Mass Murders

[SGoodman]

Reading through everyone's posts it seems that most are trying to identify and address whatever societal dynamic is responsible for creating these killers. I think it would be far easier to address the symptom, that is the killings themselves. If it were possible to take all the guns away (it isn't) then the problem would go away as well. Since we can't remove all the guns the next best solution is gun proliferation. If the vast majority of citizens were armed then arms are no longer much of an advantage.

(Reminds me of the scene in Aladin where the monkey grabs a sword and the guards all recoil in fear "he's got a sword!" Then one of them remembers "you idiot, we all have swords!")

[Ironhold]

Thing is, you don't need a gun to slaughter people on a large scale. All you need is a trip or three to the local grocery store. Even innocent everyday items can be made lethal if people know what they're doing.

This is why targeting guns alone won't work: we'd just be treating a symptom instead of the full disease.

[Vort]

Unless a person has a love for teaching, why would anyone choose a profession like teaching? We have this all backwards, priorities in the wrong places.

 

Not sure where this idea comes from, but as far as I can tell, it's mostly untrue. This chart suggests that teachers earn low-end professional salaries for working nine months per year, with great vacation, great medical and dental benefits, and full retirement. And if we're honest, we will concede that teaching at a public school does not require a great deal of skill; almost anyone with normal abilities and the willingness to complete the training can do it.

 

That is not to insult the fantastic teachers out there, of whom there are many. (I am closely related to at least two of them.) But then, they would be the very first in line to confirm that there are many truly crummy, lousy, awful teachers, and once they've received tenure, they're all but impossible to get rid of.

 

You want teachers to earn mid-level professional wages? Then make them meet the same standards that other mid-level professionals have to meet. Let them prove their teaching chops in a competitive environment, where "tenure" doesn't exist.

 

When I left grad school 20 years ago and took a job as a biomedical engineer, I got paid less than the starting wages for a 0-year-experienced teacher with an MS/MA degree -- and I worked TWELVE months per year, not nine. I worked probably 50-60 hours per week, every week. I could not look forward to getting my lesson plans established in a year or two and then dialing back the hours. And my competitive worth was judged on a semi-annual basis, which would continue forever. No "tenure" for professionals.

 

Having my children in school (part-time) has made me aware of their teachers. To be honest, most seem pretty decent (though I'm frankly shocked at the ignorance of most of them, outside AND EVEN WITHIN their supposed areas of expertise). But a lot of them, not a majority but a frighteningly large minority, are utterly incompetent and/or corrupt. They would not possibly survive more than a year in any competitive situation. Yet they're "educating" our children.

Edited October 12, 2015 by Vort

[shermormon]

@vort

You are obviously amazing and way smarter than lazy stupid unskilled teachers. Please let me worship you forever and ever amen.

[Vort]

@vort

You are obviously amazing and way smarter than lazy stupid unskilled teachers. Please let me worship you forever and ever amen.

 

Well, it's about time.

[Vort]

Teacher anecdote from a month ago:

 

My ninth-grade daughter loves her science teacher, so I was happy to meet him (albeit only for a short moment) at the school's meet-and-greet between faculty and parents. This young (mid- to late 20s) man told us parents that our days of helping our students with homework were likely over, because in ninth grade, Things Get Hard. (Ninth grade, mind you.) To drive this point firmly home, he explained that the students this year were starting out studying -- steel yourself for it -- continental drift. He assured us that this mind-numbingly difficult concept was so outrageous that he, himself, a high school science teacher with a master's degree, didn't understand it and had to learn it as he taught the lessons. You know, continental plates drifting around and all. Good luck with that.

 

 

Now, I realize that "science" isn't everybody's thing, which is fine. But if you're a science teacher, well then, yes, it should be your thing. You have a master's degree; continental drift should not come as a surprise, nor should you assume that all the parents are as clueless about it as you yourself may be. Experiences such as this are not the best way to build confidence in your daughter's learning experience at school.

[NeuroTypical]

Some of the wisest, kindest, and most helpful things I've heard, have come from teachers.  Some great examples of humanity, too.

 

Some of the dumbest, most wrongheaded, and most factually incorrect things I've heard, have come from (other) teachers.  Some horrible examples of humanity, too.

 

Mixed bag.  We're teaching our kids to respect things and people worthy of respect.  And just being employed in a profession where you exercise authority over children, isn't enough.  It takes more.

[NeuroTypical]

@vort

You are obviously amazing and way smarter than lazy stupid unskilled teachers. 

 

This should not be directed only at Vort.  Just about any of us here are smarter than stupid people...

[Crypto]

This should not be directed only at Vort.  Just about any of us here are smarter than stupid people...

