Are School Homicides 'Becoming the Norm'?

[Anti Federalist]

Short answer, no.


Are School Homicides 'Becoming the Norm'?

http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/11/are-school-homicides-becoming-the-norm#fold

In the aftermath of yesterday's shooting at an Oregon high school, the president worried that such slayings are "becoming the norm." I've written skeptically in the past about whether the number of mass shootings in America is actually increasing, as the word becoming implies—see my posts here, here, and here—but there's always a haze of uncertainty around those numbers, thanks to the varying definitions of "mass shooting" that different people use.

But maybe that isn't the best thing to be measuring in the first place. The Oregon incident isn't a "mass" shooting at all—the gunman killed two people, and one of those was himself—but it obviously speaks to the same sorts of fear and grief. If your son was just shot, after all, it's hardly a comfort that his classmates survived. A map darting around the Internet this week claims to show all the school shootings since Sandy Hook. Note the modifier: school, not mass.

So how frequently are people killed at school? The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) keeps a running count of such homicides, with "at school" defined to include deaths not just on school property but "while the victim was on the way to or from regular sessions at school or while the victim was attending or traveling to or from an official school-sponsored event." You might quibble about whether those off-campus killings belong in this category, but still, it's a straightforward definition that doesn't get bogged down in how many people die in one attack or, for that matter, what weapon was used to murder them.

As it happens, the bureau published a new report on school violence this month. Here is the relevant chart:

http://cloudfront-media.reason.com/mc/jwalker/2014_06/schoolviolence.jpg?h=327&w=600

More at link...

[tod evans]

Oh man, you're going to catch hell for raining on the Boogity-boogity machine......

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

People die. Sometimes they get murdered. That's life.

[Ronin Truth]

Perhaps psychiatric drugs for teenagers now is becoming the norm. I don't seem to recall ANY school shootings 50 years ago.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Like how Obama talks about homicides, but not suicides, which are still students dying. Guns don't make kids kill themselves or others, and trust me if someone was torturing a kid enough to make them want to kill, not having access to a gun is not going to change that.

I'm also curious who the people getting shot/killed are. Are they just random classmates, or classmates/teachers who torture the poor kid day in and day out? If it's the latter, they have no room to plead innocence since harassing people for year(s) is not acceptable no matter the circumcstances.

[Ronin Truth]

Tony Gibson’s Theory of School Violence (https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/06/michael-s-rozeff/school-violence-explained/)

By Michael S. Rozeff (https://www.lewrockwell.com/author/michael-s-rozeff/?post_type=article)

June 12, 2014



Hamilton Bertie “Tony” Gibson (1914-2001) (http://www.theguardian.com/news/2001/apr/30/guardianobituaries)was a British anarchist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Gibson_%28psychologist%29), conscientious objector (for which he was imprisoned) and psychologist. Gibson wrote Youth for Freedom (1951), a provocative pamphlet. From this work, we may extract a theory that explains school violence, which is a worldwide phenomenon and not uniquely American. Being worldwide, youth violence cannot be explained by the means of violence used, be they guns, clubs, knives, rocks, spears, fire, or whatever.

The theory can be partly stated as follows. Children have certain behaviors that come naturally to them, instinctively one might say. If they are allowed to have a childhood that lets them vent and live through these instincts, they will develop into adults who are not unusually aggressive. But if adults make the child live in ways that go too much against these natural instincts, then the child retains its asocial and ferocious instincts into adult life, rather than living through them as a childhood stage of development. Adults then look adult and act adult but retain child instincts and behavior. As he says “The nice young men who lightheartedly fly bombers and devastate towns are simply neurotic beings who have had to wait until their twenties to give proper expression to the instincts of infancy.” Later he writes “The children who grow up with a satisfactory gratification of their instinctual life in the various phases of their development are more likely to have sound adult instincts at a comparatively early age and therefore resist the fantastic demands of the State in the matter of military service.”

The more that a culture (mainly through public schools) anywhere in the world attempts to suppress mildly aggressive or simply physical behaviors that are peculiar to children and make them behave in adult ways that restrict them too greatly, the more likely we are to observe extremes of aggression breaking out and the more that aggressive instincts will be nurtured in adults. Giving drugs to children to suppress their activities and tendencies will tend to produce a greater tendency toward excessive violence, not simply or only by the physical aspects of the drugs but also by psychological reactions to the behavior control. The same outcome will come about by preventing boys from being boys, over-controlling rough and tumble play, overly suppressing taunts, fights, shoves, pushes, and rough sports. Children need the freedom to play with other children, to shout, to roughneck, and to play all kinds of games. They need the freedom to roam around on their own. They shouldn’t be prevented from learning how to shoot rifles or bows and arrows, if this appeals to them. Vicarious video game experiences may or may not provide adequate substitutes for play; I suspect that they do not in general do so.

