Conditioned To Kill?

[luchog]

Dear luchog,

Can you cite any school shootings whatsoever prior to 1950? Or even 1970?

A small selection of school killings prior to 1950:

Enoch Brown School, Franklin County, Pennsylvania, United States; July 26, 1764
St. Mary's Parochial School, Newburgh, New York, United States; April 9, 1891


A small selection of school killings prior to 1970:

Poe Elementary School, Houston, Texas, United States; September 15, 1959
Katholische Volksschule; Köln-Volkhoven, Germany; June 11, 1964
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, United States; August 1, 1966
Orangeburg School, Orangeburg, South Carolina, United States; February 8, 1968

Please note that these lists are far from exhaustive. They're only a few bits of what I managed to turn up with a 10 minute online search. I could find a lot more with a longer search, but I don't have that kind of time these days, what with work and family committments. A large part of the reason that it takes so long to find this information is that prior to the 1960s, documentation is poor and highly variable; so aside from a few high-profile incidents, most school violence is simply not widely reported. Reporting, particularly world reporting, picked up during the 1970s, but still only covered the largest, high-profile US and International incidents. It wasn't until the mid-1980s with the escalation of the War on Drugs that school and gang-related violence began to become a major media spotlight, and reporting of violence increase dramatically, with much smaller-scale incidents receiving much more attention than they would have merely 10 years earlier.

And, of course, this list completely leaves out the huge amounts of school violence that occured in the 1960s as a result of the Civil Rights movement and forced desegregation of schools.

I would highly recommend that you do your own homework in the future, so that you have some idea what you're talking about; but I suspect you won't, since having all the facts tends to get in the way of ignorant self-righteous diatribes.

Or any instance when someone went on a mass murderous rampage?

Far too many to count. Let's throw in a few of the better-known ones:

Ywahoo Falls, Kentucky, 1810
Charles Manson, 1969
Jack Gilbert Graham, 1955
Thomas Eugene Braun, 1967
Albert Fish, 1920s
Ratcliffe Highway Murders, 1811
Countess Elizabeth Bathory
Giles du Rais
Jack the Ripper
Sweeny Todd
Monster of Florence, 1968
Ed Gein, 1950s
Katherine Mary Knight, 1957
William MacDonald, 1960s
Birmingham Church bombing 1963
Francis Crowley, 1931
Mountain Meadows Massacre, 1857
Kingsbury Run murders, 1930s
Joe Ball, 1937-8
Axeman of New Orleans, 1918-9
William Burke and William Hare, 1820s
Clutter Family Killings, 1965
Bonnie Parker and Clyde Darrow, 1933-4
Thomas Neill Cream, 1879
Mary Ann Cotton, 1870s
Belle Gunnes, 1900s
Fritz Haarmann, the "Butcher of Hannover", 1920s
H.H. Hannover, 1890s
Bela Kiss, 1900s
Frederick Bailey Deeming, 1890s
Theo Durrant, 1890s
Earle Leonard Nelson, 1920s
Not to mention the many lynchings and other murders of minorities committed by the KKK in the

Note that none of these are gang-related; so a huge amount of gang-related mass-murder during the Prohibition period is not listed here. It also doesn't include mass-murder by government representatives or acts of warfare (The Holocaust, Stalin's purges, Rwanda, Pol Pot, Kmer Rouge, Russian Pogroms, etc). Looking at dates, it seems that the worst peaks for individual mass and serial murder are the "Gay '90s", and the post-WW1 "Roaring '20s" periods.

I'm guessing the bombing incident was gang-related?

Nope. It was commited by a single psychopath, Andrew Kehoe, ostensibly as a protest against a new school-funding property tax levy, which he claimed led to his bankruptcy and the loss of his farm to foreclosure.

How's this for cultural degeneration?

A pretty poor example, rife with hysteria and unsupported assertions; and desperately devoid of sufficient scientific support; from a source that is extremely agenda-driven and emotionalist, and highly suspect in their methodology.

 

[luchog]

Dear gumboot,

Can you name any blood sports in any other time and place in history that was worse?

Since Gumboot hasn't replied, I'll grab this one.