May I be bold enough to state that I find quite often i'm one of those 'stupid people'

 

 

If frequency matters, maybe less so than the general population at least.

[NeuroTypical]

Along those lines, there's a lot more to life than being smart.  

[Vort]

Along those lines, there's a lot more to life than being smart.  

 

Agreed; otherwise, we are all lost. But when you're paid to be a teacher, a certain amount of knowledge (and the ability to impart it to others) is assumed.

[prisonchaplain]

This is about reducing the numbers of mass murders committed with guns. But set aside any arguments for or against gun control. For the sake of this thread gun control is out of the question. If it is even possible to substantively reduce the numbers of mass murders in the U.S., what courses of action would do it without creating other more egregious problems.

 

I would start by suggesting we solve the problem that really exists, not a perceived problem that is not real.  Mass shootings have remained at a relatively steady pace, for decades.  There has NOT been a sudden increase in them.  Due to a few recent, highly covered incidents, that perception is strong.  It's just not real.

 

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/06/mass-shootings-arent-on-the-rise.html#

 

So, how to solve the problem of mass shootings?  Maybe, we must first determine if this problem ranks high on society's "need-to-fix" list.  As bad as killings are, I'm guessing that driving under the influence (now, to include cannabis, in some states) is far more deadly.  I hate to say it, but fast-food french fries probably kill more people each year than mass-shooters do.

[prisonchaplain]

And it's true - a population full of disciples of Christ is a population where mass-killings are much rarer than they are today.  If you want to argue that such a population is not reasonable - we'll never have it - well, you're arguing not with me, but with our church's focus on missionary work.  

 

Perhaps a comparison between heavily religious areas of the country vs. those who are not might hint at an answer here?

 

http://visual.ly/religion-and-crime-there-correlation

 

The gist of the link is that irreligious states tend to be more peaceful than heavily religious states.  Utah broke that mold, as did Nevada (Utah = peaceful, Nevada = violent).  YET, the authors point out that correlation does not equal causation.

 

Even looking for areas with low divorce rates, would not account for domestic violence, etc.

 

My conclusion:  We support missions because people need the gospel so they can find their way to God's eternal best.  Any social benefits that come out of our work are 'frosting on the cake.' 

Edited October 12, 2015 by prisonchaplain
add a link and commentary

[prisonchaplain]

Not sure where this idea comes from, but as far as I can tell, it's mostly untrue. This chart suggests that teachers earn low-end professional salaries for working nine months per year, with great vacation, great medical and dental benefits, and full retirement. And if we're honest, we will concede that teaching at a public school does not require a great deal of skill; almost anyone with normal abilities and the willingness to complete the training can do it.

 

I earn much more than my teacher-wife will, once she obtains her masters.  She works 10 months, not nine.  She is required to engage in continuing education.  The job often comes home with her.  Further, while the dental and vision are solid, the health coverage only covers herself.  Teachers who rely on their coverage to include family members will see $700+ come out of their monthly paycheck.  In civil service, we only co-pay about $300.

 

As for the rigor, college degrees in elementary education are notorious for ending up going into a fifth year.  States keeping changing (read: increasing) the required coursework.  As for whether education is easier than hard sciences, or social sciences, or literature, etc.--well, that's silly argumentation, in my always humble opinion.  Education pays less because a large number of people are motivated by training up the young.

 

All that to say, the Education profession is a lower-paying one.  Most who engage in the coursework can complete it.  It's doable.  However, it's not a short program of study, nor is the work load light.  My hat is off to all the worthy professional educators, who labor long and hard, for modest economic gain.  And...please do enjoy July and half of August--when you're not in summer graduate work, that is!  :)

[Guest]

The difference between a crazy person and a sane person is one really bad day.

    --- The Joker

 

Batman had one really bad day and he pretty much went crazy (he's dressed up like a bat, hello).  But he never killed people.  While fictional, these two personalities are examples of reality.

 

Many people have that "really bad day" (or many years of really bad days) that drives us insane to some degree or other.  Some recover.  Some are forever marked.  But some choose to use that experience to protect others.  Some use it as an opportunity to check out.  Still others end up killing themselves or other people or both, or doing other harmful activities.  I for one believe that it is not necessarily the level of the bad day, but the the ability for the individual to withstand said bad day.

 

If we agree that the only immediate cause of mass killings is insanity, then the OP is really asking, "How can we cure insanity?"

 

Good luck.

Edited October 12, 2015 by Guest

[Ironhold]

The difference between a crazy person and a sane person is one really bad day.

    --- The Joker

 

Batman had one really bad day and he pretty much went crazy (he's dressed up like a bat, hello).  But he never killed people.  While fictional, these two personalities are examples of reality.

