent needs to correct them and teach them that it has consequences. Then there is the impartation of moral values. It seems parents are afraid of teaching their kids what they think is right. Its not the video games, if it were Japan would have the highest murder rate in the world. Its not guns either, banning guns and video games only treat symptoms. Sorry James Dobson, but you can also shove your porn idea that Bundy looked at porn and became a serial killer because of it. No Bundy was sick already and while porn might not have helped it did not cause him to kill, this is what is called a crock. The problem is the absence of the family. By family I do not mean nuclear family, but I do mean mother or father acting like an adult and training their children and being involved in their children's life. Parents, more than anyone else, should play the biggest role in the rearing of the new generations.

[TheGoodShepherd]

Guns are too easy to access in the States. That's the problem.

[gilchristfan]

LOL!

Nehemiah asks why are Americans so violent?

Instead of answering the question, various different proposals for violent punishments are mooted.

BTW, I loooooove video games.

ESPECIALLY online first person shooters.

QuakeIII Arena was just ****ing awesome!

Its because all of our fathers work for giant defense contractors.

So you don't think our kids say to themselves, 'Dad goes off to the factory every day, he builds rockets of mass destruction. What's the difference between that mass destruction and the mass destruction over at Columbine High School?

No, wait, that was Columbine.

[Gibby]

Guns are too easy to access in the States. That's the problem.

get em pretty easy in Canada too. Oh yeah and here you are once again treating a symptom.

[TheGoodShepherd]

get em pretty easy in Canada too. Oh yeah and here you are once again treating a symptom.

Not as easily as the U.S. Not by a longshot.

[shiva2999]

...God is out of the picture most of the time I'd bet. For too many, it's a dog eat dog world.

And which side of the aisle bases their world-view on the perception it's a dog-eat-dog world?

What do you think Social Darwinism is?

Just take a look at some of Ralonzo's posts for an example.

Or look at some others to whom the very MENTION of the term "entitlements" causes anal leakage.

America has ALWAYS been a violent country because to too many citizens, America the Myth is more important than America the Reality.

[sahlensguy]

And which side of the aisle bases their world-view on the perception it's a dog-eat-dog world?

My point was that much of senselsess violence comes out of retaliation. A gang member gets killed and another killing or more is the payback. The cycle continues.


[/QUOTE]America has ALWAYS been a violent country because to too many citizens, America the Myth is more important than America the Reality.[/QUOTE]


I agree. It's what I called the disconnect of people with thier environment. When you say "always", I think it is more senseless than ever (relatively speaking).

[K-Gun]

why is america so violent?

see: An American Tragedy by Theodore Dreiser

short answer: it is the American Dream baby! From my cold dead hand, you sissy.

[Gibby]

shiva define social darwinism.

[shiva2999]

shiva define social darwinism.

Go look it up on google.

I've posted about Herbert Spencer a number of times.

[K-Gun]

shiva define social darwinism.

Are you asking him because you don't think he knows what it means, or because you don't?

[dasaybz]

How much does a lack of morals have to do with this? At what point do we simply say that the lack of family values and the individual themselves are to blame for this. I'd be curious to see how many of these violent individuals had a good family life at home. I know I'm generalizing here, but I would bet that this has a big reason to do with all this shit going on.

Add into that equation the fact that guns are easily accessible and violence is glorified on television and video games and you have a bad scenario.

[Lucidvizion]

In general:

The secular left believe humans are part and one with mother nature along with all the other creatures here. Yet they are shocked and appalled when humans are violent... check out what happens when you have a lion pride competing for territory with a hyena clan.

The religious right believe humans are God's children and above nature, yet think it's perfectly acceptable to be violent and be like an animal.

Awesome.

[dasaybz]

In general:

The secular left believe humans are part and one with mother nature along with all the other creatures here. Yet they are shocked and appalled when humans are violent... check out what happens when you have a lion pride competing for territory with a hyena clan.

The religious right believe humans are God's children and above nature, yet think it's perfectly acceptable to be violent and be like an animal.

Awesome.

But how often do you actually see an animal killing its own breed? You don't very often see lions killing other lions, they are usually hunting another species.

[shiva2999]

In general:

The secular left believe humans are part and one with mother nature along with all the other creatures here. Yet they are shocked and appalled when humans are violent... check out what happens when you have a lion pride competing for territory with a hyena clan.