The basis of this theory is Gibson’s observation that children are weaker than adults, and that to survive as weak beings under the thumbs of adults, they have behaviors peculiar to being children. “The child is a gregarious but not a truly social animal; when in mental and physical health, it is aggressive to the point of ferocity and capable of a ruthlessness which normal adults do not possess. It is entirely self-centered, and its love for other persons is of an essentially different nature from the affection which an adult may feel for another person.”

Aggression in adults and therefore approval of the State’s aggressions is, according to this theory, fostered by social systems and adults that overly control children. Since public schools exercise such control, they produce more adults who support the State, not simply or only by indoctrination or false history but by psychological means that make people comfortable with violent aggression and immorality.

“The well-meaning social moralists who bring up children according to an idealized adult code of behavior have to bear their full share of the blame for the supreme immorality of adult behavior.”

“The State in its drive towards totalitarian dominion assumes more and more the aspect of a hypocritical and repressive adult controlling a lot of children. In all the aspects of State interference with individual liberty we see the nasty schoolmarm, the pompous father.”

Guns do not explain youth and school violence because it is worldwide (http://www.ibe.unesco.org/publications/SalesPublications/salespdf/Oshako.pdf) and doesn’t always involve guns. There are other theories than Gibson’s that attempt to explain school violence. There are theories that directly challenge Gibson, arguing that childhood aggression is not a playful thing that children grow out of. They argue that aggression is learned and therefore must be countered or suppressed in one way or another by adults. But if this is true, why are Americans and others experiencing even greater school violence as the attempts to suppress it are heightened?

I think Gibson’s theory has merit. If we are observing greater school violence, it is at the same time that we observe society constricting the schools, enforcing more and more rules, attempting to feminize boys, and going to extremes to suppress even mildly aggressive, even verbal, behavior. We see greater amounts of drugs being administered to children to dampen them down. This is tending to prevent normal childhood development. In the vain quest of reducing person-on-person violence, it is enhancing it. Not only that, it is producing adults who are comfortable with high amounts of State-inflicted violence and aggression.

The Best of Michael S. Rozeff (https://www.lewrockwell.com/author/michael-s-rozeff/)




https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/06/michael-s-rozeff/school-violence-explained/

[PRB]

People die. Sometimes they get murdered. That's life.

Being murdered is life?

[PRB]

Perhaps psychiatric drugs for teenagers now is becoming the norm. I don't seem to recall ANY school shootings 50 years ago.

Which was before civil rights movement, COINCIDENCE?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Being murdered is life?

It happens. And there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

[PRB]

It happens. And there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

So what do you need guns for? It can't be to prevent murders, if I understood you.

What can I do about it? How about prosecute and imprison?

[Anti Federalist]

So what do you need guns for? It can't be to prevent murders, if I understood you.

What can I do about it? How about prosecute and imprison?

Homicide could be reduced to almost zero in the United States.

But to do so, would require gross and total violations of millions of people's rights and everybody's freedom.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

So what do you need guns for? It can't be to prevent murders, if I understood you.

Somebody can get you if they really want to get you. You are vulnerable pretty much every part of the day. Unless you're lying on back or standing up against a wall, for example, then the back of your head is always exposed.

There are other mechanisms in the world that explain why this does not happen more often. I understand perfectly well about the purpose of firearms, but I'm talking about something totally different.



What can I do about it? How about prosecute and imprison?

That does not prevent murder.

[DamianTV]

Is it becoming the "norm"? Depends on ones perspective.

MSM: Definitely. Another school shooting. We had nothing to do with it. Pass some laws and move on, nothing to see.
Reality: No.

Typical MSM sensationalism. Effectively, this is Micro Brainwashing. Standard "Brainwashing" would alter the behavior of victims for large scope but not very well defined subjects. Nazis used it to make people believe that Jews were the worst thing that ever happened to humanity. This again is Large Scale Brainwashing. Small Scale or Micro is used to target very specific ideas, in this case, the idea that all guns in the hands of people but not Govts should be completely prohibited. Standard Hegalian Dialect also applies. There are several stages to brainwashing.

Stage 1: First is the attack of Self. Make a person percieve something as a threat to themselves. Jews. Guns. It is necessary for the target to percieve a threat or attack as being an imminent danger to themselves.

Stage 2: is Guilt. You should feel guilty because you did nothing about all the evil evil Jews / Guns / African Americans / Unvaccinated / Drug Dealers / Tax Dodgers / Libertarians.