Tlachtli, played by the pre-conquest Aztecs and Olmecs; and Pok-A-Tok, played by the Mayans.

 

[Lonewulf]

Actually, Lonewulf is right, jazz "the art of destruction" probably didn't help, thought there must have been other factors at work.

Wow. Dude, you practically parody yourself.

I was being facetious.

Most of Jazz doesn't even have violent lyrics. Are you going to tell me that they had a tune that made people crazy?

 

[Davo]

So, you're telling me the jump shown on the graph which goes from under 2 in 1905 and soars up to 9.5 in 1934 is a greater jump than 4.5 in 1955 to 10.5 in 1980?

When I do the math, is says 9.5/2 = 4.75 while 10.5/4.5 = 2.333. So the jump in the early 20th century saw rates increase by 4.75 times while the jump in the middle of the century was an increase of only 2.333 times. This makes the jump in the early part of the 20th century twice that of the jump from the latter part of the 20th century. So how is this latter century jump greater than the early one?

Nicely pointed out, also when you consider population increase and increased access to firearms there is even less of a jump.

 

[CplFerro]

Dear Corsair,

Did medical care improve more from 1905-33 than it did 1955-1980?

Dear lunchog,

Of the school shootings you mentioned, how many victims were there? Or did no one bother to record that?

And let me re-quote:

“…The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Medical Association, and their equivalents in many other nations have all made unequivocal statements about the link between media violence and violence in our society.

If all these people know nothing, we’re in real trouble! Perhaps you should offer your services.

Cpl Ferro

 

[JonnyFive]

Did medical care improve more from 1905-33 than it did 1955-1980?

I'd be interested in seeing some more information about the link between medical care and homicide survivability. Certainly I'm sure it would make a difference in some cases, such as "attack and flee" stabbings or shootings, but I'd like to know how many of those cases exist versus homicides where the victim was never in a position to receive medical care. All the medical care in the world won't save the victim who was strangled to death and buried by the killer, for example.

Of the school shootings you mentioned, how many victims were there? Or did no one bother to record that?

Would this be particularly relevant? It seems that the issue is what brings a person to the point of being willing to actually take human lives. In particular, it seems that we're talking about killings where little other motive exists (spree killers that attack victims with only a tenuous connection to the killer). Does the raw number of victims really matter once a person has crossed the mental threshold required to start killing random people in the first place?

Also, I'd be interested in seeing what differences exist psychologically between "spree killers" (many victims, short time) and "serial killers" (many victims, long time). The former seems to manifest in the form of "snapping" mentally, while the latter exhibits a more deliberate, planned execution. I don't know enough about forensic psychology to know whether or not these two things are significantly different, or two sides of the same coin.

If we have any forensic psych people listening in, perhaps they can add some comments on the matter.

“…The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Medical Association, and their equivalents in many other nations have all made unequivocal statements about the link between media violence and violence in our society.

Do you have some additional information on the actual studies conducted?

Are we talking about population exposure to media violence in general? Exposure of children? Real violence (news media, documentary exposure, etc.)? Pretend violence (movies, video games)? Interactive pretend violence (video games)?

Were the studies controlled for factors such as mental illness? Was "media" interactivity, such as video games, compared to real world interactive violence, such as playing "cops and robbers" or pretending to kill playmates?

Personally, I think the connect between video games and violence (short of, perhaps, children too young to distinguish between reality and fantasy) is mostly illusion, as was the connection between heavy metal and violence, or certain books and violence. Anecdotally, I don't find my own extensive gaming to be motivated by hatred or rage, or find that my connection to reality is either reduced or marked by increased aggression. I have not found that games either hinder me socially or mentally.

But, as I said, I am not a student of forensic psychology. I don't know if exposure to media violence has an effect on someone already predisposed to, say, sociopathy at a statistically significant level.

 

[Lonewulf]

All the medical care in the world won't save the victim who was strangled to death and buried by the killer, for example.

Unless you have sufficiently advanced technology.

...

Or you're Jesus.

 

[luchog]

Most of Jazz doesn't even have violent lyrics. Are you going to tell me that they had a tune that made people crazy?