The religious right believe humans are God's children and above nature, yet think it's perfectly acceptable to be violent and be like an animal.

Awesome.

Law of the jungle.

Social Darwinism at it's finest.

[Lucidvizion]

But how often do you actually see an animal killing its own breed? You don't very often see lions killing other lions, they are usually hunting another species.

It has been hypothesized that even humans have a natural aversion to killing other humans. Read this review of a book I mean to read someday... in fact some of it may shed some light on Nehemiah's question and suspicions:

http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Psychological-Cost-Learning-Society/dp/0316330116/sr=8-2/qid=1171391921/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-2452540-2718550?ie=UTF8&s=books

ON KILLING is the study of what author Lt. Col. Dave Grossman has termed "killology". This odd term describes, not killing between nations, but the exact circumstances involved when one individual ends the life of another individual, with the primary focus being on combat situations. I've sometimes wondered how I (someone who has never been anywhere near armed conflict) would fare on the frontlines, as killing another human being seems like an almost impossible psychological task. As Grossman casts an eye over historical reports of combat, he found that, apparently, I wasn't alone in thinking that. During the First and Second World Wars, officers estimated that only 15-20 percent of their frontline soldiers actually fired their weapons, and there is evidence to suggest that most of those who did fire aimed their rifles harmless above the heads of their enemy.

Grossman's argument is carefully researched and methodically laid out. He begins by filling in some historical details, discussing the statistics for shots fired per soldier killed for the World Wars and the American Civil War. It's a refreshing and enlightening look at war that dispels a lot of misconceptions. An average solder in those wars was extremely reluctant to take arms against fellow humans, even in cases where his own life (or the lives of his companions) was threatened. Not to say that any of these people are cowards; in fact, many would engage in brave acts such as rescuing their comrades from behind enemy lines or standing in harm's way while helping a fellow to reload. But the ability to stare down the length of a gun barrel and make a conscious effort to end a life is a quality that is happily rare.

The book continues on then, detailing what steps the US Army took to increase the percentage that they could get to actually fire upon their enemy. By studying precisely what the soldier's ordinary reactions were, the officers were able to change the scenario of war in order to avoid the most stressful of situations. The soldier found up-close killing to be abhorrent, so the emphasis was countered by inserting machinery (preferably one manned by multiple soldiers) between the killer and the enemy to increase the physical and emotional distance. Every effort is made to dehumanize the act of killing.

Grossman spends a great deal of time discussing the trauma that the solder who kills faces when he returns to civilian life. Nowhere is this more apparent than in those veterans who returned from Vietnam. Those soldiers had been psychologically trained to kill in a way that no previous army had gone through, and there was no counteragent working to heal their psychological wounds. Grossman takes great pains to discuss how horrifying the act of killing is, and points out how detrimental it is to one's mental health. When the Vietnam veterans returned home to no counseling and the spit and bile of anti-war protestors, the emotional effect was astounding. Most of Grossman's thesis is supported by in-depth interviews and psychological profiles, but it is the story of the Vietnam veterans that comes across as the most disturbing.

Much of the chatter about this book seems to revolve around the final section, the discussion about our own civilian society. While this is understandable, I actually preferred reading the earlier portions, simply because they opened my eyes to a lot about the military that I had been previously ignorant of. I think it would be a mistake to concentrate solely on the argument's conclusion as it rests heavily on the case that has been building. In any event, the book eventually develops its final conclusion: the methods that the military uses to desensitize its soldiers to killing are also being used in our media, but without the proper command structure that keeps people from killing indiscriminately. In a military situation, firing a weapon without proper authorization or instruction is a very serious offense, and this is drilled into the mind at the same time as the desensitization. Without this safety, there is nothing to hold back the killing instinct, and this is one of the main reasons why the homicide rate has increased so dramatically.

Now, I'll say right off the bat that I was partial to this line of argument before I read the book; I think that children repeatedly exposed to such images would almost certainly become bias towards extreme violence. But Grossman's book gave me so much more to think about. It isn't just a Pavlovian force at work here; Grossman points out many reasons (both stemming from society and the changing family structure) for why young people of today seem much more able to kill than their parents and grandparents were.