Actually, a lot of characters in the Batman mythos had their lives change at some point because of "one bad day".

Some of them, like Dick Grayson, Commissioner Gordon, and Barbara Gordon, dug deep, found the strength to overcome, and now use their strength to protect the innocent.

Others, like Batman, have been left at least somewhat unhinged by what took place. However, they're still better people than whoever wronged them, and so strive to do their best with what sanity they've got left.

Then we have folks like Jason Todd and Two-Face, whose bad day sent them around the bend. They have it in them to do good, but they also have it in them to do very, very bad things. The question for them is whether or not the focus should be rehabilitation or incarceration.

And of course we've got people like the Joker and Poison Ivy, who use their troubles as an excuse to make others suffer.

[Backroads]

Not sure where this idea comes from, but as far as I can tell, it's mostly untrue. This chart suggests that teachers earn low-end professional salaries for working nine months per year, with great vacation, great medical and dental benefits, and full retirement. And if we're honest, we will concede that teaching at a public school does not require a great deal of skill; almost anyone with normal abilities and the willingness to complete the training can do it.

That is not to insult the fantastic teachers out there, of whom there are many. (I am closely related to at least two of them.) But then, they would be the very first in line to confirm that there are many truly crummy, lousy, awful teachers, and once they've received tenure, they're all but impossible to get rid of.

You want teachers to earn mid-level professional wages? Then make them meet the same standards that other mid-level professionals have to meet. Let them prove their teaching chops in a competitive environment, where "tenure" doesn't exist.

When I left grad school 20 years ago and took a job as a biomedical engineer, I got paid less than the starting wages for a 0-year-experienced teacher with an MS/MA degree -- and I worked TWELVE months per year, not nine. I worked probably 50-60 hours per week, every week. I could not look forward to getting my lesson plans established in a year or two and then dialing back the hours. And my competitive worth was judged on a semi-annual basis, which would continue forever. No "tenure" for professionals.

Having my children in school (part-time) has made me aware of their teachers. To be honest, most seem pretty decent (though I'm frankly shocked at the ignorance of most of them, outside AND EVEN WITHIN their supposed areas of expertise). But a lot of them, not a majority but a frighteningly large minority, are utterly incompetent and/or corrupt. They would not possibly survive more than a year in any competitive situation. Yet they're "educating" our children.

I'm a teacher and I agree with this. In my teaching situation I don't get the usual public teacher benefits, but considering I'm getting paid decently (not high wages, but I'd say respectably and professionally) for a 186-day contract, it's not at all bad.

And most teachers, at least on the elementary level where there is less in - depth subject matter, will tell you college is next to useless for teaching. Everything useful about the craft I learned on the job. Teaching is a trade and I'm not afraid to admit it. Doesn't mean we can't be great at it and I sure like my teacher discounts and admiration, but the teacher - martyr culture drives me bananas.

On that note, some states, at least Utah, allow alternate routes to teacher licensure. Demonstrate good knowledge of your studied subject and then prove yourself able to effectively teach it and manage a classroom is the program in a nutshell.

At my school, a teacher was fired last year for incompetency. Her grade funnels into mine and (yes, I realize I shouldn't complain and just do my job) we teachers of this grade spend months fixing those students. Yes, we use this teacher as an explanation for student behaviors and knowledge shortcomings. Anywho, this teacher then got another job at another school as my mom's boss. Once again, according to Mom, pure incompetency.

I now await for my descent into teacher purgatory for all I've said here.

[Backroads]

I taught continental drift to 2nd graders last week.

Edited October 12, 2015 by Backroads

[Vort]

I taught continental drift to 2nd graders last week.

 

Unbelievable. You must have three PhDs and a bunch of Einsteinian second graders to be able to address such a difficult and subtle topic.

[Guest]

I pulled my kid out of the local Public School because of MANY bad teachers.

 

But, I contend, that they are bad teachers because the School Board makes them one.

[Urstadt]

I am coming pretty late to this thread so if this has been said already, I apologize. But I did want to throw in my bid. Sociologists, psychologists, and philosophers have been tracking the increasing phenomenon known as individualism:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism

 

To be sure, it's "exaggerated," "liberal," and "self-contained" individualism that are causing all these problems.

 

Japan has actually added a "mental health" disorder to their list known as Hikikomori (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikikomori). Psychology researchers, such as Jerome Kagan*, have traced one possible cause of this back to Western values of individualism pervading Japan's collectivistic culture. As an aside, Japanese scholars attribute, in part, break down of the family unit to this "disorder" as well.

 

*Kagan, J. (2007). What is emotion? History, measures, and meanings. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

p. 207

Edited October 14, 2015 by Urstadt

[Guest]

So "Individualism" is now a phychiatric condition?  Wow.  I guess we'll all be rounded up and locked up soon.