Well, "light jazz" definitely makes me want to break things (like the stereo playing that crap) and beat people up (namely, the person who decided to play that soporific garbage).

 

[luchog]

Dear lunchog,

It's "Luchog", which is just another example of your lack of reading and comprehension skills.

Of the school shootings you mentioned, how many victims were there? Or did no one bother to record that?

In almost all cases, deaths are recorded, but woundings aren't necessarily recorded; which you could have found out easily enough had you bothered to do the 5 minutes of work it would have taken to Google them up. But laziness is one of the most common characteristics of woo believers.

A quick selection of the school shootings that I listed run, in no particular order, 14 dead and 31 wounded, 3 dead and 27 wounded, 11 dead and 22 wounded (severe burns from a homemade flamethrower). There are others listed as well, but lack exact numbers, only rough estimates; so I didn't include them in my first list. A number of others I didn't include in my first list resulted in only 1 or 2 deaths, with the number of wounded not being reported.

The Bath school bombing resulted in 45 dead and 58 injured. By comparison, Columbine resulted in 15 dead and 24 injured.

But what's really interesting is that Columbine was highly unusual. 91% of the reported shootings in US schools (Kindergarten through High School) have resulted in less than 5 deaths, averaging 2; with injuries averaging about 8. About 3% have resulted only in injuries, no deaths. Only about 9% have resulted in more than 5 deaths, with Columbine the highest at 14. Europe and Canada have fewer school shootings, but they tend to be slightly deadlier, with a high of 18 for the Dunblane massacre in Scotland, and more shootings in the higher single digits; but not that much higher, since most shootings still result in only 1 or 2 deaths. School shootings in the rest of the world are less commonly reported, but the few that have been match the same pattern as in the US, Canada, and Europe.

However, this is skewed by the fact that there are no easily-available stats available on high-school shootings or other attacks prior to 1970.

University school shootings are similar, with the vast majority in the US, Canada, Europe, Australia, and elsewhere resulting in 1-2 deaths. The highest was in the US with 32 dead (by a man with a known history of violent mental illness); and the second highest in Canada, at 15 dead.

Note: This does not include the Chechen school massacre which resulted in 344 deaths and an uncounted number of wounded, since that was an act of political terrorism.

And let me re-quote:

No matter how many times you respost the samething, it won't change the fact that 1) you're taking at least one of the statements out of context; and 2) they're all political statements, not scientific ones, and do not have sufficient scientific evidence to back up their assertions.

I challenge you to post actual scientific studies that support your assertion.

 

[luchog]

Would this be particularly relevant?

No, but I went ahead and posted numbers, because I knew that he'd pull some kind of "people are crazier and more deadly now" garbage out of his anal sphincter.

Also, I'd be interested in seeing what differences exist psychologically between "spree killers" (many victims, short time) and "serial killers" (many victims, long time). The former seems to manifest in the form of "snapping" mentally, while the latter exhibits a more deliberate, planned execution. I don't know enough about forensic psychology to know whether or not these two things are significantly different, or two sides of the same coin.

There is no significant difference. Spree and thrill killers do not just "snap", that's a common misconception. (Indeed, "snapping" is extremely rare, nearly all intentional homicides are committed by people with a history of violence.) Like serial killers, they typically have a history of violent crime, often armed robbery, assault, or rape. Many also have a history of mental illness and/or drug abuse. Also, like serial killers, there is generally a lead-up or planning period, frequently involving torturing and killing animals; and sometimes includes a specific agenda and/or public threats. Like serial killers, spree killers often target a particular type of person, often authority figures such as police, or people familiar to the killer. Unlike serial killers, they will occasionally work in pairs.

The biggest difference between spree/thrill killers and serial killers is the nature of their murders. While serial killers tend to be secretive and methodical, committing their murders over a long period of time, spree/thrill killers are far more "flashy", operating in a highly visible manner over a much shorter period of time. Unlike manipulative serial killers who rely on stealth and subterfuge, spree/thrill killers are open and brutal. They frequently have a "blaze of glory" attitude, and revel in their noteriety. They are also far more likely to suicide when caught than serial killers.