I was honestly surprised at how strong of a writer Grossman is. He manages to put forth his argument without boring the reader. By its very nature, a lot of what he discusses is repetitive and disturbing, but the subject matter is so compelling that I didn't mind. Grossman is very logical in his approach and his argument is a powerful one. I highly recommend this book, especially for people like myself who have never experienced war at close quarters. The summary I (and others here) have given is simply not nearly adequate to capture all of Grossman's thorough contentions. ON KILLING made me think harder about a subject that I hadn't given a lot of thought too before. The information and research here is invaluable.

[westphal]

America is so violent because there is an atmosphere of tension and frustration brewing beneath the surface. We are losing what sense of community we used to have. Everyone is in a hurry, and we just want people to stay out of our way. We rush to judgement. America is basically a selfish place. There are a lot of things wrong with this country, and if you can't keep up with the pace, you're screwed. Don't get me wrong...there are good things about America too, but the country can seem twisted and out of control to those who can't cope with the bad parts about it.

These rampage killer are only acting out thoughts that everyone has. That's the scary part.

[gilchristfan]

And which side of the aisle bases their world-view on the perception it's a dog-eat-dog world?

What do you think Social Darwinism is?

Just take a look at some of Ralonzo's posts for an example.

Or look at some others to whom the very MENTION of the term "entitlements" causes anal leakage.

America has ALWAYS been a violent country because to too many citizens, America the Myth is more important than America the Reality.

That's an interesting theory.

I wonder why the violent crime rate in the US has dropped substantially in the last 10 years, (roughly 33% or 38% since 1991) whereas in Canada, its only dropped 7%)?

Why is the violent crime rate in Canada, (roughly 390 per 100k, after taking out simple assaults,) relatively on par with the US rate of 469?

I wonder why property crimes are higher in Canada? That sounds like a bit dog-eat-dog to me.

And can you please explain the high rate of sexual assault in Canada?

Can't handle your internet porn up there or something?

Looking at the figures, I don't know if I'd be painting Canada as a peaceful little burg.

There appear to be plenty of thugs there.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/060720/d060720b.htm

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

[Lucidvizion]

I think he prefers 'Canada the Myth'

[shiva2999]

That's an interesting theory.

I wonder why the violent crime rate in the US has dropped substantially in the last 10 years, (roughly 33% or 38% since 1991) whereas in Canada, its only dropped 7%)?


In 2005 the US murder rate was 5.6/100,000.

Canada's was 2.0.

As for the rest of the stats, your two tables arn't very useful.

the Canadian one seems to be reported crimes while in the US log I don't see it specified.

Plus, it seems the Canadian log seems to include more catagories of property crimes than the US one.

Plus, it seems the majority of our crimes come from the prairie provinces. I'd say native people crimes make up a higher % in Canada than the US.

No excuse of course, but I suspect native misery, alcoholism and drug abuse play a large part.

As for sexual assaults vs forcible rapes, I suspect two things.

Canada's definition is broader and Canadian women feeel more comfortable reporting.

Anyway, I have never denied that we have our share of wackos in Canada.

But that the curious thing is, I never made the point in the post you quoted that Canada was snow white.

Wasn't the question that was asked "Why is America so violent", not "Why is America so violent compared to Canada"?

[shiva2999]

I think he prefers 'Canada the Myth'

Where did I bring Canada into the discussion?

Nowhere. Gil did.

And why is it relevant?

Oh yeah, I'm a Canadian and should just STFU.

[Lucidvizion]

Geez, lighten up.

A little? :D

[shiva2999]

Geez, lighten up.

A little? :D

It's not my fault.

Gil made me go through those stupid numbers.

[Green Lantern]

Did you get an answer Nehe?

[ckg68]

Let me posit this theory:

Could military service be a part of the reason why we hear about this so damned much? When a soldier gets back,would it not be incorrect to assume that not everyone can shut off their memories of what they experienced and either a. start self-medicating or b. assume everyone's out to get you and react the only way you know how...by kicking the crap out of people? I'd have to guess that the way the military breaks a person down psychologically,and then rebuilds them,has something to do with it.

(Yes,I'm aware that the gunman in this case was,likely,not in the military-but hear me out.)

Recall the sniper killings around the D.C. region a few years ago. One of the snipers(John Allen Muhammad)had military experience. That's the only one that comes to mind right now,but I'm sure that there are many other examples of people who've served in the armed forces,snapped some time after returning to the States,and killed others.