Stage 3: Self Betrayal. Guilt is used to cause the target to attack and undermine their own beliefs. I am responsible for letting all those Jews do such horrid things to so many people. This leads to ...

Stage 4: Breaking Point. A persons opinions are undermined to such a degree that they are now open to suggestion to solution. The push to the breaking point comes from multiple vectors, often coupled with Sleep Deprivation, Medication, exclusion from assigned group. The intent is to lower the targets ability to defend themselves mentally to such a degree that you could tell them anything and they would accept the idea.

Stage 5: Leniency - The application of the previous stages will continue until the target expresses the concept the original idea was "wrong". Once the target expresses the desired conclusion, leniency is shown as a system of reward.

Stage 6: Channeling of Guilt - The attacks on the targets sense of self are focused and concentrated on the specific idea instead of undermining the target as a whole. This allows the targets sense of self worth that are not in conflict with the specific idea to re-emerge, but now dependant on holding on to the replacement idea.

Stage 7: Reeducation - The target is so open to suggestion that the full replacement idea is implated. At this point, the target desires to replace the original idea. This overrides all sense of Logic because the replacement idea is no longer emotionally rejected. Targets can be taught that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Stage 8: Displacement - In order to prevent the target from challenging the replacement idea, emotion is used to override logic so that the target has a negative reaction when any associations to the original idea is made. Stage 7 is the positive reinforcement on an emotional level of accepting the replacement idea, and Stage 8 specifically reinforces a negative emotional response to the original idea.

Stage 9: Rebirth - The final stage of Brainwashing causes the target to attack any who oppose the expressed idea. The taget has been accepts the new group that they have been assigned to. This is where Brainwashing becomes Viral. They will attempt to do the same thing to others who do not share the replacement idea, but without being instructed on exactly how to do so, will often fail. These people are used to reinforce specific steps, but not all at once. One individual is typically limited to only one or two steps when attempts to indoctrinate other individuals. This also allows Leadership to maintain their positions of power without being threatened by newcomers.

My expression of these ideas isnt dead-on as expressed by shrinks. But the same techniques can be applied to very wide scale models, such as Cult Religions or Political Ideologies such as those that take place in North Korea with the worship of "Glorious Leader". They can also take place on a Micro Scale, and as a result, are much less noticable. Concepts such as Raw Milk can be attacked and undermined until the result of Problem, Reaction, Solution can be applied to create a feeling that one needs to be dependant on someone who offers protection from the perceived threats.

The MSM typically follows all of the patterns of Brainwashing. They attack Self with a sense of threat, followed by Guilt, Self Betrayal, Breaking Point, Leniency, Channeling of Guilt, Reeducation, Displacement, and Rebirth.

If you look at any obvious MSM topics, they follow the application of these stages of brainwashing almost perfectly. They damn near always play on provoking desired emotional responses in people. Guns dont actually need to be bad for a person to feel they are bad. You should feel guilty about people that have guns. You should attack your own system of beliefs in guns because of your guilt. Breaking Point can be skipped because many are already close to the breaking point already. They dont know how to defend themselves and realize emotional responses are provoked to replace logical responses. Reinforcement of positive associations with replacement idea are made as well as negative associations are created with the undesired idea. Raw Milk hurts people so I should have a negative reaction when thinking about allowing people to drink Raw Milk. Processed Milk is safe, therefore it is good. Repeating the same garbage over and over again operates as Displacement where the original idea is pushed so far away from the target that they are less likely to return to that way of thinking.

Now, lets look at the real Target here: Guns are Bad.

Stage 1: Attack of Self - Non Govt people who have guns always do bad things. You support this?
Stage 2: Guilt - You like seeing children get shot by Non Govt people with Guns?
Stage 3: Self Betrayal - Why did I think letting Non Govt people carry guns was a good thing?
Stage 4: Breaking Point - Im such a bad person for thinking Non Govt people could use guns responsibly. What should I do?
Stage 5: Leniency - Target stops attacking themselves when thinking Non Govt people should not be allowed to have guns.
Stage 6: Channel of Guilt - Im not a bad person, it was just my idea of letting Non Govt people have guns that was bad. Bad me.
Stage 7: Reeducation - I need to learn more about how to prevent Non Govt people get ahold of guns. Creates dependancy.
Stage 8: Displacement - Boy, I better not go back to thinking Non Govt people can have guns!
Stage 9: Rebirth - I should defend no guns for Non Govt people and attack those who are foolish enough to think the way I used to.