 

[JonnyFive]

Unless you have sufficiently advanced technology.

...

Or you're Jesus.

Good point, good point.

There is no significant difference. Spree and thrill killers do not just "snap", that's a common misconception.

(snip)

The biggest difference between spree/thrill killers and serial killers is the nature of their murders. While serial killers tend to be secretive and methodical, committing their murders over a long period of time, spree/thrill killers are far more "flashy", operating in a highly visible manner over a much shorter period of time. Unlike manipulative serial killers who rely on stealth and subterfuge, spree/thrill killers are open and brutal. They frequently have a "blaze of glory" attitude, and revel in their noteriety. They are also far more likely to suicide when caught than serial killers.

Thanks for the information. It sounds like the two psychological profiles are very similar. Many of the serial killers also appear to have enjoyed the notoriety of their actions, and I recall that several have followed their cases, and enjoyed the idea of "winning" against those that were looking for them.

Given the planning involved in incidents like the Columbine shooting, it makes sense that spree killers display the same level of planning, only manifest it in a different way.

 

[CplFerro]

It's "Luchog", which is just another example of your lack of reading and comprehension skills.

I was going to respond with an article backing up the various government agencies' assertions, but you insulting me over a typo indicates you are arguing in bad faith. Goodbye.

Cpl Ferro

 

[JonnyFive]

I was going to respond with an article backing up the various government agencies' assertions, but you insulting me over a typo indicates you are arguing in bad faith. Goodbye.

I beg your pardon, but that sounds rather evasive to me. It's not like luchdog was the only person discussing this issue with you.

If luchdog offended you, why don't you just ignore him and continue to talk with everyone else? I'm still quite interested in seeing some peer-reviewed studies to back up the various claims you are presenting.

 

[Lonewulf]

I was going to respond with an article backing up the various government agencies' assertions, but you insulting me over a typo indicates you are arguing in bad faith. Goodbye.

Cpl Ferro

...

Dear Corsair,

If you don't feel an aversion, even in simulation, to shooting someone in the face, there's something wrong with you.

So, you don't like it when people talk bad to you, but you don't mind going on saying that there's "something wrong with you" to someone... in fact, to all videogamers, apparently.

Uh huh.

It's highly doubtful that you'd have anything meaningful to present anyways.

 

[gumboot]

Wouldn't it more be "sociopathic?" It sounds like he's talking about those people that don't feel strong emotion due to killing. That doesn't mean that they're out of touch with reality, only that they don't display standard emotional responses.

Yes, "sociopathic" is probably a better term. The only relevance as per his book is they do not have a natural resistance to killing.

Out of curiosity, do you have any other books on the subject you could suggest? I've read Grossman's book already, and found it interesting, although his recent railing against video games as "murder simulators" leaves me in doubt as to his objectivity about this.

Yes I think his leap of logic to video games = violence is flawed, and specifically as a filmmaker myself I've pointed out some serious flaws in his application of the argument to violent films and "immoral" role models.

I think his argument that certain video games are "murder simulators", and that they condition people to kill, is a strong one with merit. It's important to note that in his book he specifically states that he is only talking about arcade type games and those on some game machines that involve holding a toy gun and pointing it at the screen to shoot.

Personally I think his argument that such games should be banned because they condition people to kill is a weak one, as the overwhelming majority of soldiers (who have much more successfully been conditioned to kill) do not become murderers. Quite clearly there's another step in there between being conditioned to kill and being a murderer, and I think it's more productive to focus on what that step is.

-Gumboot

 

[Lonewulf]

I think his argument that certain video games are "murder simulators", and that they condition people to kill, is a strong one with merit. It's important to note that in his book he specifically states that he is only talking about arcade type games and those on some game machines that involve holding a toy gun and pointing it at the screen to shoot.

Personally I think his argument that such games should be banned because they condition people to kill is a weak one, as the overwhelming majority of soldiers (who have much more successfully been conditioned to kill) do not become murderers. Quite clearly there's another step in there between being conditioned to kill and being a murderer, and I think it's more productive to focus on what that step is.