[mighty peace warrior]

It has been hypothesized that even humans have a natural aversion to killing other humans. Read this review of a book I mean to read someday... in fact some of it may shed some light on Nehemiah's question and suspicions:

http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Psychological-Cost-Learning-Society/dp/0316330116/sr=8-2/qid=1171391921/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-2452540-2718550?ie=UTF8&s=books

ON KILLING is the study of what author Lt. Col. Dave Grossman has termed "killology". This odd term describes, not killing between nations, but the exact circumstances involved when one individual ends the life of another individual, with the primary focus being on combat situations. I've sometimes wondered how I (someone who has never been anywhere near armed conflict) would fare on the frontlines, as killing another human being seems like an almost impossible psychological task. As Grossman casts an eye over historical reports of combat, he found that, apparently, I wasn't alone in thinking that. During the First and Second World Wars, officers estimated that only 15-20 percent of their frontline soldiers actually fired their weapons, and there is evidence to suggest that most of those who did fire aimed their rifles harmless above the heads of their enemy.

Grossman's argument is carefully researched and methodically laid out. He begins by filling in some historical details, discussing the statistics for shots fired per soldier killed for the World Wars and the American Civil War. It's a refreshing and enlightening look at war that dispels a lot of misconceptions. An average solder in those wars was extremely reluctant to take arms against fellow humans, even in cases where his own life (or the lives of his companions) was threatened. Not to say that any of these people are cowards; in fact, many would engage in brave acts such as rescuing their comrades from behind enemy lines or standing in harm's way while helping a fellow to reload. But the ability to stare down the length of a gun barrel and make a conscious effort to end a life is a quality that is happily rare.

The book continues on then, detailing what steps the US Army took to increase the percentage that they could get to actually fire upon their enemy. By studying precisely what the soldier's ordinary reactions were, the officers were able to change the scenario of war in order to avoid the most stressful of situations. The soldier found up-close killing to be abhorrent, so the emphasis was countered by inserting machinery (preferably one manned by multiple soldiers) between the killer and the enemy to increase the physical and emotional distance. Every effort is made to dehumanize the act of killing.

Grossman spends a great deal of time discussing the trauma that the solder who kills faces when he returns to civilian life. Nowhere is this more apparent than in those veterans who returned from Vietnam. Those soldiers had been psychologically trained to kill in a way that no previous army had gone through, and there was no counteragent working to heal their psychological wounds. Grossman takes great pains to discuss how horrifying the act of killing is, and points out how detrimental it is to one's mental health. When the Vietnam veterans returned home to no counseling and the spit and bile of anti-war protestors, the emotional effect was astounding. Most of Grossman's thesis is supported by in-depth interviews and psychological profiles, but it is the story of the Vietnam veterans that comes across as the most disturbing.

Much of the chatter about this book seems to revolve around the final section, the discussion about our own civilian society. While this is understandable, I actually preferred reading the earlier portions, simply because they opened my eyes to a lot about the military that I had been previously ignorant of. I think it would be a mistake to concentrate solely on the argument's conclusion as it rests heavily on the case that has been building. In any event, the book eventually develops its final conclusion: the methods that the military uses to desensitize its soldiers to killing are also being used in our media, but without the proper command structure that keeps people from killing indiscriminately. In a military situation, firing a weapon without proper authorization or instruction is a very serious offense, and this is drilled into the mind at the same time as the desensitization. Without this safety, there is nothing to hold back the killing instinct, and this is one of the main reasons why the homicide rate has increased so dramatically.

Now, I'll say right off the bat that I was partial to this line of argument before I read the book; I think that children repeatedly exposed to such images would almost certainly become bias towards extreme violence. But Grossman's book gave me so much more to think about. It isn't just a Pavlovian force at work here; Grossman points out many reasons (both stemming from society and the changing family structure) for why young people of today seem much more able to kill than their parents and grandparents were.

I was honestly surprised at how strong of a writer Grossman is. He manages to put forth his argument without boring the reader. By its very nature, a lot of what he discusses is repetitive and disturbing, but the subject matter is so compelling that I didn't mind. Grossman is very logical in his approach and his argument is a powerful one. I highly recommend this book, especially for people like myself who have never experienced war at close quarters. The summary I (and others here) have given is simply not nearly adequate to capture all of Grossman's thorough contentions. ON KILLING made me think harder about a subject that I hadn't given a lot of thought too before. The information and research here is invaluable.