The concepts that come from MSM follow this pattern, but not all at the same time. One news story may only try to apply one or two stages. More in depth pieces will cover several stages. It covers EVERYTHING from the Economy to Immigration. Results that follow are Emotional Reactions, and apply the Hegalian Dialect as well. Problem, Reaction, Solution. Guns percieved as the problem, reaction is focused to only allow the expected conclusion, Solution creates further dependancy on those in power by giving them more power.

Again, this is applied on a Micro and Macro scale. School Homicide is a focus on needing to further advance an armed Police State being needed to control a completely disarmed populus. The end result is that the people are unable to defend themselves which only further allows brainwashing to continue. Not all defenses are physical. Once 1984 takes place and people are prohibited from speaking and required to observe daily propoganda, no resistance can take place. Any form of change starts in the mind, be it revolutionary or evolutionary.

So back to the original topic, are School Homicides the new normal? Absolutely not, but Propogandic Brainwashing will do everything in their power to convince you that it is. Perception.

[anaconda]

People die. Sometimes they get murdered. That's life.

Especially in "gun free zones." Until these are eradicated the progressives have monstrous blood on their hands. They need to get on it ASAP.

[PRB]

Somebody can get you if they really want to get you.

So people are alive because nobody really wanted to get to them.

[PRB]

That does not prevent murder.

Is it something to do about it?

Why don't you murder? what's stopping and preventing you? What stops you doesn't mean it'll stop everybody, but is stopping some people better than none at all?

[Pericles]

When was the last time someone was murdered at a gun show?

[PRB]

When was the last time someone was murdered at a gun show?

so much for the conspiracy gun grab that wants to ban gun shows. wouldn't that be ideal? instead, we stage bullshit shootings like UCSB.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

So people are alive because nobody really wanted to get to them.

Most people. Anybody ever try to kill you?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Why don't you murder? what's stopping and preventing you?

I have no interest in killing anyone. Most people don't.



...but is stopping some people better than none at all?

Is acknowledging that you can't stop everybody better than thinking you can stop everyone?

[PRB]

I have no interest in killing anyone. Most people don't.




Is acknowledging that you can't stop everybody better than thinking you can stop everyone?

so is it possible to make a person lose interest?

realism is slightly better than lack of realism, but useless until you put it into action.

[PRB]

Most people. Anybody ever try to kill you?

So some are not, meaning some people ARE STOPPABLE. got it.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

so is it possible to make a person lose interest?

Sure, but most people never gain the interest.




realism is slightly better than lack of realism, but useless until you put it into action.

Well, then tell that to the school people who are deluded into thinking this can be--in the words of some of them--prevented so it never happens again.




So some are not, meaning some people ARE STOPPABLE.

Never said they weren't.



got it.

The only thing you got is an attitude.

[PRB]

Never said they weren't.

The only thing you got is an attitude.

I THOUGHT that's what you meant here. Glad your clarified.


Somebody can get you if they really want to get you.


That does not prevent murder.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Glad your clarified.

Well, I was really speaking of motive, means, and opportunity. You can try to limit the means and opportunity, but somebody with motive will find another route.

There are so many ridiculous examples in society. The latest I see are all these metal detectors at the entrances of amusement parks. A determined killer with motive will find an even better opportunity when he horizontally faces all the suckers lined up several rows deep at the entrance. Unlikely? Yep, just about as unlikely as the shooting inside the park.

You can apply the same logistics to a school or countless other places. Secure a school and the shooter hits the bus. Secure the bus and the shooter hits the football game. Secure the football game, and the shooter hits the field trip. Secure the field trip, and the shooter hits mall. Secure the mall and the shooter hits the party. Have you spent all your budget yet?

[Ronin Truth]

Which was before civil rights movement, COINCIDENCE? I haven't seen any connection between school shootings and civil rights. Have I just missed something? :confused:

[JK/SEA]

Homicide could be reduced to almost zero in the United States.

But to do so, would require gross and total violations of millions of people's rights and everybody's freedom.

you'd have to kill everyone to prevent anymore murders....

[PRB]

I haven't seen any connection between school shootings and civil rights. Have I just missed something? :confused:

facts speak for themselves. 50 years ago there were neither civil rights nor school shootings.

[PRB]

Well, I was really speaking of motive, means, and opportunity. You can try to limit the means and opportunity, but somebody with motive will find another route.


but if you admit they're stoppable, then that means they can't or don't find the next route.

[Ronin Truth]

facts speak for themselves. 50 years ago there were neither civil rights nor school shootings.

Nor massive numbers of teenage boys on psychiatric drug therapies back then. I think that causal relationship (and the increase in crappy parenting) is probably much stronger.