[Ironhold]

Hikikomori is poorly understood, even in Japan. This is in large part due to the stigma surrounding it.

In a nutshell, what happens is that children from middle-class and upper-class backgrounds suffer psychotic breaks that cause them to completely withdraw from society; these often come about because of the high demands being placed on them by society and culture. All they do is live at home and vegetate; if they are active in any fashion, it's to pursue a (narrow) selection of hobbies. Some can be rehabilitated and brought back to a state in which they can function in society, but others just fall apart.

Children from low-class backgrounds do sometimes suffer this, but they don't have the option of staying idle; their parents cannot afford for them to do so, and so if they withdraw from everything else then they are usually forced to somehow work in the family business.

Regardless, to say that "individualism" is the cause is quite the overstatement.

[Traveler]

Hmmmmmmm  Is it possible that there are elements in the process of how thoughts are generated in individuals that experts are not able to identify?  It is my opinion that we as a society have lost the art of discipline - and have lost control of ourselves.  No one is really responsible for anything but are victims of everything.   We have become a culture of I can't because of ----------- and you are cruel to expect more of me because I have a ------------ condition.  Shame on you.

[Urstadt]

So "Individualism" is now a psychiatric condition?  Wow.  I guess we'll all be rounded up and locked up soon.

 

My bad. I didn't mean to imply that it was a psychiatric condition: it's not. Individualism is a cultural value, one that greatly informs all human behavior, motivation, and responses. Psychiatry wouldn't even be interested in looking at individualism because it is only concerned with the biology of the brain as it pertains to mental health. However, as counselors, we need to be aware of what informs human behavior and motivation so we can dialogue with our clients about it.

 

Thank you for checking in about that. I am sure you weren't the only one who had a similar impression.

 

Hikikomori is poorly understood, even in Japan. This is in large part due to the stigma surrounding it.

In a nutshell, what happens is that children from middle-class and upper-class backgrounds suffer psychotic breaks that cause them to completely withdraw from society; these often come about because of the high demands being placed on them by society and culture. All they do is live at home and vegetate; if they are active in any fashion, it's to pursue a (narrow) selection of hobbies. Some can be rehabilitated and brought back to a state in which they can function in society, but others just fall apart.

Children from low-class backgrounds do sometimes suffer this, but they don't have the option of staying idle; their parents cannot afford for them to do so, and so if they withdraw from everything else then they are usually forced to somehow work in the family business.

Regardless, to say that "individualism" is the cause is quite the overstatement.

 

I think you have some valid points here. I even agree with you regarding the moderate-to-extreme half of the spectrum, which is what you are likely referring to in your post above. To be sure, though, there is a milder end of the spectrum for every disorder and so it would stand to reason that there is one for Hikikomori. My understanding is that the milder end would include Japanese individuals who are still quite functional but attitudinally cut off from the collective values of their culture. In other words, they put there own interests above those of the community: the utter definition of individualism. But, no one is saying it's the only cause, or the definitive cause. In mental health, almost all phenomenon we observe has more than one cause. Typically, it's a catalyst. Individualistic values permeating Japanese culture co-concurrently with the rise of Hikikomori is curious, though. I don't know that I agree with you that it's an overstatement, but I do agree that we don't know enough to definitively say one way or another. But, now that I've said this, I would be interested in any additional thoughts you have.

 

Thank you, for your comment. I had feared no one would respond, which would've been a bummer for me because I find these philosophical issues intriguing and curious to discuss.

 

Hmmmmmmm  Is it possible that there are elements in the process of how thoughts are generated in individuals that experts are not able to identify?  It is my opinion that we as a society have lost the art of discipline - and have lost control of ourselves.  No one is really responsible for anything but are victims of everything.   We have become a culture of I can't because of ----------- and you are cruel to expect more of me because I have a ------------ condition.  Shame on you.

 

That's the entire problem with the Trauma Informed Care movement! EMDR, TF-CBT, Trauma-based counseling all promote an inner child that has been victimized and then we wonder why we see so many less-mature adults with 1,001 and excuses for why they can't fulfill their responsibilities.

 

To answer your initial question: Originally, I said yes, but after more thought I am revising it to: more than likely. The affective neurosciences are discovering that emotions are a form of proto-cognition. In other words, emotions are stimulated in the brain 250-500 miliseconds after a stimulus, with cognition following at about 500-700 miliseconds post-stimulus. This means that the emotion is coming before the thought and is a form of "affective awareness." It is from this awareness that our thoughts attempt to make sense of what we are feeling in effort to understand what we are experiencing.

 

My edits: I re-worded a couple sentences in my responses to reflect further consideration.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Urstadt