I have heard Grossman speak twice. He has some misguided info and some good info. As of late he blames video games, says they kill brain cells that make you sensitive to violence

[mighty peace warrior]

Let me posit this theory:

Could military service be a part of the reason why we hear about this so damned much? When a soldier gets back,would it not be incorrect to assume that not everyone can shut off their memories of what they experienced and either a. start self-medicating or b. assume everyone's out to get you and react the only way you know how...by kicking the crap out of people? I'd have to guess that the way the military breaks a person down psychologically,and then rebuilds them,has something to do with it.

(Yes,I'm aware that the gunman in this case was,likely,not in the military-but hear me out.)

Recall the sniper killings around the D.C. region a few years ago. One of the snipers(John Allen Muhammad)had military experience. That's the only one that comes to mind right now,but I'm sure that there are many other examples of people who've served in the armed forces,snapped some time after returning to the States,and killed others.

i have been to a lot of suicide by cop calls, or attempted suicide by cop calls. i dont think your theory has any merit.

[gilchristfan]

In 2005 the US murder rate was 5.6/100,000.

Canada's was 2.0.

As for the rest of the stats, your two tables arn't very useful.

the Canadian one seems to be reported crimes while in the US log I don't see it specified.

Plus, it seems the Canadian log seems to include more catagories of property crimes than the US one.

Plus, it seems the majority of our crimes come from the prairie provinces. I'd say native people crimes make up a higher % in Canada than the US.

No excuse of course, but I suspect native misery, alcoholism and drug abuse play a large part.

As for sexual assaults vs forcible rapes, I suspect two things.

Canada's definition is broader and Canadian women feeel more comfortable reporting.

Anyway, I have never denied that we have our share of wackos in Canada.

But that the curious thing is, I never made the point in the post you quoted that Canada was snow white.

Wasn't the question that was asked "Why is America so violent", not "Why is America so violent compared to Canada"?

As to the murder rate, The murder rate rose steadily beginning in the 60's and then began dropping around '93.


Its now nearly half of what it was in the 80's. This drop is occuring despite a pretty serious gang problem.

In terms of the assault and/or sexual assault, remember too, that since the Ron/Nicole murders, both sexual assault and domestic assault are reported like never before. Even as late as the early 90's, tons of bona fide domestic assaults weren't being reported. And yet, the total numbers of assaults are dropping.

Remember, Nehe's question didn't ask why the US is a murderous society, it was whether its a violent society. Other violent crimes are therefore relevant.


But if you're calling the US a violent society, who are you comparing it too?

I assumed Canada. And except for murders, the numbers are pretty similar.

In fact, we're experiencing a huge drop in violent crime, yours is steady, or growing.

Canada is again trying to be wannabe Americans, yet we're becoming civilized.

Once again, you guys are a page behind.

[nehemiah]

half of 30 is 15.

two thirds of 15 is 10.

so what the ****?

[Mouldsie]

I'm not afraid to answer any questions. America is violent because of the video games. There can be no other explanation. Right?
is that supposed to be the liberal response?

[Mouldsie]

Some people want to die but don't believe in killing theirselves.

The phrase I've seen used most is 'Suicide by cop.'

America is violent because all mammal carnivore and omnivores are violent.

BS

We arent born with hate in our heart

[Mouldsie]

Thank you my point earlier when I said it's the people not the country.

Should we punish these people a little differently?

When convicted does the form of punishment fit the crime?

Would caning ever be in order?

Sounds extreme to me but what does everybodyelse think?

Dont get caught up in semantics.... perhaps people wouldnt be so hard headed if we used the phrase North American culture?

[Mouldsie]

Go look it up on google.

I've posted about Herbert Spencer a number of times.

A good man, to be sure

[Mouldsie]

How much does a lack of morals have to do with this? At what point do we simply say that the lack of family values and the individual themselves are to blame for this. I'd be curious to see how many of these violent individuals had a good family life at home. I know I'm generalizing here, but I would bet that this has a big reason to do with all this shit going on.

Add into that equation the fact that guns are easily accessible and violence is glorified on television and video games and you have a bad scenario.

thats a good start

[Mouldsie]

But how often do you actually see an animal killing its own breed? You don't very often see lions killing other lions, they are usually hunting another species.