[PRB]

Nor massive numbers of teenage boys on psychiatric drug therapies back then. I think that causal relationship (and the increase in crappy parenting) is probably much stronger.

so you mean to tell me not all correlations are causation?

[jbauer]

So you're saying that "Zero Tolerance" policies essentially created since the early 90s ares a good things?? ;)

Of course you could also say that, the legalization of AR's has had a positive effect because of the falling rate of deaths.


Short answer, no.


Are School Homicides 'Becoming the Norm'?

http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/11/are-school-homicides-becoming-the-norm#fold

In the aftermath of yesterday's shooting at an Oregon high school, the president worried that such slayings are "becoming the norm." I've written skeptically in the past about whether the number of mass shootings in America is actually increasing, as the word becoming implies—see my posts here, here, and here—but there's always a haze of uncertainty around those numbers, thanks to the varying definitions of "mass shooting" that different people use.

But maybe that isn't the best thing to be measuring in the first place. The Oregon incident isn't a "mass" shooting at all—the gunman killed two people, and one of those was himself—but it obviously speaks to the same sorts of fear and grief. If your son was just shot, after all, it's hardly a comfort that his classmates survived. A map darting around the Internet this week claims to show all the school shootings since Sandy Hook. Note the modifier: school, not mass.

So how frequently are people killed at school? The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) keeps a running count of such homicides, with "at school" defined to include deaths not just on school property but "while the victim was on the way to or from regular sessions at school or while the victim was attending or traveling to or from an official school-sponsored event." You might quibble about whether those off-campus killings belong in this category, but still, it's a straightforward definition that doesn't get bogged down in how many people die in one attack or, for that matter, what weapon was used to murder them.

As it happens, the bureau published a new report on school violence this month. Here is the relevant chart:

http://cloudfront-media.reason.com/mc/jwalker/2014_06/schoolviolence.jpg?h=327&w=600

More at link...

[Ronin Truth]

so you mean to tell me not all correlations are causation? Nope, just mine.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

but if you admit they're stoppable, then that means they can't or don't find the next route.

I'm talking about you, not the perpetrator. You can't stop everybody.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

50 years ago there were neither civil rights nor school shootings.

Yes there were.

[Pericles]

Homicide could be reduced to almost zero in the United States.

But to do so, would require gross and total violations of millions of people's rights and everybody's freedom.

By all accounts, there was almost no crime in East Germany, if you don't count the government in the stats.

[DamianTV]

Lets be clear. There is NO SUCH THING AS PERFECT SECURITY.

Those with intent can find a way to harm people. But we continue to put "faith" into those people as if they will NOT be the ones committing the crimes. How many threads do we have on Police Brutality, daily? Think the Mall Cop couldnt go psycho and start shooting up the mall? What about the High School Security Guard? They can get right past the security as it seems to barely be effective at disarming kids.

But there are bigger problems at hand. We are perilously close to triggering WWIII. Theres no Security Checkpoint that is going to protect people from a nuke hitting a Mall or a Public Park. ID badges required for Security arent gonna stop a Tank. I cant let your Army pass, you dont have a Permit! Or even bigger problems. Like allowing a Volcano to erupt when the Volcano hasnt filed the proper paperwork to erupt. Or earthquake, terrorist attack, meteor impact, gamma ray burst, or any Extinction Level Event.

It is possible to increase security on a Small Scale. Lock your front door. But this is not a perfect system. If a thief wants into your house, they will find a way into your house. If one were to successfully defend their home, all their resources would be mustered to prevent said home from being burglarized. Then the thief takes advantage of the distribution of security and hit the most poorly defended house and steal what they have instead. Locks keep honest people honest, and thieves could give two shits about the law to begin with.

Back to school. Guns are actually not the #1 Killer in this country. Oddly enough, its HAMMERS. A construction tool. Easy enough to also detect with a metal detector, but hard to identify intent. But what if it isnt a Gun or a Hammer? Pencils are pointy and can be used to stab, even to death. You could bludgeon someone to death with a Desk, a Fire Extinguisher, a Door, or a Fist. What do we need now? A fist detector? Whats the solution? MORE Surveillance? All the surveillance in London, with their literally millions of cameras has NOT dropped crime by any meaningful ammt. Nor has the level of conviction for those offenders increased. Surveillance is NOT there to protect you (in general) from a criminal, it IS there to prevent you from Dissent against the Govt.

Security can be increased, but the very concept of Perfectly Secure is a delusional fantasy which results in a False Sense of Security (installing Norton Antivirus '98 on todays computers) and it is that False Sense of Security that very often undermines the Real Security of anything to be protected.