Hmm... gumboot, you make a very good point. Being "conditioned" is not the same thing as being willing to use that conditioning.

However, I think that being conditioned to kill via the virtual world really can't measure up to a few days in boot camp. I mean, you can technically simulate being shot at and crawling through pig intestines under barbed wire, but is it REALLY like the real thing?

 

[CplFerro]

Hmm... gumboot, you make a very good point. Being "conditioned" is not the same thing as being willing to use that conditioning.

However, I think that being conditioned to kill via the virtual world really can't measure up to a few days in boot camp. I mean, you can technically simulate being shot at and crawling through pig intestines under barbed wire, but is it REALLY like the real thing?

Dear Lonewulf,

Ah, this thread again. We mustn't mistake conscious-reflexive conditioning for preconscious willingness, true, but we should remember that preconscious willingness is itself largely conditioned by circumstance, to the degree the individual is bestialised by culture. Take away from these rage-filled sim-killers their luxury environments, give them desperate circumstances, and those reflexes are going to rise to the fore, are going to be more easily exploited.

The very fact people take pleasure in shooting images of other people, rather than just shooting abstract shapes or tin ducks at the fair, speaks a volume about their fundamental motivation. That is the real problem, that these games encourage bestialised, anti-human mentalities. The very existence of JREF's typical mentality as representative of the same quality of mentality in the populace at large, indicates how deeply this is having an effect.

Cpl Ferro

 

[Dark Jaguar]

I always considered it utter nonsense with no evidence backing it that games make me want to burn kittens.

But according to this article, apparently there's been a study that says violent media makes people more violent than alcohol or abuse as a child. Somehow I doubt that...

http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal...video-games-adulthood-violence_389906_25.html

 

[Lonewulf]

Dear Lonewulf,

Ah, this thread again. We mustn't mistake conscious-reflexive conditioning for preconscious willingness, true, but we should remember that preconscious willingness is itself largely conditioned by circumstance, to the degree the individual is bestialised by culture. Take away from these rage-filled sim-killers their luxury environments, give them desperate circumstances, and those reflexes are going to rise to the fore, are going to be more easily exploited.

Then why is violence at an all-time low? You still haven't given a reason why. If games are causing people to be violent, then why is violence low, especially compared to twenty years ago?

The very fact people take pleasure in shooting images of other people, rather than just shooting abstract shapes or tin ducks at the fair, speaks a volume about their fundamental motivation. That is the real problem, that these games encourage bestialised, anti-human mentalities. The very existence of JREF's typical mentality as representative of the same quality of mentality in the populace at large, indicates how deeply this is having an effect.

I see a lot of speculation.

Any proof?

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Nonsense. I have no desire to ever ACTUALLY kill someone. In fact seeing videos of ACTUAL acts of violence are very disturbing to me.

Fake violence for most people only desensitizes them to fake violence, not the real thing. Ever seen people come out of a heavy action movie and see an act of real violence on the street? They react like deer in a headlight, not like they did in the theater. The knowledge that it's real makes it an entirely different experience.

And hey, what's wrong with just thinking to yourself "wow that was awesome". I enjoy an FPS from enjoying the strategy and skill involved in the task at hand, the rivalry, and of course I like shiny things like big explosions and the ability to change one object, such as a tank, into another object, a scrap heap, incredibly quickly. I think it's just as cool to demolish a building in a game as a human body, just because breaking things is cool. However at no point am I enjoying it from the perspective of "wow that's cool because they are feeling pain and I am ending hopes and dreams", hence why I would never want to do that in real life. You know you suck the fun out of living, and that fun is pointing laser tag guns at people and noting the score for vital part injury.

You assume all this psychological stuff but there's no proof for it. You just think it's true from the start. The thing about assuming a deeper psychological basis is that you also must assume the other person is thinking about it on that deep a level. Maybe they aren't. Maybe they are just having a fun time shooting things. Maybe the only reason it's fun is because we enjoy playing games and having a challenge and that's just one form of it, and the reason for THAT is merely our internal programming. You might as well ask if a calculator program has some MOTIVATION for deciding 2 plus 2 equals 4.