And they don't declare war on each other... they kill to eat and then they are done.

[Mouldsie]

It has been hypothesized that even humans have a natural aversion to killing other humans. Read this review of a book I mean to read someday... in fact some of it may shed some light on Nehemiah's question and suspicions:

http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Psychological-Cost-Learning-Society/dp/0316330116/sr=8-2/qid=1171391921/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-2452540-2718550?ie=UTF8&s=books

ON KILLING is the study of what author Lt. Col. Dave Grossman has termed "killology". This odd term describes, not killing between nations, but the exact circumstances involved when one individual ends the life of another individual, with the primary focus being on combat situations. I've sometimes wondered how I (someone who has never been anywhere near armed conflict) would fare on the frontlines, as killing another human being seems like an almost impossible psychological task. As Grossman casts an eye over historical reports of combat, he found that, apparently, I wasn't alone in thinking that. During the First and Second World Wars, officers estimated that only 15-20 percent of their frontline soldiers actually fired their weapons, and there is evidence to suggest that most of those who did fire aimed their rifles harmless above the heads of their enemy.

Grossman's argument is carefully researched and methodically laid out. He begins by filling in some historical details, discussing the statistics for shots fired per soldier killed for the World Wars and the American Civil War. It's a refreshing and enlightening look at war that dispels a lot of misconceptions. An average solder in those wars was extremely reluctant to take arms against fellow humans, even in cases where his own life (or the lives of his companions) was threatened. Not to say that any of these people are cowards; in fact, many would engage in brave acts such as rescuing their comrades from behind enemy lines or standing in harm's way while helping a fellow to reload. But the ability to stare down the length of a gun barrel and make a conscious effort to end a life is a quality that is happily rare.

The book continues on then, detailing what steps the US Army took to increase the percentage that they could get to actually fire upon their enemy. By studying precisely what the soldier's ordinary reactions were, the officers were able to change the scenario of war in order to avoid the most stressful of situations. The soldier found up-close killing to be abhorrent, so the emphasis was countered by inserting machinery (preferably one manned by multiple soldiers) between the killer and the enemy to increase the physical and emotional distance. Every effort is made to dehumanize the act of killing.

Grossman spends a great deal of time discussing the trauma that the solder who kills faces when he returns to civilian life. Nowhere is this more apparent than in those veterans who returned from Vietnam. Those soldiers had been psychologically trained to kill in a way that no previous army had gone through, and there was no counteragent working to heal their psychological wounds. Grossman takes great pains to discuss how horrifying the act of killing is, and points out how detrimental it is to one's mental health. When the Vietnam veterans returned home to no counseling and the spit and bile of anti-war protestors, the emotional effect was astounding. Most of Grossman's thesis is supported by in-depth interviews and psychological profiles, but it is the story of the Vietnam veterans that comes across as the most disturbing.

Much of the chatter about this book seems to revolve around the final section, the discussion about our own civilian society. While this is understandable, I actually preferred reading the earlier portions, simply because they opened my eyes to a lot about the military that I had been previously ignorant of. I think it would be a mistake to concentrate solely on the argument's conclusion as it rests heavily on the case that has been building. In any event, the book eventually develops its final conclusion: the methods that the military uses to desensitize its soldiers to killing are also being used in our media, but without the proper command structure that keeps people from killing indiscriminately. In a military situation, firing a weapon without proper authorization or instruction is a very serious offense, and this is drilled into the mind at the same time as the desensitization. Without this safety, there is nothing to hold back the killing instinct, and this is one of the main reasons why the homicide rate has increased so dramatically.

Now, I'll say right off the bat that I was partial to this line of argument before I read the book; I think that children repeatedly exposed to such images would almost certainly become bias towards extreme violence. But Grossman's book gave me so much more to think about. It isn't just a Pavlovian force at work here; Grossman points out many reasons (both stemming from society and the changing family structure) for why young people of today seem much more able to kill than their parents and grandparents were.

I was honestly surprised at how strong of a writer Grossman is. He manages to put forth his argument without boring the reader. By its very nature, a lot of what he discusses is repetitive and disturbing, but the subject matter is so compelling that I didn't mind. Grossman is very logical in his approach and his argument is a powerful one. I highly recommend this book, especially for people like myself who have never experienced war at close quarters. The summary I (and others here) have given is simply not nearly adequate to capture all of Grossman's thorough contentions. ON KILLING made me think harder about a subject that I hadn't given a lot of thought too before. The information and research here is invaluable.

Nice find

[Mouldsie]

America is so violent because there is an atmosphere of tension and frustration brewing beneath the surface. We are losing what sense of community we used to have. Everyone is in a hurry, and we just want people to stay out of our way. We rush to judgement. America is basically a selfish place. There are a lot of things wrong with this country, and if you can't keep up with the pace, you're screwed. Don't get me wrong...there are good things about America too, but the country can seem twisted and out of control to those who can't cope with the bad parts about it.

These rampage killer are only acting out thoughts that everyone has. That's the scary part.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemeinschaft_and_Gesellschaft

[Mouldsie]

I have heard Grossman speak twice. He has some misguided info and some good info. As of late he blames video games, says they kill brain cells that make you sensitive to violence

i think there is something to the desensitization thing... it's a small piece of the puzzle

[Mouldsie]

As to the murder rate, The murder rate rose steadily beginning in the 60's and then began dropping around '93.


Its now nearly half of what it was in the 80's. This drop is occuring despite a pretty serious gang problem.

In terms of the assault and/or sexual assault, remember too, that since the Ron/Nicole murders, both sexual assault and domestic assault are reported like never before. Even as late as the early 90's, tons of bona fide domestic assaults weren't being reported. And yet, the total numbers of assaults are dropping.

Remember, Nehe's question didn't ask why the US is a murderous society, it was whether its a violent society. Other violent crimes are therefore relevant.


But if you're calling the US a violent society, who are you comparing it too?

I assumed Canada. And except for murders, the numbers are pretty similar.

In fact, we're experiencing a huge drop in violent crime, yours is steady, or growing.

Canada is again trying to be wannabe Americans, yet we're becoming civilized.

Once again, you guys are a page behind.

All the hippies grew up and all the teenagers became apathetic emo druggies.

duh

[gilchristfan]

All the hippies grew up and all the teenagers became apathetic emo druggies.

duh

well, at least the violence is going down.

Canada's where the thugs hang out these days.

[Mouldsie]

true dat


me and my homeboys always beef with platinum fubu in crystal beach
that boy better check himself and stick to eating twinkies.

[Green Lantern]

And they don't declare war on each other... they kill to eat and then they are done.

In this case, we are more like S. American army ants.

[Green Lantern]

TWO gunmen went on separate rampages on opposite sides of the US yesterday, shooting dead eight people.

A man dressed in a trenchcoat randomly murdered five shoppers at a Salt Lake City shopping mall before an off-duty policeman shot him dead.


In Philadelphia, a man opened fire at an office building, killing three people and critically injuring a fourth.

He then turned the gun on himself. Police say the shooting took place after a dispute during a company board meeting...

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21222464-663,00.html

[Lucidvizion]

BS

We arent born with hate in our heart

You are making the erroneous assumption that hate is the only thing that begets violence.

The guy shooting the cashier at the liqour store doesn't hate the cashier.

[dasaybz]

You are making the erroneous assumption that hate is the only thing that begets violence.

The guy shooting the cashier at the liqour store doesn't hate the cashier.

He may not hate the cashier, but he hates the fact he isn't stoned and he needs some money right away so he can get high.

[westphal]

You are making the erroneous assumption that hate is the only thing that begets violence.

The guy shooting the cashier at the liqour store doesn't hate the cashier.
I can't see how you could kill someone in cold blood without hating them. You would have to at least hate the person in the split second it takes you to decide to pull the trigger. Like dasaybz suggested, this hatred can be misplaced, but it's still hatred directed at the victim when the killing occurs. Or maybe the killer just doesn't care about the victim at all and kills him because it's the easiest way to get him out of the way in order to get what he wants.

You bring up a good question, though. I've had people steal things from me, and then when I catch them red-handed, they turn around and display a sense of pure hatred toward me...like "how dare me catching them robbing me." I don't know, but I'd have to say that the guy shooting the cashier at the liqour store hates that cashier.

A rampage killing is based upon a general anger at life and society in general, so any victim is as good as another because the killer hates everything and everybody, and himself especially.